Campbell Ogilvie


Campbell Ogilvie is already a man of quite some distinction.  However, his list of accomplishments might be about to become a bit longer.  It appears that he has sat on the board of directors of not just one SPL club entangled in highly dubious tax schemes, but two.  Heart of Midlothian FC look likely to be the next shoe to drop as football’s culture of thinking that it is above paying taxes starts to unwind.

Ogilvie, the current SFA Vice-President and heir apparent to George Peat’s job of President, is going to have quite the CV by the time he hangs up his pinstripes.  Not only was he a director of Rangers FC when the EBT scheme was first introduced, but he was also the company secretary.  This latter role gave him additional responsibility for ensuring statutory compliance for The Rangers Football Club plc.  So while some Rangers directors, like John Greig, might have a claim that their position was symbolic, and they did not understand what was happening or what their responsibilities as a director are, it will be difficult for Mr. Ogilvie to do likewise.   As a man with substantial experience and training, he will find it difficult to claim that he did not know or understand what was happening.  (He may try anyway).

However, Ogilvie seems likely to find himself in the unique position of being at the center of yet another tax avoidance/evasion storm.  On leaving Rangers in 2005, Ogilvie joined the board of Heart of Midlothian FC, and in 2008 became managing director of the Edinburgh club.  A source has contacted me with the story that the Scottish Professional Footballers Association (SPFA) has made a complaint about employment practices at Hearts. This came to light when a Hearts player applied for a mortgage.  When presenting his salary advice, it was clear that he was on a rate close to the UK minimum wage. The player naively explained that he had lots of money, but that it was all paid overseas.  The SPFA would obviously have concerns that Scottish players will appear expensive in an era of 50% marginal tax rates compared to low-tax (or no-tax?) foreign players.  This raises a few questions: How many players are involved? How long have such practices been in effect? Are there players who have not been registered for tax at all in the UK? The scale of the Hearts problem is not yet fully known.  If this has been standard practice over an extended number of years, then the bills, interest, and penalties could also be of a magnitude that could put the existence of Hearts at risk unless Mr. Romanov decides to dig deep into his personal reserves.

Once could be just a mistake.  Twice looks very careless.
Scottish football supporters, as well as SFA member clubs, have a right to know “what did Campbell Ogilvie know, and when did he know it?”

It appears that one of two situations must exist: either Campbell Ogilvie knew of, and approved of, two high-risk / illegal tax strategies or he has failed in his responsibilities as a company director at two major Scottish football clubs.  Does Mr. Ogilvie have a casual disregard for the law or is he just an ignorant puppet dancing on the strings of charismatic impresarios?  Either way, it would be a matter of major concern to all those with an interest in Scottish football if either is true.  If there is another explanation for why he has had such a knack of being on the wrong boards at the wrong times, then Scottish football supporters need to be told.

Did Ogilvie bring dubious practices to Hearts from Rangers or was he an innocent bystander at both clubs?
Did Rangers register all of their overseas players for UK tax?

In light of his unique experience with two of the three largest football clubs in Scotland sliding to the edge of darkness, perhaps Celtic supporters should not be so concerned about Ogilvie inheriting the job of SFA President.  Given recent statements about the need to ‘pull down the walls’ and to rebuild the SFA from the ground up, who would be better qualified to at least bring about the first part?

About rangerstaxcase
I have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

254 Responses to Campbell Ogilvie

  1. Blankety Blank Whyte Cheque Book but where's the pen? says:

    How any sensible fan can still believe anything the media house puppets put out is beyond me……season ticket sales is the name of the game here and possibly some wishful thinking aswell :-).

  2. Sir Dirty Money says:

    Just listened to Radio Scotland’s news at 5.30. No mention of the First Tier Tribunal.

  3. Thomas says:

    Mark,

    If Ogilvie received renumeration via the EBT’s then he would have had some inkling as to the process e.g. applying for a ‘discretionary’ loan. Visa vie guilty with liable because of his position at the club. In fact, anyone who has benefited is as guilty as Ogilvie because they profited also. There’s the motivation Mark – to profit from one’s indiscretions.

