A guest blog by Auldheid
In the previous blog (http://www.tsfm.scot/how-not-to-govern-scottish-football/), TSFM wrote to Harper Macleod raising questions on their advice supplied to the then SPL Board in February 2013 when the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision re use of EBTs and side letters was announced.
A reply was received from Mr McKenzie on 18th September the gist of which can be discerned in the following reply sent on 4th October.
Dear Mr McKenzie 4th Oct 2014
Thank you for your response of 18th September to my letter of 5th September regarding the consequences of information on the true nature of EBTs for Craig Moore, Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo being withheld from your good selves when establishing in 2012 the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission into the use of EBTs and side letters by Rangers FC from 1999.
In recognition of the points you made about publishing your responses on line, your letter of 18th September will not be published although readers of TSFM will be able to gather from this reply which is being published what those points were.
Anonymity.
It is a matter of real regret that not only was anonymity required, but that Harper MacLeod were used as a conduit to try and elicit a reply from the SPFL or SFA. In terms of anonymity there were three factors at play:
- Security. The individuals asking the questions are aware that any raised concerning Rangers can attract threats from the worst of the Rangers support. We know that they are a minority but nevertheless, as we have recently witnessed, some are ready to turn threat into action. It is a condemnation of Scottish society that fear has played its part in preventing the truth being revealed about Rangers FC’s use of EBTs since 1999.
- Collective. The Scottish Football Monitor is made up of supporters of many clubs in Scottish football and is in effect a collective. The letters reflect to a large extent the thinking and feelings of the majority of readers. If a name is required for any future correspondence from the SPFL or SFA, then it can be addressed to Mr John Macnab, and a Post Box address can be supplied if necessary in addition to this e mail address press@tsfm.scot.
- Accountability. The final factor is the most important because it is why Harper Macleod were approached. It was not just because you were responsible for commissioning the Lord Nimmo Smith enquiry, but because there is absolutely no form of direct accountability by either the SPFL or the SFA to the supporters of Scottish football clubs. Correspondence can be ignored or the content not fully addressed and the customer who pays the wages of both organisations has no means of redress at all. Had there been some oversight in say an Ombudsman type role, it would not have been necessary to involve Harper MacLeod and indeed your good self. We sincerely apologise for doing so along with our thanks for actually responding to our correspondence, but we would like the reasons for our approach being addressed by the clubs who make up both footballing authorities. We hope you pass this particular point on to both SFA and SPFL.
Provenance.
You ask what the provenance is of the information/evidencethat you were given. The answer is we do not know, it was taken from material uploaded mainly in June last year for purposes unknown. Whilst its provenance may be in doubt there is no question as to the veracity of the content of the material itself.
This, when put together, sets out the narrative that prompted our correspondence. This question of provenance simply looks like an excuse for football authority not investigating what the material suggests took place when Duff and Phelps were asked to supply all documents relating to EBTs (no distinction being made) from the inception of the SPL.
Even if the material itself could not be used directly, it should have prompted questions that would have either corrected the narrative or established that the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission was indeed misled either by accident or design, when those documents were not supplied.
The SPFL must surely have the powers to seek the original documents from BDO and the SFA cannot be totally impotent in that regard either.
Then there is the personal knowledge of current SFA President Campbell Ogilvie to draw on. A simple statement explaining why he saw no reason to make any distinction between the irregular DOS REBTs that he launched in 1999 and the later MGMRT EBTs of which he was a beneficiary would surely help clear the air?
Existence of Side Letters.
We note that the Commission were aware of the existence of side letters to Moore, De Boer and Flo at the time of its decision of 28th February 2013 and these were taken into account when determining the appropriate sanction. The existence of side letters is not the issue that was raised in our previous correspondence, it was the nature of the EBTs that was the issue raised. In fact it would seem that the Commission themselves were confused by the switching from the irregular REBT ebts in 2002/03 to the MGMRT EBTs that are subject to further appeal with regard to regularity by HMRC.
The side letters to De Boer and Flo of 30th August and 23 November 2000 related to the DOS REBTs that they were both paid under. It is not known if they had subsequent side letters relating to the MGMRT EBTs , which is possible, but as set out in previous correspondence there were two distinctive types of EBTs and the side letters supplied relate to the earlier irregular type.
The position regarding the Moore EBT is interesting in that whatever EBT side letter was known to the Commission in February 2012 it could only have related to payments made to him under an accompanying side letter from the MGMRT ebts after 2002/03.
That Mr Moore was paid under the REBT scheme in 1999 is a matter of supplied evidence. However there is no record of any side letter in relation to the payment under the 1999 arrangement, which may or may not have been reported in the contract lodged with the SPL and SFA. It was the absence of any side letter in respect of this payment that prevented HMRC pursuing the tax due on it as they did for De Boer and Flo in what has become known as “the wee tax case. “ The evidence of deliberate concealment by the Murray Group of the side letters to De Boer and Flo allowed HMRC to seek repayment outside the normal 6 year time limit.
However the absence of a side letter or tax demand for Mr Moore does not mean this particular payment is not deserving of further scrutiny since
- It was an irregular payment that other clubs could not avail themselves of (as applies to the other two EBTs to De Boer and Flo)
- It is not known if it was reported to the SPL/SFA under the registration rules of that period.
Finally thank you for forwarding our letter of 5th September and previous correspondence to the SFA Compliance Officer. Hopefully any further correspondence will be between him and ourselves, first to our email address, later to a PO Box if required.
It is the hope of all readers of The Scottish Football Monitor that the SFA will stop hiding behind the provenance excuse, which is destroying any semblance of integrity and proper governance of Scottish football and they will use their powers to properly acquire the information that will set the record straight and in doing so start to restore some of the lost trust which is essential for the wellbeing of Scottish football.
John Macnab
TSFM
twopanda says:
October 27, 2014 at 6:47 pm
The story lacks detail, but police investigations can take any amount of time. I can only assume that a complaint was made last year and this is the result.
We have yet to see what the Procurator Fiscal makes of it assuming Police Scotland as claimed submit a report.
There were so many leaks it’s difficult to know which this refers to. 🙄
Keevins and his ilk might not be so complimentary about Ashley soon.
The billionaire doesn’t seem bothered about developing MSM sycophants. :slamb:
I remembered Newcastle caused a stooshie amongst the MSM because of the following;
“A football club [NUFC] which has already banned its local newspapers from media access is set to extend restrictions to other media under a plan to charge for interviews, it has been claimed…”
http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2013/news/club-which-banned-reporters-to-charge-for-interviews/
Maybe mcfc/anyone can confirm what sort of MSM relationship there is currently with NUFC ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29793747
Chris McLaughlin writes this without even a ‘the BBC understands’… Is he telepathic?
‘The Scottish Football Association has written to Rangers and Mike Ashley seeking clarification about his intentions for the Championship club.’
Followed by this later, making it clear that the writer is ‘presuming’ much in his article.
‘Presumably, the SFA will want to examine that scenario and look into whether Ashley having two representatives on the Rangers board amounts to a contravention of their agreement that he would not influence its decisions.’
