It has been over two weeks since Rod McKenzie of Harper MacLeod was good enough to respond to our letter in our previous blog concerning documents withheld from the SPL lawyers charged with the commissioning of an Independent Enquiry into the incorrect registration of players with the SFA by Rangers F.C.
His response, which was published on 14th March, fully explained the position of Harper Macleod with regard to side letters but the final para in the reply asked:
“Accordingly, I am not clear in what respects it is being suggested that the Commission was “misled” as regards any of the Specified Players in particular and/or in relation to the participation of Specified Players in EBT Payments and Arrangements in connection with the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust.
For the Commission to have been misled it would be necessary for it to have been induced into a false belief by the actions or inactions of a party and/or third party and for it to have relied on that false belief in coming to its various decisions.”
Since its publication on the previous blog there have been various comments by TSFM contributors that have looked at the full response as well as the final paragraph. Using those (and with the help of specialist input for which we are all grateful), our reply has been constructed and mailed to Mr McKenzie, and copied to the SPFL CEO and the members of the SPFL Board.
Whilst not the most entertaining prose ever to have appeared on TSFM, our reply is an exhaustive and comprehensive commentary of our views and conclusions, and takes the form of detailed responses highlighted in bold/italics to the issues mentioned in Mr McKenzie’s letter, together with a covering letter summarising those points and the conclusion they lead to.
What happens next is an opportunity for those in charge of Scottish Football’s to convince us that our game is indeed an honest one, honestly led. A game where honesty and integrity in all its forms take precedence over convenience, commercialism and dishonesty.
It represents a challenge not only to football authorities but to the silent Scottish main stream media to ask the questions that will set the record straight without fear or favour. Let’s have the truth and no more lies and concealment. Mistakes have been made, it is time they were admitted and explained. Maybe then, from a position of honesty, our game can move onwards and upwards, for it is our game, the supporters’ game.
The governors and media are but the custodians.
Harper MacLeod
The Ca’d’oro
45 Gordon Street
Glasgow G1 3PE
29 March 2014
Dear Mr Mackenzie
The Lord Nimmo Smith Inquiry (“the Inquiry”)
I refer to your letter received on 14th March in response to my letter which was posted to you on February 19, 2014. I am very grateful to you and your client that you have been able to respond.
I enclose with this letter comments and observations highlighted in bold/italics on the points raised in your letter with our references to the Decision in grey. The purpose of this letter is to summarize those comments and their importance.
The key issues that require to be addressed coming out of the Inquiry are as follows:-
(a) the decision taken at some point between March 5, 2012 (when the Commission was announced) and August 2012 to restrict the scope of the Inquiry to matters arising only on or after November 23, 2000 and thus to exclude any matters in the period from July 1, 1998 to November 22, 2000 (“the Earlier Period”). I would understand the decision to restrict the scope of the Inquiry to have been taken as a result of the failure by the administrators of Oldco to provide necessary and key documentation relating to the Earlier Period.
(b) the decision to treat the MGMRT and the earlier REBT (“the Earlier Trust”) as one and the same. At para 35, the Decision states “we are not aware that they were different trusts”. Given that the Decision (in the immediately prior sentence) states that the MGMRT had been “preceded” by the Earlier Trust, It is not easy to understand how the authors of the Decision can then state that they are “unaware” that they were different trusts.
The decisions to (i) exclude the Earlier Period; and (ii) to treat both trusts as indivisible, had important consequences.
From the Decision (para 40), it would appear that the President of the SFA gave evidence only as to his knowledge of the MGMRT (not the Earlier Trust). The annexes provided with my original letter, clearly show that the President had knowledge of the Earlier Trust (and indeed was active in its setting up). I am obviously unaware of the extent to which the President was in fact examined on any issue relating to the Earlier Trust.
It is stated in the Decision (at para 104) that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis that the EBT arrangements (by which it meant the use of the MGMRT) were “lawful”. It could do so (at least partly) as a result of the outcome of the FTT decision which was announced in November 2012.
Because the Inquiry treated the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust as one and the same, this meant that the Inquiry failed to distinguish between the two trusts and necessarily treated the Earlier Trust as also being lawful (without however having properly investigated its operation). However, the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust were two separate trusts and there was no necessary reason to treat them as one and the same. Had evidence relating to the Earlier Period been produced and examined, the Inquiry could hardly have treated them as “the same trust”
By the time of the Inquiry, Oldco had already conceded liability in what has become known as “the Wee Tax Case” (which related to the Earlier Trust). Having regard to the wording at para 104 of the Decision (where it is said that to arrange financial affairs in a manner “within the law” is not a breach of the SFA/SPL Rules) the clear implication, must be that to arrange financial affairs in such a way that they are not lawful, is a breach of the rules.
Given the admission of liability in the Wee Tax Case, payments made in respect of the Earlier Trust were not “lawful” (to employ the language used in the Decision).
It will be obvious from the above that the importance of the Earlier Trust has been masked as a result of:-
(a) the failure by the administrators of Oldco to provide the documentation required of them;
(b) the decision to restrict the scope of the Inquiry; and
(c) the failure of the President of the SFA to provide to the Inquiry his own knowledge of, involvement in, and understanding of, the position relating to the Earlier Trust.
Had the Earlier Trust been the sole subject of the Inquiry (rather than in effect not being examined at all) the following must have been different:-
(i) the President could hardly have failed to give testimony of his knowledge and involvement;
(ii) the Inquiry could not have held that the use of the Earlier Trust was lawful;
(iii) given the clear history of deliberate non-disclosure by Oldco/its controllers, it is not easy to see how paragraph 107 (wherein it is stated that there is “no question of dishonesty”) can have remained;
(iv) given the use of payment arrangements to employees that were not “lawful”, no other member clubs could have used such arrangements. This raises the issue of a “sporting advantage” having been obtained.
In the circumstances, given the information now available to your clients, the Earlier Period cannot remain unexamined. There is no reason why such period should be excluded from any scrutiny.
The Decision requires to be revisited with the Earlier Period forming part of the Inquiry or alternatively, the Earlier Period should now be the subject of a separate inquiry.
This letter, a copy of which has also been sent by e-mail and comments will be published on our Scottish Football Monitor web site and a reply should be sent to our e mail address at (address supplied). Copies have been sent to the SPFL CEO and SPFL Board members by e mail and/or hard copy.
Yours faithfully
TSFM
Dear Sir,
I confirm receipt of your undated letter, addressed to me and copied to Mr Doncaster which I have discussed with my client. I do not know your name or address or the position which you have with the TSFM and am unable to address you as other than ‘Sir’.
The SPL Commission Decision of 28 February 2013 (“the Decision”) deals, amongst other matters, with the failure by “Oldco” (as defined in the Decision) to provide relevant information at Issue 4 on page 33 of the Decision.
Whilst I was only able to secure and provide to the Commission copies of a number of the ‘side letters’ the list of those players who had received such letters was in the public domain and for the purposes of the ‘Issues’ before the Commission it was not suggested by Oldco or Newco that the fundamentals of the side letters were significantly different over the 10 years or so that Oldco had given such letters to each of the individual players involved.
Whilst the role of the side letters (or side agreements in HMRC terminology) per se might fundamentally have been the same in terms of the ebt arrangements, there were two types of ebt involved in the specified period from 1 July 1998. It would appear from para 35 of the Decision that no evidence was led to distinguish between the two trusts even although the President of the SFA (one of the witnesses) clearly had that knowledge, having established the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) and later been a beneficiary of the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust. (MGMRT). Equally Oldco had that knowledge.
The Commission was provided with evidence regarding the existence of both the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust and the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust. This is referred to at paragraph 35 of the Decision. The Commission chose in its Decision to group these together as “MGMRT”.
Was the evidence provided the same as the evidence supplied with the TSFM letter of 19th February?
If it was the same evidence why was the fact that at least two players were involved in a type of scheme which was found by an FTT to be outside the rules (and so payments using it to be irregular and whose operation was described by HMRC as either fraudulent or negligent), not used to raise questions on which SPL rules were broken and why? At para 104 of the Decision it is stated that it is not
“ a breach of SPL or SFA rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law- so as to minimise its tax liabilities”
The payments to those two players were accepted by Oldco as having not been in conformity with the law. That would imply a very serious breach of Rules.
If the evidence provided on 19th February by TSFM was not supplied in March 2012, did the failure of Oldco or Newco to clarify at any time and especially when asked to provide documentation that would do so, not mislead the directions given to the SPL and so the terms of reference for the Independent Commission?
Both are referred to in the published accounts of Oldco and copies of those accounts were provided to the Commission.
Did the accounts provided to the Commission make a distinction between regular payments and irregular payments or give any indication that there was a difference between the schemes that would have led anyone to consider that they should not be treated as continuous?
“We note that the MGMRT 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.”
This seems a very odd decision. One trust is preceded by another trust and yet the Commission decided to treat them as one continuous trust.
