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!
mirrenman says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 08:20
And there you have it.
Having looked at some of the twittering I cannot remember one piece of foul language being used by RTC. Firm in his/her opinions but always civil.
However what we see from the other side of the fence is bile hatred and further name calling.
No wonder Alan Rennie wants RTC on his side if these guys were supposed to be his friends!
Murray knew that Hector was coming. Murray knew that the Club couldn’t pay. Murray wanted out. Murray found Whyte.
Lloyds knew Hector was coming etc.
That’s why Lloyds wanted their £18m, which is a pittance compared to the £700m MIH owes. Lloyds were on the inside, hence the hurry and determination.
Rangers fans I know like to go on about the debt being paid down, and it was, but they like to think that the Big Tax Case might have, or still will, go there way, so why did Whyte take it down into admin?
The answer is the bill from HMRC (£94m) would finish the Club/plc and everyone on their side knew this. Murray is a massive part of this scam and knows he was the architect of its ultimate destruction.
mirrenman says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 08:15
2 0 i
Rate This
Leggat RTC / Daily Record blog today
Just wait to Leggat hears that Gregor Kyle of Celtic TV has been
offered and accepted a job at the Daily Record.
Anybody seen any mention anywhere in the msm about the 94.5 million quid.
Apparently there was a piece on bbc scotland last night, but I’ve seen nothing since.
94.5 million quid, 94.5 MILLION QUID. Gone, stolen.
Is it in any of the papers this morning? This report was released on Friday (I think).
It doesn’t matter who you are, Joe Bloggs of the street or Donald Trump. 94.5 MILLION QUID is a massive amount of money and I want to know why this is not being reported on.
Proof if it was needed that the MSM are complicit in this sham.
Am I missing something here or is Leggat trying to say Mr Rennie is a pussy,I think its in there somewhere ,and he is right ,Mr Rennie is the cat that has discovered the cream cake with no nail in it.
Most weeks, Mr Traynor and on occassion the ‘panel’ on SSB pass coment on the vile bile that stems from many a football forum on the Internet.
I wonder how Mr Traynor et al would classify Mr Leggat’s contribution to internet bampottery?
Do you remember in the days of Spitting Image when they had the jokeline about Ronald Reagan entitled “the President’s brain is missing”. (For those who don’t know it the story was that Reagan’s brain had gone missing and they had replaced it with a walnut but only a few members of staff knew) Leggat’s ramblings bring that to mind. 😀
Leggat. What a plum. Talk about desperation. The mission to discredit RTC has begun.
(I don’t know this man’s history, but is it possible he used to work for the Daily Record and was sacked by Rennie? His piece reads like a massive case of sour grapes.)
I note that my polite request (No2) to J Maclure and Davis58 to give us their views on how they saw things panning out for Rangers over the next 3 to 5 years never received a response.
The closest I saw was in another post where J Maclure said the club would survive by spending less that it took in.
Which is fair enough but he didn’t provide any more detial on how that was going to happen.
Either you believe a penny pinching Mr Charles who put the kibosh on Ally’s signing ambitions by limiting him to Templeton
OR
You believe the Mr Charles who talks of Hotels, Cancer Centers and world domination while dressed in orange.
And of course in the background there is no apparent business plan nor true disclosure of investors and what they may seek by way of a return and by when and if there are any hidden liabilities.
The failure to respond to such a simple request tells me these guys are not interested in a real debate.
I am sure they love their club and want it to do well but if they cannot bear to discuss the potential potholes in the path ahead, then it appears to me to that their multiple postings on side issues are nothing more than the transference of their anxiety to avoid having a good look in the mirror.
Before we can help them, they first need to acknowledge they have a problem.
If they end up stewing in their own juice then we should all keep in mind that we have done all we can but our warnings went unheard.
tomtomaswell says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 09:12
Do you remember in the days of Spitting Image when they had the jokeline about Ronald Reagan entitled “the President’s brain is missing”. (For those who don’t know it the story was that Reagan’s brain had gone missing and they had replaced it with a walnut but only a few members of staff knew) Leggat’s ramblings bring that to mind.
————————————————————————————————————
The walnut could write better pieces than “pishy pants” as it has a far higher IQ
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 09:15
About the Author
David Leggat is a retired journalist. He started his career in 1966 with the Glasgow Evening Times and has worked for the Birmingham Evening Mail, the Daily Express in Fleet Street, the Sunday People, the Sunday Mail, Scotland on Sunday, the Scottish Daily Express and the Scottish Sunday Express. A fan of football, jazz and Winston Churchill, David would like a voice like Sinatra, a left foot like Slim Jim Baxter and Churchill’s powers of oratory, if it’s not too much to ask. David Leggat lives in Glasgow.
Angus, I copied this from Amazon, another bunch of taxdodgers 😉
Having been pandered to by the SFA and SPL, having had a go at just about everyone in Scottish football that have been designated ‘enemies’, having touted his dubious wares across North America and Europe, having fanned the flames both here and in Northern Ireland, having duped the punters and having cosied up to Murray, Mr Green is now being given a ‘come hither’ offer by none other than the SFA President – a man who himself has much to explain and potentially much to answer for. Where does that sit with the ‘conflict of interest’ issue? Does Mr Ogilvie have some property for sale or is the ground being laid for another attempted stitch-up?
Meanwhile our odious MSM continue with their re-hashes, side issues, deflection, feigned ignorance, puff pieces and failure to call all of this for what it really is. And, hardly a whisper about the £94M today.
At the risk of repeating views in my earlier modest contributions, the sooner that the entity formerly known as RFC no longer exists in any guise the better. It’s demise will signal the end of a nasty manifestation of a deep-rooted problem in our society; it will remove the raison d’etre of so many of the blazers, suits and fellow travellers at the heart of our game and hopefully open the doors for fresh untainted blood; and it will deprive the MSM of much of the fodder that they have lazily chomped on and regurgitated for so long. Hopefully, it could even lead to a positive change in the attitude and outlook of some elements within the Celtic support.
In my view, it is only then that we shall be able to put a clean pair of hands on the tiller and effectively address the other structural, development and resourcing aspects of Scottish football.
Whether any ‘new Rangers’ that might hereafter be established by the many decent fans that we hear so much about will be entirely up to them.
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 23:25
5 0 i
Rate This
thereek says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 23:19
———————————————————
He was systematically side-lined by Martin Bain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TBP
Would Murray have allowed this to happen if CO was doing such a good job for him ? What is it that Bain could do better for Murray than CO ? Sorry, you may not know the answer to that particular query but I think it’s an interesting aspect.
