Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?

Avatar ByTrisidium

Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?

A Guest Blog by Auldheid for TSFM

Honesty requires both transparency and accountability. In pursuit of honest, transparent and accountable governance of Scottish football, and only that objective, the following letter, with attachments, has been sent to SPFL lawyers, CEO and SPFL Board Members.

An honest game free from deception is what football supporters of all clubs want. It is the action the letter and attachments prompt that will tell us if there is any intention of providing it.

It is a response on behalf of readers here on TSFM, but the sentiment which underpins it is almost universally held amongst fans of all clubs.  Importantly it is a response directly to all clubs, especially those with a SPFL Board member, that will make the clubs and the football authorities aware just how seriously supporters take the restoration of trust in an honest game, honestly governed.

The annexes to the letter contain information which may be published at a later date. We thought it appropriate to first await any response from any of the recipients.

Please also draw this to the attention of friends who are not internet using supporters and love their football and their club.

Auldheid

__________________________________________________________________

Harper MacLeod
The Ca’d’oro
45 Gordon Street
Glasgow
G1 3PE
19 Feb 2014
Copy sent to SPFL CEO and Board Members *
Dear Mr McKenzie
We the contributors to The Scottish Football Monitoring web site write to you in your capacity as the legal adviser employed by Harper MacLeod to assist the Scottish Premier League (now the Scottish Professional Football League) to gather evidence and investigate the matter of incorrect player registrations involving concealed side letters and employee benefit trusts as defined in the eventual Lord Nimmo Smith Commission.
We note from the then SPL announcement that set up an enquiry that the initial date range to be covered was from the inception of the SPL in July 1998, but that was changed to 23 November 2000 because, according to our understanding, that is the date of the first side letter supplied by Rangers Administrators Duff and Phelps. It is also our understanding that the SPL asked for all documentation relating to side letters as well as the letters themselves.
It is a matter of public record that Rangers Administrators failed to supply the SPL all relevant documentation. Indeed the seriousness of not complying with SPL requests was the subject of an admonition of Rangers/Duff and Phelps from Lord Nimmo Smith under Issue 4 of his Commission.
Quite how serious that failure to comply or concealment was in terms of misleading the Commission and so Lord Nimmo Smith can now be assessed from the information contained at Annexes 1 to 10 attached.
We think that as legal advisers to the SPL (now the SPFL) you have a responsibility to make them aware that their Commission was misled by the concealment of documents starting on 3 September 1999, and signed by current SFA President Campbell Ogilvie, whose silence on the ebt matters referred to in the attached annexes* is questionable at the very least.
This letter but not attachments is being posted on The Scottish Football Monitor web site as this is matter for all of Scottish football and support for the issue being pursued to establish the truth can be gauged by responses from supporters from all Scottish clubs once the letter has been published there.
A copy of this letter with Annexes has also been sent to the SPFL CEO and members of the SPFL Board.
Acknowledgement of receipt and reply can be sent by e mail to:
(Address supplied)
Yours in sport

On behalf of The Scottish Football Monitor contributors and readers. http://www.tsfm.org.uk/

Addressees copied in
Neil Doncaster CEO
The Scottish Professional Football League
Hampden Park
Glasgow G42 9DE

Eric Riley (Celtic),
The Celtic Football Club
Celtic Park
Glasgow G40 3RE

Stephen Thompson (Dundee United),
Tannadice Park,
Tannadice Street,
Dundee, DD3 7JW

Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen);
Aberdeen Football Club plc
Pittodrie Stadium
Pittodrie Street
Aberdeen AB24 5QH

Les Gray (Hamilton),
Hamilton Academical FC
New Douglas Park
Hamilton
ML3 0FT

Mike Mulraney (Alloa)
Alloa Athletic FC
Clackmannan Road
Recreation Park
Alloa FK10 1RY

Bill Darroch (Stenhousemuir).
Stenhousemuir F.C.
Ochilview Park
Gladstone Road
Stenhousemuir
Falkirk
FK5 4QL

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

3,234 Comments so far

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:14 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Auldheid
I suppose all I really meant was I would have addressed it to the client not the lawyer. That’s all. Its just that I go on and on. I hope you get a substantive response.

Another good result and a decent performance. I am getting excited. Feels like May 1978 all over again.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on10:28 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Lord Wobbly says:

March 5, 2014 at 9:45 pm

4

1

Rate This

Ah… I’m beginning to understand Coisty’s panic at not being able to secure a top flight berth in double quick time.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/uefa-offer-celtic-hope-over-moving-to-england-1-3329021

PS For the record, I have oft voiced my concerns about Celtic moving to the EPL. It is a house of cards.
==============================================================================
Certainly

And that house of cards more or less stays upright or not depending on what is decided over in Edinburgh right now.

I believe if HMRC win they will be kicking in doors all over the EPL within hours of a result.

View Comment

Avatar

MercDocPosted on10:32 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Regarding the Scotland game on the Daily Record website. Well done to them. Watched it HD no probs. Commentary fine, no complaints. It was either pay for it and a lot less Scots see it or put it free on the web. No Brainer!

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on10:35 pm - Mar 5, 2014


OT slightly and hopefully within the rules, with the Cup Final looming get your Aberdeen name

http://t.co/wKB1NLYmgr

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on10:37 pm - Mar 5, 2014


hi guys

sorry, been out of the loop and not keeping up with things the last few days

just a question on administration and footballers contracts

if a club goes into admin, rips up a players contract (as an administrator can) and successfully achieves a CVA to exit admin, ex Celtic Director David Low is suggesting that those players contracts would be considered a football debt and that the club would still have to pay the players in full.

I didn’t think this was the case

he is saying that after the livingston (or maybe Dundee) and motherwell adminstrations in the early 2000’s the rules were changed.

However, i thought these players would only be added to the creditor pile and would get to vote for/against the cva

the argument centres around this point.

Can sevco go into admin, dump the players at minimal cost and exit the cva (assuming RIFC are 75% creditor)

we have had both DAFC and HMFC in admin recently, did any players get axed and what was the fall out as far as their contract went – must it be paid or were they added to the creditor pile?

thoughts

View Comment

Bill1903

Bill1903Posted on10:41 pm - Mar 5, 2014


paulsatim says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:35 pm
0 0 Rate This

OT slightly and hopefully within the rules, with the Cup Final looming get your Aberdeen name

http://t.co/wKB1NLYmgr
——————————–
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :slamb:

In other news 37k Dons tickets now sold with only 3k now available

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on10:43 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

March 5, 2014 at 10:37 pm

hi guys

sorry, been out of the loop and not keeping up with things the last few days

just a question on administration and footballers contracts

if a club goes into admin, rips up a players contract (as an administrator can) and successfully achieves a CVA to exit admin, ex Celtic Director David Low is suggesting that those players contracts would be considered a football debt and that the club would still have to pay the players in full.

