On the Old Club vs New Club (OCNC) debate, the SFA’s silence has been arguably the most damaging factor with respect to the future of the game. Of course people get frustrated when there is a deliberate policy of silence on the part of the SFA which results in the endless cycle of arguments being trotted out again and again with no resolution or closure possible.
The irony (it’s only irony if you assume that the SFA have gone to great lengths to create the conditions for the unbroken history status of the new club) is that the mealy-mouthed attitude they have adopted has actually polarised opinion in a far more serious and irreconcilable way than had they just made a clear statement when Sevco were handed SFA membership. A bit of leadership, with a decision either way at that time would have spiked a lot of OCNC guns very early on, but as history shows, they were afraid of a backlash from wherever it came.
I am now convinced that Scottish Football has passed the Event Horizon and is broken beyond the possibility of any repair that might have taken it back to its pre-2010 condition. Rangers fans will never – no matter what any eventual pronouncement from Hampden may be – accept that their next trophy will be their first. The trouble is that no-one else – again despite anything from Hampden – will cast them as anything else other than a new club who were given a free passage into the higher echelons of the game. Furthermore, they will forever force that down the throats of Rangers fans whenever and wherever they play. A recipe for discord, threats of violence, actual violence, and a general ramping up of the sectarian gas that we had all hoped, only a year or so ago, was to be set to an all-time low peep.
There is a saying in politics that we get the government we deserve. It works both ways though, and the SFA will get the audience it deserves. In actual fact it is the one it has actively sought over the last couple of years, for they have tacitly (and even perhaps explicitly) admitted that Scottish Football is a dish best served garnished with sectarianism. They have effectively told us that without it, the game cannot flourish, and they stick to that fallacy even although the empirical evidence of the past year indicates otherwise.
That belief is an intellectual black-hole they have now thrust the game into. They have effectively said that only two clubs actually matter in Scottish football. The crazy thing is that to put their plans into action they have successfully persuaded enough of the other clubs to jump into the chasm and hence vote themselves into irrelevance and permanent semi-obscurity.
That belief is also shared by the majority in the MSM, who despite their lofty, self-righteous and ostensibly anti-sectarian stance, have done everything they can to stir the hornet’s nest in the interests of greater sales.
Act as an unpaid wing of a PR company, check nothing, ask nothing, help to create unrest, and then tut-tut away indignantly like Monty Python Pepperpots when people take them to task.
Consequently the victims of all the wrongdoing (creditors and clubs) walk away without any redress or compensation for the loss of income and opportunity (and history) – stripped of any pride and dignity since they do so in the full knowledge of what has happened. But even as they wipe away the sand kicked in their faces, those clubs still insist on the loyalty of their own fanbases, the same fans whose trust they have betrayed with their meek acceptance of the new, old order.
The kinder interpretation of the impotence of the clubs is that they want to avoid the hassle and move on, the more cynical view that they are interested only in money, not people. In either case, sporting integrity, in the words of Lord Traynor of Winhall (Airdrie, not Vermont), is “crap”.
The question is; which constituency of 21st century Scotland subscribes to that 17th century paradigm?
Sadly, this massive hoax, this gigantic insult to our collective intelligence, is working. Many will leave the game – many already have in view of the spineless absence of intervention from their own clubs – but many, many more will stay and support the charade.
If you doubt my prediction, ask yourself how many tickets will be unsold the first time the New Rangers play Celtic at Parkhead? That my friends will be final imprimatur of authenticity on just exactly who New Rangers are, no matter the proclamations of both sides of the OCNC argument.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: (1136)
November 25, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Come on be fair. Bryce is doing a very entertaining line in sophistry
Two things immediately occur to me when reading your various points and I’d be most grateful if you can explain how you reconcile them. My points require us to look back at what happened, and also look forward from this point on, to the future.
Looking back, Messrs Traynor and Green, and indeed Walter Smith wanted to avoid liquidation as it meant the death of the Club and the end to its glorious history. When the inevitable occurred why did newspapers and other media all hold the view that Rangers had died when the CVA failed and the Club was consigned to liquidation? Prior to this fans held up banners, ‘sink us and we’ll sink you’ went the line. Everybody was aware of the risks, of the threat of Rangers being liquidated. Why did they need to worry? Why did Walter wish the ‘new’ Rangers Football Club every success, if in fact, it was the old Club continuing along?
Thereafter, if we’re to believe Rangers are the same Club, why did Charles Green need to buy the history? He said himself that he paid good money for it, but if it’s the same Club why did he need to buy anything? Similarly if only one, not two Clubs existed, why did Rangers get to vote on the admission of Sevco 5088/Scotland into the League last Summers. That doesn’t make any sense to me, as it shows, quite clearly, that for a time there were two entities, not one, which is, I think, what you and others claim. And of course why were you not seeded for the Scottish Cup last season, if you were the same Club that finished the previous season second in the SPL?
Looking forward, are we now believe it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Football Club to go out of business, to die, to become extinct? That the Club badge and ‘certain assets’ can simply be bought for a pound and a membership ‘transferred’ and on they go, history unbroken. If this is the case there is, surely, nothing to stop Rangers – or indeed anyone else – simply running up huge, unpayable debts, then liquidating the holding company and carrying on? If so, this would seem to create just the sort of situation FIFA are trying to discourage. Yet, in Scotland, we appear to be trying to create this mythical status, that is immune from Company Legislation and articles of Association – it’s called a Club, and no matter what happens to the entity that legally owns and operates this ‘Club’, the Club and all its history are immortal.
Auldheid @ 11:21
I’m not sure I quite follow your reasoning, but I don’t think I can agree with your apparent view that title stripping is not ‘what matters’. It may not be the main concern, but it’s up there.
It matters to every fan of every club robbed of glory by the rampant cheating of a rival; it matters just as much as having various authorities in Scotland facing up to their own demons: in the shape of
conceding that Rangers (Oldco) pockled the books.
In order for justice to be seen to be done, it will be necessary for titles to be stripped.
As you seem to suggest, it would be nice if those who were in positions of authority at Oldco conceded this much: it would be an act of humility which most of us think is beyond them (but I think it would be accepted by nearly everyone as a belated act of sportsmanship).
But who would do this on behalf of Oldco? David Murray … ?
If no such admission is forthcoming, justice will still dictate that the affected titles must (eventually) be denied to Oldco.
A failure to revoke such titles will be an abrogation of duty and merely allow the sore to fester.
Mind numbing and embarrassing stuff from those trying to justify same club.
Whats relevant here, and it would make a welcome change for the same clubists to admit it, is the shameful way Rangers behaved towards their fellow members of the SPL and towards their suppliers and creditors..
