Whatever Happened to the Nimmo Smith Report?

I am privileged to have the chance to post a “guest” article on TSFM. As we get used to the lights being turned out, even temporarily, on RTC, we have a new forum for analysing the various issues which concern supporters of Scottish football.

It is undoubtedly the case that most of these issues involve the Rangers FC, either directly or indirectly, together with their interaction with the governing bodies of Scottish football.

One of the matters mentioned on “The List” page here is the Nimmo Smith report. I try to answer the question about what happened to it below, and note the relevance its apparent disappearance has for the soon to convene SPL Independent Commission.

I would encourage anyone who wants to do so to contribute posts for publication to TSFM.

RTC created from nothing a vibrant community looking at serious and complex issues of finance, law and corporate governance with a huge range of expertise, and not a little humour. TSFM can build on that legacy for the good of football in Scotland, and hopefully to the betterment of our media.

Whatever Happened to the Nimmo Smith Report?

On 21st February 2012 the SFA announced that it had appointed retired judge Lord Nimmo Smith to chair an independent inquiry into Rangers FC. His panel comprised Professor Niall Lothian, Past President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland; Bob Downes, former Director of BT and now Deputy Chairman of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, and Stewart Regan, CEO of the SFA.

The Inquiry was commissioned to investigate the potential breach of a number of SFA Articles of Association and to present its findings to the SFA Board within two weeks. Article 62.2 (q) of the SFA Articles of Association allows the SFA Board to appoint “a commission … to attend to and/or determine any matter(s) referred to it by the Board.”

Stewart Regan was quoted saying: “I am delighted Lord Nimmo Smith has agreed to Chair the Independent Inquiry. I am certain the experience contained within the panel will enable us to achieve more clarity on the situation regarding Rangers FC. There will be no further comment on the investigation until it is complete and its findings presented to the Board.”

One wonders about the use of the word “independent”, bearing in mind that one of the members was the CEO of the commissioning body, and on the Board which would consider it once prepared.

On 2nd March Mr Regan had more to say, although the investigation was not yet complete.

“We are now in the final stages of our independent inquiry into the situation concerning Rangers FC. The report by The Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith is expected to be completed next week and will go to a Special Board Meeting for consideration. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment at this stage in relation to the details gleaned from the inquiry, the potential contents of the report or any possible sanctions.

On 8th March the Special Board Meeting took place to consider the Nimmo Smith Report. Mr Regan commented:-

“I can confirm that the Scottish FA convened a Special Board Meeting at Hampden Park today to discuss the findings of the Independent Inquiry into Rangers FC, prepared by the Chair, The Right Honourable Lord William Nimmo Smith. 

“Principally, it is the belief of the Board, taking into account the prima facie evidence presented today, that Mr Craig Whyte is not considered to be a Fit and Proper person to hold a position within Association Football.

“The report submitted by Lord Nimmo Smith, having been considered fully by the Board, highlights a number of other potential rule breaches by the club and its owner. The report will now be used as evidence and forwarded to a Judicial Panel for consideration and determination as per the protocol.

As such, the report’s contents will not be published at this time. Nevertheless, I can confirm that the club is facing a charge of bringing the game into disrepute.”

On 24th April Mr Regan, following the verdict of the Judicial Panel, said the following:-

“It was entirely right that the original inquiry into Rangers FC and Craig Whyte was conducted independently and chaired by the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith. These findings were presented to the Judicial Panel Tribunal, who returned their verdict last night.”

That all seems clear. Lord Nimmo Smith, with the help of distinguished people like Mr Regan, carried out a quick but thorough investigation, and the results were put to the Judicial Panel for consideration.

However Gary Allan QC, who chaired the Panel, made the following comment on page 59 of the Panel’s written decision.

“It is remarkable that throughout the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal Process there has been repeated, and regrettably wholly misconceived reference to the Report of Lord Nimmo Smith. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Judicial Panel hearing this disciplinary matter was at no time presented with the report, as evidence or otherwise, nor was it presented with any of its findings. No member of the Tribunal has had sight of it. The report was not mentioned by any party at any time in the course of the proceedings. The determinations which were reached, therefore, were reached entirely independently of any view at which any other person, however senior or eminent, may have arrived in fulfilment of his remit prior to the disciplinary hearing.”

How can the Chair of the Panel deny having seen a document which, according to one of the people who sat on the independent committee, was presented to them?

The answer is two-fold.

Firstly, at pages 2 to 3 of the Judicial Panel decision, the procedural nuts and bolts of the case are discussed:-

“The Tribunal … directed that … it would proceed to hear the evidence and submissions and proceed to Determinations in relation to the complaints against both Rangers FC and Mr Whyte.

The Tribunal … noted that … it would proceed on the basis that there was an absolute denial on (Mr Whyte’s) part of each element of the alleged breach of the rules in all its particulars.

The Tribunal directed that accordingly, and notwithstanding the fact that in its written responses Rangers FC in substantial measure admitted the factual averments and a number of the alleged breaches of the rules, … the Tribunal would require to establish a clear factual basis for its Determination of both any alleged breaches and, if applicable, any sanction against either or both Rangers FC or Mr Whyte. … The commission and the circumstances of the alleged breaches would therefore require to be established by the leading of evidence before the Tribunal …

A discussion in relation to the procedure to be adopted took place. It was agreed that the Compliance Officer Mr Lunny would lead evidence ex parte by submission and reference to documentary material but would lead no witnesses, and would invite the Tribunal to accept the evidence in that form as provided in the Judicial Panel Protocol. Mr McLaughlin for Rangers FC, standing its position on the complaints contained in the written response previously submitted had neither issues with that proposal nor any other objection to the procedure which would be adopted. An opportunity would then be afforded to Rangers FC to lead evidence and make submissions as Mr McLaughlin on its behalf saw fit. Mr McLaughlin intimated that he would be likely to lead evidence from four witnesses previously intimated to the Compliance Officer and the Tribunal in terms of the Judicial Panel Protocol.”

