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

helpmaboabPosted on3:05 pm - Nov 17, 2015


LUGOSI
12

View Comment

TBKPosted on3:16 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Interesting points made and lifted from Proper Gander on twitter:
“In LNS Decision there are a total of 56 players listed as having EBTs. In FTT(T) there are 81 players listed as having EBTs. #SWEEPSWEEP”
“WHY WERE THE OTHER TWENTY FIVE EBT PLAYER RECIPIENTS NOT LISTED?”

Anyone?

View Comment

rabtdogPosted on3:26 pm - Nov 17, 2015


hi wottpi
Had SCO not b0ll0cks3d up their away game in Tbilisi – winning it perhaps – then their record against GIB and GEO would have been 12 from 12 … they also took 6 from 18 in their other games as IRE did (0 from GER, 2 from POL, 4 from IRE) … so a win in GEO put us on equal footing with IRE irrespective of what else happened, whether you think we should have done better in Dublin or not…
Timing comes into this as well. Playing GER away as an opener may have got the hardest game out of the way but it was a very unlikely one for GER to draw or lose so it was like writing off 3pts at the outset. POL and IRE went on to beat the world champions later in qualifying, IRE also managed a draw. It’s notable that when GER flexed their muscles though, they could beat anyone. (Apart from the Irish, obviously.)

View Comment

Jungle JimPosted on3:31 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Am I right in saying that the only party that can appeal the EBT ruling is BDO?  If they do not intend appealing are they likely to issue a statement to that effect or are they more likely to just let the clock wind down?
Sorry but can I also ask if anyone knows when we might expect to hear a decision in the Charles Green legal fees claim?

View Comment

rabtdogPosted on3:40 pm - Nov 17, 2015


…and if you take Georgia’s games against Gibraltar out of the Group D table, then their record reads:
P8  W1  D0  L7  F3  A16  Pts3
…which makes 4 Sep 2015 in Tbilisi a recent low point for Scottish international football. Losing a last-gasp equaliser to Poland in Glasgow, failing to press an advantage in Dublin, all of this I can live with. It’s football. Being the only side apart from Gibraltar to faff up a game against Georgia is of a completely different order.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:41 pm - Nov 17, 2015


An observation about the threat to the SFA of judicial reviews…

The SFA just can’t afford to let this happen, for both financial reasons and – more importantly – for control reasons, IMO.

An SFA initiated / controlled review would provide some ‘reassurance’ to Hampden that they still have control over the Terms of Reference, over those involved in any review – and control over the outcome and any potential penalty.  The LNS Commission is the obvious previous example for reference. 14
However, a judicial review could take that control out of the SFA’s hands, and bring unquantifiable levels of uncertainty to the organisation, IMO. 

So, in the [my] expectation that Ashley does not in fact see the SFA in Court, should the Internet Bampots now make it plainly known that in the absence of any Ashley action – the fans will crowdfund a judicial review ? 
[I am assuming that this is possible / feasible.]

If there is an ‘obvious’ groundswell of support amongst Scottish football fans to take this action against the SFA, then will the SFA not, by default, be forced to initiate a review of LNS ? Not that they want to of course, but so that they can try and ‘manage’ the process again ?
 

View Comment

ProhibbyPosted on3:41 pm - Nov 17, 2015


LUGOSI, I can’t find it in me to hold a grudge.  Consider yourself forgiven!21

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on3:44 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Jungle Jim 17th November 2015 at 3:31 pm
==============================

I have not seen it reported anywhere that BDO, or anyone else has sought leave to appeal. They would obviously have to do that before they could actually lodge the appeal itself.
With regards who can do it. As I understand it BDO were the only people represented at the Court of Session. I’m not sure if others can appeal a decision they did not contest in the first place. To the best of my knowledge only interested parties can lodge an appeal. Though clearly someone else could fund it for them.
There is an interesting position with regards HMRC here. If I remember correctly they sit on the liquidation committee. One would expect the liquidators to approach that committee to canvas their opinion on such an important decision. Particularly one which could be time consuming and cost a lot of money. If they decide to do it then they would really have to hold back on any pay out to creditors until a final decision was reached.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:02 pm - Nov 17, 2015


TBK 17th November 2015 at 3:16 pm # Interesting points made and lifted from Proper Gander on twitter:“In LNS Decision there are a total of 56 players listed as having EBTs. In FTT(T) there are 81 players listed as having EBTs. #SWEEPSWEEP” “WHY WERE THE OTHER TWENTY FIVE EBT PLAYER RECIPIENTS NOT LISTED?”
Anyone?
______________________

I think we can be certain, that whatever the reason, it will not be an honourable one!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on4:14 pm - Nov 17, 2015


TBK 17th November 2015 at 3:16 pm #
Interesting points made and lifted from Proper Gander on twitter:“In LNS Decision there are a total of 56 players listed as having EBTs. In FTT(T) there are 81 players listed as having EBTs. #SWEEPSWEEP” “WHY WERE THE OTHER TWENTY FIVE EBT PLAYER RECIPIENTS NOT LISTED?”Anyone?
================================
The 56 had “Side-Letters”. Those were the only ones known to LNS where contractual payments existed but weren’t disclosed.

From the LNS report

we are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that all of the Specified Players were in receipt of side-letters.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:21 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Paddy Malarkey

We want the same thing. What I cannot understand is the SFA continuing to stonewall when they know and we know there is a case to be answered iro of how RFC were able to hold on to their UEFA licence with an overdue payable on the table from mid June 2011.

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on4:35 pm - Nov 17, 2015


@Auldheid
I think it’s very easy to understand why the SFA would continue to stonewall on that one.
It’s harder to understand how they are allowed to or able to do so.

View Comment

West Ham FanPosted on4:37 pm - Nov 17, 2015


TBK 17th November 2015 at 3:16 pm #
long time lurker.. 
if i can play devil advocate and make some mischief. What if those other 25 players who received EBT payments, didn’t actually play for Rangers but the opponents, would that be a reason why it appears the SFA, SPFL and SMSM are so eager to ignore everything.. Does anybody at SFM know who they are ?

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on4:52 pm - Nov 17, 2015


BK 17th November 2015 at 3:16 pm #Interesting points made and lifted from Proper Gander on twitter:“In LNS Decision there are a total of 56 players listed as having EBTs. In FTT(T) there are 81 players listed as having EBTs. #SWEEPSWEEP” “WHY WERE THE OTHER TWENTY FIVE EBT PLAYER RECIPIENTS NOT LISTED?”Anyone?================================The 56 had “Side-Letters”. Those were the only ones known to LNS where contractual payments existed but weren’t disclosed.
From the LNS report
we are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that all of the Specified Players were in receipt of side-letters. 

Its very hard to find a comprehensive list.  The BBC’s from the time of  “the men who sold the jerseys” 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34118126
lists 72 recipients, 45 of which the bbc had evidence of side letters and 43 of those were players.  The other 2 side letters were LeGuen and an assistant.

I guess the only comprehensive list is the FTTT and then you have to translate the Rainbow and UK Geographical references into the recipients.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:55 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Re Livvy & Kachloul:

Isn’t part of issue here that Kachloul had been registered elsewhere as a professional & had not been re-instated to the rank amateurs, sorry, amateur ranks?

