We normally don’t talk about on-field stuff on SFM, but given the over-optimistic coverage of the prospects of TRFC (particularly in the ESJ © The Clumpany and DR) it is worth noting that since they beat Celtic on penalties in last year’s Scottish Cup semi final, they have played in four huge games which were real barometers of progress ;
- Hibs in the Scottish Cup Final: 2-3
- Celtic in the Premiership: 1-5
- Aberdeen in the Premiership: 1-2
- Celtic in the League Cup Semi-Final: 0-1
On each occasion, they have failed the test, not only by failing to get a result, but by being second best in most on-field departments.
The point is not one of wider Schadenfreude, or even an in-depth critique of the abilities of the team or manager, but of how the TRFC board and the MSM, in falsely inflating their side’s prospects, do a disservice to TRFC fans. Aided and abetted it seems by the manager who – even allowing for the positive spin managers need to put on things post defeat – is refusing to accept reality.
We often talk about turnover as the yardstick by which performance can be (roughly) measured. If that were the only yardstick, one would expect TRFC to be right up there with Celtic. But it is more complicated than that. For Celtic and TRFC, there are massive overheads (e.g. stadium costs) that have to be dealt with and taken out of the equation before Glasgow apples can be compared with Aberdeen and Edinburgh varieties.
Even allowing for that it seems pretty clear to me that TRFC have more disposable income (for spending on players and contracts) than Hearts or Aberdeen for example, but the gap is now not as great as raw turnover figures would suggest – and the margins are probably slim enough that they can be easily blurred by managers at other clubs who have a good grasp of tactics, an eye for a player, and a proper understanding of football psychology.
To compound the problem for TRFC, there are two rather large eggs in the TRFC transfer basket which are now cracked or broken. A dangerous waste of resources in fact. Whether it was Warburton or King who went to the market for Barton and Kranjčar is irrelevant. More relevant is the reason marquee signings like these were made.
Once a manager is recruited, you stay out of his domain
Yes, Barton’s signature in particular has used a huge chunk of the already scant budget, and that is a real blow to the manager’s planning, but the real problem is that the club has deliberately pushed fan expectations skyward, all of which is counter-intuitive given the rough calculations in the preceding paragraphs. More worryingly for Rangers fans, the board’s own expectations for the playing side are unrealistically high – and given the business expertise contained therein, puzzlingly so.
TRFC is a focal point for tens of thousands of people. The people who run the club are also influential opinion formers and how they set the tone for those thousands is important.
Tub-rattling, dog-whistling, and the WATP mentality have been employed almost exclusively thus far in the ‘journey’. All of which may have rallied the troops and provided a welcome injection of funds, but it also antagonised almost every football fan in the country who wasn’t a Rangers follower. And in view of how those funds (including the £21m IPO) seemingly disappeared into the ether, did it really help the club realise any ambitions going forward?
TRFC are looking up at the north face of a financial Eiger today
I can’t help feeling that had they been replaced with humility, some regret, and gratitude to those who smoothed their path into the leagues, then the view from the club deck would a lot more attractive today than it is.
The journey could have been an expansive one bent on winning friends along the way, clearly differentiating itself from the Murray era, and carrying assurances that the new Rangers would never treat the game in Scotland as shabbily as its predecessor.
Seems intuitively obvious to me that a mission statement like the following would win hearts and minds;
“The latter-day custodians of Rangers have destroyed our club and shamed its traditions of sporting integrity, fair play, and honest endeavour.
“However the ethos and identity of our club will not be allowed to slip into obscurity.
“We will build a club worthy of the traditions of sporting integrity and fair play. It will be open and accessible to people of all colours, creeds and nationalities,
“It will be a long journey, but it is one which we relish, and one which will in time restore Rangers to the upper echelons of the game“
Managing expectations realistically with a ‘we are thankful to keep the Rangers name alive’ would have played better with the bears.
I don’t believe there is a football fan in the world who wouldn’t sign up to that had they found their club in the same circumstances as 2011 Rangers. I don’t believe that Rangers fans are any different either, but the problem is that their moral compass is being calibrated by people whose past records make them least qualified for the task.
Instead of a plan to win Scottish football over, we got boycotts, victim-hood, denial, and that wonderful new oxymoronic idiom, post-liquidation. Really though, it should all have been so different.
Water bills notwithstanding, TRFC are looking up at the north face of a financial Eiger today, but they chose to climb an Eiger instead of a Munro, and they sold false hope and snake oil to the fans on the way.
They have no money with which to recruit players of sufficient quality to challenge at the top. They are facing a massive bill for repairs and maintenance of a stadium that has atrophied under six or seven years of neglect. They have similar infrastructure problems at their training ground. They need to build a scouting infrastructure which currently consists of one man and several local volunteers. Their income from merchandising is non-existent due to a testicles-drawn dispute with Sports Direct. They owe several millions of pounds of soft loans which they cannot convert to equity because of that same dispute, and the people they have gone back to again and again for top-up finance have ever shortening arms and lengthening pockets.
.. we understand the value that Rangers can bring to the to the Scottish game and we want it to be realised.
Miracles of course do happen, perhaps in the shape of a magician manager who can get them access to European cash almost immediately. Unless that comes to pass, there is no way forward for Dave King and his board, other than to make peace immediately with Sports Direct and actually stump up the cash he promised two years ago; cash he promised to bridge the resources gap which is widening by the week.
A widely accepted wisdom in many football boardrooms these days is that the main recruitment priority of any board is an excellent manager. A really good manager can make a team out of ordinary players, but a poor manager will have difficulty sculpting a winning side from even very good players. So in a club with limited resources, it makes sense to spend a major part of your budget on a very good manager.
Another widely accepted wisdom in boardrooms (even if not always followed) is that once a manager is recruited, you stay out of his domain.
The boardroom at Ibrox is not awash with wisdom it seems. First of all they put their faith in a manager with little or no experience in the game. That may well have worked out with a bit of good fortune, but does anyone really believe, after his disappearing act in the wake of the Cup Final defeat and his absence at the Barton signing conference, that Mark Warburton is master of his own domain?
If not, does the ‘come hither’ curled finger of fate attached to Jimmy Traynor’s hand at last week’s press conference convince you?
I would guess that there are at least half a dozen experienced managers with a track record of success who would relish the challenge of putting TRFC on the map at the opportunity cost of a Barton for example. Instead it seems – if the rumours are true – that Warburton’s autonomy was breached so that said Joey could be hired to boost ST sales.
No group of fans is entitled to expect success. Rangers fans, and Celtic fans, have historically come to expect that very thing. It is understandable to some extent, but it should never be confused with an actual entitlement to success – and that is what the board at Ibrox are selling to the fans in return for their cash – which as we have seen is not being converted to the promised on-field successes.
the ‘come hither’ curled finger of fate attached to Jimmy Traynor’s hand should convince us that Warburton is not his own master
To a large extent, I think some of the online comments in fan sites in the wake of the Celtic match have been sensible and mature. Reality amongst Rangers fans is at last beginning to bite, and that can only be a good thing for TRFC. Rangers fans are beginning to understand that too many liberties have been taken with their loyalty to and love of the jersey. The problem for the fans is that whilst they come to terms with what may be a realistic timetable and roadmap towards success and parity with the top clubs, the current board and their chums in the press are invested in having them believe the opposite.
Already the cheerleaders in the red tops are proclaiming their ‘gulf-denial’ credentials in the hope that enough fans will be convinced of it. The problem is that the fans know the gulf exists – and not only that does exist, but it is unrealistic to expect it not to.
The Level5 effect is wearing off. In the past five years, £21m quid in investment, £6m in loans, and five years worth of ST sales have all come and gone. Will Rangers fans really do those sums, observe that in each of the four milestone matches mentioned at the beginning of this article there is nothing to show for it, and agree that there is nothing to concern them?
Rangers fans will no doubt call us obsessed to produce an article like this – about them. But football is uniquely interdependent – we all need each other. It is a game where we benefit from the traditions, the colour and the fanaticism of rivals. The fact is that we understand the value that Rangers can bring to the to the Scottish game and we want it to be realised.
Sadly though, the current people in charge at the club are people who revel in making war on fellow clubs and business partners as well as the national broadcaster and BT Sport. They have also failed to deliver on promises of investment and success to their own fans, and escaped press scrutiny of that failure. Whilst they are there, we see only division in Scottish football with no coming together possible for generations.
I believe that the vast majority of fans who love Rangers, like the rest of us, have had enough of a war on too many fronts to count. It’s time to make peace – with everyone. Football in this country can’t be fixed until that happens.
For me there is one simple issue that needs to be answered. Did some people at the SFA conspire to award Rangers a Euro licence in 2011 in the knowledge that they shouldn’t have? The reason being that to deny the licence would mean an insolvency event for Rangers. The SFA could really help themselves by showing irrefutable evidence that was not the case. They can be truly thankful the media appear not to want to get involved, and I suspect that is a classic case of not asking a question if you are genuinely scared you might not like the answer.