If the documents accompanying the letter of 19th February, which were specifically requested in respect of ebts and any correspondence relating to them, had been provided to the SPL would Harper MacLeod still have advised the SPL in the way that they did, and would the terms of reference have remained as initially envisaged in the SPL announcement of 5th March 2012 i.e. starting from 1st July 1998?
I refer you to the Annex to the Decision which includes six lists of Specified Players, 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B. The numbering relates to 3 periods during which different regulatory regimes applied. The A reference is to players for whom we had a copy “side letter” and the B reference is to players for whom we did not have a copy of a side letter but in respect of whom there was other evidence that a side letter had been issued by Oldco. The Commission proceeded on the basis that with respect to the Issues the position of all of the Specified Players was the same except where specifically identified in the documents and other evidence.
The Commission was provided with copies of “side letters” relating to the players whose names appears in the A lists of Specified Players and whilst the Commission and I did not have copies of the side letters for those players whose names appear on the B lists, the evidence of side letters having been issued by Oldco to each of the players listed in the three groups of B Specified Players was also disclosed to the Commission.
At paragraph 36 of the Decision the Commission held that the same general arrangements applied in respect of all of the Specified Players whilst the details and precise form of the individual side letters varied over the years.
Since the involvement of Specified Players in EBT Payments and Arrangements with Oldco and the existence of side letters given to each of them was known to the Commission and included in the Decision it is not readily apparent what substantive new allegations with respect to the actions of Oldco in relation to EBT Payments and Arrangements under the earlier Rangers Employee Benefit Trust so far as relates to the Issues are now being made.
Your letter does not suggest that the scheme of the EBT Payments and Arrangements was different as between the first and second trusts and associated sub-trusts so far as concerns the player registration matters with which Issues 1, 2 & 3 were concerned. The Commission does not suggest in the Decision that it determined the Issues before it on the basis that any of the Specified Players had not been part of EBT Payments and Arrangements during the period of their employment by Oldco and/or that one or more of them had not received a side letter from Oldco.
Accordingly, I am not clear in what respects it is being suggested that the Commission was “misled” as regards any of the Specified Players in particular and/or in relation to the participation of Specified Players in EBT Payments and Arrangements in connection with the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust.
For the Commission to have been misled it would be necessary for it to have been induced into a false belief by the actions or inactions of a party and/or third party and for it to have relied on that false belief in coming to its various decisions.
It is accepted that for the reasons given the missing side letter of 30 August for R De Boer is not of itself significant in the findings of the Commission as it was commissioned and that had it been supplied originally and the scope of the Commission been set to begin from 30 August rather than 23rd November, the Decision would have been the same.
However the information provided on 19th February shows that the failure of Duff and Phelps (who were of course at that point, the sole controllers of Oldco) to provide all the documentation requested and the subsequent failure of the investigation process to make a distinction between the irregular nature of payments in the REBT and the payments into the MGMRT that have been considered “regular”, suggests that the investigating team responsible for the commissioning itself were misled.
When the investigation was announced in March 2012 the SPL said
“The SPL Board has instructed an investigation into the alleged non-disclosure of payments made by or on behalf of Rangers FC to player s from 1st July 1998.”
It is clear from the Commissioning papers that Duff and Phelps were asked to provide all documentation relating to ebts (no distinction between REBT and MGMRT being made or indeed possible at that point) including any documents from HMRC. The information supplied on 19th February by TSFM contains documents after 1st July 1998 and before 23 Nov 2000 that relate to ebts and side letters/agreements, one of which was supplied but not apparently the other, as well as
- The genesis of the DOS scheme through the REBT for which Rangers accepted liability in March 2011,
- Why that scheme involved an irregular means of payment; and
- The reason why Rangers accepted that liability (i.e. exposure of deliberate concealment of the two side letters from HMRC when the latter specifically asked if they existed and of course from the SFA.)
It will be obvious that Oldco’s involvements with EBTs has contained various episodes of non-disclosure of relevant facts to relevant authorities.
In the absence of any input to the contrary, the side letters and ebts were being treated as part of contracts for service which were not fully disclosed to the SPL/SFA. This meant that for registration purposes the ebts could be treated as the same or continuous. However the side letters/agreements are not the issue nor indeed the registration (or misregistration). The issue being raised is that two of the contracts for service, whilst involving misregistration, had an additional factor and that additional factor is that they were irregular in that they were not lawful.
The failure to provide the missing documents or any advice from those involved in the REBT/ DOS arrangement, caused the commissioning to focus on misregistration because the documents that would have altered that focus were not supplied by Duff and Phelps, whether by accident or design, when requested.
The significance and consequence of this can be found in The Decision when Lord Nimmo Smith himself said
4) The relevant SPL Rules were designed to promote sporting integrity, by mitigating the risk of irregular payments to players;
It follows therefore that if sporting integrity had been circumvented by an irregular means, then sporting advantage would accrue.
And then went on to conclude
(5) Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;
The documentation supplied clearly shows that two players were paid by an irregular method for which Rangers accepted responsibility in March 2011, a full year before the investigation into side letters and player registration began.
The rules that were broken in respect of irregular payments, the penalty for doing so and what to do about the failure of Duff and Phelps that misled the investigators needs to be reconsidered. 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. You may wish to refer Duff and Phelps apparent failing to BDO the liquidators of RFC.
You will note that the Commission determined at paragraph [111] (1) that there had been breaches by Oldco with respect to all of Issues 1, 2 and 4 and in respect of most of 3. The excerpted parts of 3 are stated in the paragraph. The finding of breach extends to the Registrations with the SPL, as it then was, of all of the Specified Players; i.e. all of those for whom we had copy side letters and for those for whom we did not but in relation to whom it was known that side letters had been given by Oldco and that whether in respect of the first and/or second trusts.
The breaches in Issues 1 to 3 relate to non-disclosure of side letters/agreements and misregistration which were the focus of the commission because of the limited material provided.
However issue 4 for which an admonishment was given refers to
“Failure to respond timeously to legitimate requests for the provision of information is a serious breach of the rules.”
However what has been demonstrated in the evidence supplied with the letter of 19th February is not a failure to respond timeously but a failure to respond FULLY and that failure or inaction, for whatever reason, has produced a judgement which appears seriously flawed and undermines the legitimacy The Decision by the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission might lay claim to.
TSFM 28 March 2014
Scottish Premiership post-split fixtures
18 April Inverness CT v Aberdeen
19 April Hearts v Ross County, Kilmarnock v Partick Thistle, Motherwell v Celtic, St Johnstone v Dundee Utd, St Mirren v Hibernian
25 April Partick Thistle v St Mirren
26 April Aberdeen v St Johnstone, Dundee Utd v Motherwell, Ross County v Kilmarnock
27 April Celtic v Inverness CT, Hibernian v Hearts
2 May Hibernian v Partick Thistle
3 May Celtic v Aberdeen, Inverness CT v Dundee Utd, Motherwell v St Johnstone, St Mirren v Ross County
4 May Hearts v Kilmarnock
6 May Dundee Utd v Aberdeen
7 May Hearts v Partick Thistle, Kilmarnock v St Mirren, Motherwell v Inverness CT, Ross County v Hibernian, St Johnstone v Celtic
10 May Hibernian v Kilmarnock, Partick Thistle v Ross County, St Mirren v Hearts
11 May Aberdeen v Motherwell, Celtic v Dundee Utd, Inverness CT v St Johnstone
From facebook
Sons of Struth
8 mins ·
I have this evening received written confirmation that no further action will be taken against me by Alexander Easdale. I will put a statement on later.
it’s a long shot but if results go Hearts’ way in April Hibs might once again fail to send Hearts down to the Championship on April 27th. I’m a Hibby and I can just see this happening again 🙁
Alan Price says:
April 2, 2014 at 12:18 pm
38
0
Rate This
Taysider says:
April 2, 2014 at 9:38 am
Do the SFA not understand how badly damaged their reputation is and how critical it is for them to be seen to act transparently in an impartial way?
“Are they stupid, incompetent or contemptuous of supporters”?
_________________________________________________
All of the above.
__________________________________________________
And corrupt.
Did we miss RTCs 3rd Anniversary?
Belated Happy Birthday!!
Missed
😉
http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2011/03/
With so many Rangers fans groups currently available and frequently at odds with each other it was always going to be difficult for the board to find ways of engaging with them.
Happily the board now have their own fans group in the making. The ‘Rangers Supporters Loyal’ no less.
I’m sure in these trying times the board could use a little support, just how little it proves to be remains to be seen
neepheid says:
April 2, 2014 at 11:47 am
“…where are the clubs?”
