Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

ByAuldheid

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Independent Enquiry?

SR No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Never?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that

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

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

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

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

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

SR We didn’t fail.

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

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

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

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

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

SR Well I think the articles

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

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

AT ??  (Interrupted)

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

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

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

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

The Nature of EBTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Sometimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Carlsberg did irony!

End of Interview.

The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions

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

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

The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either

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

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

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

Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision

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

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

 

Outline of the Scheme

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

Auldheid  Feb 2015

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

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on6:04 pm - May 3, 2015


I may be wrong but I assume this is connected to Auldheids great work wrt Resolution 12:

Sunday, 3 May 2015
Glasgow Rangers, The Scottish FA, UEFA Champions League And Tax Issues

We have permission to offer all European Mainstream Media a colossal story relating to Glasgow Rangers, the Scottish FA, the UEFA Champions League and certain tax issues relating to HMRC.

We have robust and watertight documentary evidence on all these matters.

The outcome could see Rangers stripped of titles and even Celtic moving to a different league.
Some jobs will be lost.

We are seeking an exclusive outlet.

Contact us either by Direct Message @FootballisFixed on Twitter or by email at footballisfixed02@googlemail.com.

http://footballisfixed.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/glasgow-rangers-scottish-fa-uefa.html

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:05 pm - May 3, 2015


sannoffymesssoitizzsannoffymesssoitizz says:
Member: (65 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 4:27 pm

http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthescottishprofessionalfootballleagueasat16march2015_1427989854.pdf

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?
———-

Cheers @sannoffy, reading through that rule D6 is referred to, and no surprise it indicates much, if not all, is trumped by discretion. Seems little point in having rules at all.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on7:57 pm - May 3, 2015


How the sport press see our game in Scotland without you know who.

https://t.co/A9zmxbfpqM

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:29 pm - May 3, 2015


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
Member: (133 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 6:04 pm
===================================

I sincerely hope that Alex Thomson of Channel 4 will show an interest in this, subject to being satisfied as to the authenticity of the material and how it was obtained. If Channel 4 run with it there is nothing the Scottish media can do about it.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on8:47 pm - May 3, 2015


rabtdog says:
Member: (47 comments)

May 3, 2015 at 4:28 pm

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…
————————————————–
Last 10 games =30 points on offer.

The Well 14 taken
Killie 6

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on9:08 pm - May 3, 2015


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32578065

______________________________________________________

Not complaining about this outcome.
(Although I hope it hasn’t jinxed us!)
But I would not have complained about any of the other candidates getting the nod either.
Especially Robbie Neilson. He has been immense.

Was a very very strong field this year for that particular award.

Tough going this ‘armageddon’ malarkey at times, isn’t it!?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:16 pm - May 3, 2015


upthehoops says:
Member: (677 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 8:29 pm

I sincerely hope that Alex Thomson of Channel 4 will show an interest in this, subject to being satisfied as to the authenticity of the material and how it was obtained. If Channel 4 run with it there is nothing the Scottish media can do about it.
===============

It will have to be someone outside the Scottish MSM. Although the usual suspects might well be interested in buying exclusive rights to such a story with a view to burying it.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on9:57 pm - May 3, 2015


A wee Twitter update for anyone interested:
All from Football Is Fixed.

@AAndrewJennings #Rangers #ScottishFA, #UEFA, #ChampionsLeague, #HMRC
Biggest story. Totally robust. Been advised to contact you. Pls DM me.

@mattleslie74 We don’t want credit for the exclusive. We are not interested in financial gain. Old fashioned – integrity is the driver.

@mattleslie74 I take it that you have never tried dealing with smsm! We’re talking with 7 media. That suggests the size and impact.

@niblomusic We started 4 hrs ago. We have 7 interested msm globally. Sounds pretty feckin’ efficient to me, sir. Respectfully.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on10:28 pm - May 3, 2015


My player of the year
Didn`t get nominated
But probably influenced the result of almost every game that he played in
this season
Either through scoring at vital times in the match
or providing assists to those who did

Kris Commons
The closest player to Bertie Auld that Celtic have had for 40yrs

View Comment

enough is enoughPosted on12:54 am - May 4, 2015


re – footballisfixed claims on twitter someone on Rangers Media has tried to dupe him Made contact. He’s posted this on Soundcloud https://soundcloud.com/james…/scottish-football-conspiracy

Scottish Football Conspiracy
Listen to Scottish Football Conspiracy by James Black #np on #SoundCloud
SOUNDCLOUD.COM|BY JAMES-BLACK-81

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:47 am - May 4, 2015


@enough, above link is to some guy’s music site, not my kind of music either, but he probably appreciates the multi-hits 🙂

I found the actual audio by typing in ‘Scottish Football Conspiracy’ on the Soundcloud app.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:22 am - May 4, 2015


https://soundcloud.com/james-black-81/scottish-football-conspiracy

That’s the full link for anyone interested. I didn’t fancy that Swedish guy’s music either!

