.. and why sites like SFM matter.
When SFM blasted off in 2012, we had a fair idea that Scottish Football had not only veered violently off the rails,but that it had done so deliberately.
Our intention was to try to help – in some small way – to steer it towards a straighter track, and to see it restored as a sporting institution and spectacle worthy of sporting principles. To see integrity restored to our national sport, to see honesty, fairness and adherence to both the laws of the game and land.
Of course we didn’t know what route our own journey would take, even although we were clear about the destination. What we did know about the journey was that no matter the route, the first leg started outside our own front door.
Who knew we would be taken on a magical mystery tour, blindfolded, spun around a few times, but still find ourselves at that front door. Via the road less traveled, the high road, low road and an endless series of shortcuts and wrong turns we hadn’t moved an inch.
On every stage of the “journey” the SFA, the SPL, and their quasi-legal tribunals & inquiries ducked and dived, twisted and bent the truth, and aided and abetted the greatest scam in the history of UK sport.
Newly coined idioms emerged; “Imperfect registrations”, “boiler-room subsidiary”, “emerged from liquidation”, “ethereal entity”, – and the real doozy; “other clubs could also have broken the tax laws had they wished” – all in an effort to;
1. pretend that what happened had not happened, that cheating was fair, that the rights of one football club were not enshrined in law but decreed by the heavens;
2. hope against hope that the rest of us had gone stark raving bonkers and would accept the “Santa is alive” fallacy as truth.
The facts were;
- That Rangers, having been subjected to the ignominy of administration, had now entered liquidation, leaving behind a mountain of debts, the vast majority of which were underwritten by us, by the taxpaying public.
- That almost £100m of funds was denied to the exchequer as the first ever nationalised football club, bought and paid for by the people of the UK, slid into oblivion, a trail of devastation in its wake.
- That in the course of that calamitous conduct of business, the SFA and the SPL were given false and incomplete information about the nature of players’ contracts. This in order to cover up a tax scheme that was (according to the man who devised it) operated incorrectly and thus unawfully.
Every football club in Scotland and their fans were cheated by a club which quite simply refused to play by the rules – even as the noose around its neck was being pulled ever tighter due to HMRC and Lloyd’s Banking Group taking steps to erect buffers ahead of the onrushing gravy train.
The result was that 140 years of history came to an end; an insatiable hunger for success ironically bringing about the ultimate and irreversible failure of a Scottish institution.
Not for them though, the recognition that they had transgressed. “It wasn’t Rangers – it was Craig White” was the cry.
I’m sure Hearts supporters in 1965 might have said the same about Willie Wallace after he missed a sitter in the final league match against Kilmarnock at Tynecastle. Had he scored, Hearts would have won the league, so Hearts should, by the RFC logic, claim that title anyway. Likewise Celtic fans could have pointed a finger at Georgios Samaras when his penalty miss at Ibrox lost them the league.
More facts: every football club in the world is the sum of its parts, onfield and off. We take the good that people do for our clubs and celebrate them. We have no right to cherry pick and ignore the consequences when people screw up.
Footballers – and administrators – are often gifted individuals given to moments of blinding inspiration which benefits their clubs. They are also often prone to reckless behaviours, the consequences of which we all have to bear. Murray’s knack of talking money out of trees and his reckless and irresponsible practices gave Rangers huge success, but that behaviour also – perhaps inevitably – led to the appointment with the buffers mentioned above.
The good and the bad. Both sides of the same coin, inseparable, inevitable, and there is no choice but to accept the whole package, not just the good bits.
In the circumstances, the hostility towards the old club was understandable. It was always a given that Celtic fans were unlikely to cut them slack as they headed towards an ignominious end.
However, had there been contrition, an acknowledgement of wrongs and some humility in response to talk of consequences, fans of other clubs outside of the Old Firm bubble may have extended some sympathy. But there was none of this. Instead, denial, arrogance, blaming others (“kicking us when we are down”, “who are these people?”) and a pugilistic reaction to the very idea of punishment. The outcome was an absence of sympathy for the plight of RFC.
Let’s revisit this; on an industrial scale, Rangers misrepresented (accidentally if you believe that the board of a PLC was comprised exclusively of halfwits and individuals unable to bite their own fingers) crucial information regarding compliance with registration rules, They subsequently withheld evidence from multiple enquiries into their conduct over these registration rules.
As far back as 1996, Rangers PAYE affairs were being investigated by HMRC and incurring penalties (not a very well publicised event).
Then, for more than a decade, principally through the 2000s they failed to comply with taxation statutes and with crucially important (not merely bureaucratic) SFA rules designed to preserve the intergity of football as a sport. They cheated the revenue out of millions and the fans of every club in Scotland out of their aspirations for their own clubs.
Rangers however were still box-office, and there were 50,000 fans providing a market for the product the now extinct club had provided through the decades. Surely someone would step in and take up the Rangers cause? Surely those people would eschew the catastrophic errors of judgement that had resulted in the economic and existential demise of the original club? Surely they would also acknowledge those mistakes in an effort to convince the clubs and fans they had wronged that this was an organisation that recognised the interdependence of sporting activity?
Surely.
But no. Sadly, no.
Even then though, that matters little.
Why? Because the sins of the old Rangers cannot be visited on the new. The behavior of the new club is a matter for a different argument, but it isn’t relevant in a legal or regulatory sense to the old club. Legally or morally there is nothing you can do to them to ensure that a repeat of the same spivish behaviour does not occur.
So why the fuss? Why the six years of relentless campaigning by SFM and dozens of other football sites?
Because it does matter that the authorities themselves – including all the other clubs – and the MSM have gone out of their way to cover it all up.
No-one at the SFA will talk to fans who have provided them with evidence of wrongdoing in the matter of the 2011 Euro licence. No one will address the witholding of evidence from the LNS enquiry, nor the false premise upon which it arrived at some of its conclusions, nor the mysteriously shifting goalposts of the period investigated by the LNS enquiry, nor the acid-flashback consciousness of the newly arrived at – and totally irregular and unlawful – “imperfect registration” status.