At the hearing the positions of Rangers FC and of Mr Whyte were totally at odds. Mr Whyte did not appear nor lodge any substantive reply. He denied everything. On the other hand, Rangers FC “in substantial measure admitted the factual averments and a number of the alleged breaches of the rules”. As the Panel determined, they needed to be satisfied of the right verdict based on the evidence, but as the “prosecution case” was generally admitted, there was less rigour about this than if, for example, Mr Whyte had attended and denied the charges.

If Mr Whyte had appeared to deny the allegations, or if Rangers FC had disputed them, then evidence would have had to come from witnesses, who could have been cross-examined. In that event it would not have been sufficient to present the Nimmo Smith report, because, for all his experience, expertise and eminence, he is not guaranteed to be infallible.

One important principle in judicial and quasi-judicial procedure is the “Best Evidence rule”. If possible, original documents should be produced, rather than copies. Items of physical evidence should be brought to the court, rather than photographs of it. Witnesses should give evidence rather than having witness statements provided to the hearing.

This, I think, provides part of the explanation for the apparently mysterious absence of the Nimmo Smith Report.

The facts of the case had been admitted by the only party who attended the hearing, namely Rangers FC. Therefore Mr Lunny led “evidence ex parte by submission and reference to documentary material”. The Panel made 108 separate “findings in fact” derived from the evidence he put forward and that of Rangers FC.

Where Lord Nimmo Smith’s committee had, for example, analysed documents and offered a conclusion upon their import, the documents would be evidence but His Lordship’s conclusion would not. Similarly where a witness had been interviewed by the Nimmo Smith commission, or provided a statement, the former judge’s views on that would not be evidence, but the witness statement would be.

Mr Lunny, the Compliance Officer, was acting as prosecutor. Effectively Lord Nimmo Smith played the role of a senior detective co-ordinating an investigation, but not actually obtaining any evidence himself. In a criminal trial, where the officer in charge of the investigation has taken no part in the accumulation of the evidence, then their relevance as a witness is very small at best. It is up to the judge or the jury to decide what the totality of evidence means as far as guilt or innocence is concerned.

Therefore whilst I am sure that Lord Nimmo Smith’s report was on Mr Lunny’s table as he went through his presentation, ticking off the relevant parts as he led the primary evidence, the Report itself was not “relevant” evidence for the Panel. It is likely that, in discussion prior to the hearing, Mr Lunny and the solicitor for Rangers FC agreed whether the Nimmo Smith report would be used or not.

Mr Regan said prior to the Panel sitting The report will now be used as evidence and forwarded to a Judicial Panel for consideration and determination as per the protocol. The presentation of the case of course was independent of him, and whilst the Report would have formed the basis for the charges laid against Rangers FC and Mr Whyte, it was not evidence itself, as agreed between the parties.

The second aspect which accords with this explanation is the precise phrase used by Mr Regan. He said, after the decision, These findings were presented to the Judicial Panel Tribunal.”

He did not say that the report was presented, rather that the findings were. As the findings would form the basis for the “charges” admitted by Rangers FC, then to that extent the Nimmo Smith report played a part in the proceedings.

This issue has relevance now for the forthcoming SPL proceedings involving player payments and registrations which might have broken the rules. To great clamour and consternation from Ibrox direction, Harper MacLeod, the widely respected and highly rated form of solicitors, have carried out an investigation for the SPL into Rangers FC.

Mr Green has made clear that, as far as possible, the case will be fought, and no past titles will be stripped if he can do anything about it. Expect calls for the Harper MacLeod report to be produced.

However, it is in exactly the same position as the Nimmo Smith report was, except this time the accused is not accepting guilt. In that case, the relevant documents and witnesses will need to attend for scrutiny and examination.

On the basis that the First Tier Tax Tribunal, which looked at different but related issues, took many days to conclude, it is highly likely that the SPL case will not have a quick conclusion.

As a final aside, I must compliment Mr Green. All of the media speculation about punishment in the event that the independent commission find guilt on the part of Rangers repeats the mantra from Ibrox that the most severe penalty, namely stripping of titles, is the aim of the SPL.

I suspect that the SPL might believe that too now, on the basis that something which the club and the fans oppose so vigorously must be a draconian penalty.

But, of all of the various penalties listed, stripping titles would not cost the Rangers FC a single penny. The issue has already seen the supporters unite behind their team. Even if the commission finds the case proven, and as a result Rangers lose some of their historic titles, this will be seen by the Ibrox faithful as yet more treachery by the football authorities. Bearing in mind that the SPL rules allow various penalties, including the power to expel the club, impose unlimited fines and place a registration embargo on the club, altering the history books is the best thing for Rangers as a business, rather than a penalty which affects them just now.

Posted by Paul McConville – www.scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com

1,330 thoughts on “Whatever Happened to the Nimmo Smith Report?

  1. Is there any indication of the Tartan Army becoming involved .

    Assuming their membership is drawn from SPL/SFL clubs, i.e., the same clubs’ supporters who insisted that their respective clubs put integrity before profit, then surely the occasion of an SFA International match would provide the ideal opportunity to express their views on said body, who, ultimately, hold the power to end the corrupt charade.

  2. Outspoken Chairman of a football club conducts club business in public to suit his agenda through the platform delivered by compliant media.

    There’s a pattern developing here….

  3. BlueSkies says:

    August 15, 2012 at 14:34

    Dear BlueSkies,

    sadly, for you and the tens of thousands of Newclub fans, most of us believe CG is playing the short game to get what he can then scamper.

