Journey’s End?

Avatar ByTrisidium

Journey’s End?

It has taken a year longer than predicted, but a critical appraisal of  TRFC’s progress through the lower leagues must include recognition of the improvements on the playing field made under the new manager Mark Warburton. SFM usually precludes lengthy discussion on subjective issues like relative abilities of players and managers and referees, but on this subject, and by any objective standard, that is a given.

It is therefore right that he and his players should receive the congratulations of us all at SFM.

It has to be said that, despite the pitfalls, man-traps and honey-pots that remain to be successfully negotiated by the Rangers board, they have implemented their own stark version austerity, contrary to their rhetoric, whilst managing the expectations of their supporters. Perhaps some of what we have come to term “reasonable” Rangers fans would argue that the lack of humility still evident in the demeanour of the TRFC board is an essential part of managing those fans whilst imposing the austerity package on them.

Much like a political party conference, a football board has to play to it’s core support as well as the rest of the country.

How that will pan out is anybody’s guess, just like the random bagatelle that is the “TRFC in Court” saga.

There is also the existential problem to deal with. Many TRFC fans bought into the ‘same club’ myth at the outset, not because they actually believed it, but because it suited them, and because it served as an understandable GIRUY to the rest of us. With the passage of time, the suspension of disbelief, even in that constituency, is now complete and arguably irreversible. The problem for them is that the rest of have not subscribed to that rather bizarre set of contradictions. No other club has to have the “company that operates” prefix. Nor does any other club compel observers to skirt around the facts and search for a form of words acceptable to both sides of a mutually exclusive argument.  In short, and existentially, the new Rangers don’t fit into the same kind of comfortable groove that other clubs do.

All of these problems for the new club, and many more, will exercise our minds to a greater or lesser extent moving forward, depending on how sensitive our outrage thresholds are to the various legal and Jungian issues. However we at SFM need to focus our sights on those whose maladministration of football gave rise to those problems in the first place – the SFA, SPFL, and by extension, the clubs – all of them.

Here are some facts;

  1. The SFA award clubs a licence to participate in UEFA competitions.
  2. The licence is only to be awarded if the applicant club has no unpaid tax debts.
  3. Both the club and the SFA have responsibility to notify UEFA of any debts (belt and braces routine in case the club ‘forgets’ to notify the SFA).
  4. In 2011, one club applied for and was awarded a UEFA licence.
  5. That club had accepted debts to HMRC – which were outstanding and overdue.
  6. These facts have been in the public domain since 2012,and were brought to the attention of ALL clubs in Scotland as well as the SFA.
  7. Nothing has been done by any club, or the SFA, to investigate the claim at #5
  8. SFA Chief Executive Stewart Regan, when asked by an SFM member what he would do if these claims could be substantiated, said; “Nothing!”
  9. All clubs will be within a few weeks, issuing season ticket renewal forms.

The story contained in points 6 and 7 above is a lengthy and protracted one.

From sources inside two clubs I have been informed that the problem here is subversive and obsessive fans, who don’t represent the vast body of fans generally. On points 1-5, my sources refused to comment. Conversations with SFA officials and print journalists yield the same reaction, with the addition that it is “just Celtic fans obsessed with Rangers” making the claims.

The lesson, if there is one worthy of the name, is that the bearers of the message need to attacked, and the message itself ignored. We could speculate why that is, but that would be to fall into the trap, taking our eye off the ball.

Perhaps I am being naïve, but my inference is that the SFA and clubs have no intention of doing anything about what was at best incompetence on an unbelievable scale, or at worst corruption. A source at Celtic Park  was complaining in victim-like fashion to SFM that many Celtic fans were threatening to close their season book accounts over this issue, and that Rangers might have 45,000 SBs next season whilst Celtic could be down to as low as 20,000.

It had never occurred to him that actually supporting an investigation into SFA malpractice would add another 10,000 to the SB takeup.

Overall, the clubs and the SFA want us to believe that an investigation into this licensing issue is a Celtic or Rangers thing. It is neither of those.

An investigation, even if finds that corruption or incompetence has taken place cannot harm Rangers – old or new. There are no titles to strip here. The licence has been used and thrown away, so it cannot be “un – awarded”.

The only people who have anything to lose out of this are those individuals who allowed it to happen – those who our clubs seem so keen to protect.

More importantly, an investigation may be the catalyst for changes in procedures at the SFA to ensure that rigorous accountability is enforced -accountability that the clubs are eager to avoid.

Are we wrong? I hope we are not foolish enough to imagine that everything we believe is set in stone. I am confident that we are correct in our assumptions and in our interpretation of the facts, but please, let’s hear the counter-argument. Thus far, not one word of rebuttal save the usual invective reserved for the messenger has been uttered.

So what do we do? For me it is simple. If we really love our sport, and do nothing, the sport is lost to us completely and irrevocably.

If our view that sporting integrity has been killed off by those in charge of the game is correct, we lose nothing by embarking on a season ticket boycott. However by doing so we may awaken those in charge to the realities of our power as fans and prioritise in their minds the need to listen to what we say.

My view? if they ignore us, they can take their industry that they pretend is sport, and put it somewhere away from my reach. I neither want it nor need it.

If enough of us feel the same way, we WILL get a clean game. If we are as few as the MSM claim we are, at least we will have freed ourselves from a bent one.

I won’t be buying any more season books until I see these issues addressed. It certainly is tough love, but it is the only way for me.  And it is driven by love – a love of the game I spent decades supporting, thinking that on the whole it was played on a level playing field. Certainly not driven by a sneering disregard for truth and integrity and a worship of acquisition.

Maybe it’s not just the end of Rangers’ journey then. Certainly if it’s not the end of ours, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The fans, the clubs, and Rangers too. The decision we make over the next few months may determine the future of our clubs, our sport, our Saturday afternoons.

I can tell you this though. Even when the dark facts are laid before us starkly as this, and when football is at the mercy of those who really do hate sport for its own sake, it is worth mentioning the common thread of decency and purpose we have all shared here on SFM, the friendships we have forged, and the love of football we have demonstrated.

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

1,108 Comments so far

incredibleadamspark

incredibleadamsparkPosted on6:38 pm - Apr 13, 2016


STEVIEBC, there is no doubt that most of the nonsense surrounding Scottish football has links to Rangers. The fact is Rangers are playing in senior football and if any fan wants to cause trouble on Sunday on the back of this fixture then they are entirely at fault and should take responsibility for their actions. Blaming this on Rangers existing is letting those idiots off the hook. 

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on7:09 pm - Apr 13, 2016


Problems with the Hampden re-surfacing   21

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:29 pm - Apr 13, 2016


THE RANGERS NIL? WHO MISSED THE PENALTY?APRIL 13, 2016 at 17:34 ==============================

I counted no fewer than 7 on that list who work / have worked for the BBC as regular / occasional pundits. That is the publicly funded BBC who use licence fee payers money to pay them. That is a licence fee we have no option but to pay because not to do so is against the law. Sickening, absolutely sickening.

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins FinestPosted on9:21 pm - Apr 13, 2016


Before the League Cup semi final last season between Celtic and TRFC the feeling was that there would be trouble. This was peddled by the SMSM. But the blood letting did not materialise. Everyone was thankful. Everyone that is except the SMSM who then had to jump on 2 noticeable incidents and turn them into ‘Sectarian Attacks’ related to the game. The moral of the story is: If they do not get the stories they want they’ll just make them up anyway. Lets hope for another low key properly policed event.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:11 am - Apr 14, 2016


easyJamboApril 13, 2016 at 18:04

I never could make head nor tail of those amounts in tax terms. I thought grossing up might be a factor but not that simple way of doing it.

