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

John ClarkPosted on2:01 pm - May 6, 2015


(
(sorry, clumsy fingers, only one dead Fat Yak!)
is both a very,very good example of honest, intelligent, civil service draftsmanship , saying what is legally the situation at present, and a surprisingly helpful information-giving puff-piece for the Scottish Government’s ‘intentions’.
Perhaps SFM , if not already working on it, should be trying to find a way to make the case why the SFA ought to be brought within the scope of FOI legislation?

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on2:09 pm - May 6, 2015


high beeswax says:
May 5, 2015 at 9:25 am

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

Actually serious point – given the statements made by Regan and Doncaster about Armageddon and the need to get a certain team “back” in the top division, we can’t but interpret this in any other way than they will be actively supporting TRFC in their play-off games against other member clubs.

Think about that – the CEOs of the SFA and SPFL have an openly stated partisan interest in one member club emerging victorious from a play-off system.

It would embarrass a banana republic

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on2:11 pm - May 6, 2015


John Clark says:
Member: (828 comments)
Quite a few folk are already on it. The wider argument is really very simple, if your org is in receipt of public monies, then it should be subject to FOI. As is often the case, football is not a special case, merely an illustration of much bigger issues. 😉

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:25 pm - May 6, 2015


John Clark says:
Member: (828 comments)

May 6, 2015 at 1:45 pm
oompaloompa @ 12.51 p.m
—–
congrats on your efforts on the FOI front.
_________________

I’d like to add my congrats to those of JC, well done oompa!

I got the feeling that the writer of the reply was suggesting/hinting that he, or his unit, would welcome a proposal for the SFA to be included in FOISA. It may well be a standard reply, but it’s certainly not one that just fobs off the enquirer and is almost touting for business if it as a standard response.

Regardless, the tone of the letter does suggest any proposal will be considered on it’s merits. Unless oompaloompa prefers to carry on with his own initiative, it might be a good idea for the blog to have an outline proposal ready for the next consultation period.

Could you just imagine it? The SFA accountable to the public that pays their wages! Bet they start to turn down government hand-outs if they end up coming under the FOI Act as a result of government grants!

View Comment

mcfcPosted on2:50 pm - May 6, 2015


Visit? Search? Raid?

Scottish journaistic professionalism is dead, reduced to the opinionated, agenda driven trash levels of Fox News combined with utter contempt for the intellignece of its dwindling readership. More to be pitied than scorned, an industry losing 10% of sales year on year is not long for this world. What does a fifty something sports hack with atitiudes from a previous century do for a second career? And frankly – who cares?

View Comment

mungoboyPosted on3:31 pm - May 6, 2015


Re the reportage of the ‘big raid’ as described by our award winning ‘sports journalist’.
Maybe as a cub reporter oor Keefie spent a bit of time hingin oan tae the coat tails of the intrepid Pat Roller when stomped through the mean streets of Glasgow and picked up aw that there crime terminology.
Either way, expect a swift retraction after a call from uncle Mike’s Legal team.
Incidentally, as I was typing this post a full piece about the Louden Tavern ending with WATP appeared in the comment box.
Have we been hacked?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:32 pm - May 6, 2015


On the Ashley HQ raid, I find it quietly reassuring.

We know that some wee time ago now, certain individuals have been ‘charged’ with some offence(s),
Nothing much has been heard since, so it is
comforting to know that even three polis are working away .
And, we must assume, so are HMRC, and BDO.
And it is comforting to know that not one individual involved in signing anything at all to do with the sale to Whyte, the Administration, the setting up of Sevco 5088, the mysterious Sevco Scotland, the 5-way agreement, can possibly sleep the sleepnof honestmen.
Theyall, all,

View Comment

castawayPosted on3:41 pm - May 6, 2015


scapaflow says:
Member: (1202 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 12:27 pm
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).
==============================
Exactly.
What’s the feeling among fans at your own club?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:45 pm - May 6, 2015


(damn stupid tsblet!)
they’ll all be mentally preparing their defences, either against criminal charges, or the charges we make that they betrayed us all , and would not be welcome to drink a pint with us, as being shabby, shabby, unutterably shabby , unprincipled administrators/governors of a sport.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:48 pm - May 6, 2015


And from Phi’s prior piece on the ‘raid’;

“…”I think they’ve been watching box sets of The Sweeney”, he quipped…”
That deserves a “SHUT IT !!” [for the more mature Bampots 😉 ]

As per, I don’t have a clue what’s going on, except that it appears that the PR p!sh has been turned up to ‘level 11’.

And yet again, it shows up Keef for what he really is: and it’s not a journalist…

View Comment

mcfcPosted on4:20 pm - May 6, 2015


The problem with visits, searches, raids, strip searches and rubber-gloved examinations is that they give a brief adrenalin rush of justice being actively pursued by highly resourced, state-funded untouchables. But as night follows day, what follows this rush is years of non-information on progress, motivation or continued interest. Then eventually decisive action and charges are considered inappropriate/impractical for a variety of unspecified reasons. Living in hope of progress from the likes of BDO. HMRC and Police Scotland is like waiting to see Santa Claus snogging The Tooth Fairy.

