by Auldheid for the Scottish Football Monitor
On these pages at least there is a mounting lack of trust that the Scottish Football Association can or will govern our game in a fair and honest manner that recognises the principle of sporting integrity as paramount.
This mistrust is equalled only by the frustration at being unable to do anything to change the attitude and action of those at the SFA (and Leagues) responsible for that governance, a frustration compounded by the reluctance of the mainstream media to focus on the very issues of trust and integrity that concern us.
Back in early 2010 Celtic supporters represented by the Celtic Trust, various Association groups and individuals felt the same frustration and found a way to make their voices heard at the SFA – by using their club as a channel of communication to articulate their concerns.
A resolution was agreed and passed to Celtic to convey to the SFA and it was heeded by the club. There is no reason in why a similar conduit cannot be used by supporters groups of all clubs.
The enormity of the task, to get the majority of trusts and associations of all clubs to support this approach and give it sufficient weight, should not be underestimated, but in the interests of amplifying our voice, it is worth the effort.
Based on that 2010 experience, and on the discussion that has taken place on TSFM we have arrived at a (now amended) resolution below under the auspices of TSFM and which has been sent to all representative club supporters groups.
We believe one of the reasons the SFA and SPL were able to mislead (or simply fail to provide leadership) was because of the lack of clarity surrounding who should take provide that leadership and what principles should have been paramount.
The SFA were as tied to the commercial impact of Rangers demise as the SPL and indeed had to be reminded by the supporters of the importance of that sporting integrity. In the aftermath of the Rangers implosion, both the SFA and Leagues on the face of it appear still too commercially oriented to act in a way that balances commercialism and sporting principles.
We have attempted to address this in the resolution below. It also contains additional points raised already on TSFM and elsewhere. It is designed to assist in the widening of accountability in the sport.
We are not wed to the draft or the language. It is there to be revised but we hope it contains enough food for thought to be acceptable to the supporters groups and the clubs.
As recently as today, the SFA has published a Fans Charter. We welcome this development, and although it does not address our specific concerns with respect to governance it is a step in the right direction (http://www.fanscharter.com/).
Some of the principles published are;
- Challenge is to make a National Fans Charter known, accepted and influential
- Getting fan involvement in drafting charter important to acceptance, influence and growing awareness.
We think our resolution is an even bigger step in the direction of those principles.
DRAFT Proposal for Representative Supporter Groups e.g. Trusts or Associations to send to their club to convey to the SFA/SPL/SFL Boards.
We [Insert Association/Trust name here] and in association with fans’ groups of other clubs, ask [Insert Club name here] to convey the following to the Scottish Football Association, SPL and SFL on our behalf.
1 We believe that the commercial viability of Scottish football at the professional level depends absolutely on the belief by supporters that sporting integrity is at the heart of all competition, and that those governing them and the rules by which they exercise governance, must hold sporting integrity as paramount above ALL other concerns. This belief can be summed up in the one word “trust” Without trust in those responsible for governing Scottish Football, commercial viability will suffer, to eventual ruin of our game.
2 There is a perception (accompanied by some dismay and anger) among football supporters throughout Scotland that those who were charged with upholding the rules of the SFA and SPL/SFL, only did so partially – and even then only because of the threat of supporter action if they did not.
3 There appears to be no distinction or order of hierarchy between those governing the game (the SFA) for whom we believe preservation of sporting integrity should be the prime purpose, and the leagues (SPL/SFL) for whom commercial aspects are (understandably) uppermost. As a result sporting integrity lost its primacy and it was left to supporters to insist on it.
4 Consequently many Scottish football supporters have lost confidence that the Scottish Football Association will fulfil their purpose of safeguarding the sport. Indeed their silence following the revelation of a 5 way agreement last summer on the future of the liquidated Glasgow Rangers has exacerbated this loss of confidence in the SFA’s ability to administer professional football in Scotland in a manner that reflects their duty of care to all aspects of the game and everyone who takes part in it.
5 Decisions and deals have been taken by the SFA, SPL, and SFL without any public scrutiny. The operations and decisions of those bodies lack transparency and they are not accountable in any recognisable form to the football supporters throughout the land, without whom there is no professional association.
6 In our view this loss of trust can only begin to be restored by the SFA publically committing itself to:
(i) The production of an unequivocal “mission” statement of purpose/intent which will state (in whatever form they may exist) that maintaining sporting integrity is and will always be their prime goal. The statement will also describe how they intend to ensure this principle is followed in their interactions with Leagues and Clubs, particularly when commercial decisions that might undermine sporting integrity are implemented by the Leagues. (e.g. In the case of TV contracts, sponsorship or any significant league reconstruction).
(ii) Further: in recognition of the inability of some individuals to provide leadership during the past year simply because of conflicts of interest, take steps to remove any such conflict, and in doing so enable the organisation and its office bearers to function unhindered.
(iii) In the interests of transparency, publish the “five point agreement” that allowed The Rangers entry into SFL and SFA, provide a supporting rationale for entering into the agreement, and confirm that the terms have been or are being complied with.
Along with other trust restoring measures (see attached Annex) these steps should mark the end of the continuing lack of trust in the authorities.
7. We appreciate that it may be the start of next season before there is any visible evidence of our concerns being addressed although the statement of purpose/intent by the SFA (i) and action at (ii) can be readily put in place – would be a welcome early development.
8. All club’s supporters groups will be watching closely for signs of progress before advising our members and our other supporters if we feel the necessary trust restoring steps are being taken and advise that they can purchase their season books for 2013/14 knowing that sporting integrity is once more absolutely paramount in Scottish football to the betterment of our game.
Signed __________________________ on behalf of
[Insert supporter trust/association name here]
Date ______________
Annex to resolution.
The following is a list of other measures that the SFA should take in order to satisfy supporters that they should be entrusted with the job of governing Scottish football.
- To increase transparency and accountability in a meaningful way – possibly via creation of an active supporter’s liaison group drawn from representative supporter groups of each club. Its remit, using an agreed consultative mechanism to generate dialogue, to hear supporters’ concerns and consider them before key decisions are made. In an industry that is totally interdependent it is folly to exclude a major stakeholder from key decision making.
- A tightening of and an annual and independent audit of the process for granting UEFA Club (FFP) and National Club licensing reporting to the representative supporter liaison group as well as other SFA members to ensure all clubs are living within their means.
- Introduction of a rule requiring all Scottish football club directors to declare any financial interest/shareholding in any club other than their own and to rule that disposition of those shares/interest should be a part of a fit and proper assessment of a person’s qualification to hold office at an association club.
