The explosive revelations made by Prof Pamela Gillies in her report on the crisis at Dundee University had an almost immediate effect.
Within minutes of staff being informed, the institution’s remaining senior figures resigned.
Professor Shane O’Neill is said to have left the building almost immediately.
Meanwhile, acting court chairperson Tricia Bey and finance and policy committee convener Carla Rossini announced their exits.
Here is The Courier’s look at the seven key revelations that prompted the most dramatic day in the university’s long history.
1. Loss of student income was ‘predictable’ but principal operated in ‘isolation of facts’
Assessing the root causes of the financial situation that left the university on the brink of running out of cash, Prof Gillies found none of the problems should have been surprising.
She says the loss of international student income, which accounted for a third of the £40 million deficit, was “predictable”.
Crucially she says this should have led to changes in the university’s spending as a result of the decrease in tuition fee income but did not do so.
“Nothing was done in FY24 (financial year 2024) to change the inevitable outcome,” the report says.
“This set the university up for financial failure in (financial year 2025).”
2. Failure to ringfence £40m share profit
The university received a £40m windfall when it sold off shares in its AI spin-out, Exscientia.
This cash was meant to have been protected to be used on capital projects.
Investigators could only identify £1.5m of “strategic investment” which could be defined against the purposes for the cash. As such, more than £38m should remain.
The report says that in light of the deficit, it is “evident that none of the ‘ringfenced’ cash now remains”.
And the university court members are said in the report to have felt “surprised” and “deceived” about how this money was managed.
3. Agreements with lenders broken and kept secret
The report details how the university broke both of its covenants with its lender, the Bank of Scotland, and lost access to a £50m credit facility as a result.
University leaders did not disclose this significant change to either their auditors or the Scottish Funding Council (SFC).
When the scale of the crisis was revealed in November 2024, the university’s chief operating officer, Dr Jim McGeorge, sent a remarkably short email to the SFC which provided no detail about the actual situation.
It read: “The principal has asked that I drop you a line to let you know that the university will today be announcing to staff and students that it will need to find savings of around £25-30m over the next couple of years to balance the books in the face of ongoing
funding pressures and the downturn in the international student market.”
It meant neither the SFC nor the Scottish Government were fully aware of the scale of the crisis or threat to the university’s future.
4. Few spoke truth to power
While a “triumvirate” of the principal, Prof O’Neill and Dr McGeorge ran the university, few were willing to speak truth to power, according to the report.
One of those identified as having challenged the principal was vice-principal international, Lady Wendy Alexander.
The report says a “considerable” number of people it spoke to commented about the way in which dissent, or challenge was routinely “shut down”, particularly by the principal who “did not welcome difficult conversations”.
5. Shane O’Neill approved increased staff without recording financial impact
Prof Gillies confirmed previous reports saying the university continued to grow and spend even as the potential financial challenges became apparent.
The role of Prof O’Neill in this in relation to staffing was highlighted.
He was a member of a key group alongside Dr McGeorge and the directors of finance and people who had to approve all new hires with salaries of more than £45,000 a year.
The group kept a spreadsheet which recorded their decisions, but the report says: “It had columns for the financial effect of the approvals, but these columns were left blank.”
6. Governance of the institution failed in June 2024
As well Prof O’Neill and Prof Gillespie, the investigation also panned the university’s governing body. It concluded that in June 2024 governance failed.
The report sets out a series of key moments where court members should have asked questions of the university executive, which would have revealed the crisis hurtling towards the institution.
It says: “The absence of management accounts should have been of considerable concern, and a reasonable person should not have accepted this status.
“A conclusion that the financial position was worse than presented was a reasonable conclusion.
“The failure of the university’s financial governance system was self-inflicted and experienced multiple times and at multiple levels.
“This led to a failure in identifying the worsening situation and not responding early enough.”
7. Leadership failures continue
The report finds that since November, failures in leadership and governance appear to have continued.
This includes court, where an advisory group was established which was not properly constructed and created clear conflicts of interest.
The development of the financial recovery plan, and the ability of court to scrutinise it, are also criticised. It was presented to them with no papers, limiting potential scrutiny.
The report adds: “At the court meeting on February 25 2025, UEG report provided four paragraphs on the Financial Recovery Plan (FRP) development progress – adding little to what was in previous minutes.
“At its meeting on March 10 2025, court received a further presentation on the FRP. The court was not clear on what they were being asked to do.”
Conversation