Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?

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

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

Greenock JackPosted on10:07 am - Mar 7, 2014


Blu
My posts didn’t express or alude to an opinion on the matter itself.
Regards the SFA, I don’t believe any of those in positions of power should still be in the same job after recent years.

The term “conflict of interest” has appeared repeatedly but with blanket refusal to recognize it, eg. D&P.
Symptom of the general lack of accountability.

You mention RTC.
That blog did have an effect and how it came to do so is worthy of a debate in itself.
It also brings up the question of perceived and/or actual “conflict”.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on10:09 am - Mar 7, 2014


DK is gonna stay in Scotland until he gets what he wants and before that he is gonna visit “the institutions” in london… It’s a decent pub but a long way to go for a pint…! 😀

View Comment

bluPosted on10:17 am - Mar 7, 2014


Greenock Jack says:
March 7, 2014 at 9:45 am
0 2 i
Rate This

TW
The jist of what I was saying is based on my analysis of historical posts on the blog.
Regarding the correspondence that Auldheid sent to H&M, I think two issues come into play.
1. Professional expertise in relevent area.
2. Conflict of interest.
==============================================================
GJ, I can just about accept point 1 but I think you underplay the prospect of Auldheid’s approach making an impact as it increases pressure on all the key participants – the lawyers aren’t really the target, it’s those legally responsible for SPFL – it’s Board. It was surely such external pressure that influenced the decisions of the SPL and the SFL when dealing with the Rangers case in 2012. And it’s a valid concern Auldheid has – Campbell Ogilvie was at the centre of the two biggest club crises in Scottish football – and he’s still the President of the SFA! This one you really couldn’t make up.

On point 2 I don’t understand your use of the term ‘conflict of interest’. I think you’re suggesting revisionism to fit an agenda but I’ve not seen your evidence for that (apologies if I’ve misread you). Further on this, Campbell Ogilvie almost certainly has a conflict of interest in being head of an organisation that calls for inquiries into activities that he was a party to. He should have resigned, and, failing that should have been firmly pushed by the members of the SFA..

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:26 am - Mar 7, 2014


easyJambo says:
March 7, 2014 at 1:06 am
5 0 i
There is no new company involved so there is no TUPE requirement. FoH (Bidco-Ann Budge) will only be assuming ownership by dint of obtaining the majority shareholdings from Ukio and UBIG (approx. 80%). Heart of Midlothian PLC hasn’t needed reincarnation.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Absolutely right. No newco – no TUPE. (No need for TUPE as the employer remains the same legal entity as it always was.)

View Comment

bluPosted on10:40 am - Mar 7, 2014


Greenock Jack says:
March 7, 2014 at 10:07 am
Blu
My posts didn’t express or alude to an opinion on the matter itself.
The term “conflict of interest” has appeared repeatedly but with blanket refusal to recognize it, eg. D&P.
Symptom of the general lack of accountability.

You mention RTC.
That blog did have an effect and how it came to do so is worthy of a debate in itself.
It also brings up the question of perceived and/or actual “conflict”.
================================================================
GJ, agree with your comment re SFA officals and officers. The rest is a bit gnomic though – can you expand on your thoughts re. conflict of interest as it applies to D&P and RTC?

View Comment

iamacantPosted on10:44 am - Mar 7, 2014


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26479124

Obviously wasn’t a South African judge in this case

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on10:48 am - Mar 7, 2014


Manolito 9.40pm.

I’m assuming you are a new poster and have had a delay in your post, could some of our more clued up guys give me a verdict on said post.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on10:58 am - Mar 7, 2014


Blu

As the years go by in the Rangers saga, the term ‘conflict of interest’ seems to be the norm and perhaps would be more worthy of highlighting when perceived as absent. When I say saga, I’d include the effect of fans, of various colours. There really is a fascinating book to write and it would be best if whoever wrote it was truly objective.

Just as, if a completely objective and professional forum/blog could analyse it, there would present a more realistic chance of turning pressure into something more tangible.

Going back to the RTC blog, I think it was a lack of leadership (governing bodies) combined with an economic threat that allowed pressure to become genuine influence. Thereafter a momentum built as the question was asked at various levels. It stopped when those in positions of power weren’t held accountable for various failures over time.

As it stands today, the only language they understand is numeric and resides in balance sheets.

View Comment

NorthbhoyPosted on11:15 am - Mar 7, 2014


Great,…… John Clarke,
The information is fantastic and it looks as if Mr Thornhill is doing an impressive job in making a very complex disaggregation of a complex matter even more so, in such situations most of us return to principles and its telling when Mr Thornhill dismisses such areas as he does when he dismisses the principles of Sheriff Court Rules as if they are sorrowfully flawed !
‘Sheriff Court Rules.
But no analogy can be drawn between between obligations on a Court in an ordinary civil case, and the narrow area of tax appeals.’ Thornhill dismissing HMRC use of principles behind the rules of the Sheriff Court and by inference suggests that anything goes in tax tribunals ‘

So is it ok to cheat the ordinary working person not only in business but also in their pastimes !

Separately

‘The eighth alleged (error) is based on the DTE scheme, and the fact that Lord Justice Parker held that ordinarily ‘payment’ means actual payment of cash or equivalent.But this does not mean (something or other’ It is a non-point, my Lord.
Issue eight seems to be dealt with very swiftly and mumbled by a man who does not do mumbling, odd.

I find it vey difficult to follow so extremely well done John Clarke for following so well, c’mon the good guys .

Off to do some work.

View Comment

Alan PricePosted on11:25 am - Mar 7, 2014


Thornhill Q.C. for the defence…’the Majority say that it is the ‘Institution’ of theTrust itself, not the trustee, that is important.

The loans were loans, with real possibility of repayment. There was an enforceable legal structure.

The loans were TRULY loans’.
________________________________________

How can the ‘possibility’ of repayment define whether the loans were loans?

