LNS – A Summary

ByTrisidium

LNS – A Summary

 

cropped-sfmSquare.pngLNS is currently back in the headlines. It might therefore be a good time to try to set out a timeline describing correspondence we had with the representatives of the authorities over discrepancies and anomalies that appeared to have arisen. None of this is necessarily predicated upon the recent findings of the CoS in the Big Tax Case, but stands on its own.

Back in February 2014 The Scottish Football Monitor wrote to Harper MacLeod, the law firm that the SPL had engaged to gather evidence for the Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Commission investigating the full and proper registration of players paid by Rangers Football Club under Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) arrangements.

The initial set-up of the LNS Commission on 5th March 2012 by the SPL (View File) charged LNS with a look at EBTs from 1st July 1998 (when the SPL came into being).

In practice though, the Commission only looked at EBTs from 23 November 2000 onwards.

This change of date was based on the earliest side letter supplied by Duff and Phelps, although Harper MacLeod had requested ALL documentation from 1998 to March 2012 relating to ALL EBTs.

This prompted a series of letters to Harper MacLeod from The Scottish Football Monitor, although Harper MacLeod’s replies failed to address the issues raised.

The passage of time blurs memories but this archive is designed to remind readers of those blogs and correspondence, and the key points contained in them.

It also highlights the apparent inability or unwillingness on the part of the SPL and SFA to engage with us in any meaningful way.

NB: The SFA were informed of our correspondence by Harper MacLeod in October 2014.

It is extremely difficult to be concise in this situation. There are various strands of argument and details seemingly small, but vitally important – however the following is an attempt to make the material accessible and provides links to the relevant files in chronological order (links are in green).

 

  • Item 1: The first SFM letter of 19th February 2014 to Harper MacLeod
  • Item 2The Annexes containing the documents apparently not supplied to Harper Macleod in the spring of 2012 along with other pertinent information about the testimony given to LNS during the Commission.
  • Item 3The SFM response of 29 March 2014 to Harper MacLeod’s reply to the first letter.
  • Item 3.1: An SFM analysis of Harper MacLeod’s initial reply attached to response at 3.
  • Item 4: An SFM blog of 5th September pointing out how the documents not supplied had a direct impact on the advice given to the SPL Board to accept The Decision of The LNS Commission.
  • Item 5: The last letter of 4th October 2014 to Harper MacLeod answering points raised by them (see next) and thanking them for passing our correspondence to the SFA Compliance Officer who has so far deigned not to reply.
  • Item 5.1Harper MacLeod’s actual response to SFM 5th September letter.
  • Item 6: An SFM Blog (Inc. a transcript of an interview between Alex Thomson and Stewart Regan).
  • Item 6.1: Truncated version of above blog.
  • Item 7: A clearer extract of key document from Item 2 Annexes

 

Having no locus to demand answers from the SPL or the SFA, all we can do is provide information – information that we believe presents a prima facie case that LNS was deeply flawed even before the latest developments in the Tax Case came to light. The challenge for us is this: what can we do about it?

It is clear from the meagre response we have received that the authorities are unwilling to engage with us, so it is fair to assume that further correspondence will be met with the same lack of response.

Are we merely a bunch of obsessed nut-jobs with our own take on the Flat Earth conspiracy? If that is the case, surely a few words of explanation to dispel our doubts would have had traction with the rest of the football public. Indeed the lack of any reply undoubtedly serves as confirmation of our belief that something may be seriously wrong.

The questions have been posed. The SFA appears to think that not answering them is a wise course of action. Given that anecdotal evidence presents a compelling case that the general football public are widely in agreement with us, are there any journalists out there who will take the time to look at what we have observed and what we seek clarification on?

There are undoubtedly inferences to be drawn from the evidence we have, and from the silence of the authorities.

The statement by Celtic on Friday 13th November is certainly a start in the process we wish to begin, but it only mentions the elephant in the room. It gives no clue about how it could be transported to another place.

In the first instance we at SFM seek only explanations, and despite the inferences mentioned earlier, we are still eager to be satisfied that rules were followed and justice done.

Is there really  nobody in the MSM who has the courage to seek the answers we seek? I suspect not. What we do in the absence of that courage is important. We are at a crossroads. Either we give up on the game altogether and spend our Saturdays and Sundays doing other things – or we find a way to get these questions out of blog pages and into the mainstream.

We need an alliance of fans of all clubs to do that, and we will be looking to build that alliance. I would urge fans of all clubs to give this material to fan sites of their own clubs.

These are not just words. There can be no movement on this issue unless our reach is extended. SFM alone does not have the clout required to bring the clubs to the table or the MSM to fair and balanced reporting. We need that alliance of fans desperately. We don’t seek leadership of that alliance – but we are happy to provide it if required.

This is not a campaign to have Rangers punished. I understand that Rangers fans (since their club is in the middle of this mess) are reluctant to see us as anything other than a bunch of Rangers haters.

That is unequivocally not the case from the perspective of the moderators of this blog. SFM is committed to justice, and to the integrity of the sport we all love.

Justice is ON THE SIDE of Rangers and their fans – it does not conspire against them. A growing number of Rangers fans are coming round to our way of thinking and our tone must reflect that. This is not a Celtic or  Hearts or Aberdeen or anybody else v Rangers issue. This is a fans v corrupt authorities issue.

We all deserve answers, and hopefully our alliance will compel each individual club to act in the interests of the fans .

 

 

 

 

 

About the author

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.

2,349 Comments so far

jimboPosted on11:20 pm - Nov 14, 2015


justshaterd & vansen,

Take heart.  I had almost given up hope regarding the big tax case.  I lurked on RTC for ages and thought it was an open and shut case, I was gutted after the First Tier Tribunal.  Goodness knows how RTC felt.

But here we are RTC vindicated.  There’s always hope these scoundrels will be caught out in time.19

Don’t be surprised what will come out in the forthcoming court cases.

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on11:45 pm - Nov 14, 2015


justshatered 14th November 2015 at 10:45 pm #

Superb post. I too hoped that other clubs would provide much needed support to Celtic’s stance, not least Ann Budge at my own club. Please Ann, don’t let me down! If anyone can ‘get them telt’, it’s you.
 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:14 am - Nov 15, 2015


Jean Brodie @ 10.09

my eternal thanks and apologies to the James boys, Jessie and Frank!
In my defence btw I’m working off a phone just now and the blog ain’t alf clunky on that medium!
point, (and offer!) still stand though.

just on the club solidarity through statements thing, I’ve never quite understood the clubs philosophy on this.  They just all seem to be a cross between the bedazzled rabbit, the addled addict and the beaten spouse!  Is it fear?  Indifference? Worshipping the god ‘aye been’? 

