Thoughts and observations from watching and reading a transcript of Alex Thomson of Channel 4’s Interview with Stewart Regan (CEO of the SFA) Broadcast by Channel 4 on 29 March 2012.
http://www.channel4.com/news/we-run-football-were-not-the-police-sfa-boss
Introduction. I came across the above interview recently and listened to and transcribed it again as it reminded me of questions it raised then that the passage of time since has provided some insight into.
There is a lot to digest so the blog is broken into four sections. Three parts cover the Interview plus what they seem to tell us now, knowing what was not known then viz:
- Why No independent or independent element to the enquiry that became the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission. given the potential extent of the corruption at play?
- Why no effective fit and Proper Person scrutiny and the absence of real governance?
- EBTS and whether they constitute wrong doing and why that mattered so much and still does. plus
- The “hard to not to believe” conclusions about the whole exercise with the benefit of what we ken noo.
There is also an Annex at the end with excerpts from the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision for ease of reference:
The comments (in bold italics) are based on what Regan said then and what we ken noo, either as facts or questions arising from them. It is a long read but hopefully readers will be enticed by this introduction to stay the course.
In the following “SR” is Stewart Regan CEO of the SFA and “AT” is Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News.
No Independent Enquiry?
SR No
AT I’m just curious as to why they wouldn’t. With something as big as this potentially this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport, which is – a thought – and yet the SPL deem themselves fit to investigate themselves.
SR Well I think you are calling it potentially the biggest corruption case, at this stage there has been no wrongdoing proven. There is an investigation going on
AT But you would accept that potentially, potentially that if guilty there is no question this is the biggest corruption scandal in British sport.
SR There is no wrongdoing as I said at the moment and there is nothing yet that has been established as far as the club registering players without providing the appropriate documentation, so I think it would be wrong to jump to conclusions and even use words like corruption. You know there are a series of issues here. There are some footballing matters which are being dealt through the football authorities and there are tax mattes which are being dealt with through HMRC and there is to be a Tax Tribunal due to be heard as I’m sure you are aware in April.
So even before the investigation got underway Mr Regan was saying that it would be incorrect to assume that any wrong doing took place in terms of the registration process and use of ebts. He later expands on this point in relation to EBTs as a legitimate tax arrangement device. Given that the FTT did not rule until November 2012 that the ebts issued under the Murray Management Group Remuneration Trust (MMGRT) were legal then this stance by Mr Regan appears justifiable at the time of interview – but more on that later.
AT I’m just wondering why at no stage anybody seemed, or perhaps they did, to think we need an independent body coming in this is big this is huge, potentially we need somebody from the outside or we are going simply going to be accused of investigating ourselves.
SR Well I think that might be one for you to ask the Scottish Premier League as far as their Board..
AT Well they appeal to you so I’m asking you.
SR No as you said we are the right of appeal so if the club is concerned with any punishment it has been given well then they can choose to appeal to us. We as a body have the provision in our rules to carry out independent enquiries, indeed we did so very recently by appointing the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith to carry out our own investigation into Rangers and we are part way through disciplinary proceedings and they will be heard on 29 March.
Given that player registrations are ultimately lodged with the SFA where Sandy Bryson has been doing the job for some years, I did wonder why the SFA were not the body taking the lead. They had the expertise on what turned out to be a key issue, the eligibility of players if misregistration occurred. Indeed Sandy Bryson was called in to give a testimony to Lord Nimmo Smith that most folk involved in running a football team from amateur level upwards (as I was) had difficulty accepting. The Bryson interpretation suggested us amateurs had been daft not to take the risk of being found out if we did not register players correctly if only games from the point of discovery risked having results overturned. The Bryson interpretation on eligibility made no sense against that experience and it still does not to football lovers. I’m not sure if the rules have been amended to reflect the Bryson interpretation yet, but cannot see how they can be without removing a major deterrent that I always thought proper registration was there to provide.
The point about their having to be a body of higher appeal sounded plausible then, but could the Court of Arbitration on Sport not have been that body? Or did that risk taking matters out of the SFA’s control even though it would have introduced an element of the independence that Alex Thomson raises in the following paragraphs in his interview?
AT But did anybody at any stage at the SFA say to you I have a concern that we need an independent body, that the SPL can’t and shouldn’t handle this?
SR Well under the governance of football the SPL run the competition
AT I’m not asking, I’m saying did anybody come to you at any stage and say that to you. Anybody?
SR No they didn’t as far as the SPL’s processes is concerned. The SPL ,
AT Never?
It is notable here that Alex Thomson pushes the point about lack of independence, which is where we enter “wit we ken noo territory”.
Given that it is now known that SFA President Campbell Ogilvie sat on the Rangers FC Remunerations Policy Committee in September 1999 where it was decided Discount Option Scheme (DOS) ebts would be used as a matter of club remuneration policy using the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT).
Given that we know that Campbell Ogilvie instigated the first ebt payment to Craig Moore using the Discount Options Scheme.
Given that Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo had both been paid using the same type of DOS ebt as Moore from 2000 to 2002/03 but accompanied by side letters, later concealed from HMRC in 2005 and of course the SFA from August 2000.
Given that Mr Ogilvie was also in receipt of the later MMGRT ebts disputed by HMRC in the big tax case on which the FTT had still to rule
Given that Mr Regan must have been aware at time of interview that Sherriff Officers had called at Ibrox in August 2011 to collect payment of a tax bill, which means even to a layman that it must have gone past dispute to acceptance of liability and so crystallised sometime after 31st March 2011.
Given that Craig Whyte had already agreed to pay the wee tax bill in his public Takeover statement in early June 2011.
Given that on 7th December 2011 Regan had written to Andrew Dickson at RFC, who had sat on three of the four SFA/UEFA Licensing Committee meetings in 2011, to approve a draft statement by Mr Regan on the SFA’s handling of the UEFA Licence aspect of the wee tax case, which arose as a direct result of the use of the DOS ebts to Flo and De Boer during Dickson’s ongoing tenure at RFC from 1991.
Given that Campbell Ogilvie accompanied Stewart Regan to meet Craig Whyte at the Hotel De Vin on 15th December 2011 as a result of an invite stemming from that consternation causing draft that RFC thought likely to cause problems for the SFA (having agreed before the hotel meeting that no comment should be made on the wee tax case)
Given that the wee tax case was a direct result of those early types of DOS ebts being judged illegal by an FTT considering an appeal by the Aberdeen Asset Management company in 2010.
Given all of these facts, how credible is it that no conversation took place between Regan and Campbell Ogilvie on the requirement for an independent enquiry?
If a conversation did not take place as claimed, the question has to be should it have?
Given the foregoing facts on the early ebts, how credible is it Mr Regan during this interview did not know as a result of his involvement with the overdue payable and the UEFA licence in 2011 of the illegal and therefore wrong doing nature of those early EBTS with side letters concealed from the SFA and HMRC in 2005 just before Mr Ogilvie left RFC?
SR The SPL run, the SPL run the rules of The Scottish Premier League and they apply that. There are a whole host of people raising issues on internet sites and passing comment s about various theories that they have about Scottish football particularly in the West of Scotland. I think it’s important to establish that governance of Scottish football is managed by the appropriate body whether it is the Premier League, The Football League or the overall governing body. So that as far as we are concerned we let the Scottish Premier league manage their own rules and if those rules are then broken and the club is charged they have the right of appeal to us as the Appellant body.
Given all of the now known facts listed above how credible is it that the reason given by Stewart Regan to Alex Thomson for the SFA being the appeal body was indeed the only one?
Given the foregoing how credible is it that Mr Regan was not aware that he was being economical with the truth during his interview or had he indeed been kept in the dark by others in the SFA?
Fit and Proper Person and Absence of Governance
AT Let’s talk about Craig Whyte. Ehm – Presumably when Craig Whyte was mooted as coming in as the new owner – for the grand sum of £1 – for Rangers Football club, presumably the SFA took a keen interest in this and did some kind of due diligence on this man.
SR Well we have under our articles, Article 10.2, we have a process which sets out a number of criteria for what defines a fit and proper person within football. Now as you know we cannot stop people getting involved with a business and we cannot stop people getting involved with a PLC, all we can stop them doing is having an involvement with football, so what we do as part of that process is we ask for a declaration from the Directors of the club that they have a copy of the Articles,, that they have gone through the conditions and criteria within Article 10.2 and they have confirmed to us that they meet those criteria. If subsequently those criteria are breached then of course we take appropriate action.
AT You keep quoting rules back to me that’s not what I’m asking, I’m asking is did the SFA conduct any due diligence on this individual.
SR No we asked for a self-declaration from the Directors of the club and the individual himself.
AT Forgive me that sounds absolutely incredible this is the biggest club in Scotland which has been brought to its knees by a whole range of fiscal mismanagement, it is all on the record and proven. A new man comes in claiming all kinds of things, just like the previous man, and the SFA did not check or do any due diligence whatsoever.
SR That is part of the process of governing football, we
AT That’s, that’s NOT governing football that’s the exact opposite to governing football that’s running away from governing football.
SR No if you let me, if you let me finish my answer the point I am about to make is we govern the entire game from the top of the game down to grass roots. We have changes of Directors we have changes of ownership throughout the course of the year. I’m sure that if we were to spend football’s well earned money on doing investigations into potentially every change of Director, then there would be a lot of unhappy Chairmen out there.
AT You could have easily have googled (?) for free
SR Well we rely on the clubs telling us that the Articles have been complied with and that is the process we undertake.
AT This is extraordinary I say to you again you have years of fiscal mismanagement at Rangers Football Club, a new man comes in you are telling me that nobody at The SFA as much as got on to Google to get any background information nobody did anything ? That is extraordinary.
SR Well you refer to alleged years of financial mismanagement. I think it’s important to separate out the previous regime at Rangers and the new owner.