Until those putting forward tortuous and mind numbingly boring arguments to try and justify same club, hold their hands up to the cheating, the tax evasion , the deception , the financial irresponsibility, the arrogance , the deliberate attempts to damage competitors and fellow member clubs, then and only then will I pay any heed to their arguments for same club.
Its their own form of arrogance that they attempt to justify their stance on same club, without an all encompassing and sincere apology for disgracing our national sport .
thirdmanrunning says: (103)
November 25, 2013 at 12:38 pm
………………………………………….
Correct…
The laws of insolvency tell you the football club died…which was backed up by FIFA the governing body for Football on planet Earth…
But…they continue to contort and turn themselves inside out in persuit of a way that could possibly explain how it might be possible to continue…
As I’ve said before there are currently approx. 53 million reasons this issue has a relevance rising to a possible 157 million reasons…
I wonder who the Jelavic money went to?…it should have gone to the same football club that sold him.
In season 1997-98 Celtic halted the future Sevco in their attempt at 10 in a row. Following this came the “succulent lamb” interview. All the talk in the interview was intended to reflect how rich and eloquent the Murray Empire was. The finest red, the luxurious surroundings. The assembled Press corp were in obvious awe.
The most understated and yet for me the most important part of the discussions was when Minty declared that they would do “Everything in their power” to get back to the pinacle of Scottish Football. That stood out for me then and still does today. There was obviously no indication given of what he meant. But it was a promise of sorts by an angry, distraught and deflated Demi-god.
History will eventually show he kept to his word. By cheating , tax evasion and as described in the official sentencing “One step from match fixing”.
Paulmac2 says: (797)
November 25, 2013 at 12:53 pm
0 0 Rate This
thirdmanrunning says: (103)
November 25, 2013 at 12:38 pm
………………………………………….
I wonder who the Jelavic money went to?…it should have gone to the same football club that sold him.
=========================
It did 😉
thirdmanrunning says: (103)
November 25, 2013 at 12:38 pm
12 0 i
==============================
To be fair, I think they will only want that to apply to one club (or iterations of it).
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-receive-1m-sale-nikica-2849016
Could this be the daily record quietly admitting they are 2 clubs, I think someone might get their backside kicked for this headline
Begbies Traynor the recoveries specialists see a bleak future for some Scottish clubs.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/250212-football-distress-survey-finds-one-in-eight-clubs-face-financial-crisis/
One in eight football clubs in Scotland are facing financial failure, a new survey has found.
Four clubs in the top three Scottish divisions were facing “critical” financial pressure at the end of last month, according to the report by corporate rescue and recovery specialists Begbies Traynor.
It found that a further 16 clubs, half of those in the report, are showing early, less serious signs of financial distress.
The report warned that many clubs were stuck in a “cycle of distress” and suggested they revisit their business models and look at measures like fan-based ownership.
The Football Distress Survey also reported static average attendance and season ticket revenues across the four divisions of the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL).
Ken Pattullo, of Begbies Traynor Scotland, said: “The fact is that, like businesses in many sectors, some clubs are pulling away from others in financial terms and those clubs that are staggering on, barely able to meet their financial commitments, are edging closer to falling over.
“The majority of the clubs are now locked into their cycle of distress. It is hard to see what, aside from a big investment, will save these clubs from facing administration, unless they completely revisit their business models and make some fundamental changes.
“Alternative structures such as community interest companies and fan-based ownership may well become an increasing part of the solution.”
One in eight clubs (12%) are in serious trouble, the same as the last survey which was conducted in March this year.
However, the report said that football club coffers are typically healthiest at the start of the season and warned there are likely to be more serious problems for many clubs by early next year.
The report also found that Rangers’ brief stay at the bottom of the league has benefited the other clubs in League Two, with only two of the clubs in that division showing signs of distress after enjoying a massive increase in average attendances during the last season.
The Ibrox club’s promotion to League One has seen a huge recent spike in attendances, with a 700% boost to average gates so far this season.
Financial experts suggested that clubs should look at other measures to improve their finances.
Alistair Dickson, of BTG Financial Consulting, said: ” The majority of troubled clubs in Scotland can no longer rely on wealthy benefactors swooping in as white knights. The clubs that are now effectively locked into this cycle of financial pressure need to look hard at their business models.
“Along with identifying where cost savings can be made, including reductions in the wage bill, clubs need to find innovative ways of generating additional income streams.
“Some clubs are likely to conclude that it makes financial sense for the fans, who support the club week in and week out, to take a long-term stake in the clubs themselves and help secure their future by extending their reach to the wider community.
“The community club model has been shown to work all over Europe, from the amateur ranks all the way to the mighty Barcelona and is an integral part of German football. The model has a real future in Scottish football.
“In fact, aside from merging and consolidating clubs together, or allowing those that fail to create a reduction in the number of clubs, it is possibly the only hope for many. We expect at least three additional Scottish clubs to become fan-owned by 2015.”
The average attendances for the season so far (as at October 13) range from just over 10,000 in the Scottish Premier League to less than 500 in League Two.
The report did not name the four clubs said to be facing “critical” financial pressure
Greenock Jack says: (184)
November 25, 2013 at 1:31 pm
jack, Rangers & Hearts are the two obvious ones 😉
Greenock Jack – thanks for that. Hmmm, Ken Pattullo, of Begbies Traynor Scotland, said: “…those clubs that are staggering on, barely able to meet their financial commitments, are edging closer to falling over….The majority of the clubs are now locked into their cycle of distress. It is hard to see what, aside from a big investment, will save these clubs from facing administration, unless they completely revisit their business models and make some fundamental changes.
Hmmm distinctive name, Pattullo, if only someone with such a grasp of matters had been in charge of the bank that got so many football clubs into trouble…
scapaflow says: (1163)
November 25, 2013 at 11:23 am
scapaflow says: (1163)
November 25, 2013 at 11:23 am
4
0
Rate This
Quantcast
Angus1983 says: (1251)
November 25, 2013 at 9:19 am
I’m afraid you are going to be disappointed. The line will be that LNS dealt with the sporting aspects of these matters, and that to reopen them would be double jeopardy, against natural justice, fattening and any other half assed excuse the boards of the SFA & SPFL can up with. Oh yeah and it will be time to draw a line and move forward for the good of Scottish Football.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LNS dealt with the sporting advantage line on the basis that ebts were not an irregular form of payment :-
” Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed;
and all that was in question was the implications of not registering them under disclosure rules..