What still requires to be done is to root out those who have enabled the big lie. We need to hold accountable those who have sought to bury evidence, to dispense with logic and to treat fans with contempt and ridicule when legitimate concerns are raised.
We need to replace those people with people of integrity, folk who love the game as much as we do, people who will not yield to intimidation or the dog-whistle.
There are foot thick rule-books in place in football, and the authorities have plummeted into the Asimovian depths of a regulatory Fantastic Voyage to circumvent those. The SFA Chief Executive even told our own John Clark that he would “do nothing” had he been presented with evidence of wrong doing (and he had been presented with such evidence).
Yet one simple rule would have saw the whole sorry escapade brought to a halt – the universal rule that requires people to show due respect and good faith to others.
As I said, we started this journey at our own front door. The authorities and their enablers in the media have been taking us on the Uber route for six years. But we still know the destination, and we will get there. The SFA, the SPFL and the MSM have been relentless in their dedication to half-truths and misdirection.
But the fans are even more relentless in their pursuit of truth and their determination to see our game returned to its status a a sport. That is why outlets like SFM are important. Not because we are any better than others, but because we give a voice to the people in the game who matter most – to the paying public of Scotland who turn up in numbers relatively greater than any other country in Europe. They need that voice. We are not going anywhere.
I disagree, I dont think there is anything to debate on the matter. They were illegal in so much as the courts ruled it was an income that should have been tax deductible. To HMRC it’s no different to how they went after public sector workers they found to be operating inside IR45. Those contract worker were not found to have done anything illegal in a criminal sense but they were were still found to have underpaid what they owed and as a result they are being chased by the tax man. The Rangers players will be the same. No one has accused them of doning anything criminal but they are found to have underpaid tax and will have to now stump up. The terminology of “illegal/legal” is completely irrelevant in this case. People can argue over the harshness of it but HMRC treat every single case of tax avoidance the same – EBTs, film schemes, disguised employees – and everyone will be chased to repay. Why are we getting caught up in terminology?
ExLudo
The legal/illegal debate is not on matters of opinion but on matters of fact. Once again I refer you all to what Homunculus says given that he appears to know this stuff and uses the correct technical language correctly.
QCs are called Advocates for a reason they are there to advocate a particular argument or set of arguments. They do tend to the error that they are members of an intellectual elite because they have trained into a particular way of thinking and have read a lot of stuff about one particular subject.
The old saw says that we all start out knowing nothing about everything and that academic pursuits cause some of us to know everything about nothing. I can claim to know most of things about 10 lines of an obscure book but very much less about most other things.
Celtic won fair and square on Sunday.
The referee WC saw it all. Totall incompetent. But the SFA are now ridiculous. Shamefull. we need VAR.
That an incident is viewed by three former Grade One officials & a unanimous decision is required* before issuing a Notice of Whatever It's Called This Week to the player(s) involved is a new procedure for this season.
It's only the first week in September & it's obvious that it's not working (I'm not sure whether that should be 'not working as intended' or 'not working at all', TBF!). The time to change it is now.
The SFA (and their refereeing cadre) has been shown again as not fit for purpose & that clip will be shown around the world, embarrassing further the Scottish game.
Additionally, has there been any sanction imposed on the ref & AR in the Thistle game? If there were, would we ever know?
*This procedure seems to protect current referees by using people who worked with & possibly trained them to pass judgement on their competence. Conflict of interest/transparency issues right there!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHV6BjuQOZQ
My problem with refereeing standards is that we seem to be going back to thuggery and lack of protection for skillfull players . ((how does one spell "skillfull", Brodie ?). I would now expect all managers to instruct their charges to kick out , since the maximum sanction appears to be a caution . That'll raise standards since players will have to improve to escape those challenges . And we wonder why the rest of the world laughs at us ? Wonder if Super will ask of the referee panel "who are these people ?" on behalf of the rest of us ?
Mercdoc. Thanks. Fully agree with that. Not sure what it has to do with his view on it being illegal mind you.
Shug. No. I mean all the kicks and elbows last season and this that Brown has got away with.
As for the McGregor incident, I can assure you I've not seen it other than watching it live on Rangers TV and after a number of beverages.
If you can link me to it on social media I would be happy to judge it but I can't imagine me saying anything other than it should have been red given what people told me.
Ok. Just saw it. Blatant is correct. Should have been a retro red.
Just had a look at the ghost goal that thistle scored against morton that was chopped off and I cant for the life of me see why he then gave a throw in to partick after a morton player kicked the ball out of play obviously annoyed at conceding ref standards in scotland eh lol.
"We weren't paranoid enough"
Glib and shameless blazering from the SFA.
Hi Law Man,
I found this and thought of you!
https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase/status/893536657470767104
I think RTC would welcome your questions and theories. I would quite like to see that!
paddy malarkey 4th September 2018 at 19:39
__________________________________________
Aw Paddy, don't ask me. There are various spellings accepted by various dictonaries. I would use proficient instead.
Jingso.Jimsie 4th September 2018 at 19:33
That an incident is viewed by three former Grade One officials & a unanimous decision is required* before issuing a Notice of Whatever It's Called This Week to the player(s) involved is a new procedure for this season.
==============================
This is so open to abuse it is hard to believe, Three completely anonymous people all have to agree. What happens if one of them simply doesn't fancy a certain player receiving a two game ban? What happens if one of them decides there is no way a certain player is missing vital league games or a cup final? They are as capable of bias as anyone else. Only in Scotland would such a secretive process be tolerated. Why does EVERYTHING about the SFA have to be so secretive? – as if I need ask!
bfbpuzzled@18.37
Any debate on here re illegal/legal is moot. The argument between learned counsel was settled in the highest court available and after 2 hearings in different tribunals hence my weak joke two posts later on.
It would suit some posters on here to try and argue that RFC weren’t guilty of anything and neither were the players caught up in it all. If there had been doubt in anyone’s mind that the scheme wasn’t safe then I’m sure a meeting with HMRC would have sorted it all out. Alternatively a quick phone to Brian Quinn (ex Bank of England and on the Celtic board at the relevant time) would have worked too.