    Remember when Craig Whyte was the saviour? Beware. CG might just be the next member of a tag team of businessmen out to make a fast buck at the expense of the fans.

    You’d think the fans would have learned their collective lesson after the last years disasters.

  4. re BlueSkies at 14:34

    How the hell can you lay claim to Deadcowalking having any affect or influence on last nights Glasgow Derby between Glasgows 2 oldest football clubs?

    Yes it was exciting, there were goals galore, the kickoff was delayed 15 minutes to get the large jags support in, but NOTHING that happened in that derby cup game was as a result of Deadcowalking.

    Your post is yet another nonsensical deluded post from a bear, who just doesn’t get it. In any way, shape or form.

  5. Buteo Buteo says:
    August 15, 2012 at 14:25

    Doesn’t that apply to the new Sky deal though, which begins in season 2014? Would have expected that Sky payments to clubs (via SPL?) would continue on same schedule as previous seasons.

  6. Smell the glove I do not disagree that CG is playing the short game to get what he can and then scamper. However I believe he will try and do this via a share issue. If that is successful then I wouldn’t grudge him a handsome reward. He must know he won’t make a penny if the club fails.

  7. BlueSkies says:
    August 15, 2012 at 14:34
    3 16 i
    Smell the glove says:
    August 15, 2012 at 14:49
    0 0 i
    Rate This

    BlueSkies says:

    August 15, 2012 at 14:34


    Polar opposite opinions yet a dialogue conducted in reasonable fashion. Are some on here still automatically TD The Rangers/Rangers fans? Better to follow Smell the Glove’s (and BlueSkies) approach in my book.

  8. Conspiracy theory number 187218732012
    Sell club with massive debt for £1 to old Billionaire friend ,then flee
    old friend runs up more debt while filling pockets before getting administration buddies
    to hive off assets and liquidate company
    sell assets to new friend with Billionaire friends for nominal fee, and flee
    New friend threatens to turn pitch over to sheep grazing if fans dont support him
    expensive players let go while trying to sell them for any fee whatsoever
    new players offered cuishty deal
    Sign on free transfer for’t Gers and if we’re not int’SPL by next season tha can leave on’t free
    bang Lambeg and sell season tickets to mug punters
    bring out share issue so real fans can buy stake int company they love
    win league by Christmas
    sell players in January transfer window before they can leave for free
    sell majority shareholding ,bvgger off with jingly pockets
    new company collapses ,CVA proposed to pay off debtors ,new company formed
    plea to SPL for acceptance into top league , all the fault of 2 men .
    Bang Lambeg , sell season tickets , promise share issue ……….

  9. BlueSkies says:

    August 15, 2012 at 14:34

    I would also like CG to fight his battles in private. His will to get the Rangers fans onside with a share issue coming up should not be at the expense of the authorities or other clubs.

    Too late for that – on both counts.

    1. CG has been unwisely informed (and I’m prepared to bet that IS what’s happened as opposed to his own marketing strategy) that playing to the “radical element” is the best way to get the fans onside. That disgraceful sideshow of yesterday with the comments about orange strips indicates that he’s prepared to do and say whatever it takes to part the gullible with their hard-earned.
    2. The Dundee United “did he or didn’t he pay up” saga shows no sign of going away. Trying to pin the blame on the SFA was an even less smart move. How NOT to win friends and influence people springs to mind.

  10. My post last night went into Moderation. Try again.

    The MSM and Lord Charles are playing a blinder here. All the way through this fiasco we have had numerous Bad guys, portrayed as the main culprits in the Deceased clubs demise. Craig Whyte, David Murray, SFA, SPL, SFL, The Duffers, Ticketus, HMRC, The list of Scapegoats is endless. When Green arrived he was considered to be an Asset stripper, who would fill his pockets and leave town. That to me is still the most likely outcome.
    That point in time I feel is approaching. The last few weeks has saw him desperately trying to get the Berrs onside. Verbal attacks on the SFA, on the other SPL clubs, The promise of new Players, the multi-Billionaires in waiting, the offer to Swally for a contract extension, the promise of a Share option, rumours of a new Away strip containing a kind of Tangerine colour,(made that mistake with original post), and all the while the Papers are giving him the Propaganda base to spout all this nonsense.
    Then we have the SFA playing their part, by including a Caber to**er in the International team. Regardless of who this guy is, or the circumstances of his call up, his stock rises. (remember Scheidt, Brazilian Internationalist)? Given that Green is the only Known Director of Sevco and Black is HIS property, who stands to gain from any transfer?
    The by now obviously Punch-drunk supporters of Bootleg F.C. have bought 30k of Season tickets, paid for by cash, cheque, or the continuous credit facility which may come back to haunt them. Approx £9m worth. A tidy sum for a few months work.
    Now the question. What happens if/when BDO decide to nullify the deal between Green and the Duffers on the grounds of Collusion? Charlie is left with the cash, and around seven or eight saleable assets in the form of players whom HE owns. Then of course BDO become the Very bad guys, and Charlie boy ………Well he sets up the Sat Nav………….

  11. Good Afternoon,
    Apologies if posted before.

    STV has obtained the wording of a letter believed to have been sent by the Scottish Premier League to Rangers on May 18, 2012.

    In the correspondence, the SPL agrees to meet a debt owed by Rangers to Dundee United, totaling just over £31,000, taken from competition money due to the Ibrox club for finishing second in the league in the 2011/12 season.

    The letter, from SPL secretary Iain Blair, read: “The Board of the Scottish Premier League Ltd considered the application by Dundee United that the outstanding sum due by Rangers to Dundee United of £31,031.20 be offset against the next sums due to Rangers by SPL Ltd, with the offset sum being paid to Dundee United.

    “The board decided to accede the application to Dundee United and accordingly the sum will be withheld from the next sum payable by the SPL Ltd to Rangers, and the sum will be paid by the SPL Ltd to Dundee United.”

