Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

 

Thoughts and observations from watching and reading a transcript of Alex Thomson of Channel 4’s Interview with Stewart Regan (CEO of the SFA) Broadcast by Channel 4 on 29 March 2012.

http://www.channel4.com/news/we-run-football-were-not-the-police-sfa-boss

Introduction. I came across the above interview recently and listened to and transcribed it again as it reminded me of questions it raised then that the passage of time since has provided some insight into.

There is a lot to digest so the blog is broken into four sections.  Three parts cover the Interview plus what they seem to tell us now, knowing what was not known then viz:

  • Why No independent or independent element to the enquiry that became the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission. given the potential extent of the corruption at play?
  • Why no effective fit and Proper Person scrutiny and the absence of real governance?
  • EBTS and whether they constitute wrong doing and why that mattered so much and still does. plus
  • The “hard to not to believe” conclusions about the whole exercise with the benefit of what we ken noo.

There is also an Annex at the end with excerpts from the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision for ease of reference:

The comments (in bold italics) are based on what Regan said then and what we ken noo, either as facts or questions arising from them. It is a long read but hopefully readers will be enticed by this introduction to stay the course.

In the following “SR” is Stewart Regan CEO of the SFA and “AT” is Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News.

No Independent Enquiry?

SR No

AT I’m just curious as to why they wouldn’t. With something as big as this potentially this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport, which is – a thought – and yet the SPL deem themselves fit to investigate themselves.

SR Well I think you are calling it potentially the biggest corruption case, at this stage there has been no wrongdoing proven.  There is an investigation going on

AT But you would accept that potentially, potentially that if guilty there is no question this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport.

SR There is no wrongdoing as I said at the moment and there is nothing yet that has been established as far as the club registering players without providing the appropriate documentation, so I think it would   be wrong to jump to conclusions and even use words like corruption. You know there are a series of issues here. There are some footballing matters which are being dealt through the football authorities and there are tax mattes which are being dealt with through HMRC and there is to be a Tax Tribunal due to be heard as I’m sure you are aware in April.

So even before the investigation got underway Mr Regan was saying that it would be incorrect to assume that any wrong doing took place in terms of the registration process and use of ebts. He later expands on this point in relation to EBTs as a legitimate tax arrangement device. Given that the FTT did not rule until November 2012 that the ebts issued under the Murray Management Group Remuneration Trust (MMGRT) were legal then this stance by Mr Regan appears justifiable at the time of interview – but more on that later. 

AT I’m just wondering why at no stage anybody seemed, or perhaps they did, to think we need an independent body coming in this is big this is huge, potentially  we need somebody from the outside  or we are going simply going to be accused of investigating ourselves.

SR Well I think that might be one for you to ask the Scottish Premier League as far as their Board..

AT Well they appeal to you so I’m asking you.

SR   No as you said we are the right of appeal so if the club is concerned with any punishment it has been given well then they can choose to appeal to us. We as a body have the provision in our rules to carry out independent enquiries, indeed we did so very recently by appointing the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith to carry out our own investigation into Rangers and we are part way through disciplinary proceedings and they will be heard on 29 March.

Given that player registrations are ultimately lodged with the SFA where Sandy Bryson has been doing the job for some years, I did wonder why the SFA were not the body taking the lead. They had the expertise on what turned out to be a key issue, the eligibility of players if misregistration occurred.  Indeed Sandy Bryson was called in to give a testimony to Lord Nimmo Smith that most folk involved in running a football team from amateur level upwards (as I was) had difficulty accepting. The Bryson interpretation suggested us amateurs had been daft not to take the risk of being found out if we did not register players correctly if only games from the point of discovery risked having results overturned. The Bryson interpretation on eligibility made no sense against that experience and it still does not to football lovers. I’m not sure if the rules have been amended to reflect the Bryson interpretation yet, but cannot see how they can be without removing a major deterrent that I always thought proper registration was there to provide.

The point about their having to be a body of higher appeal sounded plausible then, but could the Court of Arbitration on Sport not have been that body?  Or did that risk taking matters out of the SFA’s control even though it would have introduced an element of the independence that Alex Thomson raises in the following paragraphs in his interview?

AT But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?

SR Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition

AT I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?

SR No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,

AT Never?

It is notable here that Alex Thomson pushes the point about lack of independence, which is where we enter “wit we ken noo territory”.  

Given that it is now known that SFA President Campbell Ogilvie sat on the Rangers FC Remunerations Policy Committee in September 1999 where it was decided Discount Option Scheme (DOS) ebts would be used as a matter of club remuneration policy using the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT).

Given that we know that Campbell Ogilvie instigated the first ebt payment to Craig Moore using the Discount Options Scheme.

Given that Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo had both been paid using the same type of DOS ebt as Moore from 2000 to 2002/03 but accompanied by side letters, later concealed from HMRC  in 2005 and of course the SFA from August 2000.

Given that Mr Ogilvie was also in receipt of the later MMGRT ebts disputed by HMRC in the big tax case on which the FTT had still to rule

Given that Mr Regan must have been aware at time of interview that Sherriff Officers had called at Ibrox in August 2011 to collect payment of a tax bill, which means even to a layman that it must have gone past dispute to acceptance of liability and so crystallised sometime after 31st March 2011.

Given that Craig Whyte had already agreed to pay the wee tax bill in his public Takeover statement in early June 2011.

Given that on 7th December 2011 Regan had written to Andrew Dickson at RFC, who had sat on three of the four SFA/UEFA Licensing Committee meetings in 2011, to approve a draft statement by Mr Regan on the SFA’s handling of the UEFA Licence aspect of the wee tax case, which arose as a direct result of the use of the DOS ebts to Flo and De Boer during Dickson’s ongoing tenure at RFC from 1991.

Given that Campbell Ogilvie accompanied Stewart Regan to meet Craig Whyte at the Hotel De Vin on 15th December 2011 as a result of an invite stemming from that consternation causing draft that RFC thought likely to cause problems for the SFA (having agreed before the hotel meeting that no comment should be made on the wee tax case)

Given that the wee tax case was a direct result of those early types of DOS ebts being judged illegal by an FTT considering an appeal by the Aberdeen Asset Management company in 2010.

Given all of these facts, how credible is it that no conversation took place between Regan and Campbell Ogilvie on the requirement for an independent enquiry?

If a conversation did not take place as claimed, the question has to be should it have?

Given the foregoing facts on the early ebts, how credible is it Mr Regan during this interview did not know as a result of his involvement with the overdue payable and the UEFA licence in 2011 of the illegal and therefore wrong doing nature of those early EBTS with side letters concealed from the SFA and HMRC in 2005 just before Mr Ogilvie left RFC?

SR The SPL run, the SPL run the rules of The Scottish Premier League and they apply that. There are a whole host of people raising issues on internet sites and passing comment s about various theories that they have about Scottish football particularly in the West of Scotland. I think it’s important to establish that governance of Scottish football is managed by the appropriate body whether it is the Premier League, The Football League or the overall governing body. So that as far as we are concerned we let the   Scottish Premier league manage their own rules and if those rules are then broken and the club is charged they have the right of appeal to us as the Appellant body.

Given all of the now known facts listed above how credible is it that the reason given by Stewart Regan to Alex Thomson for the SFA being the appeal body was indeed the only one?

Given the foregoing how credible is it that Mr Regan was not aware that he was being economical with the truth during his interview or had he indeed been kept in the dark by others in the SFA?

Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance

AT Let’s talk about Craig Whyte. Ehm   – Presumably when Craig Whyte was mooted as coming in as the new owner – for the grand sum of £1 – for Rangers Football club, presumably the SFA took a keen interest in this and did some kind of due diligence on this man.

SR Well we have under our articles, Article 10.2, we have a process which sets out a number of criteria for what defines a fit and proper person within football. Now as you know we cannot stop people getting involved with a business and we cannot stop people getting involved with a PLC, all we can stop them doing is having an involvement with football, so what we do as part of that process is we ask for a declaration from the Directors of the club that they have a copy of the Articles,, that they have gone through the conditions and criteria within Article 10.2 and they have confirmed to us that they meet those criteria. If subsequently those criteria are breached then of course we take appropriate action.

AT You keep quoting rules back to me that’s not what I’m asking, I’m asking is did the SFA conduct any due diligence on this individual.

SR No we asked for a self-declaration from the Directors of the club and the individual himself.

AT Forgive me that sounds absolutely incredible this is the biggest club in Scotland which has been brought to its knees by a whole range of fiscal mismanagement, it is all on the record and proven. A new man comes in claiming all kinds of things, just like the previous man, and the SFA did not check or do any due diligence whatsoever.

