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!
Spivco
I actually read your post that was deleted and the moderating didn’t surprise me.
In TSFM’s defence I’d say he very obviously makes an effort in what is the background to my main point but as I have said above, he is swimming against the tide and has an impossible job.
Bears appear to be hoping some more of Mike Ashleys cash will be coming their way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10401315/Mike-Ashley-sells-106m-in-Sports-Direct-shares.html
Chance?
Nae chance!
Dear Tears of Joy
There’s clubs outside of Glasgow?
Yours etc
Glasgow press
The dialogue between SFA, TRFC, SPL et al, could have been a forerunner of this weeks Q&A between Angela Merkel and Obama, answer only what you want and limit it to what you want in the public domain.
Smugas says: (462)
October 24, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Garmin & Tom Tom have probably benefited more than anyone else from recent events in Scottish Football 😉
Some of the analysis here on the AAM verdict, the careful limitations applied to the LNS inquiry, the forensic analysis of available documentation showing CO’s direct invovlement in dodgy EBTs – the picture is coming ever more sharply into focus.
I hope the folks representing Hector at the UTT have an eye on the material you guys are producing here.
From what I am reading of the AAM decision, it appears that there is a move towards viewing the scheme ‘in the round’. It seems to my untrained eye that this extends to assessing the ‘intent’ of the scheme?
Does this therefore mean they can establish intent to defraud the taxman i.e. criminal intent for individual directors?
Jings.
Wonder if there are a few folks in Charlotte Sq, Hampden and elsewhere thinking about packing their bags?
Afternoon all.
WRT Mr King and the “Fit & Proper” requirements(I,know,I know),
Mr King has been found guilty of 41 charges of Tax Evasion in South Africa.
Mr King was a director of RFC when the EBTs were in existence.
RFC pled guilty at the FTT to 5 charges(with maybe more to follow at the UTT).
Mr King was therefore,not only guilty on 41 charges in South Africa,he,as a director of RFC,is also guilty of 5 counts in the UK.
To say he has no previous here,is,in my opinion,wrong.
I might be wrong but was the bill for the Wee Tax Case not discovered by Whyte quite late on in his negotiations with Murray ? Initially Murray was wanting £6m (His initial investment in RFC) for the Club but on discovery of the WTC he then decided to give the club away for £1 on the proviso that Whyte paid the £2.8m bill. I would have thought that this proviso would have been clearly written into any purchase agreement between Murray and Whyte.
For the SFA to suggest that they accepted Whyte’s excuse for non payment of the bill (That he was questioning the legality of it) defies belief.
TJB
Hypothetically, if the relevant financial authorities see fit that DK (CEO of a large company in SA) join the RIFC board, would you have a problem ?
And if you were to have that problem, where would you point the ‘blame’ ?
Greenock Jack 12.17,
As no reason has been given as to why said post was deleted it is a tad presumptuous to state that like you, he objected to the tone. Nice attempt to position yourself as the neutral voice of reason though. Alas, your constant positioning of Celtic as an organisation with something to hide amid the sea of deliberate obfuscation which has driven policy at Ibrox for decades now, negates any effort on your part to be considered objective.
I take Greenock Jack’s point on the blog. If we are to be asking the questions the media wont ask here’s one.
Campbell Ogilvie as a recipient of an EBT from Rangers Football Club Ltd, will you resign if the UTT finds against RFC?
The saddest aspect of the shenanigans over the last two years has been the realisation, that, these football companies are no more worthy of my loyalty, than the company that supplies my electricity..
1. Greenock Jack says: (91)
October 24, 2013 at 11:26 am
My main point was accepting things for what they are and not calling yourself something you are not, or recognising the need for change. As time goes by and social media plays a more important role, I’d have thought that a site that champions honesty and pays attention to detail would want to be exactly what it said on the lid.
—————————————————
So what is your solution?
All I am hearing is a constant expression of dissatisfaction at the blog due to the high number of Celtic fans that populate it on a daily basis, this followed by a regular dose of “whataboutary” every time something negative is posted regarding Rangers.
I used to complain a lot to my wife about the number of speeding or parking tickets that I received in places that I deemed not important to either of those offenses, her response was simple, “Stop Speeding” and “Don’t park where you are not allowed to park”.
If Rangers stop doing the things that every other set of fans (not just Celtic) find unacceptable, then the blog will have time to discuss other matters which in turn will lead to more fans from that club participating and less partisan Celtic fans offering an obviously Green Tinted response to some matters.
Can I offer you a solution?
1. Stop Speeding (Drop the supremacist attitude)
2. Don’t park where you are not allowed (Pay your dues)
Once you start following the same rules everyone else has to adhere to, those things that annoy you start to go away……
wottpi says: (1230)
October 24, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Bears appear to be hoping some more of Mike Ashleys cash will be coming their way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10401315/Mike-Ashley-sells-106m-in-Sports-Direct-shares.html
Chance?
Nae chance!
==============
When Billionaire/Millionaire Rangers minded people are unwilling to throw their money into a black hole why would a hard nosed businessman like Mike Ashley do so ?
Only businessmen dealing with other peoples money (Masterton) are this generous to black holes and manipulators. (Murray)
Those days are long gone and the Sevconians really need to wake up to the fact that there will be no sugar daddy coming to their rescue. They could learn from the recent efforts of the Dunfermline and Hearts fans about saving a football club but I suppose that would involve getting off their self entitlement backsides and doing something.
Zilch says: (96)
October 24, 2013 at 12:25 pm
==========================================
I certainly hope that BRTH and Auldheid don’t mind but I have sent copies of their posts to someone I know who is close to the HMRC Appeal to the UTT. Some of their work cannot be of anything other than a great aid to justice being seen to be done.
I’m not sure if the appeal actually allows the introduction of ‘fresh’ evidence, or the judgement is on the judgement……..if you get my drift?
