Enough is enough

ByAndrak

Enough is enough

As Celtic prepare to take on one of the Champions league big boys again, a warning to the commentators and pundits.

Like most Scots, I was sad to see Celtic so comprehensively thumped by PSG and Bayern recently. But something about those nights made me angry as well.

Not the players, their effort, or even the schoolboy defending. Not the semi-ritualistic way these games are presented on TV or the ludicrous hype that is generated by the media.

I blame Celtic for their own failings and the executive branch of Scottish football for facilitating that failure. And I think it is the result of a long-term strategy that has clearly failed.

What offends me is the casual referencing of the weakness of the game and players in Scotland as a key reason why Celtic struggle against the best teams, and the implicit suggestion that if only their domestic opponents were more skillful, Celtic’s Champions League training friendlies schedule, aka the SPFL Premiership, might prepare them better for these big games.

Pat Bonner said it outright in his commentary of the Bayern game. The weakness of the SPFL is the problem. Several others made the point that Celtic defenders never get the chance to play against top strikers in their own league and are, therefore, somehow unable to cope with it when they do. Others claim that Celtic are so used to being in possession of the ball and winning games easily at home, that when they face a top-quality opponent, they are suddenly caught like a rabbit in headlights without the faintest clue what to do.

I don’t know enough about the tactics of modern football, or the language used to describe systems of play, to critique that in footballing terms, but I do have a reasonable grasp of what constitutes bullshit. And so much of what our journalists, TV commentators, and pundits say, on occasions like this, is, definitely, it.

I blame Celtic for their own failings and the executive branch of Scottish football for facilitating that failure. And I think it is the result of a long-term strategy that has clearly failed.

Here’s how I think it went. Professional football in Scotland looks like it has been organised around a single goal. To generate Scottish success in the Champions League. A good way to achieve that is to ensure that Scottish teams get plenty exposure to that league. The best way to ensure that is to make sure that the same team, or teams, gain regular entry into it. The way to make that happen is to organise the league such that it is unthinkable that any other team could win it.

How might you do that without making it obvious what your intentions are?

Well, first, you lay the financial ground. Allow teams to keep their home gate receipts. That way, clubs are kept in their place, the big two stay big, the middle six to eight, not so big, and the rest, remain almost irrelevant.

To further entrench the financial status quo, you need to ensure that income from domestic sources (particularly TV money) is kept low enough to stop any other club paying for a team above their station, but not so low that mid-sized clubs go out of business.

It is our fault because we are not brave enough. Not brave enough to stand up to the powers running our game and put a stop to this madness.

Next, you would have to ensure that the rules stay in place long enough for the plan to work. Give the two big clubs the right of veto over rule changes. The masterminds of the plan have to be kept in office for as long as possible and committee members must be carefully selected. A generous portion of executives from the big two, and a fair sprinkling of others too afraid of their own clubs going to the wall to bother about grand generation-long master-plans, should guarantee no one rocks the boat too much. Allow a rogue committee member to challenge things every now and again to make it look good for the punters, safe in the knowledge that no permanent damage can be done to the plan.

But what if something unexpected happened to one of the big clubs? That could be tricky, right? The whole plan could be put in jeopardy. On the other hand, what is there to worry about when you have ensured that the decision makers are either on message or too concerned about their own teams’ survival to get in the way of a stitch up. Sure, we lost a few years, but it’ll soon get back on track.

Journalists would get wind of this surely, or even be able to work it out for themselves, right? Well, in a profession that seems to have lost most of its towering intellects to be replaced by either agenda driven zealots or barely literate fan bloggers (like me, I suppose), we might be asking a little too much of them. In any case, the overwhelming coverage of the big two in the national media and the simple fact that promoting Celtic and Rangers sells advertising space means that they are, more or less, complicit, even if they don’t always realise it.

I hope this sounds like the ramblings of a mad conspiracy theorist, but if any of the above rings true (and it does to me), then there might just be some truth on it.

Pat Bonner and those other pundits and commentators are right of course. Celtic’s failure against the big teams is the fault of the rest of Scottish football. Our players and teams aren’t good enough. But fault is a convoluted thing. It is not our fault because we are not good enough. It is our fault because we are not brave enough. Not brave enough to stand up to the powers running our game and put a stop to this madness.

I have absolutely no evidence that there is such a master-plan, or that anyone at the SFA or SPFL has even considered any of these points or the consequences that might flow from them. I even have serious doubts that any of the current leadership have the intellectual capacity to dream up such a Machiavellian plot, let alone execute it. But one thing I do know is that Scottish football is not in a healthy place. Not even a Celtic victory tonight, even if they gave some of their CL win bonus to Kilmarnock, you know, for giving them such a good run out on Saturday, would fix it.

How glorious would it be for the other Scottish teams to be credited for Celtic’s CL victories (especially the big ones)? I imagine the words would get stuck in plenty of throats. Celtic win CL games despite Scottish Football and lose them because of it. That, in a nutshell, is where we are right now. All that is likely to change any time soon is that Rangers will join them again. Something has to change, if only because my TV won’t survive another shoe being thrown at it when some Celtic minded blowhard tells the world that my team is partly to blame for Celtic’s defence not being good enough to stop Neymar or Lewandowski.

This article was first published in the unofficial Dundee Fans Forum https://www.thedarkblues.co.uk/news/scottish-football/enough-is-enough-r542/ on 23 October 2017. Reproduced, in slightly amended form, with their kind permission.

About the author

Andrak contributor

A Dundee fan, brought up in the city in the 70s and 80s, now lives in England. An accountant by profession and temperament. Working in international development mostly overseas (Africa & South East Asia, mostly). Currently based in Vientiane Laos. Never played football beyond Sunday League but watch as much Scottish football as possible.

718 Comments so far

StevieBCPosted on3:41 pm - Nov 7, 2017


WOTTPI
NOVEMBER 7, 2017 at 15:20
SFA and SPFL: Survey says stakeholders dissatisfied with Scots’ governing bodieshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41904600
=======================================

“…In response to the survey, an SPFL spokesman told BBC Scotland: “We are all working towards a common goal to grow and improve the game in Scotland and are encouraged by progress in recent years.
“It’s worth underlining that the SPFL’s commercial income and revenues back to clubs are at record levels and attendances last season were at the highest level this decade, up 12% over the previous season.”
===========

Assuming that this is the full SPFL quote…

They are not very bright at Hampden.

Over 16K fans / customers took the time to complete the survey.
Yet, the SPFL ‘spokesman’ doesn’t even mention it – nor that the SPFL will take any notice of the findings ?! 
 
They could have at least added some weaselly words to dodge making any further comment, like;
“The SPFL values the opinions of the fans, and will take time to review the survey’s findings.”

[And I’m guessing the SFA will respond with something like: we only recognise the findings of our own, SFA funded fans’ surveys – if they comment at all.]

 01

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on4:23 pm - Nov 7, 2017


wottpiNovember 7, 2017 at 15:27
——————————————————-
I agree with that also.

View Comment

erniePosted on4:32 pm - Nov 7, 2017


The reason that it’s good that tax havens are a story is because it should be illegal rather than just immoral.  We are being shafted by interested parties who want to maintain the status quo.  Don’t let the whole shower of them off with it because one guy happens to be connected to your team or because it wisnae as bad as the other cheek’s lot.  That’s ridiculous. I actually think it would be beneficial if someone from my own lot (because what fitba team you support is clearly irrelevant) was outed if it would help keep the whole, shameful scam in the public eye. The story will move on from Mrs Brown’s boys and Desmond; good, the more that get outed the better for us.  A pox on them all.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:47 pm - Nov 7, 2017


Tax avoidance and tax management are not the same thing.

