It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One

Avatar ByConcomitant

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One

This headline is a quote by George Washington, but it is also friendly advice to Keith Jackson of the Daily Record in response to his ‘exclusive’ today on the reasons Derek McInnes turned down Rangers.

May I begin by drawing people’s attention to two statements by the same organisation on what was essentially the same subject matter:

Aberdeen FC Statement 14th June 2017:

https://www.afc.co.uk/2017/06/14/club-statement-management-team/

“The club can confirm that early this afternoon Sunderland FC agreed to meet all the contractual obligations for both Derek McInnes and Tony Docherty and they have, reluctantly, been granted permission to speak with both of them about the vacant managerial position at Sunderland.

Aberdeen FC will be making no further comment at this moment in time.”

Aberdeen FC Statement 5th December 2017

https://www.afc.co.uk/2017/12/05/club-statement-18/

 

“Aberdeen Football Club has announced this evening that Rangers have contacted the Club asking for permission to speak to Derek McInnes and that permission has been refused.”

 

It is clear from the first statement there are contractual obligations that, when met, mean the club must allow their manager the option of dialogue with interested parties, however reluctant the club may be.

Although money is not mentioned, contractual obligations can only relate to the commitments on either side to terminate the agreement and these are usually financial. In the case of an interested suitor, it would be expected of them to pay this on behalf of the employee.

There is no mention of contractual obligations in the club statement on 5th December, from which one can only infer that Rangers either refused, or were in no position to meet, the financial commitments required. Aberdeen FC therefore exercised their right to refuse permission to speak to McInnes, a position they are perfectly entitled to maintain until such time as Rangers agree to meet all contractual obligations, just as Sunderland did.

The story for the press to pursue is obvious yet Keith Jackson wants to have us believe that the McInnes decision -and ultimately it was his decision – has nothing to do with money. Jackson even suggested that an offer of £1m up-front was on the table in a piece that was published on Wednesday:

In it, Jackson states;

“Dons chairman Stewart Milne made his hardball position clear last night after booting out an official approach from the Ibrox club – and turning down a cheque for £1 million in compensation.”

I’m not entirely sure what Mr Jackson means by an ‘official’ approach, I would have thought ‘formal’ to be more apposite but it’s a moot point in the grand scheme of things. Fact is, Jackson didn’t think long and hard enough about this statement because it contains not one, or two, but three glaring inaccuracies.

  1. Mr Milne did not ‘boot out’ any approach – official, formal or otherwise. If Rangers had met the necessary contractual obligations then Aberdeen FC could not have refused McInnes the opportunity to speak to Rangers – that would have been a breach of contract on the club’s part and McInnes could sue.
  2. Mr Milne is not ’playing hardball’. Playing hardball is about getting what you want. Mr Milne already has what he wants. He doesn’t need to play hardball – it is Rangers who, if they cannot afford the compensation or wish to alter the terms of the compensation, would need to attempt to play hardball. Jackson has this the wrong way around – a common failing when trying to justify a lie and pursue a biased narrative.
  3. I don’t dispute that Rangers offered to pay £1 million in compensation, but I do not believe for one millisecond that it would be paid in a single instalment either by cheque, cash or bank transfer because the audited accounts published last month prove that such a commitment would not be possible. A shortfall of £4m was required in soft loans to see out the current season, with monies required immediately, and a further £3.2m after June 18. Furthermore, these figures did not consider the additional cost of a change of management at the club/holding company/engine room subsidiary/call it what you will.

It’s rather telling that Mr Jackson makes no mention of this £1m cheque in his ‘exclusive’ today. Instead, he offers another inaccuracy. He says’;

“When Milne made it clear he was unwilling to grant the move his blessing – and that McInnes would have to rip up his contract to pursue a return to Ibrox – the ex-Rangers player was boxed into a corner.”

Mr Milne is in no position to grant a move, whether with his blessing or otherwise. There is a binding contract in place and only if contractual obligations are met then – as is glaringly obvious from the Aberdeen Club Statement of 14th June – Mr Milne would have to, albeit reluctantly, allow the manager to speak to the other club, just as he did in the case of Sunderland. He cannot box his manager into a corner. There is no decision for Mr Milne to make if the requisite compensation is agreed to be paid in full to terminate the manager’s contract with Aberdeen FC.

More plausibly, Rangers could box McInnes into a corner. The job is his if he wants it, but he will have to resign his position to take it because Rangers won’t meet the contractual obligations. Once again Jackson has it the wrong way around because he is lying and pursuing a biased narrative.

Any reasonably minded follower of Scottish football knows why McInnes is not going to Rangers. It’s all about the money – or the lack of it – and no amount of lying or high-level fantasy by award winning journalists will alter that prosaic fact.

About the author

Avatar

Concomitant contributor

Despite over 30 years in exile I'm still as passionate about our national game as I ever was. It breaks my heart to see it being destroyed by those in power - the SFA, the SPFL, the Scottish media and in some cases the clubs.

779 Comments so far

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:33 pm - Dec 27, 2017


Reported to be 10% of the profit, Celtic allegedly received £13m, after appearances.

So that would be 10% of £62m, however I would assume that includes VAT which would have to be paid to HMRC. I’m assuming the income is standard rated as the original supply would have been, sale from a UK club to a UK club.

