The corruption allegations directed towards FIFA regarding the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments, although not crystallised, are gradually undermining the credibility of the world governing body. If we did not already realise it, it demonstrates that positions of power can attract men of questionable motives, and conflicting priorities. Sporting bodies are not immune, and recent allegations serve to dispel the notion that our football authorities are being reproach.
Over a year since The Lord Nimmo Smith commission reported on the player registration issues at Rangers F.C., this piece reflects on whether we should just accept what we were told in 2013.
Between the years 2000 and 2011, Rangers Football Club Plc (now known as RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation) entered into side-letter arrangements with a large number of its professional players. In doing so, Oldco undertook to make very substantial payments to an offshore employee benefit remuneration trust (“EBT”), with the intent that such payments should be used to fund payments to be made to such players in the form of loans.
In February 2013, an independent commission, chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith, ruled that Rangers F.C. had breached SPL rules by failing to disclose to the league all payments made to players for playing activities.
The verdict stated “Those side-letter arrangements were required to be disclosed under the Rules of the Scottish Premier League (SPL) and the Scottish Football Association (SFA).”
However, Rangers F.C. were not judged to have gained any sporting advantage because none of the players were ineligible to play.
The verdict stated – “Rangers F.C. did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed upon Rangers F.C.
The verdict also stated that “the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed.”
Although Rangers F.C. had broken the rules, the trophies won during this period were not removed from them. This decision, which caused elation and despondency in equal measure, was a curious one. Rangers F.C. did not declare the side contracts, knowingly, and so the players were not properly registered, but the SFA’s administrative procedures served, in this case, to protect the guilty. How could this be?
Sandy Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA, had given evidence that registrations remain unless revoked and are not automatically invalid due to rule breaches. In normal speak, Rangers F.C. had not been informed by the SFA that player registration was incomplete, so the players were deemed to be correctly registered, even when the exact opposite was the case. In simple terms, unless you are told that have broken the rules, then you have not broken the rules. You would have to have been told that you had broken the rules, and continued to do so, before you could be punished. Rules are rules, and regardless whether these rules are good or bad, they are the rules. Case closed!
Well not quite.
Remember, for Rangers F.C. to have gained a sporting advantage, they would had to have known that they had breached the rules.
In 1978, Campbell Ogilvie was hired as general secretary at Rangers F.C. and later became a director of that club.
In June 2003, Campbell Ogilvie became second vice-president of the SFA, then first vice-president on 1 June 2007.
Ogilvie relinquished his executive duties at Rangers F.C. in September 2005, following a boardroom re-shuffle.
Between 2000, when Rangers F.C. instigated their EBT scheme, and 2005, when Campbell Ogilvie departed the club, he was signatory to player EBT schemes at Rangers F.C.and he had his own EBT too. He also administered player registrations with the SFA during this period. Considering Mr Ogilvie’s vast experience and expertise in such matters, it would be quite implausible to accept that he did not recognise the risk that Rangers F.C. were playing footballers who were not properly registered. It is important to remember that the commission verdict found that the non-disclosure was deliberate.
From 2003, in Ogilvie, the SFA had successfully recruited a vastly experienced football administrator. A professional who was responsible for player registration at one of Scotland’s biggest football clubs. And now in position at the SFA, Mr Ogilvie would be able to bring his considerable experience of player registrations, and other administrative matters, to bear. Regardless of his specific role at the SFA, in his executive capacity, it would be incumbent on him to act on what he knew – the Chief Constable does not ignore evidential information in relation to a crime just because he is not on the investigation team.
Because of his dual role, in that moment, in one man, the SFA would and should have known that Rangers F.C. had not registered their (side contract) players correctly. Rangers continued to do so for a further eight years.
Until now, Rangers F.C. were innocent of gaining a sporting advantage because they had not been informed by the SFA that they had breached the rules. But the SFA did know, because Campbell Ogilvie knew, and in this same person, Rangers F. C. already knew. Did one tell the other? Well yes, as for a period, they were one and the same. The only defence for Mr Ogilvie would be whether he realised what he knew. His credentials in this area would strongly suggest that he was not incompetent. However, arguing that he failed to understand the significance of what he knew might be the only way the SFA can preserve the status quo. The alternative is that Mr Ogilvie was showing favour to a member club, one that he had shares in.
As a minimum, we are dealing with corporate failure within the SFA. They would have to take responsibility for failing to protect each member club from the one club who abused the rules. How they compensate those affected clubs is for another time, but the issue has moved from being centred around questionable rules, to now being about corporate incompetence. The original verdict cannot stand.
There would also be the very real prospect that a new commission would not accept that this was an oversight, over many years by a very senior football administrator. They could reasonably find that in Mr Ogilvie, both the SFA and Rangers F.C. were aware of the rules, knew they had broken them, and had tacitly communicated this. There would also be the question of intent on the part of me Ogilvie. This matter has not been concluded satisfactorily. The headlines themselves tell the story that something isn’t right:
Guilty of non disclosure, over 11 years; up to £50 million pounds saved; a senior executive of Rangers F.C. administered both the EBT scheme and player registration; the same person was also employed by the SFA, 25 years experience in football administration when he joined the SFA, and at that point he too had an EBT and shares in Rangers F.C. And we are to believe that both organisations didn’t realise that they knew.
This is not a trivial matter: over 11 years, Rangers F.C, competed in c500 matches, fielding c10 players who had not been registered properly in each match . That’s 5,000 players. The club was fined £250,000, equating to a meagre £50 fine / player / match. A £250,000 fine which is 0.5% of the monies saved through the EBT scheme.
Case re-opened, please.
