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

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

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 thoughts on “Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?


  1. IslamCSC
    4 Mar 2014, 11:09 AM
    Couple of rumours on Twitter that sale/leaseback plan is underway

    @CelticGossip

    Lease back plan is underway but hearing maintenance costs an issue but sources expect it to happen. Sevco lodgers looks likely HH
    Taken from kerrydale street


  2. The UTTT
    I’m always a glass half full man.I think there is a good result in this. No dodgy decisions.No need for 90 mins+penalty kicks.


  3. wottpi says:

    March 4, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    1

    0

    Rate This

    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?
    —————————————————————————————————————————————–
    They cannot pass their own accounts….Deloittes are obviously unhappy and not currently tick off the “going concern” button. The accounts will be there…………they are simply no good and I do not think anyone is ever going to see them.


  4. John Clarke, when you come ashore.

    Thanks for your responses to my fears over the UTT result.
    However, I still have that feeling of dread, supported by the ease that RFC cleared every legal and disciplinary hurdle in their way….even to the point of overcoming death!

    The amount of open goals missed by diverse authorities over the period since the entered Admin, is beyond belief.

    Has the lobbying of Cameron and Salmond actually had influence and was the “Appalling Vista” philosophy merely the demonstration of one man’s prejudices, or is their a prevailing attitude of this on some Judges’ Bench.

    I remain concerned.


  5. March 4, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    They cannot pass their own accounts….Deloittes are obviously unhappy and not currently tick off the “going concern” button. The accounts will be there…………they are simply no good and I do not think anyone is ever going to see them.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Hear what you say and if that is the case then we can add being publicly economical with the truth in regard to the financial health of the football club to the list of failings from these honest brokers.

    Plus perhaps not that smart either for not getting TRFC accounts signed by Deloittes at the same time as the parent accounts.


  6. I’ve said on here before that you don’t initiate commissions or inquiries without first providing guidance to the chair on what are acceptable outcomes.

    Just look back a week or so ago when Rebekah Brooks discussed a call with Tony Blair at her “hacking” trial.

    According to Brooks’s note, Blair advised her to set up an “independent” inquiry, suggesting it could have “outside counsel, Ken Macdonald [the former director of public prosecutions], a great and good type”.
    He said the inquiry would be “Hutton style” – a reference to Lord Hutton’s inquiry into the death of David Kelly – and would “clear” her, but warned that “shortcomings” would have to be accepted as a result of the report.

    So if Tony Blair (and Rebekah Books) have the power to determine the outcome of inquiries, before they take place, it isn’t a leap of faith that the SFA and SPL couldn’t do likewise.

    In the event, the LNS commission was held after the 5-way agreement came up with the club continuity argument. LNS was never going (to be allowed) to challenge that.

    It is a myth that LNS made a determination that the club and company are separate. LNS stated in his reasons for decisions in Sep 2012, that it was the SPL who made that determination.
    (From Para 46) It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule 11 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.


  7. 100BJD says:
    March 4, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    They cannot pass their own accounts….Deloittes are obviously unhappy and not currently tick off the “going concern” button. The accounts will be there…………they are simply no good and I do not think anyone is ever going to see them.
    ================
    Can a PLC have consolidated group accounts audited without the accounts of its 100% subsidiaries also being audited as part of the process?

    In the case of RIFC, Deloittes have given an unqualified audit certificate to the accounts of RIFC, which includes consolidated group figures for the year to 30 June 2013. All the transactions and assets of TRFC are incorporated in those accounts. If Deloittes are now witholding an audit certificate from TRFC, which seems to be the theory, then how can Deloittes now defend their unqualified certificate on the Group? TRFC seem to account for 99% of group activity, after all?


  8. essexbeancounter says:
    March 4, 2014 at 3:49 pm
    6 0 Rate This

    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!

    And here is where my point of contention with EcoBhoy from a previous blog, about the utility/efficacy of what Companies House does, comes into play:

    Let’s not blame Companies House for doing THEIR job!