————————————-
Right here. The supporters are the clubs to all intents and purposes. Without the supporters, as TRFCL are rapidly discovering, the clubs are ethereal entities. I think that is was Bill Shankly that said that without supporters a club means nothing. This simple observation is as true now as at was when it was uttered 50 years ago. The supporters who visit this site are opinion formers, not subservient consumers of lamb based produce. The booing of Doncaster at the League Cup final is an outward sign that the balance is slowly shifting. Evolution will be more sustainable than revolution.
There is a lot of frustration on display in the comments I’ve read today. This is an ongoing theme and in many ways is a healthy symptom of an opinion that is not yet satisfied. Being dissatisfied for years on end can be very corrosive but I think the reason it has not eaten away at resolve is because progress is ever so gradually being made.
Castofthousands at 6:40
I think that is was Bill Shankly that said that without supporters a club means nothing.
…………
Wasn’t it Jock Stein?
Castoff thousands
On looking it up it seems both said the aforementioned.Co incidence or what?
JimBhoy says:
April 2, 2014 at 5:03 pm
Squirrel questionnaire results in…
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/6663-ready-to-listen-phase-1-results
Very uninspiring…
———————————————————————————
Jimbhoy, look at it this way. (tongueincheeksmiley)
Chico said they have 500 million fans worldwide and the survey shows that 10% said they were overseas.
Did Chico get his facts wrong and there are really 5000 million fans?
JimBhoy says:
April 2, 2014 at 5:03 pm
3 0 Rate This
Squirrel questionnaire results in…
———–
So the charity work a real success. I can think of a few people who might disagree with that. Mind you, they do say that charity begins at home.
JimBhoy says:
April 2, 2014 at 5:16 pm
20 0 Rate This
Maybe a no show at Scotland games will show the SFA that there is unrest amongst the tinternet bampots and keyboard clatterers…
——————————————————
Hi Jim . I suggested such an action a few weeks back and there were a few fans that were not so keen , fair play to them . However , over time , I think we will begin to see that this is the only course of action . If Scotland , with it’s famous Tartan Army , are playing a home international qualifier to an empty stadium , FIFA ,UEFA and the relevant sponsors and broadcasters would want to know why .
The scurrying noises inside Hampden would be deafening when that bombshell dropped , I can assure you . 😯
Auldheid says:
April 2, 2014 at 3:48 pm
====================
Michael Grant is not the worst hack in the world, and he can write in the safe knowledge he is not aligned to either side of the Glasgow divide. I get the feeling he won’t want involved though. At the end of the day Scottish sportswriters are as much part of the establishment as Regan, Doncaster and Ogilvie.
Whilst there are great efforts to engage HM & the SPFL, is there another angle which could be exploited, specifically directed at the SFA ?
Over the last few years we have seen various homemade/phone videos go viral on the internet – and a high number of views can usually be swiftly followed by a climbdown by the relevant shop/manufacturer/authority etc.
At the very least the target of the viral video quickly issues a clarifying / justifying statement in response.
So, wrt the SFA and attempts to elicit some meaningful dialogue with the paying customer…
Would TSFM have the resources/capability to produce a straightforward, objective assessment video of the behaviour of the SFA over the last couple of years ?
As a suggestion, I am thinking of maybe a 5 minutes video with suitable pictures/video of Hampden and assorted stadiums with just a voiceover calmly stating what rules the SFA has ignored, bent, applied inconsistently etc. And all of this is of course ‘alleged’ behaviour !
A video which could not in any way be regarded as ‘anti-Rangers’, but simply a summary of past SFA actions which would annoy any/all football supporters of all Scottish clubs in equal measure.
I think the podcasts are well produced, so what about a short video whose e.g.Youtube link could be promoted and shared with all Scottish football fans ?
[I am making an assumption that a short video might be more appealing to a wider audience than just audio ?]
If there where enough views even the MSM may comment directly, [as they seem to lift more of their content from the internet/social media anyway.]
Just a thought…
Comment
Excellent and measured response.
Questions
1 Why did the admitted guilt by Rangers regarding 5 players in the big tax case,only unresolved as HMRC and Rangers could not agree on penalties and interest , not constitute unlawful payments in the eyes of LNS
2 Why would the SPL accept LNS judgement that even if the appeal to the UTT was successful , he would not review his decision of “no sporting advantage” . That seems completely perverse to me .
Guilt is guilt. And in the case of a tax evasion scam it’s only absolute at the end of an appeal process.
StevieBC says:
April 2, 2014 at 8:35 pm
——————————————————-
A great idea pal.
TSFM is this possible/feasible?
I saw a reference ( in one of Audlheid’s posts earlier today) to Michael Grant as being perhaps a more objective football reporter because he has no ‘west coast/central belt’ football baggage. It sent me hunting for my copy of this morning’s ‘Herald’ to find a para in his piece discussing the -in my view,deeply distressing- situation that Hearts find themselves in.
Here it is:
” Playing in the Championship next season looks like a sanctuary right now, a haven which, if it becomes their reality,will confirm that the club itself has survived.The alternative would mean they had been condemned to a deeply uncertain and stressful few months involving failure to emerge from administration, the appointment of liquidators, a desperate scramble to assemble a newco Hearts vehicle, an application for SPFL membership and – if successful in any vote which could involve the likes of Spartans or others competing with them -starting next season in League 2.”
He doesn’t mention any invitation to participate in a secret ‘5-way agreement’ . But perhaps he knows that that is only offered to dog-whistling shysters with half a million supporters world wide, whose every blustering statement is predicated on falsehoods, and supported wholeheartedly by his overpaid but less than competent football manager.
Anyway, I would agree that, judging by that para alone, Michael Grant can be numbered among the few in the SMSM who never fawned upon SDM, even though the “Herald” as a paper seemed always to be rather servile and less than properly critical of SDM over many years.
John Clark says:
April 2, 2014 at 9:14 pm
But perhaps he knows that that is only offered to dog-whistling shysters with half a million supporters world wide
===========
Sorry, but the correct figure, from “The Charles Green Book Of Facts” is 500 million fans worldwide. People keep on getting it wrong, I’ve seen 5 million, 50 million, and now a puny 500,000. Accuracy is of the essence on this forum 😆 😆
neepheid says:
April 2, 2014 at 9:24 pm
‘.the correct figure, from “The Charles Green Book Of Facts” is 500 million’
————
neepheid, I was so afraid of actually typing the wrong figures,tae, that I typed the words to try to avoid a mistake! I should of course have typed half a billion! ( I think, now that we all have to accept the Yanks’ version of what a ‘billion’ is) 😀
John Clark says:
April 2, 2014 at 9:32 pm
2 0 i
Rate This
neepheid says:
April 2, 2014 at 9:24 pm
‘.the correct figure, from “The Charles Green Book Of Facts” is 500 million’
————
neepheid, I was so afraid of actually typing the wrong figures,tae, that I typed the words to try to avoid a mistake! I should of course have typed half a billion! ( I think, now that we all have to accept the Yanks’ version of what a ‘billion’ is)
———————————————————————————————————————-
But of course that figure is now out of date. After all – there is one born every minute.
PS – well done Hearts tonight – no offence meant to Aberdeen – but credit to Hearts for continuing to turn up and fight.
Campbellsmoney says:
April 2, 2014 at 9:47 pm
But of course that figure is now out of date. After all – there is one born every minute.
===================
An appropriate turn of phrase, given that we are discussing the very reincarnation of P.T Barnum. The amazing thing is that a good 75% of the bears would welcome Green back into Ibrox tomorrow like a conquering hero. You certainly can fool some of the peepul all of the time.
CAMPBELLSMONEY says:
April 2, 2014 at 2:50 pm
“The WRU are probably not the relevant source for advice on matters of corporate law.”
———————————————
I do understand your point, but I would have expected them to have taken some legal advice before putting this information forward on their website to their members.
Anyway here is similar advice from the FA and instead of “Converting the club to a Limited Company ” they say:-
Club Structures:- Incorporation
“If you decide that you would like to adopt a new structure for your club, this section of the Guide sets out the procedure for doing so. In all cases, this procedure will be dependent on: (a) the new structure which you have chosen; and (b) the current status of the club, including its assets and liabilities. This is something that you should discuss with your club’s professional advisors. However, the guidance in this section provides a generic overview of the steps that will need to be taken.”
This section is exactly what was advised at almost all the meetings I attended with members of the Clubs and Institute Union in the mid 70s, when individual clubs wanted to incorporate, by the legal advisers there.
The phrase was “you are changing your legal status” but do not worry you are gaining important legal protections .
This bit is for Auldheid.
A club’s right to play football is through its holding of the relevant football memberships. If a club is considering incorporating then these memberships
will have to be transferred from the unincorporated association to the new limited company.
The club should notify The FA, the league of which it is a
member and its county FA of its intentions at an early stage of the process for guidance in relation to any of football’s rules that need to be followed.
http://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/financial-regulation/club-structures.ashx
Just another irrelevant bit of information (last)
When a woman marries she changes her legal status to one which cannot be used by a man.