  12. One who won’t be signing!,

    Keith Downie ‏@STVkeith

    Rangers Brazilian trialist Andre Moritz says: “My time with Rangers has come to an end, I enjoyed it but it was not meant to be.”

  13. Blueskies how much are you personally willing to risk on buying shares that in all likelihood will be non voting at least now you would get a share cert with rfc on it rather than sevco Scotland but then would that matter to you
    what are the risks of green using another company as a holding company to dilute the share holding of anyone stupid enough to buy sevco Scotland shares

  14. So where is the 2.5 mill prize money that sevco waived ended up exactly ?

  15. So the Dundee Utd money was agreed to be deducted from “the next sum due to RFC(whichever version) from the SPL.”

    Our Arabian friends may have to wait a few years for that, then.

    Puts a slightly different slant on the DU statement this morning – it sounded a bit indignant on first reading, but perhaps it was just a sim[ple clarification that the debt due to DU had not been paid – for whatever reason.

  16. blu says:
    August 15, 2012 at 15:02
    Might not have got the TDs if he’d not tried to attribute other lower league teams playing well and producing surprise results to TRFC being in the lower leagues now. What’s that got to do with it? Would the 4-5 result not have happened without TRFC (who didn’t play last night), have surprise cup results never happened before?

  17. A legal view?.

    Gregory Ioannidis ‏@LawTop20

    A contractual breach of a broadcasting agreement may give the innocent party the right to terminate the agreement

    5m Gregory Ioannidis Gregory Ioannidis ‏@LawTop20

    If money is not paid to the clubs, we will be looking at possible contractual breaches in relation to their broadcasting agreements.

    Gregory Ioannidis ‏@LawTop20

    If a club decides to terminate the broadcasting agreement with the SPL, such club may consider moving away from collective bargaining.

  18. What CG does, whatever his end game is, depends on too many unknowns at this moment to say for sure but ultimately, he could sell off the assets / stadium / land.

    That is of course, if he actually owns them and if BDO don’t annul the deal.

    I’m sure it’ll all come out inthe washing, hopefully soon.

    We all want to know the truth. When the truth is out in the open, it’ll be easier to deal with what needs to be done to save our football.

  19. Mr Bunny 3:29 – I plead guilty to having glossed over the sentence you refer to and having re-read agree that it’s too much to accept that all is well with the world of SFL 3 simply because newclub is there. However, would that merit all those thumbs down? The reason I raised the matter anyway is that I believe the blog will be enhanced by the widest range of contributors and that to automatically have a negative response to a contributor because of the team she or he supports will make that more difficult. A lot of people using the site have very similar views and that leads to a danger of groupthink where these views are simply reinforced without healthy challenge and scrutiny. So Blueskies, Danish Pastry, Jimbo etc. should be welcomed, if not always agreed with. I believe that PL/TSFM is working hard at minimising trolling, and with some success, but posters such as Oldgold (multiple IDs) and Adam on RTC did add value as others raised their game and challenged their input vigorously.

  20. BlueSkies says:
    August 15, 2012 at 14:58

    Ah! The share issue. Now we don’t yet know the fine print details of what the offer will eventually be. Will the shares be for the holding company of the club? Will they be for the club itself? Will the shares have voting rights for one, both or neither? I hope the bears will be clearly informed by Mr. Green when the time comes prior to money changing hands.
    I assume you are of the blue persuasion BlueSkies. What would you be prepared to buy into of the above options, if of course you were going to do so? I have seen posts on other boards where bears laudably talk about buying shares, seats on boards, making decisions. Great, and best of luck if you think you can get it. Maybe most are happy with the photocopied bit of paper with “shareholder” printed on it, hanging on the wall in a glass frame.
    However, I have to wonder how gullible Charlie Boy thinks the average bear is, and what he thinks he’s going to get away with.
    (Google the recent Man Utd/Glazier share issue to see how its done)

  21. Torrevieja Johnbhoy says:

    August 15, 2012 at 15:17

    I almost stopped at “STV has obtained…”.

    As any fule must kno by now, STV are the mouthpiece of choice when RFC (any version) wants to put their spin on the news. The first question anyone should be asking is why the SPL are picking up a debt incurred from an SFA-sponsored tournament.

  22. campsiejoe says:
    August 15, 2012 at 12:57
    20 0 Rate This
    This is all going to end in tears
    The SPL are now saying they can’t pay the clubs or SFL the money they are due, and it’s all the fault of RFC (IA)
    Another PR coup by Donkey !



    Campsiejoe; agreed, it certainly is.

    This is the price that Scottish Football has to pay for the SPL/SFA shenanigans; delay caused by their inability to make decisions and abide by rules is directly effecting a large number of clubs. The blame for clubs having financial problems due to this shambles is right at the door of the Scottish Footballing authorities.

    Good that they’ve cleared that up. Exit door is till open guys; you can walk out now if you want.

  23. I can’t believe the media today particularly Sky Sports News.That the arrogant, self indulgent cricketer Kevin Pietersen is given precedence over the young footballer Maurice Muamba who has been advised his career is over is absolutely scandalous.A young man’s livelihood is gone yet the media are more interested in tittle tattle about text messages.
    Off topic,sorry.

  24. On what basis did the SPl authorise this payment to Dundee United – rangers have no monies due to them by the SPL and any they did had to go to the administratore for the benefit of all creditors. They had no legal right as far as I can see to undertake responsibility for discharging this debt – it belonged to RFC ( IA) – and the sum should have been paid by them or the requisite percentage once the assets had been disposed of.

    I believe this to be a clear and blatant attempt by the SPL to circumvent Scots Law as regards the lack of preferential creditors- as such this is a very serious and probably illegal undertaking and commitment made by the SPL.