If so, I’ll happily state my position.  It’s not a simple walk away.  Show me the numbers.  Show me the business case for forgive and forget.  And then I’ll make own mind up.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:26 am - Nov 15, 2015


lol. Impatience in the air?…. Keep the faith.
      I am not just talking faith in clubs to respond, but faith in our fellow man  We might have the sh*tiest football governors on the planet, but Jock Tamson’s bairns are a decent enough bunch.  They will come good. 04

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:58 am - Nov 15, 2015


I’m normally up and down like warehouse drawers(nothing like subtlety and that’s ….),but I reckon that the chairmen of the diddy clubs have been cowed for so long that they will hide in the gloom until something is unveiled before they step out . A leap in the dark for them . Modern life and football fans might be beyond their ken .That’s the downside – I don’t expect much from them and I think I understand why .The fans, though, are a different kettle of fish . They are customers now, stakeholders and ofttimes shareholders who don’t have to accept the diktats of SFA and SPFL  in the same way that their predecessors did  If the governance is not fit for purpose , it should be treated as an irrelevance, much like MA is  doing . Shape up or ship out, I think our US cousins say . I don’t hate Rangers fans (I’ve got one in the hoose )but they have to be made to understand that it is not them we are attacking and that the status quo isn’t working for them either . (a hand-to-mouth existence with doubts about you parentage is not the best place to be ). Yes, been to the pub to watch the fitba’ .

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on2:52 am - Nov 15, 2015


Maybe a wee bit OT But here goes, In the lead up to the Independence vote Scotland was the subject and target for some serious misrepresentations at the very least. The press swamped the unsuspecting with tales of woe etc. Whats happened since is out there for all to see. ‘Better Together’… maybe not. But the point I wold like to make is that it was the person/party who shouted loudest that was heard. The SMSM are using the same tactic today. Please do not stop hearing. The future of our game depends on it.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:01 am - Nov 15, 2015


Carfins Finest 15th November 2015 at 2:52 am
Maybe a wee bit OT But here goes, In the lead up to the Independence vote Scotland was the subject and target for some serious misrepresentations at the very least. The press swamped the unsuspecting with tales of woe etc. Whats happened since is out there for all to see. ‘Better Together’… maybe not. But the point I wold like to make is that it was the person/party who shouted loudest that was heard. The SMSM are using the same tactic today. Please do not stop hearing. The future of our game depends on it.
————-

Never a truer word spoken, Carfin. And last week they turned up the volume to hysterical levels on both the one and the other. On the sports front, apart from the usual ‘experts’, chosen to say the required on radio, it was two regulars who were the worst offenders — Derek Johnstone and Richard Wilson. 

On Friday I had to switch off SSB after about 25min. I can usually sit through the worst uninformed guff but on Friday DJ was in ‘sack me if you dare mode’. I just dropped the sport and found better thngs to do. Sadly other events were occurring elsewhere and those made me forget SSB. 

I have since caught up with the whole Friday SSB podcast and DJ’s behaviour did not improve. Some of the callers did, though.

Last week I also listened to podcasts from SFM, Harry Brady, The Terrace & Scotzine. All pf them more informative and well-balanced than anythng on the MSM. Sorry to say, though, that dear old Stuart & Tam are opting more and more for a quiet life of mainstream conformity. Leaves them sounding stale and irrelevant. Hopefully, it’s just a temporary blip.

Best thing we can do is help promote the alternative media voices by linking to or retweeting them via Twitter or Facebook (if you dabble with that).

Btw, I discovered Falkirk’s one-off match day offer yesterday. Paid my £7.99 via PayPal and was watching and listening almost immediately. Now I was disturbed early on by a work call that couldn’t be put off so missed much of the match. But the smart thing about Falkirk’s offer is that it’s a 3-day pass. Image quality a bit poorer than St Mirren’s. Better gantry position, though. Hopefully later on today I’ll have my feet up and watch the highlights, after match, and so on, since my pass is for three days. 
So if anyone is reading from the clubs, why not get together and start fitba tv? Instead of having to login at every club with an online match stream, create a central one-off login. Clubs can then make their streams available as one-off, monthly or yearly at a central portal website fitbatv.scot (for example). Us exiled fans might just add enough via online tickets to make it worthwhile. And who knows what it might grow into?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:09 am - Nov 15, 2015


Prescinding ( there’s that word again, laden with very particular memories for me, which is why I like to use it from time to time!), prescinding, as I say, from the world of ‘big’ politics, let’s keep our focus on the simpler matter of football cheating, about the fact of which there can be no rational disagreement.
Nationalist, Unionist, UKIP, Socialist, Labour, Liberal, Anarchist, Communist electoral leanings are, I would say, for the purposes of this blog, very largely if not entirely irrelevant.
As football supporters, we have in fact been very badly cheated over many years by one now liquidated ( as a market consequence of their wrongdoing) club, and appallingly betrayed by the very people in charge of the governance of our sport- the sport that, without us, ‘”the fans”, would be nothing that any of our clubs could make their money from.
The cheating club must be dealt with, and the structure of football governance must be drastically overhauled to ensure that no club ever again is so facilitated in its cheating and so protected from the full consequences of its football cheating as RFC(IL).
As for the general run of editors and sports hacks of the SMSM, they should be strangled with the last copy of their individual papers or radio microphone leads.( acknowledgments to the original phrase relating to the ‘Sunday Post’)

View Comment

ayethatlbrightPosted on9:25 am - Nov 15, 2015


Long time follower of here and at RTC. Just registered and first comment. Thanks everyone for everything you are doing here because quite simply the baws on the slates and unless concerted action takes place it will never come down again.
i listen to all the podcasts that are discussing this and read here morning and night. Everyone is saying the same thing that Justice needs to be done and seen to be done. However let’s be honest somebody somewhere needs to lead that action. Might I suggest if it’s somone here that a new blog goes up with the purpose of formulating a coherent plan and strategy because if not here them where and if not now then when?
Its easy to bump out some words and post them up but as is always the case it’s what you do that counts not what you say. You can talk a good game and there are really articulate folks on here providing lost of entertainment and food for thought but that’s all it is. Is anyone prepared to take a lead and start the process of action being formulated, agreed on and acted out to the only conclusion possible. As someone else said its common sense but the orchestrated enemy relies on us just getting our knickers in a twist and doing nothing about it. 
I suspect like me we are all busy in our lives and probably lets be honest scared to be seen to act or even go by our real names about this. Those in the media that we once thought were decent people are having to play the hand they are deliberatly given or resign like a well known Dundonian. 
We need a leader to emerge now or this unique opportunity will be missed and our game wil wither away. 
At the end of the day we need to nail once and for all what component of this almighty corruption should we focus on to the exclusion of all else and clearly name it. Then use marketing nouse to get it into every blog and onto every phone in and in the comments of every newspaper  till they can’t ignore it. Every fans group should make a simple banner stating that word or phrase and keep it on show at every match and even better at both ends among both sets of fans at each match. 
I had the privilege of passing my team onto my sons but here’s the rub, they won’t have the same priviige with their’s unless we act.
[]
It’s time to act because its only the fans that have the power unless the club directors grow some.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on9:42 am - Nov 15, 2015


