Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?


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.


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?


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

About the author

Auldheid author

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 Comments so far

StevieBCPosted on7:02 pm - May 2, 2015

And as regards the shameless Ogilvie…

Shirley it would be too brazen even for the Conflicted One to take on a position at TRFC – assuming that he does leave the SFA [next month ?].

To maintain his malign influence at Hampden though, what if Ogilvie took on a ‘directorship of convenience’, e.g. at a smaller club, [Cowdenbeath / Airdrie ?], and this could enable him to take on a new title at the SFA and/or the SPFL ? 👿

View Comment

oompaloompaPosted on7:07 pm - May 2, 2015

First time poster, congratulations to the Ton on promotion and to Celtic on being Scottish Champions. Six games to go to see if the team from Govan can get to their rightful place. Two defeats to QoS will see them above their station IMO!

View Comment

ianagainPosted on7:12 pm - May 2, 2015

When is the next BDO interim report due? Must be some time soon?
Interested in the 24 million inbound via the CB insurance and who gets what,

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:12 pm - May 2, 2015

pau1mart1n says:
Member: (67 comments)
May 2, 2015 at 11:05 am

did chuck buy the rights to pick & mix from woollies though ?

No, I don’t think Charles would have ever have needed to pay for any of the Woolies pick’n’mix…

…well not with those big hands he boasted about, allegedly ! 😉

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:42 pm - May 2, 2015

ianagain says:
Member: (450 comments)

May 2, 2015 at 7:12 pm

When is the next BDO interim report due? Must be some time soon?
The Joint Liquidators’ statutory reports to all known creditors will be published on this site within six weeks of each six-month anniversary of the date of Liquidation.
last report.. Report to Creditors 13 November 2014

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:01 pm - May 2, 2015

John Collins volunteering to answer more than just the question asked on Sky Sports about TRFC

Asked what the feeling in Glasgow would be about the possible return of Rangers to the top flight, he said: “It will be mixed, I think. If you ask me I’d like to have Rangers back in the SPFL; it would be good for us and good for Scottish football.

“They’ve got to get through the play-offs. They’ve got some tough games coming up but I think we need them back, yes.”

It is so utterly frustrating when you see so much effort and passion amongst fans to keep our sport clean, and much of the good that emanates from it can be undone by one unthinking individual lacking in any kind of empathy with the people who pay his wages.
I am also pretty sure that if he has been quoted correctly then he has most likely gone off-message.

I think John Collins would suck the joy out of an arena sized room 🙁

View Comment

timomousePosted on8:24 pm - May 2, 2015


View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on8:29 pm - May 2, 2015

John Collins: “I think we need them back, yes.”

I am losing the will to live 😥 🙁

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on8:54 pm - May 2, 2015

Resin_lab_dog says:
Member: (411 comments)
May 2, 2015 at 5:08 pm
Warmest Congratulations to Celtic on completing a well deserved and thoroughly merited double today.
And warmest congratulations to ICT for getting to the Cup final and the top 3 in the league
It`s no mean achievement for a team with modest crowds and finances to be on the brink of Europe and consistently taking points off Celtic I thought Yogi would struggle at ICT but he has proved a lot of people wrong.Best wishe for the CF and next season

View Comment

oompaloompaPosted on9:07 pm - May 2, 2015

A nice wee reminder of what the 5th Floor are up to;


View Comment

Methilhill StrollerPosted on9:20 pm - May 2, 2015

Firstly congrats to Celtic, Hearts, Morton and Albion for winning their respective leagues. A strong Arbroath needed against a strong East Fife looks interesting Red Lichtie?

Timomouse – interesting article and could have been a new blog for SFM. Would be interested in everyone’s views. I know some might see 16 teams as catering for one in particular but the blog at least gives some thought to changes needed in Scottish Football and it’s so called administrators

View Comment

justshateredPosted on11:22 pm - May 2, 2015

There are many vested interests in the size of the top league.
Clubs want two large traveling supports coming through their gates twice a season.
The smaller the top league then the larger the slice of TV revenue for each club in it.
There is also the fact that the SPL ridiculed the prospect of a larger league in 2011/12 season. To say that there has been a sea change in their thinking is undeniable.

I personally always advocated a larger top league of eighteen teams playing each other twice and I do believe that this will be pushed through if a certain club fails to gain promotion.

There will be a few reasons for this over and above the assistance to a certain club. Firstly the clubs themselves will probably think that they are not going to get their favoured four visits a season so, as they are only going to get two, they may as well open up the league. Secondly this year has shown that there really isn’t a great difference in quality from the top four, possibly five, in the Championship to the bottom three or four in the Premier League.

I’ve always been of the opinion that playing teams four times a season allows the opposition to get to know players and tactics too well. Playing each other twice will allow for tactical shocks. There is always the percentage aspect as well; currently for a smaller team to get 50% of the points against the larger teams they need to play well or get lucky twice but in a larger league they only need to do it once.

However the underlying problems for ‘The Rangers’ will not go away if they reach an enlarged Premier league. Their squad this close season will have to alter radically unless someone is willing to pay for the shortfall every month. If, and it is a big if, they are not promoted this season then the annual overspend will possibly rise further for the period they remain out of the top league. Someone will have to pick up the tab for this.

