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.
Some serious heat being applied now – be national soon unless the PR fire brigade turn hoses to max:
Scottish Muslim leaders have called for Rangers to investigate a tweet sent by its newly-appointed director Chris Graham.
The image appeared on the board member’s Twitter page on the same day as the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris.
A sketch of the prophet Mohammed engaged in a sex act with Star Wars character Jar Jar Binks was tweeted from Graham’s account on January 7 to Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary, two months before his appointment to the Rangers board.
Choudary tweeted the message: “Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the prophets of Allah, whatever your views on the events in Paris today!”
In response, a tweet sent from Graham’s account included the sketch along with the message: “You probably won’t like this one of Prophet Mo.”
President of Glasgow Central Mosque, Dr Asid Khan, called for Rangers to carry out an internal investigation and branded the tweet “reprehensible”.
He said: “With freedom of speech comes great responsibility to not offend other people. In this case, such a tweet is very offensive to a large proportion of the population, not only Muslims.
“This was very irresponsible and reprehensible coming from a director of a football club. I would hope and expect Rangers to carry out an internal investigation into the issue and take what action they deem appropriate.
“A number of Muslims play for Rangers and I imagine they would be disgusted by this.”
****When contacted by STV, a spokesman for Rangers said Graham was not under investigation but that the board would seek to address the matter within the next 48 hours.****
Secretary of the Muslim Council of Scotland, Mazhar Khan, said it hoped Rangers took the matter “very seriously” and probed whether “a line had been crossed” by Graham.
He said: “We reject all types of insulting and offensive behaviour, especially if it is against people’s religious beliefs or identity.
“We would hope that Rangers take the issue very seriously to establish whether a line has been crossed.
“We would hope that they at least look into this. However, we would leave it to the judgement of Rangers and their board over what action to take.”
Don’t know if this link was posted before.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/31807179
As this is the Scottish Football monitor, this is a positive, entertaining read about the young Scottish coach Ian Cathro, who is still only 28, with an unconventional background – like Mourinho – and is doing well at Valencia.
One to watch for the future ?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/31807179
A strange comeback: can’t see where my stated view is that a lack of journalistic professionalism can be considered a fine quality.
I was being disparaging of Celtic’s use of various media to criticise another club and players.
Feel free to add nothing to that.
Pitch perfect
BT Sport SPFL tweet: The new pitch at Hampden is down ahead of Sunday’s League Cup final.
———————————————
Just think if they hadn’t laid it ahead of Sunday’s game it would have lasted longer 😆 🙄 😆
Woodstein at 1.04pm. The USA as a nation refuse to acknowledge the existence of the S.I (metric) system, sticking to the old Imperial system, In the U.K. we have changed over to metric with 1 exception, ie, Road mileage and MPH. Off topic I know, but there you go.
Of course the new dignified, open and transparent board that seeks to re-build relationships with the rest of Scottish Football could smack this one right out of the park by having Level 5 organise a press conference where Chris Graham apologies for his silly actions and reminds all T’Rangers fans of the need to walk away from such behaviour and act with dignity at all times.
Mini Murray then says he can stay on the board as long as he accepts the fine of doing his first year at no cost to the financially strapped club in the same way the Easdales took not money for their directorate roles.
Balance restored.
StevieBC says:
March 12, 2015 at 3:12 pm
If not already mentioned;
But what caught my eye in the article was ;
………………………………………
A Bolton fan was found guilty near the end of last year
“Philip John Ward 03/07/1982, of Tintern Avenue, Tyldesley, was found guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence following a trial at Bolton magistrates court.
On Tuesday 16 September 2014, he was issued with a fine and costs and given a three year football banning order.
During the match between Bolton Wanderers and Burnley on 11 February 2014, Ward was observed by a steward, who was operating as a plain clothes spotter, to shout racist abuse at two players in relation to their ethnicity. He also directed abuse at the manager in relation to his nationality.
Police were made aware and he was subsequently arrested.”
‘Jock’ was the word used against the then manager Dougie Freedman but the court there seemed to make a distinction between race and nationality.
I’m guessing the Scottish courts were glad the accused admitted acting in a racially aggravated manner rather than them having to prove Jock was ‘racial’.
“Well, yes, but it’s not about the football.”
“You’re saying that football is not about football?”
“It’s the sharing,” she said. “It’s being part of the crowd. It’s chanting together. It’s all of it. the whole thing.”
Terry Pratchett will be missed
StevieBC says:
March 12, 2015 at 3:12 pm
“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
————————————————————–
Well at least the Bear didn’t need to watch the game which would have been a relief.
However I genuinely didn’t realise that ‘Jock’ could be designated a ‘racist’ description and have a feeling there might have been a few words before and after it which clearly made its use racist in the fuller context.
McDowall gone- I wonder how much that cost?