I didn’t think this was the case

he is saying that after the livingston (or maybe Dundee) and motherwell adminstrations in the early 2000′s the rules were changed.
============================================

NTHM hows you

Heres MFCs shame from fir Park corner, briefly the players were out a job within the day. There were even punch ups at the ground.

http://www.motherwell-mad.co.uk/feat/edx3/administration__10_years_on_737010/index.shtml

View Comment

Avatar

comeongetaffPosted on10:45 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Hi,
Not posted for a long time,due to problems logging on.(probably my fault for being a thicko).
But tonight was the first time in years I have actually enjoyed a Scotland game.(Living in Englandshire I usually feel embarresed about our performances and just say to the guys in the pub,at least we know we are s$*!e).But now I see a wee glimmer of hope.Now looking forward to the Euro qualifiers for a change.

View Comment

Avatar

MercDocPosted on11:03 pm - Mar 5, 2014


ianagain, a very good piece, It is easy to empathize with the worker, supporter and player. How times have changed!

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on11:16 pm - Mar 5, 2014


If Sandy Brysons “make it up as you go along ” interpretation is SFA policy, then why did they punish Ian Black years and months after he broke the rules on betting.

Using Bryson logic, he should only have been punished if this rule breaking was discovered at the time the offence was committed .

The Spartans case has been extensively covered on here not just because of the expulsion for playing a player not properly registered, but for the size of the fine.

What is less well known is that Brechin were also expelled from the cup in 2008 for playing 2 players who werent properly registered and were fined £10,000.

The relationship of turnover to fine is that it was roughly 2.5 % of annual turnover. For one match !!!

Rangers received a fine of 0.5% for multiple offences commited in over 400 matches

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/brechin-facing-expulsion-from-scottish-cup-1-1076302

East Stirling were also thrown out of the Scottish Cup in 2011 due to a contract that was properly signed not arriving by post .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/scot_cups/9371741.stm

You can see why fans of all other clubs are so angry with the SFA . Rangers effectively receive nothing other than a token financial penalty for over 400 games where multiple players played without their registration having been properly filed with the SFA . Worse than that their crime was deliberate deception .

Yet Spartans , Brechin , East Stirling and others are expelled from competition and hit with massive fines, in relation to their ability to pay, for a single innocent mistake.

This wouldn’t be justice in a banana republic, yet we are supposed to buy into the neutrality and integrity of an organisation headed by a conflicted individual, who is knee deep in tax evasion schemes and has been party to the deception.

Hopefully Auldheids initiative brings about a result, for every Scottish club that was denied natural justice by Bryson and the LNS judicial hearing. I would like to know exactly what instruction HM had from Neil Doncaster. He was the client, and good law firms usually approach a case with the desired outcome for the client uppermost in their mind.

Thats another significant issue for me, did Neil Doncaster tell HM to leave no stone unturned to achieve the guilty to all charges verdict that the overwhelming evidence suggested should have been a mere formality.

Or did he give another instruction which resulted in the outcome of LNS’ deliberations

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:23 pm - Mar 5, 2014


ianagain says:

March 5, 2014 at 10:28 pm

I believe if HMRC win they will be kicking in doors all over the EPL within hours of a result.
_____________________________________________________

I’d like to think that would be the case, but I suspect they’d first have to wait to see if MG launch an appeal. It wouldn’t do for HMRC to start proceedings against the larger English clubs, and other EBT using businesses, only to find their ‘precedent’ has only had a short life before they have to go through the rigmarole again. Unless, possibly, they go to the ‘culprits’ and offer them a deal to pay up tax owed, without penalties etc, or face ever increasing costs in the event HMRC are ultimately victorious.

I’m not sure if what I’ve said here is correct, but do wonder if the other EBT users might be uniting behind the Murray Group to finance their battle to either ultimately win, or to delay the day they have to face up to their responsibilities, for as long as possible.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:26 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: March 5, 2014 at 10:37 pm

we have had both DAFC and HMFC in admin recently, did any players get axed and what was the fall out as far as their contract went – must it be paid or were they added to the creditor pile?
===========================
Hearts made 4 players and 13 non playing staff redundant within 24 hours. A fifth player was made redundant a week later. A number of other players agreed wage cuts, as did a couple of senior employees some months later.

The players contracts were broken, but I believe that their only entitlement is statutory redundancy pay. (I’m not sure of the redundancy rules, but I think you may have had to have worked for at least two years and the amount is calculated on x weeks pay for each year’s employment)

However the SFA and SPFL have insisted that all football creditors are paid by the new owners (outside the CVA). The Foundation of Hearts have agreed to play that bill which is estimated at approx. £535,000.

From the creditors list, it appears that all players past and present were due a little more than two weeks pay, that being the amount earned in the days leading up to administration. The total owed to ex-players is around £205,000 with more than half of that due to one player, Andy Driver, (I assume that Hearts didn’t pay his wages while he was on loan to Houston for the last few months of his time with Hearts). Other than Andy Driver, the highest claim is for just over £20,000 which is due to one of those made redundant. Current players are only due around £80,000 in total.

View Comment

Avatar

policeandthievesPosted on11:26 pm - Mar 5, 2014


I was interested to see that one of Alex T’s twitter’s tonight said:
“Ukraine attempts to get sides together failed in Paris tonight. Lavrov complaining about ‘atmosphere of threats’. Not just Paris.”.
Don’t know what he meant other than the obvious, but the “Not just Paris” intrigued me.
I wonder if his “questioning prediction” of administration last week, may indeed have been a little honey-trap, used in order to gauge the response to any reporter simply asking questions,

View Comment

Avatar

Kicker ConspiracyPosted on11:28 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Mods:
Can I suggest separating the TU and TD icons by, say, half a screen width, so that my sausage fingers don’t produce accidental TDs like I just gave to Barcabhoy’s post?

View Comment

Avatar

TSFMPosted on11:36 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Kicker Conspiracy

Double click or tap on the TU and it will change your vote 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:07 am - Mar 6, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:

March 5, 2014 at 10:14 pm

I appreciate where you are coming from and I thought about the lead addressee and I simply did not trust them to act. Harper MacLeod however have a professional reputation to uphold on which their business depends.

To have read that material and not advised their previous client of its contents and potential impact creates a negative narrative that they should really consider addressing.

When it all comes out, as it will they do not want that narrative to be reinforced.

However if they and the SPFL use their heads and respond the ball can be kicked off the line so to speak.

They or the SPFL really would do well to respond.

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on12:12 am - Mar 6, 2014


Bill1903 says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:41 pm

Aye, Armageddon, who’d have thought it would be so bad!

