Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

No Independent Enquiry?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Never?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that

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

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

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

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

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

SR We didn’t fail.

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

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

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

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

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

SR Well I think the articles

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

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

AT ??  (Interrupted)

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

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

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

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

The Nature of EBTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT Sometimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Carlsberg did irony!

End of Interview.

The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions

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

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

The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either

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

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

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

Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision

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

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


Outline of the Scheme


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Auldheid  Feb 2015
This entry was posted in General by Auldheid. Bookmark the permalink.

About Auldheid

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 thoughts on “Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

  1. upthehoops says:
    Member: (683 comments)
    May 10, 2015 at 8:17 am

    It is utterly sickening that people like Graham Spiers still see those days as a cause for celebration.

    That’s football fans for you! Although how he gets employment as a journalist (outside of fanzines) is a bit of a mystery. Or would be in any other country. Unfortunately, I know how the recruitment process works here.

  2. I see that Anne Budge has dared to go off message in today’s Scotsman- http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/ann-budge-would-prefer-hibs-to-win-the-play-offs-1-3768538

    “From a Hearts perspective it’s better if Hibs win the play-offs. We would have the derbies and that’s a big thing for Edinburgh.”

    Now she surely can’t get away with saying stuff like that, when the whole of Scottish football knows that getting “Rangers” back “where they belong” is priority number one (and two, and three)?

    Perhaps our renowned Compliance Officer will haul her before the beaks for bringing the game into disrepute? Of course I’m joking, but would I be surprised? Not even a wee bit.

  3. I liked this bit on Dempster & Budge @neepheid:

    Despite taking control of rival clubs, they recently proved forthright and vocal adversaries of the SPFL over the scheduling of the final Championship fixtures and share a desire to challenge old attitudes and improve the Scottish game. They both speak of fairness and transparency and have insisted on open dialogue with the fans. They have also both proved to be very good at what they do.

  4. Danish Pastry says:
    Blog Writer: (1141 comments)
    May 10, 2015 at 10:13 am

    I liked this bit on Dempster & Budge @neepheid:

    Despite taking control of rival clubs, they recently proved forthright and vocal adversaries of the SPFL over the scheduling of the final Championship fixtures and share a desire to challenge old attitudes and improve the Scottish game. They both speak of fairness and transparency and have insisted on open dialogue with the fans. They have also both proved to be very good at what they do.

    Fairness? Transparency? Dialogue with fans? I can just imagine the blazers going beetroot red and spluttering over their G&T’s as they read such heresy.

    We need some women of the Budge/Dempster type on the 6th floor at Hampden, in positions where they can actually change the cosy “old boys” culture. I honestly think that an influx of strong-minded, able women is the only way to escape from the special kind of cronyism (let’s call it the Ogilvie syndrome) that has bedevilled the governance of our game for far too long.

  5. Sadly, in that interview with Ann Budge, it becomes clear just why I didn’t receive a reply (other than an acknowledgement of receipt) to the email I sent her – posted on here – after the Doncaster ‘same club’ nonsense. She has sympathy with TRFC, or as she calls them, ‘Rangers’, for their off-field problems, and hopes they can ‘move things on positively’.

    Perhaps the pragmatism she displays in putting aside old rivalries with Hibs, leads to her viewing the Ibrox debacle in purely business terms! From the changes she is making at Hearts she clearly views even the smallest detail as being important, and so, no doubt, views the extra bums on seats, no matter how reduced from days of old, and possible TV advantages a ‘Rangers’ might bring, as something that really matters.

    I am sure she will speak out against any unfair advantage given to bigger rivals, even when not affected directly, and make her voice heard when changes are proposed, or blocked, that don’t make good sense, but first and foremost, she will remain, shall I say, diplomatic when there is nothing to gain for Hearts (or the rest of the league) by speaking out, or even forming an unspoken opinion that might conflict with what she sees as (and I’m happy to accept she will be correct) what’s best for Hearts.

    Perhaps that is how the majority of club chairmen and directors view things, though perhaps not all are as competent as Mrs Budge.

    Perhaps that’s why there will only ever be one Turnbull Hutton!

    Hopefully I am wrong, and the interviewer worded his question in such a way that ‘Rangers’ had to be mentioned in her reply – and I doubt any club chairperson is going to be less than diplomatic in such circumstances – but my email remains unanswered.

  6. Neepheid
    Do you mean a Nicola Sturgeon type person on Level 6.

  7. Allylyjambo days May 10 2015 at 12.17 p.m
    ‘…. Perhaps that’s why there will only ever be one Turnbull Hutton!”
    Such has been the grip that the old RFC had, certainly in the wicked reign of our most despised (yes, locally more despised than Fred) kn ight of the realm, on the collective
    psyche of the power-brokers in Scottish ‘ civic society’ never mind the high heid yins in
    Scottish Football governance, that for a club owner to be anything less than ‘diplomatic’
    would amount almost to self-inflicted martyrdom.
    I know no more about Mrs Budge than I have (hollow laugh!) read in the papers.
    Her ‘diplomacy may reflect her genuinely held views.
    If so, it puts her among those ‘deniers’ of the truth of the of the death of the old RFC and among those who ‘pragmatically’ accept lies and evasion of hard truth as any kind of solid basis for any advancement of sport.
    If, on the other hand, she privately shares the view that the new club is NOT the old club, then her diplomatic response to Moira Gordon’s ‘questioning’ should have been a polite but firm refusal even to bring TRFC into the conversation.
    It is regrettable that she opted for even a lukewarm ‘ sympathy’ for TRFC, when she, like all the other patsies like John Collins and anybody and everybody who played for Celtic, and a whole lot of others who didn’t, had absolutely no need to, but were working to a script.
    People are entitled to their honestly held opinions, of course.
    But truth must ultimately be spoken, and true legal, commercial,sporting truths-as enunciated by the late Turnbull Hutton must, sooner or later, begin to be openly argued for by our clubs, else the ‘sport’ which is their ‘business’, dies.
    It’s as simple as that. The cuckoo in the nest has to be recognised for what it is, and dealt with as it should have initially been dealt with when it wax (mis)begotten by CG,and midwived into being by those who signed up to the 5Way Agreement