View Comment

gamesabogeyPosted on4:29 pm - May 6, 2015


mcfcmcfc says:
Member: (1154 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 4:20 pm

“like waiting to see Santa Claus snogging The Tooth Fairy.”

I know who would probably have the front page scoop on that

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on4:31 pm - May 6, 2015


Communication sent by @EdgarBlamm on twitter to Mike Ashley!

https://twitter.com/EdgarBlamm/status/595877606186061824

Made me laugh !!

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on4:33 pm - May 6, 2015


Trisidium says:
Moderator: (189 comments)
May 4, 2015 at 1:29 pm

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.

_____________________________________________________

I could be wrong, but my instincts are alive to the possibilty that wrt @footballisfixed, we might perhaps be dealing with the ‘other’ sort of internet bampot here.

My impression is of lots of intrigue. Lots of juxtaposition of events or individual being presented as evidence (post hoc ergo proctor est fallacy).
Little if any robust scrutiny.
Pareidolia and confirmation bias would be my guess.
(But I am probably biased!)

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:13 pm - May 6, 2015


I found this section of the BBC ‘search’ report rather enlightening, even though I did wonder why they felt the need to add so much detail (as opposed to ‘a big boy done it and ran away’) to the report. Does it show that the BBC has taken the decision to start telling the ‘Rangers Story’, or the club’s ‘Downfall’ in a truthful and accurate manner?

“That followed the takeover from Charles Green’s consortium after which Rangers were accepted to play in the Scottish Third Division.

Previous owner Craig Whyte was arrested with four others last year in the ongoing police investigation into his 2011 takeover.

Whyte bought Rangers from Sir David Murray for £1 and gave an undertaking to settle the club’s £18m bank debt.

It later emerged he paid the debt by selling three years of season tickets to finance firm Ticketus for £25m.

Rangers entered administration in February 2012, while under Whyte’s control, over non-payment of around £14m in tax.

HMRC subsequently rejected a creditors agreement which would have allowed Rangers to exit administration.

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.”

I have lost the savvy to highlight the more pertinent points (an age thing) so, they are:

A) “…after which Rangers were accepted to play in the Scottish Third Division.” (with ‘accepted to play in’ being very accurate)

B) “HMRC subsequently rejected a creditors agreement which would have allowed Rangers to exit administration.”

C) “The administration and subsequent liquidation of Rangers…”

Three very accurate phrases that I’ve certainly never read in a SMSM report together, and maybe not even, in such clear, unequivocal words, individually.

Have the internet bampots efforts to bring about change in the BBC’s honesty and integrity factor actually borne fruit?

View Comment

TheClumpanyPosted on5:24 pm - May 6, 2015


Good Afternoon

One of the great things to happen as a result of the Rangers/ Sevco saga is that Scottish football fans cast a much more critical eye over what the media and PR advisers tell us. Indeed we see it everyday on TSFM.

This scepticism and refusal to gratefully accept a handed-down narrative is a very healthy thing for our sport as well as society and all the citizens that live in it.

Questioning the messenger, their motivation and the quality of their information is unquestionably a good thing.

Last night’s furore about the ‘raid’ on Sports Direct is a classic example of the MSM using pejorative language to give a particular impression, only for many of us to frown quizzically and say “Aye Right…”

And lo and behold what happened this morning? Sports Direct (perhaps unsurprisingly) gave a much more low-key account of what actually happened, and then Phil MacGiollabhian
followed up with two blogs strongly suggesting that the ‘raid’ possessed none of the attributes you might expect of… errrr…..a raid.

Who knows, If we maintain our sceptical questioning approach, we might ultimately end up arriving at the truth (or at least a truth of sorts) on all sorts of issues…

If you can bear to peruse more thoughts on this, brace yourself and have a look at https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/visitations-from-off-the-raid-ar/

Enjoy the rest of the day!

View Comment

seniorPosted on5:26 pm - May 6, 2015


It later emerged he paid the debt by selling three years of season tickets to finance firm Ticketus for £25m.
================================================

Can anyone imagine the hubbub if £25,000000 happened to disapeared on a great train.
I suspect there would be many more taxpayers pounds spent on investigating it – ah well there has to be some benefit from membership of the Lodge.

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on5:46 pm - May 6, 2015


My son is about to enter his final year at University where he is studying journalism.To date his progress has been first class and he has had commissions from various magazines and newspapers.He may not become an award winning journalist,but he sure as hell knows fact from fiction.(He does not consider the DR a newspaper btw)

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on6:14 pm - May 6, 2015


Ok,who is setting the prize journo up,the fairy story has to come from someone near to the ram raid and tipped him off but not realising the gifted one has a very vivid imagination

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on6:17 pm - May 6, 2015


It’s just came to me,Keefs nickname
Jackanory Jackson.

View Comment

MercDocPosted on6:35 pm - May 6, 2015


OT, a bit. I see Steven Romeo, Head of Rangers Retail, is Head of Retail for the SFA. I laughed when I saw,
‘Working for Rangers retail in a joint venture with sports direct.com. covering licensing ,brand protection, trademarks,retail’.
Oops didn’t do a good job there, The SFA are in safe hands 😕
Maybe there to scared to tell him, he has got a bronze medal in judo, don’t you know!

