Is Regan a DIDDY?

Is Stewart Regan,  Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish Football Association a DIDDY?

Disingenuous: Incompetent: Dishonest: Duped? You decide.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Scottish Football Monitor sorority/fraternity jury, who want an honest game, honestly governed, are invited to pass judgement on Stewart Regan, the CEO of the SFA.

The main stream media are finally asking questions of Regan’s performance in that role, but based on a rather shallow (by comparison to what he has presided over) single issue of the recruitment of a national team coach, and not his character.

Maybe we can help the three monkeys media men (you know who they are) push for change at the SFA. How? By highlighting for them the appropriate response to Regan’s performance on the basis of what follows if he really is a  DIDDY.

Disingenuous is defined as:

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

Evidence of such can be found in the written exchanges with the SFA that Celtic initiated on 27th July, and continued on 18 August, 21 August, 4th September and 7th September 2017; and published on the Celtic web site with SFA agreement at

This from the SFA letter of 18th August 2017:

Comment: the statements are not alleged, they are a matter of court record and if untrue represent perjury.


…. And then this from subsequent SFA letter of 4th September 2017

Both paras give the impression that the SFA were unaware that Rangers had accepted the liability without question before 31st March 2011. Yet the SFA’s attention was drawn to this fact in July 2015 by lawyers acting on behalf of Celtic shareholders as follows:

  • Our information in respect of this £2.8M in unpaid tax is that Rangers PLC had been alerted in November 2010 by HMRC that they would be pursuing payment of this exact sum.
  • From that date onwards, the Directors of Rangers PLC should have known there was a potential liability to HMRC for back taxes specifically relating to payments made to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer. These sums became an accepted liability in March 2011.
  • Matters had been brought to a head on 23 February 2011 when HMRC presented Rangers with a written case for payment of back tax owed in respect of Flo and De Boer.   As your department may well be aware, that case for payment involved hitherto undisclosed side letters which were found to be an adjunct to their declared and disclosed contracts of employment.
  • Those contracts of employment were, of course, disclosed to the Scottish Football authorities (including the SFA) as part of the necessary compliance procedures followed by all clubs and demanded by both the SFA and UEFA.
  • Additionally when replying to the initial enquiries by HMRC in 2005 regarding these alleged side letters and ancillary agreements, the then Group Tax Manager of Murray International Holdings (MIH)  acting for Rangers PLC on tax matters, apparently advised HMRC that no such agreements or side letters existed.
  • It ultimately proved that these representations to HMRC were completely untrue and without foundation. The tax Inspectors concerned in turn saw these false misrepresentations as being an attempt to simply hide the true financial position and an attempt to avoid paying the taxes which were lawfully due on the contracts of the players concerned.
  • As mentioned earlier, Rangers PLC accepted liability on 21st March 2011 for unpaid tax having taken legal advice on the matter.
  • In turn, HMRC then chose to formally pursue payment of the back taxes and penalties in relation to these two players, all in terms of HMRC’s debt recovery procedures under what is known as regulation 80.
  • Prior to 31st March 2011, there was clear knowledge within Rangers Football Club of the liability to make payment for these back taxes and, as can be seen from the attached documentation, by 20th May 2011 HMRC had served formal assessments and demands on Rangers PLC for the sums concerned.

The impression given by Regan’s reply to Celtic is that the first time the SFA were aware there might be an issue on granting was in June 2017 as result of testimony at the Craig Whyte trial. This is clearly not the case and the only explanation that would clear Regan of being disingenuous is a that he was incompetent as in not knowing what the SFA already had in their possession, however a bit more on being disingenuous before looking at incompetency.

The above extract of the exchange of 4th September where Regan mentions Celtic being satisfied on the UEFA Licence 2011 issue was challenged by Celtic on 7th September 2017 as follows:

“on the matter of the Licensing Decision in 2011 it is not accurate to describe Celtic as having been “satisfied” at any stage. Like everyone else we were in a position of responding on the basis of information available to us. In correspondence, Celtic raised continuing concerns as did a number of Celtic shareholders.”


In dealing with the Celtic shareholders the SFA and Regan appeared keen to welcome from the early days of correspondence that only the process after granting i.e. the monitoring phase of June and September was being questioned and not the granting itself.  That was the case initially but as new information emerged in respect of what UEFA judged to be an overdue payable, upheld by the Court of Arbitration on Sport in 2013, focus swung back in 2016 to the significance of what the SFA had been told by the Res 12 lawyer in July 2015. However the emphasis the SFA put on shareholders accepting the grant was in order was puzzling at the time. The suspicion since is that the SFA did not want the circumstances around the granting investigated and the SFA and Regan were being disingenuous in their attempts to keep that aspect under wraps. especially when their defence of not acting as required  in 2011 was based around when the SFA responsibilities on granting ended and UEFA’s on monitoring began. (for more on that read the Incompetence charge)

In response to a separate point in Regan’s  letter of  18th August about the QC advice on there not being a rule in place at the time to use to sanction Rangers or the limited sanctions available to  a Judicial Panel, Peter Lawwell responded on 21st August to Regan’s disingenuousness as follows:

” In your letter you refer to advice from Senior Counsel that;

‘there was very little chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any compliant regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would be very limited in their scope.’