SR That is part of the process of governing football, we

AT That’s, that’s NOT governing football that’s the exact opposite to governing football that’s running away from governing football.

SR No if you let me, if you let me finish my answer the point I am about to make is we govern the entire game from the top of the game down to grass roots. We have changes of Directors we have changes of ownership throughout the course of the year. I’m sure that if we were to spend football’s well earned money on doing investigations into potentially every change of Director, then there would be a lot of unhappy Chairmen out there.

AT You could have easily have googled (?) for free

SR Well we rely on the clubs telling us that the Articles have been complied with and that is the process we undertake.

AT This is extraordinary I say to you again  you have years of fiscal mismanagement at Rangers Football Club, a new man comes in you are telling me that nobody at The SFA as much as got on to Google  to get any background information nobody did anything ? That is extraordinary.

SR Well you refer to alleged years of financial mismanagement. I think it’s important to separate out the previous regime at Rangers and the new owner.

AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that

SR But I think it’s important in the case of the point you are raising regarding the fit and proper person test, to separate out the previous regime from the new owner. The club was in the process of being sold, they were challenging a tax bill that had been challenged by HMRC,* and the club had been sold to a new owner. That new owner had come in, he had purchased the club, the paper work for that sale had gone through and the club had complied with our Articles of Association. We run football we don’t, we are not the police we don’t govern transactions, we don’t govern fitness, we run football and we had asked the club to declare whether or not that person was fit to hold a place in association football. They had gone through the articles they’d signed to say that they had read those articles and that there had been no breaches of any of the points set out there. That included whether a Director had been disqualified. That wasn’t disclosed to us, indeed it did not come out until the BBC did their investigation back in October of last year.

(* note that in spite of all the “givens” listed earlier,  Mr Regan fails to distinguish (or appreciate) that there is more than one tax bill at play and the one for the wee tax case was not under challenge or Sherriff Officers would not have called in August 2011 to collect it.)

 AT So the BBC did due diligence on fitness (??) not the SFA?

SR No, as I said it came out in October 2010 primarily as a result of a detailed investigation. We then have to respond to potential breaches of our articles and we did that We entered into dialogue with the solicitor who was acting for Mr Whyte and we were in dialogue until February 2011 (?sic)  of this year when the club entered administration.

AT What I’m simply asking you to admit here is that the SFA failed and it failed Rangers in its hour of need over Craig Whyte and it failed Scottish football.

SR We didn’t fail.

AT You didn’t do anything, you said you didn’t do anything.

SR We complied with the current processes within our articles. That said I think there are a number of learnings and I think the same goes for football right across the globe. People are coming into football into a multimillion pound business and I think football needs to take a harder look at what could be done differently. We are currently exploring the possibility of carrying out due diligence using the outgoing regime to make sure that there is a full and rigorous research being done before the transaction is allowed to go ahead.

AT Do you feel the need to apologise to Rangers fans?

SR I don’t need to apologise because we complied with our articles. I don’t feel there is a need to apologise whatsoever. I think….

AT You need some new articles then don’t you?

SR Well I think the articles

AT Well let’s unpack this. You said there is no need to apologise because we followed the rule books so that’s all right. So you must therefore admit you need a new rule book.

SR No well I think it’s easy at times to try and look around and find a scapegoat and try and point fingers at where blame is to be apportioned. I think perhaps it might be worth looking at the previous regime who for four years when they said they were selling the club, said that they would sell it and act in the best interests of the club. With that in mind I think the previous regime also have to take some responsibility for selling that club and looking after so called shareholders of Rangers football club and those people who that have put money into the club over the years.

AT ??  (Interrupted)

SR the Scottish FA, as I said have a process, that process has been place for some time. It has worked very very well until now I think there are learnings undoubtably and as I said we will review where we can tighten up as I know is happening across the game right now.

The above segment on Craig Whyte and Fit and Proper  Persons is a timely reminder to supporters of all clubs, but particularly of Rangers FC of what happens when those charged with governing Scottish football hide behind the letter of the rules when convenient, rather than apply the true spirit in which those rules were written. It is the approach of The Pharisees to make a wrong , right.

To be fair to the SFA though, I doubt anyone could have imagined the degree of deceit and deception that they had allowed into Scottish football in May 2011 and how useless their rules were as a result, but I am not aware to this day if the SFA have apologised to Scottish football generally and Rangers supporters in particular, not only for failing to protect them from Craig Whyte, but also failing to protect them from the consequences of the foolish financial excesses of Sir David Murray, especially from 2008 when the tax bills in respect of the MMGRT ebts began to arrive at RFC . Some intervention then, assuming something was known by some at the SFA, who also held positions at Rangers, of  those  huge tax demands,  might have cost Rangers three titles from 2009, but what Ranger’s supporter would not give all of that up to protect their club from the fate that the failure of the SFA to govern has caused?

Also to be fair the SFA have changed the rules so that the outgoing regime is responsible for doing due diligence on any new club owners rather than relying on self-certification by the incoming club owner, but we know that did not work particularly well when Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnstone did due diligence on Craig Whyte , but then again Sir David Murray  was under pressure to sell and the guy coming in, everyone was told, had wealth off the radar.

The Nature of EBTS.

AT Let’s look at EBTs. Did nobody question ebts in the Scottish game in the English game come to that simply because nobody thought they were illegal in any way and indeed are not illegal in any way if operated correctly? Is it as simple as that?

SR There is nothing wrong with ebts when used correctly and ebts are a way of providing benefits to employees and if managed in a correct manner are perfectly legitimate. I think that the issue that we know is under investigation at the moment by both HMRC as part of the large tax case and the SPL as part of their own investigation into potential no disclosure of side letters is whether or not there has been any wrong doing and I think the issue at hand is that wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing has been discussed with HMRC for some time for several years in fact so we would not get involved in anything that there is no wrongdoing   taking place and ebts are, as I said, a legitimate way of doing business when used correctly.

Again taking the “givens” into account, particularly the significant event of Sherriff Officers calling to collect unpaid tax in August 2011 and the logical deduction that the SFA President must have known of the difference between the two types of ebts Rangers used, (and perhaps why they were changed) why the insistence at this point that all the ebts used by Rangers had been used correctly? Mr Regan at the time of the interview was either kept in the dark by his President, given he claims to have spoken to no one about the independence of the enquiry, or being economical with the truth.

The whole of Lord Nimmo Smith’s judgement made months after this interview, where Mr Regan stressed again and again there is no wrongdoing in the use of ebts if arranged correctly (or lawfully) is predicated on all ebts with side letters used by Rangers since 23 November 2011 actually being used correctly and in Lord Nimmo Smiths words on being “themselves not irregular”. (Para 5 of Annex 1). It is almost as if Mr Regan knew the outcome before Lord Nimmo Smith.

(In fact the ebt to Tor Andre Flo had a side letter dated 23 November and it related to a tax arrangement that had not been used correctly (using Regan’s own words) The irregular ebt for Ronald De Boer with a side letter of 30 August was placed beyond the scope of the Commission because in spite of it meeting the criteria specified by Harper MacLeod in March 2012 asking to be provided with ALL ebts and side letters and any other related documentation from July 1998 to date (including the HMRC letter of Feb 2011 that fully demonstrated that those particular ebts under  the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) were not used correctly) and so were unlawful, NONE  of that documentation was  provided when requested.

This enabled Lord Nimmo Smith to state in para 107 of his Decision “while there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate” which is a statement he could not have made had he had all the requested documentation denied to him either by dishonesty or negligence during the preparation of his Commission.

How would he have had to judge one wonders if deception and dishonesty was indeed the factor we now ken that it is?

 

What exactly were the consequences of the failure to provide Lord Nimmo Smith with the required documentation?

It is stated in the Decision (Annex 1 para 104) that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis that the EBT arrangements (by which it meant the MGMRT ebts) were “lawful”. As it transpired the outcome of the FTT decision announced in November 2012 was that the MGMRT ebts indeed were (although this is still under appeal by HMRC.)

However, because Lord Nimmo Smith treated the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust (REBT) as one and the same, (para 35 of Decision) this meant that the Inquiry failed to distinguish between the two trusts and necessarily treated the Earlier Trust as also being lawful (without however having properly investigated its operation). However, the MGMRT and the earlier REBT were two separate trusts and there was no necessary reason to treat them as one and the same. Had evidence relating to the REBT been produced and examined, the Inquiry could hardly have treated them) as “continuous” or allowed Lord Nimmo Smith to say “we are not aware that they were different trusts“(Annex 1 para 35)

From the Decision (Annex 1 para 40), it would appear that the President of the SFA gave evidence only as to his knowledge of the MGMRT (not the REBT). We know now that the President of the SFA had knowledge of the Earlier Trust (sitting on the RFC remuneration policy committee that agreed to their use in 1999 and indeed was active in its setting up). Why the President failed to volunteer such crucial information is surely something he should now be asked?