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on7:54 pm - Dec 27, 2017


Ripped off against the jambos perfect goal not given.

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on8:00 pm - Dec 27, 2017


£9.3 Million is the report so maybe a bit more than 10%.Still I don’t think that matters that much prob more than my team cost to put together.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:06 pm - Dec 27, 2017


I had heard 15% elsewhere Shug, but went with the lower figure.

£62m at 15% would be £9.3m, however you would still have to take the VAT off. 

Assuming all the figures include VAT.

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on8:15 pm - Dec 27, 2017


Seems to be a few Olympians on the park tonight.

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on8:23 pm - Dec 27, 2017


Don’t think all these boys will all survive this encounter.A few tasty challenges from both sides.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:26 pm - Dec 27, 2017


Yes it’s £9.37m  15% of the profit £75m less £12.5m.  I thought VAT was optional?

Saw a photograph on BBC of the disallowed Hibs goal.  Was well over the line!  Bring in goal line technology SFA.  (Some hope).

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:30 pm - Dec 27, 2017


JIMBO
DECEMBER 27, 2017 at 20:26
=======================

Is the 15% from a reliable source Jimbo, I have seen both 10% an 15% quoted.

I’m watching the Hearts Hibs game on TV, the entire ball was clearly over the line. However without the technology it would have been difficult for the linesman to be certain, the entire ball was just over.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:36 pm - Dec 27, 2017


That figure was from CQN.  Paul Brennan is well connected at Celtic.

https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/9-37-million-windfall-as-liverpool-sign-van-dijk/

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:38 pm - Dec 27, 2017


JIMBO
DECEMBER 27, 2017 at 20:36
===================================

Thanks, and agreed. I  tend to take what Paul says as being the most accurate you are going to get outside of the club announcing things themselves.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:25 pm - Dec 27, 2017


JIMBODECEMBER 27, 2017 at 20:26
6
0 Rate This
Yes it’s £9.37m  15% of the profit £75m less £12.5m
—————
Add that to the original transfer of £13 mill and it is a good sum of money for celtic

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:02 pm - Dec 27, 2017


Of course I’m happy when we make a ton of money in transfers.  Who wouldn’t?  But it’s a case of make hay while the sun shines.  These deals don’t come around very often.

When I think of the millions we have spent on many players who never made it in any meaningful way, and we took a hit when we sold them on, it probably evens itself out in the long run.

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on10:05 pm - Dec 27, 2017


Great hard fought match tonight.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:32 pm - Dec 27, 2017


Homunculus December 27, 2017 at 18:21
I take it all that has happened is that they passed the resolution allowing them to issue new shares. Those new shares have now been created.
This is them simply notifying Companies House that they have done that, Companies House records show how many shares have been issued.
That has to be done before they can actually sell them to anyone.
Purely a procedural matter I would have though. 
=========================
It’s not got as far as creating the shares. It’s merely confirmation that the Board has the authority to issue shares up to the specified limit.  That authority expires on the date of the next AGM.

The allotment of up to a nominal value of £1,086,376.01, means that new shares equivalent to 1.333 times those currently available can now be issued.  I’m sure that there will be a good reason for the number of new shares being set at that specific level, but I can’t think of one. 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:36 pm - Dec 27, 2017


shug December 27, 2017 at 22:05
Great hard fought match tonight.
======================
Sadly, that was two hours of my life I won’t get back.  There was nothing great about it and it was more of a borefest akin to many derbies of yesteryear.  Tom English described it perfectly as “Thud and Blunder”

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:39 pm - Dec 27, 2017


EASYJAMBO
DECEMBER 27, 2017 at 22:32
================================

Cheers.

Is there a way of calculating how the issue of new shares reduces the value of the existing ones, or is it not as simple as that. I don’t imagine for a second it is. 

I cannot believe that the sale of new shares does not effect the value of those held by existing shareholders. That would surely be market capitalisation gone mad. 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:00 pm - Dec 27, 2017


Homunculus December 27, 2017 at 22:39
EASYJAMBO DECEMBER 27, 2017 at 22:32
================================
Cheers.
Is there a way of calculating how the issue of new shares reduces the value of the existing ones, or is it not as simple as that. I don’t imagine for a second it is. 
I cannot believe that the sale of new shares does not effect the value of those held by existing shareholders. That would surely be market capitalisation gone mad. 
================================
It’s not as simple as the share price being reduced inversely proportionate to the number of additional shares issued.

The capital value (no of shares x share price) of the club is presently around £16m at 20p a share (80m x 20p), but given that the club also has £16m of debts, you could argue that a debt free club would be worth £32m (or 40p a share).