Maybe he is suggesting to the SFA what actions they should take, but I doubt he’s that clever, nor that he has the balls!
It is odd to read or hear all the usual SMSM circus stuff
Maybe it`ll take a while to sink in
SMSM influence is finished
The cosy relationships between the SMSM and their chums network at Ibrox is over
Power and Control is out of their hands now
Yesterday`s men
They can say or print what they like
It`s irrelevant to what`s going on and happens next
mtp
From the You Couldn’t Make It Up department, now we have Lamb-bias following on from messers Green & Whyte. By my calculations, the next appointment at Ibrox will be Sasha Fatherwore.
twopanda says:
October 27, 2014 at 7:06 pm
SMSM influence is finished
The cosy relationships between the SMSM and their chums network at Ibrox is over
Power and Control is out of their hands now
They can say or print what they like
It`s irrelevant to what`s going on and happens next
——————————————————
Mixed blessing for the lamb munchers, without even the prospect of interviews from the head honcho they can write their own puff pieces……….. but will have to be careful as MA is quite quick on the draw to ban unsupportive journos
We live in interesting times!
Allyjambo says:
October 27, 2014 at 7:04 pm
–
Yep AJ
If the SFA write to MA Sports Direct Rangers fc it`ll be about how upset they are about being left out of the loop. It would have been much better to inform the SFA of developments so they and their PR could approve anything MA wants without causing any difficult questions
mtp
Well our illustrious media excelled themselves tonight.
– Hugh Keevins slating Celtic within a minute as to how they are going to face up to Rangers. Apparently two Champions league group appearances and millions in profit these past three years amounts to Celtic going backwards
– Chris McLaughlin, Tom English and Kenny McIntyre basically telling the SFA Ashley will do what he likes whenever he likes and they better get used to it.
– Ronny Deila interviewed by BBC today and asked if he is going to Ibrox tomorrow night and how much he’d like to play Rangers.
– Alan Stubbs then asked to advise Deila how to handle a game against Rangers.
– The inexplicable line that Sports Direct will get more prominence with Rangers in Europe than the EPL trotted out yet again.
I do hope ‘Mr’ Ashley doesn’t disappoint them by expecting to actually make money from Rangers rather than throwing it down the drain.
twopanda says:
October 27, 2014 at 7:19 pm
TP & AJ, on the theme of Ashley being quite unlike any operator we have seen before:
One or two of the more learned folk on here have pointed out that the SFA & SPFL rule books leave a bit to be desired in the legal drafting stakes.
I rather suspect that if Ashley feels his interests are being threatened by the suits in Hampden, he will act, and he will not back down, back off, or do anything but pursue his objectives however far or however long it takes. While it would be entertaining, I’m not sure about the long term possibilities, after all how good really has the Bosman ruling actually been for football?
The story in the early piece that either AJ or EJ posted a few pages back, about Ashley’s reaction to being told “that’s not how we do things up North” was most illuminating
Scottish Football may find that it has a real tiger by the tail, rather than the paper ones we are used to.
I don’t think the issue of the Living Wage actually is OT because it isn’t an issue restricted to Celtic.
Some Celtic fans might be further down the line of attempting to implement the increase than those at any other Scottish club but that certainly doesn’t make it an exclusively celtic dillema.
In general terms football clubs tend to have a lot of part-time employees who are only required on match days for obvious reasons. I think it’s also safe to assume that a large percentage of these part-time employees also either have a full-time job or other part-time jobs.
Some have argued that a first step in introducing the Living Wage at Parkhead would be to initially extend it to Celtic full-time employees with the intent of adding matchday part-time staff at a later stage.
The problem I see with this approach is the possibility of discrimination claims if full and part-time employees, doing the same job, are paid differrent rates.
Another issue is the problem of the definition of ’employee’ especially if they are essentially supplied on a sub-contract basis by another company not owned or controlled by Celtic. I would say that they shouldn’t get the increase but other Celtic supporters argue that they should.
This also leads on to part-time employees at Celtic having a ‘main’ possibly full-time job with another employer who doesn’t pay the Living Wage. Should Celtic pay them the Living Wage? My take on that one is that if they are to receive the higher rate then it would be socially more acceptable to employ part-time employees than those who already holding a full-time wage from their main employer.
And then we get into the area of how wage levels affect the level of benefits paid and entitlement to them. I feel disquiet that Celtic could end-up with an increased wage bill but that the individuals concerned ended-up no better-off in nett terms because their benefits were cut because they were on the increased Living Wage. In essence Celtic would be subsidising the Government in that case. I am not sure in practice how this would work as I haven’t a clue how benefits and credits are worked-out and the arcane and byzantine regulations which apply.
There are also other considerations such as extra NI payments to be met by an employer on increased wages
So, on a strictly emotional level, I could support the iving Wage resolution but I’m afraid that when it comes to fairly tight financial times for Celtic then there are a helluva lot of questions I would need answered before I cast my vote and committed my club to an open-ended yearly wage increase in addition to statutory increases in the NMW.
Again in gut-feeling terms I actually think that increasing the National Minimum Wage to a realistic level is the way to go. It’s a difficult moral issue IMO as to whether the best way to remove people from poverty is through a Living Wage mechanism or by ensuring a realistic minimum wage coupled with a more responsive welfare system to eradicate poverty.
We also have to accept that in any business and especially Scottish football clubs there are few where a £500K expenditure increase would lead to cuts in other areas. That is a fact of life and can’t just be ignored.
I have to say I am surprised at the figures provided by Celtic when they stated there was 178 employees on national minimum wage, mostly part-time, and it would cost £500k pa to transfer them to a living Wage. I originally assumed this was an additional £500K but now I doubt that and believe this is the gross cost including the NMW but then maybe my arithmetic, as it often is, has gone wonky again.
Using a very very rough back of a fag packet calc the £500K is £2,800 a head and say at 25 games a season that would be £112 a game. Say they did a 6 hour shift per game that works out at £18.66 per hour. Now that is either an additional cost on top of the National Minimum Wage or includes the NMI.
But no matter I just don’t see how the Celtic figures have been arrived at because the current hourly Living Wage is £7.65 and the National Minimum Wage hourly rate is: Over 21 £6.50 and 18-20 £5.13.
So how do we arrive at £18.66 an hour using the Celtic figures as the difference in the Living and National Minimum wage rates is only £1.15 for over 21s and £1.52 for 18-20.
Allyjambo says:
October 27, 2014 at 6:52 pm
All credit to TSFM for having the foresight to ban the CF ‘revelations’ from here, regardless of whether or not it is CF who is in bother.
===========================================
I agree and supported the TSFM decision at the time although it broke my heart a wee bit 🙁
But of course as we’ve seen in the Collier Bristow case the matrial has been accepted as being so widely disseminated in the public domain that it can be uased in evidence.
However that doesn’t necessarily provide immunity from prosecution for the original leaker. It might be time for them to start checking the ‘whistleblower defence’ gambit.