By the time of the Inquiry, Rangers FC had already conceded liability in what has become known as “the Wee Tax Case” (which related to the now unlawful REBTs). Having regard to the wording at para 104 of the Decision (that is an echo of what Regan stressed to Alex Thomson about ebts) where it is said that to arrange financial affairs in a manner “within the law” is not a breach of the SFA/SPL Rules) the clear implication, must be that to arrange financial affairs in such a way that they are not lawful, must be a breach of the rules.

Given the admission of liability in the Wee Tax Case, payments made in respect of the REBT could not be “lawful” (to employ the language used in the Decision) or disputed, but Mr Regan presumably did not enquire too much into the history of the wee tax case before agreeing to talk to Alex Thomson.

It will be obvious from the above that the unlawful nature of REBTs had been masked from SPL lawyers and Lord Nimmo Smith as a result of:-

(a) the failure by the Administrators of Rangers FC to provide the documentation required of them;

(b) the failure of the President of the SFA to provide to the Inquiry his own knowledge of, involvement in, and presumably as a result of it, an appreciation of the differences between the two types of ebts and the consequences thereof for the investigation.  

Had the REBT been the sole subject of the Inquiry (rather than in effect not being examined at all) the following must have been different:-

(i)            the President could hardly have failed to give testimony of his knowledge and involvement;

(ii)          the Inquiry could not have held that the use of the REBT ebts was lawful;

(iv)       the “no sporting advantage” decision given in respect of the lawful ebts could not have been applied to unlawful ebts.

The real issue in the case of the unlawful ebts was not one of misregistration (Annex 1 para 104) which in turn justified the no sporting advantage decision in paras 105/106 but of paying players by an unlawful means which “constitutes such a fundamental defect (Annex 1 para 88) that the registration of players paid this way (i.e. unlawfully) must be treated as having been invalid from the outset.

Had the true nature of these early ebts been known to SPL lawyers the Terms of Reference of the Investigation would have to have addressed the wrong doing that Mr Regan was so keen to argue with Alex Thomson had not actually occurred (long before Lord Nimmo Smith agreed with him) or had President Ogilvie made the distinction in his testimony, it would have been impossible for Sandy Bryson’s to advise as he did regarding the effect on eligibility. He would have to have been asked questions about two types of ebts not one. Finally Lord Nimmo Smith could not have treated both as continuous.

Finally, given this incidence of non-disclosure by the Rangers Administrators (an identifiable trait of RFC dealings with authority from August 2000 to date), it is impossible to see how paragraph 107 (wherein it is stated that there is “no question of dishonesty”) can be allowed to remain unchallenged.

Of course the failure to supply the key evidence could just be an oversight given Rangers Administrators were hardly likely to have established of their own volition the importance of the documents to the enquiry and yet, had they been supplied, the enquiry could not have been based on the defence Stewart Regan was at such pains to stress in his interview with Alex Thomson at a time only 3 months after Mr Regan and Campbell Ogilvie had joined Craig Whyte for dinner as a result of an invite prompted by questions on the SFA UEFA Licence handling of the wee tax case , created by the very same unlawful ebts.

AT But as the governing body why did you not say to Rangers “look guys this this smells really bad, this looks bad you look (and you have admitted you have not paid your tax) you know we can’t do this, we have got to be open and above board, it looks bad.

SR Well think you need to look at what is legal and above board. At the time the club, were in dispute with HMRC. There was a tax case ongoing the new owner was in discussion with HMRC. In fact he has made comments and the club have made comments to that effect and because the amount was not crystallised under UEFA guidelines, whilst ever it’s in dispute it’s not classed as overdue.

AT Sometimes

SR So you need to separate out the licensing requirement, which is what the Licensing Committee did, from the tax that was owed to HMRC which is as we know what is still ongoing.

Mr Regan was not being accurate here.  The Big Tax case was in dispute and the bill has not crystallised as a result. However the wee tax case crystallised in mid June 2011 and at 30th June 2011, the UEFA licence checkpoint under Article 66 of UEFA FFP, did not meet the conditions to excuse it as being an overdue payable to HMRC. Quite how the SFA handled the processing of the Article 66 submission from RFC is subject to a resolution asking UEFA to investigate put to the Celtic AGM in November 2013 which is still in progress. As has been mentioned twice before Mr Regan has either been kept in the dark or was being less than honest with Alex Thomson. Interestingly Andrew Dickson who has been at Rangers in various administration and executive capacity since 1991 sat on 3 of the four UEFA Licensing Committee meetings during 2011. He may of course have excused himself from any discussions on this matter as the rules allowed, but was a full explanation why he did so, if indeed he did, offered? Would such an explanation have enlightened Mr Regan of what he was dealing with?

AT Sometimes things can be within the rules but from a PR point of view, indeed from a moral point of view, hate to introduce morality to football but can be the wrong thing to do. You would accept that?

SR Well I think that football around the world is going through a difficult time, clubs are in difficult financial circumstances, not just in Scotland, you look down into England and look at the clubs in Administration at the moment. You know Portsmouth and Port Vale in recent times and I think Plymouth is as well again. As far as that is concerned you know that indicates that clubs are living from hand to mouth and there are deals being done all the time with HMRC, payment plans being agreed. There is huge amounts of debt in football.

AT I’m just inviting you to accept that sometimes things can be within the rules but just look bad because morally, they are bad.

ST I think when taxes aren’t paid ehm VAT in particular, National Insurance Contributions of course that’s bad and I think we accept that and we know that in the current regime there is evidence to suggest that Rangers has not paid its taxes since Mr Whyte took over the club. That’s wrong that is against the spirit of the game and certainly we would look to deal with that and stamp out that type of behaviour which is not acting with integrity.

If Carlsberg did irony!

End of Interview.

The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions

There is always the danger in examining anything of finding what you want to be there rather than what is there and it is a danger any writer has to be aware of, but given the responses from Harper MacLeod on TSFM and the total lack of response from the SPFL and SFA when being informed of the missing evidence along with what has been written here it is hard not to conclude that the Lord Nimmo Smith Inquiry was deliberately set up in such a way as to produce two results

  • The minimising of the wrongful behaviour that had taken place from 1999 to 2012 when The Commission sat
  • The avoidance of the consequences of admitting that serious wrongdoing in the form of illegal payments had been made via irregular EBTs, which consequently made the players involved ineligible from the outset, making the Bryson ruling inapplicable in those cases with the consequences of that ineligibility on trophies and remuneration won.

The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either

  • there was a huge screw up by the SPL lawyers charged to set up the Commission which they might be able to defend
  • or
  • Vital knowledge was concealed within the SFA itself in order to achieve the above two results and
  • This knowledge was deliberately concealed because had it not been The Inquiry could not have come to the conclusion it did on player eligibility, not only because unlawful ebts were used in early instances, but also because the deliberate concealment from HMRC of the side letters to De Boer and Flo, the former also kept from Harper and MacLeod, suggests Rangers knew all along and in 2005 in particular that what they were doing since 2000 was morally wrong and against the spirit of the game. It perhaps also explains why HMRC is determined to push an appeal all the way.
  • This failure to supply all documents meant that the line being taken by Mr Regan in March 2012, when the Commission was being set up into the use of ebts and failure to register them with the SFA, came to fulfilment in the Decision of Lord Nimmo Smith himself, achieving the two aims suggested above.

Given that Harper MacLeod have said they passed on to the SFA in September 2014 the evidence kept from them by Rangers Administrators, has Stewart Regan spoken to either Ogilvie or Dickson since then about keeping him in the dark? Or did he know all along?

Of course these hard to believe conclusions could be discounted as delusional ramblings if either the SFA or SPFL were to say they would investigate the evidence kept from Harper MacLeod. It would also help if only one of the thirteen main stream journalists would look at the hard copy of the concealed documents they were provided with, because until someone who values sporting integrity does, the stench of corruption will hang over Scottish football for years to reek out anytime the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission is used as a justification for anything that it contains.

Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision

[5] Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in

breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;

 

Outline of the Scheme

 

[35] As we have said, a controlling interest in Oldco was held by David Murray through the medium of Murray MHL Limited, part of the Murray Group of companies. Murray Group Management Limited (MGM) provided management services to the companies of the Murray Group. By deed dated 20 April 2001 MGM set up the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (the MGMRT). (We note that the MGMRT was preceded by the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust, but we are not aware that they were different trusts. We shall treat them as a continuous trust, which we shall refer to throughout as the MGMRT.)