I can think of no lender who has loaned money to me over the years who didn’t make certain that a schedule for re-payment was included in the signed agreement.

No mention of ‘possible’ repayment. (like they didn’t care)

And as far as I’m aware, none of the loans HAVE been repaid to date.

I would appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than I could explain how this part of Thornhill’s argument can be taken seriously.

If it is, then its no wonder the law is often referred to as ‘an ass’. (from my point of view)

View Comment

exfallhoose2012Posted on11:56 am - Mar 7, 2014


Yes AP at 11.25 am, it is as simple as you have simply put it. I presume therefore that you are not a lawyer. If I steal from a shop, defraud the tax man, spend my clients’ money, use money put in to my care for personal gain ….. I could always claim that I was going to return what was stolen, make good my misdemeanors. At what point have I crossed the line? I presume that in a court, it would be my responsibility to prove my intention to make good my wrong doings. One law for the little people like you and I and another for WATP?

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on12:19 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Alan Price says:
March 7, 2014 at 11:25 am

How can the ‘possibility’ of repayment define whether the loans were loans?
——

It’s legalese, which is all about interpretation. If a sum of money changing hands is a payment, then there is no expectation whatsoever of it being given back (aside from under the Sale Of Goods Act and similar). For example, your salary at the end of the month.

If there is a “possibility” of repayment – and indeed a structure in place that would facilitate such repayment – then payment of that sum of money could reasonably be interpreted as a loan.

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on12:37 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Angus1983 says:
March 7, 2014 at 12:19 pm

It’s legalese, which is all about interpretation. If a sum of money changing hands is a payment, then there is no expectation whatsoever of it being given back (aside from under the Sale Of Goods Act and similar). For example, your salary at the end of the month.

If there is a “possibility” of repayment – and indeed a structure in place that would facilitate such repayment – then payment of that sum of money could reasonably be interpreted as a loan.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not only would there be a structure or arrangements in place to facilitate repayment but there would be a pre lending process involving an assessment of risk around the ability to repay, an interest rate, a repayment term, possible security etc. None of that existed, as pointed out by HMRC, the Trustees merely rubber stamped the “lending” and in some cases the players had the cash before the Trustees deliberated.

View Comment

bluPosted on12:52 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Greenock Jack says:
March 7, 2014 at 10:58 am
====================================================================
GJ, I’m not sure if you’re conflating different interests with conflicts of interest here. Hibs and St Johnstone fans and their clubs may have an interest because they may have lost out due to rule bending by a competitor who spent money it didn’t have while they played by the rules. Ogilvie was/is conflicted because he has an ‘interest’ in an MiH EBT and RFC player registrations and is head of the organisation responsible for launching an inquiry into the possible breaking of SFA rules by the same RFC.

I agree with you that a mistaken view that they were trying to look after the money completely skewed Regan and Doncaster’s responses and that things need to step up a level if there is to be a real sustainable impact on football governance. I think that Auldheid should be commended for trying to do his bit, not just at his club but also encouraging fans of other clubs to do the same. From reading your contributions on TSFM, it seems to me that you are extremely discontented with what’s happened at Ibrox – maybe you should join in?

Or we can all give up?

The completely objective forum isn’t going to happen – everyone supports their own team and has a level of bias. However, the level of contributions both on RTC and here on TSFM has more objective and fact-based than I’ve seen anywhere else (notwithstanding the clearly partisan comments that you regularly call). It’s also given a prominence to the issue of proper football governance that hasn’t coalesced anywhere else. Better to have that than simple give up, I say.

View Comment

Alan PricePosted on12:54 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Angus1983 says:
March 7, 2014 at 12:19 pm
______________________

Alan Price says:
March 7, 2014 at 11:25 am

How can the ‘possibility’ of repayment define whether the loans were loans?
___________________________________________

If there is a “possibility” of repayment – and indeed a structure in place that would facilitate such repayment – then payment of that sum of money could reasonably be interpreted as a loan.
_________________________________________________

Thanks for your reply Angus.

In that case there must surely be many examples of lenders willing to lend me money on the basis that I might pay the money back, rather than enforcing repayment.

I would be seriously interested if you could point me in the direction of such a lender, since the worry of repayment would be non-existent.

Rangers have not been repaid one penny of the so called loans, at no time tried to enforce repayment, even when in deep financial trouble and desperately in need of the momey, and of course since they no longer exist, (allegedly) that money will now never be paid back.

Legalese speakers aside, how can any reasonable person regard these payments as loans?

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on12:54 pm - Mar 7, 2014


i take it the fact that most of these players had CONTRACTS stating they would receive money for playing, appearances and bonus’s is completely irrelevant to the FTT/UTT

it’s quite simple, they had contracts. it wasn’t a loan.

FFS

View Comment

Bryce CurdyPosted on1:04 pm - Mar 7, 2014


ECHOBHOY 8:31 am & 8.56 am

Thanks for the replies. I agree with pretty much everything.

The Commission’s remit (paragraph [2]) was based around SPL rule G1.1 which covers all financial and contractual arrangements. Paragraph [10] details ‘Issues for Enquiry into and Determination by the Commission’. All of these issues concern failing to record EBT payments, playing ineligible players, and payments via third parties. There is absolutely no mention of tax arrangements.

My interpretation is that the Commission had to investigate registration and eligibility. The wider remit allowed them to ‘investigate’ whether EBT payments were regular, but they had no obligation and in my opinion would not have been criticised had they chosen not to do so. I agree that for all the reasons you state any ‘investigation’ would have echoed the verdict of the tax tribunural.

You were initially right, and if your main reason was a belief that the Commission would use their wider remit to look at the regularity of EBTs then not only were you right, but you were right for the right reasons, rather than mere hindsight. I was of the majority view that they wouldn’t and question their motivation for doing so.

