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.
GoosyGoosy says:
Member: (384 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 12:50 pm
Surely MA wouldn`t do that to the Requisitioners …
==================================
GG, I think Ashley’s game has moved on from the RRM to the SFA. It’s clear to the RRM who holds all the picture cards. The SFA denied Ashley the right to become a bigger shareholder to advantage their RRM mates and he is now gradually teaching them the extent of his day-to-day control until they realise they need to be asking him politely and not telling him anything.
Remember, Ashley could fold the whole show tomorrow and who is left to pick up the few pieces he would not own as a result?
mcfc
The SPFL rules require financial plans for next season to have been submitted by all clubs by the end of March.
Therefore, I can only assume that the club playing at Ibrox has satisfied the SPFL that the numbers add up between now and May 2016, regardless of the division in which they are playing.
Don’t you just love the SFA referee appointments board?
Since the huge blunder at Hampden all six officials who saw the incident but did nothing have been regularly getting games.
Now the AAR , Alan Muir, who can barely see from three yards is rewarded with refereeing the QoS/Rangers tie on Saturday evening, assisted by Alan Mulvany, another of the six blind men.
Amazing but not too surprising.
GoosyGoosy says:
Member: (384 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 12:50 pm
Should Phil’s information be correct, then the lack of action/complaint from the play-off hopefulls, and everyone else, becomes more puzzling. Ashley has already been fined, and therefor been found to be materially involved with two clubs, and that has been profoundly illustrated by the loan agreement between the ‘dual’ clubs. A loan agreement that, while perhaps detrimental financially to a TRFC run by the 3 bears, has given the football side a distinct advantage in the club’s best player since his arrival, Vuckic. Without him, and perhaps one or two newly fit Geordies, TRFC’s progress past QOTS would be decidedly precarious; with him they are probably favourites. Without him against Hibs, they’d be given next to no chance, while with him it’s probably evens. If even just one of the others proves to be as effective, they will most likely be favourites. All through a deal clearly reliant on Ashley’s involvement.
Yet everyone affected remains compliant.
Then next season, should no action be taken, there will remain no limit on the possibility of a bargain loan deal to provide them with another ‘sporting advantage’ not available to the rest of whatever league they play in. Talk about deja vous all over again 😉
Cygnus X2 says:
Member: (48 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 1:25 pm
The SPFL rules require financial plans for next season to have been submitted by all clubs by the end of March.
==============================================================
So three weeks after the EGM, Murray (P) presented his plans to the SPFL and all was hunky dory? Well there you go, who are we to question the great and the good? All must be sweetness and light at Ibrox. But I’m sure I remember that long after that date the RRM were still studying the books and investigating L&L – I do hope the RRM have updated the SPFL on anything untoward they might have found that has a material impact their plans as presented. What a shower !!!
Cygnus X2 says:
Member: (48 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 1:25 pm
The SPFL rules require financial plans for next season to have been submitted by all clubs by the end of March.
=======================
We are in a whole new era of transparency at Ibrox (cc Dave King). So in that spirit of transpsarency, I would have expected that King’s financial plan for TRFC to have not only been submitted to the SPFL, but immediately shared with their worldwide support. That’s what I would understand by transparency. So why aren’t the Bears even questioning this?
Allyjambo says @ 1.31 p.m
‘………Talk about deja-vu all over again. ‘
————–
The corrupted, being corrupted,bound by Sworn-to-secrecy 5-way agreements, will remain corrupt. It’s in their nature.
GabbyGabby says:
Member: (28 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 2:22 am
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?
…………………………
I bet Mr Bryson will have an alternative meaning of such “rules” !!
tcup 2012 says:
May 5, 2015 at 11:32 am
=======================
It makes sense in one way. Getting as many supporters packed into Ibrox might give them a slight advantage in a cup-tie like game. Reaching the SPL is obviously financially to their benefit (though it may bring other problems) so risking the loss may seem worth it. Of course big crowds are a double edged sword as the wee team may get a boost also from the atmosphere even if generated by the opposition fans.
TURNBULL REMEMBERED
Raith Rovers visit to the Dumbarton Football Stadium last weekend saw Sons present a glass memento to Kirkcaldy club in memory of former Rovers Chairman Turnbull Hutton.
Turnbull passed away early last month and with his death Scottish football will undoubtedly be a duller place.
Sons Chairman Alan Jardine said : “Turnbull was a good friend to Dumbarton FC and was always welcoming when we visited Starks Park.
“On a personal level I will miss his input and enthusiasm.”
From official website http://www.dumbartonfootballclub.com/news/?mode=view&id=1848
I genuinely believe the SPFL have had two outline plans given to them, although I doubt there is much actual content in either.
Plan 1
If we are promoted we will be back where we belong and we’ll see how things pan out from there.