View Comment

mcfcPosted on6:37 pm - May 6, 2015


TheClumpany says:
Member: (9 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 5:24 pm

Who knows, If we maintain our sceptical questioning approach, we might ultimately end up arriving at the truth (or at least a truth of sorts) on all sorts of issues…

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

Scepticism and ridicule are the age old weapons of the weak masses against the powerful and corrupt. When propaganda is met by an overwhelming “Aye Right”, the fear of god is delivered to those used to being obeyed and respected without question. Whether it is Ceaușescu and Gaddafi or Doncaster and Regan, mass disrespect is the one thing the powerful cannot defend themselves against. I was proud to be among the 2012 Olympic crowd that spontaneously booed George Osborne as he tried to bask in the glory of someone else’s project having hounded the poor and the disabled in his budgets. That instantaneous, uncoordinated lightening flash of common sentiment was uniquely special in my experience – but there are moments like that coming to Scottish football. There’s no denying a growing movement of knowledgeable people brimming with informed opinions and incisive questions around the iniquities of Scottish football – if only some of them were in the MSM, But fear not, it is just a matter of time before the MSM implodes – and who will then print the PR puff verbatim? The SFA/SPFL etc would do well to study the downfall of past unaccountable leaders reviled by the masses.

View Comment

timabhouyPosted on6:41 pm - May 6, 2015


https://www.change.org/p/the-scottish-government-repeal-the-offensive-behaviour-at-football-threatening-communications-scotland-act-2012?just_created=true

Any chance of signing this and passing it on folks !

View Comment

oompaloompaPosted on7:00 pm - May 6, 2015


Allyjambo says:
May 6, 2015 at 2:25 pm

I’ll be progressing this one on my own initiative but I think that the opportunity for comments should be taken by anyone interested in proper governance of our national sport. We are witnessing a truly shocking era in our history. Smoke and mirrors will continue without true accountability and no hiding place for the privileged few in their ivory tower. Time to take back control of the asylum me thinks!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:19 pm - May 6, 2015


Mibbees Keef is not actually basking in the glory of yet another, off the radar, front page ‘Exclusive’ ?

If Ashley was bothered, he could get his legal rottweilers all over the DR, to get a suitably grovelling apology for their misreporting / fibbing ?

And also, you would think that SD spends a lot of money on advertising with the DR & Sunday Mail ?

Keef might be getting his backside kicked as we type… 😆

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on7:35 pm - May 6, 2015


Regarding SD and Police today.
I just heard Mr McKay on STV news stating that there was an ongoing investigation into the fraudulent takeover of the club.
Fraudulent, his words?? Dear oh dear.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:54 pm - May 6, 2015


http://www.philmacgi…-adam-n-eve-it/

http://www.philmacgi…e-kind-of-raid/
phil.

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on7:58 pm - May 6, 2015


valentinesclown says:

May 6, 2015 at 7:35 pm

Regarding SD and Police today.

I just heard Mr McKay on STV news stating that there was an ongoing investigation into the fraudulent takeover of the club.

Fraudulent, his words?? Dear oh dear.

—————————–

He was not too far out even though I see it more as a ‘Fraudulent Handover’, that would direct us to the seller rather than the buyer. That is the only direction to look at and where my eyes have remained focussed, especially since the One Pound Coin was received…..

View Comment

MercDocPosted on8:06 pm - May 6, 2015


Is this a league standing up to the Big boys.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32618821

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:16 pm - May 6, 2015


Oh no, I have to give a grovelling apology to Keef !

Although he tweeted about the ‘raid’, I have to admit that it was not his name on the DR front page ‘Exclusive’.

Going to go and hide now.

View Comment

stevoPosted on8:23 pm - May 6, 2015


jimlarkin says:
Member: (266 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 6:10 pm

Indeed…You betcha
Otherwise, Sevco (as a consequence of finishing 3rd) would not be promoted at all this season.

—————————–

I don’t actually believe the Championship promotion play-offs were intended to help Sevco, since I don’t believe the authorities imagined for one minute that they wouldn’t romp home with the division. I find it far more plausible that they were introduced as a sop to the other clubs who would be unlucky enough to find themselves facing at least half a season of dead rubbers as the elite raced out of sight.

Speaking of dead rubbers: At the start of the season, there are 1.5 promotion places available in the Championship, so it follows that (statistically) the odds on promotion to the Premiership are 1.5 in 10. For the teams finishing 3rd and 4th, the odds on winning promotion via the play-offs are 1 in 8. So, after 36 games, they actually have less chance of promotion than they had before a ball was kicked, yet we’re supposed to be excited about this. Terrific.

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on8:31 pm - May 6, 2015


So with the splashback from the Sevco jobby reaching Sports Direct rather publicly this week, whats the chance Ashley may be tiring of all this. Does he really need the negative press and silly wee boys like Dave King and Paul Murray paying PR companies employing the most hacket of hacks to throw the dirt in all directions?

Or might he decide its time to extract his pound of flesh, lock down all is contracts, sell up his shareholding and focus on his real projects.

Sevco would probably not survive but if he gets his readies back would he care?

I find it remarkable that the RRM are poking the bear quite like this, I have to assume perhaps they are suicidal.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on8:51 pm - May 6, 2015


stevo says:
Member: (6 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 8:23 pm

jimlarkin says:
Member: (266 comments)
May 5, 2015 at 6:10 pm

Indeed…You betcha
Otherwise, Sevco (as a consequence of finishing 3rd) would not be promoted at all this season.