    Yes, the fine is absolutely nominal. It’s less than a slap on the wrist and won’t force TRFC’s board into action.

    But thanks to what Companies House confirms, the ball is now in the court of interested parties to turn to TRFC (and their owner) and ask them why they’ve failed to produce accounts. Further, the SFA has nothing to hide behind when it comes to governing the situation.

    Bampots, Rangers supporters, and, most importantly, THE MEDIA should be screaming from the rooftops:

    Two years after RFC PLC entered an administration that has lead to liquidation, TRFC, the trading wing of “Rangers”, who hold the licence to play football in Scotland, are members of the SPFL/SFA, and are the legal entity that operates this edition of Rangers HAVE NEVER FILED ACCOUNTS and are now overdue.

    Graham Wallace’s, the Chairman of TRFC’s, and the press office’s phone should be ringing off the hook DAILY asking for comment.

    That should be the banner headline across the sports section in every paper over an article with a detailed explanation (and chart) of the relationships and equivalencies between RFC PLC, RFC Group, TRFCL, and RIFC. If I was an editor I’d institute a counter across the top of the sports section that counts DAILY how long accounts have been overdue.

    Companies House can’t enforce discipline. But the information they do provide can.


  9. Now that we have a very possible split in the Ibrox support betwixt the Camp New board and Camp David (copyright acknowledged), I don’t suppose anyone kept a copy of my early prediction (on RTC) that two distinct ‘clubs’ would emerge and battle for the ownership of Ibrox?

    I think TBK reposted it sometime later (on RTC or possibly early on in the life of TSFM) with a reference to me being Nostradamus or some such.

    Anyone?


  10. CELTIC have called for a review of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Grounds Act to be brought forward and have labelled it ´unhelpful and counter-productive´.

    The Scottish Government introduced the legislation in 2012 and promised a review after two full football seasons of operation. However, Celtic believe that there is already sufficient evidence of the Act´s ´unhelpfulness and negative impacts´ to justify an immediate review with action to follow.

    Celtic have all along opposed this legislation which has been used to create a general presumption that different laws should apply to football supporters as distinct from society as a whole.

    This has inevitably led to a sense of discrimination across Scottish football and has brought the law into disrepute when tested in the criminal courts. It has also acted as a barrier to our own efforts to encourage supporters to behave in a way which is consistent with the club´s proud history and reputation.

    We believe the Scottish Government should review, as a matter of urgency, the way in which this unhelpful and counter-productive Act is operating.

    Celtic have always valued a positive relationship with the police and we are concerned that they too have now been put in the position of enforcing legislation which is provocative and does not command widespread respect.

    The Scottish Government has conceded the need to review the workings of the legislation but we see no need for delay since there is plenty of evidence available, not least from the comments of Sheriffs who have had to deal with cases arising from it.

    It would be helpful if the new season could kick off in August with these issues resolved so that everyone could concentrate on promoting the best possible environment for Scottish football and marginalising unwelcome influences which attach themselves to it.

    Staement from celtic on obf bill


  11. sickofitall says:

    Allyjambo says:
    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.
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    A lateral thought
    What if
    In order to pay off RIFC for monies owed….
    TRFC sell the assets to an offshore co and enter into a long lease
    RIFC could then go into voluntary liquidation and return the cash to shareholders
    TRFC are then put up for sale by the Liquidator


  12. Goosey

    Different landlord and assuming Dave king buys TRFC same tenant = same result. TRFC needs genuine non returnable cash to stand still and Wallace’s review, assuming it’s done genuinely, to confirm if it’s ever going to get any better than that.


  13. Laxeys bluff being called

    _____________________

    New Loan Offer made to Rangers
    By The Rangers Standard
    17

    Following an email to a fan from Colin Kingsnorth of Laxey last night in which he reportedly stated that “if they want to offer the money cheaper go for it…no problem cancelling it”, George Letham, the Rangers fan and wealthy businessman who had previously tried to make contact to offer a loan, today approached the club through a third party and has complied with a request that he make any offer in writing to CEO Graham Wallace.