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:47 am - May 4, 2015


@neep, any idea who the English chap is? No intros or explanations. Voice sounds familiar. And quite a little revelation from about 24.20 regarding match fixing and a hastily cancelled consultacy.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on8:22 am - May 4, 2015


Have to say the fixing stuff seems a bit left field to me at this stage. And the whatabootert of building in a rangers bad Celtic good “and possibly moving leagues” suggest to me the author doesn’t really have the games best interests to the fore.

Happy to be proved wrong mind.

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on8:27 am - May 4, 2015


@alextomo: @footballisfixed no way can I get into this a few days before the election guys. Sorry

It’s understandable that Alex Thomson might be a bit tied up for the next few days

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on8:34 am - May 4, 2015


We have waited this long ,so let’s hope a final shake of the tree bears some fruit(pun intended)

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:57 am - May 4, 2015


yourhavingalaugh says:
Member: (221 comments)
May 4, 2015 at 8:34 am
We have waited this long ,so let’s hope a final shake of the tree bears some fruit(pun intended)
———

“Kongen og de Tre Bjørne” sounds like the title of a Danish fairytale 🙂

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on9:17 am - May 4, 2015


After listening to the full conversation my money would be on the New York Times picking this one up, and if like was mentioned ,certain parts of the background stories have been offered to editors in Scotland and ignored,well hell mend them for their coffee is about to be sniffed for them.

View Comment

castawayPosted on10:59 am - May 4, 2015


Sannoffymess May 3, 2015 at 4:18 pm

Would the entire rule book need rewritten? Maybe you’re right. I had the idea most of it was fairly non-controversial, acceptable even, in parts.

As DP says, the discretionary bits need cut and replaced. Somebody like Hirsute, hope he doesn’t mind me mentioning his name, must have dang nearly rewritten many of the controversial bits over the period.

Maybe more important would be an acceptable supervisory body and system. Once in place, its first task would be rule revision, under close scrutiny of course.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on11:00 am - May 4, 2015


Smugas says:

May 4, 2015 at 8:22 am

Have to say the fixing stuff seems a bit left field to me at this stage. And the whatabootert of building in a rangers bad Celtic good “and possibly moving leagues” suggest to me the author doesn’t really have the games best interests to the fore.

Happy to be proved wrong mind.
===============================
I don’t think you will be, something not sitting quite right with this and my gut feeling says avoid like the plague.

Overblown claims (“bigger than calciopoli”), has a problem with David Conn, was going to get a consultancy from Peter Lawwell…

Nah.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on12:00 pm - May 4, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1128 comments)
May 4, 2015 at 7:47 am
@neep, any idea who the English chap is? No intros or explanations. Voice sounds familiar. And quite a little revelation from about 24.20 regarding match fixing and a hastily cancelled consultacy.

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

Sorry DP, no idea who he is, but rest assured, Vanguard Bears are on his case, so expect an “outing” shortly.

I wonder if he knows what to expect when his address is revealed?

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on12:02 pm - May 4, 2015


The Hearts penalty incident at the weekend WAS brought up on the blog. I suspect there was no clamour (compared to the SCSF) because the decision didn’t materially affect any outcomes. I can tell you that several posts were removed (none from Hearts or Hibs fans I might add) which alluded to the old conspiracy thing.

However to post criticism of the blog or other posters in witheringly sarcastic terms (as was the case with a post removed this morning) is very much a trolling activity.

If you have no respect for others’ views I would appreciate it if you don’t post in those terms – or even at all.

Again I should point out that, in general, criticism of referees should be in broad terms and not about specific incidents which are almost always contentious.