A ‘ringer’ by any other name…

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on4:57 pm - Nov 17, 2015


The LNS decision of ” no sporting advantage” was predicated mainly on two factors. Firstly that EBT use was not tax avoidance , and secondly that according to Sandy Bryson there was no facility for retrospectively declaring a player incorrectly registered. This resulted in it not being possible to punish a club “after the event”

The EBT position is now reversed ( subject to potential appeal ) from that which stood at the time of LNS, although LNS should have been presented with details of the “wee tax case ” and the EBT cases not contested by Rangers.

Tax avoidance therefore has been established, and I would contend Tax evasion rather than avoidance , based on HMRC’s definition of evasion. The Mark Daly documentary used the term evasion , and my understanding was that David Murray complained about that description. The BBC defended their position based on the HMRC definition , which states “tax evasion is when people or businesses deliberately do not pay tax that is due, and it is illegal”

I would contend that deliberately concealing the side letters and then lying about their existence to HMRC , is proof that Rangers knew that tax would have been due if those letters had been disclosed. The Rangers QC Andrew Thornhill advised Rangers accordingly which is why they conceded tax was due, but has still never been paid in the “wee tax case”

The second factor in the LNS decision was the Bryson interpretation . I quote from the LNS report
[86] Evidence was given by Alexander Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA, who described the registration process. During the course of his evidence he explained that, once a player had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registration was revoked. Accordingly, even if there had been a breach of the SFA registration procedures, such as a breach of SFA Article 12.3, the registration of a player was not treated as being invalid from the outset, and stood unless and until it was revoked
Many have ridiculed the Bryson interpretation . The case of Spartans having been thrown out of the 2011-12 SFA Cup was cited as a punishment that should have been the benchmark for punishment visited on Rangers. Spartans had a 2-0 win reversed to a 0-3 loss, for having only one date on a player contract rather than two.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/15672375
The link above reports the story. What though has generally not been commented on was that the contract in question was signed in the Summer of 2011, and the player , Keith McLeod, played in many games between the summer and the Cup Tie on October 24th 2011.In fact he played in an East of Scotland Premier League game ,reported by the Edinburgh Evening News the previous week.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/local-football/spartans-hit-nine-to-mark-first-game-on-new-surface-1-1901882

His registration was not questioned and results were not changed for any of these games , however the SFA felt able to reverse a result 4 months after his contract was signed. Spartans are members of the East of Scotland Football Association, which is itself a member of the SFA. Ultimate responsibility therefore lies with the SFA .

In contrast to Brysons interpretation, the SFA had previously shown that they could and did take action on improper registrations, months after the registration had been accepted .
The LNS verdict is discredited. It is based on false premise. It has to be set aside and a new investigation undertaken.
I would look at the instructing client , Neil Doncaster of the SPL , as to why the case was prepared in a way that did not take these two key factors into account. Doncaster is an employee of the League and accountable to the member clubs. Were I a club chairman, then I would want to interview Doncaster and Rod McKenzie about the above, and also on exactly what outcome was desired by the client on the LNS investigation.

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on5:12 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Jungle Jim 17th November 2015 at 3:31 pm #Am I right in saying that the only party that can appeal the EBT ruling is BDO?  If they do not intend appealing are they likely to issue a statement to that effect or are they more likely to just let the clock wind down?Sorry but can I also ask if anyone knows when we might expect to hear a decision in the Charles Green legal fees claim?

Actually I was under the impression that this is incorrect.
The defendant in the BTC is exactly the Murray Group – MIH (IL) – rather than RFC 2012 (IL) and it would be therefore need to be the liquidators of MIH i.e. Deloitte that would be the party to appeal. 
Or do BDO also get an opportunity to appeal as RFC 2010 (IL) is an impacted party?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:22 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Barca, whilst I find it difficult to disagree with the way in which you juxtapose evasion and avoidance the reality is that to prove someone evaded tax it is necessary to show beyond all reasonable doubt that they did the thing and that they knew it was an offence when they did it.

For income tax the relevant legislation would be

106A Offence of fraudulent evasion of income tax
(1)A person commits an offence if that person is knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of income tax by that or any other person.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both, or
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine, or both.

Take the side letters for example would they be admissible as evidence in a criminal case, how were they obtained and how did they get to HMRC. Who signed the letters and did they know that they were committing fraud when they did it. Can HMRC prove that was the letter was signed by the person whose name appears on it. Did the person who ordered these actions to take place know that in doing so they would be committing fraud. Is there any way to prove that they gave such an instruction and that it was carried out as they instructed it.
I realise that that most people will think or believe that this was fraud rather than avoidance, however unless HMRC can prove both the act and the knowledge beyond all reasonable doubt then there is no way of proceeding with that. Good defence lawyers don’t go about proving innocence, there is no need to. They go about a, making as much evidence inadmissible as possible, if it doesn’t get into Court it didn’t happen and b, attacking the credibility of the evidence and witnesses which are left.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:27 pm - Nov 17, 2015


zerotolerance1903 17th November 2015 at 5:12 pm
==================================

From the (CoS) ruling.

“The first to fourth respondents are now in liquidation and the fifth respondents, RFC 2012 PLC, are now the only party opposing the appeal.”

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on5:27 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Jingso.Jimsie 17th November 2015 at 4:55 pm #Re Livvy & Kachloul:
Isn’t part of issue here that Kachloul had been registered elsewhere as a professional & had not been re-instated to the rank amateurs, sorry, amateur ranks?
A ‘ringer’ by any other name…

I think the wholse issue is that Livingston thought that they were being cute in getting round the transfer window restrictions by signing Kachloul on an amateur contract whilst paying him for a different role.  Unfortunately the reality was that he didn’t actually perform the duties for which he was being paid a salary so the SFA (rightly) adjudged that he was being paid to play football.
For registering a professional player as an amateur they were punished with a £15,000 fine.
The reality was that Livi were being neither cute nor clever.  Kachloul was a free agent, having left Villa 9 months earlier, he had played as an amateur in England in the meantime, and they were at liberty to sign him as a professional player outwith the transfer window.
The SPL decided no sporting advantage on the basis that there was nothing to stop them registering him as a Pro.
They were so dumb that they came up with a cunning wheeze to overcome a problem that didn’t actually exist.
As an aside, Kachloul wasn’t the only player to sign as an amateur around that time.  Jim Hamilton at Dunfermline, Gary Dempsey and Dyron Daal at Aberdeen and Simon Ford at Killie all did likewise.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:51 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Barcabhoy 17th November 2015 at 4:57 pm

While I think the Spartans decision was harsh and I agree with the principle of throwing folk out of cups or awarding 3-0 results for breaking the rules, regardless of when the offence is uncovered, we are in the area of comparing apples with pears.

The problem with the Spartans case is that the SFA claim to have notified Spartans that McLeod’s papers were not completed as required. Spartans claim they never received any notification. Presumably the missing signature/date was noted at the SFA when the papers were originally submitted some months prior to the Scottish Cup tie with Culter.

While the SFA may have a role to play I am sure that they do not get themselves involved in the day to day running of various associations and Leagues such as the East of Scotland Football Association and League (to give it its correct title).

Therefore while someone somewhere within the SFA may have had knowledge that McLeod’s documents were incomplete, when no response came from Spartans the matter doesn’t appear to have been referred on to the relevant leagues or the club to chase up and resolve the matter.