However if some of the payments to players listed in the Commission (and De Boer and Flo were listed) were made under the illegal DOS during the period 23 Nov 2000 to 21st May 2002 and they were, then the above statement cannot hold.
By the time the UTT rule this will have become accepted public knowledge and the SPL will be unable to use LNS as an excuse.
Greenock Jack says: (184)
November 25, 2013 at 1:31 pm
OK lets guess the 4:
Rangers Old Co
Ranger New Co
Hearts
Kilmarnock
Crivvens says: (4)
November 25, 2013 at 12:41 pm
12
0
Rate This
Quantcast
Auldheid @ 11:21
I’m not sure I quite follow your reasoning, but I don’t think I can agree with your apparent view that title stripping is not ‘what matters’. It may not be the main concern, but it’s up there.
It matters to every fan of every club robbed of glory by the rampant cheating of a rival; it matters just as much as having various authorities in Scotland facing up to their own demons: in the shape of
conceding that Rangers (Oldco) pockled the books.
In order for justice to be seen to be done, it will be necessary for titles to be stripped.
As you seem to suggest, it would be nice if those who were in positions of authority at Oldco concede this much: it would be an act of humility which most would think is beyond them (but I think it would be accepted by nearly everyone as a belated act of sportsmanship).
But who would do this on behalf of Oldco? David Murray … ?
If no such admission is forthcoming, justice will still dictate that the effected titles must (eventually) be denied to Oldco.
Furthermore, I would aver that a failure to revoke such titles will be an abrogation of duty and merely allow the sore to fester.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am not saying stripping titles does not matter, but not taking away discredited titles is a price I would be happy to pay to get an admission of the truth.
I think there are enough decent Rangers supporters who would want nothing to do with those titles once it becomes clear not only how they were obtained but the lengths gone to retain them.
More on that to come.
Scapa,
jack, Rangers & Hearts are the two obvious ones
——————————————
I’d say Hearts are a given.
Given criteria stated, I don’t think Rangers will be included in the four.
Going forward there would seem to be a potential insolvency risk and is dependent on the credibility, competence and honesty of the board post-AGM, alongside the success or otherwise of raising further investment.
GJ, I would think that the club that just posted results with annual losses probably greater than the rest of scottish football’s put together would be one of those deemed to be an insolvency risk.
Auldheid says: (1035)
November 25, 2013 at 11:21 am
Celtic are currently on 44 league titles , Rangers on 54 (if you count their 1/2 in 1890 /91).
For them to cough-up 7 titles (won since 1998) …… well the sums are easy.
Still only 10 years to catch up …..
beanos @ 2:01
GJ, I would think that the club that just posted results with annual losses probably greater than the rest of scottish football’s put together would be one of those deemed to be an insolvency risk.
——————————————————————————————————————–
The report said “Four clubs in the top three Scottish divisions were facing “critical” financial pressure at the end of last month, according to the report by corporate rescue and recovery specialists Begbies Traynor.”
At the beginning of the same month Deloitte signed off the going-concern part of the audited accounts, noting an unsecured facillity of 2.5M pounds.
I recognize the dangers only too well but at this moment in time Rangers won’t be one of the ‘four’ as per BT criteria.
Looks like Campbell Ogilvie stirred a hornets nest. From Celtic Supporters Association web site.
http://www.thecsa.co.uk/showthread.php?t=731
Personally, I’m finding Bryce’s contributions to be most interesting. Just saying, like.
Auldheid
i wish shared your optimism, but all the experience to date suggests otherwise
Jim Larkin 1149:
Good question to Mr Duncan..and here’s the next one…
Why don’t you demand BDO stop the illegal asset alienation dead in it’s tracks …so go get the property back from CW or whomsoever owns it right now … (can’t be that hard to ascertain.)…sell it to an independent property company ..and repatriate the cash to the creditors?
After all isn’t it the ‘same club’s’ assets?
scapaflow says: (1166)
November 25, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Indeed. How about failing to meet the highest standards and misleading (as in leading away from) a judge?
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-highest-standards/#more-4219
Auldhied
Looks like Campbell Ogilvie stirred a hornets nest. From Celtic Supporters Association web site.
———————————————————————————————————-
What is the most important issue here or if there are several issues what is their order of importance, to the Celtic support ?
What I’m getting at is the interpretation that in large part, the PL remark was designed to deflect from other issues (especially ‘the living wage’) and influence the media coverage of the Celtic AGM.
Spin-management is easier to see when you are looking for it, ie. this blog / Rangers and tbf with MH there has been a lot of it. However when you may be victims of it, it is more difficult.
I would ask why was PL incapable of giving a serious answer to a serious question at an AGM.
Angus1983 says: (1252)
November 25, 2013 at 2:12 pm
What I find interesting are the questions he won’t answer.
I guess some folk are uncomfortable without an autocue.
Auldheid says: (1038)
November 25, 2013 at 2:26 pm
Aye, but, he was re-elected unopposed, whether there was a formal vote or not. So like it or not the clubs are perfectly happy to have the Great Architect at the helm
Scapa
Aye, but, he was re-elected unopposed, whether there was a formal vote or not. So like it or not the clubs are perfectly happy to have the Great Architect at the helm
————————————————————————————–
Takes you back to the AGM as the first port of call.
Spivco
Many of your fellow Celtic supporters aren’t quite on the same page as you regarding ‘the living wage’ issue (see link provided). http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/celtic-and-the-living-wage-by-johnbhoy/
As for your first paragraph, I’m sorry but it doesn’t IMO stretch to excuse your CEO at the AGM. When I say ‘excuse’, I see the Celtic support as who have suffered because of it. On top of that, Rangers (Jack Irvine) took adantage and used it to their advantage to deflect issues from their own supporters.
ie. both supports were spun a line.
I don’t ask posters to go down the living wage issue but it has relevance given the post coming from Joe O’Rourke via Auldhied.
Auldheid says: (1036)
November 25, 2013 at 1:44 pm
“…and all that was in question was the implications of not registering them under disclosure rules..”
Indeed, Auldheid.
There was also a fair part of the concluding bit by LNS on the ‘counterfactual’.
This counterfactual rested on the judgement of the FTT that the use of EBTs were legitimate tax avoidance.
The counterfactual was set out as Rangers deciding to disclose these ‘legitinate’ payments fully than hide them – but either way they would have fielded the same teams.
So non-disclosure, and any contravention of the non-disclosure rules, did not affect the team fielded.
Add in the benefit of the Bryson Interpretation, and Rangers neither fielded an unfairly/illegitimately bought team nor an ineligible one. I’m sure you are familiar with this.
