Good Evening,
Whilst it is understandable that the continuing events at Ibrox remain a hot topic among all Scottish Football Fans — especially given the views of some sections of the press on such events– the never ending rush down the marble staircase is certainly not the only show in town.
The other morning we were treated to the “scoop” that Alistair Johnstone is afraid that Craig Whyte– the once proclaimed Multi Billionaire from Motherwell- may well still be pulling all the strings at Ibrox! This is a fear which is shared by those who walk the corridors of Hampden Park as they, too, are terrified of the prospect of Whyte returning in some shape or form and coming back to haunt them, especially as he has been deemed unfit and proper, banned sine die, and generally ridiculed for his past actions.
However, the Hampden jackets know fine well that their realm only stretches so far and that if by means of the proper application of company law, contract or some other piece of paper Whyte controls the shareholding of the self proclaimed “parent company” to the football club then they are in a fix. In fact, I will wager that they just would not know how to deal with such a situation as after all RIFC PLC neither holds a licence to play football nor is a member of the SFA and so, on the face of it, who owns it has nothing to do with them.
At this juncture, no one in authority knows who Blue Pitch Holdings are and, strangely, no one in authority knows who Margarita Holdings are either! Yet these two “holdings” whoever they may be, may well hold all the power down Govan way…… with the SFA completely powerless to find out who they are let alone get into any dialogue with them. All the SFA can do is talk to the appointed Directors and officers of The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
This, is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Meanwhile, they will have no difficulty in finding out who the new shareholders of Dunfermline Athletic are. Those shareholders will come from the fanbase and will be clearly registered at Companies House, with the result that ultimately those fans/shareholders will appoint Directors who will then attend meetings and speak and opine on their behalf and in essence be the ” Voice of Dunfermline” at Hampden.
Perhaps, similar will follow from Heart of Midlothian?
However, those at Hampden — if they have any sense at all– will be most wary of events happening in the east end of Glasgow come November.
In the middle of the month, Celtic PLC will hold its AGM and amidst the items on the agenda is the fan driven notion that the Club— through its Directors—- should go further in holding the SFA to account and enquire into the granting of club licences, and in particular how it granted Rangers a club licence that allowed entry to the Champions League in 2011 when the small tax case was outstanding.
The Celtic board have deemed this motion as “Unnecessary” and in support of that contention have released documentation showing that they raised this very issue with the SFA on behalf of the shareholders and fans. Further– and here is the rub— The Directors reveal that they were not satisfied with the SFA response and have disclosed that they took the matter further and wrote to UEFA.
Ultimately, UEFA also provided a reply, which backed the SFA approach and which Celtic had little option but to accept in the absence of admissible contradicting evidence..
It is on this basis, that Peter Lawell and Co say the AGM motion is not necessary. Note that saying that the motion is not necessary, is not at all the same thing as saying that what the motion seeks to achieve is not necessary or does not have the support of the board!
There will be those at Hampden who severely hope that the Celtic Board are successful in voting this measure down as obviously they deem their original reply sufficient and would like to end the discussion there.
However, my own view, is that whether the motion is successful or not, there are those within the SFA who will recognise there is trouble staring them in the face here. Real Trouble!
Let’s recap for a moment and draw some threads together.
Celtic’s past Chairman, Dr John Reid, said only a couple of years ago that the SFA was clearly not fit for purpose. He did so in the context of events surrounding Neil Lennon and other matters, but was unshakably robust in his condemnation of an institutionalised uselessness which he saw pervaded the Hampden ranks.
Prior to that, Henry McLeish produced a report which stated that he too had concerns about the Governance of Scottish Football and called for openness and transparency.
In the intervening period, we have seen Mr David Longmuir, former Chief Executive of the Scottish Football League, find himelf without a position following reconstruction– and this partly as a result of club chairmen being apparently kept in the dark about his payment, bonuses and expenes. I understand that there was considerable anger from some at the way in which they had been treated by Mr Longmuir.
Then there is Mr Campbell Ogilvie, El Presidente, who himself benefited from a Rangers EBT and who held sway at Ibrox during a period of time when Rangers– by their own admission— made unlawful and illegal payments to three high profile players in breach of tax laws and SFA/SPL rules. It is these breaches and the consequent Wee Tax Bill which has caused all the angst among Celtic fans and has lead to the highly regulated legal step of tabling a motion at the club’s AGM.
Basically, the position seems to be, that as at the due date when the appropriate documents and declarations were made for a Euro Licence by Rangers for 2011, the wee tax bill was outstanding and due. If it was overdue, then the SFA could not and should not have granted them a licence……. and potentially Celtic should then have been put forward as Scotland’s representatives in the Champion’s League.
However, that did not happen, and Ranger’s were granted a licence– something that the Celtic Directors clearly felt was not correct.
They may have disagreed with the awarding of the licence because there were those at Rangers at the time who declared that a payment to account had been made to the tax office– allegedly £500,000– and that they had entered into an agreement to make payment of the balance by instalments. Had that been so, then all would have been hunky dory and no more would have been said.
Alas, however, no such payment appears to have been made at all, and no such agreement was entered into and so, on that basis, the tax bill was overdue and outstanding as at 30th June in terms of Article 66 and as such no Euro Licence should have been granted.
However, the argument does not end there.
Auldheid, has posted frequently on these pages about the ins and outs of the licensing provisions and the mechanism and so I will leave that detail to him as he is far more expert in these areas than me.
Now, one of the SFA functions is to have an auditor– someone who can check books, contracts, paper work and so on, and it is part of the SFA licensing function to be satisfied that all the paperwork is of course correct and in proper fashion before they issue any licence.
In this case, it is alleged that the SFA did not perform their function properly.
In relation to the wee tax case, it is said that either they did not make sufficient enquiry of Rangers re the payment to account or the agreement which they were told was in place. At the time it was mooted in the press that no such agreement was in place as at the relevant date ( June 30th ) and a simple check with the revenue would have shown the truth of the matter.
Yet, for whatever reason, no such check appears to have been made, and if you recall a Radio Scotland interview with Alistair Johnstone, Rangers submitted the forms, the SFA replied with one or two enquiries about the BIG tax case which were answered, and thereafter the Licence appears to have simply dropped through the letter box without further ado.
You will also recall that the existence of the wee tax case became known BEFORE Craig Whyte bought David Murray’s shareholding in May 2011. In fact it was the subject of News Paper headlines weeks before the deal was completed, and so the fact that there was a wee tax bill was well and truly in the public domain.
When it came to filling in the appropriate forms,either, the SFA were mislead by those then at Rangers with regard to that tax bill, OR, they simply failed to do the requisite checks and make reasonable enquiries before they issued the licence.
However, the uncomfortable fact also remains, that one of the chaps who must have been in the know re the admittedly unlawful and offending side letters, contracts and payments to the three players concerned was Campbell Ogilivie who was on the Rangers Board at the relevant time when the contracts and irregular payments were made under the Discount Options Scheme from 1999 to 2002/3. Indeed he may even have initiated the first payment to Craig Moore in 1999. I reiterate that no one has ever contested that this was an unlawful scheme, and the irregular payments and paperwork are not denied in relation to that scheme.
