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
TSFM says:
Rate This
‘..does the judge seem reluctant to rule, preferring to refer back to FTTT?’
————-
I think he thinks he has a real problem , caused by the fact that the First Tier saw and heard the witnesses first hand, and at least implicitly,by their decision, seem to have regarded it as irrelevant whether they were credible.
I think he would like to send it back to the same tribunal if he could, with directions about what things they should establish as facts, and the proper interpretation of case law. But ( and that’s what the discussion on Rules 34 and 41 seemed to be about) it looks as though he can’t do that!
I think there’s an awareness that whatever he does, there will be a further appeal-unlesss he’s really brilliant!
Campbellsmoney says:
March 3, 2014 at 7:08 pm
12 0 Rate This
Smugas says:
March 3, 2014 at 5:40 pm
3 0 i
Rate This
Campbellsmoney
Re Ibrox, even if at or above market value? They’ve the best part of 26m to play with remember.
Re secured assets, yes but it keeps them out of, or at least ring fenced from the club for a quid deal I described earlier.
It’s all about lines in the sand just now and I get the feeling king doesn’t like where they are at present hence upping the ante.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Yes – even if it is transferred at above market value. Let’s say Ibrox has a market value of £10m. Let’s say the debt due to RIFC is £20m. Let’s say the transfer is for a write off of £20m (and so is above market value). Its still a preference.
Remember unfair preference is a quite separate issue from gratuitous alienation (which does deal with the value/consideration side of things).
The reason the law doesn’t like such things and strikes at them is because –
Imagine a situation where TRFC has only one asset (Ibrox – value £10m) and has two creditors – HMRC (owed £3m) and RIFC (owed £20m).
On the insolvency HMRC should get 3/23 x £10m. RIFC should get 20/23 x £10m. If the asset transfer and write off happens, HMRC get £0. So its a “con” on HMRC even though the write off happens at in excess of market value and. RIFC on the other hand get £10m.
————————-
Sorry smugas I don’t understand your question
————/————-
Sorry campbellsmoney, got sidetracked plus on smartphone which is doing my head in! Conscious I was throwing a lot of speculative ‘stuff’ around.
My point, badly put, was that in this case there is no HMRC debt as in your preference example. We assume that RIFC bring about the administration so they’re not going to argue about them having the assets as fair surely? The players? Not if they want to stay on the gravy train. Any other creditor, perhaps on some ‘doing the right thing’ vibe? The value would be small, just buy them off!
General Tilly says:
March 3, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Here is an earlier post from CQN on the same subject regarding what the evidence in the Annexes shows
Campbell Ogilvie’s signature only appears on the letter to an off shore trust authorising it to give Craig Moore shares under a Discount Option Scheme.
There was no side letter uncovered but it is not known if the payment Moore received was notified to SFA.
If it was Ogilvie could claim innocence of misregistration and mispayment as HMRC did not pursue back tax on Moore.
However Ogilvie was general secretary on the remuneration Committee that approved the payment to Moore and embarked on ebts as official employee remuneration policy.
That decision would depend on advice on the operation of the scheme which needed to be followed to make it work. That meant no side letters but within 11 months De Boer was signed using an undisclosed side letter as was Flo 3 months later but Ogilvie did not sign them.
He must though having been present at Rangers when they switched from DOS ebts of the wee tax case to ebts of the big tax case of which he was a beneficiary.
However at no time in his public utterances to the media or in testmony to LNS did he make a distinction.
By the time of those statements in 2012 the wee tax case was public knowledge and knowing the genesis of the DOS ebts it is stretching it to believe CO did not know the DOS ebts payments were irregular, otherwise there would have been no wee tax bill, but he never mentioned anything in his LNS testimony and was able to avoid mentioning because the HMRC letter evidence of Feb 2011 and De Boer letter of 30 Aug 2000 were not availble for LNS to examine and the date of The LNS Commission 23 Nov 2000 excluded the need to refer to or right to question anything before then .
The devil is in the detail and CO might have answers but he has to be questioned first.
Problem is no one wants to ask for fear of the answers which suggests something to hide.
John
I had thought this could only be proceeded on within disputes of law being in default at the first (FTT)case.?
Has the appeal judge introduced something that’s changed that?
TSFM says:
March 3, 2014 at 9:53 pm
2
0
Rate This
John C
Read my earlier comment – it’s all there 🙂
_____________________________
Well recovered TSFM.
Don’t supposed you chanced upon any TRFC accounts while you were down there rescuing JCs UTT post from out of cyber-oblivion, by any chance? 😀
Or could you just not reach down that far?
Well yes where are they?
And what’s the penalty for not filing them?
Smugas why bother with an insolvency then?
re: Campbell Ogilvie.
As is the normal situation in these cases, if there has been any accusations or suspicions of wrongdoings, all parties must stand aside while investigations take place. Commonly referred to as gardening leave.
This situation must be carried out in order for fairness to work both ways. If CO was then proved innocent of all accusations, then he returns to his post with his head held high. To leave him there while the excrement is flying at the fan, not only leaves accusations of favouritism but also gives credence to some sort of rogue element at work.
This should never even have got anywhere the situation the governing bodies find themselves in. If CO had been found to be in receipt of an EBT, then tata for the foreseeable future should never have even been in dispute.
SPFA = Not fit for purpose. To a man, they should clear their desks as soon as their replacements can be found.
Campbellsmoney
To quote the wonderfully titled Mr Bogle
“I ask myself the same question”
O/T Edit: any young uns choosing to research this point could I point you towards the Liam Clancy version
Excellent work again, JC.
Can’t explain why, but even before MG’s man starts, I’m getting nervous about the result.
Going by the report, I have an impression that the judge is not legally competent to hear the case I.e., he appears to need a lot of the stuff explained to him, which suggests that he is not up to speed on Tax Law.
I worry about how an eloquent tax competent lawyer could lead him to a specific conclusion.
Why was the Bishopp replaced?
john clarke says:
March 3, 2014 at 10:14 pm
“I wonder has anyone got that captured?”