Your comment about the SPL instructions leads me to another matter that troubles me. I believe I am correct in stating that this was presented as an adversarial exchange: oldco & newco vs the SPL. The desired outcomes are obvious from an oldco & newco perspective, but what was the desired outcome from an SPL perspective? One could argue that individual members and Celtic in particular might have had a desired verdict and penalty, but what outcome best suited the authorities and why?

Regarding McKenzie’s competence, does the buck not stop with him? Was he not in overall charge of the case preparation?

View Comment

Famous songPosted on1:06 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Slovan Brattisani.

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on1:08 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Alan Price says:
March 7, 2014 at 12:54 pm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Rangers were not the lender. The Sub-Trusts, into which Rangers made a contribution via an EBT, are the “lender”. Rangers gave the money away and there can be no suggestion of repayment to them.

View Comment

Bryce CurdyPosted on1:10 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Following on, Rangers conceded prior to the FTTT that tax was payable on the EBTs for 5 players (believed to be Prso, Novo, Bernard, Rodriguez and A N Other) and paid (it’s true, honestly) the PAYE in question. It follows on that the initial EBT payments were irregular. Why did LNS not distinguish these payments from those to others who the FTTT subsequent deemed legal? Irregular payments would mean a sporting advantage was gained and (by LNS logic) a sporting penalty should be applied.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on1:17 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Bryce Curdy says:
March 7, 2014 at 1:10 pm
2 0 Rate This

Following on, Rangers conceded prior to the FTTT that tax was payable on the EBTs for 5 players (believed to be Prso, Novo, Bernard, Rodriguez and A N Other) and paid (it’s true, honestly) the PAYE in question. It follows on that the initial EBT payments were irregular. Why did LNS not distinguish these payments from those to others who the FTTT subsequent deemed legal? Irregular payments would mean a sporting advantage was gained and (by LNS logic) a sporting penalty should be applied.

======================

RFC PLC was in liquidation by the time of the FTT and LNS verdicts, there is NO WAY that PAYE/NI on these 5 was paid.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on1:19 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
March 7, 2014 at 12:54 pm
1 0 i
Rate This

i take it the fact that most of these players had CONTRACTS stating they would receive money for playing, appearances and bonus’s is completely irrelevant to the FTT/UTT

it’s quite simple, they had contracts. it wasn’t a loan.

FFS

————————————————————————————————————————————————
1. Was the “lender” able to demand repayment?
2. At the time of making the “loan”, was the intention of the “lender” that no demand would ever be made and thus that no repayment ever be required?

I would suggest that is the answer to 1 is “yes”, then the law would generally say that that is a loan.

However if the answer to 2 is also “yes”, then I would suggest that even if the answer to 1 was “yes” then the law will say that is not a loan at all. It is a gift (or other contractual payment) dressed up to look like a loan.

But (and here is the evidentially difficult bit) intentions are not often written down. So the courts have to assess intention from the evidence available. Evidence such as side letters, dismissing “independent” trustees who ain’t doing what they are told, adjusting remuneration levels depending upon whether a loan is accepted or not, hiding documents …..etc etc etc etc.

But tax law has always seemed to me like a strange foreign country.

View Comment

Alan PricePosted on1:21 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Further to the loan or no loan debate. Just seen this on twitter.

Barcabhoy ‏@Barcabhoy1 10h
The minutes of the Rangers plc board meeting of 16/9/99 refer 3 times to remuneration package for Craig Moore via dos ebt. REMUNERATION !!!

View Comment

wottpiPosted on1:27 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Given he is apparently all for cutting costs is the any word of CEO Wallace making an immediate £75k saving by taking up the alleged alternative loan offer?

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on1:28 pm - Mar 7, 2014


bogsdollox says:
March 7, 2014 at 1:08 pm
Alan Price says:
March 7, 2014 at 12:54 pm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Rangers were not the lender. The Sub-Trusts, into which Rangers made a contribution via an EBT, are the “lender”. Rangers gave the money away and there can be no suggestion of repayment to them.
——————————————————————————————————

Which then leads to the bizarre scenario that should – I know, I know – anyone actually repay all or part of a loan where does the money go?

It can’t go back to Rangers.

Just another aspect that evidences the fact that these were remuneration vehicles.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Bryce CurdyPosted on1:30 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Returning to LNS paragraph [104], this very clearly implies that payments breaking tax laws also break footballing rules. It also states that the decision of ‘this commission’ would not be changed by any subsequent appeal. The Commission was not set up to investigate irregular (on the basis of their tax status) payments. In my opinion there is nothing in the LNS verdict to stop a separate investigation into irregular payments should the UTTT find in favour of HMRC. I’m not saying it would happen of course, just that it could. The Commission are simply stating that they have based some of their conclusions on the FTTT verdict and will not revisit in the event of a subsequent successful appeal. I remain of the opinion that these specific conclusions went beyond their Issues for Enquiry and Determination and question the motivation.

View Comment

Bryce CurdyPosted on1:33 pm - Mar 7, 2014


NtHM – Rangers conceded tax was due before either verdict, although you could still be correct that it remained unpaid. Not relevant either way to my main point.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on1:34 pm - Mar 7, 2014


redlichtie says:
March 7, 2014 at 1:28 pm
0 0 Rate This

bogsdollox says:
March 7, 2014 at 1:08 pm
Alan Price says:
March 7, 2014 at 12:54 pm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Rangers were not the lender. The Sub-Trusts, into which Rangers made a contribution via an EBT, are the “lender”. Rangers gave the money away and there can be no suggestion of repayment to them.
——————————————————————————————————

Which then leads to the bizarre scenario that should – I know, I know – anyone actually repay all or part of a loan where does the money go?

It can’t go back to Rangers.