Just a wee side note
I wonder if any Bears picked up on the fact their manager seems happy with the numbers in his squad.
(At present T’Rangers web site shows 22 players in the 1st team squad given the recent departure of Mr Barton)
So either only one addition is potentially coming in come January or it is switcheroonie time if he can off-load bodies and convince others to join the journey.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-boss-mark-warburton-denies-rift-with-martyn-waghorn-1-4292335
Beginning to see why the CFC Board have been hoping the Res12 guys would fade away.
Although they may have had their suspicions of the dead club’s tax situation, it could have been that by the time they were alerted to the possible misdemeanour, the dead club were already out of Europe. Perhaps they did contact the SFA with their concerns and after the usual procrastination, they were fobbed off with lies and deflection.
Could it be possible that they realised it was CO and his parcel o rogues who had contrived the licence with the full knowledge it should not have been granted? So why not shout it from the rooftops? Celtic have been wronged and potentially lost out on many millions of pounds in the process. We have to consider what Uefa would have done in this situation.
Could it be they were told by SFA, Uefa or both, that opening this can of worms could result in sanctions, but not against the dead club, who may have provided SFA with all the necessary paperwork. What if there was a genuine prospect of Uefa banning all Scottish teams from European competition as punishment for the SFA’s governance failures, or more accurately corruption.
Despite the on-going dis-satisfaction of their own Celtic fans (and many fans of other clubs) at the clubs lack of condemnation of the SFA, they have rigidly remained schtum. I for the life of me cannot fathom this silence and the only reason I can think of as to why, is the disastrous, (for Celtic) scenario above. I remain puzzled………..
From Halliday in today’s printed ‘Scotsman'( in his piece on the regrettable death of Daniel Prodan ( aged 44)):
” Murray , speaking in the 2004 book ‘The Advocaat Years’ which charted the Dutch coaches tenure at Ibrox, admitted that the blizzard of new arrivals recruited in the summer of ’98 had contributed to Rangers overlooking Prodan’s injury. ” We were bringing in players everyday” said Murray.” They were coming in by the hour at that time because we were rebuilding… ..”
Yes, indeed,the really good old early cheating days, eh, Sir Deceitful Man, with the nice wee undisclosed earnings fiddle getting under way? How you must have rubbed your hands gleefully,little thinking of the days ahead of you in 2011 when you would be plaintively wringing th,m as you whinged about being a dupe when your actions resulted in the death and disgrace of RFC.
I was very pleased to read this morning about the success enjoyed by Phil and John James last night in Manchester, so congratulations and also commiserations to The Clumpany who was a worthy finalist.
It is a real indictment of the socio-politics inherent in both our national game and our country that these three blogs and RTC/SFM all came into being because some of us were disturbed by and wanted to shine a light and identify the corruption in business practices in our football rather than just discussing football itself.
Maybe our country punching way above its weight will be worth a headline (and question) or two on our national publicly funded broadcaster, even the petty and ill informed programme, our independent television companies and maybe some of our more worthy newspapers too including the one with an unwritten policy on cancelling booked adverts from requisitioners and a habit of misspelling.
Maybe not, I won’t be holding my breath but well done once again, Phil, John and Clumps.
Normanbatesmum,
Personally, I think its a whole lot simpler than that. The SFA were at it for sure taking the view that turning down the licence on receipt of the May letter would lead to:
a/ predictable social unrest (how ironic)
b/ a probable falling through of the Whyte deal
c/ in the event of (b) an inevitable earlier administration but obviously now blamed on them.
If the SFA think that is an unfair representation they should:
a/ have ensured Ogilvie did the decent thing in summer 2011 and immediately exited stage left as he was so transparently conflicted. I can understand that he didn’t at that point as his ‘involvement’ in the immediate point in hand – the takeover and refinancing of RFC was limited, the more obvious time being when LNS in which he was always going to take centre stage was actually announced post admin in summer 2012. That he still didn’t feel the need even then demonstrates that he either was cheating, or he was stupid enough to believe the Jackson’s Beginner’s Guide to Billionaires, both being appropriate grounds for sacking. But a true man of integrity whom you would hope would hold such a position should have seen the 2012 events coming and got out at my original 2011 date.
b/ produce any other evidence now that shows that the above version of events re the May 2011 letter is unfair.
Meanwhile Celtic should have been in ignorance of RFC’s financial position pre March 2011. Equally, it is correct that they trusted the SFA to act accordingly with any information that they had to hand pre CL qualifiers in July 2011. I could even, at a stretch, accept that Celtic should actually expect/hope that the SFA would do their best for another Scottish club, right up to the point where it becomes apparent that them doing so was to the commercial cost of Celtic. Celtic’s tacit support through no-challenge should have ended at this point.
My personal point of view on that is simply that Celtic would have been advised, I’m sure, that the Whyte takeover was not all that it seemed but that the alternative was essentially liquidation (well they would have thought it was). Put very bluntly that would not have been in Celtic’s short term interests.
But it doesn’t get them off the charge re not creating about it after the event, when the knock on consequence of the SFA’s maladministration was on a technicality re the 2012-13 CL in which RFC oldco weren’t going to take part in in any case. To me they had nothing to lose (apart from Regan?!?) by going for the jugular at that point.
One thing I’ve mentioned before about the poor SFA governance, whether through incompetence or cheating on behalf of a – sorry, the – favoured club, was that the debt, and thus creditors, of Rangers FC was allowed to rise drastically as a direct result. I think it’s fair to say that Rangers’ dire straits would have become obvious to every potential creditor so much sooner had they failed to achieve their European licence and credit lines would have been cut, and Whyte’s withholding of income tax and NI would almost certainly not have happened (it wouldn’t have been worth his while) or been caught sooner as HMRC would have been on his/RFC’s case from the off!
It is not just Scottish football that the SFA let down and failed to protect by granting that licence, and perhaps that’s another worry for them, as the disclosure that they deliberately ignored, or failed to meet, their duty might lead to some angry creditors taking them to task over their shameful failure to prevent a member club from increasing the debt it could not possibly repay in the event it’s European gamble didn’t pay off!
NORMANBATESMUMFCNOVEMBER 18, 2016 at 09:56
“Could it be they were told by SFA, Uefa or both, that opening this can of worms could result in sanctions, but not against the dead club, who may have provided SFA with all the necessary paperwork. What if there was a genuine prospect of Uefa banning all Scottish teams from European competition as punishment for the SFA’s governance failures, or more accurately corruption.”
—————————————————————————————————————————–
I have always thought that there is a genuine risk of that being an option of punishment for the SFA. Remember it wasn’t just Scottish clubs cheated for decades, but Euro clubs, in Euro comps. I don’t see UEFA offering compo to clubs who would have a legitimate claim for compensation.
Without a trusted, and functioning national Association, Euro comps, both club and country, are a natural by-product of any sanctions against the SFA (They are the clubs who are the SFA)
The only side-step to this I can see, is that as “whistle-blowers” Scottish clubs be granted a “supergrass” status of amnesty, with FIFA stepping in, as they did in Greece, to keep some form of association floating in the interim period until such time as a trusted Association can be formed.
Or, treat the whole matter on a personal level, as opposed to the body level. i.e. Punish individuals.
There is a clear conflict in the Rangers(I.L.) and SFA camps.
With HMRC alleging fraudulent behaviour, Rangers(I.L.) to an extent are off the hook, (having informed the SFA of the HMRC letter.) The SFA can’t now blame everything on a dead club that can’t talk back. as the new club have two fit and proper people from the dead club to protect.
Naturally these fit and proper people will claim they did things by the book.
The obvious question for UEFA to ask the fit and proper people would be,….. “If you duly informed the SFA in all honesty as to your situation, What induced the SFA (or folk within it) to not take action based on that information?
Dear UEFA,
No, you see, its all ok because whenever Rangers stuff was discussed the conflicted party left the room. The fact that all major findings and subsequent actions by both the club and the authority followed a now familiar and destructive path by which the survival of one club was deemed more important than the greater health of the game on a European scale, with the unfathomable continuing support of a nationally funded media base is entirely coincidental and should be considered extraneous to this point. If it helps, you should simply consider that Mr Ogilvie was merely imperfectly registered as president and thus no sporting disadvantage was caused.
Glad to help.
S.F A
Finloch November 18, 2016 at 10:31
I was very pleased to read this morning about the success enjoyed by Phil and John James last night in Manchester, so congratulations and also commiserations to The Clumpany who was a worthy finalist. It is a real indictment of the socio-politics inherent in both our national game and our country that these three blogs and RTC/SFM all came into being because some of us were disturbed by and wanted to shine a light and identify the corruption in business practices in our football rather than just discussing football itself. Maybe our country punching way above its weight will be worth a headline (and question) or two on our national publicly funded broadcaster, even the petty and ill informed programme, our independent television companies and maybe some of our more worthy newspapers too including the one with an unwritten policy on cancelling booked adverts from requisitioners and a habit of misspelling.