AT Rangers were a mess financially everybody new that
SR But I think it’s important in the case of the point you are raising regarding the fit and proper person test, to separate out the previous regime from the new owner. The club was in the process of being sold, they were challenging a tax bill that had been challenged by HMRC,* and the club had been sold to a new owner. That new owner had come in, he had purchased the club, the paper work for that sale had gone through and the club had complied with our Articles of Association. We run football we don’t, we are not the police we don’t govern transactions, we don’t govern fitness, we run football and we had asked the club to declare whether or not that person was fit to hold a place in association football. They had gone through the articles they’d signed to say that they had read those articles and that there had been no breaches of any of the points set out there. That included whether a Director had been disqualified. That wasn’t disclosed to us, indeed it did not come out until the BBC did their investigation back in October of last year.
(* note that in spite of all the “givens” listed earlier, Mr Regan fails to distinguish (or appreciate) that there is more than one tax bill at play and the one for the wee tax case was not under challenge or Sherriff Officers would not have called in August 2011 to collect it.)
AT So the BBC did due diligence on fitness (??) not the SFA?
SR No, as I said it came out in October 2010 primarily as a result of a detailed investigation. We then have to respond to potential breaches of our articles and we did that We entered into dialogue with the solicitor who was acting for Mr Whyte and we were in dialogue until February 2011 (?sic) of this year when the club entered administration.
AT What I’m simply asking you to admit here is that the SFA failed and it failed Rangers in its hour of need over Craig Whyte and it failed Scottish football.
SR We didn’t fail.
AT You didn’t do anything, you said you didn’t do anything.
SR We complied with the current processes within our articles. That said I think there are a number of learnings and I think the same goes for football right across the globe. People are coming into football into a multimillion pound business and I think football needs to take a harder look at what could be done differently. We are currently exploring the possibility of carrying out due diligence using the outgoing regime to make sure that there is a full and rigorous research being done before the transaction is allowed to go ahead.
AT Do you feel the need to apologise to Rangers fans?
SR I don’t need to apologise because we complied with our articles. I don’t feel there is a need to apologise whatsoever. I think….
AT You need some new articles then don’t you?
SR Well I think the articles
AT Well let’s unpack this. You said there is no need to apologise because we followed the rule books so that’s all right. So you must therefore admit you need a new rule book.
SR No well I think it’s easy at times to try and look around and find a scapegoat and try and point fingers at where blame is to be apportioned. I think perhaps it might be worth looking at the previous regime who for four years when they said they were selling the club, said that they would sell it and act in the best interests of the club. With that in mind I think the previous regime also have to take some responsibility for selling that club and looking after so called shareholders of Rangers football club and those people who that have put money into the club over the years.
AT ?? (Interrupted)
SR the Scottish FA, as I said have a process, that process has been place for some time. It has worked very very well until now I think there are learnings undoubtably and as I said we will review where we can tighten up as I know is happening across the game right now.
The above segment on Craig Whyte and Fit and Proper Persons is a timely reminder to supporters of all clubs, but particularly of Rangers FC of what happens when those charged with governing Scottish football hide behind the letter of the rules when convenient, rather than apply the true spirit in which those rules were written. It is the approach of The Pharisees to make a wrong , right.
To be fair to the SFA though, I doubt anyone could have imagined the degree of deceit and deception that they had allowed into Scottish football in May 2011 and how useless their rules were as a result, but I am not aware to this day if the SFA have apologised to Scottish football generally and Rangers supporters in particular, not only for failing to protect them from Craig Whyte, but also failing to protect them from the consequences of the foolish financial excesses of Sir David Murray, especially from 2008 when the tax bills in respect of the MMGRT ebts began to arrive at RFC . Some intervention then, assuming something was known by some at the SFA, who also held positions at Rangers, of those huge tax demands, might have cost Rangers three titles from 2009, but what Ranger’s supporter would not give all of that up to protect their club from the fate that the failure of the SFA to govern has caused?
Also to be fair the SFA have changed the rules so that the outgoing regime is responsible for doing due diligence on any new club owners rather than relying on self-certification by the incoming club owner, but we know that did not work particularly well when Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnstone did due diligence on Craig Whyte , but then again Sir David Murray was under pressure to sell and the guy coming in, everyone was told, had wealth off the radar.
The Nature of EBTS.
AT Let’s look at EBTs. Did nobody question ebts in the Scottish game in the English game come to that simply because nobody thought they were illegal in any way and indeed are not illegal in any way if operated correctly? Is it as simple as that?
SR There is nothing wrong with ebts when used correctly and ebts are a way of providing benefits to employees and if managed in a correct manner are perfectly legitimate. I think that the issue that we know is under investigation at the moment by both HMRC as part of the large tax case and the SPL as part of their own investigation into potential no disclosure of side letters is whether or not there has been any wrong doing and I think the issue at hand is that wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing has been discussed with HMRC for some time for several years in fact so we would not get involved in anything that there is no wrongdoing taking place and ebts are, as I said, a legitimate way of doing business when used correctly.
Again taking the “givens” into account, particularly the significant event of Sherriff Officers calling to collect unpaid tax in August 2011 and the logical deduction that the SFA President must have known of the difference between the two types of ebts Rangers used, (and perhaps why they were changed) why the insistence at this point that all the ebts used by Rangers had been used correctly? Mr Regan at the time of the interview was either kept in the dark by his President, given he claims to have spoken to no one about the independence of the enquiry, or being economical with the truth.
The whole of Lord Nimmo Smith’s judgement made months after this interview, where Mr Regan stressed again and again there is no wrongdoing in the use of ebts if arranged correctly (or lawfully) is predicated on all ebts with side letters used by Rangers since 23 November 2011 actually being used correctly and in Lord Nimmo Smiths words on being “themselves not irregular”. (Para 5 of Annex 1). It is almost as if Mr Regan knew the outcome before Lord Nimmo Smith.
(In fact the ebt to Tor Andre Flo had a side letter dated 23 November and it related to a tax arrangement that had not been used correctly (using Regan’s own words) The irregular ebt for Ronald De Boer with a side letter of 30 August was placed beyond the scope of the Commission because in spite of it meeting the criteria specified by Harper MacLeod in March 2012 asking to be provided with ALL ebts and side letters and any other related documentation from July 1998 to date (including the HMRC letter of Feb 2011 that fully demonstrated that those particular ebts under the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) were not used correctly) and so were unlawful, NONE of that documentation was provided when requested.
This enabled Lord Nimmo Smith to state in para 107 of his Decision “while there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate” which is a statement he could not have made had he had all the requested documentation denied to him either by dishonesty or negligence during the preparation of his Commission.
How would he have had to judge one wonders if deception and dishonesty was indeed the factor we now ken that it is?
What exactly were the consequences of the failure to provide Lord Nimmo Smith with the required documentation?
It is stated in the Decision (Annex 1 para 104) that the Inquiry proceeded on the basis that the EBT arrangements (by which it meant the MGMRT ebts) were “lawful”. As it transpired the outcome of the FTT decision announced in November 2012 was that the MGMRT ebts indeed were (although this is still under appeal by HMRC.)
However, because Lord Nimmo Smith treated the MGMRT and the Earlier Trust (REBT) as one and the same, (para 35 of Decision) this meant that the Inquiry failed to distinguish between the two trusts and necessarily treated the Earlier Trust as also being lawful (without however having properly investigated its operation). However, the MGMRT and the earlier REBT were two separate trusts and there was no necessary reason to treat them as one and the same. Had evidence relating to the REBT been produced and examined, the Inquiry could hardly have treated them) as “continuous” or allowed Lord Nimmo Smith to say “we are not aware that they were different trusts“(Annex 1 para 35)
From the Decision (Annex 1 para 40), it would appear that the President of the SFA gave evidence only as to his knowledge of the MGMRT (not the REBT). We know now that the President of the SFA had knowledge of the Earlier Trust (sitting on the RFC remuneration policy committee that agreed to their use in 1999 and indeed was active in its setting up). Why the President failed to volunteer such crucial information is surely something he should now be asked?
By the time of the Inquiry, Rangers FC had already conceded liability in what has become known as “the Wee Tax Case” (which related to the now unlawful REBTs). Having regard to the wording at para 104 of the Decision (that is an echo of what Regan stressed to Alex Thomson about ebts) where it is said that to arrange financial affairs in a manner “within the law” is not a breach of the SFA/SPL Rules) the clear implication, must be that to arrange financial affairs in such a way that they are not lawful, must be a breach of the rules.
Given the admission of liability in the Wee Tax Case, payments made in respect of the REBT could not be “lawful” (to employ the language used in the Decision) or disputed, but Mr Regan presumably did not enquire too much into the history of the wee tax case before agreeing to talk to Alex Thomson.
It will be obvious from the above that the unlawful nature of REBTs had been masked from SPL lawyers and Lord Nimmo Smith as a result of:-
(a) the failure by the Administrators of Rangers FC to provide the documentation required of them;
(b) the failure of the President of the SFA to provide to the Inquiry his own knowledge of, involvement in, and presumably as a result of it, an appreciation of the differences between the two types of ebts and the consequences thereof for the investigation.
Had the REBT been the sole subject of the Inquiry (rather than in effect not being examined at all) the following must have been different:-
(i) the President could hardly have failed to give testimony of his knowledge and involvement;
(ii) the Inquiry could not have held that the use of the REBT ebts was lawful;
(iv) the “no sporting advantage” decision given in respect of the lawful ebts could not have been applied to unlawful ebts.