  8. My theory on the opinions expressed on OCNC has always been that people who make their living out of football are more likely to subscribe to OC than to NC.
    Footballers, club officials, print and broadcast media all have a vested interest in maintaining the old club illusion. From a commercial point of view, I don’t really see how it is necessary, since I don’t think there would be any more significant spectator losses if “new club with RFC heart and soul” was the accepted spin.

    Belt and braces maybe, but if you take those constituents above out of the equation, nobody else is buying the old club fiction.

    Turnbull Hutton was of the same view as the rest of us. That is why he was a one-off. To TH, sporting integrity WAS of paramount importance, followed closely by a refusal to insult the intelligence of the fans by perpetuating the comic-book ‘same club’ myth that is so widely peddled in the press.

  9. There is a ‘ NOT’ missing in a fairly obvious place in my immediately preceding post.Sorry if I puzzled anybody.If AB thinks TRFC are Not the old RFC , then diplomaticaly she should simply avoid bringing them into discussion, is really what I was, am, saying.

    Fixed that for you John

  10. upthehoops says:
    Member: (683 comments)

    May 10, 2015 at 8:17 am
    He is probably still working to Hay Mckerron’s remit?

    “Hi Craig Had a 90 minute meeting with Graham Spiers today and got across forcefully where you and we stand on his coverage, both in print and on air”

    “Anyway, the upshot was that he accepted that some of his criticism may have been unfair and that he would endeavour to be more objective in the future. I told him that he was always free to check his facts with us before committing himself to print.”

    “We shall continue to monitor carefully what he writes and says.” 👿

  11. woodstein says May 10 2015 @ 2.58 p.m
    citing the email that showed that Speirs is,at rock bottom, no more than a mouthpiece for ,presently, TRFC/RIFC just as he was for RFC.
    Dress it up as he may ( and he does so, very well) as objective comment and reporting, he is in thrall to ‘RFC’ as was . What did he think he was doing as any kind of free
    journalist in taking, in effect, orders to mind what
    he was saying, from a football club?
    what would he NOT do, in taing orders from a
    many journalists in,say, Nazi Germany or In modern times in, say, North Korea, quite happily acted under the orders of Government.
    It’s slick rationalising


  12. JC & BP,

    In my earlier post I wasn’t so much thinking about the OC/NC debate as the apparent acceptance that Scottish football needs a ‘Rangers’, though OC/NC does have a lot to do with it, a lot to do with a lot of the things that are wrong with the whole gamut of rule breaking, ignoring of the law and general absence of a definitive stance by the SFA.

    I, and I’m sure most of us, had hoped that we were seeing, in the stance taken over the last games of the season’s scheduling, that the clubs were no longer going to cow-tow to those that would ‘see Rangers in their rightful place’, at any cost. Perhaps AB and LD, and others, will be prepared to stand against obvious disadvantages to their (TRFC’s) oponents, which is welcome, but it does look like the acceptance that ‘Rangers’ are needed hasn’t gone away.

    I certainly don’t expect anyone to challenge the acceptance by the media of TRFC = RFC in every interview, but the apparent sympathy for the Ibrox club’s plight, as though they are just unfortunate to find themselves in the mess they are in, is particularly galling! Are even Hearts unaware of the effect the Murray years had on Scottish football, and how the financial doping, with the help of Bank of Scotland, led to the start of Hearts financial nightmare? Never mind the EBTs and mis-registration cheating.

    So, my point re the possible framing of the question was with ‘the need for a Rangers in the top flight’, rather than the OC/NC argument; and the sympathy shown for TRFC in Ann Budge’s reply suggests the pragmatic acceptance of ‘that’s the way it is in Scottish football’ is going to be around for a long time to come.

    Call them TRFC or Rangers, whatever they are, whoever they are, they are not unfortunate to be where they are, they are very, very lucky!

  13. Scottish referees not adding enough added time has been mentioned a few times on here and is a personal bugbear of mine. Sitting beside a pal who always stops his stopwatch at every stoppage, I have been informed of refs cutting games short by a minute sometimes two but yesterday at New Douglas Park was a new record. The first half was littered with injury stoppages. Poor Mikey Devlin, Accies centre half, was down for a good six minutes before he was eventually stretchered off. Ryan Stevenson was tended to for a couple of minutes before he too had to go off. Lyle Taylor was also down for treatment. Astonishingly the fourth official indicated only 6 minutes were to be added when my pal insisted it was more like 11. Just as the board went up, Mackinnon of Accies also went down hurt and that was another two minutes, which were added and the ref blew after 53 minutes had elapsed. It should have been 58 minutes! Myself and my friend were the only dissenting voices. No one else either noticed or was bothered in fact the guy behind me, on seeing the six minute board, said that seems about right. So once again the paying punters were cheated yesterday and folk are so dumb that nothing is ever done or said about it.