There are Celtic shareholders who believe, rightly or wrongly, that when it came to the granting of the Euro Licence, the SFA did not play them fair on this occasion and that the wheels within Hampden were oiled in such a way that Rangers were favoured and Celtic were disadvantaged. It is a point that looks to have already been considered by the Celtic Directors in 2011, with the result that they concluded that they should formally write to the SFA and seek clarification.
However, we now have the prospect of those same directors having to go back to Hampden and say ” Sorry, but I am forced to bring this up by my shareholders. I have a legal duty to them to enquire further”. Even if the motion is refused, the point has been made– there are shareholders who are demanding answers– just as shareholders of other clubs demand answers about the ever so secret 5 way agreement and other matters which have hitherto been not for public consumption.
The SFA have nothing to fear of course as they can simply repeat their previous answers,demonstrate that all was above board, and rest easy in their beds.
Except that answer did not satisfy the Celtic Directors on a previous occasion as they decided to take the matter to UEFA, and it would appear that some Celtic shareholders remain dissatisfied with the known stance of the SFA and so they want the Directors of the club to delve further. Without wishing to point out the obvious, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted rigorously or that those at Hampden were in any way economical with the truth or omitted certain details from the previous explanation, or covered up a failure in procedures—- well such omissions have a habit of becoming public these days whether that be through the internet or otherwise.
The point here is that the actions of Hampden officials are coming under organised, legal and planned corporate scrutiny over which they have no control. The Blazer and club mentality that was once so widespread within the governing bodies is under increasing attack and is being rendered a thing of the past.
In short, the move by Celtic shareholders, is making it plain that they will demand proper corporate governance from their club in ensuring that any alleged failure in corporate governance by the SFA or SPFL is properly investigated and reported on.
Of course, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted properly for whatever reason, then it could be argued that Celtic were disadvantaged in monetary terms along with other clubs who may have been awarded Europa League licences, then the consequences could be cataclysmic. Hence a tendency to circle the wagons rather than admit to failures in the process that need addressing.
It is this reluctance to come out and accept that the licensing process appears to have failed, say at what point the process failed and what needs to be done to address those failures that in many ways has driven the resolution. It is clear to all that something is amiss but the SFA will not admit it, probably from fear of the consequences of doing so? Perhaps some form of indemnity, a lessons learned enquiry with no prejudice might help?
It would come as no surprise to me at all if there were those at Hampden who live in dreaded fear of admitting that their processes were flawed and that a grave mistake was made. Under these circumstances, there may well be those at Hampden who simply wish that Celtic and their fans would just go away!
Some sevco stoaters on the unmentionable tonight pure comedy gold 😆 not fair that scottish cup final at Celtic park BUT ramsdens cup final should be played at ‘show us the deeds’ arena ???????? Oh and sevco are the second best team in Scotland 😳 ps when’s the AGM?????
Barcabhoy says: (254)
October 30, 2013 at 5:56 pm
…
Why do we, Celtic supporters and supporters of lots, maybe all , other clubs care what is happening to Rangers
…
Why we care is summed up in 2 words. David Murray…
============================================
Actually, Bb I’m not really that concerned about Minty. 🙄
[I will qualify that by saying I have never been a season ticket holder, and I appreciate that those who paid their money in the 90’s might have rather strong feelings about Minty today]
Agreed, he is the architect of the Rangers downfall and was not the best influence for Scottish football – but he is an irrelevance now, and I believe he has now relocated to France ?
The damage is done : his business and Rangers legacy has crumbled – and he won’t be feted in Scotland as before.
For me, the reason I spent too much time on RTC and now on TSFM, is that I cared about the Rangers story – but specifically from the MSM non-reporting angle.
I couldn’t believe how the MSM was mishandling the Ibrox story – even though there was plenty of publicly available information which showed up the MSM for being – in the main – mere churnalists of PR guff, wrt Rangers. For me the fascination was following the story in the full knowledge that at some point the MSM would have to ‘do a 180’ and report the unavoidable facts for the first time – starting with the Administration.
However, we know that the influential print MSM is in terminal decline, so sports journalists like Jackson, Keevins et al should also become irrelevant in due course.
My interest now in the Rangers saga, has moved specifically to how the SFA is mishandling the Govan club. The SFA regularly astounds me with it’s transparency: transparent corruption and/or incompetence. And of course all the senior clubs have to take some responsibility for the current state of affairs in Scottish football, including Ogilvie’s re-election.
There has to be a serious correction in Scottish football, e.g. the disbanding / rebranding / repositioning of the SFA and an overhaul of its culture, IMO. It might take many years yet, but it has to happen.
So for me, yes I still care about what is happening to Rangers – but only because it is the constant thread. I was initially more interested in the MSM and now I’m more interested in the SFA.
Any club playing at Ibrox is – arguably – always going to be a financial basket case, and might not ‘get back to the top’ of Scottish football at all. The Govan club could become increasingly irrelevant itself: the longer it takes to win the top league and achieve CL group qualification the more bears will drift away, IMO.
So maybe critics should feel flattered that so many people care about what is happening to The Rangers…because in a few years time there could be far fewer people who are still interested – including disaffected bears. 🙂
Did anyone even ask the SRU if Murrayfield was available?
scapaflow says: (1072)
October 30, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Why would they even bother when football has two other large stadiums available when Hampden is in use for other events?
Keep the money within the game.
Really guys, this is a non story.
Finally wottpi, someone speaking some sense.
scapaflow says: (1072)
October 30, 2013 at 7:33 pm
1 0 Rate This
Did anyone even ask the SRU if Murrayfield was available?
—————————————
The obvious solution.
A proper neutral stadium in Scotland’s capital city.
An attempted summary of where we are….
If the current incarnation of TRFC manages to survive it will likely be with an unsustainable business model and huge accumulated debts – not to mention the possibility of losing core assets either to a sale/leaseback or having them reclaimed by CW/BDO.
This is pretty clear from the annual accounts and repeated statements about some further requirement for fund-raising. Rearranging the deckchairs in what is the Boardroom of Titanic FC will in the end be futile.
If administration does arise then a REAL process is likely to take place. The supposed pain and punishment seen in the past two years will be as nothing compared to what will then happen. The search for a sustainable business model/billionaire whilst aspiring for world records will then doubtless continue with a rather bleak outcome more than likely.
‘Rangers’ are unlikely to ever challenge Celtic for as far forward as I can see. The implications of that for attendances/sponsorship will add to the financial problems and inhibit improvement on the field. A vicious circle.
Why do these guys not get it? Is it just complete denial? Is it because deep down they do know but can’t bring themselves to admit it? Is it just that the MSMerising bright light at the end of the tunnel is in fact an oncoming train?
WATP – gonnae bail us oot? Pathetic.
Scottish Football needs TRFC fans to wake up and smell the coffee.
