ByBig Pink
The Vice Closes
News in The Times of Celtic’s letter to Stewart Regan regarding that club’s wish for a Judicial Review into the SFA’s handing of the Rangers EBT crisis increases the pressure on Regan considerably.
The SFA Chief Executive’s ill-advised spat with Pie and Bovril editor David McDonald this week may even be a sign he is devolving, and at least it demonstrates that, despite Twitter disaster after Twitter disaster, Regan doesn’t learn readily from his mistakes.
Also, it appears from the contents of Celtic’s letter that their target in terms of a Judicial Review has been the SFA, and not the SPFL, all along. That chimes with developments as I understand them elsewhere in this process.
Even though it now appears that Celtic and a fan group are seeking a Judicial Review it is by no means certain that it will ever happen.
Having a sound legal basis for it, obtaining standing, and having a reasonable chance of victory are all variables in the equation, and each has to be weighed carefully before progress can be made.
Having said that, if the reason any Judicial Review fails is because of that lawyer-speak we have been subjected to of late, the SFA may yet come to believe that hiding behind legalese is neither in football’s best interests, nor in the interests of the individuals at the SFA who are under fire.
The bottom line as they, is this;
Rangers did acquire an unfair advantage over others by their use of EBTs. The SPL themselves were flabbergasted when Sandy Bryson proclaimed his eponymous ‘imperfectly registered’ doctrine. They all know – everyone in every board room in the country, in every SFA department, in every SPFL office – that cheating took place.
In fact and in spirit.
The jaws of the vice are tightening as we speak. The fans group who are building a case for a Judicial Review give its handle a wee turn every day, and the leak of the Celtic letter to Regan reduces his wiggle room even further.
It is surely now just a matter of time before this ridiculous and infamous chapter in Scotland’s football history is dealt with.
Of course people will accuse anyone who is a Celtic fan, or an Aberdeen fan, or a Dundee United fan (clubs whose rivalry with Rangers is keenest) of partisanship in this affair. That is mere deflection and bears no scrutiny whatsoever.
As a Celtic fan myself, I can’t deny that I am angry at what took place between (at least) 2000 and 2009, but does that mean that as a Celtic fan I have to recuse myself from having an opinion?
And as a former employee of the club, am I excluded from any conversation about the integrity of our game because the club at the centre of the scandal is Rangers? Pull the other one.
SFM, and the wider fans’ movement has been consistently appalled by this sorry chapter over the last six years, but is no kangaroo court. We are not asking for conclusions to be drawn without due process. We see unexplained regulatory anomalies in the processes at Ibrox and Hampden which have never to our knowledge been addressed. We simply wish that they should be.
Further, if my club was at the heart of this nonsense, I think I’d be incandescent with rage that they had allowed me to revel in the joy of winning all those trophies, only to have the achievements cheapened and nullified by their mismanagement. I would regard that as the ultimate betrayal (and Celtic fans can give you a list of club betrayals as long as Mao’s march).
I’d be thinking that those same business practices that apparently had given us so much, had actually caused to fail catastrophically. Having taken delight in the honours, I would have to accept the consequences too.
The SFA, by their corrupt approach to the demise of Rangers, have denied Rangers fans the catharsis that they could benefit from. In fact the authorities’ refusal to deal with the situation in terms of their own rules it has fostered a siege mentality to exist at Ibrox.
This in turn has enabled a series of charlatans, including the current board, to drive the bus in the direction of a brick wall for the last five years.
After the phenomenally successful share issue (something that can’t happen again whilst King is in charge for regulatory reasons), the new Rangers were given seed capital which should have flowered by now with the regular watering of their huge fan base. That £22m, which should have seen the club competing at the top by now has gone, and the potential which existed in 2012 has been diminished severely.
It’s no fun being a fan of Scottish football in the midst of this. But we make a fundamental error if we think that Rangers fans are enjoying it. They are victims in this too, and they have been defrauded by the Murray-era shenanigans, and the circus performers who have been on the scene since then – every bit as much as the rest of us.
The honourable thing (no laughing at the back) for the SFA to do would be to agree to Celtic’s request for a Judicial Review.
If the pressure is turned up another notch or three on the SFA, then maybe we will all get closure, and perhaps finally we can move on.
Big Pink administrator
Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.
875 Comments so far
paddy malarkeyPosted on7:45 pm - Oct 6, 2017
JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 6, 2017 at 18:40
If I recall correctly , when somebody was brave enough to broach the subject with him, Mr Souness indulged in a bout of “whitabootery”, contrasting his modest sum with the riches achieved by others . At least he was honest(?)enough to admit that he was given the EBT for “doing work for Rangers”.
jimboPosted on8:33 pm - Oct 6, 2017
annie @AnnielizzieSten·4 OctPeople with terminal illnesses are deemed fit for work and then die. Theresa May has a cough and is called brave for carrying on her speech
I cant swear enough. These ‘People’ who think folk with cancer are fit for work! This is a terrible thing to say but I hope they catch cancer themselves. Evil people
View Comment
jimboPosted on8:46 pm - Oct 6, 2017
shouldn’t have said that. wouldn’t wish cancer on anyone
View Comment
HirsutePursuitPosted on8:56 pm - Oct 6, 2017
Homunculus
…………………..
