Ogilvie had legislative responsibility during alleged improper registration period


Someone kindly directed me to the audio file from BBC Radio Scotland’s Sportsound programme last night.  Under recent scrutiny for his role, while general secretary and director of Rangers, in the alleged improper registrations of Rangers players with the SFA, he gave BBC reporter, Chick Young his thoughts on the matter.

While the BBC gave a robust defence of Mr Ogilvie stating that he was not in any way guilty of wrong-doing in relation to tax matters, which I am happy to accept, the entire debate never touched the question which has the potential to invalidate over a decade’s worth of football results.

Article 12.1 of the SFA’s Articles of Association states, “all payments, whether made by the club or otherwise, which are to be made to a player solely relating to his playing activities must be fully recorded”.  The redacted EBT agreement published last month by The Sun suggested Rangers would pay the player £1200 appearance money.

The SFA should have no interest in whether tax is due on this money, which is a matter for HM Revenue and Customs, they should only be concerned as to whether Rangers submitted details to the SFA of any payments made in connection to football, including appearance money.

My Young, perhaps trying to help, explained that Mr Ogilvie, as company secretary until 2002, had administrative responsibilities, but took on a legislative role on becoming general secretary that year. This suggests Mr Ogilvie had primary responsibility to ensure Rangers complied with the necessary legislative requirements, including registering payments to players.

Should have mentioned earlier, Mr Young suggested Rangers EBTs “could actually prove, bizarrely, to be one of the great coups of all time”.

He’s not wrong there.

We will address comments by Sir David Murray, widely reported this morning, later.

Click Here for Comments >

About Author

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7

  1. Got to say I’m very interested in Murray’s reported comments and why BBC Scotland have not queried his assertion that he was duped

  2. Read the below and answer me this.


    Sir Minty states the small EBT did evade tax so they accepted liability and paid up. He then says the bigger scheme did not. What was the difference? According to Sir Minty it is ‘contractual entitlement.’


    Does that not imply there was a second contract during the first scheme and therefore the players were improperly registered between 1999 and 2001. Or am I just being thick?



    SIR David Murray and his colleague Mike McGill insisted yesterday that another former Rangers director, Hugh Adam, was mistaken to say that the club had operated a system of dual contracts



    The two were also adamant that their use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) around the turn of the century was based on sound legal advice.



    The EBTs have since become the subject of a tax tribunal (the “big tax case”) which could land Rangers with a bill of up to £49million, and is separate from a far smaller tax case which Rangers agreed with Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs.



    “Mr Adam I think resigned as a director in September 2000,” McGill said. “The club used an old offshore EBT scheme in 1999 with three players. That scheme is the subject of the small tax case.



    “The Revenue provided some information to us in early 2011 and we conceded [a sum of £2.8m] based on that information and provided for payment in the club accounts. Craig Whyte didn’t pay it.



    “The other scheme was started in 2001. The larger scheme involves a payment into an offshore trust, but there is no contractual entitlement on the part of the players. That is key to the defence.”

  3. johann murdoch on

    As someone else eloquently posted last night…that interview was wee chicos “Artur Jorge moment”




  4. sorry for a re-post…



    I might be shooting the gun a bit here, as I suspect SDM’s comments this morning will be covered by a post by Paul67 later this morning, nevertheless…



    I’m not much of a lawyer, but then it doens’t take much to drive a cart and horses through what SDm says (or doesn’t say) in his interview:



    Campbell Ogilvie wasn’t involved in paying players:



    Okay, but was he involved in registering them with the SPL and the SFA? SDM doesn’t say.



    Campbell Ogilvie’s position in the SFA isn’t compromised at all:



    It is almost invonceivable (or, this being Scotland, perhaps it is perfectly conceivable) that any meaningful inquiry into the proper registration of players would fail to take evidence form a person who’s job it was to properly register players. Therefore, could Campbell Ogilvie be a relevant witness before any SPL/SFA inquiry? Yes. Can he therefore be involved in framing the shape of the inquiry? No. If public and stakeholder confidence is to be maintained, can he be seen to be framing the shape of the inquiry? No. While an inquiry before which he must surely be called to provide evidence continues, is his position as the President, and one of the most visible officers of the SFA, compromised? Without a doubt.