So any idea how much Sir David Murray rode into the sunset with? 03

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:13 am - Apr 14, 2016


Not a great television watcher, I watched a wee while ago tonight a recorded  episode of  a series set  in Shetland ( or maybe it was live: I never know whether Mrs C is watching live or recorded stuff: but I said I quite liked the pullover the polis guy who vaguely puts me in mind of a sports pundit was wearing: maybe I’ll get one hand-kitted for Christmas!).
And the inestimable David Hayman  had a particular line , spoken with deep psychological truth, which I am sure that
SDM, and CW ,and CG,  and DK
and this yin and that yin who  might have held conflicted office in the SFA,
and sundry CEOs in the football world,
and assorted ‘journalists’ and BBC Radio Scotland types ,
might be heard to say when Truth eventually catches up with them as having been the various kinds of baddies that they have been:
David spoke in character  as a Shetlander, with the appropriate accent and dialect.
He said , with tears ,” It was such a lang time ago… it’s as if it never really happened’
A very moving scene.
And wouldn’t we welcome a tear of remorse, a readiness to acknowledge the organisational option for untruth, from our baddies, and be ready to forgive, if they would only confess, and set all the records straight?
But, unlike the David Hayman part, they are not yet ready to say ‘as if’. They persist in denying that any wrongdoing took place.
Psychologically, they believe that the mere passage of time will blot out their iniquity, and see them home and dry.
It won’t, of course.
I switched round to BBC Newsnight. And what did I see? Plebgate , lipsticked, Andrew Mitchell coming out with ” the story should go away”.
NOT our ‘saga’, of course, but the Whittingdale story.
God Almighty, do these guys think that all they have to say is that they have known someone for years and he’s a first rate chap? and that there’s ‘nothing to see’?
And, in relation to the ‘saga’, do they think that the passage of 4 years changes Truth? They cheated then, they live a lie now.
I’ll tell you what ( sorry, Derek): if it hadn’t been for RTC, I doubt if I would have become as aware of how important it is to ask questions and take nothing that any ‘authority’ , be it newspapers, or the BBC, or politicians, or, even, bloggers, on trust.
Never mind ‘show me the money’. Show me the evidence, is the mantra.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:38 am - Apr 14, 2016


Dammit! I ought to have declared an interest!
I have a little handwritten note obtained from David Hayman as I passed by the theatre door quite late of an evening (after my usual monthly swally with my Glaswegian based friends) on my way from West George St to the Buchanan bus station.
I passed the doorway in which a guy was lighting a cigarette, sort of nodded, and moved on a step or two, and thought ‘is that..?’, and turned back,only to have it confirmed that it was indeed David Hayman.
Now, Mrs C thinks he’s absolutely superb, so, as you do, I said ” My wife will never believe me when I tell her I met you on my way home( late) from what she would think was a septuagenarian piss-up [if that’s not an oxymoron].  He graciously scribbled a wee note: ” Yes, Be..y, JC really did meet me..”
Mrs C ‘ Gathering her brows like gathering storm’, very quickly un-gathered them.
Nothing like a bit of evidence of innocence.
Except maybe, plenty of evidence of guilt, as some people might eventually find out.

View Comment

tayred

tayredPosted on8:39 am - Apr 14, 2016


CARFINS FINESTAPRIL 13, 2016 at 21:21 
Before the League Cup semi final last season between Celtic and TRFC the feeling was that there would be trouble. This was peddled by the SMSM. But the blood letting did not materialise.

—————————————————–
Fingers crossed it passes as peacefully as possible. My fear is that the situation is a little different this time round. I doubt many TRFC fans really went into the last game with much hope. The game itself was, to be frank, dull. There were no incidents, no flash points, and as I have stated previously it seemed pretty clear that Celtic were told 2 goal difference and no more. Humiliation was clearly off the table, even if after 5 minutes it was clear it was entirely possible. I’d imagine the teams will be having it drilled into them again that they must behave. The worry is always that there are a lot of players, especially in the TRFC side, that will not have experienced this game, and who will have no real knowledge of the powder keg that it is. 

This time round it is closer to an even match. Celtic are still clear favourites obviously, and should have far too much for TRFC. But its a cup game, a one off, 11 v 11 and all that commentator guff. There is belief amongst the TRFC support, the media are doing their best as usual to whip everything unto a frenzy. I sincerely hope it passes peacefully, but I will be imploring my loved ones down in Glasgow to have a lazy day in the comfort of their flat. Those days we apparently all missed so much are back in Glasgow, I for one really don’t miss them, I certainly never enjoyed them and would always try to find some excuse to be away from Glasgow when I had what was otherwise the great pleasure of living there. 

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on9:31 am - Apr 14, 2016


Upthehoops
There is no law which says you must buy a TV licence. However, if you wish to use the broadcasting service, you must pay for it by buying a licence, just as you would have to pay for the TV before walking out of the shop with it.

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on10:31 am - Apr 14, 2016


Truth and Reconcilliation in Scottish Football.  By HellofaBeating great read

https://t.co/B8TOYiLe4P

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:53 am - Apr 14, 2016


Auldheid April 14, 2016 at 00:11
easyJamboApril 13, 2016 at 18:04
I never could make head nor tail of those amounts in tax terms. I thought grossing up might be a factor but not that simple way of doing it.
So any idea how much Sir David Murray rode into the sunset with?
==============================
It took me a little time to work it out, but I got there in the end.  The Section 8 Decisions relate to the employers NIC figues for the “grossed up” amounts. The Employer NIC percentages used were 11.9% and 11.8% for the first two years then 13.8% for the remainder.

Mark Daly reported that SDM received £6.3M via his EBT.  Grossed up, that would be £10.5M if he had paid PAYE and the club NICs on that sum.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:57 am - Apr 14, 2016


Another indicator of how BDO may fare their appeal came in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision not to hear the Eclipse Film Partners 35 LLP appeal.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/money/tax/article4732491.ece?shareToken=c440f4c9f90409be3d427f77078d6273

This is the tax scam that involved a number of footballers and other celebrity investors.

View Comment

tayred

tayredPosted on11:06 am - Apr 14, 2016


Valentinesclown, I was with him until he pops up with the same tired prose:

Their games with Celtic will garner world-wide attention and create more interest in Scottish football than any other match would. Grant Russell, the STV journalist who is a sharp and articulate (and in my opinion, very fair) voice in Scottish football media, makes a sensible point when he argues that the term ‘Old Firm’ is Scottish football best recognisable ‘brand’ on an international stage and it should still be utilised as much as possible.

Really? The world wide attention of Rangers and Celtic fans maybe, and yes there are many of them. But most fans of clubs outside Glasgow (and many inside Glasgow) truly are not interested in the festival of hatred and bile. In fact most fans I know would prefer it was wiped off the calendar permanently. The interest is the only in the same was folk are interested in car-crash tv, its not interest in the football game itself.

Which brings me to the second point – Scottish footballs most recognisable brand – how embarrassing. Makes you proud to be Scottish doesn’t it – two groups of supporters consumed by religious hatred singing vile songs at each other for 90 minutes before spilling out into the rest of society with unfortunate repercussions for a number of innocent wives, children and passers by wearing the wrong colour of shirt. Yet they will all return to normal on Monday morning, these folk will go back to work side-by-side with their arch-enemy of the day before – some gentle ribbing and talk of how the behaviour on Sunday was just a laugh. Aye thats a great brand to flog to the outside world that is.