Professional comment on the COS result(with a list of Scottish clubs nicknames thrown in),
http://www.bkl.co.uk/bkl-briefing/no-picnic-for-the-teddy-bears-ebts-after-the-murray-group-decision/

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:11 am - Nov 15, 2015


torrejohnbhoy,

Interesting, the writer seems confident COS decision will go to appeal again.  Maybe being a financial adviser he/she would say that.  But it costs a lot of money to go to he Supreme court, who’s going to pony up?  As usual we are getting conflicting opinions on the likely next step.  I suppose we will just need to wait and see.  Although I hope it is finalised on 2 Dec.  It seems like a lot of the interested parties are holding fire until this happens.
——————————————————————
From BKL site:
“It must be said that the Rangers decision is controversial and may be difficult to reconcile with some earlier more nuanced decisions. Indeed some advisers have said that it is just plain wrong. We shall find out: the case will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court.”

View Comment

Scatman’s GongsPosted on10:21 am - Nov 15, 2015


A view on the current status of LNS’s findings on player registrations and eligibility to play.

LNS concluded that no players were invalidly registered. This was based on two things. First, Sandy Bryson’s statement that, once registered, players were viewed as validly registered until found not to be – and that SFA rules do not permit registrations to be revoked retrospectively. Second, on LNS’s assertion (which is quite sensible) that SPL rules should be interpreted according to the SFA’s rules.

LNS therefore interpreted SPL Rule D1.13 to mean that if copies of all written agreements covering playing payments were not submitted with 14 days of a player’s registration form, the player’s registration was valid for the time being but liable to be declared invalid later when the omission came to light. He thus concluded that the side letter players were eligible to play at all times.

The problem with LNS’s conclusion is that the SFA registration rules require  players’ contracts (narrating all their terms and conditions including all playing payments) to be submitted with their registration form in order for the application to be valid. They also state that in order  for a player to be registered, a valid application must be submitted. 

The side letters, according to last week’s Court of Session ruling on the big tax case (albeit appeal is still possible) have been held to include contractual playing payments (eg bonuses). The side letters are therefore part of the players’ contracts. The failure to submit them with the players’ registration forms means the players were not registered according too the SFA’s rules. Not improperly registered but rather not registered at all. Only registered players are eligible to lay official matches. If the side letter players were not registered, they were not eligible to play according to SFA rules.

My post on the previous blog at 7.44pm yesterday explains why this is in my view unaffected by any wriggle room built into FIFA’s statutes on player registration. That wriggle room appears not to apply to the players’ contracts (which would as things stand incvlkude the side letters).

The C of S ruling therefore surely requires a fresh SPFL commission to consider these points and determine once and for all the validity or otherwise of the side letter players’ registrations.

One final thought. According to Sandy Bryson’s evidence, there is no SFA rule allowing retrospective revocation of player registrations. That makes perfect sense if, as narrated above,  the SFA rules are in reality designed to catch a flaw in registration at the point of an application and to prevent registration from taking effect until all requirements are met. Based on reading the rules, it is difficult not to view the side letter players’ registrations as void from the outset and to view that as the intention of the SFA rules in cases such as this one.
 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:33 am - Nov 15, 2015


jimbo 15th November 2015 at 10:11 am
“..Interesting, the writer seems confident COS decision will go to appeal again. Maybe being a financial adviser he/she would say that..”
____________
Well,financial advisers have even more of a vested interest than lawyers in finding ways to profit from rich folk who want to evade their social taxes responsibilities!
I wonder is there a covert “accountants’ fighting fund” that can be drawn upon to beat the taxman?
There are such  huge sums of money that stand to be lost to their corporate clients and cheats like the SDMs of the world if HMRC wins these battles that it would not surprise me if such an arrangement had been mutually agreed among the bigger accountancy firms.
Without some kind of guarantee that legal costs would be covered win or lose, no sensible Liquidator would risk a hugely expensive appeal, and certainly not if the Creditors Committee was against the idea.
I think if I was a sports ‘journalist’, I’d be asking a few ‘business’ journalists to sniff around a bit.
But, of course, I’m no more of a journalist than our sports hacks03

View Comment

jimmciPosted on10:43 am - Nov 15, 2015


Judicial systems throughout the world allow for a hearing, an appeal by either party if they consider wronged by the initial judgement and the opportunity for further appeal by perhaps two more judicial bodies.
Why is it then that the SMSM can say that the LNS decision seems to be inviolate without recourse to appeal?
(I had thought at the outset that the SFA were “distancing” themselves so they could be the appellate body. Then of course their man, Mr Bryson, comes in with the most absurd contribution allowing LNS to reach the decision he made.)

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:43 am - Nov 15, 2015


That was exactly my thinking after I posted John.  Like a Cabal.  As you say there is much at stake possibly £billions.

BTW don’t run yourself down I’d rather read your musings than a lot of the hacks 03  .

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:01 am - Nov 15, 2015


Here is the scale of the issue at least according to Abbey Tax:

 
What is HMRC doing?
A Counter Avoidance Directorate (CAD) has been set up by HMRC with over 800 technical staff. One of the primary objectives of the CAD is to clear the backlog of disputed tax avoidance cases, which number around 65,000 and are believed by HMRC to be sheltering in excess of £30bn.

(That was in 2014.)

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:04 am - Nov 15, 2015


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) 15th November 2015 at 9:42 am #
Professional comment on the COS result(with a list of Scottish clubs nicknames thrown in),http://www.bkl.co.uk/bkl-briefing/no-picnic-for-the-teddy-bears-ebts-after-the-murray-group-decision
_______________________________-
Reminds me of something the SMSM might write; it forgets to mention that Murray didn’t follow the EBT guidelines exactly as given to him, and also that little problem of side-letters!

There might well be an appeal, but that article reads like something written by a very miffed CA (of the tax avoidance variety) whose just seen a nice little earner disappear!

HMRC have won, and it’s no fair, waaah!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on11:10 am - Nov 15, 2015


Make no mistake, the Rangers EBT decision is huge for tax advisers and lawyers.

Had HMRC won based purely on the side letter issue then the precedent would only really relate to similar schemes. However it is unlikely that those would have been used very much. The idea was to set them up for high ranking executives and owners who would be quite happy with a nod and a wink. No side letter required.

Now, if the side letters weren’t relied on and the CoS effectively ruled that the schemes were just a nonsense to avoid tax then every EBT ever used could be at risk. I realise that they were to a certain extent, however the chap who wrote about it (not Maugham) said that there would be an implied contract in any case.