Plan 2 – positive spin
If we don’t get promoted we’ve no idea how fans will react cashwise, and in the absence of generous benefactors we will be exposed to market forces intended only for the diddy teams and as such we may struggle.
Plan 2 – first draft
We’re doomed I tell ye, gies a haun up Campbell.
ps. Can we please get Plan 3 entitled “Skooshing the championship and putting all the enemy in their places along our triumphant way” back please.
Oor Keith really can come away with some belters:
Replies to KJ on the back of an EBT, second contract, 5-Way Agreement or dodgy Euro licence 🙂
“Celtic skipper Scott Brown: I don’t care if Rangers don’t get promoted… I just want to make it TEN-IN-A-ROW…”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-skipper-scott-brown-dont-5636282
==============================
The headline ‘quote’ caught my eye, thinking that Brown had broken rank with everyone else wrt ‘wanting a Rangers in the SPL.
But when you read the article and Brown’s quotes, his only reference to TRFC is;
“…But when asked if he missed the Old Firm league rivalry he said: “Not in the slightest. If it comes back it comes back, but it it doesn’t then it doesn’t.”
“…It will be hard for whoever comes up…The play-offs will be difficult.”
===========================================
Michael Gannon dreaming up false headlines and implied quotes.
Hope Brown complains to the DR.
Oh dear, another b*llox headline. :slamb:
At least the DR churnalist had the decency NOT to add his name to this cracker.
“Rangers defender Bilel Mohsni heads for Ibrox exit door and eyes up possible move to the BUNDESLIGA!”
😯
Allyjambo says:
Member: (852 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 1:31 pm
Yet everyone affected remains compliant.
==========================================================
I’m amazed the other Champ clubs and the probable Prem play-off clubs did not get together and complain as a group about the NUFC loaners. While the loan deal itself may not be outside the letter of the rules, the continuing and increasing influence of Ashley at TRFC is clear for even the wilfully blind to see. The £7,500 fine was craven cowardice.
If dual ownership rules are not designed to prevent exactly this kind of squad doping and financial doping then what are they for?
When will the club chairmen each grow a pair, stand up together and cry revolution at this obvious injustice.
In case they need reminding, directors of companies have a legal duty to act in the best interests of their shareholders, and not in the best interests of a quiet life and their personal clubability.
If the clubs continue to accept bullying by the corrupt SFA/SPFL then they deserve to be bullied. I’d recommend a quick jab to the nose to see if the SFA/SPFL are up for a a serious no-holds-barred scrap – including recourse to UEFA and the civil courts.
Ref Ashley and the NUFC 5. To be fair that is where Ashley has boxed clever a little. Vuckic is only a preferential deal if they get promoted whereupon it becomes reasonably comparable.
Ref keef and his boxing tweet. Try doing it every weekend for the next ten years keef and see if you’re such a fan of boxing by the end of it.
mcfc says:
May 5, 2015 at 5:19 pm
Allyjambo says:
May 5, 2015 at 1:31 pm
Yet everyone affected remains compliant.
==========================================================
I’m amazed the other Champ clubs and the probable Prem play-off clubs did not get together and complain as a group about the NUFC loaners. While the loan deal itself may not be outside the letter of the rules, the continuing and increasing influence of Ashley at TRFC is clear for even the wilfully blind to see. The £7,500 fine was craven cowardice.
============
I seem to recall that the £7.5k fine was the maximum that could be levied for the rule under which Ashley was charged…it may be that the DK/T3B “takeover” was seen as removing the problem (which would be all to typical short sightedness and there for quite likely).
The broader issue of loan players may be complicated by the fact that a number of clubs have enjoyed the benefits of players coming in from down south at (what I assume to have been) below market rates (including my own club…I believe there may also be a couple of Man City loanees…somewhere 😉 ).
On the issue of numbers of loan players I was astounded (God knows why) to find there was no limit….on reflection I’ve noticed what appears to be an increased number of loans between the Scottish top flight and the lower divisions in the last few years and it may be that clubs are reluctant to limit the opportunity to give players game time/strengthen squads…although I should add that I’m not aware of numbers in lower division clubs (other than the obvious one)…must look into it…unless someone has some numbers to hand ❓
StevieBC says:
Member: (637 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 4:46 pm
Why doesn’t the SMSM just tell us how it is. The Celtic Captain doesn’t need to give a hoot about any other team in Scotland other than his current club and the other team in Green and White given his well known liking for Hibs. Hardly going to want the team from Govan to go up and his boyhood team stay down.
parttimearab says:
Member: (310 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 5:43 pm
======================================
I believe you are correct that £7,500 was the max for the chosen charges – but the charge was made in mid Dec, the hearing took place in mid Apr and the undue influence continued in between – and after the hearing. So the cost of ongoing undue influence at the SFA’s favourite club is a one-time payment of £7,500 – and absolutely no requirement to reduce that influence. As I said, craven cowardice by the SFA/SPFL.