Maybe not, I won’t be holding my breath but well done once again, Phil, John and Clumps.
=============================
There is a downside to the Football Blogging Awards for those who do not post under their own names. Phil doesn’t seek anonymity so it’s not an issue for him, but for others it will be.
The event was filmed and as a result John James has been “outed” on Rangers sites and twitter accounts.
I note that he hasn’t blogged since receiving the award, which is unusual, as he generally reacts quickly to events. His name becoming public may be the reason why.
SMUGASNOVEMBER 18, 2016 at 12:59
Corrupt officialNovember 18, 2016 at 12:19 There is a clear conflict in the Rangers(I.L.) and SFA camps.
Dear UEFA,
——————————————————————————————————————–
It’s wee letters like that make me conclude it should be dealt with by investigating individuals, and not the body. It is beyond my understanding that the levels of malfeasance we are discussing here was done just because person, or persons, had a favourite team.
If I may reply to your letter.
Dear SFA
Glad to hear you are so keen to help. To this end, we would be grateful if you would kindly provide all details as to your personal financial situations for audit, including earnings, investments, mortgages, holidays, etc.
This would save us a great deal of time, trouble, and the expense of subpoenas.
Yours in handcuffs
UEFA
Norman Bates 9.56
The possibility of all Scottish Clubs being banned by UEFA never came up as a likely consequence during Res12 discussions.
Punishing the victims would be open to legal challenge if it was only a few individuals in the know with an RFC connection involved.
The chaps to be asked what did they know in 2011 are Mr Ogilvie and Mr Dickson.
Auldheid said
“The possibility of all Scottish Clubs being banned by UEFA never came up as a likely consequence during Res12 discussions.Punishing the victims would be open to legal challenge”.
Are there victims?
Who is responsible for a) The SFA office bearers being in position and b) Not removing them.
The clubs themselves have to take a huge chunk of the blame.
This farce has gone on for 4 years and Regan, Doncaster inter alia are still there. We’ve been told ad nauseum that the clubs put these people in place. We’ve been told repeatedly that the clubs themselves have the power to remove them.
The clubs have done nothing.
If “punishing the victims” does come about then quite frankly we/they deserve everything they get.
1st April.
The threshold date for the licence application for season 2011/12 was 31st March. As the bill had not been sent at that point, it did not meet the criteria set out for “Overdue payable”
Even if a bill was sent to Rangers on the 3rd March but had a payment due date of up to 2nd April, then it would NOT be considered as an “Overdue payable” under Annex VIII of the FFP regulations as it would have still been in the period of “agreed terms”
If Rangers then failed to pay it on the 2nd (or in their case, it was the 19th June) then this would not preclude them from playing in European football that season and as you point out, it would slip to following season.In order to play in European Football the following season, they would need to ensure that debt was cleared or terms agreed with HMRC in writing.
In Rangers case, they obviously didnt clear HMRC debt and subsequently, they were refused a licence the following year on 31st March 2012 which was the correct course of action.
Thanks for the answer Marc,
Not to disagree, but I’m unclear over the point at which the overdue payables refers (ie. 31/3/2011), and the actual date that the reporting of said overdue payables as at 31/3/2011 had to be reported by? That’s important if, in the interim, additional information was received that would put the accuracy of the actual submission in doubt.
Notwithstanding that point I’d also disagree slightly in that in the Email chain between SFA and Rangers (apologies I forget the personnel involved) around September 2011 it is clear that even at that point the SFA appeared to be moving hell and earth not to admit to the overdue payable at all again for reasons not yet clear. One could speculate that reason to be to not to shut off at that vital juncture an avenue of future funding to the Oldco pre admin.
That of course raises two further questions to me. Firstly that looks damned close to an awkward position for the SFA sitting somewhere between basic fraud and deliberate obfuscation specifically on behalf of one club for questionable motives. Secondly, as I’ve said before, I would also question why Celtic didn’t then back this particular element of Res 12 since it appears they weren’t dealing specifically with a ‘loss to Celtic/disruption of the game’ situation per se. I say this as, in your scenario, the European places in both years were ultimately unaffected although not in the way it would appear to have been intended.
In light of the fact that Kilmarnock play Celtic tonight, and it’s on BT Sport. Here’s a question for you: When was the last time a Celtic or TRFC home game was shown live, other than against each other?
The argument that OF fans used to come up with back when Rangers were alive was that Celtic and Rangers used to give the biggest audiences, and that’s why it was always their games that were shown.
The counter to that was, if you were a fan of a diddy team, why would you sign up for a subscription channel at £15 a month or whatever if you knew that you’d only see your team in 3 or 4 games over the whole season? And more than that, if you were a fervent fan, then you’d be at those games anyway!
To be fair to BT, their whole coverage isn’t entirely based around TRFC or Celtic, and they do cover a wide spread of games (and do them justice as well, not the barely-even-token effort that Sky present us with), but the whole ‘You must only cover Celtic and TRFC if they are away from home’ is an odd one, especially when it amounts to both getting a cut of money for featuring, yet their home crowds are never affected. Why is it written in stone that it must be this way?
Again, I’m enjoying the fact that we’ve moved on from TV coverage purely being for the benefit of a certain group of fans, but it just riles me slightly that certain attitudes are still hanging over from ‘The Glory Days’ (as the MSM would have it).
Smugas
You are on the right track. Once the CW case is over it will be shown that deception, which had UEFA been alerted to in June 2011 by disclosure of the 20th May letter, would have meant immediate severe sanction.
This why it’s pointless poring over the minutiae of the rules which are based on self certifying trust.
Auldheid,
OK. In that case I’ll continue to cut Celtic some slack re their non pursuit. But that’s not an open ended promise!!!
Thanks all.
AmFearLiathMòr
I’d challenge you to look at it a different way (but don’t panic you’ll come to the same answer!).
Consider over the next three weekends (when I delightedly accept there is a pesky final that disrupts things
) that coverage of a post AGM hogmany fixture, not to mention the damaging consequences of having one team 10 points in front by November will probably still exceed what over the next three weeks or so see’s at least four ties between current positions 2, 3 and 4 and any number of connotations for the positions all the way down to 12th.
I look forward to Doncaster’s excellent marketing skills talking the game up to the hilt
.
Smugas
Check PM
First time comment, so I want to start by congratulating all involved with this site.
For clarity & transparency, my affection is for Celtic but not blindly so(hopefully).
With apologies to those longserving members who will maybe be weary of hearing the same questions on the same subjects posed & answered, but…
Ref the 2011 SFA issuing of the licence to Rangers to compete in Uefa Competitions.
The official letter from HMRC submitted as part of their winding up application for Rangers is dated 20 May 2011.
My understanding is that this date is regarded by experts (though more often used by what seem to be SFA apoligists) as the effective date of the “overdue payables” under the Uefa Article 50 & Annexe VIII. I understand that from a legal perspective that adopting this as the effective date is sound & irrefutable in court etc. However, this conclusion is also offered to excuse the SFA from any incompetence or collusion over the issuing of the licence. But it seems clear to me that on several levels this is a self serving position for Rangers & the SFA (ie anything done prior to this date is presented as being well intentioned or innocent). However, the letter was merely the latest part (at that time) in the correspondence between the club & HMRC stretching back over many months (years?). Implied within it is the very clear message that HMRC had been pressing Rangers on overdue tax/NI from 2000-02 for some considerable time.
On that basis, and also in view of the wording of Article 50 & Annexe VIII, it appears to me that the premise used for this defence of the SFA is more convenient than substantive.
Article 50 places the onus on the “applicant”/club to prove that as of March 31, it has no overdue payables. The payables in this case relate to the period 2000 to 2002, and under the tax accrual payment agreement with HMRC etc, they were due at the same time as all the other overt Tax/NI liabilities: ie during or immediately after the year(s) in which the monies were paid to employees.
The 20 May HMRC letter refers to a letter sent to Rangers on 23 February 2011 about the same matter. Since this concerns payables under Article 50 that were legally due back in 2000-2, Rangers would have to have known that they were overdue 9 years later. Particularly so, since within the side letters Rangers informed both Flo & De Boer that the payments were NET & that both players were exempt from any associated tax liability. Both indicate that Rangers knew that tax was due or likely.
Further, Rangers failed to disclose to the HMRC the additional payments to both players for years until HMRC themselves discovered the scheme, and then denied to the HMRC that the scheme existed: another indicator of guilty knowledge of a tax liability being evaded.