What can you do about Scottish Referees? Every club has the same opinion. They are rubbish. That's not one decision after another in club terms. They are rank.
Who trains these people? Who monitors these people? Who disciplines these people? Who are responsible for the worst refereeing group on the British Isles?
Who can hold them to account.? Alice Whyte? Don't make me laugh. She showed her mettle today.
A coward against a thug. (Has she ever watched his history?)
Jingso.Jimsie 4th September 2018 at 15:12
Ian Maxwell has been in post as CEO of the SFA for over 100 days.
Let that sink in for a moment…
…then ask yourself, 'What's he done in that time?'
===========================================
A wild guess J.J…
The CEO has been placed on the "SFA Witness Protection Programme", and is currently held in the Hampden bunker, playing dominoes alongside the SFA President?
And in case anyone had forgotten: the SFA President is one Alan McRae…and he has been in post for over 3 [yes, three] years now !
SFA PESIDENT. Was there ever a time when that lofty title was worthy of it's name? That person at the moment is a joke. We all know that.
But going back in time, who was the last PRESIDENT worthy of that title? Honest question.
Upthehoops,
So what you’re essentially saying is “I think it is an absolutely shocking decision. Who are these people? I want to know who these people are.” I only highlight this because once upon a time a certain Rangers manager was pilloried from pillar to post on here for not dissimilar sentiments. And by not dissimilar sentiments, I mean I copied and pasted his statement above and it matches fairly exactly what you said.
RyanGosling 4th September 2018 at 21:51
0 0 Rate This
Upthehoops,
So what you’re essentially saying is “I think it is an absolutely shocking decision. Who are these people? I want to know who these people are.” I only highlight this because once upon a time a certain Rangers manager was pilloried from pillar to post on here for not dissimilar sentiments. And by not dissimilar sentiments, I mean I copied and pasted his statement above and it matches fairly exactly what you said.
=============
The difference being fat sally already knew who they were IMO I believe this was done to get the hordes marauding. It worked.
RyanGosling 4th September 2018 at 21:51
========================
I'm saying the system is open to abuse given the highly secretive nature of it. In McCoist's case he knew who the people were so he was simply grandstanding. Strangely it was the only time the names got out – not saying it was him who was responsible of course.
On a wider note I personally don't trust the SFA in any case, and I am sure a player will receive a ban sometime this season for what Morelos and McGregor were given the SFA's blessing to do. Just like McCoist, Diouf and Bougerra in 2011 who left Hampden scot free, smirking, while the SFA tried to give Lennon a longer ban than their own rules allowed for.
RyanGosling
4th September 2018 at 21:51
===========================================
You cannot seriously be suggesting that what he posted, on this blog, is even remotely analogous to what McCoist did, when he already knew the names.
You do remember what action the Police had to take because of his appalling behaviour.
RyanGosling 4th September 2018 at 21:51
Sorry Ryan but surely you agree there should be more transparency in the Governance of our game with people accountable for their decisions and if necessary prepared to explain the rationale behind them?
The comparison with McCoist's comments is crass because he is an influential figure speaking publicly at the time and knowing full well that he had access to the information of who made the decision but instead sounded the dog whistle.
A charlatan and corrupt individual who unsurprisingly thrives in Scottish society and the British MSM
Re the share issue motion passed at the recent RIFC AGM.
Is there any sign of legal action from the TOP/relevant authorities or from minority shareholders to block this share issue or seek to ensure that it does not have the effect of frustrating the previous TOP threshold requirement?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
To go back to the SFA decision today –
Auldheid – some time ago you wrote a short piece about “outsourcing” SPFL refereeing to reduce the (possibly) malign influence of the current refereeing fraternity.
I have been utterly horrified by the McGregor/Ajer case where it is pretty evident that the panel who decide if a case has to be answered – I guess the football equivalent of a prosecuting authority or procurator fiscal – is made up of anonymous ex-referees who have a superb opportunity to apply whatever bias they wish – be that pro-Sevco or anti-Celtic or whatever – or merely not wishing to open an ex colleague up to criticism. Such a panel will NEVER come up with a just, unanimous decision.
This is, unfortunately, part of the “process” which our new Compliance Officer has been landed with – I guess she is powerless in this circumstance – and until this process is changed, very radically changed, then the cesspit that is Scottish Football will continue to be a corrupt, laughing stock of a sport.
When you have time, could you give some consideration as to how this process coud be applied fairly & consistently in your model of an outsourced refereeing service?
Please.
Mr McLennan is going to be busy in his role with INM. High Court in Ireland has appointed inspectors to probe their affairs.
Focus needed.
‘Who is conning whom?’ ‘Is it better to offer no excuse than a bad one?’ ‘Enough is enough’. Contextually, these past blog headers are all relevant to ‘the foul that never was’. How much time, column space and transistor radio phone-in debates must we to endure? Had Mark Warburton, Graeme Murty, Pedro Caixinha or Graeme Murty (2nd time round) made such a fuss, would the MSM and their extended family in the spoken media have debated this ad infinitum? Never in the field of football conflict, at least not since the 2017 petition demanding ‘the end to to anti rangers views’ amongst Scottish referees have we had to endure this. Was it a foul? Seriously? Was this the game changer? No. It wasn’t. For example, it was no more a game changer than Carlos Cuellar’s right hand save in April 2008. The outcome was befitting of the dominant side.
Incidentally, McGreggor went off that day, albeit injured. He should’ve been off on Sunday; but that’d only have been a score tally changer.
And if you know your history, who’s conning whom?
theLawMan2 4th September 2018 at 22:51
"Mr McLennan is going to be busy in his role with INM. High Court in Ireland has appointed inspectors to probe their affairs"
Two things, tLM2:
As any kind of PR person for the new club of 2012, you are not at all worth any kind of payment you may be receiving!
Can you explain yourself?
Or better, just give us a rest, please: you are just making a farce of yourself.
And a bloody , irrelevant pernicious nuisance into he bargain!
I Know I'm probability out of order but I often think that Auldied, John C. EasyJ a re about this age group.
