Thoughts and observations from watching and reading a transcript of Alex Thomson of Channel 4’s Interview with Stewart Regan (CEO of the SFA) Broadcast by Channel 4 on 29 March 2012.
http://www.channel4.com/news/we-run-football-were-not-the-police-sfa-boss
Introduction. I came across the above interview recently and listened to and transcribed it again as it reminded me of questions it raised then that the passage of time since has provided some insight into.
There is a lot to digest so the blog is broken into four sections. Three parts cover the Interview plus what they seem to tell us now, knowing what was not known then viz:
- Why No independent or independent element to the enquiry that became the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission. given the potential extent of the corruption at play?
- Why no effective fit and Proper Person scrutiny and the absence of real governance?
- EBTS and whether they constitute wrong doing and why that mattered so much and still does. plus
- The “hard to not to believe” conclusions about the whole exercise with the benefit of what we ken noo.
There is also an Annex at the end with excerpts from the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision for ease of reference:
The comments (in bold italics) are based on what Regan said then and what we ken noo, either as facts or questions arising from them. It is a long read but hopefully readers will be enticed by this introduction to stay the course.
In the following “SR” is Stewart Regan CEO of the SFA and “AT” is Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News.
No Independent Enquiry?
SR No
AT I’m just curious as to why they wouldn’t. With something as big as this potentially this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport, which is – a thought – and yet the SPL deem themselves fit to investigate themselves.
SR Well I think you are calling it potentially the biggest corruption case, at this stage there has been no wrongdoing proven. There is an investigation going on
AT But you would accept that potentially, potentially that if guilty there is no question this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport.
SR There is no wrongdoing as I said at the moment and there is nothing yet that has been established as far as the club registering players without providing the appropriate documentation, so I think it would be wrong to jump to conclusions and even use words like corruption. You know there are a series of issues here. There are some footballing matters which are being dealt through the football authorities and there are tax mattes which are being dealt with through HMRC and there is to be a Tax Tribunal due to be heard as I’m sure you are aware in April.
So even before the investigation got underway Mr Regan was saying that it would be incorrect to assume that any wrong doing took place in terms of the registration process and use of ebts. He later expands on this point in relation to EBTs as a legitimate tax arrangement device. Given that the FTT did not rule until November 2012 that the ebts issued under the Murray Management Group Remuneration Trust (MMGRT) were legal then this stance by Mr Regan appears justifiable at the time of interview – but more on that later.
AT I’m just wondering why at no stage anybody seemed, or perhaps they did, to think we need an independent body coming in this is big this is huge, potentially we need somebody from the outside or we are going simply going to be accused of investigating ourselves.
SR Well I think that might be one for you to ask the Scottish Premier League as far as their Board..
AT Well they appeal to you so I’m asking you.
SR No as you said we are the right of appeal so if the club is concerned with any punishment it has been given well then they can choose to appeal to us. We as a body have the provision in our rules to carry out independent enquiries, indeed we did so very recently by appointing the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith to carry out our own investigation into Rangers and we are part way through disciplinary proceedings and they will be heard on 29 March.
Given that player registrations are ultimately lodged with the SFA where Sandy Bryson has been doing the job for some years, I did wonder why the SFA were not the body taking the lead. They had the expertise on what turned out to be a key issue, the eligibility of players if misregistration occurred. Indeed Sandy Bryson was called in to give a testimony to Lord Nimmo Smith that most folk involved in running a football team from amateur level upwards (as I was) had difficulty accepting. The Bryson interpretation suggested us amateurs had been daft not to take the risk of being found out if we did not register players correctly if only games from the point of discovery risked having results overturned. The Bryson interpretation on eligibility made no sense against that experience and it still does not to football lovers. I’m not sure if the rules have been amended to reflect the Bryson interpretation yet, but cannot see how they can be without removing a major deterrent that I always thought proper registration was there to provide.
The point about their having to be a body of higher appeal sounded plausible then, but could the Court of Arbitration on Sport not have been that body? Or did that risk taking matters out of the SFA’s control even though it would have introduced an element of the independence that Alex Thomson raises in the following paragraphs in his interview?
AT But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?
SR Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition
AT I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?
SR No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,
AT Never?
It is notable here that Alex Thomson pushes the point about lack of independence, which is where we enter “wit we ken noo territory”.
Given that it is now known that SFA President Campbell Ogilvie sat on the Rangers FC Remunerations Policy Committee in September 1999 where it was decided Discount Option Scheme (DOS) ebts would be used as a matter of club remuneration policy using the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT).
Given that we know that Campbell Ogilvie instigated the first ebt payment to Craig Moore using the Discount Options Scheme.
Given that Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo had both been paid using the same type of DOS ebt as Moore from 2000 to 2002/03 but accompanied by side letters, later concealed from HMRC in 2005 and of course the SFA from August 2000.
Given that Mr Ogilvie was also in receipt of the later MMGRT ebts disputed by HMRC in the big tax case on which the FTT had still to rule
Given that Mr Regan must have been aware at time of interview that Sherriff Officers had called at Ibrox in August 2011 to collect payment of a tax bill, which means even to a layman that it must have gone past dispute to acceptance of liability and so crystallised sometime after 31st March 2011.
Given that Craig Whyte had already agreed to pay the wee tax bill in his public Takeover statement in early June 2011.
Given that on 7th December 2011 Regan had written to Andrew Dickson at RFC, who had sat on three of the four SFA/UEFA Licensing Committee meetings in 2011, to approve a draft statement by Mr Regan on the SFA’s handling of the UEFA Licence aspect of the wee tax case, which arose as a direct result of the use of the DOS ebts to Flo and De Boer during Dickson’s ongoing tenure at RFC from 1991.
Given that Campbell Ogilvie accompanied Stewart Regan to meet Craig Whyte at the Hotel De Vin on 15th December 2011 as a result of an invite stemming from that consternation causing draft that RFC thought likely to cause problems for the SFA (having agreed before the hotel meeting that no comment should be made on the wee tax case)
Given that the wee tax case was a direct result of those early types of DOS ebts being judged illegal by an FTT considering an appeal by the Aberdeen Asset Management company in 2010.
Given all of these facts, how credible is it that no conversation took place between Regan and Campbell Ogilvie on the requirement for an independent enquiry?
If a conversation did not take place as claimed, the question has to be should it have?
Given the foregoing facts on the early ebts, how credible is it Mr Regan during this interview did not know as a result of his involvement with the overdue payable and the UEFA licence in 2011 of the illegal and therefore wrong doing nature of those early EBTS with side letters concealed from the SFA and HMRC in 2005 just before Mr Ogilvie left RFC?
SR The SPL run, the SPL run the rules of The Scottish Premier League and they apply that. There are a whole host of people raising issues on internet sites and passing comment s about various theories that they have about Scottish football particularly in the West of Scotland. I think it’s important to establish that governance of Scottish football is managed by the appropriate body whether it is the Premier League, The Football League or the overall governing body. So that as far as we are concerned we let the Scottish Premier league manage their own rules and if those rules are then broken and the club is charged they have the right of appeal to us as the Appellant body.
Given all of the now known facts listed above how credible is it that the reason given by Stewart Regan to Alex Thomson for the SFA being the appeal body was indeed the only one?
Given the foregoing how credible is it that Mr Regan was not aware that he was being economical with the truth during his interview or had he indeed been kept in the dark by others in the SFA?
Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance
AT Let’s talk about Craig Whyte. Ehm – Presumably when Craig Whyte was mooted as coming in as the new owner – for the grand sum of £1 – for Rangers Football club, presumably the SFA took a keen interest in this and did some kind of due diligence on this man.