- A feasibility review of Scottish refereeing to assess the potential for creating a professional service that the SFA provide to the leagues by recruiting and training referees, but where the leagues monitor and reward consistently good performances to an agreed standard. Given the sums dependent on referee decisions, the current system must change for everyone’s sake including the referees.
- A full explanation about the circumstances (including dates) surrounding the award of a UEFA Club licence to Rangers in spring/summer of 2011 when there was unpaid social tax that prime facie did not meet the conditions for deeming the granting of a licence acceptable under the UEFA FFP rules on unpaid tax (the wee tax bill).
The [Insert Club Name here] Trust/Supporters Association asks [Insert Club Name here] to convey our concerns above with their provenance to the appropriate authorities as they see fit viz:
- Football Authority in Scotland (The SFA)
- Europe (UEFA)
- Scottish Government (on the issue of accountability to supporters and proper checks and balance governance.)
SUNDAY, 27 JANUARY 2013 16:50
Game En-title-d To Better
WRITTEN BY JAMES TRAYNOR
WITH Lord Nimmo Smith and his two learned friends about to sit in judgement let no one be in any doubt that this will be a critical week, not just for Rangers but for all of Scottish football.
Nicholas Stewart and Charles Flint, both QCs, and Nimmo Smith will continue their quest on Tuesday to establish whether or not Rangers breached SPL rules through the use of EBT.
While this case may have become tedious for many people it is actually vitally important, and not merely because the truth must be established. The game’s future stability is also at stake.
Much to the disbelief of fans of other clubs as well as commentators, so-called football writers and self-proclaimed pundits, Rangers did not act illegally through their use of EBT. Appeal or no appeal by HMRC, the fact is Rangers are innocent.
But, of course, football is a law unto itself and the SPL, in their wisdom, pressed on when they could have backed out.
They still can. Despite having suggested they had no power or influence over the proceedings once the independent panel had been formed, the SPL, if they wish, can still call a halt. They can do that right now and before the SPL meet.
Starting at 10am tomorrow morning there will be two sessions. The board will gather and representatives of every SPL club will also sit with league construction top of their agenda.
That, too, is a crucial topic but if commonsense isn’t denied entry to the meeting rooms Rangers will come up.
And the correct course of action should then be signalled.
The game needs SPL men to act responsibly rather than be cajoled or even brow beaten into continuing with a cause which threatens to cause greater and perhaps irreparable damage.
If ever there was a time for the majority within this group to stare down the vociferous minority among them it is now. The fact is this case is potentially the single most damaging threat to the entire game and it has already cost too much.
It was wrongly reported in one newspaper that Rangers Fans Fighting Fund would be willing to use their money to pay legal costs should Rangers Football Club plc, or to be precise, RFC 2012 plc, the company which sank into liquidation, lose. In fact, RFFF have agreed to pay only the bill of the legal team defending the plc.
This has to be stressed so that SPL chairmen know that they, as a body, will not be recompensed even if the commission rules that there had been a breach of some kind. They have to understand that this case could cost them as much as £400,000 and for what?
To prove only that the paperwork connected to the contracts of a handful of players wasn’t properly filed?
That’s really all this commission is about. It has nothing to do with tax as many people still seem to think and we are talking about five players only, not dozens. Basically, bonus payments to them went through EBT instead of the payroll but these payments WERE fully disclosed in the player contracts sent to the game’s authorities.
There was no attempt to cover up any of these payments and perhaps all those who have jumped on Rangers might want to ask their own clubs if all their P11D forms have been submitted fully over the years.
It should also be pointed out that in October 2010 HMRC went into Hampden seeking any documentation which might have indicated the use of EBT, not just by Rangers but by any of the other clubs. But it was March 2012 before the SPL decided to investigate.
Yet, in Rangers’ June 2010 accounts a tax enquiry into EBT is mentioned twice. It was narrated in the notes to the accounts and also in the financial director’s report.
Rangers were open about this and actually flagged it up, pointing out they had strong legal advice that any challenge would be successfully overcome. There is an equally strong belief that Rangers will win again.
However, should they lose and should the commission put forward title stripping as a suitable punishment for an administrative error the matter will not be over. The RFFF are committed to taking this issue all the way to outside courts.
Ah, but what about UEFA? They take a dim view of clubs resorting to the law of the land.
Fine, but RFC 2012plc is not a football club and UEFA, therefore, cannot impose sanctions.
However, further action will hurt the SPL by costing them more money.
Hopefully enough will see the folly in continuing a pursuit which has been headed by a noisy few. There is, I believe, a greater recognition that it has all gone too far already but time is running out and these club leaders have this one last chance to call a halt.
When Charles Green disengaged Rangers from the process insisting the commission should not have been empowered to sit in the first place there may have been an SPL assumption that they could clatter on with their path cleared. A certain influential few probably also thought they could railroad the others and achieve their goal of title stripping.
They didn’t reckon with RFFF, not Charles Green, stepping forward to pay the defence. The fund’s gesture is admirable to say the least but it could also prove vital to the game in general because if the SPL’s case, built by Harper Macleod, falls there will be no title stripping and Scottish football can move on.
If there is any attempt to take away titles deep divisions will be created with Rangers fans feeling they shouldn’t set foot in any other grounds. Scottish football cannot afford that.
Only last week Charles Green spoke about the need to start healing wounds but these could fester and become poisonous depending on the commission’s ruling. No one wants that but refusing to do the right thing for the game now could damn us to a long period of pain and distrust. There will be no unity and clubs will suffer.
So, the majority have to speak up and silence the irrational few, who are determined to present their will as that of the entire football community. This agenda, their desire, should be tossed in the bin.
Of course, my former colleagues will rubbish this view but too many of them have acted maliciously throughout this saga and I know of one national newspaper editor who held his head in his hands when it was revealed Rangers had won the tax case. I also know of one news editor who, when told of the verdict, started shouting: ‘It’s a f****** Government conspiracy.’
There may well have been a conspiracy but not one constructed to help Rangers.
But it can all end now. Tomorrow could be a new beginning if the more reasoned gentlemen of the SPL speak up.
its as if he still writing for the record
SUNDAY, 27 JANUARY 2013 16:50
Game En-title-d To Better
WRITTEN BY JAMES TRAYNOR
AKA Lord Haw Haw
If I were a St Mirren I would be very proud of their performance today and the football they played.
On Traynor: methinks he protest too much.
I can see a boycott of other clubs lasting say 3 months at most but as the clubs they will boycott hardly have huge stadium capacity and are not in fact SPL clubs it is hardly a credible threat.