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/955?timeline=true
955Enforcement by the court(1)If, on the application of the Panel, the court is satisfied—
(a)that there is a reasonable likelihood that a person will contravene a rule-based requirement, or
(b)that a person has contravened a rule-based requirement or a disclosure requirement,
the court may make any order it thinks fit to secure compliance with the requirement.
(2)In subsection (1) “the court” means the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.
(3)Except as provided by subsection (1), no person—
(a)has a right to seek an injunction, or
(b)in Scotland, has title or interest to seek an interdict or an order for specific performance,
to prevent a person from contravening (or continuing to contravene) a rule-based requirement or a disclosure requirement.
(4)In this section—
“contravene” includes fail to comply;“disclosure requirement” means a requirement imposed under section 947;“rule-based requirement” means a requirement imposed by or under rules.
As I read it, the court is only asked to consider the question of whether there has been compliance with a TOP requirement under the code.
The court can take any action it thinks appropriate to ensure compliance. But, the court has no part to play in considering the appropriateness of the panel’s instruction. That ship has sailed.
Unless it can be shown that the panel’s instruction (to make an offer) is ultra vires – a sanction not available under the rules – or that DCK can prove that he has already complied, the court will simply take action to enforce compliance.
I would imagine the court may feel somewhat aggrieved that its time is being used in this way. The enforcement action is likely to be something less than subtle.
Personally, I can’t see any way DCK can avoid making a formal offer without being in contempt of court.
The maximum penalty which can be imposed for contempt in the High Court is two years’ imprisonment or a fine or both.
View Comment
jimboPosted on8:59 pm - Oct 6, 2017
This my absolutely last post this evening. I only post it because this lady is a pure Celtic supporter as we all know. Listen to the words
View Comment
jimboPosted on9:07 pm - Oct 6, 2017
Still the one. We stll raise many many thousands for the poor throughout the world. So proud of my club.
View Comment
Cluster OnePosted on9:32 pm - Oct 6, 2017
EASYJAMBOOCTOBER 4, 2017 at 12:34 9 0 Rate This Further to JC’s post about the BDO v D&P action today, can anyone recall the source of information that suggested that the former MCR partners would receive a bonus if D&P were appointed administrators at Rangers.I have a recollection of reading about it a few months ago but I can’t recall where. The statement may have come from a D&P executive.
—————–
Agreed a £500,000 fee.
just something i found that may help with your question.
easyJamboPosted on10:06 pm - Oct 6, 2017
Cluster One October 6, 2017 at 21:32
Agreed a £500,000 fee.just something i found that may help with your question.
—————————-
Thanks again. I recall Whyte’s claim about a £500k fee. I think that may have been in expectation of a pre-pack administration.
The source I was looking for was something that came up in the last few months, possibly around the time, or shortly after, the Whyte trial (May/June). Another trigger point may have been after BDO started their action against D&P. (March/April).
View Comment
Cluster OnePosted on10:14 pm - Oct 6, 2017
EASYJAMBOOCTOBER 6, 2017 at 22:06
—-
If i find anything i will post
jimboPosted on10:53 pm - Oct 6, 2017
Easyjambo is probably my favourit poster on here but what happened the other day there in the Scottish parilment thing? I hope you were not sitting in the house! I expect better of you my friend.
View Comment
Cluster OnePosted on10:58 pm - Oct 6, 2017
Had a look.
This may or may not help you in the right direction. MCR partners and D&P are mentioned.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14183621.Administrators_conspired_with_Craig_Whyte_to_defraud_Rangers_creditors__prosecutors_allege/
The pair allegedly attempted to fraudulently obtain £253,800 earlier between January 31, 2011 and June 14, 2011 when MCR Business Consulting agreed to provide services to Liberty Capital.
————–
The source I was looking for was something that came up in the last few months, possibly around the time, or shortly after, the Whyte trial (May/June). Another trigger point may have been after BDO started their action against D&P. (March/April).
—————–
something may have been said at one of the court cases,but which one,as there have been many.sorry i can’t help more
Cluster OnePosted on11:16 pm - Oct 6, 2017
last one that may help
the source of information that suggested that the former MCR partners would receive a bonus if D&P were appointed administrators at Rangers.
—————–
The Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA) has today cleared Duff & Phelps of any conflict in its accepting the appointment as Rangers’ administrators.