His later posts at the SFA indicate he still had value to Murray which merely reinforces the curiosity about leaving Ibrox when he did. Can’t help feeling that move is part of the Murray/EBT story but unsure how it fits exactly.
If CO does meet with Green what are the odds on him slithering off into the background the same way as Sir Walter of Cardigan.
Duff & Duffer let Green see the books. He knows were all the skeletons are.
My guess is that when the time comes Mr Charles will be wanting to take a lot of people down with him both from the Oldco and the footballing authorities.
The truth will be out some time soon
(That’s my three for today 🙂 )
Given the extremely large sums owed by the club fka as RFC you would think a degree of humility appropriate but then….
There is a heavy irony in that this club is at loggerheads with that other proud institution the BBC, accusing them in Thatcheresque manner of heavy bias against them,the phrase ‘are you for us ?’ coming to mind.
But then the great club,so respected,by its fans, is also at loggerheads with the SFA, the SPL, the highest Courts in the land, and with that other great servant of the Queen,the HMRC. These are all great and proud institutions are they not,therefore odd that there is such such misalignment with Sevconia, given its royal and loyal ancestral leanings.
Oh and I forgot to add that other great institution,Her Majesty’s Police Force are currently about to upset ‘the people’ just in time for yet another great institution, Christmas
Cold and lonely if you are an unreconstucted fan.Remedy, take a time out ,live in Denmark, and view from a distance.
Cap doffed to Danish Pastry, Yojimbo 56 and those other fine fans.
Looks like Traynor has got his old pal Leggat to put the boot in for him.
This is going to end in tears and tantrums.
Does Rennie have the balls to sack Jabba for bringing his paper(s) into disrepute?
Watch this space . . .
You know I thought for a while as I was reading that Leggat masterpiece that it was an article in today’s Daily Record. It wasn’t till about half way through, with my anger almost at tipping point, that I realised this would be to much even for the record. You can imagine my relief when I discovered it was actually a legoland blog 🙂
I have two words for you Mr Leggat…..hurting much?
For the life of me I can’t fathom why RTC blog is controversial. The only thing approaching controversy is the anonymity thing, but then it’s only controversial to the ‘baying mob’ section of Rangers fans and embarrassed ‘journalists’.
Personally I think that the reason for a lot of the MSM not pursuing this whole debacle is through fear of being targeted by the kind of thugs who wrecked Manchester over a malfunctional projector (well that was one excuse anyway). What is so difficult to understand about this?
When you live in a culture where it’s widely known that you can’t be forthcoming with the truth for fear of inciting riots, the least you would expect is for people to realise that anonymity is an acceptable request.
This IS Scotland we live in though, and nothing surprises me in the slightest.
what a bitter bitter man Leggat is .. I followed the recent link to his site from mirrenman … and was stunned that this man ever worked for a national newspaper let alone gets air time on national radio … It’s people like him that will KEEP ra’gers (in whatever form) firmly entrenched in the dark ages !!! A Disgusting Human Being !!!
Traynor should have been sacked for his defense of the racist song about the famine and his own BNP’esque “If you don’t like the way Scotland is, then go home” rant (paraphrased). Whichever Editor allowed it should have followed the Slug out the door.
Traynor is nothing but a slightly watered down Leggatt.
wottpi.
OT
As an addicted Lurker since the first day of RTC, I can appreciate your prediciment of too much time spent on the Blog. If I may say, the Blog will not survive unless posters like yourself continue to give as much time as possible to the SFM cause. Reconsider your self imposed access of three posts per day and keep many other Lurkers informed. Your Blog needs you!
Fletch is back! (both of them)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/19797111
Back in world of Fitba politics I found this little piece tail wagging dog,vested interests and political interference.
http://keirradnedge.com/2012/10/01/glimmer-of-light-at-long-last-for-gibraltar-as-uefa-executive-bows-to-cas-order/
Also tucked away at the end relevent to this site I think,under Other Decisions Item 5
5, awarded commercial rights management of centralised marketing for national team competitions to CAA Eleven.
Can those more attuned to football finance and TV deals confirm or otherwise if this is the windfall for SFA that was reported by Mr Regan a few weeks ago due to collective bargining agreement by national associations. You know the one right after Mr Regan let loose the armagheddon stories.
PS Thought a change of topic would be good for a moment or two!
But for inflexible nature of Scotland manager we might have seen Fletcher in vital opening qualifiers.Intransigence seems to be a national affliction, well at least in some ……institutions.
tomtomaswell says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 09:12
Rate This
Do you remember in the days of Spitting Image when they had the jokeline about Ronald Reagan entitled “the President’s brain is missing”. (For those who don’t know it the story was that Reagan’s brain had gone missing and they had replaced it with a walnut but only a few members of staff knew) Leggat’s ramblings bring that to mind.
====================================================================
…and when his head “lifted off” and we could see inside…!
Thanks for the memory…pure dead brilliant!
Back on Topic
So Charles Green has a meeting with Sir David Murray and decides its time he is forgiven. The quiet man of the SFA who should be suspended during this whole sad saga suddenly decides its time to to speak.After announcing that he has not met the required competencies in carrying out his duties as president for the last six months,so no bonus this year then,he then announces that he wants to meet with the same Mr Charles Green to resolve issues between club and SFA.
Anyone else got the word Go-between stuck in their head?
At the end of last season as the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse rode into town the fans of Rfc* had all but accepted their demise . The blame lay fair and squarely with the rogueish behaviour of Murray and Whyte. They were depressed and were ready to enter the acceptance stage of their impending demise. Social disorder was not going to happen ,it was unjustified.
Enter Charles Green with his cunning plan to kill the company yet save the club .
As the rule book was rewritten and Blazer and Blazers cried loudly about the demise of everyone else the MSM embarked on convincing the people that Elvis wasnt really dead at all
The black armbands were removed and the manipulation began in earnest .
The people now found themselves back at stage 1 -Denial
They were alive and well and anyone who challenged the premise were met with a wall of anger
Suddenly it wasnt Murray or Whyte who were threatening the end of Rfc* but Liewells puppets
which just about includes everyone outside the big hoose.
The anger and hatred had done a 180 ,the crimes of Murray and Whyte were on the back burner and the heat was focussed on those who contested how real Elvis really was.
There will be no bargaining ,McCoist and Green have said the titles are going nowhere
No depression and no acceptance of reality
The threat of civil disorder is now higher than ever because quite simply it wasnt their fault
it was ours
The blue persuede shoes have done the moonwalk and when it comes to playing Jailhouse rock
will they then see who the devil in disguise really is ?