————————–
This may be the same as ianagain’s except in a different format.
scribd.com/doc/149505482/FTTT-29-October-2010
ianagain says:
March 3, 2014 at 10:58 pm
‘..Has the appeal judge introduced something that’s changed that?’
————
I don’t think so.ianagain.But that’s a bit beyond my pay-grade! 😀
But it’s interesting that the judge was looking for precedent ( and not getting any) in the matter of an Upper Tier making findings of fact , as opposed to sending back to the Tribunal of first instance to make findings of fact that they ought to have made in disputed matters, As Mr T said, he has the legal power.But who wants to be first, and see your decision being appealed to the Court of Session?
.
john clarke says:
March 3, 2014 at 10:14 pm
“I wonder has anyone got that captured?”
————————–
This may be the same as ianagain’s except in a different format.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149505482/FTTT-29-October-2010
ThomTheThim says:
March 3, 2014 at 11:30 pm
‘…Why was the Bishopp replaced?’
———
I asked Thornhill about that ( he’s a very approachable guy) . It never was the case that Bishopp would be the judge, apparently. All he did was to determine, as an UTTT judge, the basis on which the hearing would be conducted and issue directions thereon. I think I assumed that it would follow that it was’ his’
case. But it seems he was merely attending to the ‘mechanics’ of organisational procedure.
When the time frame that he had decided on was changed, he was maybe freed up to take another longer case, and Lord Doherty might have been the only one free for a two- week gig.
Like other employees, our Judges are not in complete charge of their diaries, but have to be ‘managed’ with a view to efficiency and effectiveness! 😀 .
davythelotion says:
March 3, 2014 at 8:46 pm
“Did sevco by the Albion/edminston or did chuck? ”
————————
RIFC (Chuck at the time).
“· Acquisition of the Albion car park and Edmiston House for future ventures to enhance match day experience in January 2013”
Above is an extract from RIFC interim results :
http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/296
ThomTheThim says:
March 3, 2014 at 11:30 pm
‘.. I have an impression that the judge is not legally competent to hear the case I.e., he appears to need a lot of the stuff explained to him, ‘
————
That may be down to the way I report, ThomtheThim !
The judge’s questions to date have been really either to make sure that he has correctly understood what counsel is getting at, or to ask him to cite the case, report, evidence page, statement or whatever, that counsel says support his argument.He’s not actually looking for help with what the law says, but with why counsel thinks it says something that supports his argument.
John Clarke at the UTT
———————————-
This phrase caught my eye.
“Your Lordship has the power to do it, to make your own findings of fact.
[Lord D: can you point me to any case where this has been done?]
No, m’lud. We are in uncharted territory.But you do have the power.”
If I was paranoid I’d suspect his Lordship was navigating in waters he found a tad treacherous. Given that he has already been cited in the SMSM concerning alleged ulterior motivations, will he really have the confidence to make the findings that many feel are inescapable. As you reports convey, Mr. Thomson’s thrust comes from many angles and has his Lordship scrabbling about for documents. Mr. Thornhill’s dulcet tones may be all that are required to lull him into a completely believable state of apathy.
Thanks for your sterling efforts.
TSFM says:
March 3, 2014 at 10:18 pm
The rest of us used our fingers to phone!
Many thanks to John Clarke for his amazing diligence in providing such a comprehensive report on the Rangers Tax Case Appeal Appeal. (:-0)
I can’t wait to hear Mr Thornhill, as all indications are that he’s a very clever man.
Bottom line is that this doesn’t really matter as much as some people think it does.
The company (and club) it refers to is in liquidation and, therefore, to all intents and purposes dead.
We now await the final fate of its successor, trapped as it is in the grip of spivs and fraudsters.
Following on from Aulheid’s letter and after having a look through the annexes I find I have some confusion over the whole LNS thing. I know this has been done to death at the time but I am revisiting this in my own head and the following points come to mind:
• What was the official stated purpose of the LNS tribunal?
• Was this not to investigate if SPL/SFA rules had been breached by Rangers?
• If so, what were the stated reason for the need for a special tribunal?
• What records exist of what actually happened and what evidence was submitted?
• Given that we ended up with LNS what was all this guff about “no sporting advantage” being gained? Who asked LNS to pontificate on whether there was any advantage, sporting or otherwise gained?
• If LNS was only to decide if rules were broken or not then surely it should have ended there? If it was found that rules were indeed broken then my understanding is that there were already clear sanctions in place to deal with these transgressions? Why the need for LNS to offer up mitigating statements of “no sporting advantage” – which quite clearly from SFA precedent is neither here nor there in deciding punishment as prescribed by the rules (Spartans and the form filling debacle as one example).
When LNS was first announced what did it say about the power to decide punishment?
What an absolute stitch up…the whole thing stinks.
EDIT – where can I find the full 42 page LNS judgement report?
Campbell, maybe I’m just a horrible person (and should have been a spiv!) but I’ve been carefully following your posts re: preferential treatment of creditors (versus gratuitous alienation) and the above just clicked what seems, to my layman’s mind, a viable way around the problem.
Now, without accounts to look under the hood at TRFC I’ll just make up some numbers.
Let’s imagine a scenario where TRFC currently owe RIFC ~£20mil and the rest of their creditors (in the event of administration for the trading subsidiary) ~£2mil. Nice round numbers to keep this simple.
What if RIFC, as owners, put TRFC into administration with a deal already worked out with the chosen administrators to BUY the heritable assets for say £20.5mil*. Call it a “pre-pack” or not, the point is that this would all be decided BEFORE announcing admin with the paperwork all readied.
The £20.5mil cash is used to fund the administration. Administrators take half a mil for their troubles off the top and get on with the business of re-structuring the operating company.
RIFC, in their role as a creditor gets back 10/11ths, of the remaining £20mil = £18.2mil.
Other creditors get offered a CVA at 91 pence-in-the-pound and the remaining £1.8mil gets split among them. (I believe it’s been mentioned by you or others that 50% of non-related parties would have to approve a deal in addition to 75% of the overall creditors.)
