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”
Rangers through a host of current and former directors, managers & players are attacking their accusers and instigators, questioning motives and processes etc and trying to equate others alleged misdeeds and prior knowledge or actions etc to try to discredit the charges being brought against them.
Firstly 2 wrongs do no make a right and what others may or may not have done is irrelevant, Rangers will be judged on the merits of the evidence presented plus any defence or mitigation should Rangers try to defend themselves? If they have gripes with what others have done – make a complaint, instigate an investigation and see what the evidence in that case brings if any but it is wholly irrelevant to what Rangers have done or the outcome of their cases.
Even today Alastair Johnstone states Rangers could be hammered whilst still trying to protest their innocence and defend allegations of them cheating.
They know they are bang to rights and screwed, all they can do now is protest their innocence, try to disrupt and discredit whilst they await their fated outcome.
goosygoosy says:
September 26, 2012 at 00:42
14 0 i
Rate This
I suspect the imminent Statement is a last gasp corrupt attempt to invent a reason why LNS and his Tribunal should be cancelled This would avoid SFA officials being cross examined on their role in illegal registrations
The Statement may be dressed as a pretend toughie possibly an imposed arbitrary stripping of some titles conditional on being found guilty of tax avoidance by the FTT
____________________________________________
I suspect so.
Someone somewhere within the hierarchy will attempt to call a halt. This will leave the quasi-judicial process dead. This will mean that the whole world knows they have something to hide. This will be one of the last acts by desperate men.
If it succeeds and the SPL investigation is halted then when the Hodge report on D and P and the FTT result arrive we will have a widespread and systematic tax evasion revealed by a member club which went bust, and the process of that club being transferred to a new company ( ridiculous and bogus concept as it is) being seen to be compromised, corrupt and probably illegal.
Meanwhile the football authorities will be insisting that there is nothing to see here.
Surely either a member club ( be brave Celtic) will approach UEFA regarding the cover-ups and abandonment of due process here, or UEFA itself will demand a few answers from the SFA here and insist upon an independent investigation.
I think the upshot will have to be a judicial inquiry into the governance of Scottish football with full powers of enquiry to call witnesses and demand evidence on oath regardless of the outcomes of all of the investigations here.
The game is run by desperate men seeking to hold on to their reputations, their influence and to save their favourite club by whatever means.
Time is running out. By whatever means, in whatever form, despite whatever shenanigans unfold justice will prevail – though slowly.
Where will that leave new club , and the rest of Scottish football?
All pretty much dead I suspect – final scene of Hamlet coming up – where the guilty and the procrastinating innocent all meet their doom as the kingdom dissolves.
The FA to take over the chaos of a bankrupt and broken game perhaps – mine’s for Fortinbras!.
spanishcelt says:
September 26, 2012 at 15:25
So excellent points and ones which I guess many would like to know the answer to.
As you say somebody somewhere must have shelled out to get the club to the point where season ticket money started coming through the door.
Do we know how much that is? You say £12m – I seem to recall Mr Charles gave a figure early on in an attempt to scare away one of the ‘late late’ bids but can’t find anything at present.
Despite the good season ticket sales and attendances they will be starting to burn the season ticket and gate cash.
The investors (other than those who are true Rangers men) and Green himself will all want a return. Green has made no bones about wanting to be able to walk away with something.
So where is this return going to come from.
The IPO with AIM appears to say that if you invest you have to hold onto your shares for a year.
Therefore no return soon?
Will some form of switcheroo take place with the cash in the bank just prior to the IPO to let the existing investors who want to bail out leave with cash in their back pockets?
As you have said the stock will be highest at the time of issue and most people know that the longer you hang around a football club the more unlikely it is that you will see any cash coming your way – so why hang around?
Would love to have some input from people in this field to expain how this might pan out.
See my friends you can all see through the fog of misinformation and deflection being persued by the old guardians of the gallant pioneers (whatever that means :-))
The simple fact that none of these folks want to be out there is this
RFC committed suicide – and the folks who cared and had the Bears interests at heart watched from the sidelines.
In 2008 they got the tax bill – AJ says they thought no worries, SDM will take care of it. At the same time Gretna went into liquidation because of their patriarch becoming ill and sadly passing away. There was then no one to take care of the Gretan pipe dream. Did AJ not take stock ans think, what if SDM goes the same way? What if……
There is no getting away from it
RFC DIED BECAUSE OF SDM AND AJ AND THE REST OF THE BOARDS NEGLIGENCE.
That is what they don’t want known.