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:13 am - Mar 6, 2014


Not wanting to enter an independence debate, but just had one of these wee thoughts that flit through one’s head from time to time.

I heard earlier on the news that The Royal Bank of Scotland (to give them their full title so seldom used these days) are saying they will have to leave Scotland if independence becomes a reality. I was almost shouting at the TV about how a number of years ago they tried to officially drop ‘Scotland’ from their title and rebrand as ‘The Royal Bank’. If I remember correctly they had even spent millions on new stationery. Having jumped the gun somewhat they were quietly told, that as they’d been incorporated by Royal Charter as ‘The Royal Bank of Scotland’, if they dropped the Scotland they could bloody well drop the ‘Royal’ bit too. They then, unofficially started to use ‘RBS’ as their banner rather than to display a name that linked them to their homeland. Not sure if it was the Lord Lyon’s office or Buck House that the order came from but no matter what, it doesn’t say much for that ‘Scottish Institution’. Indeed, ‘Treacherous Institution’ might be a more apt name, joining that other ‘Parcel of Rogues’.

This brought me to think of another ‘Scottish Institution’, you know the one, they all sing God Save the Queen while booing Scotland’s own National Anthem, flaunt their Britishness wherever they go, continually say they’d rather play in England and are largely supporters of Unionism, though don’t like to pay the taxes they are due to Her Majesty’s Treasury.

If these two are examples of what Scottish Institutions are all about, Alex Salmond should know where to stick them. Oh wait a minute…

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on12:14 am - Mar 6, 2014


Quite an interesting read here, http://henryclarson.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/five-men-who-killed-rangers-bleacher-report/

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:25 am - Mar 6, 2014


Bryce Curdy says:

March 5, 2014 at 10:13 pm

AULDHEID 8:09 pm

But the problem is everyone doesn’t know. You know, I know, Campbellsmoney knows, and the vast majority of TSFM followers know, but your average punter simply does not know. There are simply too many vested interests and agendas, and even putting that to the side, the narrative is complex. I have read your letter and all the attachments and would be completely won over if somehow I wasn’t already, but I am the converted.
========================
See my response to Campbell’smoney above.

If it ticks all your boxes and you are not a lawyer, then it must at least make Harper McLeod look at it forensically to find something to dismiss it and they have had it all since 20/21st February. If it is nonsense why no reply just saying so? Kill it dead before it got into the air.

They really must take pause to think what mishandling the information does for their reputation. Either somebody says it is nonsense and explains why or H&M go to SPFL and say

You (the SPFL ) have a problem. You never made an official announcement on LNS, the UTT might well force you into a statement and we (H&M) were misled in the commissioning of LNS whose findings are questionable given what we now know.

Can we have instructions because our reputation is in danger and yours will be too if you ignore.this matter.

We do not need to get the attention of the masses, we only need to get the players to understand it is game on and the world of cyberspace at least is watching and the retweets are reaching out to draw the crowd.

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on12:41 am - Mar 6, 2014


easyJambo says:
March 5, 2014 at 11:26 pm

6

0

Rate This

Not The Huddle Malcontent says: March 5, 2014 at 10:37 pm

we have had both DAFC and HMFC in admin recently, did any players get axed and what was the fall out as far as their contract went – must it be paid or were they added to the creditor pile?
===========================

The players contracts were broken, but I believe that their only entitlement is statutory redundancy pay.

_________________________________

Statutory redundancy is 1 week (for under 41s) per years service if >2 years service capped at £450 pw and £13.5K in total.
Buttons in other words.
But this payment would have preferred status and would be guaranteed to be met in full – by HMG in the event that the administrator could not afford to pay it all.

Contractual notice or PILON (pay in lieu of notice) would also be owed, but would depend on individual contract terms, but this would not rank above other creditors. (so get in line!)

Statutory notice (1 week per years service) would be owed and would have preferred creditor status, but – again – this would be capped at £450 per week.

So a player with 3 years service could expect to leave with the grand total of £2700.

Significantly less than ‘a good night out’!

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on12:51 am - Mar 6, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:

March 5, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for feedback
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As a separate issue
Radio phone ins by Bears
Is it just me or have others noticed that much of the anger towards TRFC Directors is being expressed in terms of scenarios lifted from TSFM posts?
Indeed
Is it reflected in an upsurge in the number of hits received recently by the TSFM site?

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:23 am - Mar 6, 2014


From what I can see from most online media today, the King in waiting is getting more coverage than another excellent Scotland result last night. I had to laugh when I saw King quoted as saying Sandy Easdale had contacted him privately to clarify he had not been questioning his integrity with a previously public statement. Where on earth do you start with that one! Perhaps King should advise his PR people that in the modern age the words of a South African Judge are freely obtainable in Scotland.

I guess also that the sycophantic media coverage (how many times is that now) means there can be no impediment to a convicted tax evader joining Rangers even if anyone in a position to say no is of a mind to do so.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on7:26 am - Mar 6, 2014


I do apologise, my Lords and Ladies! I’ve had time only to put part of yesterday’s proceedings on the UTTT thread.I was simply going to do a wee summary, but realised that I can pretty well read all my notes clearly. And if I’m going to sit and listen, you may as well have everything. (There’s about 12 more pages of script to come.But there’s no hurry.
Good to see and meet various TSFM folk.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on7:37 am - Mar 6, 2014


And my Ladies! 😳

View Comment

Avatar

Tic 6709Posted on8:06 am - Mar 6, 2014


Big Phil has put up a new blog,if anybody thinks that King will walk in and take over with the blessing (oops) of the fans then they are sadly mistaken.
Phil has pointed out (again)what we all know but some people in the west-end fail to understand.
If you want to take over the shambles BUY shares,even I get it.
The people in charge at the moment have kept the lights on while King has done nothing but talk.
Why should they walk away?

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on8:12 am - Mar 6, 2014


john clarke says:
March 6, 2014 at 7:26 am
5 0 Rate This

I do apologise, my Lords and Ladies!
———

No need to apologize John. We’ll take scraps, snippets, anecdotes, short, long medium — it’s still more than any newspaper is offering 😎

Look forward to more …

All this evidence, on such a major decision, seems a lot of responsibility for one man to rule on. Be interesting to know how the judge will go through what he’s heard; who (if any others) he’ll confer with, and whether his ruling will be immediate, or months down the line.

View Comment

Avatar

manandboyPosted on8:13 am - Mar 6, 2014


john clarke says: March 6, 2014 at 7:22 am reporting on Mr Thornhill QC in court yesterday.
_________________________________________________________________________________

I take my dog to the vet.

The vet notices a flea on the dog.

He takes the flea and puts it under a microscope.

He finds a mite on the flea.

He then puts the mite under the microscope.

He discovers that there are bacteria on the mite.

The vet then puts the bacteria under the microscope.

