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In recognition of the points you made about publishing your responses on line, your letter of 18th September will not be published although readers of TSFM will be able to gather from this reply which is being published what those points were.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
Danish Pastry says :
Having heard him as a stand-in for Stuart Cosgrove on Off the Ball recently, I tend to agree with the above.
————————
😀 😀
Yes Stuart tears him to shreds usually when they are on . It’s not meeting of minds that’s for sure. In fact I give Spiers some credit for going on off the ball despite being shown up time after time.
shawfieldtoteboard says:
November 6, 2014 at 12:00 am
Deary me? Honestly? Who ever contemplates turning up at a football match in Scotland brandishing only plastic?
—————————————–
Woking Celt’s point was well-made and underlines one made time and again on these pages and elsewhere. Scottish Football seems to do all in its power to dissuade new custom. “New Customers” would be the answer to your question, Shawfield.
I, an exile, shall be watching my beloved Buddies on Saturday. Some other reluctant Buddies have been persuaded to accompany me for the day. I know I shall have to find the ticket office and buy tickets, to then go and present at the right gate.
What happens then is that, once inside, I may need to negotiate with hi-vis jobsworths (i don’t blame them) who have no power to let me pass into a guaranteed-spaciously-empty part of the stadium, so that I can sit beside other Buddies with Season tickets.
It’s all so much harder than it needs to be for ANY customer… And I have no need to reiterate the list of altered starting times/days, matches belatedly cancelled etc etc
Scottish clubs struggle to nurture the affections of we parochial addicts AND they don’t make it easy to garner new ones.
Bill1903 says:
November 6, 2014 at 7:35 am
7 0 Rate This
Yes Stuart tears him to shreds usually when they are on . It’s not meeting of minds that’s for sure…
———
Indeed he does, although I suspect they share the common view that a certain element of both Glasgow’s ‘big’ teams are complete self-obsessed zoomers.
On the other topic, odd how quiet it’s all gone regarding the Ashley Leach Llambias … story. Is there general resignation that Mike’s millions will now keep Findlay’s new entity Rangers afloat? And will Tina Turner finally be replaced by Abba — singing ‘Money, money, money, it’s a rich man’s world’?
:weejobby:
Where has my rant from last night gone? Did I offend anyone?
First post after long time lurking and enjoying. That the topic that provokes me to leap in is racism I find very sad. I’m not going to accuse or defend anyone here. I will also hold my hands up and admit to being a dons fan, and so yes I guess I see things with a slight red glow. I’m sure I’ll get thoroughly thumsdowned but please ignore the your club v my club argument for a minute..
The way the two clubs have handled this should be acknowledged. Player 1 made the accusation, his club have supported him – no press comments, nothing but silence. Club 2… well sorry, the Club 2 captain has done nobody any favours this week. A dignified no comment was what was required, even if being led by press to making a “inflammatory” comment. He may well believe Player 2, he may we’ll believe that the evidence is thin (I don’t know what the evidence is, and nor do any of us here), but raising the temperature, causing friction between the two clubs can not be condoned, especially when they meet this weekend. Just take a step back and imagine if say a Sevco manager/club captain had made such a statement..
I had hoped for a great game of football this weekend, two attack minded clubs, could have been a festival of Scottish football in these new enlightened times (before, as appears inevitable, we sadly sink back into the abyss). Now it’s tainted, SMSM got the headline they wanted, stoked the fire. Nobody wins, especially not the anti-racism campaign – whoever is telling the truth.
acciesbhoy says:
November 6, 2014 at 9:07 am
Where has my rant from last night gone? Did I offend anyone?
—————————————————–
Gaun yersel’ A/Bh, let’s here it again!
It’s back, I was under the influence of several starobrno I have to confess.
Paying for it now!
The following sentence from the BBC article on Turnbull Hutton’s retirement announcement caught my eye.
______
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29917294
Hutton led opposition against a proposal to place Rangers in the second tier of Scottish football after they suffered financial problems that eventually led the Glasgow club to the bottom tier.
__________
No mention of the L word as the reason for the attempted gerrymander, so that the liquidation survival myth can be perpetuated and fostered.
That type of Pravda-speak would be more apppropriate in an article announcing Campbell Ogilvie’s departure than in one about a man of true diginity and honesty.
Sir Humphrey Appleby would be very proud indeed. :irony:
Allyjambo says:
November 5, 2014 at 5:25 pm
*******
Graham Spiers writes, like many hacks, as he is directed to by either his editor or the PR who wishes to have something ‘put out there’.
I don’t doubt for a second that he is painfully conscious of the impact of domestic violence on all it’s victims. I don’t doubt that he would vehemently refute any notion that he trivialises such a serious matter.
GS is aware that newspapers in particular have been highlighting a link between an increase in domestic violence offending and one football game.
GS will also be aware of the poisonous nature of this game, stoked in part by his colleagues.
Why any sane individual would want to see a reignition of bigotry and violence masked by football is beyond me. Why anyone would want to give the impression that this poisonous, bigotted celebration of hatred is necessary for the good of Scottish football, and worth a few people (mainly women and children) being assaulted is insane.
neepheid says:
November 2, 2014 at 9:38 pm
Strachan’s comments are nothing short of outrageous. He should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. He won’t be, of course, but somebody tell me- in what other country in Europe could an employee of the Regulatory Body suggest manipulation of their competitions, and just get away with it, while the media stand by applauding his comments?
I post this in great sadness, having previously been a great admirer of Strachan. Not any more.
////////////////////////////////////////////
Isn’t WGS just echoing his employer’s policy of introducing franchising into Scottish football?