As I said in my last letter Celtic considers that this misses the point. The fact that disciplinary sanctions may not be secured is in our view not a reason for Scottish football to ignore the opportunity to review and possibly learn lessons from the events in question.”


Although they didn’t refer to it in that reply of 21st August, Celtic could have pointed out the following catch all rule in existence in 2011 (and presumably earlier) under Article 5 in SFA handbook.

5.   Obligations and duties of Members (where all members shall)

5.1 Observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play.

This Article could have been used to demonstrate sporting dishonesty by Rangers FC. However by recognising this Regan would be on a collision course with an issue that he wanted to avoid at all costs;

whom to sanction? Rangers FC? The Rangers FC? Those currently at The Rangers FC who were officials or on the Board of Rangers FC in 2011?

Consequently, the SFA chose to hide behind QC advice – but to protect whom? Not the integrity of the game. Here is a suggestion to restore it:

That the Rangers FC admit that the trophies won in the EBT years were won as a result of clear wrongdoing (the wrongdoing Regan was so desperate to say never occurred – see later), and that The Rangers  give them up. Surrendering them is not being defeated, it is simply the right thing to do for the game AND for Rangers to restore some integrity to themselves.

If they want to lay claim to their history, lay claim to all of it, just be honourable and act with dignity and we can all move on.

In summary then, Regan is being disingenuous by pretending to know a lot less than he does – and on that note the case of disingenuousness ends.


Incompetence: is defined as;

lack of ability to do something successfully or as it should be done:

Whilst a CEO would not be expected to know the minutiae of any process, he would be expected to seek such information before going public to defend the SFA’s position.

On 23 October 2013, Stewart Regan had an interview with Richard Gordon on BBC Sportsound. Excerpts from it can be heard at .  Interestingly or strangely,  the following excerpt regarding the lines of responsibility between the SFA and UEFA fell on the BBC cutting room floor.

In it Regan is saying that the 31st March is a key date and AFTER that date, the SFA having granted the licence on evidence provided to the SFA (now under Compliance Officer investigation) have no more responsibility in the matter. Richard Gordon asks Regan to confirm that after 31st March there is no other course of action the SFA could have taken. To which Regan answers “Correct”.

This understanding however does not stand up when compared to the information supplied to the Res 12 Lawyer on 8th June 2016 by Andrea Traverso, Head of UEFA Club Licensing and so ultimate authority on the matter.

That letter (more famous for its new club/company designation of the current incumbents at Ibrox), confirmed that the UEFA Licence was not granted until the 19th April 2011, so Regan was wrong on his dates, but even more significantly UEFA stated that the list of clubs granted a licence was not submitted to them until 26th May 2011.

This raises the obvious question (though not so obviously to Regan);

” how can UEFA start monitoring until they know who to monitor?”

More significantly, and one for the SFA Compliance chap to consider, should the licence have been granted, irrespective of what “evidence” the SFA Licensing Committee acted on in March 2011 , when it was obvious from a HMRC Letter of 20th May 2011 to Rangers, that HMRC were pursuing payment of a tax liability which could no longer by dint of being pursued, be described as “potential” which was the justification for granting at 31st March/19th April?

Here ends the case of incompetence.


lack of honesty or integrity: defined as disposition to defraud or deceive.

The line between incompetence and dishonesty is a thin one and so difficult to judge, however some discernment is possible from observation over time.

On 29 March 2012 Stewart Regan was interviewed by Alex Thomson of Channel Four news, a transcript of which with comments can be found on a previous SFM blog of 8th March 2015 at

It is a long article, but two points emerge from it.

Stewart Regan bases his defence of SFA inaction on the fact that at the time of the interview no wrongdoing had occurred . Regan emphasises this rather a lot. Had he been an honest man, he would have confessed that this defence fell when the Supreme Court ruled that wrong doing in respect of Rangers’ use of EBTs had occurred.

This extract from Regan’s letter of 4th September 2017  beggars  belief in light of his position on wrongdoing during interview with Alex Thomson.

” The reality is that the final decision in “The Big Tax Case” signalled closure for many involved in the game. It is hard to believe that a “wide review” no matter how well intentioned and how wide ranging could ever bring closure in the minds of every Scottish football fan and stakeholder.”

How on earth did the Supreme Court decision signal closure to Regan given his emphasis on no wrong doing?

Had Regan (in response to Celtic in August and September 2017) acknowledged that wrongdoing had taken place, then that at least would have been honest, but the defence of not acting was on the grounds that admitting dishonesty would be raking over old coals. An honest man would have accepted that the situation had changed, and some form of enquiry was necessary, but instead Regan fell back on unpublished advice from a QC.