This bacteria would give the mite a cough, the vet says.

I have a cough mixture here which will do the job.

That’ll be £36.50, says the vet.

But the dog’s still limping, I say to the vet.

Nothing to worry about, says the vet,

it’ll sort itself out.

Was there anything else ?
.

The vet’s name ?

Why, Mr Thornhill, of course

View Comment

4424me

4424mePosted on8:20 am - Mar 6, 2014


I tend to agree with thorburn that appeals should only be to re-examine the points the appeal has been made on not to introduce new facts or reinterview witnesses. Lets hope the fact both sides agree the evidence of two witnesses was less than honest gives doherty sufficient leeway to rexamine the evidence they gave and compare it to what is now known and conclude that either the majority have erred or the two witnesses evidence has had such a detrimental effect on HMRc’s case that the majority decision is perverse. Quite what he would then do ie send it back to them to reconsider or make the decision for them is the million dollar question but MG would obviously appeal the latter.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on8:38 am - Mar 6, 2014


Tic 6709 says:
March 6, 2014 at 8:06 am
2 1 Rate This

Big Phil has put up a new blog,if anybody thinks that King will walk in and take over with the blessing (oops) of the fans then they are sadly mistaken.
Phil has pointed out (again)what we all know but some people in the west-end fail to understand.
If you want to take over the shambles BUY shares,even I get it.
The people in charge at the moment have kept the lights on while King has done nothing but talk …
———-

And he’s been saying the same stuff for about a year. I checked this article from The Mail from one year ago. King is quoted:

“‘Right now I am trying to get as much information as I can to understand the true corporate structure behind Rangers.
‘I am trying to discover if the investors would be in a position now to consider their situation.
‘Most people don’t want to lose money.
‘But I want to find a different way forward. And the removal of Charles Green certainly provides an opportunity to take things a forward a different way at Rangers.
‘I want to see if the individuals who own the shares are amenable to having a discussion.
‘The issue is not one of just buying Charles Green’s shares. His eight per cent does not make much difference
‘There is no point in being a minority shareholder with no influence or power.
‘But now there are two possibilities.
‘One is that his shareholders regroup and find another man and continue to support him. In which case we have a continuation of that previous regime and things will catch up with them in a year or two.
‘Or, alternatively, if the shareholders are in any way uncomfortable and want to exit then this may be the opportunity now for others to come in.
‘And one of those could be me.'”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2313933/EXCLUSIVE-Dave-King-line-Rangers-return-Charles-Green-heads-Ibrox-exit.html#ixzz2vAXre2Wv

If, buts and maybes. It just seems like empty talk, unless, he is actually communicating behind the scenes with the main characters for purposes unknown. Otherwise, he seems a very small fish. I suppose his only threat is his influence over fans regarding the ST money. If he is sweet-talked a bit by the board, though, he could be the new poster boy for fans to part with their cash.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on9:38 am - Mar 6, 2014


paulsatim says:
March 6, 2014 at 12:12 am
8 1 i
Rate This

Bill1903 says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:41 pm

Aye, Armageddon, who’d have thought it would be so bad!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Tartan Armygeddon

View Comment

Avatar

Tic 6709Posted on9:52 am - Mar 6, 2014


Danish.
The bit I don’t understand is why the Sevco fans would welcome such a man to their club.
We all know what the SARS people said about him,we all know he’s a convicted fraudster,we all know that he stood by and done nothing when Rangers (IL) crashed and burned.
Why would any right minded fan accept this man.
Do they have no self regard.
I thought Murray (D) had an ego problem but King really takes the biscuit.
If he really cared about Sevco would it not be better to stand back because his involvement only tarnishes the club further (I know).
I cannot think of one other club in Scotland that would welcome this man.
Then again I suppose money makes more noise than dignity.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:39 am - Mar 6, 2014


Personally the reason for the procrastination in simples (I haven’t read Phil yet so could be totally wrong). King was effectively promised the club, or perhaps he simply took his messiah role to mean he had the divine right to it as soon as full time football was recovered since playing Forfar via Carnoustie was never going to be a money spinner. Five years ago of course, when you said the club everyone knew exactly what you meant. Suddenly though, ‘the club’ literally is the 11 men in blue (plus maybe a bus). The licence, the company, the stadium, the training ground, hell even the car parks, they’re all extras. And they may not even be for sale!

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on11:05 am - Mar 6, 2014


4424me says:
March 6, 2014 at 8:20 am

“I tend to agree with thorburn that appeals should only be to re-examine the points the appeal has been made on not to introduce new facts or reinterview witnesses.”
———————————–
I don’t think you are wrong in that interpretation but the reason for having an appeals process is to review the evidence and compare it with the decision. Murray Group seem to be trying to tie Lord Doherty’s hands by suggesting that he can have no view on the FTT decision unless he spots an obvious legal blunder that is glaringly obvious. Whilst such a scenario would indeed be grounds to accept the HMRC appeal it would not be the only grounds I suspect. Reference is only being made (or at least almost unanimously) to the evidence presented at the FTT. This is not a retrial but a review. I think the judge would be acting to ensure that a decisions that caused further trouble later on did not remain on statute. For me the UTT should be about trying to weed out ‘outliers’ that would distort the law over the passage of time.
The whole concept of appeals is likely instituted to account for bizarre decisions. I think the appeals judge would have the right to look back on case precedent to ensure that decisions credibly align with the laws intent. We could be talking about very large sums of money both now and in the future.

There was a guy sat next to me at the UTT yesterday who I don’t think was a TSFM’er. He was mature and had studied tax law to a fairly high level following a period spent in business. He was interested in seeing Mr. Thornhill in action. He had read the FTT judgement with his knowledgeable eye and had found its findings surprising. I don’t think he was the only one. The corollary would be that if HMRC win their UTT appeal then that should not be viewed as so surprising. I have other thoughts about this I will speculate upon imminently.

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on11:06 am - Mar 6, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
March 6, 2014 at 9:38 am
5 0 Rate This

paulsatim says:
March 6, 2014 at 12:12 am
8 1 i
Rate This

Bill1903 says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:41 pm

Aye, Armageddon, who’d have thought it would be so bad!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Tartan Armygeddon
———————————————————————————————-
Red Armygeddon
Aberdeen FC on course for selling 40,000 cup final tickets. 37,000 sold already

View Comment

Avatar

JimBhoyPosted on11:10 am - Mar 6, 2014


Anyone read Michael Gannon’s piece in the record today… What a complete plonker! He did not read the Lawell piece that appeared in his newspaper he just read the headline it seems.

Apparently – Celtic should start putting something back in rather than take it out….They should throw in a few quid into decent facilities all over the country..!! I wonder what worth Celtic (and rangers for that matter) are to the local economy.