All the rest id deflection on stripping of titles and 5 stars and Moses McNeil Park – its papers over the horrible truth
THAT THEY KILLED THEIR CLUB ALL BY THEMSELVES
No collusion was needed by SFA/SPL or PL or any religious or political imaginary fairy stories
THEY DID IT TO THEMSELVES
That is what they won’t own up to and are tryign to cover up.
All they had to do was save 10 million a year and Hector would have taken 40 million and let them pay off the rest this year. Perhaps forgiven the rest – maybe.
But without the massive amount owed, there would have been no firesale to CW – no administration would have resulted due to CW;s need to pressure Hector to come to the negociating table – no liquidation – no SFL3 – no need!
They could even have kept the FTT case secret as they tried to so that the SFA would not look into the Dual Contracts issue.
All they had to do was keep aside 50 million – well within their means .
They did not.
But through their friend in the MSM the deflection is going on that the enemines are SPL/SFL/PL and anyone else……
But sorry is the hardest word when no one wants to admit………..
THEY DID IT TO THEMSELVES
campsiejoe says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:10
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
=========================================================================
Agreed – I have seen listed companies do this and as Oldco was AIM listed one would have expected similar disclosure because it is useful information for shareholders and investors.
Is there the possibility of Civil actions against some or all of the former Directors of Rangers FC PLC (IA) for the destruction of their shareholder wealth and value IF the Directors are found to have knowingly operated the EBT Scheme and/or football contracts improperly or by the deliberate withholding of tax remittances etc.
Now I know some people will respond some of these might also be subject to criminal enquiries if serious and willful wrongdoing is uncovered but aside from that could the likes of McClelland, Bain, Murray etc be on the hook for actions against shareholders interest or indeed their failure to act in the shareholders & company’s best interests?
bogsdollox says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:02
2 0 Rate This
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.
===================================================================
I would assume:
1. GT, in their routine check-list of tasks, will have asked the club’s accountant to be shown all paperwork that existed in relation to the EBT scheme.
2. The club accountant will declare that he knew nothing then and knows nothing now of side letters.
3. GT staff were not shown the side letters.
4. The club accountant may not have seen the side letters.
5. GT & the club accountant will both say that they genuinely believed the EBT scheme to have been legitimate.
6. Someone higher up the food chain issued (and presumably signed) the side letters given to the players.
7. The signatory to the side letters is in for the high jump.
scapaflow14 says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:08
Interesting that CD and (S)DM have recently met for the first time – is this part of the strategy to rescue (S)DM in the eyes of the RFC(IA)/Sevco fans – (S)DM a life-long friend of the club, always willing to help?
History will not be kind to Sir David Murray, John McClelland, Martin Bain, Campbell Ogilvie, Alistair Johnston, Craig Whyte and no doubt a few others. THEY destroyed Rangers Football Club as it was and their actions and inactions over a number of years are the reason WHY Rangers ended up in the bottom division.
For all that he’s a populist, rabble rouser, oft-times liar (copyright Leggo) and only in it for the money troublemaker….I suspect history will prbably be kinder to Mr Charles Green although nobody will emerge from this self-inflicted fiasco with any credit not least the SFA or SPL.
Hirsute Pursuit @16.22.
How high up would you need to be to sign off on the side letters ?.
Could that person bring down the whole house of cards ?.
Where is Malcom Murray? Fishing in Alaska with John Brown? As chairman he has been very quiet……………
Davis58…
An administrative error you say? An administrative error that might have allowed RFC to hide the fact that they’d – uniquely in Scottish Football – found a way to avoid paying tax on payments to players.
And an administrative error perpetrated by the game’s greatest administrator Campbell Ogilvie. The same Campbell Ogilvie who is, of course, now President of the SFA.
Wonder if Charles was telling him he would be rrenaiming Murray Park – or has he forgotten about this? 🙂
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4359038/Greens-plan-to-rename-Murray-Park-after-founder-or-Coop.html
scapaflow14 says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:08
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.
but later on
“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.
For most people a deal ain’t done until the cash is in the bank.
Potentially another one to add to the list of broken plans and promises.
Regardless of whether or not a deal is done, siding up to Murray is just another media ploy to give the impression he is on top of things by implying he has got some inside info from SDM on the EBT’s and the like. However he is maintaining his distance by giving the impression SDM and not Mr Charles that could sort the whole EBT thing out.
If SDM is “prepared to do whatever is required to set the record straight.” anyone want to give odds on him turning up at the LNS commission?
Somehow I can’t see him wanting to take another pasting therefore Charlie boy can point the finger elsewhere in relation to not fighting Rangers corner when the results come in.