The value of the shares going forward would depend of the amount of debt written off and the number of shares issued in order to achieve that. e.g. if they double the number of shares to 160m in exchange for writing off half the debt.  The capital value of the club might go up to £24m, as it only has £8m debt, but the value of each shares would probably fall to 15p. (160m x 15p = £24m)

If however, they manage to double the share numbers, write off half the debt, but also raise £4m in new money, then the capital value of the club should go up by £4m (the new money). So you could see the capital value rise to £28m, but still with £8m debt. The share price might then be 17.5p (160m x 17.5p = £28m)

I hope that makes sense. It does to me, but the nuances of share numbers, to debt, to capital raised can easily be lost, if you don’t have an appreciation of where they are at just now, and where they might end up.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:06 am - Dec 28, 2017


EASYJAMBO
DECEMBER 27, 2017 at 23:00
=============================

It does make sense, and thanks for putting in the effort to explain it in such detail. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on2:09 am - Dec 28, 2017


easyJamboDecember 27, 2017 at 17:49
‘..I think that the document will only be a restatement of the resolutions that were approved at the AGM (Resolutions 10 & 11).’
_________
You’re perfectly right, of course, eJ: it was only the official recording  of the AGM resolutions.

I think I for one (in my general ignorance) tend to think that any plc of which a director has been taken to the Courts( in an unprecedented action by the Takeover Panel) would have every form or document that it submitted to Companies House rigorously examined, cross-checked, double-checked, treble checked ,even, in a way that ,for example, the SFA does not do with documents submitted to it by its trustworthy gentlemen members.

The Takeover Panel has a lot riding on how the Law stands in its approach to the Panel’s need for support in their regulation of rogues in the market-place.

So I tend to look at anything touching on RIFC plc that seems even a wee bit different as something worth exploring.

Largely tongue-in-cheek, of course: -we’re not likely ever to be told anything confidential by CH! But if they say something will appear, and then it doesn’t appear when promised, then it allows one to ask why. Keeps them on their toes!

And we know that when even the gentlemen of our free Press are not above behaving with less than complete honesty when it comes to TRFC Ltd/RIFC plc  there may (God forbid!) exist a ‘protective of companies’ mindset in CH, rather than a ‘get the baddies’ approach.

Who knows?

View Comment

Avatar

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on9:59 am - Dec 28, 2017


IMBODECEMBER 27, 2017 at 20:26
12
3 Rate This
Yes it’s £9.37m  15% of the profit £75m less £12.5m.  I thought VAT was optional?

You must be thinking of another club  20

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on10:41 am - Dec 28, 2017


Anent the “assume the shares are worth 20p”-there is the rub. There is no market where there are sufficient trades in proper arms length transactions to come to a sensible valuation. Nor is there enough information to come to a justifiable view on underlying asset value to generate a price.
(Homunculus you will like this) I did a lot of day and short term trading in shares and bought some wild and woolly stuff including shares in property companies in emerging markets in Eastern Europe and could extract enough information not only to come to sensible views on value but to make good returns.
Even having done that, I would not have a clue on the correct value of a TRFC/RIFC share, yet every man and his dog of the blue persuasion can confidently assert that the value is not 20p but 27.5p. 
All of that is before considering the record of DCK both commercial and criminal.
What could possibly go wrong? 

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:07 am - Dec 28, 2017


I am sure the thought will have crossed other’s minds but will say it anyway.
Celtics ‘free money’ from the VVD  transfer is more than T’Rangers stated  loan requirements to keep the lights on for the next year or two.
Thats the size of the gap between Celtic and the rest of us.

View Comment

Avatar

bordersdonPosted on11:13 am - Dec 28, 2017


bfbpuzzledDecember 28, 2017 at 10:41
Even having done that, I would not have a clue on the correct value of a TRFC/RIFC share, yet every man and his dog of the blue persuasion can confidently assert that the value is not 20p but 27.5p. 
—————————————————————
Can one of you clued up guys remind me what the basis of the 20p per share is?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:25 am - Dec 28, 2017


BFBPUZZLED
DECEMBER 28, 2017 at 10:41
===============================================

I suppose a chap has to have a hobby. 

I think the whole issue with selling the shares is probably a bit of a red herring anyway. Given the dis-application of pre-emption they will sell them to whoever they want at an agreed price. I honestly think the reality is that they will simply just take all of the money they can convince Club 1972 to hand over. It’s really just a matter of how many shares they agree to hand over for that price. 

Who other than Club 1872 is going to actually want to buy any. Whilst they have spoken about it will the people who have lent money actually want to convert that money to shares, particularly with the increasingly parlous state the PLC is in. 

Much better to be a creditor than a shareholder just now. That’s where we will see real significant control. Short of someone being willing to lend millions more (like Dave King has already promised but we will see what happens with that one) I really don’t see how they avoid an insolvency event. It’s really down to “Real Rangers Men” how much they are willing to pay to avoid that. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:27 am - Dec 28, 2017


BORDERSDON
DECEMBER 28, 2017 at 11:13
===============================

It’s the price paid when King and his concert party went over the 30% limit.

What has happened subsequently is irrelevant. That’s what he now has to offer to everyone else. Just doing what he should have done at the time.

View Comment

Avatar

bad capt madmanPosted on11:41 am - Dec 28, 2017


Homunculus –
where’s your Xmas spirit?
Personally I’m waiting for the MSM commenting that poor Mr King has suffered enough so the TOP, the courts and the rest of us should all just move on.
We all know that:-
1 coals should not be raked over and 
2 everyone needs a strong “rangers” – else the sky might fall on our heads (is this the first Asterix reference on the site?)

