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 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
………………
Standard Spivery for
“We have something in our accounts we need to hide until we are out of here”
Posssibly the debt figure owed to the parent Co for the assets or future provisions for Tickeus contract
Often followed up by Spiv liquidation or a refusal by Auditors to sign them off
Hardly ever done just ahead of a public share issue so it rather confirms that worthless paper will be sold instead
But it`s perfectly legal
The last set of proper accounts by a football club playing at Ibrox ,approved by an auditor
covered the 12 months from July 2009 to June 2010
so, have the SFA just agreed that the SPL investigation has a set outcome?
alex (@thekublakhan) says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 16:13
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
**********
Would bet good money that SPL wil be there in any format long after CG has vacated the Scottish scene………..fancy a wager?
He has absolutely no intentions of being here beyond the season – he said so himself
exiledcelt says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 16:08
…
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2363-charles-green-statement
RANGERS Chief Executive Charles Green has released the following statement today.
“..
To that end, we will be meeting with SFA President Campbell Ogilvie in the near future…”
=============================
So CO pops up unexpectedly the other day to say he hasn’t been doing his job for the last 6 months as SFA President – but would like to meet Green.
Today Charlie is cleared, and states he wants to meet CO.
And all the while, the vast majority of the public believe that CO should have been at the very least on gardening leave for the last 6 months.
So my interpretation is thus;
CO – “the world’s greatest ever football administrator” – has now decided that he has kept his head down for long enough, and now he will simply ‘move on’ and continue in his role.
The paying football customers can just give it a rest, as CO knows best. 🙄
Very worrying development IMO: sends out all the wrong signals about the SFA, i.e. have not learned anything over the last 6 months – and still treat their customers with contempt.
chris shields (@chrisshields10) says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 14:50
0
1
Rate This
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.
———————————————————–
Thanks for the thumbs down for my correct prediction!
I fear there is no hope now for a stronger cleaner set up within the corridors of power that run Scottish Football. Their pandering to CG coupled with the involvement of CO is beyond satire.I have said all along the SFA created a rod for their own back by refusing to apply the rules with regards to Oldco/Newco. We now find ourselves being dictated too by one of the most arrogant men i have ever witnessed who seems to have immunity for all of his ‘little misdeamenours’. As far a CO and his willingness to help us all out of our little mess. Trot on you undignified corrupt bufoon.
So now we have it- according to the SFA it is open season for anyone to say whatever they like about the ruling bodies. Or maybe that’s just applies to Green? I’m guessing the latter. The compliance officer must be truly gutted.
On a positive note, though, I see that Green and Ogilvie are meeting to determine the future of Scottish football. Our future is in safe hands.
What a sick, sad little country we live in. Off for a boak now.
Charles Green -CEO T’Rangers
“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.”
Theo Paphitis, Duncan Bannatyne – Member of the Dragon’s Den
“You say that but can you show me the contract/order etc etc?
At the end of the day while many people may want to brush it all under the carpet there is NO WAY that Scottish Football can move forward until the Rangers Saga has been dealt with. The FTT needs to report and the SPL commission needs to sit and reach its conclusions. When those cases become public then finally we may be able to move on in the way Mr Charles talks about and can get back to matters on the pitch.
Otherwise every future offense in relation to improper player registration may as well be ignored.
Clubs and managers could therefore pay in whatever fashion they please and play whoever they want and if questioned just say “why are you coming after us? -You didn’t go after Rangers”.
It really is that simple.
I am surprised that CG didn’t use his statement today to say that ICT weren’t one of those clubs whose representatives suffer from GLINTITIS. Expect a statement soon.
CG backtracked (squirmed more like) out of the bogotry issue, accusing other SPL clubs of it and now he has done the same with respect to the process appointing the Independent Commission. I and every one of a sound mind knows he questioned the integrity of it.
Anyway we are all in safe hands, CO is on the case.
davad00 says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 15:33
========================================================
The use of a capital for Insomnia was confusing – the lower case ‘i’ makes all the difference, as devotees of wee Craigie’s spelling will testify. Glad it’s cleared up though, davad. Will look forward to your contributions.
Trying to get my head round this;
Sevco Scotland change their accounts period.
Are S.S. not T’Rangers?.
Did they not change their name at end of July?.
Sevco 5088 bought assets.Sevco Scotland bought “certain” assets then changed to TRFCLtd or something like it(I think).
Help!
So now we have it- according to the SFA it is open season for anyone to say whatever they like about the ruling bodies
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I wonder if it is possible the panel took the view that it was better not to give Green the appearance of persecution or air of martyrdom he is clearly trying to drum up. It might be better in the medium to ignore his ranting given that there is much worse to come for him.
medium term, obviously.
Fixture dates for those interested:
SFL confirm League Cup fixture dates. Aberdeen v St M, Celtic v St J on Tues Oct 30, Dun Utd v Hearts, Rangers v ICT on Wed Oct 31.
Dun Utd v Hearts will be live on BBC1. K.O..7.15pm
Livia Burlando says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 17:27
———————–
Agreed. Could have created a martyr! Strong word but you get my drift! Can’t really be ‘NOT GUILTY’ as it’s there in black and white and on camera. Can’t be ‘GUILTY’ as all they would have been able to do was fine him, say £10k? Does anyone honestly think Charles Green would 1: have the funds to pay it and 2: Have any inclination to stump up if he did have it? It would have been lost in ‘claim and counter claim’ for as long as Chuck wanted to stoke the fire.