In addition, if the ruling had been that the “loans” were taxable, as HMRC went with at the start, then it would be the beneficiary (the employee) who would be due the tax. However if the tax is due as (effectively) PAYE then it is the employer who is due the tax. The person who set the avoidance scheme up in the first place.

So we have these advisers who told employers to use this scheme to avoid paying tax and to give themselves and their senior people more money without actually spending any more. However it now transpires that the tax is actually due and this will now cost them millions, which after several years they will not have budgeted for.

Neither the advisers, or the people who mucked it up for everyone else, will be particularly popular.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:29 am - Nov 15, 2015


Just had a little thought.

LNS avoided title stripping, or, at least, a sporting penalty, because he said the registration jiggery-pokery didn’t give an ‘unfair sporting advantage’! If the sport’s governors were happy to agree with that, how do they square it with missing a date on a player’s contract? What possible ‘sporting advantage’, unfair or otherwise, could that possibly give any club?

For that incredibly minor offence, clubs have been expelled from competitions and handed financial penalties. Rangers, for (let’s be kind) the biggest ever registration error (I know, I’m being too kind) to occur in British football,  merely received a derisory financial penalty.

Sorry to raise this very old matter, especially if that point has already been raised in the distant past. Just seems a point that should have been made by, say, a journalist somewhere along the line. Such an obvious point, that it’s been buzzing round my head ever since it came into it while having my shower this morning, and I’d like to know if it was ever made before.

So many questionable decisions made in the Rangers Scandal, and gone unquestioned by those employed to question 23, that it’s hard to keep track of them 20.

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:29 am - Nov 15, 2015


HM Government March 2015:

“Since 2010, we have invested more than £1 billion in HMRC to strengthen their powers in tackling avoidance and evasion”

So they mean business!   Without being too political, have I been wrong about the Tories all along?  I would have thought an awful lot of beneficiaries would be friends of said party.  Having said that, what government wouldn’t like to get their hands on 30 billion!

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:50 am - Nov 15, 2015


 Richard Gough:

Writing in the Scottish Sun he wondered: “Here’s a scenario for you. Can you imagine if it emerged in later years that Henrik Larsson had an EBT during that season?
“If it turned out the Swede — Celtic’s key player in that title triumph — was paid via a scheme that’s now infamous in Scottish football.
“Following the logic of the real-life never-ending EBT row, I’d be due a league winner’s medal.
“For me and all the rest of my Rangers team-mates, ten-in-a-row would suddenly be a reality.
“You’d think I’d be delighted to see my name written into the history books, right?
“Wrong. I would have no interest in that medal. I would have no interest in seeing Celtic stripped of that historic title.
“That is the honest truth. It would mean nothing to me.
“It wouldn’t matter if Wim Jansen’s entire Celtic squad had EBTs, they won it fair and square on the pitch.
“And that’s the reason I can’t get my head around the continued clamour to rip titles away from Rangers”.
———————————————————–

Well that’s me convinced!  No to Title Stripping!  21

(there’s a slight flaw in there Richard)

View Comment

Kentes1Posted on11:58 am - Nov 15, 2015


Don’t know if I am being daft here but if the registration of players get confirmed against the favoured ones(had to say that as I am confused as to what to call them), does that mean Spartans have a case against the Sfa seeing as they were booted out of a cup for one infringement not a decades worth.
As I said maybe I am just being a tad daft here as surely that couldn’t be the reason that the media etc want everyone to concentrate on the DEBts is it?????.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:02 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Homunculus 15th November 2015 at 11:10 am #

Make no mistake, the Rangers EBT decision is huge for tax advisers and lawyers.
Had HMRC won based purely on the side letter issue then the precedent would only really relate to similar schemes. However it is unlikely that those would have been used very much. The idea was to set them up for high ranking executives and owners who would be quite happy with a nod and a wink. No side letter required.
Now, if the side letters weren’t relied on and the CoS effectively ruled that the schemes were just a nonsense to avoid tax then every EBT ever used could be at risk. I realise that they were to a certain extent, however the chap who wrote about it (not Maugham) said that there would be an implied contract in any case.
In addition, if the ruling had been that the “loans” were taxable, as HMRC went with at the start, then it would be the beneficiary (the employee) who would be due the tax. However if the tax is due as (effectively) PAYE then it is the employer who is due the tax. The person who set the avoidance scheme up in the first place.
So we have these advisers who told employers to use this scheme to avoid paying tax and to give themselves and their senior people more money without actually spending any more. However it now transpires that the tax is actually due and this will now cost them millions, which after several years they will not have budgeted for.
Neither the advisers, or the people who mucked it up for everyone else, will be particularly popular.
________________________

Could be the end of an industry, and let’s all sing hallelujah to that 15

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on12:07 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Thinking back to tha G&SL threatening outburst the other day,one would have thought after what happened in SA regarding tax avoidance he would have kept his mouth shut,after all ,it was saying the wrong things that got him his unwanted title and from a Judge at that,if only our Judges in Scotland where made of the same stuff as the SA judge,without fear or favour,when Murray and co hatched their plan to avoid paying Her Majesties Government monies that would go towards supporting key departments in our Country like the armed forces for one,they could not have imagined the fall out that would happen,and now with a convicted tax dodger at the helm the end result is not going to be good for all involved over Govan way.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:32 pm - Nov 15, 2015


jimbo 15th November 2015 at 11:50 am #  Richard Gough:
Writing in the Scottish Sun he wondered: “Here’s a scenario for you. Can you imagine if it emerged in later years that Henrik Larsson had an EBT during that season?“If it turned out the Swede — Celtic’s key player in that title triumph — was paid via a scheme that’s now infamous in Scottish football.“Following the logic of the real-life never-ending EBT row, I’d be due a league winner’s medal.“For me and all the rest of my Rangers team-mates, ten-in-a-row would suddenly be a reality.“You’d think I’d be delighted to see my name written into the history books, right?“Wrong. I would have no interest in that medal. I would have no interest in seeing Celtic stripped of that historic title.“That is the honest truth. It would mean nothing to me.“It wouldn’t matter if Wim Jansen’s entire Celtic squad had EBTs, they won it fair and square on the pitch.“And that’s the reason I can’t get my head around the continued clamour to rip titles away from Rangers”.
—————-
Well that’s me convinced!  No to Title Stripping! 
(there’s a slight flaw in there Richard)
_______________________________

Just imagine, if there really was a Santa Claus…or fairies…or honest governance of Scottish football… Well you’ve got me convinced, too, Richard 20

Some help for a deluded soul:

 “And that’s the reason I can’t get my head around the continued clamour to rip titles away from Rangers”. 

Try this, Richard, it’s called living in the real world;

You …king cheated! You cheated all of us, not just Celtic, but every damned team, and their supporters, you played against during the EBT years. It really is that disgustingly simple.

