Quantcast

Ogilvie admits “might have signed some documents”

663

Campbell Ogilvie was interviewed in today’s Scotland on Sunday but he singularly failed to deflect the central criticism of him continuing as president of the SFA despite being a director of Rangers during the period they introduced the controversial EBTs and, allegedly, illegally registered players with the SFA, which Ogilvie was also a director of.

Interviewer, Andrew Smith, asked “Can you see there being an issue with you being SFA president at a time when there is an ongoing SPL investigation into non-disclosure of payments at Rangers that you are directly linked to?  You were a director and the secretary who signed off the accounts in November 2001.  At that time the EBT scheme was in operation and players were receiving payments that weren’t in their contracts.”

Ogilvie’s response laid bare how inappropriate the situation is: “I was secretary up until 2002. That’s correct. I was a director, that’s correct.”

All he could do in response to the question of how inappropriate his job as SFA president is when Rangers are under investigation for non-disclosure of payments he was “directly linked to” is confirm he was a secretary and director.  He didn’t even offer a counter argument.

It was as though he’d been coached, badly, about what to do when you are asked a question you don’t want to answer.  Simply not answering the question and making an irrelevant statement treats Scottish football fans like fools.

The truth is he did not and cannot answer the question.  If Campbell Ogilvie cannot argue why there is not an issue for him continuing to be SFA president, why is he still SFA president?

Ogilvie confirmed that in March he told Andrew Smith that there were no side contracts and insisted this was “the case to the best of my knowledge”, despite Smith referring him to the recent BBC documentary, the assertions of which have not been challenged.

Readers would have been confused by this ‘knowledge’, that there were no side contracts as Ogilvie immediately denied involvement with player contracts.

This duel position, bearing witness that there were no side contracts, while denying knowledge of player contracts, is wholly inconsistent and, in itself, reasons enough to for his dismissal.

One of the most intriguing comments from Ogilvie was “I might have signed some documents from time to time.  I certainly didn’t do the player negotiations, I didn’t do the contracts.”

He “might have signed some documents from time to time”.  Oh dear.

If he signed some documents active in this scandal “from time to time”, for pity sake, just go.  Pack your bags, apologise profusely and get out of Scottish football.

We await to hear who conducted the inquiry into Ogilvie which allowed Stewart Regan to clear Ogivlie, but if this shoddy testimony informed their decision, the scandal at the heart of the SFA has taken on a new dimension.

Rumours that the SFA did not conduct an inquiry into Campbell Ogilvie and that chief exec, Stewart Regan, spoke inappropriately in order to save the skin of his pal, remain unfounded.

Click Here for Comments >
Share.

About Author

663 Comments
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 18

  1. Bada

     

     

    Good to hear that, cheers mate.

     

     

    I’ll let you get back to rolling your stones :-))

  2. Burley.

     

     

    “Ogilvie’s a scapegoat” Poor old goats getting rodgered again. o)))

  3. i can’t believe any broadcaster hires burley for expert analysis.

     

     

    he talks absolute inane drivel.

  4. MAH

     

     

    GREAT JOB FROM GREEN

     

     

     

    spouting ad longum about cash to spend etc etc ..and offering the CVA washers

  5. archdeaconsbench on

    Balotelli literally courts it…. Its almost OCD. Guys no happy unless he’s in some sort of trouble.

  6. Philbhoy - It's just the beginning! on

    St Stivs

     

     

    He’s no as clever as that!

     

     

    Seriously!

  7. I agree it’s frustrating to see CO still in a job. Our lack of understanding on why he has not walked is down to the fact that we are not Huns. In the hun world all that matters is keeping the huns at the top table and maintaining that position by any means. If cheating is required then so be it, the huns must be top, end of.

     

     

    Mister Ogilvie will only be conflicted when he has to sign some documents that throw the huns out of scottish fitba. This is when he will resign. At this moment his beloved huns are just clinging on to life and he will cling on to his job until his club has died.

  8. archdeaconsbench on

    Apart from Le Merde, is there an ex player that you dislike more than Burley? I’m struggling….

  9. Philbhoy - It's just the beginning! on

    archdeacon

     

     

    McLeod, walker, Provan, take your pick.

  10. Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan supports Kano 1000 on

    Good Afternoon,

     

     

    Yesterday (9th June) was the anniversary of the death of the Emperor Nero who was famously alledged to have fiddled while Rome burned.

     

     

    I wonder if it was sheer coincidence that it should be on this Anniversary that at long last we have heard a public proclamation of innocence and exculpation from Campbell Ogilvie in connection with his business dealings whilst as an official at Rangers PLC. Whether or not Ogilvie actually said anything that would back up his claims of innocence is an entirely different matter.