NOT PROVEN is not an admonishment. It could in theory be re-visited?! 😉
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?
===============================
No. They have delayed the Accounting date (year end), by a month, to the end of June. That brings them into line with most other clubs.
Hearts also changed their year end yo the end of June when they issued their last set of results.
Thanks for the reply chris, i have to try again though, here goes, lets say rangers paid klos 30k a week through the books, and 10k a week through the tax free loan, 30k at40% tax = 12k leaving 18k take home + 10 tax free, he gets 28, celtic pay 40k for henik, 40% = 16, he takes home 24, at this point it looks like rangers pay 4k and all is equal. But, stefan made 4k a week more than henrik, so how much would it have cost to get henrik 28k a week through the books, lets say 47k a week @ 40%= 18.8k giving him take home of 28.2 close enough for my purpose. Thats a difference of 6.8k and the figure that i contend is due hmrc, in this scenario.
easyJambo says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 17:54
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?
===============================
No. They have delayed the Accounting date (year end), by a month, to the end of June. That brings them into line with most other clubs.
Hearts also changed their year end yo the end of June when they issued their last set of results.
______________________________________________________________________-
Yea but when RFC issued their last set of results,we didn’t expect they would be just that! 😆
panbreid says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 18:00
Thanks for the reply chris, i have to try again though, here goes, lets say rangers paid klos 30k a week through the books, and 10k a week through the tax free loan, 30k at40% tax = 12k leaving 18k take home + 10 tax free, he gets 28, celtic pay 40k for henik, 40% = 16, he takes home 24, at this point it looks like rangers pay 4k and all is equal. But, stefan made 4k a week more than henrik, so how much would it have cost to get henrik 28k a week through the books, lets say 47k a week @ 40%= 18.8k giving him take home of 28.2 close enough for my purpose. Thats a difference of 6.8k and the figure that i contend is due hmrc, in this scenario.
………………………………………………………………………….
Im no accountant, but surely they can only be due tax on actual savings, that is money paid into the scheme that should have been taxed?
Also was the EBT money not taxed at a nominal 5%?
Make no odds, they wont pay a penny whether they are found to owe one hundred and fifty pounds OR one hundred and fifty MILLION pounds, and I was sure they didnt do walking away?
spanishcelt says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 18:24
Make no odds, they wont pay a penny whether they are found to owe one hundred and fifty pounds OR one hundred and fifty MILLION pounds, and I was sure they didnt do walking away?
===================
That sums it up nicely. It doesn’t matter how much tax they should have paid, because they are actually going to pay precisely diddly squat, zilch, zero. Does anyone associated with RFC feel bad about that? Not a bit. And these big loyalist hard men don’t do walking away- except from any obligation they have to their beloved British State. What a crowd of hypocritical, dishonest scumbags. Boak time again- I’m getting a sore throat today.
panbreid says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 18:00
Thanks for the reply chris, i have to try again though, here goes, lets say rangers paid klos 30k a week through the books, and 10k a week through the tax free loan, 30k at40% tax = 12k leaving 18k take home + 10 tax free, he gets 28, celtic pay 40k for henik, 40% = 16, he takes home 24, at this point it looks like rangers pay 4k and all is equal. But, stefan made 4k a week more than henrik, so how much would it have cost to get henrik 28k a week through the books, lets say 47k a week @ 40%= 18.8k giving him take home of 28.2 close enough for my purpose. Thats a difference of 6.8k and the figure that i contend is due hmrc, in this scenario.
————————————————————————-
One last time and then I will assume that you are trolling.
Rangers paid the tax on the declared salary. The only tax Hector is concerned with is that which they determine was paid through EBT. That could be one pound or one million pounds.The player could have a contract that pays him one million pounds a week on which all due tax was paid. Hector therefore is satisfied.
How much klos got taxed on contract “through” the books is an irrelevance. The difference you describe shows how rangers managed to pay players more while reducing their outlay. IE the financial doping.
So one last time. Only the money paid into the EBT is the issue. How much other playesr got paid and paid full tax on is irrelevent in the calculation of the tax due on what HMRC claim were contractual payments paid into EBT.
Mention image rights and I know you are a troll!
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/roof-bring-craig-whyte-justice/2843
Well said Anne on SSB Dawwell in rfc(iastbil) ned mode tonight he never fails, sad wee man
Whilst a ‘not proven’ verdict is certainly an acquittal, it is most definitely not a declaration of innocence.
For most citizens, it carries with it an implication of guilt, and I would suspect that CG himself, up until today, would have agreed.
ps
I believe it was Sir Walter Scott ( whilst sheriff at the Court of Selkirk) who coined the descriptive phrase ‘the b**t**d verdict’
From KDS
Keep an eye on Celtic Underground tonight for a piece by Harry Brady on Sevco & Green. Promises to make very interesting reading. Especially for Canadians.
Dammit bect! I was going to say ‘not proven’ was always known as the b’stard verdict. Although I didn’t know it was attributed Walter Scott! Every day really is a school day here 🙂
SSB replay worth a wee listen ….. Dawwell was on fire lol delahunt for some reason would not discuss ogilvie?? ( is there something afoot?) and dalziel 😉 I’m sure I heard snoring in the background instead of the usual sniggering 🙂 🙂
I see we are still on the kick that the result of the FTT won’t make any difference.