That then comes down to an administration problem of how many times does the SFA warn someone they are in default and why was the relevant association/league not alerted to the incomplete papers and defaulting of registration. (Looks like they couldn’t run a piss up in a brewery type IMHO)

The SFA did however become directly involved in scrutinizing players registration and eligibility for their own cup competition and that is where Spartans came unstuck. The registration/eligibility issue was picked up immediately after the tie, most probably when someone at the SFA was double checking team lines etc against their records.

Action was then taken ASAP through the appropriate disciplinary procedures, prior to the next round taking place. 

I am unsure what the view of the East of Scotland Association was but it looks as though they did not go back and reverse the results of games McLeod played in prior to the Culter Scottish Cup tie. Therefore their position is consistent with not issuing retrospective punishments for previous games and only dealing with the issue when it became known to them. )Presumably McLeod’s papers got sorted PDQ to allow him to play for the rest of the season)

Spartans came unstuck again earlier this year in the Lowland League Cup by listing a goalkeeping coach Mark Cairns (as emergency cover but not used) on the bench as a ‘trialist’ when no trialists were allowed in the competition.  However it was the Scottish Lowland League that called them out and punished them – not the SFA.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:39 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Following the extended discussion on the eligibility and sanctions questions, I  re-read part of the LNS Commission decision. I was struck by the interpretation that LNS took about payments to players, in that he closely mirrored the decision of the CoS Appeal Tribunal. Perhaps the furore over the eligibility question led many of us to ignore his other findings that contradicted those of the FTTT and UTTT, but were ultimately supported by the CoS. Perhaps if LNS sat on the FTTT it may have come up with a different outcome. 

Paragraph 70 reads:
In our opinion the answer to this question can be found on a straightforward application of Rule D10.2.3, giving the words used in it their ordinary meaning. Each side-letter issued to a Specified Player clearly constituted a contractual agreement: the unanimous view of the Tax Tribunal also was that it was an “obligation”. The player had an entitlement to require Oldco to fund the main trust to the extent necessary to permit the trustees to fund the sub-trust to be established for the player. That was a contractual entitlement, constituting a financial liability  on the part of Oldco to the player, and enforceable by the player. It was therefore a “financial entitlement”. Accordingly, in the case of each of the Specified Players in lists 1A and 1B, the EBT arrangements were an essential element of “the Player’s full financial entitlement” within the meaning of Rule 10.2.3.

Paragraph 74 reads:
The key expression in SFA Article 12.3 and Procedures Rule 4 is “payments”. For reasons already given, we consider it appropriate to give a purposive construction to this expression. Under the EBT arrangements Oldco was to make payments to the main trust, which were intended to be paid over to the sub-trust, the trustees of which were to advance loans to the player, as and when requested by the player. The player was to be appointed as protector of the trust, with the power to give directions to the trustees and thus to determine the identity of the beneficiaries.

Paragraph 75 reads:
The common intention of the parties, and the only basis on which these terms were agreed, was that the player should take the benefit, through the trust arrangements, of the payments which Oldco was agreeing to make. If it had not been intended that the player would directly benefit from the EBT arrangements then there is no reason to believe that the player would have agreed to accept the overall financial package offered by Oldco.

Paragraph 76 reads:
[76] In those circumstances the mutual intent of the contracting parties, Oldco and the player, was that the player should receive payments from the sub-trust, which payments were to be funded indirectly by Oldco. On that basis the player was to receive “payments … made by the club” within the meaning of SFA Article 12.3 and Procedures Rule 4. The fact that the payment was to be in the form of a loan is not material. A loan of money is made by payment of the money by the lender to the borrower. The general law is that the loan is repayable on demand (with interest), or on such terms as may be agreed; but this does not detract from the starting point being the initial payment.

One other point that I picked up on was that the question of eligibility considered by the Commission only related to period 3, 23/05/05 to 03/05/11.  There was no determination made on the eligibility, or otherwise, of players prior to 23 May 2005.

Paragraph 85 reads:
In addressing us on Issue 3(c), Mr McKenzie sought to include a reference to period 2. Although there is a passage in the outline written argument for the SPL which may be taken to relate to period 2, Issue 3(c) and the relevant passage in Issue 3(b) both relate to period 3, from 23 May 2005 until 3 May 2011 (inclusive). No notice is given in the Notice of Commission of any comparable allegation relating to any earlier period, and for this reason we are not prepared to consider this part of the argument.

The failure of the Commission to consider the eligibility of players before 23 May 2005 may be justification itself for revisiting the terms of reference and the decision, by means of a separate inquiry.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on7:07 pm - Nov 17, 2015


 
 
Roger Mitchell has spoken
His view must be right if it`s endorsed by the MSM
So now we know 
There are only 2 clubs in the SPFL
One of them is CFC. The other is TRFC The other 40 are irrelevant. Silly wee clubs wie rotten pies. Players who slaver at the thought of being humped by one of of the big two They know fine well they`re just diddies put there to make up the numbers. Their role is to do what they`re told and keep out of matters way above their heads
TRFC play out of Ibrox. They are the same club as RFC in liquidation who play out of the BDO offices in Anderson if they had a team that is). The governing bodies are quite happy to recognise two clubs calling themselves Rangers. One of them gets levied with fines for the actions of the other one. But the fines don`t get paid so there’s no harm done. It’s all a bit of a laugh really.
CFC have a tiny number of fans who post on social media. These fans all believe TRFC are a new club. despite being told otherwise by a real Donkey. Fortunately the overwhelming number of Celtic fans are law abiding tabloid readers. Just like the MSM they follow slavishly. In their tens of thousands they keep telling anybody that will listen that RFC Govan and RFC Anderson are actually the same club
 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 
However
As far as I recollect 
The 40 diddy clubs have an equal vote when it comes to an SPFL vote.
So
Any changes needed to the rules and management of the governing bodies can be easily pushed through by the so called diddies
So
Message to Diddies (Roger Mitchells definition not mine)
Why are you doing nothing in the face of the biggest corruption scandal ever to hit Scottish football?
Call an AGM at the SFA and SPFL
Call an AGM at the SFA and SPFL
Sack the corrupt officials
Bring in people with ethics. Guys who will walk out if anybody tries to play favourites with the big two
Clean up the game before it cleans you out
You`ve been through Armageddon
You`re still here
Get on with it

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:25 pm - Nov 17, 2015


zerotolerance1903 17th November 2015 at 5:27 pm
I think the wholse issue is that Livingston thought that they were being cute in getting round the transfer window restrictions by signing Kachloul on an amateur contract whilst paying him for a different role.
======================
Apologies to the esteemed membership for releasing a rampant squirrel.

Carry on 202020050505

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on7:55 pm - Nov 17, 2015


All this rampant pauchling by Spartans might be the real reason why they were rejected in favour of the Green Rangers or should that be the Green and Whyte Rangers?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:12 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Halliday was speaking as rangers announced the rangers youth development company logo will feature on all academy strips from under 17 and below.
Is this a way around a trademark issue, by adding another company logo to tops? 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:18 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Cluster One 17th November 2015 at 8:12 pm #
———————————————
It’s not unusual (to quote Tom Jones) for a club’s academy strips to be sponsored by someone other than the club’s main shirt sponsor.

