It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One

Avatar By

Cluster One. OK.  So if I’m reading that right (and it …

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

Cluster One.

OK.  So if I’m reading that right (and it is the DR!) the thought process seemed to be that Juninho’s sub trust got some kind of discretionary release payment on leaving Celtic.  Celtic didn’t fancy the tax treatment, albeit at some later date (I’m guessing they asked for advice) and subsequently paid the tax or at least some tax, it doesn’t say which.  The inference is that if the payment was discretionary a side letter wasn’t required.  Does it pass the sniff test?  Clearly not as their cold feet and eventual tax payment showed.  Did it involve contractual performance based payments, a side letter and the subsequent downright  lying to HMRC  as to its very existence?  Apparently Not.  The only issue I suppose would be whether the release monies should have been declared to the SFA within the contract declaration which is why I think they draw the distinction that the fact he had already left superceded that requirement (that and the taxes potentially outstanding being paid).  Fair summary? 

I do have one thing in the back of my mind.  Were the big tax case cases that RFC pleaded guilty to (were there 5?) not focused around termination and release clauses?  Neil McCann possibly? 

Smugas Also Commented

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!
 


Recent Comments by Smugas

Who Is Conning Whom?
HelpumootDecember 8, 2017 at 03:02

All I’ve read on a number of blogs tonight is people blaming James Traynor or Chris Graham for that appalling statement from Sevco. I don’t believe it was either of them. The statement has a number of petty digs at McInnes very similar to the petty digs in previous statements aimed at Celtic, Dundee Utd and others. And we know who the author of those statements was. David Cunningham King.

AllyjamboDecember 8, 2017 at 11:27

Now anyone reading that who isn’t interested in the facts would read that as the reason given (by McInnes or Aberdeen) for McInnes refusing to join TRFC. No one, and certainly not Aberdeen or the man himself, has actually given his reason for not joining TRFC, and the only suggestion that the job might have been too big for him has come from a representative of TRFC, a source that clearly didn’t think it was too big for him until he turned it down.

Shame the compliance officer is clearly so busy eh!


Who Is Conning Whom?
Which bit?


Who Is Conning Whom?
You mean up sticks i.e. resign and move on the strength of a 7 figure Dave King IOU.

Concomitant ewe reds…


Who Is Conning Whom?
Ok, permit me just one from the Twitter sphere and meme land on this delightful evening.

”…Derek McInnes has shocked 99.9% (source Kriss Abacus Boyd) of Scottish Football and turned down a move to Ibrox.

Rangers have appealed the decision…”

as you were.


Who Is Conning Whom?
Just in case you missed it Auldheid.  Kenny Macintyre on Sportsound just now (defending the media’s role in the McInnes saga),

”when a journalist uncovers some facts they report them.  That’s how it works.”

Thought it would be a good opener for when you do tiffin with Tom.  They really are beyond contempt.


About the author

Avatar