Good Morning,
A number of years ago I sat and watched while the late David Will, one time chairman of Brechin City, former President of the Scottish Football Association and Vice President of FIFA, peered over the upper rims of his glasses at the assembled board and management of St Johnstone Football Club and proceeded to brand them all as a “shower of thrawn buggers!”.
The reason for the tongue in cheek outburst from Scotland’s highest ranking official from the world of football was the organisation of the centenary dinner celebrating 100 years of the Perth Club— which the club saw fit to hold well outside the centenary year. Will had been invited to speak as a guest at the dinner ( yes Mr Cosgrove I was there ), along with then manager Alex Totten and Craigie Veitch the former sports editor of the Scotsman.
For those who are not familiar with old Scots words, Thrawn can have a couple of meanings which are very similar. If someone is being obstinate, stubborn, uncompromising, perverse or intractable then in auld Scots we say that he or she is being thrawn. Equally, the original meaning has been said to be crooked, twisted, misshapen or deformed. A tree could be thrawn, as could someone’s arm or other part of the body. To be thrawn-leggit was to have a crooked leg.
These meanings then sort of morphed into meanings like difficult or contrary, and so twisted and crooked in that sense, and when David Will called St Johnstone a shower of “thrawn Buggers” he meant that they were being awkward, contrary and perverse in holding a centenary dinner when it wasn’t actually the centenary. He was of course being lighthearted.
That episode came to mind this week when I read the latest statements from Alastair Johnston and Charles Green. Both set out an argument which suits their individual purposes and adopted perspectives, and both perhaps chose to ignore counter argument or salient facts which would obviously derail their logic and train of thought. With the greatest of respect to both men— what a pair of thrawn buggers!!!
In that vein let me recap as to where I think we stand on this September morn in relation to the EBT debate, the question of “Club” and the Independent enquiry into payment outwith contract.
Clearly, all of these issues are closely linked but each stands in its own wee pocket or chapter, and when taken together they serve to make a whole book or paint an overall scene.
The EBT issue has been repeatedly explained on the RTC blog and elsewhere but at the risk of repeating what is already known the fundamentals are as follows:
Employee Benefits Trusts under certain circumstances are or were a perfectly legal business and accounting tool.
However, in order for the trusts to provide substantial tax advantages, any reward, remuneration or compensation they provide to a beneficiary must not form part of their contract of employment or work package. If this rule is not strictly adhered to, then tax is payable on the sums “given” to the employee, with the employer being liable for tax and national insurance contributions of any employee.
It is alleged by HMRC, that a number of persons who were at one time employed by Rangers PLC have received benefits by way of a specific EBT. Further, the benefits which these employees received were clearly related to their contracts of employment and so these payments are liable to tax, together with interest for late payment and penalties for non-declaration and so on.
This is denied by Rangers PLC and by Murray International Holdings, and MIH have instigated and conducted an appeal against the HMRC view, with that appeal being determined by an independent tax tribunal (The FTT). The basis of their argument appears to be that the benefits received by the beneficiaries were nothing to do with MIH or Rangers and that these payments were purely discretionary and at the instance of the trustees of the trusts concerned– none of whom have any connection with Rangers PLC or MIH. Therefore– there is no tax payable.
Against this there seems to be a plethora of evidence which contradicts this stance including a number of side letters or second contracts which show that any payments to these EBT’s were indeed contractual and part of an overall contract of employment “package”– and if that is deemed to be the case then tax, interest and penalties are indeed, and always were, due.
These contracts or side letters then seem to fly in the face of the documentation lodged with the SPL and later the SFA, as both bodies require sight of all contractual documentation relating to players remuneration and their terms and conditions of employment. Contracts have to be in standard form and lodged with the appropriate bodies to ensure that the player is in fact properly registered to play for the team.
Further, the rules of football prohibit any player being paid by a third party, and so payments made to a player by someone other than his employer is a breach of that rule.
It is this issue that the Nimmo Smith Tribunal is to investigate and rule upon.
For their part, Rangers PLC appear to argue that the existence of EBT’s were always declared in the notes of their accounts, and so the footballing authorities should have known that they were in use at the club. More recently, Alastair Johnston has stated that the club did receive a request for clarification from the SFA in 2011 to which the Rangers PLC board responded disclosing documents ( although he does not specify what documents ) over and above the normal documentation sent re player contracts. Johnston has gone on to state that there was no response or follow up whatsoever from the SFA, and the appropriate UEFA licence simply arrived in the post without further ado. He concludes that as a result of the documentation sent, the SFA must have known at that time that the EBT payments were being used for “player compensation” purposes.
Now, AJ argues that if any misdemeanour or breach of rules has occurred it does not merit the much discussed and publicised “stripping of titles” and that any failure on the part of the Rangers PLC board amounts to no more than an oversight or an administrative error which does not justify the ultimate penalty.
Let’s just pause there and remember who and what AJ actually is in life. Alastair Johnston holds the posts of vice-chairman and member of the board of directors of International Management Group, the leading international sports and entertainment group. Now everyone knows that IMG was formed by Mark McCormack and represents sports stars as their agent. However what is less well known is that the majority of IMG’s work comes from broadcasting – not necessarily mainstream broadcasting – but the broadcasting of certain events to mobile phones and so on and in this context the company works with the likes of Vodafone and other major service providers in the sector. Further the company has the rights to market and broadcast the sports activities of a huge number of schools and colleges in the US as well as music channels, entertainment and so on.
I raise this aspect for one very important reason.
That entire industry is based on one thing and one thing only and that is………… a Licensing system. Broadcasters of any sort obtain the rights to broadcast by way of a licence. They licence content, they licence by area and geographical location, they licence for set time periods,they share licences, sell licences, create licences and terminate licences. Without a licence, they can have all the technology in the world, all the necessary content and so on but they are not able to show it, sell it and profit from it. Proper licensing is vital!
Further, they are very precious about licences- and rightly so– because unless they have the licences tightly tied up, others in the same field can attempt to steal their content, their territory and their rights– all of which are valuable assets.