SR Well we have under our articles, Article 10.2, we have a process which sets out a number of criteria for what defines a fit and proper person within football. Now as you know we cannot stop people getting involved with a business and we cannot stop people getting involved with a PLC, all we can stop them doing is having an involvement with football, so what we do as part of that process is we ask for a declaration from the Directors of the club that they have a copy of the Articles,, that they have gone through the conditions and criteria within Article 10.2 and they have confirmed to us that they meet those criteria. If subsequently those criteria are breached then of course we take appropriate action.
AT You keep quoting rules back to me that’s not what I’m asking, I’m asking is did the SFA conduct any due diligence on this individual.
SR No we asked for a self-declaration from the Directors of the club and the individual himself.
AT Forgive me that sounds absolutely incredible this is the biggest club in Scotland which has been brought to its knees by a whole range of fiscal mismanagement, it is all on the record and proven. A new man comes in claiming all kinds of things, just like the previous man, and the SFA did not check or do any due diligence whatsoever.
SR That is part of the process of governing football, we
AT That’s, that’s NOT governing football that’s the exact opposite to governing football that’s running away from governing football.
SR No if you let me, if you let me finish my answer the point I am about to make is we govern the entire game from the top of the game down to grass roots. We have changes of Directors we have changes of ownership throughout the course of the year. I’m sure that if we were to spend football’s well earned money on doing investigations into potentially every change of Director, then there would be a lot of unhappy Chairmen out there.
AT You could have easily have googled (?) for free
SR Well we rely on the clubs telling us that the Articles have been complied with and that is the process we undertake.
AT This is extraordinary I say to you again you have years of fiscal mismanagement at Rangers Football Club, a new man comes in you are telling me that nobody at The SFA as much as got on to Google to get any background information nobody did anything ? That is extraordinary.
SR Well you refer to alleged years of financial mismanagement. I think it’s important to separate out the previous regime at Rangers and the new owner.
AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that
SR But I think it’s important in the case of the point you are raising regarding the fit and proper person test, to separate out the previous regime from the new owner. The club was in the process of being sold, they were challenging a tax bill that had been challenged by HMRC,* and the club had been sold to a new owner. That new owner had come in, he had purchased the club, the paper work for that sale had gone through and the club had complied with our Articles of Association. We run football we don’t, we are not the police we don’t govern transactions, we don’t govern fitness, we run football and we had asked the club to declare whether or not that person was fit to hold a place in association football. They had gone through the articles they’d signed to say that they had read those articles and that there had been no breaches of any of the points set out there. That included whether a Director had been disqualified. That wasn’t disclosed to us, indeed it did not come out until the BBC did their investigation back in October of last year.
(* note that in spite of all the “givens” listed earlier, Mr Regan fails to distinguish (or appreciate) that there is more than one tax bill at play and the one for the wee tax case was not under challenge or Sherriff Officers would not have called in August 2011 to collect it.)
AT So the BBC did due diligence on fitness (??) not the SFA?
SR No, as I said it came out in October 2010 primarily as a result of a detailed investigation. We then have to respond to potential breaches of our articles and we did that We entered into dialogue with the solicitor who was acting for Mr Whyte and we were in dialogue until February 2011 (?sic) of this year when the club entered administration.
AT What I’m simply asking you to admit here is that the SFA failed and it failed Rangers in its hour of need over Craig Whyte and it failed Scottish football.
SR We didn’t fail.
AT You didn’t do anything, you said you didn’t do anything.
SR We complied with the current processes within our articles. That said I think there are a number of learnings and I think the same goes for football right across the globe. People are coming into football into a multimillion pound business and I think football needs to take a harder look at what could be done differently. We are currently exploring the possibility of carrying out due diligence using the outgoing regime to make sure that there is a full and rigorous research being done before the transaction is allowed to go ahead.
AT Do you feel the need to apologise to Rangers fans?
SR I don’t need to apologise because we complied with our articles. I don’t feel there is a need to apologise whatsoever. I think….
AT You need some new articles then don’t you?
SR Well I think the articles
AT Well let’s unpack this. You said there is no need to apologise because we followed the rule books so that’s all right. So you must therefore admit you need a new rule book.
SR No well I think it’s easy at times to try and look around and find a scapegoat and try and point fingers at where blame is to be apportioned. I think perhaps it might be worth looking at the previous regime who for four years when they said they were selling the club, said that they would sell it and act in the best interests of the club. With that in mind I think the previous regime also have to take some responsibility for selling that club and looking after so called shareholders of Rangers football club and those people who that have put money into the club over the years.
AT ?? (Interrupted)
SR the Scottish FA, as I said have a process, that process has been place for some time. It has worked very very well until now I think there are learnings undoubtably and as I said we will review where we can tighten up as I know is happening across the game right now.
The above segment on Craig Whyte and Fit and Proper Persons is a timely reminder to supporters of all clubs, but particularly of Rangers FC of what happens when those charged with governing Scottish football hide behind the letter of the rules when convenient, rather than apply the true spirit in which those rules were written. It is the approach of The Pharisees to make a wrong , right.
To be fair to the SFA though, I doubt anyone could have imagined the degree of deceit and deception that they had allowed into Scottish football in May 2011 and how useless their rules were as a result, but I am not aware to this day if the SFA have apologised to Scottish football generally and Rangers supporters in particular, not only for failing to protect them from Craig Whyte, but also failing to protect them from the consequences of the foolish financial excesses of Sir David Murray, especially from 2008 when the tax bills in respect of the MMGRT ebts began to arrive at RFC . Some intervention then, assuming something was known by some at the SFA, who also held positions at Rangers, of those huge tax demands, might have cost Rangers three titles from 2009, but what Ranger’s supporter would not give all of that up to protect their club from the fate that the failure of the SFA to govern has caused?
Also to be fair the SFA have changed the rules so that the outgoing regime is responsible for doing due diligence on any new club owners rather than relying on self-certification by the incoming club owner, but we know that did not work particularly well when Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnstone did due diligence on Craig Whyte , but then again Sir David Murray was under pressure to sell and the guy coming in, everyone was told, had wealth off the radar.
The Nature of EBTS.
AT Let’s look at EBTs. Did nobody question ebts in the Scottish game in the English game come to that simply because nobody thought they were illegal in any way and indeed are not illegal in any way if operated correctly? Is it as simple as that?
SR There is nothing wrong with ebts when used correctly and ebts are a way of providing benefits to employees and if managed in a correct manner are perfectly legitimate. I think that the issue that we know is under investigation at the moment by both HMRC as part of the large tax case and the SPL as part of their own investigation into potential no disclosure of side letters is whether or not there has been any wrong doing and I think the issue at hand is that wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing has been discussed with HMRC for some time for several years in fact so we would not get involved in anything that there is no wrongdoing taking place and ebts are, as I said, a legitimate way of doing business when used correctly.
Again taking the “givens” into account, particularly the significant event of Sherriff Officers calling to collect unpaid tax in August 2011 and the logical deduction that the SFA President must have known of the difference between the two types of ebts Rangers used, (and perhaps why they were changed) why the insistence at this point that all the ebts used by Rangers had been used correctly? Mr Regan at the time of the interview was either kept in the dark by his President, given he claims to have spoken to no one about the independence of the enquiry, or being economical with the truth.
The whole of Lord Nimmo Smith’s judgement made months after this interview, where Mr Regan stressed again and again there is no wrongdoing in the use of ebts if arranged correctly (or lawfully) is predicated on all ebts with side letters used by Rangers since 23 November 2011 actually being used correctly and in Lord Nimmo Smiths words on being “themselves not irregular”. (Para 5 of Annex 1). It is almost as if Mr Regan knew the outcome before Lord Nimmo Smith.