 

[40] Mr Ogilvie learnt about the existence of the MGMRT in about 2001 or 2002, because a contribution was made for his benefit. He understood that this was non-contractual. Although as a result he knew about the existence of the MGMRT, he did not know any details of it. He subsequently became aware, while he remained director of Oldco, that contributions were being made to the MGMRT in respect of players. He assumed that these were made in respect of the players’ playing football, which was the primary function for which they were employed and remunerated. He had no involvement in the organisation or management of Oldco’s contributions to the MGMRT, whether for players or otherwise. He said:

“I assumed that all contributions to the Trust were being made legally, and that any relevant football regulations were being complied with. I do not recall contributions to the Trust being discussed in any detail, if at all, at Board meetings. In any event, Board meetings had become less and less frequent by my later years at Rangers.”

He also said: “Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers”.

However it should be noted that Mr Ogilvie was a member of the board of directors who approved the statutory accounts of Oldco which disclosed very substantial payments made under the EBT arrangements.

 

[88] In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. There is every reason why the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other. Mr Bryson’s evidence about the position of the SFA in this regard was clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with those of the SFA, should be given that construction. All parties’ concerned – clubs, players and footballing authorities – should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This means that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked. There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.

 

[104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequently able to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more success. Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law – so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.

[105] It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive advantage in that respect. If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters conferred any competitive advantage, that could only have been an indirect one. Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so. Moreover, we have received no evidence from which we could possibly say that Oldco could not or would not have entered into the EBT arrangements with players if it had been required to comply with the requirement to disclose the arrangements as part of the players’ full financial entitlement or as giving rise to payment to players. It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players. On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules.

[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.

[107] We nevertheless take a serious view of a breach of rules intended to promote sporting integrity. Greater financial transparency serves to prevent financial irregularities. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA. In our view, the apparent assumption both that the side-letter arrangements were entirely discretionary, and that they did not form part of any player’s contractual entitlement, was seriously misconceived. Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June 2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries. There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities. The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the side letters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.

Auldheid  Feb 2015
This entry was posted in General by Auldheid. Bookmark the permalink.
Auldheid

About Auldheid

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

5,190 thoughts on “Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?


  1. Oh yes, it’s been noted on here in a previous blog that this ridiculous phrase had found its way along the M8

    I do think though on your specific point, anyone who says it be it a Rangers, Hearts or whoever FC official or player should be called out on it.


  2. Bawsman says:
    April 27, 2015 at 12:51 pm
    We don’t need video replays. We need to ban refs who favour one side over others. Ask a Dundee Utd fan about McCurry, Hearts fans about Dallas and Davies, A Falkirk fan on Saturday when the Rangers equaliser was in the 5th minute of 3 minutes added time, Celtic fans…….well, there’s a list.

    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    Indeed. Hibs fans demon is Craig Thomson. But we don’t just speculate that he is biased against us, a fantastic, very detailed statistical breakdown was done on Hibs.net comparing his performance when refereeing Hibs games as opposed to other refs, and also how different his performance was for us as opposed to when he referred Hearts specifically, and all other teams generally.

    If the statistics were to be believed (and everyone would have to exmine the raw data themselves to see if the conclusions could be replicated), his performance when refereeing Hibs games is markedly different when officiating other teams, and heavily to Hibs’ detriment.

    It looked at the number of cards, the rate that cards were given, numbers of penalty awards and so on, over a number of seasons.
    I mention this not to be partisan about Hibs per se (although I am!) but to support the theory that referee performance CAN be examined statistically, and indeed such stats SHOULD be getting collated by the SFA and published, for the sake of openness and transparency. If fans believe that a referee or referees are against them then published stats showing the actual cards issued etc were no different against your team than others, then this would surely lead to more trust. on the other hand if a particular referee is shown as twice as likely to book or send off one of your players as opposed to every other team, then that unpalatable fact SHOULD be known (step forward Mr. Thomson and Hibs).

    That’s my paranoid ranting over for the day now. 😀


  3. The worst refereeing decision I have ever witnessed ‘in the flesh’ so to speak was one made by our friend Craig Thomson around 5 years or so ago now. My team, Morton, was playing Hamilton Academical at NDP. Accies were top of Division 1 and leading 1-0 with a few minutes left when Chris Templeman scored an equaliser. Some Accies players claimed hand ball by Templeman, but the Assistant Referee (Ross Haswell) ran back to the half way line, thereby confirming a legitimate goal.

    Thomson had everyone lined up to restart the match at 1-1 when he spotted several Accies players still haranguing Haswell about the goal award. Thomson made his way over to the touchline and I thought he was going to book one or more of the Accies players for dissent. However, after consultation with Haswell, he then disallowed the ‘goal’ and awarded Accies a free kick in their penalty area.

    As if this wasn’t ridiculous enough, the following week Thomson proclaimed (on the ‘Whistleblower’ section of the SFA site – do they still do that?) that he had not seen a hand ball and hence the reason he had decided to consult Haswell.

    According to Thomson, Haswell told him he had not seen any infringement. Thomson’s logic was, therefore, to disallow the goal! My mates and I were gobsmacked at the time and a few of us remarked that we wondered what would have happened if this had been a top tier game. I think the short answer was that we predicted a riot!


  4. Blindsummit63 says:
    subscriber: (11 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 1:56 pm
    ////////////////

    Sorry Blind.
    I can see were your coming from
    But when it comes to Statistics they can be manipulated to show what you want them to say
    Or even worse just show plain numbers which mean hee haw

    For instance how far a player has ran in a game
    Looks great when highlighting a certain player but doesn’t mean he has played well or has even been involved in the game (a winger can run up and down the pitch all day and contribute nothing same can happen to any player)
    But the stats say he has ran 15.78 mile’s

    Same can be done with refs preformance
    He gave 2 pens and 7 yellow cards in 3 games refing my team
    And only 5 yellows in 3 games Reffing yours

    All that shows is he thought the tackles in 1 or2 games were worse than another’s or the tackles were in different areas or situations on the park

    You cannot use statistics to compare 1,3,15 games against another 1,3,15 games

    As every game is different


  5. ‘Back where we belong’, seems a strange phrase for anyone to find offence with. When, for most of their life, however long that might be, someone, or some thing, spends the vast majority in one place, it is not, at all, unreasonable to consider it the place they belong. Hearts have spent around four years, in total, in the second tier of Scottish football, out of 142 years. If you don’t ‘belong’ somewhere you have been for 138 years, where do you belong?

    There is no suggestion in the word ‘belong’ of having the right to be there, as in ‘rightful place’, what’s more, it’s a phrase that will have been used, without question, in years gone by for many clubs. I cannot imagine it has never been used about Celtic in Europe, or Rangers, or Aberdeen, in their halcyon days. On Saturday, ‘I will be back where I belong’, in the City I spent most of my life in and around, am I being conceited in saying that? I undoubtedly would be, though, if I was claiming some right to be there ahead of others.

    I think it’s a bit like the ‘h’ word being removed from allowable words around football, just because some have decided to call it offensive. This time a phrase, extremely common in the English language, is being ridiculed because the Ibrox club like to use it to describe a place they’ve never been before!


  6. Gabby says @ 1.03 p.m
    ‘….Perhaps the Carindale Hotel …’
    .———————–
    Walking distance for me, as I discovered yesterday when pushing the twin pram!
    I’ll PM you tomorrow, it now being near midnight, and the wife wanting the light aff!


  7. ambo says @2.43 p.m.
    ‘….because the Ibrox club like to use it to describe a place they’ve never been before’
    ————-
    Exactly so!
    The very meat and essence of the blog captured in a simple statement of fact. 😀


  8. Allyjambo says:

    April 27, 2015 at 2:43 pm
    ‘Back where we belong’, seems a strange phrase for anyone to find offence with. When, for most of their life, however long that might be, someone, or some thing, spends the vast majority in one place, it is not, at all, unreasonable to consider it the place they belong. Hearts have spent around four years, in total, in the second tier of Scottish football, out of 142 years. If you don’t ‘belong’ somewhere you have been for 138 years, where do you belong?
    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    To be fair AJ, Hearts have earned the right to say they belong in the top tier (like the teams that are already there) as they are promoted, and promoted with some ease. You’ve earned it.

    I cringe however if I ever hear anyone at Hibs saying it, as frankly, we are exactly where we DO belong, which is in The Championship. We have no divine right to be anywhere else and are where we are because of poor football. Now we may yet earn promotion, but if we don’t then we will be exactly where we belong, still in The Championship. Success has to be earned, not granted by divine right and mere fact of existence.