Nothing like all fans take part in the bad stuff, I know that – the vast majority of fans don’t partake in the violence or trouble making, just a highly select few idiots bring that shame on Scotland. However, the singing – well that isn’t just a few, but its just a song, just a bit of fun, whats the harm in a sing-song….

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on11:33 am - Apr 14, 2016


Big win for Hmrc
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/money/tax/article4732491.ece?shareToken=c440f4c9f90409be3d427f77078d6273

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:50 am - Apr 14, 2016


TAYREDAPRIL 14, 2016 at 11:06

I hear what you say a agree with the sentiments but the reality is that is usually the horrible and historic rivalries (often involving the ‘big names’ of the sport) that grabs sports fans attention and therefore are the one seen by the TV and media as the one to showcase. 

http://soccerlens.com/most-violent-football-rivalries/36725/ 
http://www.thesportster.com/entertainment/top-25-biggest-sports-team-rivalries-in-the-world/?view=all

Muhammad Ali had 61 fights but it is the three punishing bouts with Frazier that most folk will remember as opposed to the 5th round knock out of Alejandro Lavorante in 1962. 

If the ‘Old Firm’ could be repackaged as a more gentlemanly, mutual respect type affair such as the Nicklaus v Watson ‘Duel in the sun’ then all the better but clearly that isn’t going to happen. Especially given all those years of bitterness emanating from the south side.!!!

View Comment

tayred

tayredPosted on12:04 pm - Apr 14, 2016


Wottpi, yes I know. But then again, taking your second link for example. Does anyone here pay any particular attention to Lazio versus Roma, or Benfica versus Porto? Then why do you think someone from Rome or Lisbon would be remotely interested in Celtic v Rangers? Arsenal v Tottenham and Liverpool v Man Utd are listed too, but I am pretty unaware of any baggage that comes close to the “old” firm shenanigans. Historically there probably is to an extent, but the key phrase is historically.

Do you think the Enlgish press would be even remotely interested if Celtic v Rangers was just a football match in the same way as Arsenal v Tottenham? No, they are interested because of what else it represents. They are interested because its some historical throwback that is “fun” took look into from outside, its humiliating. But the SMSM tell us all how glad we should be to have it, how nobody would care if it wasn’t for this match. The truth is nobody cares outside Scotland, nobody cares at all about Scottish football beyond these shores! That being the case why do we continue to put up with this crap, why does nobody  involved in the organisation of Scottish football ever consider the bigger picture.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on12:39 pm - Apr 14, 2016


Reading the 90 minute cynic blog, VC posted @ 10:31 got me thinking. Stringing some threads together, and adding in a wee bit of optimistic supposin’ has lead me to a possible explanation to Smith’s outrageous outburst earlier this week. 
   If I can start with BP’s post that Celtic and Aberdeen were “perplexed” at the prospects of season ticket sales. (Respect to BP, and I would say he wouldn’t have posted if merely a rumour).  It’s fairly easy to see that clubs would be spitting feathers at a downturn in sales while a faux club prospers on the back of gains made by their predecessor. 
    In Res 12, they have a weighty club to beat the SFA about the head and body with, which on the surface, they have little defence against.  
   Could quiet negotiations be going on behind closed doors, to reach such a “Truth and conciliation” beginning for Scottish fitba’, with title stripping, and an end to the “same club” myth,  back on the agenda in those discussions. There is ample evidence to discredit both the LNS outcome, and the myth. The BTC and Fraudco trials not looking too rosy for them either. 
    In return, the SFA get an amnesty over the hooky Euro license, and the old club takes the rap. Some bodies would need to quietly retire, or resign, and new checks and balances put in place for PR-ness 
    If this was anywhere near reality, Walter Myth would possibly have the most to lose, as Minty and his family have a cosy vineyard away from the WoS.  Smith would become that very thing. A myth in his own backyard, where once he was lord and master!   With free lunches drying up, and a hefty tax-bill on the way, its not a great prospect. His next visit to the “club” he loves, may involve paying in. 
      He has been very quiet of late, almost anonymous in fact, but it would not be the first time that a RRM crawled out of the woodwork, resorting to cage rattling to secure his future. Even Charlie twigged to that old chestnut. 
    Just supposin like !… Glass half fu’ stylee…. I think even the Res 12 Bhoys may be reasonably happy with that.  

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on12:46 pm - Apr 14, 2016


TAYREDAPRIL 14, 2016 at 12:04

The reason people have lost sight of the big picture is because as you imply many within the game are trying to be a Billy Big Baws when in fact we have always been a small fish in a big pond.

Yes the three European triumphs (plus Super Cup) by Celtic, Rangers and Aberdeen are to be applauded but they occurred decades ago.

The game has moved on and while Celtic and Rangers managed to get to the Europa cup finals not so long ago it can be seen that, despite Celtic’s occasional decent showing in the CL,  run of the mill teams from other small footballing nations can cut the mustard these days.

Fans on my own club refer to us as ‘The Famous’ Heart of Midlothian a bit tongue in cheek at times but it still displays the need and want to be recognized.

I don’t know what the figures are but there does seem to be a belief that there is a worldwide audience out there that is pumping top dollar into the Scottish game. 

Given Celtic’s ability to secure reasonable multi million pound sponsorship deals there must be some truth in that argument. I am sure the likes of Lazio and Roma may feel the same. Therefore that is why there is a marketing and media focus on ceretain games and rivalries.

However I am not convinced that it wholly applies and therefore, as stated many times before, I would prefer to see a bigger picture being recognized by the authorities and the media whereby more work was undertaken on developing the next generation of home grown Scottish players (and indeed other sports men & women for that matter).

The aim should be to have a wide range of players of a reasonable standard that sees the domestic leagues full of skilled attractive players, even if the ‘best of the best’ end up leaving and plying their trade around the globe. 

View Comment

Avatar

naegreetinPosted on12:58 pm - Apr 14, 2016


Ref Easy Jambo 14 April @ 10.57

I note on the Times link re Eclipse 35 getting knocked back by the Supreme Court (on a side page link) that Baroness “Start Up” Mone of Mayfair had/has an EBT for £500K dating back to 2009-11 – if there is one person I find more nauseating than SDM it is our Michelle – a complete chancer who like the Knight of the Realm talks a great game & doesn’t bear too close financial inspection . Here’s hoping HMRC have a good look at her tax position .

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on1:14 pm - Apr 14, 2016


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gordon-parks-hibs-dundee-united-7750010#cuTuXlkUlg55OelH.97 The latest from the Daily Record, penned by Gordon Parks- of course if a club from Ibrox wins the cup, then all is well with the world.

Here’s a thought. If either Hibs or United somehow climb the Hampden steps in May to take a bow of glory, the rule that awards our national cup winners a European spot should be scrapped.
There have been enough continental flops in recent seasons. So for the sake of Scottish football’s credibility, can we afford a Hibs or United to fly the flag on foreign shores next term?
At the rate they’re going, they’d be making their exit before Euro 2016 was finished.
Read more at http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gordon-parks-hibs-dundee-united-7750010#GAVtj5ZjU0Love1E.99

View Comment

tayred

tayredPosted on1:46 pm - Apr 14, 2016


That statement from Parks is appalling. Sporting merit and integrity folks! Not important in Scotland.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on2:01 pm - Apr 14, 2016


Kevin Friend was due to referee the Tottenham v Stoke match next week . The Premier League have replaced him, because he is a Leicester supporter.
Perhaps they were afraid he would make an “honest mistake”. He will now officiate at Newcastle.

