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!
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 presenters on BBC Radio Scotland.
Could this explain, for instance, why it would suit a freelancer 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 who is using a personal service company at Radio Scotland?
Sorry for double post. The first one froze and I presumed it was lost.
raycharlez says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 01:46
is there any way an internet bampot could find out who is using a personal service company at Radio Scotland?
————–
The BBC is not entirely covered by the Freedom of Information Act – to allow them journalistic leeway, I believe – but I think nuts n bolts stuff like how they remunerate employees would be covered by the Act.
Just email them with yr question and add “I request this information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act”.
They certainly have a legal requirement to respond to such a request.
hope this helps a bit!
Clyde SSB Panel today were shocking, they were pretty unanimous that basically “Rangers” have taken their punishment by going down to SFL 3, “Rangers” fans and staff/players are all happy starting in SFL 3, the SPL is in crisis without “Rangers” and will soon the SPL Clubs will be BEGGING “Rangers” to grace the SPL.
And the way they just casually twisted, distorted and ignored basic facts the entire show is astonishing.
They will never learn.
raycharlez says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 01:46
————————————————————————————————
Companies like Skoosh Independent Productions Limited (SC203461) are perfectly legal ways to channel freelance earnings, even if you only own one per cent of the share capital. Nothing to see here.
@Humble Pie. Fantastic post. I should have read current posts before posting myself!
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/sfa-delivers-not-proven-verdict-to-charles-green-over-disrepute-charges-1-2563687
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/bobby-brown-backs-rangers-renaissance-after-kind-draw-in-league-cup-1-2563914
Taken without unkind permission from RTC, What is rangers tax case all about? march 2011.
So a total of about £48m has been paid into the trusts. The amount of tax due is actually open to debate. Some argue that this money should be treated as “post-tax” earnings. In such a case, Rangers would owe approx £32m in tax + £10m in NIC (Total of £42m). If this amount is treated as pre-tax earnings, the amount owed would be about £19m in PAYE and approx £5m in NIC (Total of £24m). My personal view is that this will be ruled as being “pre-tax” earnings and that the core bill payable will be about
Chris again i appreciate and respect your opinion, and certainly rtc’s as well. I don’t bother with trolling, i even manage to ignore it, maybe if i had done some leg work in the first place i could have prevented anyone from ever having to peruse my inane utterances. I guess I am just a hardcore post-tax earnings subscriber, time will tell.
spanishcelt, you are right, a nominal fee is paid on the ebt, probably reducing the final figure owed by a million or two. I find it hard to believe myself that any money will ever be recovered.
Quite looking forward to the chase though!
Regards.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sfa-deliver-not-proven-verdict-on-charles-green.1349365950
Just noticed I cut short RTC’s estimate of 24m.
From RM – seemingly being discussed as not a total wind up.
Maybe Charlie does have the Midas touch after all? 🙄
===============
“Meeting tonight
3 kit sponsors on the table, adiddas, puma and warrior. Nothing signed yet.
Apple want the naming rights to ibrox.
Edminston house to be turned into ticket office and rooftop cafe.
Surrounding areas to include hotel and cancer centre.
The wage billis down from 30millionto6 million.
The budget for the return to the top in a reconstructed league has been discussed with the manager.
Rangers are debt free.”
===================
That’s all well and good but what about a casino…and a hover pitch… ❓
Ok I can’t help myself…
I am struggling to work out the shared values of Apple and Sevco.
One of them is the most valuable company by market cap and has at least $100Bn in cash, (yes billion).
It is a hugely successful organisation, with a celebrated history – with a truly global, aspirational brand and a global customer base.
It is most certainly tax efficient, but does pay the tax due.
Sevco are none of these things.
The only ‘selling’ point is that Ibrox begins with an ‘i’.
Charlie boy must have a sense of humour!
Must be a wind up. 😉
StevieBC says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 03:53
Are you sure it was Apple and not Orange ?
Humble Pie says: Friday, October 5, 2012 at 04:02 1 0 Rate This
StevieBC says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 03:53
Are you sure it was Apple and not Orange ?
====================================
Ah yes, could be a better fit with Orange!