Remember these talandted girls auld fellows?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsmVgoXDq2w
1. Not sure what you are looking for here. Its breaking news today and i noticed no-one has mentioned it.
2. It has nothing to do with tax cheating of Rangers. Is this the only thing to be discussed on this site John ?
I thought this sites aim was to shine a light on the governance of our game. When Dave King appears in court, then often you attend. So you must believe that officials in the game appearing in court is important. In this instance, the Chairman of the SPFL will now be involved in a case involving INM in Ireland as he is also the Chairman of INM. Their affairs will be probed and he will no doubt be part of this enquiry on a company which is 45% owned by 2 Celtic shareholders.
If Murdoch McLennan was the Chairman of Micromega and they were being subjected to an investigation by the SA authorities, would it be worthy of a mention on here do you think ?
The conflict of interest now is heightened even further. Expect a resignation any day soon.
First we had Allyboy inferring i was dim, Barcabhoy acting as the Grammar Police and now John trying to dictate what people can and cannot write about.
The Chairman of the SPFL will be under investigation through his links to a company "owned" by Celtics shareholders and its deemed not worthy of discussion. LOL. You really couldnt make this up.
jimbo 5th September 2018 at 00:20
'.but I often think that Auldied, John C. EasyJ a re about this age group. '
____________________________
I can't speak for anyone else, jimbo, but if by 'John C' you mean to refer to me, you're at least one and a half generations out!
In 1986 I was already an auld middle-aged geezer!
Geez, in my early 20s I feckin well danced to Kenny Ball live in Glasgow Uni students' Union!
Happy days, and I remember my dancing partner [ no, I cannot tell a lie] I mean the lassie that I would have died for if she had even noticed me enough to have had even one dance with me!
And, extraordinarily and utterly without any immediate connection, I am brought to mind of a Rudyard Kipling poem, 'McAndrews Hymn' with the lines
"Oh roads we used to tread,
Fra' Maryhill to Pollokshaws — fra' Govan to Parkhead."
A poem well worth a read.
TheLawMan2 5th September 2018 at 00:37
'The Chairman of the SPFL will be under investigation through his links to a company "owned" by Celtics shareholders and its deemed not worthy of discussion. LOL. You really couldnt make this up.'
_______________________________________
No, only you could make up some connection!
What have the affairs of INM got to do with the SPFL, or the cheating of SDM,and the Big Lie/5-Way Agreement, and the new club that falsely claims to be the original 'Rangers' and the SFA's craven acceptance of that false claim?
Explain yourself, with chapter (royal arch or otherwise) and verse.
Every now and again I like to step back from the whole RFC/TRFC shambles and its immeasurable, negative impact on Scottish football.
If TRFC had actually died in 2012 – as opposed to being resurrected by the fawning SMSM – would Scottish football be worse off?
Worst case – financially – 'could' be lower attendances and TV money.
Would the Scottish game be more honest, more transparent, even more wholesome, 6 years later?
IMO, yes.
Absolutely!
The McGregor / Ajer 'non-incident' is just another inconsistency to be added to the ever growing list of inconsistencies WRT the SFA and TRFC.
However, to highlight this bias takes a club – with real balls – to cite these inconsistencies as a defence in the future.
And, being realistic, it seems to me that only one club – my own club – has that clout.
The CFC fans have repeatedly acknowledged and followed through on their social conscience – e.g. Palestine crowd funding, food collections, etc.
Mibbees the club itself has to measure up to its own support?
A quick look online today sees the SMSM getting itself into contortions over the SFA disciplinary process. Pointless unless they ask the real question, which is, is the process applied in an arbitrary manner? For me there is ample evidence it is. Steve Clarke was 100% right to ask the same question recently. Nothing will change though. The SFA has refused to be transparent for its entire existence. Only in Scotland.
SQUIRREL ALERT
So in order for an incident to be looked at by the CO it has to be approved by no fewer than 3 ex refs
What could possibly go wrong
Welcome to the SFA 2018
Lawman2 @ 06.26
Following on from your comments re INM I had a quick perusal of what the Irish media were saying about it online. On the face of it it looks like a very complicated story involving a number of prominent businessman, politicians and the Irish legal processes. As far as I can tell none of it has anything to do with the collapse and liquidation of RFC, the tax cheating by RFC that went on for many years and the failure of the SFA to deal with these matters in a fair, open and honest way. As you have stated yourself, it is all potentially embarrassing for a few people connected to Scottish football. What has been clearly established in a foreign court is that the chairman of TRFC was guilty of numerous tax offences and only escaped a very long prison sentence by paying a very large fine. What you are doing is attempting to play at “whataboutery” and I don’t think anyone wants to play that game.
For the avoidance of doubt my generation went to see Tom Ferrie (DJ) in the GUU well as the original line up of AC/DC. However my own personal highlight was seeing Maggie Bell and her band play the QM.
FoF at 07:31
Not just approved – approved unanimously !!! Utter SFA nonsense and no doubt it cannot be changed without all 42 clubs' agreement and not until the end of the season !!!!
Re posting as my submission seems to have been lost ?
To go back to the SFA decision today –
Auldheid – some time ago you wrote a short piece about “outsourcing” SPFL refereeing to reduce the (possibly) malign influence of the current refereeing fraternity.
I have been utterly horrified by the McGregor/Ajer case where it is pretty evident that the panel who decide if a case has to be answered – I guess the football equivalent of a prosecuting authority or procurator fiscal – is made up of anonymous ex-referees who have a superb opportunity to apply whatever bias they wish – be that pro-Sevco or anti-Celtic or whatever – or merely not wishing to open an ex colleague up to criticism. Such a panel will NEVER come up with a just, unanimous decision.
This is, unfortunately, part of the “process” which our new Compliance Officer has been landed with – I guess she is powerless in this circumstance – and until this process is changed, very radically changed, then the cesspit that is Scottish Football will continue to be a corrupt, laughing stock of a sport.
When you have time, could you give some consideration as to how this process coud be applied fairly & consistently in your model of an outsourced refereeing service?
Please.
