On the evening of Friday 22nd June 2012, a number of men sat in the SFA Boardroom in Glasgow.
These men had been discussing the fate of Rangers Football Club, in light of accusations in relation to the use of an employee benefit scheme known as "Employment Benefit Trusts" used some years earlier. Despite having knowledge of this scheme during the years of its operation, the SFA and SPL decided that the time to act was while the business owning Rangers was in Administration, with the club itself looking for a buyer.
Among these men were names that will be very familiar to you; Stewart Regan, Neil Doncaster and Rod Petrie. No friends of Rangers by any stretch of the imagination.
Their campaign, hatched in early June 2012 had reached its pinnacle; The verdict was in. Rangers were guilty, guilty without trial. The punishments would be swift and harsh. Amongst many other sanctions, the stripping of numerous League Titles and Scottish Cups would be included.
The panel/jury chose to describe these punishments as "SFA/SPL/SFL EBT Sanctions and Waiver of Claims by RFC/Sevco" and "an effective acceptance by RFC, Rangers FC and Sevco of errors and omissions in relation to EBT's." Legal-speak at its very best.
Following forceful suggestion that Rangers should be punished, the men present agreed that action should be taken. Rod McKenzie, a so-called "low-level paper gatherer" who, as it happens, turns out to be a partner with the SPL's law firm of choice, Harper McLeod, was instructed to draw up the necessary documentation.
McKenzie set to task, following client instruction. Harper McLeod of course had more than one client.
By 9am Monday morning 25th June, the first draft of the agreement began appearing in email account inboxes. But something strange had happened – a new clause had appeared from nowhere. Rangers were now to be stripped of four League Cups in addition to the aforementioned League Titles and Scottish Cups. Press reports at the time claimed six League cups were to be stripped, however the document we have only states four.
Between late Friday evening and 9am on Monday morning, someone had made this decision and instructed McKenzie to add the clause. The Scottish Football League – the administrators of the League Cup trophies – had not been consulted in any way, shape or form and knew nothing of this new development.
SFL bosses were mystified. Where had this clause come from? Who has instructed McKenzie to add it between late Friday evening 22nd June and 9am Monday 25th June? McKenzie was questioned as to how this new clause had appeared. He was told that as Rangers had been found guilty of nothing whatsoever, the SFL would not be demanding the forfeit of any League Cup wins. Further, the SFL requested McKenzie reveal who exactly had requested this new clause be included? McKenzie did not answer.
The cracks were beginning to appear in the master plan, so pressure on the SFL was intensified. The devious Ralph Topping began bandying around alarming terms like "nuclear winter", "recession" and "depression" to anyone who would listen and warned of disappearing investment, sponsorship and capital.
On the 3rd of July a meeting of all 30 SFL clubs was called at Hampden and Doncaster addressed those assembled. He openly stated that £15.9 million would be lost to the Scottish game if their plans were not followed. Chairmen of the smaller clubs throughout the Scottish game were given an option; grant us our wishes or you may not survive. In attendance to fully back Doncaster's wild claims was none other than SFA supremo Stewart Regan. Despite repeated requests from the wily old chairman of the little SFL clubs, both failed to corroborate their claims or back them up with any solid analysis. Doncaster and Regan had fabricated this doomsday scenario for reasons best known to themselves.
The use of Harper McLeod needs to be examined. The firm acting on behalf of the SPL list Celtic FC as one of their prominent clients. Until quite recently, their website homepage included a testimonial from Peter Lawwell. Thankfully, the web.archive.org site allows us to access old versions of websites: https://web.archive.org/web/20120426134157/harpermacleod.co.uk/About-us/
Below is an excerpt from http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice/conflict-of-interests/ on "conflicts of interest".
3.1 Definitions in the SRA Handbook
1. Conflicts of interests means any situation where: you owe separate duties to act in the best interests of two or more clients in relation to the same or related matters, and those duties conflict, or there is a significant risk that those duties may conflict (a 'client conflict');
or
2. your duty to act in the best interests of any client in relation to a matter conflicts, or there is a significant risk that it may conflict, with your own interests in relation to that or a related matter (an 'own interest conflict')'
Own interest conflict - for the purpose of Chapter 3 of the SRA Code of Conduct, means any situation where your duty to act in the best interests of any client in relation to a matter conflicts, or there is a significant risk that it may conflict, with your own interests in relation to that or a related matter.
While the legal definition of this relationship is technically not a conflict of interest, it is a questionable situation where Harper Macleod can benefit their client (Celtic) by damaging their biggest competition and rival while acting on behalf of the SPL. It may not be a conflict of interest, but it is an interest nevertheless, that should have seen the SPL appoint a different law firm.
Taken from https://www.lawscot.org.uk/rulesconflict-of-interest:
The rules do not contain a definition of conflict of interest. It has been said that it is hard to define but you know it when you see it. Unfortunately some only seem to see it long after it has appeared and when it is too late.
Celtic chief Peter Lawwell's daughter Nicola was an employee of Harper McLeod. "You know it when you see it".
Amazingly, and it seems unchallenged, at this meeting, Rod McKenzie in what may be described as an "unprofessional moment" allegedly glared over at Charles Green and Ally McCoist, who were representing Rangers, and exclaimed "you bastards have been cheating us for years!" Unprofessional? Or perhaps just the mask slipping and the hatred held for Rangers FC seeping out in putrid prose?
Lastly, and importantly, remember this. Lord Nimmo Smith declared the sanctions illegal. Why did the SPL legal team sanction them? Were they unaware of their own rules?
The following questions need to be answered. No more cover-ups or brushes sweeping the truth under the carpet:
- The "Judges, Jury and Executioners" had concluded their deliberations and finalised their punishment demands. Who issued the instruction that League Cup titles be added to this list between Friday evening and Monday morning?
- Having taken instructions from their clients – the aforementioned panel of "Judges, Jury and Executioners", why did McKenzie not report back to that panel that - from sources unknown - it had been decided that more illegal punishments be added?
- Why did Harper McLeod not inform the SPL that, as lawyers to Rangers biggest rivals Celtic FC, a demotion to any lower League; or a stripping of any title or trophy win resulted in their client Celtic FC gaining ground on Rangers title or trophy tally? Surely this constituted conflict of interest?
- What prompted Harper McLeod to remove a glowing testimonial from one of their major clients, Celtic FC, from their website just before they were appointed to act on behalf of the SPL in this matter?
- Why was Rod McKenzie described as "low level" when he was, in fact, a partner in the law firm Harper McLeod?
- Why did the SPL and Celtic's lawyer feel the need for such an unprofessional outburst of foul language?
Rangers fans worldwide must continue to demand answers to the questions above.
To Be Continued...