View Comment

Avatar

smartie1947Posted on2:46 pm - Apr 14, 2016


Oddjob @ 14.01

If the SFA were to adopt such a policy there would be no referees available to officiate at RFC fixtures.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on2:50 pm - Apr 14, 2016


SMARTIE1947,
I somehow get the feeling it’s a practice that will not catch on north of the border !!

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on3:11 pm - Apr 14, 2016


NEEPHEIDAPRIL 14, 2016 at 13:14

Of course the Gordon Parks piece is just the type of juvenile contribution Scottish Football can do without.

They will most likely have ‘Hibsed it’ (my juvenile contribution) by some point. However any sensible review of their cup performance this year would show that should if they win the Scottish Cup then Hibs, on their route, will have beaten either the Premiership or Championship winners and the Premiership 3rd placed team (at present) Hearts along with taking the scalp of Premiership club ICT.

In the League Cup competition they have beaten Premiership 2nd place (current) Aberdeen, St Johnstone (conquerors of T’Rangers and currently Premiership 5th) and Dundee Utd.

In that final they lost out to a late winner by current Premiership 6th opposition Ross County.

Why, given a background of recent reasonable cup runs,  would they be less worthy of a stab at Europe K.O qualifying rounds compared to any other club? They are of course worthy as anyone else should results go their way.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:31 pm - Apr 14, 2016


I know he is an elderly gentleman now and may be a bit forgetful, however does Walter think that the Rangers support may be a bit bitter towards him, given his previous position.

===================================================
“We wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune.”
Smith won 21 trophies over two spells as manager of Rangers but the club, who went into administration in February, are heading for liquidation, prompting Green’s purchase of the assets.
===================================================

It is also interesting to note the tone of the piece with regards what was in administration and was heading for liquidation, the club.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18503656

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:37 pm - Apr 14, 2016


Perhaps they reserve their bitterness for him taking the position of Chairman when Charles Green was in charge, thus supporting that regime and keeping the support onside.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on3:58 pm - Apr 14, 2016


HOMUNCULUS
between smith and mcoist they convinced fans to get season books knowing fine well it was a new club,but hey their pockets got lined so they didnt care

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on4:33 pm - Apr 14, 2016


Hi guys,
Not posted in a while but trying to keep up to date.
Have you seen this and does it mean anything:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08011390/charges/Me24AKQ6MsIjrFWseg5wmuezAiY

View Comment

Avatar

CarlylePosted on4:56 pm - Apr 14, 2016


NaeGreetin’,
You may be encouraged by the proposed changes to the EBT rules announced in the budget (this may have been discussed on here already). She may yet have to cough up the PAYE.

http://www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/Articles/2016/04/05/334565/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose

Couple of interesting paras:
“Under the proposals, loans to beneficiaries outstanding on 5 April 2019 will be subject to a PAYE charge on that date on the full value of the loan. This is regardless of when the loan was taken out. So a person may have taken a loan in, say, 2006, well before the disguised remuneration was thought about and when prevailing case law was against HMRC on the PAYE matter. Nevertheless a PAYE charge will arise. There are a few exceptions to this rule but they appear to be insignificant and do not affect the general principle.

The government is also proposing to make it easier to collect the PAYE on this liability from the individual rather than the company. This is again a major change. There are circumstances under the existing rules in which PAYE liability can be transferred to an individual but these are complex and do not naturally apply in an EBT context. It is not clear from the documents, but it seems that this power will be available for all charges under the disguised remuneration regime – not just those relating to loans unpaid at 5 April 2019.”

And also,
“On the assumption that the proposed changes go through, companies with existing EBTs have little room for manoeuvre. Individuals with outstanding loans will have two choices. They can repay them before 5 April 2019 and avoid a tax charge. But it will mean that the funds are trapped inside the EBT and cannot be removed without triggering a tax charge. It may be a short-term fix but it does not make the problem go away. Or individuals can keep the loans and trigger a PAYE charge on 5 April, exposing themselves to a personal liability. The only other alternative is to wind up the EBT before 5 April and either seek settlement with HMRC (before final winding up) or to trigger a PAYE charge on the winding up. In any event, a PAYE liability seems to be staring virtually all unresolved EBTs in the face.”

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:10 pm - Apr 14, 2016


CARLYLEAPRIL 14, 2016 at 16:56
And also,“On the assumption that the proposed changes go through, companies with existing EBTs have little room for manoeuvre. Individuals with outstanding loans will have two choices. They can repay them before 5 April 2019 and avoid a tax charge. But it will mean that the funds are trapped inside the EBT and cannot be removed without triggering a tax charge. It may be a short-term fix but it does not make the problem go away. Or individuals can keep the loans and trigger a PAYE charge on 5 April, exposing themselves to a personal liability. The only other alternative is to wind up the EBT before 5 April and either seek settlement with HMRC (before final winding up) or to trigger a PAYE charge on the winding up. In any event, a PAYE liability seems to be staring virtually all unresolved EBTs in the face.”
———————-
I may be wrong so please correct me if i am.
Has the cut off point to pay back an EBT loan not now lapsed? That if a person had an EBT the time to pay it back without incurring any interest and penalty now seems to be staring virtually all unresolved EBTs in the face.

View Comment

Avatar

SouthernExilePosted on6:20 pm - Apr 14, 2016


OT a bit, but surely the biggest football related scandal for some time. 
50k capacity Olympic stadium rented to club for £2.5m pa. Landlord aka taxpayer responsible for pitch maintenance, building maintenance, insurances, match day security and policing. If club falls out of top division, rental falls to £1.25m. 
Deal of the century, taxpayer Hammered!

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on8:07 pm - Apr 14, 2016


I have a memory, perhaps flawed, that RFC(IL) did not transfer their SPL share as requested and Dundee were actually allocated a spare share for the 12/13 season.  Am I imagining this?

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on8:11 pm - Apr 14, 2016


Southern Exile, to be fair to West Ham, the £2.5m rental is for only 25 days in the year, as I understand it – presumably the number of days they might actually have home games? If that’s right, I don’t think the rental is too bad – it’s how little they’ve had to contribute to the cost of making it suitable for football that s the ridiculous part of the deal! £15m out of £272m!! Isn’t that state aid? It seems they also stand to benefit from any future sale of the stadium naming rights as well as a reduction (to zero!) of their matchday costs.
I realise the LLDC feel they need an anchor tenant, but in these times of austerity, it feels like they’ve simply given West Ham a lot of taxpayers’ money.
As with our clubs, though, it seems that no other clubs are claiming it’s an unfair advantage. Apart from Barry Hearn’s Orient, of course, who are no doubt deemed too small/diddy to matter. I wonder how the Premiership clubs will feel if West Ham outspend them and win the EPL next year.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:07 pm - Apr 14, 2016


CARLYLEAPRIL 14, 2016 at 16:56
To reply to an earlier post and to seek some clarification i had a look and found this.
Tax expert Andrew Watters, of accountancy firm Thomas Egger, has represented several EBT clients Watters believes that agreeing a settlement with the taxman may be the best way out for players. He said: “HMRC have had a recent EBT settlement opportunity and a lot of people have settled under that opportunity.

HMRC say they have already claimed back £1.3billion of tax from settlements with 1500 companies. The new legislation is targeted to claw back £24billion by 2021.

Former Rangers stars could be forced to pay back millions of pounds after Employee Benefit Trusts were targeted in George Osborne’s Budget.
What i don’t know is when the settlement opportunity elapsed for the rangers EBT clients? was it so many day’s or weeks after the budget? Did the rangers EBT clients know their date for a settlement opportynity but refused to cough up?