    Rangers payments weren’t illegal:



    This is a classic “Aunt sally” argument. SDM is trying to defeat an argument nobody serious is even making. The question for HMRC isn’t whether EBT payments were illegal, simply whether they were taxed properly. The question for the SFA/SPL ought to be whether payments to players relating to their football activities were declared in the contract of service (howsoever composed). Illegality of the payments is nothing to either point.



    Payments to players contained in letters were “never meant to be binding” and were simply “letters of intent”.



    A position he has to maintain if Rangers defence to the EBT claim is to hold water. Let’s wait and see on that one. In terms of the undeclared payments to players, however, it is not relevant. The question on that point is, were ALL details of payments to players relating to their footballing activities declared to the SPL/SFA. He doesn’t answer that in any way shape or form.



    I am staggered (I should be beyond that now) that the MSM continues to fail to ask the proper questions on this story. I am sure Paul67 will see through SDM’s blatant smoke and mirrors pantomime in his later post.

  5. Paul67



    Inspector Clouseau would crack this open in five minutes whilst dealing with the issue of a license for the Monkaaaa at the same time.

  6. There will be no retrospective punishment to the huns. No trophy stripping it will all be cleared up. The SFA will say they had all the details of the player payments. Case closed.

  7. For the horsey types.



    Had a shout from the owner of Sir Johnson 5.15 Chel , currently 12/1 , very confident of at least a place.

  8. Paul



    Just lovin’ all this …



    And yet it’s scary to think that if this sorry mess had occurred more than about 5 years ago (since when we’ve had the rapid growth in ‘social media’), there is every chance that this spell-binding saga would have been ‘sorted out’ through deals done in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms of yore and presented to the public (via a compliant media) as a fait accompli, ‘in the best interests of the sport’ …



    Hail, hail.

  9. Sir Minty’s comments? “no dual contracts”? That’s ok then. Never mind the fact that the actual potential breach of SFA rules is expressly BECAUSE Rangers players were payed money for football activities which wasn’t included on the contract submitted to the SFA. Doesn’t matter if there was “another” contract or not – there were payments made for footballing activities to players which were not on the contract submitted to the SFA.



    Am I misunderstanding something, or is it a classic “deny something that’s not really relevant to make it look like everything will be ok” media splurge of the “succulent lamb” variety?



    Someone, please, someone – tell me I’m not going insane?!

  10. The Lizard King on

    Morning. A good friend of mine (Falkirk fan) said:



    “Still think you need to be very careful what you wish for. You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone, and I don’t mean Rangers I mean the TV money.”



    So I had to respond which I thought I’d share as I felt better afterwards ! (with props to Paul67 and loads on here for providing the material – not much of this is original):



    The point here is that they WILL get liquidated – see below – there is a no hope barring a billionaire willing to throw over £100m away before even starting to build a team and repair Asbestbrox. They are finished – Rangers 1872 will die, with their history and five cheatin’ stars.



    Once that happens, the existing Sky TV deal is DEAD – there is no “Rangers”.



    Now I accept a Newco will form, and no doubt due to hun cunning and SFA/SPL compliance, the Newco will magically be in custody of an Abestos ridden ground (who owns it?), a training complex at Auchenhowie (who owns it?), some gallant players (better be quick – all can leave for next to nothing in June) AND A LICENSE TO PLAY IN THE SPL (pi$$ off UEFA, nothing to see here). However, it will be a New Company. Any existing commercial deals, including TV, will have to be renegotiated anyway. The current mega bucks(ha ha ha ha ha) deal will be nulled. But there will be a TV deal – Sky have 4 channels of schedules to fill. ESPN are part of Disney – huge and bigger than Sky – they could play the long game and offer Scottish football a long term deal once new Tax Dodgers FC regroup and are competitive again.



    The death of Las Ranglers is a once in a life time chance to re shape the Scottish game – I agree we should look at more equitable split of prize money, TV money, distribution of Euro millions, voting rights and even league structure.



    BUT what you are missing is that the story to unfold here is not about the big tax case and financial problems at Rangers, it is about a conspiracy of corruption between Scottish football governance (SFA , SPL and SFL (pre 1998)) and Rangers. Of people in positions of oversight and governance who have conspired to allow Rangers to improperly register players for around 16 years. Irrespective of whether the tax man agrees the EBTs were administered properly or not, there are answers to give on whether Rangers declared all football emoluments to players to the governance bodies, and thus duped UEFA as well to play in the Champions League. Every match in which they have fielded an ineligible player has to be reversed as a 0-3 defeat (this is a global football standard punishment for this offence). Ogilvie, Bain, McClelland, Smith all held roles of governance with fiduciary duties – at best they are incompetent and have failed in those fiduciary duties (this is an offence for a Director) or they are corrupt. Which is it? TV Deal – we will be lucky to have a football authority in Scotland after this plays out. I’m lead to believe UEFA are watching – UEFA is no fan of UK football authorities. They are also not riven with sectarian hatred and bigotry (you can ask Hugh Dallas about that).