Greenock Jack says: (92)
October 24, 2013 at 10:55 am
At best, no-one can deny that incidents will occur at most football grounds like those at Tynecastle. And probably, some fans are worse (some might be a lot worse)than others, some venues are harder to police than others, some matchdays are worse than others. All examples should be condemned outright with no excuses sought. For you to propose that this is anywhere near comparible, whether in scale, violence, intent or impact with Manchester (or any of the other cities besmirched by fans of the Ibrox club) is just a bit bizarre. A lot of posters on here have mentioned the arrogance and lack of humility we see from fans of the Ibrox club and just how annoying it can be…I don’t know where they get it from!
Spivco
My comment on TSFM was general and not specific to the post you had deleted.
As for the rest of your post, I think you must have me confused with someone else.
End.
Brogan, thanks for your additional informed comments.
I do like to follow timelines and would like to add the following to the discussion:
31.12.10 The Rangers Football Club Plc unaudited interim 6 months results (released 01.04.2011)
“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessment raised.”
“Note 1. The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has been included within the interest charge”
http://www.investegate.co.uk/article.aspx?id=20110401070000P7489
23.02.2011
HMRC write to MIH. They refer to a meeting on 10.02 2011. HMRC suggest a settlement date of May 2011 for monies owed from DOS.
21.02.2011
A meeting takes place of Project Charlotte at the offices of Dickson Minto in Charlotte Square. The minutes show the following:
Discounted Option Scheme – £3.2m PAYE liability to be paid to HMRC prior to 31/3. PB advised that Wavetower had not previously aware of this issue / liability
30.03.2011
Grant Thornton states that: “All the recorded payroll taxes at 31 December 2010 have, according to the accounting records of the Club since that date been paid in full by 31 March 2011, with the exception of the continuing discussion between the Club and HM Revenue and Customs in relation to a potential liability of £2.8m associated with contributions between 1999 and 2003 into a discounted option scheme. These
amounts have been provided for in full within the interim financial statements.” (Regan email of 07.12.2011)
16.05.2011
Donald McIntyre speaks to Bryan Jackson about ‘wrongful trading’
15.06.2011 TRFC Plc May 2011 Management Accounts
“The results include a provision for a tax liability of £2.8m relating to the Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. The estimated cash figures as at 30 June 2011 assume that any settlement will take place post the year end. Discussions are ongoing with HMRC with regard to settlement of this debt.”
“Remuneration Trust fees of £223K raised by MIH as a catch up on billing and reflecting Tribunal Costs incurred by the Trustees.”
“Other Matters
Tax
a) Discounted Option Scheme
A meeting took place with HMRC on 11 May. The meeting was attended by Donald McIntyre and Stephen Clancy and David Grier of MCR. HMRC will not allow the position of the £2.8m to drift, and may consider the penalty position if this was to occur. A payment to account would be taken into consideration in assessing the level of penalty loading. The desire from MCR’s point of view is to wrap the DOS and the Remuneration Trust settlement into one.
b) Murray Group Management Limited Remuneration Trust
Opinion was provided by Counsel on the 22 February 2011 on the state of the case so far. His conclusion at this stage is ‘that there are very definitely reasonable prospects of success.’ The Tribunal is due to reconvene in November 2011, with a decision expected 8 – 12 weeks thereafter. If the case goes against the Club there would then follow a period to discuss the affordability of any settlement.
Bryan Jackson of PKF has been appointed to advise the Board on wrongful trading provisions under the Insolvency Act 1986.”
So Regan claiming that £2.8m has been set aside to meet HMRC’s claim yet the interim accounts show £0.9m.
The board seeking advice about wrongful trading.
And all before 30.06.2011. In what is a stinky pile of excrement this bit really stinks.
I have voted in favour of Resolution 12 at the Celtic Plc AGM.
Reilly1926 says: (154)
October 24, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Quantcast
I might be wrong but was the bill for the Wee Tax Case not discovered by Whyte quite late on in his negotiations with Murray ? Initially Murray was wanting £6m (His initial investment in RFC) for the Club but on discovery of the WTC he then decided to give the club away for £1 on the proviso that Whyte paid the £2.8m bill. I would have thought that this proviso would have been clearly written into any purchase agreement between Murray and Whyte.
For the SFA to suggest that they accepted Whyte’s excuse for non payment of the bill (That he was questioning the legality of it) defies belief.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whyte never questioned the legality until September 2011 and only after SOs called to collect in August. Rangers enquired about appealing with HMRC but were told no chance of success.
Whyte had no intention of paying the bill, for which Rangers accepted liability in March 2011, from the off. Your point though is valid. Why did the SFA not just tell him to pay the bill or get a written agreement to pay it up? His delaying should have sent alarm bells ringing and serious questions being asked.
Instead the SFA provided a level of assurance of compliance to UEFA after 30th June that UEFA lifted the need for regular financial forecasts.
Later at end of September in response to art 67 responsibility to report significant events CW told the SFA £500k had been paid towards the bill. If it has there is no record available to confirm. It looks like a porkie.
HMRC should be going after the SFA, not us.
Greenock Jack says: (92)
October 24, 2013 at 12:43 pm
That’s the nightmare that keeps the SFA board awake. Not the confirming him fit and proper you understand, that they would do with out losing a wink, but, the knowledge that a compliant press is no longer enough to keep the lid on. They know that their decision will be dissected and discussed in social media, that customers will demand answers from the footballing companies., the uproar will be deafening.
Personally I think that the moral vacuums at the heart of Scottish Football, will pass him for the RIFC board, but, draw the line at the TRFC board. A nice bit of legal sophistry that fits very well with the tone of the story….
Reilly1926 says:
========================
The former club died because of the perception of a sugar daddy spending loads of money and buying success.
It was a myth then and it is a myth now.
David Murray was spending money on behalf of the PLC, not his own money. He was spending money it didn’t have, because a compliant bank allowed the PLC more and more credit. When a more sensible bank (yes I know) came along the whole charade was over.
However the point is, Rangers never had a sugar daddy. That was a lie created to make their support feel special and that they would always dominate, and if there was any danger David Murray would simply outspend anyone else.
Nowadays, with the new club, there isn’t even the ridiculous line of credit to do it with. If they want money it’s a share issue or sale of assets.
Auldheid says: (983)
HMRC should be going after the SFA, not us.
================================
You have me a bit confused with that one, for what.