My own view of that incident was that the referee had got it badly wrong, but the view of two former Hearts players (one of whom is a Jambo Deity) was that the ref got it right. That did nothing to alter my own opinion, but I am also aware of several folk on Jambos Kickback who were satisfied with the outcome if John Robertson was 🙂

I believe that our own contributors were aware of that and this probably informed the blog’s general attitude to the incident.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on12:38 pm - May 4, 2015


Trisidium says:
Moderator: (187 comments)

May 4, 2015 at 12:02 pm
My own view of that incident was that the referee had got it badly wrong, but the view of two former Hearts players (one of whom is a Jambo Deity) was that the ref got it right.
———————
did the moderator just remove the OP and every reply to it.If it did i have no problem with that.

Yes he did.
Triz

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on1:29 pm - May 4, 2015


Just to clarify this “greatest story ever told” thing. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Scottish Football Monitor (as has been suggested elsewhere).

In fact we are as sceptical over the source and motivation of this story as we were with Charlotte Fakes.

Apart from anything else, I think it ill-advised to make such a splash before any story gets out. If indeed there is a story that we don’t already know about, one would think that working quietly for an outlet would be the way to go. If the source of the story has contacts in the media, it seems bizarre he would peddle it on Twitter for anything other than “look at me” reasons.

Peter Lawwell commissioning the source to consult? Not in this reality.

Of course, I could be wrong, but my gut tells me the purpose of this latest phenomenon is to discredit those of us who harbour a sense of grievance over what has taken place over the last few years.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on1:39 pm - May 4, 2015


Cluster One says:
Member: (147 comments)

May 4, 2015 at 12:38 pm

Trisidium says:
Moderator: (187 comments)

Yes he did.
Triz
————–
Thanks for reply

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:18 pm - May 4, 2015


Trisidium says:
Moderator: (188 comments)

mmm sounds like a spoiler. A back handed compliment. you appear to have put the wind up somebody!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:10 pm - May 4, 2015


WRT the silent King…

Seems to be in no rush to get his ‘F&P’ form rubber stamped by the SFA.

It would make sense, IMO, that he continues to sit quietly on the sidelines with his pockets still stitched up – until after the play-offs.

The he will know exactly what he is dealing with wrt TRFC – and forecast costs and income.

A TRFC in the SPL is much more attractive of course than a TRFC still in the Championship.

And if TRFC does fail to get into the SPL this time, there is of course no guarantee that they will get promoted next season, [SPL reconstruction aside].
There could be a familiar scenario with St.Mirren and possibly Motherwell disrupting ‘the journey’ in the Championship next season.

Mibbees King is sitting on his hands for now: if TRFC fails, then it will cost a lot more to get promotion. Maybe a price he has no intention of paying/subsidising…?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:12 pm - May 4, 2015


No problem @neep. Odd having the interview on Soundcloud with no reference or contex posted, but I may have missed it. Anyhoo, not followed up since my twitter timeline has gone all camp with a man in a dress and a politician pulling some desperate PR stunt. Very funny it is too, much twitter tittering today 🙂

Btw folks, Andy Murray became first UK national in 39 years to win a clay court title at the rain delayed final in Munich. Brilliant match it was annaw.

View Comment

spanishceltPosted on4:58 pm - May 4, 2015


GoosyGoosy says:
Member: (383 comments)

May 3, 2015 at 10:28 pm

Kris Commons
The closest player to Bertie Auld that Celtic have had for 40yrs
///////////////////////////////////////////
Commons would just about push Auld for a starting place, but remember Berties well into his seventies now! 😀

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on5:02 pm - May 4, 2015


The twitter reaction to Murphy/Izzard seen the return (for me anyway, he could have been back a while) of Chris no relation Graham

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:21 pm - May 4, 2015


Phil’s latest blog suggests that McCoist is due for ‘talks’ at Ibrox this week – along with McDowell.

Can’t imagine that McCoist is desperate to get back into football management anytime soon – and don’t think there are any clubs knocking at his door either.

IMO, he will be quite happy to keep collecting his monthly gardening fees.
And others have mentioned that he could be in line for a further bonus if TRFC does win promotion via the play-offs ? Or at least a pro-rated bonus ?

The only leverage TRFC has is to threaten to embarrass him via the compliant SMSM, or threaten to go into administration.