The IPA said Rangers’ administrators, Paul Clark and David Whitehouse had no “primie facie” case to answer in relation to a misconduct charge.
In a letter sent to the complainers, the IPA admits its investigations committee had based its findings on “the information provided by Messers. Clark and Whitehouse, from their case files”.
Based on the information provided in those case files, “the committee agreed that there was no conflict of interest and that the insolvency practitioners had not acted inappropriately when they accepted the appointment as administrators.”
————-
If the The Insolvency Practitioners Association have released a report you may find something there.again sorry i can’t be more help.
maybe one of jimbo’s fav’s can help more
John ClarkPosted on12:05 am - Oct 7, 2017
HirsutePursuitOctober 6, 2017 at 20:56
‘..Personally, I can’t see any way DCK can avoid making a formal offer without being in contempt of court.’
___________
First, though, the Court has to order him to comply, and, I suppose,give him time to do so, before he could be held to be in contempt!
What astonishes me is that the lawyers seem to have found enough to argue about so that 2 feckin days have been allowed for the argument!
I, simple-minded as I am, ask: what the whatever is there to argue about?
And it suddenly strikes me: maybe King is saying now that he simply cannot comply with TOP’s order, because he hasn’t the wherewithal, having divested himself of his personal wealth ( to family or whatever)?
Maybe TOP haven’t the same power that local authorities have in the matter of ‘deprivation of assets’ (when it comes to assuming that an auld geezer who gave his house to his family before he took up his bed in an auld geezer’s home still has that source of wealth!)
And if the Court accepts that it is unreasonable to expect compliance…
it’s two fingers to TOP, and no ‘cold shouldering’ either!
And I will be confirmed in my view that the Del boys of the world of finance have the law on their side.
I mentioned geese the other day.
Let me at this point say, with deep ornithological feeling, Bustards!
View Comment
HomunculusPosted on12:08 am - Oct 7, 2017
HIRSUTEPURSUIT
OCTOBER 6, 2017 at 20:56
====================================
Thanks, that echoes my own thoughts.
View Comment
John ClarkPosted on12:45 am - Oct 7, 2017
Cluster OneOctober 6, 2017 at 23:16
‘.. the IPA admits its investigations committee had based its findings on “the information provided by Messers. Clark and Whitehouse, from their case files”.’
______
I spent an hour or two this evening,C1, reading through the SFA’s club licensing manual (2017).
I am not impressed by the apparent readiness to accept ‘self-certification’.
There seems to be a readiness just to accept what clubs and club auditors say.
No real readiness on the part of the SFA to examine for itself the truth of what clubs say: a simple signed note from a ‘director’ that all the documents are complete and filled in properly is enough!
After the horrendous cheating by RFC(IL), I would have thought that any honest governance body would simply not take on trust anything that any club said about their financial affairs.
I would have thought , for example,that clubs would be required to authorise HMRC to provide a statement about whether the club owed them money at whatever date was relevant in relation to UEFA licensing.
Devil the bit of it.
There is very little in the way of catching out lying directors of football clubs.
Perhaps, who knows,and one is free to speculate, that is because there are liars at the very heart of football administration?
View Comment
AuldheidPosted on12:50 pm - Oct 7, 2017
JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 7, 2017 at 00:45 14 0 Rate This ______I spent an hour or two this evening,C1, reading through the SFA’s club licensing manual (2017).
======/
I see you reached the same conclusion others like myself reached a long time ago.
If a club knowingly misrepresents the true position with regard to any of the licensing requirements then club licensing is as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
If the licensor (the SFA) is aware of an issue or has been given the power by the licensee (the club) to confirm a licensing submission with relevant football or civil authority, but declines to do so, then the licensor has questions to answer and the fireguard might as well be be filled with brandy liqueur.
Thus the dragging of feet since 2013 by SFA to check their part since 2011 in the UEFA licence granted to RFC.
However it may go further. That failing, that dependency on trust, blows a massive hole in UEFA’s FFP, which might explain Traverso’s response to Celtic shareholders’ lawyers as to why UEFA did not wish to investigate, although the door was left open for a member club to pursue.
That wee sword of Damocoles still hangs over the current CompOff investigation, where Tony McGlennan is gathering evidence. It is possible some of which may never have reached the public domain and could change the narrative, although had any existed it would surely have come out by now.
So it’s wait and see if some Brysonesque explanation is pulled out of the SFA magic rules hat.
Had proper club licensing been conducted by professionals sInce 2000 then RFC would not have been enabled to act as they did in debt and improper tax terms.
A domestic licensing version that mirrors the principles of UEFA FFP, that puts the integrity of UEFA competition up front, unlike the SFA, and which is properly policed by independent professional auditors is long overdue.
However one suspects its arrival will have to wait until at least one club has put its house in good enough financial order to be granted a licence after proper scrutiny.