Scapa
I was trying to get at the issue of (hypothetical) ‘perceived blame’ within those who would see DK getting the nod as wrong.
If the markets and financial authorities say it’s ok then is it:-
1. The ‘fault’ of DK/Rangers/fill blank or UKPLC ?
2. Reasonable to expect the SFA to take a different decision ?
No1 Bob says: (22)
October 24, 2013 at 1:06 pm
a) Discounted Option Scheme
A meeting took place with HMRC on 11 May. The meeting was attended by Donald McIntyre and Stephen Clancy and David Grier of MCR. HMRC will not allow the position of the £2.8m to drift, and may consider the penalty position if this was to occur. A payment to account would be taken into consideration in assessing the level of penalty loading. The desire from MCR’s point of view is to wrap the DOS and the Remuneration Trust settlement into one.
So HMRC rebuffed attempts to conflate the two cases for the very good reason that Rangers had already accepted liability for the wee tax case in March 2011. They accepted liability on the advice of Andrew Thornhill QC in early March 2011. He so advised because HMRC had found the two side letters re De Boer and Flo that Rangers said did not exist, thus any appeal was likely to be unsuccessful as HMRC had proof of deceit..
That advice by Thornhill re the DOS should not be confused with this
“Opinion was provided by Counsel on the 22 February 2011 on the state of the case so far. His conclusion at this stage is ‘that there are very definitely reasonable prospects of success.’ The Tribunal is due to reconvene in November 2011, with a decision expected 8 – 12 weeks thereafter. If the case goes against the Club there would then follow a period to discuss the affordability of any settlement.”
which of course related to the big tax case.
scapaflow says: (1061)
Personally I think that the moral vacuums at the heart of Scottish Football, will pass him for the RIFC board, but, draw the line at the TRFC board. A nice bit of legal sophistry that fits very well with the tone of the story….
===============================
That would be bizarre … fit to sit on the board of a PLC, where shares are traded publicly, but not on the board of a private limited company.
I would have thought it would be the other way round.
Greenock Jack says: (94)
October 24, 2013 at 1:18 pm
Jack I have made clear my views on UKPLC on a number of occasions, arguing that the Ranger’s saga could only happen in Scotland, is nonsense. there are aspects peculiar to Scotland, but, the financial story at the heart of the case, is a symptom of the cancer that has afflicted UKPLC since Thatcher’s Big Bang.
The SFA in their infinite wisdom have a fit and proper test, if all they need is the nod from the City, why bother with the test? (Yes, I know, the company self -certifies, which is an absurdity in itself)
Are you happy to see such a recently convicted criminal running a PLC? Hypothetically, if it all goes pear shaped, who do you think the Ranger’s fans will blame? Yes, that’s right, the SFA for letting him take control.
The SFA/SPFL Boards & the Ranger’s fans deserve each other.
Lets cut to the chase on this one.
A PLC is a business where members of the public, institutions, pension funds etc can buy and sell shares. It is a public company and it’s shares are free to buy and sell, for anyone.
Someone recently convicted of 41 counts of tax fraud, who agreed to pay £45m in tax and fines instead of going to Jail for anything up to 82 years, who was also on the board of a PLC which is being liquidated because of tax evasion in this country (not that long ago) and who has been described as a glib and shameless liar, after giving evidence in a Court, under oath, is not fit and proper to be on the board which runs a PLC.
Frankly I don’t give a fig who says he is. He just isn’t.
Tif Finn says: (591)
October 24, 2013 at 1:21 pm
It is bizare, but arguably, The SFA remit is concerned with whether or not X is fit and proper to run club Y, not whether X is fit and proper to run a property company that happens to own club Y.
EDIT
Mr Malcolm Murray chaired RIFC, but, never served as a director of TRFC
Greenock Jack says: (93)
October 24, 2013 at 12:43 pm
TJB
Hypothetically, if the relevant financial authorities see fit that DK (CEO of a large company in SA) join the RIFC board, would you have a problem ?
And if you were to have that problem, where would you point the ‘blame’ ?
==========================================================
If I was an investor in RIFC then I would have a problem.
The ultimate choice to remain a shareholder would be mine alone.
It wouldn’t matter if it was RIFC or another company.If King was involved then I wouldn’t be,simple as that.
His reputation precedes him.
If I stayed and lost my cash the blame would be mine and mine alone.
The Financial Authorities can accept whoever they like.
It doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says: (211)
October 24, 2013 at 10:38 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your best post ever.
Charlotte Fakes III @CharlotteFakes3 3h
Mr Ogilvie ever present. Remember this?
http://i.imgur.com/DqL9OG3.png
Confirmation DOS for playing staff.
http://i.imgur.com/L7xYbQs.jpg
#SFARecords
(Sorry, just woke up, saw it’s already posted)
Reilly1926 says: (155)
October 24, 2013 at 12:31 pm
16
0
Rate This
I might be wrong but was the bill for the Wee Tax Case not discovered by Whyte quite late on in his negotiations with Murray ? Initially Murray was wanting £6m (His initial investment in RFC) for the Club but on discovery of the WTC he then decided to give the club away for £1 on the proviso that Whyte paid the £2.8m bill. I would have thought that this proviso would have been clearly written into any purchase agreement between Murray and Whyte.
For the SFA to suggest that they accepted Whyte’s excuse for non payment of the bill (That he was questioning the legality of it) defies belief.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Recalling that the purchase by Whyte was pre 31 March 2011,I said the same yesterday in the hope that BRHT or anyone else with a copy of the SPA would check it as it might give an indication as to whether it was “due”, “payable”. “crystallised” etc.
Reilly1926 says: (155)
October 24, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Only business men dealing with other peoples money (Masterton) are this generous to black holes and manipulators. (Murray)
Those days are long gone and the Sevconians really need to wake up to the fact that there will be no sugar daddy coming to their rescue. They could learn from the recent efforts of the Dunfermline and Hearts fans about saving a football club but I suppose that would involve getting off their self entitlement backsides and doing something.
