There are a number of quite separate elements in the allegations of corruption which have been made against our Football Governance bodies and some of our clubs.
There is the allegation that RFC of 1872 lied to the Licensing Committee of the SFA about their tax indebtedness as at 31 March 2011;
there is the allegation that the Licensing Committee either colluded in that lie or, through carelessness and incompetence, simply accepted what RFC of 1872 told them , and passed that on to UEFA without any check as to its truthfulness and accuracy. The result of that was that RFC of 1872 was awarded a UEFA Competitions Licence to which, under the strict rules, they were not entitled.
The SFA has thus far refused to open up an independent investigation into all that was involved in the application made for that licence.
That refusal raised and continues to raise suspicions that the SFA has something to hide. [RFC of 1872 is in Liquidation, and TRFC are quite a different legal entity so are not involved and can legitimately say ‘nothing to do with us, Squire!’.. except, of course that some of the personnel involved in TRFC were also involved with RFC of 1872…at the material time.
As a football matter, until there is a full, independent investigation into the Licence matter, then the SFA is under a cloud of suspicion, and so are the then members of the Licensing Committee.
And as a football matter, the resistance by Celtic FC to the request that they insist on a full independent investigation being carried out within the football context is indicative of an unwillingness , rather than an inability, to do so. And that puts Celtic FC under suspicion of underhand complicity in a dirty football cheating arrangement.
And since no other club has raised any hue and cry about dirty work at the footballing crossroads [and the late Turnbull Hutton must have been sickened at their supine rolling-over], they all are under suspicion of consenting to dirty deeds destructive of the very essence of what their businesses are predicated upon being done in their name.
Taking the matter out of the football context and into the world of corporate business, there is the allegation that the Sports Governance body may knowingly and with deliberation colluded in fraud to obtain money by falsely representing to UEFA on behalf of a member club (RFC of 1872) that that club was entitled to a Licence to participate in a competition the mere participation in which would guarantee a financial gain for that club of £xM, with the possibility of £x+M more if the club achieved any kind of sporting success in the competition.
The consequence of any such alleged false representation was that the properly entitled club was denied such a Licence, and therefore was, in effect, cheated out of at least £xM.
Since that properly entitled club is a PLC, the Board of that club are required, required, by law to protect the interests of its shareholders.
It is not for the Board of Celtic plc to decide that the loss, in circumstances where there are prima facie grounds for suspecting that there may have been fraud and deceit [or even incompetence] involving some millions of pounds, should not be investigated.
It is not for the Celtic Board to try to kick a shareholders’ requisitioned resolution at an AGM into touch indefinitely without explanation, debate, and a vote.
It is failure by the Celtic Board to give adequate and justified and sufficient reasons as to why they have not insisted on such investigation that arouses suspicion in the mind of shareholders ,to whom they are accountable, that they too have something to hide.
This whole UEFA licence matter cannot be dismissed and corrected and put right until full investigation of the allegations is made, resulting in a proper assessment as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations.
The other allegation of corruption , namely that a huge lie was manufactured to try to have a brand new club regarded as being one and the same as the RFC of 1872 , and as being entitled to the sporting achievements of that failed club which currently exists as a liquidated football club, can be fixed almost overnight!
All the SFA has to do is renounce that part of a very dubious, highly secretive (and possibly illegal in itself) binding agreement under which it exceeded its legitimate Governance powers by awarding sporting honours and entitlements to a club that had not existed long enough to earn any one of them on the sports field.!
In doing so the SFA Board made a farcical mockery of the very idea of sporting competition and of their role as guardians of the Sport.
Let the SFA state publicly and with suitable apology that they gravely erred in so doing, and that the record books of the SFA (and the SPFL in consequence) will show that the Liquidated RFC ceased to be able to add to their impressive list of such honours and titles on the day they died as a football club.
Doing that will not, of course, save anyone from possible criminal investigation in relation to the Res 12 matter if that matter has to be referred to Police Scotland, but it would enable some kind of return to sane and proper and honest sports governance.
I will add one other remark. I have been posting for seven years or thereabouts about the cheating RFC of SDM and CW, and of the (what I believe to have been ) underlying dishonesty of the RIFC IPO prospectus and the blindness of the SMSM.
I would be some kind of hypocritical liar if I were to attempt to excuse or turn a blind eye to the possibility that the Celtic Board have questions to answer.
I think they do have questions to answer, but have shown a marked reluctance to do so.
And, as both a shareholder and supporter, I object to that.
Big Pink 12th November 2019 at 01:19
and running interference on any attempt to shine a light on the darkness of the 5WA (of which they were aware)
===================
Do you reckon Celtic, and indeed other clubs, were consulted about the 5WA before the SFA finally signed it? Or when you say they were aware was it a case of it was signed and Celtic and none of the other clubs bothered to challenge it?
Uth
No way of being able to demonstrate proof of course, but I think it highly unlikely that they wouldn’t have been kept in the loop throughout the whole process. Allied to what I knew to be their approach to the new club in the SPL (they were very much in favour of direct entry), I would conclude they were part of it. As I say though, no way to prove any of that.
What I would say is this. Had the SFA made a decision to reintroduce gate sharing, we would have heard some serious thunder from Celtic Park. What we heard in the wake of the 5wa was a whimper.
All about the money I think. Always has been. Always will be.
Celtic’s – and every other club’s – attitude to sporting integrity is no different to Jim Traynor’s: at best devotion to sporting integrity is naive; at worst it is evidence of moon-howler syndrome.
Football is a self regulating industry. The number one priority of football legislatorsi is to keep it like that. The ‘flexibility’ it showed after the demise of Rangers, what we would call breaking the rules, is something they want to retain. That’s why there is so much resistance to any kind of transparency or – God forbid – accountability.