The real issue in the case of the unlawful ebts was not one of misregistration (Annex 1 para 104) which in turn justified the no sporting advantage decision in paras 105/106 but of paying players by an unlawful means which “constitutes such a fundamental defect (Annex 1 para 88) that the registration of players paid this way (i.e. unlawfully) must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. “
Had the true nature of these early ebts been known to SPL lawyers the Terms of Reference of the Investigation would have to have addressed the wrong doing that Mr Regan was so keen to argue with Alex Thomson had not actually occurred (long before Lord Nimmo Smith agreed with him) or had President Ogilvie made the distinction in his testimony, it would have been impossible for Sandy Bryson’s to advise as he did regarding the effect on eligibility. He would have to have been asked questions about two types of ebts not one. Finally Lord Nimmo Smith could not have treated both as continuous.
Finally, given this incidence of non-disclosure by the Rangers Administrators (an identifiable trait of RFC dealings with authority from August 2000 to date), it is impossible to see how paragraph 107 (wherein it is stated that there is “no question of dishonesty”) can be allowed to remain unchallenged.
Of course the failure to supply the key evidence could just be an oversight given Rangers Administrators were hardly likely to have established of their own volition the importance of the documents to the enquiry and yet, had they been supplied, the enquiry could not have been based on the defence Stewart Regan was at such pains to stress in his interview with Alex Thomson at a time only 3 months after Mr Regan and Campbell Ogilvie had joined Craig Whyte for dinner as a result of an invite prompted by questions on the SFA UEFA Licence handling of the wee tax case , created by the very same unlawful ebts.
AT But as the governing body why did you not say to Rangers “look guys this this smells really bad, this looks bad you look (and you have admitted you have not paid your tax) you know we can’t do this, we have got to be open and above board, it looks bad.
SR Well think you need to look at what is legal and above board. At the time the club, were in dispute with HMRC. There was a tax case ongoing the new owner was in discussion with HMRC. In fact he has made comments and the club have made comments to that effect and because the amount was not crystallised under UEFA guidelines, whilst ever it’s in dispute it’s not classed as overdue.
AT Sometimes
SR So you need to separate out the licensing requirement, which is what the Licensing Committee did, from the tax that was owed to HMRC which is as we know what is still ongoing.
Mr Regan was not being accurate here. The Big Tax case was in dispute and the bill has not crystallised as a result. However the wee tax case crystallised in mid June 2011 and at 30th June 2011, the UEFA licence checkpoint under Article 66 of UEFA FFP, did not meet the conditions to excuse it as being an overdue payable to HMRC. Quite how the SFA handled the processing of the Article 66 submission from RFC is subject to a resolution asking UEFA to investigate put to the Celtic AGM in November 2013 which is still in progress. As has been mentioned twice before Mr Regan has either been kept in the dark or was being less than honest with Alex Thomson. Interestingly Andrew Dickson who has been at Rangers in various administration and executive capacity since 1991 sat on 3 of the four UEFA Licensing Committee meetings during 2011. He may of course have excused himself from any discussions on this matter as the rules allowed, but was a full explanation why he did so, if indeed he did, offered? Would such an explanation have enlightened Mr Regan of what he was dealing with?
AT Sometimes things can be within the rules but from a PR point of view, indeed from a moral point of view, hate to introduce morality to football but can be the wrong thing to do. You would accept that?
SR Well I think that football around the world is going through a difficult time, clubs are in difficult financial circumstances, not just in Scotland, you look down into England and look at the clubs in Administration at the moment. You know Portsmouth and Port Vale in recent times and I think Plymouth is as well again. As far as that is concerned you know that indicates that clubs are living from hand to mouth and there are deals being done all the time with HMRC, payment plans being agreed. There is huge amounts of debt in football.
AT I’m just inviting you to accept that sometimes things can be within the rules but just look bad because morally, they are bad.
ST I think when taxes aren’t paid ehm VAT in particular, National Insurance Contributions of course that’s bad and I think we accept that and we know that in the current regime there is evidence to suggest that Rangers has not paid its taxes since Mr Whyte took over the club. That’s wrong that is against the spirit of the game and certainly we would look to deal with that and stamp out that type of behaviour which is not acting with integrity.
If Carlsberg did irony!
End of Interview.
The Hard Not to Believe Conclusions
There is always the danger in examining anything of finding what you want to be there rather than what is there and it is a danger any writer has to be aware of, but given the responses from Harper MacLeod on TSFM and the total lack of response from the SPFL and SFA when being informed of the missing evidence along with what has been written here it is hard not to conclude that the Lord Nimmo Smith Inquiry was deliberately set up in such a way as to produce two results
- The minimising of the wrongful behaviour that had taken place from 1999 to 2012 when The Commission sat
- The avoidance of the consequences of admitting that serious wrongdoing in the form of illegal payments had been made via irregular EBTs, which consequently made the players involved ineligible from the outset, making the Bryson ruling inapplicable in those cases with the consequences of that ineligibility on trophies and remuneration won.
The reader will find it hard not to conclude that either
- there was a huge screw up by the SPL lawyers charged to set up the Commission which they might be able to defend
- or
- Vital knowledge was concealed within the SFA itself in order to achieve the above two results and
- This knowledge was deliberately concealed because had it not been The Inquiry could not have come to the conclusion it did on player eligibility, not only because unlawful ebts were used in early instances, but also because the deliberate concealment from HMRC of the side letters to De Boer and Flo, the former also kept from Harper and MacLeod, suggests Rangers knew all along and in 2005 in particular that what they were doing since 2000 was morally wrong and against the spirit of the game. It perhaps also explains why HMRC is determined to push an appeal all the way.
- This failure to supply all documents meant that the line being taken by Mr Regan in March 2012, when the Commission was being set up into the use of ebts and failure to register them with the SFA, came to fulfilment in the Decision of Lord Nimmo Smith himself, achieving the two aims suggested above.
Given that Harper MacLeod have said they passed on to the SFA in September 2014 the evidence kept from them by Rangers Administrators, has Stewart Regan spoken to either Ogilvie or Dickson since then about keeping him in the dark? Or did he know all along?
Of course these hard to believe conclusions could be discounted as delusional ramblings if either the SFA or SPFL were to say they would investigate the evidence kept from Harper MacLeod. It would also help if only one of the thirteen main stream journalists would look at the hard copy of the concealed documents they were provided with, because until someone who values sporting integrity does, the stench of corruption will hang over Scottish football for years to reek out anytime the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission is used as a justification for anything that it contains.
Annex One – Extracts from Lord Nimmo Smith Decision
[5] Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in
breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;
Outline of the Scheme
[35] As we have said, a controlling interest in Oldco was held by David Murray through the medium of Murray MHL Limited, part of the Murray Group of companies. Murray Group Management Limited (MGM) provided management services to the companies of the Murray Group. By deed dated 20 April 2001 MGM set up the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (the MGMRT). (We note that the MGMRT was preceded by the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust, but we are not aware that they were different trusts. We shall treat them as a continuous trust, which we shall refer to throughout as the MGMRT.)
[40] Mr Ogilvie learnt about the existence of the MGMRT in about 2001 or 2002, because a contribution was made for his benefit. He understood that this was non-contractual. Although as a result he knew about the existence of the MGMRT, he did not know any details of it. He subsequently became aware, while he remained director of Oldco, that contributions were being made to the MGMRT in respect of players. He assumed that these were made in respect of the players’ playing football, which was the primary function for which they were employed and remunerated. He had no involvement in the organisation or management of Oldco’s contributions to the MGMRT, whether for players or otherwise. He said:
“I assumed that all contributions to the Trust were being made legally, and that any relevant football regulations were being complied with. I do not recall contributions to the Trust being discussed in any detail, if at all, at Board meetings. In any event, Board meetings had become less and less frequent by my later years at Rangers.”
He also said: “Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers”.
However it should be noted that Mr Ogilvie was a member of the board of directors who approved the statutory accounts of Oldco which disclosed very substantial payments made under the EBT arrangements.
[88] In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. There is every reason why the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other. Mr Bryson’s evidence about the position of the SFA in this regard was clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with those of the SFA, should be given that construction. All parties’ concerned – clubs, players and footballing authorities – should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This means that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked. There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.
[104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequently able to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more success. Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law – so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.
[105] It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive advantage in that respect. If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters conferred any competitive advantage, that could only have been an indirect one. Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so. Moreover, we have received no evidence from which we could possibly say that Oldco could not or would not have entered into the EBT arrangements with players if it had been required to comply with the requirement to disclose the arrangements as part of the players’ full financial entitlement or as giving rise to payment to players. It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players. On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules.
[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.
[107] We nevertheless take a serious view of a breach of rules intended to promote sporting integrity. Greater financial transparency serves to prevent financial irregularities. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA. In our view, the apparent assumption both that the side-letter arrangements were entirely discretionary, and that they did not form part of any player’s contractual entitlement, was seriously misconceived. Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June 2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries. There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities. The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the side letters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.
I know that Richard Wilson of the beeb has both his supporters and his detractors on here. Suffice it to say his performance on sport sound tonight was entirely predictable. Quite an achievement to mention year on year trends and omit to mention the 7 figure commonwealth games one off. To be fair he almost pulled a rabbit out of the hat by declaring the results should be better, since the club was now in the championship, but I’m afraid the justification came across as “Just because they should.”
Particular mention also of Jim McColl’s favoured model. Ownership should be 33% Rich people (notice the non committal anonymity), 33% the fans (sign here) and 33% investors (right on cue, here comes the rampant questioning re role/importance of the NOMAD…..any minute now…….is anyone there?…….helloooooo……).
StevieBC
So the rough probability of promotion is 50% x 50% x 50% = 12.5%.
This £500,000 should be provided for – as a reasonably expected event within the year – at 12.5% = £62,500
IMO, but happy to be challenged.
————————————————————————-
I think the note is adequate. The liability can never be £62.5k – it’s either zero or £500k and at a 12.5% probability, zero is more appropriate. As far as the going concern evaluation, the increased liability will be offset with greater revenues associated with the higher division.
