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.
Paul has a good take, God bless
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/a-lesson-in-blatant-spinning-by-rangers-how-it-reported-the-charity-investigation-decision/
HomunculusNovember 11, 2017 at 22:33
‘…Surely Rangers would not have cancelled a charity event like that because they were in administration, if there was going to be no cost to the club. ‘
________
Well, of course, it wasn’t ‘Rangers’ who were in control of ‘Rangers in Administration’, but Whitehouse and Clark as Administrators.
I can understand where Trustee C was coming from: only the administrators could allow any assets to be used. And , to be fair, it is to Trustee C’s credit that he realised that.
And to be even more fair, it was the creditors of RFC(IA) who benefited from the money that D&P took as the price of letting the match go ahead in so far as that money added to the pool that might eventually be divvied up between creditors.
But , in my submission, the Regulator, having found that there was misconduct ( and other irregularities) should have hammered that particular charity, instead of , in an excess of charity, let it off the hook to learn lessons, just because their expressed intentions were good.
Kind of akin to the King business. The TOP simply cannot allow King to get away with giving two fingers to them. Guys have to obey the rules:charity trustees or directors of companies.
And to let rule-breakers in those areas of financial life get away unpunished for infraction of the Rules is to invite every rotten sod of a spiv speculator to rip us all off, with impunity as they point to ‘precedent’
If King gets away with it, then as the TOP’s QC remarked,a rogue’s charter is created. Every sort of Big Hands , ex-con, fly-by-night asset stripper will have a field day!
Corsica was enraged about the abuse of charitable cash for non charitable purposes. His passing was a sad loss RIP
What happened to the money due to the Milan charity. Was that included in the c£190k that the club took or was that a separate amount. Surely both sides would be equally affected if there was any doubt on the match going ahead.
Has there ever been any comment from Milan.
Article on likely impact of EBT decision on individuals.
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/contractors-face-ruin-to-pay-tax-on-loans?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AWUKPOW230817&utm_content=AWUKPOW230817+CID_57802b5da9bf5e720a3866d60ae007ec&utm_source=internal_cm&utm_term=Read%20more
TRISIDIUM
NOVEMBER 12, 2017 at 10:36
===================================
Thanks, an interesting read.
It is also why the Supreme Court ruling was such a game changer. It didn’t just relate to EBTs, it relates to all disguised remuneration. Which may explain why HMRC got BDO to appeal against their favourable ruling at the Court of Session. All disguised remuneration, throughout the UK is now covered.
when you attack the messenger yet ignore the message
one day i will get this right.
TRISIDIUMNOVEMBER 12, 2017 at 10:36 3 0 Rate This
Article on likely impact of EBT decision on individuals.
———————-
Reality bitesUnfortunately, the reality is that the new loan charges will be introduced, and they will need to be faced head on. The real question for affected borrowers is how to find the money to meet their obligations.
———-
The real question for affected borrowers is how to find the money to meet their obligations.One can only wonder why so many guys with an EBT have jobs now in the SMSM. Or why so many are interview for every subject known to man.
A bit of a hysterical reaction to the EBT outcome.
These are people who entered into a scheme to avoid paying their tax and NI liabilities. From what I understand the Supreme court ruling had nothing to do with retrospective legislation merely clarrified the status of the EBT schemes.
If we keep in mind that EBTs took advantage of a loophole in the legislation. HMRC were bound to challenge them.
The day of reckoning has come and my sympathy is limited.
As for being ruined, I don’t wish that on anyone but if you take a punt and it doesn’t come off then you live with the consequences.
As an aside the Government applied strengthened rules on people who work in the Public sector through their own Personal Service company (PSC). It has caused quite a shake up and I expect it will be rolled out to the Private Sector in the next couple of years. I would not be surprised if a number of footballers had utilised the dodge. i know many executives in the Public sector used it and the media.
Cluster OneNovember 12, 2017 at 11:55
‘….The real question for affected borrowers is how to find the money to meet their obligations.’
_________
Oh, I daresay the Charity Foundation will provide some assistance, given that one of its declared purposes is ” The relief of those in need by reason of age, ill health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage”.
Or they can do the Ferguson bit-opt for bankruptcy or-if not already done, have a word with someone in the British Virgin Islands about Asset Trusts, or maybe give Dave ring.
Trisidium November 12, 2017 at 10:36https://www.gov.uk/guidance/disguised-remuneration-a-supreme-court-decision-spotlight-41
The Supreme Court decisionIn their decision, the Court agreed with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) that the tax avoidance scheme used by Rangers Football Club doesn’t work. They said that Rangers should have deducted Income Tax and National Insurance contributions from payments they made to the scheme, which was an employee benefit trust (EBT).
In paragraph 39 of the Court’s decision, they set out the principle that employment income paid from an employer to a third party is still taxable as employment income.Click on the link for more information on HMRC’s powers to recover avoided Income tax and NICs.
“From what I understand the Supreme court ruling had nothing to do with retrospective legislation merely clarrified the status of the EBT schemes.”
No it didn’t, it was much wider that that. It ruled on the whole concept of disguised remuneration and made it perfectly clear, whoever the money is paid to then if it is earnings tax is due. The employee agreeing that the money should be paid to someone else does not change that.
In Rangers case the money was placed into trusts. What happened next didn’t matter, it was earnings, the tax was due.
It is an enormous ruling, from the most senior court in the UK. I don’t see how anyone could think the reaction is hysterical. It fundamentally changes how tax is treated, particularly in relation to those who try to avoid it.
“Nothing in the wider purpose of the legislation excludes from the tax charge remuneration which theemployee is entitled to have paid to a third party . Parliament has sought to tax remuneration paidin money or money’s worth. There is no rationale for excluding from the scope of this tax chargeremuneration in the form of money which the employee agrees should be paid to a third party”
“For the purposes of PAYE it is necessary to determine whether there has been a payment of earningsfrom which deductions were required. Misplaced reliance on judicial glosses in relation to the conceptof “payment” is evident in the case law leading up to the appeal. There is no basis for establishinga general rule that a payment is made for the purposes of PAYE only if the money is paid to or at leastplaced unreservedly at the disposal of the employee . The references to making a relevant payment“to an employee” or “other payee” in the PAYE Regulations fall to be construed as payment either tothe employee or to the person to whom payment is made with the agreement of the employee.”