That one club may not be alone, which further explains the reluctance of more clubs to grasp the licensing nettle.
Those who are secure having to put up with those who are not, because without them they have no one to play.
It’s a funny old interdependent game.
AuldheidPosted on1:21 pm - Oct 7, 2017
UPTHEHOOPSOCTOBER 6, 2017 at 18:32
A statement by anyone saying no action could be taken would have to be backed by reasons as Celtic shareholders and shareholders in other clubs could justifiably claim compensation for loss of income and so share value in 2011.
Indeed if the findings are RFC lied to obtain the licence then a fraud took place. If the SFA failed to do their job then they owe the club’s some form of compensation and they might wish to sue Grant Thornton who enabled them to be misled.
If however the reason given was that RFC no longer exist for football rules to apply – much of what Traverso said in June 2016 – and that the current applicant for a UEFA licence from Ibrox only held SFA Membership from 2012 and that the SPFL and SFA would bow to UEFA’s Article 12 in the interests of restoring sporting integrity to our game and would reflect this in their records, then that might be enough to allow football to move on.
After all it would officially recognise RFC cheated and at same time put to bed the claim the current residents at Ibrox have any history predating 2012 a truth football has gone pretzel shaped to avoid stating.
paddy malarkeyPosted on3:40 pm - Oct 7, 2017
I was talking to a couple of guys who are working on the new stand at Tynecastle and they reckon it will be a miracle if it is finished this year . Anybody know if that’s the case ?
View Comment
easyJamboPosted on5:46 pm - Oct 7, 2017
paddy malarkey October 7, 2017 at 15:40
I was talking to a couple of guys who are working on the new stand at Tynecastle and they reckon it will be a miracle if it is finished this year . Anybody know if that’s the case ?
==========================
I don’t know how much work needs to be completed for the scheduled first game against Killie, but they started fitting the seats yesterday. There could be fireworks if it goes ahead on 5th Nov. 
The stand was never planned to be “completed” this year, only the seating areas, toilets, kiosks, and safe access are required to house football. The hospitality lounges and the nursery aren’t due for completion until the first quarter of 2018.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1950574768547651&set=gm.1451156058284504&type=3&ifg=1
View Comment
easyJamboPosted on6:40 pm - Oct 7, 2017
jimbo October 6, 2017 at 22:53
Easyjambo is probably my favourit poster on here but what happened the other day there in the Scottish parilment thing? I hope you were not sitting in the house! I expect better of you my friend.
====================
Thanks for the thought, but would you like to enlighten me on what you are talking about me having done/not done.
John ClarkPosted on7:41 pm - Oct 7, 2017
I noticed today that it is reported that the arch-cheat of Scottish football has donated to charity a sum approximating to a quarter of the amount he paid himself by EBT!
No doubt there’s some little tax advantage to be gained there; and a wee polish of the public image when planning permission is being sought is no bad thing.
May his schemes all fall apart in the way that Rangers 1872 did!
View Comment
HirsutePursuitPosted on9:50 pm - Oct 7, 2017
It should be remembered that the SFA’s compliance officer is a solicitor advocate and has been involved in criminal casework all the way up to the supreme court. He knows very well what criminal behaviour looks like.
If, during an investigation of alleged breaches of the SFA’s regulations, he finds evidence of criminal behaviour (e.g. fraud), he would be compelled to pass on his findings to the police. Any related SFA proceedings would need to be suspended until the suspected criminal acts have been processed by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service – and potentially by the courts.
One wonders if he might find evidence (or even have a vague suspicion) that a criminal act (such as fraud) has been facilitated by lax procedures or conspiratorial behaviour within the SFA. Under those circumstances, he will be very aware that a failure to act with complete personal integrity would render him part of the narrative.
Personally, if I was investigating the 2011 issue and found any evidence whatsoever that a License was issued on the basis of false declarations, I would be referring the matter to the police and await a decision from the COPFS.
I am absolutely certain that the compliance officer will behave with the utmost good faith. My bet would be that the matter will be referred to the police.
If he does and prosecutions are successful, there can be no complaints if the guilty parties are later banned sine die by the SFA.
If no charges are pursued by the COPFS or ‘not guilty’ verdicts are returned by a jury, the compliance officer can say that the matter has been tested through the courts and no further action is required.
I just think that this has some way to run yet.
View Comment
Cluster OnePosted on10:21 pm - Oct 7, 2017
HIRSUTEPURSUITOCTOBER 7, 2017 at 21:50
If, during an investigation of alleged breaches of the SFA’s regulations, he finds evidence of criminal behaviour (e.g. fraud), he would be compelled to pass on his findings to the police. Any related SFA proceedings would need to be suspended until the suspected criminal acts have been processed by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service – and potentially by the courts.
