A Guest Blog for TSFM by Auldheid
It has been some six months since we drew readers’ attention to documents that should have been provided by Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps in March 2012 to Harper MacLeod who acted on behalf of the then Scottish Premier League to investigate the use of side letters and employee benefit trust payments made by Rangers from the inception of the SPL in July 1998. You can read the previous blogs/correspondence for background at
- http://sfm.scot/scottish-football-an-honest-game-honestly-governed
- http://sfm.scot/an-honest-game-convince-us/
- http://sfm.scot/an-honest-game-convince-us/https://sfmarchive.privateland.net/it-takes-two-to-tangle/
In the latest letter below sent to Harper MacLeod and SPL Board members on 5th September 2014, you will find the story of what happened when the LNS Decision was delivered to the SPL Board and how the withholding of those same documents not only meant The Commission was misled from the outset in its terms of reference, but how the SPL Board were also incorrectly advised as a consequence of the same concealment.
It is a matter of some regret that secrecy, concealment and non-accountability continues to be the order of the day, not only in Scottish football but in the media coverage of this particular part of its history, but if this series of blogs does nothing else it will bring out the truth not only about the use of ebts but the deceitful attempts thereafter to try and minimise the damage caused. The Inaction will also stand as an indictment against all those responsible in the game and the media who cover it.
Letter to Harper MacLeod
Dear Mr McKenzie
We write further to our letters of 19th February, 29 March and reminder letter of 18th May 2014 to ask if the SPFL are now , after studiously ignoring for 6 months the correspondence and evidence provided, going to reconsider their position in respect of the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission and Decision of 28 February 2013?
In the detail of our letter of 29 March we suggested that It may be prudent to wait for the results of HMRC’s appeal to the UTT concerning the regularity or otherwise of ebt payments made under the MGMRT arrangement before embarking on any premature decision on the integrity of the LNS Commission Decision with regard to the true nature of the REBT payments being concealed from it.
The UTT have ruled and we know that payments under the MGMRT ebt arrangement are, for the time being and until the Court of Sessions re-examine the case at some future date , “lawful” or “not irregular” in tax terms.
However convenient as that may be to put off addressing the wider issue of the true nature of the MGRT ebts used by Rangers, it is no reason in terms of the LNS Commission, not to examine the effect of the concealment from yourselves as commissioners and the SPL of ebt payments made from 2000 to 2002/03 under the REBT arrangements to Tor Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer which were already ruled irregular by a separate FTT investigating the use of the same Discounted Option Scheme by Aberdeen Asset Management.
We remind you that in the earlier undated letter sent on 19th February we provided irrefutable evidence that
- Yourself, acting as the investigating agent for the SPL, was not provided with all the documentation you requested on 5th March 2012
- That documentation clearly demonstrated that in the case of two players named on the Commission list (Ronald De Boer and Tor Andre Flo) payments were made via an irregular ebt mechanism that subsequently rendered them subject to tax which HMRC has been trying unsuccessfully to collect since May 2011, a year before the commissioning process commenced.
- That in both cases side letters concealed from both football and tax authorities were a feature, whilst later relevant documentation revealing their true irregular nature was not provided as directed by yourselves to the Commission itself.
It is now our firm contention that
- The findings of Lord Nimmo Smith from paras 104 to 106 of his Decision that no sporting advantage accrued must be set aside where now known irregular payments have occurred. Using Lord Nimmo Smith’s argument sporting advantage had to accrue from season 1999/2000 to 2002/03 and the SPFL need to address that truth and consequences for our game to move on.
- Whilst it is unclear which SPL/SFA rules would have been breached by making irregular payments, it was not the rules the Commission was directed to examine as, according to the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision para 88 “ There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset “
- Payment by irregular means clearly constitute such a fundamental defect and so an extreme case. These payments should not have been conflated with other payments which are for the time being not irregular and to allow an investigation to stand that wrongly treated them under the same rules as the Commission did for regular payments would be a clear miscarriage of justice caused itself by apparent deception of the Commission by those whose very behaviour it was commissioned to investigate! (If we were using lay man terms we could say that the SP(F)L clubs and their supporters were and are being treated like mugs by those governing our game.)
On the matter of that apparent deception we can even go further on its impact. It is a fact that the SPL never made any public announcement as a Board of acceptance of the Lord Nimmo Smith decision. There was one individual statement but no official SPL Board announcement.
We understand that the matter of making an appeal was raised by the SPL Board on 28 Feb 2013 during a telephone conference meeting, not a face to face one, to discuss the most serious issue ever facing Scottish football and that a decision was delayed for 7 days by which time the date for lodging an appeal was about to end.
During the discussions by e mail some Board members expressed dissatisfaction at the token nature of the punishment for what Rangers had been found guilty of (basically misregistration of players) but also concerns about how no sporting advantage had been obtained through the use of ebts with side letters.
The Board were persuaded by your good self that Rangers had a sound argument that no sporting advantage had accrued. The Board were told that Rangers in effect had said that if the EBT details were required to be disclosed, the reason they did not disclose them was because of an error by Rangers in understanding what was required to be disclosed and that in any event they had secured no competitive advantage from not disclosing since the tax position would have been the same whether they disclosed to the SPL/SFA or not.
Given our opening points we suggest that during the investigation had you had in your possession the withheld evidence we supplied in our letter of 19 February 2014 (and notwithstanding the point re different terms of reference resulting) you would have been able to demonstrate the flaw in this argument to the SPL Board when they were asking your advice on the legal position in early March 2013.
It is difficult to accept that there was an error in understanding that side letters should not be disclosed as part of player registration when our supplied evidence shows that in 2005 Rangers deliberately concealed the existence of side letter for De Boer and Flo from HMRC.
Far from suggesting an error in understanding, this suggests that Rangers understood that to reveal the existence of such letters would remove the tax advantage that ebts gave them and that this advantage depended upon side letters being kept secret from authority and that includes football authority, lest informing them alerted HMRC to their existence. The QC advice contained in the withheld documents is that this deliberate concealment in 2005 demonstrated Rangers true intention of putting cash in the hands of player as part of their remuneration package.
It is also clear that revelation of these particular side letters and their circumstances would indeed have changed the tax position since HMRC have billed Rangers for the tax due on the payments to De Boer and Flo.