Rangers have done it that way in the past, as have Hearts.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:34 pm - Nov 17, 2015


easyJambo 17th November 2015 at 8:18 pm #
thanks for clarification

View Comment

nawlitePosted on8:35 pm - Nov 17, 2015


DP if you’re looking in, a quick OT question while I watch the Denmark-Sweden 2nd leg. The commentator referred to it as a derby and I wondered how it was viewed compared to our local international derby versus England.
There are lots of Scottish fans who don’t like England and would prefer them to get beat although I’m not sure how many say that just because it’s ‘expected’. Is the same attitude prevalent there, or is there more of a pride in Scandinavian achievement? For example, Scots tend not to like the constant mention of 1966 and I wondered if there was the same glorification/resentment between the countries of Denmark’s 1992 Euros win.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:38 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Homunculs 5.22

Although it applies only the DOS ebts HMRC were able to pursue payment out of time because the specifically asked in 2005 if side letters for DeBoer and Flo were held/existed.

They were told none held in players files  that subsequently turned up, possibly after police raid in 2007.

HMRC said that based on this RFC were either guilty of negligent or fraudulent behaviour but because negligence was sufficient a reason to demand payment out of time, HMRC would not take the fraud route.

Later on seeing this in Feb 2011 RFC’S QC advice was to accept liability.
So fraud was suspected but not pursued as HMRC had enough to pursue payment under the Regs.
Whilst it was a different set of ebts the failure to supply when asked is an indication that RFC did not to admit to having side letters most probably because by 2005 they were sitting with quite a few more related to the BTC ebts in their files.

Andrew Dickson who was in charge of those files from 2004 could no doubt offer an explanation as to why there was no admission of side letters when there was a pile in the files he was responsible for.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:50 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Auldheid 17th November 2015 at 8:38 pm

————————————————————

Thanks for that.

It may also be significant that HMCE and the IR actually merged in 2005 to form HMRC. Anyone with knowledge of these things will tell you that HMCE were much more liable to take the adversarial route and the IR would want to compromise and agree a sum due, with a penalty added to that.

Given that 2005 – 2007 it would be former IR staff and managers who would have dealt with the situation they would be much more likely to take the “collect the tax” option rather then the more difficult one.

Bearing in mind successfully prosecuting someone does not mean the tax is no longer due, however it does preclude financial penalties.

View Comment

DeldonPosted on9:00 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Posted on 17th November 2015 by in Uncategorised
Comment on LNS – A Summary by TBK.
Interesting points made and lifted from Proper Gander on twitter:“In LNS Decision there are a total of 56 players listed as having EBTs. In FTT(T) there are 81 players listed as having EBTs. #SWEEPSWEEP”“WHY WERE THE OTHER TWENTY FIVE EBT PLAYER RECIPIENTS NOT LISTED?”
Anyone?
Recent Comments by TBK
——————————————————————————————————-
From the RTC days, was it not that this 25 went ahead uncontested but only 5 where found to be in ‘breach’ I.e. side letters found so the 20 where ‘grey areas’ ? 

View Comment

West Ham FanPosted on9:19 pm - Nov 17, 2015


Does anybody know what happened at the 2 Hearings today involving Mike Ashley and Mash Holdings ? 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:56 pm - Nov 17, 2015


West Ham Fan 17th November 2015 at 9:19 pm #
Does anybody know what happened at the 2 Hearings today involving Mike Ashley and Mash Holdings ? 
————————————————————–
moo ‏@moo_ted 4h4 hours ago @Deadat54 Just procedural stuff to move it on to the next stage . No representation at all .

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:23 pm - Nov 17, 2015


West Ham Fan 17th November 2015 at 9:19 pm
‘…Can’t help you with those two, I’m afraid.
But this morning, I realised that I had time  to dive into Parliament House and catch the beginning of Lord Woolman’s  court number 9 business, part of which was scheduled to do with CW’s petition.
I was kind of taken aback. For there in front of me were three bewigged Counsel on each side, and a barraload of lawyers behind each, and when the Judge entered, he was in all his be-robed and bewigged splendour. And the first public bench was crammed with boxes of folders of productions, end to end.
I thought for a minute: wow, serious stuff, this.So I tapped a solicitor chappie on the shoulder and asked him what the day’s business was. Turns out it was a ‘proof’ hearing in a biggish looking civil damages/compensation case relating to the collapse of a tunnel on some engineering project.
That was all very interesting, and I stayed for about 20 minutes.
Lord Woolman had dealt with the petition in the wee room at the back before the court opened at 10.00 a.m. It must just have been a wee procedural matter, bit I didn’t have time to go to the Petitions office to find out exactly what was entailed.
I would imagine that  the King ‘judicial review’ item that Lord Boyd was scheduled to deal with would have involved a similar,’ trivial’ procedural matter.
_______
Arriving in Glasgow with time to spare before my engagement, I walked at speed the length of Sauchiehall St to get to Sandyford Place to check out ‘our ‘ HQ. But, silly me, I could not remember the street number, and I didn’t know the phone number.
So, BP misses out on another packet of Jaffa cakes!

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:05 pm - Nov 17, 2015


#Big Pink
Re Hassan Kachloul
If you accept that Bryson was correct (as I do) that a Player’s registration cannot be rescinded retrospectively, the logic of the SPL decision (not to dock points) in the Livi case seems to be sound.

As Kachloul had been registered as an Amateur Player no contract of service was required – so rule D1.13 did not apply. As I understand it, the contract he did have was as “commercial executive” at Almondvale and would not be relevant in relation to his playing activities. He was said to have spent three afternoons per week performing his official duties.

Dundee’s complaint was that he was overcompensated for his official non-football role and effectively this meant he was being paid as a footballer. The SPL agreed and felt registration as a professional player, would have been more appropriate.

Although we may think the situation was self-evident, had Livingston appealed the £15k fine, it would have been difficult, I think, for the SPL to pin down the rule that the club was alleged to have breached. It would probably have been necessary to show that his official contract had covered footballing duties – which, as I understand things, it did not.

D9.5 An Amateur Player may not be a party to a Contract of Service providing forthe playing of or training for Football with a Club.

In the event, the “offence” did not come to light until after the season had ended – and Kachloul had already played his last game for the club – there was nothing the SPL/SFA could do in terms of the player’s registration. They could do nothing retrospectively (in terms of his amateur registration) and – unless an undeclared player contract was found – no rule was in place that would have made him ineligible in the games he played.

TBH, I think the similarity between Kachloul and the plethora of hidden side letters (which were explicitly in relation to footballing activities) is fairly tenuous.

The only real similarity is that in both cases, the “defect” in the players’ registrations did not annul, rescind or cancel those registrations retrospectively.

The difference is that the Rangers players should have been declared ineligible because their club did not supply full contract details – as rule D1.13 directed it should. In Kachloul’s case, he had no player contract to declare.
 
As an aside, Livingston had originally planned to appeal the £15k fine. At one point the club had lined up a CoS date for judicial review – because there was a suggestion that someone from inside the SFA had been providing Dundee with confidential registration details prior to its complaint. In the end Livingston paid the fine after Dundee’s appeals to the SPL and SFA were thrown out. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:50 pm - Nov 17, 2015


I predict in one calendar year that Scottish Football will have moved forward in some way.  The upcoming court cases will be significant. 

The SFA especially have felt that they are beyond reproach.  Just like FIFA & EUFA they lived in marbled halls.  But in our instance thanks to social media they are exposed.  BAMPOTS!

My very worrying thing is that these ‘authorities’ exist and are given oxygen by our clubs complicity.  Why is this?