No assets gratuitously alientated. No creditors unfairly preferenced. Legally challengeable by the other creditors? You tell me! Unless there’s another party willing to offer more for the assets it’s hard for me to see why it wouldn’t pass muster.
Play around with the figures all you want to too. Maybe they (finally) sell some players and raise a bit of cash that way to sweeten the pot (and trim the loss RIFC is taking). It explains why there’s been so little interest in cutting costs or shedding potential assets BEFORE admin: every extra bit of debt to RIFC, “paper” debt in particular, means LESS of a loss in the CVA becaue they’d have a greater share of the debt and anything that can be sold during admin increases what they get paid back.
Now, before anyone gets there: yes, this takes RIFC having access to the cash – at least temporarily – to purchase the assets they want as part of the CVA. But surely they could, LBC notwithstanding, raise the finance somewhere on some sort of short term deal. Maybe they’ve worked out the numbers so that they only need about £1.5mil to cover the difference between what they’ll “pay” TRFC and what they’d be paid back?
I’m not an expert. What have I got wrong?
*More than double what Chuck paid for the whole lot, no?
I was told yesterday that the admin event will happen on 23 march … !
That’s all folks
Sunday … Strange but True ?
John Clarke at the UTTT.
Sterling stuff John.(and others) I’m sure will all look back on your contribution as invaluable,not only to TSFM,but to our national game in general.
If you were to take stock now,albeit early days,what are your feelings,instincts of the UTTT so far?
Reading an interview with Fergus McCann in today’s Herald. He avoids direct criticism of Rangers but makes it clear the short term approach never works in football. Interestingly he reveals the SFA blocked funding from the Football Trust going into the redevelopment of Celtic Park. I wonder if any other Scottish Clubs were allowed it?
helpmaboab says:
March 4, 2014 at 6:55 am
‘..,what are your feelings,instincts of the UTTT so far?’
——————-
I’m not sure. It’s like being one nil up in the dying seconds,with a penalty awarded to the opposition – hoping and willing that the keeper will save but fearing that he might not!
John Clarke at 7:51am
Nice analogy John.Late penalties eh?who would’ve thunk it.
redlichtie says:
March 3, 2014 at 9:49 pm
Red Lichtie, you can’t look for something that doesn’t exist. There are no TRFC accounts, not for public consumption anyway. The results will just be folded into the pre-pack in whatever form it takes.
Scotland needs a strong Registrar of Companies
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
Company No. SC425159
Accounting Reference Date: 30/06
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 28/02/2014 OVERDUE
Really strange that no-one in the media has mentioned the ‘audited accounts’ 😉
I am still here lads… observing from the background while I can. May soon be the ex-SaintinAsia as looking seriously at an opportunity back in sunny scotland! Time for the sake of the kids to come back to civilization!
But yes, I do recall saying last week of Feb. Of course they weren’t meant to get a 1.5m loan from anywhere – that has messed up my calculations.
I still feel sale/leaseback is the end game. Maybe DK will be the decider in this. His push for a season ticket boycott will give the spivs the reason to commercially justify the sale as the only way to keep the ‘club’ afloat. Once that is done it can be passed off to the Rangers men/fans. The problem is, and its something RTC touched on before, if multiple fan groups try and stake their claim.
slimshady61 says:
March 4, 2014 at 8:53 am
2
0
Rate This
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
Company No. SC425159
Accounting Reference Date: 30/06
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 28/02/2014 OVERDUE
==========================================================================
May I beg the time from all contributors to this glorious blog and repeat and repeat and repeat what Slimshady61 alluded to over a month ago…and that there will never be any accounts filed for SC425159, aka The Rangers Football Club. This is part of the overall plan by the Spivs for their own plans, whatever they may be.
Companies House will issue a series of “Striking Off” notices, which in themselves are a tad embarrassing for such a company, but do not necessarily need to prove terminal. ( I have two client companies well in arrears of filing but with some “sweet-talking to the nice lady” at Companies House, both are still trading!)
I have however, to plead more than a little ignorance re audited accounts for licencing purposes, but since when did that prove more than a minor obstacle in the past?
Brenda.The media would sooner report on Sasquatch,The Flying Dutchman,or The Abominable Snowman than audited accounts.
ianagain says:
March 3, 2014 at 11:10 pm
5 0 Rate This
Well yes where are they?
And what’s the penalty for not filing them?
——————-
Here you are ianagain
http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/companiesAct/ca_lateFilingPenalties.shtml
A mere £150 for up to 1 month up to £1500 for more than 6 months. Even cash strapped The Rangers should be able to afford that!
Canuck Bhoy
My sentiments exactly. In one possible scenario, if you take your example and assume the payment is 99p in the £ then the financial implications are relatively minor. Football wise it is easy to see a scenario where 25pts would have cost them promotion so 15 love to the spivs. Ah says king I’m no buying (literally) without the assets (and I’m tempted to add “as I was originally promised.”). Plus ally amazingly has come up with the goods. Me no buy, fans no buy! 15-all.
Fine say the spivs, we’ll defer admin to close season getting you a points deduction NEXT year.
30-15. Balls in king’s court.
Apologies to CM and others for the gross simplification of a very serious subject. Don’t believe its that far off the truth to be honest.
Slim
Do you discount the possibility that the TRFC accounts will be filed at the same time as the RIFC interims? This could spread focus with any headlines being generated by the RIFC numbers.
Can a playing licence be issued to a clumpany who have not produced audited accounts? And can our esteemed msm please ask mr Wallace where these audited accounts are? I know he has had a lot on his mind but he is allegedly so good at his job that something must be wrong. No??