For me this has never been about anything other than keeping the customers at arms length from the decision making. Not green v blue, not TRFC v the rest. Fans v boardrooms is what this has always been about. When push comes to shove, with the exception of the ST revolt in 2012, the boardrooms choose TRFC and Charles Green over their own fans.
The Res12 fiasco, SIX years of kicking things into the long grass, is proof enough for me that our sport is corrupted terminally.
John Clark 11th November 2019 at 19:26
50/38
paraniodbyexperience 11th November 2019 at 15:53
'..why the Celtic board would be involved in this. '
+++++++++++
Why else but to help sustain the lie that there is still a marketable 'old firm' comprising two old clubs who made their money by cashing in on politico/religious sectarianism in spite of the fact that it is recognised in the 'recordal' SevcoScotland/TRFC is NOT the Rangers of 1872
Greed has caused CFC plc to sell its soul without a blush , pretty much as the SFA/SPFL sold the soul of Scottish Football integrity to a miserable wretch.
Brother Walfrid will be turning in his grave
————————————————
————————————————
Half past eight on a dreich Tuesday morning and on reading through the site I see that John Clark has a list of thumbs downs that Steerpike would have been proud of.
I can't disagree with anything that he has said.
To Peter Lawwell and his board Celtic is a business first with an intrinsic heart and soul.
To John and many other fans Celtic is an intrinsic heart and soul that lives within a business.
We all know deep down that there is no way that Celtic would not have been involved in the Petrie managed SFA/SPL contingency plan for keeping Rangers and their revenues alive if their much heralded CVA failed, which it did.
Lawwell was too important and too well connected and respected and his lack of support would have been a deal breaker.
We also all know that deep down that the current Celtic business model benefits substantially from having Rangers alive and kicking in both their Glasgow home town but also polarising other supporters outwith Glasgow to maintain the scale that has allowed both of the Glasgow giants to be bigger, richer and to dominate all other towns and clubs.
Celtic and all the other clubs were complicit in everything that happened and while the likes of Inverness Caley and Ross County were just told what was going to happen and how to vote, for the best, Celtic and other key players were founding fathers of the plan despite the fact that they had lost out on a place in the Champions League qualifiers and the revenues that would have brought.
Maybe they gambled on a longer term and a possible downside horizon with no big Glasgow rival/partner.
From a business point of view, in retrospect, I can understand why what happened happened and that is also why Celtic have fought and are still fighting tooth and nail to stop Resolution 12 (which amusingly is also Resolution 12 again on the agenda for this year's agm)
The Resolutioners have been politely blind sighted, delayed and constantly mis directed by the board of an organisation who made commercial decisions that at the time back in 2011 /2012 almost certainly road a coach and horses through their 2011/ 2012 fiduciary responsibilities to the business that is Celtic and to shareholders like John Clark and Auldheid.
I wish the Resolutioners well and would advise Peter and Dermot that they are lucky to have fans like John, Auldheid and many many others.
John Clark 12th November 2019 at 18:26
There is the allegation that RFC of 1872 lied to the Licensing Committee of the SFA about their tax indebtedness as at 31 March 2011;
============================
If that allegation is true, then the same RFC also lied to their auditors, Grant Thornton, who provided an assurance that a "potential" tax bill was still under discussion with HMRC.
In that scenario, Grant Thornton was also complicit for their failure to obtain evidence that what was submitted to the SFA in their name was both truthful and accurate.
John Clarke 1826
……………………
Thanks John
One of your best yet.
Big Pink can we upgrade it to a new headline posting?
Thank you John Clarke 1826
Not only is this what I think but it is what I feel. Which means nothing in this scenario but does to many.
Support resolution 12 and say no to corruption and collusion in Scottish football.
thanks again
Excellent piece John. It is striking that the moral high ground has been totally unoccupied over this last 7 years. That so many have eschewed the opportunity to take a principled stand forces us to conclude that, in Fergus McCann's words;
"There are no honourable men in football"
I think Turnbull Hutton is the exception that proves McCann's rule, but sadly his ship has sailed. There are no Turnbull Huttons in Scottish football any longer, and more's the pity
Nice one JC.
Yes, we've been patiently waiting for 7 years for CFC to do something, but there was an assumption that various investigations / cases had to be completed first, before CFC could publicly speak up on behalf of its supporters – and shareholders – and ask questions of the SFA/SPFL.
Don't think there's any need for my club to wait any longer.
From a minority shareholder point of view, the Board would appear, on the face of it, to have failed in its fiduciary responsibilities.
From my own fan's perspective: I grew up believing it was "more than a club": it wasn't just a business but it was founded on honest, charitable principles, etc.
It's time for the current Board to stand up and be counted and to protect the legacy of those founding principles, IMO.
For me, all Lawwell has to do is honestly answer one, simple question;
Is Celtic just a business?
JC, that is a statement that needed to be made, and now is a most appropriate time to do it. Clear, concise and to the point, it deserves a response. Will it get one? I doubt it, but if it were to reach its target audiences and no response was forthcoming, that in itself would be damning.
Since that properly entitled club is a PLC, the Board of that club are required, required, by law to protect the interests of its shareholders.
It is not for the Board of Celtic plc to decide that the loss, in circumstances where there are prima facie grounds for suspecting that there may have been fraud and deceit [or even incompetence] involving some millions of pounds, should not be investigated.
It is not for the Celtic Board to try to kick a shareholders’ requisitioned resolution at an AGM into touch indefinitely without explanation, debate, and a vote.