Maybe not to the dead club, clearly that is being liquidated, so the level of debt really is pretty meaningless once it gets above a certain amount.
However the people behind the lying stealing and cheating will have a lot to answer for, and it won’t just go away. They could end up losing their assets and / or facing criminal charges.
There will be quite a few worried people right now, and that includes those who will expect to give evidence.
Regarding the Tribunal. have you eve wondered who gave evidence at that. Which former players, which former agents, which former board members, which former accountants. Eve wondered why it was agreed to hold the tribunal in private. Would you like to be the bloke who gave the evidence, under oath, and the fans found out about it.
There is a long way to go with this.
Today’s verdict was a good one.
Green did not bring Scottish football into disrepute by referring to the offer by the SPL in the draft five-way agreement (‘membership in exchange for title-stripping’).
What brought Scottish football into disrepute was that offer in the five-way agreement itself, since it was a clear attempt by the SPL and SFA to cover up what really happened with the dual contracts, to avert a judicial inquiry into it, and to conceal from public knowledge who at the top of Scottish football knew about the scam all along.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:14
‘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..’
—
Total share in issue june 2012—- 90,408,968
50% = 45,204,484.
Desmond’s : 45,903,373.
A clear majority, no?
(Sorry for delay in replying- spent a lovely afternoon in Edinburgh (with some friends who travelled through from the west) visiting one or two establishments between George St and Rose St, and discussing, with the tremendous clearsightedness and enthusiasm that a sip or three of Deuchar’s confers on even the least of us,the the affairs of the world in general, and the world of football in particular.
Not long in.)
goosygoosy says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 16:15
20
1
Rate This
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
………………
Standard Spivery for
“We have something in our accounts we need to hide until we are out of here”
Posssibly the debt figure owed to the parent Co for the assets or future provisions for Tickeus contract
Often followed up by Spiv liquidation or a refusal by Auditors to sign them off
Hardly ever done just ahead of a public share issue so it rather confirms that worthless paper will be sold instead
But it`s perfectly legal
The last set of proper accounts by a football club playing at Ibrox ,approved by an auditor
covered the 12 months from July 2009 to June 2010
======================================================================
Goosy…and what obfuscation/smoke/mirrors that set of accounts contained, particularly the Directors’ Report, ostensibly penned by Mr McIntyre.
To refresh the collective memory of the blog, reference was made to the HMRC “enquiry/investigation” in the most circuitous of phraseology.
However, whilst in full posession and knowledge of the amount in dispute, now known to be £36 MILLION, no reference whatsoever was made to either the amount or the implications for the company/club if the outcome was not in their favour.
…and the board of RFC and its holding company, MIH, was stuffed with CA’s…..!
John,
Have you added Ordinary & Preference shares.Ordinary shareholdings are as follows and these normally hold the voting rights and are what’s counted wrt ownership,I think.
Major Shareholders — Celtic PLC (LSE:CCP)
Shares in issue: 90.4m1p Ords Major Shareholders Name Type Amount % Holding
Desmond, Dermot Fachtna 32,772,073 36.250
C D Trainer 9,607,765 10.63
Bank of New York (Nominees) Ltd 6,882,007 7.61
James Mark Keane 5,909,747 6.54
Allison, Thomas ‘Tom’ E 3,357,505 3.714
Other DirectorsName Type Amount % Holding
Lawwell, Peter T 356,000 0.394
Duffy, Hugh Brian 229,694 0.254
Riley, Eric James 77,805 0.086
Bankier, Ian Patrick 30,000 0.033
Wilson, Rt Hon Brian David Henderson 3,000 0.003
Livingston, Ian Paul 505
thumbs up if you think sevco will see out the season thumbs down if not
It sticks out like a sore thumb what actually happened
Todays Statement by Green was negotiated back and forth between lawyers acting for him and the SFA
.In exchange for this Statement the SFA created a new rule called “Not Proven” and applied it to Green
,,,,,,,
I also reckon we are heading for another SFA statement along the lines of the Judicial Panel System has not worked as envisaged and needs to be overhauled. Consequently the upcoming EBT panel is inappropriate. The EBT punishment decision will now be taken in house by the SFA acting wth the agreement of the SPL(Title stripping and Scottish cups)) but without the agreement of the SFL(League Cups)
All the SFA are waiting for is the FTT ruling against RFC and confirmation from LH that the Sevco asset purchase need not be unwound even if D&P are found guilty of conflict of interest
Everything Green does is aimed purely at lining his own pockets.
Nonetheless, some of his victories can be our victories too!
I’m delighted with what happened today: in a bid to stir the Bears into giving him the Blue pound, Green accused the SPL & SFA of being bent over the dual contracts issue.
And today the SFA could not come back at him on this accusation: because Green is not stupid and he has all the paperwork to back up his claim (which is quite true BTW)!
The unimpeachable, relentless Nimmo Smith on one side, clever streetfighting spiv Mr Green on the other.
Wouldn’t want to be the men at the top of Scottish football as this starts to get REALLY messy…
A different slant on £94m of RFC debt:
http://maleysbhoys.com/2012/10/04/an-easy-guide-to-rangers-debt/
Well, who would have expected that ?