It stinks.  From the top to the bottom and sideways too.  If I remember correctly the fans stance of ‘ no to newco’ was reluctantly taken on board by a lot of clubs because of the financial implications.

As I have said several times, get rid of the old boys network.  Having a drink together post match in the directors suite.   Couldn’t explain the off side rule.  Get rid of them.

View Comment

West Ham FanPosted on12:27 am - Nov 18, 2015


Sorry for going off topic but I have just read that Jonah Lomu has died. Now There was a Real Sportsman.. Football Players could learn a lot from Sportsman like Him 

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:44 am - Nov 18, 2015


West ham fan,

Sorry didn’t know of the guy as I’m not a fan of Rugby.  But checked him out on Wiki, seems like a legend.  RIP.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:02 am - Nov 18, 2015


Sorry to bother folk at this late/early hour but I would be obliged if I could get some clarification .Under ordinary business /ordinary resolutions  for RIFC  AGM,  Messrs John Bennett, John Gilligan, Dave King, Paul Murray, Graeme Park, and Dallas Campbell all resign and offer themselves for re-appointment . On the company website, the Directors are listed as John Bennett, John Gilligan, Paul Murray, Graeme Park and James Blair  and no others. Genuine question – how do you resign from something you are not on ?

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:46 am - Nov 18, 2015


And them there is FEAR!  In many levels. 

Fear in the real sense like Lennyy.   (& Social unrest)
Fear in the sense of financial disruption ‘armaggedon’ ICT how very dare you to post profits?
Fear that rules may have been broken.  And covered up.
Fear that the media in Scotland were all cowards and lamb munchers.  Thank goodness for Alex T.  

View Comment

peterjungPosted on2:09 am - Nov 18, 2015


iceman63 16th November 2015 at 5:24 pm
 
It seems to me that the recent desperate briefing to DR about no means of changing the LNS decision and the latest ramblings from Roger Mitchell are signs of a desperation hitherto unknown in the corridors at Hampden……
 
…The mysterious and to date unexplained changes to SFA rule 14 which changed from there being no mechanism to allow a registration to be transferred to one which under the same heading of preventing such a transfer , now allowed one: this change being  made in November 2011….

Iceman – can you  – or anyone else – elaborate further on this change to Rule 14?
 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:14 am - Nov 18, 2015


My profession is not law or accountancy, let alone being a tax expert. However, I can’t help but feel any notion of an appeal of the CoS decision is one of desperation by Rangers fans and the media and simply won’t happen. We’ll see…tick tock!

View Comment

giovanePosted on7:27 am - Nov 18, 2015


Sorry to bother folk at this late/early hour but I would be obliged if I could get some clarification .Under ordinary business /ordinary resolutions for RIFC AGM, Messrs John Bennett, John Gilligan, Dave King, Paul Murray, Graeme Park, and Dallas Campbell all resign and offer themselves for re-appointment . On the company website, the Directors are listed as John Bennett, John Gilligan, Paul Murray, Graeme Park and James Blair and no others. Genuine question – how do you resign from something you are not on ?

Which company website were you looking at? TRFC? remember this is a private limited company (and Dave King is not a Director, according to companies house last week), and different company from RIFCL. the director appointments of both companies are very similar but there are a few discrepancies, the one above being the most obvious. i’m not sure why this would be the case.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:57 am - Nov 18, 2015


nawlite 17th November 2015 at 8:35 pm
DP if you’re looking in, a quick OT question while I watch the Denmark-Sweden 2nd leg. The commentator referred to it as a derby and I wondered how it was viewed compared to our local international derby versus England.There are lots of Scottish fans who don’t like England and would prefer them to get beat although I’m not sure how many say that just because it’s ‘expected’. Is the same attitude prevalent there, or is there more of a pride in Scandinavian achievement? For example, Scots tend not to like the constant mention of 1966 and I wondered if there was the same glorification/resentment between the countries of Denmark’s 1992 Euros win.

Very OT. Look away now.
Morning Nawlite.
In a word, no. There is much more solidarity between Scandinavian nations. They are all #indy now, so the type of edge between Scotland v England is lacking for obvious reasons. But there certainly is a football rivalry. Sweden were the more successful until the mid-80s but it all changed with a generation of talented Danes. The 1992 win was a ‘Scandinavian’ triumph. Never met anyone who wanted Sweden to lose in a competition, or vice-versa. But they weren’t brought up being put down by the likes of Coleman and Wolstenhome 🙂 A huge chunk of southern Sweden used to be Danish and they still speak with an unusual Swedish accent. The ferries, and now the bridge, always meant a lot of movement. That said, you’d be surprised how very different Swedes & Danes are. 

In reality, there’s probably more edge between Norway & Sweden. They lived in a ‘union’ with Denmark for hundreds of years, but that quicly turned into master and slave with the Danes treating Norway as a province. Poor old Norwegians then came under Swedish control after 1815, and that was another ‘colonial’ type situation. They tried hard to break away from Sweden, but interestingly, there was a small but influential ‘unionist’ group in Norway against their independence 🙂 The Norwegians only broke free in 1905 (a kind of UDI, followed months later by a referendum). Long and short of it, the more recent history between Norway & Sweden probably means of a slght sports rivalry there, winter sports especially.

I got a wee insight into how much influence Denmark once had while tracking down the Earl of Bothwell, who is buried here in Denmark. After fleeing Scotland he landed in Bergen and was arrested by the Danish king. He was held in Malmö castle, also Danish, and finally in Dragsholm, in west Sjaelland where I located him in the crpyt of the local church. Fascinating history. Danes cntrolled much of Scandinavia when Scotland was still ruled itself.
A quick scan of the sports headlines today is merciless criticism of the campaign and team. Manager has resigning already. End of an era, etc. Bendtner was booed off by some, apparently. Never saw the Danes coming out on top. The Swedes were far more convincing in their group than the Danes were in theirs. How about a wee Nordic championship pre Euros next summer? Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland? Now that would br fun.

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on8:07 am - Nov 18, 2015


James Forrest 18th November at2:11am
This timeline of events should be put on every billboard in the country.Well done James.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on9:23 am - Nov 18, 2015


Morning all,
Just an enquiry,
Am I the only one getting “Unresponsive Script” messages when loading up the site?.
Refreshing the page normally sorts it but it’s been happening for a few days now.

Sounds like an OS or browser issue tjb. Try a different browser if you have one.
BP

BP,
Spent £1.85 on amazon through your link yesterday.Don’t go nuts with the commission.22

Spent already!!
BP

View Comment

TaysiderPosted on9:29 am - Nov 18, 2015


I’ve been reflecting on the MSM coverage of this saga over the last three to four years and how this has (with the odd noble exception) taken place in a very “narrow bandwith” with the latest message being about the need to “move on” ignoring, just to mention one glaring obvious concern, that nothing has really changed to prevent a future recurrence of a decade of cheating scottish football (has it?)

Anyway I digress. I came across this quote recently: 
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum….” ― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

Watching the coverage of the Paris terrorist attacks, the narrow debate re how to respond and the media treatment of Jeremy Corbyn (agree with him or not) for having a different perspective and response outwith “the limited spectrum” makes me wonder (and not for the first time) how common place is it for the media to take such an approach across any issue?