The second point is a new one. Regan was asked by Alex Thomson in March 2012

AT:   But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?

SR:   Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition

AT:   I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?

SR:   No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,

AT:   Never?

At time of interview in March 2012 this was true but 2 months later on 25th May 2012 the issue of a Judicial review WAS raised by Celtic

for the same reasons that Regan had ignored in 2011 as the LNS Commissioning proceeded apace and Regan continued to ignore in the 2017 correspondence.  An honest man would have recognised that his truth to Thomson in March was no longer true in May 2012 and acted. He didn’t.

These do not appear to be acts of an honest man, rather they appear to represent the behaviour of a man who is being dishonest with himself; although perhaps Regan was simply duped?

Duped is defined as;

“ If a person dupes you, they trick you into doing something or into believing something which is not true.”

In his e mail of 7th December to Ali Russell, then Rangers CEO , after a discussion on the 6th December 2011 with Andrew Dickson, Rangers Football Administrator and SFA License Committee member in 2011, Regan set out the basis on which the SFA granted a UEFA License in 2011.

This was a letter from Ranger’s auditors Grant Thornton describing the wee tax liability of £2.8m as a potential one with the implication that it was subject to dispute, an implication carried into the Interim Accounts of 1st April 2011 signed by Rangers FC Chairman Alistair Johnson.

The true status of the liability and the veracity of statements made that justified the UEFA License being granted are under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer.

However Regan’s belief that the liability was disputed and therefore hadn’t crystalized, is supported more or less by his Tweets at

The case that Regan was duped is a plausible one, at least up to 2015, but I would contend that the SFA responses to Res 12 lawyers after July 2015 suggest that whilst the SFA may have been duped initially, they subsequently appeared more concerned with keeping events beyond public scrutiny (like the effect on the licence issue of HMRC sending in Sheriff’s Officers to collect a £2.8m tax liability in August 2011).


At this point, based on the foregoing –

You the SFM jury are asked to decide: Is Stewart Regan a DIDDY?




Copy paste this link for GUILTY:

And this for NOT GUILTY:


The Sin of Omission by Margaret Sangster ends:

And it’s not the things you do, dear,
It’s the things you leave undone,
Which gives you a bit of heartache
At the setting of the sun.




Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

  1. fan of football

    ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 18:10
    and anyone who runs the car park has the power to deny the club the revenue of the club deck as an incentive to pay the loan

     ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 18:26
    What I was alluding to (badly) was ,that to me it looks as if sevco 2012 are in need of monies and in no short amount .

    The last time a club from ibrokes required monies to keep the club afloat the powers that be IMO helped them gain a chance to acquire money that should have been granted to another member club .

    How many times have we heard the term Scottish football needs a STRONG rangers ,all in the interests of the scottish game ,or so we are told 

    View Comment
  2. justbecauseyoureparanoid

    Re: the latest ‘development’ that the SFA now ‘wants to buy Hampden for GBP 2M’.
    [Yet the annual rent is currently GBP800K – and due to rise in a couple of years?]

    Not sure if it’s an entirely fair comparison, but if I was renting a flat for (say) £800 a month, I’m fairly sure what my landlord would say if I offered to buy it for £24,000.

    View Comment
  3. Allyjambo


    fan of footballFebruary 23, 2018 at 07:17 
    ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 18:10Indeed and anyone who runs the car park has the power to deny the club the revenue of the club deck as an incentive to pay the loan ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2018 at 18:26true What I was alluding to (badly) was ,that to me it looks as if sevco 2012 are in need of monies and in no short amount .The last time a club from ibrokes required monies to keep the club afloat the powers that be IMO helped them gain a chance to acquire money that should have been granted to another member club .How many times have we heard the term Scottish football needs a STRONG rangers ,all in the interests of the scottish game ,or so we are told

    There seems to be an assumption that Close Brothers are at war with TRFC, or will be if TRFC default. While TRFC would be in a bad place should this occur, it would still be in the lender’s best interests to ensure the club continues trading and to allow them the use of all necessary facilities. They would, of course, make a charge for this, along with pocketing the carpark revenue.

    View Comment
  4. wottpi

    ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 23, 2018 at 10:38

    I am not sure folks are saying Close Brothers are at war with T’Rangers, just that there are potentially serious consequences for the club and the Scottish game as a whole should they play hardball in the event of non payment.

    While friendly soft loans and an understanding bank may bend in the wind a bit regarding outstanding debts, the type of operation Close Brothers appears to be is one where they may indeed play immediate hardball should the cash not be forthcoming.

    While I agree they may want to see the operation continuing to ensure repayment, as a lender of last resort they will have a good idea of how precarious things are and will move very quickly if there is any sign of losing out on their deal.

    As has been discussed by others those waiting for repayment of the soft loans are now at the back of the queue. So I can’t see them being a happy bunch.