Tax management is minimising the tax you pay by legitimate means. I think I will be doing it when I retire. As I understand it if I maximise my lump sum that is tax free, however if I take it as pension then I pay tax on anything over the personal tax threshold. I do not consider that to be tax avoidance it is a legitimate and acceptable way to manage my tax poisition.

From HMRC

1. What’s taxed

You pay tax if your total annual income adds up to more than your Personal Allowance. Find out about your Personal Allowance and Income Tax rates.

2. What’s tax-free

You won’t usually pay any tax if your total annual income adds up to less than your Personal Allowance.

Lump sums from your pension

You can usually take up to 25% of the amount built up in any pension as a tax-free lump sum. The tax-free lump sum doesn’t affect your Personal Allowance.

Tax is taken off the remaining amount before you get it.

I also don’t consider someone investing in an ISA to be avoiding tax. They are simply using a legitimate means, approved by the Government to minimise it.

Tax avoidance, according to HMRC, is using a provision for something which that provision was not intended.

People may not like the fact that over a 3 year period Dermott Desmond’s company paid £1m less tax because of the way the business was structured. By having part of the operation in the IOM rather than Swizerland. However if what he did is legitimate in both jurisdictions than it’s not tax avoidance. Well not as the UK Government define it. Though to be fair the UK Government are not actually involved.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on5:28 pm - Nov 7, 2017


In a desperate search for moral equivalence part of Scottish society  has to widen the immoral actions of RFC since 2000 to cross the boundary between sporting and business affairs.
DD’s use of IOM tax base for one of his businesses could have been reported on general news, (but a rich man organises his tax affairs legally to reduce tax paid is hardly news is it? )So to make it such the issue is dragged into the sporting arena and broadcast in that context on BBC Sportsound.
So in that sporting context it might be worth looking at what LNS said about the use of ebts by RFC at a time when HMRC were claiming that the way RFC used a legitimate tax reduction device was unlawful.
[104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form offinancial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus itis not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial andsporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more incomefrom gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequentlyable to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more31 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 [Ends]
Now as we all know HMRC were successful in their claim that RFC used ebts unlawfully and on that basis alone LNS should be revisited, but as it hasn’t been then (ironically) the LNS justification for the  RFC use of ebts within a sporting context means that even if a sporting context did apply to DD’s tax arrangements (and it doesn’t) then quoting LNS as many RFC fans like to do when it suits, it is OK for DD to arrange his tax affairs within the law so as to minimise his tax liabilities.
Herein lies the hypocrisy of the BBC in attempting to claim moral equivalence in a sporting context.  It is more than hypocrisy, it is malevolent and unless Sportsound proceed to provide balance by for example a full programme covering the issues raised by the Offshore Game that they have studiously avoided so far, they will be in breach of BBC guidelines. 
The above is from a general perspective. The next bit is as a Celtic supporter.
If I were Celtic I would be taking the matter to the BBC Trust to review, not just this instance but BBC Sportsound’s proclivity under Kenny McIntyre to avoid balance on this issue as much as his club evaded tax.
It is high time we took these guys on in their own backyard using the very rules they think do not apply to them.
Its not just the BBC,  its The Guardian, its STV News and its endemic over the Scottish media.
Celtic need to set up the capacity to challenge every media attempt to blacken their name in the desperate attempts for moral equivalence, where those challenging Celtic sporting values would rather bring us down than raise theirs up.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on6:21 pm - Nov 7, 2017


Homunculus November 7, 2017 at 16:47People may not like the fact that over a 3 year period Dermott Desmond’s company paid £1m less tax because of the way the business was structured. By having part of the operation in the IOM rather than Swizerland. However if what he did is legitimate in both jurisdictions than it’s not tax avoidance. Well not as the UK Government define it. Though to be fair the UK Government are not actually involved.
———————————————————–

Your comment omits (misses?) one important aspect of the arrangements of Execujet that is likely to make it’s corporate behaviour unlawful. That is that documents indicate that no “control” was exercised by the IOM subsidiary as all decisions were made by the Swiss company.

View Comment

jimboPosted on6:34 pm - Nov 7, 2017


I posted about 5pm and the post didn’t appear.  I blamed myself, I thought I didn’t ‘send’. 

So I posted again. still nothing.

I assumed something was up with the site.  But now I see 2 posts appearing since. Auldheid & Sannoff.

What’s up? It wasn’t remotely moderation material.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:08 pm - Nov 7, 2017


EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 7, 2017 at 12:32 . 
Why should Celtic fans be so sensitive to business activities of the their major shareholder? I can only think that it is the risk of damage to the Celtic “brand” that concerns them.  Should they ignore what Dermot Desmond does in the rest of his business empire, just because it doesn’t directly involve Celtic? If I was a Celtic fan, and had a political interest in fairness within the tax system, then I definitely would want to know what he was up to elsewhere in his business empire. Otherwise you would have to ask why the same Celtic fans are so interested in the tax affairs and convictions of the current Rangers chairman, which had no direct connection to the football club.
—————
first that was a good post.but can i correct if i may?
Otherwise you would have to ask why the same Celtic fans are so interested in the tax affairs and convictions of the current Rangers chairman, which had no direct connection to the football club.
————-
Mr king is not the rangers chairman he is the chairman of the company TRIFC.but he is looked at by many as the chairman of the rangers football club.The reason many celtic fans are so interested in the tax affairs and convictions of Mr king is because of his past convictions and should be know where near a scottish football club.And if it was not for celtic fans and others we would be lead to believe by the scottish football authorities and the SMSM that he is the chairman of the football club.
Mr Desmond as far as i know has never had any convictions and is not a chairman of celtic he is just a major shareholder.
hope you get my point19

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:09 pm - Nov 7, 2017


SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ
NOVEMBER 7, 2017 at 18:21
================================

Sorry but I have no knowledge of whether that is significant under Swiss tax rules. 

Are the Swiss or IOM authorities taking any action against the company. For example are the Swiss authorities alleging that the company are guilty of tax avoidance and seeking to have the money paid.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on7:56 pm - Nov 7, 2017


Cluster One November 7, 2017 at 19:08

Mr king is not the rangers chairman he is the chairman of the company TRIFC.but he is looked at by many as the chairman of the rangers football club.The reason many celtic fans are so interested in the tax affairs and convictions of Mr king is because of his past convictions and should be know where near a scottish football club.And if it was not for celtic fans and others we would be lead to believe by the scottish football authorities and the SMSM that he is the chairman of the football club. Mr Desmond as far as i know has never had any convictions and is not a chairman of celtic he is just a major shareholder.
hope you get my point
====================
Thanks for the response.  I had expected that challenge.

Looking at the accounts of the football club (TRFC), it appears that the “club” does not have a chairman appointed from within its directors.  I don’t think that it is unreasonable to describe King as the de facto chairman of the club.

With regard to King’s convictions, that’s the point I was trying to make. I have seen several twitter posts from Celtic fans complaining about Celtic being linked to the allegations being made against Dermot Desmond.