Just another aspect that evidences the fact that these were remuneration vehicles.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

=================================

would it not be the case the loan goes back to the trust which can then be used for future loans? (if needed)

(if we are playing this hypothetical game – then thats my guess)

View Comment

wottpiPosted on1:34 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Re the UTTT we all know the EBTs looked like a duck, walked like a duck, and quacked like a duck. The problem with the law is that it gives good QCs such as Mr Thornhilll the opportunity the argue that they were in fact wooly mammoths and because the law sometimes has no regard for common sense judges end up having no other course than to agree with the ridiculous arguments!

View Comment

Alan PricePosted on1:34 pm - Mar 7, 2014


bogsdollox says:
March 7, 2014 at 1:08 pm

Rangers were not the lender. The Sub-Trusts, into which Rangers made a contribution via an EBT, are the “lender”.

Rangers gave the money away and there can be no suggestion of repayment to them.
__________________________________

My mistake.

I now understand the ‘loans’ couldn’t be paid back to Rangers.

This does not make any difference to the argument that the payments to players were not loans.

All that’s happened is that Rangers used a middle man to pay the ebts to players.

What other conclusion can you come to?

We have a club that was in dire financial trouble, and yet ‘gave away’ money they could scarcely afford to an ebt scheme for their players/employees.

Is it more reasonable to believe, in their cash strapped position, that they did this as a philanthropic gesture, or that they did it to obtain expensive players they otherwise could never have afforded?

From Barcabhoy ‏@Barcabhoy1 10h on twitter.

The minutes of the Rangers plc board meeting of 16/9/99 refer 3 times to remuneration package for Craig Moore via DOS and EBT. REMUNERATION !!!

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:41 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Of the 84 odd random people who applied to the trust that was completely unconnected to Rangers, unconnected other than them generously deciding to fund on an unmistakeably, unequivocolly non repayable basis, did any particular factor link these said random individuals? Previous/current employer perhaps? And within said link does any consistent factor link the level of the loan with the status of said link – perhaps length of service, level of service (appearances), position attained, honours earned, that kind of thing?

But none of this changes the fact that the monies paid were in an envelope marked “loan,” which is why Thornhill, to my inexperienced eye, seems particularly desperate to sustain that fundamental aspect of the debate, were they a loan or not?

Step back and ask how the trust were able to make the loan payments, especially given their apparent confidence in the loanee’s self responsibility to repay it.

Just a thought.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:24 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Bryce Curdy says:

March 7, 2014 at 1:10 pm

6

0

Rate Down

Following on, Rangers conceded prior to the FTTT that tax was payable on the EBTs for 5 players (believed to be Prso, Novo, Bernard, Rodriguez and A N Other) and paid (it’s true, honestly) the PAYE in question. It follows on that the initial EBT payments were irregular. Why did LNS not distinguish these payments from those to others who the FTTT subsequent deemed legal? Irregular payments would mean a sporting advantage was gained and (by LNS logic) a sporting penalty should be applied.
===============
This is precisely the point of the letter to H&M and SPFL.

Irregular payments are a different kettle of fish from regular payments and when LNS ruled he ruled that all ebts were “not irregular” when at least two most certainly were at his time of investigating and ruling..

He was able to get it wrong because the documents that would have told him he had irregular payments to consider were hidden from Harper MacLeod, who surely have a duty to report this to SPL whether instructed to or not? In a conversation something like this.

“By the way guv, remember that commission we set up for you?
“Sorry but it asked the wrong questions.”
“Yes we know what that means but you need to tell us what to do about it”.
“What? ”
” Yes we know it means the President of the SFA was disingenuous in his testimony but that is your problem ,but its not as if he lied to LNS is it? ”
” What do you mean look up disingenuous?”.
“Is that your instructions”
“Oh”
“Where exactly does the sun not shine?”

Meanwhile back at the SPL an imaginary conversation might have gone something like this
“Effin TSFM”
“Right. What did we agree on?”
“Whadya mean our discussions were rushed and done by telephone and e mail?”
“Who was absent?”
“What were the Chairmans concerns again?”
“Where is the statement we issued/”
“Whadya mean we issued no statement?”
“Did we not decide to delay until the UTT result came out?”
” Did we discuss that eventuality?”
” Does this DOS thingy mean LNS is unreliable as reason not to revisit the case?
” Somebody pop along the corridor and ask Campbell how it was supposed to go”

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on2:27 pm - Mar 7, 2014


I have sat by for years and watched all the EBT stuff being explained and debated on RTC and here.

To be honest I can’t claim to understand the minutiae of the debate. Like most very technical areas, to understand the finer points, you really need to have an extremely solid understanding of the basics, the intermediate level and the advanced higher before you get to understand what really goes on. It always seems to me that its a bit like debating superstring theory if all you have is Higher Maths (and have forgotten most of it).

Anyway – there is an insolvency point in here too. My (very simplistic) understanding of the position is that Oldco gave money to the Trust(s). The Trust(s) then “gave” or “lent” (depends if you are HMRC or Mr Thornhill) money to the beneficiaries (the players and others).

Given the insolvency of Oldco, it would be open to the liquidator of Oldco to look at those payments by Oldco to the Trust(s) and consider whether those payments were gratuitous alienations. It is not clear to me that they were anything other than gifts to the Trust(s) and so would look challengeable to me. However, in order to be challengeable under statute, the payments would have to have been made in the two years prior to the administration date (Feb 14 2012) or 5 years (if the Trust(s) are “connected” in terms of the Insolvency Act 1986 definition). I can look at that later if it is relevant.

Were any payments made into the Trust(s) after Feb 14, 2007 or does it all pre-date that? Some of you guys know this stuff inside out I know.

If payments were made after 14/2/07 (and if the trust(s)) are “connected” to Oldco, then the liquidator could sue the Trust for return of the cash. If the Trust cannot repay, then the liquidator could bankrupt the Trust and could then demand repayment of the “loans” from the beneficiaries. These scams….sorry….these schemes, only work if there is a friendly person running all bits of them. Stick in an insolvency practitioner and the whole pretence fails.

But I said my understanding was simplistic. I remember talk of sub-trusts and I don’t know where they fit in.