     

     

    It is almost curious that Ogilvie should go public in an interview with Andrew Smith yesterday and advance the theory, first mooted last week by Stewart Regan, that he had absolutely nothing to do with EBT’s, players contracts, registration of contracts or anything else.

     

     

    Remember that Campbell Ogilvie was Club and Company Secretary I believe from 1978 all the way through until 2002. From 2002 until his departure in 2005 he sat on the board of Directors. During this period he signed accounts, and was effectively the longest serving member of what could be deemed to be the Rangers Executive.

     

     

    According to Ogilvie, he received 3 bonus payments and part of his severence package by way of EBT payments.

     

     

    However, he did not realise that EBT’s were a problem, he signed the accounts in good faith, he did not deal with contracts and players remuneration, he did not register contracts with the SFA or SPL, he did not know of any dual contracts or side letters, and in the last 3 years of his Ibrox stay he did less and less and was the “Director of Football Strategy”. He is not a lawyer and he is not an accountant. He signed the accounts in good faith and relied upon what others told him.

     

     

    In short– he is not responsible for any wrongdoing— as Stewart Regan would put it— but he holds his hands up because he was actually there– there is no denting it.

     

     

    At the time of writing I am reminded of Stewart Regan’s interview with Alex Thomson of Channel 4 when Thomson suggested that this was the biggest scandal in football history and used words like corruption etc.

     

     

    Regan’s response was clear– no wrongdoing had been proven yet, and that tax authorities would take care of tax issues and football authorities would take care of football issues.

     

     

    Presumably that is what the SPL enquiry is doing at the moment re the dual contracts issue..

     

     

    I wonder, then, what they will make of Campbell’s recent pronunciations? Remember that this enquiry is being conducted by Harper McLeod solicitirs on behalf of the SPL as I understand it.

     

     

    What will they make of the recent Ogilvie revelations to Andy Smith?

     

     

    There are various parts of the interview where Ogilvie clearly tries his utmost to say nothing– which I find most curious.

     

     

    Look at this section for example:

     

     

    —————————————————————————————————————————-

     

     

     

    A: I was secretary up until 2002. That’s correct. I was a director, that’s correct.

     

     

     

    Q: Did you never see there could be a potential conflict using EBTs to pay footballers?

     

     

    A: No, not at that time, not at all. I didn’t do the contracts. I might have signed some documents from time to time. I certainly didn’t do the player negotiations, I didn’t do the contracts.

     

     

     

    Q: But you signed off the accounts…

     

     

    A: I signed off the accounts in good faith, quite simply.

     

     

     

    Q: Without the knowledge of what was in these accounts? Was that remiss of you?

     

     

    A: The EBTs as a total were in the accounts. There wasn’t a breakdown of individual players to the best of my knowledge.

     

     

     

    Q: They were mentioned as a total. But then nothing is given individually, with total salary costs and so on. Wouldn’t there be an expectation secretaries would normally involve themselves in contracts?

     

     

    A: This is the point I’m making, I wasn’t involved in the negotiations of contracts. If I signed off the accounts it has been in good faith. I was company secretary by name, no hiding from that point. We had accountants and lawyers. I’m not an accountant, I’m not a lawyer. I’m a football administrator. At that time I wasn’t dealing with contracts.

     

     

     

    Q: As a director and secretary you had no knowledge of the way players were paid?

     

     

    A: Correct. I knew there were player contracts, naturally. There were some EBTs that came in 2001. Now the depth or the detail of these EBTs, I don’t know who got the individual EBTs at that time.

     

     

     

    Q: Was there anything you saw in the [BBC] programme that would change your mind about how EBTs operated?

     

     

    A: I did say when we met in March there were no side contracts. That is the case to the best of my knowledge. The question is probably how the EBTs operated and this is the matter the SPL are looking at.

     

     

    Q: As secretary you would have registered the contracts with the appropriate football bodies presumably?

     

     

    A: No. That’s what I’m saying. I didn’t deal with player contracts at that time.

     

     

     

    Q: Who was responsible?

     

     

    A: Whoever was dealing with the financial side. You’ve got to go back in time here. Football contracts used to be a straightforward one sheet of paper. Over time contracts, like any sponsorship, contracts became quite complicated.

     

     

    —————————————————————————————————————————

     

     

    Compare that passage to the following statement from Stewart Regan, who is clearly not speaking as an individual, but on behalf of the SFA Board.

     

     

    —————————————————————————————————————————

     

     

    “As far as the board of the Scottish FA is concerned, we have got no issue with the position that we currently find ourselves in,” Regan replied when asked about Ogilvie.

