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.
B B King: Business Guru.
I’ve just read a comment elsewhere that “Scottish football is dying on its feet”. It seemed rather pessimistic to me given that many here think the absence of you-know-who has rejuvenated interest in other clubs.
But after a bit of thought I tend to agree. The problem is that considerable reputation and revenue has been lost over the past few years. And instead of driving forward with bold initiatives and shrewd investments the SFA/SPFL are still focussed on hopping around the dressing room getting the twist out of their knickers.
A good comparison is the British and German car industries in the 60s & 70s.
Britain had two of the most innovative and desirable designs in the history of motoring: Mini and E-Type Jag. But both were barely profitable for various reasons despite impressive sales. That meant they out-lived their natural lives and the next generations (Metro and XJS) came far too late, lacking R&D investment and quality/reliability improvements. They had the feel of “make or break” launches which is not what customers really want to hear. Repeat a few times and you have British Leyland shrinking to MG Rover and dying the inevitable death of low volumes and inadequate working capital against rising customer expectations.
Meanwhile BMW had gone from making bubble cars out of the dust of WWII to making executive saloons with a growing reputation and growing sales. Do you know that BMW have a team of over 100 specialists (costing over £10mil/year) who consider only the smell inside your new car? If you’re in the cup holder design team and the plastic you’ve chosen upsets the CUSTOMER’S overall smell experience you will be told to find a different material and re-design as necessary. It is this kind of meticulous attention to detail applied to everything, quietly in the background, that leads to a good reputation.
The jargon of brand loyalty is “Net Promoter Score” ie what percentage of your customers will promote you by saying something like; “My BMW is great, I’ve had six now and they get better and better – and good value. Why would I need to look at other brands? Mercedes? Audi? Well yeah, they are good too, but I love my BMW. Why would I change?”. Then there are Detractors who rubbish your brand and nuetralize some/all Promoters. Of course Audi, Mercedes, Lexus etc all have their own Promoters and Detractors too.
Is anyone (sponsors, advertisers, TV) promoting Scottish football in the way owners promote BMW? Remember, sponsors, advertisers and TV have many other choices/opportunities for spending their money. If not, things might appear OK now but the future is far from secure. Is the next generation as enthusiastic about Scottish football as the current one is. If not the future is far from secure. What is the retention rate of local talent, and where do they go to? Do Scottish footballers even believe in Scottish football? I’d like to think the SFA/SPFL are managing these things quietly in the background – then I look at the dog and pony show they make of every situation and I can’t avoid the conclusion that they are so inept they don’t even understand they are inept. As the great B B King would say; “It goes alright, til it goes all wrong”. Not the best mission statement for the national sport.
John Clark says:
Member: (811 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 2:59 pm
mcfc
==============================================
?? 🙂
“In their own words: Key figures discuss Dave King and ‘fit and proper'”
King gets to put his case at length in the MSM unchallenged by any awkward questions or a right of reply for other parties.
The SFA really needs to carefully think about the character of this man and how he will behave, not least towards them, when they allow him in – which of course they will. But they won’t. The SFA will deserve every single consequence of their cowardice in the face of the patently unfit and improper – but the decent and honest of Scottish football will not.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/318740-in-their-own-words-key-figures-discuss-dave-king-and-fit-and-proper/
The SFA must judge whether King will actually splash the cash once he is judged F&P to justify their forbearance or whether he is being mendacious.
They can’t rescind the F&P if King turns out to be no more than an off-shore Whyte.
The wisdom of Solomon is required – oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Never was so little expected by so many of so few.
MCFC
“Never was so little expected by so many of so few.”
————————————–
That is a belter!
(I had to post as it was deserving of more than just a thumbs up).
If King is passed as F&P, as expected;
– then IMO the nonsense will continue, with King and his side having an escalating PR war with SD, and the uncertainty over TRFC’s existence will also continue.
Not a totally bad outcome, to provide further entertainment for the Bampots, and to maintain the risk to TRFC’s survivability.
If King is NOT passed as F&P, [which would be a shock to everyone];
– [MA dual interest notwithstanding], the SD guys could take hands-on control, TRFC will eventually settle down, the nonsense PR will subside, and the Ibrox club will live within its means. The only complaints will be from the bears directed against Ashley for not splashing his cash.
That’s not a bad outcome either.
We just need a decision from the SFA bunker now…
[And has anyone spotted Doncaster since he ‘went travelling’ after the fixtures shambles?]
steph1895 says:
Member: (7 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 4:20 pm
The SFA can come out of this with at least a semblence of credibility (work with me on this!!).
They can with discretion “allow” DCK the benefit of the doubt…
=======================================================================
Or how about the SFA just ‘bottles it’ and decides not to decide ?!
The SFA could issue King with a ‘conditional F&P’ acceptance, for an undisclosed period of time ? At some time in the future it could be converted into a ‘permanent F&P’, but only if he is a good boy.
A bit like the newly created ‘conditional licence’ the SFA issued to TRFC, [or was it to Sevc0…?]