I caught ten minutes of Radio Clyde tonight. A caller called John from Uddingston who is on regularly was berating the authorities for daring to play the Ramsdens Final at Easter Road, because ‘thousands of Rangers fans won’t see it’. To be fair the panel stressed time and again it was a fair decision for both clubs, but I was amazed at their failure to point out to the caller that Easter Road’s capacity is 20,421, and not ‘aboot 16,000’ as he persistently claimed.
fergusslayedtheblues says: (168)
October 30, 2013 at 6:49 pm
He is the guy I want to see answering some difficult questions (preferably under oath in a court of law .
======================================
I absolutely do not want to see that happen.
Witnesses give evidence under oath in Court. The accused doesn’t have to unless they want to.
In any Court case regarding his business interests, including those with Rangers, Rangers’ taxes, malfeasance or trading whilst insolvent Mr Murray should be sitting in the dock.
“Is the “Twitter mob” taming the Daily Mail?”
http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/more/item/5564-is-the-twitter-mob-taming-the-daily-mail
On the semi finals and final of the cup.
The problem is not the venues, it is making the decision now..
There is absolutely no need to have done that. The final at the very least should be at a neutral venue and Celtic are still in the competition. If they are knocked out before the final, then fair enough, confirm it as the venue. It’s a natural choice being one of the biggest stadiums and in Glasgow (I agree it could be elsewhere but I take the point of the SFA wanting to keep it in the same city as the national stadium).
If however Celtic do make it to that final then it should be in a neutral venue. Using the same logic about the city, if Rangers have been knocked out then Ibrox is the obvious choice. If it is a Celtic v Rangers final then it should be in neither teams stadium.
Having said that, Murrayfield would then be the only realistic alternative, based on nothing but size. Being entirely honest the Police may not be too keen on that. I say that knowing that Hearts played Hibs at Hampden not that long ago with no particular issues.
My main point is, there was no need to make or announce these decisions just now.
wottpi says: (1242)
October 30, 2013 at 7:40 pm
Yes and No.
Firstly, the decision on venues has been made with almost unheard of haste by a normally lethargic organisation, one is entitled to ask what prompted the urgency?
Secondly, neutral venues in cup competitions have a long an honourable past, its sad to see one of the few remaining honourable SFA traits being dumped in this fashion.
Bill McMurdo is blogging that Mr King will be blocked by both the SFA and the stock exchange, and blaming Mr Lawell, plus ca change…..
redlichtie says:
====================================
The interesting thing if either the PLC or football club does go into administration would be to see who was appointed as administrator.
Would it be another charade, with the task of keeping the business going at any cost to anyone else, or would it be a proper administration, with the task of saving the Ltd Co. Would it be someone like Bryan Jackson appointed, to do the difficult thing.
Interestingly I spoke to an insolvency practitioner (who had dealt with football clubs) when Rangers went into administration and said that quite frankly he could not understand it. The first job has to be to cut costs dramatically. Obtaining extra income is highly unlikely so getting rid of players and shrinking the wage bill is the first priority. That it didn’t happen made no sense. Unless of course the plan was simply to shed debt and keep going as if nothing had happened.
If the new club goes into administration and the person appointed does not cut the £8m or so wage bill as his first act then it is not a proper administration … again.
Bill McMurdo’s piece if anyone is interested.
==========================
OCTOBER 30, 2013
Bad News On King’s Return
I am led to believe that Dave King’s return to Ibrox as a director would be blocked by both the SFA and the London Stock Exchange.
This flies in the face of recent newspaper reports which claim that King has been given the all-clear by the LSE. In fact, my information is that certain people have falsely fed this story to the media in order to make Gers fans angry and frustrated when they find out King has been knocked back.
Furthermore, I am informed that two major institutional investors are distancing themselves from the Requisitioners’ campaign in the ongoing boardroom battles at Ibrox.
The news of King being judged unsuitable to take up a directorial role at Rangers will indeed be disappointing to fans of the club.
Many Gers supporters were excited at the prospect of King’s return and his forming a formidable dream team on the Ibrox board with the Easdales and Brian Stockbridge.
A man with King’s bluenose credentials and business expertise is exactly what Rangers could be doing with right now and fans will be hoping he can overcome these apparent setbacks and join the board.
Of course, questions will be asked exactly what input – if any – Peter Lawwell has had on King’s potential return.
I note that Lawwell was quizzed on this very matter on tonight’s news. The Celtic CEO himself mentioned that his involvement at the SFA could potentially sometimes raise a conflict of interest question over certain matters.
Although it could be argued that Rangers’ recent worries have created a vacuum at the top of the game and that Celtic were obliged to step in and fill this vacuum, it could equally be argued that Lawwell has too much of a say now in how the game is run.
This news about Dave King will only throw petrol on the fire in terms of Rangers fans’ suspicions that the SFA is not being run fairly and that there is an inherent anti-Rangers bias prevailing at Hampden.
There is a common perception that Celtic have far too large a say in and influence over the running of both the SFA and the SPFL.
If this information about Dave King being rejected is true, it will not help quell this perception.
Rangers stuttered through last night’s game against Stenhousemuir to book a Ramsdens Cup Final appearance in a few months time.
Should the Light Blues prevail, they will add this trophy to the many other prizes won by the club in the senior game.
The journey Rangers are on at present is throwing up many an historic occasion. Years from now fans will talk about the time Rangers played in the lower echelons of our game.
The sad thing about this journey is that it is being made against the backdrop of bitter boardroom battles and splits in the Rangers family.
What should be an enjoyable time is marred by the bitter infighting among factions of the support.
Those who are responsible for destabilising and disrupting the club at this pivotal time really need to take a long hard look at themselves.
Slightly ot, and a far fetched question, so bear with me…
If ally mccoist can become a decent manager…and if rifc can up their game substantially…and if rifc can live until May…and rifc make the Scottish Cup final…and Celtic also make it…who gets the Euro slot that accompanies the trophy?
Presumably Celtic will have secured a Euro slot via the league, normally this would result in the Euro slot going to the beaten finalist(assuming that Celtic do what is expected and thrash rifc to within an inch of their dignity 😛 ). As we all know though, rifc do not possess the requisite 3 years national association membership, and cannot play in europe.
In this scenario, who gets to play in Europe? And how much spin and corruption might this scenario generate?
Off the radar I think…
oldbhoy99 says:
========================
As I understand it the national association allocate the places.
If there is one for the Scottish cup (either winner or runner up), but the team in that position are not eligible then the natural thing to do would be to allocate it to the highest placed team in the SPFL Premiership which had not already been given a place.
This is just my opinion on how it could be dealt with, someone else may be able to quote an actual rule.
Tif Finn says
October 30, 2013 at 9:31 pm
Thanks for the reply. Your reasoning is sound, and is the logical solution. However, logic and reason have long since left the building known as Hampden…
From McMurdo:
“There is a common perception that Celtic have far too large a say in and influence over the running of both the SFA and the SPFL.”
That’s a cracker!!!
So King possibly can’t join the board, it’s all just been squirrels. King can’t bring the millions required, it’s all the fault of AIM and SFA (Lawwell) – excellent moving of the blame away from the asset strippers, admin inbound, how many points will be deducted?