It is not about Celtic. It’s about Dermot Desmond.  Whether Celtic fans like it or not Dermot Desmond is a name that will be recognised by the Scottish public, for his connection as a major shareholder in Celtic FC.  That makes it a public interest story in Scotland.

Auldheid states above: “but a rich man organises his tax affairs legally to reduce tax paid is hardly news is it?”, which I agree with, but when a major leak of information is put into the public domain, then it is only natural that the broadcasters seek to highlight a mix of people of people in the public eye (e.g. Desmond, Hamilton, Ashcroft, Mrs Brown’s Boys) and a range of other rich individuals who engaged in similar tax avoidance activities.  I think that is the correct approach, to expose both high and low profile names, thus to engage the public and put pressure on politicians to act.

If I’ve understood Auldheid correctly, he and others feel that there is a moral equivalence argument to be had (a Rangers/Celtic bias).  I’m a Hearts fan, I couldn’t care less who it is that is exposed, whether it is Desmond, Usmanov, Romanov or King (and the Queen). I’m just happy to see that their business practices are questioned, either as a legal or a moral issue.

To argue that Desmond is only doing what business people do, in my opinion, misses the point of why it is newsworthy.  King was also doing what some business people do, only he crossed a line and was done for it (41 times). There would be little interest in King’s tax convictions had he not been involved with RFC and RIFC, similarly there would be little interest in Desmond if he wasn’t involved with CFC.

Auldheid certainly has a point about an imbalance in coverage of Rangers by the BBC but, on this specific issue, I personally don’t believe the criticism is warranted.      

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:58 pm - Nov 7, 2017


WRT the Parasite (sic) Papers , I reckon SMSM will now have to publish an exhaustive list of all majority shareholders of all Scottish clubs and their compliance(or not) with the tax regimes in their country of residence – in the interest of balance,of course . Is it being suggested that DD is using ill-gotten gains to deprive other teams of their rightful place in the scheme of things, or is this non-story a deflection from some tortuous financial results posted recently ?

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on7:59 pm - Nov 7, 2017


Homunculus  November 7, 2017 at 19:09

Here’s the relevant text from the BBC Business News website article

Making all the decisions

The emails suggest the Isle of Man’s activities were being dictated from Execujet’s Swiss HQ.

For example, on 9 June 2015, Execujet’s insurers, Willis, wanted to make a payment of $45,000 (£34,500) to Execujet (IOM).

But Willis dealt with Execujet in Switzerland.

A Swiss-based EAG executive then emailed an Appleby employee on the Isle of Man to say: “When this payment arrives, please transfer it to our EAG bank account.”

On another occasion, Execujet instructed Appleby to transfer more than $500,000 into the Swiss account.

Tax expert Philip Simpson QC told the BBC that if individuals in Switzerland were making all the decisions about what the Isle of Man company did, such as immediately paying money to the Swiss companies, then it would mean the company was actually tax resident in Switzerland.

This might leave the structure open to challenge by the Swiss tax authorities.

Mr Simpson said: “If it’s resident in Switzerland then, despite the structure that has been put in place, stamp duty is due on the insurance premium paid and Swiss corporation tax is due on the money received back from the insurance broker.

“From what I’ve seen it suggests control may be being exercised from Switzerland.

“It would certainly be reasonable to describe this as an aggressive avoidance arrangement given, in particular, what appears to be a lack of economic substance to the Isle of Man company.

“For ease of reference here’s a link to the full article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41857222

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on8:12 pm - Nov 7, 2017


For context and scope of the alleged tax avoidance here’s the text of the section of the BBC website article that precedes the one I posted above. (I was too late to include this as an edit!)

Swiss tax

But that was not the only benefit.

Due to the way its aircraft insurance was structured, Execujet was entitled to a “brokerage” fee from its insurers, which amounted to about $1.2m (£920,000) a year. According to the data, this could be classed as income and therefore would be taxable in Switzerland.

An Appleby memo said: “By having the monies paid into the Isle of Man entity EAG [Execujet Aviation Group] are not required to pay Swiss tax on the income of around 22%.”

It added: “We expect to receive two payments per year of approximately US$600k (£460,000) under this policy.”

According to the leaked emails, that cash was funnelled straight from the Isle of Man back into Switzerland, apparently tax free, on instructions from Execujet executives in Switzerland.

The BBC asked both Mr Desmond and Execujet whether tax on this income had been subsequently paid.

Neither responded directly to that question, but said that all taxes that were due had been paid.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:13 pm - Nov 7, 2017


EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 7, 2017 at 19:56

================================

I have yet to speak to a Celtic fan who supports super wealthy people avoiding tax that others have no choice but to pay.  I have also yet to speak to one who doesn’t believe the BBC are casually linking Celtic’s name to dodgy tax avoidance without making it clear the Dermot Desmond story is not linked in any way to the business affairs of the club. They have never shown any concern before as to what the Swiss taxpayer may or may not have lost out on. I only wish they showed the same concern regarding what many inhabitants of their Sportsound studio owe the UK taxpayer through undisputed unlawful tax avoidance. 

They know exactly what they are doing in my view. 

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on8:33 pm - Nov 7, 2017


UPTHEHOOPSNOVEMBER 7, 2017 at 20:13EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 7, 2017 at 19:56
================================
I have yet to speak to a Celtic fan who supports super wealthy people avoiding tax that others have no choice but to pay.  I have also yet to speak to one who doesn’t believe the BBC are casually linking Celtic’s name to dodgy tax avoidance without making it clear the Dermot Desmond story is not linked in any way to the business affairs of the club. They have never shown any concern before as to what the Swiss taxpayer may or may not have lost out on. I only wish they showed the same concern regarding what many inhabitants of their Sportsound studio owe the UK taxpayer through undisputed unlawful tax avoidance. 
They know exactly what they are doing in my view. 

######################################
EJ has called it right Re DD. Your point about the BBC not taking the EBT tax dodgers to task is also valid but couched in such a way as to be interpreted as a deflection away from DD’s predicament.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:40 pm - Nov 7, 2017


EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 7, 2017 at 19:56
Thanks for the response.  I had expected that challenge.
—————–
Sorry if i put my point across as if it was a challenge03

View Comment

macfurglyPosted on8:48 pm - Nov 7, 2017


upthehoopsNovember 7, 2017 at 20:13
They know exactly what they are doing in my view.
____________
Anyone who has listened to Sportsound with Kenny McIntyre since 2012 will have no doubt about that. It is clearly an editorial policy at the BBC. While it may be undesirable, in my view, when the print media take this editorial line, I can choose not to buy the paper. The BBC is different. They have a statutory duty to be impartial and balanced in their reporting. They are the state broadcaster and I have to pay my license fee like everyone else.
As with other aspects of the RIFC / TRFC story though, who is in a position to call them out? The narrative has gone unchallenged, apart from on blogs like this, because no-one with a vested interest, or sufficient clout, has been prepared to do so.
It’s not just the media narrative that has gone unchallenged either of course, the actions of the responsible governing bodies hasn’t been scrutinised.
Maybe the fans survey will do something, but I doubt it. The Celtic JR may do something about a specific part of this, if it is still rolling, but the whole governance of the SFA and SPFL needs to be investigated and with it, the truth about the DK /  TP ruling at the Supreme Court, the EBT ruling at the SC also, the ramifications of that, and probably LNS and the 5WA too would emerge.
If the Member clubs had any interest in setting what is their own house in order, they would have done something by this time. It needs someone outside the game to ask questions. Channel 4 appear to have lost interest, so for me the only likely source would be an MSP. The SG might not want anything of the sort, but there must be someone with the courage and belief in Holyrood to make an issue of it.
The issues now include tax avoidance, malfeasance in the awarding of licenses, threats to journalists and others and a refusal to act on the instruction of the Takeover Panel. Those are more than enough to give an MSP a legitimate interest.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:51 pm - Nov 7, 2017


BOGS DOLLOXNOVEMBER 7, 2017 at 20:33 
EJ has called it right Re DD. Your point about the BBC not taking the EBT tax dodgers to task is also valid but couched in such a way as to be interpreted as a deflection away from DD’s predicament.