The Married Women’s Property Act 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c.75)
If I may be so bold , as a very infrequent poster on the site can I suggest that a separate thread is set up to record discussion on the most excellent post by TSFM. It’s an important issue and I fear some focus may be lost amidst (valid/not valid) chat about other, current matters such as Leigh Griffiths etc. Not in any way to detract from the value of other comment but it seems the distinct thread for the UTTT worked very well in retaining attention in a sinuglar way and I think the correspondence with Harper McLeod warrants that same approach.
singular even.
Has this forum turned into a competition on who can write the best legal letter?
No one will win that, except those paid to protect the SFA/Sevco and other parties that may be wanting things ‘hushed or shredded’, Auldhied has a good grip of the SFA and my £ is on him, however where is the outrage against the SFA on all Rangers rule breaking! Why can’t I mention referees here, did Cambell Ogilvie lie to Stuart Regan, did Stuart Regan cover for CO?
Why are Hearts not slashing costs to the bone to make sure our season isn’t a farce!
How the heck did Clydebank/Airdrie Utd suddenly become liquidated Airdrieoniens again.
Why has Sevco been allowed to intimidated by ‘dog whistle’ threats across the board, A M had a list of those ‘involved in football betting’ this appears to have been ‘shredded’ after ‘blackmailing’ SevcoFA to let I B off.
Here’s a question, what exactly did Gordon Smith (ONC in Business) do at Sevco/Hampden, pass licenses for Europe?
TSFM will wither and die out as there is no appetite to actually take action against SFA/Sevco.
IMHO.
T.
Aquinas says:
April 2, 2014 at 11:33 pm
…
TSFM will wither and die out as there is no appetite to actually take action against SFA/Sevco…
=========================
OK, I’ll bite.
With all due respect A, then why are you wasting your time on this site ?
[Rhetorical question.]
SBC, because it’s the best we have against the murky doings of the SFA, how ever I feel it’s becoming rather middle class in its views against the fairly obvious SFAs deceit to assist one team above all others, this is not about Sevco/IRangers, it’s about a governing football association that is heavily conflicted and this forum with its following could bring the SFA to account if it organised a stand down of the tartan army
maybe then could a Scottish minded group grow a team and best referees without aharge.
T.
I can see Hearts going unbeaten until the end and causing some caution amongst those above and below them. Inducing a wild spending spree elsewhere (no doubt including some Hearts players).
Wait and see.
In my honest opinion we will NEVER stop the tartan army from going to Scotland games. By following Scotland it gives many a chance go abroad, a chance many do not get following there respective own clubs, and they will not boycott Hampden. I know a few Celtic fans who although know about the dishonesty at Hampden follow Scotland with a passion. The best chance we have is through the legal route behind Auldheid ( And the other respected posters involved ), staged protests at Hampden on selective dates and by the use of officially made banners which can be used around a lot of Scottish stadia. The likes of Ogilvie Out, SFA = Corruption, Conflicted Ogilvie etc,etc. Would this be feasible?
Thinking about the commissioning of the LNS enquiry and how it came to be framed in the way that it was.
It, of course, was framed to give credibility to the terms of the 5 way agreement.
It is interesting then, to note some of the changes in the articles between in the SPL’s transformation to become the SPFL. One would imagine that anything that undermined LNS and the 5WA would be changed.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143094724/Spl-Articles-of-Association-as-at-22-October-2012
http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__articlesofthespfllimited_1375800575.pdf
Whereas under the SPL articles it was explicitly stated that an insolvency event was in respect of a Club, the SPFL’s articles do not refer to any specific entity.
Why would the SPFL make a perfectly clear article less precise?
Unless, of course, the precise intention is one of obfuscation.
Well done to hearts tonight.
I think the result in itself is not entirely unexpected but back to back with a good result against hibs deserves some real respect.
Can they add a few more results now I wonder?
JimBhoy says: April 2, 2014 at 5:03 pm
Squirrel questionnaire results in…
————————————————————–
Jimbhoy,
I note that the RIFC plc state the following:
The most important issues for fans right now are a need for Honesty, Integrity and Transparency going forward, this was made clear in the majority of surveys completed. However, this is not surprising given events at the Club in recent years and the Board is ready to act on that feedback.
Graham Wallace commented: “The Club wants to be open about the key issues highlighted in the Ready to Listen fan engagement survey and realises areas of concern like trust, transparency and honesty will not be improved overnight. We understand that trust must be earned and certainly appreciate supporters have had a difficult few years.”
Trying to cut through the above management-speak, I note the limitation on openness is restricted to “the key issues highlighted in the Ready to Listen fan engagement survey”, which from memory the survey exluded subjects such as:
Why has RIFC plc and TRFC Ltd not submitted full statutory returns to Companies House of all of their respective shareholders since incorporation?
Which individual and groups of shareholders do each of the Board Members of RIFC plc and TRFC Ltd represent and /or hold proxies for?
To whom did all of the money from the IPO and Season Ticket income “disappear” to and what did each recipient contribute to the “club” that the Board(s) considered merited the amount that they each received?
Why has TRFC Ltd not complied with its legal obligation to submit a fully completed Return, Accounts & Financial Statements from incorporation to 30 June 2013 to both Companies House and HMRC?
What is the amount of the debt that TRFC Ltd owes to RIFC plc?
I look forward to hearing the answers to the above and other questions from the RIFC plc / TRFC Ltd Boards but if that actually happens I’ll need to be rushed to A&E.
In my opinion, the mooted Membership Scheme is likely to be just another way to part the gullible supporters and fans from their hard earned cash, or in management speak “an exciting new income stream that benefits alll of our loyal supporters”.
Will they fall for it? 🙄
Let’s make things happen rather than waiting for it. Write to SFA sponsors, journos, broadcasters make them aware the days of the silence of the succulent lambs are over.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
I couldn’t agree with Auldheid any more. An excellent point and one which should be taken up by as many people as possible, the more questions from as many angles as possible will let them know that the fans/sponsors etc. will not stand by and let this happen. If we do nothing…nothing will happen , if we do something….something might happen!
I , myself as a long term sponsor of Scottish football who has pumped a not Insignificant amount of money into the game am determined to get answers and have recently been in communications with the SFA regards my concerns.
Here is my detailed correspondence with SFA which at this time has not yet received a reply. If and when I do receive a reply it is my Intention to post it on here.
F.A.O Stewart Regan
CEO
Scottish Football Association
Hampden Park
Glasgow. 17/03/2014
Stewart,
Following on from my recent telecon with your PA Sandra Buchanan last week I write to you with regards to some Issues that I would like clarity on surrounding Scottish football in general.
I should give you a brief background to myself before setting out some questions which I hope you can answer for me.
I come from a footballing family background that goes back as far as 1949 when my father signed his first professional contract in Scotland before moving on to a couple of other clubs. I myself have been Involved in professional football in Scotland in one way or another since signing my first professional contract in 1985, I went on to play for another 5 professional clubs one of which was overseas. In the later years of my career I set up in business and have continued in business to this day. From as far back as 20 years ago I have been Investing through sponsorship into Scottish football with various member clubs and am currently continuing my sponsorship of a member club for this season. It is fair to say that over the years I have put substantial sums of money into our game.
It is the time of the year that we as a business set out our budgets for our next financial year and of course with things being as they are in the business world we are looking for best value for our Investments. It is therefore important at the same time to ensure that we are going into partnerships with brands that suit our own Image of honesty and utmost Integrity.
This is where my uncertainty stems from in so far as over the last two years or more there have been serious Issues for you to deal with as a direct result of the demise of Rangers Football Club (IL) which have led to some serious allegations being bandied around.
I could quite easily go to one of my many contacts within the game and ask questions and Indeed I could approach the owner of the club I am currently sponsoring and ask questions but I do not think that is the best way for me to approach this. I would much rather come to you Stewart and have the honest and clear answers straight from the horse’s mouth. There are other obvious reasons why I would not approach the current club I am sponsoring as it may affect my decision as to whether I sponsor again next season!
Last year I seriously pondered whether I should continue Investing but decided to carry on in the hope that there would be more clarity forthcoming from the SFA under your leadership and that you would take positive steps to clear up this whole mess. Unfortunately I have been disappointed by the silence from the SFA in particular over the past year when there have been further serious allegations made with regards to governance, openness and Integrity.
I have to say that throughout my network of business colleagues the feeling amongst most are of very much the same as mine and there are business friends who have asked that I pass on any feedback I get from you. In short, sponsors of the game are losing trust with the brand and are seriously considering pulling out. As a true football man myself and someone who has been steeped in Scottish professional football for years I sincerely hope that this is not the case and that you can put our minds at ease with honest and open answers to all my questions.
So… if you would mind taking the time to read through my list I would be grateful if you could answer my questions with as much detail as possible;
1. Charlotte Fakes.
This twitter account has produced a huge amount of Information into the public domain, much of which has made accusations regarding SFA and its officers, recently the Court of Session judged that evidence from CF was admissible which surely gives it some credence, so on that basis:
• Do you recognise the veracity of this CF information, if not, why not ?