    Any legals on here tell me if this transfer of undertaking is or can be valid.

  25. Off topic, Hi, to Joburgtim of this parish, Good to hear that you are home and recuperating after triple-bypass op. Get well.

  26. Been reading how “rangers waived their £2.5m SPL prize money”.

    This is the latest of a very long episode of disinformation.

    To any bemused and/or angry bears reading this, let your mind accept that Charles Green is in charge of a completely new football club and everything will make perfect sense.

    You will also, in an instant see right through who does (and more importantly, who doesn’t) have your best intentions at heart.

    Don’t be mugs for a third time. Open your minds.

    Serious post

  27. 5StarsorBehindBars @ 16:03

    It wasn’t inability, it was a blatant refusal in order to achieve their desired outcome
    The clubs themselves can bring this to an end, if they have the guts and will to do it

  28. BlueSkies says:
    August 15, 2012 at 14:58
    10 5 i
    Rate This

    Smell the glove I do not disagree that CG is playing the short game to get what he can and then scamper. However I believe he will try and do this via a share issue. If that is successful then I wouldn’t grudge him a handsome reward. He must know he won’t make a penny if the club fails.


    How much do you think Mr Green will try to raise via a share issue, and how much of that do you think will go to the new PLC.

  29. The Iceman says:
    August 15, 2012 at 16:13

    ” ….. On what basis did the SPl authorise this payment to Dundee United ….. ”

    The alleged letter was sent from the SPL by secretary Iain Blair on May 18th. What probably has happened is that our good friend “Diddy” Doncaster, by that date, had already decided that Sevco was to be parachuted into the SPL, and at that time, it probably looked to him that he would get away with it. Thus any early season income due to “SPL Sevco” could be diverted. On this possible assumption, the mentioned letter went out. What he didn’t account for, once again, was the pressure from the internet bampots.

  30. No one will buy the shares. Who will be stupid enough to underwrite it? Most football fans are skint. A season ticket is a struggle for folks these days. The share issue will flop.

  31. Maurice Muamba’s career is over and I’m getting a TD from some numpty?

  32. Bearing in mind that the fans maintain that club and company are two separate entities, it will be interesting to see how Charlie sells the share issue to them

    Will he be telling them that they are buying shares in the club or the company ?
    Will he explain to them that the shares will be in the company and not the club, and if it goes the way of its predecessor, their shares will be worthless ?

    This could be interesting

  33. First time I’ve contributed on the new site. Glad to see the good work of RTC continuing. The whole mess surrounding Sevco is becoming depressingly familiar. There seems to be a concerted effort on the part of a number of groups, MSM, SPL, SFA and Sevco to muddy the waters and generally create such a mess that everyone involved is sent into a tailspin. This latest farce with the money due to DUFC is typical. Message heralded from CG about paying everyone – not quite the whole truth there Charles. SPL agreed with Rangers to pay the money out of Rangers ‘winnings’ for last season. A big hole in that argument is that the money was wone by oldco and is not in the gift of newco to agree anything. SPL use convenient excuse about Rangers financial mess to delay paying clubs – conveniently putting some of them into an awkward position.
    Meanwhile Campbell Ogilvie is still pulling the strings at the SFA despite being heavily compromised in all this.
    Rangers fans sense of entitlement is only matched by their arrogance towards all and sundry. Threats and triumphalist language coming from the sevco leadership.
    The game is set up to have only one outcome here.
    There are so many threads to this mess, so many unresolved issues, outstanding tribunal results, hearings etc that it is difficult to know where to start and this, I think, is part of the big plan. What is needed here is to pull together these threads, keep a note of the issues outstanding and keep them in plain sight. If they are lost then those with the agenda to maintain the status quo have won.
    Can I suggest that we pull our collective resources on this and document all the various things that are still unresolved and remind ourselves of the extent to which this club, new or not, are trying to walk away from any responsibility because ‘they are the peepul’.
    RTC started the ball rolling and kept up to date on all the pertuinent issues. I think the baton has been passed to this forum to maintain the same high standard and be as much of a pain the backside to the establishment as RTC and the other bampots.

  34. @threeamigos, a lot of lurkers seem to TD just for the hell of it. BTW it’s Fabrice Muamba (we all knew who you meant), and I agree with your original post in the subject.

  35. campsiejoe says:
    August 15, 2012 at 16:48


    You have to bear in mind that is nonsense though, all the talk of “holding companies” and separate legal entities is for the gullible.

    Rangers the club became Rangers the company became Rangers the PLC. It is and always was the same thing. That is the business which will be liquidated and wound up.

    The new PLC will be no different Sevco the company will become Sevco the PLC. That is what people will be buying shares in.

    It really is rubbish when you think about it, how does one actually buy and trade shares in a football club, how does it float on the stock exchange, by what mechanism is this achieved.

  36. WIlling to be corrected but I am sure that at the time there was many a call for the second place prize money to be withheld and used to help the other clubs.

    That seems to have been agreed and that is what Dundee are implying being that they are saying the matter now rests with the footballing authorities.

    Given the supposed Armagedon one has to wonder why such a paltry sum has not be forwarded to the Arabs before now.

    Perhaps everyone has been so involved on bending over backwards for T’ Rangers that they have forgotton about all the honest tax paying clubs.

  37. Smell the glove says:
    August 15, 2012 at 16:42
    No one will buy the shares. Who will be stupid enough to underwrite it? Most football fans are skint. A season ticket is a struggle for folks these days. The share issue will flop.
    Your forgetting the gullibility factor of the ragers support ,IMO they will be queuing up with their kids piggy banks to throw their money into a share issue .