Tic 6709 says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:31Rate This
Hirsute Pursuit @16.22.
How high up would you need to be to sign off on the side letters ?.
Could that person bring down the whole house of cards ?.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think the suggestion is that the EBT “paperwork” was dealt with by the top of the chain and his sidekick at MIH.
===========================================================================HirsutePursuit says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:22
I think that is a reasonable assumption as to the actions of the players in this farce but post 2008 there was an HMRC assessment or at the very least voluminous correspendence with them.
GT signed off the 2008-2010 accounts with no provision for EBT related tax in them. Is there a suggestion that because of the tight circle dealing with the EBT outwith Rangers (the club”) that the auditors were unaware of the problem? Would they really be that reckless?
Billy Bear @BillyBlack1912
If everyone can get down to the ticket office they are giving out free tickets for tonight’s game. Not too happy as I already paid.
Retweeted by James Doleman
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
exiledcelt says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:42
Funny the Murray Park thing and the whereabouts of Malcolm Murray were also passing through my mind as well.
Still more questions than answers and a long way to go until this one gets sorted.
Anyone want to start a sweep on when the SFA statement might come out.
I’m guessing is after 10:00pm tonight so as to let the Bears clear the streets before any bad news is broken.
Charlie Brown says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:21
0 0 Rate This
Is there the possibility of Civil actions against some or all of the former Directors of Rangers FC PLC (IA) for the destruction of their shareholder wealth and value IF the Directors are found to have knowingly operated the EBT Scheme and/or football contracts improperly or by the deliberate withholding of tax remittances etc.
Now I know some people will respond some of these might also be subject to criminal enquiries if serious and willful wrongdoing is uncovered but aside from that could the likes of McClelland, Bain, Murray etc be on the hook for actions against shareholders interest or indeed their failure to act in the shareholders & company’s best interests?
===============================
Since the company is already insolvent and soon to be dissolved, the improper use or otherwise of an EBT scheme can have no impact on share values.
Their business model was a busted flush for at least 15 years. The improper use of EBTs (if confirmed) simply shored up the business temporarily.
The company spent more than it earned over a long period of time and gambled on uncertain outcomes (CL qualification) for its survival. The bet everything on red and it came up black.
iceman63 says: at 16:11
Anything’s possible I agree – but the SFA were told in March / April to sort this out quickly by FIFA / UEFA. Talk of further court action will already be on UEFA/FIFA radar. After 7 months their options must be dwindling to exhaustion – I would be surprised if even more push-back beyond November is a viable option anymore.
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 13:52
0 32 Rate This
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.
======
It doesn’t matter for the SPL whether the payments are deemed contractual or not and this is why RFC are fecked and it’s yet another example of spin.
The investigation is into the proper registration of players – for a player to be properly registered ALL payments made to that player have to be declared on the documents submitted to the SPL and SFA – if you make ANY payments that are not detailed on those documents then the player has not been properly registered and any game that said player plays in is a 3-0 defeat to the offending club
Now RFC are double fecked because IF they had declared these payments THEY would have blown THEIR TAX SCAM straight out of the water on day one
Someone asked why Sevco Scotland were not seeded in the league cup draw – IF you want a look into the mind of the deluded zombies read this
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=238906
It has not dawned on them that the fact they weren’t seeded is because the SFL and SFA quite rightly in line with UEFA definitions see them as a completely different club from RFC
The way they see it … well read the thread and expect to laugh
HirsutePursuit says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:58
HP but was it not the very acts and decisions of the EBT’s and the tax and footballing consequences that destroyed the company value and share value even before Craig Whyte deliberately (apparantly) took the company down completely by with-holding tax monies and spending them on other things like wages & bills.
Don’t the other shareholders have any recourse against this seemingly deliberate and willful neglect of their interests? ie Can they sue the former Directors either individually or collectively for their actions or inactions?
Could former Directors personal assets or indeed their financial solvency be threatened?
davis58 says:
September 26, 2012 at 14:21
0 20 i Rate This
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?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I As an aside Davis…the tax bill was presented to Rangers Football club PLC…you know the football club…which is strange as there are those who have been peddling the story that the Company and the club are 2 different entities…yet HMRC present a whopping tax bill that could end up being £60-£80 million pounds to the football club…whod-a-thunk-it? The club and the Company are one in the same!
exiledcelt says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:16
A simple message cutting through the minutia that allows these charlatans to cover up their mismanagement.
It’s a bipartisan message.
Want to blame someone?