View Comment

Avatar

ChristyboyPosted on1:24 pm - Dec 28, 2017


Can I just say that all the talk on here regarding the shares is just quality.I’ve learned so much these days in something that i’m not particularly interested in and to think that if these issues were transparently discussed in the SMSM there would be so many others enlightened by decent information that unfortunately they are being shielded from. We definitely have the right people on here for these issues. Right, I’m off for a New Year break to the County of the little hills. Awwrabest !

View Comment

AmFearLiathMòr

AmFearLiathMòrPosted on1:28 pm - Dec 28, 2017


bad capt madman
Homunculus –
where’s your Xmas spirit?
Personally I’m waiting for the MSM commenting that poor Mr King has suffered enough so the TOP, the courts and
the rest of us should all just move on.
We all know that:-
1 coals should not be raked over and
2 everyone needs a strong “rangers” else the sky might fall on our heads (is this the first Asterix reference on the
site?)

I am a pedant – I believe Vitalstatistix said:
‘The Sky May fall on our head Tomorrow – but Tomorrow never comes’
Similarly, The Rangers are coming…tomorrow.

On a slightly less pedantic note, I see Chris Sutton talking about the underselling of players, comparing VVD’s value with what it was when he left Scotland.
Unfortunately, I think we have to accept that players in Scotland will always be undervalued due to where they play, and this is much more than just sneering directly at the Scottish league from football pundits obsessed with the EPL, it’s the same the world over for countries the same size as ourselves. Unless you’re playing in the big five leagues in Europe, then your value is never fully realised until you’ve ‘proved yourself’ in one of them.  I don’t like it and I don’t think it’s fair, but it’s simply the way it is in the TV money obsessed world of football.  However, as Celtic, and a number of other clubs (notably, Hamilton Accies!), have proved, the way to claw some of that back is in the sell-on clause.
This is why, if you want to make money in Scottish football, your assets have to have resale value, allowing you to not only claw back the wages etc. that you’ve spent on that player, but make a profit into the bargain.  Might I suggest that signing 36 year olds on massive wages is probably not a progressive plan…

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:48 pm - Dec 28, 2017


WOTTPI
DECEMBER 28, 2017 at 11:07
==============================

I think the big issue is the number of good young players Celtic have, who will either improve the team (or already have) or be sold on for a large profit, possibly both.

Tierney (19)
Dembele (21)
Ajer (19)
Ntcham (21)
Edouard (19)

There are others like Ralston (19), Miller (19) and Johnston (18) but they are very much still fringe players.The ones listed above are either regulars for a starting place or at least competing for one. 

Bearing in mind Mcgregor, Rogic, Forrest and Griffiths at 24, 25, 26 and 27 are hardly at the end of their careers.

Celtic have a decent team, which didn’t cost a fortune, and have sufficient assets that they will not be forced to sell those players unless they get a good offer.  The last set of accounts showed cash (net of bank debt) of about £17m. With CL income and the money from VVD I expect it to be more now. 

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:19 pm - Dec 28, 2017


BAD CAPT MADMANDECEMBER 28, 2017 at 11:41
What’s really happening down Ibrox way .

http://www.dandelionlearning.co.uk/documents/resources/storytelling/fiction_texts/Y1_-_Chicken_Licken.pdf

View Comment

Avatar

DarkbeforedawnPosted on2:39 pm - Dec 28, 2017


AMF, as a Rangers fan I fully agree with you. The Van Dyk money is insane and credit to Celtic for inserting the add one, but even if he was playing as well as he is now for Celtic he wouldn’t be sold for a fraction of the price. Dembelle is another example of a player who has shown himself at the top level (Champions League and France national team) yet at best he’s going for 18m to the championship. Recent history is littered with other examples: McKay, Wanyama, Forster, Jelavic, Hooper, McLeod. If they played in England you could almost add another zero to the end! It wouldn’t surprise me if Morelos goes for around 1.5m in January. Tierney woukd be a 50m player if he played for even a lower side English PL club but would probably not fetch 20m up here. Even looking at the rest of the league – kids leave for under a million to England and 12 months later are sold for upwards of 10m! It’s sad to see. Let’s face it, Ross McCormack, Jordan Rhodes, Steven Fletcher are not any better players than some of the boys sold from our clubs for pennies. Molt will probably be the next one to raise his value exponentially. It’s a sad state of affairs, as to all intents and purposes (present condition of my club aside) the old firm should be a huge lure for players, and for Celtic in particular regularly competing in the CL group stages it’s shockinv that the value from Scotland is so low. 

View Comment

Avatar

McCaig`s TowerPosted on2:58 pm - Dec 28, 2017


Season’s Greetings
I think this may be my 2nd post of 2017.
Given it is the holiday period and traffic may be otherwise quiet, I thought I would crave your indulgence and try to enhance my understanding of an old issue.
It is a simple question, and has probably been answered back in the mists of time, but I can’t remember what the answer is.  It  refers to the Big Tax Case.  I apologise for resurrecting ancient history (although I believe the liquidation of (old) Rangers has still to be concluded).
Was it ever determined that payments into the EBT were net or gross of income tax and national insurance?
If the former is the case, then is there any precedent for HMRC chasing the employees for unpaid tax or NI if it cannot be recovered either in full, or in part from the employer?
Similarly, EBT recipients may have assumed that any loan from the trust should have been taxed as a benefit in kind (I think on the difference between a loan at a commercial interest rate and one at an interest-free rate) and declared (and paid) tax appropriately.  Would they be entitled to a refund given this money should have been treated as (taxed) salary?
Of course, if the latter is the case, then I would assume that all recipients would be due a large tax bill shortly (but I’m not so sure that it is the case). 