I doubt it ,I just cant help believing could have been written with them in mind
as they all end up in the Heartbreak hotel
timtim says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 12:10.
…as they all end up in the Heartbreak hotel..?
tt..
would that be in the same vicinity as the retail,sport & leisure hover pitch & cancer centre..?
essexbeancounter says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 11:55
0 0 Rate This
tomtomaswell says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 09:12
Rate This
Do you remember in the days of Spitting Image when they had the jokeline about Ronald Reagan entitled “the President’s brain is missing”. (For those who don’t know it the story was that Reagan’s brain had gone missing and they had replaced it with a walnut but only a few members of staff knew) Leggat’s ramblings bring that to mind.
================================================
Reminds me also of the Monty Python sketch, men at bar talking about the front page story “President Nixon has an arsehole transplant”. His colleague points out the “stop press”, that “the arsehole has rejected him” !!
parttimearab says: Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:36
———————————————————–
to all intents and purposes a club is its fans ~ you can remove money,status or the ground but somehow the club remains and i submit that it remains due to the collective purpose and memories of the fans
take away the fans and you have nothing*
One of the great things about the human mind is that no-one can make you think something, believe something, remove things from your memory. My late father lives on in my memory, in the memories of other family and friends, but he is definitely gone (mair’s the pity). The collective memopry of Rangers fans, indeed as has been discussed, their actual thought processes can’t be governed by words or rule of law. Fairy nuff. If the team disappears, fans can remember for as long as they like, doesn’t make it exist. Wimbledon fans saw their club leave and head to MK. They started a new club, claim moral ownership of the team’s history, but it’s clearly “not the same club”.
As it stands, NewCoRangers have successfully phoenixed out of the ashes of Rangers1872, but the story hasn’t finished. The Fat Laddie has not even started to sing the last aria. If BDO find that the administration and selling off of all the good bits (sic) of Rangers 1872 for a pittance was not done in the best interest of creditors, then as I understand it, they can change history (so to speak) and roll back time…
What I am interested is can they do that piecemeal? Can they say “£1.5m for all the properties is too low, we’ll take that back but reimburse Mr Green et al the £1.5m they paid for it.” That would throw the cat amongst the pigeons shirley. Is that possible?
If Green actually did actually just buy the badge, the history and the trophy cabinet, would he stay? “Would ‘e ‘eck as like” as they say in his neck of the woods.
* Nice paraphrasing of the late great Jock Stein btw, like it.:)
Further to BRTH’s very clear statement, I suggest that It really is becoming very simple.
A) Rangers 2012 are a new club. They slipped in to the SPL somehow. They are not in Administration and have minimal debts. The FTT is an irrelevance (to them).
B) Rangers 2012 are a continuation of the club about to be liquidated but were bought out of Administration as a going concern. They are not in Administration and therefore not liable for the 10 point penalty. It is likely that the FTT is an irrelevance to them. The only thing they left behind was the debt (and the bad smell of possible corruption) which resides with the company from which they escaped. The questions needing to be answered concern the selling price and possible illegal collusions. Various authoritative ‘posters’ have suggested that the sale can still be reversed by BDO. That fact (that it can be reversed) is beyond my competence to comment upon.
Phoenixism questions may arise with liquidation. These questions need to be addressed – but will anyone do so?
C) The FTT finds for Rangers (oldco). This means that the debts of the liquidated company are less and the oldco will have a defence reference ineligible players (a weak defence, but a defence).
D) The FTT find for The Tax Man. This means that the payments made were taxable payments to those receiving EBTs. With regards the SFA case against Rangers (oldco), the ice becomes very thin indeed at this point. The SFA do not require any further investigation. If these payments were not declared, the players were ineligible. They can argue that this was an error in there understanding of the situation. This may diminish their culpability but it would not alter the eligibility of the players.
So where does that leave the SFA et al? Notwithstanding the conclusions reached by Nimmo, Hodge and Hector, the SFA either have or have not been informed, in accordance with their ‘rules’, about payments made to players. If they have been informed and the payments are legal, then Rangers Whatever are in the clear – it is the SFA who have questions to answer. If payments were made and not declared then the tax position of these payments matters little to the SFA with regards eligibility to play. As for the SFA knowing or not knowing about payments that their ‘rules’ demand – this is not a matter for N,H&H, it is purely a SFA matter. I suspect that hey already know the answer to this question – or, at least they should know!
I can fully understand why the Football Authorities have avoided becoming involved in legal matters. This is a sensible position to adopt. But what I cannot understand is why they have avoided making decisions on their ‘rules’, ‘rules’ upon which only they can make pronouncements, even if the COS can be approached afterwards.
Then again, maybe it isn’t as simple as all that after all?
thespecialswon says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 09:04
=====================================
The club went into administration because they didn’t pay PAYE / NI or VAT for months and had no way to pay it. Administration was the only option, liquidation was an absolute certainty because of the nature of the amounts they did not pay HMRC (and HMRC having more than 25% of the debt)
They were unable to pay their bills as they fell due.
They did that because there was no other way to run the club, it overspent by something in the region of £12m per year.
Yes the headline debt was down to £18m at one point, however the business was losing money hand over fist. Had anyone been willing to lend them more money, and no-one was, then that debt would have been back well over £30m by the end of the season. The result was they just stole the tax money and spent that.
In fact by February it had actually increased by £14m, the amount not paid to HMRC. Duff and Phelps then ran the business at a loss of £4m, and that was paying reduced salaries. So that’s a minimum of £18m additional debt.
This “The debt was down to £18m and decreasing is just rubbish”. Debt was going to go up again (without CL money) which was never guaranteed. Well played on that one Ally.
That was the basic problem. Rangers could not even break even without CL money. It was a massive loss making operation when based on domestic income. The fans would simply not accept this so the club spent money it didn’t have in order to compete.
Just a little reminder of the rule breaking which has gone down here (with no mention in the Scottish MSM.) –
“Except with the prior written consent of the Board, no member, associate member or official , may at one time either directly or indirectly:
21.1.1 – hold or seek to acquire beneficial ownership of, or deal in the shares or securities of another club; or
21.1.2 – be a member or shareholder of, or lender in any capacity to, more than one club.”
DONALD FINDLAY, while chairman of Cowdenbeath FC owned 9900 shares in Rangers.
JAMES BALLANTYNE, while chairman of Airdrie owned 568 shares in Rangers.
CAMPBELL OGILVIE, while senior manager at Hearts owned 3505 shares in Rangers.