HMRC have not done so for Moore because the absence of a side letter puts the tax due on that transaction outside the extended time limit rules that allowed them to pursue payment for Flo and De Boer, but regardless of this and regardless of whether it was notified to the SFA, Moore was paid by an irregular means not available to other clubs..
The questions for yourself Mr McKenzie is had you been in possession then of the information supplied by TSFM would you at the time of investigation been in a better position to either refute the case Rangers made in their defence or to advise the SPL Board that the evidence of deliberate concealment from HMRC in 2005 of what transpired to be irregular payments, gave the SPL Board reason for entering an appeal?
Did the very absence of that material, which was not your fault, prevent you from briefing the SPL Board in a way that you might have done had you had all the evidence to hand?
We think the original evidence supplied and the questions raised now as a result of more fully appreciating what was hidden from the then SPL Board (and so SPL clubs) in March 2013 requires that the SPFL conduct a new cleansing investigation into :
- The apparent deception by Duff and Phelps of the SPL led Commission ,
- Why the SFA President, Campbell Ogilvie, did not advise or correct Lord Nimmo Smith or The SPL and
- The implications of the use of now revealed irregular payments by Rangers FC during seasons 1999/2000 to 2002/03.
This letter has been sent by e mail to the current SPL Board members and also by mail or e mail to the then Board Members who, whilst no longer in position might have their own views on what needs to be done on this issue to restore integrity to the very processes Scottish football relies on to ensure fair play.
Apologies if my post at 7.23pm seems a bit whatabouterish.
I just do not like double standards.
upthehoops says:
September 14, 2014 at 9:39 pm
Unfortunately that is the world we all live in. People are charged with something and, if the media so choose, you can be convicted in the court of public opinion long before any true jury gets to hear the evidence. As we all know on here the media can twist, misrepresent, over egg, or simply ignore any story they wish.
Anonymity in most cases would be ideal. I seem to remember a few years ago a player serving a ban over a failed drugs test and the story not breaking until after the player was back playing. Now I don’t for a minute believe that no one in the media knew about this story but they simply choose not to print the story.
Silent Partner says:
September 14, 2014 at 8:57 pm
@ecobhoy
Mind you, it’s hard proving anything without corroboration. Who would have thought Oscar Pistorius was innocent of murder? I suspect, not even Oscar.
===================================
I think you may well be wrong in your assumption because the little I saw of the Pistorius trial on TV makes me think that South African law on murder is different from that of Scotland or even England & Wales.
It seems that to be convicted of murder in South Africa it’s necessary for pre-meditation to be proven.
Under Scots Law, murder is also committed when it is premeditated. But in its absence murder can still be found if the accused displayed a reckless disregard for the life of the victim.
That doesn’t appear to be the case in South Africa and it seems that if a victim dies only through reckless disregard without any element of premeditation then the accused will face a Culpable Homicide charge and sentence tariff.
In Scotland our Culpable Homicide charge is seen as a much lesser offence than murder and covers cases without premeditation or intent to kill.
I suppose the classic is a minor assault where the injured party later dies because of an underlying medical condition. The original murder charge is often reduced to culp hom which the accused usually gratefully accepts.
So even though Scotland and South Africa have a charge of Culpable Homicide – they cover very different crimes. We also both have the charge of Murder which can be found proven in both countries if there is premeditation.
But in Scotland you can also be found guilty of murder through ‘reckless disregard’ but this doesn’t seem to be the case as I understand it in South Africa.
So in Scotland Pistorious IMO would have been found guilty of murder for exactly the same reasons he was found guilty of Culp Hom in South africa viz: repeatedly firing into a small space where he believed an intruder was located. The judge made it clear these actions weren’t reasonable and I would expect him to receive the upper end of the Culp Hom tariff but this is a ‘political’ case so who knows.
Another day of whatabouttery and deflection folks – and another hour of my life gone forever. Apologies to those of you who tried to inject some sanity, for your posts were removed as well as the the whataboutterers.
For clarification, the racism debate is relevant and of value to this blog. Deflecting from it is not. If the first reaction we have to accusation is to point to the other boy who did it, we are going the way of the fanzine.
Robbyp says:
September 14, 2014 at 7:28 pm
15 0 Rate This
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/gordon-waddell-rangers-fans-must-4257414
———–
I agree with CoT, forceful stuff. Bravo GW. Stopped short of saying they are a new club, in so many words, but the implication is if you die once you can just as well die twice if it’s for the long-term good.
justshatered says:
September 14, 2014 at 10:08 pm
So attempting to bring civility to our sporting arenas is not up for discussion?
====================================
I don’t think it shouldn’t be up for discussion and I don’t think that’s what tsfm is saying.
But I certainly think it wrong to conflate the Aberdeen fan singing with the allegation made by one player against another on the field of play.
Both are important but in different ways especially as the words sung were heard by tens of thousands whereas the issue between the players may well have only been heard by the pair of them.
But I make no judgement – because I am not in a position to do so – as to whether any words were exchanged never mind any of an offensive nature.
If there is no evidence to prove or disprove the allegation then nothing can be proven either way and that’s unsatisfactory but it’s the system we operate under which requires proof.
ecobhoy says:
September 14, 2014 at 10:30 pm (Edit)
justshatered says:
September 14, 2014 at 10:08 pm
So attempting to bring civility to our sporting arenas is not up for discussion?
====================================
I don’t think it shouldn’t be up for discussion and I don’t think that’s what tsfm is saying.
_______________________________________________________________
Thanks EB. Only thing I would add to that is there is a “Man Bites Dog” aspect to the Tonev accusation – and fan misbehaviour would ordinarily have to be of a certain intensity before it crept into that category.
The deflection aspect of it is what makes it sad imo and as Bill 1903 alluded to, the whatabouttery can go on and on. It is a whole new debate of course, but the line between banter and something with an “ism” attached can be as blurred as that between terrorist and freedom-fighter. That said, if the trigger for a debate about fan behaviour is an accusation about a player’s, then it probably isn’t substantive.
My own cards on the table, if a player from say Dundee was accused of racism and found guilty, I’d want the book thrown at him. If it was a player from Celtic, I would feel the same, but with my club hat on, I’d want him gone too. I would certainly not be looking to deflect by accusing opposing fans of x, y, or z, because it makes no difference to the merits of the case at hand, and perhaps more importantly, it could be reasonably inferred that I was trying to make excuses.