    Footnote, watching the Preston-Chesterfield game today. After the first PNE goal, at the kick off the caption gave the goal time. One minute and 20 seconds were lost between the goal and kick off. I believe refs are under no obligation to add that time on but it’s another large chunk off the 90 minutes.

  14. bobferris says:
    Member: (22 comments)
    May 10, 2015 at 5:13 pm

    I am one of the constant moaners about this Bob. The ref added 5 minutes at Pittodrie today. I think there is a case for at least that in more than 50% of games, if not more.

  15. I was at Hamilton v Thistle game yesterday and I think all in attendance would have been happy with no added time , even though there were two lengthy delays due to injuries .

  16. Allyjambo says:
    Member: (874 comments)
    May 10, 2015 at 4:22 pm
    JC & BP,

    Call them TRFC or Rangers, whatever they are, whoever they are, they are not unfortunate to be where they are, they are very, very lucky!

    Call them TRFC or Rangers, whatever they are, whoever they are
    Sorry AJ but thats too long for me

    I`ll just call them TRFC

  17. GoosyGoosy says:
    Member: (388 comments)
    May 10, 2015 at 7:11 pm

    You say, potato,
    I say potaato,
    You say TRFC,
    I say… bugger it, let’s call the whole thing off!
    Off? I’ll say it is, coz it don’t half stink to high heaven! 😳

  18. Good Evening.

    I couldn’t help but dwell today upon one of the growing trivialities of our game…

    Aberdeen gave Celtic a ‘Guard of Honour’ before today’s match. Fair play to Aberdeen – who have been fantastic this season – for the gracious gesture.

    However, I must admit that I find the issue of ‘Guards of Honour’ to be extremely tedious. It seems to have progressed from something that was ‘a nice gesture’ towards the League (or sometimes Cup) Winners, to something that is now a perpetual source of angst.

    If it was up to me, we would cut back on the ‘Guard of Honour’ pantomime. If we have to have it in football, let’s have it AFTER a game. And a maximum of once. Preferably after the game when the trophy is to be awarded.

    Heaven knows Scottish Football doesn’t need another comparatively minor issue to get worked up about… Yet – as Derek McInnes rightly pointed out – the media still keep focusing on it!

    There are plenty of far bigger issues for us all to deal with instead. So can we park the ‘Guard of Honour’ issue and think about them instead?!

    If you have the stomach, I have further thoughts on this issue at


    Enjoy the rest of the evening!

  19. Anne Budge understands that competitors, can also be partners. What’s good for Hibs, can also be good for Hearts and vice versa. The SPFL should be run a cooperative model, rather than for the benefit of a few favoured sons. Its one of the few cases where the old saying “A rising tide floats all boats” is actually true.

    Been caught up with the agony & the ecstasy elsewhere, any word on King’s FPP?

  20. I don’t know if anyone watched the Stevenage-Southend game, I caught a bit of it including a sickening accidental clash that saw play held up for seven minutes followed by an injury to a keeper that saw about another two minutes elapse. Ref added nine minutes. Compare and contrast.

    paddy – as I stated it was four injury stoppages yesterday, roughly, 6 and a half mins, 2 and a half, 2 and 2.

  21. Sitting watching the BAFTA awards tonight and some great winners of the awards and some unlucky losers,got me thinking,our journo awards as we know went to very questionable winners,but,who where the unlucky runners up ,I made another discovery today ,having Sunday dinner at my Mothers I picked up her Sunday Post,she has had this paper delivered for about 100 years,lo and behold one of their sports reporters is none other than Mark Guidi,anyone know when he Tuped over to DC Thomson,the comic kings.

  22. @ bobferris
    Sorry, Bob, didn’t see an earlier post I don’t wear a watch but the guy sitting with me reckoned there was an extra 10 minutes in the first half . Whatever the amount, it was pure torture and the ref could have done us all a favour by abandoning it at half time – it was that bad .

  23. yourhavingalaugh says:
    Member: (231 comments)
    May 10, 2015 at 10:10 pm
    …at my Mothers I picked up her Sunday Post…one of their sports reporters is none other than Mark Guidi,anyone know when he Tuped over to DC Thomson,the comic kings.

    And did Guidi’s ‘exclusive’ sports report start with the standard;
    “Wee Jeanie down the road overhead…” !?

    I am embarrassed for Guidi.

    :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:

  24. upthehoops says:
    Member: (684 comments)
    May 10, 2015 at 5:21 pm
    bobferris says:
    Member: (22 comments)
    May 10, 2015 at 5:13 pm

    I am one of the constant moaners about this Bob. The ref added 5 minutes at Pittodrie today. I think there is a case for at least that in more than 50% of games, if not more.
    IMO, this is one area where the customer/fan experience could be improved – using technology – and without any controversy.

    The ref is already advised – from an ‘external’ source – of added time at the end of the first half and second half. IIRC, the ref can use his judgement to add further time to this recommended minimum added time.

    Most/every SPL team has at least one big TV screen, which also displays the time played.

    So, during the game the ‘added time’ could be displayed in real time. Presumably [?] the 4th official calculates the added minimum time during the game, [could be wrong].

    So why not link this calculation to the stadium TV screens ?

    At a stroke it could remove controversy – ref added time aside.

  25. Re additional time.
    I know we try to avoid referee’ing issues but it’s beggining to look like they are not following some basic procedure’s and straying from these is courting controversy,time the method of coaching was revisited is it not.

  26. TheClumpany says:
    Member: (10 comments)
    May 10, 2015 at 7:52 pm

    Totally agree @Clumps. Once, on the actual trophy presentation day.