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins FinestPosted on10:09 pm - Apr 14, 2016


‘Police Scotland plans to remove domestic abusers from homes ahead of Old Firm match’
This headline alone should make people acutely aware of what is round the corner for Scottish Football. This is what is ‘Returning’

View Comment

Avatar

CarlylePosted on10:46 pm - Apr 14, 2016


When I clicked on my original link I saw it was an abbreviated article. Hopefully, below, you will find the full text.  I guess it depends on what is meant by ‘unresolved’. Perhaps our legal beagles can help out …

Heads I win, tails you lose
By:
Andrew Hubbard.06 April 2016
HMRC’s latest proposals for dealing with employee benefit trusts.

KEY POINTS Reasons for setting up employee benefit trusts. Corporation tax or PAYE problem for HMRC? One tax charge will be due on funds in an EBT. Significant game changer will come in 2017. Options remaining for unresolved EBTs.
Last week’s Taxation carried an impassioned comment article by Graham Webber, ‘Lifting the disguise’, (page 8) on the effect of the Budget proposals on disguised remuneration in the contractor market place. However, the changes do have wider implications, particularly as they affect employee benefit trusts (EBTs) and other similar structures, such as employer-funded retirement benefits schemes. Unless otherwise specified, references to EBTs in this article include other such arrangements.

Standing back
It is necessary first to contextualise the proposed changes.
Trusts and other funds for the benefit of employees have been a feature of business life for many years. Often they were established by benevolent employers as a form of hardship fund or safety net for employees who had fallen on hard times and needed help. But the EBT arrangements under discussion here have been driven, at least in part, by tax considerations. I first encountered EBTs in the mid-1980s when I was a tax inspector. They were used as a vehicle to save National Insurance because the National Insurance regulations then did not cater properly for payments out of trusts. That loophole was soon blocked.

Nine month rule
But the main driver for EBTs was the introduction of the rule in FA 1989, s 43 that prevented a deduction for remuneration unpaid within nine months of the year end. Before that legislation was enacted, many companies sought to reduce their corporation tax bills by making some form of general bonus accrual. Those were tax deductible on general principles, and often led to large sums of corporation tax being saved with a corresponding income tax charge arising only when the accrual was satisfied, which might not be for many years.
Section 43 was intended to prevent this one-sided treatment, but it was realised that the same effect could be obtained by making a payment into an EBT instead of an accrual. At the time there was no specific legislation dealing with EBT contributions and, in most cases, deductions for contributions were not disallowed. Often what happened to the funds in the EBT was a secondary issue. Sometimes they stayed there, sometimes they were loaned back to the company and sometimes they were loaned to beneficiaries.
I stress this because, although the later developments in legislation were intended to prevent the use of EBTs as a remuneration device, HMRC’s early concern was at least as much about corporation tax deductibility. Indeed, the main reason that the department took so long to make any headway in progressing enquiries was because of this dual nature. In some early cases, assessing time limits for PAYE and National Insurance were missed because HMRC was concentrating on corporation tax deductibility rather than what happened to the funds in the EBT.
The landmark decision in Dextra Accessories Ltd and others v CRC [2005] STC 1111 gave HMRC some hope that corporation tax deductibility for EBT contributions could be blocked. This was because the court ruled that the EBT contributions were potential emoluments and therefore subject to the s 43 restriction. But to put the matter, as it was thought, beyond doubt, what became FA 2003, Sch 24 was introduced. This prevented corporation tax deductions for EBT contributions until the funds in the arrangement were used to make payments of earnings. But, as ever, matters were not that simple. The initial versions of Sch 24 were narrowly focused and it proved fairly easy to find indirect ways of establishing EBTs without falling foul of the prohibition. Eventually, the legislation was tightened to cover most, if not all, forms of indirect funding.

Change of tack
The irony is that by then corporation tax deductibility was hardly an issue. The main focus had switched to what happened at the other end of the transaction. HMRC argued that the arrangements almost always gave rise to an earnings charge with a consequent PAYE and National Insurance liability. If an earnings charge did arise, HMRC decreed there was symmetry of treatment and that a corporation tax deduction arose.
So attention turned increasingly to what happened to the EBT funds. In most cases the main funds were allocated to sub-trusts for named beneficiaries and their families and often, though not always, interest-free loans were then made to the beneficiaries out of those sub-trusts. HMRC was not always specific about whether it was the EBT contribution, the allocation to the sub-trusts or the loans that created the earnings charge, but gradually the thinking coalesced towards the view that the charge was triggered at the point of allocation to the sub-trust.
HMRC’s problem was that Dextra decided that the arrangements, which involved loans and sub-trusts, did not trigger an earnings charge. The special commissioners had decided this on the facts and HMRC did not pursue the argument further. It should be noted, because the point is often overlooked, that this was a finding of fact, not of law, and was therefore specific to that set of circumstances.
We also had the developing Murray Group Holdings saga [2015] CSIH 77 where football players had received what looked like contractual bonuses through EBT loans. Most commentators were surprised when the First-tier Tribunal – on a split decision – found against HMRC and this undoubtedly gave new heart to those who continued to argue that their EBT arrangements worked. Corporation tax deductibility was not an issue in that case because of losses. But then the Court of Session threw what can only be described as a curveball by finding for HMRC on the basis that there had been a diversion of earnings by the players. That decision, whatever view one takes of EBT arrangements, is highly controversial because of its wider implications and will be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the government decided to try to put a stop to EBTs once and for all by introducing the disguised remuneration legislation in FA 2011. This is some of the most complicated legislation ever seen in the income tax area (I had the dubious pleasure of having to prepare line-by-line analysis for the Finance Act handbook) and, in many places, it is in danger of collapsing under its own weight. It attempts to prevent further use of third-party structures by saying, in broad terms, that any value an employer puts into a structure and comes out to an employee is taxable, regardless of the form in which the value is received. In particular, loans out of structures are treated as if they were absolute payments of earnings.
The government expected that the disguised remuneration legislation would lead not only to no more EBT structures being put in place, but also to everybody unwinding their existing ones. In essence, the view was: if we don’t get you going in we will get you coming out.
In the belief that nobody would want to keep their EBT, the government created a settlement opportunity. This was open-ended for a while but shut to new entrants on 31 March last year. It had relatively favourable terms and many companies did take advantage of it to draw matters to a conclusion. But many more, probably most, did not and wanted to keep their options open, particularly until the final decision in the Murray Holdings case.
So for various reasons, HMRC is still faced with thousands – the statistics are disputed – of open EBT enquiries, some going back more than ten years. The Budget 2016 announcements are intended finally to clear the backlog.