Been on the low lurk as nothing was really happening but it might be warming up again, rumours that BDO might be about to object to the use of the term ‘Rangers’ and the fact that the cash is running out again all moving towards the perfect storm!
Now, when is ibrox due to be used again?
OK, so this week’s squirrels have run out of nuts already.
Now, why is the Beeb calling MP ‘Auchenhowie’ and what was that bit in the match report about ‘a team in Rangers colours’?
Summat’s up.
ForresDee says:
=========================
If it transpires that Dave King cannot join the board that does not stop him buying shares.
However as it currently stands doing that would not put penny one into the PLC, or club. That money would go to the person he buys the shares from.
The only way to put money in is for a share issue (ignoring loans, gifts or selling assets). The only way there can be one of those is if the board / owners decide to have one. They will do that if it is in their best interests.
Tif Finn says: (634)
October 30, 2013 at 9:31 pm
0 0 Rate This
oldbhoy99 says:
========================
As I understand it the national association allocate the places.
If there is one for the Scottish cup (either winner or runner up), but the team in that position are not eligible then the natural thing to do would be to allocate it to the highest placed team in the SPFL Premiership which had not already been given a place.
This is just my opinion on how it could be dealt with, someone else may be able to quote an actual rule.
==================
Yes the SFA propose.
Yes currently the losing cup place, but again if the losing cup finalist is ineligible on some criteria, then it is given to next highest league place generally.
It is also worth noting that the season 2014/2015 will be the last with losing cup finalists in the Europa league, from 2015 it will only be winning cup finalists according to UEFA. (rules changing imminently, decided when Gibraltar were put into UEFA as member!)
Buddy
PS: Having a set of audited accounts is a must to play in europe
PPS: then the far play rules can be applied!!
jean7brodie says:
October 30, 2013 at 9:37 pm
From McMurdo:
“There is a common perception that Celtic have far too large a say in and influence over the running of both the SFA and the SPFL.”
That’s a cracker!!!
———
I had a good laugh at that one too, Jean!
Here’s another:
“Many Gers supporters were excited at the prospect of King’s return and his forming a formidable dream team on the Ibrox board with the Easdales and Brian Stockbridge.”
The Easdales and Stockbridge part of a ‘dream team’? LOL.
Can I have some of what you’re smoking, Mr McMurdo? 🙂
Tif Finn says: (635)
October 30, 2013 at 9:50 pm
2 0 Rate This
ForresDee says:
=========================
If it transpires that Dave King cannot join the board that does not stop him buying shares.
However as it currently stands doing that would not put penny one into the PLC, or club. That money would go to the person he buys the shares from.
The only way to put money in is for a share issue (ignoring loans, gifts or selling assets). The only way there can be one of those is if the board / owners decide to have one. They will do that if it is in their best interests.
===============
things convicted criminal dave king could do to put oney into TRFC….
1. Buy lots of season tickets, reckon about 5,000 spare at £200, that would be a million.
2. Go and buy lots of merchandse… whoops all goes to sports direct.
3. Buys lots of food at match … whoops goes to catering
4. Book ibrox for rangers rally events…. whoops goes to RIFC!!
So you are correct, the mighty ship TRFC is being piloted straight toward the iceberg without enough lifeboats and with only a skeleton staff on board mather, stockbridge, easdale and the supporters and shareholders…
Without an AGM , no one can change the direction unless they are the powers behind the shares and already on the board/in control of the board….
And the expiry of the lock-in period approaches, i guess that is the point when the ICEBERG hits.
Buddy!
BigGav says: (59)
October 30, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Can I have some of what you’re smoking, Mr McMurdo?
————————————————————————————
Yessssss, he must be on some really strong skunk and I think he needs it. I’m a child of the ’60’s 😉
This is the important piece from Bill McMurdo’s piece
Quote :- This flies in the face of recent newspaper reports which claim that King has been given the all-clear by the LSE. In fact, my information is that certain people have falsely fed this story to the media in order to make Gers fans angry and frustrated when they find out King has been knocked back :- Endquote
Clearly Jack Irvine has got DR to print this exclusive which Phil managed during his coffee break to prove to be utter nonsense purely to put the spotlight and focus on SFA – with the blame being put towards the Obsessed and Unseenhand Lawwell. Of course the Peepil would be too smart to swallow that one would they not?
For the avoidance of doubt check Chris Grahams twitter timeline to see the evidence that he is not easily fooled! Whatever they put in the Koolaid down Ibrokes way, it ensures really ensures doffing of the cap to each and every savior………….and his PR folks!
ForresDee says: (114)
October 30, 2013 at 9:44 pm
rumours that BDO might be about to object to the use of the term ‘Rangers’
___________________________________________________
Oh please!!!!
I am drooling at the prospect of the verbal contortions that our illustious 4th estate liquidation denialists/ continuity theorists will exercise in reporting that one:
‘Rangers are being taken to court by the liquidators of Rangers for allegedly misrepresenting themselves as Rangers:
I think the old Hazel Dean song (with a small change) fits the bill:
Here we are with good-bye in our eyes
running out of reasons to try.
The leaves of change have fallen down
with both of us wondering why.
We’re all alone but still it seems
we’re thousands of miles apart
The sands of time have shifted now
and the end is beginning to start.
And I don’t know the answers
’cause I don’t know the questions
I’m just trying ’cause I don’t even know –
Who’s suing who? Is it me? is it you?
Do you think we could change if we knew?
Tell me who’s suing who? Is there anything left we can do?
Can you tell me who’s suing who?
In the wake of the Leveson enquiry it looks as though the Royal charter will be established against the wishes of many in the MSM.The Charter establishes bodies to replace the largely ineffective navel gazing press complaints commission and the MSM have only themselves to blame as they reap what they have sown for this many a long year.
I wonder if the Daily Record will sign up for membership and if so how they will address the many inaccuracies that are sure to be highlighted in their sports section.
From the BBC website:
Under the PCC, only people directly affected by a story could complain. The Royal Charter widens that beyond people personally affected to include third parties “seeking to ensure accuracy of published information”. There will be no charge to bring a complaint, a move designed to give ordinary people the right to complain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24710506
The Relief of Mafeking, Boer War 1900
The Relief of Dave King, Bear War 2013
oldbhoy99 says: (9)
October 30, 2013 at 9:23 pm
—————————————-
“who gets to play in Europe?”
—————————————-
I can tell you who doesn’t get to play in Europe and that’s TRFC.
They are ineligible to play in Europe until they have submitted at least 3 sets of audited accounts so the first season for which they might be considered eligible would be season 2016/17. Somehow I doubt if Mr McCoist will still be there, in fact somehow I doubt if any entity called Rangers will still be there.
Piece by Chris Graham replicated here if you don’t want to follow the link – please TD/TU for his “writings”
The Rangers Minefield
“Daniel Stewart & Co – The Small Company Advisor”
by Chris Graham | Contributor
Last week, Paul Shackleton of Rangers’ third AIM Nominated Advisor (Nomad) in a year, Daniel Stewart, stated that he was “trying to map out a path through the (Rangers) minefield”. The short interview appears perfectly reasonable in itself but the continued inaction, at the very least, in appointing Dave King to the Ibrox board is becoming concerning.