    Now, in this debate of hypothesis, my point is that Ogilvie as a benificiary of the scheme would be complicit.

    I do not think for one second anyone who has received emoluments from EBT would simply accept what the administrators of the scheme were telling them (unless it was a salesman with no conflicting interests of some kind, anyone?). Nor do I think for one second that the benificiary would blindly accept these terms without financial consultation. It may or may not be the case that Baxendale-Walker was the sole financial advisor to Rangers but its is not logical to think a player signed in 2008 would accept the advice that was dispensed 8 years or so previously.
    Therefore the only conclusion I can draw is that, after consultation, they all knew that the scheme was defective in the way it was applied. But why would you care if your employer indemnified you from all future liabilities?

    Why hand over 40%+ of your earnings when you could chose to only give up 28% using an EBT?

    As RTC has said EBT’s are not illegal if they are administered correctly. Rangers tried to adapt the administration of the EBT’s to suit paying players and staff. They did this by contractually agreeing to pay emoluments in this way, leaving a devastating paper trail in the process that may or may not conclusively define their deliberate attempt to cheat the tax man.

    I pay my contributions via PAYE. I take no part in this process other than looking at my wage slip at the end of the month. Should the taxman come calling I will have years of wage slips as evidence that I thought the correct amounts were being paid on my behalf.

    However, if I deliberately collected emoluments via an offshore EBT then YES, I would be just as liable as anyone else that conspired alongside me.

    Boab makes a good point in that whether Ogilvie knew or didn’t is just not consistant with the responsibilites of a director. Thereby foregoing his title as ‘a competent footballing administator’. In this case, is he really suitable to sit in any position within our nation football ruling body?

    It is all circumstantial but you must agree that in almost every eventuality, other than a gun pointed at his head, Ogilvie will not come out of this with his reputation in tact. By then, who knows, he could be running for Prime Minister.

  4. Boab says:

    Mark

    Once again you deliberately miss my point. This was not just another bit of the business, not just another everyday thing. It was a fundamental way to how they dealt with club finances, how they paid their highest earners and how they paid their tax.

    To continually suggest that it is analogous with every other run of the mill decision is clearly ludicrous. To suggest that if this is true must also mean that every director of every business must be complicit in every fraud is just being silly.

    Mr Ogilvie knew, or should have known because it was such an important matter and this was his job. If, as you continually suggest he had no knowledge of what was going on then he should have had. That’s the point, but then that point has been made loads of times already. So as you have ignored it on all of the other occasions I’ll work on the basis that you will do the same again.

    Fair do’s, that’s a matter for you obviously.

  5. Mark Dickson says:

    I think most of you guys obviously start out with a viewpoint slanted against Ogilvie because of his 27 year association with Rangers. Okay you are Celtic fans and i understand that in your eyes Ranger appear to have done wrong ergo he was at Ibrox at the time and must therefore either be guilty through complicity or negligence …………… all Iam saying is that we have zero evidence yet of what Ogilvie did or didn’t know or agreed with – for all we know he might have been strongly against the mechanisms of the EBT scheme or alternatively strongly in favour of them, perhaps he was a prime mover in the abuse of the system or perhaps he helped to blow the whilstle on the scheme/scam – at this stage we simply don’t know so how you guys can decide that he’s unsuitable to be SFA President in the absence of any of this knowledge or proof just seems like you are pursuing an agenda or witch hunt to me.

  6. Mark Dickson says:

    Rangers board now want to delay any take-over talks with Whyte until after the end of the season – does this mean tribunal today was a lot better or worse than they were expecting? Are they now planning a what to do next scenario? IF they fail to beat Utd and lose to Celtic could they go into administration next week and take a 10 point penalty this season instead of next?

  7. Boab says:

    And what you singularly fail to accept is that any of those scenarios make him unsuitable to head up a national football association.

    Matter not one jot whether he did it at Hearts, Hibs, Rangers, Celtic or anywhere else.

  8. Mark Dickson says:

    IF Campbell Ogilvie was found to have acted inappropriately and/or compromised his integrity on issues relating to Rangers tax problems and couldn’t become SFA President would that automatically mean that SFA 2nd Vice President Allan McRae gets named as the top banana intead?