Surely the most surreal moment on Sportsound tonight was the interview with Ian Cathro, 28, previously appointed Head of United’s youth academy at the age of 22. For the current assistant Manager at Valencia it was clear that there was only one burning question for interviewer Richard Wilson. Would he be interested in managing a certain Scottish club if there was a vacancy, even though currently there was no vacancy?!
For those on here of a certain vintage it reminded me of the Monty Python communist quiz for Karl Marx.
One final question Karl and the beautiful lounge suite will be yours… Are you going to have a go? (Karl nods) You’re a brave man. Karl Marx, your final question, who won the Cup Final in 1949?
Karl: The workers’ control of the means of production? The struggle of the urban proletariat?
Presenter: No. It was in fact, Wolverhampton Wanderers who beat Leicester 3-1.
A statement in a Worthington Group RNS today appears to put a deadline on the claim against TRFC that remains as a contingent liability in RIFC/TRFC accounts.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12301233.html
I’m pretty sure that this relates to the original Sevco-5088/Whyte/Earley claim.
easyJambo says:
March 31, 2015 at 10:57 pm
I’m pretty sure that this relates to the original Sevco-5088/Whyte/Earley claim
You are bang on the money easyJambo.
It is all here.
The Worthington Fraud part 13 – 2014 Interim Results That Deceive (back to Rangers FC).
I guess one thing I have in common with ‘the papers’ is that I was taught to go to the balance sheet. How else would you explain a contingent liability Note 16 being their headline. Doesn’t really explain though the lack of scrutiny of net assets of stadium, training ground, car park and registrations valued at £63.8 million when they were sold for less than £5 mill to M Green; doesn’t explain why the provision for the “obligation of Rangers Retail Limited to purchase stock at a cost higher than its resale value for the completed season 2013/14” of £395k within a year wasn’t given similar prominence to NUFC loan; doesn’t explain why previous Board’s reduction in operating expenses are not given any credit; and fortunately Dave King does not appear on a balance sheet.
For the accounting experts
Two questions
Suppose Ibrox is leased for say 25yrs with ownership transferred foc at the end of the lease
Is this a balance sheet asset or liability?
I
For our accounting and legal experts
Two questions
Suppose Ibrox is leased by TRFC for say 25yrs with ownership transferred for free at the end of the lease
Can Ibrox be portrayed during the lease as a balance sheet asset that increases in value every year offset by an ever increasing lease charge in the P&L?
If so
Is it legally correct to register Ibrox at Companies House as owned by TRFC?
Assuming an AIM delisted company was allowed to have a new share issue, how would they establish an equitable price for said issue.
How can you know that you’re not paying 70p for a 3p share.
How can you check the share register, to see that certain blowhards have invested, before you make your own decision
I’ve had a quick scan through the RIFC PLC interims.
The following jumped off the screen.
Paul Murray, Interim Chairman of Rangers, commented
“Blah blah blah”
then
About Rangers Football Club
Rangers Football Club, formed in Scotland in 1872, is one of the world’s most successful clubs. Blah blah blah.
then
Chairman’s Statement
“Blah blah blah”
Is the “about Rangers football club” (old club ) stuff there to act as some kind of anaesthetic for the hard of thinking to get the blue tinted WATP spectacles on before the brainwashing moonbeams guff?
Was the chairman’s report or financial review proofread before publication?
Next up.
Going concern.
Possible litigation.
Those old chestnuts return.
Moving onto the financial statements.
The devil is in the detail.
Note 2 Accounting policies.
Going concern.
WTF? I’ve drafted a few of these before, but that is a cracker!
It’s ok Captain Smith, it’s only a tiny iceberg, tell the band to keep playing.
Impairment of tangible and intangible assets excluding goodwill
To say that they are being optimistic is an understatement.
The assets are wildly overvalued, as with the previous incarnation of the eternal “club”. The balance sheet is totally misleading as a result.
Note 10 deferred tax
The failure to recognise the deferred tax asset undermines the basis of valuation of fixed assets. I’m not a fan of deferred tax assets anyway, but the following is probably the most honest thing in the whole set of financial statements.
“The directors are of the opinion that there is insufficient evidence to support recognition of these losses as an asset due to uncertainty of the Group generating sufficient future taxable profits from which accumulated losses could be deducted.”
Note 13 Revaluation reserve.
What keeps the balance sheet artificially healthy, but totally contradictory to everything else in the financial statements apart from the chairman’s moonbeams (sorry, “report”).
Notes 16 & 17 confirm much of what we already knew.
Save the best until last.
“On 4 March 2015 the Company’s nominated adviser, WH Ireland Limited, resigned with immediate effect. This caused AIM to suspend trade in the Company’s shares pending the appointment of a new nominated adviser. The Company is currently investigating options in this regard.”
Oops!
I’ll try and look at the numbers tomorrow (well today actually!) although given the date, it may not be worth posting anything as I imagine that SMSM will have some crackers lined up.
Today’s SMSM headlines.
“Gers legends repay EBTs.”
“Campbell Ogilvie resigns, saying that Scottish football and sporting integrity are far more important than one man’s career.”
“Strachan says that SPFL Premier is a far better and more competitive league without The Rangers.”
“Stewart Regan says something.”
“I haven’t a clue what I’m doing, says Neil Doncaster.”
“Sky Sports offer free subscriptions to Scottish households as part of multibillion pound tv and sponsorship deal.”
“David Murray says sorry.”
“Jackson admits that billionaire claim may have been a bit wide of the mark, but he’ll have to check TSFM to be absolutely certain.”
Poissin d’Avril, as they say in the Newcastle or Arsenal dressing rooms.
Question…
In the interim accounts it states revenue received for the use of the stadium for hosting the rugby sevens …and an SFA international…
Who received the money for the rental of the stadium?…who did the SFA pay?…who did the commonwealth committee pay?…did the current tennant act as a middle man?
Bear in mind who was asked to agree the interim accounts.
The Cat NR1 says:
April 1, 2015 at 12:46 am
__________________________________________________
“The directors are of the opinion that there is insufficient evidence to support recognition of these losses as an asset due to uncertainty of the Group generating sufficient future taxable profits from which accumulated losses could be deducted.”
This element could have (had!) value to Mash.
SD is profitable.
If SD were able to make a profit on transferring players between NUFC and TRFC using favourable pricing strategies, it could access this element.
e.g. Newcastle sells player1 at a profit to 3rd party: SD Pays tax on the profit. Mash doesn’t like this.
Necastle sells player 2 at profit to 4th party. SD pays tax on the profit. Mash doesn’t like this.
So Instead:
Newcastle sells player1 to TRFC at a loss. TRFC subsequently sells player1 on at a healthy profit. Profit made is written off against TRFC deferred tax asset.
And is extracted back to SD by retail partnership .
SD thereby effectively (and I believe probably legally) pays no Tax on the profit from the sale of player 1 to party 3.
Newcastle then sells player 2 to 4th party at another profit.
Profit from player 2 is written off against the losses incurred by NUFC to TRFC from sale of player 1.
SD thereby effectively pays no tax on sale of player 2. legally.
SD thereby increases its value (by dint of increasing future earnings potential) without realising taxable profits. TRFC turns an illiquid asset (deferred tax assett) into a liquid asset (cold hard folding moolah!)
It relies on SD being able to weild financial control over both entities. But it could provide a mechanism by which SD can exploit the historical losses made by TRFC to cut the tax liability of NUFC, and ultimately SD.
Don’t think this would be illegal, but may fall foul of sporting restrictions.
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 1, 2015 at 1:18 am
The Cat NR1 says:
April 1, 2015 at 12:46 am
========================================
If only there was someone who was an ex-manager of one of those clubs that then became a manager of the other club.
Imagine what would happen if a player were sold from one club to the other (for say £8M) having cost the other cub nothing only six months earlier?
And let’s say that the selling club then gives the ex-manager a wee back-hander a few years later.
There’s no way that the football authorities, fraud squad or tax authorities would possibly allow that to happen without sanction, is there?
And there’s no way that anyone involved in such a series of transactions could possibly hold office in a football governing body charged with the overseeing of propriety and sporting integrity, let alone be given a role at a leading tv company as a pundit.
If that scenario is impossible, then your suggestion is very unlikely. :irony:
GoosyGoosy says:
April 1, 2015 at 12:24 am
For our accounting and legal experts
Two questions
Suppose Ibrox is leased by TRFC for say 25yrs with ownership transferred for free at the end of the lease
Can Ibrox be portrayed during the lease as a balance sheet asset that increases in value every year offset by an ever increasing lease charge in the P&L?
If so
Is it legally correct to register Ibrox at Companies House as owned by TRFC?
========================================================
You would have to show the liability in the financial statements somewhere, otherwise the true and fair view would be compromised (I know, LOL).
A finance lease would be shown in the balance sheet, whereas an operating lease woud be disclosed in the notes as future lease obligations.
The situation you set out is basically that of a mortgage, although disclosure would depend on the transfer of risk.
It would appear that whoever owns Ibrox has transferred the risk of ownership, although the dilapidated state may be due to absentee landlord rather than skint tenant. Unlikely though.
It manifestly appears that the Rangers group is the registered keeper of Ibrox, using a car analogy. However, is there a chap round the corner with a low loader and a set of skeleton keys waiting to take it away?
That pesky contingent liability note appeared in the interims, and they were prepared by another set of accountants, no doubt having checked that their PII provides full cover.
I have it on good authority that Loof Lirpa the Lithuanian billionaire has today submitted a US $1690 million dollar offer to buy both St Mirren and the Rangers International Football team and combine them, thus abandoning all the onerous contracts and launch a new Premiership team called St Rangers.
valentinesclown says:
March 31, 2015 at 8:33 pm
On SSB a caller asked the pundits if they were aware of any developments concerning Mr King the SFA and the fit and proper procedure. The caller stated that he was aware that some progress had been made. Not sure what pundit replied (Mark or Gordon) but they replied that the SFA were going to make a final decision in a couple of days and basically Mr King was going to get the go ahead. Did anyone else pick upon this, just to make sure I heard it right?