They will be boycotting SPL games to 2015 at the earliest as things stand. Thats a long time to carry a grudge and then continue just when the very objective aimed for might be achieved.
Toom tabard.
Phew. Thank f…rancis for that. my determination to see justice carried through fully reinvigiorated. Thanks Jim. I was starting not to care.
And the threat of the 41 club boycott. Genius mate. Pure genius.
In amongst all the classic deflection,minimisation, the whatabootery, the basic threats, why would HMRC have gone to Hampden to check out EBT’s? Why, having checked out declared contracts would they then not have had any material to go on. Think about it.
Oh, and if common sense prevails and we all speak about Rangers instead of that reconstruction garbage, at what point is someone going to say em, didn’t the 5 way agreement tie the footballing sins of the past to the present. And if not, why not?
Bang on Auldheid. They must be seriously worried about how this carefully constructed paradox of dual-Rangers is gonna play out.
The sickening thing is that there really was still time to show some humility and try to get folks onside, but opportunity after opportunity is being missed.
I am seriously beginning to wonder if the plan is to get themselves booted out of football altogether. The RFFF may well have been invited to participate in these hearings, but (and legal types can correct me), what locus do they have in the Civil Courts? I suspect none. I think they are turning up to a gunfight with a pea-shooter.
You certainly can’t accuse Traynor of sophistry 🙂 Even by his standards that is shoddy, one dimensional writing, poorly squished out in rambling tones (and in what I hope was a soft, non-toxic medium).
Grammar and research Armageddon too.
You could imagine the dripping, sneering sarcasm meted out by Traynor if anyone else was trotting out the “we are sane and everybody else is mad” line.
If you asked a blind man to draw you a picture of a journalist whose best years and talents are behind him, and with no future in the print and broadcast media …….
Is he allowed to say this? “Appeal or no appeal by HMRC, the fact is Rangers are innocent.” Surely it can’t be a fact until the appeal is heard.
Also, can someone clarify what he means about only 5 players who were paid bonuses being relevant? We already know about loads of side letters, so is he actually misunderstanding the issues, or is he just chancing his arm that someone will fall for his twaddle?
nawlite says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 19:02(Edit)
Is he allowed to say this? “Appeal or no appeal by HMRC, the fact is Rangers are innocent.” Surely it can’t be a fact until the appeal is heard.
Also, can someone clarify what he means about only 5 players who were paid bonuses being relevant? We already know about loads of side letters, so is he actually misunderstanding the issues, or is he just chancing his arm that someone will fall for his twaddle?
_____________________________________________________________
The five players are those who they admitted had EBT’s (which would belie the innocence claim) – not the 40-odd who are alleged to have dual contracts.
He is hoping that others will misunderstand the issues, but the only people he is really writing for are Rangers fans. The piece is very inward looking, and readers, other than the target audience, will probably have a laugh.
As I said, not exactly sophistry, although to be fair he hasn’t much to work with here.
Big Pink says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 18:59
Bang on Auldheid. They must be seriously worried about how this carefully constructed paradox of dual-Rangers is gonna play out.
The sickening thing is that there really was still time to show some humility and try to get folks onside, but opportunity after opportunity is being missed.
================================================================
Opportunities not so much missed as booted right out of the park. 🙂
If you asked a blind man to draw you a picture of a journalist whose best years and talents are behind him, and with no future in the print and broadcast media
Whit “best years”. What day was that. The the man majored in sarcasm and “puffery” and never “rote” a line not scalped from elsewhere. Journalist my **se. Hes right at home now getting his repeats via NEWSnow in the Belfast and Galloway papers.
Congratulations to both St Mirren and Hearts. I hope they have a great final and the fans have an excellent day out.
May the better team win.
Is he allowed to say this? “Appeal or no appeal by HMRC, the fact is Rangers are innocent.”
it is the direct opposite of the innocent till proven guilty mantra that he clung to on his radio show, so yes – why would you expect anything else ?
jim is consistent.
he says what he gets paid to say.
Am I correct in saying that had HMRC won the FTT that it would not have set a legal precedent but if they win the appeal it will ?
Have I got this right?
Suppose RFC2012 defend themselves at the LNS tribunal. This means it is likely that the overall legal costs for both the prosecution and the defence will be greater than if RFC2012 chose not to defend themselves For example the defence could call for a recess in order to study evidence or drag the process out by raising “new evidence”
However
Suppose RFC2012 authorise the RFF to defend them at the LNS tribunal. This also means it is likely that the overall legal costs for both the prosecution and the defence will be greater than if RFC2012 chose not to defend themselves.
Meaning
The only way RFC2012 can legally help to minimise the cost to Creditors of having legal costs awarded against them is to refuse to allow the RFF to act on their behalf. That way the case proceeds to a conclusion at the minimum legal cost
It is irrelevant whether or not RFC2012 can afford to pay any costs awarded against them
What matters is whether RFC2012 have acted in the interest of the Creditors who now control RFC2012
That’s all
Andrew Woods says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 19:40
Am I correct in saying that had HMRC won the FTT that it would not have set a legal precedent but if they win the appeal it will ?
Andrew No they have won appeals before.
Even after all this time the bold Jim cannot seem to grasp the basics of this issue. The Tax case and the dual contracts issue are two separate issues. The Tax case is based on UK Tax law Jim where as the SPL dual contracts investigation is really about the correct, and more importantly, accurate documentation being supplied to the appropriate authorities.
The fact that the use of EBT’s were mentioned in the accounts is yet another red herring. Did the statement say that players were being paid via EBT’s or did it just state that they were used?
If it just said they were used then anyone from the tea lady to Directors could have been paid this way. However if players, as promised in a letter that was never supplied to the SPL, were paid this way and it was not disclosed as part of the paperwork forwarded to the authorities then “Houston we have a problem”.
I make no comment on Jim’s writing style but his grasp of the facts and being able to present them is, just as it has always been, truly dreadful.
Is this man so self obsessed that he cannot even grasp that every article he has ever written on this subject is now viewed as prejudiced and tarnished since he took up his new post?
This in turn makes him even more of an irrelevance when he churns out his next article for his new employer.
The one sure thing RTC staed form day one was the seperation of the EBTs from the dual contacts.
Win one you lose the other, very straightforward.
Oh and you could lose both.
Quelle horroeure!
Andrew Woods says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 19:40
4 0 Rate This
Am I correct in saying that had HMRC won the FTT that it would not have set a legal precedent but if they win the appeal it will ?