Rangers FC @RangersFC 31m31 minutes ago
The Board today confirms Kenny McDowall has left #Rangers Football Club: http://rng.rs/1L2aZD1
Virgil Van Dijk’s red card rescinded. Decision on Paul Paton will be announced later.
Ally back as the #2,we demand to know
One change with the new regime
The move from statement o’clock to presser o’clock 17:00 in this case
Ref McDowall, gardening leave or pay off?
Merlin suggesting RIFC are talking to Allenby Capital about being Nomad. You know the firm where a certain Imran Ahmad was one of the founding directors. The pantomime is getting more farcical
For those who like playing the old Rangers degrees of separation game, one of the key shareholders in Allenby is Close Asset Mangement Holdings
‘Tis a small world
Dontcha just love the cloud mind? The following is a condensed version of the current blog taking on board suggested changes PLUS a Q & A one of TSFM readers made via e mail. (Not sure of his TSFM name but thanks G)
It could form the basis of an advert although before then it can be used on line or in club fanzines sold at games to reach match goers who do not use social media much.
LORD NIMMO SMITH COMMISSION FINDINGS INVALID
1. SPL announced on 5 March 2012 that any EBTS with side letters used by RFC from 1 July 1998 would be examined.
2. However, only EBTs with side letters from 23 November 2000 were examined under the terms of reference of the ‘SPL LNS Commission’. Why? Because details of three EBTs, two with side letters, were not provided to SPL lawyers in April 2012 as requested.
3. These earlier EBTs (along with the 23rd November EBT) are “irregular”, to use LNS terminology, (“illegal” to HMRC). Liability had been accepted for them by RFC in March 2011 on Counsel’s advice. RFC had denied the existence of these side letters to HMRC in 2005 when asked if they existed.
4. The failure to provide EBTs previous to November 2000 enabled LNS to treat all EBTs as regular. This was in spite of the fact that three were judged by a separate FTT to be irregular thereby rendering null and void the LNS decision to treat all EBTs as regular.
5. This fact was drawn to attention of SPL lawyers and SP(F)L Board by TSFM in Feb 2014.
6. SP(F)L lawyers failed to explain satisfactorily to TSFM in March 2014 why the withheld paperwork did not impact on the LNS decision.
7. SP(F)L Board and lawyers provided with all the paperwork and argument in late March 2014. No response.
8. LNS informed by e mail of events in April 2014. No response.
9. Fourteen journalists also provided with hard copy of same evidence and the argument on TSFM blogs from September 2014. Only one engaged who confirmed case sound.
10. SP(F)L lawyers sent evidence and paperwork to SFA.in September 2014. No response.
11. Campbell Ogilvie initiated the first irregular ebt in 1999. He was SFA President in June 2011 when the tax bill generated by the irregular ebts became overdue. He himself was in receipt of a (BTC) ebt under dispute by HMRC. He excused himself from the LNS investigation yet still testified and made no reference to the distinction between the EBT types.
12. Stewart Regan may or may not have been told the distinction by Ogilvie. LNS was not.
13. In summary, failure (deliberate or otherwise) to supply evidence of earlier EBTs, known and agreed to be irregular, resulted in the LNS Commission being misdirected. Therefore the findings of the LNS Commission are invalid and must be set aside.
(Followed by a few Q and A)
LORD NIMMO SMITH COMMISSION FINDINGS INVALID
Why? His lordship was misdirected.
How? He was not told the whole truth.
What’s that? Some EBTs had already been found illegal (Tore Andre Flo, de Boer….) and accepted as such by all concerned. Nobody told his lordship….
Does that matter? It does if you want the truth to be established for the sake of the Scottish game and its fans, which is why his lordship was in the chair anyway.
Where did the judge go wrong? From the evidence given LNS concluded that all the EBTS used were the same. This is not true. A lot of people knew this.
Like Who? The President of SFA for one. He never mentioned it to the Judge, yet authorised the first in 1999 and was a beneficiary of the later type of EBT himself, whose legality is still under dispute by HMRC. How much tax would be due on £95k?
How can it be put right? Only one way: reconvene the Commission. Ask LNS or substitute to try again, this time with full facts. The earlier seriously flawed judgement needs to be set aside. The new hearing is needed based on facts, now well known, which make the previous findings invalid.
There’s only one conclusion: for the sake of Scottish professional football and fans of every club without whom it is nothing, justice must be done and seen to be done, even at a late hour.
(see http://www.tsfm.scot/did-stewart-regan-ken-then-wit-we-ken-noo/ ) for detailed background)
Just thinking, has King opened up himself up for potentially more personal risk / more reputational damage, [I know].
He was a NED at RFC for many years, but seemed to be IIRC rather low profile, as Murray/Smith dominated the SMSM attention. King could could get on with his business in SA in relative quiet from the SMSM.
Until a certain court case with SARS that is…
Now, King could become the ‘face’ of TRFC, [assuming he passes the F&P test 🙄 ].