Paranoia is really catching
…..honest it is
On Saturday a bunch of Irishmen march through Edinburgh in support of a No vote This happens despite being disowned by the Better Together Team as soon as they heard they were coming
On Sunday Her Majesty makes a rare “impromptu” walkabout at Crathie Kirk and tells onlookers to “think carefully” before they vote
……………
What will Monday bring?
Could it be an offer from the English FA to permit the SPFL winners to join the English Championship?
GoosyGoosy says:
September 14, 2014 at 10:50 pm
Paranoia is really catching …..honest it is
===============================================
Yes – I can see that 🙄
TSFM says:
September 14, 2014 at 10:50 pm
Agree.
If the fans misbehave, then the appropriate disciplinary action should be taken
If a player misbehaves then ditto.
using one bit of bad behaviour to offset another, does no one any favours.
“”What will Monday bring?
Could it be an offer from the English FA to permit the SPFL winners to join the English Championship?””
====================
I’m nae sure that Accies fans would want that?
My what a busy day.
Neepheid, Upthehoops I will look at the issue of the delayed liquidation.
In the meantime I would point out that the quote suggesting that as a matter of ‘general” law the rights and obligations of a company cease upon liquidation is not correct. When a company is liquidated it does not cease to exist. Cessation of existence happens upon dissolution – which happens at the end of liquidation. A company that is in liquidation can , for example, still recover debts due to it.
Danish Pastry
When Gordon Waddle writes what I and some others have said over a year ago about walking away, it tells you that light takes a lot longer than a second to cross 186000 miles.
in my original post this morning which mentioned both Tonev and crass songs whataboutery was not my intention! both incidents were condemned by me. Indeed the juxtaposition might help reduce any gut reactions based on tribalism.
I would humbly suggest that fans who are (rightly) upset at racism incidents think widely about manifestations of hatred and consider how it can be tackled in their own life.
Quite interesting to note that in youth football in the west of Scotland, under the auspices of the SYFA, there are now teams at most age groups calling themselves “The Old Firm Alliance”. These teams wear Rangers and Celtic strips in alternate games in an effort to display some kind of unity between the two clubs. I can understand why those organising youth groups wish to eliminate the hatred between the two clubs amongst younger players – but why do I seem to think that Rangers supporters, a few years ago, would have thought this idea to be abhorrent.
Auldheid says:
September 15, 2014 at 1:41 am
5 0 Rate This
When Gordon Waddle writes what I and some others have said over a year ago about walking away, it tells you that light takes a lot longer than a second to cross 186000 miles.
———-
Aye, the myth had to be preserved, so the laws of physics were suspended. Either that, or only the blue end of the spectrum was visible to him 🙂
I do wonder though, how many articles have been rejected for publication or censored during the past few years. Is it the individual journalists or a newspaper’s blinkered policy to blame?
TSFM says:
September 14, 2014 at 10:04 pm
18 6 Rate This
Another day of whatabouttery and deflection folks – and another hour of my life gone forever. Apologies to those of you who tried to inject some sanity, for your posts were removed as well as the the whataboutterers.
For clarification, the racism debate is relevant and of value to this blog. Deflecting from it is not. If the first reaction we have to accusation is to point to the other boy who did it, we are going the way of the fanzine.
====================================================
My opinion for what its worth is that in football we too often fail to separate the perpetrators of this sort of disgusting behaviour (racism, bigotry etc) from the clubs and support to which the perpetrators belong.
If can keep in mind these individuals, or even groups of individuals are NOT representative of their clubs or of all fans of their clubs.
Fans of a football club are essentially some sort of cross section of society, they don’t all collectively share the same political, religious or philosophical beliefs, they don’t share the same prejudices. They don’t think or act in a collective way.
With that in mind surely its not difficult to simply acknowledge the existence of the wrong doers and for us all agree that the individuals involved should be dealt with.
Perhaps people won’t feel the need to jump to the defense of their own club or their clubs fans if we all keep that view in mind?
Matty Roth says:
September 15, 2014 at 8:52 am
==================================
I tend to disagree with you on this mate mate.
Clubs/businesses etc have mission statements, Celtic’s PA reads the Celtic mission statement out pre-match, every match.
If you do not adhere to the policy then you have no place at the club, be you fan, player or staff.
If the player is guilty, then he goes, simple.
Matty Roth says:
September 15, 2014 at 8:52 am
I don’t think it’s as simple as you suggest and the perception is skewed depending on various factors some of which are inter-dependent. For simplicity let’s just use the Celtic/Aberdeen example from Saturday.
Celtic supporters IMO on Saturday had a variety of responses available to them ranging from ignoring or genuinely not being bothered about objectionable chants/songs from the away support to one of being upset in varying degrees about them.
The latter response I believe is formulated for different reasons such as proximity to the Aberdeen fans or by supporters who carry an almost genetic imprint of historical discrimination suffered by previous family generations.
There are also supporters who believe in a society unified against discrimination because that is what they believe is the morally correct thing to do.
Of course there is then other elements in a support who believe that such action requires to be met with political or legal responses and some conduct a more direct and personal response either by counter singing/chanting or sometimes physical action inside or outwith the ground.
These various scenarios don’t exist in watertight compartments of course but intermingle to varying degrees in individual fans.
So wrt to Saturday’s game we have a perceived bloc of supporters heard singing the songs/chants referred to. Unfortunately – and I see no way around this – they are identified by the vast majority of the Celtic support as representing AFC.
There might be some not singing the songs or who indeed are opposed to them being sung. But from where I sit it sounded like a large majority of the away support were singing objectionable songs.
That leaves the problem of how they are dealt with both by the police at Celtic Park or later by their own club. But then that brings us down to the problem of identification and long experience has taught me that even people innately opposed to certain behaviour within their own support can find it very difficult to identify those transgressing moral and legal boundaries.
And it isn’t always just a personal fear of retribution from fellow supporters but often IMO more the fear of being cast-out and rejected by the herd.
Sending police into the crowd to lift culprits for singing isn’t compatible with modern policing aims and IMO shouldn’t be as long as there is no physical danger involved.