Don’t think McCoist will give a monkey’s about helping out the Ibrox club financially and will absolutely [!] not renegotiate his terms…

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on5:35 pm - May 4, 2015


StevieBC
Or maybe they want to return some turnips back to the gardener.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:50 pm - May 4, 2015


Re: McCoist, having thought about it a bit more…

If he had no intention to renegotiate, then he would indicate as much via his lawyer – so no trip to Ibrox would be necessary.

…unless TRFC wants to offer McCoist something…?

Like Director of Football ? [to relieve the pressure on wee Stevie in IT?].

Or what about a NED position ?

Having McCoist back in some capacity – under the new regime – would again rekindle the ties with the prior club, and he could assist with the cheer-leading for the bears to buy their ST’s.

Mibbees aye, mibbees naw ?

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on5:50 pm - May 4, 2015


vansen says:
Member: (12 comments)
May 3, 2015 at 4:13 pm

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’m sure that I heard Jose Mourinho saying exactly the same thing about Norwich City on Radio Norfolk. :irony: 🙄

View Comment

ParadisebhoyPosted on6:01 pm - May 4, 2015


Phil was suggesting yesterday that McCoist’s salary was not paid last month . IIRC Hearts were sanctioned(signing embargo) by the then SPL for not fully paying Players .The club had 2 days to notify the SPL. Does this rule apply with the SPFL ?

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on6:25 pm - May 4, 2015


StevieBC says:
Member: (633 comments)
May 4, 2015 at 5:21 pm
——————————————–

Or it could be another set of random words put together and thrown out there… Is it verifiable, it’s it likely to be verifiable…

Curiouser and curiouser…

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:28 pm - May 4, 2015


andygraham.66 says:
Member: (234 comments)
May 4, 2015 at 5:02 pm
The twitter reaction to Murphy/Izzard seen the return (for me anyway, he could have been back a while) of Chris no relation Graham
———

Saw that. He and his like-minded chums have adopted a new vehicle to promote their mindset, since the old one is deid, and the newco on life support. Well done to a politician, though, for stating the painful truth and debunking the same club myth. More of that.

View Comment

JoethebookiePosted on6:38 pm - May 4, 2015


It may only be ‘playing staff’ who incur the SPFL wrath.
Ground staff can be stiffed.

View Comment

sickofitallPosted on7:17 pm - May 4, 2015


Did Phil not say last week Ashley wanted mcoists salary package made public .Could this be the reason for him being summoned to this meeting just to let him know details will be released soon .Give him time to get a wee holiday booked

View Comment

TheClumpanyPosted on7:50 pm - May 4, 2015


Good Evening.

If you haven’t seen it yet, this ‘remarkable’ piece on Celtic, competition and Dave King from Martin Hannan in The National is worth a read.

http://www.thenational.scot/sport/martin-hannan-give-king-a-chance-to-help-end-celtics-rule.2596

Almost every line is a ‘keeper’ but the following is one of my favourites:

“The fear is that if they don’t [say King is Fit and Proper], then King will rein in his millions – and believe me, he has oodles of them – which will prolong Rangers’ woes and mean they won’t be able to challenge Celtic for, say, a decade or so. That would not be good for Scottish football, including the national squad”.

Really? Scotland will have a better chance of making World Cups and European Championships if Dave King is on the Sevco Board? Just like Scotland did the last time he was on the board of a ‘Rangers’ entity?

What next? The media reminiscing about how Walter Smith leaving the Scotland job to manage (and strengthen) Rangers was good for the national team…?!

Mr Hannan’s suggestion that that King might “rein in” his as-yet unseen millions, should he be turned down by the SFA seems nothing less than scaremongering of a particularly nonsensical kind…

As we know, the ‘Fit and Proper’ issue has absolutely no bearing on whether Dave King can invest or loan money to Sevco. He could do it now. Indeed he could have done it at any point. In fact, I am sure some Sevco fans were very surprised that a number of war chests were not air-dropped into Ibrox the moment he and his colleagues ‘won’ at the EGM…

King himself has already said the SFA’s decision won’t have a bearing on his investment into Sevco. The only barrier to him investing is his willingness to part with his own cash…

Indeed.

If anyone can stand further dissection of this article, you can find it on my attempt at a so-called ‘blog’ over on https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/

Enjoy the rest of the evening!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:17 pm - May 4, 2015


The SFA must pass King as ‘F&P’, if he ever does apply to be anointed as such.

The bears don’t want Ashley, ergo, it’s not a massive assumption to make that the blazers on the 6th floor don’t want him at Ibrox either.