    Speaking to the Rangers Standard, Mr Letham indicated that he was happy to stand by the terms he outlined in our article yesterday.

    “Graham Wallace is now in receipt of written confirmation that I am happy to replace the Laxey loan, on condition that it is cancelled, with no penalty to the club, and that any security over property offered to Laxey is also cancelled. I have offered the loan on the same terms but with the interest payable reduced from £150,000 to £75,000. It is my intention to convert this interest into shares as I have no wish to take cash out of the club.”

    “If the club are unable to convert the interest to shares, then any cash sum I received from the loan would be reinvested into the club via a future share issue to further the cause of fan ownership. My only motivation in this is to ensure that the club is secure, has as much involvement as possible from those who care about it and that its vital assets remain available to it at all times.”

    “I am making this offer public in the hope that a degree of transparency can be brought to this process for the fans and hope that the board will give my offer due consideration.”


  14. andy says:
    March 4, 2014 at 7:02 pm
    1 0 Rate This

    Laxeys bluff being called
    ====
    What isn’t clear is whether Mr Letham is asking for the Laxeys security to be replaced with his own. If he is offering this money unsecured, then he is very rich, very brave, very foolish or very stupid. Or all four.


  15. neepheid says:

    March 4, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    I think ‘on the same terms’ will include the security, neepheid.

    Some supporters are happy with a piece of the turf when their beloved ground closes, but a whole car park! Now that’s what I call a supporter 😉


  16. andy says:
    March 4, 2014 at 7:02 pm
    Laxeys bluff being called
    ____________________
    New Loan Offer made to Rangers
    By The Rangers Standard…
    =========================
    I’m getting confused again.

    You would think that if they have been recently checking the sofa’s at Ibrox for any loose change to keep them going – then the Board would have known about this Letham chap – and his available money – long before the ’emergency loan / windfall’.

    You would also think that any/all TRFC fans with money would have have been sniffed out – and targeted – a long time ago. But perhaps appealing to wealthy fans didn’t fit with the spivs’ plan ?

    This latest development sounds a bit contrived, but then we have learned that typically – wrt TRFC – nothing can be taken at face value.

    Why can’t they just go to Admin. now and just get on with it…? 🙄


  17. Campbellsmoney says:
    March 4, 2014 at 1:41 pm
    20 0 Rate This

    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.

    Non-story – nothing to see here.
    ———————————-http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/rangers-dave-king-hits-back-at-somers-letter-1-3328422
    “Nash in as secretary
    Meanwhile, Rangers have appointed Philip Nash as their new company secretary, Companies House has announced.”

    Presumably this is what reflective picked up on

    Oh and DK is having another pop at the board…


  18. I’ve been able only to put a wee note of today’s Tribunal on the UTTT thread. I’ll try to fill it out tomorrow.


  19. If the George Letham referred to is from Edinburgh, then i would seriously doubt his ability to be a financial saviour.

    In the interests of transparency, maybe the Rangers Standard could provide some background on this latest potential benefactor . Given Chris Grahams previous enthusiastic support of such as David Murray , Craig Whyte , Charles Green, Malcolm Murray and Dave King , this could be very enlightening. He can of course then engage in his normal practice of revisionism when the penny drops ( by parachute in his case )


  20. andy says:
    March 4, 2014 at 7:02 pm
    7 0 Rate This
    Laxeys bluff being called
    ————————–
    They’ll look at best as being out of touch with potential fan investors or at worst as just incompetent idiots…
    And if they don’t take the offer up then a hidden agenda can/will be assumed…

    Nice move


  21. Castofthousands

    ” He (LNS) side stepped the EBT’s by stating that such a scheme was open for any other football club to use. ”

    This is where the withheld evidence invalidates LNS because the EBTS of DOS variety were already by then and as a result of another FTT a method of payment no other club could legally use.