  9. jean7brodie says:
    subscriber: (377 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 3:27 pm
    http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/hurry-and-wait/#more-6240
    ========================================
    If Phil’s fly on the wall reporting is accurate, it looks like the SD guys were having a laugh at Murray & Gilligan’s expense – and it must have been humiliating for the TRFC directors. Oh well.

    But the point that jumped out for me was the revelation that SD wanted McCoist’s full remuneration made ‘very public’.

    Why would they ask for that ?
    Can’t believe they are just being vindictive.
    Do they see McCoist as a potential threat to whatever plans they have – or is it just to further discredit the previous regime(s) ?

    If I was Murray I certainly wouldn’t be a happy bear – and would be getting very p!ssed off with King’s continued parsimony. 😕


  10. Blindsummit63 says @ 3.32 p.m.
    ‘——–‘
    Come now! You are speaking like a disappointed fan, upset by a temporary set-back in a long and illustrious history over most of which you were at
    the very heart and soul of the best in Scottish
    football.
    Allyjambo, and most football fans with any
    objectivity,and certainly I myself, take it as read
    that Hibs ‘ belong’ to the top level.
    What I cannot and will not accept is that a newish
    club, created in , when was it?..2012? could
    conceivably imagine that it ‘ belonged’ anywhere
    but the bottom-most level, and damned lucky that
    that there were people around, such as those who
    signed the 5-way Agreement, who, selling the very heart and soul of Sporting Integrity,were prepared to allow them into that level.


  11. John Clark says:
    Come now! You are speaking like a disappointed fan, upset by a temporary set-back in a long and illustrious history over most of which you were at
    the very heart and soul of the best in Scottish
    football.
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    Ach, you got me there John, and thanks for your kind words.

    Hibs may have no “right” to be there, but if a certain new club makes it instead of us, I will be boiling with indignation I can assure you!


  12. Totally OT, currently reading the novel, Look who,s back, the story of Hitler waking up in modern day Berlin. When asked about the press, he comes away with the following gem:

    We all know, of course what to make of our newspapers. The deaf man writes down what the blind man has told him, the village idiot edits it, and the colleagues in other press houses copy it.


  13. First time post and apologies for OT

    Interesting spin on Wasps rugby club becoming “the richest rugby club in the world”. Seems to me they are the club with the largest bond ie loan! Naturally they will be splurging this in marque signings. If only they had a sport that had used all these ruses before….

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/32476299


  14. Anyone heard what the two shareholding fan groups have to say about the past months developments at the top of the marble staircase,one for Keef to update us on,surely.


  15. ianagain says:

    April 27, 2015 at 5:12 pm
    “The Secrets of Sports Direct” tonight 20:00 Ch4
    ————

    I wonder if there was access given to the inner sanctum of silence? Mike Ashley in his own words?


  16. ianagain says:
    April 27, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    “The Secrets of Sports Direct” tonight 20:00 Ch4
    ——————————————————

    According to previews, this programme deals with SD’s zero-hours policy and the massive price discounts that maybe aren’t really discounts after all. I assume that with the SD tat being manufactured in the Far East, there will be the question of sweat shops and a lack of health & safety at work. I will be watching the programme this evening to see how ruthless that nice Mr Ashley and his lieutenants are in operating SD.

    Perhaps the RRM should have postponed their begging trip to Shirebrook HQ until after they had viewed tonight’s “The Secrets of Sports Direct”. It may have saved them their rail fare and a high degree of embarrassment into the bargain.


  17. Danish Pastry says:
    author: (1760 comments)

    April 27, 2015 at 5:42 pm

    ianagain says:

    April 27, 2015 at 5:12 pm
    “The Secrets of Sports Direct” tonight 20:00 Ch4
    ————

    I wonder if there was access given to the inner sanctum of silence? Mike Ashley in his own words?
    ========================================

    Having just seen the trailer I think not. Zero hours high margins etc etc.


  18. According to an award winning sports journalist the SFA will rule on Dave King this week.
    —————————————————————————————– the SFA has confirmed to Press Association Sport the (Guidetti )22-year-old’s case will now be heard this Thursday.It is not clear if Guidetti will appear before the Hampden panel at Thursday’s re-arranged hearing but Celtic have already backed the player.

    A Busy week then for the SFA 🙄


  19. Ibrox news at 6.30 tonight on Sportsound, so they say (do they have a klaxon?).

    And Hugh Keevins using the L word in the first few minutes of SSB! Thought I was having an audio hallucination 🙂


  20. Technology in Sport. Force for good or source of controversy ?

    I watch a lot of NFL games. TV replay doesn’t completely remove wrong decisions , however it has reduced them to a level of insignificance. The only wrong decisions now are one’s that are of the 50/50 variety. Whats as important is that TV replay is welcomed by Officials , fans and clubs .

    I am unsure why football is so determined to resist the benefits provided by TV replays for match officials. Surely the most important thing is that the correct decision is reached. The NFL allows 2 coaches challenges per game . At any time before the two-minute warning of each half or overtime period, the head coach of either team can signal a challenge by throwing a red flag onto the field. He’s allowed only two challenges per game, but if both challenges are successful, he’s given a third. He must issue his challenge before the next snap of the ball.
    If the coach’s challenge is successful — that is, the ruling on the field is overturned — then his team isn’t charged with a timeout. If it’s unsuccessful, it costs the team a timeout. A coach can’t challenge any ruling if he doesn’t have at least one timeout remaining.

    Now if you changed timeouts for substitutes you have the basis for a system that might work in Football. Technology has highlighted mistakes by officials. It isn’t necessarily the case that match officials are worse than they used to be . There is a strong argument that TV is now highlighting errors that would not previously have been picked up by fans in the stadium.

    Every NFL game is covered by TV with a huge number of camera’s available to scrutinise every contentious call, however every SPL game has camera’s to record and broadcast highlights packages. Now I get that NFL is a stop start game and suited to this type of scrutiny, however if we restricted the ability for coaches/managers in football to challenge calls to penalty incidents or ball crossing the line questions then it need not be overly disruptive. We could of course as a first step introduce a TV Replay official who’s job it is to bring any blatant wrong call to the referee’s attention. This would sensibly be restricted to penalties and balls which have crossed the goal line but have been missed.

    I have yet to see any sensible explanation as to why TV Replays are a bad thing for football. There was resistance at every turn to many innovations which are now taken for granted as part of the game. Footballers are fitter , faster and more prone to deception than decades ago. Referee’s have a more difficult job getting decisions correct than they did in previous generations. It makes no sense to me , not to help them get all major decisions correct.

    There has been a furore over the Meekings incident. Nobody , not even the most blinkered anti Celtic reporter has suggested it wasn’t a penalty. However sympathy was loaded in favour of Meekings and ICT , with little mention of the injustice suffered by the Celtic players and management team. I would suggest that should Rangers be deprived of a Premier League place by an act of foul play by a Hibs, QOS or Motherwell player, then the perpetrator won’t receive a fraction of the sympathy handed out to Meekings. Rather he will be vilified with calls for justice as the game in Scotland cannot be deprived any longer of Rangers at the summit.

    If that sounds unlikely here is a direct quote about a referee when he refused Rangers a stonewall penalty in a European game. A match that Rangers incidentally lost 4-1

    “As stonewallers go this one could have kept Genghis Khan and his Mongols out of Peking. So big, so blatant and so obvious it could have been spotted by a man on the moon. Sadly for Rangers, however, there was one rocket of a man who couldn’t quite make it out from all of 15 yards away and after this act of astonishing ineptitude, Scotland’s champions would go on to crash and burn quite spectacularly in the rarefied atmosphere of the Champions League.”

    The official was then described in the following terms

    “dodgy, a choker, a rocket, a bottle-crasher and a man who freezes when called on to make a decision” That what the Daily Record / Sunday Mail write about you when you deprive Rangers of a stone wall penalty. So don’t look for even handed balanced reporting , with talk of an honest mistake if Rangers suffer an injustice.

    Thats another reason we need TV replays. There are a couple of publications and one broadcaster who’s ability to influence and place pressure is unacceptable. The Record/Mail and Radio Clyde have an audience which contains more Rangers supporters than those of other clubs. They have the right to set whatever editorial policy they want to attract paying customers , however they have no more entitlement to influence Scottish Football than anyone else


  21. Danish Pastry says:
    author: (1761 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 6:18 pm
    Ibrox news at 6.30 tonight on Sportsound, so they say (do they have a klaxon?).
    _________
    rumour is that they are letting in season ticket holders to the playoffs free


  22. There is nothing wrong with any team using the term “back where we belong” if they feel that is where they belong, big teams should be in the big Leagues. Teams as big as Hearts and Rangers do not belong in the lower Leagues, not with the fan bases they have.