Of course HMRC also gave employers an early indication of their approach to the taxation of EBTs and a Settlement Opportunity Scheme to those who wished to avoid litigation from 2012 onwards.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employee-benefit-trusts-settlement-opportunity/employee-benefit-trust-settlement-opportunity-guidance-august-2012
Some Peepul just can’t take good advice when it’s offered to them, eh!
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 12, 2017 at 10:58
I know of people who make vast sums of money and pay very little tax. It seems to work by
1) Registering your own company, with yourself and (normally a relative) as employees, with the relative acting as secretary.
2) Both employees are paid the minimum wage by the company, therefore no tax is due.
3) Both employees can draw a lot of money in dividends each year that are not subject to any tax.
4) The company can be wound up after a while, and they can keep all the money. They then start another company and do it all again.
Will the Supreme Court ruling have any impact on the above?
Does anyone know whether the ‘Old Firm Alliance’ ( under which Glasgow City council slid money to the charity foundations of both RFC(IL) and Celtic) is still in existence under that title?
Or was the term ‘old firm’ dropped in recognition of the fact that only Celtic has the right to use the term, since Rangers Charity Foundation is a creature of TRFC Ltd?
UPTHEHOOPS
NOVEMBER 12, 2017 at 13:26
============================
Income from dividends is taxed, once the income goes above a certain threshold. Similar to PAYE calculations. Both have to be allowed for when declaring the tax due.
Now if the people you know simply aren’t filling in self-assessment tax returns that is a different issue.
I don’t think anything the Supreme Court has said effects dividends as such.
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 12, 2017 at 13:44
I’m sure their financial affairs are all in order, as they use accountants to keep them right. However, it amazes me how easy it seems to be for them to avoid paying the same amount of tax people on PAYE have no choice but to pay.
TRISIDIUMNOVEMBER 12, 2017 at 10:36
Article on likely impact of EBT decision on individuals.
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/contractors-face-ruin-to-pay-tax-on-loans?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AWUKPOW230817&utm_content=AWUKPOW230817+CID_57802b5da9bf5e720a3866d60ae007ec&utm_source=inte
______
Tris, I started to read that, but it appeared to be written by a tax dodger, for the benefit of tax dodgers, and as far as I am concerned, if every tax dodger ended up on the streets, homeless, then the world, or at least Britain, would be a far better place.
Imagine our country with an NHS with more money than all those tax dodgers unpaid tax put together! That, to me, sums up the morals of the rich. Not one would give up a penny to benefit everyone, or anyone, (including themselves) if they couldn’t see a benefit, directly to themselves, from the act itself.
UPTHEHOOPS
NOVEMBER 12, 2017 at 13:54
=================================
People took advice from accountants, solicitors, tax specialist qcs and the like with regards EBTs.
That worked out well.
At the end of the day if the advice you get is bad, whether you misinformed your representative, or they misinformed you, then the tax is still due.
So long as your friends are paying the proper PAYE and making the proper self-assessment tax returns they are doing nothing wrong. However it is worthy of note that the Government are lowering the thresholds for tax on dividends. They seem to have come to the same opinion as you, it’s time to address the discrepancies on the amount of tax paid depending on how people get paid.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/budget-2017-dividend-tax-blow-company-directors-shareholders/
upthehoops November 12, 2017 at 13:26
Here’s a link to the HMRC guidance on the taxation of dividendshttps://www.gov.uk/tax-on-dividends
I’m delighted you brought up this subject.
When I worked as an Tax Investigator in HMRC I came across directors who voted themselves dividends of £40,000(+). They then drew these down from their Directors’ Loan Account on a monthly basis over the following accounting period.
I tried to challenge these withdrawals on the basis that the company should treat the monthly sums as earnings that should be subject to income tax, employee and employer NIC but I could not get any of my superiors to agree to my challenge.
I was disgusted at the lack of support.
No wonder I later had a breakdown and had to fight for ill health retirement.
SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ
NOVEMBER 12, 2017 at 15:27
=====================================
Would they not normally do it the other way round. Take money from the business and call that Director’s Loans. Then pay themselves a dividend to balance the Director’s Loan account, the one cancelling the other out. Then declaring that dividend for tax purposes on their self-assessment return.
It wouldn’t really be a director’s loan if the business had already awarded it to you as a dividend.
Sorry if I’ve got that wrong, not really my area.
TWM makes a return
David Low on those accounts PLUS the search for a sponsor!
TWM makes a return
UPTHEHOOPSNOVEMBER 12, 2017 at 13:26]
The changes which I mentioned above will impact people like those you mention who work through Personal Service Companies. It is not related to EBTs. If you are interested look up IR35.
Dividends are taxed but differently from employment income and are not subject to National Insurance so it is possible to pay much less to HMRC.
HMRC see this as a lucrative area and will be much more aggressive in tracking it down.
Once again I have no sympathy.
DENNOVEMBER 12, 2017 at 19:14
UPTHEHOOPSNOVEMBER 12, 2017 at 13:26]The changes which I mentioned above will impact people like those you mention who work through Personal Service Companies. It is not related to EBTs. If you are interested look up IR35.Dividends are taxed but differently from employment income and are not subject to National Insurance so it is possible to pay much less to HMRC.HMRC see this as a lucrative area and will be much more aggressive in tracking it down. Once again I have no sympathy.
============================
I have no sympathy either. There are a number of people at my place of work who do this and the money they make is eye watering due to far lower tax bills than the staff like me on PAYE have no choice but to pay. I really can’t see how it’s not classed as disguised earnings.
Upthehoops.
In the public sector the Public Body is responsible for determing whether the contractor working through a company is a genuine contractor.
If the are found to be a “disguised employee” they will have tax and NI deducted. If the employer fails to make the correct deductions they are liable.
I expect it will be extended to the Private Sector in the next couple of years.
Big PinkNovember 12, 2017 at 16:48
‘ David Low on those accounts PLUS the search for a sponsor!’
_________________
Low seems fairly sure that Judge Bannatyne will find in favour of the Takeover Panel, and make an order in order to secure King’s compliance with the Takeover Appeal Board’s requirement.