Just look in the RFC(IA/PL) board room.
wottpi says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:44
scapaflow14 says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:08
CHARLES GREEN has struck a deal to purchase Edmiston House…
“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.
For most people a deal ain’t done until the cash is in the bank…
===================================================
I thought that myself: so was this ‘deal’ simply a red herring/positive story – spun as being the main purpose for (S)DM and CG meeting ?
So why has (S)DM reappeared now ?
If I was being cyncial, I could suggest that they met up to get their PR stories straight so that when the really bad news comes out they could both go on the offensive together, to blame the SFA/SPL/SFL/HMRC/Celtic/a big boy – for all of Rangers/Sevco woes ?
…and with of course, the help of the forever compliant and unquestioning Scottish MSM…
So according to some, the Ebt’s were just loans. I wonder if my boss will just “loan” me my wages so I can save the tax. Then I can loan it to the barman in my local while he loans me my pint. A great wheeze. I should patent it. If its patented already i’ll borrow that too…….
StevieBC says:
September 26, 2012 at 17:11
Cynic – term of abuse used by an optomist to describe a realist.
Whatever those two gentlemen are up to, there is one thing we can be sure of, they will be acting in the best interests of C Green and D Murray, any benefit to anyone else will be purely accidental.
Robert Coyle says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:55
Billy Bear @BillyBlack1912
If everyone can get down to the ticket office they are giving out free tickets for tonight’s game. Not too happy as I already paid.
Retweeted by James Doleman
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
——————————————————————————————————————–
Believe it or not I saw this posted elsewhere this morning and ST holders were not happy as they’ed already been billed.
still don’t know if it’s true,though.
bogsdollox says:
September 26, 2012 at 16:02
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.
======================================================================
Guys…there are four separate items here as regards how the accounts of RFC may or may not have been totally inclusive of the BTC amount…and to my shame, I have never read the full versions…!
Before going any further, the auditor merely passes an “opinion” on a set of accounts at a specific time…he/she does not certify or guarantee them in any way shape or form.
Firstly, the amount may have been included in the “Notes to the Accounts” as a contingent liability, i.e only becoming payable if the FTT(T) were to find against RFC, but leaving the results unaffected. From the arrogance of DM and AJ, I would fancy this one.
Secondly, bearing in mind that Thornhill QC and Baxendale-Walker are old buddies, I would assume that any advice would be positive, but as you say, may have been given without the full knowledge of RFC’s “admin errors” being disclosed.
Thirdly, as I have posted here and on RTC on at least three occasions, Grant Thornton would probably have advised RFC to make some monetary provision for the BTC in the accounts. In the absence of this, Grant Thornton would have pointed out the implication for the directors in their “Letter to Management”.
Finally, Grant Thornton would have required the directors of RFC to furnish them with a “Letter of Representation”, setting out exactly what the directors had disclosed to them and confirming that there were no “material matters” omitted from the required disclosures.
I am no ally of Grant Thornton but I can certainly assume that they have their backsides well and truly covered and that they will not have to get the tunnelling equipment out from under the audit files for some time yet, let alone look to their Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy.
Paul @plyons7
And here is one of the reasons Ibrox is full every week just now http://i46.tinypic.com/257dekm.jpg
Retweeted by The Huddleboard
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
essexbeancounter @ 17:35
And what would the situation be, if for example the directors chose not to reveal the existence of said bill to the auditors ?
As far as I can remember, there was note to the accounts mentioning it
Sorry
That should read ” no note “
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
Sevcophantic media coverage on RFC player registration scandal as unbalanced as ever. Just a platform for proven liars and dissemblers.
The only thing I can see on SFA home page is announcement from today about league reconstruction talks taking place. That wasn’t it, was it?
essexbeancounter says:
September 26, 2012 at 17:35
I’ve just had a quick look at the 2010 report, and find two references:
From Finance Director Donald McIntyre’s report (p.10):
“On the basis of expert tax advice, the Club is defending a query raised by HMRC into the operation of the Murray Group Management Limited Remuneration Trust, established to provide incentives to certain employees and other service providers. This is part of an ongoing tax enquiry scheduled to be heard by a tax tribunal before the end of the year. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment further on matters pending the outcome of this tribunal.”
And a note on the Staff Costs table (p.20):
“The Murray Group Management Ltd. Remuneration Trust was established to provide incentives to certain employees and other service providers. Payments to the Trust are charged to the Group Profit and Loss Account in the year incurred. On the basis of expert tax advice, the Club is defending a query raised by HMRC into this Trust, which is part of an ongoing tax enquiry scheduled to be heard by a tax tribunal before the end of the year.”