Really? How far off the pace are sports journalists in this wee country of ours.. Newspaper sales in rapid decline! I wonder why..

View Comment

Avatar

Galling fiverPosted on11:25 am - Mar 6, 2014


Bryce, I t/d’d Aquinas as he already apologised for his comments and insult, and even though I have taken to the streets in a non anonymous manner to support his views on anti-Irish racism, I did not see it as the case on the day in question, which seems to be the case. Carry on.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on11:27 am - Mar 6, 2014


Speculation mode firmly engaged.

IF Rangers loss of the FTT was widely recognised as a likely outcome, might this explain some of the bizarre business decisions. Let us go back in time and travel along a different path that is currently running parallel to the one we are on.

HMRC victory in the FTT would have clearly indicated that Rangers employed remuneration strategies that were beyond the reach of other clubs. Sandy Bryson could not have donned his periwig to make nonsense of such an outcome. It might have been argued that at the time Rangers did not know that they were acting in an illegal manner but surely ignorance is no defence for breaching the law.

So was the bus crash a remedy for this anticipated catastrophe? Would the calls for title stripping have been so voluble that even the forces of the establishment would have been unable to deafen them? If the clumpany was to be thus humiliated would it have been better to sacrifice it on the altar of expediency rather than have it traipsed unceremoniously through the humiliating court of public opinion? Would title stripping have been seen as a sad indictment of those that would pour dishonour on the grave of a fallen hero?

A cleansed Clumpany then rising from the dead, its dignity being reaffirmed by the callousness of its detractors, might have been able to move forward, unburdened of its ballast but with its history clutched close to its bosom? There has been so much drama in this saga that most possibilities can be entertained.

HMRC’s loss of the FTT was matched by the surprise of the clumpany being unable to gain any foothold in the upper echelons of the league structure. One door opens and another closes. Then in through the open door walks Charles Green with a folder with ‘Plan B’ boldly written across it.

The rest, as they say, is history. Interesting times.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:50 am - Mar 6, 2014


Re UTT strategy

A bit like a Walter Smith defence. Pull the two centre halfs out of position – the core proposition that the payments were loans regardless of the source of funds, their purpose, their justification, their ready availablility and their non repayment – and the whole defence falls apart. Mr Thornhill knows this. He is not pulling in any direction. He can’t. He’s just piling centre half on top of centre half and praying that tricky wee winger Poon doesn’t show up!

View Comment

Avatar

y4rmyPosted on12:03 pm - Mar 6, 2014


The bit I don’t understand is why the Sevco fans would welcome such a man to their club.
We all know what the SARS people said about him,we all know he’s a convicted fraudster,we all know that he stood by and done nothing when Rangers (IL) crashed and burned.
Why would any right minded fan accept this man.
Do they have no self regard.
I thought Murray (D) had an ego problem but King really takes the biscuit.
If he really cared about Sevco would it not be better to stand back because his involvement only tarnishes the club further (I know).
I cannot think of one other club in Scotland that would welcome this man.
Then again I suppose money makes more noise than dignity.

Moreover, he was actually accused of even more serious offences:

“King was originally indicted on 322 counts including fraud, tax evasion and evasion of exchange control regulations, as well as money-laundering and racketeering.

http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/2013/08/29/king-fined-r3.28m-after-reaching-plea-deal

Presumably SARS took the easy route to get at least some money back and opted for plea bargaining.
This is also a man who went to work in South Africa in 1976 when it was a global pariah at the peak of Apartheid. Pure class.

View Comment

Avatar

Carl31Posted on12:15 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Auldheid,
Ive posted before that HM wont act unless instructed by their client.
They wont reply from themselves.
SPFL might reply, with the wording of the reply ran past HM.

HM has a reputation to consider – but its a reputation built on acting in the client’s interests, and only those interests.
They have not built their reputation on looking out for honesty, integrity and probity in Scottish Football (to echo Campbellsmoney).
If they inform the SPFL of the existence of these docs and evidence (which the SPFL will know of anyway), and the SPFL make no
instruction … then nothing will be forthcoming from HM.
Read nothing more into this.

Their reputation will not suffer one bit.

BUT
The governing bodies’ reputation, and the individual office bearers, most definitely will suffer by silence.

I back what you are doing. Its a great initiative and aims to do what it says on the tin –
“In pursuit of honest, transparent and accountable governance of Scottish football”.

View Comment

Avatar

Greenock JackPosted on12:35 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Carl
BUT
The governing bodies’ reputation, and the individual office bearers, most definitely will suffer by silence.
————————————————————————

What reputation would that be ?

View Comment

Tartanwulver

TartanwulverPosted on12:36 pm - Mar 6, 2014


From the Guardian’s David Conn on Twitter:
“Queens Park Rangers finances in the Premier League 2012-13: Total turnover (income): £61m. Total wages £78m. Total loss £65m.
Queens Park Rangers: in 2012-13 (year of spending to try & stay in the Premier League): Net debt went up to £177m, from £91m.”

From Raphael Honigstein on Twitter
“QPR spend more money on wages than Borussia Dortmund. Think about that for a moment.”

From sportingintelligence on Twitter
“What Tony Fernandes said when buying #QPR in 2011. Now £177m in debt with 12-13 losses of £65.4m. He’s here all week. pic.twitter.com/jXaq9O9LDh”

Is it compulsory for any footballing entity that has the word ‘Rangers’ somewhere in their name, to blow bucketloads of cash more then income justifies on player wages?

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:42 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Castofthousands.

What if LNS had been commissioned after the FTT and HMRC had already won at that point?

What would the charge have been? A failure to lodge side letters on registering players or something more serious?

That is the question being asked by the concealed evidence. Could LNS have been commissioned as it was, which was in effect to ignore the nature of the tax issue of avoidance or evasion and focus on the lesser charge of maladministration.

It worked well and the actual FTT result that came before LNS made his findings public made them unchallengeable.

It was on this basis that the SPL Board were unable or unwilling to appeal but as we now know it appears, unless there is a response fron the SPL to clarify, that the wrong charges were made in the commissioning of LNS.

The anticipation in RTC days was that HMRC would win and the case to be faced was using illegal methods of payment to remunerate players. not failure to register those payments.

When the FTT ruled as it did attention turned to the by then commissioned LNS investigation to seek justice, but because it had been set up and was able to be set up because of timing, to avoid the nature of those payments, then LNS was always going to be able to conside that aspect irrelevant in terms of what he was commissioned to look at.

Timing is everything and the LNS commissiining should always have been postponed until after the btc verdict by the FTT.

But even if it had been and the treatment of ebts as regular was justified, it would not have looked at the nature of the DOS ebts because it was not asked to and those were irregular, involved hidden side letters and, what is different from the btc ebts is their existence was denied when HMRC asked for them specifically.