View Comment

motor redPosted on12:14 am - May 3, 2015

my simple solution to the benefit of the game would be for 3 seasons we have a league of 12 teams as normal,then on the 4th year when trying to qualify for the world cup we have a league of 18 teams hopefully giving scotland a better chance of qualifying, also just imagine the big scramble in the year of 18 teams jostling hard for position to stay in a top 12 position as well as a more healthier challenge at the top.this would help blow away the cobwebs that gathered over the 3 years of 12 teams.

as for the new club,am of the belief that should they get past QOTS,i sense they will come up to the top league,i firmly believe they will knuckle down and come up with a little helping hand no doubt, 👿 i so hope am wrong. 😥

also wasn’t there talk of another letter being printed in the press on why the club from govan are a new club by celtic supporters,how is it progressing, or did i imagine that?

View Comment

TheClumpanyPosted on12:22 am - May 3, 2015

Good Morning!

Not only did the final round of Championship matches deliver excitement and drama at both ends of the table, but the Premiership title was also decided. Without doubt, some will (again) say that a Scottish title isn’t the same unless it was won in battle against Rangers or at least a ‘Rangers’-named entity.

That’s nuclear-grade nonsense!

In any country, winning the league is a brilliant achievement that any club would aspire to. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is an insult to the history of the game, to every club that was in the competition, and to each and every fan who paid money to watch the contest unfold.

I am thrilled to see Celtic win the League. And the challenge from Aberdeen, and the various losses and draws along the way add to the feeling of winning!

The fact that it is a title won on the back of sustainable rebuilding after near-financial apocalypse two decades ago only adds to the joy.

We have a great game in Scotland that many do down for their own petty ends. I am of the opinion that being top of the pile here remains something to shout about. Long may it remain so!

View Comment

RobbypPosted on2:08 am - May 3, 2015


View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:43 am - May 3, 2015

Woke up to find that boxing has broken twitter. No truth in the rumour that the Sons of Strewth boycotted the event in protest over Don King not being passed as FPP?

I’ll get ma gum shield.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on7:38 am - May 3, 2015

Queen of the South explaining why they will be charging for their play off games,they budgeted this in to the season book price giving the fans 18 home games for the price of 16,forward thinking,now if only their opponents had done some forward thinking,but then again,they probably didn’t expect any pesky stop off’s on “The Journey Back”

View Comment

FisianiPosted on8:20 am - May 3, 2015

Imagine being a new director of a football team. Lets say the the third best in the Championship. The club owes 8,000,000 pounds and all the assets are either owned by Charles Green and Co or security to Mike Ashley. You have become 1,000,000 pounds poorer for two months use of a blazer and brogues. You know that most of your players are out of contract and you have to shell out 278,000 each month for stadium rent in May, June July and August and every month. and you have to pay gardeners 90,000 a month till December and if promoted shell out 500,000 to Newcastle. You face criminal prosecution if you trade whilst insolvent and no one is prepared to give away millions. You do not sleep at night.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on8:24 am - May 3, 2015

yourhavingalaugh says: 3, 2015 at 7:38 am

The full statement from Queen of the South F.C. shows how to communicate with your supporters (i.e. your customers)professionally.


EDIT: Nothing regarding Play-off fixture tickets on the Hibernian FC or Motherwell FC websites.

Rules of the SPFL


C26 A levy of 50% of the monies (gross excluding VAT) received or receivable by the Home Club for all Play-Off Matches played in the Premiership/Championship Play-Off Competition from all admission charges paid and payable to and for the relevant Play-Off Match shall be paid by the Home Club to the Company within seven days of the date on which each Play-Off Match is played.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on8:26 am - May 3, 2015

I hope the Newcastle loanees didn’t book any group holidays with their mates at NFC early on thinking their season finishes on the 16th of May,well ,then again.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:57 am - May 3, 2015

oompaloompa says:
Member: (2 comments)
May 2, 2015 at 9:07 pm
A nice wee reminder of what the 5th Floor are up to;


Longmuir has his name on that and he is gone now. However Regan, Ogilvie and Doncaster remain. It is quite incredible to think that people who attempted to rig the league only 3 years ago are still in position. If they were Government ministers they would be gone long ago, under media pressure. Instead the media in Scotland were willing to go along with the rigging. This is the same media who by and large tell me today my team’s title win is worthless because Rangers are not there.

It is just one corrupt self serving cabal whose only aim is to restore what they believe is the natural order. How fortunate we are there are no longer any Scottish owned banks.

A Rangers fan told me yesterday, albeit slightly worse for wear, that he doesn’t want Rangers to get promoted because it completely screws Scottish football, because with no Rangers in the top league our game is a laughing stock. I asked him what is funny about 41 clubs living within their means while one other sits with the begging bowl every month just to pay the wages. Apparently that is the fault of the 41 other clubs and we deserve all we get! I politely made my excuses and rejoined my company.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on9:13 am - May 3, 2015

Given the parlous state of their finances (cash flow and debts) RIFC plc / TRFC Ltd of , hopefully the SPFL Board & Officers have also taken steps to obtain documentary evidence from “The Club(s) 🙄 ” confirming that will not be caught by SPFL Rule C52.