  9. Chris says:

    [Mark wrote]Which is less dignified?

    being a Hun director when they might have evaded millions of pounds in tax?

    obstructing the course of justice when war crimes and innocent lives might have been lost in Iraq?[/Mark]

    Perhaps inviting those alleged perpetrators of said crimes (the troops) onto the turf at Ibrox?

    Anyway, that’s beside the point. Fakeover delay once more tonight. This is somewhat amusing.

  10. Frank Galvin says:

    Yep, looking more and more like a fakeover by the day.

    The BBC “report” that “certain members of the Rangers board want to delay [the takeover] until the end of the season”.

    Rubbish!

    Firstly, this should surely have been known to both parties months ago. So why, all of a sudden, is it now considered a ‘major snag’. Can a ‘snag’ be major anyway???

    Secondly, why would the current Rangers board, knowing full weel the financial and sporting implications to Rangers of the fakeover not going ahead, do anything to jeapordise it?

    It doesn’t add up and it doesn’t make any sense. Want to know why?

    Because it’s all a load of thinly veiled nonsense.

    Just like the last load of nonsense about the fakeover being delayed because the Whyte Knight wanted to pump in more money to Rangers than was originally planned. I mean, why would that do anything other than speed-up the takeover – other than negotiating a reduced price for Rangers – which, because of HBOS/MIH cannot happen anyway.

  11. Ian Ferguson says:

    I know, the BIGGEST Scottish Sports story is a new rangers strip & McCulloch is fit enough to model it and toss cabers again.

  12. Ian Ferguson says:

    How would that work?

    Would they have to admit liability?

    If not, would debt become active Next year after appeals etc.

    If so would that not negate taking a ten point hit now?

  13. Ian Ferguson says:

    Exactly, neither the Current Board nor Committee have the POWER to Stop a takeover and NO SAY in whether it goes ahead or not.

    It is a nonsense, If I am taking over & YOU don’t like it as a board member, Tough! You are being Replaced anyway.

    The New Strip is still the best story today because it is for NEXT YEAR.

    Is this Chinese April Fool Day by any chance?

  14. If reports are true, the decision to reject the Whyte ‘deal’ didn’t even make it to the board. Interesting – especially how this independent committee was kept secret from the hoards of investigative journalists in Scotland.

    Also I don’t get the fact that Murray is happy, and he owes the shares. And Lloyds, who are owed £18m (according to The Scotsman) are happy . This raises a question in itself: does that mean rangers have repaid £3m of their debt in the last week?

    However, regardless the views of all these ‘happy’ people is irrelevant … a committee who are not the board, and cannot block the deal have said “no” – so it’s all off. … sorry delayed until the end of the season?

    On behalf of Mr Slim Shady I would like the real decision maker (or makers) to “please stand up”

    Can’t believe with all the deal imminent ‘exclusives’ associated with this saga over the past 4-5 months (!!!), no one has mentioned Whyte has not even got past an Independent Committee, who have no legal say on the board – doesn’t add up at all.

    Alternatively, is there a correlation between the Tier 1 Tribunal resuming today, this outcome and all these new structures key to the deal only now becoming public knowledge?

  15. Mark Dickson says:

    Ian,

    Nice to see you back ………… what veil did I let slip? I’ve always been less than convinced that having ‘colourful’ characters as key representatives of the club is ever advisable. Here in Edinburgh Sir Tom Farmer has always been praised for his humble verging on saintly ways and whilst iam not so sure he’s always such a saint or a sir in his business dealings at least he did save the club and the same can be said if Vladimir Romanov whom Iam sure you could write a book about his exploits and opinions but it’s his money that prevents another SPL club from going under so perhaps it can be claimed he’s done more good than bad for one half of Edinburgh football although naturally less is known about the rest of his life and business dealings. As regards the wisdom of Dr Reid being the face at the top of your club it seems some people more in line with your sympathies also share my concerns about him http://www.talfanzine.com/apps/blog/show/301702-john-reid-war-criminal-takes-celtic-chair

  16. Mark Dickson says:

    Saw this on another website …….. how about this for uncanny resemblances?

