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”
Yesterday I posted on the ability of the RFC board to escape the wrath of the bears for their part in being the sole reason RFC were killed due to them not caring or be willing to be bothered to put aside 40 million quid (an easily affordable amount for an SPL club in CL) to pay off Hector should they lose, given that the odds were not good for them. Deflection is afoot to ensure the Bears think it was the SPL/SFA/PL/Big boy ran away that all conspired to put them where they are – instead of the real guilty parties.
Today – another forgotten fact.
What are rules and regulations for?
As per definition on online dictionary, a rule is designed to control the conduct of those to whom it applies. Regulations are official rules, and have to be followed.
So the only reason to have rules/regulations is to ensure a level playing field for all to be equal at the start of a match – and then the winners would be because of superior skill, coaching, tactics or luck or a combination of some or all.
However the worlds greatest football administrator had a rule that was bypassed easily for over 10 years without him even becoming suspicious. Is that what we need to believe?
That the rules as laid down were ignored/misread easily and no one had a clue what was happening?
That he never saw the EBTs mentioned in the RFC statement that came out annually and knowing that due to his own EBT, that he should check that it was only for employees of the club – and not players? Did he try to get that confirmation?
In 2008, when Hector first came calling, did he confer with RFC to ask what is the issue here? If told EBTs – did again confer was to do with the players? Any time afterwards?
So the question that is out there – what role if any did SFA play in verifying the rules were being followed?
If they never checked – why not? What guarantees were being given so that they allowed a member to potentially railroad over the rules?
If the SFA never checked with RFC – why not?
If the SFA checked but were told none of your business – did they bow meekly?
If the SFA checked but found nothing wrong – what has changed meantime – were they given different information?
To what extent is this being covered up in the SFA?
Is it ineptitude, laziness or collusion?
Has to be one of them – we demand to know which one.
Angus1983
Meantime, on a more serious point. What’s with Mr Charles’s attempted rehabilitation of SDM? SDM has been vilified by the bears recently (viz: the “Never forget…” auto-posts that appear on every thread on RM).
************
That autopost disappears if you are a logged in member – only guests like us see it. The ones that need to know it and be reminded do not…………….
Danish Pastry says:
September 27, 2012 at 08:52
Is it just me or does Mr Charles Green in fact resemble to an uncanny degree the late Hughie Green – known for such productions as ‘Opportunity Knocks’ and the aptly-named ‘Double Your Money’? Could they by any chance be related?
PS And I mean that most sincerely folks
*************
Now you come to mention it…………..he does!
Its the only reason I remember a place called Teddington Lock – as a youngster it sounded made up 🙂
P.S Yes I now know it was where Thames TV had their HQ
Teddington Lock is a complex of three locks and a weir on the River Thames in England at Ham in the western suburbs of London
Long Time Lurker says:
September 27, 2012 at 07:45
Weescotty says:
September 27, 2012 at 07:33
Would payment from a third-party also introduced the consequence of an illegally fielded player?
*******
I had the same thought when I posted the regulations for SFA registrations – all payments must be in the contract and no payments from 3rd party for any players. if the payment for appearences came from MIH Trust, are they not a 3rd party? Does that not mean they broke the rules twice in one fell swoop?
spanishcelt says:
September 27, 2012 at 09:41
…as we have found on this and RTC blogs plenty of Scottish fans dont support either of the Glasgow two …
——
Well, that’s something.
It seems a common perception in the south-west that everyone must actually secretly support either Celtic or Rangers. They may say they support Aberdeen, or Ross County, but they always look out for the CFC/RFC results and quietly celebrate or smirk accordingly.
For the record I, along with countless others, support each cheek equally. i.e. not at all.
🙂
Night Terror
I agree, great post by JC.
However, I do think he has a point about ideology and there is evidence. Decades of failure to employ people of a certain religious persuasion, quite blatant masonic references/appeals in Press releases, Orange strips, honest mistakes, Donald Findlay’s choice of party piece, etc..
Charles Green certainly recognises that if he doesnt pander to the more ideologically driven Rangers fan, whatever money there is will dry up.
Then again, one of the delicious ironies in all of this is the failure to pay Her Maj due taxes. So maybe money does trump ideological concerns.
Just a point of information concerning the Nimmo-Smith inquiry and the pending FTT decision. While effectively they are both looking at the same evidence in order to determine whether certain payments were contractual or from third parties and in the FTT’s case subject to the appropriate taxes, they are following quite different rule sets.
HMRC have already decided that the EBT payments were taxable and submitted a demand which the old Rangers challenged and appealed to the FTT. Nimmo-Smith’s job is to decide whether such payments represented a second, possibly undeclared contract and/or represented payment from a third party. Each body is required to look at the evidence in the light of the relevant rules; in the case of the FTT, this is tax law, while in the case of N-S it is SFA rules. It is quite conceivable that they will not agree. Also neither creates a precedent for the other. For instance, while HMRC’s ruling is that loans from an EBT equate to payment from an employer, N-S may decide that they constituted payment from a third party.