So go back again and look at all AJ’s comments about proper registration of contracts, about proper administration of documents and licence applications for players, UEFA competition and so against the background of him being a grand fromage in a major company whose absolute lifeblood depends upon proper licensing.
Do you remotely believe that the continual and prolonged inability to properly declare all relevent contracts and player documentation to a licensing body ( both SFA and SPL in this instance) can be merely an oversight or an administrative error?
Further, take a look at the accounts for Rangers PLC at least in the year ended 2005, where it is made very clear that the football management side of the business was working extremely closely with the board in all business and contract matters.
The SFA in particular fulfills a licencing function– a function which is so important that without passing the tests laid down, any club of no matter what size simply cannot play or participate in the sole sphere it is designed to participate and play in. There are strict rules about licences, and a duty on the SFA as well as Rangers PLC to make sure that all of the conditions that must be fulfilled in order to gain a licence have in fact been met. It is not a process that should be left to chance or a process that any major organisation would leave to a junior member of staff or without there being a company defined process and procedure to ensure that the applications and compliance issues are properly dealt with.
Further, if you think about how a footballer player signs for a club– the negotiations, the transfer fee, the personal terms, the contracts, the agents commission and so on, you will realise that a player signing and the terms of his contract – or contracts for that matter – cannot simply come about by accident and outwith the boards knowledge or consent.
In short, it is impossible. It is also impossible, in my respectful opinion, to proceed on a decade long process of administrative errors involving the repeated failure to disclose secondary contracts or side letters. As someone once said to me, there comes a point where a continued and continual series of repeated errors or omissions starts to look suspiciously like a plan!
However, if we were to take AJ’s comments at face value, and accept that there were repeated failures on the part of the Rangers Board by accident, then to be honest there would be every right for shareholders and investors to hold the Directors liable for such negligence. Directors regularly and properly insure themselves against such claims– so I wonder if AJ has paid his insurance premiums?
Further, if he as Chairman presided over such mismanagement, then no doubt his time at IMG is limited as I doubt such an organisation could afford to have such a dunderheid permanently ensconced in a senior managerial position.
However, AJ appears to be a positively straightforward chap when compared to Mr Green.
He of course is on record as saying that if the proposed CVA were to be rejected and the club forced into liquidation then the club dies, the history dies, and so on and so forth– but of course that was yesterday or the week before or even the week or months before that. That was the message that Mr Green wanted to convey at that time in the hope that HMRC would buckle down and accept the proposals.
Now, Mr Green seeks to sing a different tune, and recently latched on to Lord Nimmo Smith’s comments about the “club” being a continuing entity and capable of transfer from one owner to the next. He muses that if that is the case then the “club” may well in fact still be a member of the SPL and the SFA as no matter what happened to Rangers PLC, Rangers FC are ” a continuing entity” and therefore should not be forced to apply to rejoin any body which it was always a member of– such as the SPL and the SFA. Of course this then means that all the history and so on remains– despite what he himself said earlier!
Now of course, Charles makes for a good soundbite and is mad keen to ensure that as many Rangers fans as possible take up shares in “the club” when he offers them for sale.
Yet there is the problem,– shares in what are being offered for sale? According to Charles– and following his logic— he can offer as many shares in the Rangers Football Club Ltd for sale as he wants — but that company will not actually be Rangers FC– will it? If Rangers PLC was not actually Rangers FC– then what was it that David Murray was offering for sale all those years ago? Or could it be that Charles has just got it plain wrong?
You see for some reason he did not quote Lord Nimmo Smith in full– especially that part where the learned judge gave a brief description of his interpretation of the law of clubs.
For example Charles chooses not to comment on this sentence from the learned judge:
“This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator.”
Earlier, Nimmo Smith said this:
“While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.”
So let’s pause there.
A club is an undertaking— in other words any type of loose arrangement involving a group of people with a common purpose. If a club is not an incorporated club ( a limited company ) then to be anything other than a loose idea of a few folk getting together for a common purpose such as a holiday or a meal or to read a book or anything else– then of course it should have a formal constitution and a set of rules for its members.
So– where is the constitution for Rangers Football Club? Where are its rules of admission which says who can join? Are there certain rules that preclude you from joining? Is there a set limit on how many members there can be at any one time? Who are the officers of this club?
At the current time, Mr Green seems to be very keen on everything British and everything of a loyal and royal nature. So here is a quote from the pages of the Royal Yachting Association of Great Britain on the legal status of unincorporated clubs and so on.
“Since an unincorporated club has no legal status, it is incapable itself of owning property or being party to a contract. It is therefore standard practice to appoint trustees, who are usually required in the rules to comply with committee instructions, to hold the property (whether freehold land and buildings, yachts or a long leasehold of a reservoir) on behalf of the club members.”
Eh going by that statement – Rangers FC never owned Ibrox or Murray Park– and indeed can never own Ibrox and Murray Park. Someone had to be the trustee.
Further, it can never have been granted a licence to play football— you can’t grant a right to a non legal entity or to a body which has no legal status. You cannot accept a licensing application from a body which has no legal status. You cannot be employed by a body with no legal status.
Rangers FC has no constitution, no legal persona, is not allowed to own property ( heritable, moveable or intellectual), can’t enter into contracts and so on.
In short, Rangers FC is a body with no legal status– it does not exist and has never existed— unless it is to be found within the confines of Rangers PLC which everyone now recognises is in Administration and will soon be liquidated.
Still don’t believe me?
Ok here is a recent release by the Scottish legal commission setting out changes that they want to make to the law so that “clubs” can gain some legal status:
“In Scotland, and indeed throughout the United Kingdom, unincorporated associations are not recognised as entities separate from their members. Consequently, such organisations cannot carry out acts such as entering into contracts, owning property or engaging employees. The lack of legal personality can also give rise to unfortunate, and perhaps unforeseen, repercussions for members. For example, it is possible that, under the current law, a member of an unincorporated association could, by virtue of that membership alone, find himself or herself personally liable in delict to a third party injured at an event organised by the association. Further difficulties relating to this area of the law are set out in our Discussion Paper on Unincorporated Associations (DP 140) which was published at the end of 2008.