  17. Weefatbhoy says:

    “I’ve always been less than convinced that having ‘colourful’ characters as key representatives of the club is ever advisable”

    Mark, Your comment is a total contradiction to ALL your previous post’s about Mr CO……………………………..

    Wouldn’t you say Mr Campbell Ogilvie’s past has been “Colourful” to say the least……………….

  18. joe le taxi says:

    8.50am.Sky Sports say certain Rangers board memnbers want to postpone Whytes takeover ’til the end of the season.

  19. Justinian says:

    A selection from an article in the SCOTSMAN – Tuesday 19 April

    Craig Whyte camp frustrated as takeover bid hits new snag

    According to a source close to the deal, Whyte’s bid to buy Rangers could have been rubber-stamped yesterday. Sir David Murray, the club’s majority shareholder, is also believed to have wanted the deal done on Monday, as did Lloyds Banking Group, who are owed £18 million by Rangers. However another delay has developed, one described as “unnecessary” by the source. Rangers board members were accused of “dragging their heels” after Whyte was left frustrated in his attempt to tie-up the deal yesterday.

    The Scottish businessman, who launched his bid to buy Rangers in November, is understood to be deciding whether he can afford to wait much longer.

    ‘Everything is ready to go but some members of the independent committee are dragging their heels and want to delay the takeover until the end of the season,’ said the source last night.

    Whyte’s proposed purchase of Murray’s controlling stake in the SPL champions has already been delayed by a £2.8m tax liability, which came to light last month. A potentially multi-million-pound bill from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has also presented an obstacle.

    An obstacle which was known of in June 2010. And my understanding is that Rangers Board /Takeover Committee have as much legal chance of delaying/stopping the process as King Canute had with an incoming North Sea.

    How can all of this be in a Scottish Broadsheet? There is indeed much truth in that old saying – “one born every minute”

  20. Mark Dickson says:

    Weefatbhoy,

    No I’d say Campbell Ogilvie is quite the opposite of ‘colourful’ – he’s much more of an unassuming and a background character – certainly by comparison to Sir Tom Farmer, Dr Reid, Sir David Murray, Martin Bain, George Peat or Vladimir Romanov etc

  21. Justinian says:

    My effort somehow has the quote markings removed.

    SCOTSMAN cooment ends – “….also presented an obstacle.”

    My comment begins – “An obstacle whcih was known….”

    Apology for the confusion, Chaps.

  22. Mark Dickson says:

    There also a bit in todays Daily Record with an un-named source from the Rangers board saying that if supporters knew what they knew about the Whyte bid they’d have more sympathy.

  23. I Still See No Subs Except... says:

    Ref Dr. Ried.

    I don’t like that man and am actually somewhat ashamed he is our chiarman.

    I have a good pal who was a lifle-long Celtic fan of 30+ years, but who will not go back Parkhead until Dr. Ried’s tenure is over. Celtic do not matter to him right now, and he no longer even engages in debate about the club, and feels utterly betrayed that they permitted Dr Ried to hold such office.

    Whilst he has family reasons relating to Iraq for feeling so strongly this way, it is, even without that influence, hard to argue against his stance that some things are bigger and more important than football.

    The logic is hard enough, but to be honest, I just don’t have it in my heart to defend that man.

  24. Weefatbhoy says:

    Mark,

    I have come to the conclusion that you must be suffering from that well known Rankgers fan syndrome — DENIAL………………..

    If you seriously think that a “colourful” character such as Campbell Ogilvie who has had over THIRTY years at only TWO football club’s (Both with pending tax issue’s) in Scotland while holding the same position and yet hasn’t acknowledged and/or been informed of ANY of said tax issue’s = R.F.S……………………..
    ———————————————————–
    Yeah Yeah, I know innocent until proven guilty……………..Only time will reveal the truth……….