Inevitably, he will attract more attention and scrutiny from the Bampots and media generally.
We know he has had a cavalier attitude to rules and regulations in the past, wrt SARS.
Would he be ‘whiter than white’ in all of his other dealings ?
I don’t know.
IMO, he enjoyed ‘jetting in’ to get his 15 minutes of SMSM sycophantic coverage every so often, before ‘jetting back’ to SA.
But he might not actually like being in the harsh spotlight continuously…
Re above. This is not to discount other suggestions for an advert, but even if we send another message I think this can reach a wider audience on line and be viewed via fanzines sold at grounds. This brings in all of us to find who produces them and approach them.
I have a Celtic fanzine covered.
Auldheid.
I sincerely hope the endeavour pays dividends and that ALL fans of Scottish football feel they have a stake in pressuring the authorities for answers.
On a separate note (kind of) Celtic shareholders pursuing the UEFA licence issue. If the SFA equivocate and dissemble resulting in a wholly unsatisfactory response, I assume it then passes on to UEFA . If so what are the possible consequences for Scottish football as a whole if the complaint is upheld ? I have seen scaremongering suggesting complete european bans for all Scottish clubs but is this realistic??
tykebhoy says: March 12, 2015 at 4:36 pm
scapaflow says: March 12, 2015 at 4:47 pm
=========================
Looking at Allenby Capital now, it looks like everything is above board, but it has had a chequered past, re its involvement with Imran Ahmad and a previous name of HB Corporate Ltd. HB being Hoodless Brennan which no doubt will be familiar names to ecobhoy and others.
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/imran-ahmad-of-rangers-the-portfolio-of-his-former-co-allenby-capital-by-100bjd/
hello hello hello what’s all this then?
“Gerry Braiden @BraidenHT 55 secs55 seconds ago
NEW: Police Scotland on Rangers director’s Chris Graham Mohammed tweet: “We are now carrying out enquiries into this matter.””
Auldheid – Q&A good solution although it would be more effective (imo) if placed above detailed evidence – it would entice the reader to read on.
No Nomad in place after Mr King’s fourth full business day in charge – well he has been busy with other things.
8 days gone, 22 days to go to de-listing.
Stuart McColl stated this club has been kicked enough. Ffs.
There is a stray been in Mr McCall’s statement above
It’s interesting that journalists, PMG anf Tomo, have felt the need to offer a half-hearted freedom of speech defence for Chris Graham. I guess their NUJ membership requires it – although evidently it is different for Scottish NUJ members.
Personally, I think they miss the point. Going out of your way to target someone you’ve never met with the most offensive thing you can find is not about free speech. it is about hatred, discrimination and bigotry in the extreme.
In case it is of interest, I’m not religious, but that does not mean I think those that are should be easy targets for thuggish idiots like Graham.
I assume Graham would describe himself as a Christian of some kind. What would Jesus say Chris?
senior says:
March 12, 2015 at 11:31 am
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)
======================
Senior,
the same thought went through my mind, DCK was there at that time, and I wonder just how devious the man is, also how complex his (dck) master plan will turn out to be.
Some posters are of the opinion that MA was party to or aware of some of the shenanigans that were going on at that time.
What I find very strange is that within a few days of seizing power the king has fled to warmer clime’s and left every one wondering when this £60m, no £30m, no £16m, no £8m, no he’s away back to SA to get all those 1/2 and 1 rand coins to get the party started.
In all seriousness I suspect that it is the Rangers fans who are about to be asked (again) to dig deep, to get their company/club back to its rightful place at top of the pile.
On the plus side, it looks like Scottish football is starting to get some international recognition!
http://rt.com/uk/240081-mohammed-cartoon-explicit-rangers/
On the negative side…
…and just when Ogilvie & Regan must have thought they could escape from the Hampden bunker, to simply rubber-stamp King’s F&P submission…
Since Chris Graham’s latest Tweet indiscretion, the SFA high heid yins must be terrified in case they are asked a question about the RIFC NED !
They’ve probably added more locks to the bunker door now… 😉
BorrowaTenner says:
March 12, 2015 at 6:37 pm
In all seriousness I suspect that it is the Rangers fans who are about to be asked….. to get their company/club back to its rightful place at top of the pile.
__________________________________________________
Are TRFC supporters allowed on to the pitch to help the team out? 😆
Gunnerb
Yes I’ve seen that nonsense if Celtic go to UEFA re 2011 Licence. In that scenario:
The guilty club get off free because they no longer exist as a legal entity as UEFA define one.
UEFA punish the SFA for negligence but that will be at best a warning given the rules not adhered to, and I’m confident they were not, we’re introduced in 2011.
If they were to go beyond that and produce something that punished the clubs who were victims, of what is arguably fraud, would be a case for CAS One the clubs would win hands down.