It is failure by the Celtic Board to give adequate and justified and sufficient reasons as to why they have not insisted on such investigation that arouses suspicion in the mind of shareholders ,to whom they are accountable, that they too have something to hide.
…………………………..
Brilliant.
It is not for the Board of Celtic plc to decide.
If that does not get the message across,i don’t know what will.
Big Pink 12th November 2019 at 20:34
Excellent piece John. It is striking that the moral high ground has been totally unoccupied over this last 7 years. That so many have eschewed the opportunity to take a principled stand forces us to conclude that, in Fergus McCann's words;
"There are no honourable men in football"
================================
Fergus McCann was in my eyes an honourable man. He took on the SFA and beat them, proving bias against Celtic on the way. The media hated him for it, as well as the fact he had rescued Celtic, paid all the debts, and made the club what it is today. They chose to unfavourably compare him to a man who would go on to set up one of the biggest tax swindles in British sporting history. The fact the tax cheat is still more fondly remembered by the media than McCann is tells us how honourable many of them are. Come to think of it, the media seem to have a real fetish for tax cheats at the helm at Ibrox, given how soft a ride the current convicted tax cheat gets.
I am sure McCann would have acted on Resolution 12 without one shadow of a doubt, via a court of law if necessary.
Why has JohnJames used the EPL/FA criteria for his GBE complaint about Alfredo Morelos?
The SFA Handbook for the relevant year* contains the (identical, I think) qualifying information and is available on line.
Incidentally, it's widely recorded that Morelos signed for TRFC on 19.06.17, not 01.07.17, as reported by JohnJames.
*The SFA Handbook year runs from July to June.
Excellent well written post. Thank you.
Elvis has left the room .
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/50402555
RIFC issue another 10.5m shares at 20p a pop, raising £2.1m, either as cash or conversion of debt for equity
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history
Those faithful Club 1872 members have just been diluted again.
easyJambo 13th November 2019 at 12:21
'..RIFC issue another 10.5m shares..'
+++++++++++++
Why am I reminded of the Weimar Republic?
This multiplying of increasingly worthless bits of paper must surely help bring about an enormous crash. The large shareholders seem to be acting like lemmings rushing heedlessly to the cliff edge.
I presume this is 500k from club 1872 and 1.6m from a Director or group of Directors. Does this get them through November ? The January window would seem to be their only hope of salvage , having invested so much so far maybe they feel they have little option . 2.1m however seems a bit short of what the accounts indicated they required , are they drip feeding the absolute minimum to stay afloat ?
John Clark; What a fantastic post John. If only we had more like you at the SFA, SPFL, SMSM!
Thank you for that great read.
I haven't crunched the numbers yet , or to be more honest I'm hoping someone more proficient does it first but if it was Laird then after a quick rattle of my abacus then King is sailing very close to the 30% maximum he can have. Breaching this would force an offer which the TOP have barred him from doing for 4 years so a perfect ready made excuse for King to get out of investing any more .
Timtim: As i read it from their accounts they are making a loss of around £1.4 million a month at present that's Nov through to May = roughly £10million.
therefor with £2.1 million and the proceeds from the LCF they will probably have enough to make it to the January window. Easyjambo will keep us right as he is the money man.
watcher 13th November 2019 at 13:05
Timtim: As i read it from their accounts they are making a loss of around £1.4 million a month at present that's Nov through to May = roughly £10million.
therefor with £2.1 million and the proceeds from the LCF they will probably have enough to make it to the January window. Easyjambo will keep us right as he is the money man.
=======================================
I'm sure that they will have enough to get through to the next window. Clubs are normally cash rich during the first half of the season. Indeed RIFC reported a profit of over £5m for the first half of last season.
The cash flow shortfall will be most apparent after the new year, although if the club progresses to the knock out stages of the EL, then that will be another windfall for them both in prize money (€1m if they win their group, or €500k as runners up, plus another €500k for the last 32, €1.1m for the last 16 etc.) and match day receipts.
What they may not have early next year is access to further lending from Close. They hadn't paid off the outstanding £3m by the end of the financial year (although they had done the previous year), so they may not have access to new short term funding from that source.
They can issue as many shares as they want as long as people are willing to buy them. They are no longer adding any value to the company. Each new share issue doesn't change the fundamentals that they are continuing to haemorrhage cash at an alarming rate.
Mibbees one for our Court Reporters, or anyone else…
Many Internet Bampots are also patiently awaiting the potentially knockout – or knockdown – blow from Big Mike in January.
We know that King's standard MO is to delay, delay, and delay some more via appeals and any other means possible.
So, the question is: does King have even the slightest wiggle room WRT this court decision for the total amount payable by RIFC to SDI?
Is there any scope for RIFC to appeal the amount?
Is there any scope to revert to further Court appearances to thrash out a 'payment plan'?
Is there any scope for King to make an initial, good faith gesture by paying an immediate amount to SDI of say £500K – and then spend several months – out of court – trying to negotiate the payment terms…before inevitably returning to Court?
Is the January decision expected to be totally conclusive such as:
RIFC must pay SDI the sum of £X M – in full – by the stated deadline date of xx/xx/xx.
Anybody?
@EJ
The accounts did say that funding would be required in November so maybe not as liquid as we assume. We don't know the details of the transfer fees we just know there is an eye watering amount still outstanding . I believe they will keep funding going to at least have a hope of some income in January from player sales but Close , Ashley and Memorial walls will likely take a large proportion if not all of it. The 5m profit stated in the June accts were unaudited and suspected to be slightly exaggerated by a few commentators
@Stevie BC
No idea Stevie but we do know the Judge was getting very frustrated that it had dragged on this far already and said if the 2 parties couldn't come to a decision then he would . Sounded unlikely to me that King had much scope to delay any longer.