The clue is in the name – First Tier Tribunal ie this is the lowest level of decision. As I stated, it creates no precedent and appeals to higher levels are not out of the question given the amounts of money involved. The tax business could run and run whoever wins in the FTT judgement. In our clamour over all things Rangers we are forgetting that the taxman has several prominent EPL clubs in his sights with presumably far larger amounts of back tax to mop up.
Danish Pastry says:
September 26, 2012 at 23:35
Did someone mention the caller who questioned Alex Rae on Clyde1 tonight? (18.50 in)
Rae was quite candid. Described signing for a tax-free EBT loan at the end of the season.
He said the loan had to be paid back. But when the other presenter piped up with “Is it no true to say Alex the loans will never be paid back?”
“In theory that’s the case,” was the reply.
=================================================
just been listening to this again
what Rae says is…..
“we HAD (my emphasis) to sign,at the end of the season, for a personal loan”
(who is WE? Rae, his agent? Every rangers player in the scheme?)
“whether this constitutes a side contract i’m unbeknownst”
(think he muddled several words there! but fair play, he is on live radio)
“that is the only thing i signed, is that when you applied for a loan – that is how it’s guised up – then thats an EBT”
(so here he clarifies that he applied for a loan at the end of the season, the use of the words “guised up” is very interseting – in that it implies somethign was dressed up or disguised as a loan and that this was part of the process )
the caller then said that was a paypment above your wages to which Rae cut in “no, that was a loan to be repaid”
then some waffle and piffle – very much on the party line on how EBT’s work with the caller going off on a tangent and missing pertinent questions
Rae then confirms that the loan has to be repaid, delahunt then says “is it not the case that the loan will never have to be repaid” and rae confirms this, “in theory the loan won’t be repaid”
So, from above, this is MY take on events
Player and agent knew they were able to use the EBT scheme and they had to apply for loans
loans could be applied for at any point in the year
it was clear that the loans would never be repaid and that had been explained to agent/player
for the avoidance of tax, the players accepted these payments had to be “dressed up” as loans
the players/agents must have had something confirming they would never have to repay the loans to protect them
what isn’t clear is
did the player receive PAY from Rangers (taxed and NI’d) that reflected what was in the SFA/SPL lodged contract
did the player receive confirmation that he would be entitled to money from the EBT, how much and was it based on performances/appearances etc. And if so, was this lodged with the SFA
overall, it was good to hear a player speak about his EBTs, what he signed and what he thought he was getting – though he was either clearly nervous talking about the subject, unsure of the facts/legality of it all or he was uncomfortable talking on live radio on a subject that wasn’t simply kicking a ball about – all equally plausible.
Anyway, on the face of it, what Rae says ties into how the EBT should work. I would say he about passed muster on it.
now, can the media ask the 50+ other playing recipients the same questions so we can get their replies and see if they are consistent, OVERLY consistent, or completely inconsistent
Palacio67 says:
September 27, 2012 at 09:05
11 1 Rate This
I watched the game last night …
_______________
Do you mean what I think you mean?
As far as I could see Motherwell were intimidated by a very aggressive Ibrox team and a hugely vocal crowd. True, the steelmen looked in need of a bit of metal, but deliberate, I just don’t see it. They weren’t that impressive against the Dons either.
Danish Pastry @ 10:24
What seems to annoy Celtic supporters is the seemingly different attitude Motherwell have in games against them
Last night in total, there were 21 fouls committed, 12 by Motherwell
In several games against Celtic in recent seasons, Motherwell have managed to commit over 20 fouls on their own
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining, but you can see why some Celtic supporters get annoyed
thebasharmilesteg says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:09
In our clamour over all things Rangers we are forgetting that the taxman has several prominent EPL clubs in his sights with presumably far larger amounts of back tax to mop up.
………………………………………………………….
With that in mine why did Hector make it so easy for Rangers to walk away from 135million and continúe playing at ibrox, training at murray park, wearing similar strips etc etc .
If anything i think they have weakend their chances of recovering ebt tax from any club.
Danish Pastry says September 27th,2012 at 08.52
exiledcelt says September 27th,2012 at 09.57
It seems old Mr. Charles (or if you can’t spell that folks just put Chuckles or Con-Artist we’ll know who you mean) is doing well on the old clapometer right now, but will that translate into real votes when people have to put their hands in their pockets and pay for a stamp and a postcard?
It was a long winded analogy for the proposed share issue and I must confess I got tired of it myself halfway through…
Oh! Teddington Lock I wish you were whisky, Teddington Lock och aye!