Not only do the board and our current Nomad appear to be dragging their feet, but the usual suspects in the press and rival supporters are using the uncertainty to whip up a storm over the prospect of King taking a place on the Rangers board.
Given what has happened over the past few months it is perhaps understandable for Shackleton to liken dealing with the Rangers board to navigating a minefield. It has already claimed several directorial victims as well as brokers and a pair of Shackleton’s Nomads-in-arms. There has been a huge amount of upheaval but actually, if anything, the loss of almost all the current board members should have made things simpler for Daniel Stewart.
The Nomad currently finds a situation where there are only two directors on the board who appear to be backed by around 24 percent of the shareholders. The Easdales have the proxies of Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita to add to their own holdings and possibly the residue of shares held by Charles Green and Imran Ahmad. A further 28 percent-plus of shareholders have nominated Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Alex Wilson and Scott Murdoch to represent them. Furthermore, if public statements are taken at face value, we appear to have in Dave King a chairman who is acceptable to all sides of the shareholder battle and who unites the fans and represents a source of crucial future investment.
So where is the issue? The board has only two members. If Dave King and the four proposed non executive directors were appointed then that would leave the board with seven members. A Chief Executive and a Commercial Director being recruited would take that to nine and form a board which has representatives of the major shareholder blocks and fresh talent on the executive staff.
So why has Paul Shackleton at Daniel Stewart not yet processed the documentation that Dave King filled in when Craig Mather went to meet him in South Africa? For weeks there appears to have been a delay in progressing that. Also why are moves not being made to appoint the Non-Executive directors who represent the institutional shareholders? Surely trust, competency and broad shareholder representation are crucial to the desired “stability” spoken of by Shackleton?
So whilst we sit and wait, in an apparent void of activity and information, the tide of negative press coverage against Dave King continues. The reporting of his tax settlement has been nothing short of a disgrace in certain quarters of the media. Pandering to the frothing of Celtic fans and their useful idiots who see King as a serious threat to their current dominance appears to be the order of the day.
We have seen various accusations. Graham Spiers and his “grisly list of felonies” came first. Tom English has now joined him by stating that King was convicted of “non payment of tax”. When these inaccuracies are challenged, and information is provided on what the actual charges were and how the settlement was reached, suddenly there is Twitter silence. A regular on Twitter (@JJMNJ) has provided them both with the relevant section of the act used to fine King. Oddly enough, nowhere does it mention “non payment of tax” or “felonies”. The section is reproduced below but don’t expect either of them to reference it or explain themselves. They don’t want to know.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-t-Hm2SNzmi0/UnFy2DdfOhI/AAAAAAAAA2w/L7BLN24ZfmA/s1600/Section+75.png
More seriously, Roy Greenslade, the Irish Republican friend of Phil MacGiollabhain, took to his Guardian blog to accuse King of “tax evasion”. We got this kind of rubbish a lot about Rangers last year from various similar sources. It was proven to be nonsense about Rangers and is nonsense about King. Any charges relating to fraud or “tax evasion” were dropped. Greenslade had better hope that King regards him as an irrelevance.
The point of all this, of course, is to put pressure on the SFA to block King’s appointment to the Rangers board. It is completely ignored that the SFA have complete discretion on whether to ratify or block any board appointment. They have guidelines but every case is examined on its merits. There is no hard and fast rule. Even a cursory examination of either the charges from South Africa or the SFA rules would have appraised people of these facts but still we hear that the SFA “would have to break their own rules” to allow King on. More nonsense.
The press and internet warrior outrage at King is an obvious a sign of how much he is feared as being a force for good at Rangers. That is just one reason why Daniel Stewart should be doing everything they can to facilitate King’s swift appointment to the board. Why it is taking them so long to do so should have alarm bells ringing, and these alarms are made louder by stories of the board’s own expensive PR consultants briefing against King. Is the board dragging its feet? Do Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita — whose identities are still shrouded in mystery — not want King on the board?
What possible reason could anyone with the good of Rangers at heart have for blocking King? I suspect Paul Shackleton would be happy to avoid the necessity of any further press enquiry but if he continues to drag his feet then he might find himself standing on a metaphorical mine rather than navigating through the Rangers ‘minefield’
http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2013/10/the-rangers-minefield.html
.
Ahem, BDO you say? What did I miss?
I shall continue to exhale.
Re Mullah Graham. If this man was any dumber he would be one of my shoes.
Gary Monaghan @g_monaghan 5m
@Pmacgiollabhain Advert in tomorrow’s Financial Times..could’ve saved themselves some cash and stuck to the Record!!! pic.twitter.com/RRjv1HyRjB
Hide photo
“The press and internet warrior outrage at King is an obvious a sign of how much he is feared as being a force for good at Rangers.”
Dear God, where do you start with this. Mr King’s potential appointment, would be rightly viewed as evidencing the final proof that SFA has lost whatever integrity it might once have had.
Mr Graham, is either a complete loon, taking his fellow bears for a ride, or quite possibly both…
Sorry ,link not working,go to big Phil’s twitter page if you want a laugh.
Tic 6709 says: (517)
October 30, 2013 at 10:56 pm
Gary Monaghan @g_monaghan 5m
@Pmacgiollabhain Advert in tomorrow’s Financial Times..could’ve saved themselves some cash and stuck to the Record!!! pic.twitter.com/RRjv1HyRjB
Hide photo
=================
I shall apply …..
Seems to have missed out “snake oil salesman”
Buddy
Gary Monaghan @g_monaghan 8m
@Pmacgiollabhain Advert in tomorrow’s Financial Times..could’ve saved themselves some cash and stuck to the Record!!! pic.twitter.com/RRjv1HyRjB
Reply Retweet Favorite More Hide photo
damn no edit function
https://twitter.com/g_monaghan/status/395684165406175232/photo/1
I’ll try
Is that advert legit? Run out of Rangers minded men, have they? I might apply.
In other considerations.
Any word on an announcement for the RIFC PLC AGM.
As I understand it there will have to be a 3 week delay once that announcement is made.
What’s the delay, it’s really just a matter of adding the requisitioners’ items to the agenda and getting on with it.
oldbhoy99 says: (9)
October 30, 2013 at 9:23 pm
Slightly ot, and a far fetched question, so bear with me…
If ally mccoist can become a decent manager…and if rifc can up their game substantially…and if rifc can live until May…and rifc make the Scottish Cup final…and Celtic also make it…who gets the Euro slot that accompanies the trophy?
Presumably Celtic will have secured a Euro slot via the league, normally this would result in the Euro slot going to the beaten finalist(assuming that Celtic do what is expected and thrash rifc to within an inch of their dignity 😛 ). As we all know though, rifc do not possess the requisite 3 years national association membership, and cannot play in europe.