How on earth can a not proven “verdict” be given on Charlie’s comments
It beggars belief, but then again maybe not, as it now appears that the infamous five way agreement is more akin to a Faustian pact between Charlie and the nest of vipers that slithers about Hampden
Add to this the fear of recriminations that the Tribunal members may have faced, if Charlie and Sally decided to call out the dogs again following a judgement that they disagreed with
Should LNS and his colleagues find against RFC(IA)/Sevco, then I doubt very much that the SFA will be able to act impartially as an appeal body, should Charlie or anyone else appeal the findings
At a time when our game needed men with courage and vision to deal with this crisis, we instead have a bunch of sleekit timorous beasties, who are terrified of upsetting Charlie and and the inhabitants of the Peepil’s Republic of Sevco
The occupants of Hampden remind me of Churchill’s stranded whale comment after one of the Italian landings
Come to think of it, we would probably get more leadership from a stranded whale
Charlie is off the leash, and he will continue to do and say what he pleases, with no fear of recrimination
I fear things will only get worse
M8Dreamer
After todays farcial decision by the SFA to find Charles Green “Not Proven” of bringing the game into disrepute, how much longer must the real supporters of Scottish Football suffer this sychophantic treatment of Rangers Tribute Act.
It is imperative that all officials within the SFA/SPL that are compliant in this injustice, must be removed from office at the earliest possible date.
Until this happenas there is no possibility of Scottish Football moving forward for the better of the game.
goosygoosy says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 21:12
I also reckon we are heading for another SFA statement along the lines of the Judicial Panel System has not worked as envisaged and needs to be overhauled. Consequently the upcoming EBT panel is inappropriate.
_________________
Goosy, am absolutely certain that is what they want to do. It is the only course of action that can save some of them.
But do they really, really have the balls to try & pull off such a barefaced affront?
I’m not sure they are brave enough, but we’ll soon see, eh!
Just a thought…
We have CO’s staged reappearance, and his supposed attempt ‘to reach out’ to Charlie – who has in turn stated today that he will meet up with ‘our great administrator’.
Is this CO paving the way to becoming the ‘public’ driver of any League reconstruction and/or any punishment applied to the Rangers ‘Club’ ?
And if this is indeed the case, would this also indicate that Regan will be ‘offered up’ to the hordes – and get the bullet – so CO can take control and finally sort out this mess…for the good of the Scottish game of course, as nobody else has his experience/knowledge/connections.
Is Regan’s coat starting to shoogle on the peg now… ❓
In response to the change of accounting date, i would have thought to play in Europe they would have wanted to bring foraward their accounting date in order to get back into europe. quicker.
I wonder if anyone heard Andy Walker on talk sport the other night, when he was asked about Charles Green, he was very careful about what he said, but it was what he never said that was most interesting. He basically said the Charles Green will make money out of Rangers, and implied that he couldn’t be trusted, as he had played under his leadership
TSFM,
Just a thought of my own, would it be helpful to have a “weekly event roundup”
Just a factual, bullet pointed, list of events and relevant statements published here say, every Monday morning?
No editorial comments or interpretation, just facts.
I think this would help to focus us on the bigger picture and strategies being employed over a period of time. My background is in project management and I know a policy of confusion and diversion when I see one one.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 21:07
‘.John,
Have you added Ordinary & Preference shares…..’
—
Yes, , I think.
These are all included in the global figure of shares on issue. They appear in the Annual report not as separate, additional lots of shares, but only as showing which shareholdings exceeded 3% of the global figure.
At least, that’s as I ( not by any means knowledgeable in these matters) read things.
Happy to be corrected, of course, but I think DD is overall majority shareholder.
campsiejoe says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 21:25
Should LNS and his colleagues find against RFC(IA)/Sevco, then I doubt very much that the SFA will be able to act impartially as an appeal body, should Charlie or anyone else appeal the findings
——————————-
Ooh. That is a seriously forensic point, campsie, surely with some serious implications?
Well spotted.
The SFA have officially found nothing (provably) wrong in Green’s challenging the independence of the LNS enquiry. So if the SFA then hear an appeal over the LNS enquiry…
Someone get Paul McConville in here. FAST!
TRFC fans meeting ( VidmarFF @VidmarFF on twitter )reporting that
‘Green said tonight our wage bill was £30m p/a in January and is now £6m!’
john clarke says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 21:55
torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 21:07
‘.John,
Have you added Ordinary & Preference shares…..’
–
Yes, , I think.
These are all included in the global figure of shares on issue. They appear in the Annual report not as separate, additional lots of shares, but only as showing which shareholdings exceeded 3% of the global figure.
At least, that’s as I ( not by any means knowledgeable in these matters) read things.
Happy to be corrected, of course, but I think DD is overall majority shareholder.
=================================================================
I’m no expert either,John.
Trying to remember back to my high school economics class(and it’s 37 years since I left).Someone on here who’s more knowledgeable could maybe point us in the right direction.
I think that ownership is allocated by who owns the Ordinary shares.Preference shares entitle the holder to a dividend before the ordinary shareholders,hence the name,but don’t normally carry voting rights.DD may well hold over 50% of the total shares in circulation but wrt the shares that determine ownership,he holds 36%.
Hopefully someone can advise.
Observer says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 21:29
Goosy, am absolutely certain that is what they want to do. It is the only course of action that can save some of them.
But do they really, really have the balls to try & pull off such a barefaced affront?
I’m not sure they are brave enough, but we’ll soon see, eh!
——
Oh, I don’t know. I think another “Not Proven” verdict from LNS in November would do the job.