How can a game already in disrepute be brought into disrepute?
Perhaps they could bring in a new charge of “bringing the game into further disrepute” or “willfully increasing the disrepute of the game”? (Is it really a game any more?)
Could there be an official policy reason why the BBC repeatedly cover up the meaning of RFC liquidation ?
Could it be as simple as a the desire to protect their staff from physical violence by Loonies?
GoosyGoosy says:
November 6, 2014 at 10:20 am
Could there be an official policy reason why the BBC repeatedly cover up the meaning of RFC liquidation ?
Could it be as simple as a the desire to protect their staff from physical violence by Loonies?
/////////////////////////////////////////
That would be too frightening a possibility to contemplate.
If that were the case, the security services would be dealing with the situation in the same way as they are with animal rights extremists and Islamic terrorists.
I prefer to think that they are just taking the party whip and falling in line with the path of least resistance. After all, the Scottish football authorities themselves are peddling the myth. The same happens with the BBC reporting of national news from a governmental perspective. Weapons of mass destruction?
My own take on the “inevitable meeting” and why I don’t want it and never will.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-lake-of-slabbers/
Get Busy Living or Get Busy Dying
I wonder how Mike Ashley’s 12 (twelve) Day Business Review is going at Ibrox. Mr Llambias’ To Do list is probably short, sweet and familiar to all here:
1. Get the Accounts signed off – without suicide-note Going Concern caveats
2. Get the AGM arranged
3. Get ALL the IP rights wrapped up for forever-and-a-day
4. Get the 75% vote for Disapplication of Pre-Emption Rights sorted
5. Get rid of any Onerous Contractors we don’t need for the above
6. Get the share issue (dilution) sorted
7. Get the Costs Down below projected Income
8. Get a squad and manager that are not an embarrassment
9. Get the SFA to bent over and say Aaaaarrrggghhh !!!
10. If any one of the above is impossible – Get the hell out of here – and sharpish
I don’t expect we’ll see a Wallacesque business-speak presentation of the findings – but I do expect we’ll see evidence of action or scarpering in the not too distant.
I must admit that I do sympathise with the honest reporters who avoid using the (L) word. Some, I would Imagine, are fearful of the treatment meted out to colleagues who have been guilty of honest and accurate reporting. It does,therfore,seem much safer to “choose words carefully” when reporting on Europe’s newest professional football club. Conversely, there are some reporters/ media pundits who push the same club / 142 years at every opportunity safe in the knowledge that no one will now challenge them, at least not in public.
With regard to the BBC, they and other news Corporations employ Foreign/World Affairs Correspondents, incredibly courageous reporters who travel to some of the most dangerous places on Earth simply to report on the truth. Naturally, these reporters do not actually live in the any of these places,they go in get the facts, report the facts,get out. I am beginning to think that is what is needed in this little backwater of a country called Scotland.
Life as a Feeder Club
Old timers here will remember the distraction PR fluff from G51 that Rangers and SDM were once planning to buy Man City as a feeder club – well City were in a bad financial way at the time and Rangers, apparently, were rich and ready to conquer the world.
Of course times change and strangely Sheihk Mansour invested £300mil in the wrong club-for-sale and Man City now have New York City as a feeder club and The Rangers are the ones who may find themselves as a low cost, bare-bones, advertising-hoarding, feeder club – to Newcastle Utd. Remember, be nice to people on the way up . . .
I may have missed it, but I haven’t seen any clinic dissestion of that possibilitiy in the SMSM – only that NUFC’s bench-warmers will be moving north – how odd !
shawfieldtoteboard says:
November 6, 2014 at 12:00 am
======================================
Plus, Hamilton’s ground is right next to a park of supermarkets (Sainsbury, LIDL, etc.) where they could have found cash points. No need to go all the way to Bothwell.
I’ve always found it strange that there are lots of Rangers fan spokesmen like Chris Graham,Sons of Struth etc. Yet Celtic with an equally large fan base don’t seem to have someone giving the Celtic fans viewpoints.
Obviously there are lots of Celtic minded bloggers(and some very good ones among them).
However most who try and tell the truth about the Rangers/SFA shenanigans are anonymous.
Not just Celtic though. I’ve not heard any fan spokesman say anything.
The Cat NR1 says:
November 6, 2014 at 9:50 am
=========================================
More important than that – by not telling the truth that they were liquidated and that it was a brand new club and all he was doing was insisting that the normal rules applied (i.e. a new club has to start at the bottom) – they encourage sevco fans to believe that their club was ‘forcedly’ demoted by the efforts of other clubs and so encourage divisiveness and even hatred (and possibly even violence) in their support. That’s what is forgotten when this is brought up and they attempt to dismiss the truth as unimportant
@tayred 9.21
“– no press comments, nothing but silence. ”
I think you’ll find that club 1’s manager is quoted in the press describing his player as having been “vindicated” by the SFA’s judgement.
oddjob says:
November 4, 2014 at 8:59 pm
Can any of our mathematician friends calculate the odds on such an outcome?
easyJambo says:
November 5, 2014 at 1:06 am
I’m not a statistician, but I make it 41,208 to 1.
Castofthousands says:
November 5, 2014 at 6:36 pm
After a couple of pages of scribbling and some research I decided the task was beyond me.
———————————————–
Regarding the chances of the top 14 teams out of 32 being drawn together. I enjoy this sort of puzzle and have an answer (not necessarily the right answer) but an answer nevertheless.
I’ve approached this on the same basis as the odds of winning the lottery. The winning numbers are just as likely to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 (the top six being drawn together) as they are 7, 8, 13, 26, 32, 41.