Thus, Rangers operated a scheme knowing it to be, or very likely to be tax liable, hid that scheme for years from HMRC & SFA, denied it existed when initially confronted with by HMRC & then, knowing that an admission of such would disqualify them, failed to mention any of this to the SFA when applying for the licence to play in Europe in 2011. They also knew that there was no prospect of this money being paid & that no accommodation for payment had been reached with HMRC. Surely this sequence of events must qualify payables as even more overdue? If such a concept is possible.
As for the SFA, they either knew of this matter before the licence was issued (as Andrew McKinlay implies) or didn’t – but have colluded after the fact to disguise their inefficency/complicity in issuing it in the first place. Since the burden is on the applicant to prove their eligibility for the licence, the SFA had a very clear, but for them, embarrassing escape option. Instead they only seem interested in avoiding giving direct answers to relevant questions.
Assuming the SFA didn’t know & were therefore deliberately misled by the applicants, does that mean that any licence issued was “imperfectly issued” – to paraphrase another SFA employee?
To borrow from LNS, is it also fair to suggest that this mendacity by Rangers afforded them an “unfair sporting advantage” over other Scottish clubs, since they would have received money from Uefa for entry into the CL Qual stage – money to which they were not entitled?
All of this brings us inexorably back to the same/different club issue. The SFA insist on peddling the same club mantra while refusing to consider any real sanction against that same club consequential to that mantra.
Ironically, in a blog article entitled Peace not War I have managed to write a War & Peace comment.
Grateful for any observations.
“Nov 16
john james @sitonfence https://johnjamessite.com/2016/11/16/the-offshore-game-redux/ …
One of the most bent men in SFA folklore, Campbell Ogilvie, who received a £95,000 EBT is now a UEFA Match Delegate”
================================
Don’t think the above has been mentioned here: can anyone else confirm?
StevieBC
November 18, 2016 at 22:23
——————————————————
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/13116622.Campbell_Ogilvie__on_his_EBT__leaving_Rangers__and_the_SFA_vision_for_Scottish_football/
And
http://footballrefereeing.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/referee-observers-delegates-and.html
PSV Eindhoven – Atlético Madrid (Group D)
UEFA Referee Observer: Alan Snoddy (NIR)
UEFA Delegate: Campbell Ogilvie (SCO)
Most Predicted Referees:
Mark Clattenburg (ENG, 10),
Martin Atkinson (ENG, 9),
Damir Skomina (SVN, 7)
My Prediction: Szymon Marciniak (POL)
EJ,
I sat with johnjames all night on Thursday at Old Trafford his real name has not become public. At our table it was a case of don’t ask, don’t tell. I know little more about him than I did on Wednesday and I’m happy with that.
The organisers of the awards deserve credit, it was a great night.
The rule is very clear in ANNEX VIII:1.
Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms. This is the reason the bill on the 20th May is when the clock starts ticking down to when it becomes overdue, no matter what happened before it or no matter which period it related to.
As an example, a builder could quote you for work to be done on your house, end up doing things he didnt quote for then bill you afterwards giving you 14 days to pay. Under agreed terms, the “payable” is not overdue when he has completed the work, nor when he tells you that he is going to bill you, and not even if you say that is fine.
Its only its “overdue” if you dont pay within the 14 days.
Interesting coverage of Lord Drummond Young’s tax talk the other night by Keith Macleod in the Record. Interesting in a number of ways to this veteran Bampot anyway! Not sure if covered elsewhere.
Mark C. Not ignoring you but I’ll need to research the correspondence of Feb, Mar and May 11 before I can really form my own judgement.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/law-lord-who-gave-rangers-9287653
LORD Drummond Young wasn’t shy about his forthright views on the validity of earnings being converted to loans.
THE law lord who handed down the crushing Rangers tax case defeat expects a “brutally realistic” view of tax avoidance schemes from courts in future.
Lord Drummond Young hammered home his view that high earners paid through trusts are breaking tax law.
He said precedent was set in UK courts as far back as 1904.
His observations demolish the validity of earnings being converted to loans and come as the Rangers case is being appealed at the UK Supreme Court.
HMRC won a victory in their battle with Rangers and ex-owners Murray Group when the Court of Session, Scotland’s top court, ruled the use of Employment Benefit Trusts breached regulations.
That overturned two tax tribunal rulings in favour of Rangers in the so-called “big tax case”.
The ruling would have left Rangers oldco with a bill for non-payment, interest and penalties of tens of millions of pounds.
Last November, Lord Drummond Young and fellow judges Lord Carloway and Lord Menzies ruled it was “common sense” that payments made to high-earning players from 2001 to 2009 via EBTs were earnings and not loans.
That judgment is now to be tested in the Supreme Court.
But in a highly unusual move, Lord Drummond Young pulled no punches addressing more than 100 legal and tax professionals at a seminar in Edinburgh.
He said complex arguments put up by lawyers defending such schemes amounted to the “wealthy and well-informed” being able to contest that “tax is only for the little people”.
He said such schemes amounted to “elaborate devices to re-direct payments to family members”.
He added: ”As you are probably all aware given the amount of publicity that the case received for non-legal reasons, Murray Group were concerned with the tax affairs for a group of companies headed by Sir David Murray, the best known of which was Rangers Football Club.
“In April 2001, one of the companies, Murray Group Management Ltd, set up an Employee Remuneration Trust, known as the ‘principle trust’. This formed the basis of a scheme involving more than 100 sub-trusts, each in the name of an individual employee… to the benefit of the families of those employees.Those employees comprised both those involved in the management of the various group companies and footballers employed by Rangers Football Club.
“What happened was that the group company gave monies into the principle trust with the direction that asub-trust should be established and funded for the benefit of the family of one of the company’s employees.
“The trustees and sub-trust extended a loan facility available to the employee which then enabled him to obtain immediate access to the funds that were paid to the sub-trust on his behalf.”
Having laid bare how the trusts worked, Lord Drummond Young then trashed the idea that such payments were loans.
He said they were clearly made as a result of the employee’s exertions and the actions of players’ agents in trying to get the best deals for clients was a “decisive” factor in showing that EBTs were earnings and not loans.
He said of Sir David Murray’s scheme: “The existence of the structure of principle trusts and sub-trusts was clearly to derive benefits for the families of employees.”
His address was titled The Rangers Case: HMRC v Murray Group Holdings – Substance and form – the triumph of reality over language? It fully backed his Court of Session ruling. He also said there were now clear precedents for courts to take a “brutally realistic” view of such schemes in future.
When he handed down his ruling last year, Rangers said: “The Rangers Football Club and the entities which currently own and manage it are not party to these proceedings nor do we have any say in what happens.
“The proceedings are a matter for those affected by them.”
jimbo November 19, 2016 at 03:29
==================
I’ve kept an open mind re JJ’s name, which is why I didn’t disclose his name here. The video clip however provides a visual record of who he is, assuming that it was he who picked it up.
EASYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 19, 2016 at 10:25
====================================
That can’t have been him. The real John James is a World traveler (who is well connected globally) and bon viveur who was going to punch me to the ground if we ever met.
That was clearly just some dude he paid to collect the award on his behalf.
Or maybe it was The Mensch, who offered to go up and collect it on his behalf if he won it.
I’m sure he’ll clear it up when he next posts. He’ll obviously want to thank the people who paid him for “virtual” meals.
Sunny Jim
Some very interesting arguments in there supporting a position taken in the first TJN/TOG report that the money was due from 2002 onwards.
The Res12 argument was based around the 30th June position because of the availability of the 20th May 2011 letter, but after receiving UEFA’s reply of 8th June and looking at a similar case in 2013 TJN’s argument is stronger, which is not surprising, TJN being more tax experts than the Res12 guys.
One point of detail is that whilst HMRC only became aware of the BTC side letters, which seems to be after a police raid in 2007?, they in fact were aware of the wtc ebts in April 2005 and must have had some idea of side letters as they wrote to RFC about them that month.
Interestingly, whilst sitting on a number of side letters relating to the BTC by then, RFC could find no such documents in players files for the wtc ebts for De Boer and Flo.
It was on the basis of that response to HMRC of deliberate concealment that RFC’s QC advised them to settle in early March 2011 having seen the case made by HMRC in late February 2011 containing similar content to the later letter of 20th May 2011.
Some SFM contributors sent details of the above to Harper Macleod and SPFL Board and media in 2014. The info was then passed to the SFA by Harper Macleod. That narrative is in previous SFM blogs.
Neither SFA nor SPFL have acted on that information.The media have to date remained largely silent and it looks like the three monkeys policy is still being followed.
Summing up the actual demand for the wtc due from 2002 would have been delivered a lot earlier than 2011 had HMRC been given an honest answer in 2005.
Not sure if anyone is qualified enough on here to give a definitive answer but does anyone else find it strange that Lord Drummond Young is allowed to speak so openly about this case when his findings are subject to an appeal at the Supreme Court?
I would have thought that as the case is still live, it would be highly unusual if not totally unique that such an event took place and has been reported so publicly.