“Not Proven” – in terms of SFA Rules rather than a Court of Law? I’ve never heard anything like it in my life. Well – at least since Mr Craig Whyte had a “Not Proven” verdict returned on one of the charges he faced in April, anyway. 😉 I wonder if he’s paid his fines yet? 4% interest if not coughed within 30 days, wasn’t it?
Harry Brady piece up now.
http://www.celticunderground.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=964:how-to-finance-buying-a-football-club&catid=49:season-2012-2013&
torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 22:06
0
0
Rate This
john clarke says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 21:55
torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 21:07
‘.John,
Have you added Ordinary & Preference shares…..’
–
Yes, , I think.
These are all included in the global figure of shares on issue. They appear in the Annual report not as separate, additional lots of shares, but only as showing which shareholdings exceeded 3% of the global figure.
At least, that’s as I ( not by any means knowledgeable in these matters) read things.
Happy to be corrected, of course, but I think DD is overall majority shareholder.
=================================================================
I’m no expert either,John.
Trying to remember back to my high school economics class(and it’s 37 years since I left).Someone on here who’s more knowledgeable could maybe point us in the right direction.
I think that ownership is allocated by who owns the Ordinary shares.Preference shares entitle the holder to a dividend before the ordinary shareholders,hence the name,but don’t normally carry voting rights.DD may well hold over 50% of the total shares in circulation but wrt the shares that determine ownership,he holds 36%.
Hopefully someone can advise.
______________________________________________________________________
It depends on the type of preference shares, as some preference shares can be coverted into voting shares, but not usre about the ones he owns, but conceivably if they are convertible, then he would own more than 50%
The sooner Charles Green replaces Stewart Regan then the sooner we can all fold our tents and get on with our lives without football.
mirrenman says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 22:06
TRFC fans meeting ( VidmarFF @VidmarFF on twitter )reporting that
‘Green said tonight our wage bill was £30m p/a in January and is now £6m!’
—————————————————————————————————————————
I’d like to see how this works.
Firstly,does this include wages for non football staff of say £3m.If not then wages are £9m.If so then football wages are £3m p/a.Bollocks
i’d also like to see where £24m has been cut.If you take the likes of McGregor,Davis,Lafferty,say the top five earners,you’d only shave somewhere around £6-6.5m.That leaves around £17-17.m to be accounted for.You’d have to shed another 35 players at £500k p/a to make these kind of savings.
My nicotine free fag packet sums allow for 40 players leaving and the lowest paid is on £10k a week.I’m also figuring in top salaries circa £30k p/w.
It just doesn’t add up.
StevieBC says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 21:30
‘..We have CO’s staged reappearance, and his supposed attempt ‘to reach out’ to Charlie – who has in turn stated today that he will meet up with ‘our great administrator’…..’
————-
What further need have we of proof?
The ‘five-ways-agreement’ was evidence enough in itself of the black,rotten corrupt heart of the SFA inner power base.
The fact that CO is allowed now, ,without serious challenge ,to again openly exert his satanic influence on the SFA is simply incredible.
That that creature should still be in post is bad enough.
That he should be able again to direct the course of affairs provides all the evidence we need that there is a ‘coalescence’ of rank rotten corrupt minds bent on saving the erring club at all and any cost.
The Regans and Doncasters are but message boys. The real baddies are the COs of this world,
and the media hacks who are so abjectly submissive.
blackadder2 says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 22:12
_____________________________________________________________________
This is where it gets complicated.I know Preference shares can be what you want them to be,convertible or voting whilst not everyday issues,are by no means rare.Their advantage is you get first dibs if the company pays a dividend,at an agreed percentage,but the power lies with the folk taking the biggest risk,the Ordinary shareholders
blackadder2 says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 22:12
‘..It depends on the type of preference shares, ..’
—-
Thank you for that, blackadder.
As others have remarked, this blog and its predecessor, have opened many eyes to whole new realities that had not been in their consciousness.
I am now prompted to do a bit more research into the whole business of companies and shareholders and company reports to find out what the language actually means.
Can anyone Justify Celtic charging £29 for the hearts game this weekend? And Celtic are charging £38 for Barca away tickets anyone know how much the Spanish fan’s are getting charged, I highly doubt as much as us as their economy reads like a Sevco balance sheet.
Observer says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 21:29
Goosy, am absolutely certain that is what they want to do. It is the only course of action that can save some of them.
But do they really, really have the balls to try & pull off such a barefaced affront?
I’m not sure they are brave enough, but we’ll soon see, eh!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
That’s an interesting comment
I`m pretty sure that I am speculating correctly but I am miles away from believing I am absolutely certain
Would you also be absolutely certain that the SFA turned a blind eye to dual contracts for years?
After literally minutes of forensic and psychological examination as well as studying the details of RTC and TSFM, here is my interpretation of CG’s statement. My view in [brackets]. Apologies for the length (the first time I’ve said that) and yet again adding little to the debate. TD if you think this should be on Pie and Bovril.
“I am pleased the judicial panel accepted today that I had not brought the game into disrepute. [The panel weren’t convinced one way or the other so I’m annoyed that I wasn’t punished to allow me to go off on one again]
“What I said, I said in good faith and I was speaking up for the interests of Rangers. [Give me your money] 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. [The panel knew I was guilty but for some reason didn’t say so and I know the Scottish media will mistake “not proven” for “not guilty”. I’m just a Yorkshireman and don’t understand these things]
“It is my hope that we can all move on from today and start working constructively for the good of the game. [It is my hope that this scam works out for me and that nobody notices until it’s too late]
“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. [An extra layer of justice between sports rules and the law is confusing. I’m just a Yorkshireman and don’t understand these things]
“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 didn’t mean that earlier bit about moving on – I’ll have bloody good rant about perceived victimisation when I want to. Give me your money.]