It doesn’t matter what order the top six are drawn in they are just grouped together as a combination. So:
The odds of the first fourteen being drawn before any from 15 down with it not mattering what order the top fourteen come out:
The odds of the first ball being one of the top fourteen are 14 in 32 and the odds of the second ball being one of the top fourteen (if the first ball was indeed one of the top fourteen) is 13 in 31 and so on down to 1 in 19 for the last of the top fourteen to be drawn.
14/32 x 13/31 x 12/30 x 11/29 x 10/28 x 9/27 x 8/26 x 7/25 x 6/24 x 5/23 x 4/22 x 3/21 x 2/20 x 1/19
Which is one in 471,435,600
This number just blows my mind and I must surely be wrong. Are there any maths wizards out there who can correct my logic and calculation as this just seems ridiculous to me.
Just catching up after a couple of days and am boggled by the stupidity of Graham Speirs article.
Two posts that absolutely nail the issue.
Martin says:
November 4, 2014 at 11:40 pm
Allyjambo says:
November 5, 2014 at 5:25 pm
I am a little perturbed by the partisanship that has broken out over the Logan/Tonev affair.
I hope that we can learn some lessons from all of this as well. Whatever the outcome of the appeal, someone is bound to feel ostracised.
I can understand Tonev’s reluctance to be tainted with the ‘racist’ epithet. I can also undertand why people believe that black footballers take racism seriously enough not to trivialise it. False claims would tend to undermine efforts at the eradication of racism in sport after all.
Like most people, I believe that there should be a zero-tolerance policy in football, and that culprits should be hounded out of the game. I also think though, that some attitudes have been tempered – probably because of club allegiances. Maybe we can all stop to think on just what nature of proof is necessary in these cases. That may even be a more sensible topic for debate.
If it is to be the criminal model, then the burden will be greater although it may allow offenders to escape. On the other side of that coin though is the fact that racial abuse is a criminal offence, so greater sanctions might await an offender.
If it is the civil model then the burden is less – but there is recourse for ayone who feels wronged to take civil action.
The important thing is that people shouldn’t be making judgements which are based on club allegainces rather than fact, and that whatever model of proof is ultimately used going forward, it needs to be in play for everyone.
In the recent John Terry case, was there any strong feeling that criminal proof should be required? To be honest, before this situation arose, I don’t ever remember it being raised.
I am convinced that disclosure of the evidence, and the rationale for any decision, should be made public. It only seems fair that this should be the case. in that regard, has either Tonev or Logan asked that the information should be released?
As someone has already said, this might well be an unfortunate misunderstanding. Indeed that is the result we would all wish for – although I suspect that the outcome will be that both players’ reputations will be (in at least one case) unfairly sullied by the affair. Inflaming passions ahead of the match this weekend won’t help .
Bill1903 says:
November 6, 2014 at 1:01 pm
I’ve always found it strange that there are lots of Rangers fan spokesmen like Chris Graham,Sons of Struth etc. Yet Celtic with an equally large fan base don’t seem to have someone giving the Celtic fans viewpoints.
Obviously there are lots of Celtic minded bloggers(and some very good ones among them).
However most who try and tell the truth about the Rangers/SFA shenanigans are anonymous.
Not just Celtic though. I’ve not heard any fan spokesman say anything.
==================================
You might be better asking that question on a Celtic site.
I would observe however that few football fans who attempt to tell the truth – as you put it – about Rangers are daft enough to put not only themselves but their family, friends and workmates in the firing line for the grief and intimidation that inevitably follows IMO.
coineanachantaighe says:
November 6, 2014 at 1:10 pm
The Cat NR1 says:
November 6, 2014 at 9:50 am
=========================================
More important than that – by not telling the truth that they were liquidated and that it was a brand new club and all he was doing was insisting that the normal rules applied (i.e. a new club has to start at the bottom) – they encourage sevco fans to believe that their club was ‘forcedly’ demoted by the efforts of other clubs and so encourage divisiveness and even hatred (and possibly even violence) in their support. That’s what is forgotten when this is brought up and they attempt to dismiss the truth as unimportant
//////////////////////////////
I totally agree.
The self-diagnosed victimhood and persecution complex was an unintended (?) outcome of the 5WA. By introducing the concept of the RFC franchise and the continuity myth, they have opened the door to it. Civil unrest is on the horizon.
Big Pink says:
November 6, 2014 at 1:53 pm
/////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately, the unaccountable and random way in which the governing bodies act leaves it open for major outbreaks of whataboutery.
Whataboutery almost inevitably ends up in partisan gainsaying.
Until the transparency that we are seeking is put in place, there will be an instinctive self-defensive return to previously held positions.
Maybe this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and the whole system will be replaced by one fit for purpose that all clubs and their customers can trust, one with consistant and clearly defined timescales, procedures and tariffs.
Big Pink says:
November 6, 2014 at 1:53 pm
I am a little perturbed by the partisanship that has broken out over the Logan/Tonev affair.
===========================================
In some ways the ‘partisanship’ over the Tonev/Logan affair doesn’t bother me as IMO it’s simply par for the course between certain elements of football supports from most teams that will seize on any opportunity to have a go at rival fans.
In my experience it really doesn’t matter what the ‘stick’ is but more that it exists or is rumoured to exist. That makes it a viable ‘weapon’ to be used. Sad but that’s the way it is for a lot of people.
On this particular affair I have been apalled by the debate on a well-known Celtic fan site where posters have clearly stated they think Tonev is guilty and others who think it’s a great way to break his loan contract and get rid of him not because he’s possibly a racist but because he’s disappointed in a footballing sense.