Alex Thomson’s ears are still pricked
“alex thomson @alextomo 1m1 minute ago
So – how much wriggle room for SFA over the Ashley Rangers coup – boardroom influence writ large….”
ecobhoy says:
October 27, 2014 at 7:40 pm
I don’t think the issue of the Living Wage actually is OT because it isn’t an issue restricted to Celtic.
————————————————
Quite right Eco and coincidentally I’ve recently noticed the subject cropping up on a DUFC (unofficial) forum.
scapaflow says:
October 27, 2014 at 7:39 pm
_
Correct scapa
Add in Auldheids post on UEFA Fair Financial Play
A football financial nightmare beckons
Three year sequential financial accounts in proper order is critical
MA and army of informed advisors will be fully briefed
This will need sorting and there`s no easy answers or answers
I don`t see any solution from the aftermath of the spivs feeding frenzy
MA on Damage Control – Frankly
It must have been utterly desperate for MA to have become PUBLICALLY involved at this stage
mtp
scapaflow says:
October 27, 2014 at 7:54 pm
0 0 Rate This
Alex Thomson’s ears are still pricked
“alex thomson @alextomo 1m1 minute ago
So – how much wriggle room for SFA over the Ashley Rangers coup – boardroom influence writ large….”
———–
No one will be able to challenge him anymore on why he’s interested in the story, what with him being a longsuffering fan of the Magpies!
Initially Green couldn’t shift any ST’ in the summer of 2012.
Eventually, McCoist publicly backed Green and 35K [?] ST’s were then promptly sold.
In return for this, it would appear that McCoist had secured himself a 5 year deal at c.£1 Million a year.
Some people might view McCoist’s manipulation of Green/TRFC fans as a form of extortion, allegedly…but I couldn’t possibly comment ! 🙄
If the SFA try to use their bendy rule-book to prevent Ashley doing something that he has decided to do then the Hampden suits better be prepared to test their rules and resolve in court because that’s where they’ll end-up.
And all their shaky precedents and unwritten understandings will be laid bare and challenges. It might actually force them to re-write the rule book and remove all the wiggle room and save the Rain Forest.
Ashley could actually be a breath of fresh air in many ways – however there is as yet no vaccine against rangeritus and as we all know it can suddenly strike people who have never even previously visited Ibrox.
So I’ll judge him by what he does although the orange tap could be the ultimate litmus test.
ecobhoy says:
October 27, 2014 at 7:40 pm
Good piece, but I would argue that in work benefits, ie, topping up folks wages to the point where they can actually live on them is actually corporate welfare. We are, in effect, subsidising bad employers.
The real benefit cheats are not the mythical welfare tourists, or equally mythical single mums who got pregnant to get a flat, its large businesses.
Hamilton Accies now top of not just the Premiership but the Under20 League also, winning 3-2 against Ross County earlier tonight.
scapaflow says:
October 27, 2014 at 8:01 pm
ecobhoy says:
October 27, 2014 at 7:40 pm
The real benefit cheats are not the mythical welfare tourists, or equally mythical single mums who got pregnant to get a flat, its large businesses.
================================================
Couldn’t agree more but I should make it clear that I didn’t touch-on benefit cheats in any way in my piece as it wasn’t relevant IMO to the points I was trying to make.
What do laxey make of all this has Kingsnorth been done like a kipper?
upthehoops says:
October 27, 2014 at 7:21 pm
‘…Chris McLaughlin, Tom English and Kenny McIntyre basically telling the SFA Ashley will do what he likes whenever he likes and they better get used to it…
————
One at least had a degree of cynicism reflective of his (probable) view of the SFA board as unprincipled wines, a second with the tremulous hope of a child at Christmas in his voice, and the third with pants wringing wet with excitement at the prospect of a resurgent ‘Rangers’.
And NONE of them with any objectivity or detachment, or any discussion of the possibility that the member clubs of the SFA might be divided over whether Ashley should be accommodated.
ecobhoy says:
October 27, 2014 at 8:08 pm
You didn’t, and I wasn’t trying to suggest otherwise 🙂
Come the revolution….
edit
John Clark says:
October 27, 2014 at 8:20 pm
Fair point, but if any of the clubs are getting restless, there has been absolutely no sign of it
Might have escaped some pilgrims attention
There`s now a complete break in lineage status quo
mtp
Does anyone have any information how the FA down south might react to MA’s involvement with Rangers?
Do they not have rules regarding dual ownership?
laugh out loud one there on twitter
Sevco manage the impossible “In Bed “with a chap Who is more Detested in Newcastle
Than Charles is in Sheffield
ecobhoy says:
October 27, 2014 at 8:00 pm
If the SFA try to use their bendy rule-book to prevent Ashley doing something that he has decided to do then the Hampden suits better be prepared to test their rules and resolve in court because that’s where they’ll end-up.
And all their shaky precedents and unwritten understandings will be laid bare and challenges. It might actually force them to re-write the rule book and remove all the wiggle room and save the Rain Forest.
====================
It is worth bearing in mind that Ashley will shortly have full access to all the Ibrox paperwork surrounding the 5-way agreement, and all the shenanigans associated with it. The SFA are not going to even think about challenging Ashley under those circumstances. A lot of people have a lot to lose, I feel.
StevieBC says:
October 27, 2014 at 7:02 pm
Maybe mcfc/anyone can confirm what sort of MSM relationship there is currently with NUFC ?
—————-
Stevie – from what I’ve been told, Ashley is his own man with his own plan. He doesn’t need approval from anyone or seek brown-nosing from anyone. Anyone who doesn’t like what he does can expect a blunt response and direct action. That includes fans, fan groups, fanzines, local press and national press. A lot of people could have a lot adjusting to do to his style.
Bobferris,
Goan the hoops!
(The wee hoops).
John Clark says:
October 27, 2014 at 8:20 pm
And NONE of them with any objectivity or detachment, or any discussion of the possibility that the member clubs of the SFA might be divided over whether Ashley should be accommodated.
================================
What they advocated was that if Ashley doesn’t agree with anything the SFA will be told to prepare for court. Where would that leave us? In my view it leaves us without a game to support. I think we may need fans of every other club to tell the people in charge of their individual clubs if they don’t make a big enough noise you can forget about us coming to any games. It worked before, and if we are being told that simply because someone has a few billion at his disposal the rest of us have no rights then it should be a catalyst for it to happen again. Come April 2015 much could have happened at Ibrox while the rest of the clubs are preparing the season ticket reminders. Ideal time to act if the playground bully has had it all his own way.
Golden Rules
Make Cash
Don`t go to jail
Keep Mugs onside
So far this has played out perfectly
mtp
upthehoops says:
October 27, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Come April 2015 much could have happened at Ibrox while the rest of the clubs are preparing the season ticket reminders. Ideal time to act if the playground bully has had it all his own way.
__________________________________________________________
Do we need to wait till then?
So, now that Mike Ashley’s right hand man has arrived to start going through the books, what happens when he looks under the bonnet to discover that his boss already owns the best parts, that Charlie owns the history and the badges.
He then tells his boss that a big slice of the money has gone in paying of Wallace and Nash.