I’m sure Celtic and City each negotiated the best deal they could for the loaners. And who could argue that Ashley negotiated equally hard with Ashley on the TRFC/NUFC loaners.
Have loaners always been unlimited or did that come in when the SPL and SFL merged into the SPFL? That merger seems to have been a perfect opportunity to re-write rules in anticipation of the needs of their favourite club.
P.S. Has Ashley even paid the £7,500 – last I heard he was going to spend far more to fight against it.
mcfcmcfc says:
Member: (1149 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 6:02 pm
parttimearab says:
Member: (310 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 5:43 pm
======================================
I believe you are correct that £7,500 was the max for the chosen charges – but the charge was made in mid Dec, the hearing took place in mid Apr and the undue influence continued in between – and after the hearing. So the cost of ongoing undue influence at the SFA’s favourite club is a one-time payment of £7,500 – and absolutely no requirement to reduce that influence. As I said, craven cowardice by the SFA/SPFL.
I’m sure Celtic and City each negotiated the best deal they could for the loaners. And who could argue that Ashley negotiated equally hard with Ashley on the TRFC/NUFC loaners.
Have loaners always been unlimited or did that come in when the SPL and SFL merged into the SPFL? That merger seems to have been a perfect opportunity to re-write rules in anticipation of the needs of their favourite club.
…………………..
Indeed…You betcha
Otherwise, Sevco (as a consequence of finishing 3rd) would not be promoted at all this season.
parttimearab says:
Member: (310 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 5:43 pm
mcfc says:
May 5, 2015 at 5:19 pm
Allyjambo says:
May 5, 2015 at 1:31 pm
Yet everyone affected remains compliant.
==========================================================
I’m amazed the other Champ clubs and the probable Prem play-off clubs did not get together and complain as a group about the NUFC loaners. While the loan deal itself may not be outside the letter of the rules, the continuing and increasing influence of Ashley at TRFC is clear for even the wilfully blind to see. The £7,500 fine was craven cowardice.
============
I seem to recall that the £7.5k fine was the maximum that could be levied for the rule under which Ashley was charged…it may be that the DK/T3B “takeover” was seen as removing the problem (which would be all to typical short sightedness and there for quite likely).
The broader issue of loan players may be complicated by the fact that a number of clubs have enjoyed the benefits of players coming in from down south at (what I assume to have been) below market rates (including my own club…I believe there may also be a couple of Man City loanees…somewhere ? ).
On the issue of numbers of loan players I was astounded (God knows why) to find there was no limit….on reflection I’ve noticed what appears to be an increased number of loans between the Scottish top flight and the lower divisions in the last few years and it may be that clubs are reluctant to limit the opportunity to give players game time/strengthen squads…although I should add that I’m not aware of numbers in lower division clubs (other than the obvious one)…must look into it…unless someone has some numbers to hand ❓
_______________
You are correct that the fine issued was the maximum, £7,500, but that actually makes my point even more pertinent, for regardless of the figure, the SFA saw fit to issue the maximum penalty, so there can be no doubt they considered his influence was at the upper end of the scale. He may not have increased his shareholding, though it is still a significant amount to show an interest in the club, but his lending of £5m and the continued employment (on gardening leave) of two of his ‘colleagues’ should show a fair degree of interest in the fortunes of TRFC for any lending of players from NUFC to fall into the category of extreme dual influence. Basically, a man with 9% of RIFC’s shares is lending the club more money, and players of a higher quality, than can ever be dreamed of by any other club in the Championship, and by 11 of the 12 clubs in the Premiership.
If he is allowed to get away with it, and TRFC gain promotion, then at a whim he could lend TRFC sufficient EPL quality players to win the Premiership – or bust Celtic in their efforts to stay ahead. It may not be a likely scenario, but the SPFL and SFA should be hellbent on preventing even the possibility! All the other clubs should be sh***ing themselves until that door is slammed shut!
On the point you made about other clubs getting loan players from the EPL on generous terms. Yes this is happening, but the players are available to all the clubs, limited only by their ability to meet the terms required by the lender, and to be attractive enough to entice the players to come to play for them. The important thing is every club has the same opportunity. The Ashley effect doesn’t quite come into the ‘available to all’ category!
Allyjambo says:
Member: (853 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 7:15 pm
parttimearab says:
Member: (310 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 5:43 pm
mcfc says:
May 5, 2015 at 5:19 pm
Allyjambo says:
=========================
The important thing is every club has the same opportunity. The Ashley effect doesn’t quite come into the ‘available to all’ category!