• Have you either in an official or unofficial capacity made yourself aware of the information? (I know that in my line of business I would want to check any potential damaging information regards any trade specific body)
• Have the SFA discussed the information from CF on an Internal basis and decided on a strategy to respond?
• If not why not, If yes what is it?
2. Rangers.
Can you confirm for me under what exact name do SFA recognise The Rangers Football Club Ltd (TRFC)? I have used the above name after a quick search at Companies House this is what they are trading as having previously been called Sevco Scotland ltd.
• TRFC annual accounts are overdue at Companies House, have you been in dialogue with TRFC with regard to this?
• Are they currently breaching any of the previous arrangements which allowed them entry into Scottish football?
• Are you happy that they are being run properly without breaching club licensing regulations, particularly on meeting finance criteria?
• The SFA undertook last year to publish certain financial information for all Scottish Clubs on its web site. Has that been done and will it be done this year and when can we expect to see them?
• What are the SFA’s views as a matter of national association policy on a club “pheonixing” as the term is used in insolvency guidance to prohibit it from happening?
• Given that senior members of TRFC continue to claim to be the same club with the same strip, with the same honours, the same 5 stars above their badge to lay claim to the honours, do the SFA see this as fair and reasonable way for any club to carry out their business with no regard for their previous conduct?
• On what grounds did the SFA assist in the above same club presentation by transferring the SFA membership from Rangers to TRFC to preserve ongoing full membership of the SFA instead of granting Associate SFA membership that TRFC were free to apply for on entry to the SFL?
• Can you clarify for me what the SFA position is re the status TRFC as same club as RFC in respect of any sanctions that would apply should TRFC suffer an Insolvency event? Is it the first or second event, why so and how many points would be deducted should it happen?
3. Dave King.
Given his recent Involvements with TRFC and his previous Involvement with the club that went into liquidation added to his conviction for tax evasion do the SFA see this man as being fit and proper to be Involved with TRFC?
4. Craig Whyte and Ownership.
Are the SFA 100% satisfied with the Internal Investigation carried out by TRFC using Pinsent Mason into whether Craig Whyte was still involved with the club?
• Did the SFA make any further enquiries of Pinsent Mason on their findings and as a result
• Are the SFA now satisfied that no dubiety exists over the ownership of TRFC and whom the SFA are dealing with.
• Are the SFA satisfied the owners are fit and proper persons?
5. Lord Nimmo Smith.
• Why, when the SFA are the ultimate authority on registration matters, did they and not the SPL commission Lord Nimmo Smith to carry out an inquiry into RFC use of EBT’s and failure to register them and appoint or nominate a body independent of the SFA to handle any appeal?
• Do you think that the punishments were just and truly reflect the damage the failure to comply with registration rules in order to reduce the risk of EBT’s being transparent and so challenged, has done to Scottish football, damage that is ongoing as a result of the bizarre, in terms of football rules, LNS findings?
• Was LNS made aware of SFA previous precedents in disqualifying teams from competitions for clerical errors and the principles behind the disqualification?
6. Campbell Ogilvie.
Charlottes Fakes published a document which appears to show that Mr Ogilvie may not have provided all the evidence he had to LNS in regard to the Discount Options Scheme which he initiated and was being run by RFC during his tenure as RFC secretary.
• Have you discussed this with Campbell? If so, do you think his position at SFA is tenable or untenable?
• If you haven’t discussed it, why not?
7. UEFA.
I am interested in the UEFA perspective on this so can you tell me:
• Why are TRFC ineligible to play in UEFA competitions for three years under Article 12 of UEFA FFP, which requires three years continuing membership of the national association before being eligible to enter, If TRFC’s SFA membership is unbroken by the transfer the SFA enabled in August 2012 under Article 14 of the SFA Handbook?
• Have UEFA got it wrong and the SFA got it right? In which case do TRFC need to wait 3 years?
As a businessman I fully understand the commercial imperatives that will have influenced the way the SFA approached dealing with the consequences of RFC’s demise. However I fear that the past and ongoing damage being done to the integrity of the sport, as a result of perceived or actual rule bending or breaking, to accommodate RFC/TRFC, will cause commercial damage that will manifest itself over the longer term. Indeed my reservations about further investment, that fellow sponsors may share, will manifest itself as a commercial cost if the SFA do not act quickly to address the concerns articulated by the questions I have asked.
I look forward to your reply Stewart and ask that you call me on 077xx xxxxxx should you need any further information.
You should know that I have a mind to make my questions open to public scrutiny on the internet as I think they will be of wider interest, not only to my fellow sponsors, but Scottish football supporters in general.
Yours sincerely ,
eddiegoldtop says: April 3, 2014 at 8:09 am
……………..
There is no way Stewart Regan will ever want to even answer one of your questions so he will want to ignore it.
But every club chairman, fans group, sponsor, editor, sports editor, lamb muncher and more importantly every sponsor should get a copy of your letter to read.
We should have a database of addresses that our blog posts and also stuff like this should be sent to.
twopanda says:
April 2, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Did we miss RTCs 3rd Anniversary?
Belated Happy Birthday!!
Missed
=======================================================
Thanks for the reminder. An excellent blog, worth the re-reading. Below is a flavour of discusion that folllowed the ‘Lies, damned lies and Scottish football journalism’ blog. Has the analysis got any clearer or have the entrenched, head in the sand views changed. I’d say no to both. I’d also wonder if Cadizzy and Dr Poon are one and the same person.
=======================================================================================
rasputin says: 29/03/2011 at 6:30am I can tell you that you will need a bigger shovel to fill in the hole you are digging. The “Tax Inquiry” involving Rangers FC, will be formally abandoned at the Edinburgh First Tier status, on 18th April 2011, do have a nice day.
================================================================================
cadizzy says: 29/03/2011 at 10:24 am It is good to read someone pushing back on the lazy acceptance by journalists of the spin coming out of Ibrox.
I read your article from yesterday concerning the tax case in detail and I agree with all that you say. I have myself been banging on for a while now that, in order to get an EBT arrangement wrong, an employer has to get the basics wrong; in this case, Rangers have surely attempted to recharacterise contractual amounts as discretionary amounts given that football remuneration is all about contractual payment. Even bonuses are based on a formulaic approach (e.g. if we win 3 points, you will get £x) so even those are difficult to shoehorn into an EBT.
I suspect that there will be “salary sacrifice” documentation demonstrating that all of those players were quite happy to enter into a contract that paid less than the going rate in return for absolutely nothing other than the recognition that if the employer saw fit, he might make a contribution into a Jersey based employee benefits trust with this in turn being dropped into a family benefits trust in relation to each particular player. Aye right! I suspect also that there is a collection of side letters in each and every case , probably hidden below the marble staircase, giving comfort to each player that they will not lose out.
It would also be interesting to know if any of those players were tax protected (on a net pay basis). Not only does that throw a huge big question mark over the sanity of any player who enters the arrangement, it also increases the PAYE failure significantly, since there would then be a requirement to gross up.
Of course, players on a net basis may be given that net basis in return for their agreement to participate in the EBT arrangement; however, that mutuality of obligation smells very contractual to me and no doubt to HMRC also. There would be no commercial rationale; the only reason for the arrangement is to avoid tax. QED, RFC, RIP
The whole problem for Rangers and other clubs is that they are trying to take a model from another industry (financial services) that doesn’t suit the custom and practice of the football industry. It is not even the main issue that loans or benefits in kind can come out of the trust tax free (in any year after the employment is ended) though that does enrage HMRC just a tad, Rangers quite simply seem to have fallen at the first hurdle. As indicated, trying to shoehorn one’s own circumstances into those that apply elsewhere and which are contrary to the custom and practice in one’s own area is the very first mistake…in this case, possibly the fatal one. I may not be invited to the funeral but I’m damned sure I’ll stage my own wake.
Eddiegoldtop says:
April 3, 2014 at 8:09 am
May I congratulate you on your fine effort to crack open the veil of silence at Hampden. ‘Asking the questions the media won’t ask’ 😉
At last, someone who has an undeniable right to ask for answers from the SFA, is putting them under pressure, and using the only thing they understand and bow down to; money!
While Regan, and the rest, will find it quite easy to fob off, or totally ignore, the vast majority of football supporters, they will find it far harder to do the same to people who have invested, continue to invest, and are considering to continue to invest, in their product. I suspect a failure to respond satisfactorily will lead to you, and I hope your business colleagues too, into contacting the clubs you are considering sponsoring to let them know why you are no longer prepared to do so (if that is, indeed, your decision), prompting them to question their own wisdom in keeping the Hampden cabal in situ, and maybe, even, getting them to act in the interests of football as they did once before.