    My prediction is that Close Brothers will get paid in double quick time once the first of the season ticket money comes in but that isn’t going to help sort out the underlying problem of internal debt, a lack of a sustainable business plan, a dodgy chairman of the Plc etc etc.

    As for T’Rangers needing Euro cash to survive and prosper, last night’s result in St Petersburg shows how hard it is to make progress in the Europa Cup let alone the CL.

    Celtic put up a really good show this season when everything is taken into consideration but seemed to run out of steam last night and were easily contained at the end of the day.

    I can’t see the current T’Rangers squad going far in any Euro competition should they get there.

    View Comment
  5. John Clark

    I arrived outside Court room 8 (Lord Doherty’s court) at 9.15 a.m.

    Already waiting outside were some of the legal bods I expected to see. 

    Imagine my surprise when the doors opened at  about  9.40, and folk came out.

    When I got in , I discovered that there had been ‘Rangers’-related business already.( This may account for the balls-up yesterday in the Court Rolls). 

    A very helpful newsman ( they’re not all wholly bad!) told me that the business had been what I thought I was going to attend yesterday, namely, business relating to the BDO action v Clarke and Whitehouse ( in respect of their alleged ballsing-up of the Administration)

    Apparently, BDO was seeking more time to examine the documents they have retrieved from the Police (relating to the Administration) (remember that there had been 80,000 originally, to be sifted and sorted  and released to BDO)

    The point has now been reached, according to my source, when a hearing date has been fixed for 18th of April

    The business I sat through was business in relation to BDO’s opposition to Henderson &Jones claim on the liquidation’s funds,

    Mr Dunlop QC argued that Henderson and Jones should be asked to post additional ‘caution’ , because his clients’ expenses had already reached £38,000.
    He argued that Lord Doherty was not bound by his previous interlocutor ordering  that £25,000 be posted. Dunlop wanted that at least doubled.

    Mr McGregor argued that the interlocutor did bind Lord Doherty and that the amount of caution should not be increased before there was any final decision in the case.

    If his lordship was not with him on that point, McGregor  argued that nothing had happened, there was no break-down of the £38,000.  
    “It’s telling”,he said, that the Law Accountant’s letter on the matter contains no justification for caution of more than £25,000.
    It is premature to try to assess future expenses when note of argument and answers are still at an early stage. 

    He observed that Caution of £25,000 was lodged on 22/01/18
    And the Respondents lodged the motion seeking double the amount on 8th February!

    What business had been transacted between those dates? Nothing has changed since caution was set, and no further proceedings have ben fixed…

    Lord Doherty agreed with Mr McGregor. And awarded McGregor expenses for today’s business, as well.

    [as an aside, apparently someone charged £6,000 ( as Counsel’s fee)for a 90 minute meeting in London]

    View Comment
  6. Darkbeforedawn

    Wottpi, I think that is a very good point you make about European football and how it can not be relied upon for financial stability. It was different perhaps when the winner of the SPL automatically got into the group stages of the CL, but the current situation with numbers of qualifiers make it increasinly difficult for any Scottish side to progress far in Europe. When is the last time a side outwith Celtic got into the groups of either tournament? Whilst as a Rangers fan I would hope in future we would be able to beat amateur teams like Progres, there are so many difficult trips to places like Russia, or mid table teams from Italy or France that I cannot see us making it into the Europa League groups any time soon. Celtic too have shown that they are not a match for the larger teams in Europe, and it is no stretch of the imagination to think that an unlucky draw could see them up against a harder side than Zenit in the early qualifiers for the CL next season. I still can’t believe after all this time that teams still spend in anticipation of European football (I know Celtic don’t do this) after the lesson almost 15 years ago of Leeds United! The only sustainable model is to work within the financial certainties and any European money is a bonus to the playing squad. You work with the squad, hope to qualify for the CL or EL groups, and if you do then you spend that money on improving the squad to give you a decent shot at qualifying from the groups. There is so much uncertainty – unlucky draw, off night, bad referree, key injury – that to spend the money in anticipation is potential suicide (Leeds, Rangers etc).

    View Comment
  7. woodstein


    John Clark
    February 23, 2018 at 12:15
    “Mr Dunlop QC argued that Henderson and Jones should be asked to post additional ‘caution’ “ ——————————————————————————————
    John you have just sent me back to my first job after leaving school in September 1967. When I was told I would be training to underwrite bonds of “kayshun”and I later saw the document was named, Bond of “Caution”, I thought , here we go!?? 02
    I will refrain from telling you what I thought intestate was.07

    View Comment
  8. Homunculus


    Sorry if I am repeating anyone but the people who provided soft loans made those loans to RIFC PLC as I understand it.

    It is TRFC Ltd which has borrowed money from Close. It had to be really as it is TRFC Ltd which owns the assets over which they have security.