It is a scare story put out to discourage pursuit of the issue.
Given what UEFA would be examining ( I’ve mentioned the Timeline which is an index to individual evidence ) Celtic have nothing to fear. Quite the reverse.
valentinesclown says:
March 12, 2015 at 6:15 pm
Stuart McColl stated this club has been kicked enough.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Wonder which hasbeen he`s talking about?
re Chris Graham
I see the Police AND Rangers are launching an investigation:
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/313585-muslim-leaders-call-for-rangers-to-probe-director-chris-graham-tweet/
I don’t think we’re really gonna need Columbo to get to the bottom of this Incident!
What was tweeted, who tweeted it…..there we go, I’ve saved everyone a lot of time and effort!
What Rangers actually mean is, we need time to work out if it will cause more damage to to sack him or stick with him….and how we’ll handle either.
If they’re looking towards building a global brand there’s only one option however I suspect they’re just trying to get to the end of the season using the fans cash.
If that’s the case I feel they’ll make a decision on the basis of how it will go down with their current, regular fan base.
I’m going to plump for Rangers and Chris making a full apology and him staying put.
Anyone who’s aware of Chris’s work these last few years will know how damaging and humiliating that’ll be for him.
Some attacks on the database tonight using a new exploit. Maybe a bumpy ride. Might be a bit slow at times but we are watching it closely.
TSFMgineers are on the case 🙂
Aye Wondered who was at it. Emanating from?
I could understand why there were attacks on the RTC DB, as we where discussing information which the SMSM was generally ignoring / not reporting.
But most of what we discuss now is in the SMSM – although with their own added bias for their readership.
Why would anyone be motivated to attack TSFM now ?
Auldheid says:
March 12, 2015 at 7:36 pm
Gunnerb
Yes I’ve seen that nonsense if Celtic go to UEFA re 2011 Licence. In that scenario:
The guilty club get off free because they no longer exist as a legal entity as UEFA define one.
UEFA punish the SFA for negligence but that will be at best a warning
____________________________________________________________
Thanks for clearing that up Auldheid.It does seem an inadequate punishment for such a flagrant abuse by the governing body. I hope the shareholders pursue this through more conventional legal channels once vindicated.
Would JTs new outfit be as devious as to recommend Graham to the board for Non exec, knowing full well; (but probably not thinking the hourly billings would materialise almost instantly) that they would get an earner out of this quite easily.
Jims gone up a “level” in terms of smarts to my mind.
I guess its going to take a player being killed or paralysed before the authorities stamp out dangerous play. All very sad 🙁
gunnerb says:
March 12, 2015 at 7:57 pm
Auldheid says:
March 12, 2015 at 7:36 pm
Obviously I’m not as familiar with the in and outs Uefa Licence issue as Auldheid…but I’ll stick my tuppence worth in anyway!
My feeling on this is that the reason Celtic etc. are reluctant to persue this is they know they don’t have much chance and don’t want the hassle. From what I’ve seen so far it’s something that looks very…er…wiggle-outable! I feel like it’ll be very difficult to prove they shouldn’t have had the Licence.
Things Like,
* when was the bill due
* was it overdue
* was it still being contested
* was the exact amount being contested
* had HMRC taken out procesdings
* was there a payment plan in place
* how far had they strayed from the payment plan
I know you’ve covered a lot of the above but I think there’s plenty of areas this could fall down on.
Lastly, would a sucessful action massively damage the whole of Scottish football and what would Celtic gain from it anyway?
Two questions buzzing around that the SMSM might want to ask :
1. How many of TRFC 500,000,000 fans are Muslim?
2. If Chris Graham resigns after just two days is this a new world record?
Scottish Football does indeed need Arbroath to get their stuff together.
douglas reynholm says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:14 pm
Lastly, would a sucessful action massively damage the whole of Scottish football and what would Celtic gain from it anyway?
————————————————————————–
Massive damage? As a fan I just want sporting integrity. I want the truth nothing more nothing less.
Scottish Football need the truth at all costs.
douglas reynholm says:
March 12, 2015 at 7:37 pm
I’m going to plump for Rangers and Chris making a full apology and him staying put.
———————————————————
Anything’s possible. But we’re in a dog ear dog world.
If he goes it leaves a blazer for another fan rep. There are still deep divisions in the Rangers support which might appear to have healed with increased attendances. But there’s still distinct new board and Ashley factions who literally hate each other.
And there’s quite a percentage waiting to see what DK does – they haven’t all swallowed the fairytale and won’t until they see hard dosh invested.
There’s also the fact that there are plenty more tweets to be released wrt Graham so it will be a constant drip drip drip. I think what might put the final nail in the coffin is the involvement of the police.
Since I first heard about the tweet I have had no doubt it would be investigated by the Police.
It’s not just the grossly offensive nature of the cartoon in a religious sense but I take the point by AT I think it was who mentioned the homophobic undertones.