To be clear, I’ve no wish to side track this blog. My point is not intended to open a discussion about the emergence of ISIL and response to it or indeed any other major non sporting issue currently receiving media attention. It is more to observe that a perverse desire to conduct discussion of current issues within a very narrow spectrum and mock or otherwise heap derision on dissident voices appears to be a widespread practice. When we question the MSM response to the Rangers saga maybe it informs us if we think of this response as typical, rather than atypical, of MSM behaviour?

Chomsky’s quote looks like it was made in the late 1990s, in which case maybe before the full impact of the internet was appreciated, notably in giving a voice to those with a different perspective to the consensus the MSM would have us accept. I wonder how this issue would have played out in the pre internet days? Would each of us bampots have thought ourselves lone voices in the wilderness with no others sharing our views, no ability to influence the debate, no “No to Newco”. Thank goodness for the internet, thank goodness for the rise of the internet bampots!

 https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2476.Noam_Chomsky

View Comment

Cygnus X2Posted on9:32 am - Nov 18, 2015


This site already has The List on it.

I know this suggestion has been made before, but I think a definitive timeline of events that are beyond debate would also be incredible useful.

James Forrest’s two part article has apparently already grown into a four part article.  I think we’d all benefit from a wiki style timeline (without editorial) that could be used for ongoing reference.  I think we all believe that the timeline will continue to be updated for some time to come!

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:46 am - Nov 18, 2015


 DP @ 7.47

How about a wee Nordic championship pre Euros next summer? Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland? Now that would be fun.

Genuine question.
Which would be of more use to us (and also bearing in mind timing re end of the leagues (or start for some 22)), an international diddies competition, or each offering themselves up as competition to allow Euro16-going teams to sharpen their skills pre championship?  Or alternatively a coefficient destroying “money spinner” against an oil sheikh 11?

And most importantly, what is the plural of diddy?  And what’s the collective expression?

A haddie of diddies?  A bosom? 

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:51 am - Nov 18, 2015


From Alex Mooney (who?)  in this morning’s Record. It’s hard to know where to start with this, but this sentence caught my eye- “Their irreversibly entrenched view will always be that ‘the Protestant establishment club cheated on an industrial scale and the corrupt SFA and mainstream media were in cahoots in a whitewash’.”
I think we’re now being portrayed as sectarian bigots. The desperation is becoming tangible.

Opinionby AlexMooneyFREELANCE journalist Alex appeals for reconciliation as Scottish football threatens to tear itself apart.
TRYING to make sense of everything that’s happened with Rangers over the past five years may never be fully possible.
Millions of words have been written and spoken on the saga yet any solution appears to be as elusive as ever.
However, those who care about football in Scotland must come together now to heal gaping wounds that are ripping the game apart.
There is a way out of this but it requires a willingness to look again at what happened from a detached viewpoint and find consensus.
When you strip away the layers of vicious point-scoring and endless analysis on social media, surprisingly you find common ground for those on both sides of the divide who have devoted far more time to the subject than is healthy.
The latest eruption of warfare was triggered by HMRC winning their appeal. Let’s begin with that. Employee Benefit Trusts, or whatever cleverly-concocted names other tax avoidance schemes are called, may be legitimate or not. That is for m’learned friends to decide – and it is complex in legal terms. But every decent citizen knows they are wrong and therefore immoral and indefensible.
Created to deprive the exchequer, they are used by high earners who can more easily afford their contribution to the running of the country than the vast majority of workers on average or low pay. As such then, I have no problem in unreservedly condemning them. I have never defended Rangers’ use of EBTs and never will.
Now here’s the common ground – I don’t know many Gers fans who disagree. David Murray’s EBT era brought shame and embarrassment to the club and set off a disastrous chain of events in Govan that reverberates to this day.
Let’s forget all the sniping and tit-for-tat jousting from the armchair lawyers and tax experts about the next appeal – if there is one. Whether it’s won or lost won’t change the fact Rangers’ use of them was ethically wrong.
What has angered their fans is seeing the club being singled out while others were virtually ignored – at least six English Premier League clubs used EBTs. This is a valid complaint but doesn’t lessen the wrong-doing.
Dave King previously said sorry for their use and if he needs to apologise again then it will do no harm.
  Let’s find other common ground. There has been a campaign for trophies won during the EBT years to be stripped from the club. Its advocates claim the Ibrox side had an unfair financial advantage which allowed them to buy better players and pay higher wages than their competitors. This is true. To deny it is silly.
But it’s also self-evidently true of all professional sport. Big clubs throughout the world have that unfair advantage – their financial muscle means they always have more money for better players.
Apart from international fixtures, there will hardly be a game anywhere on the planet where one side doesn’t have that edge. It is the bedrock of professional football. In Scotland, Celtic are in that position in every domestic game.
The level playing field that title-strippers insist Rangers violated simply doesn’t exist in professional sport. It never has.
I can’t see any court in the land agreeing that one side being richer than the other amounts to cheating. If it did, all professional sport would revert to amateur status.
Cheating in football is not about some clubs having more cash than others. It is about players using performance-enhancing drugs, corrupt referees, match-fixing.
 Nor can cash saved from the taxman be called financial doping. Immoral as the EBT scheme may have been, and it was, it was not illegal and its use was clearly set out in Rangers’ annual accounts. Title-stripping is therefore something that should not happen.
So let’s cut through the conspiracy theories on this and find a logical conclusion – Rangers used an EBT scheme to avoid paying tax which was shameful but its use only gave them the same advantage on the field that all big clubs have.
I think most dispassionate and objective observers will accept this and use it as a fair agreement on which we can all move on.
Of course, this will infuriate the self-proclaimed, proud ‘bampots’ on social media toiling away 24/7 in pursuit of justice for Scottish football.
Their irreversibly entrenched view will always be that ‘the Protestant establishment club cheated on an industrial scale and the corrupt SFA and mainstream media were in cahoots in a whitewash’.
To them I ask this – what is it you want? Rangers have been ravaged in a way no one could have imagined five years ago. Whether you view their troubles as a self-inflicted consequence or a punishment is not important.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/alex-mooney-rangers-use-ebts-6852612

View Comment

TBKPosted on10:09 am - Nov 18, 2015


tykebhoy at 4:52 pm 
many thanks for the reply and the updated link. The numbers you mention are incorrect though. I count 53 players (38 of which the BBC had seen evidence of side letters)
There are 19 NON playing staff, including: directors / managers /doctors/ physio’s etc. (7 of which the BBC had seen evidence of side letters)
Then we have (some of) the missing players Arveladze, Latapy, Hemdani who are listed in LNS but not on BBC. We know from the FTT that there were 40 side letters and 81 active EBTs for “*Rangers FC Players”
Still doesn’t stack up.
Something is rotten in the heart of this…. and it aint Denmark!

View Comment

TBKPosted on10:14 am - Nov 18, 2015


easyJambo at 4:14 pm 
Many thanks EJ – great find. It’s easy to loose the detail in this soup!
Still interesting (i find) that the numbers do not stack up. That alone should call for root and branch investigation into this affair. We know that the DOS existed prior to 2000 but no action taken. How many more of these cases will NOT come to the surface?