I have to admit to despair at these attitudes especially as we haven’t a clue what, if any, evidence was actually led.
If Tonev did racially abuse Logan then IMO he should be prosecuted in a criminal court but from what I know about the issue it would appear that there is next to no chance of a conviction because there is no corroboration.
Obviously the standard of proof required in civil proceedings is less than those which apply in a criminal court.
But it leaves an uneasy feeling in my mind when someone charged and found guilty of a very minor offence possibly without even a fine being imposed has the legal protection that corroboration must exist to secure their guilt.
However in a very serious accusation, such as Tonev faced, which literally could destroy his career there is no necessity for any direct corroboration of the alleged racist remark because it is a tribunal operating under civil procedures.
It simply doesn’t sit well with me and I know that if positions were reversed then I would be making the same argument on behalf of Logan.
There simply are no winners in what has happened here IMO.
@tayred 9.21
Silent Partner
“– no press comments, nothing but silence. ”
I think you’ll find that club 1’s manager is quoted in the press describing his player as having been “vindicated” by the SFA’s judgement.
Aye, ok, fair enough. The crucial word maybe is “Judgement” not individual opinions? But that aside, we simply don’t know what was said, we don’t know what the evidence is. Unfortunately, that brings us back to the hellish state of having to trust a judgement made by the SFA. I do think a manager commenting on a judgement is something that can’t be avoided, nor should it be avoided (or have to be just to avoid.. well you know..individuals have suffered badly in recent times). But I realise the shoogly peg I am on with that argument!
What I read elsewhere, and there is an undertone of it here, is an increasing frothing at the mouth about player 2 being the victim here. That makes me uncomfortable, the balance of current reporting being swung to the majority club. It’s under appeal, let’s wait for the outcome.
Whatever side of the fence you stand, you know what, it all stems from complete and utter mistrust of the SFA. I don’t believe for a minute the vast majority of the Celtic support would stand behind Player 2 if he were shown to be guilty. Nor would the AFC support be at all impressed if Player 1 was found to be in the wrong. But now because of the ridiculous state Ogilive and his cohorts have created in Scottish football these situations can quickly and dangerously spiral out of control.
We should be able to have complete faith that any judgement made by any SFA committee was drawn properly and without prejudice.
We don’t.
The SMSM are every bit as culpable.
mcfc says:
November 6, 2014 at 12:33 pm
I don’t expect we’ll see a Wallacesque business-speak presentation of the findings – but I do expect we’ll see evidence of action or scarpering in the not too distant future.
============================================================
I think we’ve already seen some action with Ally not being allowed to cancel a cash-cow Saturday home match despite the sacrifices made on the International front.
ecobhoy says:
November 6, 2014 at 2:46 pm
I think we’ve already seen some action with Ally not being allowed to cancel a cash-cow Saturday home match despite the sacrifices made on the International front.
===================================================
Are you suggesting that Mike has had a word in Ally’s shell-like in a most UnRangers way? 🙂
One things for sure, if Mike puts a contract in front of Ally he’d better bloody read it very carefully – our he’ll find himself mopping the bogs of the Tyne ferry for even less than his post-cut (oh yeah) £400K pa.
davythelotion says:
November 6, 2014 at 9:53 am
Davy,
One of the things that annoyed me about Spiers’ article was the fact he used domestic violence to belittle our blog. Probably a double whammy to try to belittle people for showing concern over the effects of violence. He could easily have tackled the subject in a more positive manner by pointing to the fact that not one poster here suggested that the problem was limited to one side and that the posters on this site, and other similar sites, are putting forward reasons to dread a football match rather than to celebrate it’s return.
At best Spiers sees all the issues surrounding this match as an irrelevance compared to the ‘importance’ of a return to some over-hyped local Derby.
Regardless of who wished this type of shabby writing to be ‘put out there’ they are, I presume, Spiers’ own words; and either way, be it his own motivation or that of his employers, he is tarred with them.
As to the ‘defence’ of ‘being called a hypocrite’, I think it would only be hypocricy if he’d previously taken a stance against domestic violence, and so far as I’m aware he has not publicly done so. His use of ‘call me a hypocrite’ in no way excuses his words and has no more effect than someone we know using phrases like ‘with greatest respect’, they are the meaningless glib throw-away lines of someone who is about to sell you snake-oil, and totally insincere.
It would have been so much more acceptable if he’d told the truth and said he’s looking forward to the match because it will make it so much easier for him, and all the other hacks, to fill many a column inch without having to think and work too hard! Well it would be easier to write that than say it’s because it helps TRFC become more like their predecessor!
Face Value, My Arse
Even at the very few clubs I dislike intensely, I would take this statement at face value and applaud their support for the unfortunate and a good cause.
“All profits from the game will be split equally four ways between Fernando, his daughter Isabella, Motor Neurone Disease Scotland and the Rangers Charity Foundation.” http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8021-ricksen-tribute-game-confirmed
However, The Rangers saga has taught me the empathy of an ambulance chasing lawyer and the kind-heartedness of a street corner pimp, when it comes to “charity” matches at Ibrox. So let’s parse that article.
It is described throughout as a “tribute game”. Is this the same as a “charity game/event”. Are there differences there to be exploited?
“All profits”. I take that to mean revenue minus expenses. Will expenses be minimized or maximised. How do Onerous Contracts operate for a “tribute game”. Which individuals and companies will be paid what for this event? How generous will hospiality be for the brogues and hangers on?