=============================

No it is not. At the moment D.D is guilty of nothing illegal, unlawful, whatever you wish to call it. The accusation is related to a company which is in no way linked to Celtic Football Club. D.D is big enough to look after himself in this matter, but the BBC have IMO deliberately smeared Celtic’s name. There is no deflection on my part, because the unlawful tax scheme at Ibrox was operated by the club for the benefit of the club and was found to be unlawful by the highest UK Court.  The D.D case is a million miles away from that and I repeat, Celtic are not involved anyway. 

The reaction I see from non-Celtic fans tells me the BBC’s strategy, which was latched onto by other media outlets, has worked. Fair means or foul, who cares eh!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:52 pm - Nov 7, 2017


Cluster One November 7, 2017 at 20:40
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 7, 2017 at 19:56 Thanks for the response.  I had expected that challenge. —————– Sorry if i put my point across as if it was a challenge
===================
There’s no problem. Perhaps “challenge” wasn’t the right word to use, but I did expect my assertion to be countered as you did.  I didn’t take the response as being argumentative in any way.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on9:06 pm - Nov 7, 2017


upthehoops November 7, 2017 at 20:13

I agree with you that EAG’s alleged behaviour has absolutely nothing to do with Celtic FC.

Would you agree that DD was unwise and unfair to Celtic FC to start his letter with “Are you a Rangers fan?”?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:25 pm - Nov 7, 2017


SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ @ 21:06

_________________________________________

I admit slight surprise at D.D’s opening line, although I do firmly believe tribalism at the BBC is responsible for the prominence this was given. Not necessarily from Mark Daly of course,.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on9:37 pm - Nov 7, 2017


BBC Scotland’s coverage of the Paradise Papers is not just about Dermot Desmond.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09gl84w/scotlands-paradise-papers

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:57 pm - Nov 7, 2017


I really think Kris Boyd needs to watch his terminology when calling new recruits to the Scotland squad ‘a laughing stock’.  What are international friendlies for if not to give fringe players and new players a chance to prove themselves?

He seems to think the Aberdeen players are only getting their chance at Pittodrie to improve ticket sales.  Yet I remember loads of people criticising Strachan in the past for not giving these very players a chance.

Kris Boyd needs to learn a bit of diplomacy.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:26 pm - Nov 7, 2017


SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ
NOVEMBER 7, 2017 at 19:59 
Homunculus  November 7, 2017 at 19:09
Here’s the relevant text from the BBC Business News website article
—————————————————————————-

Thanks for the link to the BBC article.

Does it clear up my question

“Are the Swiss or IOM authorities taking any action against the company. For example are the Swiss authorities alleging that the company are guilty of tax avoidance and seeking to have the money paid.”

I’m not really sure that “This might leave the structure open to challenge by the Swiss tax authorities.” covers that.

If and when the relevant authorities take action and allege that a company owned by Dermot Desmond avoided tax in their jurisdiction then I am more than happy to take the matter seriously. 

It still wouldn’t be anything to do with Celtic of course but that has never stopped anyone. For example making a big deal about what managers and players did with their money, after Celtic had paid it to them with the relevant tax/ NI etc deducted. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:32 am - Nov 8, 2017


I suppose we all have players and ex players from our clubs that we wish would just not talk to the media.  I mentioned Kris Boyd earlier. So in the interests of balance, there is an ex Celtic player today rubbishing the current squad’s 63 games undefeated record.  Because it’s only in Scotland.  Tony Cascarino of all people! Yes the same Scotland that he struggled badly in when playing for Celtic.  A pure riddy.

 However Neil Lennon quickly put him in his place:
“I (Neil Lennon) find the competition and the quality of the games really refreshing. We don’t need people from down south lecturing us on how the game is up here. “There is still that rawness here. There is still that passion. It’s still a working-class sport up here. You don’t have too many prawn sandwich brigades, who kill the soul of the game. I’ve been to a lot of grounds in England where the atmosphere is awful.”

Shut up Tony.  Just go and have a game of chess with Kris Boyd.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:47 am - Nov 8, 2017


Just to put it out there…

If the SPFL is looking for a useful, over educated, village idiot to replace Doncaster…I am at your humble service.

[And I get to watch any SPFL games for free?!]

And I am Scottish…  15

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on5:54 am - Nov 8, 2017


Homunculus November 7, 2017 at 22:26

If HMRC had such documents for a UK resident and domiciled individual then it would definitely carry out a compliance investigation.

I’d be surprised if their Swiss counterparts did not do the same, although owing to confidentiality we are unlikely to hear of these investigations if they’re carried out under civil, as opposed to criminal, procedures unless tax fraud is suspected.

In such cases HMRC will investigate under the following Code of Practice:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/494808/COP9_06_14.pdf

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:02 am - Nov 8, 2017


EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 7, 2017 at 20:52
04

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:16 am - Nov 8, 2017


The £6M EBT that David Murray had from Rangers amounts to more owed tax than Dermot Desmond’s former company may or may not be due tax on under Swiss law. Also, it has been ruled by the highest UK court to be an EBT which was unlawfully applied.  I can only assume no-one from the BBC Scotland investigations unit has any idea where to find David Murray, otherwise they would surely want to ask him when he is going to pay it back.  They might also want to ask him why he thinks it is okay for a state owned bank to write off nearly £800m owed by his Company, while he got to keep all the good bits. Then again they might choose instead to contact Glasgow Airport to ask when the next herd of pink elephants is due in from the moon. 

I can also only assume that the producers of BBC Sportsound have no idea that Billy Dodds, Steven Thomson, Barry Ferguson, Kris Boyd, Alex Rae and Alex McLeish also owe money to HMRC from an unlawfully applied EBT scheme. If they did, then in the interests of balance they would surely want to discuss it as a matter of urgency any time those people appear on their show. Then again they might choose instead to debate whether the moon is made of green cheese.

View Comment

LUGOSIPosted on7:53 am - Nov 8, 2017


UPTHEHOOPS
NOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 07:16
How dare you!
That was a staunch, dignified, respectful Trust based in Glasgow. Or was it Edinburgh? London?
Nope:- Jersey.
And how comes it the whole investigation is named after the stadium Celtic play at?
Why not The Refurbished Fan Zone And World Class Breakfast Papers?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:52 am - Nov 8, 2017


jimboNovember 8, 2017 at 00:32Shut up Tony.  Just go and have a game of chess with Kris Boyd.

Apparently they did Jimbo.  8 hours in and they’re still arguing as to who traditionally gets the white end of the board and who gets the black.

View Comment

Kid GlovesPosted on10:07 am - Nov 8, 2017


I’m a long term lurker and thankfully for you guys hardly ever post but the DD thing has me exasperated.