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/potential-conflicts-interest-heart-scottish-football/2137
It’s a funny ole world we live in. Steal money from a bank or even worse, a train and they will pursue you to the ends of the world to administer justice.
The justice that they administer is also quite telling, more than double than you would get for a murder or any crime. Stealing money always had the most severe repercussions.
Then along came the new modern criminal who wears a suit and mingles with societies elite.
They still do not know how to deal with this type. Be it a banker or a football chairman they embezzle, steal, cheat and rob the establishment without ‘fear or favour’ knowing that their peers will come to their defence.
We are watching
historycorruption in the making.As I understand it, the Nimmo Smith inquiry, having been commissioned by the SPL, will only deal with possible cheating for league titles, not cup competitions: that is correct, no?
It seems that the SFA will only become involved as the appellant body and this is unlikely to happen as neither of the two “Rangers” recognizes the authority of the NS inquiry!
So what do we think the response of the SFA will be if the NS inquiry finds against Rangers? Will they then announce their own inquiry? And what howls of “punished enough” and “waste of money” will we hear then from the MSM?!
Or do we think the SFA is competent to simply assume from the Nimmo Smith findings that there has also been cheating in the cups and strip these without further investigation? Which sounds rather open to challenge…
The relationship of the SFA to this inquiry does seem murky.
Traynor aka Jabba, and Leggat, aka p*sh stained alky, make an interesting double act. As an exercise in literary criticism their respective recent articles could frankly have been written by the same hand. Either they are one and the same or Traynor is heading for the outer reaches of the blogosphere faster than maybe he realises.
Their articles, as they are phrased and framed, have numerous similarities. The rhetorical use of “haven’t we” “didn’t they” “that would be wrong wouldn’t it” as conditional little rhetorical devices to align themselves with the readership the article is really aimed at i.e.the TRFC fellowship.
Apart from similarities in style, the agendas aren’t really that different. Attack anyone who wishes to have TRFC and RFC’s affairs investigated; drag any other club into the firing line (esp CFC); be poised to trip out the PR line and the spoliers and the distraction stories just when the heat might be about to be turned up.
The only disparity is Leggat attacking the Daily Ranger’s editor while Traynor is currently that newspaper’s star reporter. Although he does then go on to praise the crusading role of the DR in exposing the “rangers saga”. A parallel universe indeed!
We are truly failed by the press we have and if it wasn’t for sites like this we’d be left with the press we deserve.
Also strikes me that some have spoken of TRFC – if they are deemed liable for oldco’s punishment – being kicked out of football for a while.
But that would have to be via the SFA taking their membership away and, again, this does not seem to be a possible outcome of Nimmo Smith concluding an investigation on behalf of the SPL; no matter how damning his findings!
No wonder the SFA don’t know what statements to issue and no wonder they are considering opening negotiations with TRFC through Campbell Ogilvie.
They are more scared of what NS is going to find than Charles Green is, that’s for sure!
Observer 13.16
Thank you for that clarification on Nimmo Smith which is of course very relevant to my 12.29 rant demanding that the SFA/SPL give judgement. I had forgotten that it was the SPL who set up that particular enquirey. From what you say I take it that the SPL could rule immediately on League Titles but not Cups. The SFA would then have to decide whether or not NS’s report could be accepted by them knowing that CG had said that he would be doing a Lance Armstrong (Lance is innocent, Lance is innocent!!) and ignoring accusations. and knowing that if they did accept NS, Green would appeal. He does a lot of appealing for such an unappealing man! I believe that Green would appeal against any ruling that went against Rangers Whatever – so it doesn’t really matter other than, who pays for the appeal. Could it happen that yet another Judge made decision could be reversed?
What are the odds on more delays (on all judgements), more acrimony and more obfuscation?
Ah, Mr Ogilvie….
Your appearance from hibernation has reminded all of us to simply ask ourselves why you are still employed in your current position. If, as you admitted during your interview / press release, you feel you cannot do your job properly due to your past connections with Rangers, then simply resign as your own words point heavily towards being compromised. Easy and, dare I say it, almost honorable.
The fact no member of the press followed this up and he was given a free ride comes as no surprise.
http://m.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/main-points-of-duff-phelps-report-to-rangers-creditors-1-2558839
Observer says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 13:16
So what do we think the response of the SFA will be if the NS inquiry finds against Rangers?
————————————————————————————————–
If the NS inquiry find that player have been illegally registered and hence inelligable to have played in any match,then the SFA finds itself in backed into a corner. SFA rules on player registration are just versions of UEFA and ultimetly FIFA’s If the SFA accepts NS findings then it must register all matches invoving inelligable players as 3-0 defeats for RFC as was. Ipso facto cup titles removed
I would be more intrigued to find out what SFL will do. Have they not said they will not be removing titles no matter what. Does that not leave the league cup competition open to questions of integrity. Not only for past results but future competition and not only in the league cup.
A precedent would have been set! A club could argue that it was allowed to play anyone it wanted registered or not.
A blatant disreguard for their own rules (the SFA having accepted players not eligable to compete) could not be tolerated by higher authority. There would be civil war between the bodies. Unless of course SFA/SPL/SFL all amalgamate.
Peace in our time
thereek says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 09:53
2 1 i
Rate This
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 23:25
5 0 i
Rate This
thereek says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 23:19
———————————————————
He was systematically side-lined by Martin Bain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TBP
Would Murray have allowed this to happen if CO was doing such a good job for him ? What is it that Bain could do better for Murray than CO ? Sorry, you may not know the answer to that particular query but I think it’s an interesting aspect.
His later posts at the SFA indicate he still had value to Murray which merely reinforces the curiosity about leaving Ibrox when he did. Can’t help feeling that move is part of the Murray/EBT story but unsure how it fits exactly.
_______________________________________________________________
As a Hearts supporter I’ve long wondered just why CO would leave Rangers to take up a post with Hearts, a move, I have to admit, that was not upward. Since first hearing of the Rangers Tax Case, I’ve since had the thought that it was all part of the plan to move CO into the SFA where he could serve Murray in his cover-up. The move to Hearts was by the way of distancing Ogilvie from Rangers (not that it was ever going to fool anybody). At the time of his leaving, Murray clearly didn’t envisage the turmoil ahead, and so Ogilvie’s usefulness had to be put on the backburner leaving him to try to influence others, Regan etc, while taking a back seat.
I’ve no evidence of this, of course, but think it kind of makes some sense now we have a better idea of what was going on in Ibrox at the time of Ogilvie’s departure. Any apparent spat with Bain could well have been orchestrated as a further distancing of CO from Rangers.