The 2009 report doesn’t seem to mention it (I’m guessing earlier ones don’t either). The equivalent notes on the Staff Costs table is the familiar “The Murray Group Management Ltd. Remuneration Trust was established to provide incentives to certain employees and other service providers. Payments to the Trust are charged to the Group Profit and Loss Account in the year incurred.”
I’m not sure what this implies in terms of your scenarios – but I’m no accountant and may have missed other mentions/provisions in 2010… Maybe you could take a look, I’d be interested to know more about GT’s position, and how the directors ‘managed’ them.
Golden opportunity for the SFA to suspend The Rangers FC from senior football for being in breach of the terms of their conditional membership by refusing the validity of the LNS investigation.
Surely that will be what we are waiting to be released…..
(good to be back, just TUPEd over to WordPress)
The Tax Tribunal cannot find Rangers ‘guilty’ of anything. What they can do however is establish how much RFC are liable for.
eastern pat exactly what Charlie wants as I alluded last night share issue just does not add up. he wants suspended expelled so he can say he tried his best and blame everyone else leaving him free to strip assets and shuffle off into the sunset no long game with Chico.
Slightly off topic but sevco are allegedly giving comp tickets to former rfc (iastbil) season ticket holders 😉 every team could fill their ground if free tickets were available??
Is it 48 hrs yet?? What an outfit 🙂
Patnajoe, fortunately the SFA will do no such thing as that would involve strong leadership and decisive actions, which Mr Green will be well aware of.
He can live to spin another day knowing every unchallenged comment aimed at the SFA reduces their already snake belly low credibility further.
I see from RM they are peddling a response a Bear got from the SFA in relation to an inquiry with regard to seeding in the League Cup to counter the LNS definitions
“Mr ——–
Thank you for your email the contents of which have been noted.
The Club to whom you refer no longer exists i.e. Rangers FC and
therefore the rule highlighted by you cannot be applied.
The newco club, The Rangers FC, as you know operate under the auspices
of the Scottish Football League Division 3 and, as a consequence of
their position in that league, enters the competition in Round Two.
Thank you for taking the trouble to write.”
I have not copied in the SFA reps name and contact details.
————————————————————————————————–
Added to the above is Paul McConvilles view of LNS’s section on the ‘Club’
“In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold.”
This is a general statement, based upon the terms of the SPL rules and articles. The Uefa Fair Play Rules, for example, define a “club” as being a legal entity. Under those rules therefore Rangers FC would NOT be the club.
However the Nimmo Smith Commission is dealing with the jurisdiction of the SPL over Rangers and as such the SPL rules apply.
“He also stated that Rangers FC, the club, includes its owner and operator. The Commission has in effect ruled that Rangers and its history did not die on 14 June despite numerous reports to the contrary.
SPL Rule I1 includes the definition of a “club” which is stated to be “an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club”.
Does this mean that the club includes the owner and operator, as if Russian dolls? No. It means that the rules applicable to a club also apply to the owner and operator too, unless the context otherwise requires.
The Commission did not make any ruling about “history” as it was not part of its remit, but the implication of the decision is that “Rangers FC” continues, as it would if sold on to a new boss every year from now till doomsday. However, that is the case only under the Commission’s interpretation of SPL rules, and does not consider the ambiguities caused by the different definitions of a club by the SFA, the SFL, UEFA and FIFA.
————————————————————————————————
However all that said PMcC then goes on
As the Commission said:- “A Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself.” Accordingly a Club cannot own anything, such as a share in the SPL.
——————————————————————————————————————-
Therefore, by my reading, contracts shares memberships and the like can only be bought, sold and transferred between different legal entities. Thus LNS backs up the SFA’s stance of saying a new legal entity albeit the same club are playing in Div 3
I for one can see how there is a degree of confusion on all sides.
on the free ticket story
I’ve regularly seen posters on FF announce they received 2 free tickets in the post for the upcoming game
I’ve seen 4 or 5 guys making the claim and thanking charlie for the freebie
many ex season ticket holders have received them as a “thank you” and to encourage them to buy a ST.
Now, if the are giving the tickets away for free tonight, I wonder if that means Motherwell will be getting half that gate money
my understanding is that ticket prices must be agreed by both teams in advance, or by the SFL if no agreement can be reached – if Rangers have 30,000 tonight, i hope motherwell receive 15,000 x tonights ticket price – and not 5,000 x tickets sold price
Surely Sevco aren’t giving away free tickets? It must be a breach of some sort of rule?