===================================
I didn’t hear that part but take it with a pinch of salt. Weeks ago a caller said he’d heard Rangers were paying for the five Newcastle loanees. Mark Guidi, in his usual condescending way, said they were getting them for nothing. I heard the early part of the show last night where the same man raged about the £500k that will have to be paid should they get promotion! He previously spoke of Ashley putting in millions once the SFA had okayed him to own more than 10% of Rangers. He knows no more than you or I.
GoosyGoosy says:
April 1, 2015 at 12:17 am
For the accounting experts
Two questions
Suppose Ibrox is leased for say 25yrs with ownership transferred foc at the end of the lease
Is this a balance sheet asset or liability?
======================================================================
Goosy…the “odd” answer is that by following the recommendation of accepted accounting standards, Ibrox would appear as both a liability and an asset, and in the same balance sheet 😕 since it would be regarded as an “operating lease”. At the end of the lease, title in the asset would transfer to RIFC/TRFC/SD, who would immediately revalue any agreed transfer value and place it in a non-distributable capital reserve in the balance sheet.
IMHO
Very relevant tweet by Barcabhoy, who sometimes posts on here.
Rangers board urged to examine if £500,000 Newcastle payment is legal
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-board-urged-to-examine-if-500000-newcastle-payment-is-legal.122144118
How many RIFC / TRFC contracts have ever been found to be illegal? Zero!
Yet it is still the first port of call for the desperate to demand that legallity be checked – Mather, Wallace, Somers have all done it. The MSM are at it all the time.
Are they ever checked – Maybe (ideally before signing them)
Are they ever found to be illegal – No
Are they ever pronounced to be fair and legal – No
But it keeps the target audience outraged. Which I think equates to some kind of happiness.
The following information set out below is being disclosed for the purposes of Rule 26 of the AIM Rules for Companies:
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/
Advisers
Nominated Adviser – WH Ireland Limited, 24 Martin Lane, London EC4R 0DR
Broker – WH Ireland Limited, 24 Martin Lane, London EC4R 0DR
Auditors and reporting accountants – Deloitte LLP, 2 Hardman Street, Manchester M60 2AT
Legal advisers (English law) – Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP, 35 Vine Street, London EC3N 2AA
Legal advisers (Scots law) – DWF Biggart Baillie, Dalmore House, 310 St Vincent Street, Glasgow G2 5QR
Registrar – Capita Registrars Limited, Corporate Actions, The Registry, 34 Beckenham Road, Beckenham, Kent BR3 4TU
Financial PR – Newgate Threadneedle Limited, 5th Floor, 33 King William Street, London EC4R 9AS
Updated: 16/12/2014
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/advisers
Where Does The New Board Fall?
The four stages of competence
Unconscious incompetence
The individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognize their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage.[2] The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.[3]
Conscious incompetence
Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, he or she does recognize the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. The making of mistakes can be integral to the learning process at this stage.[4]
Conscious competence
The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires concentration. It may be broken down into steps, and there is heavy conscious involvement in executing the new skill.[3]
Unconscious competence
The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become “second nature” and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence
mcfc says:
April 1, 2015 at 8:39 am
Rangers board urged to examine if £500,000 Newcastle payment is legal
————————————————————————————–
This is a future payment which will become due if TRFC gain promotion at the end of season. That will be one of the nicer problems to have as there are issues in the interim accounts that should give rise to far greater concern and outrage.
Is it right that sfa still paid out for ibrox while the 250k is outstanding to Spfl ??
Gamesabogey – the book value of the assets is different to the market value. The book value is the value to the user the market value is what they could sell it for. It is like the value to me of my old jumper which I occasionally retrieve from the bin where it has been put to higher authority compared to what I could sell it for.
Remember one of the first questions in any valuation surveyor’s mind is What are the assumptions to be used? That is perfectly a justifiable necessity not a pauchle.
as to twenty five year lease followed by reversion to the tenant depending that might not affect the value to the occupier compared to ownership of the subjects without a lease it depends on degree of imagination used In designing the arrangement. In valuation terms 25 years from now is as near to the end of time as the end of time itself (depending of course on the assumptions used)
The RIFC accounts seem to me to potentially contain a significant error . The accounts are consolidated to include contributions from subsidiaries.
Rangers retail is treated as a subsidiary and revenue and cash figures are included in the P&L and balance sheet. I would need another look to check whether any profit contribution has been included
However the rules on consolidation state that the Group entity must have financial control over the subsidiary. Given the voting nature of the shares in Rangers Retail , which provides for SD shares to count as double on financial matters , then financial control has very clearly been with SD since formation.
In my view this would preclude Rangers consolidating the Rangers Retail figures into the RIFC accounts. In fact if this is correct RIFC have produced incorrect and misleading accounts since inception. Maybe Deloittes have realised this and were insisting on prior year adjustments.
Moving forward , given SD now hold 75% of the equity the position is even clearer. Should that remain the position then retail revenues would not be shown on RIFC accounts in future.
However as long as the B shares hold double voting power then the retail revenues should never be consolidated into RIFC in my view. This would have implications for the balance sheet and a highly detrimental effect for any future discussions with potential lending institutions
I am reminded by the Twitter exchange between Barcabhoy and Graham Speirs on Paul Murray and Dave Kings role in RFC’s demise of how difficult it is to get our msm to look into evidence presented,even if to debunk the narrative it creates.
You will remember the video of Keith Jackson being interviewed by Andy Jackson in Oz?
Keith said there were lots of reasons contributing to RFC’s troubles but failed to mention the reckless transfer spend in 2007/08, the latter after the tax bills started to arrive in Feb 2008.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq2m3ggkEX2RdDZsUlEzQkg5U0NUZ08xajhtbUJWcXc&usp=docslist_api
So I sent Andy the above spreadsheet backing that narrative. I think I also sent proof of the Dates of the bills or Determinations as HMRC call them.
Andy who markets Four Four Two in Asia responded quickly that he would give the files to Keith.
That was over a week ago but no articles appearing in our msm to indicate when, in my opinion, it came too late to stop the rot that destroyed Rangers FC at a time Dave King and Paul Murray were on the Board.
One reason, apart from not wanting to rain on the DK parade, is that our msm portrayed the 3iar title winning years as something wonderful.
Heck Alex Salmond even wrote to Walter Smith congratulating him on his success and another Walter Myth was created, the one where in spite of being skint he still won titles, when the fact is RFC increased their debt six fold from £6m in 2006 to £31m in 2009 (or 10).
Aye but we were bringing the debt down to £18m is another myth presented to suggest all was well.
Had debt stayed at 2006 levels and provision been made for the tax bills Rangers FC would still exist as the same legal entity. They might even have flourished.
You can see the same reluctance to print the disaster Ally was as a Rangers manager. Not just losing to Malmo and Maribor but the state of the team he left behind.
Because Ally is a likeable guy and has media friends I understand the reluctance to put the boot in.
However perhaps if our journos who are too close to Rangers emotionally were to act professionally and not become so friendly and work for a story, these myths would not be created in the first place, making correction of inaccurate reporting so much easier to countenance when the evidence is trying to stare them in the face.
So Mr Jackson does the evidence I am told you were given back the narrative of recklessness under SDM, WS,PM and DK or is there a counter argument?
Rangers fans have been fed a diet of myths by you guys and they are wisening up.
It’s not daft Timmy’s points scoring or hating RFC, it’s us telling a truth that will set them free because you cannot or will not.
Some cracking posts on here. On the theme of justice and fair play I thought this ray of sunshine was worth mentioning (if it’s not already been posted 😳 ). Anything aimed at a fairer distribution of football’s mega wealth only to be welcomed:
To the so far 10 Loof Lirpa thumbs downers I should have written it backwards. Why would anyone pay such a massive sum for The Rangers (virtually in liquidation) and the number 1690 might have been a bit of a give away.
Taysider @ 10.28
Meant to come back to you on the Ian Cathro stuff. Yes fascinating interview indeed, completely spoiled by Wilson (that man again)’s incessant desire to have an RFC scoop and angle. And he calls us obsessed! You would need to meet Ian direct I think to form a true opinion (I could probably say the same about Richard). Certainly from the radio there is a very fine line between driven and arsey!
Livingston / Neil Rankine ruling published.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=14557
£5,000 fine and a registration ban. May be indicative of what sanctions will be placed on Rangers when their case comes up on 16th April.
Auldheid says:
April 1, 2015 at 10:00 am
Rangers fans have been fed a diet of myths by you guys and they are wisening up.
——————————————————————————
I agree there are fans of the Ibrox club well aware of the off the real issues concerning their club and are becoming more vocal. It was mentioned by an earlier post that 2 callers on ssb raised real concern about RRM as directors and basically the calls stated they have no trust in Mr King and the 3 bears for all the reasons that we debate on here (NOMAD, Kings money, Fit and proper, DM, King and Murray on previous board, tax convictions etc..). Great calls that were met by silence from DJ and Mr Keevins. There are a few blogs by other fans raising this issue (one was posted earlier on this site). IMO there have always been a large number of fans who from the beginning have had serious doubts concerning all boards and it’s members from day one and there is a division between fans (crowds at Ibrox seem to bear this out). Going back to the ssb calls one fan John was really concerned about the NOMAD not being appointed on time and added that if this is the case shareholders may be able to take legal action against board. More fans of the Ibrox club need to be aware of the facts and possibilities of what could happen to their club and NOT rely on smsm guff. Transparency is one of the words that P Murray mentions regular in relation to the fans of the club. If no NOMAD is appointed is that word not then become redundant as the board would answer to or be regulated by who? If they delist in Mr Jacksons words a klaxon should be permanently on as this IMO is the last thing that fans who want transparency need. They only knew in the past what went on at their club by a smsms with no morale compass and that may be just about to repeat again.Stop the lies and do not read the smsm lies.
pau1mart1n says:
April 1, 2015 at 9:08 am
Is it right that sfa still paid out for ibrox while the 250k is outstanding to Spfl ??