“split equally four ways”. George Orwell wised us all up to the concept of some being more equal than others. Will we see the figures to cross-check or will the four parties trust they have been dealt with equitably and be thankful for what they get?
“Rangers Charity Foundation”. So will this share be used in support of motor neurone disease suffers/charities/activities or will it be spent of other unrelated/unspecified activities. If all is above board, then why not give this share to Motor Neurone Disease Scotland or just split it three ways?
“Rangers Charity Foundation”. The last I remember there were serious concerns about the governance of this operation involving inadequate trustees and division of proceeds from similar events. Maybe some of our experts can update us on the status of RCF.
Has anyone filled-in Mr Ashley about this controversial body? There’s evidence he’s a hard-arsed, cold-eyed businessman but I have no reason to believe he’d want to be associated with any suspicion of skulduggery in the third sector.
mcfc says:
November 6, 2014 at 3:04 pm
ecobhoy says:
November 6, 2014 at 2:46 pm
I think we’ve already seen some action with Ally not being allowed to cancel a cash-cow Saturday home match despite the sacrifices made on the International front.
===================================================
Are you suggesting that Mike has had a word in Ally’s shell-like in a most UnRangers way? 🙂
…
===============================
If I am not mistaken, Ashley has not yet been seen at Ibrox, or attended a game.
He attends, [or used to], NUFC home games, which is just down the road from Glasgow.
And with all the unrest at Ibrox, and amongst the fans, shirley the best, positive PR would be for Ashley to attend a game…that’s if he was interested in what anyone thinks of him, of course !
If Ashley sat in the Ibrox Directors’ box, resplendent in blazer and brogues, [club tie optional], then the fans would immediately sense he had acquired Rangersitis.
But he’s not that bothered, IMO.
He just wants the money. And why not ? 🙄
Regarding the Tonev/ Logan situation.
This is not,IMHO, about either the players, or the clubs, or the fans: but squarely about the SFA.
No transcript of proceedings, no summary of evidence, no reasoning for the length of ban – especially when measured against a three match ban for betting on your own side not to win, or a curious case of Not Proven in an incident where video evidence established that contact had been made and of a variety that, to that point had always implied guilt- has ever been or will likely ever be produced. We are all in the dark because the SFA wishes us to be so, and thus informed comment on the actual case itself is simply not possible..
Logan, as far as I can see made an accusation. Tonev denied it. No other evidence has been forthcoming.
Surely a very real case of Not Proven , in the absence of corroboration either way.
But this is the SFA, where not only are rules perceived to be twisted in only one direction, objective study of evidence reveals just such a condition. Not just on occasion, but systematically and, by extension, systemically.
The SFA is a rotten, incurable body. It has abandoned its function as a governing body and become a farcical fig leaf to justify any biased whims or notions that it chooses to follow with some bizarre notion of governance, with no rule that it cannot itself break and no unilateral and unprincipled action that it cannot itself take.
jimmci says:
November 6, 2014 at 2:15 pm
Presumably a delayed match would be scheduled to be played after the November pay-day. McLeod seems to make quite a difference for them and will be missed more than most would have been. Seems strange after the way McCoist’s made previous postponements such a big deal that he should now find it not necessary to avoid ‘disrespecting’ his opponents. Enough to make you suspect money might be tight in the lead up to pay-day.
iceman63 says:
November 6, 2014 at 4:21 pm
…
The SFA is a rotten, incurable body. It has abandoned its function as a governing body and become a farcical fig leaf to justify any biased whims or notions that it chooses to follow with some bizarre notion of governance, with no rule that it cannot itself break and no unilateral and unprincipled action that it cannot itself take.
======================================
Maybe all it would take is for a player/club to take umbrage with one of these SFA ‘inconsistencies’ and take it to the Court of Session ?
The SFA cannot – you would think – punish anyone now for reverting to the CoS.
And if an SFA decision was reversed, then that could be independent proof that the SFA, [in its current form], no longer has the moral authority to govern Scottish football – and that future decisions could be more frequently and openly challenged ?
StevieBC says:
November 6, 2014 at 4:14 pm
===================================
I think Mike has learned the hard way that you can’t be the owner and the fans’ mate at the same time.
Once Llambias has delivered the 12 Day Business Review, Mike will need to decide to twist or stick in what amounts to a game of pontoon for coppers over a pint with his mates.
No other evidence has been forthcoming?
Is that meant to mean no other evidence has been published or the disciplinary body had no other evidence in front of it?
Do we know anything of the prior conduct or character of those involved? That might help resolve an impasse.
mcfc says:
November 6, 2014 at 3:04 pm
If Ashley sat in the Ibrox Directors’ box, resplendent in blazer and brogues, [club tie optional], then the fans would immediately sense he had acquired Rangersitis.
But he’s not that bothered, IMO. He just wants the money. And why not ? 🙄
==================================================
We might need to revise our opinion as Rangers fan sites are confidently stating he is giving McCoist a £10 million warchest in January.
Tbf to the Bears – who welcome the money – I haven’t seen one who wants Ally to get his mitts on it 🙂
I have no doubt that if it suits Ashley commercially he might well catch Rangeritis. But to give money away? He would want the keys to Ibrox and Murray Park for £10 million and probably the history as well as he’s got everything else of value 😆
Genuine question to mods….
Posted a comment this afternoon re Alloa game going ahead at Ibrox despite previous comments that when Rangers players selected McCoist had previously stated it would be disrespectful not to request postponement.
Post has disappeared. Would appreciate an email offering reasons for deletion.