Ah’ll get ma kilt
1. Palacio67 says:
September 27, 2012 at 09:05
I didn’t see last night’s game on TV so I can’t comment on how the Motherwell team played.
As a Dons fan I am well used to accusations from the Rangers mob that we play out of our skins against them and then lie down to Celtic. Unfortunately for them the stats don’t support their paranoia and In Glasgow in particular, Aberdeen have a much better record against Celtic than against Rangers over the last 20 years or so.
Back in the early 90s when the Dons were still challenging I can remember quite a few games where teams who had previously wilted meekly against the old Old Firm came to Pittodrie and turned it on – were they at it I used to wonder. After all if they came from Central Scotland they all really supported Rangers or Celtic and hated us for upsetting the natural order.
It’s not impossible that the Motherwell team will get a rocket up their collective @rses this morning and will play like demented terriers at the weekend. It doesn’t prove a conspiracy however any more than my paranoia did 20 years ago.
on the subject of the dual contracts, it seems pretty straightforward. Once BDO finally get allowed to do their job the first thing they will do is contact every person who received a ‘loan’ from the EBT scheme and ask them to repay said ‘loan’, it is after all their job to claw back as much money as possible for the creditors. David Murray himself stated this was the case when he last reared his head. How many players, managers etc of the old Rangers will be willing to do that for the club they love so much. My guess is, none. When the real prospect of jail time is proposed the side letters will come falling out of the black hole that is the collective amnesia of RFC….thats when the 3 point deductions for each game will be incurred and the stripping of titles will begin. Then what will follow is the biggest gang bang in the history of sport with lawyers from every club in scotland and across europe crawling all over the ravaged carcass to pick out the claims for compensation for lost revenue etc that those years of reckless, lawless behaviour caused. It will take years. Of course Sevco Scotland, The Rangers, the whatever you want to call them will be back in administration long before this process even begins.
spanishcelt says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:31
—————–
Hector didn’t make it easy for Rangers to walk away, Craig Whyte did. The FTT case pre-dated administration which was forced by Whyte’s non-payment of VAT and NIC. The taxman would prefer companies to remain solvent so that they can contunue to pay tax. Yes, they opposed the CVA but they alwaysdo, it’s their policy.
Off Topic, so a bit of an aside.
Slightly interesting given previous talk of the Brotherhood. An extract from a Lodge address given at Morningside a few years ago, concerning “famous” Masons …
“Brother Alistair McCoist, who was initiated into Lodge Thorntree 512 in Thornliebank, Glasgow in 1984, the same year he scored a hat-trick for Rangers in the Scottish League Cup final against Celtic; and let’s not forget Brother Walter Smith (current Rangers FC manager),” said Brother Abbott.
But, before Celtic supporters reading this think that their suspicions have just been confirmed, he highlighted the famous Scottish sporting date of May 25, 1967.
“Six of the Celtic team that won the European Cup that day – and legendary manager Jock Stein – were also Freemasons,” he added.”
——
🙂
Gil De Ray (@GilDeRay) says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:41
on the subject of the dual contracts, it seems pretty straightforward. Once BDO finally get allowed to do their job the first thing they will do is contact every person who received a ‘loan’ from the EBT scheme and ask them to repay said ‘loan’, it is after all their job to claw back as much money as possible for the creditors. David Murray himself stated this was the case when he last reared his head. How many players, managers etc of the old Rangers will be willing to do that for the club they love so much. My guess is, none. When the real prospect of jail time is proposed the side letters will come falling out of the black hole that is the collective amnesia of RFC….thats when the 3 point deductions for each game will be incurred and the stripping of titles will begin. Then what will follow is the biggest gang bang in the history of sport with lawyers from every club in scotland and across europe crawling all over the ravaged carcass to pick out the claims for compensation for lost revenue etc that those years of reckless, lawless behaviour caused. It will take years. Of course Sevco Scotland, The Rangers, the whatever you want to call them will be back in administration long before this process even begins
=========================================
What stopped Duff & Phelps from doing this? Probably because they knew that the players had side letters confirming that the loans need never be repaid. BDO will find the same thing when they get their feet under the table.
…..
Your conclusion doesn’t follow from the HMRC material you’ve quoted. Look at the last paragraph: “Consequently for the purposes of the loan benefit rules…the loan is treated as made directly by the employer…”. The football authorities have no interest in the loan benefit rules, except indirectly in the degree that if RFC’s actions are found by the FTT (or in due course a higher court) to be illegal, then
a) RFC have brought the game into disrepute by its actions, and
b) the financial advantage gained by so doing can unequivocally be regarded as having being gained by illegitimate means – cheating, if you like.
basharmilesteg @10:09 makes this point more generally; while the two tribunals are both investigating the same situation, they are gathering different evidence and applying quite distinct rule systems. It’s simply not safe to assume that because one will reach a given finding on a particular issue, the other will follow suit.