He then looks at the stadium; looks great but requires work done.
He then looks at the squad; aging and on high wages.
The fan base; well it’s large, terribly split, and decidedly not happy. Most importantly the support has had over quarter of a century of spending other peoples money and they have no conception of financial sustainability.
Will he decide to put in more cash to keep the show on the road or will he just let the club default on it’s current loan and take the properties?
I don’t think Mike Ashley bought shares in the recent share issue to ensure that cash didn’t go to the club but he then did buy shares on the open market. This deprived the club of the cash if he had bought the shares at the issue and then allowed him to make his move.
Everyone now knows that this business is on life support and Ashley’s hand is on the switch. He can drip feed money in, taking more of the business, as he wishes. He may not wish to run a club but may instead wish to have a massive warehouse for Sports Direct on the M8/M77/M74 corridor.
Philip Nash and Graham Wallace must have had good reasons to stop this
Gave up their jobs for trying
Must be very strong reasons to do that
I`d wager there’s a fused bomb about to blow
mtp
Dare I suggest to the expert bloggers on here that now is the time to write to our respective club chairmen, particularly those in high office within the SFA and other similar bodies, requesting that the situation at Ibrox relative to Ashley’s involvement be fully investigated.
Over a prolonged period we have seen those in a position of power at Rangers ride roughshod, ignoring rules and regulations or having such rules amended (bent?) to suit whatever situation they found themselves in.
It appears clear that contrary to the current rules Mr Ashley is now the man in charge at Ibrox. His men are now, or shortly will be, running the show.
Our Chairmen should be advised that if they yet again sit on their hands and do nothing, come season ticket renewal time they will suffer a dramatic downturn in ticket sales.
I leave it to our experts to consider whether action is required at this time.
This fracas continued with CoS / LH approving the Duffers
No proper open clear explanations in creds reports – rather lots to `not to present`
No accountability – at all
As Bonus – SFA useless waste of space
History will not be kind
It is obscene that assorted official characters are paid handsomely to do nothing effective at all
mtp
billyj1 says:
October 27, 2014 at 9:33 pm
Dare I suggest to the expert bloggers on here that now is the time to write to our respective club chairmen, particularly those in high office within the SFA and other similar bodies, requesting that the situation at Ibrox relative to Ashley’s involvement be fully investigated.
———————————–
Billyj1 (and others) – I’m not clear that Ashley is currently in breach of any SFA rules wrt his involvement with Rangers and am unaware of any possible breach of SPFL rules so a bit early to be reaching for pens/keyboards?
It may be that dual ownership concerns rear their head (although the SFA has discretion in this matter) but I’m far from convinced that these rules would survive a visit to the COS.
Is Mike Ashley’s involvement with Rangers necessarily a bad thing for Scottish football?
parttimearab says:
October 27, 2014 at 9:58 pm
“Is Mike Ashley’s involvement with Rangers necessarily a bad thing for Scottish football?”
I think that’s the question everyone is asking, and the answer very much depends on what game Ashley is playing.
On the fair wages topic, sort of, its worth remembering, that aside from the creditors, the other victims in this saga have been the ordinary people who do the low paid jobs at Rangers, that make a football club happen. They haven’t been the beneficiaries of corporate largesse like McCoist, instead they have had to live, week in week out, with the stress of knowing that their livelihoods are hanging by a thread. Sometimes, in among all the “fun” its easy to forget them.
Re alleged clarification request from SFA to who….RIFCL, TRFC, or whoever from Govan.
Maybe the SFA letter read which rule(s) do you now wish yes to ignore, bend, or re-write and who’s writing your Presser?
Yours in Scottish football,
Campbell xxx
Do a lot of lurking…..
Keep up the good work guys.
after charles greens best bits, feb 2013…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22231324
shall we get a graham wallace best bits. The 120 day review and the “no danger of administration” my favourites (feb 2014)…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26269789
I bet there is a TSFMer already with a long post in prep for graham wallace.
Who is doing the best bits for the next CEO?
How long wil he last?
It was asked earlier who would do the job, well a bit like being leeds united manager (3 manager changes since april cellino became owner), someone will take the job. Though I would agree a 3 year term and the departure package on appointment.
Same for rangers CEO, for £350,000 per year plus six figure bonus, with 3 month notice period for either side there will always be takers. Or more likely in this case mike ashley appointees.
On the Mike Ashleys sports direct to CL marketing, his simplest way is shirt sponsorship. UEFA will unbrand stadium and club name (see FC salzburg) completely in favour of UEFA sponsors. But not shirt sponsor.
I lost where over the weekend, but the post on the difficulty of any SPFL club other than celtic if they win the SPFL winning 3 rounds of CL qualifying (2 rounds unseeded) are improbable. Note the Motherwell co-efficiet for 2015.
195 Motherwell Sco 2.2200 0.5500 2.3600 1.6500 1.2000 7.980.
Note : assuming UEFA fell on the oldco fence TRFC would be on roughly the same co-eff as motherwell. (Obviously they would also need accounts and a licence! 🙂 🙂 )
Celtic have shown this year even with seeding advantage that getting to the CL group stage is still not an easy task.
As ever the co-eff needed for seeding move about year on year, but a UEFA co-eff of about 30 is needed to keep on the seeded side of the CL champions qualifying. ❗
It is part of the reason why although celtic have to keep plugging away at the europa league.
Sorry for the long post, covering multiple subjects.
Buddy
parttimearab says:
October 27, 2014 at 9:58 pm
‘..Is Mike Ashley’s involvement with Rangers necessarily a bad thing for Scottish football?’
———–
What I think the blog’s main interest should be is to try to ensure that there are absolutely :
no special exemptions to the SFA’s(or other relevant rules)
no hastily and specially drafted amendment or re-write of rules,
no overlooking of rules
in order that an ailing club should survive on a loan from the owner of another club.
If the SFA can legitimately and honestly and without extending special favours let Ashley appoint 2 directors to TRFC and 2 directors to RIFC plc, then [ without me accepting that TRFC/RIFC plc have any present legitimacy,but merely a de facto presence] fair dos.
Whether such a man as Ashley controlling such a club would be good, bad, or indifferent is in itself another question.
Although my own feeling is that it would not ultimately be for the good of the Scottish game, any more than SDM in control of RFC(IL) was good for the Scottish Game,the SMSM, or, indeed, for thr supporters of RFC as was.
If as mooted Mike Ashley, rushes to court multiple times we shall live in even more interesting times.
Things that could come out, 5 way agreement.
Ally McCoist contract.
Who owns what assets.
Who owns what trade marks.
John Clark, you might become a full time professional court reporter on first name terms with the court staff.
Buddy
jimlarkin says:
October 26, 2014 at 9:46 pm
18
0
Rate This
@StevieBC 8.56 pm
well done
(Maybe a guest post on the matter to follow Auldheid’s, until we get an update from Auldheid on the Discount option Scheme)
=====================
I have not followed up on this with SFA yet, but will do so when another event takes place.