========================================================
AllyJ
And therein lies the key. Players on a one way conveyor. Im mindful ‘Well are full of short term loan contracts but we found them negotiated for them and pay for them.
On the subject of loanee number limits, we need look no further than Sevco (as they then still were), and their first game vs Brechin, in July of 2012. Their entire squad was on loan from Rangers, if a set of Charlotte documents that I cherish, are to be believed.
I relieved the boredom of an April evening asking BBC Sportsound to ask the witless Michael Grant, of The Times, their guest that evening, about it, but I somehow doubt if they did (I was out of the country). Can’t mention Rangers and The Rangers in the same lifetime, let alone sentence. National broadcaster. Newspaper of record.
Allyjambo says:
May 5, 2015 at 7:15 pm
If he is allowed to get away with it, and TRFC gain promotion, then at a whim he could lend TRFC sufficient EPL quality players to win the Premiership
On the point you made about other clubs getting loan players from the EPL on generous terms. Yes this is happening, but the players are available to all the clubs, limited only by their ability to meet the terms required by the lender, and to be attractive enough to entice the players to come to play for them. The important thing is every club has the same opportunity. The Ashley effect doesn’t quite come into the ‘available to all’ category!
========================================================
Firstly I should add that I’ve just remembered that clubs are limited to four loans from other Scottish clubs.
Why there should be no limit on international loans is odd and with MA having taken advantage you’d think that the SPFL would cut the numbers available…unless there is a FIFA/EUFA angle here ❓
From http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk
…Playoff row – SPFL threaten to withhold Rangers’ TV money
Within the last hour it has emerged the playoff season ticket row engulfing Rangers and the SPFL is set to escalate with Neil Doncaster’s men once again threatening to withhold vital TV income if Rangers go ahead with their plan to allow season ticket holders in without charge during the vital tie with Queen of the South et al.
Like in 2012 when the SPFL decided to withhold £2.4M of Rangers’ prize money from the Ibrox side winning the SPL in 2011, based on Rangers’ being a ‘new club’ (despite later admitting we are not yet failing to later deliver that prize cash), Doncaster and co are now attempting to hold Rangers’ fragile coffers to ransom and withhold an undisclosed number of thousands of pounds to force the Govan side to charge entry for the playoffs.
It is the latest in a number of ad-hoc punishments dished to Rangers by the governing bodies, and the fact Hibernian were allowed to do it last season, by the same authorities, has been completely dismissed.
This move threatens to cost Rangers money they cannot afford to lose.
…………………….
Does anyone know what happened about the £250,000 fine that
“Newco” was being asked to pay on behalf of “Oldco” ?
I’ve said before that the £7500 fine for Mike Ashley simply confirms we have a menu for rule breakers. Choose which rule you want to break and pay the fine to do it.
Keep on doing it? You’ve already paid, so carry on!
Scottish football, with it’s inadequate and inadequately applied rules, simply invites in, with open arms (that’s the clean version), the type of people who make a career of exploiting loopholes. Most of our rules have a deliberate-looking loophole signposted at the end.
We need change and someone with a genuine interest in the long terms health of the sport to introduce that change and to nurture that healthier game for all involved. Our clubs should be the ones doing that but there doesn’t seem to be any interest.
ianagain says:
Member: (453 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Ian, deja vous 😉 …
There’s more to the situation though! Situations like that involving Ashley could also be detrimental to TRFC, and it’s the SFA and SPFL’s job to protect them as well as the rest of the league from being taken advantage of by an unscrupulous opportunist. Ashley could quite easily suck money out of TRFC, and by association, the rest of Scottish football, or, at little cost to himself, provide a conveyor belt of talented nomads (hmm) to take his ‘reserve team’ to Scottish titles.
It would be so stupid to wait until after the event, allowing it to happen, then trying to change the rules to stop further abuse, only to find Ashley’s legal team tying the game up in knots. For should he be allowed to get away with it for a season or two, RIFC’s shares would go up in value (assuming on field success fuelled by loanees while installing a very successful austerity regime) and any changing of the league rules could be shown to have cost shareholders a small fortune. Basically, he has to be stopped now, even if that means the end of TRFC, before it is too late to act.
As things stand, RIFC is a loss making business, and so the football authorities could hardly be accused of damaging shareholders’ interests should they enforce existing rules to the hilt. On the other hand, if they allow Ashley to get away with ‘dual influence’ until the damage to the game becomes so obvious even they can’t ignore it, it will become very difficult, if not impossible, to retrospectively apply the rules without ending up in court!
Spartans have just fallen foul of another registration blunder by listing an ineligible player in their team lines. Their goalkeeping coach was listed as substitute and as a trialist for a Lowland League Cup tie, which apparently doesn’t allow trialists.