But above all else it was the sheer irresponsibility of his actions I simply can’t get over. We had slaughter and carnage in Paris and what apparently emerges from the Chris Graham twitter account? A message of condolence to the families and friends of those who had been murdered?
No what we get is a bucket of petrol thrown on the flames – it really is beyond belief. While people were potentially still in imminent danger he tweets from relative safety.
I also truly wonder how T3B can even think about serving on the same Board as Graham. It might be a litmus test as to how acid the current bile level is down Ibrox Way.
Of course I think the SFA – as usual – will sit and await developments as presumably the Bryson Ruling will apply that as they didn’t know he had sent a tweet before he was accepted as a director then he’s fit and proper although what for?
douglas reynholm says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:14 pm
My feeling on this is that the reason Celtic etc. are reluctant to persue this is they know they don’t have much chance and don’t want the hassle. From what I’ve seen so far it’s something that looks very…er…wiggle-outable! I feel like it’ll be very difficult to prove they shouldn’t have had the Licence.
Things Like,
* when was the bill due
* was it overdue
* was it still being contested
* was the exact amount being contested
* had HMRC taken out procesdings
* was there a payment plan in place
* how far had they strayed from the payment plan
I know you’ve covered a lot of the above but I think there’s plenty of areas this could fall down on.
Lastly, would a sucessful action massively damage the whole of Scottish football and what would Celtic gain from it anyway?
_______________________________________________________________________
Well , from your reasoning above then Scottish football has no cause to worry about “massive damage”. As to what Celtic would gain from it well It is a group of shareholders in a PLc who are convinced that their investment has been negatively impacted by the improprietry of the governing body. Financial recompense is a legitimate , indeed necessary reason for pursuance.
pour encourage les autres.
Is Chris Graham simply a ‘useful squirrel’ ?!
I think we should be told… 🙄
Auldheid says:
March 12, 2015 at 4:58 pm
———
Wondering if any evt. ad might be better/more effective in the form of a full page headline, for example: “Scottish Football is a Sham” with an eye-catching subhead and link to a page such as: tsfm.scot/sham?
That would perhaps create enough curiosity, and allow for both a punchy bullet-point list with links to a more in depth piece online.
Any attempt to distill a basic, though, hugely complex issue, into a print ad could backfire or even appear silly. A bold headline and subhead with accompanying url link would perhaps be most effective?
Just a thought
gunnerb says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:27 pm
My point is that the Club that did this is now dead and Celtic won’t get entry to the 2011 Champions league. I can see that people want to bring down the organisation that cause this but my gut feeling is that any action won’t be succesful.
We had Rangers paying employees a regular weekly “loan” with a side letter saying they didn’t have to pay it back and Rangers offering £15m to make it go away……HMRC couldn’t even nail them on that! I’d imagine this would be much easier to get out of. I think there’s one or 2 clubs in Uefa been hit with this, Malaga being one of them however they’d taken tax avoidance to Dave King levels if I remember correctly. A lot of the big spannish and Italian clubs have competed in Uefa competition with pressing and actionable tax bills….and that’s pressing by spannish and Italian standards i.e. they’d paid next to f*** all in years!
ecobhoy says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:24 pm
I get what you’re saying and having read it I may revise my prediction….he’s become a bigger liability that maybe I’d imagined.
Here’s a random idea.
I would have expected Chris Graham to have ‘walked away’ immediately – “for the good of his club’s reputation” 😕 – and especially in the knowledge that more dodgy material will probably be uncovered in due course.
However, if he clings on, could the SFA OK King as F&P, but they refuse Graham ?
[Might have been mentioned earlier by another Bampot re: ‘sacrificial lamb’ ? ]
Graham could be useful in helping to rehabilitate King’s image – and for the SFA to show that they can make tough decisions and TRFC doesn’t get its own way all the time?
🙄
motor red says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:54 pm
,,,,,,,,,
Think its time you were banned
StevieBC says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:31 pm
Is Chris Graham simply a ‘useful squirrel’ ?!
I think we should be told… 🙄
———–
Deep, Stevie. What is a useful squirrel? (Btw, I thought of the nature exhibit at Kelvingrove that changed season at the press of a button when I read your post).
If Imran A. (and thereby, Charles Green?) is connected to the new nomad, you might well be right.
douglas reynholm says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:40 pm
My point is that the Club that did this is now dead and Celtic won’t get entry to the 2011 Champions league. I can see that people want to bring down the organisation that cause this but my gut feeling is that any action won’t be succesful.
________________________________________________________________________
The action being taken is not against any club/company that no longer exists. It is against the governing body and by shareholders in a PLC who feel they have lost out due to that bodies erhm incompetence.Either the granting of the licence was above board or it was not. The rules on this matter are quite clear and I imagine if there was no case to answer then we wouldn’t be discussing it at this stage.As I said earlier and you again cite various reasons why in your latest post, there should be no need for you or anyone else to worry as clearly this is going nowhere.