    This is one reason why there will be a reluctance to deal with my letter. It blows LNS away.

    It is also why I hope as many folk as possible are asking H&M and SPFL if they are going to pursue.


  22. In terms of writing or emailing H&M here is a copy of a letter from another blog.

    It could be used as a template but obviously the more personal it is the better the impact.

    If you want the LNS Commission findings invalidated then this is how to help.

    Dear Mr.McKenzie,

    Firstly thank you for taking the time to read this email.I hope you are the correct recipient.

    I appreciate you are a busy man so will try to be as brief as possible.

    I have read the letter and annexes sent to you by TSFM regarding the governance of the game in Scotland and hope you will share my view that it raises some relevant points and concerns.

    On the face of things it would appear that this topic deserves to be looked at again in light of the new evidence presented.

    Can you confirm that yourselves and the SPFL Board and CEO will, indeed ,re-open this subject?
    Faith, trust and confidence in those who govern our game are of paramount concern to all football lovers. Sadly, much of these valuable commodities have been eroded in recent times by what many see as a less than open and honest approach being taken.

    The documents attached to the letter, if genuine, paint a fairly damning picture.

    In re-opening the case and making public the reasons why there is an opportunity to regain the faith and trust of the general football loving public.

    I hope yourself and the SPFL Board choose to do the right thing.

    I have copied this email to the SPFL and would ask that the recipient ensures it is passed on to the appropriate person(s).Thank you.

    I look forward to hearing from you.
    Yours in football.


  23. peterjung says:

    March 4, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    The LNS decision was always hostage to any appeal HMRC might make.

    The SPFL are going to have a problem if HMRC win the Appeal as there will be just two many illegal; payments to ignore in terms of unfairness.

    They might try and hide behind LNS but as the evidence demonstrates LNS was in error as two ebts were illegal and nobody told him. Not even the guy who started them and was there when the illegal ones were replaced by the one he benefitted from on which the UTT will decide. You would think he might have mentioned it.

    Discrediting LNS is important in establishing the truth. Cheating took place, cheating has taken place to cover up the cheating. The scale of the first cheating depends on the UTT, the scale of the second is too vast to grasp I mean Presidents misleading judges. (unless of course the judge was happy to be misled)


  24. Lord Wobbly says:

    March 4, 2014 at 5:55 pm
    I don’t suppose anyone kept a copy of my early prediction (on RTC) that two distinct ‘clubs’ would emerge and battle for the ownership of Ibrox?
    I tried to look back at some posts i had kept in favorites, but they now say page not found 🙁


  25. John Clarke post your UTTT notes when you can or is convenient. We are all in your debt. 😎


  26. Auldheid says:
    March 4, 2014 at 8:19 pm

    Auldheid I have personalised the above copy of a letter to H&M etc. Do you have any of their email addresses?


  27. Bryce Curdy says:

    March 4, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    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.
    ================
    The Bryson interpretation needs to be made clear in the rules that mention a player being ineligible if registration not complete.

    Too busy to check (is Humble Pie about?) but what did the rule that Bryson gave an interpretation of say and would anyone care to look to see if it had been amended on SFA or SPFL rules and post.

    If it has not been amended anyone care to suggest a draft which would make the Bryson interpretation clear without blowing the raison d’etre of the rule out the water.

    LNS said Rangers broke registration rules OK but because the payments were not illegal per se (two were but you know that by now 🙂 ) and as all clubs could have used ebts then the worst that had taken place was the equivalent of a clerical error and no advantage to anyone.

    A UTT verdict for HMRC blows this away. In hindsight the registration issue should have waited until the status of FTT’s was established. Even if that had taken years if it had found finally that they were illegal the stripping of titles would be sufficiently removed in time from liquidation to be accepted as the cheating is was always intended to be.