In this scenario, who gets to play in Europe? And how much spin and corruption might this scenario generate?
Off the radar I think…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is a special provision for this under Article 15 of UEFA FFP 2010/2012.
Article 15 – 1 If a club qualifies for a UEFA club competition on sporting merit but has not undergone any licensing process at all or has undergone a licensing process which is lesser/not equivalent to the one applicable for top division clubs, because it belongs to a division other than the top division, the UEFA member association of the club concerned may – on behalf of such a club – request an extraordinary application of the club licensing system in accordance with Annex IV. 2 Based on such an extraordinary application, UEFA may grant special permission to the club to enter the corresponding UEFA club competition subject to the relevant UEFA club competition regulations. Such an extraordinary application applies only to the specific club and for the season in question.
ANNEX IV: Extraordinary application of the club licensing system
1. The UEFA administration defines the necessary deadlines and the minimum criteria for the extraordinary application of the club licensing system as specified in Article 15(1) and communicates them to the UEFA member associations at the latest by 31 August of the year preceding the licence season.
2. UEFA member associations must notify the UEFA administration of such extraordinary application requests in writing and stating the name of the club concerned by the deadline communicated by the UEFA administration.
3. The UEFA member associations are responsible for submitting the criteria to the club concerned for the assessment for the extraordinary procedure at national level. They must also take immediate action with the club concerned to prepare for the extraordinary procedure.
4. The club concerned must provide the necessary documentary proof to the licensor that will assess the club against the fixed minimum standards and forward the following documentation in one of the UEFA official languages to the UEFA administration by the deadline communicated by the latter: a) a written request to apply for special permission to enter the corresponding UEFA club competition; b) a recommendation by the licensor based on its assessment (including the dates and names of the persons having assessed the club); c) all documentary evidence provided by the club and the licensor as requested by the UEFA administration; d) any other documents requested by the UEFA administration during the extraordinary procedure.
5. The UEFA administration bases its decision on the documentation received and grants special permission to enter the UEFA club competitions if all the set criteria are fulfilled and if the club ultimately qualifies on sporting merit. The decision will be communicated to the UEFA member association, which has to forward it to the club concerned.
6. If such a club is eliminated on sporting merit during this extraordinary procedure, the UEFA member association concerned has to notify the UEFA administration immediately, and this procedure is immediately terminated, without further decision. Such a terminated procedure cannot be restarted at a later stage.
7. Appeals can be lodged against decisions made by the UEFA administration in writing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in accordance with the relevant provisions laid down in the UEFA Statutes.
So SFA would have to make a case and UEFA would have to agree to making an exception.
Three things at least would go against any request.
1. The nature of the ending of Rangers membership of the SFA that invoked Article 12 whose purpose is to ensure clubs do not use restructuring to avoid debt. In Rangers case the fact that £14M at least of Tax/NI was withheld is unlikely to make UEFA receptive.
2. UEFA FFP break even principles. I forget target ratio but as things stand the Rangers ratio of total wages to turnover is 93% – NOT the highlighted 43% in their accounts which is ratio of first team squad wages to turnover. This is unlikely to come below the required level even at the most favourable of interpretations.
3. The possibility that Rangers do not currently have a national club licence.
This very question was put to UEFA who declined to answer a hypothetical case.
For some years now Hampden has been used for both Scottish Cup semis. It’s not something I agree with as it has seen some paltry crowds over the years for games like Gretna-Dundee, Motherwell-St Johnstone etc. Following this trend, the SFA seem reluctant, even when they have the perfect opportunity with the Commonwealth Games claiming Hampden, to take the semis or even a semi back out to one of the non-Glasgow venues, instead rushing with indecent haste and making the decision today. Are they really so dim that they cannot see how ludicrous it is that Celtic could be playing the cup final at home? Or that “Rangers” could have a semi at home? And it’s a bit hypocritical for some on here to laugh at “Rangers” fans being upset when they were up in arms about the possibility of the Ramsdens Final being played at Ibrox.
I haven’t seen an explanation as to why the TU/TD have gone. I miss them already!
Exiled Celt says: (753)
October 30, 2013 at 10:44 pm
From the Chris Graham piece.
” We got this kind of rubbish a lot about Rangers last year from various similar sources. It was proven to be nonsense about Rangers ”
As panto season is on its way I’ll simply say.
“Oh no it hasn’t.”
Indeed quite the reverse.
slimshady61 says: (285)
October 30, 2013 at 10:33 pm
See my previous re Article 15.
An exception is highly unlikely but not on account of the rules that excluded them under Art 12 i.e interrupted membership . This rule requires three years as a new member of their national association before consideration is given if they qualify on sporting merit.. At that point only one years AGM ratified accounts are required.
Auldheid says:
October 30, 2013 at 11:23 pm
Thanks very much for that Auldheid. Not very reassuring to see that there is provision for the SFA to plead a special case, as I am sure they would make the effort, even if futile. However, the three points you mention do make the possibility of success seem very remote…
…and I don’t think rifc will manage a Scottish Cup final anytime soon, was merely a hypothetical.
Auldheid says: (1003)
October 30, 2013 at 11:38 pm
slimshady61 says: (285)
October 30, 2013 at 10:33 pm
See my previous re Article 15.
An exception is highly unlikely but not on account of the rules that excluded them under Art 12 i.e interrupted membership . This rule requires three years as a new member of their national association before consideration is given if they qualify on sporting merit.. At that point only one years AGM ratified accounts are required.
===========================
This would be interesting would TRFC claim to be:
1. The old RFC who shed their debt?
2. Then new club TRFC with only 1 set of accounts (not currently ratified by an AGM!)
Sums up perfectly why the rest of Scottish football want “rangers/sevco” to be held to account by the SFA.
“Rangers/sevco” cannot be both dead and alive at the same time.
Except “Rangers FC” is both dead and alive right now. BDO have RFC (IL) and the spivs have TRFC/RIFC.
I do not know how i will handle another Rangers FC insolvency event, then we might get to 4 or 5 rangers, it could be too much for quite a lot of people.
Buddy
From the piece by Chris Graham (courtesy Exiled Celt at 10:44 pm):
Indeed it has, but not in the way Graham would have us believe.
King was accused of 41 counts of contraventions of Section 75 of the Income Tax Act 1962.
This section covers the making of a false or incomplete tax declaration, and obstruction of the tax authorities. He was convicted (the word used in the judgement) and sentenced to the maximum permissible sentence on each count. Clearly the motivation for his actions was to evade the payment of tax (and in very large quantities).
buddy_holly says: (17)
October 30, 2013 at 11:50 pm
I think one of the reasons UEFA declined to answer was that any answer would have shed light on the purpose of Article 12 and the difference between UEFA;s attitude to what Rangers did and the SFA’s attitude with regard to continuing membership for the same kind of insolvency event.
Auldheid says: (1004)
October 31, 2013 at 12:15 am
buddy_holly says: (17)
October 30, 2013 at 11:50 pm
I think one of the reasons UEFA declined to answer was that any answer would have shed light on the purpose of Article 12 and the difference between UEFA;s attitude to what Rangers did and the SFA’s attitude with regard to continuing membership for the same kind of insolvency event.
