Thursday, March 01, 2012

Rangers: More questions than answers

On and on goes the saga of Rangers in administration.

We await with incredulous bemusement the latest shoulder-shrugging plea of "who? Me? Nah, it wisnae me" from the sinisterly farcical Craig Whyte.

We await, with an interest that is not entirely becoming, to find out where the administrators will wield their redundancy axe.

A piecemeal truth is emerging about what's gone on at Ibrox, about the litany of rogues that have mismanaged business above that marble staircase.

Illegality? Perhaps. Criminal proceedings might still follow.

Certainly, the verdict of the "big" tax case notwithstanding, we're building a picture of the comprehensive financial bluff that has accompanied Rangers' success in the last decade or so.

A mismanagment that set the stage for the arrival of Whyte. Selfish, greedy, a moral wasteland, the wretched small-time wideboy who saw his chance to pull off the biggest con of all.

There surely can't be a way back for Whyte, whatever the future holds for a football club that he - and others - have tainted.

What is that future?

Liquidation and a newco - and the guarantee of a Scottish football rammy the likes of which we've never seen before - must remain too close for comfort.

Prolonged administration - Motherwell's less complex, smaller financial swamp saw them mired in administration across three seasons - seems likely.

Saviours raise their heads above the parapet but the malaise is too deep for them to yet build any momentum.

Paul Murray? Dave King? Should their previous involvement with a discredited regime count against them? Should there be caution over King?

Could Rangers, whose relationship with our own tax authorities is so gloomy, afford to be "saved" by King, a man labelled a "a glib and shameless liar," "a mendacious witness" by a judge in a South African tax case?

Maybe their dance with an unkown deil has led Rangers to a place where "better the devil you know" is the only feasible way forward?

Just some of the questions that will shape an uncertain future.

Right now, other concerns present themselves.

Dunfermline have confirmed their players and staff are experiencing a delay in payment of wages.

Should that surprise us? If Scottish football produced players like it produces rumours we'd be world beaters.

But those of us party to a season long game of Chinese Whispers concerning finances at East End Park might not be wholly surprised.

That's not to say the situation was - or is - desperate. Worrying, a sad reflection on the state of the game, yes, but not necessarily disastrous.

Now though Dunfermline have fallen victim to the great crash at Ibrox.

Rangers were due the Pars £80,000. That hasn't been paid and the consequences on the cash flow in Fife have been predictably harsh.

As Rangers continue to prove that they were drowning not waving all this time, the dangers of the ripples capsizing others seems ever more real.

The Scottish Government are in talks with Dunfermline about their predicament and a House of Commons debate has heard their treatment, along with that of Hearts, Dundee United and any other footballing creditors, described as theft.

Perhaps. But it's something that must happen a lot in business, maybe ever more regularly with the current economic climate and all that.

If nothing else Rangers' woes, and their current contagion, should allow us to finally address Scottish football's great conundrum.

Football is now a business, that brings positives and it brings negatives, but the inescapable truth must be that Scottish football is, with notable exceptions, largely operating a failed business model.

Now would be a good time to prove, despite the evidence of much of our footballing history, that we can learn from mistakes and emerge stronger from periods of turbulence.

Who's man enough to stand up and lead the game - whatever fate eventually befalls Rangers - through the malaise?

The SPL have been oddly quiet as the league champions have convulsed.

It seems Neil Doncaster is a good guy when you need moderately impressive sponsorship deals spun to within an ince of their life. But not a comrade to rely on in the trenches.

Who would ever have guessed?

The SFA? Some political instinct remains in what we're told is a modernised SFA.

Rangers in crisis? Panic first, then quickly set up an independent inquiry, get a retired judge to do the job.

It shows you're aware of concerns and it offers you a wee bit time to get away with saying nothing.

Maybe an extended period of time to say nothing if the parameters of Lord Nimmo Smith's inquiry touch on evidence that might soon be used against Craig Whyte in a criminal prosecution.

Hardly a groundbreaking tactic, but if it's good enough for the chinless at Westminster it's probably good enough for the blazered at Hampden.

A wrist slapping over "fit and proper person" procedures? Probably. It's not as if anyone took the SFA's governance of that issue seriously in the first place.

But maybe there is a smoking gun that could yet see the SFA forced into regicide.

The whispers of Rangers players receiving "dual contracts" have become shouts in recent weeks. The first edition of the Scottish Sun on Sunday brought the story into the open.

No conclusive proof - although The Sun claimed documentary evidence - but another glimpse of hidden truths still to emerge.

Perhaps the verdict of the "big" tax case tribunal will shed more light on the issue.

There should be a few at the SFA getting worried.

Were the SFA negligent in registering contracts? Possibly, but it seems pretty much everyone is treated with an equal lack of care, contracts are received and registered and life goes merrily on.

But what of the new SFA President? Was Campbell Ogilive at Rangers at the time these alleged second contracts were handed out? Did he know? Did he, then, mislead the very organisation he currently presides over?

We shouldn't get carried away. Second contracts might not have been a feature of Rangers financial chicanery.

If they were Ogilivie might have known nothing about them.

Based on nothing more than our experience of recent events however, I'm prepared to think there is something in this tale.

That still wouldn't mean Ogilvie was guilty. There might not have been invisible ink on his hands.

But the SFA President is now in a position where, in a matter of weeks, he could be about to attract one hell of a stench.

That's a worry. For him and for those, myself included, who have some appreciation of what the SFA have been trying to do to drag the game forward.