Celtic fans who pushed for Resolution 12 know they won’t fully be vindicated until Campbell Ogilvie is brought to book.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/no-resolution/
Hopefully one of our Insolvency experts can explain this, because for the life of me i’m unable to undertand the basis for the decision that makes King a creditor of Rangers Football Club plc ( in liquidation)
1 King invests £20 million in Murray Sports, through Metlika Trading Ltd. This was in return for 3,064,627 shares in Murray Sports . The issued shares in Murray Sports are 19,757,053 . This results in King owning 15.5% of Murray Sports. This information is taken directly from the 2012 annual return of Murray Sports which is the last one produced before it was liquidated
Rangers had issued shares of 108,791,499 . When Whyte purchased Rangers he became the owner of 92,842,388 shares . This represented 85.33% of the issued shares in Rangers . This was the entire shareholding controlled by David Murray. It is worth noting that King had no equity directly in Rangers. His investment was in Murray Sports , which owned RFC Investments , which owned shares in Rangers. Murray Sports is the 100% owner of RFC Investment Holdings Ltd
2 There are 12 other shareholders in Murray Sports, including Bank of Scotland ( through a subsidiary) , Noble Grossart, Alistair Johnston, David Murray and his brother, and 3 executive directors of MIH.
3 Neither King nor Metlika appeared as creditors on Duff & Phelps CVA proposal of May 29 2012. Therefore as far as every other creditor and the general public and the courts were concerned there was no valid claim by King or any of his companies
4 In Duff and Phelps final report to creditors on 27th September 2012 there is still no accepted or acknowledged claim from either King or Metlika.
5 BDO , having been appointed liquidators, issue an update on May 22nd 2013 . Whilst there is no specific reference to King or Metlika , there is now a balance of £20,030,000 claimed by Directors of Rangers Football Club plc ( in liquidation). That is where we stand today.
The questions therefore are :
A) Did King make a claim to Duff and Phelps. If he did presumably it was rejected
B) If he didn’t make a claim , why not . He would have had enough voting power on a £20 million claim to ensure the CVA was passed if HMRC were only allowed to vote the non contested amounts
C) If he had made a rejected claim to Duff and Phelps on what basis are BDO entitled to accept his claim. Is their acceptance of his claim subject to a successful law suit against David Murray
D) If he hadn’t made a claim to Duff & Phelps , why are BDO able to accept a claim from him after all other creditors have voted.
E) Regardless of whether C) or D) why is he able now to make a claim which will significantly dilute any return available to other unsecured creditors.
F) Why is he able to make a claim at all. He invested in equity. No other equity holders , whether in Murray Sports or in Rangers Football Club plc have been able to lodge a claim. UK Law does not permit a claim for return of equity as far as I am aware .
The creditors of Rangers Football Club plc and all other shareholders are surely entitled to an explanation from BDO as to the circumstances under which they are potentially allowing this claim.
In the meantime any explanation from the SFM community would be very helpful
For those in any doubt King and Murray will be deemed ‘fit and proper’ by the SFA, two examples spring to mind.
Gangland figure Frankie (donuts) Donaldson didn’t have much trouble taking a seat on the Raith Rovers board. Nor did Giovanni Di Stefano, currently doing a 14 year stretch for fraud, prior to joining the board of Dundee FC.
By the SFA’s logic, you have to be a ‘fit and proper wrong-un’ to qualify. King and Murray will fit right in.
Gee69 says:
Member: (12 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 4:11 pm
That is a belter!
======================================
cheers mate 🙂
Newcastle statement of their SD retail operations following last night’s C4 programme:
http://www.nufc.co.uk/articles/20150428/newcastle-united-club-statement_2281670_4675719
Inaccurate media reporting by Channel 4 ‘Dispatches’ – the media mislead again
In reference to our statement last night (Monday, 27th April) regarding the Channel 4 ‘Dispatches’ programme, The Secrets of Sports Direct, Newcastle United would like to clarify the facts for the benefit of supporters.
Last night’s programme made a wholly inaccurate claim regarding the retail relationship between the Club and Sports Direct.
In the Club’s view, the broadcaster deliberately misled Newcastle United supporters and provided yet another example of erroneous media reporting which only serves to further antagonise fans.
In January 2014, in the minutes of its Fans Forum which are published online, the Club confirmed how the retail relationship with Sports Direct works.
For the purpose of clarity, we can reconfirm that 100 per cent of the income from goods bought in the Club’s official stores and on its website are received by the Club and not Sports Direct, as the ‘Dispatches’ programme claimed.
The only money paid by the Club to Sports Direct is for the stock (at cost price), plus a handling fee. This represents far better value than the costs the Club historically incurred in relation to purchasing, storage and distribution.
In fact, the change to our retail operating structure introduced in February 2013, which saw us partner with Sports Direct, increased the profit margin by over 50 per cent. This benefits the Club hugely.
In simple terms, the Club receives more money as a result of this relationship.
Channel 4 failed to contact the Club in order to clarify any facts in relation to our retail operation.
Given that this information was already in the public domain, and had been for over 15 months, we find it incredible that the makers of an investigative current affairs programme chose to air information which was so obviously factually incorrect.