I have read JCs amazing reports several times. I fear, as others have expressed, that this is heading for a ‘Not Proven’, case dismisssed, verdict, that is, that Hector’s people have not gathered enough admissable evidence to prove wrong doing. I suspect that the judge will not recall witnesses (Does he have the power to do so or must he, like LNS, judge on the evidence gather at the FTTT? – opinion from legal person, please). His comment to Hector’s man on what seemed to be a key point, ‘This doesn’t help me’, sounded ominous. Another post suggested that the impressioned gained was that the judge did not want to rule, my impression too – that also sounded ominous. I am dismayed that obvious cheating and lying to the Tax man can go unpunished – at a simplistic level, on one single issue, loans that are not repaid, where there is no mechanism for the loans to be repaid, are in lay terms, not loans. Sadly simple common sense does not apply – arguments about the meanings of legal jargon carry more weight. Back to the debating society at school!
Two years ago I gave one of my son’s a large loan to pay an inexpected tax bill. Hector demanded a letter from me confirming the loan … but not a confirmation that it had been repaid (which it was).
I see Rangers chairman David Somers has ‘ordered’ a showdown with Dave King.
Although Rangers love all things military I wasn’t aware they considered themselves part of our armed forces establishment.
‘General’ Somers tone indicates he expects lance-corporal King to jump to it, but will King really march at the double along Edmiston Drive for a court martial?
Or decide to go AWOL…
Translates as
RFC Press Office: (their caps) “AS THE CEO (OF RIFC Plc) HAS SAID MANY TIMES THIS BUSINESS (being RIFC Plc) IS NOT GOING INTO ADMINISTRATION”
CanuckBhoy and Smugas – (much against my better nature as an anti-spiv) I like where you are going with that. I will post later with further thoughts and some difficulties and I might even suggest some thoughts on how to improve on the basic model.
Its not easy to navigate a path through this because normally when acting in an advisory capacity, you know who you are advising and what they want to achieve through the process. Here it is guesswork as to what “the client” really wants. In your scenarios, you are starting from the position that the end point is to get the properties into RIFC. Fair enough. Let’s run that through the computer and see what we come up with.
Eh…..just one thought. Should we actually be telling them how to do this stuff?
JC
You will need a holiday after this!
Given the first verdict , it is still 50 / 50 in my book.
What is obvious to the layman, a clear case of taxable income, in the hands of tax lawyers becomes fairy dust bestowed through unseen ways.
Lesson for everyone, keep your nose clean , stay out of court , it is a lottery!
May I add my thanks to John Clarke for last nights report from the court. Like many here my trepidation is mounting that they are going to get off with it again but hopefully Lord Doherty can see the merits of HMRC’s case through the boredom of the presentation, and not get carried by the defence counsel’s far better oration. Still, they’ve (RFC) dodged so many point blank shots that one has to hit home eventually… I hope!
peterjung says:
March 4, 2014 at 1:56 am
“where can I find the full 42 page LNS judgement report?”
—————————————-
Decision :
http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/commission-decision-28-02-2013.pdf
Reasons for decisions :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143094729/SPL-Commission-Reasons-for-Decision-of-12-September-2012
I’ve only glanced through this documentation and can offer only a limited precis. Even ecobhoy’s stalwart admonitions could not encourage me to scour its details. Whether through laziness or jaundice, I did not wish to dignify the decision with my own recognition of it. I thought at the time ecobhoy was a bit wrapped up in the detail and failed to see the big picture as a result.
From memory, the tribunal was constituted to look into the affairs of irregularities in a large number of Rangers players contracts over a substantial period of time. This of course concerned the issuance of side letters to offer comfort with respect to the Employee Benefit Trust payments; side letters that were never registered with the SFA as being part of the players contracts.
The precise terms of reference of the tribunal were discussed at a pre-enquiry stage and these details I am unable to advise. The intent was indeed to assess what level, if any, of rule breech had been incurred by the apparent omissions in the players contracts.
The reasons for the tribunal are most obviously that the existence of these side letters became known. I think the small tax case may have been an impetus for this information coming forward. Mark Daly of the BBC also had a documentary where he paraded a whole series of documents, including side letters, that may have forced the issue.
The judgement and decisions do provide a reasonable record of the submissions and proceedings. However it was what was not said and submitted that is equally interesting. Rangers were a little reticent in providing documentation, for obvious reasons I suspect. The tribunal did not seem to grasp the relevance of the wee tax case (Discount Options Scheme that preceded EBT’s) and seemed to ignore the complexion this placed upon Rangers actions. The SPL legal representative, Rod McKenzie, in some peoples opinions, also failed to pursue substantive matters that would have led to more grievous findings. I personally could see an obvious conflict of interest in play. The SFA president, Campbell Ogilvie had benefited to the tune of over £100,000 pounds from the Rangers EBT scheme (what a night out that was). Although I think the enquiry was SPL driven, SFA was the appellant body (I’m making this up as I go along so happy to receive corrections), so they had an interest in the outcome. Mr. McKenzie’s firm I believe routinely act on behalf of the SFA so the whole process did not appear to be arms length. It was a sporting inquiry and the expertise of legal clarity seemed to allude many of the participant parties.
Auldheid’s letter to Harper McLeod attempts to flag up the anomalies concerning the earlier (DOS) and later (EBT) schemes.
I think the ‘no sporting advantage’ mantra resulted from the necessity of LNS to reach some kind of verdict. He side stepped the EBT’s by stating that such a scheme was open for any other football club to use. We are not so far aware that any Scottish football club did avail themselves of this opportunity except Celtic. Celtic had one player payed by EBT. When Brian Quinn took up residency on the Celtic board I understand he terminated this arrangement and paid the calculated outstanding tax. Since Rangers had not and may not for some time, have been found to have acted illegally in the use of EBT’s, LNS felt this sufficient reason to avoid the whole subject and coin his mantra to punctuate the discussion. The failure of Rod McKenzie to highlight the DOS scheme, which had been found against, as an example where unfair sporting advantage was gained was I suppose just one of those human failings that we are all subject to from time to time.
I think this case was unprecedented. If there had been another instance in the 140 years or so of Scottish football history where a team over an extended period and on numerous occasions failed to fully register the benefits accrued by members of its playing staff, then I have not heard about it. Since DOS had been ignored and EBT’s side stepped, then the only point of contention was the mis-registration of players contracts. From what I recall of the judgement, mis-registration was indeed found to have occurred though there is a fine point here that I cannot recall.