Your post led me to think deeper into your actions, and to come up with the seeds of an idea to put Regan, Doncaster et al under even more pressure. Do you think there is any possibility that like minded business people might be of a mind to request, in light of the clear indications of what many would term cheating, by RFC, a refund of sponsorship money from the relative period? I’m not suggesting such claims would be successful, and certainly not suggesting that legal action be taken, but if enough people/businesses took this action then even the SMSM would be forced to report it and maybe the club chairmen would find themselves under pressure to take their own action against the governors of the game. Basically you would be saying, ‘I bought a product, I’ve now discovered it was seriously flawed, I want my money back!’
As I say, it’s only the seeds of an idea, and it’s not my place to suggest people do something I can’t do myself, but if anyone out their would like to pick it up and improve on it, please do.
A great letter, Eddiegoldtop, but I think the fundamental problem we all have is that we pay our money, whether as sponsors or paying customers, to the clubs we support and not to the SFA.
I feel that throughout the Murray years, I paid a lot of money to watch what I thought was a fair competition. I now find that I might as well have gone to watch WWF, and just enjoyed the pantomime spectacle.
Unfortunately, I seem to have no avenue of legal redress against those responsible for this disgraceful situation. Even if I was an off the radar billionaire willing to sink a fortune in legal fees, the courts simply wouldn’t entertain me. Unless, of course, I could prove that the club that I paid all my money to was complicit in the whole grubby business. I could then sue them, for taking my money under false pretences or some such.
What I can’t see is any direct route for an individual to sue the SFA. Which perhaps explains their supreme air of complacency. Certainly the clubs don’t seem keen to deal with the issue, or even to admit that there is an issue.
Pete Lambie says:
April 3, 2014 at 9:25 am
So the ‘up to date’ membership certificate for the club playing at Ibrox must have the name ‘Rangers FC’ on it.
No-one at the SFA can say, or is willing to say, who signed it and when
It would appear that while Farry may have issued new certificates, possible annually, during his tenure no new certificates have been issued to anyone other than new member clubs since Jim Farry departed in 1999.
So….
If no new certificates have been issued to existing/longstanding member clubs after Farry left, what is the name on the SFA membership certificate of the team playing out of the Excelsior Stadium/New Broomfield since 2002?
Did Grenta FC 2008 receive a new certificate. If so why was the old Grenta FC one just not handed over?
I for one hope the SFA don’t boast that they have ISO 9000 certification.
Eddiegoldtop says:
April 3, 2014 at 8:09 am
79 1 Rate This
Let’s make things happen rather than waiting for it. Write to SFA sponsors, journos, broadcasters make them aware the days of the silence of the succulent lambs are over.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Brilliant, and also an excellent summary of so many issues.
As I read it I could sense an Archie Macpherson “Whooft!” coming on.
If nothing else the SFA and league body may be shamed into responding.
I’d be pretty p!ssed off if the rumour that Celtic have fined Griffiths is true. It just backs up the lunacy at the SFA…
woodstein says:
April 2, 2014 at 10:57 pm
11 0 i
Rate This
CAMPBELLSMONEY says:
April 2, 2014 at 2:50 pm
“The WRU are probably not the relevant source for advice on matters of corporate law.”
———————————————
I do understand your point, but I would have expected them to have taken some legal advice before putting this information forward on their website to their members.
Anyway here is similar advice from the FA and instead of “Converting the club to a Limited Company ” they say:-
Club Structures:- Incorporation
“If you decide that you would like to adopt a new structure for your club, this section of the Guide sets out the procedure for doing so. In all cases, this procedure will be dependent on: (a) the new structure which you have chosen; and (b) the current status of the club, including its assets and liabilities. This is something that you should discuss with your club’s professional advisors. However, the guidance in this section provides a generic overview of the steps that will need to be taken.”
This section is exactly what was advised at almost all the meetings I attended with members of the Clubs and Institute Union in the mid 70s, when individual clubs wanted to incorporate, by the legal advisers there.
The phrase was “you are changing your legal status” but do not worry you are gaining important legal protections .
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Woodstein – I will have one more go at this.
A club cannot incorporate. A club starts life as a club and ends life as a club. A company starts life as a company and ends life as a company. What you are describing is that the people who set up the club agree to stop using the club at a certain point and decide instead to use a limited company.
Beforehand, there was a club (A) . Afterwards there is a club (A) and a company (B). A has not turned into B. A exists and now B exists. The club (A) does not know have the benefit of limited liability – but the people involved in the company (B) do have that benefit. Because they are now no longer “trading” through the club structure – the people involved now have the benefit of limited liability (because they are trading through a limited company). The club does not now have limited liability – and if the club now did anything (it shouldn’t because everything has been transferred to limited company (B)) – the club members could be liable (because clubs don’t have limited liability) – so it should be apparent that the club has not changed its legal staus in any way.
Describing this as “incorporating a club” is understandable but legally incorrect. The club does not change.
ianagain says:
April 3, 2014 at 12:02 am
I can see Hearts going unbeaten until the end and causing some caution amongst those above and below them. Inducing a wild spending spree elsewhere (no doubt including some Hearts players).
=============================
OK let’s get one thing straight. Hearts are not bottom of the SPFL because they lost 15 points. They are bottom of the table even if that 15 points were not deducted. Apart from their uncanny ability to beat Hibs they are still the worst of the bunch. Why would any Club hoping to climb out of the Championship purchase any players from a club that had just dropped into the Championship?
Allyjambo says:
April 3, 2014 at 10:16 am
Basically you would be saying, ‘I bought a product, I’ve now discovered it was seriously flawed, I want my money back!’
——
… and a certain Mr Bryson would pop up with a prepared, and previously successful, reply to that one. 😉
A very good letter, eddiegoldtop. Hopefully, your status will warrant a reply of some sort.
cowanpete says:
April 3, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Why would any Club hoping to climb out of the Championship purchase any players from a club that had just dropped into the Championship?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To pick off the one or two players on a short term contracts that may cause you bother during the coming season.
Weaken the opposition squads, remove the competition to better improve your chances of success and in the main allow said talent to wither while warming your bench.
The practice has been going on from years. The queston is who can afford such a practice these days?
Pete Lambeth
The SFA are experts at stonewalling. Only answering what is asked and not going any further.
They could have said that Article 14 which prohibits transfer contains the discretionary power to allow such a transfer.
The question then is why was that discretion used rather than allow a new Associate Member of the SFL to apply for SFA Associate Membership within 14 days of being accepted into the SFL.
What sporting reason lay behind the decision to use this discretionary route or were the SFA blackmailed by CG and the fear of TRFC disappearing off the football radar to do what the title of Art 14 prohibits?
You might wish to ask that question and see if you get a reply.
Eddiegoldtop
Excellent letter which keenly points to all issues, and most importantly, nicely hangs the Sword of Damocles over the heads of the SFA. If it is true as stated by Eddiegoldtop that he and his business colleagues and fellow sponsors are disillusioned and have a lack of confidence in the SFA, then this really is a huge kick in the guts to the SFA. It should also be noted that this may already be the case as still no sponsor has been found for the SPFL.
I await any response to this wonderful letter and hope that many more of Eddiegoldtop’s business associates start to ask or demand answers to the same questions before they invest into Scottish football again. This could be the beginning of the end for the suits at Hampden.
Eddiegoldtop:
Great letter – I would be very interested to read of any reply you may get…..
Here is a couple of questions of my own:
The Five Way Agreement:
Has anyone ever heard of an official explanation of why this is confidential?
In fact…has anyone ever heard of any journalist even bother to ask what are the reasons for this agreement to be kept confidential?
No… me neither. The need for confidentiality is just accepted without question….. hmmm go figure eh?
I remember at the time either Regan or Doncaster (can’t remember which) having agreed to an interview on the express condition that he would not be asked any questions about The Five Way Agreement.
I have heard endless talk about the secret Five Way Agreement never a word on explanation on why it has to be secret…..
What are they hiding and why so afraid?
Campbellsmoney says:
April 3, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Describing this as “incorporating a club” is understandable but legally incorrect. The club does not change.
——
I’m not sure that I entirely agree with you there, CM.
What I understand from your post is that, although a company has been set up which will undertake every activity that a Club/association previously undertook, that Club/association still exists in some kind of dormant form because the “informal” Club has no winding-up process as such.
If this is your meaning, then I can see how that could be the case (although I understood that the term “incorporation” was to be interpreted literally – that is, the informal club became legally “embodied”).
However, in practice, I don’t believe your interpretation works – although I would be interested to see a legal reference. If it were the case, then e.g. Rangers FC could rightly lay claim to every title won since 1872.
If, however, it is the case that such awards belonged to the Ltd Co. (from whom they were bought by Mr Green) as the entity which conducts all activity, then they may be able to claim awards won prior to “incorporation” in 1899 only – being that they are the same “club” which pre- and post-existed the liquidated company (who owned the rest).