  25. Mark Dickson says:

    Weefatbhoy,

    Perhaps If i was a rangers fan then I might have some cause for denial but seeing as iam not and never have been then Iam not and have no cause for denial – anyway just in case you or others are in any doubt let me recall a story from either my first or second visit through to Ibrox for an away game as a kid – in 1980 Dad and I and some friends travelled through for a match – Hunbrox was being re-developed so they stuck the away fans in the old stand enclosure in beside the Orcs – we were punched, kicked, spat on, jeered and hustled on the way out they even threw bovril at us when we scored even though they won six-one, they still felt the need to treat us like that – I was only 11 or 12 at the time but the fact I was only a kid at the game with his Dad didn’t matter to these “people” – they are indeed Scotland’s shame but sadly your lot are not much better at times. 😦

  26. kit says:

    Mark Dickson:

    Often I have seen the chairman of Celtic Football Club much maligned by innuendo; you wrote:

    “Do you have no concerns about his past actions? I’d be very surprised if you would thank that he is squeaky clean and beyond reproach?”

    I’ve asked others before what criminal acts he committed, never have I have a reply. Do you have a valid example?

  27. I Still See No Subs Except... says:

    Asnewrs:

    As a Cetlic fan:

    1. Bemused as to which party was mad enough to “give”, but pleasantly suprised for Rangers.

    2. Bitterly disappointed for a couple of weeks, but then look forward to winning it back next season. As a club I think we could sustian that, and would be in dire straits if our buisness model was predictaed on winning the title every year!

  28. me 2 says:

    Just spend a few minutes catching up with moonbeam la la land, AKA hun messageboards, when will they learn that RFC is a business and as such owes them nothing they are consumers to be bled dry, RFC are only answerable to their shareholders – wonder who they are!

    Time for the huns to put up or shut up, buy the season tickets you mugs.

    The notion that the directors are holding this up is laughable, directors are employees – if Whyte wanted to pay Murray for his shares then that would be a relatively simple transaction but then again the TSB practically own MIH and RFC.

    Hope they get fucked tonight

    Hail Hail

  29. Torquemada says:

    Yeah, very historic, Bert.

    Oh my aching sides!

  30. SmokenMirrors says:

    Another interesting post RTC. No wonder there is a desire among some to discredit you at every turn. It is fast becoming apparent that the more stones that are upturned, the seedier the backgrounds of some within Scottish football appear. Give it a few more weeks and a bit more digging and who knows what might turn up! Lord Lucan, perhaps?

    Putting aside any concerns over institutional bias or dysfunctionality (I believe there’s a QC out there who can argue these points better than any us), I’ll concentrate on Ogilvie the man and the role of Company Secretary (CS) within a business. As RTC has suggested, a CS has a broad remit within an organisation. Arguably, along with CEO and FD, the CS is one of the principle actors in the day-to-day running of a business. The office-holder is primarily responsible for ensuring compliance with the myriad regulations that affect it- from health and safety to other aspects of company law.

    Without generalising too much, the CS often acts as the bulwark against the brashness of the executive leaders of the business- as such, the office befits a serious and sober individual; the role demands that the CS should challenge commercial decisions and put the brakes on any activity that could have an effect on the statutory compliance of the club. Not always a glamorous job, but certainly an important one. It is often suited to an individual of a conservative (with a small c) mindset.

    The thumbnail sketch above is of an individual that dots the ‘i’s and crosses the ‘t’s: in short, a diligent individual, aware of both his remit and responsibilities. It would be a stretch to suggest that a man of Ogilvie’s capabilities would not be aware of these. So, if we assume that Ogilvie is a ‘diligent’ and competent administrator (as so many of his supporters suggest), what then of his moral character? Is he the kind of man that would wilfully see his employers evade their responsibilities to society? Is he the kind of man that would seek unfair advantage whilst simultaneously being responsible for ensuring that his organisation complies with the law? What if he becomes the law? What then?

    If he is any of the above, is he really the man to lead the SFA into a bright new future after the Falstaffian farce of Peat’s reign? Somehow, I doubt it.

  31. Mark Dickson says:

    What do people make of this comment as it’s being reported in the daily record today?

    No one on the independent board was available for comment but a source close to them said: “The proposal on the table is self-serving for both parties (Whyte and Murray) and for the bank.

    “However, the board’s responsibility is to look at the impact of this deal on Rangers Football Club. The destiny of the club is what is at stake.