=======
Yes, you are correct. Decisions at FTT level do not set any binding precedent. However if HMRC win the appeal at the UTT, that sets a binding precedent for other cases at that level or lower. Which is why HMRC may not have been disappointed to lose at FTT level. I am sure that they want a binding precedent on the question of EBT “loans” to give them a strong negotiating position in other cases.
Traynor
=======
That is a pitiful article and if he had reread it then Shirley he would have stopped writing at this sentence;
“…To prove only that the paperwork connected to the contracts of … players wasn’t properly filed?…”
Exactly !
Is he now irrelevant in the great scheme of things – should we just ignore his output?
(Rhetorical question as I think we enjoy dissecting his ‘writing’ too much… 😉 )
But they are not appealling to the Upper tier tribunal are they? Just back where it came from. The FTT.
Shirley he would have stopped writing
He never started writing.
justshatered says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 19:54
I make no comment on Jim’s writing style but his grasp of the facts and being able to present them is, just as it has always been, truly dreadful.
——————————————————————————————————–
On writing style, presentation and comprehension that, as I have observed before, to my eyes, Traynor certainly misses the input of the Daily Record sport subs and bhoy does it show 🙂
ianagain says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 20:15
0 1 Rate This
But they are not appealling to the Upper tier tribunal are they? Just back where it came from. The FTT.
============================
No, the appeal by HMRC is to the UTT. Any appeal must be to the level above that at which the original decision was made. That applies in every area of law, not just tax.
Jim Traynor is well aware that the LNS investigation could be very damaging and is a separate issue from the EBT,s although his blah blah blah tries to link them. He states that there in his words (only 5 players involved) depending on the names of these players will determine the amount of games they will lose 3- 0 and over how many seasons ( If found guilty of course).
Traynor, Rangers and their fans have been using the bullying tactic in Scottish football against several clubs. They cannot handle clubs & fans standing up to them. I wonder how they may react if LNS investigation does not go their way. Could make for a very interesting couple of weeks ahead.
Bit of an own goal there James
“Fine, but RFC 2012 plc is not a football club”
Nice to see you are in such good Company since your retirement
StevieBC says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 20:08
Is he now irrelevant in the great scheme of things – should we just ignore his output?
(Rhetorical question as I think we enjoy dissecting his ‘writing’ too much… )
________________________________________________________________
Stevie,
Yes he is irrelevant now. What little influence he will have in future depends on how he manages the people he connects with in the MSM – not his strong suit.
JT is now relevant only to Rangers fans. For someone with his ego and inherent insecurities (notice his insistence on ironically calling Richard Gordon “Boss”), that is a catastrophic comedown. Particularly for a man who had a real passion and talent for his work before he succumbed to the cutlets.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I was shocked when Traynor agreed to join Green. Even when contacts at BBC News told me he was going, I was sure they had it wrong. Why? Because JT is a Murray Man – he can’t help Murray if he is working for Green – and Murray and Green are not in cahoots.
Can he? Are they?
ianagain says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 20:15
But they are not appealling to the Upper tier tribunal are they? Just back where it came from. The FTT
————————————————————————————————————–
They have to seek leave from the FTTT to appeal it to the Upper Tier.
neepheid says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 20:32
No, the appeal by HMRC is to the UTT. Any appeal must be to the level above that at which the original decision was made. That applies in every area of law, not just tax.
==================================================================
My understanding is that the HMRC have to apply to the FTTT for leave to appeal to the UTT. I believe there are a number of legal areas where the original jurisdiction has to give leave to appeal to a higher stage.
ecobhoy says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 21:02
0 0 Rate This
neepheid says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 20:32
No, the appeal by HMRC is to the UTT. Any appeal must be to the level above that at which the original decision was made. That applies in every area of law, not just tax.
==================================================================
My understanding is that the HMRC have to apply to the FTTT for leave to appeal to the UTT. I believe there are a number of legal areas where the original jurisdiction has to give leave to appeal to a higher stage.
========
That is correct, but the appeal itself is to the UTT. The question of leave is in almost every case a formality, in fact I know of no cases where HMRC have been refused leave to appeal. Even if permission was refused by the FTTT (unthinkable, in my opinion) HMRC could still apply direct to the UTT to have the appeal admitted.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I was shocked when Traynor agreed to join Green. Even when contacts at BBC News told me he was going, I was sure they had it wrong. Why? Because JT is a Murray Man – he can’t help Murray if he is working for Green – and Murray and Green are not in cahoots.
Can he? Are they?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Murray and Green are not in cahoots.?
You must be joking
Running up a £900m debt with the bank is the work of a Spiv borrower aided by a bunch of Spiv insiders at the bank
RIFC and TRFC are under the control of Spivs.
People who don`t even trust each other
These Spivs are ALL in cahoots.
Jointly and separately
The only difference is the legal tools they use to sustain their position
Who are they?
Add TRFC and RIFC Directors
Add Close Leasing, Ticketus Investors, Craigie and his Dad
Add Minty and his ex MCR helpers
Subtract gullible RIFC shareholders who used to support a club that died
,,,You are left with 100% Spivs
….Dozens of them
All rubbing their hands at the prospect of milking TRFC until its bone dry
The way things are going,the Spivs will get away with it
The fans won`t stop them
They ignored Hugh Adam(RIP)
They ignored Alistair Johnston
They ignored PMcG
They ignored RTC
They ignored TSFM
Frankly they deserve all they get
“Ah, but what about UEFA? They take a dim view of clubs resorting to the law of the land.
Fine, but RFC 2012 plc is not a football club and UEFA, therefore, cannot impose sanctions.”
——
A bit smarter than the average bear, that statement, in its effort to confuse and obfuscate.
RFC 2012 plc is, indeed, not a football club.
Was it a football club in the past, though, before it went into liquidation? If it was, then Mr Traynor is confirming his previously stated view (in June 2012) that Rangers ceased to exist.
Or is he stating that RFC 2012 was a football club before, but isn’t now? In that case, presumably the titles still belong to RFC 2012 plc, a now dead club, for it is the stripping of titles from RFC 2012 plc that is in question in Mr Traynor’s piece.
The only other possibility is that the football club is/was presumably Rangers FC, the notoriously ethereal entity. In which case, UEFA (like LNS) would impose sanctions on that football club – which was and is owned and operated by RFC 2012 plc and TRFC Ltd (RIFC plc) respectively.
Unless Mr Traynor is alluding to the “holding company” argument in that RFC 2012 plc was NEVER a football club. In which case, he threatens to open a can of worms larger than a large thing.
(Of course, it’s entirely likely that none of these thoughts travelled the sparse and confused neurological pathways of Mr Traynor’s brain before he doofed Mr Green’s required rabble-rousing piece out on his keyboard.)