Thanks
ecobhoy says:
November 6, 2014 at 2:32 pm
________________________________________
Take your point about Partisanship being par for the course, but I am a bit disappointed that it has happened here. I thought we were a bit better than that. By and large of course we are, but I get the feeling that there are those who are still at odds with the blog ethos.
ecobhoy says:
November 6, 2014 at 5:06 pm
ecobhoy says:
November 6, 2014 at 5:06 pm
If Ashley sat in the Ibrox Directors’ box, resplendent in blazer and brogues, [club tie optional], then the fans would immediately sense he had acquired Rangersitis.
===============================
Rangeritis must be tte only “itis” known to medicine that can be contracted and recovered from at the patient’s convenience for financial benefit. The biotech indusrty must be spending zilliona on research to understand its unique characteristics which would seem to have profit potential on the scale of nuclear fusion.
The Cat NR1 says:
November 6, 2014 at 2:27 pm
10 0 Rate This
Big Pink says:
November 6, 2014 at 1:53 pm
/////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately, the unaccountable and random way in which the governing bodies act leaves it open for major outbreaks of whataboutery.
Whataboutery almost inevitably ends up in partisan gainsaying.
Until the transparency that we are seeking is put in place, there will be an instinctive self-defensive return to previously held positions.
_____________________________________________________________________
Unfortunate or not, it shouldn’t be happening here. BP is not the only contributor who is disappointed at recent comments on the blog. Thankfully most of our regulars have avoided the partisanship, but the paranoia on both sides of the niggling divide on this matter is not what we seek to give a platform to.
In fact it trivialises an issue that is even more important than the governance of Scottish Football. I wish people would remember that when they try to score points based on club allegiances.
Big Pink says:
November 6, 2014 at 5:34 pm
ecobhoy says:
November 6, 2014 at 2:32 pm
________________________________________
Take your point about Partisanship being par for the course, but I am a bit disappointed that it has happened here. I thought we were a bit better than that. By and large of course we are, but I get the feeling that there are those who are still at odds with the blog ethos.
=============================================================
I was probably meaning more on the wider front but you are correct that it’s disappointing to see it happen here.
Attention to Detail – oh – and Financial Regulations
Stevie in IT must be busy on YouTube in anticipation of a January warchest – ‘cos he sure as hell ain’t spending time on the website which describes itself as providing “The following information set out below is being disclosed for the purposes of Rule 26 of the AIM Rules for Companies:” http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/
Stevie, Mr Somers is no longer non-executive chairman
Stevie, Mr Llambias is now a non-executive director
Stevie, is Mr Crighton ‘The Invisible Man’ or is he just camera shy?
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/board-management/board-of-directors
Small Detail perhaps
Market Shares Cap of RIFC equivalent to keep spivcircus going to end of season???
Back at ranch
No real signs of new FD, CEO or NOMAD coming in (no point in wasting money – or RISK?)
mtp
twopanda says: November 6, 2014 at 7:04 pm
———————-
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12142081.html
Update from Daniel Stewart re their General Meeting. They are apparently seeking approval from the FCA re a new investor.
Maybe it’s an offshore company with investor links to a Scottish football club? 😈
The ball isnt at the feet of mike Ashley
Its at the feet of Deloittes
Having been conned once their reputation will be shredded if they get conned again
Methinks Ashley has been asked to lend at least enough to get through the season
Otherwise there will not be a going concern nod from the Auditors
easyJambo says:
November 6, 2014 at 7:47 pm
Wouldn`t surprise me
Ratbags all rotten to the core IMO and should be in Jail
Authorities should be upholding Law – but they`re not
#bumsonseats
mtp
Rangers Charity Foundation is still an active charity according to the OSCR website. I recall they appointed some new trustees (IIRC one is an ex military guy).
The OSCR site shows that the cost of fundraising last year was 44% of the total raised, so very high but not enough to raise an ‘exception’ in the monitoring of their accounts (that would be 50% or more).
The cost of governance is also low, so it looks as if its staying out of trouble following the recent investigation (which is mentioned on the OSCR site where the report can be downloaded).
No story here then, so far anyway, of course the OSCR infomation is only a summary of the totality of their finances so individual projects etc such as white water rafting activities can’t be scrutinised by the public.
Charities can be asked for copies of their accounts though, so you never know how what could be discovered if anybody asked for a copy.
GoosyGoosy says:
November 6, 2014 at 8:14 pm
…
Otherwise there will not be a going concern nod from the Auditors
=================================================================
I have very limited audit experience from many years ago, [it was too exciting for me 🙄 ], so I could be talking mince here, and would appreciate any corrections, but…
What would be the main problem if TRFC is indeed subject to a ‘going concern’ qualification from Deloitte ?
The club doesn’t enjoy any line of credit from any financial institutions.
The ‘investors’ involved knew the relatively high risks from the outset – and the excessive cash burn rate has not exactly been a secret for the last 2+ years.
Maybe some institutional investors would be compelled to dump their shares in RIFC ?
But shirley, it wouldn’t necessarily deter current shareholders – or even new ‘investors/spivs’ lurking in the shadows ?
Everyone knows the Govan club is a financial basket case anyway, and the risk has been factored in already by any current/future ‘spiv investors’ or lenders ?
bad capt madman says:
November 6, 2014 at 8:33 pm
`Rangers Charity` has a heritage longer than the Club.
Not many aware of good done these days
mtp
[Edit to above: I am making an assumption that Directors could avoid knowingly ‘trading whilst insolvent’ based on promises/reasonable expectations, and they could exploit the typically low risk of personal liability being followed up.]