    You and I and all Scottish football fans have been watching a sham probably since Murray took over – think about it – look at the players they signed? And any dissent has been trampled with cries of “paranoia” and “biscuit tin” from the Laptop Loyal.



    Revolution is needed my friend to cleanse our game. “Rangers” need to apologise to Scottish football for their wrongs and ask for forgiveness – we can then all move on. Start any Newco in Div 3- this will hugely boost the SFL. They are barred from Europe for 3 years in any case – let them grow and obtain our trust as they work their way back with honour and dignity. In 3-4 years a strong team from Glasgow will be in the SPL to compete with revitalised sides from Aberdeen and Edinburgh and Dundee, full of young Scottish players, some now with European football experience, used to competing for the prizes now available on a level playing field.



    A notable Celtic blogger introduced this phrase which I find powerful and apt “whatever part of my club is dependent on Rangers, I am willing to lose”.







  11. yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees







    i am so proud………………………………………….



    this is the day od says…………………………………..




  12. Between Ogilvie and Murray they’ve screwed themselves either way. Murray claims there were no second contracts. If that’s the case the earnings must have been lodged to the SFA and the tax case is lost.



    If there was second contracts Ogilvie should have known about them. If he did then he’s brought the game into disrepute and should be fired. If he didn’t he’s incompetent and should be deemed unfit for his role in the SFA. Either way Ogilvie should be sacked and Rangers will be up the proverbial creek with invalid player registrations – and Murray will be on record lying.

  13. Paul67


    The rules have been breached….they know it and we know it.


    They still cannot admit it was done and ignorance is not an excuse.


    The more they avoid responsibility the deeper they dig the hole.



    gerryguk7 and St martin’s bhoy thanks for your comments on the last





    Digginaholetaehidein csc

  14. A company secretary is the most important role in a company. The range of duties and responsibilities that a company secretary has will depend on such factors as the size of the company and its line of business.



    It is the duty of the directors of a public company to take reasonable steps to ensure that the secretary of the company is a person who appears to have the requisite knowledge & experience to discharge the functions of secretary of the company.



    The company secretary can be described as a “post-box” as everything that arrives into the company goes through them and everything that goes out should go out from them. They are responsible for ensuring all records are filed with Companies House and should have knowledge of everything that goes on in the company.



    If Campbell Ogilvie didn’t know about EBTs then he should have or wasn’t doing his job properly.




  15. Bhoys, looking for some help.



    There was an article written about a month ago about how clubs in the SPL would fare financially without the huns. It talked about how many extra fans needed to fo through the gates plus increased TV cut, etc. Does anybody have a link to this article still?







  16. Paul, how long before we qualify for our CQN MBAs (majoring in Football administration)?

  17. Paul


    Correcto mondo mate…


    Two totally different beasts, albeit with the same end result but..


    You gotta keep em separated….


    As the Clash sang


    Give Em Enough Rope..



  18. greenmaestro



    with the amount of information available on this site (and others) the rest of my MSc in management and Corporate governance should be a breeze. I’ve plenty of information for a good dissertation.




  19. No.7 on 14 March, 2012 at 10:38 said:


    There will be no retrospective punishment to the huns. No trophy stripping it will all be cleared up. The SFA will say they had all the details of the player payments. Case closed.



    So what? Should we all just stop with this nonsense then? Just move along and forget about it?


    Do you have evidence to support your very definite sounding assertion that it’s “case closed”?



    No offence mate but I’m getting really tired of the Celtic fans who are going around saying that they are going to get away with everything. It’s a bit like having a guy on your team in the middle of a match running around saying oh we’re gonna get stuffed.



    What do you hope to achieve by this? Is it just so you can say “see! i told you so!” if that’s what happens?

  20. ‘Expect further blogs and depending upon the digging, some TV coming up as the Rangers Ibrox saga unfolds’. You read it here first

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7