Looking back I see no reference to the following detailed research by STV’s Grant Russell that I think worth posting in full with respect to SFA and UEFA rules regarding Ashley.
After a few tweets tonight it might mean that if TRFC and Newcastle United were to qualify on sporting merit for say the Europa Cup, one club might have to step down. (that should go down well)
The increasing moral hazard that short term thinking brings to our game is more likely to kill it long term more certainly than any of TRFC’s growing pains.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/297189-can-mike-ashley-own-newcastle-united-and-rangers/
” With Rangers having informed the stock exchange they have accepted an emergency loan from Mike Ashley, further questions have been raised about his increasing influence at Ibrox.
Some are suggesting the Newcastle United owner’s £2m injection, which is secured against club properties Edmiston House and the Albion car park, could even be a precursor to the businessman bidding for outright control of the club’s shares.
As a general rule, an individual requires the consent of the Scottish FA to have any significant shareholding or involvement in the running of the club if they already have such interests in any other football club in the world.
Ashley already holds just under nine per cent of the shares of Rangers. Such a shareholding has already required the prior consent of the Scottish FA’s board, as it breaches a three per cent threshold.
Similarly, any attempts to increase that stake would again require approval.
Boardroom power
In the immediate term, there are questions over the influence Ashley could wield as a result of his cash loan.
With chief executive Graham Wallace and financial director Phillip Nash having quit the club’s board, it is said two of Ashley’s men – Derek Llambias and Stephen Mucklow – will be installed.
In plain sight, that would represent two of the five members of the board, assuming Wallace’s removal, being associates of Ashley.
Scottish FA regulations state “no person…through an associate… may have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club”.
It’s unclear whether that rule extends to having two votes at the boardroom table, or whether it applies only if a majority of votes were held. Assuming the latter, it wouldn’t appear a Scottish FA regulation was being potentially breached, nor would their consent be required.
Nevertheless, it has been reported the governing body will write to Ashley asking him to clarify his position and intent going forward. They will also take guidance from the announcement to the stock exchange.
Taking share control
If Ashley, as is being reported, sought outright control of Rangers, for example a 51 per cent shareholding, the picture would be clearer.
The businessman currently has an agreement with the Scottish FA not to exceed a 10 per cent shareholding in the Ibrox side. In order to increase that stake, permission from the governing body would be required.
While there is arguably a case to be heard for a non-majority shareholding to be purchased, taking a majority would mean Ashley would be their owner, and have full power over all of their decisions.
The Scottish FA has the discretion if it sees fit to allow that to happen. The rules are not inflexible. They state such a controlling interest is not allowed “except with the prior written consent of the board”.
Clearly if they so wish, the governing body could block Ashley from taking any more shares in Rangers, and they could block him taking outright control. Similarly, they can also allow it to happen and allow him to own both Newcastle United and Rangers.
As a third option, the Scottish FA could allow more shares to be bought but only if Ashley can prove he has disposed of his interests in Newcastle United. That has already been raised as a possibility in the future, but the man himself has said that is unlikely to happen until “at least” 2016.
From the perspective of the Scottish FA’s rules, the key line is the “power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club”. It is down to them to determine at which point that is occurring.
Foreign interests
As far as the English Premier League are concerned, their rules do not forbid Ashley from having any form of influence on a club outside of England.
The Football League, which operates the second-tier Championship competition down to the fourth-tier League Two, have far more stringent rules.
Their regulations state consent is required if an owner of an English club has the power to influence affairs at a Scottish team, or has any shares in them.
There is one other pertinent point which will interest Rangers supporters.
An “interest” as per Football League rules extends to having “lent to… or guaranteed the debts or obligations of that Club (or any other arrangement of substantially similar effect) otherwise than in the ordinary course of banking.”
All that said, it is important to note that these regulations, as is the case with the Scottish FA’s, do not expressly forbid the interest taking place. Instead, it is at the behest of the bodies’ respective boards to determine whether they should be permitted.
UEFA are the governing body for European football but their regulations would only come into play at Rangers if, in the future, both they and Newcastle United both qualified for either the Champions League or Europa League. They are not required to both be playing in the same competition at the same time.
The rules here are clear and not flexible through the consent of any UEFA board.
If Ashley was thought to be in control of the majority of shareholders’ voting rights, held the ability to appoint a majority of board members, or was “able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club”, UEFA would block both teams being able to take part.
They don’t, however, kick both teams out of competition. Instead, one gets to keep their place. How they do determine which one? There is a pecking order.
First, if the clubs were in separate UEFA competitions, the team taking part in the Champions League would be the one to keep their spot.
If both were in the same competition, Rangers would lose their spot as England is ranked much higher than Scotland on UEFA’s “access list” for competitions. Scotland wouldn’t lose a European participant. Instead, Rangers would be replaced accordingly.
Can Mike Ashley influence or own both clubs?
Only the Scottish FA can ultimately decide whether they deem it appropriate for Mike Ashley to have a hand in both Newcastle United and Rangers, if indeed that is his goal.
In English terms, the picture is only complicated if Newcastle United are relegated out of the Premier League.
In UEFA terms, it’s only an issue if both qualify for European competition at the same time. And even then, the rules do not forbid one of the two clubs being able to take up a place.
The onus then will fall on in the positions of power at Hampden. If a proposal from Mike Ashley arrives on their desks under which he proposes strengthening his grip on affairs at Ibrox, it is their call to make.
Given the currently unofficial claims about the precarious nature of the club’s finances without an Ashley intervention, albeit in the context of various other suitors being on the scene, the Scottish FA may soon hold the future of Rangers in their hands.
I would assume that the key test for the SFA would be whether Ashley’s involvement at Newcastle and Rangers would create any potential conflicts of interest.
As the clubs currently ply their trades in separate competitions (and in the long run were they both to qualify for Eoropean competitions this scenario would be covered by EUEFA rules) it could be argued that there would be no direct conflict of interest.
I guess the main area of concern would be wrt inter club player transfers (and possibly loans?) – would, I wonder, the SFA seek guarantees (for example forbidding inter club player sales) and would guarantees of this type be enforceable either through the courts or (given that these are technically international transfers) through FIFA?
Auldheid says:
October 27, 2014 at 10:49 pm
STV Grant is shaping up to be a star.
For me the issue is not so much that there are not clear rules, because for once the rules do seem clear.
Its more about
a) Are the rules enforceable, or are we potentially in Bosman ruling territory
or
b) is there the will in the SFA to enforce them and if not, will either the clubs or UEFA act.
To be fair to all concerned, this is all fun speculation at the moment. The question that needs answering first, is what game is Ashley playing, absent an answer to that, everyone is spinning their wheels.
I have a feeling that those who have aided and abetted TRFC to gain a foothold in Scottish football might one day, quite soon, start to regret it. The flaunting of rules, by the football authorities, and the way the clubs have allowed it to happen, have left an open door for spivs and all sorts to enter our game. Now there is the possibility that a financial behemoth, devoid of compassion for our game (and very little, if any, for the English game) is entering through that same door. Whatever his intentions are, should he decide to use his fortune to manipulate TRFC to the top, there will be no benefits for the rest of the Scottish game as he doesn’t help his rivals, he decimates them.