Quite hilarious just how pathetic they have become.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Perhaps one to try and get to Tam Cowan to see if he can get some answers.
Anyone got his contact details
To the above about tickets, what a load of ***** just because all you lot stayed in last night to watch Deek’s funeral on River City, don’t try and run our big fan base down.
Alex Rae given a good going over by caller on SSB Jim dela**** had to jump in and stop the caller asking questions…….diddums got all caught up in his wee web of lies….. Amusing!!!
Agrajag says:
September 26, 2012 at 15:44
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.
========================
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.
———————————–
Agree with most of what you’ve said Agrajag but I don’t think it’s correct to say they would have had to pay the debt – irrespective of their financial position – before the appeal was allowed.
It’s a while since I’ve been involved in such matters but what happens in any appeal against an assessment is that the taxpayer makes an appeal and if appropriate, applies to have all or part of the collection of the assessed duties postponed pending settlement of the appeal.
HMRC either accept the suggested postponement or suggest an alternative. If the taxpayer does not agree with HMRC’s suggestion, the taxpayer can ask the tribunal to decide the amount to be postponed pending settlement of the appeal.
If an appeal is made in the prescribed manner and within the time limited, HMRC have
no alternative but to accept the appeal. It can then be disposed of by agreement or by a decision of the tribunal.
Sorry to be so boring.
campsiejoe says:
September 26, 2012 at 17:42
essexbeancounter @ 17:35
And what would the situation be, if for example the directors chose not to reveal the existence of said bill to the auditors ?
As far as I can remember, there was note to the accounts mentioning it
=========================================================================
Campsiejoe…please always bear in mind that it is the responsibility of the directors, and they alone, to “lay before the company in general meeting” financial statements which give “a true and fair view” of the company’s state of affairs at that time, i.e. the year end, be it 31 December or March usually.
If, and it is a big if, the directors chose not to disclose any matter which may affect the “true and fair view” referred to above, the Letter of Representation will be worded in such a way that Grant Thornton, or any other firm, would not be liable for any event which came to light at a later date but was wilfully witheld by the directors at the time of signing the Letter of Representation.
One would have to admit of course that the existence of the BTC had been around in accounting and tax circles since shortly after HMRC issued the assessment in 2008 and PMG put into into the public domain in 2010.
TSFM How you expect to get Rangers fans to stay on here, when you can a blatant Anti-Rangers bias here, some, stay on the subject and their views are interesting, but, then you get the ones who all they want to type, is haha Rangers etc,,,,, RTC it’s not, I agree, but, you won’t get a fair share of opinions when all I see is Celtic, the odd Hearts, odd Dons fan, and that’s it.
essexbeancounter @ 18:55
To be fair EBC, it was a loaded question
I know directors have a responsibility to report as openly and as honestly as they can
However, in my opinion with RFC(IA), there is a huge question mark
dl2068 says:
September 26, 2012 at 19:02
0 0 i
Rate This
TSFM How you expect to get Rangers fans to stay on here, when you can a blatant Anti-Rangers bias here, some, stay on the subject and their views are interesting, but, then you get the ones who all they want to type, is haha Rangers etc,,,,, RTC it’s not, I agree, but, you won’t get a fair share of opinions when all I see is Celtic, the odd Hearts, odd Dons fan, and that’s it.
___________________________________________________________
Who are you calling odd? 😉 I’m as normal as you are! OK, yeh, I’m odd 🙂
I take it D&P advised the SPL on setting deadlines for updates. 48hrs pffft.
dl2068
I think criticism of your “big fan base” is justified. Why the Greta Garbo?
dl2068
Get a grip you at ibrox tonight?? Prove it !! With your freebie ticket!! 😉
So, its 7.45.
No statement
Free tickets to swell the attendence
A concerted Sevco follower influx here
A massive misinformation campaign in full swing
Hmmmmm……WTF?
dl2068 @ 18:49
Posts like yours will attract less than respectful replies
Plenty of people have come on here, put their points across, and engaged in debate, without resorting to silly comments such as yours
If you are honest, the free tickets is actually a masterstroke by CG. He wants the world to see a big fan base so what better way than by packing the crowd out with freebies. The downside is that the recipients will get used to it and start to expect it every week.
midcalderan says:
September 26, 2012 at 18:53
Agrajag says:
September 26, 2012 at 15:44
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.
========================
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.
———————————–
Agree with most of what you’ve said Agrajag but I don’t think it’s correct to say they would have had to pay the debt – irrespective of their financial position – before the appeal was allowed.