Our Report recommends a simple regime, with the minimum of administrative burdens, to ensure that associations and clubs are recognised as legal entities. Separate legal personality will be accorded to associations which satisfy certain conditions. The main conditions are that the association has at least two members; that its objects do not include making a profit for its members; and that it has a constitution containing certain minimum specified provisions. These provisions are: the association’s name; its purpose; membership criteria; the procedure for the election or appointment of those managing it; the powers and duties of its office-bearers; the rules for distributing its assets if it is dissolved; and the procedure for amending its constitution. Many associations will already have constitutions which contain these provisions but, for those which do not, we anticipate that style constitutions will be made available, free of charge, on the websites of organisations such as the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations”
Maybe Charles should seek some advice from the Scottish Council on Voluntary organisations? And perhaps he should note that part about not making a profit for members too!
Then again, as Lord Nimmo Smith has said the actual status of a club and who or what a club is depends on individual circumstances. So with regard to Rangers, let’s look at who would know– for example, who did Charles get “Rangers” from? Duff and Phelps of course — so what do they say?
Well they have stuck to their guns because in each and every report that they have issued to the court, the shareholders and the creditors they have included the following definition:
| Rangers / the Company / the Club | The Rangers Football Club Plc (In Administration), Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD (Company number SC004276); |
Now that doesn’t really help Charles does it.
Ok so, lets ignore Craig Whyte because everyone knows that he was a diddy— let’s go to folk that are far more sensible– how about the Board of Rangers PLC before Craig Whyte– what did they have to say:
Well, here is a statement from May 2011 which seems to set out who and what the then Directors thought amounted to the club– and let’s face it– they should know!
“Further to today’s statement from Wavetower Limited (“the acquirer”), the Independent Board Committee of The Rangers Football Club plc (“the club”), comprising Alastair Johnston, Martin Bain, John Greig, John McClelland and Donald McIntyre, (”IBC”) would like to make the following statement:
“In recent weeks the IBC has been engaged with the acquirer and has secured an enhanced financial commitment from Wavetower for future investment into the club. The decision on the sale and purchase of the majority shareholding in the club firmly and ultimately rests between Murray MHL Limited (“MHL”) and Lloyds Banking Group (“LBG”).
“Although the IBC has no power to block the transaction, following its enquiries, the IBC and Wavetower have differing views on the future revenue generation and cash requirements of the club and the IBC is concerned about a lack of clarity on how future cash requirements would be met, particularly any liability arising from the outstanding HMRC case.
“Wavetower is purchasing MHL’s 85% shareholding in the club for £1 and the club’s indebtedness with LBG is to be assigned to Wavetower. This share transaction would ordinarily trigger a requirement on Wavetower under Rule Nine of The Takeover Code for a mandatory offer to be made to the other shareholders.
“Given this transaction structure and following discussions with the Takeover Panel, the IBC considers there to be no purpose in the acquirer making such an offer to acquire all other shareholdings at effectively nil value per share. Accordingly the IBC has agreed that the offer period for the club will now end.
“In agreeing that no offer should be made to all shareholders the IBC has insisted that the acquirer issues a document to all shareholders setting out the full terms of the transaction, comprehensive details on the acquirer and the sources of its funding and giving firm commitments to agreed future investment in the club.
“The IBC is committed to ensure that the transaction and future investment and funding proposals should be transparent to all the shareholders and supporters of the club”
Ah— that doesn’t really help Charles Green’s current argument either does it?
So here we are, on the cusp of the FTT ruling, with a share offering in the offing, and SPL enquiry scheduled for November and no doubt Mark Daly and the Panorama team beavering away in the background getting ready for another documentary.
The decision of the FTT may reveal yet more of what the bold AJ describes as “Administrative errors” by way of failing to administer EBT’s properly so resulting in a massive tax bill, and the SPL enquiry may reveal further “Administrative errors” in failing to properly record player contracts for a decade, with the result that players were never properly registered in the first place and so were illegal players during championship winning games.
Yet all that is history and in the past.
Today’s Rangers has a new hero, a new commander– even though who he works for is a closely guarded secret and remains a mystery to most of us who may be interested to find out who Charles Green really is and who he represents. He seems to attack certain quarters then retreat, antagonise and appease, and has a habit of constantly contradicting himself when it suits.
In the interim he reminds me of the most famous creation of the American writer Timothy Zahn who brought about a revival in the fortunes of the Star Wars franchise, bringing it widespread attention for the first time in years. He did this by creating a new villain to follow in the footsteps of the administratively challenged and ultimately vanquished Darth Vader.
Zahn describes this new villain’s command style as considerably different from that of Darth Vader and other typical Imperial commanders; instead of punishing failure and dissent, he promotes creativity among his crew and accepts ideas from subordinates. He is a tactical genius who has made extensive study of military intelligence and art, and is willing to retreat instead of making a stand in a losing battle.
His full name and his true origins are only known to a few select individuals of the Empire and the New Republic.
To quote Wikipedia:
“His name is ………… reminiscent of the old Scots word meaning Twisted ot Crooked.
The character’s name is……….. Thrawn.
I suspect that we are about to see some pretty Thrawn statements from a shower of Thrawn buggers as the late David Will would have said!
The propaganda war as I see it: the attempt to deflect from the sins of the past of RFC makes no sense to me. Phil M’s book is now published, the FTTT should be published soon – reading between the lines of the recent flood of tweets from RTC and looking back at the FoI response form the MoJ where they noted that no party (to date) has attempted to prevent the publication of the decision in the public domain – it seems inevitible that the scale of the wrong doing re EBT will come out. And then we have the SPL dual contracts probe.
If the scale of wrong doing and the assumptions that many at RFC knowingly operated a flawed EBT scheme – its highly unlikely that anyone could put a positive PR spin on the sins of the past.