Mike Ashley’s arrival might be a good thing for TRFC, it might be a bad thing. It might be quite neutral. It will not benefit Scottish football in any way, unless his own purposes mean TRFC must live within it’s means and develop Scottish talent, but that will be an accidental benefit.
Scottish football needs Mike Ashley to be only interested in expanding his onerous contracts at TRFC, and Scottish football would do well to ring-fence Ibrox so the toxicity remains within that crumbling monument to one man’s ego!
Allyjambo says:
October 27, 2014 at 11:28 pm
I have sympathy with your argument, may be too late though, we are where we are, for good or ill. As I said earlier, the ability of anyone to influence what happens at rangers now, is very limited. Buckle up, it may get bumpy
scapaflow says:
October 27, 2014 at 11:35 pm
As I said earlier, the ability of anyone to influence what happens at rangers now, is very limited. Buckle up, it may get bumpy
———————————————————-
Early signs of bumpiness as Ibrox “insiders” have a wee pop at the Sons of Struth – an early sign of how they intend to isolate any boycotters (an issue that you’d think would be quite high up the new regimes to do list)?
” …insiders have indicated that he was provoked by the SoS actions into a heightened level of determination to have his way and again when he heard about Kennedy’s 11th-hour intervention on Friday.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11191563/Mike-Ashley-era-begins-at-Rangers-with-Derek-Llambias-set-to-be-appointed-as-chief-executive.html
Nothing that Mike Ashley has done so far indicates an appetite to fund The Rangers’ rise to a status previously aspired to by a now-dead club. His actions are purely those of an opportunistic and ruthless businessman.
It pays to remember that he was “introduced” to the Ibrox debacle by Jim Park, a West of Scotland wide boy who is friends with Craig Whyte’s dad Thomas.
Since then Ashley has been persuaded to part with some cash for a share issue, for which he extracted the price of the naming rights to Ibrox for £1.
He also got Charles Green to sign off an extremely favourable commercial deal that allows Sports Direct to cream off a sizeable profit for every bit of RFC tat that Rangers fans buy, with precious little going to the club.
Now he has secured two seats on the board for a short-term loan of £2million that will secure his own “onerous contracts” – and those of a coterie of spivs who lurk in the background.
They are using him as cover for their hoovering up of cash. He is using their desperation to secure contracts that will ensure he will continue to hoover up Rangers fans’ cash for a long time to come.
I doubt that he cares one iota for Rangers. It’s all about the money, stupid.
And Ashley is taking a lot more than he’s giving.
If the SFA are scratching their heads wondering if all this activity rises to the standard set by “may have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club”
They could do worse than consider Bill Shankly’s view of the offside rule
“If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be.”
Sadly Shankly’s view of the role of directors, belongs to a much simpler time
“At a football club, there’s a holy trinity – the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don’t come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques.”
Perhaps Mike’s plan is really simple. Newcastle are languishing a bit just now, but the potential for money coming from that direction is huge, with the EPL TV contracts and all. He doesn’t, though, want to spend big in the transfer market. What he needs is a feeder team.
I am sinking with all this negativity.
Not one positive, anyone?
What about having such a man in charge (that is if he goes the full hog)means that at last Rangers will cast aside the last years upheavals and be run correctly.
Mr Llambias not yet bestowed with superhuman powers since merely flew in:
The Herald
————–
Martin Williams
Senior News Reporter
Tuesday 28 October 2014
SCOTTISH football’s governing body has raised questions over the powerbase of Rangers as Sports Direct billionaire Mike Ashley’s trusted lieutenant flew into Glasgow for talks over an executive role at the Ibrox club.
The Scottish Football Association (SFA) has sought clarifications as concern grows that the Newcastle United supremo may have breached rules over dual interest as he manoeuvred to take effective control of The Rangers Football Club Ltd, a subsidiary football board that holds the club’s retail rights.
The latest developments have further infuriated fans’ groups, who say the Newcastle United owner should never have been given so much power in exchange for a £2 million emergency loan to the club, secured against two of the club’s assets adjoining the stadium – Edmiston House and Albion car park.
The resulting resignations of chief executive Graham Wallace and finance director Philip Nash from the club’s holding company, Rangers International Football Club (RFC) plc and RFCL, will result in the appointment of two of Mr Ashley’s allies to the subsidiary, thought to be former Newcastle managing director, Derek Llambias, who flew into Glasgow last night, and Stephen Mucklow.
Mr Llambias said last night he would be applying for the role of chief executive. Asked if Rangers fans should trust Mr Ashley, he said: “Yes. Mike has a proven track record.”
Mr Llambias is also being tipped to take Mr Wallace’s place on the RFCL board. It was unclear who would take Mr Wallace and Mr Nash’s positions on the plc board, but they would have to be approved by the remaining board members, chairman David Somers and non-executive directors Norman Crighton and James Easdale.
Mr Ashley has a signed undertaking with the SFA limiting him to a stake of no more than 10 per cent in RIFC plc. He still holds just under 9 per cent of the equity.
Rules called “duel interest” prevent the owner of a chunk of a Scottish club having day-to-day control of another club.
However the latest developments are believed by some to breach Article 13.1 of the SFA Articles of Association, that state that no person involved in another club “has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of a club” without “prior written consent”.
It is understood SFA has written to both Rangers and Mr Ashley seeking to clarify what has happened, while reminding them of the contents of the agreement.
If the SFA are unsatisfied with developments, they could hold a judicial panel to decide whether rules have been breached.
Fans’ groups fear that it will be the team that will suffer through point penalties, rather than the executives who made the decision to accept Mr Ashley’s offer.
However it is understood the SFA believe they can hold the club and Mr Ashley personally to account if it was found there was a material breach of the undertaking.
Chris Graham of the Union of Fans, which supported Dave King’s £16m takeover bid, described the events as “farcical”.
Mr King himself admitted that RFCL chairman Sandy Easdale was a hurdle to his bid. He is an ally of Mr Ashley and holds the right of veto on major investment decisions with 26 per cent of the shares.
“How could they choose the loan option over a long term funding option that brings all the customers back to the business, which is quite clearly, without any ambiguity about it, the best proposal for the long term future of the club,” said Mr Graham. “They are either incompetent or stupid. “To have a situation where Ashley can bring two people in to effectively run the business without them being on the plc board is an absolutely farcical situation.”
—————-
rhapsodyinblue says:
October 28, 2014 at 6:51 am
===============================
I don’t think anyone would quibble if Ashley ensures Rangers are run correctly, except possibly some of the Rangers fans who were reared on the expectation their club has a divine right to spend as much as it likes to be top dog no matter where the money comes from.
I keep reading Graham Wallace resigned from Rangers. Does that mean he had the option to stay on then? The fact no-one is ever sacked from Rangers is an insult to peoples intelligence. I remember going back to the days they secured Souness as their Manager. Talks had been going on for months yet we were still expected to believe Jock Wallace ‘left by mutual consent’. What was his choice? He was sacked!