—————————–

I don’t actually believe the Championship promotion play-offs were intended to help Sevco, since I don’t believe the authorities imagined for one minute that they wouldn’t romp home with the division. I find it far more plausible that they were introduced as a sop to the other clubs who would be unlucky enough to find themselves facing at least half a season of dead rubbers as the elite raced out of sight.

Speaking of dead rubbers: At the start of the season, there are 1.5 promotion places available in the Championship, so it follows that (statistically) the odds on promotion to the Premiership are 1.5 in 10. For the teams finishing 3rd and 4th, the odds on winning promotion via the play-offs are 1 in 8. So, after 36 games, they actually have less chance of promotion than they had before a ball was kicked, yet we’re supposed to be excited about this. Terrific.

_______________________________________________________

Slight logical fallacy there:

If all else were equal at the start of the season with every team perfectly level, merit removed from the scenario, and only random elements assigned to gain rankings there is indeed a 15% chance of being promoted.

And after reaching 3rd and 4th in the playoff, the chance of being promoted is 12.5%

However, you must also factor in ALL outcomes (adverse as well as beneficial) when statistically weighting the desirability of outcomes.

The correct analysis is as follows :

Start of season:
15% opportunity of promotion
15% jeopardy of relegation
70% likelihood of holding station

End of season 3rd/4th finisher
12.5% opportunity of promotion
0% jeopardy of relegation
87.5% chance holding station.

Start of season: zero net sum gain. (3 in 20 positive, 3 in 20 adverse, 14 in 20 static)
End of season 3rd/ 4th : 1 in 8 positive, 7 in 8 static: positive sum gain.

This means that the teams in 3rd/4th ARE statistically significantly better off at the end of the season than they were at the start of the season w.r.t their overall advancement prospects.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on8:54 pm - May 6, 2015


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/other/ashleys-hq-raided-as-part-of-rangers-investigation/ar-BBjgqqz?ocid=mailsignoutmd

Hamish MacKay of the Telegraph
says that Sports Direct confirmed (to him ?) that their premises were raided !

I understood that “journalists” dealt with FACTS ?!

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on8:57 pm - May 6, 2015


castaway says:
May 6, 2015 at 12:18 pm
Flocculent Apoidea says:
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?

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I can’t disagree with that but I can’t get a feel for the number of fans that would agree. SFM may be able to give an indication of the number of followers to this blog but I worry that too many fans don’t care or don’t know what’s gone on. If there are significant numbers then something might get done. The media won’t give it any oxygen until the outcome seems inevitable and they need to change sides for commercial reasons.

My own club seems dismissive of the corruption that’s gone on but keeping Clyde’s head above water is a challenge for what is a volunteer board. I understand that but am still disappointed that what was a principled stance at one point just melted away. I believe our manager is something of a cheerleader for Dave King, too, which grates.

I also understand the people that have stopped going because they can’t justify it to themselves. I considered that, myself, but still go, for now. I have such a low opinion of the integrity of the game, though, that I become suspicious of events on the field, like the recklessly conceded penalty (has someone just trousered a ‘win bonus’ for themselves?) or the times where a player looks like he wants to get himself sent off. I’m going off at a tangent but Scottish football could have acted very differently to the betting issues that arose a year or so ago. A manager claimed to have a list of football people breaking the rules on betting and nobody in the game took any action nor made any comment on that? Corrupt. Nobody in the media thought there was a story there either.

I’ve just annoyed myself. 😡

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:08 pm - May 6, 2015


valentinesclownvalentinesclown says:
Member: (144 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 7:35 pm

Regarding SD and Police today.
I just heard Mr McKay on STV news stating that there was an ongoing investigation into the fraudulent takeover of the club.
Fraudulent, his words?? Dear oh dear.
———-

Interesting. The takeover was Craig Whyte for the famous £1. Green & co acquired the assets, so technically, not a takeover?

Makes you wonder what the Polis are actually investigating.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on9:09 pm - May 6, 2015


stevo says:
Member: (6 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 8:23 pm

I don’t actually believe the Championship promotion play-offs were intended to help Sevco, since I don’t believe the authorities imagined for one minute that they wouldn’t romp home with the division.
============================
Have to agree with the above.

I could add that the potential interest (TV and fan wise) in the play off system (no doubt having had half an eye on down south) was also a factor.

Moreover there was, IMO, a feeling amongst a number of clubs that entry into the top flight on a one up, one down basis was blocking ambitious lower division clubs.

Sometimes there is a simple explanation, in plain view, that doesn’t somehow revolve around Rangers.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on10:34 pm - May 6, 2015


Had a wee trawl through Nesnow and this morning’s ‘raid’ by the Polis appears to be morphing, via a ‘search’, into a ‘visit’… 😆

View Comment

castawayPosted on10:44 pm - May 6, 2015


parttimearab says:
Member: (312 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 9:09 pm

Sometimes there is a simple explanation, in plain view, that doesn’t somehow revolve around Rangers.