(In fact the ebt to Tor Andre Flo had a side letter dated 23 November and it related to a tax arrangement that had not been used correctly (using Regan’s own words) The irregular ebt for Ronald De Boer with a side letter of 30 August was placed beyond the scope of the Commission because in spite of it meeting the criteria specified by Harper MacLeod in March 2012 asking to be provided with ALL ebts and side letters and any other related documentation from July 1998 to date (including the HMRC letter of Feb 2011 that fully demonstrated that those particular ebts under the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) were not used correctly) and so were unlawful, NONE of that documentation was provided when requested.
This enabled Lord Nimmo Smith to state in para 107 of his Decision “while there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate” which is a statement he could not have made had he had all the requested documentation denied to him either by dishonesty or negligence during the preparation of his Commission.
How would he have had to judge one wonders if deception and dishonesty was indeed the factor we now ken that it is?
What exactly were the consequences of the failure to provide Lord Nimmo Smith with the required documentation?
It is stated in the Decision (Annex 1 para 104) that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis that the EBT arrangements (by which it meant the MGMRT ebts) were “lawful”. As it transpired the outcome of the FTT decision announced in November 2012 was that the MGMRT ebts indeed were (although this is still under appeal by HMRC.)
However, because Lord Nimmo Smith treated the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust (REBT) as one and the same, (para 35 of Decision) this meant that the Inquiry failed to distinguish between the two trusts and necessarily treated the Earlier Trust as also being lawful (without however having properly investigated its operation). However, the MGMRT and the earlier REBT were two separate trusts and there was no necessary reason to treat them as one and the same. Had evidence relating to the REBT been produced and examined, the Inquiry could hardly have treated them) as “continuous” or allowed Lord Nimmo Smith to say “we are not aware that they were different trusts“(Annex 1 para 35)
From the Decision (Annex 1 para 40), it would appear that the President of the SFA gave evidence only as to his knowledge of the MGMRT (not the REBT). We know now that the President of the SFA had knowledge of the Earlier Trust (sitting on the RFC remuneration policy committee that agreed to their use in 1999 and indeed was active in its setting up). Why the President failed to volunteer such crucial information is surely something he should now be asked?
By the time of the Inquiry, Rangers FC had already conceded liability in what has become known as “the Wee Tax Case” (which related to the now unlawful REBTs). Having regard to the wording at para 104 of the Decision (that is an echo of what Regan stressed to Alex Thomson about ebts) where it is said that to arrange financial affairs in a manner “within the law” is not a breach of the SFA/SPL Rules) the clear implication, must be that to arrange financial affairs in such a way that they are not lawful, must be a breach of the rules.
Given the admission of liability in the Wee Tax Case, payments made in respect of the REBT could not be “lawful” (to employ the language used in the Decision) or disputed, but Mr Regan presumably did not enquire too much into the history of the wee tax case before agreeing to talk to Alex Thomson.
It will be obvious from the above that the unlawful nature of REBTs had been masked from SPL lawyers and Lord Nimmo Smith as a result of:-
(a) the failure by the Administrators of Rangers FC to provide the documentation required of them;
(b) the failure of the President of the SFA to provide to the Inquiry his own knowledge of, involvement in, and presumably as a result of it, an appreciation of the differences between the two types of ebts and the consequences thereof for the investigation.
Had the REBT been the sole subject of the Inquiry (rather than in effect not being examined at all) the following must have been different:-
(i) the President could hardly have failed to give testimony of his knowledge and involvement;
(ii) the Inquiry could not have held that the use of the REBT ebts was lawful;
(iv) the “no sporting advantage” decision given in respect of the lawful ebts could not have been applied to unlawful ebts.
The real issue in the case of the unlawful ebts was not one of misregistration (Annex 1 para 104) which in turn justified the no sporting advantage decision in paras 105/106 but of paying players by an unlawful means which “constitutes such a fundamental defect (Annex 1 para 88) that the registration of players paid this way (i.e. unlawfully) must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. “
Had the true nature of these early ebts been known to SPL lawyers the Terms of Reference of the Investigation would have to have addressed the wrong doing that Mr Regan was so keen to argue with Alex Thomson had not actually occurred (long before Lord Nimmo Smith agreed with him) or had President Ogilvie made the distinction in his testimony, it would have been impossible for Sandy Bryson’s to advise as he did regarding the effect on eligibility. He would have to have been asked questions about two types of ebts not one. Finally Lord Nimmo Smith could not have treated both as continuous.
Finally, given this incidence of non-disclosure by the Rangers Administrators (an identifiable trait of RFC dealings with authority from August 2000 to date), it is impossible to see how paragraph 107 (wherein it is stated that there is “no question of dishonesty”) can be allowed to remain unchallenged.
Of course the failure to supply the key evidence could just be an oversight given Rangers Administrators were hardly likely to have established of their own volition the importance of the documents to the enquiry and yet, had they been supplied, the enquiry could not have been based on the defence Stewart Regan was at such pains to stress in his interview with Alex Thomson at a time only 3 months after Mr Regan and Campbell Ogilvie had joined Craig Whyte for dinner as a result of an invite prompted by questions on the SFA UEFA Licence handling of the wee tax case , created by the very same unlawful ebts.
AT But as the governing body why did you not say to Rangers “look guys this this smells really bad, this looks bad you look (and you have admitted you have not paid your tax) you know we can’t do this, we have got to be open and above board, it looks bad.
SR Well think you need to look at what is legal and above board. At the time the club, were in dispute with HMRC. There was a tax case ongoing the new owner was in discussion with HMRC. In fact he has made comments and the club have made comments to that effect and because the amount was not crystallised under UEFA guidelines, whilst ever it’s in dispute it’s not classed as overdue.
AT Sometimes
SR So you need to separate out the licensing requirement, which is what the Licensing Committee did, from the tax that was owed to HMRC which is as we know what is still ongoing.
Mr Regan was not being accurate here. The Big Tax case was in dispute and the bill has not crystallised as a result. However the wee tax case crystallised in mid June 2011 and at 30th June 2011, the UEFA licence checkpoint under Article 66 of UEFA FFP, did not meet the conditions to excuse it as being an overdue payable to HMRC. Quite how the SFA handled the processing of the Article 66 submission from RFC is subject to a resolution asking UEFA to investigate put to the Celtic AGM in November 2013 which is still in progress. As has been mentioned twice before Mr Regan has either been kept in the dark or was being less than honest with Alex Thomson. Interestingly Andrew Dickson who has been at Rangers in various administration and executive capacity since 1991 sat on 3 of the four UEFA Licensing Committee meetings during 2011. He may of course have excused himself from any discussions on this matter as the rules allowed, but was a full explanation why he did so, if indeed he did, offered? Would such an explanation have enlightened Mr Regan of what he was dealing with?
AT Sometimes things can be within the rules but from a PR point of view, indeed from a moral point of view, hate to introduce morality to football but can be the wrong thing to do. You would accept that?
SR Well I think that football around the world is going through a difficult time, clubs are in difficult financial circumstances, not just in Scotland, you look down into England and look at the clubs in Administration at the moment. You know Portsmouth and Port Vale in recent times and I think Plymouth is as well again. As far as that is concerned you know that indicates that clubs are living from hand to mouth and there are deals being done all the time with HMRC, payment plans being agreed. There is huge amounts of debt in football.
AT I’m just inviting you to accept that sometimes things can be within the rules but just look bad because morally, they are bad.