It is a shocking attempt at moral equivalence. “They’re just as bad as each other” (where have I heard that before…). The swivel-eyed loons on Follow Follow and quite a few other Rangers fans I’ve spoken to have of course been persuaded that Celtic have avoided tax just in a slightly different way to how they have and that Rangers have been really unfairly targeted. 

This has the really serious side-effect of us never getting over what’s happened. They will never accept that RFC did anything wrong and the divisions will never heal. If anything they’ll get worse, especially as things at Ibrox look like they could unravel again.

If the media had told the truth from the outset most reasonable Rangers/Sevco fans would have accepted that their club cheated and would possibly even have shown some small hint of humility. By filling their heads full of this nonsense and encouraging feelings of persecution I think it’s doubtful that we’ll get past this for a couple of generations, if ever.

Like Auldheid says, I think it’s time for DD or Celtic to report BBC Scotland to the BBC Trust. I know there are plenty of people out there who feel that a club like Celtic should not be banning journalists and in many ways I agree with that but this has gone far beyond banning a single journalist for an unflattering or untrue story. This is a coordinated campaign on behalf of one club and against another by the publicly funded state broadcaster that’s helping to do long term damage to the game and, to a certain extent, a large part of our society too.

Rant over…

View Comment

NTDEALPosted on10:27 am - Nov 8, 2017


It was mentioned on here yesterday simultaneous press conferences at Celtic Park and Ibrox at,apparrently,6pm last night.
Anything,anybody?

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:20 am - Nov 8, 2017


I think it’s about time The Green Brigade displayed a huge banner calling out BBC Scotland for their lies, evasiveness and slant about the Truth.  I’m quite sure Sky & BT wouldn’t mind focussing on that in their live broadcasts. 

Shame the BBC and get people talking, asking questions.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:22 am - Nov 8, 2017


Kid GlovesNovember 8, 2017 at 10:07
‘…the publicly funded state broadcaster that’s helping to do long term damage to the game’
___________________
And that is the key point: bias and distortion of ‘red top’ proportions by one entrenched section of the BBC.

Daly did us all a favour when his programme showed the football cheating carried on by SDM .The tax  thing was only incidental to the sports cheating: Murray was a sports cheat whether he cheated the tax man or not, because he lied to the SFA and SPL, breaking very serious rules that require full  disclosure of the remuneration being paid to players.It was that ‘failure to disclose’ that nails him as a cheat,not the fact that he diddled the taxman (or tried to). EVEN if he had been paying his own money he would still have been a cheat by not disclosing the full payments.

Now, whether Dermot Desmond cheated the tax man or not , he is not a Sports cheat, even if the scheme he and his businesses (other than Celtic) might have used dodgy tax avoidance schemes. By the use of such, of course, he  might be  legitimately lumped in as an individual  with Prince Charles and his mum and all the many other pop stars and celebrities and global players who find ways (apparently legally)of not paying as much tax, proportionately their earnings,as the rest of us.

The  BBC  tries  to draw a kind of comparison between what Desmond may or may not have done on a personal basis with the downright deliberate sports cheating of SDM’s Rangers Football Club. 

And  awards the ‘story’ a degree of prominence as if it was of the same nature and the same significance as the monumental, seismic and unfollowed-up story of SDM’s cheating of his fellow club owners, his own fans, and Scottish Football as a whole.

Worse, BBC Radio Scotland persists in propagandising and promoting the monstrous lie that Murray’s/ (Whyte’s) ‘Rangers’ survived the death-dealing Liquidation of which  Murray’s cheating was the prime cause.

And in doing so helps keeps in office the men who so scandalously caused huge numbers of us  to abandon such belief in the  integrity of Scottish football administration as we may have had.

And, on this last point, at last night’s presentation by the SFSA of the (truly independent survey conducted by German university academics) it was revealed that 69% of ( an unchallengeably statistically valid sample of the Scottish football support) believe that there’s a chance that their interest in football will progressively decline.

The failure by the ‘BBC’ to get ‘tore intae’ the Res 12 issue, to chase and harry our football administrators over their actions , to rip the guts out SDM by exposing him as the cheat (and more tellingly, the betrayer of Rangers to save his own concerns) that he was, stands as a monument to a journalistic incompetence and readiness to support untruth.

That is unacceptable, in my opinion.

I don’t have to buy any particular newspaper.

But if I want to watch any kind of TV, I am legally required to pay the licence fee.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:34 am - Nov 8, 2017


NTDEALNovember 8, 2017 at 10:27
‘..It was mentioned on here yesterday simultaneous press conferences at Celtic Park and Ibrox at,apparrently,6pm last night.’
__________
I mentioned it.But I see no reference in ,eg, today’s paper. 03
I will fine the brother the price of a couple of Horseshoe pints next time I meet him in Glasgow.Or we’ll both give the guy who told him a doing!19

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on11:42 am - Nov 8, 2017


If Sevco supporters are holding up DDD’s bad publicity as anything comparable to the football and financial cheating by Oldco over many years then they are delusional! There is obviously no equivalence whatsoever and I have to say if there was any implied or suggested by the BBC I missed it.
We will all clearly recall with some pleasure that in 2012 Mark Daly (yes the same man) presented the programme “The men who sold the jerseys”. I’m sure at that time the BBC and MD were accused by those of a blue persuasion of being anti Rangers and probably much worse!
Hero to villain and back again (twice).

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on11:59 am - Nov 8, 2017


@ JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 11:22
I must really add that while what you are saying is absolutely true your particular emphasis seems to suggest that the BBC is reliable outside of football reporting.  I may be quite mistaken, if so apologies.  But I think it’s worth saying here that the BBC (and other media outlets) are very much establishment biased and not just in sport. 

For instance there’s a  bit of a rammy just about tax evaders in the MSM but this will pass quickly and the media will move on to other things.  On the other hand every week for years not only do you regularly see stuff about benefit cheats there are whole TV programs appearing about them creating the impression it is a massive problem when in fact the figure estimated by government for this is about 2% of those claiming benefits – and in fact many for various reasons don’t get benefits they are honestly due.   

Now if the papers had been filled every day for years with articles criticising tax dodgers and there was a weekly TV program on folk dodging tax I bet government might feel pressure to do more about it.  However the MSM know they can get away with brief attacks on the powerful creating the impression of even handedness when over a longer period they are anything but.  

I’d better stop here as I’m wandering way off-topic. 
Apologies if I bored some of you.  But to try to tie it to on-topic, don’t just think the pro-Ibrox bias is a purely a football thing, it’s part of a more general attitude in the MSM.

BTW JohnJames site has …well … a rant on this. Has a real go at the BBC.
https://johnjamessite.com/2017/11/08/come-fly-with-me/

View Comment

erniePosted on12:21 pm - Nov 8, 2017


COINEANACHANTAIGHENOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 11:59
Nail on head.  Whilst the media , including Taig/Bear (depending on the story) Daly, home in on a few “celebrity” tax haven opportunists such as Desmond, Mrs Brown and, for that matter, HRH the real movers and shakers in tax dodging carry on regardless.  Meanwhile we can defend Desmond because he’s a Celtic man and, presumably, HRH because it turns out that the Queens XI are aptly named so that’s all right.  I’m grateful to be a Dons fan therefore not required to follow like a sheep, ironic though that is.