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

True, but I believe the converse is true also. There’s loads being done in plain sight for “the good of Scottish Football”, which the healthily sceptical know dang well is for the benefit of one new club only.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on10:55 pm - May 6, 2015


castaway says:
Member: (54 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 10:44 pm
parttimearab says:
Member: (312 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 9:09 pm

Sometimes there is a simple explanation, in plain view, that doesn’t somehow revolve around Rangers.

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

True, but I believe the converse is true also. There’s loads being done in plain sight for “the good of Scottish Football”, which the healthily sceptical know dang well is for the benefit of one new club only.
======================================
Wouldn’t disagree with you on that…but there is I think a need to be careful to distinguish between the obvious “for the good of Scottish Football” 5way/Brysonesque decisions as opposed to decisions that may benefit Rangers as a consequence but which have a perfectly good rational underling them.

Important for the credibility of the blog IMO.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on12:02 am - May 7, 2015


parttimearab says:
Member: (314 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 10:55 pm

EDIT

“there is I think a need to be careful to distinguish between the obvious “for the good of Scottish Football” 5way/Brysonesque decisions as opposed to decisions that may benefit Rangers as a consequence but which have a perfectly good rational underling them.

Important for the credibility of the blog IMO.”
____________________________________________________________

Alistair McCoist was the manager of TRFC at the time of the introduction of SPFL play off system.

Just saying. 🙄

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on12:34 am - May 7, 2015


parttimearab says:
Member: (314 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 9:09 pm

stevo says:
Member: (6 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 8:23 pm

__________________________________________

Agree wholeheartedly with this.
imo the playoffs were a concession to the other clubs.
The assumption was that TRFC would cruise back to ‘where they belonged’.
(imo RFC are in fact where they belong already (liquidation))
The play offs were a sop/pander to the other clubs so that THEIR promotion prospects were not killed off completely by sharing a league with the chosen one.

The unintended consequence was that playoffs might help a mortally wounded TRFC escape to the top league where its chances of effecting a financial recovery are enhanced.

I have no problem with that.
Thems the rules we signed up to.

It also increases their chances of being relegated in the event of a subsequent insolvency.

Cuts both ways.

TRFC are entitled to the same fairness as we demand for our clubs.
Nothing less and nothing more.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:05 am - May 7, 2015


Could we not make it incumbent on all clubs to include play off matches in the scope of season tickets ? Save all this nonsense .

View Comment

castawayPosted on1:16 am - May 7, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
Member: (418 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 12:34 am

TRFC are entitled to the same fairness as we demand for our clubs.
Nothing less and nothing more.
=======================

You never spoke a truer word. But as for league redesign, you’re making assumptions, based on what you assume to be SFA assumptions. Not a good foundation IMO.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:33 am - May 7, 2015


castaway says:
Member: (56 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 1:16 am

Resin_lab_dog says:
Member: (418 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 12:34 am

TRFC are entitled to the same fairness as we demand for our clubs.
Nothing less and nothing more.
=======================

You never spoke a truer word. But as for league redesign, you’re making assumptions, based on what you assume to be SFA assumptions. Not a good foundation IMO.

______________________________________________

Here’s a possibility: Playing devil’s advocate: perhaps TRFC only ever signed up to ‘gate sharing’ at the playoffs because they never expected it to apply to them (anticipating winning the league at a canter?)

Well you know what?
They did and it does.

In the same way, 42 clubs agreed to the play off system as it stands.

Whatever excuses and motivations and agendas were held or advanced at the time, that time has now passed.

The rules can be changed going forward if needed.
But as they stand they should simply be applied.

I have no problem.

Not least, there is just as much to TRFCs eventual disadvantage vs what works out to their advantage with things as they stand for us (imo) to credibly suggest that the solution arrived at was in any way inequitable in that regard.

So I don’t buy the ‘conspiracy’ one little bit on this occasion.

Occam’s razor cuts it here, I think.

View Comment

castawayPosted on2:02 am - May 7, 2015


RlD,

Talking about razors, I used to go to the hairdressing school to get my hair cut for free. I had a big Yorkshire student this day who nicked my neck with the razor. There was blood everywhere.

The supervisor was running around like a headless chicken, and the big Yorkshire lad who did the damage said to me, ” Koom bak agen, and Ah’ll giv ya woon on t’oothah said ta match!” Calm in the face of the storm. What a guy.

Occam, who’s he?

View Comment

stevoPosted on9:25 am - May 7, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
Member: (419 comments)
May 6, 2015 at 8:51 pm

Start of season: zero net sum gain. (3 in 20 positive, 3 in 20 adverse, 14 in 20 static)
End of season 3rd/ 4th : 1 in 8 positive, 7 in 8 static: positive sum gain.

This means that the teams in 3rd/4th ARE statistically significantly better off at the end of the season than they were at the start of the season w.r.t their overall advancement prospects.

—————————–

Thank you for the comprehensive analysis. For at least one of the clubs involved, though, surely the static outcome is actually adverse – also for Scottish football. :irony:

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on9:25 am - May 7, 2015


paddy malarkey says: “Could we not make it incumbent on all clubs to include play off matches in the scope of season tickets?”

I’d go the other way – ensure play-offs are explicitly excluded, after all if there are costs incurred (and there are) for holding those games, they need to be covered by someone. Imagine if a firm on shaky finances was at their final game, a point away from the playoffs, which would put it into admin as they couldn’t afford any more costs… that’s not a recipe for sporting integrity is it?