Although that takes us back to the effect on the home crowd and the response that the away singing/chanting might generate in them. As with all crowd situations that can be very unpredictable.
The matter could be dealt with by the imposition of fines by the Football Authorities levied on the clubs whose support is deemed to be ‘guilty’. Obviously it is then up to the Club to deal with the problems in its own support.
They may decide not to as their only effective control is to ban the fans involved from home games and that could cost income. Although the incentive would be for the SFA/SPFL fines imposed to increase for repeat offences which might have the desired effect.
However would any fans/clubs really believe that the Scottish Footballing Authorities would act in an even-handed way wrt ALL Scottish clubs. I know I wouldn’t and would need a clear-out of all suits before I did.
Personally I knew what the away support were singing but – rightly or wrongly – I see that as a wind-up and not one based on the bitter bigotry and sectarianism that runs through every fibre of a helluva lot of supporters of a team currently still playing out of Ibrox.
Football wind-ups are only effective if they actually annoy the opposition and Saturday’s efforts didn’t register any emotion in me. They also lose their effect and can become amusing when the team on the park supported by the singers/chanters is losing.
In those circumstances I am more than happy to let my team respond on the field.
So Matty – on the surface I hear and agree with what you are saying but how can it actually be put into action?
Saturday saw the 18th minute clapping for YES which I joined-in for a few seconds until I spotted the banner stating what it was for.
And that’s the problem about football supports who are often transported into a world of dreams and fantasy on match-day where ordinary, usually decent people, do things that they wouldn’t normally dream of and often can be unclear why they are doing or have done it when rationality kicks back in.
The passion for a team is a helluva powerful force for good but sometimes for evil and sometimes keeping these extremes apart can be difficult although an essential goal for any decent club despite the difficulties in achieving it.
Was beginning to worry about Neil Patey as he’d been a bit quiet of late….but it’s good to see that he’s back and his ability to state the blindingly obvious is undiminished….. 🙄
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/rangers/financial-experts-rangers-warning-180534n.25322293?
Neil Patey
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Evening Times
Financial expert’s Rangers warning
Published on 15 September 2014
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Think they got that headline wrong
It should have said
Ranger`s Financial expert warning
I hear Neil Patey is lurking, is it safe to come out from behind the sofa yet?
How coventry boycott stopped them being sent to Northampton
Saw this link on sonsofstruth site – it’s interesting and could be very pertinent to the Rangers situation.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/when-coventry-were-sent-to-northampton-the-fans-revolted.25295442
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/our-biggest-game/
Independence for Scotland, football, and the story of how the Internet Bampots got a sneak preview of Project Fear … and won.
Thursday is Our Biggest Game. There’s everything to play for.
One other thing … TSFM … if you’ve still got my email address mate, can you drop me a wee line? Thanks bud.
“Of the £3million they have raised, around £500,000 of it will go on expenses leaving them with £2.5million.
“If they repay the loans to Sandy Easdale and George Letham in full, they will be left with about £1million.
“If they are saying that £1million will get them to the end of the year, that suggests they have succeeded in getting the monthly cash burn down to a fairly low figure.
“Broadly speaking, going on the figures the club has given, they will then need to bring in at least £2million to get them through to the end of the season.
____________________
Ecobhoy and others – I was using “supersleuths” in an ironic sense given their lack of investigation into any aspect of their own club’s demise, and I think I correctly described the website that carried the “investigation” as Rangers-oriented. My purpose in referring to it was only to save Allyjambo time and effort… certainly not any type of endorsement!
Clearly football tax havens was trying to set itself to be a counterbalance to RTC/TSFM – a classic case of whataboutery if ever there was one. Much better if the guys behind it had tried to engage on here and defend their points, but y’know, each to their own.
Bit of a coincidence that Rangers will be the first team to visit the Indodrill Stadium on Saturday, where the home side have announced a 10 year deal, raising a six figure sum, for renaming their stadium.
Perhaps Charles Green should have sought advice from Mike Mulraney on selling the naming rights, given that Alloa have obtained an annual income of at least 10,000 times the £1 achieved for £1brox
From PA Sport:
McCoist further invests in Rangers
Rangers boss Ally McCoist has confirmed he spent “a few quid” on buying up shares in the club’s open offer this month.
The club raised £3.13million in their latest rights issue, falling short of their £4million target, but McCoist revealed on Monday that he dipped into his own pocket to invest.
Rangers announced that several plc directors had increased their shareholdings – most significantly James Easdale, who purchased 215,606 of the 20p shares.
The Ibrox board had set a minimum target of selling 15million shares and exceeded that by 667,860.
McCoist – who already owned over a million shares, giving him a stake of just under two per cent – said ahead of Tuesday night’s League Cup tie with Inverness: “I did invest. Without going into too much detail, I just thought it was the right thing to do.”
Asked if he had ploughed a “substantial” sum into the rights issue, he replied: “It depends how you would look on it as substantial. A few quid, yes.”
PA Sport – 15/09/14 15.16
Is Political debate now an acceptable topic for this site ?
Should we all provide links to various shades of opinion , no matter how biased or offensive to others ?
Or is this site about the governance of Scottish football.?
It normally is a welcome sanctuary from the highly fueled, intolerant world of political debate on twitter.
Lets keep this a politics free zone
“Lets keep this a politics free zone” – I vote “Yes” – to this at least!
jockybhoy says:
September 15, 2014 at 2:18 pm
Ecobhoy and others – I was using “supersleuths” in an ironic sense given their lack of investigation into any aspect of their own club’s demise
==================================
You appear to have become confused wrt to the post I was responding to which was by @easyJambo. I wasn’t responding to any post involving yourself.
I have undernoted my original post to dispel any confusion you might have 😉
UNDERNOTE
Barcabhoy says:
September 15, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Is Political debate now an acceptable topic for this site?
================================================
I would hope not. I have watched sites which I have previously regularly visited descend into free-fire zones.
I find it difficult to believe the level of personal attacks being allowed on the sites of some bloggers I previously respected presumably to silence people like myself who believe all are entitled to air their opinion without being personally abused.
I never had any problem about the future in scotland floowing the referendum result as I was happy to accept the Democratic decision whatever it was.