     

     

    “This is a board decision and the board has got no reason for Campbell Ogilvie not to be doing the job he is doing, providing that he doesn’t get involved in decision-making matters involving Rangers Football Club.”

     

     

     

     

    Regan added: “Campbell

     

     

    “The SFA board see his integrity as being intact and they are happy he’s done nothing wrong.”

     

    —————————————————————————————————————————–

     

     

    First of all Regan ignores the fact that Ogilvie appears to have been a full board Director for a 5 year period when the EBT’s were in full flow.

     

     

    Second, look at the answer to the very last question which Ogilvie answers about “who was responsible?” for players contracts and EBT’s. ” Whoever was dealing with the financial side” is the stock answer.

     

     

    Mmmmmm well Directors or Secretaries who sign off the accounts are taking responsibility for the “financial side” as a matter of law — and both Campbell and Stewart should know that.

     

     

    However, then look at Regan’s comments on the very same matter:

     

     

    ” Campbell was Rangers’ secretary but he wasn’t involved in any of the correspondence relating to players’ EBTs.” “That was done much higher up the chain of command and we are satisfied the president has disclosed all of the facts as he knows them to us.”

     

     

    The only way that Regan can know that anything was done much higher up the chain of command is if Ogilvie told him so– and he clearly has because Regan affirms that the “President has disclosed all the facts as he knows them”.

     

     

    Well it will be interesting to see if the SPL ( with the aid of Lawyers who are very familiar with footballing issues ) reach the same conclusion that all the EBT contracts etc were administered from the people who were in charge of the financials who were higher up the food chain?

     

     

    Next to Ogilvie on the longest serving member of the executive list sits Douglas Odam who was the finance Director for 15 years until he left in 2003 to join the Murray Group.

     

     

    Was he in charge of the financials then? and was he not close enough to Ogilvie to point out that all was not ok?

     

     

    How about Paul Dickson who has been head of Football Administration since 2003, and who was the fianancial controller prior to that? Did he have a role in the financials? And does the head of Football Adminsitration not have to liase with the Director for football Strategy?

     

     

    Both Odam and Dickson were paid via the EBT.

     

     

    Does deciding to buy and pay players like Caneggia, who benefited massively from EBT payments, not strike you as something that would be discussed at board level, with the secretary and with the financial Director, the financial controller, the head of football Administration and yes the Director for Football strategy?– Even at some point?

     

     

    Ogilvie, appears to have confirmed that his EBT payments were indeed contractual, and Regan seems to be saying that these payments and contracts were all adminsitered by some person or persons on high without the knowledge of some pretty key players below.

     

     

    If Ogilvie’s integrity is intact surely has gone further than the Sargeant Schultz defence of saying ” I know nothing”– anyone too young to remember Hogan’s Heroes go look it up- and he must have surely explained to Regan who these high heid yins were?

     

     

    Can a manager not know what one of his players was being paid and how?

     

    Can the MD or Chairman of the day not know what and how key personnel were paid?

     

    Can the Auditors– who compile the wage figure and the EBT figure in preparation for the statutory accounts– not know how those figures are made up ?

     

    Can the finance Director of the day– nor anyone in his department– have no clues as to how much players are paid and by what means?

     

    Did the side letters or dual contracts– which read ” On behalf of the Board of Directors of Rangers Football Club”– just magically write themselves, sign themselves, file themselves, and negotiate themselves into existence?

     

    Can the alleged decision to pay an ex employee ( Souness ) really have been taken by the guy at the top of the tree without anyone else knowing or being involved?

     

     

    Or did these players, their contracts and EBT letters just apparate within the walls of Castle Ibrox?

     

     

    I am sorry but Ogilvie’s statements do not smack of integrity to me. Someone who genuinely knew nothing of all of this should be out shouting the odds, demanding an enquiry into what actually happened while he was there and having the wool pulled over his eyes. As a senior football Administrator and as an executive in football for something like 30 plus years he should be screaming his innocence from the rooftops and as El Presidente of the SFA he should be making it plain that IF any wrongdoing is uncovered then those involved should be hung out to dry as far as Scottish Football is concerned.

     

     

    Then again there is Nero.

     

     

    Nero never did fiddle while Rome burned– he wasn’t even there at all and he didn’t play the fiddle either– though some say that he had some of his sidekicks start the fire down near the Circus Maximus– as later he confiscated all the land and built himself a huge villa and erected a massive statue of himself called the colossus of Nero! ( incidently the Colosseum now stands on this site and it is from the big statue that the stadium got its name ).

