I have been receiving quite a bit of unflattering mail about the “agenda” being pursued on this blog. Depending on the correspondent, that is defined as either denying people their civil right to gloat, hiding the “truth” that people of the RC faith are welcomed and encouraged to come to Ibrox, or indulging in Chamberlain-style appeasement with the banning of the “H” word and other incontrovertible rights-to-insult.
The objection to moderation of any sort appears to be at the root of these diatribes. Our position here in terms of moderation is clear. There is no “agenda” other than a desire not to be chasing up posts containing the rantings and ravings of partisan types who “demand” their right to be heard no matter how objectionable it might be to those hear it. We are not here to service a conduit for conspiracy theories based in Masonic Lodges or the Vatican. There are plenty of places where people can indulge in that kind of stuff, but the moderators here are just not interested. The administration of the site takes around four hours per day. That’s a long time trawling through posts which often set out deliberately to insult, abuse or otherwise cause offence – mildly or otherwise.
Our view is that the blog will only have cross-club support if we stick to what we can substantiate by fact or reasonably infer from the way things proceed. Further, we feel that if we are to gain credibility as an alternative source of news and comment to the MSM, that we need to cut down on the fansite type comments. There is no dignity (a word often used here) in calling the Rangers manager or their fans names. We need to maintain higher standards of impartiality than football fansites, because we know that a united fan base can actually make a difference as RTC did when the SPL chairmen were gearing up for a parachute for the new Rangers. OT discussions are fine, and often amusing, but they shouldn’t become the main reason to come here.
The requirement to have a WordPress account before posting here is not in any way draconian. It is designed to make people accountable for what they post whilst still maintaining anonymity, and therefore being exempt from moderation. Those who don’t like it are not being compelled to carry out any instruction – they only need go to a place where they don’t feel so constrained.
If the main issue of this blog becomes how the blog is being administered – or how the moderation policy is affecting the human rights of posters, we may as well just pack up now.
There have never been any objections to the suggested posting rules on here. We assume that people who post are reasonably intelligent. Therefore it seems fair to assume that those who have ignored the suggested posting rules did so deliberately. If that doesn’t happen, moderation is just not required.
If what we are trying to do fails because of our posting framework, then we will be blamed. We are certain though, that we can have no credibility if we indulge ourselves in conspiracy theories and constant references to anachronistic organisations, the Scottish school system, and the leanings of referees.
There is real corruption in Scottish football. It is based not on religious rivalries but on greed and acquisitiveness. The only thing that matters is that we identify that corruption and help put an end to it.
Our job is to ask questions and not jump to our own conclusions about the answers. That will divide us as surely as the realisation of the depth of the corruption united us. To be totally united as fans, we need to have more Rangers fans on here. Therefore we need to create an atmosphere that they can be comfortable with. Is that the case right now? The anger for RFC’s mismanagement and abuse of the game in Scotland is real, but we need to look forward if we are truly committed to ensuring that what happened to Rangers can’t happen again.
We’re not gonna throw the toys out of the pram here. If anyone else would like to run the blog under those circumstances of zero moderation, we will be happy to hand over the domain. There is no “agenda” – we will be happy to hand the work over to others.
The initial posting which proposed the change to WordPress logins received over 130 TUs and only three TDs. Subsequently the post advising of the changes got around 100 TUs and 100 TDs. It seems that minds are not entirely made up.
To get some closure on this once and for all, we have added a poll below to end on Saturday at 1700 where you can decide whether you want to go along with our original plan in terms of login and moderation. We obviously recommend that you vote “Yes”
angus1983 says:
September 26, 2012 at 12:40
My monies on, “Everyone needs to respect Nimmo Smith’s panel, and await its verdict” or some such
Best laugh I’ve had in years
alex thomson@alextomo
K MacKenzie demanding apology from SY Police for ‘years of vilification’ over Hillsboro
I think you’re probably right, Scapa, though not sure why they would need to give 48hrs notice for that.
Menawhile, Mr McCoist says on BBC website:
“And, asked about the prospect of being stripped of accolades, McCoist said in jest: “For my 50th birthday, I got all my medals in a big trophy and a plaque.
“If anybody wants to come and take them, they’re more than welcome, but they’ll never take the medals away from the players who earned them thoroughly.”
Ally therefore confirming that he didn’t earn his medals. 🙂
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 26, 2012 at 12:06
Yes, audited accounts are needed for a listing on AIM, which is what Rangers intend to do. In principle there should be audiited accounts for the last three worth, but if the company has existed for elss than 3 years – as would be the case here – then as many as possible.
An underwriter is not obligatory. An underwriter is usually involved if the issuing company wants to be guaranteed of receiving proceeds from the IPO, even if there is no stock market appetitie. The risk is then transferred to the underwiter in return for a very high fee.
All requirements for an AIM listing are described here: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/publications/documents/a-guide-to-aim.pdf
The idea of someone physically taking their medals away is bordering on the childish.
“Stripping of trophies” or “Stripping of medals” is just a headline Ally. They won’t actually do that they will just change the records. You can’t actually do anything to stop that.