————————-
I’m guessing that the TRFC deal isn’t as profitable for the club.
easyJambo says:
Member: (607 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 5:37 pm
————————-
Newcastle statement of their SD retail operations…
I’m guessing that the TRFC deal isn’t as profitable for the club.
______________________________________________________
On the contrary, I think NUFC probably aren’t doing too badly out of the TRFC sponsorship deal with SD. 😈
StevieBC says:
Member: (612 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 4:39 pm
The SFA could issue King with a ‘conditional F&P’ acceptance, for an undisclosed period of time ?
==============================================================
I think you’re on the money there – SFA will delay any principled position for as long as possible. Lest we forget, Murray (P) is Chairman of RIFC despite his directorial involvement with the administration and liquidation of a club he maintains is still alive and kicking. The “acting” label is of zero consequence – he is the active Chairman – seeking finance, negotiating with partners, selling the dream. When was he judged fit and proper to do this and by whom? The whole process is a complete sham to allow the SFA’s favourite team to continue at all costs. But as you say, this is not a kindness; it merely continues the entertainment and implicates the SFA further in the eventual failure of RIFC. Unless of course King produces £50mil of clean money or the followers learn to like Ashley style austerity.
Paul Barnes @STVPaul 2m2 minutes ago
Ann Budge tells me she wants to join the boards of Scottish football’s ruling bodies. Video interview here http://sport.stv.tv/football/318785-ann-budge-wants-to-join-spfl-board-for-a-bigger-role-in-scottish-football/ … #hmfc
————————-
Might shake up a few of the blazers (if she was voted on)
easyJambo says:
Member: (607 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 5:37 pm
I’m guessing that the TRFC deal isn’t as profitable for the club.
=================================================================
Ashley owns 100% of NUFC and not 100% of SD so it makes sense for Ashley to channel more to NUFC than SD.
The TRFC deal is currently very different, but I suspect Ashley would like to see the same arrangement eventually.
“SPFL finally announce play-off dates – and all six clashes will be LIVE on TV”
The only fact missing is how much BT Sport are paying. Is the SPFL selling 60s Minis that cost as much to manufacture as they sell for, or are they selling premium German saloons with a healthy margin to fund the future?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-finally-announce-play-off-dates-5597987
Barcabhoy,
With all the various threads dangling from this tattered tapestry, King’s claim is one which has just passed by without any real challenge.
What you have crystallised is that – assuming he has indeed made a claim which has been accepted – King COULD HAVE PREVENTED RFC’s liquidation, but chose not to.
Was liquidation the best root for him to go down to maximise his return? Remember that King was urging a rejection of the CVA at the time.
Fair enough, it has taken us a while to get to this point, but if the logic pans out, is it possible that someone in the blue firmament might ask themselves the same question?
Did King deliberately have RFC liquidated?
@Barcabhoy says:
April 28, 2015 at 4:53 pm
What if King has acquired the security (or part of) Wavetower held over the Rangers assets in an offshore deal? Wouldn’t that afford him oldco creditor status? Or alternatively, as an investor where security was granted, to Close Brothers for example?
It may also explain why the Sevco5088 / Sevco Scotland deed of novation hasn’t surfaced and would explain King’s need to keep a watchful eye over the Rangers administration, if it turns out he had a vested interest in the carve up.
Who holds security over Ibrox may be key.
Now there’s gratitude for you. Does the 5WA mean nothing anymore? Will the SFA/SPFL ever learn?
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/academy-news/item/9157-club-statement
mcfc says:
Member: (1125 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 7:25 pm
“Gratitude is a disease of dogs”, as someone once said
THE Board of Rangers International Football Club has today informed the SPFL of their intention that Rangers season ticket holders will not be charged to attend the play off matches at Ibrox.
Even so, it should be noted that Rangers is not the first Club to allow season ticket holders into the play offs free of additional charge. The SPFL Board gave Hibernian permission to allow their season ticket holders free entry into their play-off match last season therefore setting a precedent.
____________
SPFL gave permission to hibs but we will just get them telt
Barca,
You ask what’s changed (I.e. Out with the obvious oldco/ Sevco switcheroo machinations).
I’d say two things were/ are pertinent and I don’t think kings claim is entirely disconnected.
Firstly I’ve never accepted the arguement that ticketus lent on a whim and then got stung by a simple quirk of scots law, personal guarantee from a known shyster or not. They (and I’m still not entirely clear who ‘they’ are) expected to be in the mix for the club on the cheap although when you’re 18m in having repaid the bank debt cheap is possibly an exaggeration!
Secondly ‘they’ (see above) did not expect the creditor pot to be sitting at +24m as it is courtesy of the Withey insurance payout. More correctly they expected it to be sitting nearer -100m with a nice big HMRC guilty stamp on the cover.
Neither point is disconnected IMHO.
andy says:
April 28, 2015 at 7:43 pm
THE Board of Rangers International Football Club has today informed the SPFL of their intention that Rangers season ticket holders will not be charged to attend the play off matches at Ibrox.