+++++++++++
You have summed it up perfectly. They are sitting around waiting for their next “saviour” with a big bag of cash and impeccable “Rangers Man” credentials. The idea of actually doing something about it themselves just never enters their heads. All the fans fight about is the identity of their next saviour. Their behaviour is now well beyond pathetic. Pitiful might describe it.
Let’s ponder that one Sugar Daddy – Campbell Ogilvie has publicly acknowledged that he has an outstanding loan due to a trust fund which was financed by a member club whislt he was employed by it a number of years ago. Mr Ogilvie has not seen fit to stand down from his position because there may reasonably be an interpretation of a conflict of interest on his part when presiding over the SFA’s business. I’m struggling to see how much of a shit he’ll give about the decision of the UTT.
Scapa
I’d agree with your first paragraph and whilst unrealistic to expect a change in focus, I’d say the blog should be taking aim a lot higher up the food chain.
The SFA aren’t fit and proper but then that is because they take their lead from UKPLC.
The lack of real accountability only encourages more of the same by the same people.
Perhaps the macro view is unpractical but until it is dealt with one way or the other, things won’t really change.
blu says: (402)
October 24, 2013 at 1:41 pm
he’ll probably go on one of his wee nights out with Chick Young…
Greenock Jack says: (94)
October 24, 2013 at 12:43 pm
TJB
Hypothetically, if the relevant financial authorities see fit that DK (CEO of a large company in SA) join the RIFC board, would you have a problem ?
And if you were to have that problem, where would you point the ‘blame’ ?
=====================
The last 2 owners/boards of RFC(IL) ripped off the tax payer for considerable sums of money.
Dave King was a director on both occasions.
Dave King has recently been convicted of multiple tax crimes in South Africa and only escaped jail time on the account that he was able to pay a massive fine from the cash he has horded over the years.
Would you knowingly employ a cleptomaniac in a bank ? Same risk as far as I’m concerned.
Why would anyone with even a modicum of moral fibre let a character like this anywhere near Scottish Football let alone be a director of the 2nd biggest club in the country ?
Even for the dubious personnel within Hampden this would be a risk too many.
stevensanph says: (185)
October 24, 2013 at 10:11 am
4 0 Rate This
Charlotte Fakes III @CharlotteFakes3 3m
Mr Ogilvie ever present.
Remember this?
http://i.imgur.com/DqL9OG3.png
Confirmation DOS for playing staff.
http://i.imgur.com/L7xYbQs.jpg
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Auldheid says: (984)
October 24, 2013 at 12:04 pm
It is pretty clear now that LNS was not fully informed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From the minutes of that board meeting:
“It was the boards view that the strategy would motivate and incentivise Craig Moore…….”
This was an illegal tax scheme.
Craig Moore was a football player.
In what way would the remuneration incentivise him? To train longer and harder? To become a better or fitter football player? To play better?
And yet, one of the most learned minds in the country can come to the conclusion that no sporting advantage was obtained by this capability to remunerate in this way – from an illegal tax scheme.
Incredible.
blu says: (402)
October 24, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Let’s ponder that one Sugar Daddy – Campbell Ogilvie has publicly acknowledged that he has an outstanding loan due to a trust fund which was financed by a member club whislt he was employed by it a number of years ago. Mr Ogilvie has not seen fit to stand down from his position because there may reasonably be an interpretation of a conflict of interest on his part when presiding over the SFA’s business. I’m struggling to see how much of a shit he’ll give about the decision of the UTT.
++++++++
Let’s ponder further. All this was well known to everyone when the great and good of Scottish football had their annual jolly (sorry AGM) last June. The outcome? Ogilvie given another 2 years in office as conflicted president. Not one Scottish club lifted a finger to stop this utter outrage. Not even one. And I’m supposed to keep funding this midden?
Tif Finn says: (590)
October 24, 2013 at 1:17 pm
0
0
Rate This
Quantcast
Auldheid says: (983)
HMRC should be going after the SFA, not us.
================================
You have me a bit confused with that one, for what.
============================
For
a) not confirming whether HMRC consider a bill as overdue under the power given to them by Article 43 of UEFA FFP and
b) not insisting that if HMRC say a sum is overdue that at the very least a written agreement to pay overdue tax is in place before they grant a licence.
All CW had to do was come up with a written payment plan but as earlier posts show the approach was to try and conflate both tax cases.
The point of UEFA FFP on overdue payables is to stop clubs robbing the tax payer to pay players. See this for the extent of the problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Financial_Fair_Play_Regulations
Auldheid says: (984)
October 24, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Meanwhile on 09.05.2011, 2 days before David Grier was present at the meeting with HMRC representing TRFC Plc, he had written to Craig Whyte with the proposal that MCR provide advice to Liberty Capital in its purchase of TRFC Plc from MIH. The purchase had the code name ‘Project Charlotte’.
MCR’s work was broken down into 3 phases. Phase 3 was to:
– Liaise with HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) on behalf of the Company in respect of its potential tax liability of £2.8m relating to a discounted option scheme associated player contributions between 1999 and 2003.
– Provide Liberty and the Company with a recommended repayment proposal, based on ability to pay, for presentation and discussion with HMRC.
– Estimated timescale for delivery – 27 May 2011.
– Subject to response of HMRC to the above noted time to pay proposal and ongoing information in respect of the Company’s secondary potential tax liability (due to be heard in November 2011), MCR to provide outline recommendations and options available to Liberty and the Company. It will also be necessary to link any discussion with HMRC to previous and current advice that the Company and I or Liberty has
received from retained tax advisors.
Craig Whyte signed the Project Charlotte agreement on 25.05.2011
That David Grier sure is a busy boy.
I must admit that my world has been rocked today.
Like many of you I have been brought up believing that wee Scotland was privileged to have in our midst the world’s greatest football administrator.
Today I have read one of Charlotte’s lastest postings – a letter from said ‘world’s greatest administrator’ to a post office box in Jersey and a Board Minute regarding arrangements for the motivation and incentivisation of Craig Moore.
In a letter which appears to be making arrangements for a tax avoidance scheme our ‘world’s greatest administrator’ says that the purpose was to “provide remuneration to a valued employee..”.
The Board Minutes then similarly talk of this arrangement being “a constituent part of the remuneration package for Craig Moore..’.
