An Honest Game? Convince Us.

Avatar By

TSFM says 01 April 2014 6.02 PM “Whilst not the most …

Comment on An Honest Game? Convince Us. by Castofthousands.

TSFM says
01 April 2014 6.02 PM

“Whilst not the most entertaining prose ever to have appeared on TSFM…”
I thought it read fine TSFM and anyone with reasonable knowledge of these affairs would have clearly understood the thrust of the argument.

I think the counter argument might be that since REBT (wee tax case) formed only a small part of the overall remuneration scheme, it might be overlooked for the sake of convenience. However the law does not operate in this fashion. In judicial proceedings an ill drafted charge or decision would be open to challenge. Inconvenient inaccuracy is no excuse for expediency in my opinion.

Of course these were not judicial proceedings (a court of law) but quasi-judicial. They took guidance from the structure of statute and applied it in an environment that would benefit from this established rigour. LNS, having made reference to various legal statutes to outline his process and having cited the judicial proceedings in the FTT seems to have bound himself into a legal framework that would not easily admit to fudging.

I think you tied in the ‘sporting advantage’ argument effectively. Again mitigation might be claimed in that the wee tax case was a minor part of overall considerations but if the process is to be seen as rigorous then this element cannot be easily glossed over.

Quasi-judicial proceedings such as these are not often undertaken by sporting governing bodies so some leeway should be recognised in recompense with the unfamiliarity of the process. However I think you have asked questions that deserve a response and should certainly provide food for thought for many.

I was a bit concerned about your caveat:

“It may be prudent to wait for the results of HMRC’s appeal to the UTT concerning the regularity or otherwise of payments made under the MGMRT before embarking on any premature decision regarding the “lawful/regular” nature of the REBT payments.”

This might present an opportunity for the whole thing to be kicked into the long grass. I think it is a reasonable position to assert but you probably already have enough information to undermine the decision and could press for some satisfaction on the information already highlighted.

HirsutePursuit previously posed the pertinent question ‘what do you want to get out of this approach’ (to paraphrase) and it might be worth cogitating on this currently. It may not be reasonable to have a new commission. It might be useful to have the decision revisited on the basis of the wee tax case outcome only. Any new rulings arising for this could then be used as a model for further revision should the UTT outcome demand it.

Castofthousands Also Commented

An Honest Game? Convince Us.
TSFM says:
April 5, 2014 at 5:36 pm

“Some people – including Auldheid 🙂 – getting ban notices from TSFM.”
I’ve just discovered such a notice in my junk mail. It was from

As you have not initiated these notices TSFM it implies that your security may have been compromised.

An Honest Game? Convince Us.
Campbellsmoney says:
April 5, 2014 at 5:53 pm

“I can see that this topic (which is only tangentially related to football anyway) is taking up way too much space on this blog – for which I apologise.”
You are only adding marginally to extensive past postings on the topic. I think you have raised eyebrows by suggesting/elucidating that the act of incorporation involves a break in continuity. You have generously amplified your explanations by indicating the process is akin to a snake shedding its skin and that the discarded layer is effectively lifeless. However there has been some effort made on the blog to establish that a leopard cannot change its spots or at least not without consequences. You will know that the reason that this is important is because for many it is viewed as manifestly unfair that a company can shed its debt and yet claim historical continuity with its predecessor. Whilst this state of affairs is routine in general business spheres, in a sporting context fans and supporters wish there to be a bragging rights sanction that compensates for the lack of such a mechanism in the business environment.

I think this was what Lord Nimmo Smith was trying to get at in his SPL tribunal decision however many suspected ulterior motives.

When Rangers Football Club incorporated in 1899, as you say, a new company was formed and all the assets of the former unincorporated entity were transferred into this new company. You have advised that though a new corporate entity was created, the previous unincorporated entity was not absorbed or spontaneously destructed on the date of incorporation. I understand that. The dead husk of the unincorporated entity was discarded, lifeless and useless.

I think where some people might be discomfited is in the illogical assertion that such a change in status in some way lends legitimacy to LNS interpretation. When LNS described a club as having no legal personality, he was not talking about a redundant husk; he was talking about a living, breathing football club. He seemed to be opening the door on a franchising arrangement where clubs could go bust then pick up the pieces afterward and start all over again but still claim to be the same club.

It is of course a deep suspicion that such a lone furrow has been ploughed to allow the history of one particular club to be channelled along it, irrespective of the commercial breaches that may occur along the way. HirsutePursuit routinely identifies rule changes that point to this facilitation. The recent suggestion that administration might be a bar on promotion failed to find its way into the sporting statute and this might easily be interpreted as another example of laws being formulated not for the many but for the few.

It is easy to be ruffled when someone provides credible opinion that sits uneasily with a previous understanding. We fear we may think ourselves out of existence. This is not the primary concern unless we choose to make it so.