“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. [Look, we all know that’s not entirely true but David asked me to say it. I’m not daft, though – I got him to give me a pound for it! A real pound, mind. I bit it to check. What is you say? D’you think I came up t’Clyde on an orange boat?]
“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. [The consortium I led came to the table to scam some money. The short term survival of an ersatz Rangers is the vehicle we are using, at the moment.]
“There has been an enormous amount of goodwill towards us. [The Scottish media print everything I say without question] Rangers fans have shown beyond all measure what loyalty to your team really means. [Give me your money] Staff, who have worked through dreadful turmoil in recent years, continue to go the extra mile [so that the players can stay in expensive hotels for even short trips]. Some players have stayed when they need not have [I was joking about the TUPE legal challenges earlier in the summer] 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. [I wish they would turn that goodwill into money for me] The international media are queuing up to speak to us and chart the recovery of the Club. [There they are. Next to the Adidas guys and the Disney characters. Look – there’s Ally’s invisible line, too. I’ve told Ally he can keep drawing away games until it gets to Goofy.]
“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. [Campbell got some people to put the frighteners on the SFL clubs and they caved in. I hope they haven’t budgeted on us being around for long]
“Perhaps it is now time that those people within the SPL who have been pursuing Rangers at every turn take stock. [I hope I’ll be charged yet again for bringing the game into disrepute. I haven’t played the victim enough. Oh, aye – give me your money]. 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. [I can’t believe how easy it is to become a member of the SFA and take part in the senior game. We hope to continue the Rangers tradition of having someone on the inside at the SFA, just in case. Other than that, I’d have to try very, very hard to care less for the future of Scottish football. You really are very gullible, aren’t you?]
“To that end, we will be meeting with SFA President Campbell Ogilvie in the near future. [I’m going for a drink with Cammy. It’s his round this time. Ogi! Ogi! Ogi! I’m glad he’s officially back at work – my liver’s killing me.]
“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.”
[Please ignore the trail leading back to Sir David Murray. What’s shredded is shredded. Having said that, if I want to look back and have a rant, if doing so generates some desperately needed funds, that’s what I’ll do. You’ll have forgotten this by tomorrow, anyway. Look, a squirrel/newspaper/radio phone-in show]
oldcobrokemyheartbycheating says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 22:41
0 0 Rate This
Can anyone Justify Celtic charging £29 for the hearts game this weekend?
======
My ST works out around £30 plus per game.
Information. Justification?
don’t know how many people heard SSB tonight (Thursday) . I did and the majority of the callers were so ridiculous that even by SSB standards it was a pile of pish!
There were 4 or maybe even 5 callers in a row stating that SEVCO won’t go back to the SPL early (even though the rest of Scottish football want them there!!) . The Rangers decided they would go to SFL 3. Scottish football is dying etc …. don’t know if any of the more risky lurkers on RFC websites have noticed any concerted effort for the bears to phone SSB. This was a clearly orchestrated assault on the ears and this was only within the first hour of the show. (couldn’t bear to listen any more) . The callers and panel were making an argument (and agreeing) about an issue they raised in the first place !!!
Sorry forgot there was one caller who called it right about the SEVCO debacle and was subsequently put off air for a slip of the tongue (he said F*ckin) that the host never even heard!!!
i realise it was my own fault for listening but Dawell etc do talk some shit.
john clarke says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 22:24
The fact that CO is allowed now, ,without serious challenge ,to again openly exert his satanic influence on the SFA is simply incredible.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”
We are fighting the good fight pals!! Keep going.
And again from Dolores Ibarruri et al: ” It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees”
iki says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 22:48
0 0 Rate This
I’m lucky enough to have my season book as well so am not being fleeced as bad. But finding out my friend’s plans this weekend a-lot of them are just going to miss it due to the high cost and I can’t blame them. And so the great sham of Scottish football pricing goes on.
Torrejohnbhoy, If my memory is correct, Did DD not ask at an AGM that the rules of the club be altered to allow him to own in excess of 29.9% of shares without requiring him to buy out all other shares as required under Stock Market rules existing at that time.
oldcobrokemyheartbycheating says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 23:00
0 1 Rate This
iki says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 22:48
0 0 Rate This
I’m lucky enough to have my season book as well so am not being fleeced as bad.
=======
Sorry but you have me lost about this.
I am paying more than £30 per game but your friend is being fleeced by having to pay £29 for a game of their choosing?
Not seeking an argument but I am a little puzzled.
Flocculent Apoidea says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 22:45
—
‘..After literally minutes of forensic and psychological examination..’
—
Man dear,( an expression that my Donegal mammy, God rest her soul, used in various contexts),if you are not already a script-writer or screen-play writer,you ought to be. Loved it.
Point taken yip my Bellshill grammar School mathmatics was not all it should be. My main point is the prices here are grossly over-inflated. Is that how the season tickets work out including friendly’s and european’s? If so then even the season ticket is shockingly high in my eye’s.
Cheers, JC. I wish you’d been my careers advisor.
Quite a few posters worried that SFA will scrap judicial process, take the Rangers problem back ‘in-house’ again, where they can finesse it all.