‘Orange Ibrox’ might get a welcome response from the Sevconians. 😉
But if they where sponsored by a mobile phone company I would prefer the stadium to be named the ‘Pay As You Go’ stadium – just so they don’t ‘forget’…again…
raycharlez says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 01:46
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 presenters on BBC Radio Scotland.
Could this explain, for instance, why it would suit a freelancer 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 who is using a personal service company at Radio Scotland?
======================================================================
Ray…you not really far off topic.
This “personal service company” ruse is at the heart of the systematic abuse of our personal taxation system in the UK, but I will not rant on any further this time of a morning, since I have seen it abused so much!
The BBC have been actually encouraging this scheme in the last few years or so since it allows them to say that that they have cut the “establishment numbers” whilst doing the reverse, as well of course, as saving Employers’ National Insurance.
There is probably an “undercurrent” amongst the churnalists/presstitutes in the MSM not to draw too much attention to this, lest they end up paying more tax, through PAYE, and the resultant increase in NIC on both sides.
The Rangers new team bus which is being sponsored by Christian Aid for season 2012/2013
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTynZAlY3a-Y3PRBClGvUUfyq4g1RRaV8s-eIpXG2VJjcuLpn5cNupikabz
Very poor publicity for the BBC on tax avoidance today, while two wrongs do not make a right it makes there reporting fall into the hypocritical vein.
john clarke says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 00:12
Audrey Hepburn( and was not she the epitome, the very acme, of everything noble and pure and beautiful in womanhood?),
——
Yes.
Her, and Rosamund Pike.
🙂
Humble Pie says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 01:43
Sir, for me that post goes into the top 10 posts in RTC/TSFM history. Be proud.
Their even.
Viewing from a far gives you a certain perspective.
Not having that everyday work banter about ‘ra fitbaw’ also allows you to take stock.
Espcially so when the people around you view Scottish football with a mixture of contempt, puzzlement and generally adopt the tone of someone discussing a disabled relative when ever the conversation turns to football in jock land.
There’s a lot of hurry up and wait going on. Patience is a virtue. Like the ad says, good things come to those who wait.
“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.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I don’t understand the argument advanced in the above statement. Many people have one-man limited companies to operate freelance. The company (not the “recipient”, whatever that is) pays corporation tax, true.
The company then pays the individual in two ways, firstly salary which is subject to the normal tax regime.
Secondly, the company pays dividends to its shareholder, subject to the normal tax regime, with the exception that National Insurance contributions are not paid on dividends. It was always this dividend element that was the advantage of operating as a freelance contractor through a limited company.
HMRC did its best to rule out the dividend benefit to contractors via IR35 which more or less treats a contractor’s earnings as if you are an employee, especially if you are a contractor working long-term for the same company. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ir35/
StevieBC says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 03:33
15 0 i
Rate This
From RM – seemingly being discussed as not a total wind up.
Maybe Charlie does have the Midas touch after all?
===============
“Meeting tonight
3 kit sponsors on the table, adiddas, puma and warrior. Nothing signed yet.
Apple want the naming rights to ibrox.
Perhaps the minute-taker decided to give the potential sponsors a “category name” rather than list out all the options… Cox’s Orange Pippin, Royal Gala, Granny Smith, etc?
Richard Wilson’s in today Herald and on the front page of the Sports Section reads.
“Green Calls for amicable relationship after being cleared”
The fact of the matter is he was not cleared, there just wasn’t enough evidence to find him guilty or not guilty. There have been many Not Proven verdicts in Scotland such as the infamous murder trial case against Paul Ferris which was a Not Proven verdict but was he innocent or guilty? I know what I and most of the population of this nation thought!
Mr Wilson get your facts straight
With the imminent partnership between Apple and Sevco I’m hearing that Ibrox will be renamed Iprod.
Remember where you heard it first!
Here’s another version of the bears’ papal audience with the new messiah. Again, no mention of the casino or hover-pitch – very disappointing indeed!