Ashley’s reported appeal to the ‘dual ownership’ fine aside, it appears that the SFA has put all its eggs in the King basket.

If – and it’s a big if – King does come through for Rangers and with cash as well – then IMO, he will expect further preferential treatment from the SFA.

It could be like the ‘Charles Green’ era, but ‘x10’ !

The SFA & SPFL have been publicly pleading that THEY need TRFC in the top league, so a chancer like King will quite happily squeeze them for everything he needs or wants.
It could get very messy indeed.

Ashley or King ? Or another new club owned by fans, or no club at all… 😐

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on8:29 pm - May 4, 2015


TheClumpany says:
May 4, 2015 at 7:50 pm

Almost every line is a ‘keeper’ but the following is one of my favourites:

“The fear is that if they don’t [say King is Fit and Proper], then King will rein in his millions…”
———————————————–
Good spot, that’s one of the classic euphemisms to come out of the Ibrox fiasco.

“Did you get me something nice for my birthday?” / “Have you got that tenner you owe me?” / “It must be your turn to buy a round”

“No, I”m reining in my millions”

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on8:35 pm - May 4, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1130 comments)
May 4, 2015 at 6:28 pm
andygraham.66 says:
Member: (234 comments)
May 4, 2015 at 5:02 pm
The twitter reaction to Murphy/Izzard seen the return (for me anyway, he could have been back a while) of Chris no relation Graham
———

Saw that. He and his like-minded chums have adopted a new vehicle to promote their mindset, since the old one is deid, and the newco on life support. Well done to a politician, though, for stating the painful truth and debunking the same club myth. More of that.

………………

What’s this, tell me more !

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:50 pm - May 4, 2015


I’ll PM you @Jim. Talk for grown ups 🙂

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on8:58 pm - May 4, 2015


Paradisebhoy says:
Member: (10 comments)
May 4, 2015 at 6:01 pm
Phil was suggesting yesterday that McCoist’s salary was not paid last month . IIRC Hearts were sanctioned(signing embargo) by the then SPL for not fully paying Players .The club had 2 days to notify the SPL. Does this rule apply with the SPFL ?

……………………

Anyone have the answer at all…Auldheid…Eco…anyone?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:10 pm - May 4, 2015


More indications from Phil about McCoist, De Tre Bjørne & Ashley. Sounds to me that an accomodation with Ashley is the future barring the unlikely warchest appearing. But where do the SFA go with this? No sporting advantage in dual ownership? A discretionary dispensation?

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-price-of-doing-walking-away/#more-6275

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:34 pm - May 4, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1132 comments)
May 4, 2015 at 9:10 pm
More indications from Phil about McCoist, De Tre Bjørne & Ashley. Sounds to me that an accomodation with Ashley is the future barring the unlikely warchest appearing. But where do the SFA go with this? No sporting advantage in dual ownership? A discretionary dispensation?

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-price-of-doing-walking-away/#more-6275
===============================================

With Phil’s assertion that several NUFC players have been informed that they will be at Ibrox next season, it looks like Ashley is not leaving – and is deliberately steering for another collision course with the SFA !

And assuming that the players are at least partially funded by TRFC, does this mean that TRFC will be indirectly helping to fund the warchest of a new, incoming manager at NUFC ?

Looks like TRFC could be a useful feeder / development club for NUFC’s benefit.
And for Ashley’s benefit of course.

Shirley though, any further NUFC players to be registered with the SFA/SPFL as loan players will be rejected – due to Ashely’s continuing dual ownership issue ?

Another total c0ck-up from the SFA is in the offing…

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:45 pm - May 4, 2015


jimlarkin says: May 4, 2015 at 8:58 pm

Anyone have the answer at all…Auldheid…Eco…anyone?
==========================
From the SPFL Rules

Default in Player and Football Manager/Coaching Staff Remuneration

E17 Except in circumstances where there is a bona fide dispute as to liability for payment by the Club, where the Club is entitled to deduct or otherwise withhold payment of a sum otherwise due or where the Club takes, suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event, any Club which shall fail to pay any sum due by it to a Player under and in terms of that Player’s Contract of Service and/or any sum due by it under a contract of employment to any Official engaged in football management and/or football coaching (a “Remuneration Default”) shall be in breach of these Rules.