    In the event of a default it would be TRFC Ltd Close would take action against presumably. The major unsecured creditor would be it’s own Holding Company, not the individuals who provided loans (or quasi equity) to that Holding Company.

    So Close would get first shout on things which could actually be sold on, like the catering equipment, wi-fi, derelict building and car park. TRFC Ltd would be left with the stadium and training ground, which i am told have very limited use to anyone else, and as such limited re-sale value.

    If things go wrong the people who have provided the soft loans can basically go whistle for it.

    View Comment
  9. joes11

    Thanks to those who posted information about the Compliance Officer that I asked for.
    There is, undoubtedly, a great deal of lingering frustration as time moves on and nothing of any noticeable substance has happened to bring to account those within Scottish football who have cheated; and nothing seems to have changed that will give confidence that the same cheating will not happen again (or, indeed, is not happening again). I am saying this in general terms, not only in relation to the lack of visible action from the CO.
    I am pleased and grateful that there continue to be folk on this site giving witness to the truth of the matter; and who continue to scrutinise and comment on issues as they arise.

    View Comment
  10. Auldheid

    Basically the CO gathers evidence, compares that with what the rules say and decides if a breach occured.
    If so a case is put to a Judicial Panel Tribunal to decide whether or not the case stands up and if so apply sanctions.
    The whole process should have been more expeditious, unless some feet dragging has taken place.
    Given how long it is taking the SFA really should be providing an update and target for completion.

    View Comment
  11. helpmaboab


    Just watching the pre match interview with Csaba Lazlo Dundee Utd manager and noticed one of the sponsors on the wall behind him is none other than Close Brothers. Have they been doing this for long?

    View Comment
  12. Highlander


    johnjames site 
    When The Levee Breaks
    There are many readers who step up month after month to support our site. Since the turn of the year those few good men and women have not been joined by the lurkers who read this site every day. Some have even taken to lifting my work wholesale to provoke debate on a rival site. A site where my antipathy to two of their members is well known.

    I have therefore decided to password protect my articles until the end of this month and if it’s not a logistics nightmare roll it out in March and beyond.

    I notice that JJ is on his high horse again, complaining about somebody ‘lifting my work wholesale to provoke debate on a rival site.’

    I would genuinely have a degree of sympathy with JJ’s plight, were it not for his blatant employment of double standards.

    I recall very recently mentioning the fact that JJ had lifted an SFM blog in its entirety and using it ‘to provoke debate on a rival site,’ ie his! He had the good grace on that occasion to credit the source, exactly as SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ has done with his work on this site.

    Clearly, like the club he supports (cough cough), he thinks there’s one rule for him and another for everyone else. Is he really so deluded that he thinks the rest of us can’t see through his rank hypocrisy?

    View Comment
  13. misterlightbulbjoke

    Does anyone know if BBC journo Kheredine Issane is on holiday? I’m asking because I noticed that for a guy who would regularly post a couple of tweets per day there has been nothing since his mea culpa on Feb 3rd. Maybe he is just on holiday, I hope so. I fear that maybe he’s been banished to the cold north alongside Jim Spence in Scotland’s new version of the Gulag.If he’s not on holiday and is wandering around somewhere with his (journalistic)conscience gnawing away at him then we really should all be worried about what Rangers are doing to the press in this country. Spence being dropped like a hot potato really was a worrying day for Scottish press freedom.

    View Comment
  14. easyJambo

    Highlander February 23, 2018 at 20:03
    I have a modicum of sympathy for JJ on this occasion. He deserves no sympathy for his previous plagiarism and failing to provide links and acknowledgements, but I too would be unhappy if my work was lifted in it’s entirety for consumption elsewhere.

    If you are reliant on “clicks” for revenue, then linking to it is not enough when the full blog is copied to another forum.

    I’ve probably done it myself before with online newspaper content, which I know I shouldn’t. When I do think about it beforehand, I try to limit my selection to the key points for discussion and always provide a link, even when that link is to a publication that some readers seek to avoid at all costs.

    Also, if the source article is long then I’m less inclined to copy it at all.

    View Comment
  15. Homunculus


    I hope he isn’t talking about this blog, what have BP and Tris done to upset him. 

    View Comment
  16. Highlander


    eJ, I completely agree with you. I acknowledged having a degree of sympathy for his plight – if only he didn’t practise precisely what he chastises others for doing! 

    View Comment
  17. Allyjambo


    I have to admit I’m a bit perplexed by his reference to a ‘rival’ blog, for if it is indeed SFM he is referring to, I was unaware we were in a competition with anyone, other than those hiders from the truth in the SMSM. 

    We get it wrong in some of the stuff we write, JJ gets it wrong in some of the stuff he writes, PMGB too, CQN, James Forrest, and so on, but, to me, what matters is that we all keep the narrative going, getting it out there to a wider audience than only one blog could manage. We certainly don’t  look to be the winner, or to get ‘exclusives’, we merely seek the truth and to get it out there and we welcome those moments when someone else finds something to set our fingers talking online.