    It was Hugh Adams that prompted the LNS Commission when he spoke of under the counter payments. EBTS were that, just wrapped in a fancy envelope rather than a brown one.


  28. john clarke says:
    March 4, 2014 at 7:42 pm

    Hope to see you on Thursday. Have got day off. Hoping that UTTT will still be in session.


  29. Auldheid says:
    March 4, 2014 at 8:29 pm

    “The LNS decision was always hostage to any appeal HMRC might make.”
    ——————————
    In this respect I do not think it was unreasonable for LNS to put aside the possible outcome of the big tax case (FTT/UTT) since its significance to any ruling he might make may only be known some time in the future.

    The fact that loads of players were incorrectly registered over a long period of time is the nub of it for me. As Peter J and many others have said previously, how can you chuck Spartans out the cup for a missing signature (BryceCurdy had the detail on this above) and levy a £250,000 sanction for mass mis-registration over an extensive period. I know that the Sandy Bryson logic that ‘we didn’t know so can’t do anything about it now’ has been employed but it just doesn’t stack up. How many player years of mis-registration might this be. Perhaps 10 players a year over a 10 year period. That’s £2500 per year of mis-registration. With such a precedent what is the deterrent on some other club failing to fully document their player remuneration. We might not be able to afford Queen’s Counsel to challenge this decision but a football club might be able to. They could remunerate a player without fully documenting it and if anything ever came to light argue that a £2,500 fine was the precedented sanction. The point of having contracts fully registered is so that player remuneration is all above board. Might a Far Eastern gambling syndicate be willing to pay such a futile fine. It just hasn’t been thought through. Bending the rules to accommodate a particular set of circumstances deforms them in an unforeseeable way for evermore. I’m on a rant, forgive me.

    The DOS scheme is your point of incursion into this decision. Though this appears a very sensible approach, something irks me.

    The supporting documentation comes via CharlotteFakeovers I suspect. We do not know Charlotte’s motives. Has she acted for the good of Scottish football or has she fed us only pieces of the puzzle that will end up not providing us with the full picture.

    I think the DOS angle is definitely worth pursuing as is the 2012 Euro license. However for me the stand out absurdity is the fine for mis-registration which was subsequently compounded by Mr. Bryson’s logic that if he didn’t see it happen at the time then nothing could possibly have happened. While the national sport is governed by individuals who can make such preposterous rulings then it will forever be in the mire.

    Preposterous then, preposterous now, preposterous for ever.


  30. Auldheid says:
    March 4, 2014 at 8:52 pm

    jean7brodie

    Try info@harpermacleod.co.uk fao Mr McKenzie…
    =====================================
    Auldheid, I had already sent a short, polite email to Harper Macleod, SPFL, and Celtic to enquire if a response, [or public statement], would be forthcoming.

    I am assuming that the recipients will have had your letter and annexes for a week now ?

    Have you received even just an acknowledgment from anyone ?


  31. Laxey’s will be delighted. They already know that the £1m isn’t going to get repaid. Poor Mr Letham


  32. On a lighter side. From the land that invented the 6 – 4 – 0 formation another classic.

    Thought this was a shoe in for a song to enoble the new Scotland away gear.

    To the tune of

    Edison lighthouse – Love grows where my rosemary goes

    Brassrubber On TAMB – brilliant

    Posted 28 February 2014 – 07:55 PM

    Love grows where my roseberry goes

    Im a lucky fella
    Ma strip is pink and yella
    And I love it endlessly
    Because love grows where ma roseberry goes
    And nobody knows like me


  33. ianagain says:

    March 4, 2014 at 9:49 pm

    You been taking MY medication? I wondered where it had gone 🙄


  34. GoosyGoosy says:
    March 4, 2014 at 9:53 pm
    Poor Mr Letham
    Any Spiv will accept any loan from anybody on any terms If Mr Letham is willing to lend a Spiv co £1m they will bite his hand off
    Later on he will discover that the transferred title of the security is worthless unless he has another £1m to spend on court actions
    A simple example
    The security is delivered to Mr Letham and it transpires the Car Park has been sold previously and it was “faulty” when used in the Laxey transaction