So LNS can conclude as he does re unfair sporting advantage.
If the UTT returns a decision in favour of HMRC and overturns the FTT decision, it should mean that a number of things follow:
The findings of LNS’ SPLIC should at the very least be revisited.
The Bryson Interpretation should be revisited, but may not be affected, despite its obvious perversity.
The counterfactual, and its logic should be seen as inadequate and deeply flawed.
The counterfactual analysis would extend in its scope to beyond simply the binary decison.
It is notable that the media reported a victory/ not guilty headline despite a guilty verdict being found on most of the charges.
I will be interested in how an overturned FTT decision is portrayed.
It is also notable that the findings that were ‘not guilty’ were the only charges aimed at the ‘club’ set out as distinct from O/O company.
This ‘club’, in this context, is now owned and operated by the current Rangers.
In this context, and following the logic of the SPLIC, if findings were reviewed and overturned, the current Rangers could be affected. Penalties that arise could be enforced via the 5WA. The current Rangers Football Club Ltd are now effectively in the SPL (now branded as the SPFL) league 1.
Greenock Jack says: (188)
November 25, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Auldhied
Looks like Campbell Ogilvie stirred a hornets nest. From Celtic Supporters Association web site.
———————————————————————————————————-
What is the most important issue here or if there are several issues what is their order of importance, to the Celtic support ?
What I’m getting at is the interpretation that in large part, the PL remark was designed to deflect from other issues (especially ‘the living wage’) and influence the media coverage of the Celtic AGM.
Spin-management is easier to see when you are looking for it, ie. this blog / Rangers and tbf with MH there has been a lot of it. However when you may be victims of it, it is more difficult.
I would ask why was PL incapable of giving a serious answer to a serious question at an AGM.
——————————————————————————————————————-
I believe Mr. Lawell used a metaphor to express mild amusement at the Old Co / New Co question from the floor rather than get bogged down in legal details (see recent posters for example of legal techno babble) , in that respect Mr. Lawell provided a splendid response.
The Rangers supporters concern for the living wage is admirable, perhaps that is why Ally and first team are on a good number, however our very own SMSM are only football reporters and cannot be expected to make head nor tail of the living wage / differentials debate, so not sure why Celtic would need a smoke screen for the living wage.
Obvious question to any reporter or concerned Rangers fan on the living wage is ‘we will look again at this in the spirit of openness and transparency and we will lead the way again in being socially responsible for Scottish Football.’ Who knows we may even reach the often sought after pinnacle of social responsibility.
I am not sure you get the irony of calling out Celtic on the living wage, when compared to the FUBAR company / club that is Rangers, and the brutal state of the finances across all of Scottish football.
Still enjoyable read, looking forward to future articles on why it is good to not own your ground, concentrate fully on the football side etc.
Sorry, Jack. Bombs and bullets are absolutely an issue here. As it the abuse and threats to journalists who avoid comment as they value both they and their family’s safety and privacy.Or the threats to other clubs like Raith Rovers. And who can blame them?
It is NOT Celtic’s job to define if RFC are a new club or not. Both they and their fans can, of course, raise eyebrows and scratch their heads when various persons and media outlets vigorously claim it is the same club, as this directly opposes legal and footballing regulations and precedents. It is the SFA’s job to determine if, as per their and UEFA rules, Sevco are a continuation or not.
Naturally, as all evidence (not rhetoric or spin) unequivocally says that they are a new club, Celtic supporters are perfectly entitled to raise the issue at the AGM, asking what the club’s stance on RFC fans and the media flying in the face of facts and logic. After all, chasing titles is what football is all about. They were not asking St Peter for a ruling, just clarification of the club’s stance. Not sure why that seems to have got you in a tizz.
As to most fans not agreeing with me on the living wage, that is the beauty of a democracy. I would have preferred the motion to be carried but it will be raised again. Another democratic delight. And I can sleep easy in the knowledge that even though some are only paid the minimum wage by my club, they pay all their social taxes and suppliers. Sad that I have to even mention this, as it should be the norm.
EKBhoy @ 3pm
PL remark: It was an AGM not a press conference or meeting with supporters association..
The real and sad irony regarding the living wage issue was the decision itself, the reasoning behind it and then listening to your chairmans pre-recorded interview.
You would do well to let that stand by itself and make your judgements whatever they may be, rather than involve Rangers and whataboutery.
Living wage against what ,when companies are not paid for goods provided that in turn provide the wage that the workers live off ,what happens then ,in some cases the workers are paid off as the funds run out to pay them and the suppliers to these companies chase for payment of their invoices and the company closes or has to make staff redundant ,I take it there has been an investigation by our msm to check this out ,the companies affected by the non payment of monies due to them and the affect this had on there company and staff ,thought not.
Greenock Jack @3-14pm.
Perhaps more Companies and Public bodies would be able to pay the living wage if other Companies actually paid their Tax and N.I. Contributions…….. More Whataboutery..?.? Aye your right it is.
A club that played in the SPL was guilty of, for a period, evading tax (WTC), again evading tax admitted in some cases under a different scheme (BTC), and facing an UTT appeal that could overturn the decision that the BTC was mainly just tax avoidance.
That club has not come out of its insolvency event, and had its assets passed to a newco.
Despite the new guy in charge of the current Rangers painting a picture of striding onwards to the sunlit uplands before them, this has not materialised so much as the operational losses greater than the poorest financials of the club that went bust.
This new guy has now exited, and boardroom turmoil continues with legal challenge and delayed AGM.
Even the King over the Sea shall not return and save them from an insolvency event of their own – when not if, IMO.
Things look bleak again.
thirdmanrunning says: (103)
November 25, 2013 at 12:38 pm
————————————–
A good summation of what has happened.
By their actions the SFA/SPL have treated Sevco as a new club. By not giving them SPL prize money that the old football club won season 2011/12, by not giving the TV money due to the football club who earned it and by making them play in the first round of the League Cup instead of the 3rd round as merited by the old club are some give away clues.
Regan and Doncaster will do anything to avoid the issue. Regan’s glib comment that it’s up to the fans to decide if it’s a new club or not is a dereliction of duty and his failure to give a straight answer early doors will come back to haunt him. It appears that he is allowing Sevco to use artistic expression on their history long before the screenplay to the future blockbuster film has even been written.
Spivco,
In my head I now read your posts as Deflectacom, accompanied by a graphic image of a robot ‘Gigantor’ my brothers had in the early 1960s. I even sing the theme from the advert. (from previous post but included so reply is understood).
Do you predict Ally will sell his shares just before the lock in expires? If so, what will be his justification for this? If not, why?