Meantime, a note to LNS: please eject the despicable Peepil from our game. Their collective behaviour is now well beyond funny, and they are a genuinely nasty blot on the rest of Scotland.
Big Pink says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 20:47
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I was shocked when Traynor agreed to join Green. Even when contacts at BBC News told me he was going, I was sure they had it wrong. Why? Because JT is a Murray Man – he can’t help Murray if he is working for Green – and Murray and Green are not in cahoots.
Can he? Are they?
================================
I have never bought the idea that SDM is out of the picture. In my opinion, Whyte was just a convenient fall guy while SDM dumped the tax debt. It is clear that Green was involved long before he appeared from nowhere to buy the assets. It is also a fact that D&P were appointed by Whyte, which to me just means SDM. And D&P magically arranged a sweetheart deal with Green for the sale of the assets. Now Green appoints “Murray Man” Traynor to be head of communications. So I conclude- Murray and Green are in cahoots. I wonder which of the mysterious offshore corporate entities making up Green’s consortium is actually a cover for SDM? All of them?
neepheid says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 21:11
ecobhoy says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 21:02
0 0 Rate This
neepheid says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 20:32
No, the appeal by HMRC is to the UTT. Any appeal must be to the level above that at which the original decision was made. That applies in every area of law, not just tax.
==================================================================
My understanding is that the HMRC have to apply to the FTTT for leave to appeal to the UTT. I believe there are a number of legal areas where the original jurisdiction has to give leave to appeal to a higher stage.
========
That is correct, but the appeal itself is to the UTT. The question of leave is in almost every case a formality, in fact I know of no cases where HMRC have been refused leave to appeal. Even if permission was refused by the FTTT (unthinkable, in my opinion) HMRC could still apply direct to the UTT to have the appeal admitted
___________________________________
Well now I give to your superior knowledge. Now we have a very new and explosive outcome.
English clubs beware. I thought it would take 5 years plus.
This puts a new shine on it.
goosygoosy says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 19:42
Why would BDO spend money on the Lord Nimmo Smith enquiry. Of what possible benefit would it be to the creditors.
@thehotshot67
http://forweonlyknow.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/one-of-these-businesses-is-in-football/
ianagain says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 21:59
English clubs beware. I thought it would take 5 years plus.
This puts a new shine on it.
======================
I expect the UTT decision within 12 months. If that goes for HMRC, then I think it’s game over. I can’t see BDO funding an appeal from the UTT. If HMRC lose at the UTT then they have no choice but to take the case to the higher courts. In that case it might well be several years from now before the case is final. You can be sure of this, though- HMRC won’t give up on this one. There is far too much real money at stake from the EPL clubs.
would be for MIH to pay up the amount due in full if they lose, and then want to appeal the UTT. no??
Neepheid agree It was always about the big money. As usual Pretendygers flatter themselves. The major culprits lie south of the border.
Auldheid No surprise there shares attract about 16 trades a day on average.
pau1mart1n says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 22:18
1 0 Rate This
would be for MIH to pay up the amount due in full if they lose, and then want to appeal the UTT. no??
====
Yes, that’s the normal rule now.
neepheid says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 22:14
ianagain says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 21:59
English clubs beware. I thought it would take 5 years plus.
This puts a new shine on it.
======================
I expect the UTT decision within 12 months. If that goes for HMRC, then I think it’s game over. I can’t see BDO funding an appeal from the UTT. If HMRC lose at the UTT then they have no choice but to take the case to the higher courts. In that case it might well be several years from now before the case is final. You can be sure of this, though- HMRC won’t give up on this one. There is far too much real money at stake from the EPL clubs.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The EBT’s were MIH ones and they could fund any further appeals. Also don’t discount other clubs embroiled in EBT investigations putting up money into a fighting fund to contest the decision if HMRC win, I’ve seen this before. There’s a lot of money at stake
As part of CW’s purchase of RFC, it was agreed that MIH would jointly defend both the MIH and RFC’s legal position with regard to their collective use of EBTs.
However, RFC(now in liquidation) is still potentially liable for its use of EBTs following an adverse ruling. MIH would be liable only for the EBTs used for the benefit of its own employees.
It’s difficult to see why BDO would involve itself in the UTT. With HMRC already the principle creditor, and the % payout already so small, the effect to creditors as a whole will be little different.
If the UTT verdict goes against them, only MIH can appeal.
With regard to the LNS enquiry:
Why would BDO agree that RFC(IL) should be represented by lawyers funded by RFFF?
Why would would BDO want RFC(IL) to be be represented at all?
As I understand it, a fine (or an order for the repayment of prize money) set by the commission, is not legally enforceable. BDO have no legitimate interest in the correction of past match results. So why would they want to be represented? What possible outcome would they wish to avoid?
Have BDO said that they will accept the RFFF offer? If so, on what basis?
Whoever turns up, I find it difficult to believe RFC(IL) plc will even want to be legally represented – in any manner – at the LNS commission.
…and, in any case, why would the RFFF want to fund RFC(IL) plc’s legal costs?
Do the RFFF believe that RFC(IL) plc are the only legitimate body to protect their club’s history? Do they not believe that their club’s history was transferred to TRFC Ltd?
Surely, if TRFC Ltd are the new owners of their club’s history – the RFFF should be funding TRFC Ltd representation.
HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 23:41
As part of CW’s purchase of RFC, it was agreed that MIH would jointly defend both the MIH and RFC’s legal position with regard to their collective use of EBTs.
However, RFC(now in liquidation) is still potentially liable for its use of EBTs following an adverse ruling. MIH would be liable only for the EBTs used for the benefit of its own employees.
It’s difficult to see why BDO would involve itself in the UTT. With HMRC already the principle creditor, and the % payout already so small, the effect to creditors as a whole will be little different.
If the UTT verdict goes against them, only MIH can appeal.
=======================================================================
But weren’t all of the EBT’s dealt with under the MIH Group Remuneration Trust therefore they will fund and contest matters?
Does anyone know which blog/pamphlet/newspaper published Traynor’s latest garbage? Or was it only for RM/FF/VB consumption?
One point that can be made in Traynors defence
He is definitely not a Spiv
He isnt smart enough
bogsdollox says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 23:55
0 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 23:41
As part of CW’s purchase of RFC, it was agreed that MIH would jointly defend both the MIH and RFC’s legal position with regard to their collective use of EBTs.
However, RFC(now in liquidation) is still potentially liable for its use of EBTs following an adverse ruling. MIH would be liable only for the EBTs used for the benefit of its own employees.