I hope he is right.
John ClarkNovember 12, 2017 at 23:28
With all due Respect Lord Bannatyne isn’t being asked to find in Favor of the TOP. The TOP decided the King was in Breach of its Regulations and all Lord Bannatyne has been asked to do is Issue a Court Order to that effect.. How he decides that Order is enforced is the only thing he has to do.
New Direction for Old Newspapers?
The two Glasgow titles have been struggling to retain both readership and credibility of late, and it may be that the owners, Newsquest Scotland, have decided to take the papers in a new direction.
In February, the BBC reported that..
The Herald fell by 10% to 28,900 average daily sales in the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) figures.
The Evening Times, targeting Glasgow and the west of Scotland manages to shift 23,696 copies a day on average. Which is an embarrassingly low percentage of its potential reach of around one million people.
So, clearly something had to be done, and a change at the top under these circumstances usually means a change in policy.
Will they pick the right people for the job, or will they draw their appointees from among the peepil?
There are several candidates within the mainstream Scottish media for the posts, but none of them are particularly radical enough to halt the decline and turn it around.
An editor is like a circus ringmaster, he books the acts, but should let them get on with the show, and with the right amount of trust and freedom, that show becomes one worth paying for.
At the moment, only a fool would deny there is a conservative agenda throughout the country. The way things were is the way they must be and the way they must be in the future.
We only have to look at the demise of the Murray group and its subsequent return to see that certain figures in society are untouchable.
Somehow, the idea that things must never change has become the mainstay of all newspapers, not only in business, but in politics, sport and everyday life.
Things are bad right now, but if we tighten our belts, they’ll get better ..
People don’t buy papers any more because they don’t want to read them any more.
Its actually that simple.
As a result, to survive, the papers must take on more advertising, either straightforward or subliminal, as with the advertising features that pass as news these days.
And if a company advertise with that paper, it holds a disproportionate influence on the editor, who cannot risk losing that account.
Before, a company would place an account with a paper that sold well, and paid whatever the going rate was.
Now, as papers lose credibility and sales, and as other outlets for advertising become available, the advertising revenue is dropping, and its scaring the life out of the printed news industry.
It would take a brave editor in this climate to call in his staff and tell then to publish and be damned.
It would take a brave editor to send his hacks to uncover what went on at Murray Group, for instance, or at Rangers.
But at the Herald Group that opportunity is there…
Cast you mind back to the independence referendum, and the London based papers and the BBC…
That 45% of Scots managed to withstand the combined onslaught of the mass media is remarkable and praiseworthy.
The London owned titles lied, pure and simple, in the same way that they lied about Brexit and the EU.
And most people fell for it.
They still believe what they see on television, they still believe what they read in the papers, though really its just the old maxim of repeating something over and over until the lie becomes a truth.
With new editors on the way at two Scottish papers there is an opportunity to open the windows and let in a bit of fresh air.
New media has plenty of promising and brave people who have chosen a different career path, and its only a perceived lack of credibility that is preventing a mass takeover of the old news establishment.
A change in direction by the two Glasgow titles, a willingness to report the facts, whoever they may upset, would see sales increase, it would see advertisers demand a place on their pages, and above all, it would spark a change in the fourth estate, at least in Scotland, that would make in society who hold a position of responsibility accountable for their actions.
That’s why we have newspapers.
That’s why its time for change, and a new direction.
Digital media is all well and good, but whilst the papers may see increased “clicks 2 on their articles, its only articles, and not the full newspaper, which should be produced as a whole, and not a collection of parts.
It’s what editors do, they put a narrative and a theme throughout each issue every day, and the reader can them see a bigger picture than he can by dabbling in just the stories that interest him.
One of the reasons politicians, for instance are getting away with so much these days is that few people “click ” on those stories, and, of course, not enough are buying the papers or responding to editorial comment to make the issue worth pursuing.
That needs to change.
The Herald Group has that chance.
Don’t blow it.
This time there will be no way back.
http://etims.net/?p=12173
Can I just make a point with regards people paying themselves through dividends rather than PAYE. It is important to note that they aren’t actually doing anything wrong, so long as they declare the true amounts for salary and dividend purposes and pay the tax on them.
That is entirely different from tax avoidance. As I have said previously, I intend to maximise my lump sum on retirement, in doing so I intend paying less tax. I may even put some of the lump sum into an ISA, and will pay less tax by doing so. If at the time it is still a legitimate thing to do, then I will have no issue with doing it.
You may think that people in those positions should pay more tax than they will. In the case of dividends I agree with you. The remedy to that is to get the rules changed, in fact that is already happening in the way that the law is being changed. I believe for the better.
I just want to make the point, that any argument here is purely an ethical one. It is not a case of someone who legitimately minimises their tax is the same as someone who avoids or evades it. If the rules are there and people stick to them I have no issue with it.
West Ham FanNovember 13, 2017 at 00:13
‘…all Lord Bannatyne has been asked to do is Issue a Court Order to that effect.. ‘
___________
Well, as I mentioned before, Lord Bannatyne was not all certain that the Act required the Court to make an order.
He worried away for a good few minutes about whether ‘may’ might actually mean ‘may’ and not ‘must’.
I was happy to think that that would be a nonsense, and that the Court had no option but to make an order to secure compliance.
As it happens, though, I was at a lunch the other day, and was seated beside a chap whom I knew to be a retired Sheriff.
In discussing whether the word ‘may’ in an Act of Parliament meant ‘must’ he was quite emphatic that the ‘may’ word gave a Court discretion NOT to use the power it was given to do something.
I fear that Lord Bannatyne might conceivably kick a decision up to a higher court on that point of law.
The QC for the TOP didn’t seem to have considered the point, and he was not able to be of assistance to the Court, thinking that all he had to do was demonstrate that the TAB had the powers to require King to make an offer and that they had used that power properly after full exploration of the facts, the matter before the judge was not an ‘appeal’ against the TAB’s decision, but a simple reference to the Court for reinforcement ,under threat of judicial penalty, of that requirement.
As I say, Lord Bannatyne seemed not to see matters as being quite so simple.
I, of course,very much hope the Court does make an order and puts King in danger of being held in contempt if he disregards the order.
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 08:54
And of course dividends are generally paid when a company can afford them. i.e when they are in profit.