————————————————–
“It was clear that the business team in place have looked at every piece of expenditure and looked at how they can keep money in house
Moving shop into Edmonston building and creating a mega store
Having a bar / cafe area
Using existing shop as a new ticket office
They are speaking to three shirt manufacturers Puma – Adiddas and Warrior
Developing surrounding area, British land and Ardmore both developers with track records were mentioned
Plans showed viable and feasible businesses
They also discussed a media deal which if was to come to fruitition – would be fantastic
Renaming the stadium and M#%#%# park were mentioned
Wage bill previously £30 million – now £6 million
Discussed how team will grow to required size as and when required
Discussed SPL and reiterated that he will not be taking Rangers back into SPL
Fans asked if BBC had apologised to Ally about distasteful video befor Motherwell game
They have not
Discussed ” fans ” talk of boycotting away games to SPL clubs
He said he was against that as our players need support when we are away from home
( personally I say support the team but buy feck all from their food outlets )
Some things were said which I think should be kept off the forum until announced in papers”
From the Scotsman piece:
—-
He welcomed the outcome of yesterday’s meeting at Hampden, saying: “I am pleased the judicial panel accepted today that I had not brought the game into disrepute.”
—-
I think a “Not Proven” verdict means that they accepted nothing of the sort.
You’d think they’d have realised that coming to this conclusion would prompt Mr Charles to spin it as a “Not Guilty” which would be lapped up by the bears.
Or maybe they did.
Meanwhile, the League Cup.
Four home ties so far for TRFC – East Fife, Falkirk, Motherwell, Caley.
Managers of the opposition – Durie, Pressley, McCall, Butcher.
These four managers have one team in common in their playing careers. Probably not worth mentioning, eh?
bellshilltim says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 09:40
With the imminent partnership between Apple and Sevco I’m hearing that Ibrox will be renamed Iprod. Remember where you heard it first!
—————————-
Yes, I remember – it was a cartoon on ‘Private Eye’ a number of years ago depicting Fr Paisley using a mobile phone.
This is quite a good explanation and mentions that footballers also use service company arrangements. However, it is not clear on how the money gets from the company account (subject to corporation tax) into the individual’s account. It is at this point that the income tax becomes payable.
http://tinyurl.com/76uxt6c
Tommy says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 09:41
Here’s another version of the bears’ papal audience with the new messiah. Again, no mention of the casino or hover-pitch – very disappointing indeed!
———————————————————————————-
Someone mention Casino
leggoland2.blogspot.co.uk/
Extremely strange that the SFA should use such an expression, one reserved for Judicial affairs.
“As a matter of logic – given one is presumed to be innocent unless and until one
is proved beyond all reasonable doubt to be guilty – there can only be two
possible verdicts and, for the sake of clarity and simplicity, it would be best to use
only two terms. There is no room for a begrudged verdict somewhere between
established guilt and unestablished guilt. “Not guilty” and “not proven” might have
different connotations, but they cannot have different meanings.”
ekt1m says:
Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 23:09
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.
__________________________________________________________________________
You may be right.He had to get approval to buy The Bunnets shares,I think,as this would give him more than 29.9%.
Given that Mr Green is working tirelessly to secure additional commercial revenue streams for the club, and considering his love for the club and the fans does this mean that the requirement to ask the supporters for more of their hard earned cash via a share issue is now off the table?
briggsbhoy says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 09:40
0 0 Rate This
Richard Wilson’s in today Herald and on the front page of the Sports Section reads.
“Green Calls for amicable relationship after being cleared”
The fact of the matter is he was not cleared, there just wasn’t enough evidence to find him guilty or not guilty.
==========================================
Not enough evidence? Maybe someone on here can explain to me in simple terms exactly what additional evidence they could have had in front of them, short of a signed confession. This was a totally open and shut case, with all evidence available. So what’s the problem?
The “not proven” verdict in this matter is quite simply the cowards way out. Even if “not proven” was a verdict available to the panel within their own rules, which I very much doubt. It is now a given that Green and Sally can say whatever they like from now on. The compliance officer won’t be going anywhere near this club again, and who can blame him. How can he operate at all, knowing that he will get no backing? Unless he decides to put some “diddy team” in the dock, of course.
Clear, impartial application of their own rules is completely beyond the SFA, that much is crystal clear from the events of the last 6 months. You would think that even they could see that the more they bend or ignore the rules, the more they fall into disrepute, and the more difficult it will be to ever exert any control of the game in future. Precedents have been set, and others will demand similar treatment, and will get it, because no court in the land will support partial treatment of its members by the SFA.