I can’t get myhead round why people would be throwing good money after bad in trying to deflect the inevitible – unless the motive is to lower expectations amongst fans including those of RFC.
Could the plan be to lower expectations so that when the FTTT is published and the press begin to decypher this and report on events people are more angry and outraged than they are now?
I looked again at Barcabhoy’s posting from RTC on 26/05/2012 at 2:19 am on the “Nuclear event”
Could the PR game plan be to lower expectations, in preperation for the liklihood that the nuclear event will be see the light of day in the public domain. By then will fans be so fed up with the whole RFC tax debacle and surrounding events that there is less anger/negative reaction to the nuclear event and the associated implications whatever they may be?
They say follow the money – who is paying for the PR spin and what do they have to loose?
CO should resign now or he should be pushed.How can this man continue to hold such a senior position at SFA HQ it is crazy.
The Scottish MSM should be ashamed and Jabba is a joke!!
Not sure why everyone is jumping on the comments by Dermot Desmond, they are standard sound bites from a political monster. If you look at the public comments from Celtic to date you will find them pretty consistent:
Shareholder: Rangers are a big club with a great history, they will be back. Scottish football needs that level of support that they carry, Celtic manage their finances correctly and therefore will function with or without Rangers.
CEO: Rangers are a massive club and should be playing at the top level. Scottish football needs Rangers as they generate a large part of the revenue for the game including most other clubs. Celtic don’t need Rangers in the SPL to survive as we have a business model that is stand alone.
Coach: I want Rangers in the SPL, I like those games as a manager. I will miss the rivalry that comes with the old firm games. Celtic don’t need Rangers in the SPL to survive, I work well with Peter and we have cut our cloth to match current situation. I know my budget and it is dependent on many factors. I know if we are not successful then I need to sell a player, if we are then I get to buy one, I know what my limitations are and this is not affected by what goes on across the city.
Captain: I want Rangers in the league, as a player you want to test yourself against the best so you improve as a player. I will miss those games but we can look forward to Europe and test ourselves even more there. I want to compete with the likes of Rangers but if they are not there we will still develop as a team, too many people write off teams like Hearts and Motherwell but in my time here they always give us a hard game.
So everyone is singing the same tune, we would like a competitive Rangers in the SPL but we don’t need one to survive. I also believe when they talk about Rangers, they are talking only of 11 players on the field, not the songs, not the board, not the off-field baggage. That is why DD says Rangers are a massive club… because they are (both oldco and newco).
I agree with the “history” question but like most people now, they still see both companies as one club so will always say things like “they have a great playing history”. But the record books will be amended to reflect reality and that history will not be added to so as I said at the start, it is only political sound bites.
blu says:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 20:39
3 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 20:11
It’s all a result of misinformation, apparently. Although I feel that the author, when the uses the word misinformation, actually means disinformation since he implies motive. Anyway, it’s something other than the SNP whodunit stuff and Mr Desmond waxing lyrical about Rangers
===================================================
DP, please say that it’s a spoof. Please?
————
You’d think so.
I understand it to be a forward-thinking site for sensible debate on all things Rangers. For my sins, I follow G. Spiers on twitter and he linked to the piece. I found it very difficult to take the writer seriously since he appears to offer a critique of the misinformation about Rangers (as he calls it) by using his own disinformation. He claims to be a Ph.D – standards must be slipping 🙂
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 22:18
4 0 i
Rate This
johnboy5088 says:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 22:04
========================================
Cheers, johnboy ( and garrymc) – I hope bawsbustedanatha doesn’t ask if they’ve taken out insurance against it or what the premium would be!
Aw, come on…….now you know I’ve got to :)….so, have they???
bawsbustedanatha says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 08:55
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 22:18
4 0 i
Rate This
johnboy5088 says:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 22:04
========================================
Cheers, johnboy ( and garrymc) – I hope bawsbustedanatha doesn’t ask if they’ve taken out insurance against it or what the premium would be!
Aw, come on…….now you know I’ve got to 🙂 ….so, have they???
================================================
I asked a family member (ex Lloyds of London employee, now retired) what sort of premium this would attract. Less than £5k was the answer probably even as low as £1.5k. If you ever watch Soccer AM and see how difficult it is for the pro’s to do this then you’ll realise that the chances of a mug punter achieving it are extremely remote. It’s like taking candy off a baby (or maybe honey from a baby bear would be more apt :-D)
Radio Clyde this morning,
Celtic “majority shareholder” Dermot Desmond.
Since when?.
jmaclure
see doontheslope:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 22:44
It is sad and perhaps (dare I say) sevcophantic (RTC copyright acknowledged) of you, to continue to pursue the “THIS IS CELTIC’S FAULT” mantra.
Doontheslope posts an almost perfect understanding of the situation. The only underlying issue is whether DD meant their old history or their new history, the newclub or the old *club …….. oops Its a lot easier to type with my tongue out of my cheek 😉
As I understand, a great man Desmond! a VERY clever man too!
baxterparp says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 00:57
You’re barking up the wrong dreel, move on, indeed.
——
Hello baxter. A splendid mixed metaphor on your debut. 🙂
Observer says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 00:16
Gavin Oliver says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 00:00
If Salmond did interfere he didn’t do a very good job as RFC RIP walked away from all debt and are with us in a completely unreconstructed form.
————————————-
From where I am standing the conspiracy – whoever it did or did not include – did a damned good job!!!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It didn’t do a “damned good job” for Salmond as regards the feelings of the unionist berrs.
“Third, it would galvanise and unite the Rangers support, and lastly it would allow us to move on and concentrate on defeating the SNP’s fight for independence.”
http://tinyurl.com/9ojatll
‘For sure, Celtic and all the other clubs in the SPL would be happy to see a club the size of the now extinct Rangers FC in the SPL . It would generate more income in the game at the top level and would provide us all with a wee bit extra competition.