However, Mr Green “bought” the awards from RFC on behalf of TRFC – but the only Old Rangers awards TRFC Ltd can claim are the ones won between 1899 and 2012, previously owned by RFC. Between 1872 and 1899 any awards were not made to a company, and remain the sole property of the dormant “Club” which was the active unincorporated entity during that time.
In other words, TRFC Ltd own some of the history (having bought it), but Rangers FC (the neverending “club”) own the history from before incorporation. Plus they may, in some ghostly manner, have a claim on the history of RFC whilst incorporated – although that is owned, bought and paid for by TRFC Ltd.
Plainly nonsense. My speciality. 🙂
So Mike Ashley, billionaire owner of Sports Direct who in turn own less than half of Rangers Retail, though they do effectively own the voting shares, had his £70,000,000 share bonus turned down by institutional investors.
This guy has made billions by buying up beloved household name brands that have gone to the wall and selling inferior products badged with those names (Slazenger, Dunlop, Lonsdale, Rangers). OK they’re sold at a rock bottom discount, but it’s still enough to turn a profit given the (IMO) shoddy workmanship.
Genius.
peterjung says:
April 3, 2014 at 2:00 pm
It is the lack of MSM questioning in so many similar circumstances that makes the excuse given for the lack of coverage of CF’s disclosures so much less believable. There may well have been the potential for legal problems in covering CF, but that was not the foremost reason for not publishing, or even making reference to, the material. It was purely and simply all bad news for RFC/TRFC and so was ignored for as long as possible, and has still not been covered in even the flimsiest of detail.
As has been said so often, there have been, for 3 years or more, huge stories available to a media desperate for a huge story, but so much has been ignored, or downplayed, that that, in itself, would be a huge story for someone in the MSM to cover. Unfortunately, no one, AT excepted, from the MSM (or within Scottish Football) appears to be prepared to break ranks.
Is there no one prepared to rip the camouflage netting off the cover-ups, of the cover-ups… of the wrongdoings?
jockybhoy says:
April 3, 2014 at 2:19 pm
5
0
Rate This
So Mike Ashley, billionaire owner of Sports Direct who in turn own less than half of Rangers Retail, though they do effectively own the voting shares, had his £70,000,000 share bonus turned down by institutional investors.
This guy has made billions by buying up beloved household name brands that have gone to the wall and selling inferior products badged with those names (Slazenger, Dunlop, Lonsdale, Rangers). OK they’re sold at a rock bottom discount, but it’s still enough to turn a profit given the (IMO) shoddy workmanship.
Genius.
===========================================
Jockybhoy,
I beg to disagree.
Of the “household brands” you list, I refuse to believe Rangers have got any shoddier since the involvement of Mike Ashley.
They’ve always been shoddy since the involvement of David Murray.
Eddiegoldtop says:
April 3, 2014 at 8:09 am
“…recently the Court of Session judged that evidence from CF was admissible…”.
————————————
It is gratifying to discover that whilst lightweights like myself attempt to scratch an impervious surface, others with much more traction are engaging meaningfully in the debate. The thumbs up count will inform you of how welcome your interjection is.
At the risk of appearing pedantic and acting purely from the motive of ensuring your efforts are well constructed, I must humbly point out that the admissibility of CharlotteFakes information as court evidence was made at a hearing concerning Collyer Bristow at the Royal Courts of Justice and not the Court of Session.
Campbellsmoney says:
April 3, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Can you add a bit more elucidation please?
I take it the club has rules, office bearers minute books etc.
When the club club transfers its assets to the trading company does it not require to maintain its own position through membership lists elections of office bearers etc.
If the club fails to do this in line with its rules does it not just atrophy and therefore cease to be?
Where is the evidence that Rangers the club maintained its original status beyond the incorporation of the company?
Interesting tweets appearing from the @CelticResearch twitter account, claiming David Leggat is acting as Dave King’s PR man. If this is true, the Scottish media just look even more foolish than they did before.
Angus1983 says:
April 3, 2014 at 2:10 pm
3 1 i
Rate This
Campbellsmoney says:
April 3, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Describing this as “incorporating a club” is understandable but legally incorrect. The club does not change.
——
I’m not sure that I entirely agree with you there, CM.
What I understand from your post is that, although a company has been set up which will undertake every activity that a Club/association previously undertook, that Club/association still exists in some kind of dormant form because the “informal” Club has no winding-up process as such.
If this is your meaning, then I can see how that could be the case (although I understood that the term “incorporation” was to be interpreted literally – that is, the informal club became legally “embodied”).
However, in practice, I don’t believe your interpretation works – although I would be interested to see a legal reference. If it were the case, then e.g. Rangers FC could rightly lay claim to every title won since 1872.
If, however, it is the case that such awards belonged to the Ltd Co. (from whom they were bought by Mr Green) as the entity which conducts all activity, then they may be able to claim awards won prior to “incorporation” in 1899 only – being that they are the same “club” which pre- and post-existed the liquidated company (who owned the rest).
However, Mr Green “bought” the awards from RFC on behalf of TRFC – but the only Old Rangers awards TRFC Ltd can claim are the ones won between 1899 and 2012, previously owned by RFC. Between 1872 and 1899 any awards were not made to a company, and remain the sole property of the dormant “Club” which was the active unincorporated entity during that time.
In other words, TRFC Ltd own some of the history (having bought it), but Rangers FC (the neverending “club”) own the history from before incorporation. Plus they may, in some ghostly manner, have a claim on the history of RFC whilst incorporated – although that is owned, bought and paid for by TRFC Ltd.
Plainly nonsense. My speciality.
———————————————————————————————————————————–
Angus1983 – to be clear – I was not talking about Rangers or RFC2012 or TRFC at all.
I was talking about what a club is, as a matter of law, and what a company is, as a matter of law and saying that the one cannot become the other. You can have a club formed by Angus and Campbell called the “Angus and Campbell club” who say – lets incorporate. What Angus and Campbell do is set up a limited company and transfer club stuff to the limited company. They have not turned a club into a limited company any more than taking a piece of base metal away and replacing it with gold is alchemy.
Anyway – angels dancing on pinheads.
🙂
Dumfoonert says:
April 3, 2014 at 3:45 pm
Where is the evidence that Rangers the club maintained its original status beyond the incorporation of the company?
——————————————————————————————————————————
Can I ask – do you mean in 1872 or in 2012? I mean that as as serious question – I assume you are referring back to 1872 and the real club to company transfer – and not the “club” as a matter of “football rules” issue that has perplexed so many recently.
JimBhoy says:
April 3, 2014 at 12:07 pm
I’d be pretty p!ssed off if the rumour that Celtic have fined Griffiths is true. It just backs up the lunacy at the SFA…
***********
Nearly…….the fine by his employers makes the follow up charge by SFA even more nonsensical
Celtic had every right to slap him on the wrists – he should not by his own conduct blemish the reputation and good standing of his employer. Hopefully he has learned that he is now in a real fishbowl and cannot be seen to be doing this stuff when everyone and his uncle has a phone with video etc ready to send and post it all over the internet.
However, for the SFA to then become involved is nonsense – which is why Celtic are defending him on that – basically saying we have taken care of it and there is no need for a double punishment…………
I for one am not at all unhappy with Celtic for their stance so not sure why you are “pi$$ed”
Campbellsmoney says:
April 3, 2014 at 3:54 pm
0 4 i
Rate This
Dumfoonert says:
April 3, 2014 at 3:45 pm
Where is the evidence that Rangers the club maintained its original status beyond the incorporation of the company?
——————————————————————————————————————————
Can I ask – do you mean in 1872 or in 2012? I mean that as as serious question – I assume you are referring back to 1872 and the real club to company transfer – and not the “club” as a matter of “football rules” issue that has perplexed so many recently.
————————————————————————————————–
4 thumbsdown for my query? really!!! – it was a serious question – it was not a joke or a jibe or a dig.
Dumfoonert says:
April 3, 2014 at 3:45 pm
2 0 Rate This
Campbellsmoney says:
April 3, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Can you add a bit more elucidation please?
I take it the club has rules, office bearers minute books etc.
When the club club transfers its assets to the trading company does it not require to maintain its own position through membership lists elections of office bearers etc.
If the club fails to do this in line with its rules does it not just atrophy and therefore cease to be?
=============
We are getting wrapped up in semantics here. As CM correctly points out, a club does not “incorporate” in any legal sense. A new company is formed which takes over the assets and business of the club. Usually, the members of the club receive shares in the new company in exchange for their interest in the assets of the club. What bedevils the whole discussion is that the company is usually given a name that is identical to that of the club, with “limited” tacked on at the end.