Surely the purpose of a three person panel is to allow a majority vote? Yet (and this is just what I am reading on here) the SFA new rules mean that all three have to be in agreement? Surely a two out of three would be the far more sensible and workable solution?
Like many on here, I think referees should be outsourced, potentially from foreign leagues. I see the points of view of both the majority posters on here, and LM2. Rediculous decisions like the McGreggor one can only raise accusations of bias towards Rangers. But as LM2 points out, there are many that have gone against us in recent years but I think the hysteria from both sides of the argument are wildly out – the trust is the referees in Scotland are as bad as I have seen in any league. You will always get an element of bias when all your referees come from a small country such as Scotland. And for the players and managers to spout out all their 'conspiracy' p**h such as Jack and Gerrard of late, and Lennon of years past it just puts even more pressure on them. Such vocal critics who don't so much criticise the performance of the ref, but their very intergrity should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute in my opinion.
https://twitter.com/broganrogantrev/status/1037170766180175872?s=21
Speaking of potential issues. This one has still to run its course.
JC I think lm2 is referring to what his club believe is a Celtic plant heading up the spfl who they believe is taking his orders from Mr Desmond. We all know that if he was working for micromega they would not be mentioning this but today they will be gleefully rubbing their hands at the thought that Celtic will be caught up in this somehow. So if there is a resignation it will enhance the chances of planting a rrm in that role.
The INM situation appears to be a bit of a mess, it looks like the SPFL Chairman's conflict of interest might be removed by them going out of business which would have seemed a fanciful concept even a couple of years ago. It's worth noting that none of this mess was of Maclennan's making, he seems to have been brought in once the damage was done in a firefighting role.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/business-to-continue-as-normal-37284186.html
TheLawMan2 4th September 2018 at 22:51
Mr McLennan is going to be busy in his role with INM. High Court in Ireland has appointed inspectors to probe their affairs.
==================================================
Forgive me, I don't really know anything about this case, you clearly do.
What does "probe their affairs mean", it doesn't really tell us anything.
Why is it going to keep their non-executive Chairman busy, what role will he be playing.
If you want to discuss this I for one would really need to know a bit more about what you are talking about. You haven't actually said anything there so its difficult to reply in any meaningful way.
LM2
OK, you had piqued my interest (as I know nothing of the case and didn't realise the Celtic Man (for that is what he is) was now Chairman) right up to the point that you said Shug's point of 09.11 was garbage. So, on the basis the Celtic plant isn't the line you're taking what is your point?
TheLawMan2 5th September 2018 at 00:37
'The Chairman of the SPFL will be under investigation through his links to a company "owned" by Celtics shareholders and its deemed not worthy of discussion. LOL. You really couldnt make this up.'
====================================
I've no problem with you raising INM as a possible issue that has, at most, an indirect link to the SPFL. Feel free to champion it, as Auldheid has with Res 12. But don't start whinging if no-one takes up your offer of a discussion, or alternatively if someone does look into it and rebuts or refutes your inference that McLennan in his role as SPFL chairman only acts in the interests of Celtic.
Meanwhile, is there any update on the TOP response to King's proposed (and now validated per SGM) share distribution?
1/ Have they been asked to assess the 50% rule on the new shareholding or, alternatively, have they confirmed their intention , as common sense would seem to dictate, to base the assessment on the original shareholdings?
2/ Have they/are they likely to respond?
So you give a Troll a nice new bridge out of the goodness of your heart. You forget that Trolls do not exist to live under bridges- they live to eat. So our particular Troll soon abandoned his new bridge and returned to here, where plenty of people prepare to feed his penchant for logomancy and sophistry pass by.
Don’t feed the Troll.
LM2
By the way, if it helps there was wide agreement on here that Topping was demonstrably corrupt as well.
Aurellio Zen
5th September 2018 at 10:35
————————————
I'll see your 'logomancy' & raise you a 'logorrhea'!
TheLawMan2 5th September 2018 at 09:21
1
34
Rate This
Shug 5th September 2018 at 09:11
JC I think lm2 is referring to what his club believe is a Celtic plant heading up the spfl who they believe is taking his orders from Mr Desmond.
__________________________________________
Absolute garbage.
I don't think so you have absolutely no other reason to raise this issue this conflict of interest pi+h has been raised before by yourself. LOL.
Jimbo says
"The referee WC saw it all. Totall incompetent. But the SFA are now ridiculous. Shamefull. we need VAR."
But who do you think would be manning the VAR system? If the Secretive Fraud Alliance had anything to do with it, it would be carefully selected, anonymous puppets, willing to continue to sell their souls for ££££.
The sooner football at Ibrox, or anywhere under the name of Rangers, ceases, the sooner Scottish Football can begin to crawl out of the cesspit it has made for itself. Nothing else will bring about the changes required. Sad, but true….
Darkbeforedawn 5th September 2018 at 08:39
Surely the purpose of a three person panel is to allow a majority vote? Yet (and this is just what I am reading on here) the SFA new rules mean that all three have to be in agreement? Surely a two out of three would be the far more sensible and workable solution?
======================================
The requirement for the unanimous vote, as I understand it, is that overturning the decision of the match officials should only occur, as with VAR, if a clear and obvious error has been made. If the panel ended up with a 2-1 vote against the referee's decision then that equates to a 2-2 view on the incident and the on field decision should not be changed.
My issue with the panel is one of transparency. I would like to know who is on the panel, a list of incidents reviewed by the panel and which way they voted in each instance. The panel members should also be free to speak to the media about why they made their decisions.
That way, over time, it should be possible to show if any particular member shows bias, either in favour of a particular club, or more generally in favour of the on field decision of the referee.
There is no point in a panel member looking at an incident with a view to finding a reason why the on field official made a particular decision. They need to look at each incident independently, with all the extra angles available, then make a decision of red card / yellow card / no action / exceptional sanction.
I have one caveat on unanimity, using the McGregor incident as an example. If two panel members thought it deserved a red card, and one thought it should be yellow, while the referee took no action, then in that circumstance there is a unanimous panel vote for some action. The outcome should be the lower sanction of a yellow. In McGregor's case he was shown a yellow card later in the game, so he should face a one game ban for the two yellows in a game amounting to a red.