—————————————————-
I saw this comment on a football messageboard a few minutes ago. The poster has hit the nail on the head as far as King is concerned.
“So Dave King and Murray actively asked the fans of that team to withhold their money at the start of the season and not buy season books. Now they are rewarding the same fans that went against their directive in getting free entry to two big games however the fans that stood ‘loyal’ are getting shafted and having to pay”.
Remember the semi final t-shirts, will SD issue a play off one. It could be a money spinner for them
Have I got this right, Rangers have only just requested that their ST holders get in free and they’re waiting for a response….which will probably be positive given their position on Hibs last season.
Just reading the Daily Record there…Rangers are HELLBENT on getting their ST holders in for free. The club statement looks like it’s just trying to pick a fight where one doesn’t exist. What the hell is wrong with that Club???
Billy Boyce says:
Member: (47 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 8:21 pm
Sorry Billy Boyce, poor thumb control, there!
douglas reynholm says:
Member: (27 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 9:46 pm
…
Just reading the Daily Record there…Rangers are HELLBENT on getting their ST holders in for free. The club statement looks like it’s just trying to pick a fight where one doesn’t exist. What the hell is wrong with that Club???
==========================================================
Being a pessimistic accountant… 🙁
…and whilst not wanting to trigger another debate about refereeing standards…
I just have a horrible feeling that the next ‘watershed’ in Scottish football could be connected to the promotion of TRFC.
If it is not triggered by the manner in which TRFC wins promotion – then it could be triggered by the manner in which the club and its fans conduct themselves in the SPL next season: settling perceived ‘old scores’ around the country.
Karma would be no promotion, King does a runner, and the club is maintained – just – on life-support via Ashley.
I see James Forest’s blog is repeating the claim that Celtic have forwarded a dossier to Uefa and that they have also requested detailed answers from the SFA regarding resolution 12.I have read conflicting reports suggesting this is not true. Personally I won’t believe it until I see the back page of the DR headline..”In wake of Meekings gripe Celtic complain about former holding company” :slamb:
End of the month is nigh, Are TRFC awash with cash, one would presume that come 2 pm on the second many player would need contracts renegotiated for a possible extra six games, and if they win promotion a half million premium due? Yet they are able to let the majority of fans in for nothing?
Can they meet this months payroll not just for the playing staff but for all the staff of “THE RANGERS”?
administration before playoffs and no free entry?
Barcabhoy et al
Corsica was adamant King was involved way back.
Now what if the sevco 5088/Scotland switcheroo did the dirty on King? In other words, Whyte was acting on his behalf. If I remember correctly, at that time King was still bound by events in RSA. It would be interesting to see the narrative if we substituted King for Whyte throughout the saga.
StevieBC says:
Member: (613 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 10:18 pm
I’m not so sure. I think Rangers chances of comming up are 50/50, and if they do, I hope for the sake of our game that nothing controversial happens on the way.
However, you are 100% correct on the settling of old scores. I fear a lot of poison will be brought to the SPL with them.
The scottish game couldn’t have won either way. If they’d have been dropped straight into the SPL, the attitude would have been…ha you NEED us, they’d have been worse then ever.
I do hope King gets his FPP on friday though…although there should be a Caveat that their supporters can’t scream and ball, blaming the SFA if he turns out to be a bad un, like they did with Whyte. I’d like to see King’s bluff called as it were.
martin c says:
Member: (25 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 10:48 pm
End of the month is nigh, Are TRFC awash with cash, one would presume that come 2 pm on the second many player would need contracts renegotiated for a possible extra six games, and if they win promotion a half million premium due? Yet they are able to let the majority of fans in for nothing?
Can they meet this months payroll not just for the playing staff but for all the staff of “THE RANGERS”?
administration before playoffs and no free entry?
____________________________________________________________
Hypothetical Question:
Would “selling” tickets to a fixture that you were actually unsure of being able to fulfill amount to insolvent trading?
non hypothetical Question:
Are Ibrox season tickets currently on sale? For how much?*
Asking for a friend 😆
(A) £62
So this move allows bears to give £62 to the (skint) club, watch the remaining games, see the playoffs and stick 2 fingers up to the SPFL.
Or they could pay at the gate and subsidise Alloa.
Cynical?! Moi?
Novation an old “word of the week” I think way back. (Maybe on RTC?)
Definitely CG screwing CW nothing else. Its been subject to numerous attempts by CG to have the records rubbed out and more by CW/Worthington to preserve it. Well documented by Charlotte.
May be a feature of some forthcoming litigation. Soon to feature at a venue yet to be decided.
Some interesting speculations tonight on ticketus, DCK, Whyte, switcheroos, and linking to the possible ownership of Ibrox.
Smugas…could you expand on your thinking on Ticketus? Are you suggesting that the higher the RFC debt the more they would gain? Personally I don’t know how liquidation would affect the bigger creditors in this although it would seem that some fare better than others…floating charges etc.
Would that put them higher up the queue for Ibrox ownership if they thought HMRC would have their share leaving Ibrox to the other creditors?