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on3:00 pm - Dec 28, 2017


Paddy Malarkey 071101

What a terrible ending to that story. 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on3:04 pm - Dec 28, 2017


HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 28, 2017 at 11:27
14
0 Rate This
BORDERSDONDECEMBER 28, 2017 at 11:13===============================
It’s the price paid when King and his concert party went over the 30% limit.
What has happened subsequently is irrelevant. That’s what he now has to offer to everyone else. Just doing what he should have done at the time.
——————-
The Takeover Appeals Board then ordered King to make the offer by April.
https://www.biznews.com/undictated/2017/10/13/micromegas-dave-king-rangers-fans/
———-
was it that long ago? just how much has been spent on the team and the club since April?
If he did what he was suppose to do in April would the club be alive today?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on3:13 pm - Dec 28, 2017


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.

View Comment

Avatar

DarkbeforedawnPosted on3:15 pm - Dec 28, 2017


MT, I believe HMRC have already started procedings to reclaim tax from the beneficiaries of the scheme. I don’t think they can do anything about the foreigners who no longer live here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that is why so many of the uk based beneficiaries are secruring football pundit roles. I know the party line on this website is to not feel sorry for them, however if a number of guys are going to lose their whole livelihood over something their employers told them was above board then I can’t help but have sympathy for them

View Comment

Avatar

misterlightbulbjokePosted on3:35 pm - Dec 28, 2017


When Celtic considered the future transfer value of Van Djik I think even the most optimistic person would have cut off at say 20 million. If we then think from that figure as being realistic I have serious doubts that Celtic would have been bothering about getting 10% of 8 million profit, I’d be pretty sure Celtic are getting 20% (of the 63 million difference) in fact I’d say the 20% figure explains Southampton’s reluctance to sell at £60 mill in the summer.

On the subject of scouts. They seem quite an idiotic bunch who should learn that Frank Sinatra singing in a bus stop is better than Olly Murs at the Albert Hall. The whole point of talent spotting is the ability NOT to be influenced by surroundings.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:38 pm - Dec 28, 2017


I believe that The Supreme Court ruling has rendered the whole question on EBTs, payments into trusts, whether things are loans or not etc irrelevant. The ruling goes much wider than any of those considerations. 

Any payment using disguised remuneration is taxable. So having your remuneration paid to a third party does not change the fact that you need to pay the tax on it.

It doesn’t matter if it is paid to a trust or your aunt Agatha, you still have to pay the tax. I have no idea why they use the name Agatha, but they do. 

“Thus, if an employee enters into a contract or contracts with an employer which provide that he will receive a salary of £X and that as part of his remuneration the employer will also pay £Y to the employee’s spouse or aunt Agatha, I can ascertain no statutory purpose for taxing the former but not the latter. The breadth of the wording of the tax charge and the absence of any restrictive wording in the primary legislation, do not give any support for inferring an intention to exclude from the tax charge such a payment to a third party which the employer and employee have agreed as part of the employee’s entitlement. Both sums involve the payment of remuneration for the employee’s work as an employee.”

HMRC have given people until April 2019 to settle with them.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/disguised-remuneration-settling-your-tax-affairs

If you’re in a disguised remuneration tax avoidance scheme, you should settle your tax affairs and pay HMRC what you owe.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on3:44 pm - Dec 28, 2017


I can see the Sevco fans been fed more bullshit this season soon be ticket time and fake news time.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on3:53 pm - Dec 28, 2017


Did it never dawn on the Rangers players of that era to question EBTs?  Something along the lines of ‘if something seems too good to be true’.  Did they never wonder why they were the only club in Scotland paying their staff in this way?

Did they seek to find out what HMRC’s advice was?

If they were advised by financial experts, agents or people at the club then I would be chasing these people when the Tax demands come in.

But at the end of the day it is an individuals responsibility to make sure their tax affairs are in order.  That is why we all receive a P60 every year.  To make sure our employers are doing their bit.

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:08 pm - Dec 28, 2017


HOMUNCULUS

DECEMBER 28, 2017 at 15:38

It doesn’t matter if it is paid to a trust or your aunt Agatha, you still have to pay the tax. I have no idea why they use the name Agatha, but they do. 
—————————————

PG Wodehouse: Bertie Wooster has a fearsome Aunt Agatha. 

Wikipedia also states that ‘Aunt Agatha”, or “Great Aunt Agatha”, is a term sometimes used somewhat disparagingly by workers in the City of London’s financial markets to describe a risk-averse, low-volume, non-corporate investor.’

Here endeth today’s lesson. (For me, too. I was aware of Bertie’s aunt, but not of the financial reference.)

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on4:13 pm - Dec 28, 2017


I wonder why not all players at Rangers were in the scheme.  It must have been common knowledge at the club.  Were not all players asked?  Or did some refuse?  It’s a strange one.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:25 pm - Dec 28, 2017


Maybe some of them felt that they should pay their fair share of tax, to finance the running of the country they lived in and plied their trade in.