    Just look at how easy it has been for the MSM ,Sally and CG to brainwash the supporters into thinking …..Stop kicking us when we are down and we have been punished enough .
    Any sane person can easily see that everyone has bent all the rules to pretend they still exist but ask any ragers fan and they will tell you different.
    It will be like taking candy from babies for old Charlie bhoy .
    The fans have been used to pay for any shortfall that could not be gained from bank debt or the taxpayers ,now though the banks won’t lend and HMRC will be more vigilant ,so that only leaves the Loyal fans ,once they wake up to what is going on the game will be up .
    Before the share issue is launched there will be a prolonged campaign from 2012 fc and the LL /MSM to ensure the fans have enough of a siege mentality ,that they will not even ask where the share issue money will be going .

  38. Oh dear, it seems I have been dopplegangered (is that a word).

  39. 5Star
    it’s not lack of ability to make decisions that’s causing delays.
    There is a cabal operating at Hampden who’s agenda, whatever the cost, is to get ‘THE rangers’ back to the SPL by hook or by crook. Rules integrity, honesty , ethics have no meaning for this click.
    I keep saying the battle here is not about a rotten club, but about the very survival of the game in Scotland. I don’t believe most people on here realise how precarious the position of the game is at the moment. This cabal is prepared to distroy the game if they don’t get their way.

  40. Sevco didn’t exist on 18th May and a company cannot contract before it is incorporated. Some journos appear “confused” and are mixing up Newco (SevCo) Rangers and Oldco Rangers the same thing? Here’s an easy recap/Q&A for them….

    Q. OldCo qualified to play in the Champions League. Are Newco allowed to play in the Champions League?
    A. No
    Reason:- New clubs are not allowed to play in Europe until at least 3 years after they have formed. Accounts are accepted as evidence of this. NewCo are a NewCo and can’t play for 3 years.

    Q. OldCo had £134m of debt. Do Newco now owe this £134m?
    A. No
    Reason:- The debt is due by the Liquidated company. There can be no obligation on a separate 3rd party (Newco) to pay this debt (albeit that there is nothing to prevent a 3rd party paying another person’s debts).

    Q. Was OldCo a “holding company” in a Club?
    A. No
    Reason:- A club cannot have a holding company. A club is a joint venture (more than one person/entity) with members (and a register of members), a committee and officials. All members are personally liable for the debts of the club, whether incurred by the committee or it’s agents. There were no members, officials or committee. No one but the company is on the hook for £134m. (Happy for someone to step up!)

    Q. Did the SFA membership need to be transferred from Oldco to Newco?
    A. Yes
    Reason:- The SFA membership was in the name of OldCo. It was OldCo’s who required to demonstrate that they adhered to the criteria for membership. This membership allowed only OldCo to play professional football in Scotland in Europe. It did not allow any 3rd party (whether it be NewCo or some fictional “Club”) to play football in Scotland and Europe. In order to play professional football in Scotland in (eventually) Europe, NewCo required to have a licence in their name. They elected to do this through transferring the membership of a separate company which was soon to be liquidated.

    Q. Have NewCo been deducted 10 points for being in Administration?
    A. No
    Reason:- OldCo are in administration. They are no longer members of the SFA. NewCo are a separate company and a new club. They are not in Administration and therefore cannot be deducted 10 points.

    Q. In order to transfer membership, Newco have agreed to pay some footballing debts and fines. Is this because they are the same club?
    A. No
    Reason:- New clubs should apply for fresh membership of the SFA. NewCo couldn’t do this as they didn’t have 3 years accounts. They asked if they bypass this and have OldCo’s membership transferred to them. They were told that couldn’t be done while OldCo owed money to the SFA, members and UEFA members. There may also be further monetary sanctions taken against OldCo for matters still under investigation. If these monies were paid, the licence would be clean and capable of being transferred to the NewCo. Undertaking to pay a 3rd Parties debts does not make you a 3rd party. (It is now doubtful whether they will/have paid this)

    Q. When were NewCo formed?
    A. 21st June 2012
    Reason:- Check companies house

    Q. Are there any benefits to NewCo and OldCo being separate companies?
    A. Yes
    Reason:- NewCo do not have to repay £134m of debt. They have no titles that can be stripped. They do not have the shame of having run a tax scam. They do not have the shame of having cheated through financial doping. They have never had a sectarian signing policy. Their fans have never rioted at any European finals.

    Q. If you believe enough and clap you hands, do fairies/Rangers still exist?
    A. Yes
    Reason:- Don’t worry your pretty little head about the reasons. Just pay your season book money and put your teeth under your pillow and in the morning Daryl King will have placed a shiny new penny/team there for you. Go back to sleep. 🙂

    Q. If I bake some wafers, cover it in chocolate and wrap it in some paper that I coloured in red and call it a Kit Kat, is that a Kit Kat?
    A. No
    Reason:- You may have made a biscuit. It ain’t a Kit Kat.

  41. Best Wishes to Maurice Muamba. Tragic but at least he is alive and hopefully will enjoy life.

  42. Senior says:
    August 15, 2012 at 17:13
    I totally agree ,the lengths the football authorities have went to already is frightening ,It is no wonder that real football fans are being turned off by our game ,it’s seems they don’t matter to the authorities ,in fact in their eyes during this whole scandal the fans have been nothing but an irritation and hindrance to their plans .
    I remember the words of a man who brought Scottish football it’s best ever achievement ,they would be wise to heed that mans words before it’s too late (if it isn’t already )

  43. I, like many others, screamed about the money due to Rangers (IA) being held back to pay other clubs. Perhaps an understandable knee jerk reaction at the time but in the cold light of day not lawful.

    It may be that within the SFA/SPL rules there is a provision which enable money to be deducted to pay other clubs, however this is always subject to the Law of the Land.

    The fact is that Rangers(IA) are due that money and it must be given to D&P or the liquidator. This will stick in many throats but it is the Law.