Club Ceasing to Operate, Participate in and/or be a Member of the League

If, for any reason and during or after any Season, any Club ceases to operate or participate in or to be member of the League or any Play-Off Competition, its playing record in the League and/or any Play-Off Competitions may be expunged by the Board and/or the Board may determine the deemed score in the remainder of its Official Matches and/or the Board may take such steps and make such determinations as to League and Divisional position and/or promotion and/or relegation and participation and/or results in and outcome of any Play-Off Competition and/or any other Competition operated by the Company and any and all such further or other steps or measures as the Board shall consider appropriate in the circumstances.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:36 am - May 3, 2015

Fisiani says:
Member: (24 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 8:20 am
Imagine being a new director of a football team. Lets say the the third best in the Championship. The club owes 8,000,000 pounds and all the assets are either owned by Charles Green and Co or security to Mike Ashley. You have become 1,000,000 pounds poorer for two months use of a blazer and brogues. You know that most of your players are out of contract and you have to shell out 278,000 each month for stadium rent in May, June July and August and every month. and you have to pay gardeners 90,000 a month till December and if promoted shell out 500,000 to Newcastle. You face criminal prosecution if you trade whilst insolvent and no one is prepared to give away millions. You do not sleep at night.

I caught a wee glimpse of him at Tynecastle on the telly box, looked quite dapper and ruddy faced. The fans might be onto something though, they were belting out some song about how their ‘father’s rash was sore’, or words to that effect.

An interesting dilemma unfolding over ‘the rules’ then. That 50% grab on the playoff money generated does seem greedy. But the principle of its redistribution throughout the leagues is excellent. I suppose if they hadn’t sold off the TV rights for a pitance the cut could have been reduced to, say, 25%.

How to square the circle? I suppose clubs refusing to obey the rules will be disqualified :irony:

View Comment

armchairsupporterPosted on9:43 am - May 3, 2015

Although I am normally a diehard conspiracy theorist – JFK, John Lennon, The Moon Landing et al, I feel the behaviour and actions of the SFA are largely due to their incompetence and complete lack of vision about how things could be. It is not uncommon for institutional leaders to pine for what they see as the ‘good old days’ and to spend all of their energy trying to recreate this. If we are to avoid conspiracy theories for a moment (although I am finding this rather difficult) it may be just that our Game’s leaders are ultra conservative in their complete inability to envision an alternative and equally, if not more, successful model.

They need to wake up and smell the coffee quick – it’s happening already despite them and thanks in no small part to people like Ann Budge.

So, get out of the way if you can’t lend your hand.
For the times they are a changing!

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on9:44 am - May 3, 2015

yourhavingalaugh says:
Member: (218 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 8:26 am
I hope the Newcastle loanees didn’t book any group holidays with their mates at NFC early on thinking their season finishes on the 16th of May,well ,then again.

Possibly being a bit pedantic but Newcastle’s season was always going to end on May 24th (unless they made the cup final) and TRFC could have left the Play Off Quarter Final or Semi Final by then. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/fixtures Its a relatively easy run in for Newcastle except they have now not picked up a point since February having lost 8 on the bounce. Relegation is a possibility given that leaves them only 2 points above the relegation places and of the 5 below them Sunderland have a game in hand, Hull a point behind and with a better GD play catch up, in terms of matches, at Arsenal today and Leicester have just won 4 of the last 5 matches with the only blip being the game that set Chelsea up for today’s Premiership decider.

What it does mean is that Mike Ashley could have an interest in two second tier teams next term. If so would the Geordies or Bears take the protests as far as those seen in Blackpool yesterday. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32459756

In other news, re the King FPP. Are we witnessing a bit of a catch 22 here. The SFA have said they will consider King when asked if he could be a director. King is stating he won’t become a director (or possibly even ask to?) until given SFA clearance. It probably suits King anyway as to be a Director of a second football club’s clumpany to suffer an insolvency event would be very careless.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:04 am - May 3, 2015


The Sunday Post (no, really)-

“A financial watchdog is investigating payments between a number of public bodies and Celtic Football Club.

Audit Scotland’s probe centres on the club’s north of Glasgow training HQ built in 2007.”

Looks like the “state aid” nutters have opened a second front.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on10:04 am - May 3, 2015

Football fans are strange people at times,I went into a bar while in the town to watch the Hearts v Rangers game,not too busy but got busier as the game went on,all quite when Rangers scored the first then a few shouts when Hearts had the penalty claim turned down the Rangers ran up the park and netted the second,guy behind me sitting at the bar was none too happy,talking to him at half time ,he was a Hearts fan and was none too happy,as the Hibs score filtered through there was a few cheers,I thought prob a few Hibs fans in as well,as the game went on and Hearts pulled one back there where more cheers and then Hibs go three to nil up and more cheers,good atmosphere I thought,then Hearts equalise and more cheers,I turned round on my bar stool but the Hearts fan that was behind me had gone,football fans in Irish bars in Glasgow sure are strange people.

View Comment

FisianiPosted on10:04 am - May 3, 2015

How to square the circle? I suppose clubs refusing to obey the rules will be disqualified

I would not put it past such a club to make tickets 20p to season ticket holders and give the SPFL 10p and two extended digits.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on10:05 am - May 3, 2015

Morning all.

Here we go again.State Aid back on the agenda:

From the Sunday Post.

A financial watchdog is investigating payments between a number of public bodies and Celtic Football Club.

Audit Scotland’s probe centres on the club’s north of Glasgow training HQ built in 2007.

They are examining a paper trail between the club, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and East Dunbartonshire Council over the state-of-the-art £8.5 million facility.

The council is said to have paid the football giants a significant sum over the last 18 months to allow members of the public limited access to the training ground. But the facility is only available for use on limited occasions.

