It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One


On the second point I agree we had an advantage …

Comment on It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One by Bogs Dollox.

On the second point I agree we had an advantage by using the scheme BUT at that time anyone else could have used it although they too would have been hit when the tightening of tax avoidance loopholes came into play. Was it morally wrong? Yes.
It didn’ take changes to the tax legislation to make the way Rangers operated the scheme illegal. Issuing side letters made the payments contractual and subject to tax.

Bogs Dollox Also Commented

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
I’d estimate King’s exposure as between £2m-£4m.
I’d estimate it at 12 months in the pokey.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Cluster OneDecember 22, 2017 at 21:24
BOGS DOLLOXDECEMBER 22, 2017 at 21:00 There must be institutional investors who would grab the 20p because they need to make some sort of recovery on their initial investment.I bet there are a few individual investors who are a bit cheesed off with Dave. ————– Is there anyone left who may have 1p shares from the start? 19p profit right there
Didn’t the 1 pees later buy in for the same number of shares at a higher value thus making their average price paid much higher?

It’s a no brainer for the non emotionally involved at 20p.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
HomunculusDecember 22, 2017 at 20:42
Just one thing that confuses me.
If people are claiming that the shares are currently trading at 27p, it’s a nonsense but just for the sake of the question.
Do they think that if they double the number of shares available then they will stay at the same price.
It’s a share in a business ffs, surely if there are more of them issued then each one is worth less (or worthless in this case).
So let’s say here’s the scenario. You have shares in a business worth say 14p each. The business is making losses, every year. It’s £16m in debt, and admitting it’s going to lose more this year, and next. Predictions are of the business being £23m in debt, at least. It’s also a toxic brand, operating in a field (pardon the pun) which traditionally does not make money.
Someone comes along and offers you 20p for your shares, no questions asked, no haggling, a straight 20p a share.
You knock this back … really. 
There must be institutional investors who would grab the 20p because they need to make some sort of recovery on their initial investment.
I bet there are a few individual investors who are a bit cheesed off with Dave.

Recent Comments by Bogs Dollox

Who Is Conning Whom?
wottpiNovember 30, 2017 at 12:14
JINGSO.JIMSIENOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 11:26 BOGS DOLLOXNOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 11:39
Regardless of the teams involved it is consistency we should be looking for.
Just watched T’Rangers v Aberdeen highlights.
End of first half Tavernier pulls back Gary Mackay Steven in a similar manner as occurred with Kipre-Sinclair at the weekend.
Just at the edge of the box. GMS stays on his feet. No foul given. Travenier then follows on and places his hands on GMS’s  back when he is in the box trying to get off a shot.
Intent to grab hold back, impede forward movement and contact all the same from the defender.
The difference and why no foul given? GMS as the attacker chooses to stay on his feet. (Good on him)
IMHO Refs are giving permission for players to become men of straw in the box.
Whilst I can take your point regarding the need for consistency I genuinely believe the issue is with impartiality and I have done for years. At best it may sometimes be an unconscious swaying of a decision by the influence of a big crowd at worst it is quite open favouritism and I’ve seen so much of it over the years.
At least with overseas refs the mistakes would be truly “honest”.

Who Is Conning Whom?
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 10:13
Homunculus November 30, 2017 at 08:36Presumably you were at the game to have seen the incident, what actually happened.==========================I can’t answer for our latest troll, but I can say I wasn’t at the game, so can only go with the TV replays.
The blog is aptly named “Who Is Conning Who?”
How I saw it was that McGregor initiated contact by forcing his body between Rose and the ball, then immediately hit the deck, having made no attempt to play the ball and thus obstructed Rose in the process.  Willie Collum gave the penalty before McGregor completed his forward somersault.
How did you see it?
All of this diving to secure penalty kicks is undermining the integrity of Celtic and Scottish football in general. The standard of refs is also shocking. It’s about time we started using refs from overseas to ensure impartiality.

Enough is enough
upthehoopsNovember 9, 2017 at 07:19
AULDHEIDNOVEMBER 9, 2017 at 01:24  If a picture paints a thousand words what is this still from Mark Daly’s documentary on tax avoidance saying?
In my opinion it is saying that persons at the BBC (not necessarily Mark Daly), want to link Celtic’s name to tax avoidance even the story is nothing to do with the club.  They stressed often enough there was ‘nothing illegal’ about the story, but never once stressed the football club is not linked to it. The simple fact of life is the picture you show is enough for some people, either through ignorance, bias, or lack of intelligence, to assume Celtic have been caught embroiled in tax avoidance.  It is cheap journalism, and in my view quite sinister as well, but it is a result for those in the Scottish media who are desperate to find some sort of equivalence.  Over the past years we have had spurious and misleading headlines about state aid, and film company tax avoidance, and the BBC has been right there at the head of the queue.  
The more things change, the more they stay the same. 
Stuart Cosgrove was talking to John Beattie on Radio Shortbread earlier today about the “doorstepping” of prominent people during investigative journalistic projects. His view on Daly and Crick was that it is essentially “theatrical journalism” used because it attracts attention, in a visual way, to complex matters where there are large numbers of documents and it is not possible to present those to the viewer in a meaningful way.
He thought most of this approach was inappropriate (he didn’t agree with what Daly did re DD) because it usually ends in chasing people down the street shouting questions at them and adds nothing to the understanding of the viewer other than to create a visual spectacle where the target is seen to be evasive. Its an interesting take that I generally agree with.
Re Broadfoot – he really hasn’t got the right temprement or intellectual wherewithal to do the job he does. He’s way out of his depth with his adverserial approach which is completely counterproductive to the aims of his clients at the SFA. Others have said he shouldn’t be on the BBC because of they way he behaves. I disagree the more people hear from him, the more they grow to understand how useless he is and they start to wonder what all the bluster is designed to deflect from.

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

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

Enough is enough
easyJamboNovember 4, 2017 at 00:47
melbournedee & Bogs Dollox ————————– Well you live and learn, I’ve always understood that the players contracts were included, not just the acquisition costs, as part of the intangible asset.
I guess that it makes sense to treat a player’s wage as being the cost associated with maintaining him as an asset, just like repairing the roof of a stand.
The asset being acquired by paying a transfer fee is the player registration not the player.

About the author