View Comment

TSFMPosted on2:37 pm - Mar 7, 2014


bogsdollox says:

March 7, 2014 at 1:08 pm

Alan Price says:
March 7, 2014 at 12:54 pm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Rangers were not the lender. The Sub-Trusts, into which Rangers made a contribution via an EBT, are the “lender”. Rangers gave the money away and there can be no suggestion of repayment to them.
__________________________________________________________________

Yes, but had the loans been repaid by the lendees, Rangers would have been able to apply for one themselves had they set up a sub-trust in their favour. Therefore the money would have been available to the club in times of hardship.

Or perhaps I am missing something here?

View Comment

manandboyPosted on2:58 pm - Mar 7, 2014


The UTT rests simply
on who you choose to believe –
the Emperor’s legal team,
or the child who speaks the obvious truth.

In this particular episode
Mr Thornhill is obviously the head of the Emperor’s legal team.

He is the legal assassin
hired to terminate
the taxpayers right and desire to obtain the tax due.

A lie cannot be made into the truth.
But the truth can be obscured by invented complexity.
Enter Mr Thornhill.

Let us hope the eminent Lord Doherty
allows the silt of Mr Thornhill’s complexity
to settle
thereby enabling him to see the truth clearly.

Just like Dr Poon did.

And the Lords Justice in the Aberdeen Asset Management case.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on3:05 pm - Mar 7, 2014


My understanding was that the primary reason HMRC forced Rangers into liquidation was to enable BDO to aggressively track down and return every penny it could, that definitely was to include taking EBT recipients to court.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:08 pm - Mar 7, 2014


TSFM says:
March 7, 2014 at 2:37 pm
…………………………..Rangers would have been able to apply for one themselves had they set up a sub-trust in their favour. Therefore the money would have been available to the club in times of hardship.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
…..and they could have used the money to buy (and pay the wages of ) better players than they could otherwise have afforded.
😈

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:15 pm - Mar 7, 2014


To support Auldheid’s great initiative I had emailed HM, SPFL and my own club, Celtic.
Didn’t expect anything, but fair play, Celtic did send a response yesterday.
=======================================================
[My email to Celtic Supporter Liaison Officer.]

“Subject: Lord Nimmo Smith Commission query submitted to Harper Macleod LLP.

Dear Mr. Taylor,

as a Celtic fan, and as a contributor and supporter of the ‘Scottish Football Monitor’ website, could you please confirm whether Celtic will be making any public statement on the above submitted letter, [and which was copied to Mr. Riley].

Yours sincerely,”

Reply

“Hi [StevieBC]
Thank you for your email, I’m not aware of any plans at present for the Club to make comment on the letter you refer to.
I’m sorry I can’t offer any more information on this matter at the moment.
Best regards
John Paul”

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:17 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Bawsman says:
March 7, 2014 at 3:05 pm
1 0 i
Rate This

My understanding was that the primary reason HMRC forced Rangers into liquidation was to enable BDO to aggressively track down and return every penny it could, that definitely was to include taking EBT recipients to court.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Maybe that, but certainly to allow a liquidator to pursue the former directors for things like wrongful trading. Without a liquidation – there would be no ability to chase for things like that.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:35 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Greenock Jack says:

March 7, 2014 at 9:45 am

Whether it has a chance of prospering is not just up to the honesty and integrity of the case presented but the honesty and integrity of those reading it.

When you see the documentation that contradicts the accepted narrative then the best that can be done is to present the narrative the documents suggest.

In the absence of professional journos willing to do that job (and they have the same documents) it is left to non professionals, but you do not have to be a professional lawyer or account or whatever to spot that information you are looking at was excluded from investigation.

The consequences of that are up to whoever reads the new narrative but at least its story gets told and to the audience most affected.

On the Turnbull Hutton post, not sure what was removed but it was aimed at the few Celtic supporters who held Celtic responsible for CO being elected. The same “no one would stand story” came from Celtic before but given the mistrust some folk had of that source I thought it helpful for them to know the same info was coming from a source they might be more inclined to believe.

The follow up question was legitimate, why does no one in football want to take an honest lead?

Is there the fear of what a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves might reveal so great, that perpetuating a lie is preferable?. (Step 4 btw)

Lets just get a bit of honesty going and we can all move on.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:41 pm - Mar 7, 2014


TSFM – since you asked

Regarding shareholder sights

Although this is not really my area, I would think that the position must be as follows.

The right of a shareholder in a company which is the owner or operator of a club which is a member of the SPFL/SFA to bring any sort of proceedings against SPFL/SFA for any breach by SPFL/SFA of their own rules or any “irregularity” must be as near as makes no difference nil. I say that for a number of reasons.

One can only really have a right of action against another party if (1) you have contractual relationships with that party (contract law); (2) if that party owes you a duty of care (the law of delict); or (3) if statute creates the right.

Now it will be obvious that shareholders in the various member companies do not have contractual relationships with the SPFL/SFA. But the companies do. So the law would take the view that the proper party to enforce any such contractual rights must be the company. The shareholders have their remedy in respect of the companies in which they are shareholders by attempting to make the companies enforce the rights that they have under contract with the SPFL/SFA. But the shareholders do not have direct rights against the SPFL/SFA. Clearly however a minority shareholder in a company has problems (as a matter of company law) in trying to force a company to do anything – (although it may be possible to shame them into doing it).

The law of delict is more complicated. You should think about this as “negligence” law. We all owe a duty of care not to harm our “neighbours”. The law of delict however brings into play concepts of remoteness and foreseeability. If the gate at the front of my house opens on to a pedestrian pavement and if my gate is made of metal, and it falls on a passer-by because I have not being taking care of it, then the passer-by could sue me under the law of delict because I owe a duty to my neighbours to ensure that such things do not happen. It is foreseeable that people will walk past my gate. It is foreseeable that if I do not maintain this gate that it might fall over and if it does, it is foreseeable that someone might get hurt. I can be sued for the loss that they suffer as a result of my negligence in failing to maintain the gate properly. However the amount they can sue me for is not unlimited.