Cheer up Rhaps! Every club that’s been taken over by a billionaire has done incredibly well — apart from Newcastle.
But Newcastle in rude financial health, even though unsellable.
Rhaps,
No I’m much more in tune with your version than some others on here. But I think a sustainable rangers will be a by-product of the man’s intentions, not the initial aim. And I agree with UTH, key will be what the punters feel about a sustainable rangers, if it means a diminished status in the game.
From the telegraph
“Walter Smith will make a rare appearance at Ibrox on Tuesday night for Rangers’ League Cup quarter-final against St Johnstone.
Smith, 66, led Rangers to nine championship successes and also won the Scottish Cup five times and the League Cup on six occasions during his two spells as manager.
Yet he reveals that the internecine warfare – which has been waged with increasing frequency and hostility in the boardroom since the consortium fronted by Charles Green seized control after the old club’s descent into liquidation in 2012 – has persuaded him to limit his attendance at matches following his resignation as chairman in August last year.”
—————————
That’s right Walter the old club was liquidated 😀
Funny spin on Llambias in the papers. He’s apparently at the club on some kind of scouting mission in order to give a status report to Ashley.
Everyone wants to look under the bonnet, except the SFA. Odd that.
Edit: Bill1903, surely Smith isn’t being lined up as the paid legned board poster boy by the next crowd?
RiB. For what it is worth, I think MA is the right man to be taking on the job, because he won’t shirk from doing the things that should have been done years ago. The rules will be brushed aside ‘at the discretion’ of the SFA board. However, as others have said, will the famously divided supporters at Ibrox, accept a club, living within its means? Is it acceptable for MA to load the club up with debt if it means looking competitive? There is a vast difference between Rangers and NUFC when it comes to how much debt (or losses) would preclude the team from playing in Europe under FFP rules. Will it be enough for the fans?
Does anyone know if the reasons as to why Lord Doherty allowed HMRC’s appeal of his decision at the UTTT to the Inner House of the Court of Session have been published?
rhapsodyinblue says:
October 28, 2014 at 6:51 am
I am sinking with all this negativity. Not one positive, anyone?
=====================================================================
I’m a bit like you and I really think it’s time that the Bears decided what they want their club to be.
And for that to happen they have got to unite and either back their team to the hilt on the park or decide on a 100% boycott of everything to cleanse their club of what they don’t want.
Until they make that decision then all we will see and get from the Rangers support is more negativity and it could well get even blacker in the coming weeks.
Some posters on here try to flag-up points which they believe might help the Bears to arrive at an informed opinion. However make no mistake the choice between the two alternatives is entirely up to the Rangers support and they will be responsible for the decision they take.
Then and only then will they be able to move forward positively and dispel the negativity which has settled like a dark cloud over Ibrox and shows no sign of shifting.
But let’s hear your views: What are the positives of the current situation as you see it. Btw ‘dreaming’ is unlikely to cut much ice with most posters on here as all realists knows full well that most of the worst nightmares begin as a beautiful dream.
The clock is definitely ticking against Ally.
I note from today’s rags that he spoke to both Mr Somers and Mr Easdale for 20 mins; each by telephone.
Now, Ally usually sits down for a wee cup of tea…honestly…. with the top men to give them the pleasure of his thoughts and his vote of confidence.
The absence of that wee cuppa suggests Ally’s jacket might just be on a shaky peg.
Just had a post deleted. See if this version sticks or else I’ll see you on the naughty step!
Apparent dawn of Mike Ashley era prompted following random thoughts:
1) Re SFA rules, rules that allow discretion are soft fluffy things that don’t really mean much IMHO. Faced with choice of being accused of causing fatal damage to TRFC or a token gesture, I know which option I anticipate from SFA.
2) No expert on such matters but how would we know if MA already effectively owns over 10%? Offshore companies owned by shadows… who actually has the clout? Who is about to decide the next CEO?
3) Is it possible that the reason Easedale saw Ally McCoist yesterday was to persuade him now would be a good time to actually accept a contract change involving reduced salary and redundancy terms?
4) Unless MA has caught Rangersitus or wishes to pour money down the drain, I assume a hard line business model will be followed. So with apologies for a repeat of the link, a brief reminder of Bill Miller’s friends view as probably closest we have had to hard headed business under the bonnet perspective:
“Like any insolvent business, Rangers needs to cut costs, reign in salaries, demand better quality commercial revenues and build a business that is lean, profitable and produces attractive, vibrant, talented players that, over time, will take it back into European football. It needs to spend no more than 50% of all revenues on player salaries (probably much less) and in the meantime it needs to work the “Old Firm” brand hard to fully exploit what that brand can mean on its (and Celtic’s) balance sheet and ensure that sponsorships are actually additive to cash-flow.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2012/10/08/what-can-we-learn-from-the-financial-meltdown-of-glasgow-rangers-fc/
Either the beast is cured by a slim line diet or else kept going to enable income streams from onerous contracts to be maintained. Time will tell but I’m sure we will know quickly.
Best wishes and thanks to all who continue to enlighten with posts on this thread. The way I look here for insight into what is actually happening and not to the BBC is quite disturbing!
rhapsodyinblue says:
October 28, 2014 at 6:51 am
I am sinking with all this negativity.
Not one positive, anyone?
————————————————-
The one huge positive is having someone in the camp to whom a short term £2 million is next to nothing, rather than having to scramble around looking for funders or trying to cobble together another share issue to find that kind of money if it is urgently required.
And negative, ie what he wants in exchange for providing that kind of facility – well, none of us know that.
As to whether he is good for the football entity, or for Scottish football, or for both, or for neither – only time will tell of course.
Taysider says:
October 28, 2014 at 9:18 am
3 0 Rate This
——–
Isn’t it amazng that Bill Miller’s chap gained the necessary insight within a matter of weeks?
Is it still the best summary of the way forward for Ibrox out there? And free online, too!
I had to have a laugh at Martin Williams of the Herald stating:
Judicial Panel well that’s OK then because we know what happened the last time when LNS and his colleagues were trundled in and as we now know all of them were wearing blindfolds.
No doubt Bryson has already had the call for key witness duties – how does it go again. Ah right! There can’t be any retrospective breach of SFA Rules which the wise monkeys of Hampden didn’t allegedly know about until after it was publicly revealed.
So, as usual, the SFA sat on their hands with their eyes and ears tightly shut, did no investigation and didn’t even fire a warning shot let alone a broadside at Rangers warning them of the consequences of their actions.
Meanwhile the media and the internet was crammed with blow-by-blow accounts describing the bitter battle for control of Rangers.
But as one of our posters has revealed the SFA have no interest in what happens in the boardroom of a publicly listed company which runs a Scottish Football Club.
So the SFA followed their usual ploy of doing nothing until after the event and slowly crawled into action. However I’m sure that Bryson will explain that the SFA rules didn’t apply after the MASH deal was done with Rangers and reported on AIM. In any case all they had was an agreement with Ashley and I feel sure he and his legal team will blow the SFA and any decrepit tribunal out of the water at the Court of Session if need be. However – on previous SFA history – I doubt it will ever come to that.