———————————————-
A little after the time your brothers received a graphic image of a robot ‘Gigantor’, my sister was gifted a crystal ball. I got ‘Super Striker’ instead and can’t answer your question (s).
I will take a punt and say it very unlikely that AMcC will be selling any of his shares in what is left of 2013.
Can we just bear in mind, that again, a case for oldclub / newclub is being based on a report (LNS), requested and paid for by the two alleged admin mistake makers 😀 in the registration issue, and was never asked anything else, but made sure it addressed other topics outwith its remit.
The argument would have been done, dusted, trumpeted, in a very public legally binding verdict that every club could use as a method of avoiding the consequences of liquidation, long before now. The UTTT is looking for a precedent, and that report will not be a trump card for other wrong doing clubs, of that I am certain.
Jack, is the living wage campaign by one group of shareholders at one club the biggest current issue in Scottish football? I’ve already expressed my admiration for the shareholder activism at Celtic because I share the values expressed, and I get the impression you do too.
I’d have thought though that the ongoing financial uncertainty at a number of clubs as identified by Begbies Traynor would be of more relevance. I note that two clubs in SPFL2 face ‘critical financial pressure’ , despite having benefitted from the ‘Rangers’ effect and that four of the top 32 clubs are similarly classified. I’d have guessed at Rangers, Livingston and Kilmarnock in addition to Hearts, which is identified by the BT in the report. TRFC having a loan facility of £2.5m doesn’t necessarily exclude the club from the ‘critical financial pressure’ category.
I also note that the SPFL Premiership has seen a 3% rise in crowds.
Auldheid says: (1038)
November 25, 2013 at 2:26 pm
scapaflow says: (1166)
November 25, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Indeed. How about failing to meet the highest standards and misleading (as in leading away from) a judge?
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-highest-standards/#more-4219
======================================================
From that linked PMcG article, he states that;
“[Ogilvie] was employed by Rangers in various capacities until around September 2005 and he was there at the time in March / April 2005 when HMRC made enquiries about side letters regarding players paid through the Discounted Options Scheme [DOS]…”
Can’t remember if this specific point has been raised previously, but…
IIRC, the reasons for Ogilvie leaving RFC after almost 30 years in order to take a ‘perceived step down’ to join Hearts where a bit vague.
[Apologies to Jambos of course.]
Some have speculated that this was to put some distance between Ogilvie and RFC before he ultimately became SFA President ?
IIRC, Ogilviie himself [?] had claimed that – latterly – board meetings where irregular under Murray, and that he was ‘not that involved’ in the decision making at board level ?
Well, whatever the implied reason for his departure from Ibrox, is there any significance in the above dates ?
HMRC makes enquiries in March/April and about 6 months later Ogilvie has left ?
When HMRC started making specific enquiries about the DOS scheme, would Ogilvie know then that the game was up – that it was just a matter of time ?
To protect himself, and to enable him to try and plead ignorance at a later date, he handed in his notice at Ibrox ASAP?
He serves a notice period of e.g. six months before joining Hearts.
Is this a feasible suggestion ?
Ogilvie handed in his notice in March / April 2005 as soon as HMRC started sniffing around the ‘world’s greatest administrator’ – because he knew full well what was coming his – and Rangers’ – way ?
From Ogillvie’s statement
‘None the less, I am compelled to convey my disappointment that we find ourselves in this position, as a result of an apparent erosion of mutual respect between two of our OLDEST rivals.’
Is this the definitive statement on club continuity from the SFA?
Mickleen,
Not the first time CO has communicated something along those lines.
Back in June, Ogilvie said in his SFA President’s “Welcome” that forms the opening of the 2013 Annual Review document….
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/annualreview/2013/AnnualReview.html#p=4
“The events which culminated in Rangers Football Club entering liquidation and subsequently being accommodated into the SFL3 are well documented.”
way ?
Mickleen says: (27)
November 25, 2013 at 3:58 pm
From Ogillvie’s statement
‘None the less, I am compelled to convey my disappointment that we find ourselves in this position, as a result of an apparent erosion of mutual respect between two of our OLDEST rivals.’
Is this the definitive statement on club continuity from the SFA?
—————————-
As definitive comments go it’s not too definitive. Had he said oldest CLUBS then that’s another story.
Blu
There are many issues that stand alone or weave and interact in the tapastry of Scottish football, with the degree of importance or relevance being subjective. Sometimes when I raise an issue (even if only a small part of a general point) you find a deluge of indignant replies because it goes against general boardspeak or at least challanges it. This sometimes gives rise to calls of deflection if I start of on a round of replies. Because of this, I sometimes don’t bother debating a certain point.
I say this but don’t want to debate it any further.
I agree that the BT report is generally a more important area to debate and personally will not be making further comment on the LW/AGM.
Good Afternoon
A few days since Ogilvies proclamation and I am still as unhappy about it now as I was when I heard it.
It was of course the board of that company formerly known as Sevco who complained to the SFA and wasted their compliance officers time.
Respect is not a right to be demanded of anyone. Respect has to be earned and merited.
Ogilvie is a duplicitous and disingenuous Rangers supporter who has done nothing to earn anyone’s respect over the last two years. He is a busted flush who will eventuallyy go when he is required to pay the price of a good night out back to HMRC.
Oh what a lot of respect everyone would have for him if he came out and voluntarily gave back the £95,000.
As for his beloved Rangers what right do they have to demand respect?
Are they to be respected for defrauding the taxman?
Are they be respected for failing to pay their TAX?
Are they to be respected for their sectarian policy?
Are they to be respected for failing to pay their creditors?
Are they to be respected for cheating?
Tell me Mr. Ogilvie publicly and unequivocally please. For what are Rangers to be respected and how have they earned that respect?
It’s a simple question
bryce9a says: (19)
November 25, 2013 at 4:08 pm
Its a non-denial denial, and helps your argument not a whit. This is the Humpty Dumpty President, when he uses a word it means precisely what HE says it means at that point in time, come back tomorrow and the meaning will have changed.
Greenock Jack says: (191)
November 25, 2013 at 2:28 pm
3
19
Rate This
Quantcast
Auldhied
Looks like Campbell Ogilvie stirred a hornets nest. From Celtic Supporters Association web site.
———————————————————————————————————-
What is the most important issue here or if there are several issues what is their order of importance, to the Celtic support ?
What I’m getting at is the interpretation that in large part, the PL remark was designed to deflect from other issues (especially ‘the living wage’) and influence the media coverage of the Celtic AGM.