——————-
If this was to happen? would the SFA be compelled to release a statement to let everyone know proceedings are to be suspended
AllyjamboPosted on10:42 pm - Oct 7, 2017
HIRSUTEPURSUITOCTOBER 7, 2017 at 21:50
A very fine post, HP, and I am sure you are correct, except that his investigation will be carried out under the parameters set by the SFA/Stuart Regan. I think that is enough to say that he will find nothing to take to a court of law! LNS revisited, except it’s not, and, unless independent action is taken, it never will be!
View Comment
easyJamboPosted on10:59 pm - Oct 7, 2017
Allyjambo October 7, 2017 at 22:42
HIRSUTEPURSUITOCTOBER 7, 2017 at 21:50
A very fine post, HP, and I am sure you are correct, except that his investigation will be carried out under the parameters set by the SFA/Stuart Regan. I think that is enough to say that he will find nothing to take to a court of law! LNS revisited, except it’s not, and, unless independent action is taken, it never will be!
=======================
Exactly. As I’ve suggested previously, we may find that the CO has a discussion with Andrew Dickson. The blame for the misinformation will be put on Murray Group (McGill, Horne & McMillan) pre takeover and Whyte post takeover.
Although there may be a prima facie against those named, the CO will decline to investigate further, as Murray Group is no more and those named have no role in football to be sanctioned from. Whyte has already been banned sine die, so further sanctions would be pointless. There will be no sanction placed on the club old or new, which would avoid the possibility of any other club claiming compensation for lost income.
View Comment
John ClarkPosted on1:02 am - Oct 8, 2017
easyJamboOctober 7, 2017 at 22:59
“…Although there may be a prima facie against those named, the CO will decline to investigate further, as Murray Group is no more and those named have no role in football to be sanctioned from. …”
_________
Hmmmm!
If the info provided by the club was false, and if there were to be evidence that someone responsible for the oversight of the Licensing administration either failed to spot the lie or deliberately ignored it, and granted the licence…..after, perhaps, having submitted for approval by ‘Rangers’ of the letter they were going to send to UEFA……and being told ‘ffs don’t say that!’………I would imagine that the SFA folk could be had up, either for blundering inefficiency or for collusion in what would in effect be a crime.
In that light, the SFA’s reluctance to open itself to outside investigation, even after the SPFL had asked them to join with them in doing so, seems to me to be indicative of something, especially when, all of a sudden (dead bodies disappeared?) they agree that the club’s licensing application should be looked at “to learn lessons”, with no suggestion that the SFA’s dealing with that application should be minutely scrutinised.
This is the dreadful state of suspicion and distrust that has been brought about principally by the knight of the realm, and by those in thrall to him to have sold the soul of Scottish Football as a sport by the 5-way agreement. Secret as it was.
But I think they feel so smugly safe that your scenario, eJ, is likely to be the one that is played out.
StevieBCPosted on5:06 am - Oct 8, 2017
To follow on about the dodgy dealings of Regan et al…
In recent years we have observed criminal elements being convicted for crimes – and more significantly being busted for Anti-money Laundering charges. They have to repay their ill gotten gains.
The SFA appears untouchable and unaccountable.
However, the average punter thinks that Regan and the SFA hierarchy is bent as a three pound note!
So, in the absence of UEFA / FIFA doing anything to recalibrate Scottish football governance…
Any chance of Police Scotland charging Regan with corrupt behaviour to preserve his position and generous emoluments?
I know…much easier if Regan was merely dealing drugs… 🙁
View Comment
Cluster OnePosted on9:22 am - Oct 8, 2017
CLUSTER ONEOCTOBER 4, 2017 at 22:24 13 1 Rate This
Seen this on twitter (The Clumps)and looked it up on the court rollsCOURT OF SESSION CALLING LIST Wednesday 4th October 4Walter Ferguson Smith, 26 Blackhall Drive, Helensburgh AG Neil Caisley, 7 Heath Lane, Codicote, Herts &cDrummond Miller LLP———-Is this the walter we know?
——————-
They took their time reporting on this
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-rangers-boss-walter-smith-11305289
Former Rangers boss Walter Smith sues financial expert over pension cashThe Ibrox legend has started proceedings against Neil Caisley over money paid into a fund during his time as Everton manager.
Former Scotland manager Smith is suing him over money paid into a pension fund while he was in charge of Everton in the 90s.
Smith declined to comment on the case, which was listed last week at the court in Edinburgh. It is understood another man is also being pursued by him.
A source said: “Two individuals are being pursued, Mr Caisley and another man, who did some work for him on his pension when he was at Everton. It’s money Walter feels he’s due in relation to that period in his career.”
Caisley, 59, of Codicote, Hertfordshire, was unavailable for comment last week.
The law firm involved in his action, Drummond Miller, also declined to comment.