================================
I always get the impression that UEFA applies its rules too without fear or fervour…..
Oh no that was in another universe, UEFA like the SFA makes decision entirely for the benefit of the UEFA. (UEFA does not make decision for the benefit of its constituent member associations)
(Similarly the SFA does not make decision for the benefit of its constituent clubs/associations)
For the benefit of UEFA is not necessarily for the benefit of all UEFA members, but in aid of the powerful forces that UEFA must protect.
Buddy
Tif Finn says: (637)
October 30, 2013 at 11:15 pm
https://twitter.com/g_monaghan/status/395684165406175232/photo/1
I’ll try
___________________________________________________
Philosophical Conundrum:
If they lie in the advert… does that mean its OK for me to lie on my CV?
(Similar name to a club) With 140 years of history and….
BigGav says: (60)
October 31, 2013 at 12:04 am
‘..King was accused of 41 counts of contraventions of Section 75 of the Income Tax Act 1962.’
—–
I emailed a copy of the statement made by the South African Prosecution service after King was convicted to Graham the other day.
So Graham is a lying bastard when he talks of a ‘settlement’.
King agreed ,after being convicted, to pay some money to avoid going to jail.
Every rotten scumbag of a successful criminal fraudster(like King) has at least a sort of ‘talent’ for doing something ‘clever’ or ‘bold’, or for being a wee bit sharper, for a time, than the rest of us mugs.
But guys like Graham who feed off them are gutless, useless excrescences not worthy even to be called shi’es.
Let me metaphorically ( too much of a gentleman to do it for real) spit on Graham with the same contempt as would a man like King-well used to ar.e lickers- when they had served his purpose.
Oh, for some semblance of rational behaviour among those deniers of truth!
On my part, I am ready to forgive, on the first sign on their part of genuine repentance and readiness to atone and amend their ways..
But like the Gadarene swine they rush headlong to oblivion, refusing to acknowledge their wrongdoing, and cursing those who would remind them of it!
buddy_holly says: (18)
October 30, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Auldheid says: (1003)
October 30, 2013 at 11:38 pm
slimshady61 says: (285)
October 30, 2013 at 10:33 pm
_________________________________
They could stick a star on the shirt for every insolvency? It’d Be a good way to tell the incarnations apart!
Resin,
They could stick a star on the shirt for every insolvency? It’d Be a good way to tell the incarnations apart
———————————-
I know of a place where they can stick their stars.
One liquidation and counting.
bobferris says: (153)
October 30, 2013 at 11:31 pm
‘.the SFA seem reluctant, even when they have the perfect opportunity with the Commonwealth Games claiming Hampden, to take the semis or even a semi back out to one of the non-Glasgow venues, instead rushing with indecent haste and making the decision today. ..’
———
Who can fathom this mystery?
How can the general run of SFA member clubs go along with this crazy decision?
Neutrality of venue is key to the whole idea of sporting fairness and integrity.
I have to say that I question the judgment of Celtic FC in agreeing to the use of their ground for a cup final in which they might be one of the finalists. ( Or have I got that badly wrong? )
I am not, and never have been, an admirer of Dr John Reid [TSFM Edit], but he’ was completely right in his view that the SFA is not fit for purpose.
The SFA have somehow managed again to make themselves look stupid and conniving at the same time.
The stadium decisions for the Scottish cup need reviewed in a couple of ways.
The death of Rangers managed to stem the flow of cash from Scottish football to the sink holes that were the Old Firm. Instead of reacting to this to try and grow the game nationally, the SFA have decided to divert even more money in that direction. If they expect that to be good for the game, it’s a textbook definition of madness.
Also their lacks of openness, honesty and decency over the Sevco affair means they need to be honest about how much they will pay for the rent of Ibrox and when it will be paid.
I see various comments about Sevco entering administration, and whilst a clear possibility, it will be distinctly different from when Rangers entered administration. Rangers went into administration with significant levels of debt owed to a wide range of creditors. Sevco, presently accredited as a “going” concern, are unlikely to have any substantial credit, and in many instances may be doing business on terms akin to COD.
The audited accounts, and their going concern status, to some extent help vendors of Sevco assess the risk of extending credit, but it is safe to assume that they are being kept on a very short leash – by everybody!!
The point being that, on entering administration, there are likely to be very few creditors, and very little cash to sustain the business until a CVA can be negotiated. It will be more simply, an admission that they do not have a viable business model
Re C Graham
Demanding that 7 peepil are voted onto the board ASAP ,is that the board of the same company who are claiming they can’t AFFORD a venue other than Ibrokes for the AGM .
Then again maybe the board appointments are voluntary and non paying posts.
As for the rest of it , that sums up exactly why Sevco 2012 the tribute act deserves to go by the way of the old dead club .
Report from this morning’s Herald news section. Richard Wilson must be cursing he didn’t meet the guy in the tea room to put him right.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/hmrc-warns-rangers-ahead-of-appeal-over-36m-tax-case.22568390
HMRC warns Rangers ahead of appeal over £36m tax case
Simon Bain
Business Correspondent/Personal Finance Editor
Thursday 31 October 2013
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has issued a thinly veiled warning to Rangers ahead of the taxman’s appeal against the oldco company’s ‘big tax case’ win after a Scottish firm settled a £7 million bill for tax avoidance.
Aberdeen Asset Management has lost a lengthy court battle over a scheme used a decade ago which paid £31m of bonuses to seven senior employees, including its founder and chief executive Martin Gilbert. In a statement, HMRC said: “This decision will be a big help when we come to argue other cases that are currently in the courts.”
The oldco Rangers, which was liquidated last year, won a £36m avoidance case on a 2-1 majority verdict in the first tier tax tribunal in November last year. The appeal is due to go to an upper tax tribunal in the new year.
However, Aberdeen Asset Management has had to settle a bill for tax avoidance in a case with similarities to the oldco Rangers’ legal battle. A tax expert said: “It can be inferred from the judges’ comments they strongly concur with the dissenting opinion in the Rangers case. I think they have half an eye on the Rangers case.”
The Herald revealed in 2011 that the lower tax tribunal had ruled against Aberdeen’s “discounted options scheme”, a variant of the employee benefits trust used by Rangers and other employers until new legislation forced their closure. Aberdeen had avoided £7m of tax and national insurance due on bonuses, including £1.2m in respect of Mr Gilbert, by setting up what the judges called “money-box companies.”
HMRC has now proved that bonuses should be treated as cash payments liable for PAYE and National Insurance paid by the company.
In a statement, Aberdeen Asset Management said: “We are disappointed the court’s decision has gone against us, but we welcome the fact that we can now draw a line under this issue. All amounts assessed by HMRC have previously been paid and the decision has no further financial impact on the group.”
Meanwhile, Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to make an announcement today on tax dodging, saying that a register of the true owners of shadowy shell companies will be made public as part of the fight against tax avoidance.