Council officials have cited “commercial reasons” as their reason for refusing to disclose figures behind the service-level agreement.

Audit Scotland became involved after receiving a number of complaints about value-for-money public spending.

A spokesman for Audit Scotland said: “We have received several letters on this subject. As such, we have a team of local auditors who are making enquiries into this matter.”

Council officials say the public are allowed to use some of the pitches on Wednesday evenings and at some points during the summer.

The council inherited the deal from the Lennoxtown Initiative, a non-profit body set up by the council and the NHS to regenerate the area in 2002.

Thomas Glen, Director of Development and Regeneration at East Dunbartonshire Council, said, “East Dunbartonshire Council is a partner on the Lennoxtown Initiative which had a service-level agreement with Celtic Football Club to allow for community access to the Lennoxtown facility.

“The Council provided £68,377.20 in September, 2013, to support the delivery of this agreement. We fully support Audit Scotland in any responsible monitoring of the public pound.”

A spokeswoman for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde confirmed it is co-operating with auditors.

Their spokesman said: “We are aware that Audit Scotland are looking into this matter and have supplied them with all the relevant information that they have asked for.”

Celtic Football club refused to comment.

The training complex was built on the site of the former Lennox Castle Hospital to replace the club’s dilapidated Barrowfield training ground near Celtic Park in the east end of the city.

The club paid NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde nearly £493,000 for the land in June 2006 – some £13,000 more than it was valued at.

However, at one stage there had been hopes the land could sell for £3.5 million.

The club has previously been embroiled with people living near the training ground over access.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on10:11 am - May 3, 2015

tykebhoy says:
Member: (164 comments)

I’ve just read yet another journalist, Michael Gannon, say that while King clearly fails the SFA guidelines, the fact he will not harm Rangers should see him passed. It is a recurring theme from the media and does nothing to dispel my long held notion that the only thing holding it up is an acceptable damage limitation statement. Too many writers are saying the same thing and it seems clear to me a few nods and winks have been given.

On a wider note I am intrigued to know why a man prepared to commit the offences King was convicted of should only be judged on what his intentions are for Rangers. Are we not allowed to wonder if such a character sitting in the boardroom will always do everything above board? He went to extraordinary dishonest lengths to avoid paying the tax he should, so what lengths will he be prepared to go to to ensure success for Rangers, and to conceal how he is achieving it? It is a question we are all entitled to ask, and it is not something that should be overruled simply because King only wants the best for Rangers. That has to be achieved within the rules of the game and only on the basis of what Rangers can genuinely afford. My view is King’s previous at Ibrox under Murray, and the undeniable question over his integrity, means he is far from fit and proper to take a seat in the Ibrox boardroom.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on10:20 am - May 3, 2015

Another smoke screen ,someone is going to stump up another 1.5m GBP to pay May’s wage bill while they let fans in for next to nothing,no way,the excuses will be rolled out and unfortunately they will have to charge because of the bad people at Hampden tell them they have to,or else,this is where it backfires as the Bears then boycott the game(s),see what I did there,so ,some more interesting times ahead.

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on10:27 am - May 3, 2015

tykebhoy says:
Member: (164 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 9:44 am

Its a relatively easy run in for Newcastle except they have now not picked up a point since February having lost 8 on the bounce. Relegation is a possibility given that leaves them only 2 points above the relegation places…
I saw the interview with Newcastle manager John Carver after yesterday’s game. He mentioned having suspensions, a few injuries…in addition to those, he has a bunch of forwards who couldn’t land a ball in the river if they shot from the Tyne bridge. Perhaps what they need to do in their desperation is to search for a fringe player on their books who has something to prove, ideally someone with an eye for goal, who is currently languishing with a bunch of no-hopers in one of their feeder teams, is fit and in form, and give him his chance. Someone like that Vučkić fella maybe?

View Comment

castawayPosted on10:32 am - May 3, 2015

sannoffymesssoitizz May 3, 2015 at 9:13 am

Quotes rule C52 which typically is more aspiration than rule.

It talks about how the powers may do this and that, and shall do whatever it thinks appropriate in the circumstances.

We’ve seen for a half century at least how it always seems appropriate in whatever circumstances to go easy on the people at Glasgow G51, no matter how serious their offence. (Has anybody got a list?) Which is why we need a rewrite of rules and a total reorganization of governance.

Currently according to their website the SFA is run by a nine man board plus chair. Of these 3 + chair are the SFA voting bloc. Two others are RRM. There’s your majority for whatever you need. What chance is there of getting anything non-establishment past that?

A total reorganisation is required with amended rules, since nobody can be sure any more what anything means given the precedents set. A tweak or two might do to remove the and- whatever-you’re-having-yourself feel about them. Firmed up is the phrase.

I’d like to see somebody like Hirsute’s advice and ideas on the best way to go about it. When fans have a sound proposal to offer on rules and the organization of a governing body they can take it to their clubs, who should listen and act. But unless we fans are determined to follow through, it would be only wasting time.

In that event we would need to learn to like the manure being shovelled over us and the induced darkness surrounding us. Either that or forget about supporting professional football. Now that might be not such a bad idea.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on11:06 am - May 3, 2015


I really can’t explain what you have asked with any certainty but here are some thoughts and comments.

We can’t be sure that the claim is by DK.