StevieBC says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:31 pm
Is Chris Graham simply a ‘useful squirrel’ ?!
I think we should be told… 🙄
_______________________________________
StevieBC
He well may be the distraction but this is a dangerous game.
Only thing is, the distraction barely lasted p…..g time, Graham will be gone in the next 48 hours.
ecobhoy says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:24 pm
douglas reynholm says:
March 12, 2015 at 7:37 pm
I’m going to plump for Rangers and Chris making a full apology and him staying put.
———————————————————
Anything’s possible. But we’re in a dog ear dog world…..I also truly wonder how T3B can even think about serving on the same Board as Graham. It might be a litmus test as to how acid the current bile level is down Ibrox Way.(my edit)
=================================================================================
Eco….my thoughts entirely…and zilch to do with his infamous tweet…!
Danish Pastry says:
March 12, 2015 at 9:09 pm
StevieBC says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:31 pm
Is Chris Graham simply a ‘useful squirrel’ ?!
I think we should be told… 🙄
———–
Deep, Stevie. What is a useful squirrel? (Btw, I thought of the nature exhibit at Kelvingrove that changed season at the press of a button when I read your post).
============================================================================
DP….gonnae no say things like that…?
I will rattle off: the bee hive…rare birds eggs…erotic paintings(to a twelve year old anyway!)….childhood memories…please do not disturb…!
cant believe the thinking of some people who think Celtic should drop the case of the UEFA licence as they have nothing really to gain apart from a lot of hassle. In the big Picture of things , this isnt just about Celtic, this is about every single team that plays in the Scottish Leagues . Whether you like Celtic or not should nt come into it every decent scottish football fan should back Celtic if it is proven that the SFA deliberately colluded to get a team into europe illegally. This should be persued to the very end to get justice for scottish football and clear out the corruption that threatens to kill the scottish game.
roddybhoy says:
March 12, 2015 at 9:33 pm
I am fairly sure that the CFC board privately wish that Auldheid & Co would just shut up and eat their cornflakes.
However, the detailed, careful, investigative work that’s been done, leaves them little choice but to engage. The whole story has to come out, there can be no real moving on for anyone until it does. I expect everyone on all sides to be upset by what will eventually be revealed, but that doesn’t make the revealing any less necessary.
the official answer is the same now as it ever was on all sevco/rangers subjects
“och, yer no still goin’ on aboot that ur ye”
scapaflow says:
March 12, 2015 at 9:45 pm
That’s one of my points, there doesn’t seem any real appetite from the Celtic boad for this. Had this come to light in May 2011, it would probably have been as black and white as people are making out. Celtic (or any other party with an interest) would have pointed this out to the SFA and UEFA, UEFA/SFA would have asked HMRC if Rangers had oustanding Tax issues, HMRC would presumably have said damn right they do thanks for asking and Celtic would have had a strong case.
4 Years later we’re into the who knew what when about a Club that doesn’t exist anymore i.e. a lot of the main players aren’t their positions anymore and can refuse to co-opperate. There’s now a lot of room for interpretation and conjecture..a lot.
scapaflow @ 9.45
Could nt agree more , if the truth finally does come out and it does nt reflect well on celtic in any way then hell mend them, I say that as a celtic fan but this is bigger than celtic this is about the future of the whole of scottish football.
scapaflow says:
March 12, 2015 at 9:45 pm
I am fairly sure that the CFC board privately wish that Auldheid & Co would just shut up and eat their cornflakes.
——————————
Hmmm, not so sure about that Scapaflow. I believe we would have seen more public outrage from disenchanted shareholders if the PLC board were not in accord with their shareholders actions.I initially thought that the board were trying to quell any action and upon promising to take it up on their behalf were hoping to gradually let the issue wither on the vine. Perverse as it may seem the longer it has dragged on with no leaks or whispers of any kind then the more confident I have become in a favourable end result. I fully expect the SFA to refuse to provide a comprehensive and clear answer and that it will move on to the next stage. Many posters on RTC used to quote from the art of war but I like this one.
The strongest of all warriers are these two — Time and Patience. — Leo Tolstoy
essexbeancounter says:
March 12, 2015 at 9:33 pm
————
Severely OT:
We were picked up on a double decker special from school and taken to Kelvingrove. A lecture room on the second floor had Bond-like auto blackout windows in the roof. A lecture on antiquity then free to roam. Nice primary memory. I was fascinated by the paintings. Probably accounts for my later wanderings in the art galleries of Europe 😆
To be honest, no idea why I got an association to the winter-summer exhibit. Sorry about that. A stream of consciousness moment.