    Btw, why have you disappeared from twitter?

  27. As in rugby, for ‘incidents’ the officials could simply ‘stop the clock’, then play to time. No need to calculate ‘added’ minutes and no opportunities to let play continue for a few more until your team get a winner/equalizer (not that that would ever happen)

    On the Guard of Honour thing Clumpany, you are correct, except I would do away with it altogether. It’s a recent and wholly artificial addition

  28. King Moves in Mysterious Ways

    What is it about King that allows him to do the exact opposite of what he says then disappear in the hour of greatest need, yet still he attracts virtually no criticism from the bears. No investing, no jetting, no smiting of enemies, no parting of seas, no leading of the people to the promised land. Many leaders have resigned for less recently.

    Where is King?

    Can any MSM award winner tell us?

  29. The Clumpany

    On the guard of honour issue I see Jose Mourinho and others down south were also saying it was a waste of time, unnecessary, and should be done away with. I really don’t know why the press make so much of it? In rugby it has always been tradition for teams to applaud each other off the park. For football it is not tradition and almost as useless as the pre-match handshakes which should be something also done at the end of the match.

    I would be happier if guard of honour and pre-match handshakes both do a DCK and disappear.

  30. Level 5 it all makes sense now they are directly underneath Level 6 undermining them. Or is it the hidden Bond villain lair below the public face of the corporation. Who is Oddjob? Is there anyone who could play the role of Blofeld? We need a Dr No, who can that be? Judy Dench could be replaced as M by a scottish wummin, there are candidates are there not?

  31. ‘Where is King?

    Can any MSM award winner tell us?


    Last sighting of him was in the Antarctic – King Penguin that is!

  32. Big Pink says:
    Moderator: (280 comments)
    May 10, 2015 at 2:10 pm

    My theory on the opinions expressed on OCNC has always been that people who make their living out of football are more likely to subscribe to OC than to NC.
    Footballers, club officials, print and broadcast media all have a vested interest in maintaining the old club illusion. From a commercial point of view, I don’t really see how it is necessary, since I don’t think there would be any more significant spectator losses if “new club with RFC heart and soul” was the accepted spin.

    This is aa point that we need to get to grips with if we are ever going to move our game forwards from the Ibrox fiasco.

    Administrative power lies in the hands of the clubs.

    Financial power ultimately lies in the hands of the fans.

    The various SFA and League committees and high heid yins are answerable to the clubs and, through them, to us, the fans.

    And yet.

    How much influence do any of us feel we currently wield in the corridors at Hampden?

    I think many would agree that our own clubs (which, let’s face it, we don’t generally own) act as a buffer between the fans that pay for the game and the administrators that extract massive salaries from the money we put in.

    I only have a limited understanding of UK business law, so please bear with me and correct me where necessary.

    I think I get the fact that directors of a business have to act in the best interests of that business. Seems like a reasonable plan.

    Of course, They also have to make the call on what constitutes the best interest of the business and how to achieve that.

    Here there may be all sorts of considerations, both short and long term.

    Which brings me to the point that BP made above.

    Facilitating the survival of some form of “Rangers” has clearly been deemed in the best interests of sufficient numbers of Scottish clubs that, with a small number of honourable exceptions (Turnbull Hutton’s greatness will not soon be forgotten), our clubs have silently acquiesced.

    No matter that it broke the established rules of the game.

    No matter that it involved engagement with some of the biggest shysters ever seen in the game.

    No matter that it involved Rangers fans being taken to the cleaners financially on multiple occasions.

    No matter that it destroyed the financiaal credibility of the sport.

    And no matter that it has devastated the sporting integrity of the game.

    Please remind me – how is this in the best interests of ANY of our clubs?

    I get the idea that there is a fast buck to be made from “Rangers” fans visiting your stadium twice a year (though I think this has been shown to be largely mythological).

    I get the idea that by keeping “Rangers” fans engaged with the game it will boost sales of papers and attract sponsors – how is that working out?

    You know what? I just don’t get it.

    The destruction of Scottish Football as a credible business proposition and as a genuine sporting contest is simply NOT in the best interests of any of our clubs. With the possible (debateable) exception of “Rangers”.

    IMO, this means that our directors have failed in their collective duty to protect the business interests of their clubs.

    There ought to be a parliamentary commission to look into the running of our sport. Would I trust such a commission to investigate throughly and report fairly?

    Until we reach a point where the Establishment finally and publicly washes its hands of “Rangers” (e.g. by exposing and acting upon the Murray years cheating), they will remain in too many eyes the Establishment club, able to operate outside the normal rules that constrain the rest of us.

    I don’t expect for one second that any political entity in these islands will take this on. For sales of papers, read votes at the next election.

    We need a grassroots approach. Fans making it clear to their clubs that further facilitation of rule breaking by “Rangers” (e.g. dual owndership, FPP, trading whilst insolvent etc) is not acceptable.

    Sporting integrity or bust.

  33. With the many comments we have posted here, indicating great concern

    about the kindergarten approach to the administration of Scottish

    Football, a thought has crossed my mind on several occasion.

    In short, what harm can be done by incorporating the English FA rule

    book, and disposing of the pile of manure in current use.

    (Please refrain from Nationalist, or anti English comments)

  34. BorrowaTenner says:
    Member: (53 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 11:40 am
    With the many comments we have posted here, indicating great concern

    about the kindergarten approach to the administration of Scottish

    Football, a thought has crossed my mind on several occasion.