In a CVA, it is necessary to get 75% of creditors to vote in favour. But it is also necessary to get 50% of unconnected creditors to vote in favour. Directors claims will be treated as connected.

There is no reason why a creditor should not, if they want to, not claim in A CVA but later decide to submit a claim in the liquidation. It would be unusual but not prohibited.

As for how an investment in equity in one company can later become a claim to be a creditor in another company – that I simply cannot explain. I can only suggest that we do not have all the necessary facts.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:24 am - May 3, 2015

In the event that Dave King does have a claim with BDO, and is successful, would it simply be the end if he then put the money into newco? Would there be any point in any club trying to play fair at all?

View Comment

seniorPosted on11:30 am - May 3, 2015

‘As for many of his peers the prospect of at least one more season in the Championship for Rangers will no doubt be a sobering one, and in my view is only likely to ramp up the snide comments about Celtic’s’
I can forgive you Upthehoops given the days that’s in it. Surely you mean some other team – Rangers were liquidated some time ago.

View Comment

seniorPosted on11:31 am - May 3, 2015

Seeing Ogilvie is about to exit stage left (someone keep an eye on stage right) is it not timely that his contribution is recognised by all and sundry involved in Scottish football and even further afield. It’s quite possible that his will o’ the wisp performance in administering Scottish football will be included, as a question, in state exams in the future.
Question 1. How does one serve two masters at the same time?
I feel when the Hall of Infamy awards are being established in recognition of the disservice done to the game in Scotland Ogilvie’s name will be up there with the best, sorry the worst of them.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:44 am - May 3, 2015

Campbellsmoney says: May 3, 2015 at 11:06 am


My understanding of King’s original £20M “investment” was that it was via Ben Nevis’ participation in a £38M Rights Issue, £32.3M of which was taken up by Murray Sports Ltd. in 2000.

King (Ben Nevis) received shares in MSL, and a directorship of RFC in return, but no shares were directly held in RFC PLC.

The significant change took place in February 2011 (three months before the sale to Whyte), when it looks as if Murray was restructuring his business interests.

The share deals notified to the markets on 4th and 7th February
can be found here.

This restructuring saw King via Metlika take on a direct shareholding in RFC for the first time with 5,797,026 shares (5.33%), which was proportionate to his Ben Nevis holding in MSL (later known as RFC Investment Holdings Limited) and it’s holding in RFC PLC.

There is nothing in any of the annual accounts that show King, Ben Nevis or Metlika as a creditor, so I too don’t understand why his “investment” or “loan” is listed by BDO with regard to RFC PLC (IL).

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on11:45 am - May 3, 2015

I’m still prepared to give the SFA a pass on King’s FPP. Yes, its against the SFA’s own rules, but I don’t think the SFA’s rule book is challenge proof, as we shall undoubtedly see,if Ashley takes his appeal all the way.

The real scandal here, is that UK company law is perfectly happy to see someone in charge of a public company, when that person has 41 convictions for tax evasion. The genesis and solution to this issue, both lie at Westminster.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on12:08 pm - May 3, 2015

Has Mr Ashley paid his fine to the SFA yet?
How would we know?

As a don, congratulations to Celtic, but we came relatively close. Close enough to further dispel that dreaded armageddon.
Damn those draws!

View Comment

Cygnus X-1Posted on12:17 pm - May 3, 2015

neepheid says:
Member: (550 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 10:04 am

When the state aid loonies come out we need a dose of kryptonite administered by our main man Ecobhoy….where are you Eco, duty calls 🙄

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on12:26 pm - May 3, 2015

bad capt madman says:
Member: (51 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 12:08 pm
Has Mr Ashley paid his fine to the SFA yet?
How would we know?
Well Roddy did report that he was appealing the fine so if correct I’d assume it won’t be paid pending the result of the appeal


What’s beginning to intrigue me is what might happen if Newcastle get relegated, something that looks an increasing possibility given eight straight defeats.

The EPL don’t have a dual ownership rule but the EFL do and it’d be interesting to see what action they would take (if any)

View Comment

rabtdogPosted on12:28 pm - May 3, 2015

Skybet odds for play-offs

Motherwell 2.25
Hibs 3.20
Rangers 3.75
QoS 11.00

Or in essence, the bookie thinks Rangers will beat QoS over two legs then the Hibs v Rangers game is very hard to call, but Motherwell will probably beat the winners anyway

Edit: but the same bookie had Rangers as favourites to finish second a few weeks ago

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on12:28 pm - May 3, 2015

Tartanwulver ……Perhaps what they need to do in their desperation is to search for a fringe player on their books who has something to prove, ideally someone with an eye for goal, who is currently languishing with a bunch of no-hopers in one of their feeder teams, is fit and in form, and give him his chance. Someone like that Vučkić fella maybe?

Tartanwulver that would certainly be interesting. I was expecting a lot more from him yesterday. However, Vuckic seemed to disappear with said no-hopers. They were unable to hang on, even when things seem to be going in their favour. There is a major lack of belief in whatever it is they are trying to achieve. They have struggled in too many of the games against the top 6. There overall league record is not quite 2 goals a game, and they concede more than 1 per game.

The players had a sense of entitlement at the start of the journey, and they have had a rude awakening, the players thought they were signing for Rfc(il), and along with making friend on the way back to where they belong, and that it would be a skoosh. The realisation now is, they did’t and it wasn’t. Like the 5 stages of grief, the dream is dying and the players on the park have an air of acceptance. They thought they were the best players, the strongest squad, the fittest players, the best management team. The harsh truth is they are not,they have severely underperformed their own belief in their abilities. They are realising they are simply not very good. You can smell the fear.