If the injured person suffers a broken arm (it’s a heavy metal gate) and gets a brain infection (because as a result of cutting his head when he fell on the pavement, some brain infection bacteria got in the cut) he doesn’t get to sue me for £100m. Instead what he will get will be £3,000 or whatever for the broken leg. The brain infection is not foreseeable and is too remote.

Basically, the rule is that the proper person to sue for damage or loss to a company is the company itself (not its shareholders or anyone else).

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on3:46 pm - Mar 7, 2014


blu says:
March 7, 2014 at 12:52 pm
11 0 Rate This
=============================

It’s been mentioned before but worth repeating in light of what you say. One thing that helps keep the dodgy guys in power is disinformation. A great value of this site is the information, arguments and analysis. I’m not up to much at the latter myself but many’s the time what I’ve learned here has enabled me to counter some of the nonsense thrown out by the SMSM and enlighten some folk that have been at least in part taken in by it. If for nothing else that is of great value. Can we change things? Hard to say but if change is to come lies have to be killed and this is one place doing it at the moment. At the very least the bad guys may not be defeated but they won’t be fooling anyone.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on4:08 pm - Mar 7, 2014


For “Shareholders sights” please read “Shareholder rights”.

D’oh

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on4:17 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Celtic Underground ‏@celticrumours 1m
Alexander Easdale became registered security over Albion car park on 28/02/14. Signed ranking agreement on 3/3/14. What ripped up loan deal?
Expand

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:23 pm - Mar 7, 2014


coineanachantaighe says:
March 7, 2014 at 3:46 pm

Funnily enough thats a timely post coinen i..mat./// (sorry) 😳 I was halfway through a post that basically said that the coverage of the tax case (or lack of) has been a contributory factor to the continuing befuddlement. If you put the loan scenario to non TSFM’rs in simplistic terms I have no doubt they could follow it. They could then make a judgement as to perception of guilt, call it the OJ Simpson effect if you like. I deleted it as I came to the view that hang on, if the majority opinion was they were legal then is it fair on an entity to provide such critical focus? I’m still undecided (but suffice it to say I deleted the original post), but it has allowed us to get to where we are today. If Lord Doherty rejects the appeal there will be much reporting of the victory. However I don’t expect the victory to be described as a legal technicality vis a vis a loan, it will be that RFC were right to make remunerative payments to employees and pay no tax, and it is all of the rest of us tax paying mugs that are wrong! There’s a balance to be struck somewhere.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:23 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:

March 7, 2014 at 3:41 pm

That was very helpful . The difference with football in terms of power of the largest shareholder is that small shareholders tend to be the ones buying match tickets which has to be a consideration in any given situation.

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on4:43 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Sky Sports News ‏@SkySportsNews 11m
Exclusive interview with former Rangers chief executive Charles Green coming up from 5pm #SSN
Expand

Hope it is a long distance call from a fortified bunker. 😆

View Comment

Gee69Posted on4:50 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Dumbarton away for a night in Aberdeen before the match tomorrow. I don’t think it’s anything to do with respect for the dons. It’s big Colin Nish’s birthday today and they’ll be having a party. :mrgreen:

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:51 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Interesting timing! the shy tweet, not the Nish up!

View Comment

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on4:53 pm - Mar 7, 2014


nowoldandgrumpy says:
March 7, 2014 at 4:17 pm

I thought the loan that was potentially being renegotiated was the Laxey one, not Easedale’s

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on5:03 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Big Phil’s new blog is very very interesting.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on5:03 pm - Mar 7, 2014


sKy tweet, sKy tweet!!! I should avoid being Nished when posting on smart phone, that’s for sure!

View Comment

neepheidPosted on5:22 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Tic 6709 says:
March 7, 2014 at 5:03 pm
4 0 Rate This

Big Phil’s new blog is very very interesting.
=========================

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/expert-opinion/

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on5:24 pm - Mar 7, 2014


The EBT ‘loans’ were remuneration. They were structured as loans to for tax efficiency reasons.

The implication was that the loans would be repayable from the receiver’s estate upon their death. Quite a clever ruse if you consider the effects of inflation over a 75 year period. What could you have purchased with £1 in 1939 compared with now (apart from a football club obviously).

Murray Group are contesting HMRC’s UTT appeal. I think it was MG who put the money into the EBT trust. If this is correct then they are the people who might collect the repayments. Although RFC(IL) instructed the payments, I don’t think they put the money up directly so not sure BDO can pursue the loans.

What is interesting about the case is the way tax law is applied to corporations is quite differently as to how it would be applied to your average tax payer. It is difficult for the average tax payer not to see the EBT scheme as an obvious charade. However legalese can make the poignant obscure. Its a different world and one we are not intended to understand. Otherwise we’d all be employing tax efficiency methods and the exchequer would be even more indebted than it currently is.

View Comment

smallchangePosted on5:25 pm - Mar 7, 2014


I imagine the apparent lack of media interest, attendance etc. is because they have already been made aware of the most likely outcome through ‘MH’ channels. A truly Scottish institution ergo no one will dare find against them. Nothing to see there carry on cutting and pasting. Hmmm, Scottish institution now who was it…

I’m away tae the chippy where they’ll have SKY Sport on, McCoist delivers his weekly monologue, usually around 1725 local (Yorkshire time) never miss it. The only saving grace is that the sound is normally turned down. I think the Chinese boy that fries the fish’n chips enjoys it, at least he’s always laughing when McCoist is on.

Back to lurking – later.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on5:26 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Just back from today’s UTTT finale. As always, I will wait for JC’s superior note taking abilities to post on the UTT thread. In general terms, I thought Thornhill wasn’t at his best today with some bizarre arguments about net and gross payments. Thomson had a shocking start to his rebuttal, losing his thread completely at one point, but recovered pretty well in the afternoon session.