And let’s remember, this organisation has as its president “the word’s greatest football administrator” or some such guff. Just as well, then, that it isn’t run by corrupt incompetents with an agenda. How bad would that be?
Put it before them briefly so they will read it, clearly so they will appreciate it, picturesquely so they will remember it and, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light.
Joseph Pulitzer, American publisher, 1847-1911
Just a wee note for Messrs. Traynor,Jackson,Spiers, Forsyth ,Wilson et al.
Wow,
What a couple of weeks.
Adidas
Puma
Dallas cowboys
Chuck Blazer
and now,the daddy of them all:
APPLE,the worlds richest company want,that’s right want,not hope to get.not are interested in but want the naming rights to the stadium.
CG,you’re a miracle worker!.
Look forward to the i.ready app(live feeds to the CoS,dual contract case,Crown Office and much more.Only £16.90p.m.)
You’ve even got British Land to look at the site(I’d be surprised if,as the UKs biggest property company they didn’t).
Many years ago I read “Rebels In Paradise”.David Lowe stated that he knew the old CFC board were finished when they started making promises they couldn’t keep.This is what’s happening here.Sooner rather than later,people,or should that be “Ra Peepil” are going to ask where the big deals are.We suspect the CG cannnot deliver.
Have any of the companies,fighting over themselves to gain a slice of TRFC said anything?.
Has anyone,especially the MSM,even asked them.thought not.
What CG does with these statements,is bring forward the day he’ll be asked to deliver.
Who thinks he can?.
I can’t see an Apple interest in things Sevconian,given that the latter may ,in due course,prove rotten to the core.
briggsbhoy says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 09:40
I’m not really convinced of the appropriateness of the Not Proven verdict in what is a civil matter. In a civil matter the burden of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities. – a much lower threshhold for the “prosecution” ro meet. Surely, essentially saying we think you did it, but there remains some doubt is the same as on the balance of probabilities we think you did it?
Perhaps Paul or one of the other lawers could explain this, or is it just legal sophistry?
torrejohnbhoy says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 10:19
stadium going to be renamed i-Brox! (stolen from CM)
“Not Proven” has been used in SFA disciplinaries before, so there is a precedent. viz: Mr Craig Whyte, earlier this year.
However, in this case I have to agree with neepheid’s statement above: “Maybe someone on here can explain to me in simple terms exactly what additional evidence they could have had in front of them, short of a signed confession. This was a totally open and shut case, with all evidence available. So what’s the problem?”
Do the SFA publish “statement of reason” thingies for their disciplinaries. It would be hugely interesting to see how they managed to arrive at “not proven”, and their justification for using that verdict.
As for Apple, it actually wouldn’t surprise me. If the correct pitch was made to their executives (who will be generally clueless about the situation), they could well see it as a splendid marketing opportunity.
Would be funny if the FPLG was involved in the tax scam at the BBC!!!
From the BBC
John Terry’s defence against claims he racially abused Anton Ferdinand was “improbable, implausible, contrived”, according to the Football Association panel which found him guilty.
A 63-page report explaining why he was banned for four games and fined £220,000 has been published.
————————————————————————————————————————-
Good to see a Football Association acting with a degree of vigour. Let us hope we see evidence of backbone on our own midden heap.
I wonder if the i-Brox songbook will be available on i-Tunes ??
Tommy says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 09:46
bellshilltim says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 09:40
With the imminent partnership between Apple and Sevco I’m hearing that Ibrox will be renamed Iprod. Remember where you heard it first!
—————————-
Yes, I remember – it was a cartoon on ‘Private Eye’ a number of years ago depicting Fr Paisley using a mobile phone.
___________________________________________________________________-
“THE I.PROD.
(the worlds most successful phone for the worlds most successful team!)
“If you think the phone’s great,wait ’til you hear the ringtones” 😆
Really Charles Green is courting the wrong company.After all Ibrox could have been renamed The Orange Arena
rantinrobin says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 11:05
Really Charles Green is courting the wrong company.After all Ibrox could have been renamed The Orange Arena
“The Future is Bright…………………………………..i.that’ll be right”
Could we be about to have the worlds first orange apple?.