    However, they do not currently deserve to be up there as they were mismanaged both financially and/or sportingly so they currently reside where they deserve to be, even if they do not belong there.

    The only issue I have with this term is when it referred to winning the top League as IMO, nobody belongs there. This was widely used by Rangers people over the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 seasons. Even recently used by Dave King during his 55/45 percent comments.

    Moreover, as I am firmly in the ‘RFC died’ side of the fence, the correct term would be ‘where we belong’. IMO that would be a fair assertion as they are a massive club and belong in the league containing the other big clubs.


  23. andy says:
    Member: (63 comments)

    April 27, 2015 at 6:49 pm

    Danish Pastry says:
    author: (1761 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 6:18 pm
    Ibrox news at 6.30 tonight on Sportsound, so they say (do they have a klaxon?).
    _________
    rumour is that they are letting in season ticket holders to the playoffs free
    ==================================
    No rumour they are. Hibs did the same last year it seems?


  24. New blog in the pipeline, but we would welcome any contributions instead.
    Anyone ?


  25. ianagain says:
    Member: (602 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 7:14 pm
    andy says:
    Member: (63 comments)

    April 27, 2015 at 6:49 pm

    Danish Pastry says:
    author: (1761 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 6:18 pm
    Ibrox news at 6.30 tonight on Sportsound, so they say (do they have a klaxon?).
    _________
    rumour is that they are letting in season ticket holders to the playoffs free
    ==================================
    No rumour they are. Hibs did the same last year it seems?
    _______
    are they needing a squirrel for some bad news about to come out ?


  26. Utter nonsense on BBC Sportsound tonight regarding Dermot Desmond at Celtic. Al Lamont is the latest to state Desmond is not a board member, and this follows on from the same statement in the past 12 months from Graham Spiers, Tom English & Stephen McGowan. Desmond is a non-Executive Director at Celtic and the information is freely available on the club website. Of course they were, as usual, pushing the case for Dave King. Being wrong Once I can accept, but to say it four times has got to be deliberate. What is their end game with this continual untruth?


  27. Barcabhoy says:
    Member: (154 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 6:20 pm
    Technology in Sport. Force for good or source of controversy ?

    I watch a lot of NFL games…
    =====================================

    The NFL development which I am most impressed with is when there is a flag/controversy, and when it has been eventually reviewed/discussed, the ref switches on his personal mic and actually talks to the crowd to explain what the decision is – and why.

    Very simple and very effective.

    Why should you pay to watch a game in person, and don’t know what is going on because the ref has made a strange decision – or ‘missed’ making a decision ?

    In this day and age of instant information and communication, the most important people, i.e. those who choose to pay to attend a game, should know first – rather than finding out from the radio or TV after the game is finished.

    Shirley, copying that method of communication with the crowd would improve the customer experience – and would not be a controversial development ?


  28. Blindsummit63 says:
    subscriber: (11 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 1:56 pm
    ////////////////
    Sorry Blind.
    I can see were your coming from
    But when it comes to Statistics they can be manipulated to show what you want them to say
    Or even worse just show plain numbers which mean hee haw
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    We might be looking at the Statistics argument from the wrong perspective
    Perhaps it’s more relevant to classify the matches in which “honest mistakes” occur and then compare how they are spread between teams
    Here’s what I mean
    Honest mistakes can be
    Game Changers
    Results in the favoured side not falling a goal behind, taking the lead, equalising or having excessive extra time added
    Non Game Changers
    Results in the winning side adding to a two or more goal lead or conceding a consolation goal when there is no chance of a meaningful comeback
    ,,,,,,
    It would be interesting to see whether certain teams consistently enjoy a higher proportion of game changer “honest mistakes” versus non game changer “honest mistakes”


  29. SFA in sensible decision shocker ! 🙄
    ===========================================

    “FANS will be able to attend this year’s Scottish Cup Final for just £5 after the Scottish Football Association struck an agreement with finalists Inverness Caledonian Thistle and Falkirk.

    The £5 tickets will be on offer to children, students and senior citizens as the high-flying Highlanders take on their lower league opponents on May 30 at Hampden.

    A low turnout was expected for the season’s showpiece match but organisers now hope to turn it into a ‘family final’, offering a family of four ticket package for £60…”

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sfa-announce-reduced-ticket-prices-5592178


  30. If Phil is correct, how will the fans react to the news that the new board will lose its latest Chairman?
    How will they react to Lambias and Leech re-entering the blue room?
    How will the react to ‘The Constant Gardeners’ salary being made public?
    How will they react to the fact that the club would be in the grip of Sports Direct to a greater extent than before their ‘victory’ at the EGM?
    How will they react to the debt increasing to the very person they have demonised over the last four months?

    I wrote a while ago that this regime, of Real Rangers Men, was the last hope. The fans have placed whatever is left of their trust in this new board but if it reverts back to the very people they railed against then that indeed may be the final straw. The debt will be more than they take in season ticket sales and those very sales will collapse through the floor if what is prophesised comes to pass. That in turn will require more Sports Direct funding to make up the shortfall.

    If there is a failure to gain promotion in the playoffs then that will be a devastating blow to the finances although it may finally bring the reality of the situation home to the majority of the fans. There is another bonus point and that is the playing squad will be trimmed to a point commensurate with the clubs income although that may in turn have ramifications for the following season.
    This is a financial calamity that will not be solved by promotion as even then more than half the squad will have to be replaced.

    It has long been discussed on this site that the out goings were greater than the money coming in and I was personally amazed that so many well healed business men were willing to part with their cash, albeit on short term basis. That however only masks underlying problems that have never been addressed.


  31. Channel4 got a documentary on just now to do with the retail “methods” of Sports Direct !!!!!


  32. justshatered says:
    Member: (125 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 8:14 pm

    If there is a failure to gain promotion in the playoffs then that will be a devastating blow to the finances although it may finally bring the reality of the situation home to the majority of the fans.
    ===================================================

    How much money would have to be thrown down a black hole just to get through another season in the Championship. Alternatively reduce the wage bill to something they can actually afford. However, Hibs may still be there. Motherwell and St Mirren may be there. All three would present a significant challenge to a Rangers having to spend only what it can afford.


  33. Cluster One says:
    Member: (141 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 6:15 pm
    According to an award winning sports journalist the SFA will rule on Dave King this week.
    —————————————————————————————– the SFA has confirmed to Press Association Sport the (Guidetti )22-year-old’s case will now be heard this Thursday.It is not clear if Guidetti will appear before the Hampden panel at Thursday’s re-arranged hearing but Celtic have already backed the player.

    A Busy week then for the SFA 🙄

    ,,,,,,,,,,
    Whats the betting we are in for some SFA whataboutery pres releases?
    Either
    King is FPP and Guidetti gets off to placate the neutrals
    Or
    More likely
    King gets rejected as FPP and Guidetti gets hammered to placate the loonies


  34. Methinks CH4 missed the important IP bit, probably churning as much cash as the zero hrs.


  35. GoosyGoosy says:
    Member: (376 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 7:50 pm
    ////////////

    Goosy. There are no so called honest mistakes or mistakes of any Refereeing kind that aren’t game changers

    Whether you are 10-0 up or 10-0 down
    Goal difference can mean a hell of a lot over the course of a season or especially a two legged tie like a play-off

    Statistics were invented by sales people to manipulate whatever agenda they were being paid for PR ordered to pitch

    Only started to come into sports over the last 10 years or so and do work in some sports like baseball,basketball and sometimes American football

    But it most certainly doesn’t work in real Football
    Looks good on the TV and gives the so called pundits in the studio (especially after the game) an easy focus point
    And even better when in hind sight and the stats to match they can make a player the next Pele or the next Sebo


  36. GoosyGoosy says:
    Member: (377 comments)

    April 27, 2015 at 8:48 pm

    Cluster One says:
    —————-
    Whats the betting we are in for some SFA whataboutery pres releases?
    ——————————–
    Both are buried under an avalanche of bad news. Murray out and L&L back in.Another loan needed and big mike runs the show.
    Could be an interesting week ahead. After all the fans were told of transparency.


  37. Madbhoy24941 says:
    Member: (66 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 7:11 pm

    ____________________________________________

    I am confused as usual. Does ‘big team’ mean the team with a big following or team with points reflecting their ability?


  38. Jean:

    I was meaning the size of the support. Like it or not, Rangers do have the potential to be a very big Club and currently in Scotland, they are, even with 30k per 2nd week, a big Club.

    As I said in the post, they belong in the top League, they do not however, deserve to be there currently as they have not earned that right.