At their last AGM, RIFC passed two motions authorising the issue new shares.
The first allowed the issue just over 70m shares (£14m at 20p a share) for their debt for equity conversion. That issue was completed, in full, over the summer.
They were also authorised to issue up to a further 60m shares (for which pre-emptive rights of existing shareholders were disapplied). They have now issued just over 45m of those shares (£9m at 20p a share for fund raising and debt repayments), leaving just 15m still to be allotted (£3m at 20p a share).
That will be sufficient to see them through to their next AGM, but it's evidence that they were sailing close to the limits foreseen a year ago.
At the forthcoming AGM they are seeking authorisation to issue up to a further 100m shares (£20m at 20p a share, or an increase of 38% of shares issued) which will be disapplied once again.. That authorisation will last up to the next AGM in 2020. While there is no information about any planned share issues, it is indicative that the club is prepared for further share issues over the next year should they require further funding or debt conversions.
They may not issue any new shares next year, but the option and quantum are available to them. Most companies seek authorisation at their AGMs for a modest increase (20%?) in their share capital to cater for any unforseen eventualities, so it's not necessarily a new or unusual thing.
If their authorisation is insufficient, then they can always call a further General Meeting to authorise further allocations during the year.
A brief summary of Rangers' new sporting director Ross Wilson's press conference today
Journalist asks question – Wilson replies "the world is actually flat". Journalist swoons in amazement.
Another Journalist asks question – Wilson replies "the moon is actually made of green cheese". Journalist swoons in amazement.
Another Journalist asks question – Wilson replies "babies are actually delivered by storks". Journalist swoons in amazement.
…and so on and so on.
Pathetic stuff. Wilson must be pinching himself at how easy a ride he got. In fact, he has had more positive coverage in one day than many successful people in Scottish football get in a lifetime.
RIFC has now updated their website with the new shareholdings following the latest share issue. The increased shareholdings suggest that the shares have gone to:
Borita Investments (Julian Wolhardt) – 7,500,000 – £1.5m
Club 1872 – 2,500,000 – £500,000
Douglas Park – 500,000 – £100,000
Total – 10,500,000 – £2.1m
It's not clear whether this was new money from Borita and Park or conversion of new loans.
Just a small reminder.
Thursday 14th November
Procedural Hearing
Between 9.30am and 10.00am
CA132/18 Memorial Walls Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd – MBM Commercial LLP – Anderson Strathern LLP
A token amount from Park , nothing from King , one wonders if Wolhardt was the first to blink.Could this of been from loans a while back ? If so it has probably already been spent . If it is new money then I have to wonder why King hasn't stepped up as promised.
"With the successful restructuring of the retail operations, RIFC is now on a firm financial footing and I look forward to being a part of its exciting future."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40386013
Errrrrrrr……Does somebody want to tell him?.
LF: We had between 700-1000 new members in the week or two after the Mike Ashley share purchase and I think because it removed his influence from the club, you can’t underestimate or underplay the significance of the purchase, not just for Club 1872 because it saw us become the second largest shareholder, but for Rangers as well.
……………
EM: In terms of the 10 per cent shareholding, we are actually ahead of where we thought we would be this time last year. That has been significant.
…………….
BT: I think, as Euan said, we are in a tremendous position as the second largest shareholder, so why can’t be continue to be the second largest shareholder with a larger shareholding in the future? If we have managed to get to here, why can’t we build on that and continue to be at least the second largest shareholder, and be very influential?
………..
https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15898584.rangers-qa-club-1872-on-1million-share-issue-fundraising-drive-ashley-share-purchase-board-representation-and-fan-ownership/
………………..
LF:This is the support that took back its club, so imagine what we could do with the 10 per cent we have got and the determination to work together.
…………..
Never did reach that 10 per cent, looks like they never will.
Cluster One 13th November 2019 at 21:39
Never did reach that 10 per cent, looks like they never will.
================================
They were at 10.7% just 14 months ago, then spent a million in order to drop just over 1% to 9.5%.
However, another £500k spent and they are now at 6.22%.
If their members are content to keep pumping in money, then good on them, but I think they are missing out on what should have been an achievable goal. That is influence. King has played them like a fiddle, taken their cash, their votes and given them little in return.
The team on the park is undoubtedly much improved, and I expect that many members will satisfy themselves with that, but at what cost and risk for the future of the club they support.
Cluster One 13th November 2019 at 20:40
Just a small reminder.
Thursday 14th November
Procedural Hearing
Between 9.30am and 10.00am
CA132/18 Memorial Walls Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd – MBM Commercial LLP – Anderson Strathern LLP
==============================
I don't think tomorrow's hearing will inform us or progress matters very far, unless one side decides to fold. I wan't planning to go along, but will wait for a proof hearing where both sides can argue their cases before a judge who will make a decision one way or another.
https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/1194728372020101122
Working on a significant story involving Rangers
@RangersFC
and the taxman. See Thursday's
@thetimesscot
in print or online for more ….
—————————————————————————————-
It doesn't tell us which version of Rangers* is involved so I wouldn't jump to conclusions ……….ach bugger that , they're tax dodging again, overdue payables , shouldn't have been awarded a euro licence ,money laundering, brown paper envelopes found shredded , King has nicked all the NI and offshored it in Bermuda . As Alan Brazil said it will all come out in the wash . As long as they're not due a rebate I don't mind.
Anybody else think Ross Wilson is just a glory hunter ? I mean , he declined to join the old club but is now jumping on the bandwagon of the deluded .
easyJambo 13th November 2019 at 22:05
easyJambo 13th November 2019 at 22:09
……………
Thanks for clarification on both points.