Anyway, if the LNS is built on incomplete evidence that fact has to be made known. Any fans with a modicum of fair-play nouse would disown a club’s ill-gotten gains. If we found out that Andy Murray was doped when he won the 2012 Olympic gold & US Open would we fight for his right to hold on to those titles? Never.
scapaflow @ 9.45
It is bad enough that the fans themselves have to carry out the investigation and present the facts to the very people who should have known, did know, and hid information from, what appears to be, less that willing investigators.
However what really grinds with me in this affair is that now, when they know they have been found out, when they know the rules are utterly inadequate they simply refuse to close the loop holes and ensure that there is no repeat of what went on.
It is almost as if they actually encourage malpractice and downright dishonesty.
After all why would they employ extra staff to ensure all clubs are up to date with their taxes when Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster have an 18% pay rise to get.
Pigs with their snouts in the trough of corruption!
Chris Graham, will have to answer for anything he has done. I don’think he should be continually hung, drawn and quartered. This book describes what can happen when the internet ‘mob’ for the better good attack someone. Chris Graham may be a better person on the board than thrown off.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed-ebook/dp/B00NLFVN8E/ref=pd_ybh_9
A belated chapeau for the header blog Auldheid. It is a lengthy dissection of the arguments but stands as a valuable record. The following excerpt in particular caught my eye.
This shows up LNS conclusions as fundamentally flawed since the non-disclosure of documents itself infers dishonesty. You fairly concede that the administrators might have bungled the process but I think you are being extremely charitable with your tolerance. How is a quasi judicial process meant to evaluate ‘accidental’ dishonesty. At some point, given the presence of some semblance of integrity, such omissions need to confer culpability.
Your direct quote of LNS [105] provides this little gem.
This reads like someone examining pieces of a jigsaw without ever having the notion of piecing them together. It makes the whole process appear contrived. Hindsight is a very stern judge but there are patterns to be discerned, just as LNS, Harper McLeod and the SPL could have recognised patterns of activity during the inquiry. As you infer, this was far from the finest moment in Scottish football governance.
In an office in Dundee today and this older chap was having a conversation with the lady in the office. The conversation was on football and he kept looking at me as if to get me involved in the conversation. As he was leaving he referred to Rangers and looking at me I couldn’t resist and said “is this Old Rangers or new Rangers you are talking about”. He immediately told me that is a lot of nonsense as Rangers shouldn’t have been in that position because ..wait for it…… “they won their tax case and so should never have gone through all that, it was a lot of nonsense. It was proved they never owed any tax money, it’s terrible what happened to them and a pure waste of tax payers money” “Oh” I says “that tax case is still being pursued but what about the VAT & NI money they owed”. He replied “they never owed any tax they were found not guilty” I replied ” you seem to be forgetting the VAT & NI Mr Whyte never paid to the tune of some £21m if memory serves me correctly, that’s how they went into admin and then liquidation, he haw to do with EBT’s.” Off he trots and in comes a chap I was into see and he pipes up ” have you upset the truck driver fae our Forfar branch, he raging out there, a face like fizz” ” glad to hear he isn’t a customer, you may have lost him, another Sevco fan who denies the truth and believes what he reads in the press” 😆
essexbeancounter says:
March 12, 2015 at 9:28 pm
ecobhoy says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:24 pm
douglas reynholm says:
March 12, 2015 at 7:37 pm
I’m going to plump for Rangers and Chris making a full apology and him staying put.
———————————————————
Anything’s possible. But we’re in a dog ear dog world…..I also truly wonder how T3B can even think about serving on the same Board as Graham. It might be a litmus test as to how acid the current bile level is down Ibrox Way.(my edit)
=================================================================================
Eco….my thoughts entirely…and zilch to do with his infamous tweet…!
_________________________________________________
I agree.
And I think that this is the right way forward.
First… any admission of wrongdoing. (Unheard of ahent the marble staircase)
Secondly, CG is a symptom, not a cause. He is a football fan with some political views that need seriously updating. He is not a criminal mastermind.
If he were to spearhead a charm offensive and recant some of his own excesses, that could lead to positive engagement. A way back for the decent TRFC fans.
I’m not holding my breath, but sometimes you have to hold your nose when looking for consensus.
Resin_lab_dog says:
March 13, 2015 at 12:06 am
essexbeancounter says:
March 12, 2015 at 9:28 pm
ecobhoy says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:24 pm
douglas reynholm says:
March 12, 2015 at 7:37 pm
_______________________________________________
I was thinking something along the lines of “Er Sorry… we Arent ra peepil, turns out!”
“wanna game of footie?”
…style of kidney.
Hope springs eternal?
TSFM says:
March 12, 2015 at 7:38 pm
Some attacks on the database tonight using a new exploit. Maybe a bumpy ride. Might be a bit slow at times but we are watching it closely.
TSFMgineers are on the case
______________________________________________________-
I am guessing this means that King has had a look at the RFC books then?
