What @thesfmonitor and @theoffshoregame dont want you to know

---

This was posted on May 18th then again today on TSFM. They have blocked it as they cannot respond to it.

.
.
.
.

Its fair to say when I read the initial report from The Offshore Game and decided to respond to the authors on the licence issue, I never expected it to blow up as much. I certainly didn’t expect to get to a place where the report in many respects has ended up leading to such a deep dive on “our side of the fence” to the point where it has actually had the complete opposite effect as to what the contributors of the evidence thought would happen

I did say that I would take some time at some stage to look at the other issue in the “independent” report, which was not a blog, and in advance of what is going to be a very busy 4 days for me over the weekend, I have taken the time to review it tonight.

To those who may have not read it, the long and short of it is that they attack Campbell Ogilivie and the evidence he gave in the Lord Nimmo Smith commission. They use a sole point to try to discredit the outcome and subsequently, the SFA role in it due to the fact he was President of the SFA at the time of the commission and also a recipient of an EBT.

They provide evidence that in 1999, Campbell Ogilvie signed a document as Secretary of the Club confirming subscription of 2 shares in Montreal Limited which was to provide remuneration for a valued employee. That employee was Craig Moore.

The report, not a blog, then focuses in on what Campbell Ogilvie told the commission when giving evidence which was:

“Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within my scope of my remit at Rangers”

Now this is where it gets tricky but please bare with me.

The report, not a blog states:

“Although it appears that HMRC did not take action with regard to the Craig Moore discounted option scheme, it was the same scheme that was used to pay Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer. In those cases the club accepted that the payments were unlawful due to the existence of the side letters. Crucially, payments into this scheme was made by the Rangers Employee Benefits Trust.”

This is where things start to not add up. You see, all the documentation provided for the other 2 players is signed by Douglas Odam and not Campbell Ogilvie PLUS the documentation for the other 2 players is clearly confirmed as payments into the Clubs Employee Benefit Trust Scheme whereas that of Craig Moores is clearly different. HMRC never took action on the Craig Moore scheme which does not support the “GUESS” by the authors that it was the same scheme. Why would HMRC dismiss it and not claim tax, if it was "the same scheme"?

Furthermore it is evidently clear that the company running the Trust schemes see Craig Moores Montreal shares as different from the EBT schemes of De Boer and Flo. In a letter to the club in September 2011, they state:

“On 27th July 2004, my colleague Mr Matthews accompanied by a former director of AIBJ, Mrs Luxo, met with Messrs Olverman and MacMillan in Glasgow, both employees of Rangers or its holding company, Murray International Holdings Limited, to discuss Montreal and other entities under our trusteeship / management including the Rangers Football Club plc EBT ("the EBT") “

This is unequivocally clear. Montreal was NOT part of the Rangers EBT schemes referred to in the commission. The above are extracts from the offshores own presented evidence, yet they “GUESSED” it was the same thing despite having 2 crucial pieces of evidence saying differently.

To be fair, the report, not a blog, actually then acknowledges their lack of evidence that Ogilvie was involved or knew anything about the “DIFFERENT” EBT schemes that the other 2 were on by stating:

Although we have seen no evidence that Mr Ogilvie played a similar role in setting up the schemes for Ronald de Boer and Tore Andre Flo, his statement to the inquiry that “nothing to do” with contributions to the employee benefit trust came under his remit at Rangers, is clearly false.”

Which brings us to the pinnacle of the whole argument and that of the "false" statement of Ogilvie.

The subject in hand on this commission and the questions put to Ogilvie were ONLY based on “Rangers Employee Benefit schemes” from the period 23rd November 2000 to 3 May 2011. Montreal was not one of these schemes. The company running it clearly states so in a letter. HMRC clearly state so by taking no action against Montreal. But equally crucial, Montreal pre dated the commissions scope of dates.

The report tries to dance around this by pointing to a line in the commission which states:

"We note that the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust was preceded by the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust, but we are not aware that they were different trusts. We shall treat them as a continuous trust, which we shall refer to throughout as the MGMRT.”

To prevent them repeating this line, i have to be clear that the schemes above that the commission CAN consider are still limited to:

a) Rangers Employee Benefit schemes (which Montreal was not part of)

b) Only those created 23 November 2000 to 3 May 2011 (which Montreal predated)

If we look at Ogilvies statement again then there is no way the authors of the report can confirm its false:

“Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within my scope of my remit at Rangers”

Montreal was not a Trust. It was not Tax avoidance. HMRC didn’t touch it. The company running it separated it from the “Trust” in scope of the commission.

Of course people will take a dim view on this and say, well that’s taking “giving evidence” to the brink of dishonesty however my legal friend was quick to point out this evening that when being questioned on anything, any lawyer worth his salt, will only allow you to answer the questions asked and only refer to the subject in hand.

The signatures of Douglas Odam on the only 2 documents that prove payments were made to EBT’s at that time actually support Ogilivies statement. His statement is far from “CLEARLY FALSE” as portrayed by the authors of the report, not a blog.

And there we have it. That is why the game is corrupt apparently. I have to caveat this rebuttal by saying i have only looked at the evidence provided by the report. If they have kept crucial evidence at the heart of the issue hidden from site, like the SFA email on the UEFA licence, then i reserve the right to change my opinion.

Reply · Report Post