Time will tell whether they are good enough to win promotion. A hae ma doots.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on12:35 pm - May 3, 2015

Sky Sports news have published the dates for the Scottish play-off games.

Motherwell fans will be pleased to note (I don’t think!), that Sky have decided that the winner of the semi final will play Motherwell in the final.

With three games still to play and nine points up for grabs, any one of four teams could be involved in that match, including `Well.

They certainly know Scottish football !

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:06 pm - May 3, 2015

rabtdog says:
Member: (45 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 12:28 pm

Skybet odds for play-offs

Motherwell 2.25
Hibs 3.20
Rangers 3.75
QoS 11.00


QOTS looking like really good value there to me.
Will Ian Black be backing them, do you know?

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on1:26 pm - May 3, 2015

John Collins on Radio 5 Live this morning repeating his – fairly unequivocal – yearning for TRFC in the top division.

My supposition that he was off-message is obviously wrong. Doubt very much he wouldn’t have been reined in if he had spoken out of turn.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on1:36 pm - May 3, 2015

bad capt madman says:
Member: (51 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 12:08 pm
Has Mr Ashley paid his fine to the SFA yet?
How would we know?

As a don, congratulations to Celtic, but we came relatively close. Close enough to further dispel that dreaded armageddon.
Damn those draws!

It was a lot closer than the media want to admit. Everything hung on the three games so far between the teams. The 1st at Pittodrie was a close affair with Celtic getting a last minute winner. The last game at Celtic Park ended in a comfortable Celtic victory but Aberdeen were well ahead for the first 30 minutes but couldn’t press home the advantage.

It suits the media to deride the league because they long ago rubber stamped the notion that only a league with a strong Rangers in it can be good. For ‘strong’ read ‘cash rich’. I look forward to a revitalised Hearts next season with their big travelling support. If Rangers don’t make it, it will be Hibs, QOTS, or whoever manages to stay up. Either way the teams who are there will be there because the league is a meritocracy. If the Scottish football media don’t like that then they should give up and start reporting on wrestling.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:38 pm - May 3, 2015

tamjartmarquez says 3 May 2015 @ 12.28 p.m
‘……they are realising they are simply not very good..)
Oh! Aren’t they ‘ simply the best’, as the fans of the now dead RFC once sang of that consigned- to -history club?
Fans are fans, of course, and may be excused some kind of hyperbole.
A different story when ‘churnalists’ are prepared to betray the journalism ideal of ob jective reporting in the way that the SMSM have done.
And a very, very different story when the BBC uses our money to pay the wages of propagandists for a certain glib convicted criminal.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on1:52 pm - May 3, 2015

senior says:
Member: (43 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 11:31 am

Seeing Ogilvie is about to exit stage left (someone keep an eye on stage right) is it not timely that his contribution is recognised by all and sundry involved in Scottish football…

Well, if Ogilvie does leave/retire, then he will have completed 2 terms as SFA President, and completed 30+years years at the top end of Scottish football as a club director and in various positions at the SFA, [& SPL?]. He was, for most of that time, generally regarded as the bestest, world class football administrator.

So with that contribution to the game, you would naturally think that there would be a very public presentation for him at the SFA’s big day at the Scottish Cup Final.

But any presentation would most definitely NOT happen on the park either before the game, or at half time, to enable the fans in the stadium to also show their ‘appreciation’.

It would probably happen in the bowels of the stadium, and hopefully quickly followed by him being shown the door permanently.

The ignomy of a very private retirement presentation might just sting Ogilvie’s ego. Good riddance. 👿

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on1:52 pm - May 3, 2015

Big Pink says:
Moderator: (274 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 1:26 pm
John Collins on Radio 5 Live this morning repeating his – fairly unequivocal – yearning for TRFC in the top division.

My supposition that he was off-message is obviously wrong. Doubt very much he wouldn’t have been reined in if he had spoken out of turn.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that everyone at Celtic(bar a large number of their supporters) is desperate for a team called Rangers to be in the top flight.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:01 pm - May 3, 2015

Big Pink @ 1.26 p.m.
‘.John Collins on Radio 5 Live this morning…’
Excellent, joy to watch, football player.
Possibly a passably good ‘ coach/manager/
assistant manager.
Not, however, the most sharp in his understanding of the very nature of sport, or of ‘ sporting competition’…….or even of the fundamentals of business life.
He wants a dead club resurrected!
And it would annoy me mightily if he was in any way speaking for Peter Lawwell or the Celtic board.

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on2:09 pm - May 3, 2015

The way the odds are just now (Lets replace the incorrect Motherwell with SPL 11th (or club 12 if we want to be nostalgic)

They actually rate Rangers as the team to beat. The fact SPL 11th have only one game Hibs two, and that Rangers/QOTS have three games to play have been factored into the prices for three of the four teams.

It suggests to me that Rangers will be favourite to get through each round they manage to enter

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:09 pm - May 3, 2015

Not totally OT…

There was discussion before about the Scottish manager of the year.

In the EPL, IMO, Alan Pardew has performed amazingly well.

Whilst he was the convenient target for the frustrated NUFC fans’ abuse, Pardew endured prolonged calls for his dismissal – and then he started to get decent results for NUFC, which may have been just enough to keep them in the EPL after their subsequent collapse in the league in recent weeks.