Gil De Ray (@GilDeRay) says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:41
on the subject of the dual contracts, it seems pretty straightforward. Once BDO finally get allowed to do their job the first thing they will do is contact every person who received a ‘loan’ from the EBT scheme and ask them to repay said ‘loan’, it is after all their job to claw back as much money as possible for the creditors.
—————————————————–
I think you are wrong here. Simply enough, once the money left RFC PLC to go to the EBT Trust, it was no longer RFC’s money
The players may owe money to the TRUST, but the TUST does not owe money to RFC PLC. BDO cannot recover the money paid by RFC PLC to the Trust or the players
It won’t be pursued.
stunney says:
September 27, 2012 at 04:19
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/green-sir-david-murray-will-help-us-deal-with-ebt-issue.1348691659
From the morning papers. Thanks Stunney.
Perhaps a very important couple of lines. I presume that when a supermarket chain, or other concern, buy a site for locating a superstore, etc, that they insist that all of the block of land is available at the time of acquisition, preferably from one seller. They wouldn’t want a single building owned by someone else in the middle of your proposed plot, potentially holding you to ransom for OTT fees. Green, here, might very well be looking to expanding Ibrox for footballing use, or he may be simply be taking care of any impediments to the quick sale of the Ibrox site, should he have to exit from the scene in a hurry. Time will tell.
Extracts from article.
“ ….. Green also revealed the club could acquire Edmiston House, a three-storey building behind the Copland Road stand, from Murray, who used it to base one of his companies. ….”
“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,” Green said.
“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.
abigboydiditandranaway says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:32
3 0 Rate This
————-
The funny Hughie Green analogy works on many levels. The clapometer bit is a cracker and spot on! But I was serious about the physical resemblance, although dear old Hughie had more of a glint in his eye …
http://celebslists.com/images/hughie-green-06.jpg
thebasharmilesteg says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:45
Hector didn’t make it easy for Rangers to walk away, Craig Whyte did. The FTT case pre-dated administration which was forced by Whyte’s non-payment of VAT and NIC. The taxman would prefer companies to remain solvent so that they can contunue to pay tax. Yes, they opposed the CVA but they alwaysdo, it’s their policy.
………………………………………………………………………………
Yes, but why release the statement about allowing them to continue playing football etc.
There was no need for that and any statement should have been along the lines, we will vigorously take every action available to us to recover as much tax payers money as possible, and not defended their actions by basically saying (or how I read it) “its in Rangers best interests and will allow them to continue playing at Ibrox”.
scottyjimbo says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:53
——————————————–
I thought that as well, but Murray is no fool, why would he agree to sell if he knew his property might be the fly in the ointment and he could secure a disproportionately large payment for the site at a later date?
Fact is Motherwell were poor and the Sevco boys played with some spirit and vigour.It remains the case with Ibrox that it is full of fans who sing charmlessly,and is also occupied by businessmen and spinners who exploit and whip up the nasty stuff to sell tickets.
This site ,as with RTC is full of commentators who know what has happened at Ibrox and get it.
We have footballing authorities who have at their disposal a mass of material which they can act on.There is more to follow, FTT,Police enquiry et al.
The questions remains, will this club who have flagrantly transgressed the rules of our game get their just desserts.? We will see ,and the establishment and the the club in question will then be judged accordingly.
Anyone who thinks that ‘enough is enough and let the club move on’ is a very misguided and hopelessly loyal fan .
Interesting quote from Charlie boy on making a deal with Dodgy Dave:
“We have some plans for the property and these will be unveiled in the future.”
I bet you do Charles.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:58
I thought that as well, but Murray is no fool, why would he agree to sell if he knew his property might be the fly in the ointment and he could secure a disproportionately large payment for the site at a later date?
………………………………………………………………………
Could he not cover that with a sell on clause?
I think far far far too much is made about teams ‘lying down’.
Granted, at the end of a season when you have nothing to play for it will be difficult to motivate the team to put a shift in.
This is the start of the season, Motherwell are top of the league and a good cup run will bring in a lot of cash for the club with a potential finalists medal for the players.
Lets move on from this one.
So, anyway, far’s the SFA statement?
As previously mentioned on here, perhaps they’ve taken D&P’s advice regarding “deadlines”.
I think the point of David Murray being benevolent in agreeing to possibly sell the Edmiston Road property is, again, spin.
CG would like the property obviously and, as present owner(?) occupier of Ibrox, would seem the only tangible person with a desire to purchase the building who would be willing to pay anything reasonable for said building. I am not sure if it is fully occupied at present and if not, the market for a tenant would appear limited so the chance for David murray to realise some cash for this building would seem the driver here. No more, no less.