I heard they were going for a joint sponsorship with the mobile phone giants and popular UK crisp company, stadium to be renamed the “Orange Walkers” stadium!!
I take it the SFA will be removing the charge of ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ from their rules as it would certainly make things much easier for everyone, including themselves. The rule itself seems to be bringing the game into much more disrepute than anyone who has ever been charged, and fined, under it. Well maybe not the rule itself, but the way it’s being applied by the governing body. If Charles Green hasn’t brought the game, the SFA, the SPL, the SFL and even the name Rangers, into more disrepute than any other person, then none of these bodies have ever been brought into disrepute in the past. Take the example of Vladimir Romanov (I know, I’m a Jambo and raise it quite often) he was found guilty, and the rules had to be changed so he could be charged retrospectively, and given the biggest fine ever handed out by the SFA. Yet, can anybody say that the SFA themselves aren’t proving every word he said to be true by their actions, inactions and downright fear over everything to do with the biggest disgrace Scottish football has ever faced. All very mafia-like! As has been said so often, it’s quite simple, just stick to the rules! Not just for Romanov, Lennon, Spartans etc but apply them to Rangers, or their successor, with equal fervour and lack of sympathy. If I was Romanov, or anyone else previously fined for ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ I’d be getting my solicitor to write off to the SFA demanding a return of all monies paid under the charge. That might be quite a fun thing to follow, Vladimir Romanov taking the SFA to the CAS, and using as his case, a comparison between the way the SFA acted against him and how they’ve acted ‘with’ Green!
Have I perhaps hit on something here, how the SFA etc seem to be acting ‘with’ Green and Sevco/Rangers but they act ‘against’ any other body they come into dispute with?
neepheid says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 10:06
and
scapaflow14 says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 10:28
I don’t disagree with either of the comments that you have made, in fact maybe I don’t agree either! So I think I’ll just sit on the fence on this one. lol
Edgar Blamm @EdgarBlamm
Apple to get Ibrox naming rights. Greatest delusional thread ever – better even than the Dallas Cowboys/Disney one: http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk…
Domhnall Iain @Domhnall_iain
@EdgarBlamm Don’t tell me… the i-Sore
allyjambo says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 11:25
‘..Have I perhaps hit on something here, how the SFA etc seem to be acting ‘with’ Green and Sevco/Rangers but they act ‘against’ any other body they come into dispute with?’
—
Hit the nail bang on the head!
It is now absolutely beyond question that the SFA as an organisation has not only lost such moral compass as it may once have had, but has also abandoned any pretence to having executive control of the administration of Scottish Football.
All for the sake of a rotten club that consistently bullied and controlled them for decades, and for a new club modelled in every respect along the lines of the old.
angus1983 says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 10:38
“Not Proven” has been used in SFA disciplinaries before, so there is a precedent. viz: Mr Craig Whyte, earlier this year.
….”This was a totally open and shut case, with all evidence available. So what’s the problem?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fear or corruption…there is no alternative..
We are dealing with an organisation (the SFA) that has become powerless to provide governence to a sport for which it is responsible for in Scotland.
There is no legal challenge that can be made therefore the authorities I’m sure have accepted they can do what they like end of.
chris shields (@chrisshields10) says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 09:51
Here’s another version of the bears’ papal audience …
——
On a slightly related but mostly OT note, I happened to find myself in St Peter’s big kirk in Rome about a month ago wondering why there was suddenly a big cheer outside. On investigating, I found that the Pope had been giving his Sunday address (albeit by broadcasting from Castel Gondolfo).
I must be one of the few people who have been at St Peter’s on a Sunday morning and contrived to miss seeing the Big Man. 🙂
My excuse is that I thought it was Saturday so I wasn’t expecting it. I plead losing track of what day it is by being on holiday. I actually argued with a guy coming down from the cupola as to what day it was. 🙂
(I’m not religious in any way, btw.)
For anyonr thinking that Apple would come anywhere near Scottish football a quick read of the following article reveals their rare UK sponsorship.