     

     

    Nero may well have been unjustly accused of the fiddling racket. What he did do however was he lived to excess at a time when Rome was skint. He stole the tax money and lavished it upon himself, his big house, and his huge Bronze statue. He lived the big life, took power and decision making away from the people ( senate ) and when they revolted he had to flee.

     

     

    Eventually he was asked to commit suicide but lacked the courage to fall on his sword and so had one of his servants kill him instead. After he died, the year 68-69 was known as the year of the four Emperors, when all the competing heirs to the throne (The guys who sought to buy the Empire for a £1 and all the preferred bidders if you like ) came to power one by one only to be killed off by the next claimant!

     

     

    Eventually The Emperor Domitian Came to power, knocked down The Colossus of Nero and built the big Stadium there instead. He also gave the land stolen by Nero back to the people and he eh……. did the decent thing and eased the tax burden and paid in some money himself!

     

     

    However in the end Nero didn’t do the decent thing himself, in fact he relied on his long serving….. secretary– almost like a company secretary–Epaphroditos— to Kill him and bring about the final end of Nero’s empire. That was 9th June 68AD.

     

     

    As a result of this act Domitian had Epahroditos banished from Rome initially, although after a cooling off period and a period of reflection……… Domitian had him put to death instead as the initial temporary punishment had not proven severe enough as the Secretary had not done enough to save Nero from himself.

     

     

     

    And you wonder why people say that history sometimes repeats itself??????????????

  11. Magnificentseven on

    ElDiegoBhoy on 10 June, 2012 at 17:43 said:

     

     

     

    Nevin.

     

     

     

    how many game did he play for us??

  12. Wolvibhoy on 10 June, 2012 at 17:39:

     

     

    Perhaps he will eventually be the one to lower the Coffin…:) After all he said at the end of the article that the integrity of football must prevail…just saying like…:) Ogilvie may have given the SFA a statement and or evidence and in return gets to remain President.

     

     

    Keep the Faith!

     

     

    Hail Hail!

  13. Philbhoy - It's just the beginning! on

    Nadal has now lost EIGHT games in a row.

     

     

    Unbelievable!

  14. voguepunter

     

     

    Interesting point.

     

     

    As long as Catalonia doesn’t participate in official competitions and plays only friendly matches, Xavi, Piqué, Cesc Febregas or Puyol can play for both Catalonia and Spain.

     

     

    Iniesta by the way, is a Castillian.

     

     

    Catalonian Quick News CSC

  15. Must say,I think the Spanish have missed a trick here, a hink wee nacho would have carved open

     

    they Italians.

  16. jude2005 is Neil Lennon \o/ on

    Emdae think Regan will be sitting with his head in his hands?

     

     

    Ps Get A T up here ASAP!! Keevins had the old ” ” all over his exclusive with Regan. Never took him to task on anything.

  17. archdeaconsbench on

    Philbhoy – It’s just the beginning! on 10 June, 2012 at 17:42 said:

     

    They dissappoint me, but Burley is in a league of his own…

     

     

    In saying that, Walkers particularly nauseating.

  18. Magnificentseven on

    !!Bada Bing!! on 10 June, 2012 at 17:49 said:

     

     

     

    Miller

     

     

     

    Bada…I would put him down as the least offensive of those previously listed, never a bhoy but he hasn’t been spouting rubbish about us since he left, unlike most of the others

  19. Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan supports Kano 1000 on 10 June, 2012 at 17:42 said:

     

    Great post!

     

    Let’s hear it for the new Domitian. Step right up!

     

    Don’t hold your breath!

  20. Glendalystonsils likes a mr whippy with his lime green jelly on

    Southampton could have got one of Hoopers legs, or the whole of Jay Rodriguez for their 6 million, so it’s no surprise they opted for the latter.

  21. PF-

     

     

    Nonsense, a’body knows Waddell supports Falkirk!

     

     

    ;)

     

     

     

    BSR

     

     

    Our day will come……….but it will only be US who’ll call for it……naebody else…..the huns are using all their establishment influence to keep this… in-hoose.

     

     

    They are being assisted by a compliant, friendly MSM.

  22. Grrrr forgot to get my pick on for this game – was actually gonna go 1-0 for Italy.

     

     

    Went 2-1 for Ireland tonight – c’mon boys.

     

     

    Paul – The thing that strikes me most in all of the recent, and some not so recent exposures of what, allegedly, looks like dyed in the wool evidence is that not once, not once….

     

     

    Have any of the accused denied or put forward to refute the claims – that is quite astonishing.

     

     

    pyfinl

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 18