  39. If Phil’s latest is on the mark as he usually is then very shortly we will have completed a full circle in the Blue room with P Murray removed and L&L reinstated. The main difference is the de-listing from AIM. Would this in anyway be a significant event insofar as it would allow M Ashley and his cohorts to continue to ‘Run Dark’ I don’t think this was a plan assembled by Mike but would it be beneficial to him none the less?


  40. Bawsman
    Ask a Falkirk fan on Saturday when the Rangers equaliser was in the 5th minute of 3 minutes added time

    The goal was scored 2m 47 secs into injury time. 5 substitutions x 30 secs, trainer on twice, not to mention taking about 2 mins to re-start after each of Falkirk’s goals as their players celebrated in the corner and copious amounts of time wasting by Falkirk.

    If anything the match finished too early.

    Goosy
    “and dont worry about red cards, penalties or extra extra injury time
    If needed
    they will happen”

    35 league games played
    Red cards to opponents – 0
    Penalties awarded – 1 v Dumbarton (A) missed
    Goals in injury time – 3 …. v Hearts (91), Hearts then scored in (92), v Dumbarton (93) to go 3-1 and v Falkirk (93 – not 95) to equalise

    Lets stick to facts lads


  41. It would seem that either another payday loan or administration looms at Ibrox and it makes less sense to me now than at any time in the past. Why spend millions acquiring shares to seize control and then have no investment plan nor security over any material assets? It would seem that Phil is being leaked info to discredit the requisitioners still further. Do they have a cunning plan or do they simply hope to escape in a single bound? A transparent business plan would help a simple soul Iike me follow what’s going on. I wonder if anyone has suggested that.


  42. Corrupt official says:
    Member: (30 comments)

    April 27, 2015 at 9:23 pm

    Re free entry for ST holders. It’s a squirrel !.
    “One Easter Road source told Sportsmail: ‘A rule change has been introduced by the SPFL stopping clubs allowing their season ticket holders into the play-off games for free.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3039213/Hibernian-face-battle-lower-league-clubs-gate-revenue-lucrative-play-ties-Rangers-Motherwell.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

    =======================

    I think your confusing this year with last.
    I see no problem with any club letting its ST holders in “free”.
    Many Well fans complained about the Europa ties in June costing them. Fair enough.


  43. Last year, Hibs fans got into the play offs for free, but they had to pay to get out.?


  44. Carfins Finest says:
    Member: (126 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 9:30 pm
    If Phil’s latest is on the mark as he usually is then very shortly we will have completed a full circle in the Blue room with P Murray removed and L&L reinstated. The main difference is the de-listing from AIM. Would this in anyway be a significant event insofar as it would allow M Ashley and his cohorts to continue to ‘Run Dark’ I don’t think this was a plan assembled by Mike but would it be beneficial to him none the less?

    ,,,,,,,,,
    Looks like we are moving into the real end game
    i.e.
    Ashley (Sarver) re-appears to buy out the RRM while promising moonbeams on the park
    King retires to SA in the huff at “being let down by RRM”


  45. ianagain says:
    Member: (445 comments)

    April 27, 2015 at 10:15 pm
    I think your confusing this year with last.
    I see no problem with any club letting its ST holders in “free”.
    Many Well fans complained about the Europa ties in June costing them. Fair enough.
    ==================================================
    Sorry Ian, I don’t follow the connection to the Europa ties.
    The article is from this year and I believe the proposal to reduce the percentage was rejected at the SPFL AGM. I don’t think there would be much point in voting over what percentage of zero would be divided amongst other teams.
    It should not be financially more lucrative winning a runners up mini tourney, than it is for being outright winner of a season long campaign.


  46. ianagain says:
    Member: (445 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 9:00 pm
    Methinks CH4 missed the important IP bit, probably churning as much cash as the zero hrs.
    ——–

    What an evil ZH contracts are. I suppose the docu touched on subjects outwith the blog; suffice to say, MA’s modus operandi clear to see. Billionaire or not, would any decent human being want his or her club run like SD?


  47. Why should SD have the hump with Ally McCoist? He seems to be aligned with company policy, as he has put in zero hours’ work for his contract the past few months, as far as I can tell.


  48. I noticed Keith Jackson on Twitter last night talking of a Daily Record exclusive this morning. It is a story, written by him, saying how easy it was for Craig Whyte to pass SFA F & P criteria in 2011. The irony of Jackson being the one who started the ‘billionaire with wealth of the radar’ nonsense clearly means nothing to him. He claims to have seen the documentation Whyte completed, and he also claims on Twitter his ‘gut feeling’ is King will be passed by the SFA. Personally I won’t be at all shocked if that’s the case, but is someone in the SFA leaking information to one of the most Rangers friendly journalists in the Scottish media? It is also worth noting he is a journalist who has openly championed the case for a convicted criminal to be given power at Ibrox. His newspaper often reserves their front page to pillory convicted criminals, yet they are willing to celebrate one on their back page.

    The SFA, their rules and their disciplinary system have taken a media panning recently. By the end of the week, once the King case is over and John Guidetti has faced his ridiculous charge, will the media have new found love for the SFA and said disciplinary system?


  49. I noticed Keith Jackson on Twitter last night talking of a Daily Record exclusive this morning. It is a story, written by him, saying how easy it was for Craig Whyte to pass SFA F & P criteria in 2011. The irony of Jackson being the one who started the ‘billionaire with wealth of the radar’ nonsense clearly means nothing to him. He claims to have seen the documentation Whyte completed, and he also claims on Twitter his ‘gut feeling’ is King will be passed by the SFA. Personally I won’t be at all shocked if that’s the case, but is someone in the SFA leaking information to one of the most Rangers friendly journalists in the Scottish media? It is also worth noting he is a journalist who has openly championed the case for a convicted criminal to be given power at Ibrox. His newspaper often reserves their front page to pillory convicted criminals, yet they are willing to celebrate one on their back page.

    So Keith’s logic is that because the SFA got it so badly wrong with Craig Whyte, they should repeat the error with Dave King in the interests of balance? 😕


  50. Morning all.
    Just wondering how letting ST holders into the play-offs for nothing benefits TRFC.
    At least 2 rounds with circa 25k ST holders at £20 raises approx £1m.
    If promoted Ashley is due £500k whether tickets are sold or not.The other £500k would go to the SPFL so give or take it’s a break even scenario.
    Let them in free and you lose money,something TRFC cannot afford to do.Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!.
    I see this as a means of putting pressure on the SFA/SPFL.Pass King or less cash for you.
    If I was the SFA/ SPFL I’d let TRFC know that the £250k fine still outstanding will be withheld from any prize money and a seven figure bond will be required up front before a licence is issued allowing TRFC to play next season.
    It really is time someone stood up to these people.


  51. The logic is that if the process is not sufficient to catch one man it should not be made more robust because if it is made more robust it might find fault with a bona fide recently convicted criminal who presided over the first man who was not caught. They must have Kafka writing the rule book by seance.


  52. Keith Jackson’s hypocrisy is genuinely “off the radar”. I don’t really blame the SFA for giving Whyte the nod, since the Bears had swallowed Jackson’s garbage hook line and sinker, and any obstacle put in the way of a billionaire’s progress up the marble staircase really was going to result in “social unrest”, meaning all those involved in the decision being “outed” and then subjected to extreme “unpleasantness” by the knuckledragging element. Anyone remember the protest at BBC HQ, when they dared to air a programme contradicting the Jackson narrative?

    According to Jackson’s article today “Unlike Whyte’s previous misdemeanours, King’s historic legal battle with the South African tax authorities and his 41 convictions were already a matter of public record.” Well if Whyte’s misdemeanours weren’t on the public record, how were the internet bampots aware of them?

    I hold Jackson largely responsible for the SFA’s cowardice in relation to Whyte, but he really is plumbing new depths now, with his pro-King propaganda drive. There was never any cutting equipment available to the Glasgow shipyards that could discolour his brass neck, never mind mark it. The rest of his article is also garbage, but I really can’t be bothered picking over it. Award winning journalist my behooky. (spelling correction welcome on that last word)


  53. Oh, and in other news from the Daily Record, Peter Reid (ex Everton, for our younger readers) is a lifelong Celtic supporter and wants TRFC back in the top flight next season, so we can all “enjoy” the “Old Firm” games.

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/peter-reid-ive-been-celtic-5593715#rlabs=1

    It looks like the Record has reached the bottom of the barrel of Celtic linked rentaquotes, and is busy having a look underneath. I wonder what Rod Stewart’s views are on Rangers? Or have they done him already, and I missed it?


  54. If PMG’s account of the Shirebrooke face off is correct, why on earth are Murray (P) and Gilligan going cap in hand to the devil and humiliating themselves by punting a sub-prime business plan when their would-be saviour and chairman is a multi-zillionaire?