StevieBC 13th November 2019 at 15:58
'..Is there any scope for RIFC to appeal the amount?'
+++++++++++++++++
I know of one case in a jurisdiction which operates on the basis of 'common law' and cites UK precedents in damages claims for breach of contract.
It is a case where a brewery appealed to a higher court against the amount in damages awarded against it by the court of first instance.
The higher court that heard the Appeal reduced the amount to one tenth of what had been awarded.
That judgment was in its turn appealed against. The Court of Appeal in that jurisdiction dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower Court that the original award had been calculated on the basis of profits that might have been made over future years when the contract could have been ended at any time by either party giving one month's notice! There was no certainty ( or even likelihood) that the contract would NOT be ended in any given month in the future : all that could be said was that the contract was valid and in force only in any given month. ( The SDRI/TRFC by contrast was for 3 seasons?)
The basic point, I think, is that in general any judgment can be appealed against on a point of law or some major fault in applying a principle to the facts.
King seems to have accepted the finding that he is in breach, and did not lodge an appeal.
In the SDRI case, it would seem to be a fairly easy to calculate how much SDRI lost, to within a few grand or so. So the figure the judge would decide to award will be legally unarguable against ( unless he loses his marbles and goes doolally!) What are the estimates- 3or 4 million, or maybe 5? The judge will make sure not to bugger it up to the extent that a reasonable appeal could be made.
Is there time for further talks between the parties? Or are we actually simply waiting for a judgment to be issued? (I may have missed something?)
Cluster One 13th November 2019 at 20:40
'.Just a small reminder.'.
easyJambo 13th November 2019 at 22:09
'.I don't think tomorrow's hearing will inform us or progress matters very far, unless one side decides to fold…'
++++++++++++
I'm planning to go in to see what's what and who's who.
There might be a date fixed for next hearing; or , as you suggest, a last minute settlement.
I'm wondering whether during such a 'Procedural Hearing' whether Counsel is permitted to ask the Court for an order to ring-fence the quantum being claimed, in view of the apparently shaky state of TRFC's finances in the light of the debts it owes relative to its possession of the readies to meet those debts as when called in?
I was at a hearing a few years ago when that request was made and was annoyed when they all went to the judge's chambers so that the judge could hear in detail why precisely one party thought that even if they won, they wouldn't get paid because the other party might be skint!
Surely anyone wanting money ring fenced from Rangers* would have a cast iron case , just quote the Judge from South Africa , the words of the TOP and point to the going concern warning in the accounts. In fact I'm not sure why somebody hasn't already done so
Timtim 13th November 2019 at 22:20
Hector was at the madam all along , trying to draw out the haters in our society . Now , Big Dave has strongarmed them into submission , and Hector can rip open his shirt and show his tattoo with five wee stars and tell the masses that it was all a bad dream , like in Dallas , and in a compensatory gesture for the years or torment , he will rebate all the tax they never paid . And 55 .
There is a strong odour of squirrel from the Times revelations , I sense more fun may not be far away.
https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase/with_replies
worth listening to
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rangers-tax-case-fateful-ruling-that-devastated-a-club-and-its-fans-7z6sxmg92
The Rangers Tax Case Twitter account is absolutely tearing the Times story apart. It is fully explaining in layman's terms why there is no story at all. Shameful stuff by the Times by the look of it. However it has had the desired effect on the moon howlers…the same ones who said Rangers Tax Case was wrong years ago.
Will they ever learn?
I've just had a look at 'The Times' online.
All I got to read under 'Rangers tax case: HMRC blamed for downfall of club' was
"Accountancy sources now believe the outstanding bill for using an offshore trust to pay Rangers players and staff is likely to stand at the far more affordable figure of £20 million. That is equivalent to £2 million annually for the 2001 to 2010 period the tax avoidance scheme was in place.
John McClelland, the former Rangers chairman, says that ambiguity over the…"
What a load of absolute cobblers! The downfall was caused by the serial cheating by SDM, whether it was ten quid or 50 million, the man was a cheat.
For any journalist to write that crap is an indication that he would never be accepted by the ICIJ.
Honest to God! What are they like?
What has the amount by which SDM cheated got to do with it?
He cheated
End of.
Here is the creditors list from the first D&P report in April 2012
Creditor Claim (£)
Trade & Expense Creditors 5,544,508
Ticketus (amount of claim to be confirmed) 26,700,000
HM Revenue & Customs – Excluding Big and Small Tax Cases 14,372,042
HM Revenue & Customs – Small Tax Case TBC
HM Revenue & Customs – Big Tax Case TBC
Supporter Debenture Holders 7,736,000
Football Related Creditors 1,063,082
Employees TBC
Total 55,415,632
So even without either the Big or Wee tax case amounts HMRC held sufficient debt (more than 25%) to block a CVA.
<
p style=”margin-left:7px”>I thought squirrels would be in hibernation by now.
Times thing is a non-story. My first reaction was a ‘President Kennedy has been shot’ one. HMRC simply stopped pursuing the penalty portion of the bill several months ago because BDO was dragging its feet and birling their billing meter wildly, thus sucking the creditor pot dry. No way they were getting their money anyway. BDO’s Jarndyce and Jarndyce act raised some eyebrows when that news broke back then.
As RTC has suggested, the timing of today’s ‘story’ may be significant.
I think the main point RTC is making is
Why have Sevco chosen now to go big with a story that is based on data made public by BDO 5 months ago? A new shocking revelation? Or a useful distraction?