So if the members of Perth Bowling Club decided that it was desirable to have the protection of limited liability, then a company called Perth Bowling Club Ltd would be formed. All the business and assets of the club would be transferred to the new company. The members would receive shares in the company in proportion to their interests in the club. At that point, the club ceases to operate and the company takes over. The articles of association of the company will determine what minutes are kept, how directors are appointed and all that stuff. The old club, as a gathering of like minds for a common purpose, no longer exists in reality, but everyone just thinks of the company as a continuation of the club, and most people, including the members, just think of the company as the club. But it isn’t. The company is a brand new legal entity, and the old club no longer exists as anything other than an abstract idea.
neepheid says:
April 3, 2014 at 4:21 pm
We are getting wrapped up in semantics here. As CM correctly points out, a club does not “incorporate” in any legal sense. A new company is formed which takes over the assets and business of the club. Usually, the members of the club receive shares in the new company in exchange for their interest in the assets of the club. What bedevils the whole discussion is that the company is usually given a name that is identical to that of the club, with “limited” tacked on at the end.
So if the members of Perth Bowling Club decided that it was desirable to have the protection of limited liability, then a company called Perth Bowling Club Ltd would be formed. All the business and assets of the club would be transferred to the new company. The members would receive shares in the company in proportion to their interests in the club. At that point, the club ceases to operate and the company takes over. The articles of association of the company will determine what minutes are kept, how directors are appointed and all that stuff. The old club, as a gathering of like minds for a common purpose, no longer exists in reality, but everyone just thinks of the company as a continuation of the club, and most people, including the members, just think of the company as the club. But it isn’t. The company is a brand new legal entity, and the old club no longer exists as anything other than an abstract idea.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
Yip
Re Leigh Griffiths.
Celtic are clearly within their rights to fine and discipline thier employee if they feel he has broken the terms of his contract which presumably includes clauses about acting in the best interests and upolding the ethos of the club etc etc.
Equally the SFA have the right to bring Griffiths to book under rule 86.
Rule 86: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football . Furthermore such person or body shall not act in any manner which is improper or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
Griffiths of course has the right to challenge why he is being cited.
However I understand that the guys running my boys 2007 4×4 teams are needing to get all the wee lads and even those in the year below to sign their SFA registrations.
Should I be telling my lad to be careful what he says and does in the playground for fear that Mr Lunny will come knocking at our door?
If the rules are to be applied without fear or favour then ALL players registered with the SFA should be under such scrutiny?
Is it possible that others seen in the Griffiths sing song video are signed to clubs that are connected to Affilliated National Associations that come under the jurisdiction of the SFA?
Was Malcolm Murray every cited for having one too many in private?
Was Stockbridge ever cited for putting the video into the public domain?
Will current SPFL players such as Steven Thomson and John Rankin who are employed as part time pundits on the BBC be cited for telling the truth and saying a fellow professional or an opposition team had a gash game?
EddieGoldTop
I hope your letter gets the detailed response that it deserves…I really do. I’ve written many letters myself over the last couple of years to the SFA and my own club, never personal or critical, alway questioning -though none as well articulated as this. Thing is, I’ve never received an acknowledgement far less a reply to any of them. They already know from me (and I’m sure many others) that a failure to provide answers to entirely reasonable questions is impacting my support of Scottish Football and my spend. They have clearly calculated that the cost to them of their stance, in terms of lost support, is a price worth paying and that enough others will continue to dip into their pockets to keep the show on the road. Unfortunately I think they will adopt exactly the same approach to their sponsors -and I mean that to infer no criticism of your approach at all. Perhaps I have just become very cynical but unless the sponsorship you provide is so significant that it is game changing for them they will simply play the same zero sum game. I suppose we will have to wait and see… and if you do get a response then it obviously was 🙂
An abstract idea and (the writer of the response from the SFA recently listed would have us believe) the holder of the SFA membership.
Been thinking about Eddiegoldtop’s succinct and comprehensive post all day.
He is so right to ask Regan those seven comprehensive questions.
Mr Regan is the top of our tree and paid handsomely.
And Regan don’t forget is also the man who is on record as pledging to make the Scottish game more “urgent, transparent and speedy”.
So Eddiegoldtop has asked him direct.
So far he has not been urgent, transparent or speedy.
So now every one of us should ask our clubs to ask Mr Regan for the same answers.
That’s grass-roots democracy because as season ticket holders we also are stakeholders in the Scottish Game along with all the sponsors.
Lets get it on record as asked.
And then wait see.
Hhaving written that response above I went back to the Pete Lambeth letter ( the SFA response I was referring to) and realised just how clever the wording of that response is!
Campbellsmoney says:
April 3, 2014 at 4:13 pm
————————————————————————————————–
4 thumbsdown for my query? really!!! – it was a serious question – it was not a joke or a jibe or a dig.
————————————-
The question was fine, I would however give you a TD just for showing an interest in your own TD’s!
Pete Lambie says:
April 3, 2014 at 9:25 am
29 0 Rate This
EddieGoldTop, I recently spent a bit of time contacting the SFA over who was named recipient of the RFC membership. Please find reply below.
————-
Hi Peter
I have now discussed this matter with our Head of Governance and can confirm that the membership you enquire about is held in the name of Rangers FC. That membership is held by the corporate entity The Rangers Football Club Limited which was, in 2012, transferred this membership by the then named The Rangers Football Club PLC (In Administration) pursuant to and in accordance with Article 14 of the Scottish FA’s Articles of Association. The Rangers Football Club limited is in turn owned by Rangers International Football Club PLC which is listed on the London Stock Exchange through and AIM Listing.
Kind regards
The Scottish FA
————-
And that is how the ‘club’ that had massive debts walked away from them and within weeks was the same club, just without those pesky bills and that tiresome debt. It’s not fair in football or any other business. Yet the SFA have approved of and facilitated this?
If the liquidators can not or will not act then Phoenix Rangers are a reality. Otherwise it’s difficult to see how the great debt relief plan will be called into question or by whom. The SFA have basically aided and abetted the ripping off of multi creditors, and the personal enrichment of Charles Green, Brian Stockbridge and the rest of the cast.
Not Scottish football’s finest moment. I wouldn’t sponsor it either.
Do UEFA and FIFA really condone this?
Madbhoy24941 says:
April 3, 2014 at 6:12 pm
4 5 i
Rate This
The question was fine, I would however give you a TD just for showing an interest in your own TD’s!
—————————————————————————————
…………………….and right back at you.
😛
——————————————————
DP
Same mistake I made. Read it again.
“The membership is in the name of Rangers” in the same way my membership on here is in the name of Smugas. “The membership is held by TRFC and was formerly held by RFCold.” “Smugas” is currently held by me and can only pass to another if I sell them the password, cynicism, poor grammar, bad spelling and misplaced optimism. It does not make “Smugas” real. If Smugas was to tell you Ally McCoist was having an affair with [insert as approporiate] McCoists lawyers would not be at the door to arrest “Smugas” they’d arrest me.
“Rangers” is a brand. Nothing more.
Do UEFA and FIFA really condone this?
=====
UEFA just run two club competitions for which they have their rules of entry, as Barca found out it is FIFA that runs football.
FIFA have no problem with franchises see the MLS
Smugas……..Coisty thing. Is it Imrans Maw?
ExiledCelt
I for one am not at all unhappy with Celtic for their stance so not sure why you are “pi$$ed”
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Because he did nothing wrong for starters… If there was a wee reminder, that as you say, you are now in the mad goldfish bowl and everyone and their dog has a camera so beware, tone it down, then fine. He is new to the club but a fine suggests Celtic think he has done some wrong and adds credence to the ludicrous SFA charge…. That’s just my opinion of course and yours is fine by me too.. And he is a crap singer also.
peterjung says:
April 3, 2014 at 2:00 p
I have heard endless talk about the secret Five Way Agreement never a word on explanation on why it has to be secret…..
What are they hiding and why so afraid?
___________________________________
It probably contains commercially sensitive information which needs to be protected.
🙄 🙄 🙄
JimBhoy says:
April 3, 2014 at 8:09 pm
I’d accept that Griffiths did nothing, or not very much, wrong if his actions are viewed purely as that of a fan. He’s been a professional footballer for a while now and has had more than his fair share of bad publicity, maybe it’s time he started to grow up and Celtic consider this one way to encourage him. It is to Celtic’s credit that they expect a higher standard of behaviour from their players than Griffiths’ previous clubs appear to do, but not only that, it would appear he behaved in a manner that the less savoury of football fans, of all clubs, might find as cause to do him physical harm – it’d be naïve to think otherwise, and I’m sure Celtic don’t fancy paying wages to a player who has to miss games for an off-field injury, or even find themselves bailing him out of jail 😳
Professional footballers get paid a huge amount of money, is it too much for their clubs to expect them to behave in a more dignified manner than boozed up fans?
The SFA are wrong to get involved, or even publicise their interest, but Celtic are showing the way in dealing with errant members of their club, and deserve credit for it. Surely you wouldn’t want your club to deal with Griffiths in the same manner the SFA deal with their member(s) from Govan!
Galling Fiver
Would such an insertion have been appropriate? 😯