2016 announcements
There are several elements to the 2016 announcements. Some of these have immediate effect and are included in the Finance Bill. Others, including the most important, will be legislated next year.
Targeted anti-avoidance rule
The key concept in the disguised remuneration legislation was that a tax charge arose when value came out of the EBT. Therefore if only one asset came out of the trust and was replaced by another of similar value no charge arose.
Say my sub-fund contains £1m and the trustees use all of that to buy some land from me worth £1m, no transfer of value has taken place and therefore there is nothing on which to tax me. ITEPA 2003, s 554Z8 gives effect to this stating, when consideration is given for a relevant step, no charge arises. But HMRC has seen, presumably through DOTAS disclosures, cases where such an exchange has been used as part of a tax avoidance arrangement to extract real value from the EBT. Therefore, from 17 March 2016, the relief under s 554Z8 is not available when there is a connection (direct or indirect) between the consideration given and a tax avoidance arrangement.
Para 59 credit
The broad intention of the legislation is that there should be only one charge on the funds in an EBT. If there was no charge when the funds went in, there is one when they come out. But if there was a charge on entering, there is not one on exiting. The mechanism for this is the [FA 2011, Sch 2] para 59 credit. In essence, this states that, if there was a PAYE charge on the funds at an earlier stage, or settlement is reached with HMRC to accept one earlier, no charge is due when the funds finally exit the EBT, typically when it is wound up. The PAYE charge on entry franks the charge on exit.
That works well when the funds are loaned out immediately to an individual, but not so well when they remain in the EBT and grow in value, through investment. Para 59(1)(f)(ii) exempted that investment return from a charge (depending on circumstances that growth might have been taxed in the EBT or subject to a charge under the transfer of assets abroad legislation). To encourage companies to settle their EBT cases, this credit will not be available if the tax has not been paid on the original earnings element by 30 November 2016. Thus, when the funds are distributed out of the EBT the investment element will be subject to a PAYE charge. See X Ltd.

Other amendments
An amendment to para 59 is being made to ensure that payments on account and payments under accelerated payment notices and follower notices cannot be taken into account for the purposes of a para 59 credit.
However, the Budget day documents talk in terms of such payments being taken into account to avoid a double charge to tax. It is not clear what is meant by this. I assume it is connected with next year’s changes. This will need close attention during the consultation for those later changes.
A minor technical amendment is made to s 554Z2 to ensure that when more than one person benefits from a particular step any income tax liability can be apportioned on a just and reasonable basis between them.

Overall effect
The targeted anti-avoidance rule will make it more difficult for people to devise schemes that allow for sums to be withdrawn from existing EBTs without triggering a PAYE charge. But it would take a more confident writer than me to say that the door has been closed completely.
Similarly, the restriction of the para 59 credit will make it more likely that cases in which there has been significant investment growth in an EBT will be settled sooner rather than later. Neither of them is, however, a game changer.

The future
The measures to come in 2017 will transform the dynamic. We do not have the detailed legislation and it will be subject to consultation but, if it resembles the proposals, everybody who has clients with unresolved EBT enquiries will have to think carefully about what advice to give.
Under the proposals, loans to beneficiaries outstanding on 5 April 2019 will be subject to a PAYE charge on that date on the full value of the loan. This is regardless of when the loan was taken out. So a person may have taken a loan in, say, 2006, well before the disguised remuneration was thought about and when prevailing case law was against HMRC on the PAYE matter. Nevertheless a PAYE charge will arise. There are a few exceptions to this rule but they appear to be insignificant and do not affect the general principle.
The government is also proposing to make it easier to collect the PAYE on this liability from the individual rather than the company. This is again a major change. There are circumstances under the existing rules in which PAYE liability can be transferred to an individual but these are complex and do not naturally apply in an EBT context. It is not clear from the documents, but it seems that this power will be available for all charges under the disguised remuneration regime – not just those relating to loans unpaid at 5 April 2019.
I foresee all kinds of difficulties in framing the legislation in a way that operates both practically and fairly.
Further technical charges are also proposed to the provisions to tighten perceived weaknesses and interactions between parts of the legislation, but the detail will have to wait until the consultation paper is issued.

What options are left?
On the assumption that the proposed changes go through, companies with existing EBTs have little room for manoeuvre. Individuals with outstanding loans will have two choices. They can repay them before 5 April 2019 and avoid a tax charge. But it will mean that the funds are trapped inside the EBT and cannot be removed without triggering a tax charge. It may be a short-term fix but it does not make the problem go away. Or individuals can keep the loans and trigger a PAYE charge on
5 April, exposing themselves to a personal liability.
The only other alternative is to wind up the EBT before 5 April and either seek settlement with HMRC (before final winding up) or to trigger a PAYE charge on the winding up. In any event, a PAYE liability seems to be staring virtually all unresolved EBTs in the face.
The position could change – after all, there have been so many twists and turns in this saga. The government might drop the proposal for an automatic PAYE charge on 5 April 2019 (although this seems unlikely) and there could be further developments in the courts. The Supreme Court decision in Murray Holdings is bound to have some impact.
We may hope that, at the very least, HMRC explains in detail how it intends to settle existing EBT cases given these changes. So it is not necessarily time to rush into action. But advisers who have clients with outstanding EBT enquiries should have an honest and realistic discussion on where it is all heading.
It would be a pyrrhic victory of extreme proportions if a court found in a client’s favour on 4 April 2019 that the EBT loan scheme it had implemented did not trigger a PAYE liability but, on the next day, a PAYE liability arose under the new legislation.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on11:13 pm - Apr 14, 2016


TorreJboy
What it means is even more trouble. Complications abound.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:14 pm - Apr 14, 2016


tykebhoyApril 14, 2016 at 20:07
‘..I have a memory, perhaps flawed, that RFC(IL) did not transfer their SPL share as requested and Dundee were actually allocated a spare share for the 12/13 season. Am I imagining this?’
______
Not entirely sure if this is immediately helpful, tykebhoy, but it may be of relevance.

“Charles Green’s newco Rangers saw their SPL application rejected and will start the new season in the Third Division while a short SPL statement has now confirmed Dundee as their replacement.
The statement read: ‘At eight minutes past ten this morning, the member clubs unanimously approved the transfer of Rangers’ SPL share to Dundee Football Club.
‘Dundee FC is now a member of the SPL.’ (3rd August 2012 report in the Daily Mail)

Now,the current SPFL Articles of Association has this :
“Whenever a requirement to transfer a Share shall arise, if the relevant Member shall fail to transfer its Share within three (3) days of notice having been given of the requirement to so transfer, the Board may authorise any Director to execute a transfer thereof and a transfer so executed shall be valid and effective as if the same had been executed by the Member concernedand the transferee shall on payment of the sum of £1 to the Secretary to be held in trust for the transferor be entered in the register of Members as the holder of such Share.”
I would imagine that this provision was not new, but had been  carried over when the SFL was absorbed?

So, even if RFC(IL) physically held on to the share certificate, it would be invalidated and counted as nothing.
A new bit of paper might have had to be printed, or, indeed, there might have been a ‘spare’ one , not yet validated,lying in the company safe.

It would, of course, have been typical of RFC(IL)’s dog-in-the -manger attitude of bloody-mindedness and troublesomeness, not to have complied with the rules they had previously signed up to.

In pretty much the same way as the cheat known as SDM had not complied with the rules about telling the Football authorities  what he was actually paying his players, for fear of alerting the taxman to his ( knowing) use of a dodgy tax avoidance scheme.

View Comment

Avatar

occamPosted on11:19 pm - Apr 14, 2016


CARLYLE
Slightly ‘tongue in cheek’ but also recalling a reference elsewhere to this site some time ago as ‘somewhere that lets 5000 words describe what could be said in …. 500’ (not an exact quotation but you get my drift…)  .. and also in the spirit of my own favoured philosopher and ‘nom de plume’… Agree with all you wrote …. at a skim.. ‘the gift to see ourselves as others see us …’  02

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:23 pm - Apr 14, 2016


Carfins FinestApril 14, 2016 at 22:09
‘..‘Police Scotland plans to remove domestic abusers from homes ahead of Old Firm match’This headline alone should make people acutely aware of what is round the corner for Scottish Football.’
_______
Where is that headline, Carfins Finest? It’s possibly the most alarming headline I’ve read, of all the alarming stuff that has appeared since the creation of Police Scotland. Has Jack Housey-housey not yet disappeared?