And, for most, Corporation Tax is paid on that profit.
Therefore owners of company’s may be paying personal tax on their earnings, be that salaried and/or dividends and also corporation tax which is essentially on the monies/profits some have generated through their own efforts.
That being said, in parallel with individual tax management / avoidance there is another industry out their finding ways to minimise / avoid Corporation Tax, some of which is no doubt sailing close to the wind.
wottpi
November 13, 2017 at 09:49
============================
Good point.
I have limited experience in these matters, however what that experience tells me is that for small Ltd companies (the sort which we are really talking about I think) it works along these lines.
The directors pays personal bills etc via the company. So he pays his mortgage, his car loan etc through the company. This is recorded as director’s loans, it has the same basic effect as taking money from the company as a loan. At the end of the year the accountant prepares the accounts, which he than has to balance. There is obviously an amount outstanding in relation to the director’s loans. The accountant then pays the director a dividend, assuming the company has made sufficient profit to do so. That dividend is then offset against the director’s loan, this has the same net effect as the director repaying the loans.
The accountant will then tell the director how much he got as a dividend and inform him that he will have to declare that as tax via a self-assessment return. The same accountant may even prepare the director’s personal self-assessment return for him.
Realistically the accountant’s job is to make sure that the company and individual pay as little tax as possible, whilst staying within the letter and spirit of the law. So if it is better to take the money as a dividend than as a salary, or as profit and to pay corporation tax on that then that is what he will do. Bearing in mind any “savings” are offset against the accountant’s costs.
Like I said, so long as what people are doing is legitimate and legal then I have no issue with it. It is not tax avoidance or tax evasion. However if I find it morally objectionable then the correct course is to lobby for the rules to be changed, or join pressure groups which seek those changes.
Once again with my usual apologies to the bean counters, I do realise these are very technical issues. Just trying to put a lay man’s spin on it.
John Clark
November 13, 2017 at 09:03
==============================
The question one would have to ask then JC is “If the law says that he may make the order, why would he not”. Sophistry over “may” and “will” strikes me as little more than obfuscation.
He is being asked to enforce a ruling make by the takeover panel, and upheld on appeal. No-one is asking him to make a decision with regard the matter, that has been done. He is simply being asked to enforce it for them.
Why would he not want to do that, and uphold the law.
I have a fairly simplistic view of tax management / avoidance / evasion.
Tax Management – efficient use of approved allowances, investments etc., within the jurisdiction in which you are resident. e.g, ISAs, VCTs, EIS, etc. I view the use of unapproved schemes as tax avoidance.
Tax Avoidance – deliberate movement of funds out of the reach of the reach of the authorities within the jurisdictions in which you are either resident or where you have earned income. That may include onshore and offshore schemes. These may be legal or illegal depending on how the tax authorities view the mechanism used. e.g. Dermot Desmond’s “legal” Execujet (IOM) scheme may be deemed illegal by the Swiss authorities because of the way it was operated, just as RFC’s operation of their EBT scheme was deemed illegal by the CoS and SC. I still view “legal” schemes as immoral in any event.
Tax Evasion – The definition of “fraud” applies here, where someone make a false pretence, dishonestly made, to achieve a practical result. Basically, the person knows he has taken steps to avoid tax that he knows are wrong.
John ClarkNovember 13, 2017 at 09:03
———-
If the word “may” is taken to mean Bannatyne has an option to decline, then that means either that the TOP’s verdict is not final, or that it is final but there are some circumstances in which it may not be appropriate to issue an order enforcing it, in DK’s case that being that he is skint.
To the best of my layman’s knowledge this is not the impression that UK companies, or individuals, have had of TOP rulings up to now and is why, I think, DK is only the third person ever to have been “Cold Shouldered”, and the first to have required reference to Court for enforcement. The revelation that it may not be necessary to comply with the rules as previously understood, or that a refusal may not be enforced is likely to cause uproar in British industry surely.
“What are the circumstances under which I may not have to comply, because the ruling will not be subject to a Court order requiring me to do so? A full list please”.
Some feelgood reading about football for a change. A reminder of a clubs roots in the community in which it resides and that it should/can be more than just a professional sporting endeavour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41902664
Over the weekend the good folk of SFM had a discussion on just where the SFA may lay their hat.
And low and behold in today’s SMSM all manner of folk are having there say to just what the SFA should do.
I think they are looking in guys
HomunculusNovember 13, 2017 at 11:07
‘..Why would he not want to do that, and uphold the law.’
___________
Well, perhaps, for example,if the QC for King had been able to satisfy the Court that King simply could not comply, whether he was thrown in jail or not like a Dickensian debtor.
Given that QCs, however much they may stretch the use of language, will not actually lie to a Judge, and that King’s QC actually used the word ‘penniless’ when describing his clients ability to find the millions necessary to enable him to comply, it might conceivably be the case that the judge could conclude that feel the only determination he could reasonably arrive at would be that to make an order that simply could not be complied with by King would be meaningless, and that the TOP’s only redress would be what their own powers already allow- cold-shouldering and freezing King out of the market-place.
I think it is unlikely, but I can see the difficulty, if King’s QC can provide any kind of acceptable evidence that King hasn’t got the resources (in spite of his public utterances).
Judge Bannatyne is knowledgeable about Asset trusts , and maybe he has powers to have King’s Trust deeds called for and examined , and call for sworn statements from Sovereign or NOAL and so on. They might lie, may already have lied, who knows?
As MacFurgly says(at 16.02 above), if Judge B does not make the order as requested, the TOP and TAB would simply have to take it to appeal, right to the UK Supreme Court, if any kind of control of the City is to be exercised.
And Parliament would have to tighten up the law more or less immediately!
John ClarkNovember 13, 2017 at 18:29
________
“…it might conceivably be the case that the judge could conclude that feel the only determination he could reasonably arrive at would be that to make an order that simply could not be complied with by King would be meaningless,”
If that were the case, then it would be open for anyone to breach the 29.9% shareholder limit and then say, “Sorry guys, no money”.
I know you are not advocating this view, but that is a ludicrous proposition. It’s obvious of course, but if I’m fined for something, then I’m not going to get off because I don’t have any money to pay the fine. I have done something and that action has a consequence in law, which I knew before I did it.