    “If everyone who cared about the club knew what the board do they’d have a lot of sympathy with their position.”

    WHAT DOES THAT IMPLY AND MEAN?

  32. Chico says:

    well its from the record, so will be jim traynor making things up…..

    do the board have a say ? murray/LBG owns 85%. they dont need anyones approval shirley?

    taking at face value to be true ( ha!), then it simply means they dont believe craig wgyte to be the man, never has been.

    simple as that

  33. Mark Dickson says:

    Could Jim Traynor himself be the “source close to the board”? the comments do sound like something he himself would say?

  34. manila says:

    In anticipation of a an update, and to move away from Mr. Ogilvie Campbell, it might be instructive to present the matter in it’s essence …

    If this is determined inappropriate content RTC, then of course, do what you have to do. Just thought I’d share.

  35. Mark Dickson says:

    Radio Clyde’s Connie McLaughlin has tweeted:

    “Source close to the Craig Whyte camp has told me #Rangers takeover will only go through if the board resign.”

  36. Pedro says:

    What a pity this discussion has became so pathetic.

    On a day when the “takeover” hit a major snag and the day after the tribunal reconvened I thought people might be discussing that.

    Oh well, I s’pose it is now just like every other forum.

  37. Pedro says:

    I feel I speak for all when I say – what a valuable input that was to the discussion.

  38. Mark Dickson says:

    Pedro in the absence of any new posts or updates from RTC we’ve decided to fill our time bickering amongst ourselves – we are all fitba fans after all so what do you expect. The same would happen in most boozers between rival supporters – well at least in those civilised places that allow mixed supporters in without fear of them trying to cave eah others heads in. 🙂

  39. bert says:

    A suprising amount of biting going on 🙂

  40. Mark Dickson says:

    Pedro,

    what’s your take on the current ‘takeover’ situation as it’s being reported? Are the Board trying to manouvre their own situation? Do they have concerns about Whyte? is Whyte trying to court popularity with the supporters and shift blame onto others? If he seriously wants to buy Rangers and has agreed a deal then don’t see anything that would prevents him making an announcement to the Stock Exchange making an offer for shares?

  41. Boab says:

    Well it’s not actually that simple. The board are the board and are in place because they were voted on, or employed to do certain jobs. Someone buying out the majority shareholding cannot just sack them. It’s not like “I’m the owner now you are all sacked”

    They need to go through a proper process, which I guess would be requesting an EGM, having votes on whether they are to stay on and then voting his own people into power. That would all take time and may not be particularly tidy, it would certainly cause bad publicity. So much simpler if they just stand down and the people the new owner wants in place are voted on.

    Being sensible about it, the new owner would be buying a club which had not been particularly well run in a financial sense. One would think replacing the people who run the club would be one of his main priorities and he wouldn’t want a dirty fight to achieve that.

  42. bilbo baggins says:

    Many thanks for a most illuminating blog RTC. I have enjoyed, learned from and laughed on occassions. Can I also thank the quality of most of the other contributors.

    I have been following the Rangers debt issue for quite a few years and like most other C, watching the Rangers expenditure on transfers and salary costs and latterly the tax issue since Phil Mac first brought the subject to my attention.

    Over the past 8-10 years I am clearly of the opinion that we could have consigned Rangers to distant also rans if we had played our cards right and had a slight rub of the green, given that 2 titles narrowly went against us. Had that happened, Rangers financial problems may have been brought to a head at an earlier date given that they may not have had increased revenue from the Champions League. Likewise, we made a managerial error with Tony Mowbray.

    Goodness knows what is happening just now with the Fakeover but I remember being almost in tears when Celtic almost went to the brink. Its fair to say I am enjoying Rangers predicament which has been brought about entirely by themselves and I include Moonbeam, Rangers board, management, players, fans, footballing establishment at SFA and their fans. Every single one of them is to blame, not just for the financial predicament, nor the tax case but also for not taking a stronger stance and banning sectarian fans from their ground. All Celtic fans have suffered unmerited abuse for far too long.