The £250,000 sanction levied for these offences for me lacked proportionality. As you say, other clubs have been severely censured for submitting incomplete documentation that led to them being disqualified from the SFA competition. For justice to have been seen to be done then the penalty should have been similar to the gain accrued. If Rangers had been barred from the competitions where they employed players that had not been correctly registered, what would have been the financial loss to them?
I never liked the decision. It seemed to lack justice and proportionality. That a governing body, having found that one of its subordinates had contravened its rules, to have glossed over these flaws does not smack of justice for me.
The moral of the story is not to expect justice but to recognise how pernicious self interest can be in distorting what should be easily recognisable processes.
A touching article about Ian Redford in today’s Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/article9167442.ece
I remember him playing as a youngster for Dundee. A marvellous player, RIP.
From Companies House this lunchtime :
“Company Name : SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED
Company Number: SC425159
The following form/document(s) have been filed for the above company and are
available to order from our Companies House WebCHeck service:
Document Type Form
Appointments AP03
When I looked this up I found :
AP03 03/03/2014 SECRETARY APPOINTED MR PHILIP TUDOR NASH
Any thoughts on what this might imply? Odd too that the notification was for “SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED”
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Is this the most likely scenario?
RIFC (not TRFC) appeal for early uptake of next years STs offerring a financial incentive to the Gullible
King declares opposition and gets some level of fan support which he inflates
Tug of War commences with the Spivs threatening Admin if ST appeal is inadequate.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Spivs announce Admin and blame King and the fans. TRFC put up for sale with no assets
All the Spiv faces resign and exit stage left
The chosen Administrator announces the unpalatable facts and pleads ignorance on detail when pressed by a hostile MSM
King continues to oppose and offers to buy TRFC in a CVA if RIFC include the assets He commits to selling TRFC to real Rangers men for no profit after a fund raising
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The scene is set for a battle about TRFC survival with the clock ticking on promotion and a decision on the points penalty The true extent of the ST take up is announced by the Administrator However these fans are not Creditors of TRFC since they paid their money to RIFC
redlichtie says:
March 4, 2014 at 12:47 pm
“Any thoughts on what this might imply?”
—————————–
Sevco Scotland was the previous name of The Rangers Football Club Limited (TRFCL). It is the same company number for both.
If I were speculating wildly, which I am, I’d say this indicates that TRFCL is no longer a going concern and that the resurrection of the previous incarnation indicates a reversion to an earlier mode that might allow a hasty reverse and exit from the car park.
Of course I could be utterly misplaced in my instinctual assessment.
redlichtie says:
March 4, 2014 at 12:47 pm
10
0
Rate This
From Companies House this lunchtime :
“Company Name : SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED
Company Number: SC425159
The following form/document(s) have been filed for the above company and are
available to order from our Companies House WebCHeck service:
Document Type Form
Appointments AP03
When I looked this up I found :
AP03 03/03/2014 SECRETARY APPOINTED MR PHILIP TUDOR NASH
Any thoughts on what this might imply? Odd too that the notification was for “SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED”
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
_____________________________________________________
Would it be trite to suggest that this means GW was correct when he said there was no possibility of RANGERS entering administration????
Sevco, on the other hand….
redlichtie says:
March 4, 2014 at 12:47 pm
14 0 i
Rate This
From Companies House this lunchtime :
“Company Name : SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED
Company Number: SC425159
The following form/document(s) have been filed for the above company and are
available to order from our Companies House WebCHeck service:
Document Type Form
Appointments AP03
When I looked this up I found :
AP03 03/03/2014 SECRETARY APPOINTED MR PHILIP TUDOR NASH
Any thoughts on what this might imply? Odd too that the notification was for “SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED”
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
It probably implies that when you put the “monitor this company” request on at Companies House the company was called Sevco Scotland Limited.
Or that Companies House have erred – there is no company at Companies House called Sevco Scotland and Mr Nash’s appointment appears at Companies House on the TRFC file.
Non-story – nothing to see here.
Goosy
“The scene is set for a battle about TRFC survival with the clock ticking on promotion and a decision on the points penalty”
Firstly enough with the survival talk :shock:. The battle line is whether the current owners continue with TRFC or if they punt it.
Realistically punting it was the spivs plan – it is the most likely reason for the otherwise much predicted cash shortfall come February. Ally has upset the cart somewhat by ensuring the Admin points deduction pretty much won’t matter THIS season which hands the initiative back to King as the purchaser to try to call some shots and lever some extra assets, but next season is a whole different barrel of monkeys. That’s still the spivs ace in their sleeve since to adress it, King needs to put in more cash – the one thing he’s trying to avoid. If I’m right this will rumble on to close season, right up to the deadline. Unfortunately Wallace knows that to get there, to avoid blinking, he needs cash, liquid cash.
It is but one of many many possible scenarios. It does have a ‘best fit’ kind of look about it though!
This is written on the basis that the creditor position is what they say it is of course! Wallace’s announcements would seem to support that regardless of the contents of Stockbridge’s drawers.
CASTOFTHOUSANDS says:
March 4, 2014 at 11:50 am
__________________________________________________________________________________
Firstly many thanks for providing the link to the full decision. I have the “reason for decisions” document on file and it was reviewing this after going through Auldheid’s stuff that prompted me to look for the full judgement.
Thank you for your excellent précis on the judgement…it raises many points of discussion in my head. However I will have a look at the file before I get too deep…can I really sustain the will the wade through the whole 42 pages of legal waffle…God knows the “reasons” document was bad enough…anyway..
For now…just one point…and I am sure this has been previously raised by others:
Am I correct in thinking that the only thing that allowed LNS to declare the “no sporting merit” guff was the fact that the EBT’s were “not illegal” and therefore open to any other team to deploy?
Is that it? Is really what the whole “sporting merit” angle hangs on?
Ok… so if indeed this is the case…what then happens if under appeal, either at the current UTTT or any further appeal stage the EBT’s….or rather how they were “operated”, are actually found to be illegal?