If DK is claiming he didn’t know he had to make an offer for the remaining shares , then I wish I had been present in the Important Lawyers Club that evening when the case was being discussed. Trebles all round.
More importantly, this case will set a precedent. See my post above regarding British industry. The requirement to make an offer for the remaining shares has clearly been considered to be important in safeguarding the rights of small shareholders. That I would think is a very important principle to surrender.
I won’t labour the point, but albeit the law may have been drafted imprecisely, there is only one way out of this.
Anything else, in my layman’s view, defies common sense, completely undermines the point of the rule, and leaves the field open for anyone who wishes to play it. This is not only about DK and RIFC, this is about every single business and individual operating within the jurisdiction of the British State.
Listening to BBC Sportsound on delay.
You really have to listen to the discussion re crowd sizes.
Michael Stewart struggling manfully to trying to explain basic maths but Kris Boyd and Chic Young – aided by Kenny McIntyre – showing the intellectual rigour of a slug.
No wonder some football reports and pundits have avoided the EBT and the Ibrox accounts.
WOTTPINOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 20:09
Listening to BBC Sportsound on delay.
You really have to listen to the discussion re crowd sizes.
Michael Stewart struggling manfully to trying to explain basic maths but Kris Boyd and Chic Young – aided by Kenny McIntyre – showing the intellectual rigour of a slug.
No wonder some football reports and pundits have avoided the EBT and the Ibrox accounts.
====================================
With so many pundits on Sportsound being Rangers fans or ex-Rangers players, and the regular host being a Rangers fan, it has become a total farce. Unfortunately fans of all clubs have to pay for it. There is simply no justification whatsoever the BBC can give for this complete imbalance.
MACFURGLYNOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 20:04
If DK is claiming he didn’t know he had to make an offer for the remaining shares , then I wish I had been present in the Important Lawyers Club that evening when the case was being discussed.
——————
He knew and he was warned,but he went ahead anyway
JOHN CLARK
NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 18:29
=====================================
I just don’t see how that is a tenable position JC. For a QC to lead to the Court of Session that they shouldn’t enforce a Takeover Panel ruling because of his client’s impecuniousness.
That client then promises £7m to a loss making football club.
The Court of Session then declines to make an order based in the “penniless” argument.
Meaning as others have said the Senior civil Court in Scotland has made a mockery of the Takeover Panel, the Appeal Body and their rules.
Surely that would be an important enough issue for the Takeover Panel to be granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. It has an effect on every shareholder in the country, if they do not have this protection when people (concert parties) reach a certain holding in the company where they have invested their money.
If he does decline to make any Order I will be fascinated to read his justification for it. Particularly if it is along the lines of “There was no point because he couldn’t have followed it anyway”. I wonder how people having to borrow money to pay fines, or agree to pay them up over a period as they can afford it would feel about that.
macfurglyNovember 13, 2017 at 20:04
‘..I know you are not advocating this view, but that is a ludicrous proposition. ‘
_______________
Yes, it would be a ludicrous situation, macfurgly, and I certainly don’t advocate it.
The trouble is, Lord Bannatyne seemed to think that there might be some merit in the (normal?) view that the word ‘may’ in a Statute confers discretion on the judge, rather than imposes a ‘direction’.
And it’s a kind of impertinence in me saying that I think he would be mistaken in thinking for a minute that that is the case in the present case.
And how nonsensical it would be for me to think that I knew the law better than a Judge of the Outer House of the Court of Session!
But I am convinced that there have been precedent-setting judgments about ‘may’ having to be interpreted as ‘MUST‘ where the whole context of and purpose of the statutory provision requires it, to avoid absurdity.
Casting myself as Galileo Galilei against a (pretty reasonable, at the time) Inquisition, if Lord Bannatyne does not make what I think is the appropriate order [i.e, an order telling KING to make the ‘offer’ or face jail/heavy fines or both!] I will do the the palms up, shoulders raised thing, and mutter ‘eppure si muove!’ and look forward to the Appeal!
http://etims.net/?p=12184
Interesting article regarding Politechnica Timisoara FC and how the CAS dealt with their claim of being the same club after liquidation.
The similarities between that club and Sevco are striking to say the least.
Dave King is only the third case of anyone having been “Cold Shouldered”.
The other two cases are here:
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/the-code/compliance/cold-shouldering
One of them involved persons at Dundee FC as it happens.
Dave King is the first person to have had his case referred to Court for enforcement.
This is important because it illustrates the extraordinary position taken by King.
Homunculus makes a point reminiscent of the EBT case:
“Surely that would be an important enough issue for the Takeover Panel to be granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court”.
Is this a possible strategy here?
and also
“If he does decline to make any Order I will be fascinated to read his justification for it”
Indeed, so will everyone else in British industry.
With all due respect to JC and his faithful and accurate reporting, the “may” issue is a nonsense. To decline to enforce the verdict of the TOP is to remove the substance of the 29.9% shareholding rule and open up the possibility of, among other things, a tidal wave of cases of mammoth proportions regarding previous decisions.
JOHN CLARK
NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 22:32
======================================
That’s my point about it being sophistry. Whether it’s may or must or could or will is surely not the point, in this instance. It might be when it is two parties disagreeing about something. But it is a regulator seeking the assistance of the Court in order to do their job.
It is the Takeover Panel’s job to regulate these issue, they have an appeal board for when people disagree with their ruling. The matter has been through that process.
Why would the Court of Session undermine both by saying “I may order the person to abide by the ruling. However I don’t have to, so I won’t.”
HomunculusNovember 13, 2017 at 22:16
‘..Meaning as others have said the Senior civil Court in Scotland has made a mockery of the Takeover Panel, the Appeal Body and their rules.’
__________
It would be appalling, I agree.
And I don’t really think Lord Bannatyne will go down that road.
But I do think Parliament will have to look at the wording of section 955 to remove any doubt in future cases.
One way or the other, King is a busted flush as far as the TOP is concerned: they do not need an order from the Court before they can ‘cold shoulder’.
Indeed, I wonder why they took the matter to Court: they have already cold shouldered two other lots of concert party chancers, without Court action. There may be hidden depths here.