    I see the SFM role in the world of Bampots as analysts of the breaking news, putting a wider range of opinion out into the blogospher than that of one person, or supporters of one club, and, of course, keeping the truth of what happened out there, by repeating it whenever we’re encouraged to ‘move on’. This is augmented by the terrific work of our ‘court reporters’, whose work published on here is often quoted or referred to elsewhere, I’d like to think in a spirit of truth gathering rather than of any rivalry. 

    Shame some might find the need to create a pseudo rivalry. Still, I suppose, rivalry sells.

    View Comment
  18. easyJambo

    RIFC has taken the first tentative steps to gauge interest in a share issue by current shareholders.

    View Comment
  19. Homunculus


    Clearly there are other options, what are they. 

    “You have the following options :”, then listing one makes no sense. 

    View Comment
  20. Paradisebhoy


    Can anyone explain what the term non-pre-emptive means in this context ?Surely , offering shares to a select few initially is , in itself, pre-emptive . 

    View Comment
  21. Allyjambo


    PARADISEBHOYFEBRUARY 23, 2018 at 23:35

    Basically, pre-emptive rights means the shares in a rights issue must be first offered to existing shareholders in equal proportion to their shareholding, thus giving everyone the opportunity to maintain the same proportionate ‘share’ of the company that they have prior to the share offer. Any shares remaining after all rights have been exercised, or not, can then be issued to whoever the board chooses, ie themselves or preferred others.

    The last AGM passed a motion dissolving these pre-emption rights, so the board can now select their preferred shareholders and make the offer solely to them. The board will now be looking to find potential shareholders willing to take up the available shares after they’ve satisfied their own ends, ensuring no one they want to disadvantage is interested, ie Mike Ashley or the Easdales.

    I’d imagine it will be important to the board that they manage to raise some money, in addition to the debt for equity exchange, without selling any shares to the ‘wrong people’. 

    So non pre-emptive rights are rights that do not protect the position of all existing shareholders.

    Hope that helps your understanding of what they are trying to achieve.

    View Comment
  22. Allyjambo


    I’d imagine there is a link to the timing of this ‘expression of interest’ with the TOP appeal due in under a week, with the board desperate to proceed at the earliest possible date, but unable to make a formal offer until they know how the appeal goes. It is also a nice wee subliminal message that all is well, and the Titanic is steaming at full speed ahead.

    Jings, Morelos must be worth around twenty million by now, and they’ve got their first ever ‘overdraft’ facility…so many feelgood factors around Ibrox these days! Is there a money raising venture on the horizon?

    View Comment
  23. Paradisebhoy


    Thanks AJ , I get the picture . Those double hyphen words are always tricky . I assume the Club 1872 members would be considered as the “right” people . 

    View Comment
  24. Allyjambo


    Coincidental, maybe, but tomorrow’s fascist rag, the Daily Mail, carries an interview with Ian Cathro, while the Ibrox fanzine, the Daily Record, carries a story suggesting John Soutar should be a target for TRFC, as, well, they are a bigger club than Hearts!
    Oh, and Hearts just happen to be playing at Ibrox tomorrow. As I say, probably just a coincidence.

    View Comment
  25. John Clark

    easyJamboFebruary 23, 2018 at 22:51
    ‘…RIFC has taken the first tentative steps….’
    I’ve just come on the blog after a two hour long Skype to Australia. 
    Where is this advert? Is it a wind-up? 
    There’s nothing on the RIFC plc website as far as I can see. 
    Am I missing something?03

    View Comment
  26. gunnerb

    EASYJAMBOFEBRUARY 23, 2018 at 22:51
    0 Rate This
    RIFC has taken the first tentative steps to gauge interest in a share issue by current shareholders.
    This must surely be a device to allow Club 1872 to provide the funding needed to see TRFC through until season ticket monies roll in. I think that as a community trust they cannot just lend money and have to follow their stated aim of attempting to have a greater voice for the supporter by buying more shares.It has been highlighted on other password protected blogs that an obvious conflict of interest exists in the composition of the 1872 board and that of TFRC.

    View Comment
  27. John Clark

    AllyjamboFebruary 23, 2018 at 22:2
    ‘.. in a spirit of truth gathering rather than of any rivalry. ‘
    And that is key.

    As far as I am concerned, it does not matter one tuppenny damn who it is who manages to get at the truth of the 5-way agreement or the truth of the UEFA licence grant.

    What matters to me is that the truth be established. 

    How and by what means that that comes about is irrelevant. 

    The relevant and irritating thing is that the very body against whom allegations have been made seems to be able to prevent proper independent investigation into those allegations.

    That is not acceptable, whether in terms of sporting integrity, or in relation to potentially criminal activity.

    And that non-cooperative attitude makes one wonder.