======================
I don’t know, but if it’s true, the clubs should be lining up to get the SFA senior management team sacked- wouldn’t you think?
Bear in mind, though, that the money from staging the international would appear in the accounts as income regardless of whether it has been paid over, offset against the £250k fine, or held by the SFA pending resolution of the alleged dispute over the fine.
gamesabogey says:
March 31, 2015 at 9:18 pm
According to my understanding the auditor sends a Notice of Resignation to the company together with a Statement of Circumstances giving the circumstances or stating there are none. The auditor then waits 21 days and if the company has not objected to the court sends a copy to Companies House within 7 days.
So surely Deloitte would not be lax in their processes so the resignation must have happened within the last 28 days at maximum.
Alan Pattullo in today’s Scotsman:
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-target-2022-for-top-table-return-1-3733866
The part that really, really annoys me is the criminal awaiting confirmation of his fit and proper status from the SFA. As we all know, there should not be even a snowball in hell’s chance of this happening; the SFA should have dismissed the very possibility months ago. But we are now at the point where it’s not even a question of the SFA deciding one way or another, but merely confirming an inevitable favourable (for the criminal) outcome.
Make no mistake, this is part of a concerted expectation management campaign which began with the criminal himself claiming he had been given a nod and a wink that everything was kosher. Spiers played his part with his utterly execrable article a few weeks ago when he stated his belief that the SFA would deem the criminal fit and proper simply because he thought Sevco needed them to, rather than point out how ludicrously corrupt such an outcome would be.
One of two things is taking place here. Either the SMSM are piling the pressure on the SFA under the instructions of Jack and Traynor, or alternatively the SFA are already in on the act and are trying to deflect the flak when they announce their latest disgusting, indefensible decision.
Either way, it stinks, really badly.
An interesting development at Tynecastle today as Hearts have announced a three year shirt deal with “Save the Children”, which will earn the club a “seven figure sum” over the period.
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/4268
What is unusual about it is that it is being funded by philanthropist. So there are still a few about.
P.S. I wish Ann Budge would stop using terms like “As the team is restored to its rightful place in the SPFL”. It smacks of entitlement rather than merit.
Some discussion yesterday regarding whether Sevco could sell season tickets before knowing in what division they would be playing. I think it was ecobhoy who said he thought they could find a way round this problem.
I had already been thinking about this and don’t see a simple solution other than rewarding early subscribers with effectively a potential discount (ie possible Premiership package at Championship price). The risk of charging an intermediate price is what Sevco do with prices in the event of failing to win promotion. Difficult to justify charging less than the early subscribers paid; difficult to justify charging more than the product is worth.
Would it be possible to have some sort of legally enforceable contract that meant fans having to pay an additional supplement in the event of promotion? Certainly not a scenario I have heard of previously.
I wouldn’t take that as a measure, as, and please correct me if I’m wrong, Livingston were deducted five points and fined £10,000 by the SPFL for failure to pay tax on player bonuses during the 2010/11 (Scottish Football League) season. The club themselves volunteered this information to the SPFL, which contrasts with, say, shredding evidence.
The SPFL is, of course, just 21 months old.
While the five points deduction and fine were not SFA sanctions, I’m still trying to discover if the old Ibrox club ever lost any points for failure to pay their debts to the government, before, during and after season 2010/11.
Don’t think they did………….
Bryce while it would be unusual if not a first with season tickets, pay more on a future event is fairly common place in football contracts.
The most recent example is the £500k more the loanees would cost should promotion be achieved but the more common use is a reward if a transferred player fulfills the potential he was showing at the time of transfer. This comes in the form of reaching a number of appearances for the new club, scoring a specific number of goals, achieving a specific number of full international caps and there will be a few more.
Wasn’t there a pretty infamous benchwarmer at old Rangers because he was one appearance short of triggering an appearance clause?
If RIFC are losing the thick end of £1m per month, have no overdraft facility, no confirmed funding and no plan to even come close to break even, how can they be expected to fulfil their fixtures in whichever division they are playing next season?
Forget the SFA’s F&PP test. Does this club have the ability to fulfil fixtures next season? That needs to be clarified very quickly.
This is how you deal with systematic cheating…
http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/a-league-perth-glory-set-to-be-issued-second-show-cause-notice-for-alleged-salary-cap-breaches/story-e6frf423-1227288405840
@Night Terror
I suppose the SPFL could always ask TRFC to pay a bond up front if they say that they will be able to fulfil their fixtures in 2015-16. If TRFC refuse, they can always relegate them to League 2 as they did with Livingston FC a few years back. Fat chance!
I’ve just had another look at the RIFC accounts and identified the critical state of their finances at the end of December and the urgency to get cash for Lewis Macleod.
The cash balance in the accounts published yesterday was stated as £3.327M. However, £3.2M of that was held by Rangers Retail Ltd and not available for working capital.
That left the club with just £127,000 in cash at the end of the year and explains the necessity for the sale of Macleod and the emergency £500k Easdale loan until the cash came in from Brentford.
As part of the SD advances, £1.61M of RRL’s £3.2M was declared as a dividend on 27th January as per the RNS of that date.
Since the beginning of the year, the club has thus received approx. £500k for Macleod, £1.6M from RRL, a net £2M from SD (after £3M repayment to Mash), £1.5M from the 3 Bears. That is a total of £5.6M in just three months, although the last sum may just see them through to the end of April.
The current cash burn is higher than I first thought.
Top Cat
That sounds like a very sensible and constructive proposal to protect the integrity of our league. It’s probably more likely and more useful that the SFA getting their neb into making judgments on who clubs decide to appoint to their board.
Clubs shouldn’t need official protection from themselves, but other clubs should be protected from the rash and irresponsible activities of each other.
gabby@1.07 p.m
“..This is how you deal with systematic cheating”
_______________
Good ot,gabby.
And good on the FFA.
How shameful it is that our SFA not only did not deal appropriately with SDM’s cheating, but went on to perpetrate cheating of its own in the most murky of complicit,secret and fundamentally deceitful deals with the founder of a new club that was entitled to Nothing but the opportunity to apply for membership.
gabby : ‘good spot!” it should have read..
‘Paul Murray has signed an (interim) Chairman’s Report to an official Stock Exchange that :
Rangers Football Club, formed in Scotland in 1872, is one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972.
What more does HMRC need to pursue recovery of tax debt due by the old club from the current club and its directors by making this continuation link with the old club?
_________________________________________
Most on here, I’m sure, have heard of badger – baiting, the above is known as HMRC- baiting.
This is an open and shut case for HMRC to persue. I don’t think they take to kindly to being two-fingered.
On the other hand the above statement is so reckless it makes me think, in my paranoiac? mode, that this new club will not be around much longer to respond to HMRC.
Scoreline: Servco 3 HMRC 0
pau1mart1n says:
April 1, 2015 at 9:08 am
“Is it right that sfa still paid out for ibrox while the 250k is outstanding to Spfl ??”
neepheid replies:
April 1, 2015 at 11:45 am
“I don’t know, but if it’s true, the clubs should be lining up to get the SFA senior management team sacked- wouldn’t you think?”
—————-
Dead on neepheid. But in general how would an honourable club or two go about getting these lads disciplined for any breach of employment regulations or their own rules?
Presumably he/she/they would have to bring the issue to the SPFL board. If passed there, on to Pro Game Board at Hampden. If successful, then to Main Board at Hampden. Would that be the route taken or am I on the wrong track entirely?
If approval by the various boards is required, then given the composition of all three bodies, I would not be too hopeful of getting over the first hurdle, never mind getting the good ol’ boys disqualified, or even reprimanded.
How can it be done: by impeachment, recall? Not in the rules I don’t think. We surely have to clear out this lot and rewrite the rules for the next. Scapaflow is correct of course. This can only be done via the clubs. The question is how, and do the fans want change?
senior says:
April 1, 2015 at 2:52 pm
Most on here, I’m sure, have heard of badger – baiting, the above is known as HMRC- baiting.
This is an open and shut case for HMRC to persue. I don’t think they take to kindly to being two-fingered.
On the other hand the above statement is so reckless it makes me think, in my paranoiac? mode, that this new club will not be around much longer to respond to HMRC.
Scoreline: Servco 3 HMRC 0
================
HMRC deal only with legal entities- not “clubs” in the sense that Murray is using the word. The tax liabilities of RFC (in liquidation) are specific to that company. HMRC cannot attach the tac liabilities of RFC (in liquidation) from TRFC, RIFC, or any other company. Paul Murray can spout his nonsense as much as he wants, it does not change the legal position. HMRC can only collect tax from the legal entity that incurred the liability, or very exceptionally, from its directors. How could TRFC or RIFC possibly be liable in law for tax liabilities relating to periods before they even existed?
I am, by the way, a total opponent of the whole concept of limited liability, and always have been. But the world I actually have to live in is addicted to debt, and, as a consequence, to the forgiveness of debt. Personal responsibility for debt is simply not a feature of a modern developed economy. So be very careful about lending money- creditors are simply there to be stiffed- in my opinion.
easyJambo says:
April 1, 2015 at 12:15 pm
An interesting development at Tynecastle today as Hearts have announced a three year shirt deal with “Save the Children”, which will earn the club a “seven figure sum” over the period.
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/4268
What is unusual about it is that it is being funded by philanthropist. So there are still a few about…
==========================================
That deserves a Wow Just Wow !