Our many property experts will, of course, know the finer details behind this site and its worth.
Gil De Ray (@GilDeRay) says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:41
on the subject of the dual contracts, it seems pretty straightforward. Once BDO finally get allowed to do their job the first thing they will do is contact every person who received a ‘loan’ from the EBT scheme and ask them to repay said ‘loan’, it is after all their job to claw back as much money as possible for the creditors.
—————————————————–
I think you are wrong here. Simply enough, once the money left RFC PLC to go to the EBT Trust, it was no longer RFC’s money
The players may owe money to the TRUST, but the TUST does not owe money to RFC PLC. BDO cannot recover the money paid by RFC PLC to the Trust or the players
It won’t be pursued.
—————————————————-
That would imply that an EBT scheme is effectively a black hole for tax evasion, which simply cannot be true. Duff and Phelps would have been aware of this and once the investigation into their behaviour is revealed they too will be looking at possible criminal proceedings.
Maybe I`m missing something but does anyone have any idea how exactly SDM can “help” on EBTs?.
And – Um – he leaves a company with that debt liability /planned ruinination
– And then sells an adjacent property – to look like a helping out favour? [cue smiling picture of SDM]
Craven MSM drivel
TSFM 22:11
I think the TD’s indicate that most people on here recognise that refereeing inconsistencies (honest mistakes) is something worth monitoring. As we all know the dead club benefited by way of 3 league titles through honest mistakes (Mr McCurry ert al) which kept them afloat longer than they should. Now are they higher powers at play here? Miss elbows late penalties offsides etc etc to assist Sevco?
Re conspiracy theories on Mulletwell last night………………………
Found these on CM last night!!!
http://i.imgur.com/NYXCR.png
from a previous fixture to last night, but I did see them do the exact same on tv last night pre-game.
The five points of fellowship.
http://www.ephesians5-11.org/image/5point.gif
Opportunity Knocks. Blogger on the entertainment value of the Rangers story:
http://sport.stv.tv/football/192134-results-are-a-sideshow-as-all-the-worlds-a-stage-for-rangers-this-season/
Falkirk FC FTTT ruling may make for some interesting background reading. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2012/TC02262.html
Night Terror says:
September 27, 2012 at 09:27
‘..Well said, John Clarke, and I’m with you most of the way on that.
I depart with your last paragraph, which seems too definitive as to the cause of a series of terrible decisions. Corruption, either of a commercial or ideological type, is quite a serious charge to make and I have not seen evidence of it…’
————
Thanks, NT, and I quite agree that a charge of corruption is indeed a serious charge.
The relevant men ( and I think it is all men) involved -on the Boards of club or the Football Authorities- have very clearly demonstrated ,as you say, pathetically weak decision making , allowing their fear to make them liars in their crazy, bullying attempt to save a club accused of monstrous irregularities, and in breaking rules to accommodate them.
However,it is my personal belief that, while anxiety about the financial viability of the SPL’s future ( in particular) was to some extent justified, the malign influence of that non-football-related nexus between Ibrox and the seats of power in the SFA/SPL ( a nexus that incidentally includes newspaper and BBC men as well as politicians) carried greater, but more insidious weight.
No one -from the most inariculate and inefficient red-top scribe or radio pundit to the highest of blazers- who valued his career AND his personal social position was prepared to be seen to want the full rigour of the rules to be applied to Rangers FC as they ought to have been applied, and as they were not long ago applied to other, less ‘iconic’ clubs.
Proof of that kind of thing is, of course, very hard to get-even if we had journalists of integrity who were prepared to try!
And,as we all know, the MSM Scotland hack pack does not have any such when it comes to ‘Rangers’ -old or new.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:58
Scottyjimbo says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:53
——————————————–
I thought that as well, but Murray is no fool, why would he agree to sell if he knew his property might be the fly in the ointment and he could secure a disproportionately large payment for the site at a later date?
——————————————
The person that crosses the T’s and dots the I’s is usually the person that is associated with the document. If it became known that Murray was “negotiating” with a retail company for the Ibrox site, for the sale of the last piece of ground which would allow the bulldozers to roll into Ibrox, negotiating to get the best deal for himself with Green well down the road out of it, what is the likely reaction of the bears? Would Murray want the resulting outcry? Would he rather prefer to get rid of it now and distance himself from later brown stuff. After all he could say he was duped, yes!
angus1983 says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:03
Yes very good Angus, however if you turn your mind back to the early 80’s you might find there were as many rangers fans as Aberdeen.
angus1983 says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:03
Sorry I meant in aberdeen
john clarke says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:08
… the malign influence of that non-football-related nexus between Ibrox and the seats of power in the SFA/SPL ( a nexus that incidentally includes newspaper and BBC men as well as politicians) carried greater, but more insidious weight …
————-
A year or so ago I would probably have dismissed that statement as suggesting conspiracies in places where none existed. I’m not so sure anymore.