(And how they breed like maggots, those kind of guys, whether public school or Del boy types,who, like Beelzebub’s ( or as Humphrey Bogart in “Key Largo” called him-Beezlebub- great wee movie,btw) seed breed and generation would shaft the rest of us for the sake of personal gain)
It’s now on my clock midnight plus 30
It’s been a long sad/happy day- travelling through to what Edinburghers call ‘the West’- for the funeral of a classmate of the 1950s’/60s.
The kind of classmate that was so fundamentally decent and honourable and level-headed that he was a kind of bench mark of standards of behaviour that the rest of us could measure ourselves by.
He was not a particular friend of mine in the sense of being my everyday pal at school.
But he had a kind of ‘I wish I could be like him’ effect – gifted, humerous, kind, reflective,and humble.
He was ( no fault of his) a rugby guy, and couldnae play football to save his life.
But he tried mightily, and I think I was brain-damaged by his tackles, as I tried to to do my Charlie Tully bit on the left wing .
Happy 1950s days.
God be with him.
And isn’t it wonderful how on these occasions you meet guys that you knew at school yonks ago and haven’t seen for x numbers of years- and they’re still them! Bald,ancient, bus pass holders, who are still 16 years old in attitude!
Wonderful, because it relates to Truth.
Or, at least,to the examination of our personal truth and understanding of ourselves.
Which , sadly, seems to be a concept alien to those on the Boards of TRFC Ltd and RIFC plc.
And, by exension, to those on the Boards of the SFA and SPFL.
Sergio Biscuits November 13, 2017 at 22:33
http://etims.net/?p=12184
Interesting article regarding Politechnica Timisoara FC and how the CAS dealt with their claim of being the same club after liquidation. The similarities between that club and Sevco are striking to say the least.
=============================
Here is the full ruling from the CAS database
Big PinkNovember 12, 2017 at 16:48
TWM makes a return
David Low on those accounts PLUS the search for a sponsor!
====================
One of the questions that was asked was how could TRFC’s accounts be UEFA compliant?
This from the UEFA page explaining FFP is one of the areas that must be in dount.
http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html
17) How does financial fair play deal with debt?
Manageable debt geared towards the long-term development (stadium, academy, infrastructure etc) of the club is efficient for financial planning and is standard practice in most industries. Debt taken on board, including the monetisation of future income, to fund day-to-day operating activity such as wages and transfer fees or to fund short-term cash flow shortfalls can create problems and must be managed effectively.
Financial fair play through the requirement of clubs to meet their financial obligations and to break even prevents the accumulation of losses leading to unmanageable debt.
Last updated: 18.20CET, 30/06/2015
The phrase in bold suggests an area of concern and identifying that area is covered in Article 52 of FFP 2015:
Article 52 – Future financial information
1 The licence applicant must prepare and submit future financial information in order
to demonstrate to the licensor its ability to continue as a going concern until the
end of the licence season if it has breached any of the indicators defined in
paragraph 2 below.
2 If a licence applicant exhibits any of the conditions described by indicator 1 or 2,
it is considered in breach of the indicator:
a) Indicator 1: Going concern
The auditor’s report in respect of the annual or interim financial statements
submitted in accordance with Articles 47 and 48 includes an emphasis of
matter or a qualified opinion/conclusion in respect of going concern.
b) Indicator 2: Negative equity
The annual financial statements (including, where required, the supplementary
information) submitted in accordance with Article 47 disclose a net liabilities
position (negative equity) that has deteriorated relative to the comparative
figure contained in the previous year’s annual financial statements, or the
interim financial statements submitted in accordance with Article 48 (including,
where required, the supplementary information) disclose a net liabilities
position (negative equity) that has deteriorated relative to the comparative
figure at the preceding statutory closing date.
3 Future financial information must cover the period commencing immediately after
the later of the statutory closing date of the annual financial statements or, if
applicable, the balance sheet date of the interim financial statements, and it must
cover at least the entire licence season.
4 Future financial information consists of:
a) a budgeted profit and loss account, with comparative figures for the
immediately preceding financial year and interim period (if applicable);
b) a budgeted cash flow, with comparative figures for the immediately preceding
financial year and interim period (if applicable);
c) explanatory notes, including a brief description of each of the significant
assumptions (with reference to the relevant aspects of historic financial and
other information) that have been used to prepare the budgeted profit and loss
account and cash flow statement, as well as of the key risks that may affect
the future financial results.
5 Future financial information must be prepared, as a minimum, on a quarterly basis.
6 Future financial information must be prepared on a consistent basis with the
audited annual financial statements and follow the same accounting policies as
those applied for the preparation of the annual financial statements, except for
accounting policy changes made after the date of the most recent annual financial
statements that are to be reflected in the next annual financial statements – in
which case details must be disclosed.
7 Future financial information must meet the minimum disclosure requirements as
set out in Annex VI. Additional line items or notes must be included if they provide
clarification or if their omission would make the future financial information
misleading.
8 Future financial information with the assumptions upon which they are based must
be approved by management and this must be evidenced by way of a brief
statement and signature on behalf of the executive body of the reporting entity.
It would seem from the foregoing that UEFA will be probing whatever the SFA accept because of Indicator 1.
This does not mean a licence will be refused but it would be start of a process by which UEFA order TRFC to get their house in order, which is perhaps something the SFA are quite happy to see happen on a “it wiznae us” basis.
Any other light that those with accountancy experience can shed on the rules is welcome.
AULDHEID
NOVEMBER 14, 2017 at 01:40
=========================
The same questions were being asked last season and a SFA ‘source’ chose the favoured media outlets of STV and the Daily Record to get the message out that a licence would be awarded, but that UEFA would then put Rangers on a ‘break even monitoring period’. The questions for me are:
1. Would the SFA actually have to tell UEFA there is a need to enter the monitoring period?
2. If the answer is yes to the above, did the SFA tell UEFA?
3. If the answer to the above is yes, how can Rangers be classed as having broken even when losses have been increased and a further £4m in loans is needed to see out the season?
Personally, I have serious doubts as to whether there is any monitoring at all of Rangers financial position by UEFA. As long as the current SFA remain in place, and the mainstream media look the other way, I don’t believe there ever will be.
On the awaited Lord Bannatyne TOP decision.
