Of Assets and Liabilities

Avatar By

Scapaflow14 says: Friday, November 2, 2012 at 14:55 “Richard Hughes or his …

Comment on Of Assets and Liabilities by expectinrain.

scapaflow14 says:
Friday, November 2, 2012 at 14:55

“Richard Hughes or his company Zeus Capital, both FSA regulated, are a minority investor”

Does the ‘or’ in this statement imply that the directors don’t actually know which is the investor?

Recent Comments by expectinrain

Scottish Football and the case for a Bismarck!
bigsausagefingers says:
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 13:13
4 3 Rate This
@ night terror

“As it is, he just seems to like being the bearer of good news to his target audience. I’m not in that target audience, and consequently find that approach somewhat less than admirable. A fair few in his target audience think so too, as I’m sure…….”

I think the above that you wrote suggests that in your opinion Phils views are objective. To counter the argument I asked you to name a Scottish MSM hack who has a subjective view on the topic. As I understand there were 23 complaints from SMSM hacks concerning threats from Scottish football fans of a certain ilk so you have a score and more to choose from.


bigsausagefingers says:
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 14:19
0 0 Rate This
@ night terror

I asked you a coherent question. As I said earlier you believe Phil to be objective in his writings, I then asked you to name a subjective journalist from Scotland on the case. If the difference between objective/subjective is incoherent to you then you are correct that there is no need to engage with me further.


I don’t like to get involved, but I have a feeling, bigsausagefingers that you may have swapped ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ here, and so there is rather less of a disagreement with Night Terror than it appears. If I’m right, you understood Night Terror to be saying that Phil has an agenda (i.e. is subjective in what he covers, and how), and you were making the point that the same might perhaps be said of many mainstream journalists (so that Night Terror might struggle to name an objective one).

If this is the case, it seems you both agree that Phil is not neutral, and that many mainstream journalists are also not neutral. Then you disagree about whether it matters to Phil’s reporting, but at least you start from a common understanding.

[Apologies if I’m wrong, I’ll get me coat and mind me own beeswax.]

Scottish Football and the case for a Bismarck!
Many thanks rampantbaron, mullach, resinlabdog, StevieBC; why this site is so valuable.

(OT StevieBC, no; I have friends and a – ahem – professional interest there.)

Scottish Football and the case for a Bismarck!
Apologies if this has been posted before; but interesting article from Jersey.

Tweeted by a Jersey politician who opposes it being a tax haven:

Montfort Tadier (@DeputyTadier) tweeted at 10:29 PM on Mon, May 06, 2013:
Ranger’s football club, HMRC and the Jersey Trustee http://t.co/z6NCX9cWxD

The link is to an article from March, from what I think is a serious UK law firm, discussing the EBT implications of the FTTT. This stood out:

“The case may prove a pyrrhic victory for Rangers’ employees. The loans will need to be repaid ten years after the date on which they were made and, under current law, it will be extremely difficult to refinance the loans without a charge to tax and NICs arising.”

New to me:
(i) hearing the repayment interpretation from a source like this; and
(ii) the specifics of the ten-year repayment period.

Does the ten years ring a bell with anyone, and does this mean some have already come due? Who would be most exposed, I wonder?

(OT, more or less: Jersey has our ‘small country’ problem but to a much greater extent: everyone knows everyone, literally, and it has long been portrayed as treacherous to object to the island’s taxhavenry, despite the enormous inequalities it has created, and corruption – to say nothing of the damage elsewhere; but Tadier and a few others are now speaking out, so the hope is that things can change…)

Everything Has Changed
In terms of the non-finding of a need to change sporting results, the key paragraphs are 87-89: explaining why, having established that the EBTs did constitute payments, the non-registration of these payments (and hence the misregistration of contracts) did not result in players being ineligible.

What you can see from para 87 (pasted below) is that the SPL – through their solicitor Rod McKenzie – were the ones to raise the possibility through which the construction of the rules could be such as to allow this finding; and that the SPL, in addition, did not press for the original construction. In other words, the panel appears to be stating that the SPL themselves gave to the panel the argument for the misregistration not to have caused player ineligibility, and hence for no sporting punishment to be required. Interesting.

[87] Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to mean
that if, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence was
that a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to play
in terms of SPL Rule D1.11. He accepted however that there was scope for a different
construction of the rule, to the effect that, as the lodging of the document in question was a
condition of registration, the registration of the player would be liable to revocation, with the
consequence that the player would thereafter become ineligible to play. He accepted that no
provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration
of the player. It became apparent from his submissions that Mr McKenzie was not pressing for a
finding that Issue 3(c), together with the concluding words of Issue 3(b), had been proved.

Everything Has Changed
scapaflow14 says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 12:16

Quite. (And above, great minds/fools etc.)

About the author