How does that affect the “sporting merit” judgement?
I seem to remember that there is some statement in the judgement that says in effect that regardless of the result of any future appeal the LNS judgement will still stand? Am I correct in this recollection?
Call me cynical but I am beginning to believe that they do really think everyone outside their bubble is stupid and that if they dress this nonsense up in enough legal gibberish we will all just lose interest and go away….
Hmmm……
helpmaboab says:
March 4, 2014 at 9:32 am
Brenda.The media would sooner report on Sasquatch,The Flying Dutchman,or The Abominable Snowman than audited accounts.
=====
Or the loch ness monster … or other things for which there is no actual evidence of their existence, but instead only rumour… like the continuing same club!
🙂
peterjung says:
March 4, 2014 at 1:44 pm
I commented on several features of the LNS decision just after it was announced. You seem to have picked up on some of the same issues.
Sporting advantage/sporting integrity/sporting sanction- where did all that come from? The answer is from LNS himself. These terms do not appear in the relevant sections of the rules of either the SFA or the SPL.
LNS found RFC guilty of persistent breaches of the registration rules over many years. He had no choice in that matter, the rules had been broken as the documentary evidence established. I don’t think even RFC argued differently, but I may be wrong on that. Anyway, RFC are found guilty, so LNS has to set the penalty. Now why the SFA/SPL couldn’t have simply asked LNS to establish whether or not the rules had been broken, then set the penalty themselves, I don’t know. In fact why involve LNS at all, in an open and shut case? I can’t answer that one either. The benefits of LNS deliberations appear to be reserved for one club only.
So LNS finds them guilty, what next? He links the “punishment” to the concepts of sporting advantage/ sporting integrity/ sporting penalty. Where in the rules, or in any precedent set, did that come from? Look at the precedents. Spartans failed to have a registration form correctly signed and dated, in respect of one player, on one occasion. Sporting advantage? None identified. Sporting sanction? Oh yes, kicked out of the Scottish cup. Because they broke the rules on player registration.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven. I’m glad you have brought it up again, because I just lost the will to live after weeks of debate on here. The consensus being that LNS is above and beyond reproach, so just suck it up,chaps. Let’s blame Bryson for blinding the great man to the truth. Doesn’t do it for me, I’m afraid. The whole thing was a blatant and scandalous injustice, and I will believe that until the day I die.
http://www.allmediascotland.com/broadcasting/61244/your-noon-briefing-xxx-6/
English and Wilson join BBC Shortbread.
Now – who’s leaving?
neepheid says:
March 4, 2014 at 2:57 pm
___________________________________________________________________________
Neepheid….thanks for your response and input….I have to be honest and say that at the time of the original judgement I was up to my neck in other pressing circumstances and just had a sort of numb disbelief in the whole thing…
From Auldheid’s post I have taken a renewed interest in this and what I have found so far really just beggars belief…..
As I said before…I get the impression that they really do think we are all stupid and they can get away with whatever they like…
Being a realist and the fact the SPL or SPFL (whatever) and the SFA can probably claim the ultimate get out clause in saying something like they are a private members organisation or whatever and not a bone fide public authority is probably where it will end if pushed….however at the very least we can hammer home the point that we can see exactly what they did….
Who is that naked man standing over there…is it the Emperor…no…..it’s just Campbell Ogilvie….
neepheid says:
March 4, 2014 at 2:57 pm
“The whole thing was a blatant and scandalous injustice, and I will believe that until the day I die.”
—————————————-
That was my gut instinct without reading anything. The precedents a la Spartans made it clear that for natural justice to prevail a club that broke the rules on a routine basis would proportionately suffer a very heavy penalty indeed. £250,000????
I can sit down and read a wee superficial treatise on quantum mechanics and despite being bewildered at times, still get the gist of the topic. Legal judgements are for lawyers. They lack elegance. They seek to sow so many ambiguities that no true meaning can ever be construed. Well the worst ones anyway I suppose since I haven’t read many. I won’t be reading many if LNS efforts are the standard offering. It is a poor script with a pitiful plot and no redemptive metaphor to be found. Dry, banal, pointless.
The reason for having law is so that all may be satisfied with a careful deliberation I suppose. Even when the deliberation is unsatisfactory to some then the words should provide reference points where the disenfranchised can take their bearings from. The law however has become a means to its own ends. It should surely only occasionally be equated with justice.
LNS was quasi-judicial. His ramblings will likely never be challenged since the law rewards itself with such remuneration that the ordinary citizen can rarely if ever have resort to its remedy. I’m sure there are many in the profession that seek to lift it out of the mire of discredit it is content to wallow in. For those I offer an apology for my caustic observations, tainted as they are with prejudice and recently perceived injustice.
Campbellsmoney says:
March 4, 2014 at 1:41 pm
“Non-story – nothing to see here.”
———————————-
You are such a sobering and sensible spoilsport.
Sent to Companies House on Monday 3 March :
“Dear Sirs,
I note that the annual accounts for the undernoted company are now overdue :
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
IBROX STADIUM
150 EDMISTON DRIVE
GLASGOW
G51 2XD
Company No. SC425159
This company is a subsidiary of :
RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
IBROX STADIUM
150 EDMISTON DRIVE
GLASGOW
G51 2XD
Company No. SC437060
The accounts for THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED were apparently incorporated into, but not separately identified from, those lodged for RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC as being part of the ‘Group’.
There is media speculation that THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED is about to go into administration and the delay in lodging accounts – which have obviously been prepared as part of the Group submission – only serves to fuel such speculation.
Could you confirm what steps you are taking to ensure that annual accounts for THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED are lodged at the earliest possible date?
Thank you”
A response has just been received :
“Dear Mr …..
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED – SC425159
Thank you for your e-mail of 3 March 2014. You rightly state that the accounts of the above company are now overdue. These accounts should be made up to 30 June 2013 and should have been filed by 28 February 2014.
The Registrar of Companies has a pursuit process in place for ensuring that companies file outstanding documents. The above company has already been contacted regarding this issue.