The MSM have used many different squirrels over the years but this one is clearly blowing the dog whistle on HMRC . Are the clan being summoned to attack HMRC? If yes then why? can only be an outstanding tax issue has arisen that may be damaging to King in particular or RIFC/TRFC in general. I mentioned previously that Alan Brazils comments didn't seem to fit any of the known issues and something was still lurking in the background. Today we also learned that none of the £2.1m in new shares came from King .
Oh dear.
Hector has been unmasked – again – as a 'Rangers hater'.
Shocking.
Compared to the typical half-@rsed, pitiful PR pish we have all become accustomed to – this deflection effort is quite original, and must have taken some actual thought from Traynor to create.
The court case tomorrow about the Walls closing in on RIFC is not a biggie, [relatively speaking].
It's just another court case to get lost in the fog, which may or may not be reported – accurately – by the SMSM.
And what's a measly £1.1M 'potential' liability when you actually already have an 'auditor confirmed' £10M funding gap to finance – to keep the lights on this season?
Doth the fat bloke protest too much, with this HMRC bollox?
Why didn't he just churn out a straightforward effort like;
or
Curious indeed.
Duff and Phelps confirm that the voting power of HMRC, excluding any EBTs, was more than enough to reject the CVA (interim report 10 July 2012)
"Any CVA proposal requires the support of 75% or more of creditors (by value) who vote in order for the CVA to be approved. The size of HMRC‟s vote, even excluding those liabilities arising from the Tier 1 Tax Tribunal provided HMRC with an effective right of veto in the event that they did not wish to support the CVA"
Of course, HMRC required statutory powers to investigate the books further, hence liquidation.
Murray to blame for the lies and cheating. However suitably aided and abetted by those named as crying out most in the newspaper articles. Chairman and Board member, almost to the end, John McClelland.
Jesus! Are we still here? The ibrox club’s old operating company. And the rangers operating company was put into Liquidation. They never do tell the ibrox fans the name of this operating company.
Jesus! Are we still here? The ibrox club's old operating company. And the rangers operating company was put into Liquidation. They never do tell the ibrox fans the name of this operating company.
Big Pink 14th November 2019 at 00:54
Times thing is a non-story. My first reaction was a ‘President Kennedy has been shot’ one. HMRC simply stopped pursuing the penalty portion of the bill several months ago because BDO was dragging its feet and birling their billing meter wildly, thus sucking the creditor pot dry. No way they were getting their money anyway. BDO’s Jarndyce and Jarndyce act raised some eyebrows when that news broke back then.
As RTC has suggested, the timing of today’s ‘story’ may be significant.
===================
Unfortunately the desired effect of the story is working. Just in in the same way the same media believed the denial from Ibrox there was a tax case in the first place, and were able to rally the moon-howlers to the cause.
The big question for me is though is which version of Rangers is pushing this story along with clear help from a so called quality newspaper which would do well to check full facts before releasing the bloodhounds? My guess is it is not the Rangers which is currently being liquidated by BDO.
I have said many times Rangers PR works, but only because in Scotland there is a media so desperate to believe it.
Oh Dear
If Rangers(I.L.) don't get liquidated, will they have to change their name to play against Sevco…. The club they have grown to love?
.
Corrupt official 14th November 2019 at 07:25
'…If Rangers(I.L.) don't get liquidated..'
+++++++++++++++
I remember King observing that it was possible for a club in the process of being liquidated to be brought out of the process if someone paid all the outstanding debts in full.
What fun and games there would be if some white knight were to ride in and do that. What would the inept and despicable Football Governance bodies do then? Let the white knight create a new club and apply for membership of a league?
The sheer bloody mess would be a joy to see, as they tried to lie their way to a solution.
'Timtim 13th November 2019 at 22:20
https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/1194728372020101122
Working on a significant story involving Rangers
@RangersFC
and the taxman. See Thursday's
@thetimesscot…'
##########################
I'm rather amused to see who was the first to reply to Mr. Llewellin's Tweet – it was our 'old friend' Ernest Becker, the 'Denial Of Death' chap.
UTH @ 07.06 14 Nov
I have just got my copy of The Times & I am astonished this "story" is actually the main lead on the front page of the Scottish edition with the opening line "A multimillion-pound blunder by the tax authorities" – given there is a UK election , potential impeachment of the President of the USA , major floods etc it says a lot that this is The Times lead story – if ever you were looking for confirmation that The Rangers is part of the "fabric of Scotland" here it is .
Say what you like about Traynor but this has to be regarded as a coup – to get a sh*t , non story as the lead line of a quality , serious newspaper is good going – I take it he & Greig Cameron (author of the article) go way back .
The latest Level42 nonsense has had an unintended consequence: the welcome return of RTC to casually shoot down these HMRC 'allegations'.
As mentioned, this story is such a whopper that it must be preparation for something significant about to happen at Ibrox – you would think?
A determined effort to develop the Ibrox victimhood further and to get the bears frothing at the mouth – possibly for 2 reasons;
1) For money.
Soften up the fan base before asking for cash, donations, etc.?
What about crowd funding to help RIFC/TRFC investigate all the legal options to 'seek damages from HMRC'
[But in the meantime, the cash raised could 'rest' in the RIFC bank account?
]
or
2) For sympathy.
Mibbees RIFC/TRFC is preparing the ground for the inevitable?
But, because HMRC wrongfully killed off RFC in the first place, the current Ibrox has been – unduly – punished enough.
Therefore, the SFA and SPFL should bend over backwards to help an Ibrox club in any way possible.
Remain in top flight, no points deduction – and what about a loan on 'mates' rates' from the SFA/SPFL for good measure?
And Shirley it must be statement o'clock again – for King to issue a suitably lengthy, rambling, deflective tirade at HMRC?