E18 Any Club which suffers or is subject to a Remuneration Default shall within 2 days of such default notify the Secretary in writing of any such default with details of the amount(s) and Player(s) and/or Official(s) concerned and if it fails to so notify the Secretary it shall be in breach of these Rules.
———————–
It’s a moot point if McCoist is deemed still to be a member of the management/coaching staff.

My interpretation would be that he remains as “manager” as that is the contract he still retains, although I have a feeling that the SPFL would be inclined to accept an argument that he is no longer fulfilling the role of manager.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:51 pm - May 4, 2015


Were looking at another fudge here. Probably another 5k fine for Uncle Mike deferred till Xmas.
This all smack’s of support it until its secure and back.

View Comment

castawayPosted on9:54 pm - May 4, 2015


Test

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on10:06 pm - May 4, 2015


easyJambo says:
Member: (610 comments)
May 4, 2015 at 9:45 pm

jimlarkin says: May 4, 2015 at 8:58 pm

Anyone have the answer at all…Auldheid…Eco…anyone?
==========================
From the SPFL Rules

Default in Player and Football Manager/Coaching Staff Remuneration

———————–
It’s a moot point if McCoist is deemed still to be a member of the management/coaching staff.

My interpretation would be that he remains as “manager” as that is the contract he still retains, although I have a feeling that the SPFL would be inclined to accept an argument that he is no longer fulfilling the role of manager.

_______________________________________________________

The ‘intent’ of the rule and the action is a significant element in determining liability.

The clear intent of the rule is to prevent clubs from side-stepping duties towards their playing staff and securing an unfair advantage over competitors by sodoing. (Not paying your wage bills in a timely way means being able to lay out more than your competitors, e.g. buying in talent and deferring payment until prize money is awarded for example)

On this basis, they are clearly in default. They were able to secure McCoist’s services on the basis of the contract he was awarded. Had the contract not been offered, perhaps he may not have taken the appointment?
These payments are due under that contract.

If they are outstanding, TRFC are breaking this rule. Lots of clubs have had financial hardships. They have made contractual payments on time or suffered sanctions. If TRFC are not treated the same way, they accrue an unfair advantage. It really is that simple.

Whether the SPFL do the right thing remains to be seen.

View Comment

Methilhill StrollerPosted on10:31 pm - May 4, 2015


If Phil is right then the question must be which Newcastle players? Maybe some of those John Carver laid into at the weekend could find their lack of effort rewarded with a loan north of the border? Given the lack of effort of late would they feel like exerting themselves or just munching crisps at half time?

MA obviously playing his game and waiting for the RRM to make the mistakes. I can see MA in charge for some time to come which, given how he runs Newcastle will not be good for the prospects of those at Ibrox.

Scottish Football needs strong teams in third place – like ICT and Arbroath.

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on11:03 pm - May 4, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1132 comments)
May 4, 2015 at 8:50 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Me too please Danish!! 💡

View Comment

dom16Posted on11:24 pm - May 4, 2015


What has happened to ecoboy? He hasn’t been on for several days. Expected to see some dissection of the state aid crew

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on11:43 pm - May 4, 2015


dom16 says:
Member: (2 comments)

May 4, 2015 at 11:24 pm

What has happened to ecoboy? He hasn’t been on for several days. Expected to see some dissection of the state aid crew
_____________________________________________________________

Perhaps he will be doing so elsewhere, but I believe he has resigned the SFM gig.

View Comment

whispererPosted on12:46 am - May 5, 2015


Re King & his money
He has more shares than MA , irrelevant really
But he could have loaned money to RIFC anytime
In the same manner as Big Mike
And took security over assets & badges etc
In the same manner as Big Mike

So Dave … Why didn’t you mate ????

View Comment

GabbyPosted on2:22 am - May 5, 2015


If Ally wasnt paid last month then the rules are quite clear..

Section E17. Of the SPFL Rule book says…..

Except in circumstances where there is a bona fide dispute as to liability for payment by the Club, where the Club is entitled to deduct or otherwise withhold payment of a sum otherwise due or where the Club takes, suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event, any Club which shall fail to pay any sum due by it to a Player under and in terms of that Player’s Contract of Service and/or any sum due by it under a contract of employment to any Official engaged in football management and/or football coaching (a “Remuneration Default”) shall be in breach of these Rules.

Clearly his employment contract is still in place as a member of the management team. Whilst they are in breach it seems the penalty is an inability to sign new players.