Jingso.Jimsie
I felt that logorrhoeic logomachy, while exactly fitting the bill, would make me look even further up my own fundament than I already do ?
Lawman2
I'm a bit perplexed by you questioning the integrity of the SPFL Chairman.
If he "misuses" his position to investigate the probity of the Dave King regime at Ibrox still charged with dishonesty by the JPDT, and the result of that investigation is the removal of Dave King, is that not something you would be all in favour of, or have I misremembered your past protestations about your dislike of Mr King?
Maybe you should have a talk with yourself or post in bold as your transparency makes your posts hard to read.
Been deluged by messages complaining about the trolling. Regrettably I have put LM back in moderation. No doubt he's trying to get a rise out of everyone again.
I admire his capacity to shift the focus of attack every now and then, but the squirrel he set loose yesterday, coupled with the invective today is the last straw.
For the record, I agree with EJ totally. McLennan's situation is something we should be conscious of. I don't see him myself as a pro-Celtic individual. What defines him for me is his rank Toryism.
But there is no significant conflict of interest in his situation. If this becomes a question of F&P (given the inquiry that's underway), I think we need to address that as and when necessary. We are however some way from that I imagine.
To equate it with the DK situation, where the inquiries/court cases/tribunals etc have all condemned his behaviour roundly and left him with a criminal record for crimes associated with money, is the real garbage.
There is no moral or actual equivalence.
Same goes for those with their "Film Company" tax schemes. I feel a personal distaste and disgust for anyone who behaves in that manner. Again, not the same an institution using such schemes itself to enable it to circumvent the normal laws that others are bound to, and to corrupt and infect our sport.
Trisidium
5th September 2018 at 12:41
=======================================
You are spot on with the film scheme thing. Like you I find people (often already wealthy) using these things to avoid paying tax totally distasteful.
However they are doing it as individuals, with their own money, after having been paid that money net of tax.
That is entirely different from an employer using tax avoidance (in the full knowledge that is exactly what they are doing) to artificially minimise tax deductions in order to pay higher net salaries and by doing so employing a higher quality than they could otherwise afford. Taking an unfair advantage over their competitors. The notion that their competitors could have cheated as well does not make it ok.
I also agree that there is no (significant) conflict of interest in this situation, no matter how many people use the word "fact" to claim there is. We have been through this before so lets not go over it again. It will be the same arguments and some people will look at it from an intuitive point of view whilst others will ask to see some form of supporting evidence. "There just is, its obvious" is not a strong argument in my view.
Sorry LM, I'm not sure what your trying to get at here? It's a lot of ifs and buts and assumptions and accusations – much of it completely groundless. I don't see what impact it has on Scottish football? Maybe I am being naive, but I believe the links to King's past tax behaviours is purely to paint a picture at the type of person we have running our club. If someone can lie, cheat, throw his own friends under a bus all for his own sake – what reason do we have to believe everything he does now is for the benefit of a club he doesnt even support as his first love? Also I think you are off piste with the TOP – this could and likely will have huge implications for Rangers no matter whether King states differently.
It seems from a quick read at the latest Club 2012 statement that they see the whole Fanzone issue as related to licensing and that it is th function of the Licencing Committee to take account of all the relevant information and submissions.
There appears to be no reference to the ownership of the land and all that entails prior to any need for licences.
Perhaps it would be better to secure the right to use the land before any formal licence applications.
The whole tone is of they usual passive aggressive lament that it is no longer sufficient to be the people who are for things to be done for them as well as adding names to the long list of their enemies.
Headline from the ET;
"Rangers fans furious as Europa League tickets are much pricier than Celtic's."
========================
It's been a long time, but still waiting for a different slant to TRFC statements issued, or reports on their fans, like;
"Rangers is extremely pleased to announce…"
"Rangers is very grateful to announce…"
"The Rangers fans endeared themselves to…"
"The travelling Rangers support happily mixed with the locals…"
"The Rangers fans were a credit to Scotland on their Europa League travels…"
etc.
Unfairly, I'm sure, but the SMSM always (face?) paints the bears as foaming-at-the-mouth fans constantly looking to be enraged.
And that whoever rushes out the TRFC rambling, p!sh statements is required to develop a foul mood beforehand.
The SMSM portrays Ibrox -IMO – as simply not the best place to be: an unhappy place, frequented by unhappy people.
Oh my goodness. A squirrel! Thank The Lord that the second Lawman was here to save us from overlooking it!
Quite a lot indeed a lot as you rightly say: all of Dave Kings wealth emanates from South Africa and this wealth is (theoretically) underwriting the very existence of The Newco. The SA tax authorities charged him and he pleaded guilty on enough counts of tax-dodging to send him to prison for the rest of his life. Not only does this case show he is a man who cannot be trusted to pay taxes (unpaid taxes because being of the key components in bringing the Rangers Football Club to liquidation – where it still languishes) but it also speaks to the man’s character. The finding of him to be fit and proper to run a football club is as much a mystery as the phantom kick we all saw, but didn’t happen, last weekend.
I disagree.and refer to my reference to Dave King’s character – he was after all on the board of Oldco as it sailed blithely into the rocks of liquidation- meaning many suppliers and HMRC (and indeed supporters) lost money. That he can stroll back into Ibrox and do the whole thing all over again is something this website challenges.
Again, the phoenixing of a team in blue under the name of Rangers playing at Ibrox is questionable in the first instance – the fact the newco is headed up by someone meme from the Oldco should have alarm bells ringing from Berwick to Lerwick and so it is directly in the area of the 5WA imo. The fact that the TOP have effectively found Mr King to have fallen foul of their rules speaks againto the character of the man – the fact he ousted a legitimate billionaire who could have put the “club” on a even keel is again worthy of comment when it comes to the good of Scottish football.
As for the travails of INM and its former chairman: The fact it is an Irish plc and the investigation is being brought in Ireland despite having ownership of some papers in the north of the island, where it could fall under UK law is perhaps of note, but only insofar as it distances itself from being a UK issue.