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:49 pm - Nov 15, 2015


He (RG) really hasn’t thought this through.  If Celtic had been stripped of that title it wouldn’t have been awarded to Rangers.  They were in on the scam too!  (in the real world )
Guess who it would have been awarded to allyjambo?   Got it in one! 0304  Congratulations!

View Comment

BrendaPosted on12:56 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Allyjambo @ 12.32 
could not agree more, well said 04

View Comment

scottcPosted on12:57 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Allyjambo 15th November 2015 at 11:29 am #
… Rangers, for (let’s be kind) the biggest ever registration error (I know, I’m being too kind) to occur in British football, merely received a derisory financial penalty….

Which, let us not forget, has still not been paid. Spartans at least paid their fine

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:14 pm - Nov 15, 2015


yourhavingalaugh 15th November 2015 at 12:07 pm

What King did in South Africa was tax evasion not avoidance. He agreed to pay fines rather than have a prison term imposed.

Which makes your point no less valid. I just wanted to point out that King is a convicted tax fraudster as opposed to someone who was involved in tax avoidance.

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:30 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Don’t know if James Forrest has been on or if anyone has previously posted a link.  But he is writing a weighty tome of a blog just now all about the Rangers case and the implications for Scottish Football.  It’s a very good read.   He has recently taken over another site which deals with English football.  So I think his hope is that it will be picked up by English journalists who may want to look into this scandal – without fear or favour.   How good would that be?

Part 1:
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/a-very-scottish-scandal-how-rangers-almost-wrecked-scottish-football-part-one/

I believe he is hoping to have Part 2 posted today.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on1:33 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Were Gough’s pathetic ramblings made in his postion as a representitive of TRFC Ltd (nee Sevco Scotland Ltd in 2012)?
If so, surely a disrepute charge will be following on rather rapidly on the heels of that headed to the G&SL following his recent deluded rant.

If he was speaking on his own behalf, surely his relationship with the institution that claims the historical dignity (amongst other equally outlandish things) of RFC 2012 PLC (IL) will be terminated forthwith. Such undignified use of the name of another SPFL member surely must have no place in such a highly respected and well run organisation?

I’m now leaning towards the view that complete removal of TRFC Ltd from Scottish football is the only way that we can ever have a proper football competition rather than a vulgar sideshow based around the interests of only one of the forty two members that participate. Expelling the delinquent child may enable those remaining to progress, leaving the leeches in the SMSM to decide on football or fantasy reportage once and for all, and the governing bodies to prove that they can govern. Now that I’ve fallen on that side of the fence, it is up to TRFC Ltd, the SMSM and SPFL/SFA to convince me that I’m wrong, and I’m not really holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on1:49 pm - Nov 15, 2015


jimbo 15th November 2015 at 11:29 am #HM Government March 2015:
“Since 2010, we have invested more than £1 billion in HMRC to strengthen their powers in tackling avoidance and evasion”
So they mean business!   Without being too political, have I been wrong about the Tories all along?  I would have thought an awful lot of beneficiaries would be friends of said party.  Having said that, what government wouldn’t like to get their hands on 30 billion!
========================================
A lot of that money came from cuts in frontline HMRC services elsewhere.
I know plenty of people that were made redundant or took early retirement from tax offices in Norfolk. PAYE/VAT/SA are all understaffed and compliance checks are almost non-existant, so huge amounts of tax must be being lost. The emphasis is on pursuing the honest for known self-assessed liabilities and issuing fines to those that miss one of the umpteen filimg deadlines that face small businesses. The accuracy and completeness of self-assessments is very rarely checked.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on2:06 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Lets look at the bigger picture. 
    Minty was responsible for the best part of £1B bank debt. Banks that were bailed out with tax-payers money, to avoid a collapse of the whole monetary system. Add on the amount his companies are due in unpaid tax. Throw on top the cost to the tax-payer of police investigations by the Serious Fraud Office, Police Scot, The Met, Special Branch, Even French police and Interpol were involved. Not to mention independent commissions in football and the financial world. A case could be made that he fraudulently obtained domestic and European prize money for over a decade, along with gate receipts, matchday income, TV revenue, and season tickets for rigged matches, Then there are the unpaid debts to creditors, and the multiple tribunals with associated costs. That is all an aside to what his associated companies sucked out of Rangers (I.L) via catering and whatever else. Obviously the charity funds cannot be overlooked, nor the pension fund deficit. Jeezo, one guy is responsible for all that. He makes DCK look like a prince amongst men !
   And the best wee country in the world is trying to side track us from stripping a few titles away for cheating FFS!  
   Where are our politicians calling for a full independent review? What is the Scottish parliament doing? Or is that information withheld, lest it damages relations between the UK and Scottish governments. 
   Whoever is behind this obfuscation lives in loftier towers than the SFA. 

View Comment

smartie1947Posted on2:14 pm - Nov 15, 2015


The difficulty re JJ’s attempt to gain national publicity on matters RFC can be summed up in an exchange of e-mails I had in 2012 with Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News.
I wrote:
Thanks again Alex for an excellent piece, but can you not enlist a bit of help? When RTC, truly an inspiration in his efforts to expose the fiscal and moral corruption in Scottish football, can win an Orwell Prize for his efforts, why can’t a few heavyweight national sports writers show even a smidgeon of interest. Where are Syed,Samuels,Dickinson,McIlvanney et al, when we in Scotland are crying out for real journalists.Must our position as a regional backwater mean that we have to suffer the cronyism and bias for what passes as sports reporting up here for another 20 years.
He responded:-
Thanks again Alex for an excellent piece, but can you not enlist a bit of help? When RTC, truly an inspiration in his efforts to expose the fiscal and moral corruption in Scottish football, can win an Orwell Prize for his efforts, why can’t a few heavyweight national sports writers show even a smidgeon of interest. Where are Syed,Samuels,Dickinson,McIlvanney et al, when we in Scotland are crying out for real journalists.Must our position as a regional backwater mean that we have to suffer the cronyism and bias for what passes as sports reporting up here for another 20 years.
Thanks again Alex for an excellent piece, but can you not enlist a bit of help? When RTC, truly an inspiration in his efforts to expose the fiscal and moral corruption in Scottish football, can win an Orwell Prize for his efforts, why can’t a few heavyweight national sports writers show even a smidgeon of interest. Where are Syed,Samuels,Dickinson,McIlvanney et al, when we in Scotland are crying out for real journalists.Must our position as a regional backwater mean that we have to suffer the cronyism and bias for what passes as sports reporting up here for another 20 years.

View Comment

smartie1947Posted on2:24 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Follow-up to post above:-
He replied:-
Where are they indeed? Maybe the answer lies in my not being a sports journo and thus not giving a damn who I upset?