View Comment

everydayisaschooldayPosted on12:33 pm - Nov 8, 2017


Since we don’t have a play-off to look forward to over the next week or so, here’s something to keep Scotland fans occupied.  Bend it like Baxter, a comedy play about the Wembley ’67 match, a time when Scotland were quite good at kicking a ball about, no really!  The play was timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the match and the nation basking in the glory of qualifying for the World Cup via the play offs. So, that’s one out of two then!
http://www.webstersglasgow.com/events/bend-like-baxter/

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on12:54 pm - Nov 8, 2017


John ClarkNovember 8, 2017 at 11:22
________________________________________
Hi John. You can actually watch Catchup TV without a license. I haven’t paid for one for years and only use Catchup.

View Comment

dom16Posted on12:55 pm - Nov 8, 2017


I listened in to the SFSA survey piece on Sportsound last night. Darryl Broadfoot was appalling. Taking over the SFSA rep and totally denigrating the whole approach. Gordon Smith hardly better. 
Smith – I wanted to make change at SFA but wasn’t allowed shtick is just garbage. I assume he means the transformative plan for Scottish football to ban divers? Perhaps it’s just you were incompetent Gordon and way out of your business degree depth?
its Daryl that really takes the biscuit though. He was being paid for last nights cobtribuion as he “represents the SFA”. You really couldn’t make it up though as I view the political realm make it up seems the sensible option over what’s actually happening. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:00 pm - Nov 8, 2017


Ernie
” I’m grateful to be a Dons fan therefore not required to follow like a sheep, ironic though that is.”
”  0204   

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on1:55 pm - Nov 8, 2017


ernie November 8, 2017 at 12:21

If by HRH you mean ‘Old Mother Riley’ then it should be HMQ.  After all, we have to give Her Maj all due respect.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on1:59 pm - Nov 8, 2017


https://carljunglebhoy.wordpress.com/2017/09/12/transparency-of-purpose/ &hellip;
Sorry if already posted’

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on2:27 pm - Nov 8, 2017


jean7brodie November 8, 2017 at 12:54

Hi John. You can actually watch Catchup TV without a license. I haven’t paid for one for years and only use Catchup.
===============================
From the TV Licencing website http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/Live-TV-and-how-you-watch-it

Do I need a TV Licence if I only ever watch on demand services (like catch up TV), DVDs or downloaded programmes?

You don’t need a licence if you only ever watch on demand or catch up programmes on services other than BBC iPlayer (and you also never watch live TV programmes on any channel, including on iPlayer).

You also don’t need a licence to watch DVDs, Blu-rays or videos.

You need a TV Licence to download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand. This applies to any device and provider you use.

BBC iPlayer: New TV licence rules come into force
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37226030

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:34 pm - Nov 8, 2017


COINEANACHANTAIGHE
NOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 11:59 
@ JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 11:22

I must really add that while what you are saying is absolutely true your particular emphasis seems to suggest that the BBC is reliable outside of football reporting.  I may be quite mistaken, if so apologies.  But I think it’s worth saying here that the BBC (and other media outlets) are very much establishment biased and not just in sport…
==============================
Absolutely, COINEANACHANTAIGHE.

I think we all grew up, taking it for granted that the BBC was the bestest news outlet on the planet – and that around the world people tuned in to the BBC World Service on the radio, ‘cos that was what we were told.
The quality of the BBC was never questioned, [up until relatively recent years anyway.]

Now though, we have this upstart called t’internet…and those pesky Bampots are quickly becoming more aware of what we didn’t know before.

Which is why I still find the TRFC/SFA/SPFL/SMSM saga fascinating.
 
They can’t censor the bloggers – yet – and the youngsters today don’t buy papers, don’t pay for a BBC licence, or collect their news from just one outlet either, [based on an admittedly, small sample size of my daughters and their friends.]

I now routinely check Russia Today and Al Jazeerah to get stories that just don’t appear in the MSM in the UK, or to just get another perspective on UK reporting of a major story.

Following RTC made me distrust the MSM exponentially more – and question everything reported, and what their angle is – so it’s his/her/their fault !  22

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on4:13 pm - Nov 8, 2017


I came across this picture of the new Tynecastle stand today. Surely it must be a fake image.

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on4:28 pm - Nov 8, 2017


Try for picture again

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:40 pm - Nov 8, 2017


Ballyargus,
Wouldn’t like to be sitting in one of those seats!  Talk about a restricted view!

If that photo is genuine some architect or designer should be in big bother.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:53 pm - Nov 8, 2017


BALLYARGUSNOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 16:28
JIMBONOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 16:40

Hearts Club Statement

Heart of Midlothian Football Club is disappointed to see a partner of the game in Scotland attempt to ridicule the club based on misinformation and the use of potentially offensive and inappropriate language. 
This is perhaps indicative of yet another trend which sees those who gain so much from the game, attempt to demean it rather than support it.
For the avoidance of doubt, modifications to our existing control room are scheduled to take place as has already been fully explained to our supporters.

Despite being shite on the park at present,  I for one am happy my club is open, transparent and calling out those who so easily dismiss progress in the game in such a dignified manner.

(Pity more wasn’t said re the T’Rangers saga)

The issue of the  control room has long been known about. It will be scaled back in the near future as per the statement.

Seats are not being sold in that area until it is, unless demand is such that people were willing to take up those seats at much reduced prices.

In addition to that the club is making moves to have a TV studio built into the corner of the new stand and the Roseburn around the floodlights, which will be a much improved and professional facility as opposed to having the pundits standing under tarpaulin and the likes.

View Comment

ulyanovaPosted on5:12 pm - Nov 8, 2017


WOTTPI
The club statement you quote went on line at 13.48 today.

At 13.54 the Daily Record put this out, updating it at 15.22. There is no mention of Hearts’ statement.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-ridiculed-you-cant-see-11487036

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on5:14 pm - Nov 8, 2017


Ballyargus November 8, 2017 at 16:13
I came across this picture of the new Tynecastle stand today. Surely it must be a fake image.
=========================
Further to Wottpi’s post, it’s not made clear by Hearts that this is the Police control room as well as housing club’s IT servers and CCTV systems.  The new stand development has space set aside for a new Police room. It was always planned that these elements would be moved later in the development. The final view from the seats on the side wall will mirror those of the Wheatfield stand on the other side of the pitch.  The view from the end seats there is pretty tight to the goal line.

As Wottpi also points out the restricted view seats have not been sold either as  STs or, as yet, walk up tickets.

Hearts statement was in response to images posted via the official “Marathon Bet” twitter account.  Marathon Bet is Hibs shirt sponsor.  Some of the images posted also had captions, one of which was considered offensive.

Marathon Bet apologised in a later tweet.
Marathonbet‏Verified account @marathonbet ;@marathonbet
We apologise for our recent post in relation to the new stand at Tynecastle. When sharing the existing images we didn’t identify that one of the photos contained a derogatory word. We sincerely apologise for any offence caused.

View Comment

jimboPosted on5:56 pm - Nov 8, 2017


Good to hear Anne Budge has the matter on hand.  I have been a fan of this project for months.  I just thought someone sitting at a drawing board had made a blunder.  (Like the Hampden designer did).

View Comment

wottpiPosted on6:24 pm - Nov 8, 2017


For anyone interested here is one of the most recent photos from the other night of the new stand at Tynecastle nearing completion.

Still some seats to be put in and the end wall on the far side to be finished off.

As Easyjambo says there are still lots of internal works to be done but the aim, at present,  is to try and get the basics complete to accommodate fans, turnstiles, seats, loos etc and safety certified for games.