Now I fear the level of bitterness and divisions that might arise. So my vote is to keep TSFM a referendum free zone ❗
Danish Pastry says:
September 15, 2014 at 2:42 pm
The club raised £3.13million in their latest rights issue, falling short of their £4million target, but McCoist revealed on Monday that he dipped into his own pocket to invest.
==================================================
Another record for McCoist – paying the same prices as the fans. Must have been sore right enough – having to pay 20p a share instead of 1p 😆
Alasdair Lamont @BBCAlLamont · 56m
Police are “making enquiries into circumstances” having been alerted to alleged incident of racist abuse at Celtic v Abdn by media reports.
————————————————-
Looks as though it’s going down the same road as Griffiths then.
There still appears to be a helluva lot of confusion in the press reports of what allegedly happened.
BarcaBhoy and others:
Apologies for putting up a politics related post on this site.
Although an article that stated my own opinions, and why I reached them, I wasn’t intending to spark a political debate. The fact I have elsewhere with this one shows that I’ve probably misjudged that. Things are a bit heated on this subject.
So, apologies again to yourselves and everyone else who took issue with it. As most of you know, I have the highest regard for this site and everyone on it.
Barcabhoy says:
September 15, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Is Political debate now an acceptable topic for this site ?
………………
Party politics Definitely No
But
This week Many people in Scotland are trying to make a big decision
And its not really whether to vote Yes or No
whether to Vote Yes
I found today’s reporting on McCoist interested. So, he’s one of the folk who bought shares.
Does anyone know if he’s likely to have made an “on paper” profit on them?
I totally back the view this forum should be politics free. I have had to abandon a forum I posted on for years simply because of the abusive intolerance of many contributors to any view which is not in line with theirs.
James Forrest says:
September 15, 2014 at 5:46 pm
1 0 Rate This
I found today’s reporting on McCoist interested. So, he’s one of the folk who bought shares.
Does anyone know if he’s likely to have made an “on paper” profit on them?
———-
The thought had crossed my mind that he may have received them in lieu of (regular) payment. Things are tight.
Danish Pastry says:
September 15, 2014 at 5:59 pm
That’s interesting … Thanks for that.
Neepheid, Upthehoops
I said I would have a wee look at the move from administration to liquidation by RFC 2012 back in 2012.
RFC 2012 went into liquidation on 31/10/12. This followed a vote by the creditors in the administration of RFC 2012 on 17/10/12 to approve the end of the administration and the move to liquidation.
If I understand the suggestion being made, it is that the move to liquidation was delayed by the Court (specifically Lord Hodge)and that that delay allowed the membership in the SFA or SPL (not really sure which – probably SFA) to be transferred to (then) Sevco Scotland Limited. If there had not been a delay and liquidation had occurred prior to the transfer then the membership could not have been transferred because ” as a matter of general law” a company in liquidation is dead and cannot have rights (like for example a membership).
As I have already stated,that statement of law is simply not correct. A company in liquidation is not dead – but it will eventually die. It ceases to exist only when it is dissolved and struck off the Register of Companies. At that point, if it retains any assets, those assets fall to the Crown (or more correctly to the Queen’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer (known as the QLTR)).
However, it may be that the rules of the relevant football body (SFA or SPL or whatever) said that if the holder of a membership went into liquidation, then that membership is lost. I don’t know about that. I think I always thought that that was the case – but I am not certain. I also always thought that if a liquidation occurred, the players’ registrations reverted to the SFA or the League (but again I am not 100% certain).
If I understand correctly, the suggestion is that when, on June 22, 2012, Lord Hodge asked for a report into the conflict of interest allegation against D&P, and said that he would not let the administration end until he had that report, that he delayed the liquidation sufficiently to allow the “transfer” of membership to (then) Sevco Scotland Limited.
The CVA was rejected on 13/6/12.
Lord Hodge said “report please” on 22/6/12.
The “transfer” took place on 27/7/12.
Liquidation occurred on 31/10/12.
I cannot state with any certainty how long it normally takes for a company for a company to go into liquidation after a CVA has not been approved. I would be surprised if it happens immediately – these things take time – but I have no doubt that it could be done in a matter of weeks. But if there was a will to delay it – it would have been easiest for the administrators to delay it (after all it took until 31/10/12 to finally do). Do we really think Lord Hodge did this?
Anyway – SFA could have simply said some rubbish like “we hold this membership in suspension” if they wanted to do – they made up “conditional” membership after all.
The idea that somehow a Court of Session judge pulled a fast one for the purpose of keeping alive a “membership in a football association (when there was almost certainly no need to do it anyway because the football authorities would have done it)is laughable. If you believe Lord Hodge did that for that purpose then you can clearly have no faith whatsoever in the judicial system. Is it not far more likely that he wanted to see the report on D&P and conflict of interest? Would you rather he had not asked to see it?
Barcabhoy
I don’t think there has been any overt discussion about the referendum on the blog (or not that I have seen), and it would be inappropriate if there were. However I do think that passing reference can be made to it from time to time without anyone taking major offence. Also James Forrest’s link, whilst it may have contained political content, leads to a place slightly more wholesome, whatever your political views than many of the MSM links we get here.
If anyone becomes abusive for any reason on here, off or on topic, then the naughty step awaits. You can all be assured that abuse of that kind will not stand ( © Bush Snr. ) 🙂
Campbellsmoney says:
September 15, 2014 at 6:32 pm
Excellent post. The sort of stuff that keeps me coming back to the site.
Your good self and others on TSFM provide a level of consideration and insight into parts of the Rangers saga that the :slamb: munchers couldn’t even aspire to
Campbellsmoney says:
September 15, 2014 at 6:32 pm
================================
You have gone to great lengths to make your point. You are clearly of a legal background, I most certainly am not. I am happy to accept your theories but I don’t think it’s laughable to question the Judicial system at times. After all, I have witnessed some of the most appalling miscarriages of justice in the UK at times. Do you believe a Judge never has or never will act out of bias? Do you honestly believe that?
The idea that somehow a Court of Session judge pulled a fast one for the purpose of keeping alive a “membership in a football association (when there was almost certainly no need to do it anyway because the football authorities would have done it)is laughable. If you believe Lord Hodge did that for that purpose then you can clearly have no faith whatsoever in the judicial system. Is it not far more likely that he wanted to see the report on D&P and conflict of interest? Would you rather he had not asked to see it?