    In short, what harm can be done by incorporating the English FA rule

    book, and disposing of the pile of manure in current use.
    It would be helpful if you would highlight the differences between the two that you feel would improve the administration of Scottish Football.

    As a helpful starter I’ll point out that at least the SFA have a dual ownership rule, unlike the EFA…hard to see where exchanging rule books would get us to there…

  35. BorrowaTenner says:
    Member: (53 comments)

    There probably is something to be learned from the English FA, just as there is from the Germans, French, etc.

    I’m not sure how much of the difficulty lies with the rule book, and how much with the culture & quality of the personnel.

    That said, the legal framework has changed dramatically over the last couple of decades, and many organisations need to update their rules to make them more Judge proof.

  36. StevieBC says:
    Member: (646 comments)

    May 11, 2015 at 1:01 am

    yourhavingalaugh says:
    Member: (231 comments)
    May 10, 2015 at 10:10 pm
    …at my Mothers I picked up her Sunday Post…one of their sports reporters is none other than Mark Guidi,anyone know when he Tuped over to DC Thomson,the comic kings.

    And did Guidi’s ‘exclusive’ sports report start with the standard;
    “Wee Jeanie down the road overhead…” !?

    I am embarrassed for Guidi.

    As long as it was wee Jeanie who heard it and not the Broon’s Bairn. She’s got form for mishearing things….

  37. The avowedly pro Indy site Wings over Scotland has done some polling on Football. You can get the full SP on his site. but some interesting numbers on OFBA:

    ““The Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act 2012 bans the singing of sectarian songs in and around football matches, but some supporters claim it infringes their civil liberties, or that it was intended to victimise their club alone.

    Do you support the Act, or do you think it should be abolished?”


    Support the Act: 60%
    Should be abolished: 14%
    Don’t know/don’t care: 26%


    Support the Act: 59%
    Should be abolished: 29%
    Don’t know/don’t care: 13%


    Support the Act: 64%
    Should be abolished: 25%
    Don’t know/don’t care: 11%


    Support the Act: 76%
    Should be abolished: 10%
    Don’t know/don’t care: 14%


    Support the Act: 54%
    Should be abolished: 8%
    Don’t know/don’t care: 38%”

    Usual health warnings around polls, but, nonetheless, definitely food for though there.

  38. Zilch says:
    Member: (25 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 11:00 am

    I agree with your sentiments and share your frustration, but with all due respect, let me propose a different interpretation.

    We, the Scottish establishment have a country club where they wine and dine our friends and pointedly exclude those we consider non-people. This is in the form of an association football club known across the globe as Glasgow Rangers. But a football club needs a league and other teams to play; to beat and to lord over. So we established a football league and allowed all and sundry to try their luck to beat us. And rather than subject ourselves to the vagaries of inconvenient arrangements, we spurned offers to join with other leagues lest it spoil the essential elements of our own country club.

    But over decades, some unworthy, ungrateful wretches began to offer impolite levels of resistance on the field of play – even winning with disrespectful regularity and becoming an irritant. It was below us to punish them openly, as that would have bestowed upon them unwarranted respect. However, steps needed to be taken to redress the balance. Instead our stratagem was to apply imperceptible adjustments to the levers of power to facilitate the natural order. Our friends, and those who would be, were only too pleased to assist. A friendly decision here, a blind eye there, an interpretation of a rule occasionally and some mislaid documentation all contributed.

    Then one day, a great friend suffered an unimaginable disaster and his creditors, in the most vulgar and ungentlemanly manner, withdraw the considerable facilities he had extended so handsomely in good faith. In their avaricious denial of the friend’s lifelong wishes they would not relent in betraying his obvious intent that imbursement should never be conscionable. In turn, the tedious clerks and bean counters at HMRC were soon speaking of the need to remit highly questionable sums on the most untenable timescales. What followed was an abomination of technocratic pedantry and visceral vindictiveness.

    But we are the strong, the wealthy, the influential, the well positioned and the decision makers in this ancient land and we will not be subject to the vitriolic rules of those who bite the very hand that has fed them for so long. Nor will we be lectured to by those south of the border on matters of law and fiduciary duty, for we have our own institutions, overseen by those imbued with our traditions and imperatives.

    We will do whatever is necessary to rebuild the country club, its exclusivity, its honour, its dignity. And those who chose to exploit our temporary weakness will feel our wrath and if we must we will lay waste the whole edifice rather than countenance enslaving ourselves to them.

    Now Zilch, with the utmost respect, who would you like to be on the commission to investigate events for the good of Scottish football?

  39. Zilch says 11 May @ 11.00 a.m
    “…..Sporting integrity or bust.”
    If I may say so, that is a very good post, indeed, which says nearly everything that needs to be said
    and which cannot be said too often.
    I think, though, that we ought not to be too ready to
    sort of accept the TRFC situation as an irreversible
    done deal.
    The great evil spawned by SDM and fostered by
    even lesser men than he ( from CW to CG and
    beyond, via the corridors of Hampden) cannot be
    effaced by a mere insistence that there be no
    more cheating in their favour.
    Full retributive sporting justice has to be insisted
    upon. The new club must not be allowed to parade
    itself as the old RFC.
    And the record book must show the stripping of
    titles and honours cheatingly, unfairly, and possibly
    illegally, won by the club that was cossetted and
    protected beyond all measure in circumstances
    where questions about complicity can fairly be
    And ARE being asked.
    Remember that there are several separate but linked investigations under way by various authorities.
    It may be a long time before these investigations are concluded, but I am happy to wait until they are concluded.
    I will not absolutely give up on Scottish Football until then, in the hope that in the meantime the anticipated departure of the best football administrator in the world provides the spark to light the fire of our clubs and frees them up to aspire to the moral heights of the late Turnbull.