    View Comment
  28. gunnerb

    Further.. As a a trust they are actually purchasing shares in a company that currently owns TRFC. What happens if that company divests itself of all sporting interests and concentrates its efforts on say, the white goods market, or textiles. 

    View Comment
  29. StevieBC


    FEBRUARY 23, 2018 at 23:02
    Clearly there are other options, what are they. 
    “You have the following options :”, then listing one makes no sense. 

    Option 2. Run!


    View Comment
  30. Cluster One

    Cluster One

    JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 24, 2018 at 01:09
    0 Rate This
    AllyjamboFebruary 23, 2018 at 22:2‘.. 
    __________________________And that is key.
    Wow! i have an exclusive.Will i win something? Yes it was me that broke it, pat’s one’s self on the back.Big smile from me,yes i was first.I did tell you all it was going to happen and i was the first to break it.I am the one,there can be only one.I’m the daddy!
    Note to myself…..Take my head out my A**
    The spirit of truth gathering rather than of any rivalry. ‘that is key.
    Don’t look for self gratification.I know what i know and they know what i know,that is more than enough for me.

    View Comment
  31. easyJambo

    @JC – The communication was only to existing shareholders, either directly by email or by electronic message via their share dealing service.

    View Comment
  32. Ballyargus


    Where’s Jimbo gone? I miss his humour and other nonsense, hurry back.

    View Comment
  33. upthehoops

    JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 24, 2018 at 01:09

    As far as I am concerned, it does not matter one tuppenny damn who it is who manages to get at the truth of the 5-way agreement or the truth of the UEFA licence grant.


    There is something just so wrong regarding how long the Compliance Office investigation is taking regarding the UEFA licence grant.  

    View Comment
  34. Homunculus


    FEBRUARY 24, 2018 at 09:10

    @JC – The communication was only to existing shareholders, either directly by email or by electronic message via their share dealing service.

    So an existing shareholder has chosen to put it online, but snipped it only to show one option.

    Or, it has been deliberately leaked like that.

    I wonder if they would be brazen enough to issue shares to just one group just now, one also wonders what they will value the shares at, as there is no market to use as a guideline.

    View Comment
  35. paddy malarkey

    paddy malarkey

    Just sneaked a peek at JJ’s site and that prologue looks suspiciously like an olive branch . Good lad .

    View Comment
  36. Darkbeforedawn

    I give it a week before JJ realised that no-one is paying for the premium content and starts free to air again (along with daily obligatory begging). It’s hard to be sympathetic to anyone (even a fellow Rangers fan 21) who launches such personal and at times disgusting attacks on everyone and anyone who he disagrees with. I also fear he is not a well man as some of his ramblings and wild theories show. 

    View Comment
  37. John Clark

    easyJamboFebruary 24, 2018 at 09:10
    ‘..JC – The communication was only to existing shareholders,….’
    Thanks, eJ ( and I wasn’t doubting the truth of your post!)19

    I have just sent this email to the Takeover Panel ‘support group’ 

    “ToSupport Group Today at 11:49
    ” Dear Support Group,

    Dave Cunningham King’s appeal against Lord Bannatyne’s order that he comply with the order of the Takeover Appeal Board is to be heard on 28th of this month.

    The following notice (presumably emailed to selected shareholders of Rangers International Football Club (RIFC plc) seems to anticipate that he will win his appeal.

    [ and I have copied the notice into the email ]

    If he loses his appeal, can RIFC plc make any kind of share-issue until King has complied with the court order?

    In the abstract, and prescinding from this particular case, are you able to say whether it is within the ‘Rules’ that a company (in the circumstances that RIFC plc presently finds itself ) is permitted to allow such a notice to be emailed to selected shareholders? 

    Yours etc “

    View Comment
  38. Homunculus


    It’s not really a share offer per se.

    It’s selling shares to selected people / groups and using equity to repay debts.

    I suspect it will be a repayment of some of the soft loans, as equity (if the lenders still want to do that), with club 1872 actually paying to buy shares which will help with cash to see out the season.

    View Comment
  39. Homunculus



    Dear Candidate,

    Thank you for your interest in this opportunity.

    The CEO of the Scottish FA is a position of national importance which will present the right candidate with the opportunity to make a real difference to the fortunes of a nation and significantly, to the future of many of the young people in it.

    Football is our national sport and touches the lives of virtually everyone in the country and many thousands of Scots abroad.   The success of the national team can influence the mood and confidence of the nation.   The fitness and health of our young people at grassroots level will shape the nation’s future.   And the success of our professional clubs domestically and in Europe is fundamental to the game.

    As the new CEO of the Scottish FA you will be expected to contribute at all levels.   Not just with our member clubs, affiliated national associations and our wider stakeholders such as sportscotland and the Scottish government, but also internationally through participation with UEFA and with FIFA, the world’s governing body.