===================
Can you explain to me why the liquidation had to be delayed, given that Lord Hodge wanted a report on the Conflict of Interest? Why could the liquidation not have proceeded immediately, with an order from the court for a report from the administrators on the specific COI issue?
James Forrest says:
September 15, 2014 at 6:15 pm
1 0 Rate This
That’s interesting … Thanks for that.
———-
Just a passing thought, but I’m sure AM has sacrificed from his (no doubt) meagre wage from the cash-strapped club to buy shares because he is a real Rangers man so he is.
James Forrest says:
September 15, 2014 at 2:00 pm
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/our-biggest-game/
I enjoyed this so much I donated. Not much and probably not enough but hoping it’ll keep JF going a wee bit longer.
Oh and I donated to TSFM too.
As an expat (disenfranchised from the referendum) Scot and a Hibby, there’s not much fun going on in my wee world this week. Tolerate me 🙂
cowanpete says:
September 15, 2014 at 8:26 pm
11 0 Rate This
As an expat (disenfranchised from the referendum) Scot and a Hibby, there’s not much fun going on in my wee world this week. Tolerate me
———
Certainly a fun week for media monitoring, even for an exile. MSM in overdrive. All very revealing.
Danish Pastry says:
September 15, 2014 at 8:56 pm
cowanpete says:
September 15, 2014 at 8:26 pm
As an expat (disenfranchised from the referendum) Scot and a Hibby, there’s not much fun going on in my wee world this week. Tolerate me
———
Certainly a fun week for media monitoring, even for an exile. MSM in overdrive. All very revealing.
=================================
Absolutely !
The blatant non-reporting / misreporting we have witnessed since RTC days has, I’m sure, given us all a healthy disregard for the UK MSM.
I was initially amazed because we were only talking about a football club and a relatively small business.
I have watched the UK MSM in recent weeks and it seems that the :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: is certainly not just restricted to footy coverage. 😡
Campbellsmoney says:
September 15, 2014 at 6:32 pm
‘….. Lord Hodge asked for a report into the conflict of interest allegation against D&P…’
——-
That is a very good post, Campbellsmoney.
But you’ve incidentally reminded me that I don’t think we ever got hear what it was that satisfied Lord Hodge that D&P hadn’t been at it? Maybe we did, and I missed it.Or is it still an uncleared item for BDO to report on? Maybe Whitehouse and Clark are still not in the absolute clear.And if they are not, then neither would CG and others be! Liquidations do indeed take time, so maybe there is some further little twist in the saga to come.
Keith you-know-who hoping to make the DR relevant tomorrow?
Danish Pastry says:
September 15, 2014 at 8:56 pm
‘..Certainly a fun week for media monitoring,.’
——-
And, shiver me timbers, didn’t we get a little piece of London-centric patronisation from John ? on Channel 4 news tonight, when he said ( when an STV link he referred to did not come up on cue) ” We never know quite what to expect when we come up to Scotland “, clearly suggesting bumbling amateurism in our TV technical people.
Just wee things like that…..they just can’t help themselves, and it makes me increasingly sceptical of their reporting from theatres of war and conflict.How much of a ‘theatrical’ production are their reports from the rest of the world, rather than wholly unvarnished honest reporting?
I am reminded of a former BBC Scotland producer years ago, who told how he threw coins into a garbage bin in India and encouraged local ‘starving’ children to dig into it to find the coins, so that he could add a bit of flavour to his ‘story’.
They can be at it as much as any court-appointed administrator!
[nh – tp sends heartfelt regards]
As for MSM stuff – VB had a couple of BBC Pacific Quay protests
Noisy `Youth` true, but no `mob` trouble reported
NUJ `Speak` `intimidation` suddenly to the fore in recent events
Well – If SMSM had they the same `guts` to speak out
They would have exposed the greed circus now ruining my family`s Club
Somewhat selective from SMSM
#SMSMdoublestandards
mtp
Bawsman says:
September 15, 2014 at 10:06 am
44 2 Rate This
Matty Roth says:
September 15, 2014 at 8:52 am
==================================
I tend to disagree with you on this mate mate.
Clubs/businesses etc have mission statements, Celtic’s PA reads the Celtic mission statement out pre-match, every match.
If you do not adhere to the policy then you have no place at the club, be you fan, player or staff.
If the player is guilty, then he goes, simple.
============================
Yes I agree with what your saying above, but my point was about the way football fans are collectively derided for the behaviour of a few. Its not helpful when what we need to focus on is the poor behaviour and the actual perpetrators, rather than focus on fans of this clubs doing such and such etc as if they can all be grouped together and held responsible.
I think what you are talking about is a different thing, and if a club choose to discipline or ship out a player then they should do so – my point is it shouldn’t reflect badly on the club itself unless they are condoning or enabling the behaviour.
Danish Pastry says:
September 15, 2014 at 5:59 pm
16 0 Rate This
James Forrest says:
September 15, 2014 at 5:46 pm
1 0 Rate This
I found today’s reporting on McCoist interested. So, he’s one of the folk who bought shares.
Does anyone know if he’s likely to have made an “on paper” profit on them?
———-
The thought had crossed my mind that he may have received them in lieu of (regular) payment. Things are tight.
………………………………………………..
That’ same very good point
Did he not receive a previous tranche of shares to make up for lost wages?
I think we should be told !!
ecobhoy says:
September 15, 2014 at 11:39 am
17 8 Rate This
=======================
You make some excellent points Ecobhoy, and I can’t pick fault with any of them.
However I would still encourage fans to remember that fans of other clubs are individuals, just as they are themselves. And we need not demonise the whole support of a club because of the behaviour of some sub group within that fanbase.
If I go to a football match and someone else supporting the same club as me reveals themselves as someone whose behaviour I don’t condone I certainly do not consider that person to in any shape or form represent me or my own personal beliefs.
Personally I try to afford this to fans of other clubs (occassionally that can be challenging).
For example when some Celtic fans ripped up seats at a ground last season, I really didn’t think that much of it other than clearly it should have happened and the idiots who did are not welcome at football as far as I am concerned. But it doesn’t occur to me for one minute that this is somehow representative of Celtic fans or of Celtic, not in the slightest.
John Clark says:
September 15, 2014 at 9:25 pm
7 1 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
September 15, 2014 at 8:56 pm
‘..Certainly a fun week for media monitoring,.’