AULDHEIDNOVEMBER 19, 2016 at 11:29
Which case was that Auldheid ?
Homunculus.
Lord Drummond seems to be saying what most folk using common sense thought in the lead up and during the FTT.
It kind of begs the question why the FTT found for MIH on a 2 to 1 basis. Has common sense no part to play in the law?
Thanks for posting.
Marc C
Is there any point debating the rules if they were circumvented dishonestly?
In that other case the national association drew UEFA’s attention to the possibility an overdue payable existed early enough in May/ early June 2013 for UEFA to investigate the true position.
Google Giannina FC but note the investigation also revealed the existence of private agreements with employees that UEFA deemed breach fair presentation in the clubs accounts.
No doubt there will follow interminable discussion on just what form they took but side letters were agreements kept private from HMRC, the SFA and the SPL.
I see no point arguing the case on line based purely on interpretation of the rules.
Much better the football authority clarify preferaby using the Lord Drummond common sense approach.
AULDHEID
NOVEMBER 19, 2016 at 11:52
===========================
https://www.cchdaily.co.uk/rangers-ebt-case-heads-supreme-court
In November 2015, judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh found that the payments to various trusts set up in respect of executives and footballers employed by the ‘old co’ (former) Rangers Football Club amounted to ‘a mere redirection of emoluments or earnings’ and was accordingly ‘subject to income tax’, finding in HMRC’s favour on the third appeal.
Lord Drummond Young, one of the three judges who heard that appeal, said that if EBTs had not been in operation at Rangers, certain players ‘might well have taken their services elsewhere’ and said that it was ‘common sense’ and ‘self evident’ that the payments were related to work.
‘If the law were otherwise, an employee could readily avoid tax by redirecting income to members of his family to meet outgoings that he would normally pay: for example to a trust for his wife… or to trustees to pay for his children’s education or the outgoings on the family home.
‘The funds are ultimately derived as consideration for the employee’s services, and on that basis they are properly to be considered emoluments or earnings,’ he said.
=================================
I think, just an opinion, two of the members of the tribunal looked too much at the “loans” and not enough at the reality. They were being paid for doing their job. The rest of us pay tax on that, why shouldn’t they. I am hopeful the Supreme Court will see it the same way.
MARK C
NOVEMBER 19, 2016 at 11:32
====================================
Two things.
1, It’s already in the public domain, and I’m sure a Judge of his stature knows how to stay within the bounds of the law. He would not have discussed anything you couldn’t read anyway.
2, It’s not his ruling it’s a ruling by the Court of Session, a ruling by three Judges. He just delivered it. One of the Judges, Lord Carloway, is Scotland’s most senior Judge.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons we will accordingly allow HMRC’s appeal on the first ground advanced by them. On that basis we will answer the fourth question in the appeal in the affirmative, and hold that the First-tier Tribunal erred in allowing the original appeal and that the Upper Tribunal erred in refusing the appeal before it. The other questions in the appeal do not therefore arise. The assessments to PAYE have been correctly made, for the reasons already discussed. On that basis we will recall the orders of the First-tier and Upper Tribunals and affirm the determinations appealed against, including that relating to PAYE, with the exception of the determinations and decisions concerning Sir David Murray in relation to the Bel Azur property transaction, which is conceded by HMRC. We will reserve the question of expenses in view of the history of the appeals.
AULDHEIDNOVEMBER 19, 2016 at 12:15
I feel the intention of this forum is to do exactly that and debate if im being honest otherwise most people wouldnt bother commenting.
In relation to Giannini FC, the difference in their case is that the “overdue payable” actually existed as at 31 March and therefore the breached Article 50, which deals with the season coming up, rather than article 66 which reverts to the season after.
In relation to the payments to players, they were not considered or ruled on, but not withstanding that, the reason they were raised was that it was thought there was money due to these players (overdue payables towards employees) but the club argued they had all been paid and that they had confirmation that no player would make a claim against the club. CAS left any judgement on that as “undecided”
Just when you thought you were in they outed you!
I have my doubts on a lot of things that JJ’s blogs cover, my instincts tell me that there are aspects of his nature that give me cause for concern, I do though defend the right for him to freely comment on the issues that he feels the need to share with his followers, many are well researched and informative and I compliment him on his award last night. I despair at the reaction and in some cases the open threats that are directed towards him on sites such as follow follow and the bears den. The world of the ‘bampot’ drops into the sewer that the smsm love to cast it’s net over and paint all concerned with the same brush, when the idiots on these sites spew their hate filled vile towards those who are of a different opinion, it makes you wonder where the moderators draw the line on what is acceptable behaviour? It is a sad reflection of our society when threats of violence become the norm, sadly JJ fell into this trap as one of SFM’s regular contributors received a physical threat to his wellbeing for having the audacity to question his views.
I have no idea if the person outed is JJ, I would hope he had the sense to take the necessary precautions to mantain his anonymity, as we are all well aware, there are individuals out there who know not where to draw the line.
Thanks Homunculus. That makes sense.
Has JJ been outed as Xxxxs Xxxx or did JJ unwittingly out himself when he set up his Paypal donation crusade.
I assume I was one of the first to submit a donation to his site, I never told him on the site, I never needed nor wanted it acknowledge, I knew he would not be able to identify me as my paypal account uses an email identity that I only use for Paypal.
If any one that has a Paypal account will know, you have to register a bank account in your own name and have it confirmed by Paypal, your name is shown on the site when someone makes a donation,regardless of the fact that you’ve set up a Paypal account in the name of your blog or whatever,
When I made a donation to JJ the name on his bank account showed up, along with an email address that he can be contacted through, I sent him an email to bring this to his attention as he appeared to be naive in the working of Paypal when he began asking for his readers to pay him for his work.
He never acknowledge my email, I then submitted a post “not to be published on the blog” asking if he got the email and if he was aware that anyone making a donation was having his name revealed to them.
Again no reply. He did on numerous occasion state the people that he had banned from his blog and his twitter were paying the minimum £1 donation to insult him, he must by that time known that these “haters” by the score, were able to access his given name.
Yet on the blog he continued to make a big deal about protecting his anonymity.
I hope the JJ remains safe, I believe he will be, I believe he is entitled to his opinion, he set up a blog, no one is forced to read it and those that choose to read it are free to agree or to disagree with the content on the blog, you can pat him on the back or laugh in his face, that’s as far as it should go, no one should be harassed or hounded for writing a blog
easyJamboNovember 19, 2016 at 10:25
HomunculusNovember 19, 2016 at 10:45
_______
Those are useful posts , gentlemen,for people like me who find it too much of a hassle to find and read the blogs posted by other ‘competing’ Bloggers. Anything I know about PMCG and JJ or other such I know only from reading the links that posters on here very kindly provide.
Occasionally I get PMs from a posters on here, and once or twice I’ve had an email in my JC inbox.
I’ve had one such email about JJ.
It echoes the occasional reservations others have expressed about the fundamental reliability of some of JJ’s stuff, reservations that have also from time to time been expressed in relation, say, to PmcG or other sources.
It counsels caution in accepting too readily that JJ is all that claims to be, particularly his claim to be a genuine, life-long ‘Rangers’ supporter who gets information from Charles Green ( who, it is claimed) accepted an invitation to attend the FBA awards ceremony at JJ’s invitation!
I think we are all aware that at any time, professional PR people might wear masks and post on here as fifth columnists, in order to ’embarrass’ the blog subsequently, or to further the aims of some particular faction on the RIFC/TRFC boards, or spring to the defence of the SFA, etc etc.
But I think we on this blog are savvy enough NOT too readily to accept as fact anything that might just be kite-flying,while we might enjoy speculating whether it might be true or wishing and hoping that it is true, and what it being true might signify.
It is good to see the stuff from Lord Drummond Young actually being reported in some MSM outlets. For too long there has been a reluctance to do this, most likely due to a fear of what might follow if HMRC get a final decision in their favour. I still find it utterly shocking that after the COS ruling, BBC invited a Tax expert onto Sportsound who supports Rangers case, with no expert opinion on to promote the argument which actually won in court. Shocking, but not surprising.
Phil’s latest article states that the TRFC MD Stewart Robertson is “working from home”, avoided a pre-AGM meeting, and to paraphrase ‘could’ be a doubt for next week.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-benefits-of-working-from-home/
Interestingly – or not – the TRFC website has recently been updated, and now differentiates between RIFC & TRFC Boards.
HOWEVER, only the TRFC Board members are listed.
‘RIFC Board’ members and ‘Corporate Governance’ sections only link to blank pages…
http://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/board/
Mibbees this RIFC AGM will be rather different from last year’s – which included a standing ovation ?
Any Bampots going ?
Mark C
I appreciate your point about the effective date, but I read the wording of Article 50 & Annexe VII as open to interpretation. What are the original agreed terms? WE all pay income tax as part of our legal & contractual obligation to HMRC, and those are the agreed payment arrangements. When we fail to pay – the tax is overdue.