Players will still have the actual “medal” it will just be a tarnished trinket.
angus1983 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:06
When I read McCoist’s line, i had a mental image of Charlton Heston clutching a musket and shouting
“They’ll have to prise this from my cold dead fingers”
I think it’s hilarious that someone thinks the SPL are going to go round all the players who have SPL medals and ask for them back.
Of course they won’t
They can keep their medals, their memories etc. They can celebrate the games they played in…for the footballers did win them.
the problem is, the club broke the rules and the club is not entitled to them. the history book will be rewritten to remove the clubs name. That is all.
When Sevconians talk about 54 and counting, i’m sure they’ll hear no dissenting voices at the sevconian social clubs, however, when they want to talk to supporters of other teams, the reality of the situation will be rammed home. The wee red book will be rewritten, the 5 stars may well remain but will be like a seeping open sore and will be a symbol to mock them more than anything.
The vangaurd bores are fighting a fight that no one else is fighting.
They should change their catchphrase to “Defending our paranoid delusions”
Is it any wonder the game/country is in such a mess.
Incidently, a few emails to Mr Salmond highlighting his absurd defence of a large number of unwavering unionists has fallen on deaf ears.
Unsurprisingly.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:13
=======================
If it does happen, which is by no means certain, then i really hope they do keep the 5 red stars.
It really would be a constant reminder.
Charlie is a man in a hurry
He needs money, lots of it, and he needs it quickly, so all of his statements are aimed at getting the Sevcovians on side and keeping them there, hence his ever more bizarre statements and stunts (think “tangerine” jersey)
This of course is exactly the message his follow followers want to hear, and he quickly latched on to their core values for his own ends
The piece by the Vanguard Loonies, coupled with the equally crazy e-petition ,shows exactly how the hardcore view this
Looking at some of the nonsense they spout, you would think that it was their enemies who ran up millions in debt, managed to transfer it to RFC(IA), and caused the demise of the oldco
In their world, it’s all a plot to destroy Sevco, and all that in their eyes it stands for, ignoring completely the fact that it is their own people have put them in the position they are in now
He knows that he has nothing to fear from the spinless and gutless Stooges Inc, and that is why he is deliberately taunting them, with the MSM printing his rants verbatim, with no questions asked
Sevcovians of course are lapping this up, and hailing him as the true champion of “The Cause”
It will be interesting though, to see if they will back him with their hard earned cash, which after all is what Charlie is really all about
Time, as usual, will tell
The vangaurd bores are fighting a fight that no one else is fighting.
They should change their catchphrase to “Defending our paranoid delusions”
Is it any wonder the game/country is in such a mess.
Incidently, a few emails to A Salmond highlighting his absurd defence of a large number of unwavering unionists has fallen on deaf ears.
Unsurprisingly.
Lets suppose cross examination and written evidence leads LNS to conclude that not only were RFC breaking the registration rules for over a decade but that the SPL/SFA bureaucracy were proven to have been aware of this rule breaking and done nothing
Can the SPL and SFA be sued by domestic and foreign clubs because this has cost them a lot of money?
Is being sued a bigger worry to the SPL and SPL than being perceived as once again acting corruptly?
Is it a sufficient worry for them to cancel the LNS Tribunal and risk the whole structure of independent Tribunals collapsing?
I can`t help feeling this is where we are heading
rab says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:14
Incidently, a few emails to Mr Salmond highlighting his absurd defence of a large number of unwavering unionists has fallen on deaf ears.
=========================
I think wee Alex just wants this all to go away. He knows that he totally screwed up by pandering to a constituency who would never vote SNP in a million years, not even if he put his hand in his own pocket and paid off HMRC personally. And, of course, at the same time alienating lifelong Nationalists like myself. Talk about lose, lose! For a normally astute and surefooted politician, he got this one very badly wrong.
goosygoosy @ 13:27
If they try to cancel the tribunal, the protests over Sevco’s admission to the SPL, will look like a kindergarten tea party in comparison
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 26, 2012 at 12:21
Precisely, why is there ambiguity between the definition of the SFL,SPL,SFA rulebooks. Somebody has to sort this out
goosygoosy says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:27
Goosey, interesting theory, but I really think that both the SFA and the SPL have lost control over this process. Their challenge is going to come when Nimmo Smith and the FTT deliver their respective verdicts and penalties. An inquiry into the SFA/SPL is now all but inevitable.
insidewinger says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:07
I can’t imagine the audited accounts of a company that has only been operating for a couple of months could be very informative, even to the best of analysts, and surely AIM would expect at least one set of Annual Accounts to be produced, but apparently not if Green thinks he can go ahead with his placing. Nonetheless, I’m sure the audited accounts, for whatever period they cover, will be very interesting. The date of the accounts will be interesting too, as I’m sure it will take a while for them to be audited and signed off (just ask Rangers 😉 ), and getting them printed in time to go out with the prospectus will be difficult and might well lead to a postponement. With all that in mind, surely Green must be aiming his sales pitch solely at the Rangers support as no one with any financial knowledge (and no love of Rangers) would ever get involved.
allyjambo says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:37
========================
I agree, the plan has to be to sell these shares to the fans themselves. There will surely be little interest from serious investors. Who would be interested and to what end.
The problem is , from our stance is you are assuming guilt, before we have even been found guilty.