It’s difficult to see why BDO would involve itself in the UTT. With HMRC already the principle creditor, and the % payout already so small, the effect to creditors as a whole will be little different.
If the UTT verdict goes against them, only MIH can appeal.
=======================================================================
But weren’t all of the EBT’s dealt with under the MIH Group Remuneration Trust therefore they will fund and contest matters?
===========================================
Yes. But, should the UTT rule in HMRC’s favour, the the tax on sub-trusts created for the benefit of RFC(IL) employees (plus interest and penalties), will be attributed directly to the club.
MIH (even though they would have to pay all of the legal expenses) would only have to pay tax (plus interest and penalties) on the sub-trusts created for its own employees.
ekt1m says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 00:01
0 0 Rate This
Does anyone know which blog/pamphlet/newspaper published Traynor’s latest garbage? Or was it only for RM/FF/VB consumption?
——————————–
News item on rangers website – speaking directly to his target audience.
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 00:07
bogsdollox says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 23:55
0 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 23:41
As part of CW’s purchase of RFC, it was agreed that MIH would jointly defend both the MIH and RFC’s legal position with regard to their collective use of EBTs.
However, RFC(now in liquidation) is still potentially liable for its use of EBTs following an adverse ruling. MIH would be liable only for the EBTs used for the benefit of its own employees.
It’s difficult to see why BDO would involve itself in the UTT. With HMRC already the principle creditor, and the % payout already so small, the effect to creditors as a whole will be little different.
If the UTT verdict goes against them, only MIH can appeal.
=======================================================================
But weren’t all of the EBT’s dealt with under the MIH Group Remuneration Trust therefore they will fund and contest matters?
===========================================
Yes. But, should the UTT rule in HMRC’s favour, the the tax on sub-trusts created for the benefit of RFC(IL) employees (plus interest and penalties), will be attributed directly to the club.
MIH (even though they would have to pay all of the legal expenses) would only have to pay tax (plus interest and penalties) on the sub-trusts created for its own employees.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Agreed. And as you say the matter was never under the control of Rangers.
We now have a situation where Traynor is earning a crust by scrawling rambling pieces to order for Green. (I wonder if Jim calls him ‘Boss’?) Green has also entrusted the former hack to taking questions from the floor at closed fans meetings. Traynor must now find it a doddle preaching to the converted.
What has happened to Media House in all this? At least the sinister Jack Irvine knew when and where to strike with his media briefings and press releases. Perhaps Irvine was most dangerous with his manipulation of his old pals in the MSM. Now we have Traynor attempting to fulfil that role – and failing miserably. Firstly, Traynor doesn’t have the intellect to focus on a particular issue and make a credible case for TRFC’s benefit without indulging in whataboutery etc. Secondly, he has made many enemies in the newspaper trade and those former colleagues are now starting to take a swipe at him in their columns. Even in his latest outburst today, Traynor could not help himself from bitching at certain editors and reporters. Media House would realise the need to keep such people on side.
I wonder how Traynor will present the TRFC position to the nation during (and after) the forthcoming LNS enquiry, if today’s blog is anything to go by?
Tommy says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 01:18
==============================
“In his role at Ibrox, James will be supported by the Rangers Media editorial team, the press office and external media advisers, Media House.”
Traynor’s handlers at Meeja Hoose sound as if they are keeping an active watch. Perhaps Ramsay and Jack – like Murray – are beginning to tip-toe away too.
Re Traynor etc – it doesn’t make much sense.
Yet, there will be method in their madness.
We can see the madness.
That’s the easy bit.
To see the method takes a little longer.
But then that’s what TSFM, and RTC before it, is good at.
Till what is hidden is made clear.
Forensics – love it !
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/ally-mccoist-blasts-agendas-as-ebt-case-awaits-1-2761699
A wee excerpt from the above. Does Andrew Smith have inside info that PL and ND are the prime movers behind this? Or is he indirectly quoting AM?
“The fact the commission is still going ahead suggests to McCoist that there are dark forces at work. “My own opinion is that I’m a wee bit disappointed [it is going ahead]. I think it has been driven by individuals with their own agenda, to be quite honest with you,” said McCoist, who refused to name names because he “could start a lot of trouble” if he did. Let’s face it, the names of SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster and Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell would surely not be far from his lips if he had trouble in mind.
“That’s only my own opinion on it, how I feel about it, and I just hope that common sense will prevail,” added McCoist. “Certainly the title stripping is a non-starter for me and a non-starter for our football club and indeed our supporters. So we’ll just have to wait and see what happens. I’m becoming immune to worst possible outcomes. I would react to it hopefully in positive manner. I might not be happy with it but you’d have to react to whatever judgment was made, and take a stance on it. We would certainly do that. It might be positive, you never know, and it might not suit us. A decision will be made and we’ll have to react to it.”
The case will be heard by a three-man panel headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, who will be joined by fellow QCs Nicholas Stewart and Charles Flint. They will rule on whether Rangers were in breach of SPL rules that state all payments relating to player activities must be set out on the contracts lodged with the football governing body.”
From the Andrew Smith article:
—————————————
Five players were decreed to have been liable to tax in relation to EBTs – they were forwarded monies when not receiving their loans in time – but it has been claimed these sums were detailed in the contracts lodged with the SPL.
For those such as former Rangers owner David Murray, who introduced the EBT scheme, the HMRC appeal verdict exonerated the club over any accusations of football rule-breaking. “The SPL rules variously required disclosure of all contract of service matters and all payments from a club to a player,” he said in November. “It would now appear that these are to be rewritten to incorporate non-contractual loans from independent third-parties and other non-contractual matters.”
Not necessarily a helpful intervention, since payments to players from, or via, third parties (which in this case were the Trusts that the Murray Group paid in to for players to then apply for loans from) are also forbidden under football rules.
Just one more added complication for the independent commission. In the tax tribunal’s 145-page ruling, one judge, Heidi Poon, took the view that the loans had “no commercial reality” and that they therefore were salary payments, designed to be shielded from tax.
The tribunal, which described the EBT scheme as a form of “aggressive tax avoidance”, also highlighted a number of anomalies. One was that Rangers applied for insurance on an injured player on the basis of what his salary and his loan benefits amounted to, combined.
No-one seriously believes that Rangers only provided loans to players for bonuses and appearance money. At the tax tribunal, players themselves stated they viewed EBTs as part of their salary and that they would not have signed for the club otherwise.
What Rangers did successfully was create the necessary paper trail to take advantage of a since-closed loophole and abide by tax legislation. Football legislation is not necessarily the same.