ST I think when taxes aren’t paid ehm VAT in particular, National Insurance Contributions of course that’s bad and I think we accept that and we know that in the current regime there is evidence to suggest that Rangers has not paid its taxes since Mr Whyte took over the club. That’s wrong that is against the spirit of the game and certainly we would look to deal with that and stamp out that type of behaviour which is not acting with integrity.
If Carlsberg did irony!
End of Interview.
The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions
There is always the danger in examining anything of finding what you want to be there rather than what is there and it is a danger any writer has to be aware of, but given the responses from Harper MacLeod on TSFM and the total lack of response from the SPFL and SFA when being informed of the missing evidence along with what has been written here it is hard not to conclude that the Lord Nimmo Smith Inquiry was deliberately set up in such a way as to produce two results
- The minimising of the wrongful behaviour that had taken place from 1999 to 2012 when The Commission sat
- The avoidance of the consequences of admitting that serious wrongdoing in the form of illegal payments had been made via irregular EBTs, which consequently made the players involved ineligible from the outset, making the Bryson ruling inapplicable in those cases with the consequences of that ineligibility on trophies and remuneration won.
The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either
- there was a huge screw up by the SPL lawyers charged to set up the Commission which they might be able to defend
- or
- Vital knowledge was concealed within the SFA itself in order to achieve the above two results and
- This knowledge was deliberately concealed because had it not been The Inquiry could not have come to the conclusion it did on player eligibility, not only because unlawful ebts were used in early instances, but also because the deliberate concealment from HMRC of the side letters to De Boer and Flo, the former also kept from Harper and MacLeod, suggests Rangers knew all along and in 2005 in particular that what they were doing since 2000 was morally wrong and against the spirit of the game. It perhaps also explains why HMRC is determined to push an appeal all the way.
- This failure to supply all documents meant that the line being taken by Mr Regan in March 2012, when the Commission was being set up into the use of ebts and failure to register them with the SFA, came to fulfilment in the Decision of Lord Nimmo Smith himself, achieving the two aims suggested above.
Given that Harper MacLeod have said they passed on to the SFA in September 2014 the evidence kept from them by Rangers Administrators, has Stewart Regan spoken to either Ogilvie or Dickson since then about keeping him in the dark? Or did he know all along?
Of course these hard to believe conclusions could be discounted as delusional ramblings if either the SFA or SPFL were to say they would investigate the evidence kept from Harper MacLeod. It would also help if only one of the thirteen main stream journalists would look at the hard copy of the concealed documents they were provided with, because until someone who values sporting integrity does, the stench of corruption will hang over Scottish football for years to reek out anytime the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission is used as a justification for anything that it contains.
Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision
[5] Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in
breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;
Outline of the Scheme
[35] As we have said, a controlling interest in Oldco was held by David Murray through the medium of Murray MHL Limited, part of the Murray Group of companies. Murray Group Management Limited (MGM) provided management services to the companies of the Murray Group. By deed dated 20 April 2001 MGM set up the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (the MGMRT). (We note that the MGMRT was preceded by the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust, but we are not aware that they were different trusts. We shall treat them as a continuous trust, which we shall refer to throughout as the MGMRT.)
[40] Mr Ogilvie learnt about the existence of the MGMRT in about 2001 or 2002, because a contribution was made for his benefit. He understood that this was non-contractual. Although as a result he knew about the existence of the MGMRT, he did not know any details of it. He subsequently became aware, while he remained director of Oldco, that contributions were being made to the MGMRT in respect of players. He assumed that these were made in respect of the players’ playing football, which was the primary function for which they were employed and remunerated. He had no involvement in the organisation or management of Oldco’s contributions to the MGMRT, whether for players or otherwise. He said:
“I assumed that all contributions to the Trust were being made legally, and that any relevant football regulations were being complied with. I do not recall contributions to the Trust being discussed in any detail, if at all, at Board meetings. In any event, Board meetings had become less and less frequent by my later years at Rangers.”
He also said: “Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers”.
However it should be noted that Mr Ogilvie was a member of the board of directors who approved the statutory accounts of Oldco which disclosed very substantial payments made under the EBT arrangements.
[88] In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. There is every reason why the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other. Mr Bryson’s evidence about the position of the SFA in this regard was clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with those of the SFA, should be given that construction. All parties’ concerned – clubs, players and footballing authorities – should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This means that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked. There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.
[104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequently able to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more success. Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law – so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.
[105] It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive advantage in that respect. If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters conferred any competitive advantage, that could only have been an indirect one. Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so. Moreover, we have received no evidence from which we could possibly say that Oldco could not or would not have entered into the EBT arrangements with players if it had been required to comply with the requirement to disclose the arrangements as part of the players’ full financial entitlement or as giving rise to payment to players. It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players. On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules.
[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.
[107] We nevertheless take a serious view of a breach of rules intended to promote sporting integrity. Greater financial transparency serves to prevent financial irregularities. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA. In our view, the apparent assumption both that the side-letter arrangements were entirely discretionary, and that they did not form part of any player’s contractual entitlement, was seriously misconceived. Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June 2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries. There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities. The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the side letters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.
That is not true, they may not all be easily measured but they can be foreseen.
Would that be the same risk management the banks used
Mad buoy 24941 😀
Re Chris Graham. The number of previous tweets he’s made that were flying around last night suggested it wouldn’t take too long for something like this to happen. Other than being surprised King & Co were not aware of what they were getting I’ll leave it at that, because I suspect TSFM will be watching where the discussion goes re this issue.
This is maybe not the appropriate forum but Scottish referees definitely need monitored!
Truly embarrassing stuff from Colum in Munich tonight. Awards Bayern a questionable pen and sends the Shakhtar defender off in the first 5 mins.
theredpill says:
March 11, 2015 at 7:26 pm
I don’t agree that all risks can be foreseen, there was some truth to Don Rumsfield’s “unknown unknowns” riff
But, in this case it doesn’t apply, a basic impact analysis would have flagged the operational issue involving contracts, clearly no analysis of any kind was undertaken, beyond “will this get us out of the big blue Ibrox shaped hole we’ve dug for ourselves”.
However, there were people in the banks’ Operational Risk functions who were screaming bloody murder, but, they were up against wallopers like Tom McKillop and his “You don’t question the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs” nonsense.
That’s partly why this blog’s function of being one of those who say the emperor is prancing around bollock naked is so important.
tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 6:12 pm
By this time next week
TRFC/RIFC will have more
Backroom staff,Managers &
Board members
Than players
Well so much for austerity
Back to the RRM way or should that be The Ranger’s way
😥
======================================================
TBH the financial black hole is so vast that employing a new manager/assistant won’t make much difference.
Probably put a few more bums on seats (which may please
if one onerous contract rumour is correct) and more importantly might get them promoted.
Hard to see that they could continue with the current shambles.
Sorry folks, not been paying attention. Chris Graham? Seriously?
I’m now to going to agitate for the Dons to appoint a seagull. Deveronvale could perhaps appoint a spotty bag (Banff joke) and Turriff United ‘a coo’.
I can’t deal with this much surrealism; my clock will melt.
rougvielovesthejungle says:
March 11, 2015 at 8:08 pm
I think we’re very harsh on Scottish referees, any excuse to chase them out the game then we start complaining about the standards of the ones left. Bad decisions get made the world over it’s just that when they’re Scottish is either their uber incompetent or making “honest mistakes”. PSG have just had Zlatan sent off on a very soft decision….the ref is neither Scottish nor Wullie Collum.
Re Chris Graham…I’m a bit disappointed actually! I was looking forward to watching him squirm while getting a taste of his own medicine as Rangers decended into further Chaos…..however this’ll do I suppose.
