Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton

Avatar By

TallBoy Poppy says: May 11, 2014 at 7:23 am http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=12938090&t=9070302 —————————————– The Zebra finance …

Comment on Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton by Castofthousands.

TallBoy Poppy says:
May 11, 2014 at 7:23 am

The Zebra finance situation was posted up on the blog a couple of weeks ago and it did seem a bit mystifying that official records showed it as bust whilst elsewhere it seemed to still be trading. There seem to be numerous instances where public record cannot be trusted i.e. Companies House. At the time I think general incredulity created little reaction and the assumption for me was that Zebra were still a going concern. Of course nothing would surprise you in the circumstances.

Here’s the link to the live website which has a dropdown where you can select your club. Rangers do not appear.


Castofthousands Also Commented

Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton
Giovanni says:
May 10, 2014 at 10:51 am

“I am reminded of the hilarious article by broganrogantrevinoandhogan last October”
An entertaining piece of wit and like much good drama, benefiting from a factual and historical underpinning. In particular, the following exchange reignited the pertinence of John Clark’s record of Imran Ahmad’s recent court action.

” Ok but the accounts – what do the accounts say about Whyte being the real owner — I mean they are from Deloittes for God sake – they must make the position clear?”
” Well we have had a look at them boss and in that regard the accounts are King Kenny!”
” King Kenny?”
” Aye King Kenny Boss – with regard to Whyte’s claim they say ” maybes aye– maybes naw” and they leave it at that”

The couplet of references to Deloitte’s and the ‘Dean of Faculty’ do suggest that IA was alluding to CW’s claim. We have up until now been speculating with varying levels of voracity concerning the weight of any such claim. However IA’s representation implies that someone present on the board following any novation from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland is suggesting that CW’s claim likely has merit.

Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton
redetin says:
May 9, 2014 at 12:01 pm

I’d have thought the error in share price (0.23p rather than £0.23) would have been corrected during the course of the afternoon but it is still showing as it was when you first posted six hours ago.

Even at £0.23 this is still below the current offer of around £0.27. All seems a bit strange.

Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton
Auldheid says:
May 9, 2014 at 4:40 pm

“Cmon boys cough. The distinction between irregular ebts and ebts still under judgement was never clear to the SPL.”
I think the evidence is fairly clear. It may be ignored but that will not make it go away. In a pre-internet environment ignoring awkward questions may have been a tenable approach. Only the stuff the agenda setters wanted discussed got discussed. However in the new world this information could resurface over and over again and potentially at the most inconvenient times. It’s a mine field for the sporting authorities.

Don’t expect to see a white flag but there could be endless erratic manoeuvres and the occasional shock wave. Given sufficient time the whole thing is likely to shake itself to bits.

Recent Comments by Castofthousands

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
I was watching some youtube concerning chaos theory a few days ago. Not that I understood it fully but the basic concepts were intelligible to me.

Chaotic behavour might be experienced by bridges for instance during high wind events. The predictable environment for which the structure was designed to sustain might be breached and oscillations set up that ultimately shake the thing to bits.
It seems that any system can sustain a certain level of complexity: Parameters that are exceeded without any catastrophic consequences. However if the ‘complexity’ continues to increase then it is likely that at some point the system will fall into chaos.
I think that is where we might be in the timeline of the farrago. Pressure has been ratcheted up over a number of years and now a major event has introduced a whole new level of complexity.
The SFA currently probably have the least control over events than at any time since 2012. Their tactics will be reactive: They will have no coherent forward strategy: They will not be in possession of an ethical framework that might help guide them to safety.
LNS now looks like part of the cover up. However this malfeasance was hidden in plain sight. Rather than being an instrument to mock football fans and supporters it has now turned into a gravestone that seems only to be lacking an inscription and dates. Football supporters weren’t meant to be able to decipher the legal jargon. In reality if you scratch the surface of the rhetoric of bile there is beneath a cohort of supporters who have a firm grip on the facts. Those supporters help inform their associates and thus attempts to create a false narrative have been foiled.
The situation is finely balanced between order and chaos. Who knows what events might sway this balance.
Perhaps a fans group will take some sort of legal action. Perhaps clubs will start to exact influence. Perhaps a wealthy private individual will take it upon themselves to mount some kind of legal challenge to LNS. These option may not all be feasible but there may be many others not yet considered that are.
Either way it looks like the good ship SFA is taking another voyage through the icebergs.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
AllyjamboJuly 8, 2017 at 10:09

“Until now, we have all looked at the mis-registration aspect only to be a ploy to avoid detection by HMRC, and undoubtedly it was, but I think it has blinded us to the quite simple fact that improper payments, definitely illegal within the confines of football, and possibly criminal within the law of the land, were made.”

Is the general lack of inertia in addressing this matter a symptom of a wider culture of casual payments within the game? We know that historically football has been quite lax in its fiscal controls. Does this history confer a collective guilt that makes clubs reluctant to become animated in current circumstances?

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
 DunderheidJuly 7, 2017 at 21:35
I wonder: can anyone give me a link to the SFA’s rules vis-à-vis the powers of its Board?

Might be amongst this lot. Hopefully the multiple links will stick.
SFA articles of association



Click to access SFA_HANDBOOK_53-136_Articles_of_Association.pdf

SFA registration procedures

Click to access SFA_HANDBOOK_201-280_Registration_Procedures.pdf

SFA cup competition rules

Click to access Cup%20competition%20rules.pdf

SFA’s club licensing criteria (December 2013)

Click to access Prt%202%20Sct%208%20-%20Leg,%20Admin,%20Finance,Codes%20(2).pdf

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
DarkbeforedawnJuly 6, 2017 at 10:54

“Rangers were never, at any time, accused of operating an illegal tax evasion scheme and if they had been, this would be a criminal proceedings and not a civil one.”
” However, I cannot think of a single example in history where a club has had trophies stripped for owing a debt?”

The validity of the honours won during the EBT period is not questioned simply because the club had debts. The footballing integrity argument arises from the mis-registration of players.
RFC might argue that they believed the payments they made were legitimate loans and need therefore not appear as part of a players contract on their registration document. To accept such a level of ‘self-certification’ however would render the whole registration process pointless. The so called loans were so obviously part of the players contract that their absence from the registration process could be best explained by a wish to keep them hidden from simple scrutiny.
In effect the registration rules were circumvented to facilitate a commercial risk.
That doesn’t look a lot like sporting integrity to me.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
HirsutePursuitJuly 6, 2017 at 00:35
“Similarly, the commission could accept the idea that the EBT arrangements were legal in all cases.”
I appreciate you are simply stating the commission’s premise but it seems such a fundamental error for LNS’ panel to base their decision significantly on a separate decision that was subject to appeal (FTT BTC ruling). It was such an obviously contentious case that it would seem naive to latch onto it for any kind of justification.

About the author