    Things have a long way to before all the various legal and criminal investigations surrounding the creation of TRFC come to a head.
    I hope that when they do come to a head, the enormity of the dereliction of duty of the SFA in particular will be clearly seen,the bad guys will be removed ( preferably to the pokey if there is evidence of collusion in a conspiracy or of personal abuse of office for material gain but resignation will do).

  40. mcfc @ 1.12 p.m 11 May 2015
    mcf ,that piece is worthy of Petronius himself , an extract from whose ‘Satyricon’ I happened to be reading earlier this evening.
    Cleverly done, and swiftly, too. Thank you for it.

  41. I know some folk here like to keep an eye on how the daily papers are shrinking:

    FOR the fourth, consecutive month, the year-on-year circulation in Scotland of The Times newspaper has increased, according to the latest official figures.

    Says newspapers auditing body, ABC, the average circulation in Scotland of the paper during last month was 19,247 – up 3.8 per cent on the average of 18,542 during April last year.

    The March 2014 to March 2015 year-on-year figures was a 3.4 per cent increase, as reported here, while the February 2014 to February 2015 year-on-year figure was a 2.1 per cent increase, as reported here, and the January 2014 to January 2015 one was a 2.4 per cent increase, as reported, here.

    The paper was the only national daily or Sunday newspaper to experience a year-on-year increase between April last year and last month.

    In summary, ABC figures read, as follows:

    Daily Mirror – 19.6 per cent drop = from 17,993 on average during April last year, to 14,462 last month;

    Daily Record – 10.4 per cent drop = from 211,336 on average during April last year, to 189,439 last month;

    Daily Star of Scotland – 13.5 per cent drop = 43,036 to 37,232;

    The Scottish Sun – ten per cent drop = 248,419 to 223,745;

    Scottish Daily Express – 13.5 per cent drop = 50,613 to 43,773;

    Scottish Daily Mail – 2.3 per cent drop = 92,177 to 90,041;

    Daily Telegraph – eight per cent drop = 17,669 to 16,262;

    Financial Times – 8.7 per cent drop = 2,351 to 2,147;

    The Guardian – 10.8 per cent drop = 10,323 to 9,209;

    i – 7.6 per cent drop = 18,416 to 17,019;

    Independent – 3.7 per cent drop = 2,630 to 2,532; and

    The Times – 3.8 per cent up = 18,542 to 19,247.

    Meanwhile, the Sunday titles’ sales figures in Scotland were as follows:

    Daily Star of Scotland – Sunday – 14.9 per cent down = 23,065 to 19,639;

    The Scottish Sun – Sunday – 13.1 per cent down = 178,600 to 155,263;

    Sunday Mail – 11.2 per cent down = 235,188 to 208,856;

    Sunday Mirror – ten per cent down = 16,080 to 14,474;

    The People – 15.5 per cent down = 9,257 to 7,818;

    Scottish Mail on Sunday – 4.8 per cent down = 82,029 to 78,075;

    Scottish Sunday Express – 12.5 per cent down = 28,670 to 25,093;

    The Sunday Post – 10.1 per cent down = 150,936 to 135,661;

    Independent on Sunday – 1.1 per cent down = 4,896 to 4,842;

    The Observer – eight per cent down = 13,576 to 12,494;

    Sunday Telegraph – 9.6 per cent down = 15,624 to 14,123; and

    Sunday Times – 1.5 per cent down = 45,315 to 44,621.

    Source: ABC, May 8 2015. Please note: The Scotsman, Scotland on Sunday, The Herald and the Sunday Herald now appear in the twice-yearly ABC regional newspapers report.

  42. Looks like an award winning journalist has either been going over old ground here, on SFM, and spent the weekend cobbling together a belated attempt to ‘tell it how it is’, or has been handed a story to prepare the ground for someone about to make a move of some sort.

    Notable that what was a ‘raid’ has been downgraded to a ‘swoop’. Watch out, too, for a new way to describe dodgy dealings, ‘wiggery-pokery’.


    How long ago was the first time someone posted on here something to the effect:

    ‘…a bigger picture was emerging down there, on that piece of plastic which nestles in Dumfries town centre – that this is the very level at which today’s Rangers actually belong.’

    And what about ‘today’s Rangers’? Not the same as the Rangers you grew up knowing, Keith? Possibly the closest you’ve ever got to the truth on that one, Mr Award Winning Journalist! Just as Xmillion monkeys will one day come up with the works of Shakespeare, one day Keith Jackson will type the truth!!!

  43. How can anyone make sense of this bit from KJ in the above article?

    ‘Sources on Hampden’s sixth floor insist they are not to blame for the hold up and emphasise they are still awaiting more submissions from King’s legal team.’

    Seems clear enough, only King and his legal team are to blame for any delay (unless Jackson is suggesting the SFA are lying).

    And yet, Jackson then writes:

    ‘Yet, while the authorities are in no rush to handle this particular time bomb, King and right-hand man Paul Murray are up against the clock.

    They need an answer from the SFA before they can progress funding plans…’

    So, according to Jackson, the SFA should give the go ahead, then be handed the submissions!

    I’d like Keith Jackson to answer the following question:

    Is that the way things are meant to happen in Scottish football when dealing with ‘Rangers’? Give them the green light to do whatever they want, then find someone, perhaps called Bryson, to come up with… what might we call it? The flim-flam, to justify the decision!

