Gaffer

I've been really impressed with SR in his interviews. He I said calm, articulate, intelligent and persuasive. I have criticised his inability to effect changes, but he is acting the way I would want a Rangers CEO to behave. Proud!

No one outside of our country would believe that he was once the head of our football league. I still wonder whether I've just had a nightmare.

This is really well presented by Rangers and there is so much in there that was not made public before. If members are asked to make decisions without material disclosures, ND has no option but to go. Furthermore, if RM or MM knew about these then they have to go too. This is exciting. The legal counsel is spot on in terms of the material breaches of their fiduciary responsibilities. If that's any other director/chairman of any other company they will be struck off and be unable to be a director again (at least for some time). Sometimes small to medium sized businesses (which is what all clubs are) are given a bit of leeway but I don't imagine that high profile businesses can be afforded this same luxury. This is definitely the end of Doncaster at least. I just wonder if he will take all the blame and allow RD and MM to remain. Rangers has enough to take this to court but I wonder if they will. Even if ND avoids charges, his reputation is surely in tatters and as a result will have to be removed via a no confidence vote (which might be their next tactical move). I would prefer this route because he might then be encouraged to speak up and take the other chancers down with him. If we take the litigious route, they may all clam up and then it's down to how much evidence exists to take down RD and MM. As someone said earlier, this is time for the popcorn. I hope we hear from the other clubs now. Surely no other director at the SPFL will want to be seen to be supporting this trio now because they're all dead men walking. If they take legal advice they'll be told to be seen to be pushing for this 'possible' corruption to be investigated. If not, they could find themselves implicated. In some cases I hope they are because many of them are guilty.

The SPFL has a serious problem now, but only if the clubs support cleaning it up. They have a problem because it appears that they have deliberately misled/deceived their members. No matter how they dress it up, clubs could have been given money without drawing the league to a close. They are claiming that these were not advances and they were not loans. I've been involved in banking for almost 30 years and I don't even know what else to call these previous payments to clubs. Answers on a postcard. Their claim about due diligence being required before loans is just nonsense. You don't have to conduct due diligence if the most you can lose is what they would be paid anyway. In other words, the could have been given an advance ... oh wait a minute it wasn't an advance was it?!?! What the member clubs must decide is if this was deliberately misleading or just a mistake. If it's deliberate, it leads to the question, why? If it's a mistake, this is too large an error at such a critical time to go without being severely punished, and that means heads roll. Either way, for this alone the CEO, Chairman, and advisers have to go. In any other business in the world this would be the only conclusion. I won't hold my breath though.

I've been told by a very reliable source that the court cases with SD are done and dusted completely. I have no reason to doubt the information so let's hope this is true. There is one possible course of legal action still likely and that's for the money owed to us. I expect the club will make a clearer statement in August about it when the current deals conclude. I think after all of the false dawns we really need a clear statement from the club confirming all of this. We just won't (and can't) get it for another 3 months unfortunately.

I just read the latest SPFL statement out today. Apparently Ann Budge is wrong ... clubs were given "an advance" four years ago ... not a loan. LAUGH OUT LOUD. Who the hell is writing these statements and why did they think that would help?!? They just keep digging themselves a bigger hole. So it's not ok to give clubs a loan but they can get an advance. Wait a minute, I though that they couldn't get an advance. Has anyone else lost track of how many times these halfwits have changed their story. Scottish football is a joke, and the clowns are in charge. I'm so embarrassed and yet I'm just a fan. Imagine actually being on the board. Imagine being the chairman. Imagine being the CEO.

It's great news but not really a surprise. When Rangers and SD were trading minor court wins last year I said that this was normally what happened when leading up to a negotiated settlement. Both sides were just trying to strengthen their negotiating positions. There was one particular win for SD last year that made me realise we were close to the beginning of the end, and that's turned out to be the case. What is clear though is that we have escaped his clutches at last and it's surely a great day. Dave King deserves so much credit for this and he will definitely have a smug grin on his face today.

This is a difficult position for fans. We suspect our season tickets will not be able to be used this season but if we don't sign up the club will almost not certainly go under (or at least be in serious financial trouble). I'll be taking mine but I can completely understand those who don't. Until they drop this nonsense about a vaccine I just don't see fans being back for a long time, possibly 18 months. By that stage it's too late.

The big problem our game has is that of perception. It now doesn't matter what the reality is because there's so much suspicion that no sponsor is going to touch our game without a full inquiry. Again, if the board members can't see that they are not fit to hold their positions.

Isn't it utterly bizarre that so many clubs are saying they won't support the inquiry before they've seen what Rangers has to evidence the need for it? I'd have thought there was enough already to warrant an investigation so I am even more suspicious when I read this. In the case of Celtic, I wouldn't care how much I hated another company or club, I'd support an inquiry if corruption was evident. If I didn't I'm risking prison. The other SPFL board members are doing everything they can to end up with a criminal conviction. Any organisation must investigate whistleblowing, so if Rangers do provide additional evidence it must be considered. They have no choice!!! If they choose to ignore it, I'll be calling the police myself. If any other commercial organisation in the world was seen to be encouraging stakeholders to turn a blind eye to evidence they would be up on charges right away. And let's be clear that the charges wouldn't be for the corruption, it would be for the culture of the board. I work in a highly regulated business and I'd have received a fine and probably a prison sentence by now if I'd have said or done the things this SPFL board has. The SFA is supposed to hold that role in Scotland so where are they? We know the answer to that and that's why I hope this goes the whole way to court. There will be many people who will find out the hard way just what their responsibilities were, and ignorance is no defence.

Again, Doncaster shows further evidence of maladministration ... he is the CEO, sanctions an 'independent' inquiry by Deloitte (run by MacLennan), and doesn't know how much it cost?!?!? If money is so tight, any CEO will know how much they are spending on something as important as this, even ballpark. Maybe Doncaster is quite happy for board members to spend large amounts of SPFL money without knowing how much. In which case maybe Robertson should just go ahead and arrange it himself. Doncaster is proving himself to be either incompetent or a liar. Either way he has to go. Also, it is clear that they've all been briefed and are now reciting rehearsed answers and phrases. You don't need to rehearse such things unless there's fear of consequences. This is becoming juicy.

His answer around the loans was ridiculous, suggesting they'd have to do due diligence to make sure they could repay the loan. I imagine the conversation would go something like this ... Club: Can we get £50,000 please? SPFL: No, sorry we can't because we need to check that you can afford to repay it. Club: But its my money, can't I get it? SPFL: Yes of course you can get £50,000 but not as a loan. We need to just give it to you. Club: I thought you were worried that I couldn't pay it back? SPFL: Yes, that was because it was a loan, but it's your money so we will just give it to you. Club: So you were worried about me defaulting on the loan, secured against my own money, but you're happy to just give me my money? WHAT!?!?! I showed this to some of the bankers I deal with. They think this is hilarious, but that's because they don't support teams in Scotland and don't care about the idiots running our game.

I'm beginning to realise the SPFL is definitely hiding something. These statements are blatantly desperate and surely everyone sees this. If I was the board and I had nothing to hide I'd sit back and allow Rangers to present their findings first, and then respond. This is utterly bizarre behaviour however and it's incredibly suspicious. Equally, as a CEO I'd be utterly embarrassed that others are making statements about the organisation I lead. Where is Doncaster in all of this? It becomes even more ridiculous by the day ... and we have these guys running our game?!?!? It's just beyond a joke now.

Holland has declared their season over with no promotions/titles/relegations, but the other two have yet to decide. Spain is the big one which would sway opinion. At the moment they seem determined to finish their season behind closed doors. This is a change of position for them because when the lockdown was introduced they very quickly reached agreement with all their clubs to end the season and take the same approach as Holland. They also engaged with the EPL who agreed to take the same approach. For some reason they now seem keen to finish the season and I believe it's down to contractual arrangements they have, and the threats from sponsors about recovering funds. This is because their government is saying they will be back to 'normal' in June, meaning that the sponsors are now insisting that there is no reason not to finish properly.

I can't believe that statement from the SPFL. These guys have just shot themselves in the foot. That's just further evidence of attempted bullying and corruption. I'm utterly flabbergasted that these people are on the board. This is idiotic.

These clubs are pathetic with their hypocrisy. Sporting integrity is now just a term people throw around as a blunt instrument in an attempt to strengthen their case or to demonstrate their impartiality. Kelty have been handed a title they didn't win. I didn't see sporting integrity in that press release. Hypocrites!!!! I am now sick and tired of all these diddy clubs being given air time. They don't matter. Most of the clubs don't matter. We'd be better off with reconstruction, but my idea of reconstruction is something like two leagues of 16. I hope and expect that this forthcoming financial crisis gives us that outcome as most of the others go to the wall. That's just a fact of economic integrity. I just hope our club is taking all necessary steps to ensure that we are one of the clubs still standing when the sh1t hits the fan later this year. We are still the largest club in the country and if there's an ounce of integrity left in our game, the various stakeholders will start at least respecting the role our club plays up here. I won't hold my breath, but the vote on the 12 May will be a good indicator.

I agree. To get an inquiry however, I don't think we need much more than the evidence that's already out there. What we need is a smart presentation (and reminder) of all the facts, including where it breaches the SPFL's rules. The inquiry will then uncover the juicy stuff because I can almost guarantee that certain people will sing like a canary (and so they should) to protect the selves in any potential bribery/corruption case. Of course if we have additional evidence of wrong doing then that can only help. The clubs have their money now so I hope they now realise that our game is a joke (and therefore at risk of losing financial support from sponsors) if we don't clean it up. In many ways I hope it goes down the criminal route because that will rattle the cages of two people in particular. I mentioned the prisoner dilemma before and I wonder who would squeal first ... McKenzie or Doncaster. Doncaster seems weak to me and my money is on him.

The EGM will take place on May 12. That gives Rangers plenty of time to present their evidence. Should be interesting. The spin doctors at Sceptic and the SPFL will be working overtime.

75% of clubs need to agree to their proposal which will be held at an extraordinary meeting. If it goes that far I expect the SPFL board will be compelled to facilitate the inquiry. If not, we don't need any other clubs to support us if we take the legal route. One thing that the club has not mentioned (for obvious reasons) is that they have the option of taking the police route. If there is indeed bribery or corruption that can be evidenced, it is highly likely that this could end up as a criminal case. If there's an independent inquiry, or if the police get involved, this will escalate very quickly and I suspect that much more evidence will appear as more and more whistleblowers emerge. This always happens in these cases as others become desperate to distance themselves from the centre of the corruption. These additional (or as I call them ... save your own skin) whistleblowers are often the ones who deliver the killer blow and it's their evidence that usually secures the convictions. The "prisoner dilemma" often comes into play here.

It is within its remit but the SPFL would have to agree to it too. If not, this will end up in court. With all the history we have in court battle failures I don't hold much hope for us if it goes that far, unless our evidence is strong. I've read the SPFL rules myself and I believe that the vote breaches at least 3. What I don't understand (and hence why I am so suspicious about the intent) is that if it seems so clear that a breach has taken place (which it must be to any lawyer either in the SPFL or from an individual club), why doesn't the SPFL just confirm that but say there were special circumstances requiring these breaches. This would have blown over by now. The problem the SPFL has now is that it's tried to cover up the issue of breaches to its own rules, and attempted to mislead the members further with this sham of an investigation. In any bribery and corruption cases I've been made aware of previously, this cover up is regarded as being more serious. In addition it's the cover up that then implicates other people who were actually innocent of the original breach. The other SPFL board members or executives will all be in serious trouble, even if they had nothing to do with the initial bribery and corruption. Roberson will be fine thanks to this public statement by the club, but the others need to make sure their protests are at least minuted in the board meeting documentation. I don't think they realise how serious this might be for them. I've seen CEOs fined huge amounts, and even sent to prison and yet they personally were not involved in bribery or corruption. They are punished however because they did not ensure that adequate controls existed or they did not have awareness of (or respond promptly to) corruption in their organisation. This is why a whistleblower policy is so critical. If you have one and it's well publicised within your organisations, it can serve as a strong defence that you've been taken reasonable measures to identify and deal with bribery and corruption, or any other wrong doing.

The Rangers board is quite right to attempt to use the existng governance to tackle the issue. They've asked for the whistleblowing policy and drawn a blank. This is dangerous for the SPFL because all organisations with a corruption or bribery risk should have one. Failure to take this seriously or to have sufficient controls in place can result in a prison sentence. Without such a policy, the club will now attempt to gather support for an inquiry from other clubs. If this fails I would imagine they will go to the court of arbitration for sport. If they go there they will be asked to demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps and attempts to resolve this, hence the reason why the board is currently doing what it's doing. If (and as I suspect it will) it goes to the CAS, I think the SPFL trio are in serious trouble. In many ways I hope this attempt to gather support fails with the other clubs because CAS will be thorough in its investigation and will want to make an example of such corruption when it discovers it. I don't know who is advising the SPFL but this is a dangerous game he or she is playing. After the FIFA scandal there is a great deal of scrutiny on bribery and corruption in sport. If they want further opportunities to clean the game up, we can surely provide them a cracker here in Scotland.

We need some optimism because the situation seems hopeless. I hope you're right.

Why would the other clubs (outside of the old firm) agree to this? The other clubs will then not benefit from the old firm? That's the reason they'll all vote against the reconstruction too. Only Rangers and Celtic stand to gain. Aberdeen, Hib, Hearts, etc may all see this as a chance to level the playing field. They might enjoy the fact that we are limited to similar crowds that they get.

That's a good point and one I raised in an earlier post. Unfortunately I was corrected by someone who said that the rights to air the games are not actually owned by the club so it probably would require a rewrite of the SPFL rules to achieve it. Under current circumstances I think our chances of that are slim. I would however hope that our board is working on all possible angles.

The Scottish Government has now set out its plan to get us out of lockdown. It's quite simple really ... we will continue to have social distancing until a vaccine becomes available. As I've been suggesting for a while, this is a disaster for our club, for the economy, but most of all for people's lives (many more of which will certainly be lost as a result of this approach). Since this is a forum about our club though, let's focus on that. If the club is able to allow fans back into Ibrox, it is highly likely to be limited. By how much? By my own estimation, considering the 2m rule, we would be operating with an absolute maximum capacity of around 11,000, unless the club can fit Perspex separation somehow (which just isn't practical). This means that we need to reduce our operating costs by around 70%, with all other things being equal. For how long? Here's the biggest problem. According to the UK Government's chief medical adviser, it is unlikely that we will have one for another 12 months. And then how long will it take to make it widely available? My own guess is 6 months but that's perhaps optimistic. So, we can expect to operate with these restrictions on income for at least another 18 months?!?!? I am deeply concerned what this means. In some ways it doesn't matter because if this is indeed the approach governments choose to take, football is the least of our worries. In the future I am certain that our grandchildren and great grandchildren will look upon this time as the biggest screw up ever. China may or may not have created this virus, but it's our reaction to it that will change our lives forever. Unbelievable! Back to our club though ... we need to drastically cut back starting TODAY. If we wait until other clubs and businesses start, we will not get the same value for our assets. We need to be having pragmatic discussions with all staff and players to negotiate huge reductions in salaries. We need to be making all players available for sale, but in such a way that gets maximum value (I.e. managing the perception of a fire sale). Even if players don't agree I think we need to cut what is paid anyway. We may end up in court but you have to be alive to be summoned there. Actually the club has a huge opportunity here too, but,only if it acts right now.