Rangers Tax-Case@rangerstaxcase
Dear Alex Rae. Your signature is not required in Scots Law to.form a contract. That side.letter you received from RFC? Contd
Rangers Tax-Case@rangerstaxcase
Alex Rae: your.side letter promised payments and appearance money for.playing for RFC. Those payments were not declared to the SFA/SPL.
Re the Falkirk FC FTTT ruling – when the MIH / RFC gets published, I hope there is a similar level of description (perhaps with some different adjectives and verbs 🙂
“Falkirk Football and Athletic Club Limited (the Club) was represented at the Hearing by Mr Martin Ritchie, the Chairman of the Club, who gave a wholly credible, honest and clear account of the difficulties that the Club had faced and by Mr Kenny their advisor and also a director.”
“Rangers Football Club Limited (the Club) was represented at the Hearing by x, z and z Directors and Officials of the Club, who gave a wholly *****, ******* and conflicting account of the difficulties that the Club had faced.
Alex Rae audio
http://shaunygblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/alex-rae-audio-from-radio-clyde-on-ebts-hanging-himself/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
NeilR says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:51
The issue raised by Weescotty was not the general case but specifically could Rangers be ‘done’ on football rules relating to players not being allowed to be paid by third parties.
Now the football authorities could view that MIH EBT trustees in giving the money to players were a third party, especially if they also take the view that the loans were not loans but actual contractural payments.
However my view is that in the absence of any specific footballing guidance relating to EBTs they would simply refer to the aforementioned HMRC guidance which tends to the arguement that monies put into and EBT and then withdrawn (yes I know they specifically talk about loans) are still considered to have come from the Employer and therefore no third party is involved.
This is a totally different situation to the type of thing the ‘third party rule’ is meant to cover e.g some forgein gambling consortium paying a players wages thus having a potential influence over his performance on the park.
If the football authorities have specific guidance related to whether or not EBT Trustees are third parties I would love to see it.
If LNS can find precedent on EBT trustees being regarded as third parties then good on him.
I am just going on the guidance available from the HMRC.
The third party issue has only been brought up here and never ever been mentioned in any official statements from SFA/SPL or LNS. Therefore I don’t think they are even bothering to go there as Weescotty was suggesting they could/should.
Therefore in my view, regardless of what comes out of the FTTT, Rangers will be done by the footballing authorities for not disclosing, what are in effect, contractural payments on player registration forms. This means that they will have fielded inelligible players and a suitable punishment will need to be administered.
However they will not be done by the footballing authorities for paying players via a third party.
Some good discussion this morning, I see, but, also still no statement from the SFA
Falkirk penalised for late ppayments of Paye:
Whatever will the projected bill for Pretendgers be?
http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=6728
Long Time Lurker says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:39
=============================================================
LTL, I’ve no great desire to see any representative of Rangers Football Club Limited (the Club) have his character traduced by the Tribunal. I do trust though that the Tribunal judge will call it as he or she finds it, so if there’s been denial, equivocation,lies or poor administration that will be identified and laid out in the findings. Likewise, perfect administration of the scheme and credible contributions from club officals will be noted. As an aside from that, what odds on a further appeal from RFC (IA) should the Tribunal dismiss the appeal currently under consideration?
No SFA statement yet but one from http://www.easilyoffended.com
Danish Pastry says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:30
The revolving door between Ibrox and the SFA in particular, has I think, now been proven to have been a very bad for both organisations. I think we will find that it played a major role in the collapse of Rangers. I would be equally concerned if a similar revolving door were to open between the SFA and Celtic, or indeed any other club.
This is a well recognised issues in other spheres, hence the cooling off periods for politicians, civil servants etc. One of the many things that needs to happen, is a complete re-structuring of the SFA, but I won’t hold my breath on that one!
Was the Falkirk ftt held in private.
If not, why not.
Is there a charge for having a private sitting.
Who applies for a private hearing, is it the club or is it done through political channels.
Do we know who asked for the rfc hearing to be private.
Did politicians help to ensure rfc had a private hearing.
If so, why?
Will we ever find out how early politicians became involved in the rfc tribunal.
Did minty approach the politicians or did the politicians offer help first.
Is this part of the FOI cover up between holyrood and westminster.
Genuine questions.
easyJambo says:
September 27, 2012 at 13:02
EJ, that one gets nominated for the Kelvin MacKenzie award……..