Corrupt officialPosted on12:55 pm - Oct 8, 2017
EX LUDOOCTOBER 8, 2017 at 10:22
Remember Setanta?
————————————————————
Unfortunately ET went home, and there are too many in the country would rather remember Santa, bearing 54 gifts and a world’s most successful club trophy. The intolerance of non-believers is worse than the race and sectarian issues faced by the game and society. At least they are (grudgingly) admitted to be issues that should be faced, and dealt with.
But if you don’t believe in Santa, you are labelled a Loon.
AuldheidPosted on1:10 pm - Oct 8, 2017
Hirsute Pursue
Easy Jambo
Ally Jambo.
The main feature of the shennagins that have followed the improper use of ebts to pay players has not been to sanction appropriately but to limit the damage RFC under SDM has done to Scottish football.
“There is no question of dishonesty corporate or individual” by LNS now rings hollow in light of what is now known.
Having set up that facade (and the SFA would have known it to be such during 2011 if they had acted as a proper regulator should have done) the choice is act as a proper regulator or continue with the facade as there is no means of challenging them.
That means could be criminal law and the very possibility will have to be considered.
The game will not want to go that way so I imagine some horse trading will be underway.
The reason that anything has happened at all is that it has become public knowledge that the SFA’s explantions in private that became public and also in public about the wtc bill being in dispute/had not crystalised/ SFA had no responsibility after 31st March having granted a licence (which was actually granted on 19 April 2011) all fell away.
So how long was Regan ignorant of the truth and what was he told in Dec 2011 that stopped him issuing the statement about the liability being potentional and discussions taking place.
Was he told the truth by RFC or did they palm him off with the fear of the consequences of issuing any statement?
As a party to a process under his command Regan should be no where near setting any parameters and the Comp Off has to look at any evidence put his way or be compromised himself.
Quite a bind the SFA have put themselves in and for what?
It will be interesting to hear what the CompOff comes up with and damage limitation may continue to hold sway.
It’s a matter of what is best for our game, not what is best for the SFA.
upthehoopsPosted on1:35 pm - Oct 8, 2017
AULDHEIDOCTOBER 8, 2017 at 13:10
=============================
It was incredible that the SFA, when announcing the C.O investigation, appeared instantly to narrow the focus down to simply establishing whether Rangers misled them. You are aware more than any of us that the SFA themselves have many questions to answer which look way beyond a straightforward case of simply being misled. Thankfully Celtic have all the information they need on this. I recently wrote to the club expressing my concerns about the SFA trying to steer the investigation in their preferred direction and I have received a reply. Celtic will wait for the investigation under the agreed review process then decide on their next move if required once the outcome is known. It won’t go away.
View Comment
HomunculusPosted on3:33 pm - Oct 8, 2017
Maybe someone can explain this, what does a “tax bill crystallizing” mean.
As far as I am aware as soon as HMRC issue an assessment (bill) then the tax is due. They may hold back on enforcing the debt if the taxpayer appeals the bill however the money is due. If the appeal is successful then the bill may be reduced or withdrawn.
Looking at investpedia it defines crystallization as follows
“Crystallization is the selling of a security to trigger capital gains or losses. Once a capital gain or loss has been realized, investment tax applies to the proceeds.”
The financial dictionary provides
“The act of selling an asset and immediately buying the same asset back.
One does this for tax purposes; that is, one sells the asset in order to realize a capital loss, but buys it back because one believes it still represents a solid investment. Most tax agencies have rules forbidding or limiting crystallization.”
So I’m not really sure what people are talking about when they say that a tax bill had or hadn’t crystallized. Under appeal I can understand but not the notion of it not having “crystallized”.
View Comment
HomunculusPosted on3:40 pm - Oct 8, 2017
UPTHEHOOPS
OCTOBER 8, 2017 at 13:35
========================
Thanks for that. I suppose it makes sense to give them a chance to do the right thing, even if you are fairly certain they aren’t going to.
It took a few years after Farry blatantly cheated but he was eventually brought to task.
View Comment
paddy malarkeyPosted on4:15 pm - Oct 8, 2017
Since it’s quiet, a wee bit of football-related fun before the big kick off .
View Comment
bad capt madmanPosted on4:19 pm - Oct 8, 2017
Regarding HPs & Allyjambos posts, I’m not sure RFC directors could lay any blame on the Murray Group as Company Law is clear on directors responsibilities – it’s theirs, collectively and individually, and they can’t get away with saying a big boy did it and ran away.
Oops, they shouldn’t, but this is wee Scotland and Ra Rangers, so most laws seem not to apply.
Still amazed ex RFC currently TRFC / RIFC directors got anywhere get fit and proper to be part of Scottish football governance, and as for Ogilvie & Dickson!?