I think alot of people have kept their rage under control at the shennanigans of the SPL/SFA/Sevco etc..
They are putting their trust in the outcome of the FTTT and LNS findings. The rest is secondary and ultimately, not so important.
Should there even be the slightest attempt to seriously subvert the judicial process, I believe ordinary fans – who have remained relatively silent so far – will tear Ogilvie, Regan and Doncaster (and Ballantyne), limb from limb.
essexbeancounter says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 20:47
and what obfuscation/smoke/mirrors that set of accounts contained, particularly the Directors’ Report, ostensibly penned by Mr McIntyre.
To refresh the collective memory of the blog, reference was made to the HMRC “enquiry/investigation” in the most circuitous of phraseology.
However, whilst in full posession and knowledge of the amount in dispute, now known to be £36 MILLION, no reference whatsoever was made to either the amount or the implications for the company/club if the outcome was not in their favour.
…and the board of RFC and its holding company, MIH, was stuffed with CA’s…..!
————————————————————-
I think the popular terminology used at the time was the club had a “query” with HMRC. Every senior executive down Edminston Drive way knew the bill was £36m, but that did not deter Murray, Bain & co from inferring it was merely a minor misdemeanour. The MSM were only too willing to adopt this term in the rags. It somehow gave the bears comfort that there was no big deal regarding Hector. They probably thought that John Greig had perhaps incorrectly claimed car allowance on his tax return and Centre One was taking him to task on it.
On the CG ‘not proven’ verdict, (and very off-topic), can I share with you my fairly recent discovery that the quite good movie “The children’s hour”, starring Shirley Maclaine and Audrey Hepburn( and was not she the epitome, the very acme, of everything noble and pure and beautiful in womanhood?), was based on a true court case in Edinburgh.
An American researcher published a book entitled ‘ Scotch verdict’.
And this was an examination into the trial of two young women who ran a girls’ school in Drumsheugh gardens in Edinburgh.
A pupil at the school told her granny ( duchess of Gordon, who had the town house at 23 Charlotte Square) that she had seen her two teachers in bed together.
The granny forthwith withdrew the child from the school.
And advised all her aquaintances and friends to do likewise.
That, of course, spelled ruin for the school.
So the two teachers went to law.
They technically won.
The verdict was ‘ Not proven’.
But they actually lost, in so far as their credibility and probity were put in doubt by a ‘not proven’ verdict..
torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 22:22
9 0 Rate This
mirrenman says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 22:06
TRFC fans meeting ( VidmarFF @VidmarFF on twitter )reporting that
‘Green said tonight our wage bill was £30m p/a in January and is now £6m!’
—————————————————————————————————————————
I’d like to see how this works.
Firstly,does this include wages for non football staff of say £3m.If not then wages are £9m.If so then football wages are £3m p/a.Bollocks
i’d also like to see where £24m has been cut.If you take the likes of McGregor,Davis,Lafferty,say the top five earners,you’d only shave somewhere around £6-6.5m.That leaves around £17-17.m to be accounted for.You’d have to shed another 35 players at £500k p/a to make these kind of savings.
My nicotine free fag packet sums allow for 40 players leaving and the lowest paid is on £10k a week.I’m also figuring in top salaries circa £30k p/w.
It just doesn’t add up.
================================================
my guess (for that is all it is) is that the £6M wage bill relates to playing squad only but the £30M related to ALL staff costs
I bet that £30M included the amount DUE for PAYE/NI as well but the £6M figure doesn’t – meaning it is more likely something like £7-£9M for playing staff, another 1-2M for non playing staff – £8-11M wages
annual running cost for RFC PLC was £15M PA excluding wages, how much can green have cut that by given that there was virtually no maintenance being carried out then – what has/can be cut? being generous they might have costs down to £10M pa, so looking at costs of £18-21M for the year
Income – £11M in season tickets (less 20% vat)
£150k in walk up ticket sales (x 20 games) £3M – less 20% vat
merchandise deals – they were getting £3M from JJB, not seen any news heralding that they are getting anything like that from the Sports Direct wholly owned subsidiary Rangers Retail.
but i’ll give them £3M for it
other sponsorship/income – lets be generous – £4M for the year
that brings in £18M – just enough to break even. Though of course, green wants his £5.5M back, and there was £3M in football debts to be paid as well
gonna be close, if only someone could inject cash to the club – like through a share issue….that would save them!
I may be mistaken on this but I believe the verdict of “Not Proven” is unique to Scottish Law and not recognised in the wider UK or European context.
I wonder is there a provision for this finding in the disciplinary procedures of the SFA?
Perhaps some of the legal heads here could venture an opinion?
Not proven is the half way house verdict…which leaves wiggle room for finding others guilty who should shout their mouth off in a similar fashion!
I have said it for months…Scottish football is corrupt…
The SFA and the Scottish media appear to fully support the corruption and dishonesty we are witnessing…
The SFA did not want to punish CG for fear of angering the bears or him again. They could not find him not guilty, as CG would have been all over the TV, Radio and MSM telling everyone he was correct in what he claimed.
The solution for the SFA was to introduce a new concept of not proven. After all they have a precedent for creating new concepts, such as conditional membership.
Off topic a bit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9587937/BBC-complicit-in-tax-avoidance-for-household-names-say-MPs.html
“Being paid through a personal service company, rather than PAYE, allows the recipient to pay corporation tax of 21 per cent on their firm’s earnings, rather than income tax of up to 50 per cent, saving thousands of pounds a year.”