1) you guys took for fact that Club/Company were inseparable, Lord Nimmo and 2 QCs disagreed, Though only with regards the SPL rule book.
2) You claim the EBT’s are irrelevant, as it is only the dual contracts/side letters that are under scrutiny. However if the FTTP finds that the EBTs were actually legal, not contractual, then what is the SFA stand there?
I shouldn’t think they’ll cancel LNS’s thing.
But they might, through unforeseen circumstances and against their will, have to put it back for 6 months / a year / indefinitely. That wouldn’t be a surprise.
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:41
What you postulate is theoriticall possible, but if you really believe the FTT appeal will overturn the original finding in any material way, then please contact me off line, I have a couple of bridges you might be interested in….
angus1983 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:42
I think they will, I believe they have got themselves into such a mess now, they have little option.
davis58 @ 13:41
Even if the FTT rules that there was no fault with the EBTs, there is still the question of whether or not RFC(IA) fully disclosed payments from them, in the contracts lodged with the SFA/SPL
They are two completely separate issues
scapaflow14 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:45
How is it impossible? If the tax tribunal finds there is no case to answer, IE it was not contractual payments, then why would there be a necessity to lodge “contracts” that did not legally exist.
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:41
“The problem is , from our stance is you are assuming guilt, before we have even been found guilty.”
Actually, HMRC did return a guilty verdict. The reason the FTT is sitting at all, is that RFC appealed the verdict, as they were perfectly entitled to do.
Does anyone have further information regarding Section 9 of the Reasons published by LNS.
I’m intrigued by the statement “Issue 3(c) in the Notice of Commission…alleging that the club was in breach of the Rules by playing ineligible players”.
Ive been assuming this ineligibility is a consequence of not recording the EBT payments in the contracts and failing to notifiy the SPL/SFA about them but I’m now wondering if this specific statement might refer to something else that’s been uncovered during the recent trawl through the archives and paperwork relating to RFC. The mention of this one Issue just struck me as a bit odd.
Is there any way of getting hold of the full Notice of Commission? I don’t recall seeing a link to it anywhere.
insidewinger says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:07
———————————
thanks, quick look reveals this is ideal for chuckie greens purposes!
AIM
No minimum market capitalisation
No trading record requirement
No prescribed level of shares to be in public hands
No prior shareholder approval for most transactions*
Nominated Adviser required at all times – NOMAD
Admission documents not pre-vetted by the Exchange or
by the UKLA in most circumstances. The UKLA will only
vet an AIM admission document where it is also a
Prospectus under the Prospectus Directive
A company admitted to AIM must appoint and retain a Nomad throughout its time on market. Among other things, the Nomad will:
* undertake due diligence to ensure your company is suitable for AIM
* ensure the directors are appropriate and capable of acting as a board for a company trading on a UK public market
* provide guidance to the company throughout the flotation process
* co-ordinate and oversee the preparation of the AIM admission document
* confirm to the Exchange that the company is appropriate for AIM
* prepare the company for life on a public market
* act as the primary regulator throughout a company’s time on AIM by keeping abreast of developments at the company, and ensuring the company continues to understand its obligations under the AIM Rules.
wonder if chuckie knows a friendly Nomad?
scapaflow14 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:54
Actually, HMRC did return a guilty verdict. The reason the FTT is sitting at all, is that RFC appealed the verdict, as they were perfectly entitled to do.
No they did not HMRC send you a bill based on what they believe you owe, you either accept their demand or you challenge it. You certainly are not found guilty.
The question is not whether the EBTs were contractual or not.
As far as the SFA/SPL are concerned the point is, were they declared.
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:01
If they belived that RFC’s use of the EBT mechanism was “innocent” they would not have spent the demand, or spent god knows how much tax payers money contesting the appeal. So sorry, i stand by the guilty shorthand, however, it seems likely we’ll have a definitive answer very soon.
Looking forward toyou putting your hands up and saying “fair cop gov” very soon now.
goosygoosy says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:27
0 1 i
Rate This
Lets suppose cross examination and written evidence leads LNS to conclude that not only were RFC breaking the registration rules for over a decade but that the SPL/SFA bureaucracy were proven to have been aware of this rule breaking and done nothing
Can the SPL and SFA be sued by domestic and foreign clubs because this has cost them a lot of money?
Is being sued a bigger worry to the SPL and SPL than being perceived as once again acting corruptly?
Is it a sufficient worry for them to cancel the LNS Tribunal and risk the whole structure of independent Tribunals collapsing?
I can`t help feeling this is where we are heading
__________________________________________________________
This is why I think the SPL/SFA won’t bow down to the Sevco/MSM pressure and, not only allow the tribunal to procede, but uphold their findings too. Obviously now, if they do back down, there is only one conclusion to be drawn, and that is, as you suggest, that they are implicated. No organisation could possibly continue to operate with that hanging over them, nobody would ever believe or trust them again. While I suspect that Ogilvie himself is implicated, from the outset; Regan, and perhaps Doncaster too, are merely his puppets and might only be implicated in a cover-up during the past few months/effort to keep the game afloat (I’m sure they’d use some similar description) and so, if they let LNS procede, and justice is seen to be done, they might just get away with it.