Looks tight for the Partick game but the fact they have now lined the pitch means they must think they are close /good to go.

All the corporate stuff and the offices etc will continue to be worked on over the following months.

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on6:46 pm - Nov 8, 2017


As a Hearts fan, can I be the first to point out that the biggest problem regarding the seating in the new main stand at Tynecastle has nothing to do with the late delivery of seats or the restricted view caused by the police control room.

The biggest problem is that the contractors have positioned the seats facing towards the pitch, thus subjecting unsuspecting supporters to eye-bleeding viewing.   

View Comment

jimboPosted on6:48 pm - Nov 8, 2017


That looks great Wottpi.  I have been flying the flag for this new stand for ages now, I like to see grounds throughout Scotland coming up to scratch. 

Methinks Ms. Budge should invite me to the first game at the opening of the new stand in recognition of my efforts.  I would wear my Celtic scarf to show the world how inclusive Hearts are now.  No hospitality? No problem!  A pie and 6 cans will be fine.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:48 pm - Nov 8, 2017


WOTTPINOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 18:24

=================================

Whatever shortcomings Hearts may or may not have right now going back to Tynecastle can only help them. Murrayfield is completely uninspiring as a football venue in my view. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:52 pm - Nov 8, 2017


wottpi November 8, 2017 at 18:24
Attachment  Tynie-at-Night.pdf
========================
A shortcut, rather than attaching a file, you can right-click on the source image e.g. on JKB, select “copy image location”, then just paste it directly into your post.

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on6:53 pm - Nov 8, 2017


I’m glad I posted that picture on here as it allowed more knowledgeable posters to tell the true story. 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:55 pm - Nov 8, 2017


HIGHLANDERNOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 18:46 
As a Hearts fan, can I be the first to point out that the biggest problem regarding the seating in the new main stand at Tynecastle has nothing to do with the late delivery of seats or the restricted view caused by the police control room.
The biggest problem is that the contractors have positioned the seats facing towards the pitch, thus subjecting unsuspecting supporters to eye-bleeding viewing.   

======================

There was a joke doing the rounds about Ibrox in the very early 80’s that the only problem with the new stands was that they faced the pitch. Rangers were not great at the time but the new stadium was certainly way ahead of anything else in the U.K those days. The club also lived within its means, with one of the biggest problems these days being so many Rangers fans have never had to experience that. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:42 pm - Nov 8, 2017


UPTHEHOOPSNOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 18:55
There was a joke doing the rounds about Ibrox in the very early 80’s that the only problem with the new stands was that they faced the pitch. Rangers were not great at the time but the new stadium was certainly way ahead of anything else in the U.K those days. The club also lived within its means, with one of the biggest problems these days being so many Rangers fans have never had to experience that. 
—————-
They did experience the seat for life.
While looking that up– when the fans could buy a seat for life i came across this article.Have a read.
———
Say what you like about Sir David Murray … Rangers can thank David Murray for … on a scheme to sell debenture seats to spectators …
Say what you like about Sir David Murray – and many have, including this correspondent – but without him Rangers very likely would have been in the hands of the administrators 20 years ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/8435944/Rangers-can-thank-David-Murray-for-keeping-Robert-Maxwell-at-bay.html

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:23 pm - Nov 8, 2017


Coming back to the  Court proceedings yesterday ( what a long time ago that now seems!) BDO v D&P [ Whitehouse and Clark] here is a  non-verbatim, except for a few sentences and expressions, summary.
Before Lord Tyre, Tuesday 7th November.
Mr Sandison QC for the Pursuer ( with a couple of bagmen); Mr Howard QC for the Respondents ( with 3 bag men and 1 bagwoman ( well, a very young-looking lawyer, perhaps a trainee)
2 folk in the public benches of whom I was one.The other was not a media man because I think I asked him that on a previous occasion. Certainly he is not one of the three or four I’ve seen over the years.
Mr Sandison had a number of things to say:
First, he had received some ‘adjustments’ 
Secondly,he had been provided last Friday with another 450  documents that had gone through the ‘search’ computer program that is sifting the masses of documents for the Respondents
Thirdly, he had been told that Police Scotland had released some 50 boxes of papers to the Respondents. He wondered whether that was all that they had.
(Judge Tyre remarked that they might now say they don’t have anything more)
Fourthly, although he had made enquiry, he had not been given any information on the ‘search terms’ that were being used . He of course was aware that Lord Tyre had expressed concern at the possible volume of paper…
Lord Tyre interjected to say that he was concerned that the focus should be on essential documents.
Mr Sandison agreed, of course, saying that he wanted only such  documents that were to relied upon in the course of pursuing his case
Judge Tyre said there that there is a discretionary aspect here..
Mr Sandison agreed and went on to say that it will be the other side of Christmas before  he would be in any position to see where he was..
Fifthly, he understood that Mr Whitehouse had lodged a complaint with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales against Mr X, BDO’s proposed ‘expert witness'[real name given, but nothing to be served by me repeating it]
The complaint, he thought, was that Mr X, at an earlier stage, had been involved in things relating to [ motion of the fingers in the air]  “L’affaire Rangers”, and he, Sandison, was concerned lest there might be a perceived conflict of interest later on: he did not want to end up with expert witness’s evidence being challenged, and asked that if the Respondents have any concerns about Mr X’s suitability they should let him and the Court know  now.
Mr Howard then had the floor.
First, he apologised to His lordship for the fact that the Respondents were a little out of time: he explained that his Edinburgh team were on time at their end with their submission, but learned that the chain of command involved London and  New York with contact having also to be made with someone in California. The process at that end took some days.
And would the Court accept the late submission, please?
Judge Tyre  said , mmm, yes… but that needs to be looked at..
Mr Howard carried on:
In the matter of ‘adjustments’ we have tried to strike a balance between adding flesh to the bones but not too much flesh. There are repeated references to the ‘hierarchy’ of purposes in the Administration process  that all need to addressed and dealt with.
it is the witness statements which, of course, will be the documents which will set out in detail and give the complete picture.
judge Tyre asked  ” Do I understand that this is the view ….[I lost what he said, and  definitely knew I had lost it when I thought I heard him and Mr Howard talks about ‘bables'( or ‘baybles’) in a very short exchange! Baybles??!? I can’t even guess what the word used  actually could have been]
Mr Howard continued, saying that they were still awaiting the expert witness report, and would, of course, lodge it as soon as it was available. They had sent a message to the experts to ask where they were in the matter. That was why they could make the averments they have made.
As regards any complaint of professional misconduct against Mr X, he rather thought that was a matter for Brodies and Deloittes and the Noters (BDO) to sort.
Judge Tyre asked,  is the expert report due before Christmas?
Mr Howard said “if your Lordship could give a date it would be helpful”
He continued: with regard to Mr X we’re all aware of the Kennedy case [ some Supreme Court judgment, I think]
It’s not the case that Mr X lacks ‘independence’, but Mr X and Deloitte have changed sides.They were acting for D&P in the early days.
Judge Tyre asked: how were Deloitte acting for the Administrators?
Mr Howard explained that “the Revenue sent to the Administrators their proxy form, and at that time Deloitte were anxious to get the CVA done.
Judge T: how was that, one firm instructing another?
Howard:. Mmmm, would there be a challenge against Mr X? I can’t say, but it would be unsatisfactory…
Judge T:… Yes…. an issue of conflict..
Howard: at the lesser end of the scale. But I would not anticipate saying that Mr X’s evidence was ‘incompetent’.
The problem is really one for the Noters to sort out- it is their witness.
Regarding the Police Scotland documents, we are trying to get them sent up from Manchester to Edinburgh.
Judge Tyre: the search terms.Can that be done?
Howard: yes.
Judge T:The boxes of documents, where are they actually at the moment?
Howard: We’re in the dark.
Judge T; Go back to tell the police to do what they were asked
Judge T( to Mr Sandison)  As regards Mr X, Mr Sandison?
Mr Sandison: It’s a mystery to me how the respondents can say Deloitte acted for D&P. Let the basis of the allegation be set out in black and white.
Judge T: Did Mr X have personal involvement?
Mr Howard:his name is there in the documents. I don’t know what Deloitte were doing..
judge T: but Whitehouse must have some basis for his complaint
Mr Howard.; …includes casual chats [with Mr X] .. the complaint is several pages long
Judge T: We’ll put the ball in Deloitte’s court.It’s for them.
I won’t make an order at this stage.
Mr Sandison: My Lord, I’m not sure… are we to go with Mr X or not?
Judge T: In the first instance that is for Deloitte and Mr X
[In time-abling mode]    Now, production of expert report…   8th December? then we need a date for a ‘by order’, then a date for the police documents,
and then what’s to be done in respect of documents in the hands of the Noters; both sides need to have regard to that.
the Mr X matter is for Deloitte to resolve…
We need witness statement..
(consults clerk)
A ‘by order’ on 15th December?
and procedural hearing 2nd week of January ( consults clerk) …. 18th, better make it 9.00 a.m
 and a date for ‘adjustments’ 18th [December]
Thank you, gentlemen.
End.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on8:31 pm - Nov 8, 2017