I wonder if this sort of scheme is used by any well-known sports presenters on BBC Radio Scotland.
Could this explain, for instance, why it would suit a freelancer presenting a show on BBC Radio Scotland to underplay the issue of tax avoidance at football clubs and the use of EBTs etc?
Can’t think of anyone who would fit the bill off the top of my head!
But if I could, and given the BBC is a semi-public body, is there any way an internet bampot could find out whether a specific freelancer on Radio Scotland is paid through a personal service company?
Jabba – too big to fail ? or just too big ?
The abject failure of the Scottish football media to properly inform it’s audience of the events and consequences of the wanton chicanery going on over at Ibrox over the last decade or more has had a devastating effect on Scottish society, particularly in the West of Scotland. It has also served, somewhat ironically, to accelerate the exponential decline of the print media which we have been experiencing since the rise of the Internet.
With the evolution of the content and accessibility of the World Wide Web, people are understandably choosing to get their news from more factual and less conflicted sources. Most right minded people know implicitly that the red tops don’t really inform them and contain nothing more than advertising, sensationalist flannel, celebrity gossip and gruesome scare stories to enthral their ever-dwindling readership. Ask any man in the (Scottish)street why he still reads them and they will usually say something along the lines of “I only buy it for the football pages”. I suspect that it is this readership (i.e. those who start reading from the back page) that has been the foundation on which it has continued to be profitable for media companies to print and sell this rubbish.
By pandering to the more bass elements of our communities (the lowest common denominators, if you will) the tabloids have managed to fill the heads of an eager and gullible public with a false sense of misguided resentment, conspiratorial fantasy and misplaced adulation. By purveying a heady assortment of innuendo, half-truths and outright lies, they have manipulated the zeitgeist to suit their own corporate agenda and, in doing so, have sown further discord and division between football fans in communities the length and breadth of the country. This deliberate polarisation (causing to concentrate on two conflicting or contrasting positions) of their readership may well ‘shift copy’, however, these editors know full well the very ‘real’ harm this can cause in local communities.
No-one likes to think of themselves as a fool, and yet, we continue to subject ourselves to the continued self-serving slaverings of the likes of Messrs Traynor, Keevins, King, Leckie et al, (no disrespect intended or implied to the other rubbish football hacks out there who did not make the list) not only on the back pages but also over our airwaves, doing all they can to undermine the very fabric of our society and our beautiful game at the same time. The quality of debate on sports radio phone-ins esp. BBC Scotland’s Your Call and Clyde’s Superscoreboard is at best puerile, at worst antagonistic and inflammatory.
Mr Traynor (or Jabba as he is affectionately known in the blogosphere) is one of the worst of his ilk. A self-righteous blowhard who sways with his own wind while inciting mistrust and feigning indignation. Mr Keevins, try as he might, with his nasally forced, over-enunciated take on the issues (pronounced ‘isss ewes’), doesn’t come close to inflicting the kind of damage that Jabba leaves in his not insignificant wake. Mr King displays the kind of arrogant, self-serving, ned-like behaviour that we have come to expect of the compliant sports media in Scotland. The less said about Mr Leckie and his unworthy rag the better.
Over the years I have heard one particular tabloid referred to many times as both The Daily Ranger and The Daily Rebel. How so ? What black arts had been employed to enable them to delude both sets of supporters of the old ‘Old Firm’ into believing this newspaper (sic) ‘obviously’ favoured the rival club. At its simplest, it is down to demographics. If your market research show e.g. that 70% of your readers are supporters of Rangers (sic) and 30% Celtic, the editorial team will ensure they publish an appropriate amount of positive (and negative) stories about each club. At an altogether more sinister and insidious level, Lewis Carroll’s Mock Turtle summed it up best “Reeling and Writhing of course, to begin with, and then the different branches of Arithmetic – Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision”. Encouraging people to think of themselves as victims, promoting triumphalism and hinting at secret agendas has nothing to do with football and everything to do with social engineering.
There can be no doubt about the role of the MSM in Scotland in bringing about Rangers (sic) demise, however, they have yet to be brought to account for this and continue to talk down the game in this country at every opportunity. In doing so they have established some new myths which seek to dictate public opinion and manufacture consent (see Noam Chomsky). These falsehoods include the following:
Only two (or sometimes one) unscrupulous individuals were responsible for the demise of Rangers.
EBTs and the failure to properly register players contracts were administrative errors.
Rangers are being picked on when many other clubs operate(d) similar tax avoidance schemes.
It was Rangers holding company which went bust, Rangers FC continues to survive.
Rangers were relegated to SFL3 (and their fans are loving it).
Rangers have been punished enough and only bogits and idiots would seek further punishment.
Scottish football cannot survive without Rangers which necessitates a complete restructuring of the leagues.
Any critical thinker who has watched the unfolding saga at Ibrox, knows all of the above to be complete fabrications. Bloggers and posters at RTC and TSFM have surgically dissected each of these statements and shown them to be at best misinformation, at worst disinformation. Yet this type propaganda continues to be promulgated and broadcast to the more sensitive and the less critically-minded of our citizens. It might cause arguments in the pubs and fights in the streets of Glasgow but it sure sells papers and makes profits for unprincipled typists unworthy of the title of journalists.
Fair and balanced ? – I don’t buy it! and I humbly suggest that you don’t either.