  44. Just on the issue of Mike Ashley, I know that he has appealed the fine levelled against him over dual ownership issues.


    However, i am a little confused as to whether the fine is for not seeking prior approval or for the actual ownership issues?

    It seems to me that if the appeal is lost that the ownership issues remain.

    Its unlikely that the SFA would demand Ashley simply leave Rangers, as they currently owe him 5 million as well as him currently owning assets and intellectual property. i doubt they could afford to pay him off. So what is the deal? Are they going to give him restrospective approval? Are they going to accept that Ashley will continue with these dual ownership breaches? Are the issues complicated because the dual ownership is cross border unlike the Livingston situation?

    What i am basically wondering is that if Ashley loses the appeal, yet no action is forthcoming, how can any other issue of dual ownership be taken seriously?

    Would this prove to be a watershed moment in Scottish football where teams could be bought by richer clubs and have younger talented players farmed to them for experience?

    If im not mistaken this already happens in Belgium and Holland. Are we about to see the same at Rangers? Most of their first team squad are out of contract very soon. Will we see a Rangers team next season, wherever they are, constructed mainly from Newcastle reserves with associated payroll costs switched?

    Just wondering, because it seems to me that if it can happen there it can happen to most Scottish clubs.

    I guess that the SFA simply hope Ashley will leave of his own accord but he has shown no will to do so as yet.

    I am genuinely interested to see the outcome of this appeal. If we ever do!It appears to a mess.

  45. vansen says:
    May 11, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    Vansen, I emailed Darryl Broadfoot at the SFA about this after both cases (against MA and against TRFC*) had been heard with both outcomes being ‘guilty and a paltry fine’. I specifically focussed on the 5 loan players as I had exchanged emails with him on the fairness (or otherwise!) of that before the cases were concluded. On 21 April, I was asking him if the SFA would now rescind the registrations following the guilty verdict. He refused to respond despite chasers – another today.

    You should email him raising your wider points and see if that elicits a response.

  46. senior says:
    Member: (48 comments)

    May 11, 2015 at 10:59 am

    ‘Where is King?

    Can any MSM award winner tell us?
    Never mind king,
    Can any MSM award winner tell us what happened at the meeting in london with PM and SD.
    Last i heard they had gone down to demand a better deal for TRFC.
    PM must be home by now ready to tell all with the transparency and truth he said he would.
    Can any MSM award winner tell us what happened at this london meeting?

  47. Carfins Finest says:
    Member: (129 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    I know some folk here like to keep an eye on how the daily papers are shrinking:

    i suspect the decline is not just the Hog Wash they so called print (copy/paste)

    but also to do with unemployment
    i remember buying a paper the DR on a daily basis on the way to work every morning and sat and read it on the bus 😆

    The internet and especially the leaps and bounds in technology Mobile phones,laptops and tablets

    also the number of people who now travel by car so cant read the papers so why buy them

    And lets not forget the Metro 😳 pick it up as you get on the bus/train and leave it on the seat as you leave 😉

    all in all the printed press is fighting a losing battle

  48. Nawlite,

    Thanks, i may well do. Since the appeal is ongoing i expect the reply would be non committal, as you and other contributors constantly find with your enquiries. If indeed there was a reply.

  49. Allyjambo says:
    Member: (877 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 5:12 pm



    There are definitely a few phrases in there that Radar will regret in the morning and will need to ‘translate’ for the loyal denizens of Edmiston Rd.

    The only explanation is that Radar has been hacked by a thirteen year old – who has a greater depth of understanding of the whole saga – but whose logical flow was interrupted by a mate texting her a video of a bear (ursine) throwing its shit at a big fan.

  50. John Clark says:
    Member: (839 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 1:48 pm

    John, many thanks for your kind comments.

  51. Mcfc

    There’s going to be a rush of guys round to Ibrox with emulsion and ladders generated by that post you understand.

  52. mcfc says:
    Member: (1177 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 7:02 pm

    “There are definitely a few phrases in there that Radar will regret in the morning” 😳
    “In terms of micro-management and dealing only with what he can *affect in the here and now of this frantic jostling for promotion, a slender 2-1 play-off victory will have come as an almighty relief”

    mcfc says:

    😳 “The only explanation is that Radar has been hacked by a thirteen year old……………..big fan”. 😀 😀

  53. mcfc says:
    Member: (1177 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 7:13 pm

    New Paintings For Ibrox


    We can only guess the location of Super Ally’s other portrait – commensurate with his managerial success.

    That’s it right there !

    This little nugget of info confirms how far removed from reality the folks at Ibrox seem to be – mibbees as a result of rangersitis ?

    When you apparently haven’t got 2 coins to rub together, don’t know how you will pay the next month’s wages, and have put all your available assets in hock…what do you do…?

    Yes, that’s right: you go out and commission 6 paintings !

    Absolutely mental. 😯

  54. StevieBC says:

    May 11, 2015 at 8:56 pm

    When you apparently haven’t got 2 coins to rub together, don’t know how you will pay the next month’s wages, and have put all your available assets in hock…what do you do…?

    Yes, that’s right: you go out and commission 6 paintings !

    Absolutely mental.
    I dunno, they might offer more lasting value than the playing staff.

  55. StevieBC says:
    Member: (647 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 8:56 pm
    mcfc says:
    Member: (1177 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 7:13 pm

    New Paintings For Ibrox


    We can only guess the location of Super Ally’s other portrait – commensurate with his managerial success.

    That’s it right there !