Article 50
“2 Payables are those amounts due to employees or social and tax authorities as aresult of contractual or legal obligations towards employees.”
The payables are the amounts due to HMRC as part of the legal & contractual obligation from the club to them. All other tax & NI payables due in this same period were made within the payment arrangements of that legal & contractual obligation. My contention is that these were the agreed terms for payables, and that Rangers knowingly withheld someof those payables and thus breached those terms. At this point the payables became overdue.
Annexe VIII
“1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreedterms.”
For me the agreed terms are those that exist in first part of that contract to collect tax etc on behalf of HMRC & in the second part by paying the same money to HMRC in agreed tranches.
Surely a key objective, if not the real spirit of the Fair Play Rules, is to prevent deliberate abuses of the existing legal & contractual tax arrangements to gain an advantage. Rangers allayed both players’ sense of concern over tax liability by advising them that the payments were net of tax & that both players were exempt from any liability. Yet they failed to disclose this to HMRC & SFA, and then lied to HMRC. The legalities of might benefit from the effective date being settled as May 20, but the moralities only suffer. Any claim by Rangers that they acted in good faith are pretty groundless throughout this sorry saga.
By seeking to exploit their own self-reporting legal & contractual requirements with the SFA & HMRC to both evade tax & gain a sporting advantage, can there be a more blatant abuse of the principle of the Fair Play Rules.
When you deliberately mislead a licensing authority to obtain a licence which carries a substantial pecuniary advantage – does this not amount to cheating? Does it not amount to a criminal offence?
We know that Rangers failed to notify the SFA when they applied for that & all previous licences, because they had never admitted to the SFA any of the DOS or EBT payments. That was what the LNS Commission was all about – in 2013.
We can forgive SFA incompetence – just, but ANY confidence in the SFA depends on their obvious transparency & impartiality.
We rarely get a sniff of either.
For those discussing when bills were issued or due, here are some other relevant dates re the wee tax case, from before the sale of the club (I’m sure the Res 12 guys also know these):
16/01/2007 HMRC issue Notices of Determination to Aberdeen Asset Mgt. re their DOS Scheme
Aberdeen Asset appeal those assessments
28/09/2007 HMRC issue Reg 80 and S8 determinations re Moore, De Boer and Flo’s DOS arrangements
26/10/2007 Rangers appeal those assessments.
The assessments are put on hold, as are further assessments for Moore, De Boer and Flo, pending the outcome of the Aberdeen Asset Mgt appeal re their DOS Scheme
29/10/2010 HMRC win their appeal against Aberdeen Asset Mgt.
26/11/2010 HMRC provide Rangers with an offer to settle based on the Aberdeen Asset Mgt. ruling.
23/02/2011 HMRC provide Rangers with detailed calculations and reasons behind the assessments.
28/02/2011 Deadline for Rangers to accept settlement offer.
03/03/2011 Murray Group’s (tax case) QC, Andrew Thornhill, recommends settlement as above.
21/03/2011 Rangers Director Mike McGill presents amended calculations to HMRC which are accepted in principle.
MARK CNOVEMBER 19, 2016 at 04:37
SUNNYJIMNOVEMBER 18, 2016 at 18:27 On that basis, and also in view of the wording of Article 50 & Annexe VIII, it appears to me that the premise used for this defence of the SFA is more convenient than substantive.
The rule is very clear in ANNEX VIII:1.
Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms. This is the reason the bill on the 20th May is when the clock starts ticking down to when it becomes overdue, no matter what happened before it or no matter which period it related to.
As an example, a builder could quote you for work to be done on your house, end up doing things he didnt quote for then bill you afterwards giving you 14 days to pay. Under agreed terms, the “payable” is not overdue when he has completed the work, nor when he tells you that he is going to bill you, and not even if you say that is fine.
Its only its “overdue” if you dont pay within the 14 days.
__________
Mark, in the interest of clarity, can you tell me what the ‘agreed terms’ were that Rangers arranged with HMRC? Was it signed and in place before 31 March 2011, and did it cover a period ending after the vital date of 30 June 2011?
I think you’ll find that if you enter into a contract with a builder with 14 days to pay, and delay paying it for some ten years, he won’t be inclined to give you that 14 days to pay once he catches up with you! He certainly won’t be under any obligation to do so, no matter how you try to dress it up.
Allyjambo, the agreed terms were that the bill had to be paid by 19th June as per the bill sent on 20th May. The builder was an example, however as we all know tax is far more complicated.
Tax calculations take place all the time and can take days, weeks, months and even years to reach a conclusion or agreement.
In the instance of Rangers and as pointed out above by Easyjambo, there was much to and fro in relation to the Rangers cases but the bottom line is that no bill was issued to them until the 20th May 2011.
Think of it another way if you will, on the 31st March each year, every single Club in UK owe tax to HMRC that is not paid. Just because its not paid doesnt mean its overdue. It only becomes overdue when a bill or demand is not paid within the relative time limits irrespective of any agreements or acceptance of amounts otherwise.
The 20th May bill was the start of the clock. It became overdue on the 19th June at which point, Rangers were then subject to the advanced rules of Article 66.
Mark C November 19, 2016 at 20:39
In the instance of Rangers and as pointed out above by Easyjambo, there was much to and fro in relation to the Rangers cases but the bottom line is that no bill was issued to them until the 20th May 2011.
==========================
I think that there was plenty “to”ing, but not not a lot of “fro”ing in my timeline above.
An assessment is a bill. You can either pay it or appeal it.
As I stated above the first bill was issued in Sep 2007. It was appealed pending the AAM appeal.
In November 2010 the assessment still existed and settlement was offered under the same terms as AAM
In February 2011 the club was reminded of the end of month acceptance date of the bill together with the associated calculations.
In March 2001 a revised settlement figure was agreed with HMRC. If the bill didn’t exist what would you be settling?
On April 1 2011 (on publication of RFC’s half year results to 31/12/2010), Chairman Alastair Johnson said in a regulatory announcement:
“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”
So on April 1, confirmation that assessments existed before that date.
The Regulation 80 and Section 8 determinations issued on 20 May were the first enforcement actions by HMRC, resulting from Rangers failure to pay the outstanding bill, despite agreeing on a settlement figure some eight week previous.
In short, I think you are wrong to suggest that there was no bill before 20 May 2011.
Mark, thanks for the clarification, but at 31 March no agreement was in place other than the original long overdue tax demand, is that correct? And, of course, the payment was overdue before 30 June date which, if I remember correctly, is the date the Resolution 12 guys base their case on.
As to the tax due at 31 March for every club, as far as we know, none of that outstanding money has been the subject of an illegal tax avoidance scheme for which the revenue service has spent years chasing through the courts for payment, and falls within the revenue services own payment rules and timescale.
One thing I’ve not been able to make out from your post is, are you suggesting there is no case to answer, either for Rangers or the SFA? Or are you just saying that everything was in order at 31 March 2011 but maybe no so at 30 June?
From the decision in the case of Giannini FC:
http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award20323320FINAL20_2013.12.05_20internet.pdf
I’ve highlighted the relevant section which explicitly says that the ‘bill’ is NOT what sets the clock running.
A tax debt becomes an overdue payable if it remains unpaid outside of the normal payment schedule. If the tax authority does not know of the debt at the end of the financial year because the taxpayer hides it, it obviously does not mean the debt does not become overdue. It becomes overdue from the moment the normal payment deadline expires.
Tax and NI that should have been paid in 2001 (but wasn’t) therefore must be considered many years overdue on 31st March 2011.
This isn’t complicated.
I think Marks point is that there is a fixed moment in time when the resultant penalty for failure to declare the tax bill moves from a barrier to entry to CL participation in summer 2011 to a barrier to future entry in 2012 or the next point of entry.
I remain open minded. Crucially though, whilst something being due as at 31st March is black and white (it either is or it isn’t) the subsequent dates are grey only in so far as the requirement is self regulatory. Something that is overdue doesn’t magically become un-overdue just because the reporter (RFC) deliberately chooses not to tell someone (in this case the SFA) about it, or indeed if the Monitoring Authority are told and choose to do nothing about it. It is just the responsibility that shifts which is where I believe the Res12 efforts are coming from.
Allyjambo, you have summarised my opinion perfectly in the last paragraph. In my opinion and interpretation of the rules, i maintain it was not an overdue payable at 31st March and therefore the licence was granted correctly and any case to be answered by both the club and the SFA sits on the 30th June and 30th September submission which wouldnt have barred Rangers from playing in that seasons but most definitely would have for the following season which is what happened. I think this is in line with the Resolution 12 guys views, so yes to that.
Hirsuitpursuit – I disagree with your assertion. That paragraph is specifically looking at any written agreement and an extension of a deadline. In my opinion, Rangers were not given a deadline until the 20th May. If this was an overarching premise it wouldnt be contained in a specific clause of the rules.