Still, some time tonight, they might make their statement and prove me completely wrong, and risk some real journalist, say Mark Daly, turning his attention away from Rangers and firmly set on our football administrators! A certain Law Lord might not be very happy with them either!
…….as all payments to players must be declared, contractual or loans.
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:41
The problem is , from our stance is you are assuming guilt, before we have even been found guilty.
——
Fair comment, davis. However, you only have to read AJ’s recent statement to kind of end up at that assumption. He more or less admits guilt, and tries to minimise the punishment.
1)The Club/Company thing. This is a royal feck-up all round. Definitions were not tied down and related to allied organisations. However, if sticking to the SPL Rules, which LNS appears to be doing, then Rangers FC never went anywhere. The current Rangers FC must accept the misdemeanours of the otherwise dead RFC.
2) The EBT thing is not relevant to the SPL enquiry, as everyone keeps telling you. You have to separate the whole issue of EBTs from the SPL concern that payments (in whatever form) were made to players/staff that were not declared according to the rules.
scapaflow14 says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:04
Yes, I certainly will if we are found guilty of these charges. However have you considered why, anyone would use an offshore tax avoidance system, and deliberately circumvent the main precept that it must be non contractual? This does not make any sense. Then consider if Rangers were guilty of abusing the EBT tax avoidance system, by paying contractual payments, via a system designed for non contractual payments, then surely they would have reached a conclusion months ago.
We surely have the right of innocent before guilty? And even the what is our guilt, an administration error?
Davis58 – here is the situation.
If there is one pound paid to a player outside of the contract registered with SFA there is an issue with the reulations – and that means he is ineligible.
Therefore – if the players salary paid matches the amounts as ladi out in the contract – RFC are innocent of any impropriety.
What RTC showed was the contract with the SFA matched the salry – but bonuses and appearence money were by way of EBTs – which were not in the SFA contract.
He used Gavin Rae as the example.
This is why the FTT has no bearing on the dual contracts – becaus eno player is allowed any money outside of his registered contract.
And before we quote Junhino’s case – he was paid off the remainder of his contract – same with Billy Dodds. However Celtic paid taxes, RFC we have Billy saying they did – but then why the EBT?
Basically – the side letters are evidence of extra monay paid to the player outside of the contract registered with SFA
Can anyone tell me who “Strathan ME Limited” are?
I was having a quick look at the rangers Crossbar Challenge to see what Chuckles was up to now.
read all about it here – http://www.therangerscrossbarchallenge.co.uk/
you’ll notice that is not hosted on the rangers.co.uk site
you’ll also notice there is nothing on the page that states who owns the page and is running the competition
There is a phone number for the call centre handling the entries and in the T&C’s it makes reference to “Strathan ME Limited” – Not rangers
I did a quick google on “”Strathan ME Limited” and it looks like those guys have done a Craig Whyte and paid to have their history deleted as there are no results
So, who are they?
I understand this type of competition is usually just an insurance policy – costing a few grand to take out. so, probably a nice little earner for chuckles – but who runs it and where is the money going? Is “Strathan ME Limited” another JV where the profits go to THE Rangers – just like Rangers Retail with Sports Direct.
http://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/digging-the-hole-ever-deeper/
In a previous post, this blog attempted to help the SPL’s investigation team to establish a prima facie case against Rangers. Obviously, we have no way of knowing if this was helpful in moving this case along, but it might help the media and anyone investigating the case against Rangers if we provide a road-map to just one example of what really happened. Please note that this example has been selected for its clarity rather than the importance of the player. Many of the cases, especially the earlier ones when Rangers tended to be more concerned with obscuring their actions, are quite complex. The SPL’s investigators should ensure that they see the documentation referenced below.
Gavin Rae signed a three and a half-year contract with Rangers on 1 January 2004. This contract- the official one filed with the SFA & SPL- lists an annual wage of £260,000. Curiously, the contract does not mention appearance money or bonuses. On the very same day, 1 January 2004, Rangers provided Gavin Rae with a letter that said that money would be deposited in a sub-trust of the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust on his behalf. These amounts total £336,000. The letter also said that Rae would receive £1,000 as an appearance fee for every competitive first-team game played. From February 2004 to July 2007, Rae received five payments totalling £336,000. He also received the following amounts through the EBT for appearances: £11,000 (2003/04); £8,000 (2005/06); £20,000 (2006/07). The appearance money matches his first team appearances for Rangers.
This side letter torpedoes the argument that these payments were not contractual. (A simple guide to contract formation under Scots Law can be found here. Short version: these letters constitute a contract under Scots Law). This letter, and the others like it, demonstrate that Rangers used the EBT scheme to pay wages (appearance money) and contractual obligations related to employment. This is just one fragment of the masses of evidence that demonstrate that Rangers were “at it”.
“an administration error?”
Dear god almighty, an adminsitrative error by spartans (failing to physically sign a form), got them kicked out of a cup comptetion.
“However have you considered why, anyone would use an offshore tax avoidance system, and deliberately circumvent the main precept that it must be non contractual? ”
That is a puzzler, but that looks to be precisely what they did. If there was a Darwin Award for football clubs, RFC would qualify. Personally, I think an agent or player baulked at the ebt, and the side letters came about to give them comfort. Ye olde porn star who was advising the comapny, more or less admitted something along those lines, or as he put the bus driver couldn’t drive.