This mob are going to burn out the AIM klaxon
douglas reynholm says:
March 11, 2015 at 8:37 pm
Oh no, in the schadenfreude stakes this is as good as it could possibly get with respect to Mr Graham. He is now responsible, nowhere to hide, no-one to blame, just himself, and in due course his people will turn on him and he will learn a harsh lesson.
If it weren’t for all the downsides, it would be a case of if Carlsberg did… 😆
douglas reynholm says:
March 11, 2015 at 8:37 pm
Yeah well, I guess he’s just learnt that a very different skill and behaviour set is required when you’re a PLC director rather than an on-line attack dog 😆
bad capt madman says:
March 11, 2015 at 3:54 pm
Is DK still after his original £20M from RFC and he has had an obsessive plan all these years to get it back? Is he the mystery owner of Ibrox but can’t bring himself to be found out about it or it’s partly tied up with a DM company or was he promised it by DM for his 20 mil and didn’t get it? Did DM pass it on to his family like much of MGM?
———————————-
Apropos of nothing in particular, I wonder who might get paid in the event an amateur tradesman was clumsy with a blow torch whilst working near some timber cladding. Somewhere. You’re a bad capt for even suggesting such a thing! 😈
theredpill says:
March 11, 2015 at 7:26 pm
Would that be the same risk management the banks used Mad buoy 24941
————-
Well, the red pull….. (See what I did there?)
Those banks, the regulators and respective governments were warned 3 years previous and the resultant fallout was predicted almost to perfection.
The Risk Analysis worked and was presented, unfortunately it was ignored in favour of greed and replaced with cheating to hide the failures!
Now why does that make me think of Hugh Adam?
jimlarkin 4:59 pm
I completely understand you are merely the messenger and have not endorsed the content of Phil’s latest ‘blog’ in any way. I equally completely realise my view is probably in the minority and I will be TDed accordingly.
I do still read Phil’s blog, but now merely out of a desire to confirm that my long held view apropos his content is accurate: namely that his supposedly informed claims and predictions are in fact, dear reader, less accurate than entirely random claims and predictions.
The latest is a case in point. £27 million to pay off the Ashley loans and cancel the onerous contracts is relative peanuts and would easily allow Sevco to be ‘restored to their “so-called” rightful place’ given their circumstances. I strongly suspect it’s the usual made up jobby.
For the record, before the mods delete this, I promise I will publicly apologise to Phil on this forum in the unlikely event there’s any accuracy in his story.
We’re very quick to slag off the likes of Keith Jackson (and rightly so) but at least recently his comments have been more accurate than Phil’s, even if many of us (myself included) would prefer to believe the former.
So it seems as though Chris Graham might not even get as far as a Fit and Proper Person test. Good, though what the new board will do now will depend somewhat on the advice level5 give them about whether it’s worth making a stand to protect a new Director against attacks from “enemies” etc. or conclude he is more divisive to the Rangers support than he’s worth, write him off quickly and move on.
I also see some comment on other blogs raising the possibility that bringing this particular indiscretion to the public eye has Jack Irvine’s fingerprints all over it, which would hardly be a surprise given Graham’s pronouncements on him. Revenge is sweet and all that.
The continuing disappointment for me however is that there can’t have been a single sports journalist in Scotland who didn’t see the that particular tweet at exactly the same time as I did. Graham was a go to commentator on all things Rangers and would have been followed by every single one of them. They all saw it, and almost to an individual, they chose to say nothing then or when his appointment was announced. It’s not particularly fair to single the Record out but since they have just won a very prestigious award for their contributions to sports reporting -for their “bravery to speak the truth”- perhaps we should ask each one of them…”did you see that tweet at the time and what did you think when his appointment was announced…well done Chris?”
9:01.pm correction ( too late to edit)
Latter, not former, but I hope most of you either didn’t notice or alternatively realised my error. Apologies in any case; I stand by everything else.
Early days and Mr Graham may yet get fitted for his blazer, tie and brogues.
However if he does go then like the recent question doing the rounds – “Which is worst, songs or flares”? Surely the question in the Blue room must be –
“Which is worst, offensive tweets or Tax Fraud convictions?”
Bryce Curdy says:
March 11, 2015 at 9:37 pm
9:01.pm correction ( too late to edit)
Latter, not former, but I hope most of you either didn’t notice or alternatively realised my error. Apologies in any case; I stand by everything else.
—————————————–
Error?? What error? 👿 😈
On CGs twitter page the message reads:
@ChrisGraham76’s Tweets are protected.
Only confirmed followers have access to @ChrisGraham76’s Tweets and complete profile.
____________________________________________
…If Carlsberg did Irony…
Don’t know how protected this self declared voice of the fans ‘tweets’ are feeling right now.
Certainly seems true that ‘Confirmed followers’ (of Islam, at least) get them whether they want them or not. 👿
Head Hunter says:
March 11, 2015 at 9:11 pm
…The continuing disappointment for me however is that there can’t have been a single sports journalist in Scotland who didn’t see the that particular tweet at exactly the same time as I did. Graham was a go to commentator on all things Rangers and would have been followed by every single one of them. They all saw it, and almost to an individual, they chose to say nothing then or when his appointment was announced. It’s not particularly fair to single the Record out but since they have just won a very prestigious award for their contributions to sports reporting -for their “bravery to speak the truth”- perhaps we should ask each one of them…”did you see that tweet at the time and what did you think when his appointment was announced…well done Chris?”
————-
Indeed, they’ve all been busy quoting, interviewing and inviting him on telly in the past. Perhaps he’ll now make it onto his own list?
Learn from lessons of the past? They look as if they are trying to revert to what they learnt in the past. However this is not the cultural milieu of the past and what they learnt then is, in many aspects, to turn the saying on its begetters, now beyond the pale.
If the mighty leggo is back at high table and reverts to his old ways that would add another anachronism to their range. Having said that leggoland was always addictively bizarre nuttiness and all.
Re language German has many beauties gute fahrt is alway one for the juvenile mind. Ausgang is exit and Not Ausgang is emergency exit…
“Beer braised lamb shanks!”
I thought that was the collective noun for Scottish Sports Journalists?
http://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/recipes/beer-braised-lamb-shanks/
tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 10:16 pm
But at least when I look in the mirror I know I have been true to my convictions
Can any of you say the same?
_______________________________________________
Yes.
tcup 2012 says:
March 11, 2015 at 10:16 pm
TCup in the event, that, one or two clubs are financially impacted by this error on the part of the authorities, then I could see a case for compensation, though the level would have to reflect the clubs own contributing culpability.
Not convinced that rules need to be broken, re-written or circumvented.
(Several senior backsides should be kicked though)
That’s my ribs aching again, watching Graeme Souness getting tore into the Hackers and the Divers, proving once again the Old Klingon proverb “That only Nixon could go to China”
Ossy is a top man
“osvaldo ardiles @osvaldooardiles 8 mins8 minutes ago
Cant believe what Ghaham Souness is saying. Mr very clean guy!!!! Comical!!!”
Oh for heaven’s sake tcup, the sentence started “in the event”, as in “if it should come to pass”, as in it hasn’t fecking happened yet, good grief.
tcup 2012, I’m not sure why but you seem to be taking an extremely aggressive stance on this playoffs/contracts issue and exaggerating your perceived view of how the forum feels about it, based on the comments of one or two posters (and, I guess, some TDs that you may well have been given simply because of your extreme approach imo, rather than anyone arguing against you).
As far as I can see, you blame Hibs for not having the foresight to think about agreeing contracts to take account of the potential for them to reach the cup final, causing potential problems if they also take part in the concurrent play off final. As far as I’ve seen, posters commenting on the issue agree that Hibs should shoulder some of the blame.