Well, he was a NED at RFC after all…
Just had a peek at 'The Rangers' website.
The top story on its 'News' page is headlined;
"Rangers Burns Supper 2020"
Not a peep about the HMRC travesty inflicted on the club…
When a squirrel appears, it always means the shit is going to hit the fan.
How about the SFA panel have concluded their long awaited decision on going to CAS about the Licence issue. ( As stated, decision before Christmas)
Now this would be convenient for Celtic as they have to answer Resolution 12 at the AGM. Would this give them a way out and kick the can down the road or even out the park.
Lets take a few titles away and then we can bury this issue, we can’t take the chance of being reported to the Fraud Squad. No need to go to CAS, job done.
Sevco rage and rant about it’s not fair. Nobody likes us, they said we died no we never. I feel a siege mentality coming on. Lets have a share issue and show them. No Surrender.
The SFA, HMRC, Celtic, TSFM, hate us but we don’t care. Now pony up and save The Rangers
I agree with other posters regarding "why now?", five months after the information was available from BDO's report to creditors (their next report is due in the next three or four weeks).
Is HMRC being set up as the bad guys at this point in time for a reason?
HMRC got what they wanted from the Rangers Tax Case in 2017 at the Supreme Court. Arguing the quantum of the penalties applied will make little difference to them (maybe £1m in liquidators' dividends in Rangers case) against the scope of the SC ruling on other tax dodgers.
A propos the quantum of the cheat I am reminded of the old chestnut.
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”
Re : Squirrels
Could be several reasons why this HMRC deflection has been introduced – possibly decisions from the SFA re CAS as suggested above or maybe re King's Fit & Proper status after the cold shouldering – who knows but I still find it astonishing The Times lead with it , its more suited to the back pages of The Record .
ernie 14th November 2019 at 11:41
'…"Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?'
++++++++++
I wonder was that the same socialite to whom Churchill said " Madam, you're ugly'
and who responded with "Mr Churchill, you're drunk!"
To which Churchill replied "Yes ,Madam, but I'll be sober tomorrow!"
naegreetin 14th November 2019 at 11:47
Re : Squirrels
Could be several reasons why this HMRC deflection has been introduced – possibly decisions from the SFA re CAS as suggested above or maybe re King's Fit & Proper status after the cold shouldering – who knows but I still find it astonishing The Times lead with it , its more suited to the back pages of The Record .
—————————————————————
Since Magnus Llewellin was appointed editor of the Scottish edition of the Times last year it has become pretty well an Ibrox fanzine. He is very much of a blue persuasion as is his side-kick, Cameron, the edition's business editor. Don't confuse the Scottish Times with that of its London counterpart. Llewellin's job is to sell papers north of the border and in an environment when even the 'most popular' rag is in a downward spiral, the task of selling such an august broadsheet to the masses must be an uphill task. Perhaps that is why today's headline story might appeal to the man in the Govan omnibus.
Cameron was given free rein on Radio Shortbread this morning to explain the HMRC tax 'blunder' to the nation. He referred to the holding company but didn't or couldn't name it. He talked about RFC winning two tax appeals and told us the club was relegated. No mention of the Ibrox club thwarting the HMRC investigation and the SFA by concealing and/or shredding side letters etc. His piece was accepted as gospel with no effort by the presenters or an alternative professional guest to question his so called facts of the case.
I believe that, like the RTC, Graham Spiers has also been tweeting that the so called over-assessment is old news. Why then is Llewellin persisting with this shocking revelation now? Is it a bid by the Times Newspaper Group to garner a few precious votes for the Tories from among the unruly Scots?
Worth mentioning that the AGM for the Holding Company takes place on the 27th of November , just under 2 weeks time . What's slightly more concerning is the venue has been changed from the Clyde auditorium SECC in Glasgow to a large open air venue on the outskirts of Nuremberg. What I wouldn't dispute is that the story in the Times would have been cleared for publication by King if not ordered by him in the first place. My suspicions range from a lurking tax bill to a rallying cry for more funding to just plain deflection for an issue that affects King personally . The Ross Wilson interview yesterday also sent a subliminal message , everything in the garden is rosy , we don't have to sell anyone but if we do the player in question forced the move not us. The finger pointing is well under way , the reason will be evident soon enough.
Got into Court 7 in Parliament House this morning in good time at 9.25.
Lady Wolffe graced us with her presence at 9.40 or thereabouts.
Mr MacColl QC for the pursuer (Memorial Walls), Mr McBrearty QC for TRFC.
McBrearty was assisted by three persons, Mr MacColl by two lady assistants.
There was a young solicitor there as well who took no part but told me he was representing affirm that is involved [ not Memorial Walls]
One journalist was also present ( who engaged me in a brief mention of the 'Times' story which he seemed to think was revelatory. I made the point that eJ made -that even with the 'mistake', HMRC were still entitled to block a CVA, because they the lion's share of the debt was due to them, and that the story was really pointless and by no means of great interest in itself)
Mr MacColl QC informed the judge that although the date set for proof was already fixed as 24 March and the 3 days following, he wondered whether there would be enough time for the number of witnesses who were to be called to be interviewed etc . There were also experts' reports to e prepared and delivered relating to the question of 'quantum'
Lady Wolffe said, yes, experts .. the timing of things..
Mr McBrearty QC had no objection to the dates set for proof, but perhaps if the Court were not to be inconvenienced another day might be held in reserve.
He remarked that with 21 witnesses between them Counsel for both sides would have some difficulty in meeting a Christmas deadline. And it was unrealistic to expect a joint experts' meeting to be able to take place before Christmas. His own expert would almost certainly not have his report ready before Christmas.