No way should the SFA be allowed to conduct any inquiry into these issues.
upthehoopsPosted on7:02 pm - Oct 8, 2017
HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 8, 2017 at 15:40
UPTHEHOOPSOCTOBER 8, 2017 at 13:35========================
Thanks for that. I suppose it makes sense to give them a chance to do the right thing, even if you are fairly certain they aren’t going to.
It took a few years after Farry blatantly cheated but he was eventually brought to task.
======================
Many people who are in a position to know believe Celtic are in possession of enough information to blow a stitched up response from the SFA out the water. I saw Auldheid speculating that some horse trading might be going on. If that is the case it would be interesting to see what Celtic would regard as a satisfactory outcome to this. If the C.O determines the licence should not have been awarded then Celtic lost out on at least £2-3m. Other Scottish clubs lost out too, so the SFA will be keen to keep themselves away from compensation claims. Why is it taking so long?
View Comment
paddy malarkeyPosted on7:31 pm - Oct 8, 2017
Ah well, too bad, never mind . Dump the auld guys and get some youth and energy into the team . It’s not like the fans can’t handle some bad results while they settle in.
View Comment
John ClarkPosted on8:28 pm - Oct 8, 2017
It’s round about now, I suppose, that the material for this year’s Celtic’s AGM will be getting put together.
Can we take it, I wonder, that shareholders will be reminded that Res 12 from 2013 has still not been formally debated and voted upon, and, as far as I know, has not been formally withdrawn?
And that the Board will confirm that they will be scrutinising whatever the Compliance Officer comes up with, with a readiness to take legal action if trustworthy evidence suggests that criminal conspiracy may have taken place?
‘Horse-trading’ in such circumstances simply will not do.The loss to a small-to-medium sized business of 2 or 3 million pounds is not so trivial and insignificant as to be blithely brushed aside.
View Comment
upthehoopsPosted on8:33 pm - Oct 8, 2017
JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 8, 2017 at 20:28
It’s round about now, I suppose, that the material for this year’s Celtic’s AGM will be getting put together. Can we take it, I wonder, that shareholders will be reminded that Res 12 from 2013 has still not been formally debated and voted upon, and, as far as I know, has not been formally withdrawn?And that the Board will confirm that they will be scrutinising whatever the Compliance Officer comes up with, with a readiness to take legal action if trustworthy evidence suggests that criminal conspiracy may have taken place?
=======================
I guess that would be a simple case of contacting the Police and telling them that they believe a crime has been committed.
View Comment
easyJamboPosted on9:28 pm - Oct 8, 2017
Cluster One October 6, 2017 at 22:14
EASYJAMBOOCTOBER 6, 2017 at 22:06
—-
If i find anything i will post
====================
Eureka. 
I’ve managed to locate my source. It was Aidan Earley on his website, from 22nd July, commenting on the action being taken by BDO against the Administrators. Thanks for your time and efforts though.
https://www.aidanearley.org/news/
View CommentPrior to the purchase of Rangers Football Club in May 2011, MCR (insolvency and restructuring specialists) were retained by Mr Whyte to advise on all aspects of the transaction. Prior to the completion of the Rangers takeover MCR was sold to Duff and Phelps for a significant initial consideration but which also included a multi million pound deferred consideration. This deferred consideration specifically related to a major insolvency case from which the vendors of MCR were hoping and expecting to earn very substantial fees. Unbeknown to Mr Whyte that large insolvency case was none other than Rangers Football Club plc. So at the time that Mr Whyte was retaining them to advise on a successful restructuring of Rangers, they actually had a direct multi million pound incentive to ensure that Rangers went into liquidation/administration instead. Following the takeover of Rangers by Wavetower (the Whyte vehicle) the MCR team, now part of Duff and Phelps, were retained to negotiate with HMRC in order to agree a solution to the various tax problems faced by Rangers. However, instead of negotiating in good faith on behalf of Rangers/Wavetower, having been retained to do so, they actually advised HMRC to reject any restructuring proposals coming from Rangers and to appoint them as administrators instead. Following the administration of Rangers the MCR vendors were then able to, and did, receive the multi million deferred consideration they had planned. This unethical, and probably illegal, treachery is evidenced in an affidavit from HMRC. Similarly, the multi million pound deferred consideration incentive is confirmed by an affidavit submitted by the CEO of Duff and Phelps in the recent Scottish trial.
Cluster OnePosted on10:09 pm - Oct 8, 2017
EASYJAMBOOCTOBER 8, 2017 at 21:28
Eureka.
————-
I kept having an inkling it was from the CW court case,so had a read of as much of JD court tweets as i could find. So then started to see if i could find all the JD Tweets in one place,could only see a byline for day one,then started to find more.