All of this after and despite those good chaps at the SFA meeting other good chaps at RFC before administration …for the good of the game you know…
James Forrest also summarising the role of Ogilvie again. Just what is it that keeps the clubs and the MSM quiet on this?
mcfc says April 28 @3.28 p.m
‘ ??”
——————-
Sorry abou that,mcfc!
Your mention of Wolseley cars reminded ofthe time in the mid-’60s when my brother-in-law bought a Wolsely 6/80.
Even the Charles Green-type salesman felt compelled to tell him that the London polis had given them up as being 5 miles to the gallon gas guzzlers!
I was going to post that recollection, but only got as far as putting your address before I accidently hit the’post comment’ button when I was distracted, reaching for my Fat Yak.
–
Has someone down £1brox way been telling Porkies???
. . .
http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2015/04/rangers-board-unable-to-get-listed.html?
alzipratu says:
Member: (21 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 11:06 pm
Corsica was adamant King was involved way back.
Now what if the sevco 5088/Scotland switcheroo did the dirty on King? In other words, Whyte was acting on his behalf. If I remember correctly, at that time King was still bound by events in RSA. It would be interesting to see the narrative if we substituted King for Whyte throughout the saga.
———-
So Whyte duped by Green, and King duped by Whyte, albeit indirectly and possibly unintentionally (and David ‘crocodile tears’ Murray duped by everyone, allegedy)? Intriguing thought.
Chap on SSB last night insisting (again) that King got £18m of his “£20m investment” back. Very confusing all of it. I can’t work out if Ashley has duped anyone or is yet another of the duped. Only way he gets money out is by putting money in, which seems to leave him down on the deal, so I’m tendng to place Ashley in the ‘also duped’ camp; difference is, he bears a grudge (and by this time probably grudges a bear) and has the means to put dupers in their place.
I’m still only seeing a ‘Rangers of Glasgow’ in retro red and black with a new badge as the only sensible future. If Paul Murray’s vision was 7 years, they might as well start now. Even a serious threat of an alternative, ‘real Rangers’ might be enough to bring those pulling the current strings to their senses?
PS Is there an invisible power play for “ra deeds” going on?
gunnerb says:
Member: (32 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 10:34 pm
I see James Forest’s blog is repeating the claim that Celtic have forwarded a dossier to Uefa and that they have also requested detailed answers from the SFA regarding resolution 12.I have read conflicting reports suggesting this is not true. Personally I won’t believe it until I see the back page of the DR headline..”In wake of Meekings gripe Celtic complain about former holding company” :slamb:
===================================================
If the media ever HAVE to write about Resolution 12, i.e Celtic officially confirm sending of letters, you could not get a bet on their response. As we all know a lot of hard work by experienced, legally qualified people has gone into this resolution. Reading it at face value anyone should be able to see the compelling case that is being made for the old Rangers not being granted a European licence. I doubt the media will see it that way though, and if it HAS reached UEFA I am sure off the record briefings with pet journalists will already have been held somewhere down Hampden way. Paranoia, refusing to let it go, vindictiveness, you name it, but the last thing the media will discuss is whether Celtic might actually have a point.
upthehoops says:
Member: (653 comments)
April 29, 2015 at 7:11 am
…Paranoia, refusing to let it go, vindictiveness, you name it, but the last thing the media will discuss is whether Celtic might actually have a point.
——-
Unfortunately @hoops, the anguished debate about the stonewaller not given at Hampden has given some in media all the ammunition they need to make a case against Celtic on the grounds you mention. Given the importance of the Res.12 issue, and moves currently being made, that contentious decision was rather insignificant.
I don’t think this has been mentioned on here – and apologies if it has – but in joint 22nd place in the latest UK Rich List published last weekend is one Mike Ashley, worth a reported £3.5 BILLION.
Someone with genuine “wealth off the radar” but not a “Real Rangers Man”, so not qualified to hold the reigns at the “Club”.
An earlier “Yank Go Home” campaign was instrumental in chasing off another prospective backer/investor/owner – not a RRM, either.
The realisation of all of the fans’ hopes, dreams and wishes now lie with Dave King, who they believe to be a Real Rangers Man with wealth off the radar, stacks of which he can’t wait to plough in to the coffers. He’s apparently the only person on the planet who satisfies both of the essential attributes of a saviour, and once he achieves FPP status all will be well down Ibrox way.
In response to the Ibrox Noise article linked to above by jimlarkin, Donald gives his take on the situation. He says, “Lets wait until after the SFA’s judgement on the fit and proper person question then within a short time we should expect information from the board regarding investment and the direction they intend to take the club in.”
I believe that major disappointment is just around the corner for Donald and the rest of the The Rangers’ support, and I just can’t get the phrase “Be careful what you wish for” out of my head.
John Clark says:
Member: (812 comments)
April 29, 2015 at 4:11 am
mcfc says April 28 @3.28 p.m
‘ ??”
——————-
Sorry abou that,mcfc!
Your mention of Wolseley cars reminded ofthe time in the mid-’60s when my brother-in-law bought a Wolsely 6/80.