Spartans have been thrown out the competition.
http://www.spartansfc.com/2015/05/05/statement-from-craig-graham/
What was it Ralph Topping said? “Our rule book is not a pick and mix.”
jimlarkin@8.32pm
Apparently this issue is still be decided upon by an SFA Judicial Panel. No doubt it will be postponed ad nauseam in the hope that us bampots forget all about it. 🙁
There’s one thing that always puzzled me about Ashley. What was the reason he picked Newco to become embroiled in. If he is so wealthy why would he get involved in the most corrupt shenanigans you could imagine. With his purported wealth he surely could have found a struggling club that would cause a hell of a sight less hassle. It’s like getting your pick of the bulls at one of them their rodeos and you voluntary pick the meanest ugliest flea bitten bull to be found. To cap it all every other cowboy around avoids it like the plague except of course the two amigoes, Whyte and the Normandy roadrunner.
From Twitter- sorry, I can’t handle images on this device. It’s a Daily Record headline-
“Neil Henderson @hendopolis 7m7 minutes ago
DAILY RECORD: Gers case cops raid Ashley HQ over Whyte and Green takeovers #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers”
DAILY RECORD: Gers case cops raid Ashley HQ over Whyte and Green takeovers #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers
???????
Sorry neepheid, I’m a bit late with this.
Pic
keith jackson @tedermeatballs 39s40 seconds ago
Looks like Big Mike might have to take a backward step!!
Maybe Mike will conclude that the whole Ibrox adventure is a lot more trouble than it’s worth, and just call in his loans? Police interest is exactly what he doesn’t need.
You’d have to think they’ll have visited the big hoose ? Was that in the “paper” ?
Interesting stat from this season. In the last 15 minutes of each half Celtic have scored a total of 32 goals whilst conceding just 1 . There must be something to this fitness lark !
Its already online,
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-takeover-probe-police-raid-5642669
Back in the RTC days I was of the opinion that King could be hanging around RFC/TRFC simply to monitor whether any information linking him to borderline spivery was leaking out of Ibrox
Maybe MA had a similar reason for hanging on
I know that there is a lot of talk about Mike Ashley refusing to pay the fine for dual interest as well as the prospect of more and more players being loaned from Newcastle to ‘The Rangers’ and it does pose some questions.
Mike Ashley has been found guilty of dual interest even though the SFA allowed him to have his foot in the door in the first place. It was the placing of two of his men on the board that done for him on that charge but now those two guys are not there however that matters not a jot if players are continually wearing out the road from Newcastle to Govan.
So what could the SFA do?
They could possibly refuse to register the players as they believe there is still dual interest issues yet I’m sure the guys could play anyway under the ‘Bryson’ law.
If ‘The Rangers’ or Mike Ashley take them to court then that could result in yet another charge and yet we have also been in that movie before when RFC did the same back in 2012 and we are still waiting for a punishment for that.
Remember the league and SFA is effectively a members club that should be held together by a framework of strong rules, rigorously policed, and rule breaking dealt with. The ultimate sanction available is the removal of membership because if you are not going to play by the same rules as everyone else then just go. Going to a court of law only reinforces this.
The problem here is that this club, along with its predecessor, has broken rules with impunity over a three year period, some may say a fifteen year period, and this is the crux of the matter. No one now has any faith in the leaders of our sport to protect it. It is no wonder ‘The Rangers’ say they will let fans use season tickets for play off matches because there appears to be not one person with a spine within our governing body.
It will do no long term good to ‘The Rangers’ to have players that they do not own, play well here, be sold for money that does not go to the club which in turn undermines any youth system. A revolving door of players, not good enough for Newcastle, highlighting their skills here only for them to be sold on to no benefit of the club.
Make no mistake about it this shambles has been created at Hampden. They now seem paralysed in the maelstrom they have created and their impotence has come home to roost.
It really is a pity that they cannot charge themselves with bringing the game into disrepute!
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/dear-sfa-please-release-the-dave-king-pounds/ …
Good read from The Clumpany.
Just for those who can’t or won’t (and I know where you’re coming from, believe me) access the Record website-
Flocculent Apoidea says:
Member: (62 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 8:33 pm
to paraphrase…. there doesn’t seem to be any interest among the clubs to nurture a healthier game.
==================================
Could the clubs’ lack of interest be a direct result of apparent shortage of enthusiasm among the fans?
The Ashley ‘raid’ is an interesting development…and highly embarrassing for Ashley & SD.
And is the cue for King to break his silence ?
Maybe, without any hint of irony, he will get one of his lapdogs in the SMSM to quote him questioning Ashley’s ability to be ‘F&P’ for TRFC !
Or maybe King will even jet in to get his ‘F&P’ form rubber stamped ?