Then started to read web page after web page of D&P’s getting the administration gig then onto Duff & Phelps cleared of conflict in Rangers administration which then led me to look at Paul Clark and David Whitehouse then onto David Grier then onto BDO and had a read of more stuff, then dug out some old newspapers to see if i could find anything, then onto youtube and somehow have ended up knowing how to make skulls out of milk cartons.
i know even i don’t know how i got there
easyJamboPosted on10:38 pm - Oct 8, 2017
Cluster One October 8, 2017 at 22:09
===============
I had exhausted all the documents I have, and I too re-checked the court tweets (I had saved and copied them all during the trial) including JD, Andrew Black and David Henderson.
I eventually found it by changing my search to “MCR Duff & Phelps takeover”, and limiting it to the last year. As soon as I saw Aidan Earley’s website listed I realised where it had come from.
If what Earley says is correct about the affidavits, then those could be useful to BDO in their action against D&P, if the intention is to show that they didn’t act in the best interests of the creditors by racking up their fees.
I had mentioned it to JC when I saw him in court last week at the BDO v D&P hearing, but I couldn’t recall where the info had come from.
View Comment
John ClarkPosted on11:10 pm - Oct 8, 2017
Thinking idly of this coming week’s Court hearings, I had occasion to browse through the reports of one of the two previous cases of ‘cold-shouldering’.
I detest all financial shysters, tricksters, conmen, Del boys, and barra-boys I read with relish this little piece of the report.see http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017-1.pdf
page 11, para 27
“The Panel’s public statement of censure of Mr Morton on 23 February 2015 caused Investec to undertake a review of previous transactions in which they had acted for Mr Morton.
On 25 February 2015 Mr Hollier telephoned Mr Morton to tell him that the July 2013 purchase of Hubco shares had taken the interests of the Morton family to 31.6% of the Hubco issued share capital. The material part of that telephone conversation was as follows: 10“ EH: It looks like that took the percentage from about 28.2 to 31.6. RM: [Snort] EH: Yeah. So my compliance department have asked if you could seek advice on that now you are aware and if you could notify the Takeover Panel and get their… RM: [Incredulous laughter] EH: … opinion on where you stand. RM: Oh dear. EH: Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. RM: Shit. That’s the one that’s… where’s that listed on? EH: It’s listed on the ISDX Market which used to be .. .RM: ISDX. EH: … which used to be Plus Markets. I don’t know if it was Plus Markets whenthe trades were done. So I’m not sure. RM: [Sigh]. Right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right. Oh f*** EH: So, I’m guessing you weren’t aware of that and I wasn’t aware of that and obviously having everything analysed has brought that up. RM: Christ, I wasn’t aware of it either. Just a cash shell sitting there. EH: I know, so obviously, I’ve been asked to call you to notify you as obviously we found out this morning and I think the Firm’s position is we need to notify you as soon as we realise that there’s an issue thereand obviously they’ve asked if you can notify the Takeover Panel and obviously seek their….”
and so on. The guys acting in concert were ‘ cold-shouldered’, guilty as charged. I found that little extract quite amusing. Would it be very bad of me to hope that the next case of ‘cold-shouldering’ might be of someone known to us?
( Just noticed this post went into moderation-I forgot to put asterisks into a certain four-letter word!)
John ClarkPosted on10:22 am - Oct 9, 2017
If the SFA had over the last 5 or 6 years put as much energy and commitment into developing our national team as they put into trying to protect SDM’s/CW’s RFC(IL) and creating and supporting the Big Lie to benefit CG’s new creation ,destroying all trust in their integrity in the process, perhaps we might not yet again have been humiliated on the world stage.
If there is any consolation for us, the punters, it is in the fact that our Administrators cannot bask in unmerited glory.
Bad cess to them.
Corrupt officialPosted on10:27 am - Oct 9, 2017
The end product of an illegal and phoney financial war of foreign imports.
View Comment
HomunculusPosted on1:16 pm - Oct 9, 2017
JOHN CLARK
OCTOBER 8, 2017 at 23:10
===================================
I think we need to bear in mind that this matter is going to the Court of Session because he has refused to follow the Panel’s instructions, after having lost his appeal. If Dave King does not follow the CoS instruction then I think they may go beyond the “cold shoulder”.
If he fails to follow their instruction I imagine that would be considered contempt. That would not be a good place to be. He may end up not being allowed to be a director of a UK company for example.
On the matter of whether people would take up the offer or not, which I don’t believe actually makes a difference, how can anyone say that. For the last couple of years 25% of the shareholders have rejected the special resolution put to them. If we assume that included Mike Ashley then that would still leave 16% or so who may well just want out of the whole shambles. If they are offered 20p for shares in a failing business which is racking up debt year on year they may just decide to take it.
Interestingly that would take King to just over 30% of the holding. Would he have to make another offer at that stage. As himself / New Oasis, rather than because he led a concert party.
Last thing, maybe he is being so recalcitrant because he simply can’t afford to make the offer.
View Comment
About the author