I think MCFC’s argument is that the SFA/SPFL should take (at least) some of the blame for not having realised that the dates for the playoff finals could be problematic given they are so close to the cup final.
Because the forum is very much focussed on the failings of the football authorities, I think it’s understandable that posters would call out the authorities for their lack of foresight causing potential problems for their members.
In terms of solutions, the obvious one is to move either the cup final or playoff finals to a later date and I think MCFC was originally only calling out the difficulties that such a simplistic move by the authorities could potentially cause.
Your suggestion that this is evidence that the forum is hypocritical en masse is way over the top imo.
At least some posters are thinking about how such an event could be overcome, were it to come to pass i.e. Hibs or Falkirk reach both the cup final and the play off finals. You’re right that it’s not yet an issue because it might not come to fruition, but your approach of therefore not planning for it, should it happen, is simply not tenable. Have you never heard of contingency planning? It’s what all good businesses do – you have to prepare for the worst case scenario so you are ready to act should it come to pass.
Oh and finally, you’re aggressive point about MCFC (or the forum in general) wanting rule bending for one club (Hibs, in your opinion) but being anti-it for another (Rangers) is surely diminished by the fact that both Hibs and Falkirk could yet be the club that suffers from it.
As for SMC and Kenny Black to gers. Opinions vary among the ‘well fans. However he went definitely with no view of getting a Sevco post. He is very definitely affected by losing crunch games and when he perceived he could no longer “sort” the squad he left. No pay off nothing.
In my mind he will be very ineffective at Ibrox. He’s certainly not one to bring in the youngsters.
However if he gets offered big bucks fair enough. Have a nice payday Stuart. Make sure its in the McCoist bracket though. Nothing less.
Easdale is likely the only guy who genuinely never took anything out the club but got slaughtered. As for Chris Graham hopefully he does get slaughtered. As Woptti says re McCall I hope he’s getting plenty cash and I’m wondering if you’re handy at DIY does it help your prospects at Ibrox for all new employees have
rougvielovesthejungle says:
March 11, 2015 at 7:05 pm
Chick Young back to his best :slamb: on the national broadcaster tonight. He tells the nation that the atmosphere has been “poisonous” at Ibrox for the last three years. In fact he uses the word ‘poisonous’ about six times. Probably never used it once during the period he claimed it was poisonous though. Clearly he’s not just on the payroll of our pathetic national broadcaster.
_________________________
I think the atmosphere continues to be ‘poisonous’ at Ibrox, with the latest appointment to the board, Chris Graham, having his twitter account investigated due to an alleged tweet that could well be judged ‘poisonous’! Even if innocent of this charge, some of his comments, particularly with reference to things Celtic, could well be described as venomous.
Of course, although inaccurate (should be venomous, not poisonous), with the amount of snake-oil salesmen we’ve seen around the place, poisonous does seem an apt description for those who inhabit the Ibrox boardroom. So well done Chick, it’s only taken a decade or two, but you’ve got something right, at last!
tcup 2012 says:
March 12, 2015 at 2:45 am
==============================
You continually ask the same question. Precedent shows in 2008 the league season was extended to suit one club. Not by as much as they demanded but it was extended nonetheless. To not have done so would have seen that club face the same ridiculous scenario that may face Falkirk or Hibernian this season. Also, earlier that season, the same club were granted a postponement to allow them to prepare for a game which could have seen them qualify from the CL Groups. That has never been granted to any other club and was for the benefit of one club only. Later, Aberdeen asked for the same for a European tie and were refused.
Give it a rest.
Whilst sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant, the publicity that Chris Graham’s tweet has received could have dire consequences for the individual. The image is still to be found on the web and will be offensive to muslims of all opinions – moderate to extreme. The extreme end of the spectrum make our home grown intolerances look like good natured indulgences. If the tweet was suppressed at the time it might have been so for good reason, it is not suppressed now and I’d think that dismissal from the newco board might be the least of his worries.
‘I’d ‘dive’ to win a penalty, admits Stokes.
Scotsman diary column taken from a Sun story:
Some people might disagree with his thinking – personally I don’t. However what is clear is that he states it wouldn’t be a ‘dive’ so how on earth can the headline be justified?
I also wonder whether the Sun or the Scotsman have actually watched the incident between Stokes and Aidan Connolly. If they haven’t then they should because it shows a classic ‘dive’ and indeed the opposite of what Stokes is talking about in a very open and honest way.
As I say you might not agree with him and that’s fine. But it’s how the modern game is played and that’s what refs award penalties for.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/rumour-mill-chris-graham-stuart-mccall-celtic-1-3716851
How many millions of pounds has the appointment of Chris Graham cost Scottish football over the next five years?
How many respectable sponsors with reputational value and brand value on their balance sheets will go within a light year of the SFA and the SPFL.
A sponsor risks their business when they sponsor a person or organisation, so negatives and uncertainties dominate their evaluation. The first rule of sponsorship is “do no harm to the sponsor’s reputation”. The second rule is “run a mile from uncertainty and controversy”
Even if RIFC plc fire Graham today and burn his blazer on the Ibrox centre spot on Saturday, the damage is done to Scottish football. It is now abundantly clear to every potential sponsor and their advisers that there is absolutely no Fit & Proper due diligence enforced in Scottish football. That means there is no professional attempt to weed out negatives and uncertainties.
Sadly, racism, criminality, inept administration and unknown unkowns are the brand values Scottish football has to offer the commercial world. In sponsorship terms, Scottish football is an unexploded cluster bomb in a playground.
Two points.
TSFM possibly isn’t the place for discussing whether players have ‘dived’ or not, as it cannot be ascertained whether a foul was committed, or the player dived as you believe.
Stokes talking ‘in a very honest and open way’: again, you cannot be certain that Stokes is being truthful. Nonetheless, the manner in which Celtic (staff and players) have conducted themselves this week in the media and via their own outlets, in regard to their opposition is, in my opinion, discomforting.
justpedylan says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:18 am
If the tweet was suppressed at the time it might have been so for good reason, it is not suppressed now and I’d think that dismissal from the newco board might be the least of his worries.
———————————————————-
I personally have a pretty firm idea of the ‘good reason’ behind the SMSM looking the other way the first time. It is just another incidence when their courage has been found wanting.
The tweet in question is grossly and disgustingly offensive and nothing to do with freedom of speech IMO. I believe it is legally actionable in a criminal sense and Police Scotland should be investigating the matter.
In a way the SMSM have done him no favours as a fan leader and the media go-to-guy by allowing him to think that he can actually get away with his nonsense.
I would think that even the most moderate muslim in the world will be incensed by the depiction of their prophet he is alleged to have distributed along with an added spiteful message. It isn’t simply a visual representation of Mohammed but shows him taking part in a sexual act which a large percentage of his followers will abhor.
To have posted it without realisng the offence it would cause shows IMO that he is either living in a bubble wrt other groups in society outwith the Rangers Family he represents or is simply soft in the head.
No doubt we will all be told his twitter account was hacked.
Owen @JustABhoy · 2 hrs 2 hours ago
“@Brattbakkk: CYA ” oh dear
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_4XRodW8AAKhPC.jpg:large
borussiabeefburg says:
March 12, 2015 at 9:53 am
Two points.
TSFM possibly isn’t the place for discussing whether players have ‘dived’ or not, as it cannot be ascertained whether a foul was committed, or the player dived as you believe.
————————————————
You appear to have missed the whole point of my post and I apologise for not making it clearer.