Aside from Hearts winning as Champions, and wee Jay’s appearance – this is the most uplifting news in Scottish football for a while, IMO.
Hearts might not be in the same league as Barcelona wrt wearing the UNICEF logo, but it’s still a classy thing to do.
[And it shows up the idiots at the SPFL yet again for not considering a ‘free sponsor’ over the last few years.]
Well done to the Jambos and their philanthropist !
please forgive the pedantry, but…………..
“31 March 2015
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers” or the “Company”)
Interim Results
Rangers International Football Club plc (AIM:RFC), the holding company for the Scottish football Club ‘Rangers’, is pleased to announce interim results for the six month period to 31 December 2014………”
No, RIFC PLC are the Holding Company of The Rangers Football Club Ltd (“the Club”), which itself is described by the RIFC PLC as the “Footballing Company”….. 🙄
gamesabogey says:
April 1, 2015 at 8:55 am
mcfc says:
April 1, 2015 at 8:39 am
Rangers board urged to examine if £500,000 Newcastle payment is legal
————————————————————————————–
This is a future payment which will become due if TRFC gain promotion at the end of season. That will be one of the nicer problems to have as there are issues in the interim accounts that should give rise to far greater concern and outrage.
=============================
Fair play to the TRFC PR guys.
They have totally misdirected all the bears’ outrage to Ashley and SD on this potential ‘penalty’ of £500,000. How dare he !
But has this ‘penalty’ just been spun really well ?
IIRC, McCoist was still manager when the NUFC players appeared.
TRFC were playing rubbish, so what if he was asked if he wanted some surplus NUFC players until the end of the season ? In the absence of any transfers-in, McCoist, IMO, would have accepted anyone with 2 legs.
So, what if Ashley/Llambias agreed that they wouldn’t charge the full wages for these guys – to help the TRFC cash flow – but if they won promotion then NUFC would be reimbursed the £500,000. The risk was all on NUFC.
But, it has been spun that Ashley is simply milking TRFC if they win promotion – because he can – rather than NUFC possibly helping out TRFC, [injured players aside].
Rather than a ‘penalty’, this contingent liability could be regarded as ‘reimbursement’.
Pedantic perhaps, but if this is how it has played out, then I can’t see Ashley rushing to do anything to help out TRFC in future.
Neepheid
TBK’s response is what I thought to be the case, what say you?
‘No, RIFC PLC are the Holding Company of The Rangers Football Club Ltd (“the Club”), which itself is described by the RIFC PLC as the “Footballing Company”…
TBK
senior says:
April 1, 2015 at 3:56 pm
Neepheid
TBK’s response is what I thought to be the case, what say you?
‘No, RIFC PLC are the Holding Company of The Rangers Football Club Ltd (“the Club”), which itself is described by the RIFC PLC as the “Footballing Company”…
========================
RIFC is a public limited company. It owns all the shares in TRFC, a private limited company. Therefore RIFC is the “holding company” of TRFC. TRFC operates a football business from Ibrox, which it calls Rangers. TRFC bought that business from Duff and Phelps as administrators of RFC, a limited company now in liquidation.
Those are the facts regarding the legal entities involved. The use of the word “club” interchangeably with the word “company” is simply an example of imprecise use of language. However it has no bearing whatsoever on the taxation liabilities of the legal entities (companies) involved. I will repeat- Murray can bump his gums about the “club” until the cows come home, people can use words just as they please, but taxation attaches to legal entities, not to ephemeral “clubs”. And whatever anyone on the board at Ibrox says cannot transfer tax liabilities from RFC (in liquidation) to any other company.
neepheid says:
April 1, 2015 at 4:15 pm
==============
With all due respect the business wasn’t bought from Duff and Phelps but the assets of the business which was about to enter liquidation. The purchaser then used the assets to set up in the same form of business.
Apart from shit stirring can anyone enlighten me as to why the 500k payment to NUFC was mentioned in the interims. Wouldn’t they as well have made mention the possibility of staff win bonuses also. Though they may or may not happen.
Not to mention I will not support any sport that deems DCK fit and proper. End of.
Bryce Curdy says:
April 1, 2015 at 12:31 pm
Some discussion yesterday regarding whether Sevco could sell season tickets before knowing in what division they would be playing. I think it was ecobhoy who said he thought they could find a way round this problem.
I had already been thinking about this and don’t see a simple solution other than rewarding early subscribers with effectively a potential discount (ie possible Premiership package at Championship price). The risk of charging an intermediate price is what Sevco do with prices in the event of failing to win promotion. Difficult to justify charging less than the early subscribers paid; difficult to justify charging more than the product is worth.
Would it be possible to have some sort of legally enforceable contract that meant fans having to pay an additional supplement in the event of promotion? Certainly not a scenario I have heard of previously.
************************
Just go to Wolves website and have a look. It couldn’t be simpler.
The fans make a choice and buy (or not) early at the published price or they take a chance that the club gets promotion and they buy at the higher price later.
I fancy season tickets are not being offered simply because The Rangers don’t want the inevitable “two fingered salute” that will almost certainly follow , in my opinion.
DK has missed the boat to offer early season tickets as even he and his posse have managed to lose the confidence of the Bears in record time.
I thought I’d take the opportunity (having wondered at the recent “Interim Results”) to highlight the particular areas of interest in PM recent statement to AIM….. Think of it like a skit from “Have I Got News For You”……
“Chairman’s Statement
• 2022 vision
• Fan representation remains a key part of the forward strategy
• Rebuild a modern football Club based on the traditional values and traditions of
Rangers Football Club
1. “….. I just knew that this fantastic Club and its history had to be protected and. even in those moments when it felt as though the fates themselves were conspiring against our efforts, there were no thoughts of retreat…..”
Putting his paranoia to one side, is PM (the new ‘SURRENDER NO’) speaking as the interim chairman of the “CLUB” or the PLC?
2 . “Rangers and the task of setting the Club back on the correct path were too important but I must say I never imagined I would become Chairman of one of our country’s great institutions.”
so IS he talking about the “PLC”?
3. “I may be in the Chair only in the interim but the honour is no less great. Sadly, those who have held this post in recent times have failed to recognise the profound significance of being Chairman of Rangers but there is no possibility of the new Board ever under-valuing Rangers’ position.”
Right! honestly I’m confused… Is he speaking as PLC Chairman?
4. “The new Directors have been in place only a matter of weeks but have already started to repair the damage caused through recent years of neglect and disrespect for this Club, its people and its history. The mismanagement of the Club in recent years has been simply staggering.”
Right he’s talking about “THE CLUB” again…….
5. “The new Board is well advanced on funding plans, especially short to medium term which will ensure the Club has a firm foundation from which to drive on into the future. ……. This funding will be provided by existing and new investors who now want to invest in the Club. Thereafter, the Club must quickly become self-sustaining and absolutely free from the kind of funding crises which have plagued Rangers in recent years.”
Doesn’t he mean PLC?
6. ” We can and we will return this Club to a strong and profitable footing through strategic planning, investment and re-engagement with all of our stakeholders.”
So the “CLUB” requires profitable footing and stakeholders? (stakeholders meaning FANS)
7. “Too many of them have been lost or disenfranchised because of successive failings by a series of Directors over the last four years in particular. But they are gone now and this is a new era for this great and special Club which must be regenerated, not only for its own good but for the greater good of Scottish football.”
This is the CLUB that requires regeneration NOT the PLC? Glad you didn’t mention the time you were on board of the OLD CLUB, sorry, I mean Holding Company of Rangers, when they were secretly benefiting from Tax Avoidance Schemes and borrowing sums never to be repaid.
8. “With the fans returning to support the Club we believe that there is significant potential to grow our commercial income.”
Yes! Fans = Income
9. “….Rangers’ fans are the Club’s most significant stakeholder and they must never again be taken for granted or treated with contempt.”
GIVE US YER MONEY!
10. “Of course a large number of others also helped in the struggle to achieve change and they, too, have our gratitude but the supporters are the real heroes. Without them nothing would have changed and there would have been no way of recovery from the set of figures in this report.”
Thats worrying! “NO WAY OF RECOVERY” if it wasn’t for the fans. Not sure Big Mike will agree with that… but you are right, the FANS are the most important stakeholders…
11. “We have access to significant new funding…”
Ok! Where is it? How much?
12. “…..So the simple truth is Rangers needs every fan to invest in the future…”
ROLL UP ROLL UP!!
13. “This is what we, the Board, are working towards but achieving this will be impossible IF our fans do not buy into that vision. Buying season books and match-day tickets is not just about today, it is also very much about where we want to be in a year, five years, ten years and beyond.”
Sorry? What? I thought you had access to significant funds? AH! The “Stakeholders”! (FANS)
14. “The Board is working towards a plan which sees Rangers at the top and every single one of us has to buy into that vision.”
A vision involving YOUR (fans/ stakeholders) money!
16. “It is not unreasonable to expect this because Rangers have been there before so the message is that by purchasing a new season ticket you are investing in Rangers’ future. Winning the boardroom back was Part One of the recovery and now we face Part Two.”
PLEASE BUY SEASON TICKETS!!!!
17. “Our vision is to build a football club fit for the 21st Century but one that is founded on the traditional values and traditions of Rangers which we all hold dear.”
Does that include the despicable and unsanctioned sectarianism?
18. “Our focus must be on d….working towards creating better working relationships with all our commercial partners, including Sports Direct. We are in the process of engaging with them because they are a large shareholder as well as being our key commercial partner.”
I think your only KEY commercial partner
19. “Remember, this is our Club, we have taken ownership of it and with our 2022 vision we will not fail.”
No Paul, this is the PLC…. WATP!
Paul Murray
Interim Chairman
30 March 2015″
neepheid:
April 1, 2015 at 4:15 pm
Are you sure that applies to UEFA?