Quite why HMRC did not use the wee tax case as evidence of “previous” indications of intent and behaviour I do not know. Perhaps they could only be used after a ruling in their favour but I find it strange that the wee tax case details have been kept so hidden from public gaze.

In fact quite a lot is being hidden from wider public gaze including what is being discussed on tsfm.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:54 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Carl31

I appreciate what you are saying but the letter went to both client and lawyer because although either could ignore it, it reduced the ability to totally ignore.

If it does nothing else it demonstrates how the law is more a device for hiding corruption than fighting it.

For evil to exist good men do nothing.

Are there no good men at the SPFL or Harper MacLeod?

View Comment

Avatar

Carl31Posted on1:02 pm - Mar 6, 2014


On the UTT,
(and the FTT I suppose)

The decision, to me, follows a principle that has relevance for other aspects of the whole Rangers Saga.
It is that form holds sway over substance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_over_form

MG: What we are arguing here is that the legal interpretation of what happened must be based on the presented relevant documented agreements and contracts and forms.
HMRC: What we are arguing here is that a full appraisal of the whole situation must be made and then viewed in its entirety, before a legal interpretation can be properly made on the substance of what happened.

Mr Thor for MG argues no jurisdiction of the UTT to find further findings in fact. Without experience of these, I would think it unlikely that no UTT has ever made further findings in fact from their relevant FTTs. I dont think Lord D will decide that the jurisdiction of his UTT is so restricted.
Given that the majority decision of the FTT is correct in law on the Findings in Fact that it made, then if there is to be no further Findings in Fact in this UTT its another win for MG v HMRC.

Its

View Comment

Tartanwulver

TartanwulverPosted on1:03 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Greenock Jack says:
March 6, 2014 at 12:41 pm

No, but it seems fashionable that this type of remark is included in posts.
You’ll score highly in the TU stakes !!
——————————————————-
Perhaps so indeed GJ, but there’s a wider point about not just the excesses of the Rangerses (although there is quite a stunning parallel about the way both clubs appear to be addressing life in the league below the top division) but about the entire context in which football is being played, and more importantly, run. And to see the ever widening list of clubs pushing to the brink (Bolton, QPR), or beyond it (Leeds, Rangers) while others like Chelsea and Man City are seen as success stories (so far) makes me wonder whether football has any future as a sport, or if it is merely now a channel for secondary activities, from bookmaking to money laundering (not that I’m accusing the clubs noted above of that). And the Scottish Rangers deserve to be singled out over and over again, until they change their ways, because they are the Scottish manifestation of that dangerous bubble.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:09 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Just a wee bit more on why H&M were the main addresee.

They get a letter suggesting they were misled.

Di they bury it or does the fact the client has it make that difficult.

The client has it can see that if nothing else the scope of the commission was affected by the De Boer letter so what do they do? Bury it or ask their lawyers who have same papers for advice.

Do they advise its irrelevant, here is why, explain why it is irrelevant in reply which may still happen.

On the other hand what if it is relevant? Does the lawyer not advise SPFL until instructed to do so and why are SPFL not asking for advice on what seems a serious issue, given they decided not to appeal on legal advice from their lawyers.

View Comment

Avatar

y4rmyPosted on1:12 pm - Mar 6, 2014


I saw that Villa lost £52m last year. The EPL is just a basket case.

Not everyone! 😀

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/10/norwich-city-wipe-out-debt-profit

As a shareholder, I also received a dividend: £4.32 as I recall. Not quite enough for a night out with Campbell Ogilvie.

View Comment

Avatar

Greenock JackPosted on1:15 pm - Mar 6, 2014


On the issue of reputations and behaviour.

Look towards wider society in the 21st century and you will see individuals and groups that seem to make a habit of unethical, dishonest, disproportionately aggressive, misleading, self-serving, corrupt and/or immoral decision-making.

You would think or hope that within society there would be a mechanism that would observe, ask questions, take action and prevent X from repeating Y, aswell as deterring Z from doing similar. Sometimes there is but if you are wired in to the system and know how to play it, you can not only get round it but go again and again and again.

I’m not so much passing comment on the issue in play but once again pointing to the fact that there is a trickle down effect that comes from the very top of the linked political/ corporate and mediatic behaviour.
That if you seriously want change, it has to start at the top.

The fact that the same people are in the top jobs within Scottish football governing bodies is to put it bluntly, taking the p**h. The only language they understand is numerical and features on balance sheets, the rest they will be able to deal with.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on1:16 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Greenock Jack says:
March 6, 2014 at 12:41 pm
11 4 i
Rate This

TW
Is it compulsory for any footballing entity that has the word ‘Rangers’ somewhere in their name, to blow bucketloads of cash more then income justifies on player wages?
——————————————————

No, but it seems fashionable that this type of remark is included in posts.
You’ll score highly in the TU stakes !!

———————————————————————————————————————————————-
I agree with GreenockJack. What happens at QPR has no relevance to what is going on in Scotland. Different businesses, different owners and different issues. It looks like petty point-scoring. We have enough to be looking at on here without cheap jibes.

View Comment

Avatar

Greenock JackPosted on1:24 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Campbellsmoney
I saw that Villa lost £52m last year. The EPL is just a basket case.
——————————————————————————

The EPL has become what it is because of “perception and marketing’.

These days Perception trumps Accountability, but one day a bill will arrive.
Again look at the fabric of 21st century society and see similar throughout.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on1:29 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Auldheid says:
March 6, 2014 at 1:09 pm
0 0 i
Rate This

Just a wee bit more on why H&M were the main addresee.

They get a letter suggesting they were misled.

Di they bury it or does the fact the client has it make that difficult.

The client has it can see that if nothing else the scope of the commission was affected by the De Boer letter so what do they do? Bury it or ask their lawyers who have same papers for advice.

Do they advise its irrelevant, here is why, explain why it is irrelevant in reply which may still happen.

On the other hand what if it is relevant? Does the lawyer not advise SPFL until instructed to do so and why are SPFL not asking for advice on what seems a serious issue, given they decided not to appeal on legal advice from their lawyers.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

I don’t think the lawyer would do anything unless requested to look at it. Lawyers tend not to go ramming things down their clients’ throats (except feenotes maybe). 😀

“why are SPFL not asking for advice on what seems a serious issue” – well – if they don’t seek advice, it could well be because they already know what the answer is and they don’t want to hear it. That happens quite a lot.

View Comment

Avatar

Carl31Posted on1:34 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Auldheid,
“For evil to exist good men do nothing.
Are there no good men at the SPFL or Harper MacLeod?”

HM people represent the interests of their client, as do other lawyers, and they are paid to do so. If your aims have HM in their sights, they might as well have all lawyers and maybe the legal system altogether.

As I see it, energy towards HM is wasted – its not their issue – its not an issue at all that organisations and individuals have legal representation.