    To pay football creditors would be a fraudulent preference and as such challengeable.

    It is not a preference for a third party such as RFF to pay, as they did, Dunfermline, but for the SFA/SPL to pay with the consent and concurrence of D&P would in my opinion be unlawful.

    So the prize money is due to the Oldco. If the SFA/SPL paid it out the leave themselves with a claim from D&P or, when appointed, the Liquidator.

    This has been a shambles from day one. It is, and has been, a conspiracy at the highest level.

    Given the delay by the Judiciary I am now, perhaps somewhat controversially, beginning to wonder if they are all in on it. Open for debate?

    The SFA have treated the Judicial process with contempt but nothing has been done. Is the delay in getting rid of D&P and appointing BDO a plot to allow things to reach such a level of chaos that it may be better to accept what it now is, rather than, as ought to be done, unravel the whole knitting?

    Murray to Whyte to D&P to Green to chaos and confusion with everything in between part of a game able only to be orchestrated with Ogilvie and his underlings.

  44. Sugar Daddy says:
    August 15, 2012 at 17:45
    0 0 i Rate This

    Football club/company share flotations are not flavour of the month.


    I would think CG consortia view a sale to some wealthy Bears as a more likely short term exit.
    Did Miller not say it would take 30m to get 2012 fc back on an even keel ,that ain’t going to come from any buyer (unless they share your nom de plume ) ,It’s the gullible fans or nowt IMO.

  45. When playing catch up RTC site, it was always useful to spot a great post by the high number of thumbs up.

    Is it possible to add this function to this new site …. Anyone?

  46. threeamigos says:

    August 15, 2012 at 18:03.

    I am and I agree but could you care to expand?

  47. Philip José Farmer @ 17:03

    I know that, you know that, and most sane, rational, sensible people know that
    However ………………………………………..

  48. Smell the glove says:
    August 15, 2012 at 16:42

    No one will buy the shares. Who will be stupid enough to underwrite it? Most football fans are skint. A season ticket is a struggle for folks these days. The share issue will flop.
    Twelve months ago, RFC fans were saying “we’ll never go bust, there’s too many millionaires sitting in the main who won’t let that happen”.

    Where were they on 14 February, where were they before RFC went into administration. Perhaps they’ll come forward now and snap up the shares. Aye right!

  49. jonny says:
    August 15, 2012 at 17:05

    I don’t remember too bears being killed in the rush when Minty did his share issue a few years back – was it something like £1m from fans and about £50m from his companies ? (aka HBOS aka you and me and taxpayers throughout the land)

    “loyal” they may be but there’s no great track record of them backing that up with cash

  50. campsiejoe says:
    August 15, 2012 at 16:32
    13 1 Rate This
    5StarsorBehindBars @ 16:03

    It wasn’t inability, it was a blatant refusal in order to achieve their desired outcome
    The clubs themselves can bring this to an end, if they have the guts and will to do it

    Senior says:
    August 15, 2012 at 17:13
    37 0 Rate This
    it’s not lack of ability to make decisions that’s causing delays.


    Guys, yes, sorry. Point taken. Don’t know what I was thinking giving them any credibility, apologies.

    BTW, does anyone know what happened to the SFL “no confidence” motion in Stewart Regan that was kicked into the long grass ? Any SFL meeting coming up where this is going to be back on the table ?

  51. Just heard a caller on SSB there saying that Celtic fans should stop fretting about trfc and concentrate on their own teams poor performance (?!?!?!?!).

    That is the single most dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, but shug gave him airtime.

    Shug stopped being a pundit a long time ago and now sees himself as some sort of bargain basement football version of Jeremy Kyle.

    That does it for me. No more!!!!!!

  52. Rocky sullivan says:
    August 15, 2012 at 19:15

    the great irony is that if rangers fans had done some fretting about their club it might just still be in existence – unfortunately (for them) their WATP instincts made them believe it just couldn’t happen to them

  53. Rocky sullivan says:

    August 15, 2012 at 19:15

    That does it for me. No more!!!!!!

    rocky, i salute your indefatiguability.

  54. blu says:

    August 15, 2012 at 15:02(Edit)

    Polar opposite opinions yet a dialogue conducted in reasonable fashion. Are some on here still automatically TD The Rangers/Rangers fans? Better to follow Smell the Glove’s (and BlueSkies) approach in my book.


    TDs are not only expressions of distaste or disrespect, but also of simple disagreement.

    I’d be happy to see TUs or TDs as a substitute for the venal nonsense that sometimes takes us over.

    The debate between these two is valid and instructive. Perhaps as Blue Skies makes his points, the TDs will diminish?

    I think that Blue Skies (who is not the old Blueskies) has a valuable contribution to make based on what he has posted today. It is useful (as was the case with Adam before he took to trolling full time) to hear the viewpoint of a Rangers fan who is keen to put a counter argument to the consensus here – and without vitriol. I have no doubt that he will be, as we all are, robustly challenged. And treated with repsect.

  55. Because of the corrupt SFA I’ve no interest in the Scotland game tonight
    Sad times indeed

  56. Just because you’re paranoid…… says:

    August 15, 2012 at 19:26(Edit)

    the great irony is that if rangers fans had done some fretting about their club it might just still be in existence – unfortunately (for them) their WATP instincts made them believe it just couldn’t happen to them

    I used to subscribe to that theory, but I think by the time RTC had started out, and even a year before that, it would have been too late to reverse the course of history for Rangers.

    The reason the veil of secrecy was drawn is that Murray knew after Hector’s first assessment, that RFC would be liquidated unless he could find someone who was willing to throw £80m on a bonfire. He needed to put some distance between the death of the club and his stewardship of it.

    To date he has been relatively successful, partly due to the MSM soft pedaling over his part in RFC’s downfall, and the confidence trick played by Charles Green’s Sevco and the football authorities which has attempted to convince fans that RFC never in fact ceased to be.