Dont be decieved by the comedy gold headline. Sometimes things just fall that way!
http://www.tuaw.com/2012/08/12/apple-may-become-the-new-sponsor-of-the-uks-orange-prize-for-fi/
Post of the month further up by Humble Pie
“Keep right on to the end of the road
Keep right on to the end
Tho’ the way be long, let your heart be strong
Keep right on to the end
Tho’ you’re tired and weary still journey on,
Till you come to your happy abode
Where all you love, you’ve been dreaming of
Will be there, at the end of the road”
makes me feel a little better – on the road to football justice
Just a few thoughts re the proposed share issue.
As discussed the other day, even if the salary bill, including £1m a year for Ally, is down to £6m then there are still a good few million to add to that in terms of the day to day running of the club, especially one boasting home gates of 40k plus.
Therefore the season ticket income and the pay at the gate money will be eaten up.
Cash is also needed to provide a return for the original investors, pay Green his desired cut and to put all the grandeous plans into action. Mr Charles does not have enough in his own kitty to keep the thing afloat and he doesn’t have a line of credit anywhere else. Therfore the only other way to get money in is to get suckers to invest.
Greens original statement in eary September said
“From the day the consortium I led became owners of Rangers we have repeatedly stated our intention to raise additional capital for the club and would explore all avenues, which may or may not include a stock market listing.” He added: “We are pleased to announce that we have now appointed Cenkos Securities to assist with our plans.”We are still in the preliminary stages of this process and will make further announcements once the club has been able to consider its plans in further detail.”
NB “may or may not include stock market listing.”
Later in the month he changed his tact
“The debts of the club need to be removed, we need to get finance into the club and I need to list the club on an appropriate exchange. Until those three hurdles are overcome, I won’t achieve anything and there is a percentage of the newly-enlarged company that will come to me once it is done.”
NB “I need to list the club on an appropriate exchange.”
However a key part of the plan was
The Rangers Football Club Ltd, formerly Sevco Scotland Ltd, stated that further details on the share issue will be released shortly but “expects that fans will have an opportunity to register their interest in purchasing shares in The Rangers Football Club in October”.
So which one is it and when.
Will the extent of the interest of fans buying shares be explored this month as anticipated and will this then dictate the manner in which shares will be offered?
Will the existiing shadowy investors and the big names being mentioned be happy with an arrangement that limits investment to a closed market of ‘The Rangers Family’? (Which really is no more than the Ticketus Deal in a different guise – Advance cash for SPL priced Season Tickets v Using cash from Div 3 season Ticket sales and ask fans to make up the difference to SPL prices via a share issue, albeit fans won;t expect a cash return).
OR
Is there a need from somewhere to ensure they do get listed on an approprate exchange?
Is Mr Charles ready to open up the books as required for a public floatation?
All in all it could be an interesting month if the FTT is announced and no progress is made on the share issue.
At some point the growling bears are going to have to start asking awkward questions as opposed to listening to BS.
Humble Pie ….. In the words of the late great Corsica …… Chapeau Sir/Ma’am
Long Time Lurker says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 09:57
Given that Mr Green is working tirelessly to secure additional commercial revenue streams for the club, and considering his love for the club and the fans does this mean that the requirement to ask the supporters for more of their hard earned cash via a share issue is now off the table?
………………………….
A lateral thought
Green has now established how gullible many ex RFC fans are
Is there a possiblity that instead of selling legal shares in Sevco, Green will offer “share certificates” in the ethereal Club “TRFC” ?
Anyone prepare to believe that the Club is not the company is surely gullible enough to buy worthless cerificates to hang on their wall
That would be a really good wheeze
Humble Pie, Terrific Post, Great Band.
goosygoosy says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 12:20
You reminded me of the story of the broker who went around buying up shares in Czarist era Russian railways. The shares were of course completely worthless. When asked by a concerned friend “Why?” he replied, “They are beautifully printed works of art, and my bathroom walls now look lovely!”
I would strongly advise Rangers fans to approach Mr Green’s scheme in a similiar frame of mind.
goosygoosy says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 12:20
==================================================
goosy – wft would anyone want to buy shares in the holding company? ffs these can go bust and lose all your money, surely much better to buy shares in the club which can never die? 🙂
Humble Pie says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 01:43
163 0 i Rate This
Superb
Humble Pie says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 01:43
Great post and a nice summation of the propaganda and falsehoods finding their way into the MSM.