    Have Murray (P) and Gilligan not explained to King that he does not need to wait to be passed fit and proper by the SFA (for it will happen) in order to make unsecured loans to his childhood club to rescue it from ridicule and indignity?

    Or has King explained to Murray (P) and Gilligan that his wealth is off the radar to them?

    The followers are being set up to believe King will be pronounced fit and proper and he will immediately unveil a lottery-style cheque held aloft by two beaming, bikini clan beauties – hopefully not Murray (P) and Gilligan.

    Well, I’m not saying it won’t happen, but you’d have to ignore an awful lot of circumstantial evidence to believe it will happen.

    I suppose the real question is whether King has a penchant (and track record) for flamboyant theatrical stunts and is simply building the tension for the big reveal or are his inactions more prosaic and simply evidence of potlessness in relation to the real-world financial hole The Rangers are in?


  55. On the TRFC plan to let ST holders in for free.

    Well done to them; assuming:

    i) The home clubs retain gate revenue from the play-off ties.

    ii) There is sufficient money in the club’s coffers to meet all obligations and liabilities.

    iii) There is no rule specifically preventing it.

    In which case, the SPFL should:

    i) Insist on evidence of (ii) before the games are played.

    ii) Realise that, again, TRFC is deliberately challenging the sport’s governing bodies.

    iii) Take into consideration that Dave King is behind the move, particularly with a view to challenge the sport’s governing bodies.

    iv) Take into consideration that Dave King (for there can be no doubt he is pulling the board’s strings) and Paul Murray are prepared to undermine the SPFL even while under investigation by the SFA, just how much more damage will they be prepared to inflict on Scottish football should they be allowed to enter/continue on the board of TRFC?

    v) Take action because, by making a unilateral announcement, via their pet media, as opposed to applying to the SPFL for permission (as Hibs apparently did last year), in a manner that is clearly intended to challenge the SPFL, they are guilty of bringing the game into disrepute; and what’s more, that is their clear intention!

    vi) Contact the SFA and insist they factor these developments into their FPP investigations.

    vii) Grow a pair!


  56. Allyjambo says:
    Member: (842 comments)
    April 28, 2015 at 10:08 am

    On the TRFC plan to let ST holders in for free.

    ===============================================================

    Sounds like a desparate attempt to curry favour with the fans leading up to ST time – and even designed to soften the blow if honest mistakes don’t deliver.

    Makes absolutely no business sense at all, unless you are thinking very, very short term. For example, if not enough STs are sold PDQ then it’s curtains without kissing Ashley’s boots.

    But that’s in a normal buisiness. One should not overlook that this maybe a sensible promotion if RIFC will actually earn very little from the play-offs taking into account the SFA/SPFL cut and any special onerous conditions such as revenue related stadium rental charges that might apply outside normal league matches.


  57. Allyjambo says:
    Member: (842 comments)
    April 28, 2015 at 10:08 am
    ————————————

    Every single,one of the SPFL’s points, unfortunately, are predicated upon a successful vii) !!

    EDIT: (59 comments?! I was in 3 figures (albeit only just!) last time this was on the go. Where’s my history, we demand to know…! ?? :irony:

    It’s on the archive site 🙂
    SFM


  58. causaludendi says:
    Member: (59 comments)

    EDIT: (59 comments?! I was in 3 figures (albeit only just!) last time this was on the go. Where’s my history, we demand to know…!

    I bought it for a pound and I have an option on your naming rights too 😀


  59. Negotiating For Dummies

    ‘Scott Steedman, the commercial director, insists there is “no way” a new deal won’t be signed and sealed for next season, no matter the outcome of the play-offs.’ reports Radar.

    Negotiating Rule One: Keep the other side unsure of your position and at every opportunity promote the idea there is stiff competition and they’d better act quickly and decisively.

    What has Scott given away?

    1. There are several contenders at various stages. Meaning some have come in more recently and are viable compared to those who have been there longer. So the existing contenders are nowhere near signing. To a negotiator that means it’s a buyers’ market and time is on our side.

    2. Desperation. Probably the chop for Scott if there is no sponsor next year – blood in the water for any experienced negotiator. This will come into play when the favoured contender is finessing the fine details of the deal – i.e. screwing down the price and expanding the rights with the tried and tested “oh just one small detail, nothing really, but before we finalise can we ….”.

    It may be that Scott is at this very moment waving the contract in the air to dry the ink of the sponsor’s signature – but if so I think we’d have heard about that – don’t you?


  60. mcfc says:
    Member: (1114 comments)
    April 28, 2015 at 10:40 am

    As an incentive to sell season tickets quickly, it’s quite a reasonable thing to do, the question will be, though; will they be dearer as a result of the potential for 3 extra matches. Could TRFC be adding (and how would we know unless next season’s prices had previously been announced) a few extra pounds to the cost to cover those matches, thus denying the SPFL of a share of a large proportion of the receipts? Could it be that after allowing Hibs to benefit, they (SPFL) recognised this loophole and closed it? Like so many laws, rules and regulations, they are brought in to prevent this kind of thing happening, where something might be ‘unprovable’ – that TRFC (or any club) has circumvented the levy by adding (let’s say 3X 50% of the play-off match day ticket) to the cost of the new STS. A big benefit to TRFC, as the income would remain the same, or greater should they be knocked out in rounds 1 or 2, and many more season tickets would be sold in double quick time (and this must be a desperate need), while, in the meantime, the SPFL levy is greatly reduced.

    If the SPFL rules clearly state it can’t be done, then they should be stopped, or if they can’t be, the levy should be judged on the match day turnout, with the full price levied for all! If the rules don’t prevent it, but SPFL permission is required, then TRFC should be stopped from issuing the STs until such time as permission is requested, debated and granted, or not!

    Again, though, this complete disregard for the rest of the SPFL, by the current, King influenced, board, should be included in any FPP investigation by the SFA.


  61. Just a thought 💡

    Is there any clarity on whether or not it’s this season’s ticket holders or next? Just read the BBC report and it doesn’t mention which season’s tickets are involved, at all.

    If it’s this season’s, I’d say, fair enough, they will lose out as much as the SPFL (unless it is clearly against an existing rule). Whole different ball game, though, if they will benefit at the SPFL’s loss!


  62. The play-offs were created for several reasons, and amongst them was to generate interest, from which 50% of the gate receipts would be deployed throughout the league. This was signed up to by the parties involved. If clubs wish to let ST holders in for free, they should be allowed to,(I am all for lower admission fees and higher capacities) but that does not negate their responsibility to the SPFL who created the system with a view to generating income and aid wealth distribution.
    Therefore, if clubs allow ST’s free admission they should pick up the £7.50 per head per free entrant, cost. (50% x £15)
    Otherwise there is little argument to potentially promote 4th place ahead of the club finishing in 2nd. In fact there is positively no need to.
    We may as well resort to the old two up, two down system.
    As it stands, that would count QoS, T’Rangers, and Motherwell out of the equation.


  63. StevieBC says:
    Member: (610 comments)
    April 27, 2015 at 7:57 pm

    SFA in sensible decision shocker ! 🙄
    ===========================================

    …that’s normally a signal to clench!?
    what lunacy will they be using this to offset?

    (DKK is FPP probably.)

    Brace for impact!


  64. Allyjambo says:
    Member: (844 comments)
    April 28, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    Whole different ball game, though, if they will benefit at the
    SPFL’s loss!

    =============================================================

    I naively assumed it was this season’s STs – to fill Ibrox and give the team a boost at no great loss to RIFC whiolst boosting loyalty and boosting next season’s ST sales. Are next season’s STs on sale yet – or even priced.

    But if it was NEXT season’s ST – now that would class as strategic planning at Ibrox.

    The SFA/SPFL would be pissed-off/humiliated/robbed. The Rangers would be quids in, entitled and triumphant

    A complaint would be made to the SFA/SPFL, a hearing would be scheduled, the hearing would be delayed (repeat), a paltry fine would be applied many months after the rule “misinterpretation” and it might even be paid eventually.

    The corner stone of justice is reward versus the risk of detection and punishment. In the 60’s bank robberies were very popular because the banks had sod all security, the robbers had Jags and sawn-offs. The Cops had truncheons and Wolseley’s at best. Then the banks got some security, the Cops got Jags and the judiciary got tough on sawn-offs. Result – far fewer bank robberies.

    When will the SFA/SPFL learn this lesson concerning their favourite club?


  65. http://t.co/kjTNocrhk8

    Factual piece from STV, just a reminder of what a few of the actors in the King pantomime have had to say for themselves. A bit surprising from a Scottish media source,I must say. Are Level 5 losing their grip on things?

Comments are closed.