  35. Letter sent!

    From: %^
    To: “info@harpermacleod.co.uk”
    Cc: “jptaylor@celticfc.co.uk” ; “info@scottishfa.co.uk” ; “info@spfl.co.uk”
    Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:58 PM
    Subject: LNS inquiry

    Dear Sir

    I am following up on the letters sent by my follow bloggers on the TSFM website, whereby questions have been asked regarding the LNS inquries with regard to WTC and BTC, as they are known and are currently pending your response. In the question of transparency and accountability, your response to those letters already sent would be much appreciated and we – the Scottish clubs fans – are all looking forward to the responses to be posted on the website as requested.

    I have been a football supporter for nearly 50 years and during my travels all over the world, I have been proud to identify with and support both my national team and my club team Celtic. Then 2 years ago the events of the self destruction of RFC happened – the reasons for this occurring are well known now. In fully understanding the financial shenanigans that transpired to make this situation inevitable, whereby RFC admitted guilt in WTC to not only falsifying contracts via sideletters with the knowledge of Campbell Ogilvie the SFA president, it has become apparent that SFA/SPL fell far short of enforcing the regulations of the sport fairly and equally. Why this WTC portion of events was exempted from the LNS enquiry is really my major issue with the whole process.

    For the UTT process that is currently ongoing I can understand the need for letting the courts decide if the tax avoidance was something that was fair and proper with the view that RFC were able to take advantage of such a scheme, as could others were it legal. To take advantage though, all clubs would have needed to break the SFA registration rulings of side letters – but that does not seem to worry the SFA registration officer, Sandy Bryson for some reason. However in the WTC that RFC already admitted guilt to in accepting the findings of HRMC that those incidents were indeed illegal – a fine that was part of the monies owed by RFC when they went into liquidation, so there is doubt on this matter of guilt. It is a wonder to many of us that RFC were never called to account by SFA/SPL for these same transgressions as soon as they admitted an illegal tax evasion scheme and side letters – both of which went against SFA rules of player registration and moreover could not be available to other clubs due to their illegality, hence a sporting advantage ensued.

    Can you confirm that the WTC will not be continued to be ignored and brushed under the carpet when we look at how all this happened and what needs to be rectified so that SFA/SPFL regulations and rules are made stringent to ensure a fair and level playing field for all its members? Without this I fear many like me will become disillusioned at Scottish football becoming more of a WWE type sport where the results are decided upon by money men instead of it being settled on a field of grass.

    Can I just make one final point – this is not about stripping of titles and giving them to other clubs – this is about making the rules and regulations applicable to all clubs – and not only adhered to, but respected by all who play and govern the game.

    Many thanks for your time – I have cc’d Celtic SFO, SFA and SPFL on this and will also publish this on TSFM website – I hope to have a response which I will share with my fellow internet bampots on TSFM


  36. Any chance that the Laxey loan ensures that the properties are already in Laxey’s hands and not secured against the loans?
    If the loan is repaid then the deeds are given back to ‘The Rangers’.if not Laxey keep the properties.
    If there is an administration where will Laxey’s be left as regard their security?
    I don’t think an incoming administrator will simply hand over the properties as that does not seem to be the way these things go.


  37. Allyjambo says:

    March 4, 2014 at 9:52 pm

    2

    0

    Rate This

    ianagain says:

    March 4, 2014 at 9:49 pm

    You been taking MY medication? I wondered where it had gone 🙄
    ====================================================
    Nope Brassrubber took it apparently.


  38. Just heard on ‘Scotland Today’ that the rangers are considering accepting the offer of a loan from ‘someone else’ rather than the one offered by ‘laVey’s’ sorry so childish but this farce just gets more ridiculous by the day, is anyone concerned with ibrox EVER going to tell the truth about ANYTHING ?????