Apologies

BTW  AT wrote an excellent post on his blog last week re RFC being found guilty of EBT “mismanagement”

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:27 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Deliberate, premeditated and systematic avoidance is not “mismanagement”. So if that’s how he described it his post can hardly be described as excellent.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on2:43 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Homunculus 15th November 2015 at 2:27 pm #Deliberate, premeditated and systematic avoidance is not “mismanagement”. So if that’s how he described it his post can hardly be described as excellent.
======================
Didn’t HMRC select the Murray Group because they DID mismanage the EBT scheme, by not operating it within the framework set up by Paul Baxendale-Walker?
By channelling contractually entitled rumuneration as set out in the dual contract side letters, they did mismanage. It’s the dual contracts that we should be concentrating on from the football governance perspective, and not getting sidetracked by the tax avoidance issue. The unregistered second contracts, of which RCO was aware whilst an officer of the SFA, is the issue. The lost tax is an issue for HMRC to pursue, whereas justice for the years of unregistered boot money payments is what we must pursue to the end.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on2:52 pm - Nov 15, 2015


So according to Richard Gough you can justify your own club’s wrongdoing by imagining how you would feel if your rival decided to do the same, even though they didn’t. This piece should never have made the pages of any newspaper, even one so lacking in moral fibre like the Sun. 

Is there actually a competition among Rangers people at the moment to see who can look the biggest clown?

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on3:04 pm - Nov 15, 2015


upthehoops 15th November 2015 at 2:52 pm #So according to Richard Gough you can justify your own club’s wrongdoing by imagining how you would feel if your rival decided to do the same, even though they didn’t. This piece should never have made the pages of any newspaper, even one so lacking in moral fibre like the Sun. 
Is there actually a competition among Rangers people at the moment to see who can look the biggest clown?
===========================
Surely that has to be their adopted beneficiary Mr Custard?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on3:33 pm - Nov 15, 2015


The Cat NR1 15th November 2015 at 2:43 pm

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

Even if you were to accept that EBTs were legitimate tax planning, and I’m a long way from accepting that however let’s just assume it for the sake of the debate.

They took part in tax avoidance by lying and concealing, not by “mismanagement”. There is no way the people who instructed them on EBTs did not tell them exactly how they worked. What they should avoid doing (or being seen to do).

That is why I say what they did was deliberate, premeditated and systematic avoidance. To call it “mismanagement” is like the people who describe it as “administrative errors”. It is suggesting they made errors in operating the scheme, where they clearly intended doing what they did right from the start.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/372502/Tempted_by_Tax_Avoidance.pdf

HMRC is very successful at tackling tax avoidance and employs teams of tax, legal and accountancy experts to challenge those who try to get out of paying their tax. Anyone tempted to use a tax avoidance scheme should think verycarefully about the costs, the disruption caused by having to deal with HMRC enquiries and potentially lengthy litigation, and uncertainty over the outcome they may face as a result.

How can I tell if it’s tax avoidance?

You are entitled to plan your tax affairs in a way that makes sure you do not pay more tax than you have to. There are many legitimate ways in which you can save tax, for example by saving in a tax-free ISA, making donations to charity through Gift Aid, claiming capital allowances on assets used in your business or paying into a pension scheme. But there is a big difference between using tax reliefs and allowances in the way in which they are intended to be used, and trying to bend the rules to avoid tax.

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on3:36 pm - Nov 15, 2015


It would seem, at the moment, that Celtic are the only club who have issued a”holding” statement re the CoS result.
Is this because only they received calls from a significant number of shareholders and fans to comment?
What would be the message sent out if Celtic received no public support from the other 40 clubs?
The obvious one would be that they were waiting until the appeal date expired.
Fair enough.
However, Celtic referenced this in their statement.
Another possible message is that ” you are on your own, lads. We don’t want to arouse the bear”.
If that is the case, then where do Celtic go from here?
Would it imply be that the majority of clubs would be prepared to endure the status quo?
Would Celtic have a case to present to UEFA, that they are expected to operate in a dysfunctional environment, to the detriment of their supporters and shareholders?
So many questions.
Since this whole mess raised it’s ugly head, my position, re Celtic, has been that they only have two options, if they were not to be perceived as being complicit or condoning the actions facilitated by the SFA.
One, was to seek another, less hostile football environment, like Derry City.
Two, close down altogether, like Belfast Celtic.
Neither is really feasible, so, all that is left is to clean up Scottish football…….

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:18 pm - Nov 15, 2015


To those with the stomach to monitor revamped Paper Talk, it has just started on BBC Sportsound. No Traynor, Tom English hosting.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on4:26 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Homunculus 15th November 2015 at 3:33 pm #The Cat NR1 15th November 2015 at 2:43 pm
==================================
I think we’re drifting off into semantics.
I agree with what you say in general terms, but in the specific example of MGH (and others) v HMRC, they were selected for the “to the bitter end” pursuit by HMRC because of the way that they operated the EBT scheme, not because they operated it per se. It was such an obvious misuse of what in itself was a questionable (at the time) strategy, which is why we were all totally baffled by the FTT majority decision given the evidence presented.

View Comment

LUGOSIPosted on4:30 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Trisidium’s opening post and the response thereto lays bare where we’ve been and where we are.
Most of the recent discussion and deflection has involved the revisiting of the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission and we have repeatedly been referred to its finality and conclusivity. In particular we have been referred to the unexplained and, to me at least, unnecessary concession narrated at paragraph [104] of the Decision:
“The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of the Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC.”
One aspect of this has, as far as I am aware, received little or no consideration.
The Commission was put in place by the SPL.
The SPL no longer exists.
On 27th June 2013 the SPL merged with the SFL to form the SPFL
The SPFL is the only institution in Scottish football with a shorter history than the institution Charles Green’s Counsel was at pains to refer to in Court as Sevco.
All recent discussion has centred on what the SPFL should or shouldn’t do or will or won’t do or can or can’t do.
It strikes me that such discussion misses an important point and makes a leap to a conclusion for which there is no justification.
The SPFL did not exist when the Commission was put in place. In June 2013 the twelve member clubs of the SPL merged with the thirty member clubs of the SFL to form the current forty two member clubs SPFL.
The Commission was put in place by the SPL acting for its twelve member clubs. 
The SPFL may regard the concession given to the Commission as binding and a personal bar to any revisiting so far as the former SPL element of their membership is concerned but the same cannot be said for the other thirty member clubs.
The current position is that thirty out of forty two clubs are being told that proceedings in which they had not, and could not have, played any role in the commissioning, the terms of reference and the outcome thereof, bars these thirty clubs from doing anything now.
Whatever and for whatever reason the Commission decided cannot be binding on these thirty clubs.
Indeed for these thirty clubs the question of revisiting doesn’t even arise.
You can’t revisit if you’ve never been there before.