———————————————————
Pretty much nails it on the head, especially the insurance claim. Greed always gets you in the end 😀
First time I’ve seen that insurance allegation printed as fact. Insurance claim WAS salary plus trust? Or was it just coincidentally the same figure because of obscure bonuses as the FTTT ruling stated (from memory). I’m sure Andrew had his lawyers check it out. Still wonder who signed the forms though.
Going onto Ally’s closing bit something like give someone a blank piece of paper and they’d never come up with this. Really Ally? Outspend your closest rivals by not paying tax having used up all credit lines available to you and yet still completely ostracise yourelves with the WATP routine. I’m fairly sure my six year old could have provided a fairly accurate sketch. Something along the lines of a blue bus with the wheels coming off and having a massive crash of epic and terminal proportions – Kerblamm as he would say. Does that sound close at all?
So, has there ever been a response to when these loans will be repaid?
gazpops says
I’m sure I read on this blog or RTC a suggestion that in these matters the plan was that loans were repayable on death, but families could then re-apply for the loans and be sure to get them..
A bit like that ol’ catch 22,.. the best catch there is.
With the commission due to kick off tomorrow, a very short look at what I think is the most important issue.
http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/RULES%20EFFECTIVE%203%20DECEMBER%202012.pdf
http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j6850/TC02372.pdf
Page 28/29
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/did-charles-green-forget-he-runs-a-plc-now-did-he-err-making-a-loss-forecast-outwith-the-rules/
This weeks LNS commission is manna from heaven for Jim Traynor and Charles Green.
It is a welcomed distraction for the current underliying story at Ibrox.
-Income down
-Monies running out
-No sign of major sponsorship/commercial deals etc
-Greens ‘promises’ not coming to frution – take yer pick
-Well ahead in the league but full time players and coaches not finishing off games/opponents as expected.
14-14-14 proposals apparently totally ignored by footballing authorities and other clubs
-Looks like still playing in third tier next season with Europe and associated cash still a long way off in the distance.
-Potential thumping from Dundee Utd in the cup on Saturday?
gazpops says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:11
1 0 i
Rate Up
So, has there ever been a response to when these loans will be repaid?
———————————————————————————-
I’ve thought myself this is something a certain SFA official could do to make himself available to do his job properly.
wottpi says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:41
________________________________________
I think you make a good point about Green’s promises. Understandably I think, in search of some respite from the relentless flow of bad news over the last eighteen months, Rangers fans are judging Green more on what he says than what he does.
I have a friend (an academic), who is a big Rangers man, who knows the club have been sold down the river by Murray and Whyte, but who refuses to believe that Green is anything less than sound. His version of events is that Green has delivered on his promises and that he is the Rangers Bunnet.
No matter what I say in warning about Green’s track record and his Castles in the Air narrative, he won’t listen. It is difficult to argue with that.
It might be a useful service to highlight areas where he has delivered on his promises – and where he hasn’t.
He has successfully put a team on the park, and he has successfully enticed in excess of 40 000 fans to Ibrox every fortnight. Although I think it would be churlish to deny that this is a significant achievement, the action he has taken that indicate the nature of his end game is important.
To my friend, CG’s end game is to get Rangers playing in Europe. Is there any evidence which would lend weight to that claim – or in fact to indicate otherwise?
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:29
As Rangers did not lodge any side letters with the SPL the complete Contract of Service was not submitted for players who had been given that additional benefit. Therefore, players who are found to have been issued with side letters must logically be found to have not been eligible to play in official matches.
================================================================
HP, I think we know that there’s been a judgement that there is a prima facie case to answer because that’s why the tribunal was established. But do we know for a fact that the side letters weren’t lodged?
blu says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:10
0 0 i Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:29
As Rangers did not lodge any side letters with the SPL the complete Contract of Service was not submitted for players who had been given that additional benefit. Therefore, players who are found to have been issued with side letters must logically be found to have not been eligible to play in official matches.
================================================================
HP, I think we know that there’s been a judgement that there is a prima facie case to answer because that’s why the tribunal was established. But do we know for a fact that the side letters weren’t lodged?
==============================================================
I’ll answer my own question.
“68. Mr Magenta was questioned closely about “side-letters” and benefits payable
in terms of these. “Side-letters”, he said, were part of the “package” offered to
players but were distinct from the player’s contract. The “side-letters”, Mr Magenta
insisted, did not have to be disclosed to the football authorities.” ([2012] UKFTT 692 (TC) page 16)
Big Pink says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:53
You forget to add that Mr Green successfully raise £22m in the share issue as well. Which is not to be sniffed at in these economic times.
However as is being discussed elesewhere and previously for the last formal accounts that did not include Euro income Rangers, turnover on 2009 was circa £40m but posted a loss of £17.3m.
Therefore that year the oldco spent £57.3m.
Now Mr Green may have cut the ‘players wage bill’ from £30m to £6m (cost saving of £24m). However with no redundancies elsewhere in the organisation and still having to run Murray Park and Ibrox with world record crowds every second week expenditure could still be as high as £33m (57-24). He may have managed to cut costs elsewhere but at the same time he is paying himself and other directors handsomely and presumably Mr Traynor came at a price.
Season Ticket income is estimated around £8m. Add on 10k pay as you go at £15 a go for 18 games that is only = £2.7m.
So lets say the £33m has been cut by a further third to £22m, At a £30m turnover (where has the other £17 to 18m come from???) he should be around £7m in profit.
Then at the same time Ally is to get £10m for buying in players, cash is being set aside to refurbish Ibrox, buy land and properties and develop hotels , cancer centres, worldwide academies, new media platforms etc etc
It is all very tight and that is including burning up the £22m share monies and allowing for a increase in ticket prices for next year Div 2 campaign.
I can see how the football team can keep afloat to finish this season and play next year but struggling to see where the growth and additional income is coming from to fund the rest unless Mr Green manages to pull a rabbit from the hat.
He may well have something up his sleeve but I for one am sceptical.
On James Traynor/Scottish Football and Justice
http://angelahaggerty.com/jim-traynor-scottish-football-and-justice/
HirsutePursuit
Many thanks for that.
Did Heidi Poon not also make comments that indicated the intent of using ebts in footballing terms and the failure of Rangers to confirm with the SFA that ebts needs not be registered as part of the contract for service?
Blu
Why was Mr Magenta so sure the side letters did not have to be reported?
Whose advice was he acting on?
Tax experts
Or
Football administration experts?
If the former were they competent to advise on football rules?
If the latter did they clarify but if not asked was football denied the opportunity to prevent what has turned out to be the biggest scandal in Rangers and Scottish football history?