GoosyGoosy says:
November 6, 2014 at 8:14 pm
Methinks Ashley has been asked to lend at least enough to get through the season
===================================
I wonder what the lending threshold would be for Ashley lending more than he could ever realistically hope to get back? Doubt he’s ever going to do that.
Just had a quick browse on BBC website ( I know, shame on me), and under the Tom English view was a link to an article ‘few will buy into comeback fairytale’. So, thinking that obviously its an article debunking that semi final hype, I clicked. Imagine my surprise its just about boxing.
StevieBC says:
November 6, 2014 at 8:45 pm
0 0 Rate This
=================================================================
I have very limited audit experience from many years ago, [it was too exciting for me 🙄
=================================================================
Stevie…if it was too exciting for you, why did you not become an actuary…? (Very old joke fellow bloggers!)….where is that wee brown emoticon, aka jobbie?
StevieBC says:
GoosyGoosy says:
…
Otherwise there will not be a going concern nod from the Auditors
=================================================================
I have very limited audit experience from many years ago, [it was too exciting for me 🙄 ], so I could be talking mince here, and would appreciate any corrections, but…
What would be the main problem if TRFC is indeed subject to a ‘going concern’ qualification from Deloitte ?
=========================================================================
Stevie & Goosy…it is a while since I signed off an audit report, but this “eminence grise” of the qualified audit report does indeed need an airing.
Since there is no line of credit to a bank, all creditors who deal with the Govan club know the risk they are taking in trading with them, and any security holders know exactly what position they are in (tell me Bomber!), the only “users” of the audit report, qualified or otherwise, may be the Alternative Investment Market…and we all know by now how ridiculously lax their standards of reporting and governance are! 😉
Totally OT
=============
essexbeancounter says:
November 6, 2014 at 9:17 pm
StevieBC says:
November 6, 2014 at 8:45 pm
=================================================================
I have very limited audit experience from many years ago, [it was too exciting for me 🙄
=================================================================
Stevie…if it was too exciting for you, why did you not become an actuary…? (Very old joke fellow bloggers!)….where is that wee brown emoticon, aka jobbie?
==============================
Yes, ebc the old ones are the best !
And in a previous role I used to work with a bunch of actuaries…who made me look positively exciting. 😉
And I took great delight in asking them:
“How can you tell when an actuary has been on a personal development course ?
He/she looks at your shoes when they talk to you…”
[That did elicit one or two stifled laughs from the real number-crunchers !]
essexbeancounter says:
November 6, 2014 at 9:25 pm
Beany,
Would I be correct in suggesting that the biggest problem this might cause TRFC, outside of the rigorous expectations of the AIM 🙄 , would be with renewing their SPFL license, and, of course, satisfying UEFA of their 3 years of unqualified accounts in the event they qualify for Europe sometime within the next few years? Of course, it might cause a problem should they look to raise further cash in a public offer for shares, would it not?
Allyjambo says:
November 6, 2014 at 9:37 pm
essexbeancounter says:
November 6, 2014 at 9:25 pm
Beany,
Would I be correct in suggesting that the biggest problem this might cause TRFC, outside of the rigorous expectations of the AIM 🙄 , would be with renewing their SPFL license, and, of course, satisfying UEFA of their 3 years of unqualified accounts in the event they qualify for Europe sometime within the next few years? Of course, it might cause a problem should they look to raise further cash in a public offer for shares, would it not?
========================
If I could jump in here…
Good points Aj.
On the AIM/financials/fund raising aspects, I believe everyone knows/should know the risks involved.
The SFA/SPFL licences I’m sure could be awarded with ‘special dispensation’. 🙄
But the UEFA eligibility ?
We might need Auldheid’s expertise here but is the requirement;
– 3 years of accounts
– 3 years of unqualified accounts
– 3 years national membership
– or a combination of the above ?
Maybe the biggest risk then with a ‘going concern’ qualification is a delay to UEFA participation ?
Assuming the Govan club achieves a place in a UEFA competition.
And assuming TRFC is still in existence at that point.
“Maybe the biggest risk then with a ‘going concern’ qualification is a delay to UEFA participation ?”
If so, I doubt Ashley would be that bothered 😉
Allyjambo says:
November 6, 2014 at 9:37 pm
3 0 Rate This
essexbeancounter says:
November 6, 2014 at 9:25 pm
Beany,
Would I be correct in suggesting that the biggest problem this might cause TRFC, outside of the rigorous expectations of the AIM 🙄 , would be with renewing their SPFL license, and, of course, satisfying UEFA of their 3 years of unqualified accounts in the event they qualify for Europe sometime within the next few years? Of course, it might cause a problem should they look to raise further cash in a public offer for shares, would it not?
==========================================================================
Allyjambo…I did post a further comment in answer to Goosy’s point as to what would be the implications of a qualified audit report…but the post got lost!
My initial contention was that commercially, on a day to day basis, there would be virtually no implications, given the known trading and cash position of the Govan club.
However, I had totally missed, through my own ignorance, any possible ramifications of how this would be received by the licensing authority, but bearing in mind past experience of the “three years’ audit reports”, I am sure that would not cause problem at this stage. But my thanks for pointing this out.
As to any future public issue, I doubt if any board of directors related to the Govan team would even consider such a move…after all, why have My Cashley and a chum sitting there, just bursting to put his hand(s) in his pockets.