Now sure, that’s an extreme example, but why tempt fate?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on9:28 am - May 7, 2015


You Gotta Laugh!

The Daily Ranger follows up its door kicking exclusive with a kangaroo court phone-in convicting Ashley of buying shares and making secured loans. Agenda? What agenda?

In my view, Ashley’s strength is that he has a plan plus the resources and patience to execute it, even if it takes a year or two longer than he would like. He does not employ expensive lawyers so he can wreck his reputation and business over a loose change punt for a bit of fun. You can bet your house that whatever Whyte and Green have done, Ashley has taken the highest quality advice and is on the right side of the law – maybe only just – and will spend millions to prove it if necessary.

Ashley may not be to everyone’s (anyone’s) liking, but don’t take him for the fall guy just because he does play the media game. IMHO he’ll be the one laughing last and longest.

Sports Hotline: Raid on Mike Ashley’s HQ just another twist in the Rangers story you COULDN’T make up
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/hotline/sports-hotline-raid-mike-ashleys-5646672

View Comment

mcfcPosted on9:51 am - May 7, 2015


Time Changes Everything

Do you remember when, almost exactly two years ago, The Rangers spent £400,000 on an internal investigation by Pinsent Masons to quell scurrilous rumours of a connection, even the faintest connection, between post-admin CEO Green and pre-admin owner Whyte?

Now Green and Whyte share lawyer approved Daily Ranger headlines whenever a juicy squirrel is needed.

Extrapolate that change and think of the headlines in two years from now.

Rangers confirm no links between Craig Whyte and Charles Green
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22714334

View Comment

mcfcPosted on10:21 am - May 7, 2015


Anyone Seen Dave King?

Kim Jong-un Still Missing as North Korea Asian Games Homecoming Passes Without ‘Dear Leader’
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kim-jong-un-still-missing-north-korea-asian-games-homecoming-passes-without-dear-leader-1468868

Mugabe Goes Missing
http://www.zimeye.com/mugabe-goes-missing/

Castro’s disappearance fuels new health fears
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/16/fidel-castro-disappearance

How rumor of Brezhnev death grew
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1979/10/20/page/23/article/how-rumor-of-brezhnev-death-grew

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:56 am - May 7, 2015


I wonder if this conversation took place a few weeks ago between Paul Murray and Neil Doncaster:

Paul: Neil, is there anything in place to stop us (TRFC) from letting season ticket holders in for free for the play-off matches?

Neil: Yes, there is a rule in place, and we will not allow it to be broken, under any circumstances.

Paul: What would happen if we just went ahead and let the ST holders in for free?

Neil: We would still charge you the 50% of the entry fee for the total attendance.

Paul: So you’re saying that there’s absolutely no way you will let us get away with this?

Neil: Absolutely, Paul, Absolutely.

Paul: Thanks, Neil, that’s what I hoped you’d say…

Neil: Remember, we let Hibs do it last season, but there were exceptional circumstances and they approached us first before making an announcement. Just thought you’d like to know that…just in case you have a squirrel you’d like to make look a little bit more realistic!

Paul: (Chuckle) You are a card, Neil!

At the appropriate time, armed with this knowledge, TRFC call a press conference…and never bother to seek SPFL permission.

Of course, there’s no need to talk to the league CEO (in case anyone thinks I was privy to such a conversation as this 🙄 ) to find out if anything is within the rules, especially for people of such high intellectual standing (they are able to read the rules, or speak to/employ someone who can).

This whole farce leaves me thinking that it was never anything more than a PR exercise to get more bears on their side, while stoking the ‘victimisation’ flames. It also adds to the excuse collection (the alternative to the warchest) in the event they fail in the play-offs.

What I’m suggesting is that it was never the board’s intention to let ST holders in for free (they can’t possibly afford to do that, anyway), they just wanted to stoke the flames, leaving plenty of time for the flames to die down so they could go ahead and sell the tickets for the first match, while deflecting attention away from the fact that they finished in 3rd place – a second failure in the league (didn’t win it and couldn’t even make the important runners-up spot), and fifth for the season (knocked out of three cups)!

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on11:04 am - May 7, 2015


mcfc says:
May 7, 2015 at 10:21 am

Anyone Seen Dave King?
————————————————————-
I thought he’s been sighted out on the golf courses. Earning a tidy bit of pocket money at the caddying no doubt, and every little counts when you’ve got £30 million to find, I assume.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on11:12 am - May 7, 2015


All this latest news concerning the administration/liquidation takeover, assets buying of the Govan club reminded me of an interview with Mr Green which was aired on STV sometime in 2012. Not sure of the date of this interview but the reporter was Andrew Smith and it was in relation to Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland ( not sure if Dallas cowboys was also in there somewhere because I do remember having a chuckle). Basically Mr Green admitted that he had to trick Mr Whyte into parting with his Sevco 5088 shares (basically fraudulent action in legal terms). I understand there is a court case concerning this action. There are so many court cases to come concerning this club/company I have lost track of when they are due to take place. I wonder if anyone can remember the above interview as I have not got a link to it but would like to see it again. Is there a date for HMRC appeal in BTC yet?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:31 am - May 7, 2015


valentinesclown says:
Member: (145 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 11:12 am

——————————————————–
Enjoy !