When you’re in a hole best to stop digging
exiledcelt says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:16
Yes fine, but those payments would be contractual by there very nature. If the Tribunal decides they are not and there is no case to answer, after all rangers legal team believes this, then how can the SFA say otherwise?
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:14
We surely have the right of innocent before guilty? And even the what is our guilt, an administration error?
—————————————————————-
you’d think so eh? but not with the tax man. If he issues an assessment, it is up to you to prove him wrong.
RFC have been issued a bill, they haven’t successfully negotiated a settlement directly with HMRC and so have had to go to FTT
in this instance, it is guilty until you prove otherwise i’m afraid.
As for the “administration error” well, that might be why it’s taking so long – we could well be heading for criminal charges over evasion. but if it does turn out to simply be an admin error – then you will face the consequences without fear or favour – ask Spartans and Dunfermline about admin errors – they were kicked out of tournaments for admin errors
Davis58 – please see the excerpt I posted from RTC reg Gavin Rae – I think you can see the case that is not only going to be answered but gauging CG, AJ and AMcL rush to defend the indefensible, they know what the answer is going to be.
scapaflow14 says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:19
Ye olde porn star who was advising the comapny, more or less admitted something along those lines, or as he put the bus driver couldn’t drive.
He actually had nothing to do with Rangers EBT. His implementation was a thing of beauty. Basically you requested a loan from the trustees, stating some generic reason like home improvements, they agreed and issues the loan. The recipient re payed the loan on his death, stuffing HMRC once again out of inheritance tax! The loan was then immediately issued to whoever he stated in his will under the same conditions, which completed the cycle.
exiledcelt says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:16
If there is one pound paid to a player outside of the contract registered with SFA there is an issue with the reulations – and that means he is ineligible.
==============================================
I think the argument being used is that the EBT’s were LOANS, not payments.
So, if someone received a loan from the club, it is EXPECTED to be repaid, so it is not a payment and therefore does it need to be declared to the SFA
What is the exact wording in the SFA rules?
So, it is possible monies from EBT’s might in themselves not have to be declared – as technically/legally this is a loan
It then comes down to did second, undeclared contacts exist – it wouldn’t matter if money came from EBT/Wages/brown bags stuffed with filthy lucre – simply was the player given money for playing football that was not to be repaid and was not declared in the SFA contract
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:14
0 0 i Rate This
….We surely have the right of innocent before guilty? And even the what is our guilt, an administration error?
===========================================
Glad to see you arguing a case here. Two questions:
1. What do you think is the likely outcome of the FTTT if the application of the EBTs by Rangers is ruled to have been poorly administered and therefore outwith the rules for such tax avoidance schemes?
2. What do you think should be the outcome if it’s found by the SPL investigation chaired by LNS that the documentation for a number of players’ registration (in respect of contract/payment) is found to have been poorly administered or not fully declared?
It would be helpful if you could cite precedence in rulings by either of the ruling organisations when offering your view.
davis58 – dont want to gang up on you – but wanted to say what really angers me in of this – and its something that you also shoudl be angry about
RFC in 2008 were given a tax assessment of 50 million by HMRC. This could have been put aside over the next 4 years while they fought it – just in case they lost. They did not.
If they had won they could have used the 50 million to buy players and make a charge on European glory.
RFC fans should be angrey at SDM and AJ for not protecting the club in this way.
By the time CW came it it was all but over – as AJ acknowledged himself that they were contemplating admin last summer prior to CW takng over.
The real crime was being assessed for a bill and doing hee haw about it to cover it.
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:41
1 4 Rate This
The problem is , from our stance is you are assuming guilt, before we have even been found guilty.
1) you guys took for fact that Club/Company were inseparable, Lord Nimmo and 2 QCs disagreed, Though only with regards the SPL rule book.
2) You claim the EBT’s are irrelevant, as it is only the dual contracts/side letters that are under scrutiny. However if the FTTP finds that the EBTs were actually legal, not contractual, then what is the SFA stand there?
=============
Fair questions.
1) I have believed all along that club and company are separate, and got a bit of a kicking for expressing that view on RTC a few months back. So not quite everyone on here took the same view.
2) If the FTT were to find that the EBT payments were unrelated to playing football, then the SFA would not have a dual contract problem, agreed. Dream on for that one, though. Why do YOU think the EBT payments were made? Colour of eyes? Financial need? Pert behind? Natural love and affection? Nobody, but nobody, is that stupid.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:29
eaxactly, you can pay footballers with used fivers from the local dope dealer, as long as the payments are recorded with the SFA, you don’t have a problem with the football authorities.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:58
I thought Rangers had already appointed Cenkos Securities as Nomad?
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:29
Oh dear, yes we all know that MIH actually set up the ebt scheme. I’m off the clock today, how much are you charging Green for providing us with entertainment?
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:21
Davis, the SFA aren’t directly concerned with whether payments were contractual or not, only whether payments were made in relation to playing football – in which case all related documentation had to be part of the single (contract) document registered. Any position to emerge from the FTTT on their contractual nature, or otherwise, is irrelevant to whether the players were correctly registered and so eligible to play in various competitions.