Even the Charles Green-type salesman felt compelled to tell him that the London polis had given them up as being 5 miles to the gallon gas guzzlers!
…………
Ah, but John, even in those immediate post-Suez days, gas guzzling wasn’t such a great concern. I remember learning to drive in my uncle’s Wolseley – can’t remember the model – but it was such a comfy sturdy motor, built more like an armoured car than a tank, I would say. A bit like Jim Easton, Hibs’ centre half at the time! A classy, reliable player but put out the game by a nasty leg-break, as I remember! Those were the days, petrol at under £5 a full tank, Jim Easton, European nights under Scotland’s first footballing floodlights etc etc……
The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty? at 8:27 am
I cannot disagree with that!
Strange how the media in this little country seem to back the so called “*Real Rangers Men” in favour of a proven businessman and REAL billionaire…… I wonder what ‘criteria’ is required to qualify as a “Real *Rangers Man”?
Is John Gilligan a “Real *Rangers-man”?
martin c at 10:48 pm
“………….administration before playoffs and no free entry?”
Receivership is more likely….. MA holds all the Aces… and badges….and security….and money…. and …..
Apparently the REAL RRM Mr Ogilvie will be leaving office soon. He will oversee/ensure IMO that another RRM Mr King is given the go ahead ft and proper style to become a director at Ibrox before he goes. Both of the above men should IMO not be in any role in Scottish Football. At least CO is going and the damage he has caused will be ignored by SMSM but his name is tarred for all the reasons we know (and may become clear if RES 12 details come to light). Mr King has tax convictions and was a member of old club (recently liquidated) and smsm are doing all they can to put him back at Ibrox. Do all Govan fans want that? Really, because if they do what does that say about them. Is there any criteria for becoming a fit and proper football fan at Ibrox? Or does WATP culture rule that out. Scottish football does not need the same Govan club with the same culture and it remains to be seen if we need a team from Govan at all (because in my sad opinion I do not know if the Ibrox fans, SFA and smsm can do without this fabric etc….). I can but that is just me.
TBK says:
Member: (121 comments)
April 29, 2015 at 9:28 am
martin c at 10:48 pm
I did post a comment a week or two back wondering if MA might pull an A or L card a couple of days before the Hearts game which then results in a points deduction and no play offs at all; which would be to the benefit of Falkirk.
Agree that the reality, like others have posted, is that MA wants DCK and his RRM to fail themselves and take the can for an A or L scenario but you can’t help thinking that MA has been annoyed by those in the Blue Room and has a trick or fifteen up his sleeve. More a case of which card is he going to play and at what point in time.
valentinesclown says:
Member: (139 comments)
April 29, 2015 at 9:53 am
Apparently the REAL RRM Mr Ogilvie will be leaving office soon. He will oversee/ensure IMO that another RRM Mr King is given the go ahead ft and proper style to become a director at Ibrox before he goes. Both of the above men should IMO not be in any role in Scottish Football. At least CO is going and the damage he has caused will be ignored by SMSM but his name is tarred for all the reasons we know (and may become clear if RES 12 details come to light).
=======================================
The key word is “apparently”. Since he has failed to get a job at FIFA, then he will simply have to be accommodated within the cosy little world of Scottish football, despite his conflicted status and all the other baggage. Sadly, that is how it works.
There are various possibilities.
Doncaster may move on, if he can find another organisation willing to be screwed over. Who better to succeed him than the conflicted Ogilvie?
Or the clubs might be so desperate to retain Ogilvie as SFA President, that they change the constitution and give him the job for life. I wouldn’t put it past them.
But most likely is that shortly after approving King as “fit and proper”, he is appointed by King to the CEO vacancy at Ibrox- after a fully transparent competitive appointment process, of course.
That is the level of corruption in our game, I’m afraid. And I don’t have a clue how it can be cleaned up.
scapaflow says:
Member: (1186 comments)
April 28, 2015 at 7:39 pm
========================
Stalin. Which tells you a lot about Stalin.
John Clark says:
Member: (812 comments)
April 29, 2015 at 4:11 am
Sorry abou that,mcfc!
===================================================
No worries John. When I was a kid, family friends were big Jag fans – mainly red ones because they were Utd fans too – ah well. I remember being told the story that they were coming back from an away match and a friend, not used to Jags, volunteered to drive so they could celebrate. When they got home he complained that the Jag 3.8 S-Type handled very poorly on roundabouts – especially that one off the M6. When he was told that was because he’d taken the roundabout at 60mph he said that wasn’t possible because he’d slowed right down. Yes, he’d slowed right down from the 120mph he’d been cruising at on the M6 – obviously without realising – probably a Wolseley man 🙂
bad capt madman says:
Member: (50 comments)
April 29, 2015 at 12:41 am
BCM
I start with the Rumsfeldian knowns.
First party – RFCOld originally had no money, certainly once Whyte had finished with them. Zero. Zip. Nil. To all intents and purposes RFC was a stadium, training park and some jerseys, plus a wagon load of creditors some of whom were mightily piszed!.