I note that the latest one is that all the other teams in the SPL NEED T’Rangers.
Of course this is the usual blinkered view.
While there is an argument the SPL could benefit financially from an early return of T’Rangers (especially in relation to secruing tv deals and the like) the ones who need cash more than most other clubs are T’Rangers themselves.
Once agin the awkward questions are not being asked.
As I have said before Mr Charles might just manage to pull it off and good luck to him if he succeeds but given all that has gone before the MSM must have a duty to monitor the situation far more closely than it is at present.
Wonder where all the internationals, semi-finals and finals of cups (Scottish Cup, League Cup and ahem!, no laughing at the back……….Ramsden Cup) will be played when Hampden is closed to allow the Commonwealth Games to take place?
They wouldn’t……………………would they?
I wonder if the share certificates will have the words ‘for novelty purposes only’ printed anywhere on them like the sheriff badge I got out a lucky bag the other week?
Re “Cenkos Securities” …. I remember just after this name came up … There was a “press” release of sorts in the financials …. Regarding 4 new appointees to assist in the flotation of “Charlie’s Co” … And if I remember correctly they were …. C Whyte …. D King …. A Ellis … And another whose name escapes for the moment ….. Has there been any more to this … Anyone ? ?
whisperer18 says:
Re “Cenkos Securities” …. I remember just after this name came up … There was a “press” release of sorts in the financials …. Regarding 4 new appointees to assist in the flotation of “Charlie’s Co” … And if I remember correctly they were …. C Whyte …. D King …. A Ellis … And another whose name escapes for the moment ….. Has there been any more to this … Anyone ? ?
————————————————————
Somebody posted a doctored press release where the names of the new appointees had been changed to the aforementioned. It was a joke / wind up.
whisperer18 says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 12:55
======================================================================
Got an approximate date for that, whisperer? Sounds a bit far fetched tbh.
Here’s their releases:
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/exchange-insight/company-news.html?fourWayKey=GB00B1FLHR07GBGBXAMSM
Scapaflow
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 12:24
goosygoosy says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 12:20
You reminded me of the story of the broker who went around buying up shares in Czarist era Russian railways. The shares were of course completely worthless. When asked by a concerned friend “Why?” he replied, “They are beautifully printed works of art, and my bathroom walls now look lovely!”
I would strongly advise Rangers fans to approach Mr Green’s scheme in a similiar frame of mind.
====================================================================
When the fans were asked to contribute last time around to clear debt they declined to do so in large numbers and that was when they were asked to invest by a man who had delivered one of the most successful periods in the clubs history (albeit soon to become one of the most unsuccessful periods).
So why would the fans now put money in to Chuck’s Snake Oil Emporium Ltd? I can’t see them raising enough to clear Chuck & Ticketus. It is of course possible they may raise enough to buy a set of orange strips.
bogsdollox says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 13:17
All marketing is an exercise in applied psychology. Green is making clever use of an entirely different psychological landscape, (if I may put it that way).
whisperer18 says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 12:55
It was garbage. Made up nonsense.
New blog from Alex t on Ourhero’s roofing case
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/craig-whyte-developments-roofing-front/2861
scapaflow14 says:
Friday, October 5, 2012 at 13:21
All marketing is an exercise in applied psychology. Green is making clever use of an entirely different psychological landscape, (if I may put it that way)
Yes of course it is, but also from both sides of the divide. As Simon and Garfunkel once stated in I think it was “the Boxer”, the line ” A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”.
This is exactly the strategy that CG is tactically implementing. His verbal statements are designed cleverly for his target audience, and they will suspend (dis)belief, because they want too believe. Others, who do not wish to believe his hyperbole and bluster, will ridicule these claims, but to challenge them would make you seem naive or plain stupid!
They are never meant to be taken seriously or accurately, he throws about ball park figures, Do you believe Rangers wage bill was 60m exactly and now it is 6m exactly, of course not, so forensic analysis of CG statements, press releases, and bluster are just nonsense.