——-
And, shiver me timbers, didn’t we get a little piece of London-centric patronisation from John ? on Channel 4 news tonight, when he said ( when an STV link he referred to did not come up on cue) ” We never know quite what to expect when we come up to Scotland “, clearly suggesting bumbling amateurism in our TV technical people.
Just wee things like that…..they just can’t help themselves, and it makes me increasingly sceptical of their reporting from theatres of war and conflict.How much of a ‘theatrical’ production are their reports from the rest of the world, rather than wholly unvarnished honest reporting?
I am reminded of a former BBC Scotland producer years ago, who told how he threw coins into a garbage bin in India and encouraged local ‘starving’ children to dig into it to find the coins, so that he could add a bit of flavour to his ‘story’.
They can be at it as much as any court-appointed administrator!
——–
Oops, I just deleted my reply John, self-censorship and all that.
Nice weather for the time of year, and isn’t Paul Lambert doing well on a shoe-string budget (by EPL standards). Just shows you money ain’t everything.
cowanpete:
Can you give TSFM your email address or mail me at james@lbmpublishing.com?
Cheers mano 🙂
I had another thought on the McCoist buying shares thing …
How much did the Sevco share issue make above the limit necessary for it to be classed as a “success”?
Did McCoist perhaps get it over the line himself, on threat of losing players in an immediate administration? And is it really a risk? Because if he bought penny shares or whatever, he’ll surely get the money back in the Big Share Issue in October, won’t he? 🙂
Did he, in short, use some of his own money, at low risk, to make sure the lights stay on a few more months?
(Yes, I am being somewhat sarcastic!)
Upthehoops, Neepheid
I certainly don’t think that the judiciary is perfect. Neither do I think that it is exempt from corruption. I have no doubt that despite the ideals of the doctrine of the separation of powers, that they are not immune from political influence. What I do find very hard to believe is that corruption would be employed for such a trivial matter when in fact the same end could be achieved without judicial complicity.
As for why Lord Hodge stayed the move to liquidation, I am not entirely sure. Need to ask him what he might have had in mind – maybe Big Pink could get him to do a podcast. My best guess is that he did not want the administrators to be out of office and thus free from the duties incumbent upon them. When an insolvency practitioner leaves office they usually get a discharge of their duties. Maybe Lord Hodge was trying to prevent that. As administrators they were subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. Maybe Lord Hodge wanted to preserve that (or something along those lines).
Just a guess on my part though.
Campbellsmoney says:
September 15, 2014 at 10:27 pm
==============================
This apparently trivial matter has totally undermined my confidence in our judicial system, starting from a position of absolute confidence in the integrity and impartiality of that system. So the subsequent LNS judgement came as no surprise to me, because by then I had lost all faith in our system of justice, and the people behind it.
I am basically a simple soul, I add 2+2 and come out with 4. Life isn’t like that for important people, I know, which to me is a great shame. I have dealt in an official capacity with some important matters in my time, and I have tried to do so fairly, objectively, and in a way that would withstand any external scrutiny. I have many, many faults as a person, but I can at least still look in the mirror and feel that I always carried out my official duties fairly. In my humble view, our noble judiciary cannot meet that test. Just my opinion, of course, those who wish to, can explain away all the convenient coincidences of timing, all the strange judgements, in a way that maintains the basic integrity of the “system”. I understand that, I really do. However I am finished with it for good now. I feel the whole thing is a fraud,I have no confidence in it whatsoever, but I don’t seek to persuade anyone else of my view. I have said all that I have to say over the last 2 years. And that really is my very last word on the Scottish judiciary.
Tried to post DR backpage, essentially claiming Rizi et al were her to discuss buying the club
DR back page
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bxm4GP2IAAAj6HY.jpg
neepheid says:
September 16, 2014 at 12:02 am
“Just my opinion, of course, those who wish to, can explain away all the convenient coincidences of timing, all the strange judgements, in a way that maintains the basic integrity of the “system”.”
————————–
I am unable to contribute materially to this interesting exchange. Anecdotally however it was interesting to observe the mood of the blog during those heady days of summer and autumn of 2012. I observed a community of contributors who on more than one occasion assured each other that the judicial system could do nothing other than act impartially and who corresponded in respectful tones concerning presiding judges. i subsequently observed a certain level of incredulity over decisions handed down.
I was not sufficiently up to speed with the content to judge whether this disappointment was borne of unrealistic expectations or could be realistically taken as an indication that the wheels of justice not only ground slowly but may also be subject to inherent eccentricities. I take campbellsmoney’s point that there may have been other methods available to achieve the same outcome but I also think there was a lot of last second decision making going on.
Surely it is a function of TSFM to ask questions of authorities that might interact with the sporting environment. We have after all taken copious interest in the FTT/UTT proceedings. I think that having a procession of ordinary footballs fans and a few stalwarts trooping into the UTT hearing every morning likely brought a new zeitgeist to the proceedings and perhaps helped humanise what was otherwise a very arrid affair. Judicial authorities have forever forged their decisions with the blindfold of justice at a jaunty angle to give visibility to one eye.
easyJambo says:
September 16, 2014 at 12:53 am
Cheers, suspect the problem lay between keyboard and chair
I am looking for some assistance from readers with a printer facility to spread the load of directly drawing the attention of a number of journalists to the series of blogs on the misleading of LNS.
If you have both a printer and the software to open and print 16 pages of a PDF document and are willing to post them with a covering letter please contact auldheid046@gmail.com
On CM’s liquidation stuff. I wonder if lord hodge was unwilling to discharge the administrators because he was aware of the implication and permenancy of liquidation and was suspicious of the potential CoI within that. That’s not to say that D&P were conflicted purely with this factor in mind, just that the judge would be wary of moving to liquidation if he thought any party were at it. In doing so Sevco may well have benefitted in the transfer but that may not necessary have been the eventual aim (of LH). It’s the same point, the same facts, the same outcome, it’s just looked at a different way.
Just on today’s DR. So bin Ahmad didn’t know the club were in trouble and was there to report back on the investment opportunity. Good luck with that one.