Will this be an issue if they need to extend contracts for the play offs?

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on6:09 am - May 5, 2015


Good point by broadcaster Derek Bateman,talking about the staged comedy by Murphys marauders in St Enoch Sq in Glasgow and how some journos reported this as a riot he asked ,was it not time there was a professional qualification for journalists,then again ,how many would be in work.Fair point.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:00 am - May 5, 2015


yourhavingalaugh says:
Member: (224 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 6:09
———–

Alternative media is where we are getting analysis and insight, not only on sporting matters it seems. As someone mentioned the other day, the whole Ibrox saga has helped sharpen our focus on agenda-driven media lies, spin and disinformation.

PS Good blog(s) Mr Clumpany! Nice touch of underlying humour throughout

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on8:26 am - May 5, 2015


If team Ashley wanted to buck up the ideas of their underperforming players for the fag end of the season, which would be the more terrifying motivation? Threaten his Newcastle players that they might be off to join the mighty Ibroxians? Or threaten the lads in the 5 star jerseys* (*may not refer to being European champions) with being sent to play for Newcastle?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on8:38 am - May 5, 2015


http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/ann-budge-s-vision-right-for-scottish-football-1-3763012

Craig Levein talking some sense in the Scotsman.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:22 am - May 5, 2015


http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/utilities/complaints_bodies.php

The link is to the Audit Scotland page dealing with concerns raised by the public about financial management of any public sector bodies.

Here is an extract-

What will we do?

If you contact us and your concerns fall within our remit, we’ll ask the relevant auditor to consider them. What the auditor tells us helps us decide what to do next. Ultimately, where things have gone wrong and where we think it’s in the public interest, we have the power to produce a public audit report.
Please keep in mind that we can’t act to resolve individual or group grievances and we don’t have powers to require organisations to change their decisions or to give compensation.

So I don’t really know what the “state aid” enthusiasts are seeking to achieve with this move, other than generate a bit of negative publicity for their perceived enemies.

It has always seemed to me that the place to go with genuine concerns that a public body has deliberately sold property at millions under value as a favour to “friends and family” would be the police or the Serious Fraud Office- but maybe they’ve already tried that and been told politely to go away.

View Comment

high beeswaxPosted on9:25 am - May 5, 2015


‘for the good of scottish football’ should qos, hibs and club 11 not offer to withdraw from the play offs ?……

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:12 am - May 5, 2015


neepheid says:
Member: (555 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 9:22 am
————–

Hopefully, if there’s the slightest substance in this it’ll be dealt with on a CFC blog. These state-aid characters and their ilk seem to have a wider political agenda, though, as is apparent at the moment. That’s far more worrying than spurious claims about training pitches.

Ironic that their own bastion of quintessentialism and everything about it has been hawked off by free market, deregulated capitalist types in love with queen, country and Rule Britannia.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on11:04 am - May 5, 2015


At the risk of repeating what someone else may have already said, would “play-off-season-ticket-gate” not be easily resolved by a simple statement from the SPFL;

“The SPFL shall receive 50% of the normal ticket price x all attendees at the relevant play-off matches. Any club wishing to reward it’s supporters who have bought season tickets, (by allowing them free access to these games), will have to make up the shortfall themselves”.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:26 am - May 5, 2015


The Money Will Out

Congratulations to Hearts, Morton and Albion Rovers. How much did they spend to win their respective leagues compared to what The Rangers spent to come third? Because behind the plague of squirrels (Astroturf, play-off ticket price, King F&P etc) the only story that matters at Ibrox is the accountancy:

· How to fill the dressing room next season

· How to juggle the creditors

· How to pay the utility bills

· How to pay the wages

· How to off-load the gardeners

Everything else is fluff and nonsense. The RRM’s dignified silence does not bode well – their EGM bombast has evaporated after sight of the Spreadsheet of Doom. And once the RRM have failed and walked away – proving beyond all doubt that Ashley is the old game in town, we can expect a Brysonesque reinterpretation of the SFA’s dual ownership rules.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on11:32 am - May 5, 2015


I still find the TRFC stance on letting season ticket holders in for free strange (although IMO every team should . The term season ticket says it all Well to me anyway) and extremely ironic ❓

Financially it makes no sense for any team in their position

Was it not the current board who actively encouraged and damanded fans not to buy season tickets