It’s a while since I’ve been involved in such matters but what happens in any appeal against an assessment is that the taxpayer makes an appeal and if appropriate, applies to have all or part of the collection of the assessed duties postponed pending settlement of the appeal.
HMRC either accept the suggested postponement or suggest an alternative. If the taxpayer does not agree with HMRC’s suggestion, the taxpayer can ask the tribunal to decide the amount to be postponed pending settlement of the appeal.
If an appeal is made in the prescribed manner and within the time limited, HMRC have
no alternative but to accept the appeal. It can then be disposed of by agreement or by a decision of the tribunal.
Sorry to be so boring.
===========================
Payment will be suspended if being forced to pay it would result in an insolvency event. That would clearly have been the position for Rangers.
The rules were changed because they were patently in favour of the taxpayer, who had already been assessed. The logic was that why should HMRC be out of pocket when tax is due (which it is pre the appeal). So the tax payer pays and if they win HMRC repay them plus interest.
They could also appeal payment, on the grounds of hardship, and the tribunal will decide on that.
However the default position is that the tax is paid prior to the tribunal. Unless it has changed again.
Just my understanding though obviously, Happy to learn if it’s not the case.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 26, 2012 at 18:37
2 1 Rate This
on the free ticket story
————–
The idea of sending freebies out to lapsed ‘subscribers’ is pretty standard marketing. I wouldn’t really read too much into it apart from the fact that the club is trying to round up the lost sheep. A certain percentage will certainly renew on the basis of the freebie ticket.
What was quite funny though is Chic Young on Sportsound sounding positively dizzy at the thought of the incredible number of Gers fans – it could outnumber the total from every tie played yesterday, he boasts. Genius observation but I’ve never thought it unusual that Scotland’s biggest city attracts the largest crowds.
More theatre de l’absurde with a lively and vocal support. Doesn’t look like Div 3 vs SPL. Hoping for a Charlie interview at some point 🙂
Oh dear. Sandaza stretchered off.
When your luck is out, it’s out.
Done a bit of checking, and I think I need to stand corrected.
It seems what I am thinking about is an appeal to the higher tribunal after a ruling has been given.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/complaints-appeals/tax-under-appeal.htm
Apologies if I misled anyone.
Agrajag:
Payment will be suspended if being forced to pay it would result in an insolvency event. That would clearly have been the position for Rangers
…………………………………………………………………………
Does that mean that , or is it reasonable to assume that, the old RFC board will requested the suspension on those grounds – insolvency – and then made no provision over the next several years? If such a request becomes public when the FTT papers are released surely that alone is damning of their lack of stewardship?
Trfc fans are turning up in more numbers than i expected, but then tickets are very cheap ( possibly some freebies also ) and the numbers will need to be maintained.
However i will give the trfc fans ticket sales and share offer to add together and i think the total raised in both by fans will be less than Celtics total ticket revenue only for this season.
bangordub says:
September 26, 2012 at 19:17
Free tickets to swell the attendence
————————————————————————————————-
What attendance? Affa lot of empty seats.
scapaflow14 says:
September 26, 2012 at 11:10
14 0 Rate This
Oh my god, speechless………
http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=285:leadership
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The VBs have a history of backing the wrong horse. Witness their ridiculous seemingly unending support for Craig Whyte.
It always amazes me that, of all the clever people amongst the Rangers support, they are lumbered with the likes of the VBs, Dingwall, MacMillan and Graham to represent them.
Is that really the best they can do?
Serious question.
essex bean counter says:
If, and it is a big if, the directors chose not to disclose any matter which may affect the “true and fair view” referred to above, the Letter of Representation will be worded in such a way that Grant Thornton, or any other firm, would not be liable for any event which came to light at a later date but was wilfully witheld by the directors at the time of signing the Letter of Representation.
………………………………………………………………………
EBC, in my experience auditors request and keep minutes of all board meetings – surely this means GT could not join in the chorus of ‘we didnae ken’ . Not and expect to be taken remotely seriously, anyway, even if the technicalities of the Letter etc let them off the legal hook.
iamacant says:
September 26, 2012 at 19:54
bangordub says:
September 26, 2012 at 19:17
Free tickets to swell the attendence
————————————————————————————————-
What attendance? Affa lot of empty seats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
… and now the fans know there is a chance of a freebie, who is going to pay at the door?
dl2068 says:
September 26, 2012 at 19:05
1 6 Rate This
doontheslope
Hohoho very funny, that’s what I mean , shouldn’t you stick to kds
——-
Don’t be surprised if that comment gets you banned.