Spin-management is easier to see when you are looking for it, ie. this blog / Rangers and tbf with MH there has been a lot of it. However when you may be victims of it, it is more difficult.
I would ask why was PL incapable of giving a serious answer to a serious question at an AGM.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The living wage is a Celtic issue and is being covered on Celtic blogs.
This is a Scottish Football blog and the issue is that the President of the National Association failed to reveal all he knew about ebts and that failure led to a judge making a wrong judgement.
The Commission could not have pointed to the true nature of the early ebts for the simple reason that documents covering them were withheld by D&P.
The date of coverage in the original SPL statement of a Commission was 1st July 1998 when the SPL started. The date used was 23rd November 2000 and that was because that was the date of the earliest side letter supplied by D&P. An earlier side letter of Aug 2000 and the HMRC letter setting out the DOS case for payment were not supplied.
However Campbell Ogilvie was in a position to provide the SPL (and LNS) with the missing information but did not do so and as SFA President should be explaining why, not denying ignorance of ebts in relation to player signings. He was a member of the Rangers remuneration group that set them up and set Rangers on the road to ruin.
But if you think the Living wage is more important I suggest KDS or CQN are more relevant blogs.
Ogilvie
======
Did a quick search for some Ogilvie quotes around 2005 about his departure from Rangers.
Ironically, I came across this article on a Hearts site;
“…Since his exit from Rangers two months ago in a bloodless coup which saw chief executive Martin Bain strengthen his position at the administrative helm at Ibrox…
…”My [Ogilvie] role at Rangers changed dramatically about two-and-a-half years ago when I stopped doing the day-to-day administration, but it was still a bit of a wrench when I did leave.”
http://www.londonhearts.com/scores/mrep/20051126007.htm
=================================================
I didn’t get the impression that Bain was the power broker at Ibrox – rather he did Murray’s bidding.
And Ogilvie was seemingly happy to remain in his ‘dramatically changed’ role for 2.5 years.
A ‘bloodless coup’ notwithstanding: what was Ogilvie’s motivation to leave his beloved club and go to Hearts ?
The Rangers Supporters Trust have launched a Membership scheme with the aim of Spivs buying control of the club (or is it paying off the Spivs).
This was first mooted a couple of weeks ago, but I thought that it was going to be the club that did it in order to raise some working capital.
http://www.therst.co.uk/buyrangers/
Auldheid says: (1039)
November 25, 2013 at 4:22 pm
I find myself in agreement with all you are saying. Where I differ, is in my contention that Mr Ogilvy’s employers were and are fully aware of this, and probably much more, but decided to re-employ him anyway.
StevieBC says: (900)
November 25, 2013 at 3:57 pm
It is indeed a possibility but not easy to prove. However what can be demonstrated is that he did not tell the full story when news of his (loan) EBT broke.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9144140/Campbell-Ogilvie-admits-he-was-aware-of-Rangers-EBT-scheme-but-had-no-role-in-player-contracts.html
Campbell Ogilvie admits he was ‘aware’ of Rangers EBT scheme but had no role in player contracts
Campbell Ogilvie has vowed to continue in his role as Scottish Football Association president as he insisted he had no role in “drafting or administering” player contracts at Rangers after the mid-1990s.
He may not have drafted the contracts but played a role in the administration of the first ebt and was part of the Rangers policy making group that must have had clear explanations of how the scheme would work and was still in situe in 2000 when two contracts involving hidden side letters were set up.
He maintained the stance of ignorance of the use of EBTS to remunerate players
**** http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2116686/Rangers-crisis-Campbell-Ogilvie-received-95k-EBT-cash.html
Scottish Football Association president Campbell Ogilvie has admitted receiving £95,000 from Rangers’ controversial Employee Benefit Trust scheme and admitted he might have asked more questions of the way the club was run under Sir David Murray.
The Scottish Premier League are investigating alleged undisclosed payments to Rangers players from 1998, which centre on the EBT scheme, now the subject of a potential £49million tax tribunal.
Former Rangers director and company secretary Ogilvie had already denied any role in drafting player contracts after the mid-1990s.
Ogilvie, who became general secretary in 2002 and left Ibrox in 2005 after 27 years, told Sunday newspapers:
‘I knew the EBT scheme was in place, but I didn’t know the extent of it and which players had them.
‘I didn’t believe they were risky as the Murray Group took a lot of legal and tax advice when the scheme started.”
Did that advice say that the scheme was only legally safe if no side letters used, in which case RangersIL sue their tax adviser. If not told then Rangers deliberately strayed from the intent of the scheme and he cannot use ignorance of the loan ebt arrangements to avoid answering questions about his role in 1999 in DOS ebts.
‘I don’t know how Rangers used them with players but I was in the scheme.
Aye he was in the loan ebt scheme ok but knew about the genesis of the DOS and by March 2012 when he made above statements how it had surfaced as the wee tax case.
Surely the key question with Ogilvie regarding his administration of Rangers during the “tax case years” is this…
Did Campbell Ogilvie realise the procedures he was administering were:
– in breach of football rules
– against the law
…at the time he was involved?
Unless the answer is “yes” to either of those, critics are left saying “well he should have researched into the legality/sought different advice” etc which, even if legitimate points, are no where near as serious allegations.
bryce9a says: (20)
November 25, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Isnt true though that a director CANT use the “I didnae know” defence?
“Did Campbell Ogilvie realise the procedures he was administering were (if they were):
– in breach of football rules”
But Bryce, you chaps were trumpeting the Great Architect as the “World’s Greatest Football Administrator”, the man who could recite the regs from memory…..
Auldheid
The living wage is a Celtic issue and is being covered on Celtic blogs.
This is a Scottish Football blog and the issue is that the President of the National Association failed to reveal all he knew about ebts and that failure led to a judge making a wrong judgement.
The Commission could not have pointed to the true nature of the early ebts for the simple reason that documents covering them were withheld by D&P.
The date of coverage in the original SPL statement of a Commission was 1st July 1998 when the SPL started. The date used was 23rd November 2000 and that was because that was the date of the earliest side letter supplied by D&P. An earlier side letter of Aug 2000 and the HMRC letter setting out the DOS case for payment were not supplied.
However Campbell Ogilvie was in a position to provide the SPL (and LNS) with the missing information but did not do so and as SFA President should be explaining why, not denying ignorance of ebts in relation to player signings. He was a member of the Rangers remuneration group that set them up and set Rangers on the road to ruin.
But if you think the Living wage is more important I suggest KDS or CQN are more relevant blogs.
——————————————————————————————————————–
When I first brought the issue up, my angle was more to do with spin-management rather than the LW directly but I won’t repeat it. On the off chance anyone was interested, it is posted over the weekend just past.