Smugas, as per Allyjambo note above, your opening paragraph sums up my views perfectly.
SmugasNovember 19, 2016 at 22:11
‘…I remain open minded..’
________
And you are, of course, right to be so.
But being open-minded relates to matters of guilt or innocence. Not to whether there are questions to be asked or charges to be answered.
As I understand matters, the SFA is suspected of knowingly granting a licence to a club that was , under UEFA rules, not entitled to that licence because it was, at the material times determined by UEFA competition rules, in actual default in the matter of social taxes.
There is therefore a very serious allegation to be investigated.
Not merely a serious, internal-to-a-sport allegation ( like football betting or drug-taking) to be dealt with by the sporting body under that body’s rules.
No.
But a really bloody serious public allegation that there may have been a conspiracy to abuse the power of ‘sporting office’ to the financial detriment of one member club affected by that abuse in order to throw a few million quid in the direction of another club in dire financial straits.
That is serious, serious business.
Not ‘football’ business.
Open mindedly, the police need to be called in.
Why?
Because there is ample evidence that the SFA cannot be relied upon to seek or speak the truth.
And, sadly, neither can the club that probably lost a few million quid but which cannot in truth deny that there are questions to be asked.
The SFA may or may not be ‘guilty as charged’.
But it is sure as hell that they should not be be the ones to decide whether they are.
And the mention of UEFA competition rules reminds me of how I laughed when it was posted here the other day by (my apologies to him for not clocking his blog name) that our very own CO was to be the UEFA Official Delegate at a CL match!
Did you know what the ‘official delegate’s’ responsibilities are?
If you go onto the UEFA website , you will see:
“Responsibilities at the Match Venue
Responsibilities at the match venue are shared among the various delegatesappointed by UEFA as follows:1. The official delegateThe official delegate is responsible for supervising the orderly organisation of thematch, and for ensuring that UEFA’s competition regulations and instructions forsafety and security inside and outside the stadium before, during and after thematch are observed. …”
I’m sure our Campbell knows all about competition regulations , and what they may say about social taxes and what not.
Where does the stupidity end and the willing blindness begin? By their very own words TRFC are up shoot creek. Having had to borrow money to keep the lights on (October 2016) and, by their own admission, a further need to borrow more funds from wherever early 2017 to ensure continuation, why are the calls from all and sundry with any sort of connection to OLD RFC to spend big in the January market place. As I say, there has to be a line between Stupidity and willing blindness.
MARK CNOVEMBER 19, 2016 at 23:41
…
…………
That rule explains the requirements for a legitimate extension to the deadlines for payment.
The point is that a club cannot claim that an extension to a deadline has been granted simply because no bill has been issued. A bill is, of course, ‘a request for payment’.
This statement would make no sense unless you accept that a debt can become due/overdue thorough non payment of taxes that should have been paid in the normal course of business.
The correct operation of PAYE should not normally require a demand for payment.
Things were a bit different then; but nowadays PAYE should be paid (I think) on the 22nd of the current month. I think it was usually paid one month in arrears back then, but either way, it didn’t need a bill from The Inland Revenue (as it was then) to set a deadline for payment. The agreed terms for PAYE payments are whatever is specified in the tax authority’s guidelines for the tax year in question.
Then as now, the taxpayer was responsible for calculating and paying the correct amount of PAYE by the date specified in the guidelines. Alternatively, a written agreement could over-ride the normal timescales and offer some additional time for payment.
If the taxpayer has willfully chosen to pay less (or no) tax than it should, the underpayed amount is overdue immediately (though perhaps it would have been one month later back in 2001).
The rule the tribunal quoted above says you cannot claim that underpayed tax is not overdue simply because the tax authority has not issued a demand for payment.
This, as I said earlier, only makes sense if payment deadlines exist without the need for a specific bill. Which they do.
The underpayed tax was ‘overdue payable’ from the time the normal deadlines in the tax authority’s guidelines were missed.
As an addendum to the above.
From what I have read and understand, Rangers were offered several opportunities to settle in the preceding years – before and after the Aberdeen Assets decision. If there had been a written offer/agreement that was in place on 31st March, there would be no issue. However, the earlier offers had expired and the discussions around that time were around how Ranges would pay. From memory, I think that a verbal agreement for staged payments was agreed in principle just prior to the deadline; but it required an up front payment that Mr Whyte would not make.
In any case, without a written agreement deferring payment of the WTC debt – operational on 31st March – I can’t see how Rangers could legitimately claim to have no overdue payables at that time.
At what point do the diddies at Hamlden realise that the Scottish game is NOT dependent on 1 club out of 42?
If Trfc went bust tomorrow I wouldn’t shed a tear
The club is providing
.on / exploiting on past glories.i
from the offshore game. some dates
oops
Mark C
Clearly you have spotted a possible explanation for the SFA’s granting of a licence to First Rangers in 2011.
However, one cannot help oneself thinking that if that were the case then Stewart Regan (and probably UEFA) would have said so by now. Rather than all the ducking, diving and similar we have witnessed these past few years.
in addition, there is such a thing as the spirit or intention of a rule (or law), albeit the discernment of which may require recourse to independent arbitration.
Dunderheid
You are wrongly named.
HirsutePursuitNovember 20, 2016 at 01:29 15 Votes
MARK CNOVEMBER 19, 2016 at 23:41 …
Hirsuitpursuit – I disagree with your assertion. That paragraph is specifically looking at any written agreement and an extension of a deadline. In my opinion, Rangers were not given a deadline until the 20th May. If this was an overarching premise it wouldnt be contained in a specific clause of the rules.………… That rule explains the requirements for a legitimate extension to the deadlines for payment. The point is that a club cannot claim that an extension to a deadline has been granted simply because no bill has been issued. A bill is, of course, ‘a request for payment’.
=====================================
A great summary from Hirsute Pursuit.
PAYE is NOT an assessed tax on an employer. It is a mechanism which places an obligation on an employer to deduct the correct amount of tax from its employees’ wages, and remit that money to the Revenue by a given date in the month following.
The minute RFC acknowledged that they should have deducted tax from the “Wee Tax Case” payments, then the amounts involved were due (more accurately overdue) and payable, with interest, of course.
The determinations issued by the Revenue were simply a collection mechanism- such determinations give the Collector of Taxes a piece of paper to take to court. It is significant that there is no appeal process against PAYE determinations, as there is with assessments, That is because the determinations simply state the amount that should have been remitted to the Revenue at an earlier date, in the particular case of RFC years previously.
I don’t know exactly when RFC acknowledged the WTC liability, but that was the point at which at which the sum due became unpaid. RFC would have to produce a letter from the Revenue after that date, formally agreeing that despite being due, the sum need not be paid. If such a letter exists then a) I would be gobsmacked, and b) it would surely have been produced already. I strongly suspect that the WTC tax was due but unpaid years before any 2011 deadline.
Apologies for some “old school” terminology, by the way, but the basics of the PAYE system have hardly changed since the 1940’s..
Source tells us that Strachan has reluctantly agreed to stay on whilst a replacement is found and that a possible sacking of David Moyes in the New Year would square the circle.
This was the point that Willie Miller was trying to elaborate on yesterday on the radio (without being as specific as to name names obviously). Strachan has failed at WC 16 and all but failed at Euro18. The management decision is about Euro20. So do you wait until Strachan’s team loses the first Euro20 qualifier before acting (and presumably sacking) in which case you’re suddenly looking at WC22 before you see any signs of progress. Stuart Cosgrove later echoed the point using KPI’s slightly tongue in cheekedly but the base premise was the same. To be fair, Miller defended Strachan in so far as, if getting punted out of WC16 but still being in position for qualification for Euro18 was deemed good enough then you have to allow him to see it through, but again he laboured the point, at what point do you roll out the WC20 master plan because at the moment there isn’t one.
on a side note, the Scotland ladies Goalkeeper on the same show whom I’m ashamed to say I can’t recall the name of was both intelligent and articulate. No way she’ll last in Park Gardens!
Big PinkNovember 20, 2016 at 10:44
‘…..Source tells us that Strachan has reluctantly agreed to stay on whilst a replacement is found and that a possible sacking of David Moyes in the New Year would square the circle.’
________
Is it just me, or would that not point up serious ‘succession planning’ deficiencies on the part of the SFA board, bordering on extreme negligence of director responsibilities?
To be in a situation where someone is just reluctantly staying on while someone else’s sacking is awaited is to be in a situation of utter farce!
There is something far, far wrong with an institution that hasn’t even got ‘effectiveness and efficiency’ to their credit when their integrity is so seriously being questioned.
A double self-inflicted whammy, if ever there was one.
My last word on whether or not the WTC monies were overdue at 31 March 2011 (well, last word for now as I fly off to warmer climes in less than 24 hours
).