    This little nugget of info confirms how far removed from reality the folks at Ibrox seem to be – mibbees as a result of rangersitis ?

    When you apparently haven’t got 2 coins to rub together, don’t know how you will pay the next month’s wages, and have put all your available assets in hock…what do you do…?

    Yes, that’s right: you go out and commission 6 paintings !

    Absolutely mental. ?


    6 ‘Portraits’

    Does that mean she is another ‘face painter’ ????

  56. Danish Pastry says:
    Blog Writer: (1143 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 8:14 pm

    Yes, its a belter!! Dont know what to think, but clumpers came across as a definite celtic fan, IMO.

  57. paulsatim says:
    Member: (85 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 9:16 pm

    Yes, its a belter!! Dont know what to think, but clumpers came across as a definite celtic fan, IMO.

    Great mirth on twitter at least, in the Clumpany spirit 🙂 Just odd that his twitter account is no more. It was a right good laugh most of the time.

  58. Re the “pie and ear paintings”…..

    Colin Paterson ‏@C_N_Paterson 1h1 hour ago
    The new pioneers paintings in Mordor are acknowledgement of them bein a new club
    Depicting them as pioneers infers they were the 1st players
    3 retweets 4 favorites
    Reply Retweet3 Favorite4
    Colin Paterson retweeted
    Noody ‏@Noody69Noody 1h1 hour ago
    @C_N_Paterson it’s f***ing hilarious, on so many levels that I now suspect there is some Machiavellian super Tim undercover in their PR dept

  59. I’m betting these emulsions were commissioned by Charles at vast expense and copies adorn his château walls as fond momentoes of his part in le journae.
    Also bet he’s on commission for same.

  60. Danish Pastry says:
    Blog Writer: (1144 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 8:14 pm
    Good Evening

    Just looked in the mirror and I don’t appear to be Craig Whyte. However, I am unable to definitively dismiss persistent rumours that the Medical Wing of Clumpany Towers is home to a world-leading Plastic Surgery team.

    Enjoy the rest of the evening, see you around, and please…


  61. TheClumpany says:
    Member: (11 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 10:40 pm

    Good Evening

    Just looked in the mirror and I don’t appear to be Craig Whyte…

    Well, if it’s any consolation, I awake feeling a bit Craigy Whyte some days, but it usually wears off.

    Funnily enough, one of my kids’ childhood heroes was called ‘Klump’ — a bear who got up to all sorts of adventures. More a fan of pancakes than tonic wine. I’ve often read a bit of Klump as a bedtime story for the wee yins 😀

  62. Over on Twitter Grant Russell of STV has sparked a lively debate after highlighting Scottish Referee John Beaton being ‘headbutted’ while officiating at a Saudi Arabian derby. Some tweets in reply are predictable, and I’m sure most of us agree Referees safety should never be under threat. The ‘headbutt’ itself was in my view no different to that Kris Boyd got away with earlier in the season, and although that wasn’t towards a Referee, it would be helpful if the media had been concerned about it in the same way.

    For this observer the fact the SFA are willing to send one of their Referees to a foreign domestic match is double standards of the highest order. Firstly they react in utter horror at the suggestion a Referee from other shores should be allowed to do a Scottish domestic match. Secondly the standards in Scotland right now are utterly appalling, yet the SFA sit in silence and indeed continue to reward those who fail spectacularly with high profile games, only for them to fail spectacularly again.

    The SFA are not fit for purpose. This is yet another example.

  63. MercDoc says:
    Member: (60 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 10:57 pm

    Is it just having the name Rangers, means you don’t like the rules that were already there to start with!



    What kind of rules are these? Where is the discretion loop hole to regard them as mere suggestions whenever the safe word “Rangers” is used.

  64. May 11, 2015 at 8:56 pm

    mcfc says:
    Member: (1177 comments)
    May 11, 2015 at 7:13 pm

    New Paintings For Ibrox


    “The new framed painting titled the New Pioneers depicts Ally McCoist, Lee McCulloch, Lee Wallace, and Neil Alexander in a mirror image of the Gallant Pioneers, Moses McNeil, Peter McNeil, William McBeath and Peter Campbell.”

    Is that the Ally McCoist, now on gardening leave? The Lee McCulloch, now a target of the boo boys (and thoroughly deserving of the boos)? The Lee Wallace, a sad shadow of the player he once promised to be? And the Neil Alexander who had to take The Rangers to a tribunal for the money they owed him?

    Or are they some other players of distinction – from an era in the lead up to the death of Rangers? An era much more suited to the title, ‘The Last Stars’, than ‘the New Pioneers’!

    It is clear, that not only has money they can’t afford been wasted on paintings that only serve to illustrate the Ibrox decline, but that the paintings were commissioned some time ago. I wonder if the artist was wise enough to get payment up-front?

  65. Is the artist who painted the portraits the next ‘face painter’ to fall foul of ‘Ibrox credit’?

  66. Just catching up on the talk about The Clumpany. Hope he’ll be back soon, I was really enjoying his blogs, all very amusing.

    If you can, Clumps, let us know what’s up; hope there’s no real problems happening for you.!

  67. AllyjamboAllyjambo says:
    Member: (879 comments)
    May 12, 2015 at 9:21 am

    You know @ExiledCelt posted an image of that on twitter earlier. I thought it was a photoshop spoof. Apparently not 😮 I wonder who commissioned the paintings and who owns them? Are they ‘on loan’ for a fee? I suppose whoever ‘owns’ the history might have had an interest in historical ‘iconography’? But maybe that’s being a little too cynical.

Comments are closed.