  57. There’s not much change in BBC Scotland’s football “line-up”, despite the events of the past 12 months and the on-line shredding of so many reputations.

    “Doddsy” was in top form tonight. Talking about Scotland’s World Cup qualifying campaign, he identified Belgium as the favourites in the group. “They’ve got players like Kompany, just to name a few.”

    Playful linguistics?

    No, sorry.

    He’s just an idiot.

  58. As we’re back trying to help our friends within various stakeholder organisations understand that Newco does not equal Oldco (should be game, set and match after Charlie Sheen’s post at 17.22) – a quick point from me. The following Charles Green comment from a statement on the day before the SPL vote is probably the utterance which has enraged me most through this whole saga.

    “Tomorrow is not a vote for ‘Rangers out’, it could be a vote for other clubs to be closed down and that again is unfair that some fans would lose their clubs.”

    So, Charles is presumably suggesting that for many SPL member clubs the resultant financial armageddon could result in administration then liquidation, and ultimately, no more club. Not loss of a holdco or a legal entity – actual ceasing of existence of a club, and all its associated history, titles and trophies.

    Perhaps I’m unfairly taking advantage of an inadvertent word choice to evidence his hypocrisy, or perhaps Charles was just demonstrating that he in fact has an exemplary understanding of corporate law……..

    Apologies if this was pointed out on RTC at the time, if it was I missed it.

  59. blu says:
    August 15, 2012 at 15:51
    Fair enough but remember the TU/TD is a crude instrument and is used by different posters for different reasons (maybe even by the same poster for different reasons). It may be argued that we shouldn’t bother having them as an option but if we do and people are going to use them, it’s best to be thick skinned about them and realise even if you get a lot of them it’s not the same as folk calling you names or saying you’re talking rubbish (well not necessarily so anyway).

    Obviously if there is something you strongly disagree with it’s better to put it in a post and explain yourself but some folk only have time for a quick run through the posts and use them to give a quick – though sometimes unclear – reaction.

  60. Bill says:
    August 15, 2012 at 19:46

    I sadly agree with you Bill.

    I wonder if TSFM (the blog and not the person) could somehow flex it’s muscles towards the SFA? My hope is that the heavily conflicted CO be removed from his post.

    He may not be the ultimate puppet master in this mess, but he is in my opinion pulling the strings at the SFA. If he can be unseated it may create a crack in the dam.

  61. If Alan McGregor has no club, how does he manage to get a game for Scotland?

  62. The previous Rangers’ share issue (2004)


    The important numbers

    “Murray MHL, in which Murray holds a controlling stake, has taken up rights to 11.8m new ordinary shares and also subscribed for a further 38.5m – a total commitment of Pounds 50.3m.”

    “Some 3390 existing and 1263 new Rangers shareholders also subscribed. They invested an average of Pounds 248 each, raising additional sums of Pounds 848,465 and Pounds 307,530 respectively.”

    The fans put in c£1.1m, David Murray’s company put in c£50m

    He really had no option as he had underwritten the share issue with his own businesses.

    One last part

    “My job is to sort out the financial stuff . . . it’s a different philosophy at Rangers now. It [the newmoney] is all going to square the books off.”

    “Murray expects Rangers’ net debt to be cut to Pounds 10m-Pounds 15m by the end of the financial year next June, down from Pounds 74m at the end of 2003-04. Such a figure would be roughly on a par with Old Firm rivals Celtic.”

    “Murray would like to go further, though. “It is still my intention to cut the debt back to nothing.”

  63. Hoopy 7 says:

    August 15, 2012 at 17:38

    The only reason there is no question about Rangers right to prize money from last season is that the SPL AND Rangers delayed the investigation into player registration.

    Had that happened in a timely manner and the case proved and points deducted there would have been no entitlement at all to the prize money that the SPL should have divided amongst all clubs.

    Rangers would have been owed nothing by the SPL and whilst the footballing creditors paid from the proceeds would not have received what they were due, all clubs would have received something. All clubs not owed anything by Rangers have a claim on the SPL for the difference in place prize money they should have received had the SFA and SPL acted timeously.

    The debt to football that CG claims has been paid by him has in fact, as per norm, been paid using other people’s money.

  64. Philip José Farmer says:
    August 15, 2012 at 20:43
    0 0 Rate This
    The previous Rangers’ share issue (2004)
    The fans put in c£1.1m, David Murray’s company put in c£50m

    So my fading memory got that one right ! (just don’t ask what I had for tea yesterday)
    there is no way on god”s green earth that the bears will pitch in to give arthur daly his wedge

  65. Just because you’re paranoid…… says:
    August 15, 2012 at 20:55


    I have to say if the share issues is going to rely on the support buying the shares then like you I think it is unlikely to be a success.

    The idea could be to sell to institutions as well, but they have hardly been clamouring over each other to get a bit of the private company, so why would they buy into a floatation. Particularly of a football club, in Scotland, in the fourth division, with little tv income and no European football for a few years.

    One part of me says there has to be a share issue, but another part asks “who’s buying”.

  66. HengistPod says:

    August 15, 2012 at 15:25

    So the Dundee Utd money was agreed to be deducted from “the next sum due to RFC(whichever version) from the SPL.”

    Our Arabian friends may have to wait a few years for that, then.

    Puts a slightly different slant on the DU statement this morning – it sounded a bit indignant on first reading, but perhaps it was just a sim[ple clarification that the debt due to DU had not been paid – for whatever reason.

    One reason might be that the SPL have no next payment to make to Rangers as long as they remain out of the SPL. By then it may turn out there was no payment due last season either. In either case Rangers did not clear their debt with their money, which is the impression CG tried to give.

Comments are closed.