    Football is the nation’s game and interested candidates will be aware that there is an exciting agenda and an opportunity to make an immediate mark.   The new UEFA Nations League begins in September affording the Scotland national team an additional route to qualify for UEFA EURO 2020 and some of these matches in the final tournament will be played at Hampden Park, the national stadium.   Indeed, the Scottish FA is part way through a review on whether Hampden Park should continue to be the home of Scottish football beyond 2020.

    The continued success of women’s football – Scotland qualified for its first major finals in 2017 – and our under-age teams sit alongside the performance strategy to develop young talented Scottish players for the men’s A team. The ultimate vision is to see all our national teams – men’s and women’s, boys and girls – qualify regularly for major tournament finals, with healthy representation from vibrant domestic leagues and a player pathway for all our talented young Scottish players.

    Set against this are much more mundane corporate objectives such as commercial sponsorships and broadcast agreements and staying close to the needs and aspirations of our members.   With a turnover of £34m, the Scottish FA distributed over £10m to our member clubs and affiliated national associations in 2017.   Our challenge is to continue to support our members and afficiated national associations at this level despite the prevailing headwinds such as changes to the games programme.

    The Scottish FA modernised its articles of association in 2011 to create a plc-style Board charged with running the operations and business of the Association assisted by two sub-boards, one serving the professional game and one serving the non-professional game.

    The strategic priorities of the Association include:

    Developing sustainable commercial models that deliver growth in revenues for the benefit of our members
    Implementing a performance strategy to work with clubs to develop the next generation of talented Scottish football players for the international team
    Promoting the grass roots football to deliver outcomes in our communities in so many different ways – social, health and economic
    These priorities sit within four strategic pillars – Perform and Win, Strong Quality Growth, Improving Football’s Finances and Leading the Game as set out in our Scotland United strategy documents.

    Scotland has the highest per capita attendance at football matches throughout Europe.   The Scottish FA needs to deliver to the highest standards against that level of interest and expectation.

    The Scottish FA board look forward to reviewing your application.

    View Comment
  40. upthehoops

    HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 24, 2018 at 13:22


    There is one key thing missing from that advert however it will be an unwritten rule for whoever gets the job. 

    View Comment
  41. StevieBC


    FEBRUARY 24, 2018 at 13:20
    Dear Candidate,
    Thank you for your interest in this opportunity…

    These priorities sit within four strategic pillars –

    Perform and Win
    Strong Quality Growth
    Improving Football’s Finances
    Leading the Game”


    And the 4 pillars as per the document itself;
    bull;    Perform and Win
    •    Strong Quality Growth
    •    Better financial returns
    •    Respected and Trusted to Lead”

    Mibbees the blazers are starting to learn after all?

    “Respected and Trusted” is an unrealistic target for the SFA.

    View Comment
  42. John Clark

    From the SFA’s statement of values:

    “We lead with purpose – We are committed to the principals of development and fair play and expect everyone in the game to do the same”

    Ah, maybe that’s where the fault has lain: they don’t know their ‘principles’ from their ‘principals’. 

    Their history over at least the past decade gives the lie to their ‘commitment’ to the principle of ‘fair play’.

    We know that they have failed dismally to ensure that their structures were robust enough to detect cheats, and any illicit support for cheats,
    and that their minds and hearts were corrupt enough to chicken out of dealing effectively with a discovered (not by them!) now dead cheat,or of dealing in a principled way with a current club that falsely claims to be entitled to the sporting achievements of that dead club, but resists the logical concomitant that it is liable for the debts of that dead club!

    The absurdity of the claim to be committed to ‘fair play’ is there for the whole world to see.

    And any one who applies for the job of CEO will be defining himself/herself as  being of the same stamp as the kind of cheating individual who has no concept of Sporting Integrity, and is as devious and dishonourable as the manager of a casino in which the roulette wheel and the blackjack shoes are rigged.

    Malediction be upon such an one.

    View Comment
  43. jean7brodie


    John ClarkFebruary 24, 2018 at 17:21

    I am laughing and crying at this ‘mistake’. What else can we do?

    View Comment
  44. Homunculus


    Congratulations to the Scottish Rugby Team and in particular Finn Russell.

    Absolute quality win.

    View Comment
  45. Darkbeforedawn

    Well I’m a particularly happy Scotland fan tonight after that performance! Easily our best show since it became the 6 nations. Great game and the atmosphere tonight in the capital is electric (gutted now I’ve not managed to get tickets!!). What other sport would you be out all day watching with the opposition with zero animosity. 

    View Comment
  46. easyJambo

    What now for the national stadium? 

    Years of austerity at the SFA while Hamdump is redeveloped (again), or flit along the M8 to a ready for business Murrayfield, which again today showed how good it could be for high profile games and supporting our national teams.

    View Comment
  47. Homunculus


    FEBRUARY 24, 2018 at 20:14

    Is that not kind of the business model of the Aviva Stadium.

    View Comment

Leave a Reply

SSL Certificates