The issue is the conduct, behaviours and actions of the governing bodies and the individuals in office (and receiving, at least in part, public money). Thats not to say sending this to HM is completely pointless, but I do think that avenue will be fruitless – reply and action must come from the SPFL, and the SFA.

As another thought:
Without including all information, it may be useful for any who correspond with the governing bodies to ask a question relating to the org’s procedures and timescales for responses.

View Comment

Tartanwulver

TartanwulverPosted on1:38 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
March 6, 2014 at 1:16 pm

I agree with GreenockJack. What happens at QPR has no relevance to what is going on in Scotland. Different businesses, different owners and different issues. It looks like petty point-scoring. We have enough to be looking at on here without cheap jibes.
————————————————–
Fair enough CM, I respect your opinion, but I would argue that what is happening at QPR is most certainly of a piece with what has happened at Rangers. I admit that the coincident names was an open invitation I couldn’t resist, but the template is the same. Football is increasingly a fight between the ‘spend, spend, spend’ ethos and the ‘live within our means’ one. And that debate extends across borders.

View Comment

Avatar

TSFMPosted on1:43 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Campbellsmoney

Is there anyone outside of the clubs who may have locus to challenge LNS? Is there any basis for a challenge?

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on1:47 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Regarding Norwich City

Did a quick skim read.
£78m turnover (up £4m odd).
Profit £500K (down from £13.5m)
“external debt” zero (reduced from £11+M)

Looks like they make a profit year on year (well 2 years anyway) and this year have decided to use that profit to clear the debt. Seems all well and good.

Norwich City (average crowds this season 26.7K) – turnover £78m (Seventy-Eight million pounds Sterling – as the teleprinter would have said in case you thought it was a typo).

Wonder how much of that £78m turnover comes by way of a handout from EPL. Anyone know?

Just beggars belief that the Villas and (even more so) the Chelseas and the Man Citys lose so much money EVERY YEAR even with colossal EPL (and CL) handouts.

PS anyone see that Annan Athletic are offering debt counselling at their stadium? Nice one.

View Comment

Avatar

bogsdolloxPosted on1:47 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Carl31 says:
March 6, 2014 at 1:02 pm
=+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Or Lord D could look at the findings of facts and decide that as Poon suggested Ramsay applies especially since at least two of the witneses’s lack credibility as acknowledged by MG.

View Comment

Avatar

JimmyBeeJayPosted on1:52 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Hi all,

Sorry I don’t contribute much to the debate but I read this site daily. I have scoured the newspapers and there is still no sight of the Tax Court Case anywhere? Maybe I’m looking in the wrong places?
I did however come across this article in the Daily Record this morning, which rang bells very loudly with me!

“Referendum: Top economist says dumping our share of the UK debt could benefit an independent Scotland” Daily Record this morning.

Is this where the Ibrox Board are getting there plans? It is just so similar to what is going on in the Football World, I bring it to your attention. Sorry don’t know how to do the “linky thingy”, but if you can have a look, please do, and assure me that it’s just my Paranoia?

Re- the Tax Case, I am beginning to think that the media all know what the outcome will be! I am such a cynic! Why send reporters and pay them, no need!

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:54 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Carl

No H&M are not the end but a means as is each SPFL Board member, and if other supporters write in in numbers, so too are they.

The problem we have in bringing about change is that there is nowhere where the buck stops so all avenues have to be explored.

For the avoidance of doubt making the SPFL act to set aside a clearly flawed process that itself damages the integrity of football and so the leagues, is the aim.

View Comment

Avatar

secularfootballfanPosted on1:55 pm - Mar 6, 2014


JimBhoy says:
March 6, 2014 at 11:10 am
23 8 Rate This

Anyone read Michael Gannon’s piece in the record today… What a complete plonker! He did not read the Lawell piece that appeared in his newspaper he just read the headline it seems.

Apparently – Celtic should start putting something back in rather than take it out….They should throw in a few quid into decent facilities all over the country..!! I wonder what worth Celtic (and rangers for that matter) are to the local economy.

Really? How far off the pace are sports journalists in this wee country of ours.. Newspaper sales in rapid decline! I wonder why..
…………………………………

I have to whole heartedly disagree.
Celtic (and oldco) have asset stripped the League and plumped their own nests. Celtic talk of lack of competition but it is largely the result of starving the rest of the league over the last 20years. If Celtic truly wanted to help Scottish football they should start with changing to an equitable distribution of cash including league winnings and TV money. Only with these changes will competition come.

Of course Celtic are after a move to the EPL so none if the above will happen, sponsors are chased away from TV deals by threats of Celtic leaving and cycle continues.

The fact Aberdeen and the likes can attract 40k to the cup final shows that the fans are out there for the ‘diddies’ but most folk can see an unfair biased playing field.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on2:07 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Secularfootballfan

The money that should be distributed is the CL income.

I have not checked but did reconstruction not reduce Celtic’income and the TV deal is too small overall to make that much of a difference if divided up differently but £3or £4m CL money might.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on2:11 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Campbellsmoney

Yup the letter to them and HMRC will be as welcome as a fart in a space suit that will linger long if not exposed to fresh air.

View Comment

Avatar

secularfootballfanPosted on2:13 pm - Mar 6, 2014


“The money that should be distributed is the CL income.”

I would agree though probably harder to enforce. Proper leadership from the SFA could help as this should really be about investing in the league product, but there is a massive conflict of interest at the top.

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on2:14 pm - Mar 6, 2014


y4rmy says:

March 6, 2014 at 1:12 pm
As a shareholder, I also received a dividend: £4.32 as I recall. Not quite enough for a night out with Campbell Ogilvie.
===================================================================
Yarmy….£4.32 is just enough to buy a pint of my favourite Adnams’ Broadside and a bag of crisps in my favourite Essex howff…no Campbell Ogilvie though…

View Comment

Avatar

y4rmyPosted on2:15 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Regarding Norwich City

Did a quick skim read.
£78m turnover (up £4m odd).
Profit £500K (down from £13.5m)
“external debt” zero (reduced from £11+M)

Looks like they make a profit year on year (well 2 years anyway) and this year have decided to use that profit to clear the debt. Seems all well and good.

Norwich City (average crowds this season 26.7K) – turnover £78m (Seventy-Eight million pounds Sterling – as the teleprinter would have said in case you thought it was a typo).

Wonder how much of that £78m turnover comes by way of a handout from EPL. Anyone know?

Just beggars belief that the Villas and (even more so) the Chelseas and the Man Citys lose so much money EVERY YEAR even with colossal EPL (and CL) handouts.