As has been mentioned, Spartans have been kicked out of a cup for the sin of omitting a second signature – which can well be argued to be an over-reaction to an administrative oversight.
In this case, however, regardless of how the FTTT pans out, there is already sufficient evidence out there that – for whatever reason – RFC deliberately hid documentation relating to player payments from the SFA. If LNS reaches a guilty verdict, then (back-dated) exclusion from the relevant competitions would seem rather more appropriate.
If LNS reaches a verdict of innocence, it would only seem possible that this would reflect a defence that the EBT payments were indeed loans (see NTHM at 14:29); and, moreover, that the terms and conditions of the loans were such that these did not represent a benefit to the players requiring declaration. Given how much information about EBTs in general, and these in particular, is now in the public domain, this seems a highly unlikely finding.
What is an administrative error? Is it not usually a small one-off mistake? You know the kind of thing, forgetting to put a second date on a contract, the kind of error that gains no advantage, and is usually carried out by the smallest of clubs, run in the main by enthusiastic amateurs. Are such errors forgiveable? No, not in Scottish football they’re not. So, does the claim, ‘it was just an administrative error’, make much difference? Especially when carried out by the ‘biggest club in Scotland’, with a fair number of professional administrators, and providing a huge financial advantage to that team.
Of course, none but the most desperate would ever claim that repeated ommissions on many contracts, carried out over so many years, could ever be described as an administrative error and it is absurd to do so; but even if it was, and we assume a punishment proportionate to that meted out to Spartans and others, Rangers FC would be long forgotten before their suspension from the Scottish Football League was ever served.
From SFA Registration Preocedures section4
All payments to be made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement. No payments for his playing activities may be made to a player via a third party.
exiledcelt says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:30
That is an excellent point. if a client was given a bill from the tax man they were going to contest, I would strongly advise them to make a provision for payment, in case things didn’t go their way. If AJ really is a member of the Institute then he has some serious professional competence questions to answer as well as all the others.
No wonder he is getting his excuses in early 😉
exiledcelt says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:30
0 0 i Rate This
The real crime was being assessed for a bill and doing hee haw about it to cover it.
=================================================================
Exile, it would be reasonable to expect company directors to to plan for such an eventuality. According to AJ they did – they told themselves that David Murray would handle things if the FTTT ruled in favour of HMRC. I’d suggest that someone (any disillusioned Rangers fan) give AJ a quick reminder of the legal responsibilities of company directors in the UK. “It was his fault” just isn’t a good enough defence. They could also maybe remind him that being one of those responsible for killing a company by saddling it with £134m debt from when it should be a cash cow isn’t too smart either.
It really is quite simple
If payments have been made to a player’s EBT for playing football, and that includes appearance and bonus payments, then those are contractual, and PAYE and NI will be due
If these same payments have not been declared in the contracts lodged, then the player was not properly registered and was therefore ineligible to play for the club
It’s time to let the Tribunals deliver their findings without fear or favour, or undue external pressure being applied
exiledcelt says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:45
From SFA Registration Preocedures section4
All payments to be made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement. No payments for his playing activities may be made to a player via a third party.
—————————————————–
thanks
So, if the FTT (unexpectedly) returns a “not guilty” verdict – then the EBT monies were not payments at all – and didn’t need to be declared in the SFA contracts – so it MIGHT be foolish to proceed with the SPL case until the FTT ruling comes out.
Of course, if there is evidence to suggest players would be paid appearance money, win bonus’s etc. via ANY METHOD that was not recorded in their contract lodged with the SPL/SFA then of course, the SPL/SFA can proceed without giving any thought to the FTT
scapaflow14 @ 14:49
Great play is made of the fact that payments made to the EBT schemes were declared in the accounts, however I don’t recall any mention of a possible liability for the BTC being declared
I wonder how Mr Surrender No would explain that
angus1983 on September 26, 2012 at 13:06
“If anybody wants to come and take them, they’re more than welcome, but they’ll never take the medals away from the players who earned them thoroughly.”
Ally therefore confirming that he didn’t earn his medals.
—————————————————–
Oops! Freudian Slip?
campsiejoe says:
September 26, 2012 at 15:10
Wasn’t the lack of provision one of the many reasons behind the Auditor’s refusal to sign off a “clean” set?
To Davis58
As opposed to just asking questions why not just take 5 and outline why exactly in your opinion, given all you know from this site, RTC before it, Mark Daly’s documentary and all that has been written in the press, why Rangers will get of scot free at both the FTTT and the LNS Commission.
That way people can then have a decent debate with you knowing what your side of the argument is from the start as opposed to you picking and choosing where to position yourself.
Far be it for me to speak for other but my guess that majority of people posting here believe.
-Rangers decided to channel monies to players through a legal EBT.
-However evidence in the public domian appears to show that this EBT was administered incorrectly as side letters and other documents indicate payment was linked to performance and the like and therefore the payments became contractural.
-The now porn star who dreamt up the scheme has indicated there is a more than even chance Rangers didn’t follow his guidance and have screwed the whole thing up.
-HMRC appear to support this position and have sent Rangers a bill for the tax they believe the club has not paid.
-Rangers have appealed and the FTTT will make a ruling.