View Comment

fishnishPosted on10:15 am - Nov 18, 2015


paddy malarkey 18th November 2015 at 1:02 am #Sorry to bother folk at this late/early hour but I would be obliged if I could get some clarification .Under ordinary business /ordinary resolutions for RIFC AGM, Messrs John Bennett, John Gilligan, Dave King, Paul Murray, Graeme Park, and Dallas Campbell all resign and offer themselves for re-appointment . On the company website, the Directors are listed as John Bennett, John Gilligan, Paul Murray, Graeme Park and James Blair and no others. Genuine question – how do you resign from something you are not on ?
………………………………………………………………….
a simpler (and possibly more irreverent) explanation, to that given by Giovane, above… Is that Wee Stevie in IT has less time to devote currently to the websites, cos The Warbmeister needs to replenish his stock of freebies and loans in January.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:16 am - Nov 18, 2015


Holy crap!  Where to start with that? (the Mooney article)

OK, first attempt.

This morning I discovered that I had been burgled.  But that’s ok as I assume that prior to last night that he didn’t have a tele whereas I did.  I think that’s the correct dispassionate and objective view isn’t it?

Alternatively, if it transpires that actually he had back at his burglar’s lair 19 other teles all better than mine, that’s OK too because that’s the way of competitive burglary the world over isn’t it.   

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:19 am - Nov 18, 2015


Joking apart, the Mooney article is possibly a huge breakthrough.  We’re now being asked what is it we want, whereas previously that question was only ever being asked of Murray, Whyte, Green, King…..

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on10:33 am - Nov 18, 2015


Yet another lazy journalist plays the sectarian card.

Tired, Predictable, Irrelevant, Incorrect.

View Comment

fishnishPosted on10:34 am - Nov 18, 2015


2015 at 9:51 am #From Alex Mooney (who?) in this morning’s Record. It’s hard to know where to start with this, but this sentence caught my eye- “Their irreversibly entrenched view will always be that ‘the Protestant establishment club cheated on an industrial scale and the corrupt SFA and mainstream media were in cahoots in a whitewash’.”I think we’re now being portrayed as sectarian bigots. The desperation is becoming tangible.
………………………………….
“thanks” for that, neepheid.
his two arguments seem to be 
a.  Other people doing the Rangers crime weren’t targeted and caught.  
I can imagine a shoplifter/burglar/murderer deploying the same argument successfully…  In the SMSM… Huh.
Also, I would bet that the others WILL be pursued.  They’ve just not been targeted and caught – YET.

b.  Throughout sport, big clubs already have a richness endowed by having bigger supports. So Rangers evading tax to give them even more wealth is not doing anything different or unusual.
As a diddy club fan, who already loathes the source of fans and the wealth it bestows/bestowed on Glasgow’s two/three biggest supported clubs,  I don’t know where to start with that one.
Best I just say… “Aye, right!”

grrrrrr08

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:34 am - Nov 18, 2015


“Immoral as the EBT scheme may have been, and it was, it was not illegal and its use was clearly set out in Rangers’ annual accounts.”

1, Tax avoidance may not be illegal in that it is not a criminal act, though I would argue that something punishable by a fine is still illegal, however it is most certainly unlawful.

2, It was hardly “clearly set out in Rangers’ annual accounts”. There may have been a total amount for payments into the main trust. However was there mention of payments into sub-trusts, or who the beneficiaries of those sub-trusts were. That’s like saying I spent £5,326 last year on various stuff is clearly setting the position out.

The article (for lack of another description) is a set of old excuses mixed in with needless mentions of religion and gratuitous insults. It is pathetic and quite shameful that it was published at all.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on10:45 am - Nov 18, 2015


neepheid 18th November 2015 at 9:51 am #
Desperate stuff.
Of course some clubs are richer than others.
That’s not the point.RFC are being liquidated because their riches were not enough to cover their needs.It should be remembered that this club received frequent injections of cash.JJB sports(£18m),Enic(£40m) etc and it still wasn’t enough.
WRT the legality of the EBTs,was this not decided(subject to appeal) by the highest court in Scotland?.
The old “other folk did it so it’s OK” line threw in again.I told an RFC supporting mate of mine that by this logic,Fred West should be let off because Myra Hindley done the same thing.A preposterous notion.I’m sure if HMRC think they’ve got a case against any EPL clubs then they’ll act accordingly.
So whilst Mooney is writing this rubbish,he decides to crank up the sectarian issue and drag CFC and Peter Lawwell into the debate,CFCs position on sectarianism is quite clear but doesn’t suit the narrative being spewed out by the MSM so both clubs are tarred by the same brush.
Thing is,all this does is incite RFC fans but doesn’t actually help the current entity in any way,shape or form.
What is scandalous,though(but not surprising)is the Daily Record actively encouraging sectarianism just to support a football club.With all that’s going on in the world right now,the last thing we need is someone fanning the flames.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on10:51 am - Nov 18, 2015


The Mooney piece is regurgitated from his very similar script in the Rangers Standard on 11/12/12,but I have to agree with him in this article,all that’s required is to strip away the points scored,edited slightly,that’s all that’s required,not title stripping,if that follows on so be it,it’s like night follows day Alex,simples.

View Comment

TBKPosted on11:06 am - Nov 18, 2015


Homunculus at 10:34 am
very well put sir! It was not illegal but was unlawful. It was also deliberately disguised, both in terms of being in the accounts and in regard to side-letters. 
Q. Does a “deliberate” (quoted from LNS Decision) tax avoidance scheme give an unfair advantage?

View Comment

TBKPosted on11:11 am - Nov 18, 2015


Q1. Where in the pre 2000 accounts was the Discounted Option Scheme noted?
Q2. Why was LNS “Investigation” steered away from investigating D.O.S?
Q3. Why did Souness draw down from an EBT, 10 years after leaving the club?
Q4. How can we know with any certainty there were no other players, in which deliberately concealed schemes to avoid tax, had side letters that have not been brought to account?
Q5. Can a ‘protector’ of the trust make payments to another? And if so, who were these payments to?

To paraphrase my gardener…..”Scottish Football Demands to know……”

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:23 am - Nov 18, 2015


The same Alex Mooney?
https://twitter.com/ExplodingPRats/status/666905402332872704

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on11:37 am - Nov 18, 2015


Given that Mr Mooney is adamant that both RTC and TSFM used censorship widely one is forced to wonder what name (or indeed names) he was using.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:38 am - Nov 18, 2015


So, in conclusion, if your end result is:

  1. a rangers fan base (suitably ravaged!) but otherwise accepting of their entitled unpunished lot (I was going to write happy – as if);
  2. a celtic club/company thingy (if not fan base) accepting that ‘competitiveness’ has returned, that the old firm strike and counter strike model, helicopters and all, is fired up once more but now with the implicit understanding going forwards that breaking rules is ok, and that the obvious downside risk of liquidation doesn’t have to happen anyway;
  3. that you now very publicly endorse that you don’t really care what the other clubs, that’s 40 out of 42 by the way, really think anyway (why else would you criticise clubs expressing the previously valid point that unnecessary cheating by a club that is already naturally advantaged anyway is ok?);
  4. that clubs – that’s 41 out of 42 ignoring the European element – having pi$$ed £millions they could ill afford trying to match said cheating should not seek any recompense, financially or otherwise because apparently that was an old club that isn’t the club that it now is, only it is, you see, no, but…but LNS said so…
  5. that in the event that you cheat (and why the hell wouldn’t you?) and get caught cheating (which would be helluva unlucky considering point 6) that a shredder is considered the lesser of two evils, the other being Sandy Bryson;
  6. that the administrators, (obvious placemen included) should not be considered in any way incompetent, never mind corrupted re the above and indeed should be receiving bonuses paid for by all of us for getting us to this higher plain of world football that we don’t seem to fully appreciate.
  7. that in the event that all of this happens that we can expect appropriately critical headlines such as “Glasgow Fitba (copyright R Mitchell), Its pure dead brilliant”

Then indeed, we can all move on.  