There would have to be some pre-conditions of course. We would need to ensure that any such club would not be cooking the books to gain unfair advantage [ or indeed to cheat my dear friend Hector] and we certainly would not wish to see any of the any vile, sectarian and supremacist baggage that was the hallmark of one of our recently departed members. A wee clean-out in the Blazer Department up at Hampden would go a long way to help too.
Now, do you think you’re going to get this right for tomorrow’s papers or am I going to be reading some old fabricated rubbish with my morning cuppa?’
There Dermot, fixed that one for you!
Seriously, does anyone have an audio link to the actual interview so that I can make my own judgement about what was actually said and how it was framed.
far too clever for sevcovians in denial TBK ,DD is a grandmaster of subterfuge his witt is beyond their comprehension
Irrespective of Dermot Desmond’s personal views on the subject what on earth did anyone expect him to say? “Eff them, ooh aah up the ra, etc”
Desmond doesn’t need to play to the gallery, he doesn’t have a scam share issue to get up and running, he doesn’t need to play the victim to get the fans into the stadium and he certainly doesn’t need to pull the wool over the media’s eyes (although in this case a single strand would be enough as they seem to go about with their eyes half shut at all times anyway)
As others have posted Celtic have played this as well as could be expected. They have constantly thwarted the media’s attempts to draw them into a slanging match and have kept their dignity intact through all of this.
alabama – could try the BBC Scotland website for “podcast” sort of things.
I heard a bit on the Radio Scotland news this morning. The word that jumped out for me was “relegated”.
Why, I wonder, does DD use that word? Does he believe that RFC were relegated and magically turned into TRFC?
Brenda says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 06:27
Brenda, there probably will be a statement today…..
….. About Mr Green’s latest appearence before the beaks. At this rate they should just diary in a monthly meeting.
I wonder how many additional share sales this is worth to him? Probably enough to more than offset any fine imposed.
Stifler’s Mom says:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 23:38
Something and nothing, This is circa 10yrs old, but pertinent to The SFM cause…….
http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/1526/1/strathprints001526.pdf
(Worthy of a read and maybe some discussion?)
————————————————————————–
Brilliant – well worth a read – an interesting insight for me into those days and most of the academic points are still valid – particularly around the reporting and comprehension of football financial information.
I’m not sure the humour was intended back in 2002 but some of the quotes from ‘journalists’ are absolute belters –
–
James Traynor, Sports Editor of the largest selling newspaper in Scotland, The Daily Record, notes that tabloids lack the business desk expertise of the broadsheets. However, he argues that his paper
‘. . . has tackled the business and financial aspects of football better than other tabloids and the broadsheets when they’ve written about it in their sports pages, not when we’ve been competing with their business pages. It’s got to be written down in a style your market will understand. (Interview, May 2000).
Keevins adds that ‘football writers are going into this [area] completely
blind and we misunderstand and misinterpret’ (interview, May 2000).
Jim Traynor of The Daily Record suggested that in contemporary journalism ‘there are too many lazy journalists about’ (interview, May 2000).
–
Copyright to original authors Dinan, William and Boyle, R and Morrow, S (2002) duly acknowledged. Funny thing is if they published the same paper today, the comments on the standards of journalism would be just the same ….. plus ça change
Something still bothers me about the tax owed to hmrc, apologies if this has been done to death. Rtc reckons rangers are due to pay 24m, they put 49m into the ebt trust, using klos as an example, he got for talking sake 20k a week through normal methods, of which tax is deducted, at 40 percent. So he gets roughly 12 grand to spend on sweeties. Then he got 10 grand through the ebt, not paying any tax, so his sweetie money is now at 22k. Total gross 30k, take home 22k. Larsson paid 40k a week for talking sake would get roughly 22k a week sweetie money. I am guessing that rtc is working under the premise that rangers owe the tax on what they paid into the scheme, roughly half, but to my math rangers owe nearer 45m in tax before penalties.
MHG, owned 10.6% by CW’s Liberty Capital, has just provided it’s 2011 Annual Report.
http://www.merchanthousegroup.com/file_download/30
This is not going to end well for AIM shareholders in MHG.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 09:42
–
Celtic “majority shareholder” Dermot Desmond.
Since when?.’
———–”
” Dermot F Desmond:No of convertible preferred ordinary shares of £1.00- 8.000.000
” of ordinary shares of 1p each…………………………-32,772,073
” of convertible cumulative pref.shares of 60p each..5,131,300.”
( Celtic Annual report, to June 2011)
I think ‘majority shareholder’ is pretty accurate, given that the next biggest shareholding 3,357,505.!
I frequently refer back to the structure of the MBB’s companies as revealed in the map presented some months back on PMcC’s website:-
http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/cw-corporate-structure.pdf
Newcomers to TSFM may be interested 🙂
john clarke says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:01
_______________________________________________________________________
John,
I don’t doubt that DD is by far CFCs major shareholder but I don’t think he holds over 50%.That would be a majority.
panbreid says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 10:49
I am guessing that rtc is working under the premise that rangers owe the tax on what they paid into the scheme, roughly half, but to my math rangers owe nearer 45m in tax before penalties.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Show your workings!!!
Thanks redetin (10:57). This from the auditors – ouch:
“The Group incurred a net loss of £5,613,559 for the year ended 31 December 2011. The financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis. In applying the going concern basis, the directors have considered the current financial position of the Group and Company, its trading prospects and the funding provided by Beia Capital Limited, an investor in the Company. They have considered all of the above factors in relation to a period of at least the next 12 months. Taking all these factors into account, the directors have concluded that it remains appropriate to prepare the financial statements on a going concern basis. This indicates the existence of material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.”
Dermot Desmond’s comments re RFCIASTBLare being ‘spun’ as support for them (there is an inordinate amount of coverage in MSM for it to be anything else).
Also, Andy Goram must have been well oiled when remarking that his former team had nothing to fear if drawn against Celticin the league Cup!