-The ruling will hopefully clear up whether or not mistakes in administering the EBT were deliberate or not.
-The Martin Bain ‘shred it’ incident, which I think I am right came out in the court case that he eventually dropped, indicates that the then Chief Executive and Chairman knew that the EBT payments had to be on a nod and a wink and could in no way be seen to be contractural. However there is evidence of side letters and the like over the years that appear to link the payments to contractural performance.
(Why Bain allowed this to happen is a mystery unless of course it was taken out of his hands and run by SDM’s stooges in the way Billy Dodds describes).
-Therefore for people here believe that, given the number of players involved and the knowledge held within the club by Bain and others, someone in or on behalf of the club, over many years, knew they were operating the EBT scheme incorrectly and this will be borne out when the FTTT result is made public.
-In realising that the EBT saga raised the question -had all player payments and benefits at Rangers been declared as required by football rules? – the SPL reviewed the situation over the period in question.
-Lawyers after examining the papers, reluctantly provided, have provided an initial report saying that there is a prima facia case to answer. That means that like the evidence mentioned above, there is similar documentation that means the matter must be investigated further.
-Similar to the FTTT questions will be asked whether or not there was a deliberate attempt to not register player payments and benefits on contracts as required.
-LNS has clearly identified three ‘chapters’ or time periods where footballing rules were changed and as such rangers should have updated their procedures to comply with the new rules and guidance.
-While two separate issues, if the FTTT declares the payments were contractural and they are nowhere to be seen on the players registrations, then Rangers will easily be found guilty in footballing terms.
-Even if, in the unlikley event, the FTTT says they were not contractural the footballing authorities may still take the view that the EBT payments were of a nature that were required to be disclosed under football rules that applied during the three’chapters’ identified by LNS
I have taken 5 minutes out of my day so please do us the courtesy of doing the same.
scapaflow14 @ 15:14
That is true of the accounts due at the end of last year
That however fails to explain why a bill received some years earlier, wasn’t included as a potential liability in accounts that were published
For the financial/legal people on here.
Would it be right to assume that The Rangers share price will almost certainly be at its highest at time of flotation and probably drop sharply very quickly?
Would this not suggest that all of Greens current investors will be selling their shares to cash in on their investment at the optimum value.
Green in his projections for investors told them they would double their money.
Now, we all laughed when one of the directors/investors at a fans meeting told the gathered bears that on a bad day Rangers were worth 50million, but keeping in mind that figure and adding up how much has been put into the project so far with buying costs, legal costs, running costs before season ticket money came in then we could be at 12million plus.
This money would have had to come from his “investors” who he said would have a maximum 49% of the club/company.
Therefor if the investors have half the value of the club/company then they need to raise 50million on the share issue to give the investors double their investment.
Will the Rangers fans raise 50million?
Will anyone underwrite it for 50million?
I think Celtic total share value the last time I looked was only about 34/35million and thats with SPL status, SPL player values and Champions league football.
This made more sense in my head but if any of the guys with the correct knowledge could tell me how it works properly then it would be appreciated.
scapaflow14 says:
September 26, 2012 at 15:14
campsiejoe says:
September 26, 2012 at 15:10
Wasn’t the lack of provision one of the many reasons behind the Auditor’s refusal to sign off a “clean” set?
=====================================================================
then why were they signed off in 2009, 2010?
Pretty shocking that no provision was made in the accounts for this tax bill that was being appealed. Dereliction of duties? might we see some directors and some auditors facing penalties?
It was this lack of provision that “forced” murray to sell it for £1 to CW – he knew they were a busted flush
Why did CW buy it knowing the tax bill was going to hit? well, he knew the tax bill would sink them, so he decided to take a gamble on winning it and selling the company on for a profit – but of course, he hedged his bets by with holding tax/ni/vat to get the maximum return back
Of course, someone had to pay LTSB back and that is where ticketus and possibly CG come into the equation – they will milk zombiefc
campsiejoe says:
September 26, 2012 at 15:18
Yeah, I don’t understant that either. I would have. A colleague, has argued that they may have convinced the auditor that it was an MIH problem, and should have appeared in the MIH accounts, but I don’t buy that either.
The Auditor’s role in all of this does bear scrutiny, maybe one of the IP types can confirm if BDO will be able to look at them as well?
Meanwhile over on RM they’re gearing up for a fight in the courts. (just in case like). The Rfff are waiting to find out what the outcome of the investigations are before setting their QC’s loose on their appeal/s.
I do hope they have a tidy sum stashed away, as it looks as though they’ll need it.
scapaflow14 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:54
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:41
“The problem is , from our stance is you are assuming guilt, before we have even been found guilty.”
Actually, HMRC did return a guilty verdict. The reason the FTT is sitting at all, is that RFC appealed the verdict, as they were perfectly entitled to do.
========================
Never let facts get in the way.
HMRC the Government Department responsible for taxation, including collection and enforcement established that Rangers had underpaid their tax. That is their job and they have the stautory powers to do it.
Rangers have appealed this sum, however it is an appeal, nothing else.
Had Rangers not been in such a precarious financial position they would have had to pay the debt before the appeal was allowed, far less heard. HMRC are taken to be correct, until a tribunal or Court determines otherwise.