Lord Doherty said that it would take some time before a decision is made.

It seems that there are four options available to Lord Doherty,
Dismiss the appeal 😥
Allow the appeal :mrgreen:
Remit the case back to the “same” FTT tribunal with directions 🙁
Remit the case back to a “new” FTT tribunal with directions 😐

If it is to go back to the FTT, then understandably Murray Group want the same tribunal and HMRC was a new tribunal.

My gut feel is that it will go back to the FTT, but I don’t know whether it will end up with the oldco tribunal or a newco tribunal. Cost and time may well be factors in which option is taken.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on5:26 pm - Mar 7, 2014


With apologies to Phil for commenting here. So it seems he see’s two scenarios – liquidation under King (although I’m not quite sure how he (King) forces that – I think he may be mistaken in believing that an RFC doing poorly is an acceptable outcome for laxey), or administration under Laxey. King’s option requires Laxey to take a bath now on their investment. Laxey’s option requires them to do nothing (although a set of shutters might be an idea) but sit tight and keep those expensive spa trips to an absolute minimum.

I wonder how the McCoist wallace War chest discussion is going?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:40 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Tic 6709 says:
March 7, 2014 at 5:03 pm

Big Phil’s new blog is very very interesting.
================================
Always nice to read independent validation of what the Internet Bampots have been predicting / discussing for long enough – and typically whilst the SMSM continues to look away.

…and presumably this ‘top investment analyst’ is yet another ‘Rangers-hater’ ?! 🙄

View Comment

SmugasPosted on5:44 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Castofthousands @ 5.24

There’s the dilemma, right there! It is not about the loans. It should never have been about the loans.

RFC(IL) through MH put funds into trust. As Campbellsmoney says they could potentially be held up by BDO for trying to put money out of their reach but that’s another story. The funds in the Trust were put into sub trusts by the trustees on instruction from RFC(IL) for the benefit of certain individual’s spouse and offspring in the event of their death.

Stop there. Have a breath. So RFC(IL) had money. They put said money to the benefit of JBrown jnr and co. They did not declare said monies to the tax man. They did not declare said monies to the football authorities despite clear instruction to do so.

Stop there again. Have another breath. By this point you will have noticed two things. One – RFC(IL) are already, using nothing but common sense, liable for tax – why would they not be? Two. At no point have I mentioned the word loan yet. THE TAXABLE BIT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LOAN BIT.

Now, finally, the trust decides in its infinite wisdom….actually no, the trust just does what its told!. The Trust is told to loan funds set against the sub-trust fund, and physically funded by the sub-trust funds to J Brown et al. They can repay whenever, or shuffle off their mortal coil, its entirely up to them. In which case J Brown’s estate is due sub-trust money back (J Brown et al having spent it, it was their wages after all), and sub-trust is due J Brown jnr sub trust funds as promised. One cancels t’other out. Again, notice the loan bit is nothing to do with the taxable bit.

Sorry its been a long day! Off to get comfortably nished!

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on5:47 pm - Mar 7, 2014


StevieBC says:
March 7, 2014 at 3:15 pm

I received a reply from Mr Taylor too.

Good Morning

Thank you for your email, I completely understand the feelings that this matter has stirred amongst fans of all Football Clubs in Scotland.

I agree that these are extremely important issues which need to be addressed and the findings mad public, however I fear that you be under the impression that I am involved in this process. I have to clarify that I am not, my work at Celtic does not extend to this type of issue and whilst I will of course pass your email on to the appropriate persons I’m afraid that it will not be my decision as to what happens next.

I hope this helps clarify for you and hopefully we will all get a satisfactory outcome from all of this.

Best regards

John Paul

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:16 pm - Mar 7, 2014


justbecauseyoureparanoid says:
March 7, 2014 at 4:53 pm
1 0 Rate This

nowoldandgrumpy says:
March 7, 2014 at 4:17 pm

I thought the loan that was potentially being renegotiated was the Laxey one, not Easedale’s
——–

The PR department’s waffle worked. The part of the Ibrox public who get their news from headlines and wishful thinking may have been pacified until further notice.

‘Considering’ an alternative loan may have ended at the considering stage 🙂

Mind you, I read that the Union of Fans people have printed up 30,000 leaflets for distribution on Sunday. Respect for that.

View Comment

scottcPosted on6:28 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Castofthousands says:
March 7, 2014 at 5:24 pm

Murray Group are contesting HMRC’s UTT appeal. I think it was MG who put the money into the EBT trust. If this is correct then they are the people who might collect the repayments. Although RFC(IL) instructed the payments, I don’t think they put the money up directly so not sure BDO can pursue the loans.

Murray Group had an EBT scheme but Rangers paid the money for the players into their scheme. It was in the accounts remember.

View Comment

scottcPosted on6:30 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
March 7, 2014 at 6:16 pm
1 0 Rate This

justbecauseyoureparanoid says:
March 7, 2014 at 4:53 pm
1 0 Rate This

nowoldandgrumpy says:
March 7, 2014 at 4:17 pm

I thought the loan that was potentially being renegotiated was the Laxey one, not Easedale’s
——–

The PR department’s waffle worked. The part of the Ibrox public who get their news from headlines and wishful thinking may have been pacified until further notice.

‘Considering’ an alternative loan may have ended at the considering stage 🙂

Mind you, I read that the Union of Fans people have printed up 30,000 leaflets for distribution on Sunday. Respect for that.