Didn’t get involved in the various debates on here yesterday over the Scottish Cup Final venue. From the media point of view I’m amazed that that they see no perceived advantage to Rangers should they reach the semi-final with a guarantee of the game being at Ibrox. Celtic were the only team portrayed as gaining a potential advantage.
For the record I don’t think it would have been beyond the SFA to come up with something along the following lines.
1. Celtic Park is our preferred choice for the the final.
2. In the event of Celtic being involved in the final we would look to play the final at Ibrox.
3. If the final is Celtic v Rangers, both clubs have agreed to toss a coin for the venue.
2. Semi-final venues will be determined once participating clubs are known.
ptd1978 says: (100)
October 31, 2013 at 6:25 am
================================
I made my views known in a post at 7:13 AM. Having stated those views I am mystified as to why anyone would not see Celtic Park as an ideal place to hold the final in the absence of Hampden.
I thought I saw ,what looked like the Sevco backroom team with black and white kit on the other night at the cup game .
Surely not unused stock from their Newcastle warehouse .
Is their backroom kit black and white or do I need a better tele
“Meanwhile, Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to make an announcement today on tax dodging, saying that a register of the true owners of shadowy shell companies will be made public as part of the fight against tax avoidance.”
Would be good if it happened. However , ” I hae ma doots “
john clarke says: (1318)
October 31, 2013 at 1:01 am
bobferris says: (153)
October 30, 2013 at 11:31 pm
‘.the SFA seem reluctant, even when they have the perfect opportunity with the Commonwealth Games claiming Hampden, to take the semis or even a semi back out to one of the non-Glasgow venues, instead rushing with indecent haste and making the decision today. ..’
———
Who can fathom this mystery?
How can the general run of SFA member clubs go along with this crazy decision?
Neutrality of venue is key to the whole idea of sporting fairness and integrity.
I have to say that I question the judgment of Celtic FC in agreeing to the use of their ground for a cup final in which they might be one of the finalists. ( Or have I got that badly wrong? ) …
———–
I agree with you and Bob, John. The compromise by @upthe hoops also sounds very sensible.
It is the perfect opportunity to embrace other grounds, particularly Murrayfield. After watching Hibs v Hearts from Easter Road last night I don’t see how anyone can be too worried about a lack of atmosphere in a ‘smaller’ ground. It was electric and brilliant match too.
I’ll be interested to hear Turnbull Hutton’s thoughts on this one.
Convicted tax cheats are not acceptable to the Stock Market. or the SFA, what part of that is difficult to understand. Note CONVICTED not alleged.
The Scottish fish and chip wrappers have sports pages filled by churnalists not journalists. they just churn out and PR dross served to them. It is so bad that I question every statement and assume that the opposite is true. Is there not a press tribunal or complaints authority. I never want to see the words “Rangers were relegated” -they were not. They were expelled and a new club was granted associate membership and entry ahead of all other aspirants at the lowest level. Rangers were never punished. They simply accrued the penalties for cheating. The Rangers have one trophy and have never played in the top two divisions of Scottish football. They have never played Celtic.
Do not let the churnalists persist in telling lies.
Convicted tax cheats are not acceptable to the Stock Market. or the SFA, what part of that is difficult to understand. Note CONVICTED not alleged.
The Scottish fish and chip wrappers have sports pages filled by churnalists not journalists. they just churn out any PR dross served to them. It is so bad that I question every statement and assume that the opposite is true. Is there not a press tribunal or complaints authority. I never want to see the words “Rangers were relegated” -they were not. They were expelled and a new club was granted associate membership and entry ahead of all other aspirants at the lowest level. Rangers were never punished. They simply accrued the penalties for cheating. The Rangers have one trophy and have never played in the top two divisions of Scottish football. They have never played Celtic.
Do not let the churnalists persist in telling lies.
upthehoops says: (600)
October 31, 2013 at 7:01 am
%%%%%%%%%
As far as the venues for Scottish Cup etc….
As with using Nacho ‘gizzajob’ Novo and Campbell ‘conflicted’ Ogilvie for the cup draw, the SFA continues to shoot itself in the foot. Why shouldn’t Dundee, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Inverness or Perth benefit from the Commonwealth Games? The SFA’s pathetic lack of imagination is as unsurprising as it is self-serving.
davythelotion says: (188)
October 31, 2013 at 8:07 am
… Why shouldn’t Dundee, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Inverness or Perth benefit from the Commonwealth Games? The SFA’s pathetic lack of imagination is as unsurprising as it is self-serving.
———–
Excellent point davy — the financial aspect as well as the fair-play considerations.
If that Herald report is true then we may yet see EBT Ogilvie being pursued. Wasn’t the CVA rejected in order that HMRC could pursue individuals, or words to that effect? It could just spark a minor revolution and a clear-out of the complicit. Hope is a fine thing.
upthehoops says: (600)
October 31, 2013 at 7:17 am
================================
I made my views known in a post at 7:13 AM. Having stated those views I am mystified as to why anyone would not see Celtic Park as an ideal place to hold the final in the absence of Hampden.
________________________________________
Agreed unless Celtic are in the final, or unless both teams come from nowhere near Glasgow.
The SFA’s burst of pro-activity shows favouritism to Sevco and Celtic for no practical reason.
Resin_lab_dog says: (207)
October 31, 2013 at 12:38 am
0 0 Rate This
Tif Finn says: (637)
October 30, 2013 at 11:15 pm
https://twitter.com/g_monaghan/status/395684165406175232/photo/1
I’ll try
___________________________________________________
Philosophical Conundrum:
If they lie in the advert… does that mean its OK for me to lie on my CV?
(Similar name to a club) With 140 years of history and….
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I thought someone had complained to the advertising standards association (ASA) and that they pulled Sevco up about it and Sevco agreed not to use those terms – 140 years of history – most successful club etc ?
Amongst all that was going on at the time, the one thing that perplexed me most was how D&P were allowed to change the name of the company in administration to RFC 2012 plc. What possible benefit to the creditors was this change?
Furthermore, this was done so that Sevco Scotland Limited could change its name simultaneously to The Rangers Football Club Limited.
So the Administrators acted to the benefit of a company other than the one for which they were acting.
I wonder if Edinburgh Council are about to cash in on the Ramsdens Cup Final by organising ‘Fans Areas’ complete with giant screens to allow the millions of fans who will be travelling from all over the world to join in and be part of the spectacle.
I fear that the hopes that Raith Rovers had for a family type of event have been cruelly dashed.
Danish Pastry says: (1611)
October 31, 2013 at 8:29 am
If that Herald report is true then we may yet see EBT Ogilvie being pursued. Wasn’t the CVA rejected in order that HMRC could pursue individuals, or words to that effect? It could just spark a minor revolution and a clear-out of the complicit. Hope is a fine thing.
———————-
Would this mean that all recipients of an EBT were personally liable for unpaid tax? I wonder what Campbell, Nacho, Ally, Walter, Souey and the rest of the RFC (IL) EBT beneficiaries are thinking? Maybe that should be I wonder what their accountants and lawyers are thinking?
Can of worms? More big laughs on the way?