So Charles Green says that rangers will not appear or take any part in the Independent Commision inquiry. If found guilty,and then they appeal, they will surely lose any credibility(no laughing at the back) they have left.
since its a bit of a quiet day… anyone any thoughts on the alleged payments to Scottish Football clubs as claimed in Bluff & Pelts report?
I am certain that whilst this is robustly claimed by the Administrators I cannot recall any written agreement (between Newclub/ Oldclub and SFA) that would give football creditors such a preference!
exfallhoose2012 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 13:40
—————————————
On the face of it, it seems rather curious that the Nimmo Smith inquiry was called by the SPL and not the SFA – the latter would have seemed the more logical option, since an SFA ruling could surely then be acted on by the SPL and the SFL and so the expense and time of only one inquiry would be necessary.
However among the SFA’s punishments (though not the SPL’s!) for serious misdemeanours is withdrawal of membership ie: expulsion from all football.
And of course, there was the possibility that Nimmo Smith – had he been delivering his findings to the SFA rather than the SPL – might have recommended that specific sanction.
My guess is that the radio silence from the SFA/the offer of talks by Ogilvie etc indicates the current desperation of the SFA not to have to follow up a damning verdict by the NS inquiry by an inquiry of their own which tells them to kick ‘Rangers’ out of Scottish football.
It is also why I suspect they will in the near future drop the whole ‘independent judicial tribunal’ system and take it all back under their own control: note that Mr Traynor has recently been pushing this very idea with some fervour. Purely on the basis of costs, of course…
allyjambo says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 13:51
thereek says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 09:53
———————————————————————————————————————-
Bain’s mission was to oust Ogilvie. How much Murray was behind that I don’t know.
It’s my opinion that Bain was prepared to dirty his hands in the black arts more than Ogilvie
was. If you have ever read the original L’Equipe story about the Bain holiday home and his
Monaco bank account you get some sense as to what Bain was prepared to do for Murray.
I believe Ogilvie would not have been prepared to involve himself in that type of transaction.
partly the reason for asking, is that I believe there were substantial monies due to HMRC for players liabilities (Tax PAYE/NIC etc).
Now, if I am not mistaken, whilst the players themselves were not the miscreants, many still play (and one presumes are still taxed) by what claims to be the “SAME *CLUB”
If Mr Green is reading, perhaps you should change your analogy to Jaffa Cake *Club (not for what may now appear to be the obvious reasons perhaps) instead of Kit-Kat *Club.
You may not have your cake and eat it, but you can’t tax CAKE……. or can you? 😉
allyjambo says:
As a Hearts supporter I’ve long wondered just why CO would leave Rangers to take up a post with Hearts, a move, I have to admit, that was not upward.
_____________________________________________________
AJ, even as a Hibs fan, I disagree! Moving from Rankgers to Hearts definately was a moral step up!
________________________________________________________________________
Since first hearing of the Rangers Tax Case, I’ve since had the thought that it was all part of the plan to move CO into the SFA where he could serve Murray in his cover-up. The move to Hearts was by the way of distancing Ogilvie from Rangers (not that it was ever going to fool anybody). At the time of his leaving, Murray clearly didn’t envisage the turmoil ahead, and so Ogilvie’s usefulness had to be put on the backburner leaving him to try to influence others, Regan etc, while taking a back seat.
I’ve no evidence of this, of course, but think it kind of makes some sense now we have a better idea of what was going on in Ibrox at the time of Ogilvie’s departure. Any apparent spat with Bain could well have been orchestrated as a further distancing of CO from Rangers.
___________________________________________________________________
i agree with your theory, and it’s one I have advanced myself in previous threads. Assuming this was all part of a long term plan by SDM to ditch the debt and get clear of the mess, putting CO in place at the SFA was vital. And providing some “distance” by not going straight there was also vital.
There are no coincidences in this affair, just as there are not in any such scam.
I don’t for a minute believe that Hearts were in any way connected to the scam of course . They just thought they were getting “Football’s Greatest Ever Administrator (insert wee trademark symbol here)”.
ttm1961 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 14:01
So Charles Green says that rangers will not appear or take any part in the Independent Commision inquiry. If found guilty,and then they appeal, they will surely lose any credibility(no laughing at the back) they have left.
…………………………………………………………………………………….
They have no intention of making an appeal after being found guilty, but by refusing to take part or acknowledge they are getting the blind faithful in the bears to join in with the siege mentality of,,,,
We will always be Rangers, we do have 54 titles, we are the most successful club in the world, we dont care what anyone says, everyone hates us, its all a timmy conspiracy and most importantly WE WILL BUY SHARES in the club/company/business/project/investment plan/ SCAM!
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 14:12
You may not have your cake and eat it, but you can’t tax CAKE……. or can you?
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/vfoodmanual/vfood6260.htm
chris shields (@chrisshields10) says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 13:48
0 0 Rate This
If the NS inquiry find that player have been illegally registered and hence inelligable to have played in any match,then the SFA finds itself in backed into a corner. SFA rules on player registration are just versions of UEFA and ultimetly FIFA’s If the SFA accepts NS findings then it must register all matches invoving inelligable players as 3-0 defeats for RFC as was. Ipso facto cup titles removed
——————————————-
I don’t disagree with any of that in theory but – at the risk of sounding like a stuck record! – NS is not reporting to the SFA. That seems curious to me & I think it indicates the scheming that is going on behind closed doors.
The SFA doesn’t worry about stripping trophies, nor does Charles Green, or anyone except the fans; (as it always has been) is how to avoid being forced to expel Rangers from Scottish football.
Why does the SFA through CO desperately and urgently need to talk to Charles Green?
I can think of two things they need to impress upon him:
A. Do not appeal the findings of Nimmo Smith. Not because it wld totally contradict your non-recognition of that inquiry & make you look stupid (It would). But because the appeal would be heard by the SFA and we do not want to hold any official, independent SFA inquiry into what Rangers did.
B. If, after NS, we summarily withdraw Scottish cups, do not appeal that either, not at the CAS or the law courts. Because the basis of yr appeal would be that we had not followed our own processes and called an independent judicial inquiry into RFC’s participation in those competitions. And CAS or COS might instruct us to hold that inquiry.
And either of the appeals above, leading to an independent SFA inquiry, might well lead to us being forced to withdraw yr membership.
That’s my guess as to what C. Ogilvie urgently wants to tell Mr Green
Tallboy
“I believe Ogilvie would not have been prepared to involve himself in that type of transaction.”
