It Takes Two to Tangle


Ryan Gosling The wtc and BTC are separate. The wtc was found …

Comment on It Takes Two to Tangle by Auldheid.

Ryan Gosling
The wtc and BTC are separate.

The wtc was found to be unlawful for Aberdeen Asset Management after going through an FTT and UTT.

Rangers used it for De Boer and Flo, had side letters for them, did not register them with SFA and hid their existence from HMRC when asked and possibly from HMRC inspectors who looked at the players files. The latter is what HMRC believe as well as proof of the former.

All this in turn was hidden from the LNS Commission in spite of the SPL lawyers asking for all ebt documentation since 1998.

On the wee tax case guilt was admitted on QC advice but LNS treated both types of ebts as lawful in his decision. This flies in the face of fact but his Lordship was misled both in the evidence supplied and the testimony given.

I think folk confuse the five BTC instances where liability was admitted in the FTT for bonus payments made using ebts (as opposed to regular pay) with the wtc.

Rangers admitted guilt in 5 cases in the BTC and in 2 cases in the wtc based on the Aberdeen Asset Management precedent and hiding the evidence.

In totality – morally bankrupt and legally guilty in 7 cases as well as subsequent efforts to bury this truth.

Auldheid Also Commented

It Takes Two to Tangle
Danish Pastry

Cheers. A Danish I take it? Aye I was surprised at its length myself when I came across it.

It Takes Two to Tangle
Danish Pastry

I hate it when that happens. Trouble is docs open for me but not for others. Try this link and let me know if you can open the document. Thanks.

It Takes Two to Tangle
I was prompted by exchanges on Twitter re the real cause of Rangers downfall to find a file on Rangers spend in 07/08. In doing so I came across this from October 2010 when we were all learning about EBTs.

I cannot remember if the article got posted on any Celtic Blog, E Tims or Celtic Underground being the most likely but I have uploaded it here.

To non Celtic supporting readers I crave your indulgence in recognising its target audience in 2010 when the Celtic family was seriously divided as a result of Rangers title success (2 iar going on 3) By God were we hurting then, something that I had forgotten, as divided then as TRFC are now..

I also came across this article using the same data approach but with the emphasis on the use of debt to buy trophies that I think CQN magazine published in Sept 2011..

Note Rangers debt position in 2006 £5.9M! They never mention that when they talk of debt coming down it spoils the why the banks wanted out narrative.

Anyway I hope both are readable and I encourage folk to read them because they contain facts to back the argument of Why Celtic Lost (the first article’s title) when they seemed to have finance in their favour and what played a huge part in Rangers going under (switching to debt from EBTs in 2007/08) to pay the wages to get the debt of paying wages down.

The alternative of simply putting wage controls in place and competing fairly being by Walter Smiths own admission something the support would not tolerate.

This is the kind of fact based analysis that should be informing Scottish football of the way ahead, not the nonsense that kept lamb munchers in fine fettle as they ignored what was going on under their noses.

Recent Comments by Auldheid

Here we go again
Cluster One
Hirsute Pursuit

Thanks for the clarification.

I can see how the Brechin reason and Romanov reason got conflated back then so we can drop Romanov from the underlying issue to look at which is:

What was the argument in support of the change in SPL rules introducing owner and operator and if it was solely to deal with a potential problem in respect of Brechin having no “owner” of a share, how did that rule change in 2005 transform Rangers from being an incorporated single Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) earning its revenue from football to a Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) that overnight owned a club earning the same income from the same source?

In terms of conforming with UEFA FFP before 2012 was it Rangers FC PLC that applied for a UEFA Licence or Rangers FC as a stand alone club or was it Rangers PLC whom Rangers Football Club had a written contract with to be their operators? The application template suggests it was Rangers Football Club only.

Post 2012 if its not the current club (Rangers FC Ltd) applying for a UEFA licence but the football Company (Rangers International Football Club PLC) they have a written contract with and the football company’s (RIFC) main source of revenue is from the club activities, then how can a Company go bust unless the club ceases to be able to provide that revenue?

Now had UEFA seen the 5 Way Agreement there would be the satisfaction of knowing they were OK with it.

As it stands UEFA did what their rules told them to do, Waited 3 years to allow the club that had undergone a terminal change in its legal structure to satisfy UEFA requirements in respect of historical membership of the SFA before being eligible to apply to play in UEFA competitions in circumstances that were not to the detriment of the integrity of those competitions.

After 3 years, whichever club ie legal entity that applied for a UEFA Licence, it was not the Rangers Football Club (PLC) that last applied in 2012 (which was rejected because they had no audited accounts and the wee tax bill of 2011 was admitted , unlike March 2011 when described as a potential liability, as a payable that as the world and its wean knew in 2012 was outstanding.)

Here we go again
HirsutePursuit 13th March 2021 At 21:31
3 0 Rate This


On the subject of a franchise…

At the very least the possibility that the 5 Way Agreement has turned Scottish Football into a franchise should be explored by UEFA just in case.

On McDonalds I remember reading McDonalds Behind The Arches many years ago and one of the fascinating things to come out is that their wealth was not based on burgers but on the land and buildings owned . Kind of fits your point to your family member.

Here we go again

On exclusions zones because supporters might turn up for invented reasons I think recognition of “knuckleheadessness ” as an all pervading human condition is necessary.


I think it is an American term.

I quite like it, kind of onomatopoeic quality to it. Not so much sounds like but looks like.

Anyhoo it is a denial of reality that the support of Celtic and “Rangers” do not have their share of knuckleheads and they recognise each other.

The knuckle in the head stops the consequences of the emotions reaching the brain.

It’s a condition that most grow out of but it’s also one that we grow into before we grow out of it. A human condition.

So best not deny it and deal with it free from judgment of which support has the most knuckleheads or which kind of knucklehead is worse than the other.

Just say that anyone turning up at CP will be taken as evidence of knuckleheadedness to become huckleheads into a police van.

Set a perimeter around the ground and any one approaching without valid reason to do so will be huckled.

HuckleberryTim or HuckleberryHun.

Here we go again
Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 18:45
0 0 Rate This

Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 16:15

It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.


Absolutely agree with that. Financial Fair Play in Scotland post 2012 would have been a good move, although the new Rangers would have suffered more than anyone because of it in my view.

And there you have it. Canny have rules that hinder Rangers business model .

If the 5 Way created a franchise like McDonalds but selling hateburgers then sectarianism is only the sauce that goes on the otherwise tasteless moneyburger to make it tasty.

Here we go again
Hirsute Pursuit

Thanks for your response useful as ever.

If the intent was to create a franchise is that not questionable of itself?

If it wasnt then SPFL misused it.

Either way the SPL appear het, it’s just from when?

About the author