I was actually pointing out that both the Scotsman and the Sun stated that Stokes admitted he would dive to win a penalty when it’s clear from his quotes that he was explaining the difference between what is a dive and what isn’t.
I did point out that some might not agree with him.
As to the actual incident I have watched it a number of times from a number of different angles and IMO it was a dive and no foul was committed. That was very much a subsidiary point in my post.
I do believe that given other decisions taken on the day I will stick to what I believe I ‘saw’ although I obviously did have the advantage of instant replay and different camera angles over the ref.
He only had the linesman and we know how that worked out 🙂
ecobhoy 9:54.
Your comment Re Chris Graham and his account being hacked.
I’m sure RIFC will come up with some such nonsense during this
mornings Epiphany.
mcfc says:
March 12, 2015 at 9:57 am
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_4XRodW8AAKhPC.jpg:large
———————————————————
Matthew 12:37
By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Both Ann Budge and Fergus McCann gave the impression of a new dawn for their clubs when they took over, new attitudes, a sense of rigour and freshness. It is no coincidence that players and supporters took a cue from that.
The rhetoric from King, Murray, Chris Graham and much of MSM is all about a return to a mind set and world view that has been stale and backward looking for at least thirty years.
Not wishing to give Graham any more publicity than he deserves (in fact part of me actually feels sorry for him – here was his lifetime dream, fantasy in fact, as I doubt he would ever have been anywhere near a board room under normal circumstances just gone like the proverbial balloon in a pin store), but having read PMG also this morning could someone clarify two things to non twitterati like me.
Did the cartoon actually come from CG? or was it a retweet (is that the right term – like an email forward?) a bit like the Hugh Dallas one?
Secondly, why was he sending/resending it to an Imam? Is he a friend? Or was this specifically sent to him just to offend him complete with Chris’ name and address on the bottom.
I mean, there’s WATP and then there’s We are just clearly stupid.
With respect, who he perhaps told and who relayed the story then comes into play. I don’t know whether Aidan Connolly dived or was fouled. It’s not the sort of topic for discussion on TSFM, I’d have thought.
The opinion I offered was that Celtic haven’t behaved with distinction following that match, culminating with their website carrying a story attempting to get a player into bother, this worse than, in my view, a player in the heat of a match flaunting an imaginary yellow card at the referee.
I was attempting to respond to the sum total of your post, and not a single main point. However, if you are indicating that the press might manipulate what a player is trying to get across, then perhaps the player’s club should give him some coaching as to how to convey his message.
Nonetheless, how often, in the media and on club websites, have Celtic directly criticised any other teams’ players by name this week? Other clubs tend not to do this.
motor red says:
March 12, 2015 at 10:30 am
=====================
You are entitled to your opinion, but so is everyone else, including religious believers (that doesn’t include me, if that is relevant). May I gently suggest that this forum is not the place to express either religious or anti-religious views?
Ecobhoy has made the simple point that Graham’s tweet would be grossly offensive to hundreds of millions of people. That is undoubtedly true. If offending lots of people because of their religion is the new “Rangers Way”, then we really are back to the future at Ibrox.
Best to keep religion out of both football, and this forum, in my opinion.
An appalling thing is that the new TRFC board should have known how Mr Graham conducted himself in public and the range of his statements before the appointment. The swiftness of his appointment either meant that there was due diligence done pre EGM or that it was done post EGM. Either way it was not done properly. A quick phone call to anyone media savvy would have revealed the appropriate information. If such information was in the hands of the concert party, and they chose to continue, it is all of a piece with P Murray’s Saturday interview. Again they do things back to, front pride coming after the fall as well as before. I would not give these fellows a bean
Ps there was an outlandish claim about Queen of the South being strong where is the evidence I say it cannot be based on their recent drawn match can it :irony:
Just listened to the BBC Sportsound podcast last night.
Much of it sounded just like a group of angry fans chewing the fat rather than professional broadcasting.
As someone earlier remarked Chick Young frequently talked of a poisonous atmosphere over three or so years – first we heard of that from Chick – but two things struck me.
1) just how Teflon coated is Ally McCoist. The decibels shot up at any slightest criticism.
2) maybe the key appointment is not Stuart McCall or a successor but who will be the new manager’s secretary. I doubt it have ever heard of a secretary more commented upon or lamented than Ms Talbot on Sportsound these past few months.
Yes, it’s got that bad on the BEEB.
( that’s in no way meant to disparage the lady herself but to merely highlight the deflections certain journos will use rather than address the key issues.)
Justpedylan 8.18.
Fair point.
Talk about reaping what you sow.
There might not be a God per se but something seems to like messing around with things.
Maybe I have too much time on my hands?
When C Graham was appointed to the board of Newco my first impression was here comes the sacrificial lamb (pun intended)
It was my belief that with his history his sacking from the board would be used to appease the mob when required. I never guessed for a second that this would happen so quickly.
Graham is history already, his position is completely untenable – even with this wardrobe of skeletons they call a board.
I see Level Five have swung into action to minimize the reputational damage of the Chris Graham story to The Rangers and Scottish football with a perfunctory “we’ll look into it” – but only when asked. You can’t solve a problem unless you understand there is a problem.
There’s an old cliché for business leaders: “Surround yourself with people who are smarter than you.” The obvious reasoning being, that otherwise you are the limiting factor in your own enterprise, as the intellectual glass ceiling.
Well maybe Mr King has taken this advice at RIFC plc, and we have a very precise measure of his smartness.
I thought you should know that although no journos aknowledged they had received hard copies of evidence kept from Harper MacLeod sent out by tsfm volunteers last September a more recent contact has at least engaged.
Anonymity has been promised and there is a job of exchanging information that may or may not lead to anything so no promises, but at least this person took an interest and thinks the core case re Flo/De Boer and consequences re LNS validity is sound.
Patience I tell myself.
scapaflow says:
March 11, 2015 at 8:14 pm
“a basic impact analysis would have flagged the operational issue involving contracts”
—————————————————————————————-
Very true.
http://www.airmic.com/
Association of Insurance and Risk Managers in Industry and Commerce.
“Risk management is the identification, assessment, and prioritization of risks (defined in ISO 31000 as the effect of uncertainty on objectives) followed by coordinated and economical application of resources to minimize, monitor, and control the probability and/or impact of unfortunate events”
Saw this post on the Rangers share site, middle para is interesting, i’d have thought season long contracts would be just that, until the end of the season, i.e. after the last game the club plays that season? Am I wrong?
1 team goes up automatically winning the championship – looks like Hearts (4 more wins and its secure). 1 team can go up via playoffs (2/3/4) play each other – then winner of this plays 2nd bottom in SPFL.
So there are 6 extra games to negociate for this extra place. But these games could be after many of our players contracts lapse…. so looks like super gambled that we would win league.
Also being in SPFL next year would help share – but would increase costs – there are rumours of additional payments if we win promotion
Has anyone asked RIFC what their NOMAD has had to say about the Chris Graham situation?
I mean, DK assured everyone that he had one in his pocket….
Scottish Football needs the application of fit and proper person tests without fear or favour.
OT
NASA’s metric confusion caused Mars orbiter loss
NASA’s Climate Orbiter was lost September 23, 1999
September 30, 1999 Web posted at: 1:46 p.m. EDT (1746 GMT)
(CNN) — NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because one engineering team used metric units while another used English units for a key spacecraft operation, according to a review finding released Thursday.
nae planning or should have gone to specsavers?
Is Mohsni still at Rangers? From Wikipedia: “Mohsni is a devout Muslim. At Rangers, a room is set aside at both Murray Park (Rangers’ training complex) and Ibrox Stadium to enable him to pray at the required times throughout the day. He is also permitted to arrive at a later time for training on Fridays to allow him to attend his mosque.[47]”
Bet he’s pleased with the new regime.
jimmci 11:17am
—————-
No!