Could I ask and beg TSFMs forgiveness re politics in advance. The story reprints the picture of the three Malaysians. Bin Ismail, Bin Ahmad and his Financial Advisor. That’s three shifty looking individuals. Or am I holding the paper the wrong way round?
Castofthousands says:
September 16, 2014 at 12:58 am
1 0 Rate This
——–
I too, clearly remember the great faith placed in the impartial judiciary to act promptly and with justice on the RFC issues.
It’s been mentioned before, but the Lockerbie trial convinced me that judges could be ‘got at’. Whether they were leaned on or deliberately deceived, I dinnae ken. But that was not their finest hour.
To be honest, I lost track of the number of investigations into the collapse of RFC. There certainly were many — and some seemed to fall behind the judicial sofa. But it was probably just me not paying attention when the judgements passed down. I suppose unless it can be shown that a judge has been deceived the original decision will never be questioned.
Smugas says:
September 16, 2014 at 7:01 am
1 0 Rate This
——
Back page and front page easily confused, you say? You’re probably right, the general consensus on the DR is that it’s complete bollocks from one end to the the other 😀
On the Easdale/Ahmad/Rizvi meeting,’The Herald’ quotes the statement issued by TRFC ” Mr Rafat Rizvi arrived with the Malaysian delegation without our prior knowledge.He is an advisor to Mr Bin Ahmad.”
The ‘Herald’ goes on to say “However, reports of the meeting caused unease in Malaysia and Ahmad was placed under pressure from politicians to explain why he was consorting with a convicted criminal.”
Anyone on the ‘Herald’, or in BBC Radio Scotland or in Scottish media/political circles ever asked about folks at ‘Rangers’ and any ‘consorting’ they may have done with a South African based convicted criminal?
No?
Am I surprised?
Malaysian politicians have shot up in my estimation!
`Big` SMSM noise about what exactly?
Newspapers used to report News
Guess I`m old-fashioned.
Still no idea what`s really going on.
Looks like another diversionary `Big` Squirrel IMO
Danish Pastry says:
September 16, 2014 at 7:41 am
‘..I too, clearly remember the great faith placed in the impartial judiciary to act promptly and with justice on the RFC issues.’
——
And I, I seem to remember, spoke of Cicero and his insistence that the law as enacted by lawful authority is what matters, not what people wished that the law said.
And I occasionally expressed the view that our judges would act in a judicially impartial way.I watched Lord Hodge in action, and felt reinforced in that view. I read the LNS report’s bald statement that no sporting advantage had accrued to RFC (IL) by the lying, cheating manoeuvres of their majority shareholder-and my faith was a little shaken. ( Only partly revived in respect of LNS by Auldheid’s evidence that he had not had all the facts put before him).
I read the FTTT’s findings with incredulity. I read the UTTT’s findings with concern.
And as for the other Lords’, particularly Lord Stewart’s readiness to grant leave to appeal ( and offer counselling about the parties reaching an agreement), I was left speechless at their findings.
When we remember hushed up episodes like the ‘Magic Circle’ ( and how quiet it has gone on the Fairbairn allegations front) and when we reflect on the ‘civic unrest’ and ‘fabric of society’ nonsense in the background, add in Counsel’s repeated, almost hectoring insinuations about massive, and massively loyal fan-bases, ‘too big to fail’,tack on the BBC Sportsound and SMSM readiness to give at least tacit support to the dishonest, shabby dealings of the SFA in particular, it is not too much of a leap to imagine that perhaps not all is entirely kosher in the ranks of the judiciary.
Like other mortal men , some know what side their bread is buttered on.
And like other mortal men,they may not be above putting self-interest before principle, while having the skill to dress up their arguments in bogus legalism.
This whole damned saga has opened our eyes to the possibility that not even the judiciary can necessarily be trusted to be impartial, such is the contagion.
In my humble, layman’s opinion.
And when we reach that stage, is there any way back?
twopanda says:
September 16, 2014 at 9:18 am
0 0 Rate This
`Big` SMSM noise about what exactly?
Newspapers used to report News
Guess I`m old-fashioned.
Still no idea what`s really going on.
Looks like another diversionary `Big` Squirrel IMO
========================================================
I’m not so sure about that, if we are talking about the Rizvi/Bin Ahmad think this is quite significant because the only conclusion we can draw is that Rizvi is an associate of Easdale and RFC. Further to that the Club clearly do not want to admit he is an associate so much so that they are willing to risk this egg on face situation by lying to us all about the nature of Rizvi’s involvment.
For us bampots perhaps this is predictable enough, but for the glacier slow scottish media it seems like a significant moment to me. Surely now they must ask what Rizvi’s involvement actually is and why the club sought to hide that?
Surely?
So the next question
John Clark says:
September 16, 2014 at 8:39 am
——————————————————
Actually I’m not surprised that Malaysia is becoming a bit agitated and I’m sure lots of pressure is being applied from internal and external sources.
Afaik the first extradition treaty Malaysia signed was with Indonesia in 1975 so the fact that a convicted in-absentia fugitive from Indonesia is hob-nobbing with one of the Malaysia’s mega-rich businessmen and a member of the extended Malaysian Royal family – no matter whether impoverished or not – on the Ibrox ‘jolly’ will most definitely be giving cause for concern IMO.
Matty Roth says:
September 16, 2014 at 9:27 am
[Looks like another diversionary `Big` Squirrel IMO]
========================================================
I’m not so sure about that, if we are talking about the Rizvi/Bin Ahmad think this is quite significant because the only conclusion we can draw is that Rizvi is an associate of Easdale and RFC. Further to that the Club clearly do not want to admit he is an associate so much so that they are willing to risk this egg on face situation by lying to us all about the nature of Rizvi’s involvment.
For us bampots perhaps this is predictable enough, but for the glacier slow scottish media it seems like a significant moment to me. Surely now they must ask what Rizvi’s involvement actually is and why the club sought to hide that?
Surely?
So the next question
______________
Fair enough MR
And as you, say glacier slow Scottish media it seems like a significant moment to me.
But Bears know Rizvi and Co involved, just not how involved.
`So the next question`
Why the tour of Ibrox? Why meet Easdale / others? For what purpose?
After flying thousands of miles, what are they doing there, and why the sudden publicity?
`Super-rich` quoted `
How can the lot of them `spend` 67m in 18months
and then struggle to raise 3m to put in?
mtp