It’s also worthy of note that McLennan was brought in to replace the gentleman under suspicion and to steady the ship at INM: there is no suggestion he himself is under scrutiny- quite the reverse.
I agree that there is a “DIRECT” connection to Scottish Football in that the Chairman of the Company is the Chairman of the SPFL but IMO there IS NO RELEVANCE (aren’t caps fun!) for the reasons given earlier.
Again with the innuendo that two minority shareholders are somehow running two entirely different pls apparently for their own gain (or more bizarrely for the benefit of an Association Football team!) in spite of fully functioning boards at both plcs should be news to the authorities and even then McLennan hasn’t got anything to do with Celtic directly so there is another degree of separation right there! – so again, the inference they are acting “in concert” (!) is moot.
That you are “incredulously amazed” that people will do not see this as a “CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL POTENTIAL” (not sure unequivocal in the potential of something that will probably not happen is quite the right usage) conflict of interest is amazing to me. For this to happen the chairman of a plc will have to lie, presumably under caution or oath in your hypothetical example to protect a couple of minority shareholders in that company of crimes that may not have happened – because of their status as shareholders in one team in a league of 42 teams (think that’s sorry am on flight – hence the time to respond to this nonsense – so can’t check) leaving himself open to professional ruin and perhaps criminal charges for what reason? For what benefit?
Seriously I get it – this topic tied the blog up for a few days a while ago and you want to do the same again, but until McLennan is named as a “glib and shameless liar” by a judge, until he pleads guilty to multiple charges and pays millions in fines to avoid the rest of his life in jail and until there is one iota of evidence of any collusion with an individual team who stands to gain something by entering into some shady agreement hatched behind closed doors, there’s nothing of interest to TSFM. But I am sure that won’t stop you posting updates, with a “sword of truth and a shield of trusty British fair play” so to speak…
(ok landed now- back to work)
Evading Avoidance
RTC 31/03/2012
We have seen a few old faces and themes emerge overnight in the light of the surprisingly excellent Channel 4 exposé on Rangers. Annoyingly, an old myth has been repeated by some posters: “tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is legal”. Another one is that Rangers have not been accused of tax evasion- ergo they have not done anything illegal. This is absolute rubbish on both counts.
This is the sort of ill informed mythology that gets repeated by the idiots who told us Craig Whyte was buying Rangers for £33m. It is a bit like the story about Eskimos having lots of words for snow: just because a piece of untrue nonsense is repeated often does not change its central essence. It is still untrue nonsense.
So by way of a bit of a filler post while we are waiting on events to further unfold, we shall do a bit of revision for those who might have missed this first time around. The laws covering tax evasion and tax avoidance are identical. The only real difference is that in cases of tax evasion, such overwhelming evidence will exist that HMRC believes it can prove that the people involved planned to commit fraud. The perpetrators must also have known that what they were doing was criminal when they did it. (Our lawyers friends will provide a more precise definition, but this will be good enough for most purposes). This is a pretty difficult standard to achieve. In fact, it is so difficult to prove, criminal prosecutions for tax evasion are normally reserved for accountants and lawyers- people whose knowledge of tax law is easier to demonstrate. This explains why several high profile tax fraud cases, such as the recent one involving the canine pet of a football manager, ended in acquittals despite evidence that looked pretty impressive to the general public. In Scotland, this high hurdle is elevated further by the requirement for corroboration.
Tax avoidance can be illegal. It is a term used to describe tax schemes that simply will not be pursued in a criminal court. Some avoidance schemes are illegal, while others have been deemed to be legal if implemented correctly. HMRC even have a tax avoidance scheme registration plan (DOTAS). Tax payers can use DOTAS registered avoidance schemes and be sure that they will not be accused of criminality. Those who are deemed to have breached tax law through an illegal avoidance scheme are pursued through a civil process i.e. a tax tribunal- rather than a criminal court. This is where Rangers are. They are not accused of any criminal action at this point (and it is unlikely that they will), but they have been accused by HMRC of pursuing illegal tax avoidance practices. This resulted in them being sent tax assessments for underpayment, interest, and penalties. Rangers have appealed this determination by HMRC and the First Tier Tribunal (Tax) will decide whether to uphold Rangers’ appeal or not. The First Tier Tribunal will effectively rule on whether Rangers’ tax practices were legal or illegal.
You might wonder why criminal charges would not be pressed if someone was found to have shredded key documents in a tax investigation. Surely this would be criminal? Well, mibbees aye, mibbees naw.
It could be deemed criminal if you could prove that the person who requested the shredding was knowingly destroying a document to subvert an investigation by a government body. Proving this degree of intent will often be impossible. So, tax collectors will settle for collecting taxes- through the civil courts. In the tax tribunal process, interest payments and penalties are used to ensure that tax avoiders (that is ones deemed to have broken the law) do not gain an advantage by paying a smaller amount later. In cases, where there is the possibility of criminal behaviour by ‘minor cogs’ in the machine rather than the ‘big gear’, there would also be a reluctance to prosecute.
Is Channel 4’s report of document shredding relevant to Rangers’ tax cases? I do not know. That would be for Rangers FC and its former directors to comment.
There must be some kind of remedial teaching award available to anyone who is able to explain any of this to a Scottish sports journalist.
keith jackson @tedermeatballs
Hearing Kenny Miller and Lee Wallace have had their appeal against Rangers disciplinary sanctions upheld by the SPFL. Another incredible Scottish football farce. Story up soon @Record_Sport
I wonder how TRFC will spin this one.
It’s an internal matter and we won’t be making further comment?
So Spoutpish has once more; predictably and in keeping with traits which were more than once flagged up, crossed some sort of line.
Anyone who has had the pleasure (and I use the word quite wrongly) of crossing his path on his various quests to lay waste to various sites under various nommes de trollerie will know this is how it always ends.
Not with a bang but a walloper.