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on11:41 pm - Apr 14, 2016


JOHN CLARK

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14426807.Police_to__remove_serial_domestic_abusers_from_homes__ahead_of_Old_Firm_match/

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on11:46 pm - Apr 14, 2016


https://medium.com/@janeygodley_42972/domestic-violence-in-glasgow-at-old-firm-games-6fb102969693#.4oghxjays

a response to police scotland rounding up domestic abusers

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on11:53 pm - Apr 14, 2016


Well said Janey.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:00 am - Apr 15, 2016


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)April 14, 2016 at 16:33
‘..Not posted in a while but trying to keep up to date.Have you seen this and does it mean anything:https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08011390/charges/Me24AKQ6MsIjrFWseg5wmuezAiY
_____
That was a very good spot, tjb.

It might be connected to the appeal( to be heard on 13th May) by the Rangers FC Group Ltd against Lord Doherty’s refusal ( for fear of prejudicing the Fraudco case) to let them argue their case against Law Financial ( wavetower as was), as director of  Sevco 5088 .

Maybe an attempt to raise money to help fund a continuation of legal action to get the many millions that I think most of us believe … oops!

But maybe not.

We’ll maybe get an idea when Companies House posts the details in a few days.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:39 am - Apr 15, 2016


tonyApril 14, 2016 at 23:46
‘a response to police scotland rounding up domestic abusers’
______
Thanks for the links, Tony.

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins FinestPosted on6:36 am - Apr 15, 2016


John Clark
April 14, 2016 at 23:23

Carfins FinestApril 14, 2016 at 22:09 ‘..‘Police Scotland plans to remove domestic abusers from homes ahead of Old Firm match’This headline alone should make people acutely aware of what is round the corner for Scottish Football.’ _______ Where is that headline, Carfins Finest? It’s possibly the most alarming headline I’ve read, of all the alarming stuff that has appeared since the creation of Police Scotland. Has Jack Housey-housey not yet disappeared?
——————
JC I see Tony has provided the necessary on my behalf. Thanks Tony.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:15 am - Apr 15, 2016


I see some online quotes are still around this morning regarding the thoughts of Chairman Walter earlier in the week. They appear to be emanating from the Daily Record and once again reiterating it was ‘unnecessary for Rangers to be put down to the bottom league’. Is Scotland the only developed nation in the world where such nonsense would be freely peddled in the media? Is it going to be ‘unnecessary’ if Rangers are not allowed to beat Celtic on Sunday? Is it going to be ‘unnecessary’ if Rangers are not allowed to win the league next season? If Walter Smith truly believes in the game of football as a sport he really needs to take a long hard look at himself. Then again he was reared as a Rangers fan in a country where the media and footballing authorities made it clear they regarded Rangers and those who support them as superior to others. At the same time certain others were regarded as an underclass. When people grow up believing something is untouchable no matter what, then there is going to be a problem. There is a while to go before those attitudes can be fully overcome.

Off to work now. Happy Friday everyone!

View Comment

Avatar

Kilgore TroutPosted on7:55 am - Apr 15, 2016


Upthehoops

View Comment

Avatar

sixtaesevenPosted on8:01 am - Apr 15, 2016


Incredible heading in the Daily Rangers – even for that gutter-trolling rag:
“Celtic and Ran*ers heroes facing financial ruin as HMRC send cash demands over tax avoidance schemes”
Whit?
Not a single mention of a hoops hero in the “article”… plenty of thems, though.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on8:25 am - Apr 15, 2016


sixtaesevenApril 15, 2016 at 08:01 
Incredible heading in the Daily Rangers – even for that gutter-trolling rag: “Celtic and Ran*ers heroes facing financial ruin as HMRC send cash demands over tax avoidance schemes” Whit? Not a single mention of a hoops hero in the “article”… plenty of thems, though.
—————————————————
Typical Daily Record.I seem to recall(maybe wrongly) that CFCs only venture near an EBT was the payment of one players termination money into a trust which I think was actually set up by Middlesborough.Celtics chairman,Brian Quinn,not being sure of the situation,actually contacted HMRC for advice.After receiving said advice,basically that HMRC considered this as a form of tax avoidance,CFC paid any tax due.
To me it seems CFC actually went out of their way to ensure everything was above board.To tie them into the Rangers EBT scandal is disgraceful.Keith Jackson knows the facts but runs with the story anyway.Probably another award coming his way this year.2020

View Comment

tayred

tayredPosted on9:11 am - Apr 15, 2016


sixtaesevenApril 15, 2016 at 08:01 Incredible heading in the Daily Rangers – even for that gutter-trolling rag: “Celtic and Ran*ers heroes facing financial ruin as HMRC send cash demands over tax avoidance schemes” Whit? Not a single mention of a hoops hero in the “article”… plenty of thems, though.

—————————————————

Green/Blue issue aside, what was the DR headline last week when the Panama/Cameron story broke? Were they full of sympathy for Cameron or was he not described as a hero?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:14 am - Apr 15, 2016


UTH,

It was of course ‘unnecessary’ for Rangers* to cheat, whore themselves and ultimately go bang in the manner they did.  They had a natural competitive advantage over the other 40 clubs, friendly bankers, blinkered rules officials and placemen.  With those perks they still only needed to take one more from THEM than they did the other way.

Don’t expect that headline any time soon either!

View Comment

incredibleadamspark

incredibleadamsparkPosted on9:14 am - Apr 15, 2016


The Record headline is to get people reading, clicking and/or outraged. Typical tabloid tactic. I think they are writing about tax avoidance schemes in general, which apparently a number of former Celtic players and a few of their managers had been involved in. Plenty of others too but look, the old firm are back! What are they like!?

Easyjambo posted a link the other day regarding Eclipse Film Partnerships. Many celebrities and sportspeople had schemes with film production type company’s which now appear to be under scrutiny from HMRC. Good.

We all know why such things exist. It’s to enrich the already wealthy whilst the average taxpayer gets on with the business of paying what they owe. 

View Comment

celtic fc incorporated 1897

celtic fc incorporated 1897Posted on9:17 am - Apr 15, 2016


SIXTAESEVENAPRIL 15, 2016 at 08:01Incredible heading in the Daily Rangers – even for that gutter-trolling rag:“Celtic and Ran*ers heroes facing financial ruin as HMRC send cash demands over tax avoidance schemes”Whit?Not a single mention of a hoops hero in the “article”… plenty of thems, though.
———————————————————————————————
I think, and i may be wrong, that a reporter is insinuating that Neil Lennon is in trouble with the tax man for his alleged part in a tax relief scheme for a film. If this is the case his personal finances have nothing at all to do with Celtic FC and is a desperate attempt to try and throw Celtic into the story of Rangers FC using tax evasion to pay around 80 of its employees over a 12 year period from 1999 – 2011.