I’ll leave alone your flawed, selective and somewhat arrogant of tone logic, other than to note it.
At the sametime I respect your right to broach whatever subject you like and can even bring myself to admire the dogged determination you apply to what you do. I can also understand why, when you are so involved in certain issues that others may appear to be of little relative import.
As far as CO is concerned, I agree with Scapa (correct me if I’m wrong) in as much as your club has left you whistling in the wind by being party to his reelection.
Greenock Jack: “I would ask why was PL incapable of giving a serious answer to a serious question at an AGM?”
I would answer “Because it wasn’t a serious question”.
The question was in relation to the SMSM’s reporting of NewGers as the old club rather than the new club formed after the liquidation of the old – we all knew in advance of the AGM what the club’s position is in relation to this. Celtic had its own “near death” experience, but solved the issue itself/via The Bunnet and all creditors were paid in full. We had our own period in the wilderness (when Rangers “won” rheir 9IAR) – how much simpler to have gone into liquidation and emerged phoenix-like (irony intended) from the ashes, with every problem greased by friends of the club who want the most rapid return to “former glories” (sic) possible for the new incarnation.
I think if Peter Lawwell HAD given a serious answer to that question there would be hell to pay.
Greenock Jack says: (193)
November 25, 2013 at 5:02 pm
“As far as CO is concerned, I agree with Scapa (correct me if I’m wrong) in as much as your club has left you whistling in the wind by being party to his reelection.”
That is my argument, though it applies to all the clubs, not just Celtic, and It’s also why i don’t believe that there is any appetite among the Footballing Authorities or clubs,to re-open these issues.
Having said that, there are so many questions to be answered by both Mr Ogilivy and his employers that whatever the Clubs/Authorities might want, these questions are not going to go away. The UTT will bring some into sharp focus, the BDO report will bring others, as will all the various investigations.
GJ said: “Spin-management is easier to see when you are looking for it”.
Ironically enough, that’s the message that comes into my head every time I read one of your posts!
As a long time lurker and someone who hardly every posts, the set tone and agenda of some posters is extremely obvious i.e. a new avatar comes to the surface and makes numerous posts, generally with a contrasting opinion on something discussed on the blog many moons ago, or alternatively, posting huge comments that make very little sense at all; both of which merely act as a distraction. ( I am aware of the irony of being a seldom poster commenting upon other people!)
The point of my own post is an appeal to all Bampots; .
1 . Take it as a compliment – if this blog was not seen as a serious threat to the charade that the allies of Rory Bremner FC wish to portray, they wouldn’t put so much effort into distracting everyone. Just think about the effort some of these posters are putting in when attempting to cast doubt or steer the topic of conversation in strange directions; when these individuals start to disappear, then is the time to be concerned.
2. Distraction – when the questionable questions are being raised, ask not only “why”, but “why now”. Much to my shame, I used to believe everything written in the MSM but the last few years has been a very steep learning curve and I now question everything, particularly where financial wealth or power can be gained.
3. Eyes on the prize – something that I keep reminding myself is that those parties who are so determined to hide the truth and continue in their efforts to keep the myth going about Rory Bremner FC and history etc, well they all know that we know the truth, and the fact that they know that we know the truth tears them apart; hence the lengths they are going to re-write history. As long as people keep asking the questions and challenging the downright crap we are being fed from the MSM and dubious PR people, this will never go away.
Anyway, I will crawl back into my hole and continue to lurk.
Viva la (bampot) revolucion!
bryce9a says: (20) November 25, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Once again you choose to deflect from the issue at hand.
Ogilvie’s assertion that he had no involvement with player contracts since the mid 90s is a straightforward lie.
He was involved in a Board meeting that discussed Craig Moore’s remuneration and personally authorised Moore’s use of the DOS scheme in 1999.
http://i.imgur.com/q88NFQq.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ytPbuSp.jpg
There is every likelihood he was well aware of the other DOS scheme contracts.
Similarly, for one in receipt of an EBT and in a senior position at the club, to claim to have no knowledge of others using the scheme for contractual payments is not credible.
scapaflow says: (1169)
November 25, 2013 at 4:39 pm
0
0
Rate This
Quantcast
Auldheid says: (1039)
November 25, 2013 at 4:22 pm
I find myself in agreement with all you are saying. Where I differ, is in my contention that Mr Ogilvy’s employers were and are fully aware of this, and probably much more, but decided to re-employ him anyway.
+++++++++++++++++++++
You cynic you 🙂
The thing is who are CO’s employers? If you mean the clubs, then only those in the top tier were affected if it could be shown that Rangers remunerated their players by a means not open to other clubs and kept some contract details secret in order to do so.
But it was the SPL who called for a Commission to investigate and asked D&P, who by then in mid 2012 were running Rangers, for the documentation in respect of all ebt’s since July 1998.
In the event not all was provided and D& P got a slap on the wrist for their tardiness from LNS, but the SPL could only use what they were supplied with and they did starting with a side letter dated 23 Nov 2000.
So for the SPL to be involved and want to keep things under wraps, they would have to have known of the earlier DOS ebts and not probe, but they did ask for everything, but it was not supplied, which suggests the SPL clubs did want to get to the bottom of things but folk attached to Rangers did not.
That is not to say the SPFL will not want to keep it buried, but it would be wrong to say that they were covering up for Rangers or Campbell Ogilvie in commissioning LNS or that his re-election is a sign they knew or know all the facts.
Greenock Jack says: (193)
November 25, 2013 at 5:02 pm
What I do not understand is a reluctance to get at the truth and find out if the man at the head of our game was responsible for setting Rangers on a path that has led to their downfall.
I thought Rangers supporters would be as keen to find the culprit as supporters of all clubs.
easyJambo,
Folk are discussing Campbell Ogilvie and his role with Rangers tax schemes.
I ask a straightforward question about Campbell Ogilvie and his role with Rangers tax schemes.
Hardly see that merits the statement…
“Once again you choose to deflect from the issue at hand.”
As a Rangers supporters whose club has suffered at the hands of these “schemes”, my opinion towards Ogilvie is related to the extent to which he knew what he was doing was risky/unlawful/rule breaking etc, as opposed to administering procedures he believed to be in sound and not pose a risk to the club.
Seems to be a straightforward, relevant question to ask of those who undoubtedly have far more knowledge than me on these particular matters.
Auldheid says: (1041)
November 25, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Fair enough up to a point, and that point is Mr Bryson’s bombshell. Mr Bryson’s contention went unchallenged by the SPL, why?