How ironic, in a most ludicrous way, would it be if a man, who only escaped forty odd jail sentences because he had the wherewithal to pay tens of millions of pounds in fines and unpaid taxes, should then escape the full might of the law because he doesn’t (allegedly) have circa eleven million pounds at his disposal?
I do have a sneaking suspicion, though, that we are about to witness another Rangers Tax Case type saga, that ends up with the only decision that made sense all along, but kills off, in an irreversible way, one more avenue – and all it’s loopholes – for King style shysters to make a killing at the expense of unwitting investors.
AllyjamboNovember 14, 2017 at 09:13
On the awaited Lord Bannatyne TOP decision.
———————————————————-
Do we know when it is due to be announced?
John Clark
November 13, 2017 at 23:22
==========================
My guess, and it is purely a guess, is that they don’t think that the “cold shoulder” treatment is enough in this case. Bearing in mind the actual ruling, the comments of the appeal board, and the evidence that he was told by others that what he was doing was likely to breach the rules.
He totally dismissed the panel, he was totally non compliant with them, and he effectively treated them as if they had no power over him or his actions. Like he does with most things to be fair. It was an exercise in GIRUY to the regulator.
I think, and it is like I said no more than a guess, that they want to force him to make the offer and to suffer the consequences (more serious than the “cold shoulder”) if he does not. As I have said elsewhere, even a ban as a director in the UK would surely cause serious problems for RIFC PLC and contempt of Court could be much more serious than that.
There was a reason HMRC got BDO to appeal to the Supreme Court (in a case they had already won). They had bigger fish to fry. I think this may be similar, on two frontts. 1, Give King the treatment he deserves after his behaviour both during the takeover and after when they were investigating him. 2, Send out a message to others “We are not toothless tigers”.
100% speculation on my part.
HomunculusNovember 14, 2017 at 11:06
‘….My guess, and it is purely a guess, is that they don’t think that the “cold shoulder” treatment is enough in this case..’
_____________
I’m inclined to believe that your analysis is very probably correct!
Apologies to those who follow JJ and won’t hear a word said against him. However I think it might be worth clearing something up.
He starts his latest piece with
“Liam Murphy is one of two Procurator Fiscals who run COPFS (the other being Anthony McGeehan).”
He really isn’t.
This is how it works, well as I understand it.
The Lord Advocate – Head of COPFS
Solicitor General – The Lord Advocate’s Deputy
Crown Agent – Chief Executive of COPFS
Deputy Crown Agents – There are four sections but one person has two roles just now
DCA High Court Function
DCA Local Court Function
DCA Operational Support Function
DCA Specialist Casework Function
Neither of the men named holds any of those posts. Both manage the Local Court Function, under the control of the Deputy Crown Agent. Though that isn’t really relevant as it deals with the Sheriff Court, not the High Court or complex casework.
Liam Murphy is also the national manager for Specialist Casework, which I imagine is what JJ is talking about. His boss is the DCA in charge of that Function.
He is certainly not “one of two Procurator Fiscals who run COPFS “.
This is not an exclusive, it is public knowledge.
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 14, 2017 at 11:45
I know I should’t bite but I see we’re gettin’ it in the neck again. I bet inside his hoose is just wan big mirror. I really don’t know where he gets the time to run a blog what with trying to catch a glimpse of himself all day. Anyway, i’m away to style myself an offshoot doon the auld men’s club. That’s if I can remember where it is !!!!
I suspect that the may Lord Bannatyne is wrestling wwas put into the act to give discretion if there was egregious misconduct by the TOP at previous stages in their processes.
D King reminds me of another D King of whom it was said by Earnie Shavers “if he offers you a million make sure it isn’t snowballs he is talking about”
Penniless and Randless might be distinguished if one were unscrupulous.
I see that JJ is basing one of his blogs on the David Low podcast without acknowledging its provenance. cut paste plagiarise give me lots of money repeat ad infinitum, as it were.
Christyboy
November 14, 2017 at 13:42
==============================
I think the irony is that he wrote a piece in which he discussed a Podcast by David Low. I believe it was yesterday.
Would that be the recent SFM Podcast
Maybe it’s just a coincidence, I haven’t actually listened to the podcast.
Then makes the comment today
“The SFM – still asking questions that no-one is prepared to answer – like to style themselves as an offshoot of The Rangers Tax Case blogger. However it was instructive to note that the Orwell Prize winner did not mention any of the members of this old men’s club by name when giving thanks. They will no doubt send a representative who will tell us nothing. One might ask what is the point and extend this question to include the SFM.”
A fantasist trying to make himself relevant. I wonder if he will be having a “virtual table” at this years football blogging awards. And sending a virtual friend up to collect an award for him. I suppose with that many virtual readers there’s every prospect.
I was watching the golf at the weekend from South Africa and was amused to see that the major sponsor was Nedbank. I can’t think of a more appropriate bank for Dave to deposit the family millions!!
upthehoopsNovember 14, 2017 at 07:15
Did the phrase “Going Concern” appear in the last set of TRFC accounts? I’m not sure it did.
I think it appears in the latest set so even the Pharisees at the SFA, who work to the letter of the law as opposed to its spirit, will have a job not justifying flagging it to UEFA or set their own conditions on TRFC for granting.
We probably will not know until next April after the licensing legwork has been done.
From TRFC accounts 2016
I caught a bit of Superscoreboard this evening as I was preparing my Horlicks prior to an early night (not being a young man any more). Much to my astonishment there was a discussion concerning DK’s over investment in his Club/Company. It was a shame BDJ wasn’t in the studio to hear it. I had to prepare 2 cups to calm down. No doubt I’ll have to get up in middle of the night now.
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 14, 2017 at 14:54
“The SFM – still asking questions that no-one is prepared to answer – like to style themselves as an offshoot of The Rangers Tax Case blogger. However it was instructive to note that the Orwell Prize winner did not mention any of the members of this old men’s club by name when giving thanks.
————-
As a late addition to SFM can i ask a question?
Was SFM formed after The Rangers Tax Case blogger.won the Orwell Prize? and if it was why would TRTCB give them a mention.
And as i’m sure The Rangers Tax Blogger knows his stuff,he would know not too mention anyone by name.