TRFC – the toxic club which continues to taint the Scottish game… 😥
Are you there Echoboy Please comeback !
http://www.nhsggc.org.uk/about-us/freedom-of-information-foi/sale-of-land-at-former-lennox-castle-hospital-lennoxtown/#para2
castawaycastaway says:
Could the clubs’ lack of interest be a direct result of apparent shortage of enthusiasm among the fans?
———————————
In what way do you think that enthusiasm for change should manifest itself?
Flocculent Apoidea says:
Member: (63 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 11:42 pm
castawaycastaway says:
Could the clubs’ lack of interest be a direct result of apparent shortage of enthusiasm among the fans?
———————————
In what way do you think that enthusiasm for change should manifest itself?
=====================
Would you be answering a question with another question?
😆
BarcabhoyBarcabhoy says:
Member: (158 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 10:47 pm
————-
Abolutely big fan of Ronny’s fitness demands, which should be a natural for all professional sportsmen. The quality of the substitutes may also have played a role, though. In the matches I’ve seen this season he’s not only used outstanding substitutes (very few teams have a bench like his) but introduced them with about 20min to go which offers enough time for a sub to make an impact.
PS easyJambo, that Spartans decision confirms everything written on here over the years. Not a mere technicality demanding a positive discretionary judgement for Spartans, oh no!
Re the police ‘raid’ on Sports Direct.
The Daily Record appeared to have the exclusive on this which for me rings alarm bells straight away. Furthermore, it is quite nauseating to read the smug tweets by Keith Jackson about Ashley having ‘his door kicked in’ and ‘it’s important the truth comes out’ Not all matters in this long Ibrox saga require police regulation of course, but their potential impact on the game could be just as damaging. When Keith Jackson starts demanding the truth about the matters below then he is entitled to be taken seriously. If he just wants to pick the things that suit him, we are entitled to believe he has an agenda.
– What is the truth about the 5-way agreement?
– What is the truth about why vital evidence was withheld from LNS?
– What is the truth about the SFA awarding of a European licence to Rangers in 2011?
– What is the truth about the Bryson statement on player eligibility which went against every previous SFA ruling?
– What is the truth regarding the SFA being told in November 2010 Rangers were defaulting on tax and taking no action?
– What is the truth regarding HMRC knowing in November 2010 Rangers were defaulting on tax and taking no action?
– What is the truth regarding HMRC only taking action against Rangers tax defaults after Rangers themselves moved to put the club into administration?
– What is the truth regarding the eligibility of the Rangers who played against Brechin City in the first game of 2012/2013?
– What is the truth regarding the SFA not already telling Dave King he is not eligible for a directorship at Ibrox?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/record-fc-hearts-conspiracy-theorists-5639819
a refreshing read from a hearts fans perspective, i particularly liked the excellent description of referee Calum Murray …
‘Signalling his intent prior to kick-off by bursting maroon and white balloons like a frenzied child at a 90’s disco, Murray was clearly in no mood to get caught up in the celebrations.’
But wait i thought it was just Celtic fans who were paranoid about the corruption within scottish fitba !
Am I the only one expecting a favourable (for DCK) announcement on his F&P status at 10pm tomorrow?
In light of T’Rangers missing the shut-off date for a going concern submission, would it be unfair if Falkirk put forward the view that they should be promoted to a play-off spot in their stead(assuming they have met the submission date).
Would it be unfair of the SFA to dismiss them out of hand, or should they look into the matter with utmost urgency, before reassuring both they, and the wider footballing public that next season’s fixtures lists are under no threat of disruption
celtic fc incorporated 1897 says:
Member: (4 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 7:24 am
…………
A refreshing read indeed. Hearts have impressed this season with their ability to entertain and succeed – while staying within their limited means. That surely is an example to be recognised and adopted by every club at every level in the game. If it were, I would think that Scottish football would have more or less arrived at where it ought to be, competitive, entertaining, fair and affordable!
I thought the Sky report was remarkably sober. No doors being kicked: http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9838456/sports-direct-confirm-police-visit-in-rangers-investigation
So what was plod expecting to find in Derbyshire to further a criminal investigation?
Who led him to believe there was something to find at SD HQ?
Who fingered Ashley as a person of interest?
My guess would be that the serious spivs have too much to lose to grass up other serious spivs – not honour amongst spivs you understand – just enlightened self interest.
So my money is on the modestly rewarded apparatchiks who do not fancy porridge and losing their professional credentials. If I were plod, I’d be leaning on the D&P boys as the weak link and the most likely to squeal first.
Sounds like the serious game of every-man-for-himself has begun.
Bryce Curdy says:
Member: (106 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 7:45 am
Am I the only one expecting a favourable (for DCK) announcement on his F&P status at 10pm tomorrow?
======================================================
Just to be on the safe side, I am going to watch tomorrow night’s election coverage on Sky Sports News.