The industrial scale posting by Niall Walker, Steerpike, Lawman2 (was there a Lawman or Lawman1?), Ernest Becker, City Boy (?) and others too numerous and too tiresome to recall while staggering from proclaiming oneself as an East Berwick supporter to hosting corporate guests at Ibrox at every home game; from grinding everything to dust to not seeing McGregor's kick on Ajer; from being a business lynchpin with seemingly every aspect of business practice; tax law; accountancy law; corporate law; insolvency law; civil law; criminal law; tribunal procedure; the Geneva Convention; the European Convention On Human Rights and the Pirates Code at his fingertips nonetheless always seems to end up the same sad, sorry way.
You would think one of us would learn.
I see that despite his industry on numerous occasions at all hours of the day and night; which must bite into his business day as a Whaler or a Muleteer for the Indian Army or whatever it is he says he does, the newly revived (especially for Spoutpish) Bonkers OCNC Thread has not been graced by a posting from him since 23rd August 2018. Indeed the thread's last posting was on 25th August 2018.
So that was time well spent humouring one well kent disrupter who it appears was less than grateful for the effort expended on his behalf.
Prior to that when Spoutpish was wearing a strip with "Ernest Becker" on the back he was humoured by the creation of The Ernie B Thread on 1st November 2017. His last post on his own thread was on 18th November 2017. This is a pity as I know a guy; a guy with a tie thus an impeccable source, who told me if he'd made it to to the end of the month Dave, Jabba, Chris Graham, Chris Jack, Chick, Doddsy and BFDJ were going to pass the bowler hat around and and settle that month's National Insurance Contributions.
Given that I have only had to thole the output which passed moderation I can only imagine the content and quality of the posts which did not pass muster.
I, for one, would welcome yet another thread in The Great Man's honour; Thoughts Too Rich For SFM's Blood, where the views which were even worse than the ones published could be read. Alternatively the collection of rejected musings could be put in book form and issued for the Christmas market. Available online and at all good book stores under Sport/Fiction/Fantasy/Humour.
A minute reading Spoutpish is a minute wasted.
Any time spent responding to Spoutpish is a site wasted.
StevieBC 15.20.
Not exactly "extremely pleased" or "grateful" but is this close enough for you?.
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/steven-gerrard-confirmed-as-manager/
I take it that you have examples from the three other representatives with regard to their fans behaviour when abroad or in Aberdeens case Burnley.
I had thought that the general feeling on here was that the SMSM portrayed us in nothing but glowing terms so good to see you admitting this isn't always the case and is in fact the complete opposite on occassion. Thanks for that.
Hope you enjoyed your deserved victory on Sunday but good to see that Rangers are still uppermost in your thoughts.
.
FAO Jockybhoy. 15.42
Haven't had the time to read your post in full but in the need to be accurate and honest it should be said that Dave King paid around £186,000 in total and not the millions you claim.to keep out of jail.
Easyjambo 16.26
Not surprised in this news in the slightest. Kenny Miller in particular should be extremely aggrieved at the way he was treated in this incident. Lee Wallace less so but was blown out of all proportion imo.
Reference the decision of a 3 man panel of ex-referees decision on the McGregor kick out, it is a absolute sham. I would like them all to be named (ally style), and also their football allegiances to be recorded and known. Since 2012 the SFA IMO has protected the Govan club (the 5 way agreement being the prime example), we will never get transparency NEVER. The SFA are answerable to no one IMO and the farce of them acknowledging the Ibrox club as the same club since 1872 is the biggest protection of the Govan club to the detriment of all other clubs and to us the fans who are the life blood of the game. Why would they not want transparency? Scottish football has lost all credibility since 2012, we all know it and we all know they will keep accepting this to protect the Ibrox club. Why in Scotland is this acceptable?, honest question.
I had suggested to TRFC-supporting family and friends that they would have to pay substantially more for tickets than CFC supporters simply to stand still , give that one stadium holds 50k and the other 60k and that they have the same general percentage *rseprint . Made them laugh . It seems that its not so funny now that they've seen the prices of EL packages for both clubs . Looks to me that TRFC are trying to raise £1 m more than TRFC from the group stages . I dined alone last night and forswore alcohol .
I hear that Miller and Wallace have had their appeals upheld . And that Wallace has been omitted from the EL squad . Sorry , no links .
The SFA looked at the Macgregor incident and saw no need for punishment. Surely a precedent is now set so that any player sent off for kicking out must automatically have the red card rescinded?
Sorry , should have read " Looks to me that TRFC are trying to raise £1 m more than CFC from the group stages .". Back on the drink ,methinks !
misterlightbulbjoke 5th September 2018 at 17:57
The SFA looked at the Macgregor incident and saw no need for punishment. Surely a precedent is now set so that any player sent off for kicking out must automatically have the red card rescinded?
=================================
You know, and I know, that won't happen. It will all come down to whether the ex-Referees involved believe it is excessive or not. This is all very dangerous in terms of fairness. Imagine a panel of ex-Referees are being asked to decide if a kick is excessive, and if they do it means a star striker or goalkeeper missing a vital game for or against their favoured team. Is the process so secretive that they don't even know who the other two ex-Ref's are that are also being asked to make a judgment? Trouble is we'll never know because the SFA will never tell us. Why on earth can't they be open and honest with the paying public!
Shock horror.
Another team loses an appeal for their player, strange how morelos kicks out red rescinded, mcgregor kicks out no action??.
The beaks wonder (but don't give a toss) that the fans don't trust them.
No chance of an even playing field when the ball rolls down the slope towards inbox or where ever sevco are playing at the time
Wonder how the authorities will spin the fact that sevco lost a case today but sevco won today also as one player for the time being anyway is a sevco player the other was
SJ@16.55
I don’t know where you got your figure of £186,000 from but this is from the South African Press Agency in 2013.
“Johannesburg – Millionaire businessman Dave King has agreed to pay the SA Revenue Service R706.7 million to settle his tax debt, the two parties said in a statement on Thursday.
They said King appeared in the Palmridge Regional Court earlier in the day and entered into a plea and sentencing agreement with the National Prosecuting Authority.
He agreed to a payment of R706.7 million to Sars in respect of his personal income tax and the tax liability of Ben Nevis, a King trust company managed out of Guernsey.”
I would respectfully suggest that £186,000 does not equate to over 700 million rand.