AuldheidNovember 14, 2017 at 19:46
‘….Did the phrase “Going Concern” appear in the last set of TRFC accounts? I’m not sure it did.’
_____________
If you have a look at Companies House records, Auldheid, you will find the TRFC Ltd accounts for year ended 30/06/15. [The CH stuff is ‘padlocked’ so I can’t copy and paste]
Here is what the Directors’ report says (page 7):
GOING CONCERN
…In turn, the ultimate parent company( Rangers International football club plc) has provided the company with written representation that it will not call in the intercompany balances due, and will continue to provide financial support for at least twelve months from the date of the report.
The Board acknowledge that had these assurances and funding not been secured then a material uncertainty would exist which may cast doubt over the company’s ability to continue as going concern………….The Board is delighted this uncertainty has been removed and the appropriate assurances obtained,”
That report was signed on 31st January 2016
The Auditor’s Report has this:
“EMPHASIS OF MATTER- GOING CONCERN
In order to continue operations for the next 12 months the company is dependent on its ultimate parent entity raising additional finance and continuing to provide support to the company.Failure to secure additional funding by the ultimate parent entity would result in the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt as to the the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include the adjustments that would result if the company ws unable to continue as going concern”
That was signed on 1st February 2016
The most recent Accounts signed off for year ended 30th June 2016 have a similar reports by the Directors and the Independent auditor.( Just noticed Homunculus’ post!)
EX LUDO
NOVEMBER 14, 2017 at 20:21
——————————————————-
Has Dave King “invested” anything in Rangers.
He bought shares, but that wan’t during an offering, so they were bought from other people and no money went to Rangers.
New Oasis has provided the PLC with loans, so that’s not really an investment.
You could argue that if /when those loans are converted to equity, paying off the loans, then New Oasis will have invested in the PLC. However that hasn’t happened yet.
So as it stands, to the best of my knowledge, Dave King has not “invested” bean one in the PLC. Unless someone can tell me he did actually buy shares at the IPO.
Homunculus
That was the very point the caller made. He was even allowed to accuse DK of being economical with the truth re the statements which were made when he got control. He also posited (c. JJ) that the lack of questions from the Ibrox fans was puzzling.
Back to bed now.
Cluster OneNovember 14, 2017 at 20:49
‘..Was SFM formed after The Rangers Tax Case blogger.won the Orwell Prize? ‘
_____________
Yes. I think the prize is usually awarded about June of the year.
There is a blog on 08/08/12 ( not quite his last) in which he indicates that any comments to be made about should be made to TSFM ,which had started up in a little bit of confusion about the date that RTC would sign off. He would already have received the award by that time.
See https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/08/
(All his blogs are available , and you can find them on the panel adjacent to the text of the one in the link)
When I have a read at the material I still get a surge of rage that the cheating SDM and his club were sooooo looked after and protected by (at least!) the SMSM and the Football Authorities, instead of being instantly brought to book and summarily expelled.
For what they did was truly shocking and utterly indefensible.
It’s late of an evening, or early of a morning.
But I just had to send the email below, and it took me longer than I had anticipated.
It’s to the Takeover Panel person who replied to my email to them about King.
“Dear Theresa Scott,
Thank you for your very helpful response on 8th November to my email of 6th.
I wonder if I may, through you, draw the attention of the Takeover Panel to the fact that the way in which paragraph 17 of the report of the Hearing has been written is very misleading and clearly based on a misunderstanding of what actually happened.
It suggests that ‘Rangers Football Club’ was in some way bought out of Administration as a going concern, and that the new club founded by Charles Green as ‘SevcoScotland’ is the very same Rangers Football Club which is languishing in Liquidation even as I write!
It is not, and could not possibly be the same football club, whether under statute law or under the rules of Scottish football administration.
Charles Green bought some of the assets of the historic Rangers Football Club.
He did not, could not, buy the Football Club. That club went into Liquidation, and it is still there.
SevcoScotland changed its name ( possibly to deceive potential investors when its planned parent company made its IPO) to ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’, and is a quite different beast entirely to the liquidated Rangers Football Club.
For the Takeover Panel to suggest that it is the same ‘Rangers’ that was in any way the same club of which Celtic had long been an arch-rival is quite wrong , and misleading.
The Rangers Football Club Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Rangers International Football Club plc-the chairman of which,Mr David Cunningham King, is currently not complying with the Takeover Appeal Board’s decision-has only a five year history as a football club, and is not at all to be considered as being the same football entity as the Rangers Football Club that was founded in 1872.
I would be most grateful if you were to draw this to the attention of the Takeover Panel so that in any further references they may have to make to the Chairman of Rangers International Football Club plc or to The Rangers Football Club Ltd, they do not make the mistake of thinking that either of those entities is the historic Rangers Football Club of 1872.
Yours in the interests of truth, especially in sporting matters!
(me)
JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 14, 2017 at 22:44
See https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/08/
(All his blogs are available , and you can find them on the panel adjacent to the text of the one in the link)
————-
Thanks JC.
31/01/2012 2,532 COMMENTSThe facts behind today’s Daily Record story will come as no surprise to the readers of this blog. It will come as even less of a surprise to the blog participants whose sterling work uncovered the Companies House filings and refined the analysis on which today’s story is based. In the local vernacular, “chapeaux” to all concerned, but especially to: Don Dionisio; JohnBhoy; PaulieWalnuts; Onandonandon; and so many others. (I feel like an Oscar winner who has left out the names of several key people in an acceptance speech. Forgive me for the many omissions, but we will find a way to recognise other outstanding contributors in another post).
———–
Not shy to give a hat tip i see
From the Celtic AGM, as reported by the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38002509
All 12 of the resolutions put to shareholders were passed – including the re-election of all board members and the proposal by the Celtic Trust to establish a formal supporters forum, to enhance communication between the club and fans’ representatives.
Chairman Ian Bankier also revealed the club would meet with representatives of shareholders who complained to the Scottish Football Association and Uefa about Rangers being granted a licence in season 2011-12 to play in Europe.
“This came from the AGM in 2013, relating to SFA licensing procedures,” Bankier said. “The shareholders, having taken further legal advice, continue to have concerns.
“The club is meeting next week with shareholder representatives to understand their concerns.”