As for gathering the witness' statement, the middle of January might be better.
The judge asked what the timescale was for the defender's expert witness report. Mr McBrearty said he could of course go back to the expert and tell him they needed his report by early in January.
Lady Wolffe wondered aloud whether it might be useful to have a short statement on the issues involved in determining the quantum?
Mr McBrearty replied, not really, m'lady. We can work collaboratively as far as we can to keep costs down
The judge had a wee discussion with the Clerk of Court then said she had decided that the 10 January would do for the witness statements, and experts' reports should be available in time for so an experts' meeting to be held in the last week of January.
And that was it. Court rose at about 9.55.
And I went for a cappuccino in the Royal Commonwealth pool, where I tried to get on to the internet to give this little report only to find that I needed my password to get into the sfm.scot blog. It's been so long since I had to use the password on the pc that I had forgotten it! So I just went for my 20 lengths of the pool while Mrs C was cavorting about with the other ladies in the 'aquafit' class.
Got home after a bit of shopping, and had lunch, and have read the paper and had a wee snooze. Been a good day so far!
Billy Boyce 14th November 2019 at 14:02
'…He referred to the holding company but didn't or couldn't name it. He talked about RFC winning two tax appeals and told us the club was relegated. No mention of the Ibrox club thwarting the HMRC investigation and the SFA by concealing and/or shredding side letters etc…'
+++++++++++++++++++
It puts me in mind of a saying attributed by some to Mr Churchill : " there are bast.rds, and there are bad basta.rds, and there are right bad bast.rds"
This HMRC story has been cranked up to BS Level '11'.
Headline from The ET;
"Rangers vs HMRC: Ex-players and staff 'have EBT penalties wiped over incorrect tax bill…"
======
No 'journalist' name is attributed to this nonsense.
It's based "on a source" who is supposedly an accountant but "uninvolved".
So, does that make the Bold Bazza Ferguson 'unbankrupted' now, and he can transfer his assets from his wife's name back into his own name?
This deflection must be for a really bad story about to hit Ibrox…
Which is nice.
As we're swopping quotes attributed to Churchill, I'll contribute my favourite:
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last.'
I think we know who is doing the appeasing, but is there such a thing in nature as a blue crocodile?
Just doing a bit of catching up, Great crystal clear article John , first class , making things easier for numpties like me !! Regarding the Times fairy story , like most people on here you have to ask, Why now ? What shit are they about to get hit with now ? Surely they havent been missing their payments to Hector again ? Nah surely not that stupid again ?
John Clark 14th November 2019 at 14:44
And that was it. Court rose at about 9.55.
And I went for a cappuccino in the Royal Commonwealth pool, where I tried to get on to the internet to give this little report only to find that I needed my password to get into the sfm.scot blog. It's been so long since I had to use the password on the pc that I had forgotten it! So I just went for my 20 lengths of the pool while Mrs C was cavorting about with the other ladies in the 'aquafit' class.
+++++++++++++
JC, I hope this means you took your dookers to the court, rather than you splashing about in your underpants?
Perish the thought…
StevieBC 14th November 2019 at 15:36
Headline from The ET;
"Rangers vs HMRC: Ex-players and staff 'have EBT penalties wiped over incorrect tax bill…"
========================
As far as the recipients of the EBT are concerned, the Treasury had already wiped out the penalty element wiped out if the EBT loan was repaid or they reached a settlement with HMRC on the "Loan Charge" which was due to be levied on 6 April 2019 and would be payable by the self assessment deadline of 31 January 2020.
===========================
The tax liability from the "bill" was never incorrect and still stands. What there has been movement on is on the penalty element. HMRC has chosen not to challenge BDOs assertions as to application or quantum, as the amounts involved are hardly recoverable with a dividend of only a few pence in the pound expected.
===========================
The Times story may have been prompted by a leak from BDO (their half yearly reporting period ended on 31 October, with publication expected within six weeks thereafter). We may see some reference into the report to the appropriateness or otherwise of HMRC's "grossing up". It may be that once again that HMRC choose again not to contest the issue as the costs of doing so would outweigh the dividend due from the Oldco RFC 2012 (IL). The Oldco doesn't really matter much to HMRC now that it has the Supreme Court ruling on disguised remuneration.
As far as BDO is concerned, all they are interested in is getting the best dividend possible for the other creditors. If they can persuade HMRC to take a hit, then it leaves more in the pot for the other creditors.
That "pot" of course is diminishing by the day as BDO continue to take their fees, earned or otherwise.
================================
The spin being put on the story is laughable. I've seen claims that David Murray is going to sue HMRC and that BDO will get millions in compensation that will pay off all the creditors. Dave King will get his £20m back and restore the club to its former glory. I'm not sure which club they are talking about though, as some seem to think it will help the newco's transfer kitty for the January window. It is all somewhat ridiculous.
Anent the Times article: I refuse to subscribe to read the full article but have a couple of queries if some resident expert can help.
Why did HMRC drop the penalties? Or did they agree that they were wrongly applied?
The bit that started (couldn't see the end) with the tax (and presumably NIC) due being levied on the net EBT amount. I assume this means that HMRC calculated the taxes due on the Gross amount that would have had to be paid to produce a net payment of say £100k. This would be likely to be about £170k if I understand correctly and so resulting in a much higher assessment.. If I am correct, and that is likely a big if, surely HMRC would not agree to any reduction in this?
Any help appreciated before I meet my tribute act drinking pals tomorrow.
Easy Jambo @ 16.54
You may have answered my queries EJ. Still think it would be dangerous for HMRC to concede the grossing up principle?