Speaking of mickey-takers (but otherwise completely OT, sorry), this made me laugh:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/video/2012/oct/03/serbia-triple-dummy-football-corner-goal-video
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 10:12
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nobody is asking DD to be confrontational in any comment he makes regards the NEW CLUB or the OLD CLUB…but to indulge in comment on things that are not true is not what I would expect…especially when we still do not know who owns the club now in Div 3…or who actually owns the stadium etc..
A simple no comment regards the club I would suggest would be the better approach…otherwise any positive platitudes could associate you in a way that suggests you accept what has been carried out over the last 10 years…which has brought Scottish football to the mess we see today.
It is quite amusing to see DD’s political nous in operation, he is playing the rangers support like a fiddle and they are fawning over his every word, quite amusing.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:14
john clarke says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:01
_______________________________________________________________________
John,
I don’t doubt that DD is by far CFCs major shareholder but I don’t think he holds over 50%.That would be a majority.
===========================
But surely the majority of Rangers fan’s would never have taken part in the singsong at the League Cup final 😀
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:32
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 10:12
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nobody is asking DD to be confrontational in any comment he makes regards the NEW CLUB or the OLD CLUB…but to indulge in comment on things that are not true is not what I would expect…especially when we still do not know who owns the club now in Div 3…or who actually owns the stadium etc..
A simple no comment regards the club I would suggest would be the better approach…otherwise any positive platitudes could associate you in a way that suggests you accept what has been carried out over the last 10 years…which has brought Scottish football to the mess we see today.
========================
I can see how the “no comment” line would have been reported.
“Celtic supremo in denial over Rangers re-birth”
alex (@thekublakhan) says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:40
It is quite amusing to see DD’s political nous in operation, he is playing the rangers support like a fiddle and they are fawning over his every word, quite amusing.
———————————————————————————————————————-
One of the guys on KDS speculating that when DD said “their history” what he actually said was They’re history!
john clarke says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:01
torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 09:42
–
Celtic “majority shareholder” Dermot Desmond.
Since when?.’
———–”
” Dermot F Desmond:No of convertible preferred ordinary shares of £1.00- 8.000.000
” of ordinary shares of 1p each…………………………-32,772,073
” of convertible cumulative pref.shares of 60p each..5,131,300.”
( Celtic Annual report, to June 2011)
I think ‘majority shareholder’ is pretty accurate, given that the next biggest shareholding 3,357,505.!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does he own 50.01% of all shares issued?
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:52
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:32
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 10:12
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nobody is asking DD to be confrontational in any comment he makes regards the NEW CLUB or the OLD CLUB…but to indulge in comment on things that are not true is not what I would expect…especially when we still do not know who owns the club now in Div 3…or who actually owns the stadium etc..
A simple no comment regards the club I would suggest would be the better approach…otherwise any positive platitudes could associate you in a way that suggests you accept what has been carried out over the last 10 years…which has brought Scottish football to the mess we see today.
========================
I can see how the “no comment” line would have been reported.
“Celtic supremo in denial over Rangers re-birth”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don’t think the “No Comment” line was the one to use.The MSM would have written it up as DD putting the boot in.
Desmond just switched on the Irish Brogue,gave a bog standard answer and the MSM have twisted it to suit themselves.
Anything that can be construed as pro Sevco will be used.
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:52
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:32
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 10:12
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nobody is asking DD to be confrontational in any comment he makes regards the NEW CLUB or the OLD CLUB…but to indulge in comment on things that are not true is not what I would expect…especially when we still do not know who owns the club now in Div 3…or who actually owns the stadium etc..
A simple no comment regards the club I would suggest would be the better approach…otherwise any positive platitudes could associate you in a way that suggests you accept what has been carried out over the last 10 years…which has brought Scottish football to the mess we see today.
========================
I can see how the “no comment” line would have been reported.
“Celtic supremo in denial over Rangers re-birth”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That makes no sense?
You are concerned how it will be spun if DD makes no comment…but are happy and have no concerns on how it will be spun when DD can make very praising comments regarding a club that cheated?
Maybe it’s me?
I also understand DD doesn’t fancy..dangerous stuff turning up in the post at his home or business…that is why I think he is better staying well clear of any discussion involving that club…because you can only discuss it one way…
DD must like Moscow, think that was the last place he commented to the press also, timing is everything indeed. I remember his last Moscow interview, gave oldclub their character and told us he would not follow their example. His recent comments are a serving of tripe followed by 5yr old vintage GIRUY, nae lamb as far as I can see. Well done that man, thought he made them sound quite insignificant without adding insult.
Accountancy Age: “failure of the CVA, assets of the ‘game’ are transferred to a new club and the old club liquidated.”
http://alturl.com/ti48g
I’ll try chris, tax alone for simplicity, 49m@40%= 19.6m. Plus 4.4m ni cont gives rtc 24m. Klos walked home with 22k rangers paid say 20k @40% = 8k tax. 10k tax free, in ordet to be paid 10k, rangers should have paid 18k, for him to wall home legit with the 10k so for every penny they paid in, 80% was due for the taxman 80%of 49m =39.6m + 8m ni cont, = 47m
Just spoke to the SFA about the statement that was supposed to be due last week.Seems that the BBC jumped the gun.There was no statement planned,the very pleasant young lady mentioned that Yorkie was in again about comments he made in the media about the SPL.
That’s all folks. Brenda you are off the clock.(if you want of course).
OT but funny:
Tjmurphy @TJm555
!! pic.twitter.com/2sdIjOx5
Sorry,here’s the link:
pic.twitter.com/2sdIjOx5
Tic 6709
Cheers I may get some housework done now 🙂 what time’s the draw at today? What ones hot and what ones cold? 😉
Brenda says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:47
Tic 6709
Cheers I may get some housework done now 🙂 what time’s the draw at today? What ones hot and what ones cold? 😉
———————————————————————————————————————-
2 o’clock,Brenda :twitch:
Take it the twitch smiley doesn’t work here.Ah well,worth a try.
Brenda says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:47
Tic 6709
Cheers I may get some housework done now what time’s the draw at today? What ones hot and what ones cold?