‘Remuneration’? In what is a potentially leakable tax avoidance document or even one that may be found by the authorities themselves despite efforts to consign it and others to the shredder?
What a dumpling!
Scottish Football needs to know when CO’s EBT is being paid back. It was a loan after all wasn’t it?
Greenock Jack 1.46pm
This board has always taken both a macro and micro view. They are not mutually exclusive. As such, the SFA and other footballing authorities in Scotland have always been under the spotlight.
I am puzzled by your objections to micro analysis as logic dictates that if all clubs obey the rules then the SFA would not have to be economical with the truth or creative in their interpretation of the regulations in the first instance- i.e. micro precedes (and is inextricably) linked to macro.
neepheid says: (871)
October 24, 2013 at 1:55 pm
0
0
Rate This
Quantcast
blu says: (402)
October 24, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Let’s ponder that one Sugar Daddy – Campbell Ogilvie has publicly acknowledged that he has an outstanding loan due to a trust fund which was financed by a member club whislt he was employed by it a number of years ago. Mr Ogilvie has not seen fit to stand down from his position because there may reasonably be an interpretation of a conflict of interest on his part when presiding over the SFA’s business. I’m struggling to see how much of a shit he’ll give about the decision of the UTT.
++++++++
Let’s ponder further. All this was well known to everyone when the great and good of Scottish football had their annual jolly (sorry AGM) last June. The outcome? Ogilvie given another 2 years in office as conflicted president. Not one Scottish club lifted a finger to stop this utter outrage. Not even one. And I’m supposed to keep funding this midden?
==========================
I think we need to be careful here. There is a difference between reading something then focussing on the significance of it.
It is only what we focus on that becomes real.
That is now happening. Remember guys running clubs have day jobs and think like guys running clubs not like supporters.
I’m not dismissing your point, just suggesting a bit of slack may be in order.
EMPLOYER LIABLE TO HMRC FOR TAX UNDER EBT SCHEME, INNER HOUSE RULES
An investment management company which set up a tax avoidance scheme for its employees is liable to account to HM Revenue and Customs for the tax after appeal judges ruled the transfer of shares to senior executives and directors was a “payment”.
The Court of Session Inner House refused an appeal by Aberdeen Asset Management and sustained a cross-appeal by HMRC over the appellants’ offshore employee benefits trust.
The Lord President, Lord Gill, sitting with Lord Drummond Young and Lord Glennie, said object of the scheme was to pay to senior employees and directors of the appellants “large sums of money tax free”.
The money passed from the appellants to the EBT and then to a series of “money box” companies, which were incorporated offshore for each of the beneficiaries.
The benefits received by the employees were expressly provided to them as part of their “overall remuneration”.
At the stage when the money was passed from the money box to the employee, the assets of the company were effectively at the disposal of the employee and the directors were mere ciphers.
The First Tier Tribunal saw through the whole scheme as a “tax avoidance device” and held that it was the appellants who were liable to account for PAYE on amounts received directly or indirectly by employees pursuant to the scheme.
However, the Upper Tribunal held that the transfer of shares to each of the employee-shareholders was not a “payment”, either directly or as an event that was equivalent to the receipt of money because it was unreservedly at his disposal.
The appellants accepted that that the sums paid to the employees were taxable under schedule E of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 section 19 as “emoluments”, but the appeal to the Inner House, and the cross-appeal by HMRC, concerned the consequential question whether the liability to account to HMRC for the tax fell on the appellants under the PAYE regime or on the benefitted employees individually.
The appellants took their stand on the legal principle that the employees received only title to the shares in the company, and not cash, and that the cash held by the company was subject to the control of the directors.
However, the appeal judges held that the principle established in the case of Ramsay Ltd v IRC should be applied and the Upper Tribunal’s reasoning was “contrary” to the Ramsay principle – that the transfer of shares to an employee was a “payment” within the meaning of section 203(1) of the Taxes Act and the PAYE regulations.
Delivering his opinion, Lord Drummond Young, with whom Lord Gill and Lord Glennie agreed, said: “It is clear in my opinion that the legislative intention underlying these provisions of the Taxes Act is that all emoluments paid to employees should be subject to schedule E income tax; that such tax should be deductible by the employer in accordance with the PAYE system at latest at the time when payment is actually made to the employee; and that the employer should account for the tax deducted to HMRC, once again in accordance with the PAYE system.”
He added: “I am of opinion that the effect of the scheme was that a payment was made to each of the employees for the purposes of section 203(1) of the Taxes Act 1988. If that is wrong, I am of opinion that the effect of the Scheme was that the employee-shareholder was given a readily convertible asset, on a proper interpretation of section 203F(2)(f) of the same Act. On either basis, the amounts received by the relevant employee were subject to PAYE. I accordingly consider that the cross-appeal by HMRC must be sustained and the appeal by the appellants refused.”
I think that BRTHs post (10.38am today) should be sent to every media outlet and broadcasting outlet in the country. None of them will run with it of course, but at least we’ll know that there cannot be any “plausible deniability” of what has happened here. It has been laid out brilliantly, simplified that even the most half-witted sports writer can understand. (BRTHs permission granted of course).
It also needs to go to the SFA in my opinion, along with a copy of Charlotte’s latest (the CO-attended board meeting and CO-signed letter), it needs to get onto Regan’s desk and Ogilvie’s desk, so that they can be absolutely sure what is known about their complicity in what has happened.
They need to know, without any plausible deniability, that their game is up.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says: (211)
October 24, 2013 at 10:38 am
Are these the plumbers you talk of, having a £90,000 night out?
http://tinyurl.com/plumbers-90k-nite-out
You know i’m quite glad CO is still in situ
For me it will be more satisfying to see him hounded out of office rather than see some old man who only wants peace to do his garden.
No1 Bob says: (23)
October 24, 2013 at 1:57 pm
There was no potential tax liability. That is the start of the big lie. It was an actual liability that HMRC and Rangers agreed to following correspondence beginning Oct 2010 ending 23 March 2011 with a handwritten note of acceptance in principle on a spreadsheet by DH(?) followed on 20th May by a demand to pay.