But it is against all ethical and professional standards to mention by name an Ibrox secretary.
Similar, I suppose to publication of their own addresses and phone numbers.
When is BBC London going to take responsibility for the Northern cousin’s. It is only a matter of time before one of them will start street riots by making some reprehensible comment on a very delicate subject,
How long would they last if they were reporting on the London football scene.
Auldheid@12.37 pm
………….
That is very encouraging news, indeed.
As you say, patience is the watchword now.
woodstein says:
March 12, 2015 at 1:04 pm
Yeah, that example gets used a lot to illustrate why having good systems and processes in place is only half the battle, management has to insist that they are followed, otherwise its just a waste of time and effort.
Is there a danger of a fatwa against Rangers? (Mods – I don’t mean McCoist!)
There is some level of irony in the mess that has been created by the appointment of Chris Graham to the board.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Bawsman says:
March 12, 2015 at 12:47 pm
Saw this post on the Rangers share site, middle para is interesting, i’d have thought season long contracts would be just that, until the end of the season, i.e. after the last game the club plays that season? Am I wrong?
1 team goes up automatically winning the championship – looks like Hearts (4 more wins and its secure). 1 team can go up via playoffs (2/3/4) play each other – then winner of this plays 2nd bottom in SPFL.
So there are 6 extra games to negociate for this extra place. But these games could be after many of our players contracts lapse…. so looks like super gambled that we would win league.
Also being in SPFL next year would help share – but would increase costs – there are rumours of additional payments if we win promotion
Players’ Contracts are like any other Fixed Term Contract, they have an end date.Normal one is 31st May, as the season is over by then, the issue will be caused by the Play-Off Final being moved outwith that date due to Hibs or Falkirk being in the Cup Final.
Players won’t be registered with the club (or indeed insured), after 31st May, however past events have shown that improper registration issues don’t apply to the Establishment Club 👿
Auldheid says:
March 12, 2015 at 12:37 pm
I thought you should know that although no journos aknowledged they had received hard copies of evidence kept from Harper MacLeod sent out by tsfm volunteers last September a more recent contact has at least engaged.
Anonymity has been promised and there is a job of exchanging information that may or may not lead to anything so no promises, but at least this person took an interest and thinks the core case re Flo/De Boer and consequences re LNS validity is sound.
Patience I tell myself.
———–
@Auldheid
Tom English engaging in a discussion with some chaps from the cycling world on twitter (one of them author Richard Moore no less). Tom came across a bit high and mighty on cycling after a report on doping in cycling and a few comments by David Millar in The Telegraph yesterday. Summa summarum, I mentioned that he’d been sent detailed information on LNS and asked if he’d speak out on that soon. After all, financial doping is also doping. Richard Moore engaging in a lively discussion. Might be an opportunity to grab his attention.
Must be a good story there for him to get worked up about :irony:
http://www.wsc.co.uk/wsc-daily/1193-march-2015/12283-champions-league-dropouts-ruin-europa-league
Can any one on here translate the article above into plain English please?
(maybe it was ghost written by Graham Spiers)?
jimlarkin says:
March 12, 2015 at 1:31 pm
The Europa League is about the football
While the Champions League is about the moneyball?
And the Champions League Wh!$”s should keep out of the Europa! 😉
redlichtie says:
March 12, 2015 at 1:28 pm
Scottish football needs Arbroath to get their stuff together 😀
What was so hard about the WSC article?
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/strange-case-rangers-prophet-mohammed-cartoon/9163
Alex Thompson’s take on Grahamgate.
Chris Graham’s position is untenable after less than half a week. If he follows his own “standards” he’ll jump before he’s pushed.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/chris-graham-by-your-own-standards-let-you-be-judged/
It didn’t take long, McMurdo Minor has set about the twittering NED.
https://billmcmurdo.wordpress.com/blog/
Its probably true to say that no fan “leader” is universally liked at any club, but most clubs have one or two fans that are at least respected by as near as dammit all the other fans. That is not the case at Rangers, and it presents Rangers with a number of Operational Risks & Issues, beyond the current difficulties of this particular NED.
I don’t know how this or any board, can go about solving this problem, but, if they want to build the business, solve it they must.
Edit
Companies the size of Rangers don’t normally have Risk Committees, but they probably have enough Risks to justify having one, an ideal place for a new NED to cut his teeth? (Sorry couldn’t resist, I’ll get my hat)
Head Hunter says:
March 11, 2015 at 9:11 pm
So it seems as though Chris Graham might not even get as far as a Fit and Proper Person test.
_______________________________________
Fit and proper test?
That consists of the club telling the SFA the person is fit and proper for the role.
So unless a club appoints a director then says “hang on, this person isn’t fit and proper after all” it’s not much of a “test” is it?
Monty Python stuff.
As for Chris Graham restricting his twitter feed to RRM followers only, well what do you expect – to engage on social media in a civilised manner with respect for others. Come off it. Much better to weed out his “enemies”
borussiabeefburg says:
March 12, 2015 at 10:48 am
If you are indicating that the press might manipulate what a player is trying to get across, then perhaps the player’s club should give him some coaching as to how to convey his message.
———————————————————————
Heaven forbid that the SMSM might manipulate what a player or manager says to suit their own often narrow and sometimes biased agenda 😆
My view of the SMSM is that no amount of ‘coaching’ is proof against what they perceive to be the best headline. Stokes didn’t admit to ‘diving’ and indeed said the opposite but the Scotsman and the Sun ran a headline stating he admitted to ‘diving’.
There is simply no defence against that lack of journalistic professionalism IMO. You obviously have a different view and are entitled to it as I am entitled to mine and I have nothing further to add on the subject.
Has Chris Graham taken the honourable / dignified / inevitable action and stood down as a NED yet ?
…and he was so, so close to getting his brogues and blazer…
So who’s next up ?
Dingwall ?
Leggat ?
Not the most auspicious start for King’s regime – and that’s even before they start looking for cash !
Just another, ridiculous side story to the never ending Govan soap… 🙄
James Forrest says:
March 12, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Chris Graham’s position is untenable after less than half a week. If he follows his own “standards” he’ll jump before he’s pushed.
————————————————————-
Quite amazing that Blogger Graham has managed to unite yourself and McMurdo 🙄
Just another day in the life of the longest-running football soap that beats EastEnders and Coronation Street for plot U-turns that defy understanding.
ecobhoy says:
March 12, 2015 at 3:04 pm
“Just another day in the life of the longest-running football soap that beats EastEnders and Coronation Street for plot U-turns that defy understanding.”
As a reality show, the BBC could use it to replace Top Gear, (speaks to largely the same demographic)
I note there’s been a Presser at Murray Park to announce McCall’s appointment.
I’m sure that our indefatigable SMSM will have asked him how he feels about Graham’s tweet. I’ll catch it on the tea time news no doubt 😆
If not already mentioned;
“A Rangers fan who was arrested for sectarian singing while on his way to attend a game against Celtic has been jailed for four months…”
But what caught my eye in the article was ;
“…Another man, Alexander Blood, from Saltford in Somerset, was given a community payback order after admitting acting in a racially aggravated manner.
Blood swore at police officers and called them “Jock”.
As part of the order he will be supervised for 18 months and must carry out 160 hours of unpaid work.
He was also given a three year football banning order.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-31856341
Has anyone pointed out to Sheriff Paul Crozier that he’ll be needing some more prisons if he is to be consistent with his verdicts.