I know it sounds mad but you never know. 

View Comment

dom16

dom16Posted on5:10 pm - Dec 28, 2017


I am a pedant – I believe Vitalstatistix said:‘The Sky May fall on our head Tomorrow – but Tomorrow never comes’Similarly, The Rangers are coming…tomorrow.

Thanks Amfearlithmore. That’s what I love about SFM – references to Asterix and Obelix!!

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on5:15 pm - Dec 28, 2017


DARKBEFOREDAWNDECEMBER 28, 2017 at 15:15
I know the party line on this website is to not feel sorry for them, however if a number of guys are going to lose their whole livelihood over something their employers told them was above board then I can’t help but have sympathy for them
————
No one has to feel sorry for them, they have a side letter saying if the tax man comes looking the club will see them all right. It is the same club after all, isn’t it

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on5:38 pm - Dec 28, 2017


I don’t feel remotely sorry for them.

Getting paid through “loans” from a trust, with a side letter confirming what “loans” they were going to get, and a letter of comfort from the club “just in case” the tax man wanted paid.

Aye right, they thought it was all above board. 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on5:38 pm - Dec 28, 2017


JIMBODECEMBER 28, 2017 at 15:00
0
0 Rate This
Paddy Malarkey
What a terrible ending to that story. 
—————
Wait until the sequel comes out.
There are marches,boycotts a storm on the castle a demand for answers.Blame is pointed at The town crier.
Think The GODFATHER 2 in how good the sequel will be compared to the original

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on6:17 pm - Dec 28, 2017


So the SPFL have come out and said we can’t afford goal line technology.

I seem to remember money being deducted from clubs’ share of TV revenue to install gantries in lower division grounds to enable the broadcast of New Rangers games from 2012.

“However, the amount TV deals generate for clubs north of the border pales in significance when compared to the English Premier League (EPL), which signed a new deal worth £5.136 billion in March for UK broadcast rights from 2016-19 with Sky and BT Sport. The two broadcasters also have live rights for the four divisions of the SPFL until the summer of 2020, in a deal worth a reported £15 million per season – to be shared between the 42 member clubs.”

I know where my first port of call would be to fund this technology.  SKY & BT.

Scotland has about 10% the population of England.  The arithmetic doesn’t work when they divi. the money out.  Just think of 10% of £5 billion.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on6:22 pm - Dec 28, 2017


JIMBODECEMBER 28, 2017 at 15:00
That’s the Level 5 version – nothing bad happens and the fox doesn’t consume all and they all live happily ever after. Just like DK and TRFC/RIFC .

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on6:36 pm - Dec 28, 2017


Paddy, I didn’t realise it was metaphorical, I thought it was a true story.  21

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on6:50 pm - Dec 28, 2017


JIMBODECEMBER 28, 2017 at 18:17
So the SPFL have come out and said we can’t afford goal line technology.
    —————————————————————————–
    How much would a phone selotaped to the goalposts really cost?….OK the pinhole camera securely sited in the post or bar, but it shouldn’t run to mega bucks. 
    Interesting reading this past wee while. I wish you all a very happy and healthy new year. 

View Comment

Avatar

rougvielovesthejunglePosted on7:13 pm - Dec 28, 2017


Radio Scotland were asking for sporting highlights of the year tonight.

Hats off / chapeau to the practical joker who succeeded in getting this one read out – ‘Rangers scoring the winner at Partick Thistle in April, with the crowd going bezerk, and the team securing a return to Europe’

Added irony was thrown in by Kenny McIntyre who read it out without any irony!

This was immediately followed by another highlight which was Derek McInnes saying thanks but no thanks to Rangers.

The producers are clearly trying to lead McIntrye towards comedy to get some listeners back.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:58 pm - Dec 28, 2017


HOMUNCULUS DECEMBER 28, 2017 at 15:38
It doesn’t matter if it is paid to a trust or your aunt Agatha, you still have to pay the tax. I have no idea why they use the name Agatha, but they do. 
========================
“Aunt Agatha” was used by the RFC QC Andrew Thornhill during the appeals process when discussing the redirection of earnings to a third party.

On a separate point about the share price.  The sale of Ashley’s shares to Club 1872 and Julian Wolhardt was used by King’s QC at the CoS, as an example of shares trading above the 20p price.

The TOP’s QC, however, countered that by claiming that Ashley wasn’t interested in the share price, but was insistent that he received £2m for his shares. To that end, it was pointed out that the price per share paid wasn’t 27p, 27.5p or 28p, but something to the second or third decimal place that ensured that the sum received was not £1,999,999 but a fraction over the £2m figure.  I can’t recall the exact fraction used, but the counter argument put forward seemed entirely plausible.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:16 pm - Dec 28, 2017


EASYJAMBO
DECEMBER 28, 2017 at 19:58

HOMUNCULUS DECEMBER 28, 2017 at 15:38
It doesn’t matter if it is paid to a trust or your aunt Agatha, you still have to pay the tax. I have no idea why they use the name Agatha, but they do. 
========================
“Aunt Agatha” was used by the RFC QC Andrew Thornhill during the appeals process when discussing the redirection of earnings to a third party.

===========================

Now that is impressive knowledge of the minutiae.