    I am not someone who thinks that we need an old firm or that Celtic needs Rangers. I don’t think Scottish football needs Rangers, given what they have stood for over the years. I would like to see us distance ourselves from them, particularly as regards sponsorship. Of course, I know Rangers will exist in some form but it is to be hoped that Rangers learn some harsh lessons from this period in their history, much the same as we did until Fergus put the club on a firm footing. Sadly, given the sectarian hatred within a largish proportion of their support, I don’t see it happening any time soon. It will take firm action from the SFA who should have taken action over the sectarian chants at the League Cup Final and also a 3-5 year ban from any European competition.

    A 3-5 year European ban has a precident if we look back to the ban on English clubs in the 80’s and that had a very positive effect.

    Lastly, a couple of questions which I hope someone can answer.

    Rangers face the prospect of administration and if that happens this season, they would automatically be banned from playing in Europe next season. Does their place go to the 3rd placed team in the league?

    And, what happens if Rangers lose their appeal to UEFA re sectarian chants at PSV? Would that ban kick off next year and run concurrently or would it take effect the following season?

    BTW why has no-one reported their behaviour at the Sporting Lisbon matches which I clearly heard over the commentary?

    I understood that Strathclydes Chief Constable indicated they would take action against sectarianism on football websites. I have been reading Follow Follow and Rangers Media and have never witnessed such hatred and racism, including death threats. These sites are a breeding ground and propogate festering boils in our country.

    Keep up the good work and best wishes to all.

  43. ConanCromCrusher says:

    Has RTC been silenced?

    No new updates for a while now…

  44. Pedro says:

    Always had doubts about Whyte, and this seems like another excuse to delay the inevitable. A lot of talk that Rangers board preferred avenue is Administration.

    However, it is all conjecture.

    The fact is nobody knows anything until Whyte or the board make official statements. Neither seems willing and it just adds to the confusion.

    I am more concerned with the game tonight tbh – a game that will be extremely difficult and also extremely improtant to Rangers challenge.

  45. Weefatbhoy says:

    Point taken, m8

  46. Mark Dickson says:

    I have received categoric assurances that todays snags will be overcome and the Whyte takeover/fakeover will miraculously be back on again in time for Sunday’s Old Firm game and come the weekend will be due to complete in the following 48 hours (allowing for the Easter holidays)………… 😀

  47. Mark Dickson says:

    Rangers board have made a statement outlining their reasons

    http://www.rangers.co.uk/articles/20110419/club-statement_2254024_2342295

  48. Mark Dickson says:

    Ian we have also never heard of Campbell Olgivie being accused (yet) of anything by anybody nevermind charged , some people on here question his suitability to be SFA President just as i and others question Dr R’s suitability to be Celtic chairman – these are of course subjective and personal opinions. 🙂

  49. Paulsatim says:

    Congrats Ian, hover your cursor over the date and time of your comment. You win the prize!!

  50. Ian Ferguson says:

    Mark,

    Change, deny, deflect! Are you SURE you don’t support RANGERS? this is typical behaviour of the species.

    You are Not addressing the points I answered nor the questions asked.

    YOU made the point of the unfair attitude of some people towards Mr O, then proceed to denigrate a man who has nothing to do with the blog.

    I asked when he had been charged with obstructing the course of justice?

    You have put on various replies BUT have not answered.

    You even resorted to let he without sin cast the 1st stone, Mark you have chucked a few boulders at a target who has NOTHING to do with the blog or Tax issue.

    In fact, he is an EASY Celtic target to deflect the discussion away from the pertinent points under discussion
    (a) Was Mr O involved in tax or other dodgy issues while at RFC?
    (b) If not directly involved was he a “masters voice” appointment, a proverbial rubber stamp ?
    (c) Did he carry over unsafe tax saving practices and/or other dodgy practices to Hearts?
    (d) Again, was he just a rubber stamp for a stronger character?
    (e) Is he completely innocent? Just in the wrong places at the wrong time? If so Why did he not raise CONCERNS at the dodgy issues in hand? If he knew but did nothing he is complicit, if ignorant, he shouldn’t be in charge of a sweetie shop.
    All of the above should preclude him from an appointment in the SFA which drastically needs a STRONG Leader to help reform and modernise an outdated institution.

    (d)

%d bloggers like this: