Keith Jackson: beleaguered SFA board prepare to rule on Dave King

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Because the SFA will take into consideration his 41 tax convictions he pled guilty to.

Look if King passes the SFA FAPP test and invests that would be great but I've never been convinced King is the messiah he's been made out to be

 

That's a different matter and is up to the sfa. When king went to them and asked them to reject Ashley and promised he wasn't the only option for rangers they did.

 

I can't see them now rejecting him.

 

But we will see.

[Calgacus 8]

He wasn't done for tax evasion..he was done for not providing the Tax Authorities with information regarding his income. If I remember his basic argument was that the monies concerned weren't his but belonged to various trusts and other entities. It also appears that the original section has been repealed and new provisions brought in where by the Tax Authorities can now levy administrative penalties ie non criminal for these matters.

[ian1964 10,457]

Ex-Rangers chief Craig Whyte ticked a SINGLE BOX to prove he was fit and proper but Dave King will face a proper grilling from the SFA

 

06:00, 28 April 2015

By Keith Jackson

 

RECORD SPORT sees official document showing how easy Hampden beaks allowed former owner to bluff his way into Ibrox as outcome of would-be chairman's case is set to be announced this week.

 

CRAIG WHYTE sailed through his appointment to the Rangers board by ticking a single box on an SFA questionnaire to insist he was a fit and proper.

 

Record Sport has been shown official documentation which highlights how easy it was for the brazen former Ibrox owner to have the Hampden authorities rubber-stamp his disastrous take-over back in 2011.

 

Ironically, four years on, would-be Rangers chairman Dave King is now nearing the end of what has been a marathon process in comparison as he attempts to secure the same approval – in order to clean up the mess which Whyte created.

 

King’s own fit and proper status is set to be decided upon this week by the all powerful SFA board.

 

And it’s as a direct result of Whyte’s subsequent behaviour – pushing the club over a financial abyss in less than nine months at the helm – that the SFA have toughened up their criteria to such an extent that King has described himself as ‘the most scrutinised candidate in Scottish football history’.

 

But Whyte found no such obstacles blocking his route into power, following his ill-fated acquisition of the club from former owner Sir David Murray who later claimed to have been duped.

 

The paperwork – which we have seen – shows how Whyte was able to bluff his way through the Hampden ‘test’ by simply filling out an official SFA form entitled an ‘Application for Approval of Appointment of Office Bearer, Secretary, Director or Member of the Board of Management or Committee’.

 

After filling out his name, address and contact details Whyte is asked just three questions.

 

The first reads: “Having carefully considered the terms of Article 10, in relation to the Applicant being deemed by the SFA to be a fit and proper person, is there any matter which should be brought to the attention of the SFA? Please note that the decision as to whether or not the Applicant is a fit and proper person will be made by the SFA and not by the Club/Association submitting this Application.”.

 

Beneath the question a box marked ‘no’ has clearly been ticked by the applicant with the ‘yes’ box left blank.

 

The form continues: “If answered Yes, please give full details (please use a continuation sheet if this space is insufficient)”

 

 

 

06:00, 28 April 2015

By Keith Jackson

 

RECORD SPORT sees official document showing how easy Hampden beaks allowed former owner to bluff his way into Ibrox as outcome of would-be chairman's case is set to be announced this week.

 

60 Shares

Share

Tweet

+1

 

Craig Whyte

Craig Whyte

 

CRAIG WHYTE sailed through his appointment to the Rangers board by ticking a single box on an SFA questionnaire to insist he was a fit and proper.

 

Record Sport has been shown official documentation which highlights how easy it was for the brazen former Ibrox owner to have the Hampden authorities rubber-stamp his disastrous take-over back in 2011.

 

Ironically, four years on, would-be Rangers chairman Dave King is now nearing the end of what has been a marathon process in comparison as he attempts to secure the same approval – in order to clean up the mess which Whyte created.

 

King’s own fit and proper status is set to be decided upon this week by the all powerful SFA board.

 

And it’s as a direct result of Whyte’s subsequent behaviour – pushing the club over a financial abyss in less than nine months at the helm – that the SFA have toughened up their criteria to such an extent that King has described himself as ‘the most scrutinised candidate in Scottish football history’.

 

But Whyte found no such obstacles blocking his route into power, following his ill-fated acquisition of the club from former owner Sir David Murray who later claimed to have been duped.

 

Murray claimed he was duped into selling Rangers to Whyte

 

The paperwork – which we have seen – shows how Whyte was able to bluff his way through the Hampden ‘test’ by simply filling out an official SFA form entitled an ‘Application for Approval of Appointment of Office Bearer, Secretary, Director or Member of the Board of Management or Committee’.

 

After filling out his name, address and contact details Whyte is asked just three questions.

 

The first reads: “Having carefully considered the terms of Article 10, in relation to the Applicant being deemed by the SFA to be a fit and proper person, is there any matter which should be brought to the attention of the SFA? Please note that the decision as to whether or not the Applicant is a fit and proper person will be made by the SFA and not by the Club/Association submitting this Application.”.

 

Beneath the question a box marked ‘no’ has clearly been ticked by the applicant with the ‘yes’ box left blank.

 

The form continues: “If answered Yes, please give full details (please use a continuation sheet if this space is insufficient)”

 

It was some months later that a TV documentary revealed how Whyte was, in fact, serving a seven year directorial ban. And soon after that Rangers were in the hands of administrators and hurtling towards liquidation.

 

The only other questions officially asked of Whyte related to any interest he had in other Scottish or foreign clubs. Again, the ‘no’ box is ticked after both.

 

The SFA believe they have been unfairly blamed in some quarters for endorsing Whyte’s take-over when Sir David Murray was the man responsible for handing over the keys to the club’s front-door.

 

But it’s King who is now seating on his own credentials as the SFA board prepare to deliver a verdict on his application to take on a leading role in a new look regime.

 

Unlike Whyte’s previous misdemeanours, King’s historic legal battle with the South African tax authorities and his 41 convictions were already a matter of public record.

 

King has been asked to explain the background to all of this and also provide mitigation for the fact that he served on Whyte’s board throughout the former owner’s catastrophic reign.

 

His legal team have argued that King stayed put purely in order to keep a close eye on Whyte and, furthermore, that he made his concerns public from the outset. They also point out their client has been cleared to take on a number of directorships in his adopted home after settling his dispute in a Johannesburg court last year.

 

A source said last night: “Whatever decision is arrived at there can be no question that the level of scrutiny and evidence gathering which has taken place befits the gravity of the situation. In many ways, this is a legacy of what happened to Rangers under Craig Whyte.”

 

A final definitive verdict on King’s fit and proper status is expected to be made public within the next few days.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-rangers-chief-craig-whyte-ticked-5593823

[RANGERRAB 3,306]

And does anyone seriously now believe the SFA didn't know anything about Whyte's business background?

Why did they stand back & allow Whyte to take over Rangers whereas King faces something totally different and much harder now?

[der Berliner 3,290]

And does anyone seriously now believe the SFA didn't know anything about Whyte's business background?

Why did they stand back & allow Whyte to take over Rangers whereas King faces something totally different and much harder now?

 

... according to Traynor back then, Lawwell and Regan knew by November 2011 that Whyte wasn't paying what was due and having no cash, but let him go on. Why Traynor did not set the media machinery on his trail we'll never know.

[ian1964 10,457]

Explained: Dave King and the Scottish FA's fit and proper process.

 

A decision on whether Dave King and Paul Murray will be deemed "fit and proper" to take up permanent positions at Rangers is expected from the Scottish FA imminently.

 

The pair were given the approval of shareholders back in March when they ousted Mike Ashley's allies from the board.

 

But King is yet to take up office, while Murray has been serving as interim chairman.

 

Plenty has been written about what steps the Scottish FA must take to determine whether both men are fit to be involved in football. But there are also plenty questions over the whole situation.

 

Is there a fit and proper test?

 

This is the most common misconception when it comes to the Scottish FA's guidelines. To be abundantly clear: there is no fit and proper test.

 

The governing body has an "illustrative" list of red flags against which both the clubs and the Scottish FA's board can identify that there may be an issue with an individual.

 

It is not black and white that if a person's circumstances match up with any of the red flags that they will be automatically prevented from having a role at a football club.

 

The governing body's board "reserves its discretion" to make a final decision "after due consideration of all relevant facts which the board has in its possession and knowledge."

 

So how does the process actually work?

 

Using a form known as an official return, every club must provide details to the Scottish FA of all of its "officials, office bearers, secretary, team staff, and directors or members of the board of directors or the board of management."

 

This responsibility extends to "associates", for example someone acting on behalf of another person.

 

The onus remains on the club and the persons involved to act honestly and divulge any relevant information which could cause the governing body concern over any individual's fit and proper person status.

 

From there, it is down to the board of the Scottish FA to be "satisfied" a person is fit and proper.

 

What are the potential red flags?

 

There is a list of 11 points against which the board can consider that a person may not be fit and proper. This has been frequently interpreted through the years as a checklist. It is not.

 

An individual can fall foul of any the 11 points. The Scottish FA board retains the discretion, having fully considered all the facts, whether any red flag is relevant or important.

 

The 11 red flags are:

 

he is bankrupt or has made any arrangement or composition with his creditors generally;

 

he is, by reason of his mental health, the subject of a court order which wholly or partly prevents him from personally exercising any powers or rights which he would otherwise have

 

he is under or is pending suspension imposed or confirmed by the Scottish FA

 

he is listed in the official return of another club in full membership;

 

he is currently participating as a player of another member club or referee in association football

 

he is the subject of an endorsed disclosure from Disclosure Scotland

 

he has been disqualified as a director pursuant to a disqualification order granted under the Company Directors’ Disqualification Act 1986 within the previous five years or was serving a disqualification as a director pursuant to such act at any time within the previous five years

 

he has been convicted within the last 10 years of (i) an offence liable to imprisonment of two years or over, (ii) corruption or (iii) fraud

 

he has been suspended or expelled by a national association from involvement in the administration of a club

 

he has been a director of a club in membership of any national association within the five-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event

 

he is currently under or is pending suspension imposed by or confirmed by the Scottish FA in accordance with the Anti-Doping Regulations

 

Do the Scottish FA do anything in addition to taking clubs at their word?

 

Officially - no. The fit and proper guidelines continue to rely on self-declaration by a club. However, it is unthinkable given that the details of King's convictions are easily accessible in the public domain that the board of the Scottish FA will not do its own research into the matter.

 

This will undoubtedly be limited. The Scottish FA's chief executive, Stewart Regan, has spoken previously of the restrictions his organisation work under.

 

"The alternative to [clubs self-declaring] is that we, as a Scottish FA, would have to employ a cast of thousands to research every potential takeover, every potential change of director, across the entire game," he said in 2012 after Craig Whyte put the club into administration.

 

"Bear in mind we don't just govern the professional game, we govern the entire game of football in Scotland.

 

"We don't have the resources or time to actually do that. We rely heavily on the clubs themselves. In the case of a PLC like Rangers, you have a board of directors who are selling a club to an individual.

 

"It's easy after the event to try and find a scapegoat, to say we should have done a fit and proper person test and that we should have prevented the takeover.

 

"I can't see how we could have done that, quite frankly, without having gone through a long, bureaucratic process on every single director."

[ian1964 10,457]

Why is Dave King's status as a fit and proper person in question?

 

In 2013, King was convicted on 41 counts of breaching the South African Income Tax Act. He faced two years in jail on each count unless he paid £947,200. In total he paid £38.8m to avoid any jail time.

 

This ties in with the red flag above relating to a conviction for an offence "liable to imprisonment of two years or over".

 

Money laundering and tax evasion charges he faced at the time were dropped.

 

What will happen with Dave King’s application?

 

Once a formal application is made, the board of the Scottish FA will review all of the information available to them. This will include any submissions made by King and/or Rangers, together with any evidence they themselves have been able to produce.

 

Who makes the final decision?

 

The board of the Scottish FA makes the final decision on whether a person is able to take up a post with a club.

 

Who is on the board? It is chaired by Campbell Ogilvie, the president of the Scottish FA.

 

He is joined by independent non-executive director Barrie Jackson, Tom Johnston of the Scottish Junior FA, first vice-president Alan McRae, second vice-president - and chairman of Hibernian - Rod Petrie, Scottish FA chief executive Stewart Regan, SPFL chairman Ralph Topping and Peter Lawwell, chief executive of Celtic.

 

What if King is found to be not fit and proper?

 

He will be unable to take up his proposed position as chairman of Rangers. The Scottish FA holds no jurisdiction to force him to dispose of his shareholding.

 

The articles of association outline: "In the event that the Board considers that a person is not fit and proper to hold a relevant position within association football, the board shall determine (in its sole discretion) what, if any, actions/consequences will apply in such circumstances."

 

What about Paul Murray?

 

Murray was on the board within the five-year period prior to the Rangers oldco going into administration and subsequently liquidation.

 

As that is one of the aforementioned red flags, he will have to justify his actions to the Scottish FA before being deemed to be fit and proper.

 

Have the guidelines on fit and proper changed since Craig Whyte took over Rangers?

 

They have to an extent. Firstly, it is worth pointing out that the list of red flags, and who they apply to, has not deviated, save for some minor alterations to the wording.

 

But additions have been made elsewhere within the article. Clubs are now obliged to notify the Scottish FA of any change of circumstances within 10 working days. For example, if an individual potentially triggers one of the red flags while in office.

 

There was also an important addition made which looked to place greater onus on clubs to vet any incoming directors in the event of a "change of control".

 

That by definition is when "a person who controls any club ceases to do so or if another person(s) acquires control of it."

 

"Control", by definition, means "the power of a person(s) to secure that the affairs of a club are conducted in accordance with the wishes of that person(s) [through] the holding of shares, or the possession of voting power, in or in relation to that club, directly or indirectly; or by virtue of any powers conferred by the constitutional or corporate documents, or any other document, regulating that club."

 

The object of the "change of control" rule was to ensure clubs did their own due diligence on individuals. The club was then held responsible if any false information was given, or anything was not declared.

[ian1964 10,457]

In the King case, this has not come into effect. Why? This has never been answered. But it would certainly seem unlikely that the previous directors - Barry Leach and Derek Llambias - would sign and deliver a "change of control" certificate in King's favour.

 

Why did the Scottish FA initially find Craig Whyte to be fit and proper?

 

Simply because Rangers said he was, Whyte himself signed a form to say he was and the Scottish FA had no means or public information to disprove that point.

 

This was outlined in the note of reasons issued by the Scottish FA when it took action against Whyte in May 2012.

 

Whyte's previous disqualification as a director, which would have triggered one of the aforementioned red flags, was not declared to the Scottish FA.

 

What did the Scottish FA’s own report on the Craig Whyte era say about King?

 

Reference was only made to King's status as a director of the Rangers oldco during Whyte's tenure.

 

It is stated: "During the period from 6 May 2011 until October 2011 Mr David King (Non Executive Director) who lived in South Africa, made repeated requests by email to Mr Ken Olverman for financial and other information and accounts in order to fulfil his duty as a director in the governance of Rangers FC.

 

"Mr Ken Olverman went some way to prepare the materials for Mr David King but on seeking approval from Mr Craig Whyte for the provision of the requested information to Mr David King, a director of Rangers FC, Mr Craig Whyte instructed that Mr Ken Olverman should not provide it to Mr David King.

 

"Mr Craig Whyte then assumed responsibility for communicating directly with Mr David King and did so. In email correspondence he instructed that Mr David King should not make requests for information from Mr Ken Olverman but should instead obtain any information through Mr Craig Whyte.

 

"Mr David King became deeply disturbed by the manner in which he as a director was being treated and the manner in which Rangers FC were being governed."

 

It is later remarked: "From May 2011 Mr David King was aware that he was being excluded from the governance of the company and he appears to have done little about it except repeat his demands to Mr Olverman and Mr Craig Whyte for information.

 

"There was no information about any other steps he took as director when matters were plainly out of the control of the Board and information and accounts were kept secret from the Board."

 

What are the chances King will be deemed to be fit and proper?

 

There is only one certainty: this is not a black and white case. There is no fit and proper test, as we've established. It will come down to the Scottish FA board, on receipt and review of all of the evidence, to decide whether King should be allowed to hold office.

 

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/318698-scottish-fa-fit-and-proper-process-no-test-for-dave-king-to-pass/

[der Berliner 3,290]

What is more interesting than that is: who else would become chairman or do a KIng's role at the club. The Three Bears like e.g. Douglas Park? Someone else. The focus is very much on King here, but you wonder what role these people play or may want to play?

Edited April 28, 2015 by der Berliner

[RANGERRAB 3,306]

On the day Whyte acquired Rangers (fraudulently) both PM & AJ highlighted Whyte's business past. So too did Jeff Randall the Telegraph business editor.

Why did the SFA do nothing?