————————————————————————
But he was prepared to:
– Be paid by EBTs.
– Promise Millar that if he bought Rangers there would be no further punishments and garaunteed SPL football.
– Retain shares in Rangers while being employed by another club.
– provide Rangers with a European licence without them having the appropriate accounts.
– Move heaven and earth via league reconstruction to ensure a quick return to the SPL for his beloved Rangers.
– state that he was indeed conflicted, but wouldn’t resign.
– state that he can’t do his job at the SFA, but still refuse to resign.
I actually agree that he shouldn’t resign. He should be sacked, denounced as ‘not fit and proper’ and never allowed to hold down a position in football ever again.
Oops: my second sentence above shld read:
“The SFA doesn’t worry about stripping trophies, nor does Charles Green, or anyone except the fans; the SFA’s fundamental concern (as it always has been) is how to avoid being forced to expel Rangers from Scottish football.
wottpi says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 09:16
I note that my polite request (No2) to J Maclure and Davis58 to give us their views on how they saw things panning out for Rangers over the next 3 to 5 years never received a response.
————————————————————————————————–
Well my apologies for not responding to your post earlier, I believed I was banned.
I would suggest that lowering the costs and improving the income revenue is usually a good start from a business perspective..
Rangers have been doing this for the past few years but now it is imperative that we balance the books. We are certainly not the only club, that was in debt and you have to wonder how other Clubs, Hearts, Aberdeen, etc will survive.
For a Club to be operating in the 3rd division and getting home crowds of say 20-48k is more than sufficient to meet cash flow. Our wage bill, the largest liability has been slashed, Ok so has our season ticket income, but it is still a better ratio than when we where in the SPL.
The additional benefit to the Scottish game which you are are so rightly concerned about is that each away game is sold out. You may not accept this but Rangers in the 3rd division is giving not just ourselves but every provisional club in the SFL a huge boost financially.
What Armageddon.
Observer says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 14:39
Oops: my second sentence above shld read:
“The SFA doesn’t worry about stripping trophies, nor does Charles Green, or anyone except the fans; the SFA’s fundamental concern (as it always has been) is how to avoid being forced to expel Rangers from Scottish football.
—————————————————————————————————-
Ok so if you where on the professional board of the SFA, what would be your suggestion?
I’m a long time lurker and lover of both RTC (oldco?) and SF Monitor (newco?). Every day has become a school day and I bow to the superior knowledge of many who post on here.
Last night on Twitter @padrepio1916 posted a snapshot of the company ASDFGHJKL Ltd. I recall this being listed on here as one of Charles Green’s companies. Anyhoo, interestingly the previous names of this company are listed as RFC 0712 and RFC 2012. Does anyone have any idea what might be going on here? Why would Chuck want to be connected to the old rangers who are about to be investigated by BDO?
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick completely?
Sorry I can’t post links, on phone and new to WordPress!
192 🙂
doontheslope says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 14:36
————————————————————————————————————————–
doontheslope, I’m not an apologist for Ogivie. I completely agree with your analysis of him.
I’m only saying that Bain’s activities on behalf of Murray went further than Ogilvie was prepared to go.
Have you read the L’Equipe story about Bain and Stojic?
Observer says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 14:36
==============================
I dont think for a minute that Ogilvie and Yorkie have not been in touch,maybe through 3rd party but there will have been contact of some sort.
There is something in the wind when Ogilvie makes an appearance and readily admits he has not been up to the job.Has a vacancy come up at UEFA/FIFA ?
doontheslope,
Spot on.No argument here.
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 14:45
Ok so if you where on the professional board of the SFA, what would be your suggestion?
==========
Your question isn’t directed at me, but I’ll answer it anyway.
If I was on the SFA Board, I would have treated RFC in exactly the same way as any other member club would have been treated in the same circumstances- expulsion. That is what is called justice, a concept completely foreign to the “Rangers Family” ,where everything is based on a sense of entitlement, rather than any concept of right and wrong. And before you ask, if CFC had come before the Board in the same circumstances, my answer would have been the same- expulsion.
BRT&H
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:
————————————————————————————————
OK so can you guys please try and establish your viewpoint, is Craig Whyte a diddy as suggested by BRT&H, or as Goosy suggests a modern day Motherwell Moriarty?
You cant have it both ways.
neepheid says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 14:56
Fine, so who decided how to punish Rangers, and lets say be pragmatic with the rules?
Professional Game Board:
Chairman: Rod Petrie (Scottish FA)
Members: Jim Ballantyne (SFL), Neil Doncaster (SPL), Peter Lawwell (SPL), David Longmuir (SFL), Alan McRae (Scottish FA), Campbell Ogilvie (Scottish FA), Stewart Regan (Scottish FA), Sandy Stables (SHFL) and Ralph Topping (SPL).
You happy to sack the lot of them? after all these are the guys that agree the best business strategy and apply tactics for the best interests of the SFA private business?
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:03
OK so can you guys please try and establish your viewpoint, is Craig Whyte a diddy as suggested by BRT&H, or as Goosy suggests a modern day Motherwell Moriarty?
You cant have it both ways.
===============================
Who is trying to have it both ways? Opinions on Whyte differ, some think he’s a chump, some think he’s a genius, some think he’s a crook. That’s where this forum differs from RM and FF- people have different opinions and feel free to express them, A very strange concept for members of the “Rangers Family”, I do understand.
TallboyPoppy,
I remember reading circa 2007 that this story had been nixed after Bain threatened to sue after a British based paper was ready to reproduce the story. a) any truth to that tale and b) is it the same story as read in L’Equipe?
So the Daily Rancid today has chosen to ignore the biggest Tax Robbery in Scottish history, (as confirmed by D&P). It chooses instead to report on ” Police chiefs in £23.8m Bonus”. That comes to roughly a Quarter of what the Dead club owes. None of the Editors at this paper are remotely interested in printing Straight forward facts re this scandal. Traynor has a puff at his
Opium pipe and rambles on for a full page of utter waffle, designed and written by our good friend “Jack” over at Media house.
Here is something to consider……..£112,000 to Media house for “Media consultancy”. Can someone explain what that means in layman’s terms? Could it per chance be Payment for twisted stories, printed in newspapers to give a completely false slant of events?
Aye that sounds just about right.
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:09
You happy to sack the lot of them? after all these are the guys that agree the best business strategy and apply tactics for the best interests of the SFA private business?