To me it sounds like Sandy has decided the car park offers better security than the run down building

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:37 pm - Mar 7, 2014


scottc says: March 7, 2014 at 6:28 pm

Castofthousands says: March 7, 2014 at 5:24 pm
===================
Rangers contributions were as follows (in £000’s):
2001 1,010
2002 5,176
2003 6,791
2004 7,252
2005 7,241
2006 9,192
2007 4,988
2008 2,291
2009 2,360
2010 1,358
2011 347
Total 48,006

Other Murray group companies contributed:
2006 471
2007 1,886
2009 851
2010 191
Total 3,399

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on7:28 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Lots of chatter tonight discussing the purposes of the EBT scheme etc and how these payments were obviously liable for tax. I think an important point to remember in that regard is that the scheme was set up to avoid tax, which is perfectly legal. Evading tax is not, which is what Rangers are being charged with. The scheme was set up to avoid tax on payments which otherwise would have had a tax liability. Therefore the whole looks like a duck, quacks like a duck thing is kind of irrelevant. There’s no dispute that such payments would normally incur tax, and there’s no question that rangers took steps to avoid paying that tax. The only question being decided at the UTT is whether rangers dodged the tax legally or illegally.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on7:46 pm - Mar 7, 2014


RyanGosling says:
March 7, 2014 at 7:28 pm
Lots of chatter tonight…
_____________________________

Chatter: To talk rapidly, incessantly, and on trivial subjects;

Not in my opinion.

View Comment

Bryce CurdyPosted on7:51 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Ryan – TU from me ( your first). Everything you state is factually accurate.

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on7:52 pm - Mar 7, 2014


RyanGosling says:
March 7, 2014 at 7:28 pm
—-
There is the no small matter of the long awaited apology from Ibrox in relation to the consequences of their sharp business practices, legal or not. I do not believe that Lord, sorry Sir David Murray has apologised to his own supporters , never mind the rest of us.

Do you expect Sir David to speak up and apologise if / when Rangers are found guilty? Or do you expect the usual dross about following professional advice, washing of hands garbage that passes for business leadership nowadays …

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:53 pm - Mar 7, 2014


http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/266490-rangers-shareholder-loan-deal-to-be-repaid-using-season-ticket-money/

Interesting take on the Laxey/Easdale loans.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on7:58 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Castofthousands says:

March 7, 2014 at 5:24 pm
What is interesting about the case is the way tax law is applied to corporations is quite differently as to how it would be applied to your average tax payer. It is difficult for the average tax payer not to see the EBT scheme as an obvious charade. However legalese can make the poignant obscure. Its a different world and one we are not intended to understand. Otherwise we’d all be employing tax efficiency methods and the exchequer would be even more indebted than it currently is.
==========================================================================
COT..absolutely sot on…!

I use a version of these very words (all of one syllable and delivered in a Glasgow accent!) when confronted by my less than transparent clients, who approach me suggesting the latest nefarious scheme to avoid/evade tax.

Until our politicians have the “cojones” to reform the system, such nonsense and abuses will continue.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on8:02 pm - Mar 7, 2014


EKBhoy that’s actually a very interesting question. I can’t speak for others but personally I think an apology from Sir David Murray is long overdue. In that sense it doesn’t even matter the outcome of the UTT, the simple fact of the matter is that were it not for rangers, under Murray’s guidance, aggressively pursuing these tax dodging endeavours, rangers would not have been liquidated. So I’d love to see him apologise for that, however qualified by the “taking professional advice” line. Do I think it’s going to happen? Rhetorical. We all know the answer to that.

P.s. Thanks Bryce.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on8:05 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Ambiguous post by me at 7.46pm.

I didn’t find any of the discussion on EBTs trivial. I find them informative.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on8:06 pm - Mar 7, 2014


easyJambo says:
March 7, 2014 at 6:37 pm

“Rangers contributions were as follows (in £000′s):”
———————————-
Thanks EJ and Scott C. My understanding is obviously erroneous.

Help me out.

The FTT/UTT concerns RFC(IL)?

Is it just RFC(IL) or all of Murray Group concerns?

If just RFC(IL), what is the logic of MG involvement?

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:08 pm - Mar 7, 2014


scottc says:

March 7, 2014 at 6:28 pm

…… It was in the accounts remember……
============================================================================
Scottc…you are correct when you say that …”…it was in the accounts…”.
However, it was included, buried amongst the “Notes to the Accounts” as a statement of amounts paid, net of tax, effectively and ultimately, to offshore trusts.
No attempt was made to quantify the effect, if any, should HMRC challenge any of these offshore arrangements. Even when HMRC did challenge these arrangements, by raising substantial tax assessments, RFC(IL) made absolutely no provision in the accounts for those years in question, for any such recovery of unpaid taxes by HMRC….in fact Mr Cardigan continued to spend the largesse of MIH and BoS (courtesy of Murray (D) and Masterton) with total disregard to reality.
….and so it came to pass…!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:10 pm - Mar 7, 2014


Bryce Curdy says:
March 7, 2014 at 1:04 pm

ECHOBHOY 8:31 am & 8.56 am

Regarding McKenzie’s competence, does the buck not stop with him? Was he not in overall charge of the case preparation?
—————————————————
BTW the name is ecobhoy and not ECHOBOY!

No – SPL were the client and they were in charge of the case which they wished to present. They are the experts on football and the rule books which apply and they should have been overseeing every step of the case and the evidence to be presented and obviously continually discussing the legal implications with H&M.

There was either a total failure to exercise control and give direction in the case by the SPL because they are just crap at their job or they failed to exercise control and didn’t give the necessary direction, which I believe is what happened, to achieve their desired result.

The resulting shambles cannot be blamed on the legal team if my supposition is correct and I don’t believe for a minute that the fault lies with the lawyers or Rod McKenzie but with the SPL and the SFA.

Even if HM were useless and presented a sh*te case why did no one at the SPL spot the problem – this was a major issue for them and it beggars belief to think they weren’t totally involved adn on top of things and if they weren’t why weren’t they?

I think I have erred peviously in blaming the legal side too much when the actual final responsibility, I now believe, lies within the connecting corridors of power at Hampden.

View Comment

Comments are closed.