‘off topic’ I know, but this made me chuckle……
PropaGander @Propa_Gander · 4m 4 minutes ago
Keith Jackson’s latest ****EXCLUSIVE****
Mike Ashley of Sports Direct has “DOORS OFF THE HINGES”
#DoorsOffTheHinges #RADAR
timabhouy at 11:36 pm
Agree Eco would ‘enjoy’ the latest squirrel from the lunatic ‘Stateaiders’. A very concise and accurate statement from the NHS.
The phrase repeated however is key; Celtic paid “the sum of £493,000, which was in EXCESS of the independent valuation”.
My guess is Celtic have declined to comment, as its not worthy of comment.
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1137 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 9:13 am
I thought the Sky report was remarkably sober. No doors being kicked: http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9838456/sports-direct-confirm-police-visit-in-rangers-investigation
============================
I agree- a much more balanced report than the Record.
This sentence from the Record report struck me, though- “Detectives investigating the conduct of Craig Whyte and Charles Green travelled from Scotland to the Derbyshire nerve-centre of Ashley’s huge business empire.”
Now maybe I’ve got this wrong, but isn’t this the first indication that the police are investigating Green? I seem to recall Green telling us, direct from his hospital bed in a most touching interview, that he had had no contact from the police. That was at the time the various arrests were made, including that of Whyte. Sons of Struth, I believe, had put out a rumour that Green had been interviewed by the police at his chateau in Normandy, and Green was keen to deny it publicly.
The Record had better be correct in stating that the police are investigating Green, because otherwise an action for defamation would be Green’s obvious response.
The DR obviously at odds with both Sky and BBC – the latter also being balanced and including:
“The administration and subsequent liquidation of Rangers resulted in Whyte’s deal with Ticketus being declared void and the finance firm successfully sued him for £18m over the failed deal.” Are BBC now allowed to use the “L” word?
Nowhere are doors kicked in and the focus is on the investigation being on Whyte and Green; interesting, as Neepheid said that Green is now under the spotlight. I doubt MA is happy at being dragged into all of this but will probably ride out the storm and wait for the right time to clean up.
As for the SFA Members one always wonders why they do not object to one club being favoured and/or the inconsistencies of the decision making of our [sic] administrators. For the most part it usually does not benefit them and if they thought they were waiting to see what favours one club got and then use it as a precedent then surely they would have all clubbed together by now to help Livingston? I hope the ladies in Edinburgh can wake clubs from their slumbers!
As we have always said on this site, the longer this goes on, the less the events that occur surprise us anymore. When will it end? And how?
“it is quite nauseating to read the smug tweets by Keith Jackson about Ashley having ‘his door kicked in’ and ‘it’s important the truth comes out’”
Jackson does know this is seemingly an ongoing investigation into Rangers and not an investigation into Sports Direct right?
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1137 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 9:13 am
Looks like the squirrels are working overtime just as a King decision might be looming!
The DR clearly had a tip off and got in first with their sensationalist headlines and reporting so that the idea of ‘Big Bad Mike Ashley’ is even bigger and badder than we already thought remains in the minds of the target audience by the time the more accurate reports arrived, and so most likely ignored.
King’s silence has been questioned many times recently, a silence most likely due to a lack of positive news about the messiah. The usual antidote for a lack of positive spin is to find negative spin for one’s opponent(s). On what could be classed as a two horse race, where one side has a very negative past, to blacken the reputation of the other with a more recent negative present, is one way to balance the negatives where no positives exist. We can be pretty sure King’s acolytes – the succulents, the RRMs in Hampden, the 3bears etc – will be taking every opportunity to put this police raid to the forefront of the SFA panel’s minds while pointing out that King is the only alternative to this potential murderer of RFC and soon TRFC!
In truth, they should both be told there is no place in Scottish football for either of them, and the RRMs should be told to go and find someone, PDQ, who can provide the categorical evidence of stability of finance to meet the standards required by the SFA for everyone else! There should be no requirement for proof of a warchest, just the ability to run the club on a sustainable basis; like Mike Ashley would/might, if only he didn’t own another club!
It might not be a world record, but surely Ibrox has seen more police raids and investigations of senior figures linked to it’s clubs, than any other football ground in Britain! Oh, and I almost forgot, all those tax cases…
Message to Keith Jackson;
Yes, it is important that the ‘truth comes out’.
So why doesn’t some ‘award winning journalist’ get out there and find it? Do you know anyone capable of doing that? Or are you surrounded by people only able to fill your rag with PR provided by denizens of truth like Level 5?
Another message for Keith Jackson;
The truth, that is what the news media is meant to provide! If people like you had provided the truth about Rangers and their successive owners and boards, there might be a decent club playing out of Ibrox by now. But, of course, your main concern was that ‘the truth’ isn’t always favourable to the outcome you desire, is it?