View Comment

One More ThingPosted on4:43 pm - Nov 15, 2015


For once, a reasonable discussion just now on Radio Scotland re the EBTs etc. Roddy Forsyth was awfully quite when the others firmly pointed out that it was not an “Old Firm” argument since fans of other clubs felt as strongly. The point was also made that LNS had only adjudicated on the side letters and not the EBTs themselves vis a vis a sporting advantage. (If I remember correctly, LNS said his decision was predicated on the EBTs being legal).

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:48 pm - Nov 15, 2015


The Cat NR1 15th November 2015 at 4:26 pm

———————————————————————

Indeed, I simply prefer to use the word avoidance rather than mismanagement because of the connotations of the latter. Like I said it is a word used alongside “administrative errors” in order to justify things. That makes it sound like they made mistakes, rather than deliberately set out to cheat. The reality is they got caught engaging in tax avoidance.

I couldn’t agree more on why HMRC decided to go for this particular case and keep at it, and if anything it getting to the CoS suits them better than winning earlier.

Right back to RTC days many of us have said that the side letters were the weak point, and I think the CoS gave the tribunals a wee bit of a slap on the wrist for not taking a wide enough view.

What is interesting is that the CoS said that they were unable to use the Ramsay Principle in this case. Then went on to pretty much do the same thing anyway from what I can see. Maybe we’ll have a Rangers Principle for future avoidance cases.

View Comment

parnnoyedPosted on4:50 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Re the slaverings of Dick (Mr.Custard) Gough…..

I laughed my head off at a remark on one fanzine site which observed..

“even their lies are lies”.

I am beginning to think that rangersitis is a loss of brain cells which increases exponentially
as the revelations of their cheating are exposed.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on5:47 pm - Nov 15, 2015


ft.com
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b0df32ba-8a39-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896.html#axzz3raCez1D8
 
“Russia has become the first country in sporting history to be banned from competition because of doping offences. “
 
That’s the way to do it.040404

View Comment

SmugasPosted on5:56 pm - Nov 15, 2015


I’ve thought of starting a list of these.  I like

“They wanted to have their cake and eat everyone else’s!”

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on6:07 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Smugas 15th November 2015 at 5:56 pm #I’ve thought of starting a list of these.  I like
“They wanted to have their cake and eat everyone else’s!”
     ———————————————————————
You can’t judge a commission by it’s cover-up
Don’t put all your assets in one basket-case
   

View Comment

tangoedPosted on6:11 pm - Nov 15, 2015


There has been a lot of excellent posts on the EBT/side letters issues,most of which i think i understood.However i don’t see how you can seperate the 2.
So i would ask this of those more knowledgeable than myself.These questions are based on the FTT ruling that the EBTs were loans and not wages.
1.What buisness is it of the SFA/SPFL if a player takes a loan with his club?
It’s a loan so therefore the side letters need not be declared to the authorities,so on that basis.
2.Should Lord Nimmo Smith not have found rangers innocent on all charges?
Cheers.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on6:13 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Homunculus 15th November 2015 at 4:48 pm #The Cat NR1 15th November 2015 at 4:26 pm
———————————————————————
Indeed, I simply prefer to use the word avoidance rather than mismanagement because of the connotations of the latter. Like I said it is a word used alongside “administrative errors” in order to justify things. That makes it sound like they made mistakes, rather than deliberately set out to cheat. The reality is they got caught engaging in tax avoidance.
I couldn’t agree more on why HMRC decided to go for this particular case and keep at it, and if anything it getting to the CoS suits them better than winning earlier.
Right back to RTC days many of us have said that the side letters were the weak point, and I think the CoS gave the tribunals a wee bit of a slap on the wrist for not taking a wide enough view.
What is interesting is that the CoS said that they were unable to use the Ramsay Principle in this case. Then went on to pretty much do the same thing anyway from what I can see. Maybe we’ll have a Rangers Principle for future avoidance cases.
=================================
The Rangers Principle has an ironic and bizarrely apt ring to it, given the total lack of principles displayed by those in charge of both clubs and those who facilitated the entry of the bastard lovechild into the SPFL. The parallel Ramsey approach was interesting, as starting the same place they still ended up with the same result.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on6:20 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Moving back to football matters.
Paul Lambert has been appointed manager of English Championship strugglers Blackburn Rovers, with Alan Irvine as his assistant. He’s taken on a massive challenge there with a transfer embargo in place for FFP breaches.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:22 pm - Nov 15, 2015


tangoed 15th November 2015 at 6:11 pm
‘..It’s a loan so therefore the side letters need not be declared to the authorities,so on that basis…’
______
In the nicest possible way, if that’s the best contribution you can make after reading the posts, I suggest you go back to basics.
The EBT ”loans’ were in fact and law taxable emoluments paid to players. They ought to have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA.

View Comment

tangoedPosted on6:26 pm - Nov 15, 2015


John Clark 15th November 2015 at 6:22 pm #

Yes now they are but at the time of the LNS commission they were deemed as loans.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:33 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Tangoed,

on the basis you’re not fishing;

Regardless of the outcome of the FTTT the key issue for the authorities was the recognition of the existence of the side letters and hence non disclosure of payments, however received.  Players cannot receive 2m per annum and tell the authorities they’re receiving 1m.  This is especially important when the defendent lied about their existence and made no attempt to rectify this once caught.  This is a game for adults.  We all thought we’d left the kindergarten behind.

View Comment

tangoedPosted on6:37 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Smugas 15th November 2015 at 6:33 pm #

I’m not fishing,if someone could answer the first question then perhaps they could render my second question redundant.You also cannot ignore the FTT as it was this result that i based my questions on.

View Comment

scottcPosted on6:44 pm - Nov 15, 2015


LUGOSI 15th November 2015 at 4:30 pm #One aspect of this has, as far as I am aware, received little or no consideration.The Commission was put in place by the SPL.The SPL no longer exists.On 27th June 2013 the SPL merged with the SFL to form the SPFLThe SPFL is the only institution in Scottish football with a shorter history than the institution Charles Green’s Counsel was at pains to refer to in Court as Sevco.

Not strictly true, Lugosi. The SPL is very much alive and well. The SPL changed its name to the SPFL and consumed the SFL teams. The SFL disappeared. Don’t believe me?