It was ever thus and ever thus shall be until we cleanse the Hampden Stables and stop the supply of pig swill to the troughs. They’re so cheap that they don’t even rate succulent lamb.
RhapsodyinBlue
That TRFC might actually be run on proper business lines was the thought that I had reading the various comments.
The other thought was how will we know?
Rangers do not have a record of honesty dealing with the SFA of SPFL.
They broke rules for over 10 years and we never “found out” in spite of having Rangers Board members in positions of authority at the SFA and SPL.
So there is a question of trust over whatever emerges that MA will have to address.
However that pales into insignificance in terms of trust in the SFA and SPFL. It is the old who guards the guards (someone will quote the Latin) question.
It should matter to all supporters but possibly to TRFC fans more than any, but how will we the rest know the guards are doing their job and who do we go to if we think they are not?
The Res12 and LNS campaigns should not be required. It is a nonsense that evidence of deceit is ignored or it takes a year to try and establish a truth.
Football authority must become much more accountable to supporters, not clubs, than it currently is.
The same man who set RFC on the ebt road is still President of the SFA and those who participated in the 5 way which will mean Regan and Doncaster are tainted.
Their removal and a restructuring of relationships between SFA and SPFL that is transparent to all, showing who is responsible for what, plus an overseeing authority/Ombudsman is a desirable if not essential condition of our game and TRFC recovering.
SFA transparency and accountability seems to me to be an objective every supporter can sign up to and make a condition of ST purchase next spring.
TRFC support for this objective would be a huge step forward in healing our game.
Just listened to the BBC Sportsound podcast last night and, even by their lick-spittle standards, the quality of the discussion was astounding.
Kenny MacIntyre, as is the norm, led the cheerleading.
McLaughlin reminded us that last week Rangers were within 48 hours of liquidation. Amazingly nobody in the SMSM told us that at the time of course!! He then discussed the 10% shareholding limit and Ashley’s commitment not to influence the club. However he assured us that what Ashley wants he’ll get.
Depressingly Tom English heartily endorsed McLaughlin’s comments reminding us the SFA had no choice but to agree to whatever Ashley demanded.
In other words folks a reminder that the rules are there but if the team from Govan want to ignore them they will, of course,be allowed to do so with impunity as ever.
Thoroughly depressing but predictable comments that should , but won’t ,shame any broadcaster – let alone the state run and supposedly neutral one.
Auldheid says:
October 28, 2014 at 10:13 am
“SFA transparency and accountability seems to me to be an objective every supporter can sign up to and make a condition of ST purchase next spring.”
This goes to the very heart of the matter. Posted it before. I’ll post it again. In this whole saga the only force that has indisputably influenced events by acting in support of sporting integrity (hate how that phrase has been derided by some) is the fans. TRFC would have been back in the top flight immediately without “No to Newco.” I don’t know if the fans can be roused again but I am sure we cannot reply on anyone else.
For any Ibrox club supporters reading this blog, understand that for many, contrary to what was said at the time in the MSM, this wasn’t about the chance to kick you while you were down. It was about applying rules to what happened to clubs that went bust, were liquidated. Without rules being applied, a game ceases to be a sport. It’s just a fix, a sham. Many were not prepared to support a charade.
If the fans of ALL clubs could unite behind wanting to see a new transparent SFA founded on a principle of applying clear, unambiguous rules without fear or favour we would have a chance to leave the bitterness behind. It is the fear that favour not only was exercised but is and will be exercised that continues to poison Scottish football.
Another snippet from The Herald’s Mr Williams which caught my eye.
I am not totally clear just what he means by ‘retail rights’ but whatever they are I would have assumed they are held by Rangers Retail Ltd and not TRFCL.
The importance of that is that SportsDirect ‘control’ this joint-venture with Rangers.
SportsDirect afaik completely control the manufacture, selling and distribution of all Rangers merchandise and also have an exlusive world-wide licence to stick club crests and trade marks on all goods.
Recently the Rangers shops at Ibrox, Glasgow Airport, and Belfast and their staff were also transferred to Sportsdirect which also carries out all the admin, paperwork and accounting for Rangers Retail Ltd afaik.
It even appears that profits which accrue to Rangers Retail Ltd are locked-in and can’t be spent on the running costs of Rangers according to the accounts.
Taking all that into account it must be very reassuring that TRFCL holds the club’s ‘retail rights’ whatever they happen to be.
It’s also interesting to note Mr William’s describe TRFCL as ‘a subsidiary football board’.
And here was me thinking that TRFCL was a private limited company whose shareholding is 100% owned by RIFCL of which it is a subsidiary. It also has a ‘Board’ of directors but I have to confess that I have never checked to see whether TRFCL only has one board or whether that board also has a subsidiary football board.
The devil is very often in the detail. Although it may well just be that Mr Williams hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about or has been fed a bit of gristle as I don’t think The Herald hacks qualify for first grade succulent lamb in view of their collapsing circulation.
jimmci says:
October 28, 2014 at 10:20 am
And in their ignorance these so called journalists unwittingly admit that what we’ve been saying on here and RTC for over 3 years, is true; the SFA and SPL/SPFL do whatever the Ibrox club wants, bend whatever rules are necessary to achieve what’s required for that one club, ignore those rules that can’t be bent, and turn a blind eye when the evidence of cheating is waving at them!
Sadly, these incompetents will never realise that it’s their job, indeed duty, to stop them getting away with it, not celebrate it!
Auldheid @ 10:13
(Someone will quote the Latin)
“Quis Ogilviet Ipsos Ogilvies”.
RhapsodyinBlue
Sorry but, regardless of how MA might wish to run TRFC if he chooses to do so, negativity will always abound with regards to the club in it’s current guise. That another loan has had to be arranged to keep the club afloat shows quite clearly that once again they have operated well without their means over the last few years in order to maintain their preferred sloped-playing-field.
Properly run clubs are essentially cheated yet again and you think with the arrival of MA we should be positive? Even if he cleans the club up, he will never remove the stain now permanently attached to TRFC. If you (not you specifically, rangers fans in general) aren’t embarrassed that your club has flirted with administration after blowing £70M+ to win the lower leagues in Scottish Football, then by all means be positive about MA’s arrival, just don’t expect those of us who want a fair and honest league to be pleased. To most of us, this has been the scam from the start. Rack up debt, portion of the important assets and intangibles, stiff as many creditors and fans as you can and voila, a team in the top league with seemingly no debt.
Some will no doubt think that perhaps I am simply jealous or fear MA’s potential impact on the league. The truth is I am incredibly disappointed in the state of TRFC. I posted on RTC previously that a Rangers run properly from the bottom league upwards would truly be something to worry about. A team of experienced young players at a club in a strong financial position coming up would surely have given the chaps at Celtic a kick up the backside. Somehow this was not part of The Spivs game-plan and even if Big Mike shoves £30M into the current team for the challenge next year I genuinely have very little concern as they are that far away from being a decent team.