Mark, a number of posters have covered the documented matters better than I could, and I prefer to look at such things in a similar fashion to Lord Drummond, anyway, by using common sense.
RFC lost the WTC, and at that point the PAYE liability became overdue. HMRC had insisted for a number of years that it was due, and was, therefor, overdue at the point of the determination. I am sure if they were inclined, HMRC would argue that it had been overdue from the moment RFC failed to deduct the PAYE from the players’ income. Regardless of whatever delaying tactics RFC employed, at 31 March there was no agreement in place allowing the club any time to pay. At that point, RFC were obliged under UEFA rules to inform the SFA, who, in turn, were obliged not to issue a European licence. The common sense approach after that would have been for RFC to arrange a payment plan (and stick to it) with HMRC, in short order, and to then appeal the SFA/UEFA decision! The SFA and UEFA, presumably, would have then taken into account the nature of the outstanding tax and made a decision based on that (it may well be that RFC didn’t feel it was in their best interest for UEFA to know how they’d been paying their players for the past ten years, and so decided there was a lot more at stake than the following season’s CL spot! The risk of the big lie was then even more necessary/attractive).
In my opinion, not informed, but common sense opinion, at 31 March RFC knew they had a long outstanding tax bill to pay, with no signed agreement from HMRC saying it was anything other that payable now! As has been pointed out earlier, UEFA require documentary evidence of any arrangement to defer payment, as at 31 March! The only question left was not, is it outstanding?, but rather, how can we (RFC) manage to pay it? Discussing with HMRC a payment schedule doesn’t constitute a process that stops the tax being overdue, any more than just not paying it does, or hiding the fact that income tax had not been deducted from employees’ salaries. The tax was due, it became overdue, no agreement was in place to delay payment at 31 March, unless you can point us in the direction of such an agreement signed by HMRC! Requests and arguments from RFC do not constitute an agreement, and a later agreed payment schedule does not constitute an agreement that the tax is not, and wasn’t previously, overdue!
And the most common sense point is; if there was any documentary evidence to show that Rangers complied with the UEFA FFP regulations then we would have heard about it by now instead of the SFA allowing this matter to drag on and fester. They haven’t even come up with anything that might be argued to indicate compliance, other than their very conflicted word!
Anyway, off to finish the packing…
SmugasNovember 20, 2016 at 11:14
The lady in question was Gemma Faye the Scottish Goalkeeper and she is indeed one smart lady.
She made a very good point about the women’s game that I agree with because my girl started playing in 1993 age 11 (to go on and win SC and league medals and play at Wembley as an U 16 ) and that is the time it takes to develop players up to an international standard.
A HUGE factor in that based on my experience was the shortage of girls to actually play the game. Many a weekend I spent travelling around the Glasgow area and beyond to provide transport to girls of my daughter’s age just so that there was a full turnout of 11 players.
The point being that first of all there has to be ENOUGH girls and now boys in Scotland playing football on a regular basis to have a basis to actually coach from. The number of girls playing at grass roots (artificial or other wise) has grown and I like to think I played my part as taxi driver to many. 🙂
The ladies International Team were regularly gubbed back then, simply because there were not enough girls of a high enough standard to pick from, which I believe is the current problem with regard to men’s football.
So the first thing to do is to change the time frame and expectations of the nation and the next thing is to encourage as many young guys as possible to play football from an early age in an attractive environment and if you cannot up the numbers make sure that time on the ball is a lot greater than in the days of chasing a bladder around black ash on the then Trades Description Act defying Glasgow Green.
neepheidNovember 20, 2016 at 10:24
I don’t know exactly when RFC acknowledged the WTC liability, but that was the point at which at which the sum due became unpaid.
====================
Verbal acceptance reached on 18 Feb 2011. Full acceptance of liability on 21st March 2011. If there is a written agreement in place at 31st March the Sporting Initiative Integrity chap asked for sight of it and none has been provided.
That reason only emerged this year according to TOG when David Conn of The Guardian was told of an unpublished document from HMRC. The SII chap then asked for proof and is still waiting. There were discussions about waiting until after Takeover but if SFA knew about them, then it is arguable that after Takeover on 6th May they should have established if the liability had been met before sending list of licences granted to UEFA on 26th May.
Big PinkNovember 20, 2016 at 10:44‘…..Source tells us that Strachan has reluctantly agreed to stay on whilst a replacement is found and that a possible sacking of David Moyes in the New Year would square the circle.’
============================
My personal view is Moyes has done nothing in his career post Everton to suggest he would make a significant difference. As a Celtic fan I was delighted he was not appointed as our new Manager in the summer. He speaks well and seems a decent guy but is overrated in my view.
I would also suggest that if your perception of of our travails just now is in either the “over-rated championship” camp or the “complete lack of any appreciation of any Scottish clubs out with the top two without even checking to see where one half of that top two actually are” camp then appointing Moyes will be the managerial equivalent of a Barry Ferguson pass!
Other sideways passing midfielders are available, but they don’t get as much profile. Sauce for the goose and all that!
I notice the structure of youth football development in Scotland is under review again which I think is relevant to a couple of threads above. At first glance I am inclined to prefer the existing set up, particularly if the view of Gary Naysmith (and other managers) is representative of the perceived need for change:
“The under-20s is false. They are all trying to play out from the back, the goalie is passing it to a player on the edge of the area, but that doesn’t prepare them for when they come to a team like mine on loan – it’s like they are caught in the headlights.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38043081
Ref the SFA issuing of the 2011 Uefa licence to Rangers, the SFA were either misled or were party to the ruse – at best after the fact.
A case of “Don’t Ask Us & We Won’t Have To Tell” perhaps?
Officially, the SFA has to maintain that Rangers never told them of the DOS & EBT payments for all of the 11 years that they existed. Details of players contracts that were officially provided by the club to the SFA throughout this period failed to mention any DOS or EBT payments to players & staff at the club.
So, if we assume some level of positive intent on the part of Rangers, the dilemma they then faced was how to reconcile the inevitable outcome & ongoing discussions with HMRC over the WTC – with their membership & licence applicant obligations to the SFA & Uefa. Simply, as the March 31 2011 deadline approached, they could only do this by misleading or colluding with the SFA.
Their SFA membership obligations required Rangers to notify the SFA of the full contract details of registered players. They hadn’t done so for at least 11 years, and any plausible deniability they had for the WTC/DOS scheme had evaporated with the 26 Nov 2010 HMRC letter. In addition the BTC was under close HMRC scrutiny; another employee remuneration scheme that Rangers had failed to tell the SFA about.
The Uefa licence application also places the onus on the applicant (Rangers) to declare to the Licensor (SFA) full details of employees employment including remuneration AND tax.
Article 50, Para 8 is quite precise
“8 The licence applicant MUST submit to the auditor and/or the licensor thenecessary documentary evidence showing the amount payable (if any), as at 31December of the year preceding the licence season as well as any payable as at31 March (rolled forward from 31 December), to the competent social/taxauthorities as a result of contractual and legal obligations towards its employees.”
No solution to this dilemma had a good outcome for Rangers, unless they misled & withheld information from the SFA & thus Uefa.
If they told the SFA, then not only would their licence application have to be refused by the SFA, but the SFA would then “officially” be made aware that Rangers had lied to them about players contracts for the previous 11 years. This would also officially require the SFA to take some disciplinary action.
We know that Rangers licence application was submitted to the SFA & approved by them, so it is safe & reasonable to assume that there was nothing apparently amiss in that application. Rangers chose the misleading option.
All of which brings us back to the question of SFA complicity before or after the fact.
Once Rangers were liquidated, the SFA could have absolutely ZERO grounds for supporting New Rangers inclusion into the SPL for season 2012/13 – IF they admitted that Rangers had lied to them for years about players registration OR even simply that they had lied in their 2011 Uefa licence application. After all, the whole SFA recovery plan was based on New Rangers being quickly re-admitted to the SPL.
So, at the very least after aproving their Uefa licence, the SFA must have been aware that Rangers had lied to them to obtain that licence. The SFA chose not to reveal that matter in view of the ‘armageddon without a Rangers’ scenario they were publicly pursuing.
The continued silence from the SFA on key parts of this is likely to be because they have fallen for the famous folly of all publicly accountable groups – the cover up is almost always worse than the original mistake.
The SFA now have their very own dilemma & like the Old Rangers variant, it is one of their own making.
SUNNYJIMNOVEMBER 20, 2016 at 19:21
So, if we assume some level of positive intent on the part of Rangers, the dilemma they then faced was how to reconcile the inevitable outcome & ongoing discussions with HMRC over the WTC – with their membership & licence applicant obligations to the SFA & Uefa. Simply, as the March 31 2011 deadline approached, they could only do this by misleading or colluding with the SFA.
———What was it the tax inspector wrote….”Deliberate failure or fraudulent behaviour of the company”.