…but he took the fans’ advice and buggered off to Crystal Palace who were then languishing in the relegation zone. He left for much more money, and he comfortably secured their EPL survival.

Shows that he has strength of character, and is a decent manger who can deliver whilst under extreme pressure.

Good for him ! 😉
Ashley might rue the day that Pardew walked away…
And which decent, rated manager would want the NUFC job – under Ashley ?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:09 pm - May 3, 2015

StevieBC@1.52 p.m
‘…..it would probably happen in the bowels….’
And what more appropriate place for a geezer who deposited such excrement on Scottish Football.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on2:19 pm - May 3, 2015

Bill1903 says:
Member: (63 comments)

May 3, 2015 at 1:52 pm I don’t think there’s any doubt that everyone at Celtic(bar a large number of their supporters) is desperate for a team called Rangers to be in the top flight.

I agree Bill, but the public facing aspect has been far more ambiguous. I am suggesting that Collins has been given licence to signify a change on that front.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on2:23 pm - May 3, 2015

Stevie BC

My understanding was that Pardew had left after taking advice from Ashley. Big Mike was happy with him, but signalled a desire to sell up soon – and a hint that the prospective new owners would quickly bow to fan pressure.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on2:29 pm - May 3, 2015

Bill1903 says:
Member: (63 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 1:52 pm

I don’t think there’s any doubt that everyone at Celtic(bar a large number of their supporters) is desperate for a team called Rangers to be in the top flight.

You may well be right Bill, or certainly at least partly right, going by various responses to inevitable media questions.

I’m mystified why this should be the case though. Some of the stuff shared on the Charlotte Fakes twitter account showed just how much was being done to protect the interests of Rangers, and thanks to Auldheid and co serious questions are now being asked about the awarding of a European licence, which could have saw Rangers gain access to Champions League cash again. When administration finally hit we had everyone from the First Minister down demanding they should be admonished from paying the tax the rest of us have no choice but to, and only pay a very small amount. Had their demands been met there would have been no liquidation and who knows what position they may be in this very day. Why on earth do Celtic want a club in the league that has still to demonstrate the lessons from the past have been learned?

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on2:37 pm - May 3, 2015

andygraham.66 says:
Member: (233 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 2:09 pm

The way the odds are just now (Lets replace the incorrect Motherwell with SPL 11th (or club 12 if we want to be nostalgic)

They actually rate Rangers as the team to beat. The fact SPL 11th have only one game Hibs two, and that Rangers/QOTS have three games to play have been factored into the prices for three of the four teams.

It suggests to me that Rangers will be favourite to get through each round they manage to enter


Hence the good value.
Bookies don’t just think about the probability of events unfolding. They also weight the ditribution of bet placement.
I reckon lots of people will place money on Rangers – allowing hearts to rule heads. More than their form justifies imo.
If the bookies feel the same way they will be priced shorter than is justified, in an attempt to ‘lay off’ the uneven betting.
And the others will be given better odds than their form justifies.

I reckon as it stands today QOTS have maybe 5:1 to 7:1 shout.
“Motherwell” at evens to 2:1
Hibs 2:1 to 3/1
TRFC 4:1 t best

On which basis I personally rate betting on anyone but TRFC at these odds to be good value.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on2:38 pm - May 3, 2015

Fisiani says:
Member: (25 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 10:04 am

I would not put it past such a club to make tickets 20p to season ticket holders and give the SPFL 10p and two extended digits.

I’ve been hearing that there are minimum pricing levels, most recently Stuart & Tam mentioned it on OtB yesterday. So a discounted ticket for a symbolic price could well be off the table. It must all be written down somewhere, although every rule or statute can usually be trumped by discretion 😮

View Comment

gerrybhoy67Posted on2:49 pm - May 3, 2015

senior says:
Member: (43 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 11:31 am
While Senior speaks about Hall Of Infamy has anyone received an acknowledgement regarding our proposal for The Late Great Mr T.Hutton to be inducted into The Hall Of Fame?
Eco where are you?We need you on this latest land deal accusation.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on2:56 pm - May 3, 2015

WRT Dave King’s claim to BDO, could it be under consideration, but pending the outcome of his suing of David Murray for the £20m (whatever his “non-disclosure” grounds may be).


View Comment

Top Cat 1874Posted on3:11 pm - May 3, 2015

I was at Cappielow yesterday to see my team make a most welcome return to the Championship. However, my day was spoiled when that slimeball Doncaster (aka Cockwomble) turned up to hand over the League 1 trophy. Despite having a helicopter at his disposal for the afternoon, Doncaster couldn’t manage to get along to Tynecastle for the Championship trophy presentation but sent his right hand man, fellow Morton supporter Iain Blair, to Edinburgh instead. Doncaster probably thought that he’d get an easier ride in Greenock (no jokes please!). I am pleased to advise SFM posters that he didn’t and was roundly booed by the 6000+ crowd.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:23 pm - May 3, 2015

Stevie BC

On Ogilvie’s replacement is the man BRTH mentions here with lots to back the suggestion the man for the job?


With apols to BRTH if SFM was his next port of call.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on4:08 pm - May 3, 2015

Phils latest.
(Apologies if posted earlier.I’m making onion Bhajis & a Curry loaf right now for the wife.Slimming World friendly!!!!)