Is 2022 vision better than 2020 ?
Danish Pastry
That is very welcome news from UEFA about the distribution of UEFA money to reach clubs the previous distribution did not reach.
I’m not sure if the higher solidarity payments means a bit less for title winners if new money had simply been distributed on previous lines, but if it has the effect of addressing the gap timimous posted about that clubs needed a cup run or EL entry to cover then that is most welcome.
The need for domestic FFP is still there to counter unsustainable spending to get at CL money. My earlier post re Rangers spend in 2008 refers.
pau1mart1n says:
April 1, 2015 at 5:19 pm
——————————————-
Gonny no mention specsavers 😳
TBK says:
April 1, 2015 at 4:40 pm
neepheid:
April 1, 2015 at 4:15 pm
Are you sure that applies to UEFA?
==================
I have absolutely no idea. My comment was to clarify that HMRC cannot recover tax due from RFC (in liquidation) from any other company currently operating as “Rangers”. I have some knowlege about how the tax system works- I know nothing, or next to nothing about UEFA’s rules.
tykebhoy says:
April 1, 2015 at 4:28 pm
neepheid says:
April 1, 2015 at 4:15 pm
==============
With all due respect the business wasn’t bought from Duff and Phelps but the assets of the business which was about to enter liquidation. The purchaser then used the assets to set up in the same form of business.
==============
A business is simply a collection of assets, including the goodwill, the name, and all the rest of that stuff. So if I buy all the assets, including the intangible assets, then I’ve bought the business, surely? How else do I buy a business? What is there that Sevco didn’t buy from the administrators? So far as I know, they bought the lot.
https://davidfarrellfaz.wordpress.com
Is this true did almost all part time clubs get
Financial help from the Rangers as they made
There way through the leagues ?
@Neepheid
Again with due respect and we may be getting into Semantics territory and also verging on OCNC. A business is something that trades in one or more products and/or services and is a going concern. Had the collection of assets being bought by Sevco xxx been a business in a going concern then there would have been no need for Duff and Phelps to sell nor would the original business need to have been liquidated.
I have bought several assets in my lifetime that may be of use to a business but in no way do I consider I run or own a business as a result of those purchases. The Charles Green vehicle purchased the assets to set up in the same line of business. Had it bought the business then it would 100% be responsible for the debts of that business
neepheid says:
April 1, 2015 at 5:36 pm
tykebhoy says:
April 1, 2015 at 4:28 pm
neepheid says:
April 1, 2015 at 4:15 pm
==============
With all due respect the business wasn’t bought from Duff and Phelps but the assets of the business which was about to enter liquidation. The purchaser then used the assets to set up in the same form of business.
==============
A business is simply a collection of assets, including the goodwill, the name, and all the rest of that stuff. So if I buy all the assets, including the intangible assets, then I’ve bought the business, surely? How else do I buy a business? What is there that Sevco didn’t buy from the administrators? So far as I know, they bought the lot.
______________________________________________
The SPL share. Which ‘belonged’ to the ‘club’, but could never be sold. That went to Dundee under league rules that kicked in when a club ceased to exist.
And the debts. If you buy a ‘business’ as a going concern, you take on its outstanding debt.
‘Otherwise, it is merely an asset purchase.
(Had someone (e.g. Craig Whyte for instance) bought ‘Rangers’ the club, these elements would have been included. (If CW had been able to buy only the assets, he’d have paid more than £1!)
CW bought ‘the club’ and ‘the business’.
But when Charles Green bought ‘some leftovers’ from the adminsistrators – (to be used as ingredients for a new club) they were not included. The reason he was able to do so? Discontinuation of the club meant these were no longer needed by it, and so they had to be sold for the benefit of those to whom it owed money.
Because a business includes its debts as well as its assets. A club includes its liabilities as well as its assets.
Sevco acquired certain assets of the RFC footballing club, and used these to form a new club, that subsequently applied for a licence, and was admitted at the fourth tier of Scottish football.
It adopted the livery of a defunct entity for marketing reasons.
It is not the same entity.
neepheid says:
April 1, 2015 at 5:36 pm
“A business is simply a collection of assets, including the goodwill, the name, and all the rest of that stuff. So if I buy all the assets, including the intangible assets, then I’ve bought the business, surely? How else do I buy a business? What is there that Sevco didn’t buy from the administrators? So far as I know, they bought the lot.”
++++++++++++++++++
I hope that is a joke (?). Each and every creditor had “business” with Rangers Football Club plc and collectively the did “business” with every functional area. I defy you to find a single department that didn’t owe someone something for goods of services received. With that in mind, how could the “business” in its entirety be sold without the debt going with it?
Using the word “business” in this sense is flawed. It is a generic term like “commerce” and “trade”. I know they have proper definitions though it is easy to confuse the properly defined use and the more general use. Just stick to “company” and that will keep you straight.
It is not the same company. The company was never sold. The company remains in liquidation. The assets, tangible and intangible, were sold. Sevco bought the assets with the express purpose of continuing Rangers (no new club / old club please, that’s not the point I’m making). Or more precisely, with the express purpose of continuing Rangers fans paying through the nose.
Re:UEFA…Many thanks Neepheid.
AFAIRC, No-one bought the CLUB. The assets of the business were purchased. Otherwise it would have remained Rangers FC Plc…. Old ground I know, but thems the facts.
Neepheid
TBK
The question of UEFA’s will only be addressed if/when TRFC apply as licensee for a UEFA licence.
UEFA will treat the applicant according to its definition of a club as a legal entity in Article 12 of UEFA FFP.
That applicant will be RIFC under b) of the UEFA definition ie a company with a contractual relationship with TRFC.
TRIFC or TRFC is irrelevant, UEFA will treat the single licence applicant as a single legal entity who have had three years membership of the SFA without interuption from 3 August 2012.
They will not treat them as the same club as they define one in a) or b) of Art 12, otherwise they would be looking for the applicant to admit to outstanding tax which will not happen because TRIFC/TRFC is not responsible for RFC’S debt. Liquidation took care of that.
The detail is all in the CQN Magazine article covering the ASA decision on the article placed in the Sunday Herald.
The “company” applying, which is the term UEFA will use, will owe nothing to HMRC in terms of the debt RFC as a legal entity shed in 2012 as a result of liquidation.
Shedding tax due via liquidation but wanting to be known as the same club who shed that debt, is the classic definition of wanting the whole wedding cake and eating it.
Paul Murrays statement reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where the Sherrif holds himself hostage by holding a Gun to his own head -I do not know why ” mismanagement in recent years ” that was you and the glib one You can fool some of the people etc, do they believe this stuff themselves, if so thee is some potent form of self hypnosis to forget going on!
tykebhoy says:
April 1, 2015 at 5:59 pm
@Neepheid
Again with due respect and we may be getting into Semantics territory and also verging on OCNC. A business is something that trades in one or more products and/or services and is a going concern. Had the collection of assets being bought by Sevco xxx been a business in a going concern then there would have been no need for Duff and Phelps to sell nor would the original business need to have been liquidated.
I have bought several assets in my lifetime that may be of use to a business but in no way do I consider I run or own a business as a result of those purchases. The Charles Green vehicle purchased the assets to set up in the same line of business. Had it bought the business then it would 100% be responsible for the debts of that business
=====================
Buying a business from administrators is an everyday occurence. The business does not come with the debts, or at least I have never known of such a case. The buyer buys the business, usually with all the physical assets, and the administrators use the money they receive for the business to pay the creditors, usually just a few pennies in the pouynd, sadly.
You seem to be confusing a going concern with insolvency. RFC was still trading when it went into administration, but it was hugely insolvent. That’s why it had to go into Administration. D&P had a duty as administrators to try to keep the business going, and sell as a going concern if possible. However what they did is crrently subject to a potential criminal prosecution, and I will say no more.
beatipacificiscotia says:
April 1, 2015 at 6:02 pm
I hope that is a joke (?). Each and every creditor had “business” with Rangers Football Club plc and collectively the did “business” with every functional area. I defy you to find a single department that didn’t owe someone something for goods of services received. With that in mind, how could the “business” in its entirety be sold without the debt going with it?
===============
Because that is the way that insolvency works in the UK. “Businesses” are sold out of insolvency every day, debt free and operating with the same staff, premises and name as before. The creditors have been stiffed, someone has usually got themselves a bargain, and the customers usually don’t know or care that there has been a change of ownership.
Business is a word like club and many other words. It has many meanings, you have to consider it in context. So we really are into the minefield that is semantics.
And I never said or even implied that TRFC are the same company, in fact I said the precise opposite. Which, to get back to the start, was that HMRC can’t collect the debts of RFC (in liquidation) from TRFC or RIFC. They can only collect tax owed by RFC (in liquidation) from the liquidator. Just like all the other creditors.
neepheid says:
April 1, 2015 at 7:07 pm
“Business is a word like club and many other words. It has many meanings, you have to consider it in context. So we really are into the minefield that is semantics.”
+++++++++++++
Is there nothing betting going on than arguing semantics? It is a pointless debate if you don’t have agreement on fundamental definitions.
Night Terror says:
April 1, 2015 at 1:05 pm
If RIFC are losing the thick end of £1m per month, have no overdraft facility, no confirmed funding and no plan to even come close to break even, how can they be expected to fulfil their fixtures in whichever division they are playing next season?
Forget the SFA’s F&PP test. Does this club have the ability to fulfil fixtures next season? That needs to be clarified very quickly.
_____________________________________________________
Didn’t you listen to PM?
They will have a rights issue and sell shares in the Summer.
Of course this is ‘to rebuild the club back to its rightful place.’ not to fund ongoing running costs. (So just like the last one then. :irony: ) Except obviously its real Rangers men (unlike Walter Smith and Ally McCoist) leading the clarion cry this time round.
I mean it Could work 🙄