Also, lets not kid ourselves the relationship between the SFA & SPL, now SPFL was and is cosy, not to say incestuous….
I really hope you are correct, and the SFA at some point say that bounder Mr Ogilvy duped us, and here is the whole truth. Sadly, I fear that we will never get the full truth, but, they may be dragged kicking and screaming before the bar of public opinion, and at least give a fuller account than they have up to now.
Auldheid
What I do not understand is a reluctance to get at the truth and find out if the man at the head of our game was responsible for setting Rangers on a path that has led to their downfall.
I thought Rangers supporters would be as keen to find the culprit as supporters of all clubs.
————————————–
My personal opinion is that everyone at a senior position within the SFA should have done the honourable thing in the summer of 2012. This leads me back to the ever growing general culture of corporate and politcal non-accountability within the UK and my belief that the problem needs a collective effort to sort-out at the very top.
Until this is done, we will continue to suffer effects of non-accountability in all walks of life, aided and abetted by the ever larger and fewer media groups.
As for ‘culprit’, for me that is SDM.
bryce9a says: (21) November 25, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Surely the key question with Ogilvie regarding his administration of Rangers during the “tax case years” is this…
By choosing to start your earlier post with “Surely the key question with Ogilvie”, is a simple deflection of the points that Auldheid had made in his post at 4.47 which was NOT about the legality of the schemes, but about his knowledge of how the scheme operated, his knowledge of disclosure requirements for contractual payments and the risk that disclosure would compromise the tax treatment of such payments.
easyJambo says: (580)
November 25, 2013 at 5:24 pm
He was the member of a group who as a matter of policy embarked on the use of trusts. It is not known if keeping side letters hidden, which invalidated the trust as acceptable tax avoidance, was a matter of policy at the very outset (or indeed if the first payment was registered with the SFA) but it became invalid within a year but was a feature of the loan ebts, still under dispute regarding legality, which were switched to in 2001 (?) and lasted another ten.
There are questions to be answered and I think it would put everyone out of our collective misery if we got honest answers.
Auldheid says: (1043)
November 25, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Joking aside, Mr Ogilvy was the Company Secretary, it was a fundamental part of his bloody job to ensure that the company abided by not just company law, but also the rules and regulations pertaining to the industry, in this case football.
Hoopy 7 says: (86)
November 25, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Respect is not a right to be demanded of anyone. Respect has to be earned and merited.
Ogilvie is a duplicitous and disingenuous Rangers supporter who has done nothing to earn anyone’s respect over the last two years. He is a busted flush who will eventuallyy go when he is required to pay the price of a good night out back to HMRC.
Oh what a lot of respect everyone would have for him if he came out and voluntarily gave back the £95,000.
================================================================================
Hoopy…Good evening. (nice touch of courtesy as always from Hoopy!)
There are two alternatives which would face “normal” taxpayers in the UK in respect of this £95,000 which RC Ogilvie is reported to have received:
1) The amount of £95,000 is deemed to have been the gross amount payable by way of salary, and is assessed to Income tax and National Insurance (both employees’ and employers’ contributions) in the correct tax year of assessment, and the demand for the amount(s) due be issued to Mr Ogilvie, giving the standard 30 days to pay.
2) The amount of £95,000 is deemed to be the net amount received by Mr Ogilvie by way of salary, and “grossed up” at his highest rate of Income tax, in the correct year of assessment, the assessment for Income Tax and National Insurance being made and giving 30 days to pay as above.
Both options will carry mandatory statutory penalties and most likely, interest on unpaid tax.
I can of course see neither of these alternatives being exercised voluntarily by Mr Ogilvie since he is claiming the “shelter” of an EBT scheme, most of which are now discredited.
However, Hoopy, why should he attract any respect, since all that would be done is to illustrate that he tried to dodge his fiscal responsibilities and was shown to be wanting, whilst being in a position of trust.
The OCNC aspect kicks in of course as to which would be liable for the employers National Insurance.
Finally, if Mr Ogilvie is such minded, I will, subject to him forwarding the relevant documentation to me, do the calculations for him…on a “pro bono” basis, i.e. free, gratis and for nothing
Greenock Jack says: (194)
November 25, 2013 at 5:47 pm
When it comes to a return to ethical behaviour in corporate society and society in general we are at one GJ.
Absolutely of accord.
Can we not stop feeding the troll? Now we are actually being asked to discuss if CO “knew of/understood/was aware of the consequences etc” the EBT scheme and it’s inherent risks. FFS, as they say.
ETA: 3 mins for a TD, slow tonight.
Greenock Jack says: (193)
November 25, 2013 at 3:14 pm
6 23 Rate This
EKBhoy @ 3pm
PL remark: It was an AGM not a press conference or meeting with supporters association..
The real and sad irony regarding the living wage issue was the decision itself, the reasoning behind it and
then listening to your chairmans pre-recorded interview.
========================================================
I am going to make an assumption, perhaps a wrong one, that the club from Ibrox does not pay the living wage to certain staff, and instead opts to pay the minimum wage.
I am going to make another assumption that instead of all the money raised from the club from Ibrox IPO lining the pockets of already wealthy men, some could have been better spent paying staff the living wage.
I am going to make another assumption that Celtic could fairly easily afford to pay the living wage.
I am going to make another assumption that the £14M we know for a fact a club from Ibrox withheld in tax and N.I has been matched and then some by Celtic who have paid everything they should to the public purse.
Whataboutery! I think there is only one winner in that particular debate.
This blog is being lectured by Rangers supporters about spin and paying people properly
You couldn’t make that up. As someone once said, you couldn’t mark their neck with a blow torch
Something else that’s not a surprise. Campbell Ogilvies spirited defence by the Rangers supporters on here. That tells you all you need to know about how they feel he has been in their corner to the detriment of his duty to the game as a whole
Barcabhoy says: (293)
November 25, 2013 at 6:07 pm
—————————————–
See my post immediately in front of yours. I can only assume that while every other football club must pay every bit of tax due, that Rangers special status in society means tax is optional.
Barca
Could not agree more .
276 creditors owed over £50m (possibly double ) and they are lecturing other clubs .
Jelavik transfer money of just under £1m has winged it’s way to the dead clubs liquidators and some guy owed £2.000 is told he won’t see a penny .
Why are the same club trumpeters not out on the march as we speak .
Why are they not camped outside Hampden demanding Sevco 2012s 2nd place SPL prize money and I look forward to them swamping Uefa’s offices if they qualify for a European place through the SC .
IMO nothing sums the Sevco 2012 same club believers up more than them demanding the history but not DEMANDING the debt .