An old chestnut is raised in today’s Herald http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/scottish-football-needs-refreshing-revitalising-and-radical-reform.18995468
What occurred to em is not the main theme of reformation, but the notion that we need to start improving our young players. I disagree with this inference as I think we are producing technically talented youngsters, it’s just that they cannot get a game in a SPL first team until that is knocked out of them. How often do you hear a manger say “he just needs experience”. In my experience this means “he has to learn to get rid of it quickly.”
Consider one of the most technically gifted players of this or several generations, Derek Riordan, a player you would love to watch in his Hibs days, and he can’t get a game nowadays at all. Yes he has issues, but there have been platy others with twice his issues and half his talent over the years.
blu @ 13:00
There is no automatic right of appeal
The FTT would only consider allowing an appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law
This was covered in some detail in the RTC blog
Danish Pastry says: @ 12:30
john clarke says: @ 12:08
• FTT is held up – finished Jan Due Easter – Due September – Due October…..
• BBC Documentary Investigation stymied since late May on COI hold-up [aka stopped]
• LH COI now in 14th week
• Administration post “sale” now in 15th week
• BDO are held up
• CO/PF investigations now in 14th week
• SFA need 24/48/72 hours……..to make a statement
Not a single resignation to date
Perpetrators conduct business as if nothing had happened – or take in rays in Monte Carlo
Speaks volumes
Thanks for the Alex Rae link, Katie. I had not heard it.
Like Billy Dodds before him I think the fact he even commented is worthy of note and faint praise but it really seems like an orchestrated media defence with the sequence of recent statements. We’ve had AJ, Alex Rae, AMcC again and now – of course – GC claiming (S)DM will assist to help in the matter.
The daily drip of news – usually along the ‘poor us’ and ‘we do not accept this’ line – designed solely to pander to the support of Rangers in order to sell tickets is unbearable and transparent.
Danish Pastry says:
September 27, 2012 at 11:51
4 0 i
Rate This
Opportunity Knocks. Blogger on the entertainment value of the Rangers story:
http://sport.stv.tv/football/192134-results-are-a-sideshow-as-all-the-worlds-a-stage-for-rangers-this-season/
————————————————-
This paragragh is a stoater
“The games are almost irrelevant to Rangers right now. What they are selling is the show – the duelling narratives of redemption, domination, paying their dues and taking back what’s rightfully theirs.”
“
Blu –
RFC(IA) can indeed appeal the decision of the FTTT.
However it is my understanding that any monies owed are immediately due, and would be returned should RFC(IA) win an appeal of the FTT.
All a bit ridiculous when you consider they can’t pay it anyway, and I think are still protected through administration status?
davis58 says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:25
0 0 i
Rate This
angus1983 says:
September 27, 2012 at 10:03
Yes very good Angus, however if you turn your mind back to the early 80′s you might find there were as many rangers fans in Aberdeen.
(correction “as – in” by me, according to your following post)
——
Not sure quite what you’re getting at, Davis. In the late 70s and early 80s, Rangers fans were a bit thin on the ground in general (lack of glory to be hvnted), let alone in Aberdeen. I was there.
I may have misunderstood your point though – your sentence doesn’t actually make sense. 🙂
Blu and Long Time Lurker.
“Falkirk Football and Athletic Club Limited (the Club) …”
There are 36 “The Club”s in this FTT(T) decision and not one “The Company”.
And, given that Rangers Football Club Ltd (The Club)’s tax liability was a “known known”, paragraph 10 might give the Board members at the time some food for thought:
“In considering a reasonable excuse, the Tribunal must examine the actions of the Club from the perspective of a prudent taxpayer exercising reasonable foresight and due diligence and having proper regard for its responsibilities under the Taxes Acts.”
Some folk might want to draw parallels (or cite differences) between the two cases.
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
Suspect real agenda for Murray & Green was to agree EBT PR strategy. FTT result is coming soon.
Long Time Lurker says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:39
Re the Falkirk FC FTTT ruling – when the MIH / RFC gets published, I hope there is a similar level of description (perhaps with some different adjectives and verbs
—————————
LTL, I think we may be disappointed by the level of detail which will be published with the FTT(T) decision. As the hearing was held in private – an unusual occurrence – the tribunal’s reporting of the proceedings is limited by the following:
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, Public and private hearings
“32(6) If the Tribunal publishes a report of a decision resulting from a hearing which was held wholly or partly in private, the Tribunal must, so far as practicable, ensure that the report does not disclose information which was referred to only in a part of the hearing that was held in private (including such information which enables the identification of any person whose affairs were dealt with in the part of the hearing that was held in private) if to do so would undermine the purpose of holding the hearing in private.”
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/273/article/32/made
HM Courts & Tribunals Service, First-tier Tribunal (Tax) explanatory booklet’s guidance on private hearings at Page 5 sets out the circumstance where RFC’s appeal could be heard in private. I wonder which of the circumstances set out below persuaded the judges to hear the appeal in private.