Well played, Sir. 

One wonders if the Supreme Court were having a pop. It would be an incredible co-incidence if they weren’t. 

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:20 pm - Dec 28, 2017


JIMBODECEMBER 28, 2017 at 18:36
It’s true if you believe it . Some people believe in the tooth fairy as well (don’t sleep with your head under the pillow).

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:31 pm - Dec 28, 2017


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.  

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:06 pm - Dec 28, 2017


small question if i may?
If Van Dijk signs for Liverpool. and moves on again in a couple of years, do celtic still get a 10% sell on fee?

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on9:20 pm - Dec 28, 2017


Talking about transfers.  Word on the street tonight is that, as yet unidentified, English clubs are interested in Josh Windass, the Ibrox winger.

£3.5m being mentioned.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on9:27 pm - Dec 28, 2017


JIMBO
thought i had fell asleep and woke up in april

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:36 pm - Dec 28, 2017


JIMBO
DECEMBER 28, 2017 at 21:20
===================================

They have told the World that the best case scenario is that they will run at a loss of £4m this season and £3m next season.

Why in the name of everything sacred would anyone pay that sort of money for Windass. 

He is a £500k striker, at most.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:26 pm - Dec 28, 2017


Sorry I’m just reporting what I read on ‘News Now’.

James Tavernier being linked with Sunderland.  Ibrox fans on twitter suggesting anything between 300k and 30m.

The headline is ‘Nothing less than £7m’.

This would go a long way to getting them back on their feet.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:30 pm - Dec 28, 2017


With only a couple of days to go until celtic play an ibrox club,i was left wondering if anything ever did come about.
A Rangers fan who was involved in a clash with Scott Brown and Leigh Griffiths after he invaded the pitch at Ibrox.
A Rangers fan captured on camera making monkey gestures’ towards Celtic winger Scott Sinclair.
 The fans that were spotted on camera throwing objects at the Celtic players after Dedryck Boyata made it 4-0.
And when Leigh Griffiths held up a battery to the referee.
Nothing comes to mind that i can remember if the SFA or SPFL or the compliance officer made any statement about any punishment

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:48 pm - Dec 28, 2017


HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 28, 2017 at 13:48

Indeed. And that was my other thought.
Even if Mark Allen does a good job T”Rangers wouldn’t see any cash for any upcoming talent (internal or bought in)  for a god number of years.
To date a good few lads showing talent have been allowed to leave to keep the lights on.
At present the only prospect they have is McRorie who I think has stepped up and performed well when asked.He certainly has confidence and could develop into a decent centre back playing with the likes of Souttar for Scotland.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:51 pm - Dec 28, 2017


I think there was police involvement with one incident.  But nothing from the blazers.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on4:45 am - Dec 29, 2017


It’s 11.43 pm in Scranton,PA,  and we have just come back from being wined and dined  in tremendously good company in a friends-of-the-son’s home.

I am therefore in a cheerful frame of mind. (Mind you, sitting in the back seat of the car I had one of those A9 moments of absolute fear, when the driver overtook another car on a blind bend, before I realised we were still on a dual carriageway!)….

For one reason or another, it suddenly strikes  me that I don’t actually know ( or remember) when it was that the concept of ‘transfer windows’ was introduced, or why it was introduced.

On the face of it, it’s as much of a restriction of ‘trade’ on ’employers’, as the pre-Bosman situation was on freedom of employment was on ‘workers'(players).

Is there a decently worked out rationale for the concept?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on6:04 am - Dec 29, 2017


And since I’m talking to myself while all you guys and gals are snoring your heads off, can I just mention that in the local newspaper this morning there was a piece about school sports.

It seemed to be about the ‘pick’ of the best players.

I didn’t have time today to read the whole thing ( and it’s too late to disturb the household to go looking for the paper!) but it seemed to be related to the use by ‘soccer’ teams of the American  Football  concept of who gets to pick the best player in the ‘draft’.

I have only the haziest understanding of that concept.

But in so far as it might relate to attempts to create genuine ‘sporting’ , on-field, equality of talent, it must have something to recommend it.

Even the Americans realise that in order to make money out of sport,there has to be some concept of genuine ‘sporting competition’

Auldheid reminded us, quite movingly, of the joyous nature of our game as we all experienced it.
We all knew instinctively what was fair, and what wasn’t.
Remember how our street game teams were picked?

The two ‘captains’ tossed for first choice.Whichever won the toss would pick the ‘best’ player. The other guy would pick ‘the second best’ and so on.

And, if it appeared that there was an imbalance ,or if there was an odd number of players, then it would be agreed that a ‘John Clark’ would play the first half for one side to give them the extra man, and the second half for the other side, to try to be fair in the use of that useless lump!

( who, I may say, was actually quite good at lifting the wee ba’ from the street up onto the pavement, one hand on the lamp-post outside the Thomson’s house on Cuthelton Street, and bringing it to the goal at the lorry entrance to the Domestos depot ( formerly Donald Clarke’s steel kind of place, which in 1947 sirened One o’Clock,with the siren they used ‘during the war!’)