  39. I suspect Mr Mackenzie may simply send the letters/emails re LNS to his client (SPFL) and ask them to let him know if they propose to provide him with any instructions to respond on their behalf. Might take a while…..


  40. Brenda says:

    March 4, 2014 at 11:03 pm

    Just heard on ‘Scotland Today’ that the rangers are considering accepting the offer of a loan from ‘someone else’ rather than the one offered by ‘laVey’s’ sorry so childish but this farce just gets more ridiculous by the day, is anyone concerned with ibrox EVER going to tell the truth about ANYTHING ?????
    =================
    It’s hard to change the habits of a lifetime Toots.(hope you don’t mind,just love that name)


  41. Hey TSFM….The Ariffmetick quiz at login is gettin harder …..any chance of Keeping it Simple?
    Anyway today marks another survival date in Sevco’s calendar. When is there an appropriate opportunity to begin the salvage Admin? When the Russki’s and Ukrainians finally snap? Now that would be a rare chance to bury the bad news (for some), circle the wagons and start the process.
    Do these Ranjirs minded peepil actually know what they are doing by offering a loan to Spiv F.C.? If the vibes have substance, then the chances of getting their money back are as slim as an anorexic beanpole!


  42. Castofthousands

    I am not saying it was unreasonable but it was only possible because the existence of ebts with side letter that were irregular having been subject to an earlier FTT were withheld.

    He could not have applied the ” not irregular” ruling if he knew at least one within the Commissions scope was.

    It was not within its scope despite being an ebt since July 1998 with a side letter because it was not supplied to H&M.

    Its not about what he decided, its about what he could not decide because the existence of one ebt that was irregular ( De Boer) was not supplied nor the correspondence that showed it so. The Flo one is interesting it too was a DOS ebt and the letter was supplied ()indeed governed the scope start date) but again no distinction was made with regard to its regularity. I think that might just be down to the lawyers not appreciating that Rangers had already coughed on it in March 2011, something that the HMRC correspondence would have revealed.

    My point on hostage is that if the BTC EBTS are judged irregular then they represent a payment method not open to other clubs and what to do about that question cannot be swerved because LNS said they were not at the time he ruled, especially if he misjudged due to a commissioning fault.

    Had both HMRC letter and De Boer letter been supplied I think the commissioning would have to have changed not to look at registration but illegal payments.

    Now what rule that breaks I’m not sure but the most obvious is the general one in the SFA Handbook

    Obligations and Duties of Members
    5.1 All members shall:-
    (a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play ;
    (b) be subject to and shall comply with:-
    (i) these Articles;
    (ii) the Judicial Panel Protocol;
    (iii) the Challenge Cup Competition Rules;
    (iv) the Registration Procedures; (in combination with a)
    (v) International Match Calendar;
    (vi) Club Licensing Procedures; and
    (vii) any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;
    (c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport as specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA Statutes;
    (d) respect the Laws of the Game;
    (e) refrain from engaging in any activity, practice or conduct which would
    constitute an offence under sections 1, 2 or 6 of the Bribery Act 2010; and
    (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.

    The SPFL under Article B4 3 are bound by SFA Articles

    Agreement on Compliance with Applicable Rules, Statutes and Regulations
    B4 Membership of the League shall constitute an agreement between the Company and each Club, and between each of the Clubs, to be bound by and to comply with:
    B4.1 these Rules and the Articles;
    B4.2 Regulations made from time to time by the Board as authorised by the Articles;
    B4.3 the Scottish FA Articles and the statutes and regulations of UEFA and FIFA;
    B4.4 the Laws of the Game; and
    B4.5 the terms of the agreements entered into between the SPL and the SFL in 2013 for the purposes of constituting, forming and organising the SPFL insofar as such terms apply from time to time to the members of the League.