______________________________________________________________
[SFM: He said KDS! :-)]
expectinrain says:
September 26, 2012 at 18:01
essexbeancounter says:
September 26, 2012 at 17:35
I’ve just had a quick look at the 2010 report, and find two references:
From Finance Director Donald McIntyre’s report (p.10):
“On the basis of expert tax advice, the Club is defending a query raised by HMRC into the operation of the Murray Group Management Limited Remuneration Trust, established to provide incentives to certain employees and other service providers. This is part of an ongoing tax enquiry scheduled to be heard by a tax tribunal before the end of the year. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment further on matters pending the outcome of this tribunal.”
And a note on the Staff Costs table (p.20):
“The Murray Group Management Ltd. Remuneration Trust was established to provide incentives to certain employees and other service providers. Payments to the Trust are charged to the Group Profit and Loss Account in the year incurred. On the basis of expert tax advice, the Club is defending a query raised by HMRC into this Trust, which is part of an ongoing tax enquiry scheduled to be heard by a tax tribunal before the end of the year.”
The 2009 report doesn’t seem to mention it (I’m guessing earlier ones don’t either). The equivalent notes on the Staff Costs table is the familiar “The Murray Group Management Ltd. Remuneration Trust was established to provide incentives to certain employees and other service providers. Payments to the Trust are charged to the Group Profit and Loss Account in the year incurred.”
I’m not sure what this implies in terms of your scenarios – but I’m no accountant and may have missed other mentions/provisions in 2010… Maybe you could take a look, I’d be interested to know more about GT’s position, and how the directors ‘managed’ them.
======================================================================
Expectinrain…thank you for the post and information. I think I am therefore right in my assertion that some oblique reference was indeed made to HMRC’s demand which has led to FTTT(T), aka BTC.
As even I can see, there is no effort to impute a financial value, which therefore means that the directors chose to make any financial provision in the accounts, which would suit both DM and AJ admirably at that time.
The reference to “The Murray Group Management Ltd Remuneration Trust” is absolutely priceless…smoke and mirrors and obfuscation all round.
The final irony is that HMRC have indeed lifted the veil and assessed RFC (!) for the EBT transgressions and not “The Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust”…and I think we all know why…!
Grant Thornton have a long association with Rangers going back many years to a firm called AG McBain & Co…but I will spare you the minutiae.
Whilst I have a certain professional sympathy with Grant Thornton from an audit perspective, they are/were between a rock and a hard place on this one.
Had they qualified the accounts of RFC from 2008 onwards, at least on the “going concern” basis, their bankers, already waiting in the wings like vultures, would have pulled the plug immediately…with the unthinkable scenario, which even the Scottish MSM would have had to report.
I do believe however, that there had to be some undue pressure exerted on Grant Thornton by the directors of RFC. However, despite the fact that the local senior partner was reputed to be a season ticket holder (Club deck?), he could have exercised his ultimate professional option…and resigned.
Livia Burlando says:
September 26, 2012 at 19:57
0
1
Rate This
essex bean counter says:
If, and it is a big if, the directors chose not to disclose any matter which may affect the “true and fair view” referred to above, the Letter of Representation will be worded in such a way that Grant Thornton, or any other firm, would not be liable for any event which came to light at a later date but was wilfully witheld by the directors at the time of signing the Letter of Representation.
………………………………………………………………………
EBC, in my experience auditors request and keep minutes of all board meetings – surely this means GT could not join in the chorus of ‘we didnae ken’ . Not and expect to be taken remotely seriously, anyway, even if the technicalities of the Letter etc let them off the legal hook.
=========================================================================
Livia…I think you see through this one ok!
The main thing is that minutes taken by directors only record what the directors want to record…I have certainly been on both sides of that scenario.
Case law is on the side of the auditor in these cases (boo hoo I hear you say) where it is stipulated that he/she need not employ a crystal ball to forecast any future/subsequent events, but merely common sense and reasonable enquiry.
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/32341009452/why-are-rangers-not-playing-well
New blog on the playing side of things. It should be pointed out that I posted this roughly 5 mins before McCulloch scored tonight, so I appreciate it may make me look a bit silly!
Hats off to them
They’ve been the better team
(Punches self in face) 🙁
Just like with the EBTs, dual contracts and Rangers general lack of humility, we can but judge tonights performance on the evidence available.
I submit that Rangers only raise their game against the big teams.
Chuckie not looking too happy at the game ……… Must be dreaming about all the money he could’ve made on those freebies tonight lol
Is it 48 hrs yet 😉
rangers were the better team, once they got going. be interesting to see how far they progress
Still no statement