The start letter of Feb 2011 that refers to earlier letter of Oct 2010 is here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/147470165/RFC-Discounted-Option-Scheme-Docs-23-03-11
The other stuff like the calculations and De Boer/Flo side letters, and Thornhill advice were on the original but I cannot read them at the link, probably removed..
Zilch says: (96)
October 24, 2013 at 12:25 pm
==========================================
I certainly hope that BRTH and Auldheid don’t mind but I have sent copies of their posts to someone I know who is close to the HMRC Appeal to the UTT. Some of their work cannot be of anything other than a great aid to justice being seen to be done.
I’m not sure if the appeal actually allows the introduction of ‘fresh’ evidence, or the judgement is on the judgement……..if you get my drift?
————————————————–
I’m writing this very much “tongue in cheek” but why am I seeing a vision of the headline along the lines of “Have HMRC been influenced by internet bampots” ?
Remember folks, you read it here first.
Auldheid says: (987)
October 24, 2013 at 1:56 pm
3 0 i
Rate This
Tif Finn says: (590)
October 24, 2013 at 1:17 pm
0
0
Rate This
Quantcast
Auldheid says: (983)
HMRC should be going after the SFA, not us.
================================
You have me a bit confused with that one, for what.
============================
For
a) not confirming whether HMRC consider a bill as overdue under the power given to them by Article 43 of UEFA FFP and
b) not insisting that if HMRC say a sum is overdue that at the very least a written agreement to pay overdue tax is in place before they grant a licence.
All CW had to do was come up with a written payment plan but as earlier posts show the approach was to try and conflate both tax cases.
The point of UEFA FFP on overdue payables is to stop clubs robbing the tax payer to pay players.
===================================
I’m afraid that does not explain what HMRC should be “going after the SFA” for.
HMRC are the UK’s tax collecting authority. As far as they are concerned the matter of whether the taxpayer (Rangers) have paid the correct amount of tax, at the correct time, is between them and the taxpayer (Rangers).
How the SFA acted, in relation to European licencing and UEFA FFP rules is really none of their business.
Sorry if I’m appearing obtuse here but you really do have me lost on why or how HMRC should have been going after the SFA.
Auldheid says: (987)
October 24, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Sorry Auldheid, but no. If Ranger’s are rightly held to account for their behaviour in respect of the Tax Code, and the Football rules, then we have to hold everyone else to the same standard. The SFA/SPL interpreted the rules in much the same way that Ranger’s interpreted the tax code. By re-electing Mr Ogilvy, the football companies and the clubs gave their seal of approval to the SFA/SPL’s actions. I’m afraid not one millimetre of slack can be granted.
Auldheid says: (986)
October 24, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Auldheid says: (986)
October 24, 2013 at 2:05 pm
I think we need to be careful here. There is a difference between reading something then focussing on the significance of it.
It is only what we focus on that becomes real.
That is now happening. Remember guys running clubs have day jobs and think like guys running clubs not like supporters.
I’m not dismissing your point, just suggesting a bit of slack may be in order.
+++++++++++++
So at what point do I stop cutting them a bit of slack? When they change the rules to give Ogilvie a 3rd term? When they make him life president? Would you say either of the above ideas was out of the question? I certainly wouldn’t. Where would YOU draw the line?
Let’s ponder that one Sugar Daddy – Campbell Ogilvie has publicly acknowledged that he has an outstanding loan due to a trust fund which was financed by a member club whislt he was employed by it a number of years ago. Mr Ogilvie has not seen fit to stand down from his position because there may reasonably be an interpretation of a conflict of interest on his part when presiding over the SFA’s business. I’m struggling to see how much of a shit he’ll give about the decision of the UTT
———————————————————————————-
Is there a FPP test for office bearers at the SFA/SPL or whatever it’s now called (no laughing at the back !!)
Ogilvie was already “heavily conflicted” , but what is his position if RFC RIP lose to the UTT ? How conflicted is he then , “just a we bit more heavily , but not that much, conflicted” ?
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says: (211)
October 24, 2013 at 10:38 am
Well that has saved me a bit of writing BRTH, I was just in the throes of setting out the LNS connection under a title “Was LNS Duped?” 🙂
A couple of other points.
1. In response to Hugh Adams’s claims of earlier ebts and non disclosures, Sir David Murray stated ” All football rules were complied with. All enquiries from entitled parties or organisations were answered”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19151600
This may be true but were they answered truthfully? Well the letter from MIH saying there were no side letters in the personal files of Flo and De Boer suggests a degree of economy that stretches the boundaries of truth to breaking point.
I wondered at the delay in dates from the initial SPL announcement but I think I have the answer in respect of the SPL. The key documentation from the timeline should have been part of what the SPL received when they wrote to D&P for all papers. In fact their failure to respond was part of LNS Commissioning for which LNS found RangersIA/D&P guilty.
The SPL can at least say they were unsighted on evidence of earlier improperly registered players but had they been given the material there is absolutely no doubt that side letters had been deliberately hidden from HMRC who asked if any existed ( and of course the SFA.)
Which goes back to your point, why did the date that the Commissioner should start looking at change and who was involved in that decision? Was it taken about the same time the SFA took on the appellant role?
Reilly1926 says: (155)
October 24, 2013 at 12:31 pm
16
0
Rate This
I might be wrong but was the bill for the Wee Tax Case not discovered by Whyte quite late on in his negotiations with Murray
=========================================
Whyte might have heard about it late on in the process, but RFC PLC new all about it.
and why would the “agreed” price of £6M drop to £1 because of an additional £2.8M bill? surely it would drop to £3.2M?
remember, that tax bill was not Murrays, but RFC PLC’s – there would be no need to make explicit provision for the payment of that bill – fact is, it was due to be paid by RFC PLC – regardless of who the owners were. If Whyte didn’t pay it, so long as murray got his £1, that would be as far as murrays exposure to that bill went.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says: (211)
October 24, 2013 at 10:38 am
I’ve criticised some of his pieces here and elsewhere for their tendency toward irrelevancy and self-aggrandisement in the past, but this was an excellently laid out, clear post.