Second party – Ticketus put in a minimum £18m of new money to the equation. We know this because Lloyds were never to be heard of again. Personally I’ve never bought that Ticketus lent the money solely on a PG from Whyte, nor that they did not foresee that scots law would eliminate their claim entirely in a wind up situation. Rather, Ticketus assumed they would be carried along in the switcheroo with ST monies from newco eventually repaying them. If there was a flaw in their plan (just the one! 😈 ) it was in assuming that the newco could be run profitably allowing a debt repayment. In reality they probably assumed, like us all, that the new club (doh!) would get bank facilities allowing a draw down of one to repay them, effectively returning the status quo. I don’t believe that Ticketus’ involvement went beyond that ref CVA votes and so forth with one minor caveat – that I can’t guarantee who the entity actually behind the Ticketus investment was. Put it this way. If you lined up Whyte, Green, King and Octopus against the wall and asked me to point out the innocent party, the green guy with the eight legs would win every time.
Third party – confusingly RFC old again. Only now the empty potless shell devoid of stadiums (tbc), parks and jerseys (thanks Cahrlie) has had 2 wee windfalls that were unforeseen. Follow the money as someone used to say on here. Well again the Withey insurance payout has introduced another £24m of new money to the equation completely separate to the original Ticketus investment. That wasn’t supposed to happen. The RRM were supposed to thumb their noses at HMRC and their silly little guilty verdict with a wee note saying sorry, the cupboard is bare. Well the cupboard aint bare. The cupboard is stuffed full of cash and, unusually for the Ibrox cashroom around this period its legit and, thanks to HMRC’s showing at the court and appeal court, it doesn’t seem to be spoken for. Now no glib and shameless liar is going to let an opportunity like that go by. Like Barca, I can’t explain his claim’s legitimacy. If he has an issue with what SDM did with his 20m that’s an issue between them, not BDO, and secondly, why he was so late and apparently ‘shadowy’ to the party.
So, that’s a very long winded way of saying that I most definitely do NOT know something you don’t know!
Glad to help
Where is the money coming from for the salary’s this month?
I thought the 3B’s had ponied up again?
neepheid says:
Member: (542 comments)
April 29, 2015 at 10:34 am
================================================
If Ogilvie arranged King’s F&P approval and then took up the RIFC CEO job, no-one would be the least bit surprised. That’s the level of corruption established, embedded and acceptable in Scottish football. The clubs are the only ones who can change it. You’d think that Lawwell would be the most motivated to do so, but he seems to have gone native. Corrupt organisations are not efficent, are not competitive, are not strategic, are not self critical, are not self healing and do not attract/recruit the best talent.
It pains me to say that the prognosis is not good for at least the next ten years – probably much longer.
Dear mcfc,
Speak for yourself.
Yours sincerely
Derek McInnes
Yogi Hughes
Robbie Neilson
etc etc
Smugas says:
Member: (774 comments)
April 29, 2015 at 11:15 am
Dear mcfc,
===========================================
Sorry Smugas, you’ll have to explain that one slowly and loudly to an Englishman who only got interested in Scottish football in 2012 via the Rangers saga 🙂
Methilhill Stroller says:
Member: (42 comments)
April 29, 2015 at 10
———-
We’ve been hearing of a possible legal case being prepared against the gaggle of RRM involved in the coup. Perhaps the simple legal route will suffice for MA?
Smugas says:
Member: (774 comments) April 29, 2015 at 11:11 am
I thought the 3B’s had ponied up again?
=======================
Must’ve missed that.
From the SoS facebook page- I had assumed it was already shut, wasn’t there something about onerous leases recently?
Mcfc,
Ref your prognosis not being good.
It is not good for the rest of us assuming the corrupt and shameless one oversees his little project to completion and RFC* live happily ever after. If in any doubt, see SoS extract above where the entire business case forwarded for an airport shop is “because THEY have one.” [Note to P Lawell, go and install a hover pitch just for the craic!]
If however the corrupt and shameless one’s little project results in a RRM board being installed with windy words, chips on shoulders and precious little else, to the maintenance of a where we belong CL fantasy and the arrogant exclusion of a proper billionaire waiting in the wings then, whilst far, far from ideal, is not necessarily the worst result for the rest of us.
EDIT: What’re you like Campbell. You’re even incompetent at being corrupt!
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/national-newspaper-abcs-march-2015-sun-sales-decline-unaffected-second-full-month-without-page-three.
Circulation of The Sun is continuing the see the same rate of decline since the paper dropped Page Three topless photos in January.
March was the second full month without Page Three photos and saw sale drop 10.2 per cent year on year. This was slightly more than the 10.1 per cent year on year drop in February, but an improvement on January’s 10.6 per cent year on fall.
Meanwhile, The Daily Star, which continues the Page Three tradition, lost sales at a higher rate of 10.9 per cent year on year.
The Daily Mirror leads the red top market in comparative terms, with sales dropping 6.7 per cent year on year.
No UK national newspaper increased print sales year on year in March.