Re Deloittes
All Ashley has committed to do so far is to take the security in exchange for his £2m loan in the event of an insolvency under which he does not get his loan repaid
The real emphasis in my previous post is that Deloittes having been stung last year by a draw down loan that vanished will be more stringent this time round They wont give a hoot about qualifying the accounts by stating the business will be trading while insolvent when the Ashley loan runs out.So IMO these accounts wont be signed off without an immediate cast iron injection of cash sufficient to see it through to the next ST event or an IPO
Or put another way
I doubt very much that Deloittes would sign off on a promise of a loan like they did last time
Which leads to the conclusion that all Ashley is really doing at the minute is reviewing the legal documents held by TRFC regarding IPO and onerous contracts. One he has figured out the best strategy to maximise his onerous contracts he will let the business be liquidated and take his security to use in his SD Co
GoosyGoosy says:
November 7, 2014 at 12:18 am
Which leads to the conclusion that all Ashley is really doing at the minute is reviewing the legal documents held by TRFC regarding IPO and onerous contracts. One he has figured out the best strategy to maximise his onerous contracts he will let the business be liquidated and take his security to use in his SD Co
———————————
If Ashley intended to speculate to accumulate, I’m sure every lamb muncher around would already have been briefed on it in order to get the missing fans back and to get the tills ringing. As you say, all he has done is provide a securitised loan of £2M. Despite that the said lamb munchers are still drooling over the prospect of a march into the Champions League on the back of Ashley giving McCoist a £30M warchest. That in itself would be akin to gifting a gambling addict £1000 in the bookies and telling him not to waste it.
More biggy “Late in the day” trades yesterday
Recent small trades – shares rocketing 10% then Bang someone trades quarter of a million shares
If they were were bought for 1p, that’s a good days business is it not?
My view is that any going concern caveat on the accounts – which in themselves will be a horror show – would be to simply formalize that the king is stark bollock naked. As others have said, the facts are out there for anyone to see – but still many do not act as if they have absorbed the information and will not do so until they have heard an official chorus of “The King is in the all together, he’s all together as naked as the day that he was born.”
Once this has been sung, the people in respectable companies and public bodies who extend credit to this omnishambles will surely have some explaining to do. And that maybe the butterfly that causes the tidal wave in this chaotic system.
http://www.monologues.co.uk/Comic_Songs/Kings_New_Clothes.htm
Am I the only one who sees this semi-final in 3 months time as just a great big furry squirrel? No more talk of a financial crisis, now we are back to the size of Ally’s (war) chest, Zadok the priest, and all the other stuff that our ever vigilant press corps love to cover our chip wrappers with.
Back in the real world, Ashley has despatched an operative to have a “look under the bonnet”, I imagine on a less than 124 day timescale. An AGM has to be held before 31 December, which means realistically that notices have to be issued, together with the annual report (including accounts) within the next 4 weeks. If the AGM is not held on time, then I guess that even AIM will have to suspend the company’s listing.
Clearly everything hangs on what Llambias finds in the murky depths of the engine bay. If the answer is that someone has to urgently throw another load of money at it to keep the show on the road, then I doubt Ashley will bother. And this time, he surely is the last man standing. If he won’t underwrite the losses until next summer, then I guess it’s game over. Or would be normally. But with this pantomime, who really knows?
neepheid says:
November 7, 2014 at 10:13 am
Am I the only one who sees this semi-final in 3 months time as just a great big furry squirrel?
================================================================
Absolutely – the last big squirrels (120 day review, share issue etc) were to allow the spivs time to drain the dregs from the Metro Bank account. This time it’s distraction from the fact that the Metro Bank account is dry enough to store the Dead Sea Scrolls. If Mike can’t find a way to make money from keeping the show on the road then it must be curtains. Remember, he is well in the black already with his investment in Rangers Retail. The £2mil is a loan against bricks and mortar. He’s really only into Rangers for less than £1mil in shares to control the board and see the real books. He may already have sold enough to get his £1mil back – lots of trading reently – and no notification required. If it all falls apart he’s lost nothing, If some mug tried to pheonix what’s left he’ll make on the IP and naming rights – he can’t lose and he doesn’t give a flying feck what the people think of him. Some saviour!
If I wanted Champions League glory, I wouldn’t start from here.
Fit and proper person legislation?
http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/29937946
http://celtsarehere.com/watch-horror-tackle-on-charlie-mulgrew/?
Horrendous tackle on Charlie Mulgrew – shocking!
Having a big brain and being too lazy to use it is the same as being stupid. So when the clever and knowledgeable chaps of the SMSM talk about The Rangers taking the CL by storm on a £30mil or £50mil warchest, do they ever ask themselves why it has taken other British clubs hundreds of millions of pounds to do the same – with very uncertain results.
Maybe they would serve their readers better if they started asking some European level questions instead of their obsession with picking the lumps from Ally’s PR puke.
Auldheid @ 10.32am
Is this maybe why oor Dave (king) jetted away 😉
If My CASHLEY is playing puppeteer with the hands in the purse
down ibrokes way, would it not make sense for him to sell/buy the boy McLeod before pulling the plug.
Can someone remind us
How much revenue has MA taken in through selling the Tat for Charles Green’s company?
Auldheid says:
November 7, 2014 at 10:32 am
2 0 i
Rate This
Fit and proper person legislation?
http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/29937946
====================================================
We obviously don’t feel the need for this in Scotland, I asked the question of the SFA about Rivzi, Green, Whyte et al.
There is no such thing as a test. This is a myth. There are criteria that are considered when a member club initiates a proposed change in directorship.
Darryl Broadfoot
Head of Communications
Scottish FA
I wasn’t sure if the mods declared the recent discussion around Hearts and the living wage and the way Celtic were castigated for not committing to paying the living wage, but, it seems it is not a particularly important “issue” for our MP’s.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MisssyM/status/530421066544742401/photo/1