View Comment

Avatar

CarlylePosted on9:28 am - Apr 15, 2016


Succinctly put, Occam. Finding a concise article on forthcoming tax legislation can be challenging ! We will see when the legislation is introduced in the 2017 Finance Bill. Whether HMRC can enforce the legislation on historic ‘disguised remuneration schemes’ will keep many a taxation lawyer busy given the potential PAYE and NI charges involved.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on12:23 pm - Apr 15, 2016


CELTIC FC INCORPORATED 1897APRIL 15, 2016 at 09:17I think, and i may be wrong, that a reporter is insinuating that Neil Lennon is in trouble with the tax man for his alleged part in a tax relief scheme for a film. If this is the case his personal finances have nothing at all to do with Celtic FC and is a desperate attempt to try and throw Celtic into the story of Rangers FC using tax evasion to pay around 80 of its employees over a 12 year period from 1999 – 2011.
============================================
CFC, lots of people involved in football in the UK, along with other high earners who are advised to be ‘tax-efficient’ look like being hit by Hector. Not a bad thing in my view if, for example, they enrol in schemes to bankroll films that have nothing to do with film making but plenty to do with minimising tax paid. Barry Ferguson and Chris Sutton are members of the same LLP that looks like one of these schemes. Neil Lennon and Kate Adie are members of another. The man mocked by the PM with a tax avoidance heritage, Jimmy Carr, is another.  
Why is this relevant to SFM? Even clubs who complied with HMRC regulations were paying staff more than they could afford for years, the fans paid, clubs went into administration. Fans of Motherwell, Dundee, Gretna, Hearts (even pre-Romanov), Dunfermline and Rangers knew in their Hearts that it was unsustainable. The UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations look in theory to be a good thing, but will they catch the serial loss-making TRFC/RIFC or a Leicester that was paid about twenty times more (by the club owners) than any other English Championship club for sponsorship in order to be reduce losses and be FPP compliant? 

View Comment

Avatar

CarlylePosted on12:54 pm - Apr 15, 2016


Here’s a link to the Leicester story from yesterday’s Guardian which Blue mentioned. It includes a link to David Conn’s article on Monday. Oh, that there was a David Conn in the SMSM …
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/14/football-league-inquiry-leicester-city-marketing-deal

View Comment

incredibleadamspark

incredibleadamsparkPosted on1:10 pm - Apr 15, 2016


I think David Conn is an excellent journalist (ignoring his small blind spot for Man City) and I’m surprised he never got involved in the Rangers debacle. Seems ideal for a man of his skills and interests.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on1:38 pm - Apr 15, 2016


Talking of Tax Avoidance schemes,here’s someone the SFM has discussed before:
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2440891/former-rangers-adviser-charged-over-film-scheme-tax-fraud
Sorry,Just seen this is actually from January.
On another note,am I the only one having problems loading pages & getting “script” messages?.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:56 pm - Apr 15, 2016


It was a pleasure to read in ‘The  Scotsman’ this morning  that a very well  known sports cheat and would-be tax avoider in Scotland, whose hubris caused the Liquidation and football death of RFC, may see  his plan for a major housing development to the west of Edinburgh knocked back by the Council on Monday.
A report from the City planners recommends that his application be rejected.
And a Murray Estates mouthpiece  says ” There are a range of of factual errors and inaccuracies to the extent that  ..parts of the report read like a work of fiction”.
Well, SDM should know, because he has himself had  quite a lot of  experience in writing fiction, at least when it comes to submitting reports to the Football Authorities about what he was paying to his players, and what he was telling the taxman!

View Comment

Reiver

ReiverPosted on2:00 pm - Apr 15, 2016


Now it is your turn

Last month Alexander276 came up with a suggestion of spreading the word using cards that we handed out or left lying in appropriate places. I had hoped that someone with an artistic bent might have taken up the idea and produced an appropriate document but it did not happen. So, I have put something together using my limited ability. OK, so it opens me to ridicule but if I am prepared to do that then some of you guys can come up with the nerve to print a few sheets off and distribute them. It doesn’t matter if you are shy. There is nothing wrong with sticking them on the back of toilet cubicle doors in pubs or in empty bus shelters. For the more daring among you, how about sticking them on the seats in your team’s stadium as you make your way to your seat on match day. Most Wetherspoons have displays of tourist leaflets so stick a bundle in those. It doesn’t matter if it is one poster or three or four cards. Any amount works toward making others aware of the situation.
I put my efforts up here for constructive criticism so let’s hear from you. These are not the finished article as I am awaiting approval from Big Pink(did you realise that if your finger slips when you type his name you end up with Big Oink. Was that intended?) and the Res12 to use their work as a source of further info.

This first example is for an A4 poster.

View Comment

Reiver

ReiverPosted on2:09 pm - Apr 15, 2016


Or the back.

View Comment

Reiver

ReiverPosted on2:11 pm - Apr 15, 2016


The front of the card

View Comment

Reiver

ReiverPosted on2:20 pm - Apr 15, 2016


Can anyone help? Has the 2MB limit been lowered?
I have tried three attachments of 1.4MB, 1.2MB and 0.3MB and only the last one gets displayed.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on2:42 pm - Apr 15, 2016


At last: a stab at the truth in Keef’s latest DR effort today;

“…The Chancellor is cracking down on beneficiaries of “disguised remuneration schemes” – of which the EBTs introduced by Murray were a prime example.
More than 80 players, officials and staff at Rangers raked in more than £47million from the scheme between 2001 and 2010…”
======================================
Level42 will be fizzing…!  19

View Comment

Reiver

ReiverPosted on2:46 pm - Apr 15, 2016


OK, let’s do it the other way.

You will find them here but please do not use them yet, they are only there so that you can have input.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B_X7aVh2s6qcQTA5X0t5b1lwQ0U

View Comment

CrownStBhoy

CrownStBhoyPosted on2:56 pm - Apr 15, 2016


Reiver
You don’t seem to have uploaded the document to google drive but the PDF works fine for me.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:00 pm - Apr 15, 2016


Can’t help myself !
If I was a living, ‘ex-Rangers legned’, I would “first and foremost” be concerned about the financial survival of TRFC.

However ‘Walter’, ex-TRFC Chairman, and ex-TRC NED has unwittingly provided further confirmation to his previous admission that he has as much business savvy as a fruit fly. [Or words to that effect !]

The DR headline today;
Rangers legend Walter Smith: The biggest challenge facing Gers is stopping Celtic winning ten-in-a-row
[His attributed quotes include;]

“First and foremost the challenge is there for Rangers…So not only have you to go in and do well, you’ve also got to stop Celtic getting that nine in a row towards, dare I say it, 10 in a row.”…
=====
Absolutely !  09

View Comment

Reiver

ReiverPosted on3:15 pm - Apr 15, 2016


CrownStBhoy

Can you try the link again please. It works from my PC OK.

Nothing goes smoothly.

View Comment

Reiver

ReiverPosted on3:23 pm - Apr 15, 2016


Sorry, my fault wrong link.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_X7aVh2s6qcQTA5X0t5b1lwQ0U&usp=sharing

View Comment

Avatar

la Florida BhoyPosted on3:24 pm - Apr 15, 2016


Reiver,
I have posted it to Facebook, let’s see what reaction we get.  

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on4:53 pm - Apr 15, 2016


Thanks for all your hard work Reiver, it is much appreciated by me. When they are ready to go I will print off and do my best.04

View Comment

Reiver

ReiverPosted on4:59 pm - Apr 15, 2016


Much appreciated Florida and Jean. Anyone else want to commit?

View Comment

Avatar

ElCapitano2013Posted on5:46 pm - Apr 15, 2016


With regards to the Souness comments regarding payment of his EBT. It has now been widely dispelled that he was “in between jobs” when the payment was made and was in fact the manager of Blackburn FC when the payment was made. There is also some suspicion that this payment may have been made in connection with the transfer of a player between Blackburn and the metaphysical entity that plays in blue. Now we know that the SFA will gladly turn a blind eye to any dealings involving said entity. However, the English FA may be interested to know that a manager of one of their clubs received a payment from that entity, particularly given the timescales involved regarding the transfer. If a journalist like Alex Thompson could start asking questions of the English FA then it may be one way of finally getting the SFA to finally provide answers. 

View Comment

Comments are closed.