BBC Scotland are a real embarrassment again as this week has shown concerning coverage of Mr Desmond
‘s tax issue and  the unsettling coverage for Mr Mc Innes. Think of the issues over the past 5 tears that they have never honestly debated or covered in any kind of  balanced way. EBT’s, Sevco, liquidation, oldco/newco, LNS possibly being reviewed, evidence from Craig Whyte trial (and the cry of I do not remember from Mr Murray),the term ongoing concern for Ibrox club accounts (repeatedly over past few years), Offshore Game Report, TJN, Resolution 12, soft loans, Mr King and NOAL and being skint, Takeover Panel ruling, SC ruling on EBT’s , possible problems with Ibrox stadium and I am sure others can add to this list.  It is F****** totally embarrassing, but they just continue to ignore as this is Scotland and there is no way can any of the above get a balanced airing because of how it would look on their traditional institutional shadow of a former club and how their fans would react.  I actually pay for this service from the BBC, so If  in the immortal words of Mr Murray I am being duped.  All of the above are real stories to be covered but alas we have fake journalists in this country and the question has to be asked why are all not willing to ignore what they know in their own minds. Money is simply not the answer it really has to be something else far more sinister.  I understand Mr Traynor may have some power but ffs there must be more to it than just him.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:34 pm - Nov 8, 2017


CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 19:42 
They did experience the seat for life.While looking that up– when the fans could buy a seat for life i came across this article.Have a read.

============================

Wow! Roddy Forsyth at his finest…whatever happened to all those shares he had in the wonderful club he describes under Murray???????

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:44 pm - Nov 8, 2017


jean7brodieNovember 8, 2017 at 12:54
‘..catch up..’
___________
Thanks, jean7.  Mrs C simply must watch ‘come dancing’ (is that it?19) live!)

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:56 pm - Nov 8, 2017


SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ
NOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 05:54
===================================
So basically you don’t know.

HMRC do publicise though.

“If you co-operate fully with our investigation, you will achieve a greater reduction in any penalty found to be due. You may also be able to avoid other civil sanctions such as insolvency and, in some cases, the publication of your name and details.”

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:01 pm - Nov 8, 2017


John Clark November 8, 2017 at 20:23
======================
Thanks for the update JC. I think this could turn into an interesting case, particularly the way that Whitehouse has been throwing accusations at everyone and everything.

I think the Kennedy case referred to could well be this one, where the competence of an expert witness was questioned.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2016/6.html&query=Kennedy

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:04 pm - Nov 8, 2017


coineanachantaigheNovember 8, 2017 at 11:59
‘…your particular emphasis seems to suggest that the BBC is reliable outside of football reporting. ‘
________________
I quite follow you, that restricting my observations about BBC bias to their ‘Rangers’ affair failures might imply that I think they’re ok in other dimensions.
No. I have very severe reservations about ‘the BBC’ as being driven by people who constitute in effect a very  powerful minority pressure group working to a long-term agenda, some items of which I violently ( well, not literally, of course, but you know what I mean) oppose.
But to stray into the broader realm of ‘politics’ might just serve as an annoyance to others, and divert the blog’s attention away from the cancerous growth in the vitals of Scottish football and the need to excise it.
[Against the current background of the Panama papers, we just have to remind ourselves of the nice little arrangement that ran for a number of years, under which  a number of well-known BBC personnel,  were engaged as ‘companies’ rather than as individuals, thus avoiding paying tax on the same basis as you and I.That did not stop a touch of hypocritical criticism of other tax avoiders when those were outed]

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:50 pm - Nov 8, 2017


EASYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 21:01
John Clark
November 8, 2017 at 20:23

Yup that case will be the one, though the issue reported by JC seems more one of Mr X’s conflict of interest as opposed to matters of competence or relevance. 

However from JC’s coverage I love the term “L’affaire Rangers” being used in court.

That gave me a good chuckle before bedtime 🙂

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:24 pm - Nov 8, 2017


wottpiNovember 8, 2017 at 21:50
‘…I love the term “L’affaire Rangers” being used in court.’
____
Aye, and the way Mr Sandison QC  did the invisible quotation marks was quite theatrical, and everyone smiled merrily.19

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:49 pm - Nov 8, 2017


easyJamboNovember 8, 2017 at 21:01
‘..I think the Kennedy case referred to could well be this one’
_________
I think you’re probably right, eJ. Thanks for that, saves me the bother of trying to find it myself ( which I would have felt obliged to do)

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:21 am - Nov 9, 2017


dom16November 8, 2017 at 12:55 
I listened in to the SFSA survey piece on Sportsound last night. Darryl Broadfoot was appalling. Taking over the SFSA rep and totally denigrating the whole approach. Gordon Smith hardly better.  Smith – I wanted to make change at SFA but wasn’t allowed shtick is just garbage. I assume he means the transformative plan for Scottish football to ban divers? Perhaps it’s just you were incompetent Gordon and way out of your business degree depth? its Daryl that really takes the biscuit though. He was being paid for last nights cobtribuion as he “represents the SFA”. You really couldn’t make it up though as I view the political realm make it up seems the sensible option over what’s actually happening. 

=====================
Folk can hear the segment of the podcast here 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sQRFX2vOWUvkaeRAEEYL3vzMqdXGFE8T/view?usp=sharing

and make up their own minds.20

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:24 am - Nov 9, 2017


If a picture paints a thousand words what is this still from Mark Daly’s documentary on tax avoidance saying?

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on1:48 am - Nov 9, 2017


David Low is BP’s guest in the SFM Podcasr, which makes it’s return this weekend. Talking accounts apparently.

View Comment

Comments are closed.