View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on4:12 pm - May 3, 2015



Rate This

rabtdog says at 12:28 pm on 3 May 2015 Member:(45 comments)

Skybet odds for play-offs

You trust a bookie’s odds for the Play oFFS 😉 that are part owned by the Murdoch family? 😯 🙄 😀

View Comment

vansenPosted on4:13 pm - May 3, 2015

So the team that finished third in the Championship is the team that is wanted to provide future competition to Celtic. Not the team that finished 2nd. Not the runaway winners.Not a decent Aberdeen team or ICT to name just two. It has to be the team that finished 3rd in the Championship.

i must be trapped in some sort of time-warp.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on4:18 pm - May 3, 2015

castaway says: May 3, 2015 at 10:32 am Member: (47 comments)

I couldn’t agree more.

It was long, long ago that I was involved in rewriting the rules of a sports organisation. And if we were, even collectively, to take on such a Herculean task then we would all deserve to be known as “Bams” 😆

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on4:27 pm - May 3, 2015

Danish Pastry says: May 3, 2015 at 9:36 am
Blog Writer:(1124 comments) Rules of the SPFL


C26 A levy of 50% of the monies (gross excluding VAT) received or receivable by the Home Club for all Play-Off Matches played in the Premiership/Championship Play-Off Competition from all admission charges paid and payable to and for the relevant Play-Off Match shall be paid by the Home Club to the Company within seven days of the date on which each Play-Off Match is played.

I think that the use of the words “receivable” and “payable” in SPFL Rule C26 could at the very minimum be interpreted by the SPFL Company Officers so as to require RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd (i.e. “The Club) to forward to them at 50% of the proportionate nominal value of season ticket holders who attend each Premiership Promotion Play-Off.

What do you and the rest of our TSFM Community think?

View Comment

rabtdogPosted on4:28 pm - May 3, 2015

Motherwell have been playing badly…
They have taken 1pt from the last possible 9pts…
They are 6pts adrift of 10th place with 9pts to play for…
Their goal difference is the second worst in the division…
They have to play Killie at home (who are awful), St Mirren away (also awful) and Partick at home (not so awful)…
If Ross County and Killie •each lose their last three games• and Motherwell take 7pts from 9pts – or 9 from 9 – then Motherwell stay up; it’s not likely…
If Killie take a point off them next Fri, Killie are effectively safe (better goal difference)…
The Staggies are at home to St Mirren next Sat; a win makes them uncatchable (better goal difference)…
In the circumstances I feel that earmarking Motherwell for the play-offs is not an unreasonable thing to do – by contributors here, bookies or the media…

View Comment

rabtdogPosted on4:31 pm - May 3, 2015

Skybet makes money by setting odds to its advantage, and its knowledge of the betting market … it would appear to me to be an honest bookie in that sense … the Murdochs manipulate politics via their newspapers and broadcast media

View Comment

reidy134Posted on4:38 pm - May 3, 2015

Sorry if this has been mentioned already – Along with all the praise already given to the winners of all the leagues I’d like to add my congratulations to Mark Burchill and all the staff at Livingston. Well done on avoiding relegation and remaining in the Championship.

View Comment

sarantseville 03Posted on4:42 pm - May 3, 2015

Apologies if this gets me put on the naughty step… but seen a post online today suggesting that well known signature “WATP” at the end of many a people’s posts on other football sites, stands for “We Are Third Place” . Made me laugh.. 😆
Also wanted to see my new avatar on a post..

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on4:53 pm - May 3, 2015

Corrupt official at 2:56 pm on 3 May 2015 Member:(35 comments)

Thanks for reminding us of this part of the Saga.

I think we should remind the Officers and Board of the SPFL of the following statement by Murray Group

A spokesman for the Murray Group responded to the comments made by Mr King, who invested £20m in the club in March 2000 and is currently in China.

He said: “We note with some interest, and much incredulity, Dave King’s press statement.

“It is difficult to understand his motives, given he has been a director of Rangers Football Club since the year 2000.

“Throughout the period of his directorship, Dave King has attended and participated in regular board meetings, including those approving the annual audited accounts, received board papers quarterly, had full access to the executive management of the club, and been privy to the same detailed financial and commercial information as every other board member.

“In the event that he actually lodges a claim, we would vigorously defend it.”

The spokesman added: “Murray Group fully intends to make further detailed press comment on the wider circumstances at Rangers Football Club once it considers this will not detract from or interfere with the difficult and delicate work of the administration.

“It is deeply regrettable and hugely saddening for all the employees and supporters that the club finds itself in its present situation.”

No formal claim has been lodged by Mr King at this stage, and in response to the statement on behalf of Sir David, the Johannesburg-based businessman said: “He would say that, wouldn’t he?”

I’d hate to think that RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd (i.e. “The Club) might forget to disclose this to the SPFL Board or Judicial Protocol Panel when they consider the contribution of the Once and Future King when he was a company officer of RFC plc (IL)!

Anyone for drafting a suitable letter and/or e-mail to the relevant SPFL high heid yins?…….John Clarke?

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on5:08 pm - May 3, 2015

rabtdog says: May 3, 2015 at 4:31 pm Member: (47 comments)

Thanks for that explanation about bookie’s odds. You clearly spotted that “A’m no a bettin’ man”.

I think that the Murdochs are more nefarious than just trying to manipulate politics, but then again I despise everything they represent.

View Comment

Comments are closed.