Extended video of Rangers CEO Charles Green’s interview with STV

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/221242-extended-video-of-rangers-ceo-charles-greens-interview-with-stv/

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on11:49 am - May 7, 2015


mcfc
thanks

View Comment

mcfcPosted on12:33 pm - May 7, 2015


valentinesclown says:
Member: (146 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 11:49 am
===================================================
My pleasure – it really is compelling viewing – especially with what we know now. Them Dallas Cowboys just don’t know what they’re missing. 🙂

And what about Bill Miller and Brian Kennedy – happy days.

View Comment

seniorPosted on1:44 pm - May 7, 2015


Valentinesclown

“Basically Mr Green admitted that he had to trick Mr Whyte into parting with his Sevco 5088 shares (basically fraudulent action in legal terms). I understand there is a court case concerning this action”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is where the SFM will come into it’s own. Every utterance or statement made since this saga started is squirreled away (excused the fun) in the collective SFM memory. The police or HMRC do not have to raid! just read this blog or ask and they will save the tax payer oodles of money.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:44 pm - May 7, 2015


mcfc says:
Member: (1160 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 12:33 pm

The way Green was happy to let us all know that he was less than honest in his dealings with Whyte – as though he thought it would impress the bears, at least – reminded me of a conversation I, and a friend, once had with a complete stranger in a pub.

He was very happy to tell us that he had moved from Glasgow to a south coast of England town (Brighton, Bournemouth kind of town) because he got more dole money that way, and that he supplemented that with shoplifting! It was said in a way that suggested we should be impressed by how clever he was! What’s more, the pub was less than 100 yards from a busy police station so we could easily have been a couple of just off duty cops.

It demonstrated to me how such habitually dishonest people are blissfully unaware of just how repulsive the rest of us find their dishonesty.

This man’s mind-set seemed to be that, as he was only stealing from shops, and not directly from the public, his dishonesty was acceptable. A bit like Green being dishonest with Whyte, as Whyte himself was dishonest, and so deserving of such treatment, should be acceptable to the TV audience.

Green seems so blind to the possibility that Whyte could use his words as evidence in a court case, should one come to pass. Oh wait a minute…

These two men were so similar, though miles apart in the spiv spectrum; one takes advantage of trusting people, the other takes advantage of…

…and due to their profoundly dishonest natures, they are both unable to grasp that their deeds are so abhorrent to the rest of us.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:59 pm - May 7, 2015


senior says:
Member: (46 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 1:44 pm

Valentinesclown

“Basically Mr Green admitted that he had to trick Mr Whyte into parting with his Sevco 5088 shares (basically fraudulent action in legal terms). I understand there is a court case concerning this action”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is where the SFM will come into it’s own. Every utterance or statement made since this saga started is squirreled away (excused the fun) in the collective SFM memory. The police or HMRC do not have to raid! just read this blog or ask and they will save the tax payer oodles of money
_____________

…while the newspaper archives will just be a waste of time!!!

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on2:14 pm - May 7, 2015


Peter Smith won a TV award that year for THAT interview,one the other contenders for the award was a Middle East correspondent,compare and contrast.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:09 pm - May 7, 2015


I hope I’m not being entirely off topic but I would like to report that Mrs C and I spent a very pleasant, enjoyable couple of hours earlier this evening with the Brisbane-based poster ,Gabby.
Far be it from me to take sides in the cup final ( which Gabby told the blog he was going to travel to see), but, hey, if you have a drink with a guy fired up to travel frae Brisbane to Hampden, what else can you do but wish him a happy result?

But the poetry of ICT , with their PFA manager of the year, winning for the Highlands in a season that has been quite wonderful, will warm the cockles of the heart of most football -as-sport people.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:09 pm - May 7, 2015


“Grant Russell @STVGrant
· 2h 2 hours ago
Rangers will charge £5 to all fans for play-off games. Season ticket holders will not go for free.”

Yup, Scottish football really does need a strong TRFC! One that WILL cut off it’s nose to spite… the rest of the league’s face!

View Comment

nawlitePosted on3:38 pm - May 7, 2015


AJ, “cut off their nose to spite… the rest of the league’s face!” That really is what they’re doing, isn’t it, albeit with the added benefit of a (hoped for) larger home support than if they were to charge full price. It ties in with the fans’ wish of hurting the rest of Scottish football as revenge for all the ‘fly kicks’.

The question is will the SPFL allow them to go ahead with this or will they be strong enough to stand their ground? After all, ALL clubs agreed to this within the last year or so, as it was seen as a good way to provide funds to the SPFL for redistribution to the smaller clubs. So, it was an agreement and now TRFC* don’t want to stand by it – how unusual. I hope the SPFL stand up and get the money they are due, though I imagine they’ll be cowed by the pressure of being seen as anti-Rangers, greedy, just after the blue pound etc. I can see the headlines now and I’m sure the SPFL can too – I just hope they also see the support for doing the right thing.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on3:42 pm - May 7, 2015


mcfcmcfc says:
Member: (1160 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 11:31 am
valentinesclown says:
Member: (145 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 11:12 am

——————————————————–
Enjoy !