===========
I would want to see how they voted before sacking all of them, but I would be happy to sack every one of them who voted in favour of being “pragmatic with the rules” as you so nicely put it. The job of that body was to apply the rules impartially, not to be “pragmatic” in their application. They are supposed to be rules, not guidelines
Good on you for hanging around davis58. Do you have any idea what Rangers wage bill and other costs such as maintaining the stadium and training ground are? I’d like to think they are cutting their cloth to fit, something they and many other clubs need to do.
I am completely open to be convinced this is the case but there is absolutely no evidence to support this idea. I’m no longer a fan of the club but wouldn’t like to see the fans, who have invested so much emotion (some good and some bad) and belief in CG, get shafted by half truths and outright lies again.
perrywhyte says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:17
—————————————————————————————————————————–
L’Equipe story (part)
“They know some on the other hand more about another transfer carried out, August 20, 2004, always at the Rothschild bank of Monaco, by Stojic in favour this time of Martin Bain, then director financial of Glasgow Rangers (from which he is the vice-president today). Martin Bain perceived 75 000 euros plus 100 000 pounds sterling (146 000). The investigators discovered a document being marked handwritten indicating that this retro-commission would have been versed at the time of recruitment, the summer 2004, of Jean-Alain Boumsong transferred by the AJ Auxerre to the Scottish club. The police officers appear convinced that a part of the commission poured by Rangers on this occasion with Stojic was to some extent “redistributed” with Bain.”
Daily Record Story:
RANGERS FURY AT pounds 150k BUNG SLUR; EXCLUSIVE Bain house deal probed by French Murray says chief did nothing unlawful.
RANGERS chief executive Martin Bain plans to sue over claims he took pounds 150,000 in bungs during player transfers.
He was accused of pocketing the cash two years ago by a French newspaper yesterday.
Gers were involved with agent Ranko Stojic at the time in deals to bring Jean-Alain Boumsong and Dado Prso to Glasgow from French clubs.
Bain and Stojic were involved in a transaction over a property deal at the same time. French authorities are investigating the allegations. But Rangers owner David Murray said: “At no time has he acted illegally or improperly.”
Agents from the French police’s national division of financial investigations have visited Ibrox.
Furious Bain last night pledged to take legal action over the allegations in L’Equipe. The report claimed he had received payments amounting to pounds 150,000 from Serbian Stojic.
L’Equipe also suggested that Bain could find himself under investigation by French police.
French authorities have been probing deals involving Paris Saint Germain and Stojic.
Officers are said to have uncovered papers relating to two payments made by Stojic to Bain on August 20, 2004, through Stojic’s account with the Rothschild Bank in Monaco.
L’Equipe also state a decision on whether or not to investigate these new findings had not yet been made.
As part of their investigation, French police also went to St James’ Park in Newscastle – where Boumsong moved after Rangers.
The Record understands Bain has confirmed to Murray that he was involved in a transaction with Stojic – to help him buy a house in France from a player on the agent’s books.”
Statement From David Murray
“An article has appeared in the L’Equipe newspaper in France today (Wednesday, 14 June) concerning a financial transaction between Rangers Chief Executive Martin Bain and Ranko Stojic.
For the avoidance of doubt, I was made aware of this transaction in advance of it proceeding. It related to the purchase of a house in France by Martin Bain, which belonged to a player, Laurent Charvet, who was represented by Mr Stojic.
I am satisfied that all matters were carried out in the correct manner. This was a personal matter entirely unrelated to Martin’s responsibilities to the Club and at no time has he acted illegally or improperly.”
Bain did not sue. This was the prompt for the City of London Police raid to Ibrox and gather material in relation to this transaction and others mentioned in connection with the agent concerned. Harry Rednap’s dogs have yet to be charged.
Latest excitement from RM – because someone posted a link to a Tribunals results page, they’ve got themselves convinced that the FTTT has already let them off the hook.
Apologies for the length of this post, but it’s worth a read. A good display of the intelligence of the average herd of online bears …
——
Ray posts thread “The darkest before the Dawn” …
Below is your link to good news and happiness,all you have to do is put the name of Kenneth Mure QC into the box reserved for your Judge selection, or select him from the list. The result of our FTTT will appear here on publication day but not any time soon, I am reliably informed that we have no liability to answer for or to.
Interestingly for our financial wizards the learned QC has never chaired anything other than VAT tribunals, I trust you can work it out from there. It will be interesting to see how Lord Nimmo’s panel extract themselves from having to pre-empt a court of record, very interesting.
http://www.financean…px/default.aspx
Gillette:
So you saying the tax case has went our way ? Just the way you said you are reliably informed of no liability
SectionredHMS:
Ray,it’s late and I’m thick as f*ck when it comes to tax or legal speak,could you paraphrase for the plebs like me.
Blueandtrue:
And as I was a class or perhaps 2 below Section then I would need the same.
Gaz92:
Agreed, too late for this sh*t, lay it out straight.
Gillette:
Get the f*ck back in here ray
Ray:
Read the OP slowly it is self explanatory, even the bit about Lord Nimmo Smith’s panel. It is becoming apparent that some prefer the inbred banjo playing f*kwit t*rrier type of news to anything positive, I will leave it with you to make up your own minds, I am sure you have checked out Kenneth Mure QC to your satisfaction, haven’t you ?
Gillette:
I’m not the sharpest tool in the box ray Even as I’m lying in bed ready to crash out reading this with one eye shut I’ll look tmrw
Sheikh Salim:
Stop being a sarky c*nt and just answer the question, are we in the clear, yes or no??
54andcounting:
So basically! our appeal has been successful and the QC that chaired it was out of his league and Lord Nimmo’s commission is now fucked in law! I think
Broombrox:
Furfuxache , the threads that cryptic for this time of night ,it should be re-titled the crossword thread , ( I’m f*kin tired , spill it in laymans terms please )
Rangers#1:
Ok reading it slowly… Nope still dont have a fucking scooby
Gaz92:
I think ray’s trying to say that Green does actually have the deeds, and he’ll be showing them off within the next 48 hours. Couldn’t be sure though.
Spanther22:
i think ray means that once a judgement comes you will find it on that page first (could be wrong) but there is a judge called Dr Khan Khan on that page
jimgers:
Hello yeas were told weeks ago we had won the FTT, i’m talking tae maself oan here at times.
Claddie:
Simples.
McClure is chairing the case
Once it’s released you can use the link to read the findings
His sources rekon it’s gone/going to go in our favour.
Nimmo GIRUY
Ritchieshearercaldow:
So we bookmark that page for the result when it’s released ? and captain Nimmo is going to pre-emt him? is that it?