I should also state that Parliament introduced a Late Filing Penalty process for companies who file accounts outwith the filing deadline. Details of this can be found on our website at – http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gp5.shtml
Thank you for taking the time in bringing this matter to my attention.
XXXX
Central Operations Manager.
Compliance and Infrastructure, Edinburgh”
Scottish Football needs strong authorities in pursuing compliance.
THE RT HON LORD NIMMO SMITH,
NICHOLAS STEWART QC and
CHARLES FLINT QC,
in their report to the SPL,
described ‘Rangers’ as –
The Rangers Football Club Plc,
the owner and operator of Rangers Football Club.
Until this moment, throughout the history of Association Football,
the separation of Company and Club had never been made
due to the nature of incorporation
whereby the club and company become one and the same thing.
I have tea in a cup, I have milk in a jug,
two entirely separate elements.
But should I choose to pour some milk into the tea
and therby incorporate them,
Then I have something new and inseparable.
So it is with a football club which is incorporated,
which Rangers was in 1899.
By whose authority
or request
did THE RT HON LORD NIMMO SMITH,
NICHOLAS STEWART QC and CHARLES FLINT QC,
find themselves able, for the first time in over a hundred years,
to make this club-company separation?
I would suggest they may have had a request,
but no authority, in law.
The club-company separation has since caused no end of difficulty to Scottish Football,
enabling the sham of the ‘same club’ to be peddled by
everything true blue throughout the land.
Perhaps the time approaches when this error by Lord Nimmo Smith can be properly corrected before being put to rest.
I actually take milk in my tea while my wife takes hers without.
We are both fully aware of the difference,
especially when I forget
and offer her a cup of ‘incorporated’ – tea and milk!
I wonder how Lord Nimmo Smith, Nicholas Stewart and Charles Flint take theirs.
I’d love to hear their explanation of how to separate milk from tea in the same cup.
Sugar anyone ?
While I’ll acknowledge that my curiosity can occasionally exceed my better judgement, if I can see it from this side of the Atlantic based on what I’ve learned about Scottish insolvency law from RTC and here… I gotta hope all those fancy CA’s can provide better advice!
I’ll admit I hesitated over the “Post Comment” button, but that was because I was more scared you’d think me insincere and knock me down a peg!
Yes, it’s the big assumption but still seems like the only way investors like Laxey, who don’t suffer from Rangersitis, can turn RIFC into a profitable company and allow their shares to be sold at a profit.
I don’t believe you were around in the RTC days but there’s a history there too. The most discussed scenario back then involved Whyte using Wavetower/RFC Group’s [was that what they were called?] secured creditor status to shuffle the heritable assets out of RFC PLC and out of the way of the looming BTC decision. He lost control of that process when his appointed administrators – under an intense glare of scrutiny – decided that the Ticketus deal meant that Group had essentially used PLC’s own assets to effect the purchase of the floating charge and thus the debt had already been satisfied.
That’s what I get hung up on now. I’d love to go back through the timeline of who broke the story of the Ticketus deal and when. It was a total gamechanger, completely unexpected IIRC, and made the long expected outcome more or less impossible.
Is there something out there like that out there now? What don’t we know about?
Castofthousands says:
March 4, 2014 at 3:21 pm
………LNS was quasi-judicial…….
_____________________________________________________________________________
I can’t help but feel that is the rub in all this….
What is the remit for this whole LNS setup…..is there any mechanism for any counter argument to the decision?
Let’s just say for example LNS reported a one line summary judgement al la …
” na na na …whatever the ‘Gers did we don’t care…for the good of Scottish football etc.….we all know they broke many rules in the book but …WATP….”
What could anyone really do?
Strip out all the legal language nonsense and that is pretty much how it reads to me…..
Cynical…..damn right……
The LNS enquiry was a farce, set up to fool and hoodwink us all. Fortunately the fools were those situated within the walls of Hampden, for only fools would think they could fool so many, now that we are all so well informed and don’t rely on succulent lambs for their version of the ‘truth’. LNS may have been interested in the ‘truth’ of the matter, but he wasn’t interested in the ‘whole truth’. He must have been bemused that the enquiry was even set up (assuming his innocence of complicity) in the event that the finding of guilt only resulted in an unpaid penalty of less than the cost of the proceedings, with the ‘appellant’ body providing the ‘evidence’ (made up excuse) that left the judge with only ‘sporting advantage’ to be assessed in terms of punishment.
Thank you for your e-mail of 3 March 2014. You rightly state that the accounts of the above company are now overdue. These accounts should be made up to 30 June 2013 and should have been filed by 28 February 2014.
The Registrar of Companies has a pursuit process in place for ensuring that companies file outstanding documents. The above company has already been contacted regarding this issue.
===========================================================================
Redlichtie…The reply you have received from Companies House is a standard reply in such cases.
This is probably from the “nice lady” I refer to in my earlier post re this matter…the accounts will never actually be filed…trading will continue as long as it suits the Spivs’ plans…licencing problems will be overcome…nothing to see…move along now!
manandboy says:
March 4, 2014 at 3:28 pm
Is there something out there like that out there now? What don’t we know about?
_____________________________________________
That reminded me of the oft repeated point made by RTC, that there are:-
‘Known knowns; known unknowns; and unknown unknowns.’
As true now, as it was then. We know TRFC are in trouble; we know we don’t know exactly how much, or the precise plans of those in charge there; I wonder just how frightening, for TRFC and it’s supporters, the things we (and the TRFC supporters) don’t know we don’t know, might turn out to be.