As it stands, and until the tribunal rules it is a debt. The tribunal is not trying there to determing what is owed, it is there to hear Rangers’ arguments as to why it is not owed. It is up to the Appelant to prove the assessment is wrong.
It is absolutely right to say that, as of now, Rangers owe this money
Mulgrewsleftpeg says:
September 26, 2012 at 15:38
What’s the betting that Nimmo Smith will have learned from the last panel’s experience, and will do Green and Co no favours, and return a judgement proof verdict? They really do deserve the Darwin Award.
davis58 says:
We surely have the right of innocent before guilty? And even the what is our guilt, an administration error?
======================
Whether you like it or not, the answer is No.
It is not about guilt or innocence, it is about whether the tax is due.
The presumption is that HMRC are right, it is up to the appelant to prove that wrong. on a balance of probabilities.
You or other Rangers’ fans, or Celtic fans, or any other fans agreeing with that is irrelevant.
Agrajag says:
September 26, 2012 at 15:44
You are of course quite correct
Davis – just in case you missed it in among all the other posts, I’m reproducing exiled’s 14:45 here. I hope you understand that this is the crux of the LNS tribunal, and not EBTs. Read this, then go back and read about Gavin Rae. Pretty much bang to rights, you’d have to say.
exiledcelt says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:45
From SFA Registration Preocedures section4
“All payments to be made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement. No payments for his playing activities may be made to a player via a third party.”
——
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 26, 2012 at 15:04
So, if the FTT (unexpectedly) returns a “not guilty” verdict – then the EBT monies were not payments at all – and didn’t need to be declared in the SFA contracts – so it MIGHT be foolish to proceed with the SPL case until the FTT ruling comes out.
——
That may have been part of their thinking in timing the LNS thing for November. Remember, we’re supposed to get FTTT news in October … which is only a few days away now. 🙂
scapaflow14 @ 15:32
They may well have tried to pass it off as an MIH problem, but as the bill was sent to RFC(IA), it should have been included in the accounts as a potential liability
There will be people now I’ll bet, who will wish that they had never been involved with RFC(IA), and who will be very worried
campsiejoe says:
September 26, 2012 at 15:53
Absolutely
campsiejoe says:
September 26, 2012 at 15:10
scapaflow14 @ 14:49
Great play is made of the fact that payments made to the EBT schemes were declared in the accounts, however I don’t recall any mention of a possible liability for the BTC being declared
I wonder how Mr Surrender No would explain that
==========================================================================
After the issue became live in 2008 it must have been a problem for the auditors. They would have had to assess whether a provision in the accounts was necessary for the EBT tax bill. As no provision was made they would have had to seek a tax experts input on whether the liability was likely to cystallise.
For such a large amount of tax I would have expected the expert to seek the opinion of eminent tax counsel (Andrew Thornhill QC?) If so, he looks to have advised there was a good case Rangers would win (although whether he was given all the facts cannot be confirmed at this point) and this appears to have satisfied the auditors.
If I was the Audit partner at GT I would be excavating an escape tunnel before BDO arrive.
latest from Charlie boy, hinting at SDM appearing in front of LNS Wonder where the money for the building came from?
”
CHARLES GREEN has struck a deal to purchase Edmiston House after a meeting with Sir David Murray in Edinburgh yesterday when the former owner also pledged his support in the fight with the authorities over the use of EBTs.
Speaking exclusively to RangersTV, the chief executive revealed that the two men had met for the first time and that the former owner was a very good source of information.
Edmiston House is situated behind the Copland Road stand and offers three floors of office space and was previously owned and used by Murray’s Response Handling company.
It was previously a venue for the Ticket Centre and the Rangers Social Club.
Green told RangersTV: “I met Sir David for the first time yesterday. Indeed I hadn’t even spoken with him before.
“We had a good chat and we talked about a number of subjects.
“Sir David is really keen to help the club. I welcome that and I appreciate the time we spent together.
“He has some clear views in terms of EBTs and there is no-one knows better than Sir David about that and he is prepared to do whatever is required to set the record straight.
“From a tangible point of view one of the things we went to discuss was trying to acquire Edmiston House because that would be very important to my plans.
“I think we have agreed in principle a deal on that. So he has helped the club by coming to an acceptable deal on that and that is very much appreciated.
“We have some plans for the property and these will be unveiled in the future.”
“I am looking forward to seeing him and meeting with him again because he has a wealth of knowledge of Rangers Football Club. He was very important to this club over the last 20 years.”
Murray, of course, has been under fire from fans for transferring ownership to Craig Whyte last May which, in turn, led to the horrendous turmoil of the last six months due to Whyte’s refusal to hand over PAYE, NIC and VAT payments to HMRC.
Green said: “He did sell the club to Craig Whyte and that’s history now. Sir David wouldn’t have been the first person that made a mistake with Mr Whyte but we all have to move on.
“Whilst there may be some fans who are unhappy with Sir David there were lots of fans who were unhappy with Charles Green and I would like to think we have forward on that as well.”
“
bogsdollox @ 16:02
Surely good practice would dictate that a potential liability of that size, should merit at the very least, a note in the accounts, along with the advice of the tax expert
In my experience this is what you would normally expect to happen