Ogilvie suggested that he'd take a background role as president, a presidency designed to avoid the uncharted peaks of incompetency scaled by his predecessor George Peat.

Yet he could soon be dragged into the open and given a good kicking.

Stewart Regan, the modernising chief executive of the SFA, mentioned Hearts in the same breathe as Rangers when news of the Ibrox administration first broke.

That might have been grossly unfair on Hearts. But it jarred. Because the two clubs Ogilvie has been involved with are, funnily enough, Rangers and Hearts.

He might be no more to blame for second contracts at Rangers than he is for sundry Vladimir Romanov rants.

But, then, if he was a completely peripheral figure at both clubs what actually qualifies him, other than a longevity in glad-handing, to be president of the SFA?

A line or two in a tax case verdict and Ogilivie bashing is going to be a national sport. If - and as ever it remains an "if" - a second contract imbroglio is uncovered and linked to Ogilvie's time at Rangers - even if it's not linked directly to him - then he has to resign. The SFA can't afford to let him make any other decision.

So there we are. What is it now? Coming up for three weeks since Rangers were brought to their knees.

The future at Ibrox remains uncertain, each day answers emerge that only lead to more questions.

But already we're seeing how the actions of David Murray, Craig Whyte and other briefcase carrying muggers has cracked the veneer of financial equilibrium in an impoverished corner of Fife.

We've seen a story develop that could yet leave the president of the SFA spectacularly compromised by his past association with Rangers.

On February 14th I wrote:

"The day Rangers took a step into the unknown.

"And the day Scottish football was forced to follow them."

Rangers still don't know where they're going. For better or for worse the rest of us are still having to follow them.

Whether the road we're on leads to a brave new world or another dead end it seems certain that there will more damage done.

More damage for the guilty to explain and, depressingly, more damage for innocent bystanders to suffer.

Like this? Like the Scottish Football Blog on Facebook.


  1. Gloomy reading this.  What irks me is the media refusing to mention Murray.  Whyte is lambasted and I am left with the impression Murray, no fool he, understood Whyte and dumped the club on him taking attention of Murray, the man who brought the disaster about.  If Murray genuinely thought Whyte could carry it off he is more of a fool than I thought, so I keep to the idea that he lumbered it on a second hand car salesman. The media acting as his PR irks greatly. 

    I feel bad for the Pars.  Hearts, for all their problems can cope better losing £800,000 than Dunfermline can with £80,000.  United will struggle also.  

    You are right about what is too come, and Ogilvy's part in all this.  The 'suits' work in a world of their own and all know what each other know.  Even wee Eck has got involved and that could cost votes for him. This is like investigating the 'Sun,' so many people involved and that includes those 'proper authorities' investigating them.  I wonder what the police think?

    This was a good, but sad, read.    

  2. There is only one out come to this Liquidation.Rangers should then REFUSE to transfer membership to newco and start in 3rd Div offering change of venue to all the clubs for Rangers away games (£££).Only down side to this would be the immediate collapse of the SKY deal but 36 home games would probably dull the pain a bit and after 3 seasons Rangers would be back in SPL with a sound financial base against greatly weakened opposition

  3. Interesting theory, very far from being the only outcome. Also poses questions: who exactly would steer the new Rangers? Is Craig Whyte still involved in this SFL adventure? Or is he in jail? Who would come along to start the newco? Would HMRC see this as anything other than an abject example of rogue phoenixism and, if so, would they still be looking for their money, big case and wee case?

    It's very possible that a similar scenario to this - as far as liquidation is concerned - was the one of Whyte's dreams. It's spiralled out of his control now though. For the foreseeable future Rangers days of dictating anything to anyone are over.

  4. All very valid and well articulated points, but, like it or not, no Rangers = a drastic reduction in TV money & gate receipts for all 11 remaining SPL teams. Many teams bigger & stronger than Dunfermline would fall (further) into serious difficulties, and we might see several of them go part-time, which for the top flight of a proud football nation would be very sad indeed. Therefore I am firmly of the belief that the SFA want to keep them in the league by fair means or foul. Yes, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, especially from the likes of Peter 'The Mouth' Lawwell. Personal view - the CVA wil be accepted, HMRC will accept somewhere in the region of 20p in the pound, thus making the debt far more attractive to one of the investors currently sniffing around (ANYONE but Dave King, for the reasons you mention), the club will be on a level financial footing, and the SFA will introduce far, far stricter rules on financial fair play. Not ruling anything else out though, and I don't like the way Chick Young keeps on insisting that there is more to come out.

  5. Thanks for the comment Jack

    I've actually written about the co-dependency issues in the top flight here:

    So I agree with you on that and suspect that it is one of the reasons for the SPL's silence.

    "More to come?" I believe the Mail today is running a story about EBTs and second contracts going back further than the parameters of the tax case, into the 1990s. Which if true deliver the SFL into the mix as Rangers were members of that league at the time.

    No more than chat at the moment, of course. But it does convince that this gets worse before it gets better.


  6.  HBoS, if you recall, were essentially running Rangers at the time of Whyte' buy out and were owed around £18m. As it is, they told SDM that if he didn't take Whyte's offer, they would call in Rangers' debt and they would be liquidated.

    So it's all very well the media and fans blaming Whyte for their current situation, but the reality is Rangers had no other choice than to sell to Whyte. And with the big tax case looming, he probably had no other choice than to put the club into admin.

    This was all inevitable after years of SDM's profligacy with borrowed money and dubious player payment schemes. And, yes, the worst is yet to come.