An Honest Game? Convince Us.
GoosyGoosy says:
April 5, 2014 at 12:00 am

“The Big Spiv using this request from the UK Spiv Co when asking permission from the Gov of this faraway country to export £50m to the UK ?”

I think as you suggest, it is just speculation but so is most of your stuff. I thought your earlier post suggesting King might be an Octopus investor had a bit more traction.

As I understand it, Dave King may have some issues with exporting capital since the South African Revenue Service (SARS) are likely taking an interest in his activities following his newly gained status as the largest defrauder of said revenue service in their history. You seem to be implying that advertising the need for an overseas investment, with which it could be shown King had an ’emotional’ affiliation, might be a pretext for his exporting some capital. What I’m not sure about is whether SARS would take account of King’s emotional attachment when applying their strictures to King’s capital movements. Unless you are suggesting that the £50M will never get to its advertised destination. However, as you say, this is merely speculation and not something that I personally would be qualified to comment upon.

Recent Comments by Castofthousands

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
I was watching some youtube concerning chaos theory a few days ago. Not that I understood it fully but the basic concepts were intelligible to me.

Chaotic behavour might be experienced by bridges for instance during high wind events. The predictable environment for which the structure was designed to sustain might be breached and oscillations set up that ultimately shake the thing to bits.
It seems that any system can sustain a certain level of complexity: Parameters that are exceeded without any catastrophic consequences. However if the ‘complexity’ continues to increase then it is likely that at some point the system will fall into chaos.
I think that is where we might be in the timeline of the farrago. Pressure has been ratcheted up over a number of years and now a major event has introduced a whole new level of complexity.
The SFA currently probably have the least control over events than at any time since 2012. Their tactics will be reactive: They will have no coherent forward strategy: They will not be in possession of an ethical framework that might help guide them to safety.
LNS now looks like part of the cover up. However this malfeasance was hidden in plain sight. Rather than being an instrument to mock football fans and supporters it has now turned into a gravestone that seems only to be lacking an inscription and dates. Football supporters weren’t meant to be able to decipher the legal jargon. In reality if you scratch the surface of the rhetoric of bile there is beneath a cohort of supporters who have a firm grip on the facts. Those supporters help inform their associates and thus attempts to create a false narrative have been foiled.
The situation is finely balanced between order and chaos. Who knows what events might sway this balance.
Perhaps a fans group will take some sort of legal action. Perhaps clubs will start to exact influence. Perhaps a wealthy private individual will take it upon themselves to mount some kind of legal challenge to LNS. These option may not all be feasible but there may be many others not yet considered that are.
Either way it looks like the good ship SFA is taking another voyage through the icebergs.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
AllyjamboJuly 8, 2017 at 10:09

“Until now, we have all looked at the mis-registration aspect only to be a ploy to avoid detection by HMRC, and undoubtedly it was, but I think it has blinded us to the quite simple fact that improper payments, definitely illegal within the confines of football, and possibly criminal within the law of the land, were made.”

Is the general lack of inertia in addressing this matter a symptom of a wider culture of casual payments within the game? We know that historically football has been quite lax in its fiscal controls. Does this history confer a collective guilt that makes clubs reluctant to become animated in current circumstances?

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
 DunderheidJuly 7, 2017 at 21:35
I wonder: can anyone give me a link to the SFA’s rules vis-à-vis the powers of its Board?

Might be amongst this lot. Hopefully the multiple links will stick.
SFA articles of association
SFA registration procedures
SFA cup competition rules
SFA’s club licensing criteria (December 2013),%20Admin,%20Finance,Codes%20(2).pdf

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
DarkbeforedawnJuly 6, 2017 at 10:54

“Rangers were never, at any time, accused of operating an illegal tax evasion scheme and if they had been, this would be a criminal proceedings and not a civil one.”
” However, I cannot think of a single example in history where a club has had trophies stripped for owing a debt?”

The validity of the honours won during the EBT period is not questioned simply because the club had debts. The footballing integrity argument arises from the mis-registration of players.
RFC might argue that they believed the payments they made were legitimate loans and need therefore not appear as part of a players contract on their registration document. To accept such a level of ‘self-certification’ however would render the whole registration process pointless. The so called loans were so obviously part of the players contract that their absence from the registration process could be best explained by a wish to keep them hidden from simple scrutiny.
In effect the registration rules were circumvented to facilitate a commercial risk.
That doesn’t look a lot like sporting integrity to me.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
HirsutePursuitJuly 6, 2017 at 00:35
“Similarly, the commission could accept the idea that the EBT arrangements were legal in all cases.”
I appreciate you are simply stating the commission’s premise but it seems such a fundamental error for LNS’ panel to base their decision significantly on a separate decision that was subject to appeal (FTT BTC ruling). It was such an obviously contentious case that it would seem naive to latch onto it for any kind of justification.

About the author