======================================
Dont know the time B, but Left will be hot and Right will be very cold.
the cynic in me just loves this…..”a fool and his money” springs to mind
from Sevco’s official site
——————————————————–
CHANGE to method of allocation and distribution of away tickets.
As a consequence of the 12/13 season ticket renewal process being completed in a very short space of time there was a change in the method away tickets were distributed. We have closely monitored this situation in conjunction with fan groups, which has led us to the decision to reintroduce the Away Ticket Continuous Credit Card Scheme to assist with the allocation and distribution of away tickets.
The scheme will allow season ticket holders to apply for all remaining away matches for Season 2012/13. If you wish to join the scheme please print the form here and return to Rangers Ticket Centre, 150 Edmiston Drive, Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD before Monday 15 October.
panbreid says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:22
I’ll try chris, tax alone for simplicity, 49m@40%= 19.6m. Plus 4.4m ni cont gives rtc 24m.
Correct That is where you should have stopped.
Rangers payed the tax on Kloss declared salary.Hector cant expect to claim for tax already paid. It is only the payments paid into EBT trusts that Hector disputes.That would be taxed at rate applicable in that tax year
PS.
The last time the tax rate in the UK was as high as 80% was in the sixties or seventies.
Draw is at 2pm – Brenda – use that stopwatch
How to rig a draw:
The Braille method – Little dots on the outside of the object ball. For best results, get a blind person to do the draw.
The Chaud method (invented in France.) – Heat the object ball/balls. (Tip – Dont heat ball too much as, “Oh ya b@astard!” is a dead give away.)
The F@nny method – involves the use of a strategically placed magnet in the object ball. Magnetize the ring of the person doing the draw. Big, chunky Masonic bling is perfect for this method. (This method has more recently been referred to as the ‘f@nny magnet’ method.)
A Rangers versus Celtic draw would probably indicate that method three has been used.
Not that I would question in any way the integrity of the Scottish Football authorities.
Live draw
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/aberdeen/193271-live-video-stream-scottish-communities-league-cup-quarter-final-draw/
■Draw for quarter finals of Scottish League Cup at Hampden at 14:00 BST
■CELTIC V ST JOHNSTONE
■DUNDEE UTD v HEARTS
■RANGERS v INVERNESS CT
■ABERDEEN v ST MIRREN
■CELTIC V ST JOHNSTONE
■DUNDEE UTD v HEARTS
■RANGERS v INVERNESS CT
■ABERDEEN v ST MIRREN
How did you do that so quickly away over there?
haha – from the other side of the world as well 🙂
Git tae bed!
The relief on RM is incredible….”It’s a home tie” they cry!
Now that TRFC have a home tie, will they turn up in numbers to fill ICT coffers. Will we have another statement from CG about eye glints and ICT being good guys forced into voting against Ranjurs! Not for the sake of selling tickets of course but just to point out those haters and all the injustice!
Will SFA wrap CG knuckles and send him to naughty step today! Dont hold your breath on that one.
Come guy’s, get real with the cup draw conspiracies. The site’s starting to take an anti Rangers feel again and we’re better than that. They had a 3-1 chance of a home draw and a 7-1 chance of getting Celtic.
Kevin Anderson says:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 19:52
29 0 Rate This
But CG said they wouldn’t play in the SPL again, more lies?
_____________
i have been away for a few days has any of the newspapers reported that statement from CG
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 15:19
2 0 i
Rate This
Come guy’s, get real with the cup draw conspiracies. The site’s starting to take an anti Rangers feel again and we’re better than that. They had a 3-1 chance of a home draw and a 7-1 chance of getting Celtic.
====================================================================
Tomtom – the right sentiments. don’t be going to the bookies though. :/
Not a bad wee draw that. would fancy Celtic, TRFC and Aberdeen to get through without too many probs. Dundee Utd v Hearts is tie of the round though!!
I think Inverness have a better recent record at Ibrox than any of the other sides, including Celtic.
TallBoy Poppy.
October 4th. @ 13..16
Davad00 03.35
_____________________
Tallboy, I respectfully concur that you have mis-read my post at 03.35.
If you re-read you may accept that my inference was that I HAD insomnia, and not that that was my former moniker on RTC. My moniker on RTC was the same as is above. (DAVAD00).
As I infer, to read all posts on both blogs, I would perhaps have to have a medical condition.
(Insomnia) Apologies to Blog ‘Insomnia’ if this was mis-understood!
tomtom
I’ll have you know that there was wide spread speculation that the draw for Italia 90 was rigged. Sophia Loren did the draw and managed to group together Italy with arguably the three worst teams in the draw.
People claimed that she had used the magnate method.
Personally, I think that she simply used her assets to deflect attention. I didnt actually witness the draw but my mate informed me that she had “nipples like brass coat pegs in an auld Church of Scotland cloak room.”
blu says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 15:27
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 15:19
2 0 i
Rate This
Come guy’s, get real with the cup draw conspiracies. The site’s starting to take an anti Rangers feel again and we’re better than that. They had a 3-1 chance of a home draw and a 7-1 chance of getting Celtic.
====================================================================
Tomtom – the right sentiments. don’t be going to the bookies though. :/
================================
Bookies are my best friends. Or given my track record, am I their best friend? 😀
What CG said is actually correct
He said T’Rangers would never play in SPL as long as he was the CEO…….
Since he is off to BVI with the moeny he is in fact not telling any lies
By the time a team playing in blue at Ibrox – whether T’Rangers or the other tribute band act part 2 – gets to the pinnacle, he will be long gone – hence he is not saying they will refuse to play in SPL – he is saying nto hsi probllem
Bears are not reading the whole sentence!
He then stated that whilst things are the way they are, the onslaught continues AND as long as he is C.E.O of Rangers F.C, Rangers will NEVER play in the S.P.L again.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/jf4juv
Read it like a spiv, think money grabber and what he said makes sense 🙂
Come guy’s, get real with the cup draw conspiracies. The site’s starting to take an anti Rangers feel again and we’re better than that. They had a 3-1 chance of a home draw and a 7-1 chance of getting Celtic.