Turnover breakdown:

Gate Receipts and Ticket Sales: 11.649m
Broadcasting (FA & League Income): 49.032m
Media: 0.335m
Catering: 4.513m (Come and eat at Delia’s!)
Commercial: 7.590m
UEFA Solidarity and Prize Money: 0.822m (Nope, no idea either)
Other Income: 0.792m

Group Turnover: 74.733m
Share of turnover in joint venture: 0.306m (this is the Holiday Inn attached to Carrow Road, I think)

Overall: 75.039m (which doesn’t quite agree with the Grauniad report, but I’m reading the Annual Report here)

The operating profit (excluding player trading) was 14.289m and player wage cost to turnover ratio was 39%.

The cleared “external” debt referred to was to the bank. There are internal debts to Delia and her husband, but these are interest-free loans of a few million made over a decade ago (and occasionally since), i.e. they were effectively gifts.

View Comment

stevensanph

stevensanphPosted on2:28 pm - Mar 6, 2014


For those of you interested in English Football finance, make sure you follow the Swiss Ramble. An excellent insight to football finance, especially in England and Spain.

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on2:43 pm - Mar 6, 2014


y4rmy says:
March 6, 2014 at 2:15 pm

Turnover breakdown:

Gate Receipts and Ticket Sales: 11.649m
Broadcasting (FA & League Income): 49.032m
Media: 0.335m
Catering: 4.513m (Come and eat at Delia’s!)
Commercial: 7.590m
UEFA Solidarity and Prize Money: 0.822m (Nope, no idea either)
Other Income: 0.792m

Group Turnover: 74.733m
=============
Thanks for that. So those are the figures for Norwich City. Something like 65% of total income comes from the TV deal. If that deal ever fails, then every club in the EPL is surely bust in a heartbeat. Please, Mr Lawell, stay away from the EPL madhouse!

View Comment

Avatar

iamacantPosted on2:50 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Manchester City are in September to go all out for Lionel Messi ‘s signature this summer, According to reports in Thursday’s The Confidential .

The newspaper Indicates That the forward has-been unsettled by a number of issues affecting, his performances – and claims That City, backed by billionaire owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan , are prepared to pay his 200-million-euro release clause .

That the Confidential says there are two chief motives for Messi’s willingness to leave Barcelona . The first is the criticism That the 26-year-old has received from his Reportedly Blaugrana team-mates, who ( Also According To The Confidential ) have Demanded Greater Both passion from him in matches and in training. The complaints are thought to Have Gone With the Argentine down badly.

The second cause of Messi’s unhappiness, the newspaper says, is his current tax situation With the Spanish Authorities and the media impact of the affair. Meanwhile, Messi is Also Understood to be Influenced by the possible departure of Gerardo ‘Tata’ Martino – the Barcelona coach Appears more and more likely not to REMAIN at the Camp Nou – in Addition to the more relaxed atmosphere in Manchester and the reduced pressure have would experience at City.

Along with Paris Saint-Germain , the Premier League outfit Reportedly Already have spoken to Messi’s father, who is aware of Both his son’s stance and That of Barcelona, ​​who plan to give the player a new contract extension.

http://as.com/diarioas/2014/03/06/english/1394115201_845166.html

EPL gone mad, bubble will burst soon 😉

View Comment

Avatar

tomtomPosted on3:04 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Re the EPL I have to disagree with those who think that the bubble will burst. The EPL income is not solely dependent on SKY, they (the EPL) also sell the games to the far east and the revenue from this is extremely high as well. Throw in the interest from the betting concerns and there will always be a market for it.

The only problem that could arise is if/when the “vanity owners” get bored and move their cash elsewhere but all that will do is bring the Chelski’s et al more into line with the rest of the league – it won’t destroy the EPL. In fact, it would probably make it a more attractive league in my opinion.

View Comment

Avatar

South0fThe BorderPosted on3:06 pm - Mar 6, 2014


neepheid says:
March 6, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Thanks for that. So those are the figures for Norwich City. Something like 65% of total income comes from the TV deal. If that deal ever fails, then every club in the EPL is surely bust in a heartbeat. Please, Mr Lawell, stay away from the EPL madhouse!
___________________________________________________

And if Norwich finish 11th again this season they’ll get £74m from the TV deal. The bottom club will get £63m!

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on3:09 pm - Mar 6, 2014


The days of Sky being at the very heart of the survival of the EPL are over now that BT are prepared to see their bid and increase it.

View Comment

Avatar

y4rmyPosted on3:12 pm - Mar 6, 2014


Thanks for that. So those are the figures for Norwich City. Something like 65% of total income comes from the TV deal. If that deal ever fails, then every club in the EPL is surely bust in a heartbeat. Please, Mr Lawell, stay away from the EPL madhouse!

And it will be even madder this year when you are guaranteed a minimum 63m:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/10072297/New-Premier-League-TV-deal-promises-100m-prize-money-for-next-seasons-title-winners.html

It makes me very uncomfortable. When ITV Digital went under, a number of clubs faced imminent insolvency and that was for something like 1-2m income lost per club. What happens when this lot comes crashing down is frightening to contemplate.

View Comment

Avatar

manandboyPosted on3:31 pm - Mar 6, 2014


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/michael-gannon-lets-hit-celtic-3212531

“Celtic are in for a feast while the rest of the clubs are starving to death. So go on then. If you’re serious about saving Scottish football do something.

Pump a few million into national academies and regional centres of excellence.
Throw a few quid into decent facilities all over the country.

Use your power for good rather then to trample the rest into dust.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In Tomorrow’s Daily Record,
Michael Gannon will put the case for Greggs sharing their profits
with every other high st baker and fast food outlet
all of whom are apparently struggling.

Michael says: “Greggs are in for a feast while the rest of the bakers and sandwich shops are starving to death.
So go on then Greggs. If you’re serious about saving the Scottish high st, do something.

Michael Gannon in this Saturday’s DR will say:
“Let’s get serious about saving Scottish Football.
Let’s hit the ‘Gers for 10 points for every £1000 they’ve stolen from the taxpayer.”

Just a few tips, Michael, since you’re just startin’.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on3:43 pm - Mar 6, 2014


<<>>>

I think the NCFC dividend was £4.38. I finally got Mrs TheCat NR1 to pay it into the bank yesterday.
That is a 4.5% fixed rate dividend on B preference shares for 13 months. The ordinary shares do
not produce a dividend.

The chief executive of NCFC (PLC) is David McNally, who was formerly sales & marketing director
at Celtic before heading to Fulham as MD. His predecessor as CE at Carrow Road will be well
known to TSFM readers, Mr Neil Doncaster.
It is fair to say that having spoken with Mr McNally, that Mr Doncaster is not held in high regard
by the current executive directors of NCFC PLC. Having been glad to see him leave East Anglia,
I was horrified to see him get the SPL gig. Plus ca change etc.

View Comment

Comments are closed.