Check companies house

THE SCOTTISH PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED
Company number SC175364
Incorporated on13 May 1997
Previous company names
Name PeriodTHE SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED 09 Apr 1998 – 05 Jul 2013DUNWILCO (597) LIMITED 13 May 1997 – 09 Apr 1998

View Comment

dj7Posted on6:44 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Tam & Jim asked for suggestions on solving Rangers Title Stripping:

a) Rangers preferred option – No Stripping – Fine £250,000 – Lets all move on
supported by Rangers Fans, Some ex Celtic Players/Managers, Media, Sfa
b) Armageddon – Fully Striping of Titles, Medals and Prize Money, UEFA Coefficients – cost millions
supported by fans of sporting integrity

Seems this is a (c) option – SFA Strips Titles (not medals) and substantial £2m punishment (from future Rangers income) – and draws line under any future sanctions/legal action.
SFA needs to act as referee – but be seen to be fair and even handed. So far they tried option a) but with independent enquiry with ludicrous evidence and conclusions…and its not worked – its not drawn line under it.
Rangers fans claim SFA/Media anti-rangers – if this true some titles would have been stripped – not 0 . SFA/Media don’t want titles stripped – so are clearly pro-rangers.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:46 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Ok.  In simple terms RFC paid players x and declared (in contract) y.  Not allowed.

View Comment

jimboPosted on6:47 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Tangoed,

It was made clear to the players/agents that the ‘loans’ would never need to be repaid. is that a loan?  Try that one the next time you are in the bank.

View Comment

scottcPosted on6:50 pm - Nov 15, 2015


tangoed
1.What buisness is it of the SFA/SPFL if a player takes a loan with his club?It’s a loan so therefore the side letters need not be declared to the authorities,so on that basis.

Firstly the loans were not from the club, they were from a ‘trust’ set up by the club. Had they actually been loans, in the normal sense, even taken directly from the club, then you would be correct; it would be no business of the SFA. Plenty of employers offer hardship loans in one form or another.

2.Should Lord Nimmo Smith not have found rangers innocent on all charges?

No, because, they WEREN’T loans. The players were contractually guaranteed them, by way of the side letters and they knew that they would NOT be required to repay these ‘loans’.

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on6:51 pm - Nov 15, 2015


………and here is the Fishing Forecast.
Storm clouds gathering to the West and the forecast of a rough spell of weather.
Beware of the odd shower in the next few days, but there will be bright spells further East.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:51 pm - Nov 15, 2015


In the simplest terms

Rangers avoided tax
Rangers issued side letters
Rangers didn’t declare them
Rangers got caught
Rangers found guilty
Rangers fined £250,000
Rangers accepted decision
Rangers didn’t appeal.

View Comment

Scatman’s GongsPosted on6:54 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Tangoed, it is the business of the SPL / SFA if a player takes a loan from his club if that loan forms part of the player’s financial package for playing activity. Any payments for playing (irrespective of whether they are structured as loans) must be disclosed to the SPL (as was) and the SFA. Rangers officials were quite open with the FTT(T) that the loans were part of the players’ overall financial packages, agreed and signed off at the sane time as their disclkosed contract. Players’ bonuses were in some cases paid by loan.

Failure to disclose the loans breached SPL rule D1.13 and also SFA registration rules. That made it the business of the SPL (and the SFA in its appellate capacity).

The non-disclosure of these payments was never in dispute at the LNS commission, hence Rangers being found guilty of deliberate non-disclosure.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:54 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Douglas Park has returned to the RIFC Board. I’m not sure what to make of it, other than he will be more likely to provide further soft loans.

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/rangers-international-football-club-plc-statement/

RANGERS International Football Club PLC is pleased to announce that Douglas Park has decided to resume his seat back on the Board with immediate effect.
Mr Park became a Director after the General Meeting on March 6 but had to step down because of pressing business commitments.
However, he is now able to focus again on the affairs of the Club he and his family hold dear. When Mr Park left the Board in early August his place was taken by his son, Graeme, who remains in position.
Mr Park said: ‘It is a privilege to be asked to become a Director of this Club and it was always my intention to return. I am confident the Club is on the correct path and I am delighted that I am now able to return and help take Rangers forward into what I believe will be a bright future for the Club and the supporters.’

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on6:58 pm - Nov 15, 2015


tangoed 15th November 2015 at 6:11 pm #There has been a lot of excellent posts on the EBT/side letters issues,most of which i think i understood.However i don’t see how you can seperate the 2. So i would ask this of those more knowledgeable than myself.These questions are based on the FTT ruling that the EBTs were loans and not wages. 1.What buisness is it of the SFA/SPFL if a player takes a loan with his club? It’s a loan so therefore the side letters need not be declared to the authorities,so on that basis. 2.Should Lord Nimmo Smith not have found rangers innocent on all charges? Cheers.
=======================
1. The loans weren’t from the club. They were from subtrusts of the (notionally) independent Murray Group Remuneration Trust.
2. http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2014-15/Handbook%202014-15.pdf Pages206/207 set out the 2014/15 registration regulations and I’m faily sure that the situation is unchanged from the period you are looking at.

View Comment

scottcPosted on7:01 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Homunculus 15th November 2015 at 6:51 pm #In the simplest terms
Rangers avoided tax
Rangers issued side letters
Rangers didn’t declare them
Rangers got caught
Rangers found guilty
Rangers fined £250,000
Rangers accepted decision
Rangers didn’t appeal.

and
Rangers didn’t pay

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on7:03 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Tangoed,

Don’t you think it would be a bit iffy if you went for a job and they told you some of your salary would be in the form of a loan which you had to ask for  ? Why would they do that ? Your attempt to legitimise ” a loan ”  is futile. 

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on7:04 pm - Nov 15, 2015


tangoed 15th November 2015 at 6:26 pm #John Clark 15th November 2015 at 6:22 pm #
Yes now they are but at the time of the LNS commission they were deemed as loans.
    —————————————————————————————
   tangoed, it was not a “loan” minus a contract though. Rangers (I.L) were claiming it a loan, but it was a “loan” with a contract. ALL payment contracts are required notifiable. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on7:06 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Also,  If the ‘loans’ (still declarable) were paid ultimately because the players played for Rangers by way of a trust fund, there is something in the rules of the SFA or SPFL against payments, as a registered player being received from a third party e.g. the trust fund, (incidentally not sponsorship as an individual).   It’s just irregular no matter how you approach it.  My favourite words at the moment,  ‘Common Sense’ and ‘Self Evident’.

View Comment

tangoedPosted on7:12 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Corrupt official 15th November 2015 at 7:04 pm #

Thank you and to the others as well.

ALL payment contracts are required notifiable. 

So even if it is a loan contract it still should’ve been declared to the SFA/SPFL?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:15 pm - Nov 15, 2015


EJ,

It strikes me as a bums on seats exercise since I notice Douglas jnr retains his seat.  All 6 placemen in favour say aye, you 3 others, do what you like coz it won’t matter anyway.

View Comment

4424mePosted on7:17 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Vignal and nieto both received ebt payments but were only on loan to rangers so were not rangers employees so why did they receive these payments ? Not to mention graeme souness who received an ebt ten years after leaving rangers 

View Comment

jimboPosted on7:18 pm - Nov 15, 2015


Interesting two Parks on the Board now.  Is Dave King on the way out?

View Comment

Comments are closed.