“However, any party to the proceedings can ask for a hearing, or part of a hearing, to be held in private in certain circumstances. If you wish for your hearing to be conducted in private, you should write to us with reasons why. The fact that your financial affairs are personal is not enough; there must be a special reason such as it is in the interests of public order or national security or not do so would prejudice the interests of justice.”
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/tax/forms-and-how-to-appeal/at-your-hearing.pdf
Despite the above, someone pointed out some time ago that there are many documents and facts already in the public arena which may find their way onto the web after the decision is made public.
blu says:
September 27, 2012 at 13:00
I have no desire to see any character tarnished – I do not believe that the transcript of the FTTT in the Falkirk case tarnished anyone. What it did do in my opinion was to describe on the record the actions and behaviours of the main players.
I agree that the Tribunal should call it as they see it. Laying my humour aside, I hope that the published decision sets out the facts – with the appropriate level of description and language.
midcalderan says:
September 27, 2012 at 13:33
“If you wish for your hearing to be conducted in private, you should write to us with reasons why. The fact that your financial affairs are personal is not enough; there must be a special reason such as it is in the interests of PUBLIC ORDER or NATIONAL SECURITY or not do so would prejudice the interests of justice.”
Well we know what happened when a tele broke down and Regan warned us of social unrest 🙂
campsiejoe says:
September 27, 2012 at 13:18
There is no automatic right of appeal
The FTT would only consider allowing an appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law
This was covered in some detail in the RTC blog
====================================================
Weescotty says:
September 27, 2012 at 13:23
RFC(IA) can indeed appeal the decision of the FTTT.
==================================================
Are you two lawyers by any chance? My original point was that the history of this story is that whoever owns Rangers always seems reluctant to accept the findings of disciplinary bodies and that D&P or Charles Green will immediately look at that option if the tribunal rules against.
Eh SFA!!! that’s now 72 hrs? oh dear running Scottish football and can’t even tell the time 😉
expectinrain @ 13:29
😉 50million TU’s 🙂
blu @ 13:50
No, but after reading RTC and this blog, I sometimes feel I am 🙂
Anyway, the FTT result has nothing to do with Green or Sevco, as the appeal was made by RFC 2012(IA) as it is known now
Any appeal would purely be a matter for the Administrators to decide upon
campsiejoe says:
September 27, 2012 at 14:04
actually, the appeal was made by MIH (is that the legal entity with personality?) on behalf of *RFC at that point (now RFC 2012 PLC) as they were the operators of the EBT on behalf of *RFC and their employers
TheBlackKnight TBK @ 14:19
You are of course correct
I stand suitably reprimanded !
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
September 27, 2012 at 14:19
actually, the appeal was made by MIH (is that the legal entity with personality?) on behalf of *RFC at that point (now RFC 2012 PLC) as they were the operators of the EBT on behalf of *RFC and their employers
=================================================
Thanks TBK, and the message to us slackers is, “Pay attention at the back!”
Is Green the public spokesman for RFC(IA) until they are liquidated ?
If so
Will the SFA be reliant on Green for detailed information about the FTT ruling?
If not
Have D&P promised to provide the SFA with detailed information about the FTT ruling as soon as they are advised by the FTT ?
Or
Have the FTT promised to provide the SFA with detailed information about the FTT ruling ?
Re posts above re Falkirk fc FTT
(Throughout the tribunal statement, Mr Craig was identified as the M.D. of Falkirk fc)
.
At item 27 of the “Reasons for Decision” it states:-
” Firstly since he was the Managing Director, he was in fact “”the Club”” ”
Could this be significant in any future FTT decision?
smartie1947 @ 14:49
Noticed that too
What is interesting is that they make no distinction between the club and the company
This artificial separation has been invented by Stooges Inc to suit their own ends, and eagerly pounced on by Green and others
Not seen it posted already – there’s an interesting article on Glasnost regarding club ownership.
http://glasnostandapairofstrikers.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/achieving-renewal-through-the-fans-corporation-part-1/
For the purposes of football, there is a difference between club and company (apparently and not in UEFA’s mind)
for the purposes of tax, law and other matters, there is feck all difference
this could be very interesting, if FTT goes against RFC PLC then the SFA might ake actions against rangers the CLUB for not paying taxes due, and could expel them for that alone.
CG might challenge this saying they are being punished for the actions of another company and that he is newco, but the SFA will say, maybe, but we aren’t asking you to pay the bill, we are simply punishing the CLUB which has not paid due taxes – and that is you.
and then of course there is the dual contract investigation ON TOP of that
to me, it’s inconceivable that they are not at least suspended, more likely expelled from the game – IF THEY LOSE THE FTT!