It must have been difficult to pare it all down to such a manageable bite, but the piece is all the better for its (relative) brevity. Most of what was left out is comparatively unimportant, so I would ignore the various posters who have suggested additions to the original post.
I think most of the posters here are essentially fair-minded individuals, and while it is obviously true that we are considering only one side of the story, we remain collectively astonished that things have got so far, let alone what might still come out. It’s important to keep the pressure on, because in our heart of hearts, I think we all strongly suspect that everything will turn out just fine for Sevco.
At the beginning, for me anyway, this was not personal. But the refusal of Sevco fans to either accept the situation or to do anything about it, coupled with the attitude of trolls like Adam on the RTC site, has driven me to fervently long for the day when they are gone permanently, which, as far as I am concerned, is what they deserve..
So more power to the guys like BRTH and Auldheid. Keep up the good work!
Auldheid says: (988)
October 24, 2013 at 2:58 pm
Your tenacity and investigative skills do you credit, a second career in journalism beckons?
I wish your venture into share holder activism at the AGM, every success. You will lose, the big block votes will see to that, but, I hope that you get enough of the ordinary shareholders on side to give the Board a shock.
I’m afraid the more I learn about this part of the saga, the more cynical I am becoming about Celtic’s efforts. Those efforts are looking less and less like an honest attempt to get to the truth, and more and more like an ass covering exercise, given that the Celtic support is the one most likely to be “difficult” in these circumstances – “Hey look we tried, but those b!*trds at the SFA….”
Did I say cynical, perhaps realistic is more accurate, since – “Cynic: A term of abuse used by an optimist to describe a realist”
What is it with Rangers/Sevconians and not paying taxes?
Members of Inverness’ Muslim community could have a new home for their mosque within weeks as they are in the process of acquiring the old Portland Club building.
A new “eco-friendly” mosque is proposed by the Inverness Masjid Association (IMA) for the site on Portland Place, where it hopes to move from its current base at the Northern Meeting Park in Ardross Street.
The Portland Club is a former home of Rangers’ supporters club Inverness True Blues and was closed last year after acquiring debts of £270,000, due to unpaid taxes and mortgage payments.
The IMA wants to create Scotland’s first eco-friendly mosque and have consulted with charity Keep Scotland Beautiful on how to make the building as environmentally-friendly as possible.
Members were told of the plans at Sunday’s Eid-al-Adha celebrations — the global muslim festival of the sacrifice — at the city’s Craigmonie Hotel.
Mohammed Idris(38), a local GP and member of the mosque, said the community was pleased to have found itself a new home.
“It’s an exciting time for us finding a new building,” he said. “We told the community at the weekend about our plans and it has taken us five years to save money for it. Muhammad teaches us about keeping the Earth green and we want to do our bit, so we want to install solar panels, make sure the building is energy efficient and hopefully in the future, start to grow our own produce. Hopefully a new building will bring us closer to other communities in the city.”
Dr Idris, of Woodlands Crescent, Westhill, also hopes the new mosque can make use of recycled products while also minimising its water usage. Renovations to the property are expected to cost between £20,000 and £30,000.
The mosque has had trouble finding a permanent home in the past and had planning permission rejected for a site in Kenneth Street in April this year after it was found that bats may have been be nesting in the property.
The mosque’s secretary Dr Waheed Khan (50), of Ballifeary Lane, said the paperwork was “99per cent done” on the purchasing the building but there were still some fine details to be tied up. “We haven’t lodged planning permission with the council yet for a change of use,” he said. “The building in its current state has a rock-bottom energy rating and there’s no electricity. But we have been looking for a new site for some time and there is enough demand to make a mosque part of the community.”
The Inverness True Blues was initially formed in 1960 and was a Highland stronghold for ‘Gers fans. The group would run buses to every home game and also chartered a flight to Barcelona for a Champions League fixture in 2007.
neepheid says: (872)
October 24, 2013 at 2:42 pm
5
0
Rate This
Quantcast
Auldheid says: (986)
October 24, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Auldheid says: (986)
October 24, 2013 at 2:05 pm
I think we need to be careful here. There is a difference between reading something then focussing on the significance of it.
It is only what we focus on that becomes real.
That is now happening. Remember guys running clubs have day jobs and think like guys running clubs not like supporters.
I’m not dismissing your point, just suggesting a bit of slack may be in order.
+++++++++++++
So at what point do I stop cutting them a bit of slack? When they change the rules to give Ogilvie a 3rd term? When they make him life president? Would you say either of the above ideas was out of the question? I certainly wouldn’t. Where would YOU draw the line?
===============================
When I know that they know that we know and they do nothing (and I bet I will not be the only one.)
Infinite patience produces immediate results I always say 🙂
Auldheid says: (987)
October 24, 2013 at 2:23 pm
The full document, all 16 pages, is still available on scribd. You just need a scribd account to see it or indeed download it for your own records 😆
Re DH. Mike McGill presented this to HMRC on 21.02.2011. I think that DH accepted the proposal on behalf of HMRC but as we know no one at Rangers or MIH ever had any intention of paying this social tax despite what they were saying to the SFA.
Interestingly, given yesterdays revelations, this letter from HMRC to MIH refers to the Aberdeen Asset Management case in the second paragraph.
manandboy says: (300)
October 24, 2013 at 1:35 am
________________________________________________________________________________________
I have just read Paul McConvilles’ post on the Aberdeen Asset Management appeal decision,
and what can I say ?
I read the original here http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013CSIH84.html and made what I thought were the very obvious conclusions and comments, only to find just a few minutes ago that Paul had already written what I was to say later, but much more thoroughly and better.
Apologies to Paul and to the blog for the duplication, or is it plagiarism, albeit unwitting.
dedeideoprofundis says: (76)
October 24, 2013 at 10:04 am
3 2 Rate This
Regarding the Aberdeen Asset Management case, could someone summarise it briefly with the verdicts of the first tier and the upper tier and why it went to a third tier?