Paisleyroad:
This will keep the t*rriers up all night . . . . trying to decipher Ray’s code
Ritchieshearercaldow:
If oor braincells can’t decode it their’s certainly won’t!
Bear78:
It’s not just the ta*gs he’s winding up though, I thought he might have known something definate, poor stuff
Sheikh Salim:
Any chance of providing us a link directly to what we are meant to read??
54andcounting:
He can only say this “I am reliably informed that we have no liability to answer for or to.” think about it!
Trueblue68:
I ain’t claiming to be an expert. I said i think i get what he means. They have no case?
Ritchieshearercaldow:
The OP is one big annagram…. It says F*ck The P*pe
Scott-RFC:
What liability did we potentially have to meet?
Mabawsa:
Where the feck is Bomber when you need him? WTF is the script ?
GIJoe:
OK I’ve done that and got 7 records returned between 2004 and 2006, none of which involved the Gers. WTF are you playing at?
Trueblueal:
Allow me. Ray says that Mure is the appeal judge, the result has gone In our favour and we have no bill to pay, the announcement won’t be delivered any time soon and therefore Nimmo and his mob will have to show their hand in the dual contracts debacle with no verdict delivered yet officially on the FTTT. The result will be shown on the link Ray posted when it is eventually released. I have no clue whether Ray is right or talking out his arse.
SectionRedHMS:
That makes sense.Ta.
Ray:
I prefer to think of it as the Armageddon awaiting our enemies, they are about to find out that shit really does happen..and in spades.
Mitre mouldmaster:
Ray, Any hint on if your sources said it was a complete victory, or just a majority victory?
Say the HMRC have proven 1 EBT, but all the rest have been cleared, then the SPL could still try it on. No offence, but ill wait till I see it in writing before I believe anything, but it does sound promising.
Thermopylae:
It’s about time the establishment came down like a ton of bricks on these people
Trueblueal:
If we win the FTTT we have no dual contracts case to answer. I have heard it said they are separate matters and I disagree. If we have used legit EBTs then by their definition they are not contracts, they are loans to be repaid. I fancy Nimmo knows this and the SPL verdict will be withheld until the FTTT result is known.
Gillette:
So….
If indeed we have won ” the big tax case”
What benefits does that bring us now other than a big GIRUY
It makes what Craig whyte done even worse knowing if he had paid the tax we would have been able to manage the club debt at that time as there would be no HMRC to pay
Mitre mouldmaster:
It would basically mean that the SPL would have to find us innocent.
If we win the BTC (it has to be a complete victory though, even a little bit of liability and we could be in trouble), then the payments cannot be considered contractual, therefore the SPLs charges would be unenforceable.
Nikica Jelavic:
Can anybody tell me what the hell is going on in this thread?
Trueblueal:
Ray went fishing or Ray revealed some good info. Take your pick of the two.
Trueblueal:
It would also leave the blame entirely at CWs door and if he were found to have committed a criminal offence in the takeover then we’d be shown to be the victims of his criminality and entirely blameless for what happened as a result. The SPL and SFA would have some tough questions to answer
Nikica Jelavic:
Cheers mate. Wish people would just post what they know and stop this fishing pish.
Theiconicman:
Ray went fishing I think. For two reasons:
1. He states the QC only does VAT cases yet the link he provides shows IT cases recently.
2. Ray doesn’t do good news stories.
Ray:
My bad, the learned QC is one of the most eminent experts in the field of vat dodges, you could say it was his subject, he has of course been involved in many tribunals as that is who he works for Tribunals Judiciary.
I am quite content that HMRC do not have a great record when facing him, he is known to be scrupulously fair and unswayed by government departmental politics, what you take is your choice, but you appear to confuse me with someone who gives a fuck as to what you think.
Trueblueal:
Ray have you heard from a source that we have won this case or are you projecting the result based on the fact Mure is involved?
Rfc52:
Imo! I have always stated I believe we would “win” the BTC! Its the only thing I believe SDM, AJ Jmcl and the rest on
TheIbroxPreacher:
I’ve read the OP and the explanations from other people and yet how you get that from the OP’s post I don’t know.
davis58 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 14:45
0 1 Rate This
Observer says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 14:39
Oops: my second sentence above shld read:
“The SFA doesn’t worry about stripping trophies, nor does Charles Green, or anyone except the fans; the SFA’s fundamental concern (as it always has been) is how to avoid being forced to expel Rangers from Scottish football.
—————————————————————————————————-
Ok so if you where on the professional board of the SFA, what would be your suggestion?
—————————————————-
Since you ask!
In order to protect the SFA from any hint of corruption, I would hand the examination & implementation of the rules to an independent judicial panel, ask them for instruction & then act scrupulously on that instruction.
I think they may still have to do that. But the odd current situation suggests they’re hoping to avoid it.
The prize for those in charge would be for trophies to be stripped, then a line drawn – no appeals, no court actions – & Rangers to survive.
From rangerstaxcase:
List of punishments available to SPL for RFC fielding unregistered players-
pic.twitter.com/4YJ9Lipr
Of course the Rangers Fighting Fund guys might put a spanner in the works by hiring a brief to challenge title-stripping in the courts…
And they might smell a rat if, some time in November and before the share issue, they find Mr Green saying “Eh, lads, I’m not sure this court case is such a good idea, y’know”.
Davus – did you just post the board that contains Lawwell?
How about this for the main board
The main Board consists of seven members: the Office Bearers (Stewart Regan, Chief Executive; Campbell Ogilvie, President; Alan McRae, First Vice-President, and Rod Petrie, Second Vice-President), plus Ralph Topping (SPL), Tom Johnston (Junior FA) and Barrie Jackson, the Scottish FA’s first-ever independent non-executive director.
I look at RM so you guys don’t have to, you know. 🙂
Here’s a stunner. One of them wrote to the SFA to moan that TRFC hadn’t been seeded in the Cup.
Check out the SFA response:
“Thank you for your email the contents of which have been noted.
The Club to whom you refer no longer exists i.e. Rangers FC and
therefore the rule highlighted by you cannot be applied.
The newco club, The Rangers FC, as you know operate under the auspices
of the Scottish Football League Division 3 and, as a consequence of
their position in that league, enters the competition in Round Two.
Thank you for taking the trouble to write”
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=238906
Har har har har. As you can imagine, they’re a bit grumpy about that one. 🙂
angus1983 says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:33
Surely this post should not have passed moderation due to the profanities it contains?
exiledcelt says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 15:37
Yes but look who are the professional board.
Go look at their website it is quite clear.