The Times was the best performer, falling 0.9 per cent year on year in March – after several months of year-on-year growth.
What a bunch of t*ts. 😀
Edit click on image to expand.
I was driving past the ancient city of Stirling in the heart of our cradle of independence last night, having had an interesting day at Gleneagles. Anyway, I digress; my young companion turned the radio to a station which I was informed was Clyde 1 and it had a “good football phone-in”. I thought, what the hell, lets see what its like (not very good). They had Mark Burchill on and one caller asked about Livi taking the SFA to court to have the 5 points they were deducted returned to them in light of “the director having won their case”. I must admit I was unaware of any court proceedings involving Livi or any director of the club. Mr Burchill said words to the effect that he was aware of talk on the subject but would concentrate on winning at the weekend. My question to the super sleuths on this forum is this; is there any case in the works that might result in Livi being given a lifeline.
woodstein
The comments on Page 3 girls reminds me of a line in an episode of Porridge.
Someone asked Fletcher what newspapers he got.
He replied,” I get the Sun and something for reading”.
Smugas says:
Member: (775 comments)
April 29, 2015 at 12:46 pm
Ref your prognosis not being good.
================================================================
Fair point and can’t disagree, but I was thinking more of the effectiveness of Scottish football to prosper as a whole in a world where there are so many other things to do. Young guys I work with talk about sometimes spenting 8-10 hours gaming over a weekend – at home – a few beers and pizza – very cheap and not much romm for 2-3 hours to get to a match on a cold winter’s day. They are much more likely to watch Barca or Real on TV. Football needs to try harder and harder to stand still against changing habits – and that needs genuine leadership, creativity and flair from the governing bodies – the exact opposite of the backward-looking, inward-thinking cliche of numpties in charge at present and problably well into the future.
There was a great quote from Bertrand Piccard recently, one of the guys who built the Solar Impulse to fly around the world on sunshine. He was asked if the airlines and plane makers were involved and supporting them. He smiled and said “No, It wasn’t the people selling candles who invented the light bulb.”.
The SFA/SPFL are still happy selling candles when everyone has xenon headlights on their cars, LED lights in their home and a flash light on their phone.
Livingston were deducted five points for defaulting on tax payments in season 2010-11. I think another club too were defaulting on tax payments around about that time, but don’t think the newish SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster has had much to say about that.
This is what Doncaster is quoted as saying regarding Livingston: “The tax default and reporting rules are an integral part of maintaining a fair league competition.”
The caller might have been confused.
EDIT:” What’re you like Campbell. You’re even incompetent at being corrupt!”
_____________________________________________________________
He replied,” I get the Sun and something for reading”
___________________________________________________________________
Even on a quiet day the wit is as sharp as a Mother-in-Law’s tongue.
First prize, Smugas, second, ThomTheThim.
.
btw, talking about candle sellers – whatever happened to the multi-platform, multi-media, internet 2.0, global streaming, money-printing leviathan that Traynor was employed to build at Ibrox? Are the 500,000,000 still waiting by the Bakelite GPO phone in their hallways? Just another brief day dream distraction from the on-going nightmare?
Speaking of quiet days (and I agree with Senior @1.47 pm., about the wit on the blog), can I say how much I like being able to find a poster by his atavar?
I move that everyone who has posted more than a few times should be made to identify him/her self by some wee avatar.
There are too many empty squares!
SFM, get onto to this, please, but without arbitrarily assigning an avatar. Remember the poster who , in anguished tones , complained about the avatar assigned to him? I’ve forgotten his actual words, but they were along the lines of ‘ Oh, sweet….., what kind of an ugly wee creature of an avatar have I been landed with’!
His plaintiff cry was pethaps the funniest thing I’ve read on the blog,in thr early days of TSFM.
As we’re approaching the end of the season, the question of players being in or out of contract for the playoffs needs addressing for all clubs involved. There have already been a number of posts suggesting that player contracts typically run out at the end of a season (which apparently excludes the playoff games, according to other posts). Are any posters recently or currently involved with any of our senior clubs who know for a fact that contracts are written in such a way, rather than quote a specific date for their contract to end? I want to be on solid ground when I approach the authorities.
John Clark, I’m, as MCFC puts it, one of the candle sellers. How does one (if that’s not to posh) upload an avatar?
senior @2.48 pm.
‘ ….how does one ..upload an avatar.’
——–
Frankly, I have no idea, or rather, no memory of how I got the wee koala thingy. I chose it, and it must have been easy enough to do, but I’m damned if I can remember how I did it!
but there will be a stack of posters already posting with instructions, I’m sure.
But how do we assign an avatar? I’m in the dark (as so often).
It looks as if all the people wno know about avatars and WordPress are at work or something!
I really did think that someone would have posted an idiot’s guide to avatars by now!.
Avatar, ‘av another tar.
Nope, I can’t do it either.
…or in superfluous manager terms.
Ava Gardner….’av another gardener!
IIRC, I updated the avatar via the ‘Edit My Profile’ page by moving the pointer over my username at the top right hand corner of the screen.
But the field in which to paste the url location of the avatar is not there.