====================================================================
Tomtom – the right sentiments. don’t be going to the bookies though. :/
================================
Bookies are my best friends. Or given my track record, am I their best friend?
____________________
definitely your best friend with those odds!! they had a 1/1 chance of a home tie and a 6/1 chance of drawing Celtic.
Looks like sevco scotland have applied to have their accounting date changed hmmmm – is this significant?
AA01 form filed
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 15:19
Come guy’s, get real with the cup draw conspiracies.
——
Of course, you’re right.
However, I’ve spent 30 years thinking Cup draws always seem to work out nicely for certain teams.
That one of those teams was recently exposed as a bunch of dirty swiks, dragging the SFA into the mire with them, has made me pay just a little bit more attention to things.
It does seem to be the optimum TRFC draw from everyone’s point of view. Naturally, this cannot have been a fix – but the Fates are obviously in the whole thing. 🙂
the taxman cometh says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 15:47
Looks like sevco scotland have applied to have their accounting date changed hmmmm – is this significant?
AA01 form filed
——————-
from when to when?
” – but the Fates are obviously in ON the whole thing.”
I wish you could edit your posts on here.
Alleged Party in Breach: Charles Green (Rangers)
Date: On or around 12th September 2012
Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached:
(1) Disciplinary Rule 66 (Bringing the game into disrepute by calling into question the integrity of the Commission, chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith and appointed by the Scottish Premier League Limited (“SPL”) to examine alleged breaches of the SPL’s Rules regarding the use by Rangers PLC and Rangers FC of Employee Benefit Trusts to pay players, by suggesting in a media interview that the outcome and sanction of said Commission had been pre-determined by the SPL.)
Outcome: Not proven
(2) Disciplinary Rule 71 (Not acting in the best interests of football by calling into question the integrity of the Commission, chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith and appointed by the Scottish Premier League Limited (“SPL”) to examine alleged breaches of the SPL’s Rules regarding the use by Rangers PLC and Rangers FC of Employee Benefit Trusts to pay players, by suggesting in a media interview that the outcome and sanction of said Commission had been pre-determined by the SPL.)
Outcome: Not proven
Rule 66: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.
Rule 71: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football. Furthermore, such person or body shall not act in any manner which is improper or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
CG found not guilty by his pal CO
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2363-charles-green-statement
RANGERS Chief Executive Charles Green has released the following statement today.
“I am pleased the judicial panel accepted today that I had not brought the game into disrepute.
“What I said, I said in good faith and I was speaking up for the interests of Rangers. To be critical of the SPL’s handling of the EBT issue, does not mean that I am showing disrespect for the game and that view appears to have been shared by the judicial panel.
“It is my hope that we can all move on from today and start working constructively for the good of the game.
“The creation of the EBT Commission by the SPL following the events of the summer and the Club’s attempts at constructive discussion has been particularly difficult for those of us who are new to Rangers and are trying to rebuild the Club.
“It appears for all the world to be yet another obstacle being placed in our path as we try to rebuild a great Scottish sporting institution.
“I am the first person to accept that there are people who have been associated with Rangers who have brought the game into disrepute, particularly the previous regime whose delinquent approach to paying taxes triggered a series of events that brought the Club to the brink of destruction.
“The consortium I led came to the table with one objective in mind: to save Rangers Football Club and rebuild what is a great sporting institution.
“There has been an enormous amount of goodwill towards us. Rangers fans have shown beyond all measure what loyalty to your team really means. Staff, who have worked through dreadful turmoil in recent years, continue to go the extra mile. Some players have stayed when they need not have and youngsters have become young men in the team.
“There has also been great goodwill shown by investors who recognise the potential of Rangers and sponsors who see the tremendous opportunities at Ibrox. The international media are queuing up to speak to us and chart the recovery of the Club.
“In football too, there has been real goodwill from the Scottish Football League and its member clubs who have taken a view that it is better to look forward than back and that the game benefits from a vibrant Rangers.
“Perhaps it is now time that those people within the SPL who have been pursuing Rangers at every turn take stock. As a member of the SFA, we want to work constructively within its structure and hope that all parties and organisations can take a view that what is of paramount importance is the good of the game.
“To that end, we will be meeting with SFA President Campbell Ogilvie in the near future.
“We want to be a force for good in football and it is surely to the benefit of all that the way forward is not frustrated by continually trying to look back.”
Disciplinary Proceedings outcome: Charles Green
Thursday, 04 October 2012
Alleged Party in Breach: Charles Green (Rangers)
Date: On or around 12th September 2012
Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached:
(1) Disciplinary Rule 66 (Bringing the game into disrepute by calling into question the integrity of the Commission, chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith and appointed by the Scottish Premier League Limited (“SPL”) to examine alleged breaches of the SPL’s Rules regarding the use by Rangers PLC and Rangers FC of Employee Benefit Trusts to pay players, by suggesting in a media interview that the outcome and sanction of said Commission had been pre-determined by the SPL.)
Outcome: Not proven
(2) Disciplinary Rule 71 (Not acting in the best interests of football by calling into question the integrity of the Commission, chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith and appointed by the Scottish Premier League Limited (“SPL”) to examine alleged breaches of the SPL’s Rules regarding the use by Rangers PLC and Rangers FC of Employee Benefit Trusts to pay players, by suggesting in a media interview that the outcome and sanction of said Commission had been pre-determined by the SPL.)
Outcome: Not proven
Rule 66: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.
Rule 71: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football. Furthermore, such person or body shall not act in any manner which is improper or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
the “Away Ticket Continuous Credit Card Scheme”
___________________________________________________________________________
Much discussed here.Give us your card details and we’ll take what we like,whenever we like,from your account.You will,of course,have no claim on your bank if we rob you blind!.
exiledcelt says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 15:43
In all probability because he knows there won’t be an SPL in the present format for much longer.