The import and enormity of the consequences of not seeking proper guidance at the time seems not to have registered with those who took the decision to conceal the existence of ebts in relation to player’s contracts.
Why were they concealed year on year on year?
wottpi says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:25
At a £30m turnover (where has the other £17 to 18m come from???) he should be around £7m in profit.
=====================
Your figures on football income look right to me- £8m season tickets, £3m gate receipts, call it £11m. I simply cannot see where another £19m can come from to arrive at anything like £30m income.
However to be fair to Green, what he actually says is “Typically, Rangers would be close to a £60million turnover per year and we’re down to below £30million now.” So he’s pretty well covered. Nobody can dispute that £11m is below £30m!
LEST WE FORGET
In the run-up to the tomorrow’s “Dual Contracts” investigation into whether or not players were improperly registered, it might be worthwhile reminding ourselves of the scale of the alleged impropriety, as detailed in Mark Daly’s dossier.
These are the players listed by Daly as having had the existence of their “side letters” verified.
Alex Rae
Arthur Numan
Barry Ferguson
Carlos Cuellar
Christian Nerlinger
Craig Moore
Dado Prso
Dan Eggen
Egil Ostenstad
Fernando Ricksen
Gavin Rae
Gregory Vignal
Jean-Alain Boumsong
Jerome Bonnissel
Julien Rodriguez
Kevin Muscat
Kris Boyd
Libor Sionko
Lorenzo Amoruso
Marvin Andrews
Michael Ball
Michael Mols
Mikel Arteta
Nacho Novo
Neil McCann
Olivier Bernard
Paolo Vanoli
Pedro Mendes
Peter Lovenkrands
Ronald De Boer
Ronald Waterreus
Sasa Papac
Sotirios Kyrgiakos
Stefan Klos
Steven Davis
Steven Thompson
Thomas Buffel
Zurab Khizanishvili
wottpi says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:25
Big Pink says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:53
You forget to add that Mr Green successfully raise £22m in the share issue as well. Which is not to be sniffed at in these economic times.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nope
What happened was the RIFC share issue was taken up by preselected Spivs and some TRFC fans gullible enough to believe they were investing in TRFC when they were actually investing in a completely separate company
And
A Spiv created Co called RIFC announced that the value of all the shares “sold” less expenses amounts to £22.2m
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
When Spivs make a public statement
It is either
Untrue
Or
A distorted version of the truth
It is never, never, never, simply “true”
Dont take my word for it
Look at the public statements released by Merchant House Group or RFC under Whyte, and compare them with subsequent events
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Most likely what happened is that Green bought debt from RFC2012 to reduce the risk of gratuitous alienation and has now repaid some or all of this debt in RIFC shares
Candidates for this debt include
Ticketus ……. …….despite them leaving some debt to be repaid from the Creditors pot
Craig Whyte……….and his £27m floating charge
Close Leasing ……and their undisclosed floating charge
This means that the amount of hard cash actually raised will be far less than £22.2m
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If the scam was set up on the assumption that TRFC would be back in the SPL in 2013 2014 then a major cash crisis is looming at RIFC and TRFC since Green will have factored ST income for 2013 2014 at SPL rates
Auldheid says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:49
Why was Mr Magenta so sure the side letters did not have to be reported?
Whose advice was he acting on?
Tax experts
Or
Football administration experts?
======================================================
I’m sure that LNS will not really care about Mr Magenta’s opinion, he’ll just want to make a judgement on whether or not it is established at the tribunal that the administration of players contracts by RFC complied with SPL/SFA regulations in respect of player registration. Harper McLeod appear to believe that there is evidence to show that there was a failing in that respect.
I agree with you that football administrators in Scotland have a case to answer whatever LNS concludes. If Rangers did nothing wrong how on earth did we arrive at this position? If Rangers did wrong how on earth did it take so long to arrive at this position?
Mr Ogilvie’s position at the centre of this as a senior administrator at RFC in the relevant years and now president of the appeal body, should LNS find against Rangers, seems particularly conflicted and it’s difficult to understand why he is still the appointed figurehead of Scottish football. In these situations the very perception that there might be a potential for a conflict of interest would in normally merit the individual concerned standing down. Even Peter Mandelson wouldn’t have brassed this one out.
Blu
We are on the same page especially on the SFA and how it all happened on their watch; a watch Campbell Ogilvie was heavily involved in.
On the judgement of LNS my questions are not directed at establishing guilt but at the punishment that a guilty verdict should attract.
As I understand it LNS is responsible for establishing guilt but is it the LNS, the SPL or the SFA who decide on a punishment relevant to the crime and who decides the extent of the crime against football?
If it is the SFA who have a conflicted CO still in situe then what confidence is there that justice will be done?
In one respect JT is right; the future of Scottish football is in the balance buts it’s future depends on the integrity of the LNS decision and consequences applied, not on the short term financial cost of upholding integrity under his club’s threats.
Couple of observations – firstly I would like to add my good wishes to both the Jambos and Buddies in their League Cup Final. Naturally disappointed Celtic didn’t make the most of their quadruple opportunity and tbh the treble (SFA Cup, SPL and CL) is, er, a tad unlikely.
I am, in a sense, pleased that Celtic are losing games and even trophies, it will hopefully nip complacency in the bud, and it proves wrong those saying Celtic would steamroller “lesser” teams in Scotland with the absence of the team in liquidation. If they truly thought that, then they really don’t know the Scottish mentality very well. I also have pointed out that histroically it’s rarely Celtic and Rangers that knock each other out, there are plenty other examples of upsets – heck look at the English FA Cup this weekend where lower league teams held or beat much larger clubs…
To quote Al Pacino from a movie about a different kind of football – “on any given Sunday you’re gonna win or you’re gonna lose” – on Sunday Celtic lost, St Mirren won. That’s sport.
I am also happy that a team outwith the Big Two Glasgow clubs is guaranteed to win a trophy. It’s important as trophies are what fans hang their hats on. As I wrote before, last year 25% of SPL teams won a trophy, 33% were in a final!
Armageddon? Ha!
BTW I did deliberately refer to both Celtic and Rangers in my previous post – after all both those teams entered the league cup – there is no question that Hearts and St Mirren have earned their places in the final… :o)
Auldheid says:
Monday, January 28, 2013 at 13:00
Blu
We are on the same page especially on the SFA and how it all happened on their watch; a watch Campbell Ogilvie was heavily involved in.
==========================================================================
Oh for goodness sake and you telling us that in addition to £90k he got to choose a nice watch as well??
🙂