NICKMCGUINNESS 12:20 am
I couldn’t disagree more. The UTTT verdict matters hugely to me. Almost everyone on this site believes Rangers cheated football and cheated society, but we have had two astonishing decisions (FTTT & LNS) that imply they did not, or if they did it was only slight and did not result in sporting advantage. Perhaps HMRC will appeal again if the UTTT does not find in their favour, and like others regardless of the eventual verdict I will always believe Rangers cheated, but I would much prefer it if Rangers & Sevco fans were not able to claim the opposite on the basis of these decisions, childish as perhaps that sounds.
essexbeancounter says:
March 4, 2014 at 3:49 pm
But might the non-filing of TRFC report and accounts not have a detrimental affect on RIFC’s standing within AIM (I know, not exactly the home of integrity) and, more to the point, make any slim hopes of an outside loan impossible and an ever clearer indication of their hopeless situation? In light, that is, of TRFC’s position as the operating arm, and only potential source of income, of the parent company.
manandboy says:
March 4, 2014 at 3:28 pm
15 1 i
Rate This
THE RT HON LORD NIMMO SMITH,
NICHOLAS STEWART QC and
CHARLES FLINT QC,
in their report to the SPL,
described ‘Rangers’ as –
The Rangers Football Club Plc,
the owner and operator of Rangers Football Club.
Until this moment, throughout the history of Association Football,
the separation of Company and Club had never been made
due to the nature of incorporation
whereby the club and company become one and the same thing.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
And now of course that separation is enshrined in the SPFL Articles and Rules.
Castofthousands says:
March 4, 2014 at 3:25 pm
You are such a sobering and sensible spoilsport.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Sobering and sensible Samoan spoilsport. Its Wednesday here – no sign of an administration 😉
Allyjambo says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:18 pm
1 0 i
Rate This
essexbeancounter says:
March 4, 2014 at 3:49 pm
But might the non-filing of TRFC report and accounts not have a detrimental affect on RIFC’s standing within AIM
———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hahahahahahahahahahah
Good one that.
PETERJUNG 1:56 am
Good post, similar to my own thoughts. LNS et al were tasked with investigating alleged improper registration. Everybody not unreasonably assumed that improper registration would mean de facto that the players concerned were ineligible but few if any of us had heard of Sandy Bryson.
LNS et al did recognise the FTTT verdict at one point, but I remain unclear whether a different verdict affected registration, eligibility or broke another rule. My understanding of the ‘no sporting advantage gained’ was that the players remained eligible despite improper registration thanks to Bryson’s bizarre and perverse interpretation. The alternative interpretation is that because EBTs were not deemed tax avoidance, had Rangers declared them during player registration there would have been no consequence due to the FTTT verdict. I need to read LNS in full again as it’s been a while.
As discussed the other day if you don’t want people poking about your business then file your accounts on time and keep on the right side of the taxman.
Given TRFC accounts to 30 June 2014 must have been prepared to a failry detailed level to get the RIFC accounts what has caused them to not be filed by the end of Feb deadline?
Given we are led to believe from many quarters that the CEO, the Chairman and the newly appointed Company Secretary are all honest men, who play with a straight bat and have CV filled with references for integrity and good corporate governance, why have they let this poorly performing subsidiary company miss their Companies House deadline?
Add this to the botched players wage cut, the lack of any obvious cost cutting and the agreement of over the top loan deals to preferre dahreholders it strikes me that they have not got off to a very good straight in the first few months of taking up the reigns.
Now why would that be?
I’ve been thinking. Never a good idea I know.
There is such a clusterflock in play currently that you couldn’t make it up. Or could you?
ianagain’s visual cues at the Collyer Bristow proceedings recently appeared to firm up the possibility that Charlotte is Craig Whyte. Unpalatable as this may seem to many, including myself, what would the effect be of following through on this hypothesis.
CW recognises quite rightly that West of Scotland football fans can be a touch obsessive so launches SS Charlotte onto an unsuspecting bampottery to amuse and befuddle them. The whole process is long, drawn out and intriguing to both the average cyber surfer and to major news organisations alike. In this scenario the orchestration is detailed and considered. Even as I write I am dubious about the logic but let’s follow it through.
We know that the release of the Charlotte material has allowed it to be made admissible in the BDO vs Collyer Bristow proceedings. However the range of material is so extensive that I’d imagine it ranges far beyond what is required to provide material for that particular defence. It also asks questions about Ticketus involvement in the original purchase by Wavetower of Rangers PLC (IL). If the Charlotte material is admissable evidence for the CB proceedings will it not then become valid for CW’s Ticketus appeal. I’m left wondering ; why release stuff concerning the discount option scheme or FTT hearing? Where would this information fit in with a bigger plan?
CW must have had some kind of relationship with (S)DM. The duped one. If this relationship were continuing, how would exposure of DOS and FTT materials assist either party? The interest it has created will only open up proceedings to further scrutiny that would not seem to best serve either (S)DM or by implication, CW.
Without being able to run a thread of logic through the whole thing the only tipping point I can identify is the SFA et al. If, as suspected, CW made audio of his meetings with footballing authorities, are they now all within his thrall? Has the piece of cheese that represented the salvaging of Rangers been the bit of bait that has caught all manner of people in a trap? Are the governing bodies now so deeply conflicted that they will stop at nothing to prevent their own misdemeanours becoming public?
Just a few thoughts and a lot of questions.
NEEPHEID 2:57 pm – Don’t shoot the messenger, but the logic is that the SFA claimed they returned the incorrectly signed or dated (can’t remember which) form to Spartans and recognised him from that point as ineligible. For the record, Spartans claimed they never received the returned form. The deliberately improperly registered Rangers players perversely only became ineligible when their deliberate improper registration was discovered. It absolutely stinks, I know.
For those of us who are barely literate, poor spellers and typists can the edit function not be kept on a bit longer so we can stop making arses of ourselves 😆
Concerning the UTTT and the prospect of HMRC not winning the appeal. As I recall the RTC stated that HMRC would appeal and appeal as the evidence was overwhelming. With the FTTT verdict being a slender 2 to 1 decision and Dr Poon’s statement not being challenged tends to make me think there is a case here otherwise why would HMRC appeal. I am aware that there are 5000 companies using EBT’s in various ways and it would make sense for HMRC to deem them legal or illegal. I would hope that the right decision is reached and there is no grey areas as so far all things seem to be different or treated in a strange manner when it comes to matters concerning the Govan club. I hope their influence or power they have held in the past is diminishing and all things become transparent and above all honest. After all is that not what sport is about.