====================
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1000)
October 24, 2013 at 2:06 pm
4 0 Rate This
EMPLOYER LIABLE TO HMRC FOR TAX UNDER EBT SCHEME, INNER HOUSE RULES
========================
Thanks for that answer NTHM, dunno why my question merited TDs, but I’m puzzeled as to why AAM’s upper tier appeal was judged as dismissed yet it’s panel was judged by the third tier as being wrong?
Mystifying!
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says: (211)
After being a long time lurker/reader and avid twitter user, I felt compelled to post after this most recent superb addition to a fantastic site.
The more people unearth this evidence, whether through CF1/2/3 or similar, the more frustrated I become. I feel helpless, I feel there is simply nothing us average “bampots” can do to sort this out. Who do the SFA answer to? Who can the average fan go to if the SFA do wrong?
How can they simply not answer basic questions on such poor governance, blatant rule bending. It sickens me. I feel like so many good people who have put in so much effort to expose the clear cover-up s that go on.
Every meeting, every correspondence between clubs if in the interest of the fan, ie licence issues, financial problems should be available to read. The SFA can hide everything and ignore every question asked of them and there is little anyone barring the clubs themselves, can do about it. The fans are asking Celtic at the AGM to take on the licence issue because it’s a last resort. The SFA will not answer questions to us.
Apologies for my waffling – it will improve in time. I believe this site and CF are the only things that can possibly move anything along.
Auldheid says: (989)
October 24, 2013 at 3:19 pm
When I know that they know that we know and they do nothing (and I bet I will not be the only one.)
Infinite patience produces immediate results I always say
++++++++
I find that a deeply cynical statement. My line was crossed when I knew that they knew that Ogilvie was conflicted, and gave him another two years all the same. I do not care what they knew about what I knew. That is irrelevant. These people were in a position of trust when they re-elected Ogilvie. They betrayed that trust. It really is that simple.
As regards infinite patience producing immediate results, I’m afraid that is not my experience of life. Infinite patience in his victims is what the oppressor dreams of. We need a bit less patience, in my view, not an infinite supply of it. Corruption should be actively opposed, not patiently accepted. The coronation of Ogilvie was a monstrous injustice. I cannot, will not, and do not accept it with infinite, or even finite, patience.
My pathetic efforts might just wear out yet another keyboard, but I will never give up on this. Everyone with any interest in Scottish football should be seeking answers from their club on this, and that applies to Clyde, Stranraer, Raith, Arbroath (yes, we really need a strong one) and all the rest, not just Celtic. What the hell is going on in our game when an admittedly conflicted individual gets another 2 years at the top of our game by universal acclamation? Why is nobody asking the clubs? What is going on?
Tif Finn says: (593)
October 24, 2013 at 2:35 pm
I think HMRC should be asking the SFA if they fully understand the implications of being lax with clubs with unpaid tax. Not that they should be trying to get the tax from the SFA which is perhaps what got you wondering.
Although from 2011 this gives an idea of what can be done.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2011/06/16/premier-league-clubs-clear-tax-arrears-as-football-governance-report-looms-160602/
Greenock Jack says: (95)
October 24, 2013 at 1:46 pm
——————————
Maybe I’m missing something but why does this ‘it’s the fault of corrupt UK PLC’ excuse only apply to Rangers and the SFA. If that is the reason why wasn’t every club in Scotland and the UK up to their necks in EBTs and rule breaking too?
Whattaboutery, squirrels, whattabouteery, squirrels, squirrels, whattaboutery….
neepheid says: (873)
October 24, 2013 at 3:49 pm
Whilst I may think they know, I do not know that they know. Although I will by 15th November.
On infinite patience it does not mean doing nothing, it means being patient to see the results of doing emerge. When they do – its immediate.
No1 Bob says: (24)
October 24, 2013 at 3:25 pm
That is good to know. for that link contains lots of useful background.
Yup it was on the basis that the AAM case had been found in favour of HMRC that created a precedent for HMRC to pursue Rangers (although there were further questions that went to the UTT and CoS stage) but the scheme was deemed tax evasion by the first FTT and nothing since has changed that.
Auldheid says: (991)
October 24, 2013 at 3:57 pm
Whilst I may think they know, I do not know that they know. Although I will by 15th November.
+++++++++++++++
Well I think it as close to certain as anything can be that unless they have had no access to newspapers, and have been living in a Trappist monastery for the last few years, then they knew all about Ogilvie being conflicted 18 months ago.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-administration-ogilvie-out-of-ibrox-probe-1-2152924
ecobhoy says: (2023)
October 24, 2013 at 10:16 am
I just read back and saw your post. Thanks very much but everybody weighed in.
Grindstones to sharpen our collective thinking.
There is a book on how that works for someone to write.
On the CoS ruling. A payment is a payment no matter how clever the brown envelope it is delivered in. 🙂
neepheid says: (874)
October 24, 2013 at 4:13 pm
As I said originally I accept your original point. It is just that I have my own personal philosophy for dealing with things that works for me but is not for everyone.
Someone asked earlier the date that the Motherwell Born Billionaire ( a phrase that is not now used often enough) first knew of the tax case.
I don’t know the answer to that but he did know in November 2010.
This document, which is said to be the Memorandum of Understanding between Wavetower and MIH, details the obligations that the ‘Bidder’ and the ‘Seller’ have in relation to the Tax Case.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143265813/Memorandum-of-Understanding-26-Nov-2010
Ultimately, as negotiations progressed, the details changed but it does confirm that that MBB knew about the tax case quite early in the buying process.
Auldheid says:
===================
I understand what you are saying, and why you might think that is a good idea. However it really isn’t within their remit to tell people how they should or shouldn’t give out licences or whatever. They certainly couldn’t do it as it relates to a specific taxpayer.
HMRC have no power over the SFA, other than as a Taxpayer themselves, so I really don’t see how they can “go after them” for giving out licences whilst a clubs tax position is not up to date. In fact they couldn’t even tell the SFA that, so they wouldn’t even be able to have the conversation.
Anyway, probably best to stop going round in circles and detracting from the real discussion.
GallagherFakes says: (1)
October 24, 2013 at 3:40 pm
9 0 Rate This
———-
A lot of us feel the same as you do. Hopefully, justice delayed will not be justice denied.