By the way I’ve booked a tee time for 3pm Saturday in July 2016.  Its open ended.  All welcome. 

View Comment

TBKPosted on11:50 am - Nov 18, 2015


“Of course, this will infuriate the self-proclaimed, proud ‘bampots’ on social media toiling away 24/7 in pursuit of justice for Scottish football.”
1. Some may be infuriated if they took any notice…….but its this kind of drivel that drives many on. The good fight goes on…..regardless.
“Their irreversibly entrenched view will always be that ‘the Protestant establishment club cheated on an industrial scale and the corrupt SFA and mainstream media were in cahoots in a whitewash’.”
2. “Their irreversibly entrenched view will always be…..” Thanks for letting the many concerned fans know their view. Very entitled of you!
3. Really? a “Protestant establishment club cheated”…. Thought it was the Clumpany? 🙂 Although I’m not sure you can get a “Protestant” Company…. can you? 
“To them I ask this – what is it you want?”
4. Justice, accountability and transparency. A full disclosure of what actually happened and why the Authorities covered it up.
“Whether you view their troubles as a self-inflicted consequence or a punishment is not important.”
5. again… Really?? The paying customers view is not important?  This guy is in danger of becoming a “Protestant establishment” mouthpiece……. Not that religious persuasion or perceived beliefs have anything to do with it for any decent human being. 

View Comment

Kid GlovesPosted on12:53 pm - Nov 18, 2015


A couple of points about the Alex Mooney article.

1. They are frightened. They can see the way the wind is blowing and that they are losing the argument. This is them trying to be reasonable.

2. It was more then just Celtic who were cheated. They just don’t get it. What as insult to the other 40 clubs.

3. It’s time for Peter Lawwell to show some class. Oh my God. Is there no end to the arrogance? PL should offer to have a glass of red with King and everything will be fine and dandy! Whit!!! 

HERE’S AN IDEA.
In the spirit of openness and friendliness that Mooney is apparently trying to encourage, why not have a completely open and independent enquiry into the whole fiasco? That way we can all see what went on, who did what, where and when and we can all make our own minds up.

Then and only then can we all move on. Rangers can apologise properly if it turns out they have something to apologise for, and the fans of the other 41 clubs will know if the decade worth of money and time they spent following what many now see as a rigged game was wasted or not.

Only if we have full openness and honesty can the healing process properly begin. Do not blame the fans of the other 41 for holding a severe grudge if yet another whitewash is forced upon us.

In 2015, like never before in the history of football, there are alternatives to watching an increasingly expensive and possibly dishonest game. Do not waste this opportunity to connect and work with your customers. You will regret it if you do. We all will.

View Comment

tearsofjoyPosted on1:05 pm - Nov 18, 2015


Where do you start with that stuff from Alex Mooney ?
What do we want ?
Well, for a start, it would be a pleasant change to see a “journalist” write about this sorry episode as though he/she actually understood it and understood why so many people (supporters are people , after all) are so angry about it.
Personally , I don’t suffer from anger or moral outrage at Rangers RIP use of EBTs. As we know , ad nauseam, EBTs are legal – it was Rangers use of them that wasn’t.
What I want is for journalists to simply understand that my anger & outrage (along with most others )is based on the registration rules which Rangers clearly , calculatingly and deliberately decided to ignore over such a prolonged period.
Why is that difficult to understand ?
Why does Mooney waste his time telling us how difficult EBTs are as a subject matter (they’re not Alex – earned income is taxable , you can’t put it into a EBT – simples). Why so many words but not one  mention of the registration failings and all it entails  that fires our anger. Why no criticism of Rangers personnel involved – Ogilvie et al , who knew everything but did/said nothing.
I don’t need to “move on” re Rangers use of EBTs.I moved on from that a long time ago.
 I need to & want to “move on” from the scandalous way this has been handled by the footballing bodies. That’s what I want, Alex. Simples. Question is , if the footballing authorities aren’t going to allow me to do that then how can I ?

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on1:53 pm - Nov 18, 2015


Presumably the Record is willing to publish an alternative view of the crisis in our game? For example they could print James Forrest’s timeline of events as us bampots see them.Will they? Nah.Thought not.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:57 pm - Nov 18, 2015


Another string to my bow, another entry for my cv . Sectarian bigot by association, no less . At least he admitted that we are talking about a (the ?) Protestant Establishment club ,which is now in the process of being liquidated ,and not the club cobbled together from the business and assets . I think somebody just woke up to how serious the position is ,and is starting to fear the worst. Curious way to try to effect a rapprochement -insult and demonise your opposition .

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:59 pm - Nov 18, 2015


There are serious questions to be asked of the Daily Record iro that latest guest blog. 
Surely in this day and age one of the anti bigotry programmes funded by the Scottish government would have something to say about the DR’S policy of allowing inflammatory views to be given such a wide platform.    

The DR just crossed a line.

– See more at: http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/sinister-and-inflammatory/comment-page-2/#comment-2720572

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:19 pm - Nov 18, 2015


Auldheid 18th November 2015 at 1:59 pm #There are serious questions to be asked of the Daily Record iro that latest guest blog. 

But the real question is surely this- WHY are the Daily Record doing this to themselves? They are based in Glasgow, they have already comprehensively pissed off half their demographic with that ludicrous “Vow” nonsense, yet they seem determined to do exactly the same to a different half of their demographic by turning themselves into an Ibrox fanzine.
In business terms, it is surely utter madness. Their circulation drops by 10%+ every year, but they just keep on digging. Can anyone explain, please?

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on2:20 pm - Nov 18, 2015


Basically IMO it has been a very large (in an unbalanced kind of way) number of ex Rangers men (or men who had allegiance to the Ibrox club),that have been in high positions of power in Scottish Football, say for example since the DM period (if truth be told further back in time than that).  They have influenced the game in such a way to benefit the Govan club at any cost and in any way they could. That is why we are where we are today, it is that simple and with a paid for and compliant press they had free reign. We all deserve the truth, they all deserve to be punished and only then can our game move on. 
Paranoia then, paranoia now and hopefully paranoia put to bed in the future.
We all were not paranoid enough.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on2:33 pm - Nov 18, 2015


Neepheid – “But the real question is surely this- WHY are the Daily Record doing this to themselves?”
Just my uniformed take on it, but I think they know that they’re circling the plughole in terms of circulation numbers and the upcoming end of their industry. They keep being told (here and elsewhere) that the new media is what’s killing them off, so in an attempt to make them seem relevant, they’ve tried to adopt the skin of the new media in a small way. However, they really don’t understand it hence the crappy online versions that aren’t working for them and, in the case of the Record, this recent move to providing print space for ‘fan bloggers’.
Because they don’t understand it, they think the new media is just about banter and loud voices, so they try to replicate that by giving space to Rangers bloggers slagging Celtic; Celtic fans having a go at Rangers; other clubs’ fans slagging Rangers etc.
Because of the hand that feeds, they’re too scared to give sensible articles challenging the status quo (Survival myth, the SFA/SPFL etc) the light of day.

View Comment

Comments are closed.