Extended video of Rangers CEO Charles Green’s interview with STV

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/221242-extended-video-of-rangers-ceo-charles-greens-interview-with-stv/

17 0 Rate This

———————

A Psychological profiler would have a field day with that interview. There is the basis for an episode of The Blacklist right there.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:43 pm - May 7, 2015


Allyjambo says:
Member: (863 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 1:44 pm
===============================================
I once read that the secret to being a good racing driver is knowing when to go slow – any fool can jam their foot on the loud pedal until they hit something. Green’s downfall will be that he just doesn’t know when to stop the quick talking that has made him rich.

The Peter Smith interview actually contains some very skillful evasion and distraction from Green e.g. on Man Utd. But at the end of the day, Green likes the sound of his own voice too much, gets carried away and just can’t help himself. Any PR adviser with two brain cells to rub together would have told Green to run a mile from doing that interview – and maybe they did.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:55 pm - May 7, 2015


nawlite says:
Member: (132 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 3:38 pm

The question is will the SPFL allow them to go ahead with this or will they be strong enough to stand their ground?

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

The SFA/SPFL seem to miss out a vital step in writng their rules. That is, get together a group of smart, right awkward bar stewards to brain storm how to game your draft rules. Then adjust the rules and repeat. That the SFA/SPFL have not learned this after many similar situations may be seen as profound stupidty or as a convenient oversight to the benefit of their favourites who they will never pull up in the way they will pull up others. Cynical? Me? You bet your sweet ass!

View Comment

high beeswaxPosted on4:44 pm - May 7, 2015


should qos receive a ‘ bye’ into the championship play off final if trfc dont comply with the spfl ‘ rules’……. from memory the spfl introduced a minimum adult ticket price of £ 15 for these games…..

Kneel Doncaster…. ah think we should be told ah really do……

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on4:45 pm - May 7, 2015


From the BBC:

“Motherwell, who could be involved in a play-off if they finish second bottom in the Premiership, had stated their intention to allow season-ticket holders free entry.

The example of Hibernian last season was cited, when the Edinburgh club were given special dispensation to allow free entry because they had started selling season tickets before the new SPFL rules were adopted.”

Hibs were granted a SPECIAL DISPENSATION because THEY SOLD SEASON TICKETS BEFORE THE NEW RULES WERE ADOPTED

Is the point of a special dispensation that it is special and therefore not a precedent?

Motherwell sold their season tickets with full knowledge of the rules so it’s an invalid comparison and therefore not a valid precedent.

Although the article doesn’t confirm that the SPFL will accept this course of action.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32627035

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:13 pm - May 7, 2015


MoreCelticParanoia says:
Member: (67 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 4:45 pm

“Motherwell, who could be involved in a play-off if they finish second bottom in the Premiership, had stated their intention to allow season-ticket holders free entry.
===============================================================
MCP, for an Englishman, are Motherwell being supportive to The Rangers or are they tempting the SFA to apply double standards?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:14 pm - May 7, 2015


“…I consider myself a little bit as a godfather of the organization of women’s football in FIFA,” Blatter said, while accepting that “there is still a lot to do…”

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/sepp-blatter-i-m-a-godfather-to-women-s-football-1-3766320
======================================
Blatter making a Freudian slip there ?

A ‘Godfather’, as in a corrupt, evil, power hungry, control freak portrayed in films ?

And this is what Ogilvie et al have to aspire to ?! 🙁

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:23 pm - May 7, 2015


StevieBC says:
Member: (642 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 5:14 pm

And this is what Ogilvie et al have to aspire to ?! 🙁
==================================

Compared to Blatter’s Godfather, Ogilvie is still a street thug; pimping and mugging.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:36 pm - May 7, 2015


mcfc says:
Member: (1164 comments)

May 7, 2015 at 5:13 pm

MoreCelticParanoia says:
Member: (67 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 4:45 pm

“Motherwell, who could be involved in a play-off if they finish second bottom in the Premiership, had stated their intention to allow season-ticket holders free entry.
===============================================================
MCP, for an Englishman, are Motherwell being supportive to The Rangers or are they tempting the SFA to apply double standards?
______________

Looks a bit like typical SMSM mischief making. One sentence that suggests support for TRFC, but with no details of what Motherwell have actually stated, or whether they are threatening to go against the SPFL rules, in a ‘TRFC stick two fingers up at the SPFL’ puff piece. I have no idea what Motherwell have said, but the phrase ‘had stated they intend’ suggests they may well have previously mooted the idea but accepted the SPFL’s ruling once clarified.

Anyone know the true Motherwell stance on this?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:42 pm - May 7, 2015


Aston Villa subject of £150m takeover from ex-Chelsea director
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32627445

Not bad for a club that Charles Green described as “completely useless”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19924802

But why, oh why, are they not investing their £150,000,000 in the greatest football club in the galaxy ? World’s gone mad!

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:46 pm - May 7, 2015


Allyjambo says:
Member: (864 comments)
May 7, 2015 at 5:36 pm

Anyone know the true Motherwell stance on this?
======================================
thanks – from a position of supreme ignorance – just wondered whether Motherwell were historically/obvioiusly aligned with or against the Ibrox mob – or just neutral and doing what’s best for their club.

View Comment

Comments are closed.