Barcabhoy says:
May 5, 2015 at 10:47 pm
=====================
To an extent. Control of possession counts for a lot too. If you control the game by passing the other side has a lot more running to do and unless their fitness levels are exceptionally high too they will tire towards the end of the game.
Fitness is needed of course for the movement that allows good passing so it’s always a combination of the two. And of course making good decisions on the park – the right run and the right pass at the right time… Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our four…no… amongst our weapons….
Allyjambo says:
Member: (857 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 10:56 am
denizens of truth like Level 5?
=========================================
Ally – Why did Level 5 not call themselves Level 6 or even Floor 6 and have done with the pretence. Is Level 5 their idea of subtle humour – oh how we laaarrrft !
mcfc
The one thing they certainly have not been with their fans is on the Level.
coineanachantaighe says:
Member: (59 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 11:05 am
————-
Now that ending made me laugh out loud. Seamless crossover into comedy 🙂
Flocculent Apoidea says:
Member: (63 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 11:42 pm
In what way do you think that enthusiasm for change should manifest itself?
==================================
In a general clamour, on here and on fan websites, in people suggesting ways and means. It’s unanimously agreed on here that SFA is worse than not fit for purpose.
I’d have expected people to be coming up with ideas for: 1. clearing out the incumbents and replacing them; 2. a fair and honest governance model; 3. rewriting of the rulebook where needed. 4. protests at games where any SFA people might be present; 5. protests especially at international matches; 6. anything else that needs doing.
How do you see it?
neepheid says:
Member: (560 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 9:56 am
The Guardian is running with the Green angle as well:
“Detectives investigating Rangers’ controversial former owners Craig Whyte and Charles Green travelled from Scotland to the Sports Direct offices in Shirebrook, Derbyshire. The investigation is not aimed at Sports Direct and the company is cooperating fully.”
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/may/06/mike-ashley-sports-direct-police-rangers
People should bear in mind that Mr Ashley is not a Johnny Come Lately to this saga.
castaway says:
Member: (52 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 12:18 pm
I think you;re right, but any change can’t be driven by the great and the good, or by self appointed keyboard warriors. The Holyrood committee system is supposed to be designed with this sort of pre-legislative examination in mind. A proper “Drains up” investigation, on a tight time-scale, that involves, the professional clubs, the amateur clubs, the fans, and a cross-party commitment to implement the recommendations in full, (no cherry-picking).
Just a wee thought on the Police raid by Scotlands finest, do you think they were looking for the Deeds. Back to my Bunker
“Payment for the sale of the land was received by Greater Glasgow Health Board in a single payment of £493,000 on 29 June 2006.”
Does anyone believe SFA could post a similar statement for the TRFC £200,000 football debt ❓
Unaccountability
Although we can ask the SFA for information, they are not obliged to respond so I wrote to the Scottish Government and received the following response;
“Dear Mr xxxxxxx
Thank you for your email.
You are correct that the Scottish Football Association (SFA) is not subject to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). This does not of course prevent information requests being made to the SFA – or for information to be provided by them. It does though mean that the SFA is not obliged to respond in terms of FOISA.
As you note, FOISA was extended last year to include a range of ‘arm’s-length’ bodies undertaking sporting, cultural and social functions on behalf of local authorities. Section 5 of FOISA provides Scottish Ministers with the power to extend coverage to bodies exercising functions of a public nature, or who are contracted by a Scottish public authority to provide a service which is a function of the authority. While ‘functions of a public nature’ are not defined, a number of factors are generally considered to be useful in determining what qualifies a function as being of a public nature. As set out in a previous consultation paper, these factors could include:
· the extent to which the particular functions are derived from or underpinned by statute, or otherwise form part of the functions for which the state has generally assumed responsibilities;
· the extent of public funding of the activity;
· whether the functions are of a nature that would require them to be performed by a public authority if the body did not perform them;
· whether the body exercises extensive or monopolistic powers which it would not otherwise have; and
· the extent to which the body seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public and is accepted by the public as being entitled to do so.
We will shortly be consulting on further extension of coverage of FOISA. As part of this consultation exercise we would welcome proposals in respect of organisations or types of body which should be considered for inclusion – ideally identifying the factors favouring extension (as well as evidence of difficulty in obtaining information). While noting your email in respect of the SFA I would encourage you to respond to the consultation setting out those factors you consider important in assessing the appropriateness of the SFA for inclusion within FOISA.
I would be pleased to send you the appropriate website link once the consultation is underway.
Yours sincerely
Scottish Government Freedom of Information Unit”
Mods being rather straight laced about harmless speculation of who/what led plod to Shirebrook.
There are limited possibilities – so join your own dots for future reference.
oompaloompa @ 12.51 p.m
—–
congrats on your efforts on the FOI front.
The reply you received is both