(“Ooh feck… its even worse than Phil said! Better baste the whole goddam flock oh… and shut down the internet while you’re about it.
Get me Jim and Chick in here now…
Can we drop leaflets from planes, do ye think?
And which numpty am I pinning this clusterfeck on when it all goes South again?….
“Ah Patsy, I mean Chris… come on in… we were just talking about you?… take a seat! I want your views on our next managerial appointment.”
Cast of Thousands
Your direct quote of LNS [105] provides this little gem.
” 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 is another factor in the blog and that is the denial of existence of side letters to HMRC in 2005 when specifically asked if they existed.
Now had the SPL or SFA asked RFC in writing at any time do you have side letters and been told no in writing, then there would surely have put a new slant on motivation, not only to get financial advantage that could lead to sporting but to cover up that they were breaking the rules to do so.
My feeling is that HMRC, learning they had been lied to in 2005 became determined to pursue the big tax case to conclusion.
On a point related to the post by Briggsbhoy: whilst HMRC might have been pursuing RFC for the BTC EBTS, they were more than generous in giving time to pay the wee tax case bill, in fact had a vested interest in doing so.
douglas reynholm says:
March 12, 2015 at 9:59 pm (Edit)
There’s now a lot of room for interpretation and conjecture..a lot.
======================
There is a Timeline with a very persuasive narrative not based on conjecture. BDO have it, only arrests stopped it going public.
At some point it will.
roddybhoy says:
March 12, 2015 at 9:33 pm (Edit)
cant believe the thinking of some people who think Celtic should drop the case of the UEFA licence as they have nothing really to gain apart from a lot of hassle. In the big Picture of things , this isnt just about Celtic, this is about every single team that plays in the Scottish Leagues . Whether you like Celtic or not should nt come into it every decent scottish football fan should back Celtic if it is proven that the SFA deliberately colluded to get a team into europe illegally. This should be persued to the very end to get justice for scottish football and clear out the corruption that threatens to kill the scottish game
======================
There were a number of factors driving Res12 but top of the list was SFA accountability. The demand for that began in 2011 in funnily enough St Mary’s Calton, but that is a once upon a time story.
Even if all Res12 gets is an explanation that shows the licencing process was properly handled, getting that explanation will in itself tell the SFA that when asked questions it is in their best interests to tell the whole truth, not just the bits that suit.
I don’t know that they can give an acceptable explanation but nobody saw the Bryson interpretation on player eligibility coming in the LNS Commission which whilst breath taking left no cause to pursue – on the evidence provided of course.
douglas reynholm says:
March 12, 2015 at 8:14 pm (Edit)
gunnerb says:
March 12, 2015 at 7:57 pm
Auldheid says:
March 12, 2015 at 7:36 pm
Obviously I’m not as familiar with the in and outs Uefa Licence issue as Auldheid…but I’ll stick my tuppence worth in anyway!
My feeling on this is that the reason Celtic etc. are reluctant to persue this is they know they don’t have much chance and don’t want the hassle. From what I’ve seen so far it’s something that looks very…er…wiggle-outable! I feel like it’ll be very difficult to prove they shouldn’t have had the Licence.
Things Like,
* when was the bill due. ==== We know that
* was it overdue ===== We know that
* was it still being contested ===== No
* was the exact amount being contested ======= No
* had HMRC taken out proceedings ======= Yes
* was there a payment plan in place ======= No
* how far had they strayed from the payment plan ==== Never paid a penny
Celtic were helpful because that information became available and so they could not vote down Res12 in 2013. It has just taken an incredibly long time for 4 volunteers to pull it all together because it is a very complicated matter tackled in spare time.
That it had to be done that way is an issue to be looked at because accountability of the SFA effects more than Celtic.
In the view of many, our clubs assumed that their Authorities could be trusted and that all of their fellow club owners/directors were honest men/
women.
Little did any but a connected few realise that there was one poisonous owner, with well-placed and well-controlled insiders at the SFA to help hide his many years of deception.
That particular owner has departed in an aura of shame and disgrace, and is history.
The SFA poison is, however, still in the very heart of Scottish Football.the men who subvertecd not just aclub, but the whole game and sport,
They must be got rid of, no matter how long it it takes.
in my opinion..
RE. Auldheid says: March 12, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Auldheid, this is a good start for a newspaper ad; I think, though, that you will need some additional preamble around why this is being done. Contentious as it may be, it also probably requires some wording to clarify that this is not about the removal of titles won illegally, as you likely agree with your previous writings on truth and reconciliation.
If we want to engage the broadest cross-section of fans, an olive branch to the silent majority of Rangers’ fans should, I feel, be a part of the proposed ad. If not, it will become classified as another “kicking us when we’re down” type of article.
As John Clark occasionally tells us, this is not about Rangers (old or new) but about the complete failure of the governing bodies to follow their own rule book.