And it is these kinds of memories that fuel my contempt
contempt for the cheating bast.rd of a knight of the realm who killed the RFC of my day

contempt for the SFA who, like some referees,not only did not ‘see’ that cheating but went further and assisted in that cheating

And who continue to propagate the lie that the football club that cheated its way to death by Liquidation is somehow the same club as a five year old creation that they themselves have lied into existence.

And as for the the whole lot of the successive boards of either Sevco 5088, Sevcoscotland, The rangers football Club Ltd, RIFC plc  how can they be described otherwise than as  scavengers of carrion? Feeding as they do on the dead flesh of a once proud football club?

It gars me greet…
Quietly and solemnly, into my glass of “Goose IPA, 5.9%, made from hops from Idaho” ( And actually quite surprisingly pleasant, reminiscent of McEwan’s pale ale.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:14 am - Dec 29, 2017


I have nothing against Graham Murty. He seems a very decent man at face value. However, I wonder if he was advised by a certain ex-Daily Record hack to have the style of press conference he had yesterday.  Pretty bullish, and ‘on our day we are a match for any team’ (which they’re not).

I can’t help thinking after today he will be wishing Brendan Rodgers had gone before him.  I remember my Father telling me when Davie Whyte was Rangers manager in the 60’s he and Jock Stein were interviewed together.  Davie predicted Rangers would win. Jock, who was up next, said ‘only a fool would predict the result of this game’. Game, set and match to Jock. 

That is not to say Rangers can’t win this game tomorrow, of course they can.  

View Comment

Avatar

armchairsupporterPosted on9:22 am - Dec 29, 2017


Best wishes one and all.
JOHN CLARKDECEMBER 29, 2017 at 06:04
Brilliant! It just goes to show – even nostalgia is not what it was!
19

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:05 am - Dec 29, 2017


JIMBODECEMBER 28, 2017 at 22:51
8
0 Rate This
I think there was police involvement with one incident.  But nothing from the blazers.
————–
nothing from the blazers.what we have come to expect.And if there are any incidents this weekend,will it be nothing from the blazers again?
Speaking of nothing from the blazers. any statement yet from Mr Regan on how maybe he was duped to let a man like Mr king anywhere near scottish football

View Comment

AmFearLiathMòr

AmFearLiathMòrPosted on12:32 pm - Dec 29, 2017


I’m still awaiting the outcome of the investigation into the behaviour of a certain team’s fans at Berwick a few years back….

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:53 pm - Dec 29, 2017


Cluster OneDecember 29, 2017 at 10:05 
JIMBODECEMBER 28, 2017 at 22:5180 Rate ThisI think there was police involvement with one incident. But nothing from the blazers.————–nothing from the blazers.what we have come to expect.And if there are any incidents this weekend,will it be nothing from the blazers again?Speaking of nothing from the blazers. any statement yet from Mr Regan on how maybe he was duped to let a man like Mr king anywhere near scottish football
_______________________

Some things definitely are certain in life, and one of them is that no one, in any position at Hampden, will ever so much as mention Dave King’s involvement in Scottish football, unless he is still at the helm when/if TRFC go into administration. Even then it is as likely to be in support of him as he ‘tries’ to save the club, than it is to decry him for creating the mess in the first place! They will be aided and abetted by the SMSM, who will ensure that, they too, avoid making their own complicity in easing a criminal into the Ibrox boardroom as apparent to their dwindling readership as it is to us here.

Eventually, though, Keith Jackson will be the first to write, in his rather smirking style, how everything at ‘Rangers’ would be great if only the SFA had done their job properly in investigating each and every chairman of the Ibrox club since Craig Whyte!

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on12:55 pm - Dec 29, 2017


I hope the pathways in the approaches to CP are well salted tomorrow.  I read a few weeks ago that the pavements were very icy and dangerous on the way to the ground.

This doesn’t apply only to Celtic of course.  The safety of all supporters at all clubs should be paramount.

When you consider the amount of money that is brought into local business on match days it’s the least that, in this instance, Glasgow City Council and Celtic FC can do.  Even more so now with the restricted parking in the vicinity of CP.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on2:06 pm - Dec 29, 2017


JIMBODECEMBER 29, 2017 at 12:55
I hope the pathways in the approaches to CP are well salted tomorrow.  I read a few weeks ago that the pavements were very icy and dangerous on the way to the ground
    ——————————————————————————–
    I think it is covered in the criteria by which a match can take place Jimbo, but I imagine restricted to the actual property boundaries.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on2:13 pm - Dec 29, 2017


“England and Liverpool youngster Rhian Brewster says he has experienced racial abuse on the pitch since he was 12.
The 17-year-old striker says he has been targeted five times and that there were two other incidents aimed at his team-mates.
Brewster, who helped England lift the Under-17 World Cup, criticised football’s authorities, saying there needs to be “more severe punishments………Fifa, world football’s governing body, and European football’s governing body, Uefa, were unavailable to comment on the claims made by Brewster”.
(BBC Sport)

Blazers eh?

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on5:14 pm - Dec 29, 2017


A respected Celtic fans blogging site has today alleged the Referee for tomorrow’s game at Celtic Park has a serious gambling problem.  Given what has been written I assume they can back it up. If true, this is extremely concerning, and not just for this one game. 

If the mods are not happy with me posting this, feel free to remove as is your right. 

View Comment

Comments are closed.