Yet now they want those who followed their demands to pay
And those who gave them a deaf ear to be thanked and congratulated by getting in for free 😈

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on11:34 am - May 5, 2015


mcfc says:
May 5, 2015 at 11:26 am

The Money Will Out
…the only story that matters at Ibrox is the accountancy:
—————————————————-
· How to pay the wages (including appropriate allowances for NI and taxes)

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:43 am - May 5, 2015


Dual Ownership Rules

After extensive consideration, consultation and debate, the SFA has determined that clarification of its dual ownership rules is appropriate given the current unforeseeable circumstances. For the avoidance of doubt we welcome investment into Scottish football from those already invested in and knowledgeable of other leagues. However, henceforth we insist that all majority shareholders in multiple leagues provide a written and legally binding undertaking giving preference to Scottish clubs where there is a conflict regarding non-domestic competitions.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:51 am - May 5, 2015


Tartanwulver says:
Member: (140 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 11:34 am

(including appropriate allowances for NI and taxes)

————————————–

Experience shows that has never been aa pressing concern down Govan way 🙂

View Comment

Miss TreadPosted on12:23 pm - May 5, 2015


StevieBC says:
Member: (635 comments)

May 4, 2015 at 4:10 pm

WRT the silent King…

Seems to be in no rush to get his ‘F&P’ form rubber stamped by the SFA.

It would make sense, IMO, that he continues to sit quietly on the sidelines with his pockets still stitched up – until after the play-offs.

The he will know exactly what he is dealing with wrt TRFC – and forecast costs and income.
——————————————————————————————-
Forecasting Costs and Income eh?
That would be a first!! 😉

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on12:36 pm - May 5, 2015


This morning, I sent out a mail to our monthly subscribers inviting them to take up the option of a SFM email address.

We are doing this in order to recruit and retain subscribers for our long-term funding plans. If any non-subscriber is interested in getting a SFM mailbox, please click here for details.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:38 pm - May 5, 2015


I am somewhat dismayed that ecobhoy seems to have left this blog.
I did not by any manner of means share all of his outlook or agree with all of his views.
But he always made a sharp distinction between speculation/informed guess-work/ and statementsof fact.
His memory/retrieval system was extremely useful in keeping me relatively connected to the various strands of the saga, while helping to keep us all reasonably focussed on the main problem at the heart of our game- namely, the deceitfulness etc of the very men who should be the first to defend and protect the idea of Sporting integrity for the sake of their attachment to a once highly regarded club that, sadly, was led into major sports cheating by ‘ A knight of the realm’.
By he 5-way agreement these men sold both themselves and Scottish Football.
And are EXPECTED by all and sundry to do so again, to save the ignominious demise of the new club they tried to convince us was Rangers FC of former times.
Therein lies the deep problem.Scottish Football at the highest administrative level is not to be trusted,
ought not to trusted,for all its hypocritical blathering about Fair Play.
Particularly offensive when the evidence is in fron t of their eyes that Honest professional football has produced a whole string of pluses for supporters of just about every club.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on12:50 pm - May 5, 2015


According to Phil certain NUFC players have been told they are going to Ibrox next season
Now
When loan players are being sought or offered there is usually a Board level conversation between the two clubs
Which begs the question
Has Ashley recently negotiated next years loan deals with the current TRFC Board?
Or is this yet another poison pill left by L&L?
i.e.
TFC can`t get loan players from anywhere except NUFC without permission from MA?
And
Is the salary percentage to be paid by TRFC already set in stone?

Surely MA wouldn`t do that to the Requisitioners …
Would he?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:04 pm - May 5, 2015


John – The question that puzzles me is whether the 6th Floor still think the situation is recoverable, or whether they are manoeuvring to cover their amply derrieres for what appears inevitable, or whether they are bracing for impact.

Even if The Rangers get promoted, it doesn’t improve the Spreadsheet of Doom enough to reach an even keel. Has King given them reassurances? Have they seen a business plan that includes black ink? Maybe King was being mendacious when he spouted all that stuff against austerity. Given the EGM fall-out I’m inclined to believe the opposite of what he says.

If it all works out for the Masters of the Sixth Floor then it will be “move along, and bonuses for all”. But if it fails, expect some truths to out as they each scramble to save their own skin.

Personally, I think that chances are that the 6th floor have over-reached themselves, found there is little honour between RRM, and over-estimated their power to pull the wool.

View Comment

Comments are closed.