    There may be others but Art 5 leaps out and taken in conjunction with registration rules might have produced a different directive to LNS reflective of ALL the facts..


  43. StevieBC says:

    March 4, 2014 at 9:00 pm

    14

    0

    Rate This

    Auldheid says:
    March 4, 2014 at 8:52 pm

    jean7brodie

    Try info@harpermacleod.co.uk fao Mr McKenzie…
    =====================================
    Auldheid, I had already sent a short, polite email to Harper Macleod, SPFL, and Celtic to enquire if a response, [or public statement], would be forthcoming.

    I am assuming that the recipients will have had your letter and annexes for a week now ?

    Have you received even just an acknowledgment from anyone ?
    ============================
    Only H&M got the email address to reply to and I have had nothing from them.

    I understand Celtic have replied to one enquiry saying it is matter for the SPFL. I have not seen it yet but it is what I expected of Celtic but I think that for this to work the pressure has to come across the support spectrum.

    My thanks to those who are writing, e mailing if e mailing copy to as many copy addresses on the lst you can get an e mail for.

    If any Raith Rovers supporters lurking talk to your honest man please


  44. Auldheid says:
    March 5, 2014 at 12:35 am

    Castofthousands

    I am not saying it was unreasonable but it was only possible because the existence of ebts with side letter that were irregular having been subject to an earlier FTT were withheld.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The DOS Scheme using EBT’s was never heard by an FTT. The WTC as it became known was an HMRC investigation which resulted in assessments being raised to recover tax. Rangers appealed the assessment but on the advice of Thornhill they decided not to take the Appeals to the FTT.
    ========================================================================

    He could not have applied the ” not irregular” ruling if he knew at least one within the Commissions scope was.

    It was not within its scope despite being an ebt since July 1998 with a side letter because it was not supplied to H&M.

    Its not about what he decided, its about what he could not decide because the existence of one ebt that was irregular ( De Boer) was not supplied nor the correspondence that showed it so. The Flo one is interesting it too was a DOS ebt and the letter was supplied ()indeed governed the scope start date) but again no distinction was made with regard to its regularity. I think that might just be down to the lawyers not appreciating that Rangers had already coughed on it in March 2011, something that the HMRC correspondence would have revealed.

    My point on hostage is that if the BTC EBTS are judged irregular then they represent a payment method not open to other clubs and what to do about that question cannot be swerved because LNS said they were not at the time he ruled, especially if he misjudged due to a commissioning fault.

    Had both HMRC letter and De Boer letter been supplied I think the commissioning would have to have changed not to look at registration but illegal payments.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Agreed – a far more serious allegation than the “administrative errors” in not registering players properly.


  45. bogsdollox says:

    March 5, 2014 at 1:26 am

    Auldheid says:
    March 5, 2014 at 12:35 am

    Castofthousands

    I am not saying it was unreasonable but it was only possible because the existence of ebts with side letter that were irregular having been subject to an earlier FTT were withheld.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The DOS Scheme using EBT’s was never heard by an FTT. The WTC as it became known was an HMRC investigation which resulted in assessments being raised to recover tax. Rangers appealed the assessment but on the advice of Thornhill they decided not to take the Appeals to the FTT.
    ===================================
    I’m not sure who made the point about an FTT and the wee tax case bill and I can understand if it was from an earlier reference of mine where I could have made what I meant clearer.

    HMRC had been chasing Rangers from 2005 at least on the two DOS side letters to De Boer and Flo whose existence Rangers(MG) denied when asked.

    It is generally accepted that the BTC began when side letters, including two to De Boer and Flo were found after police raid at Ibrox when PC’s were seized in 2007.

    The proof that these existed gave HMRC the basis to pursue but the clincher was a precedent being set in the case of Aberdeen Asset Management who also used DOS ebts in a similar way. The HMRC claim against AAM went the whole hog, FTT, UTT and CoS (or whatever the last tier is called) and from memory it was the FTT finding for HMRC in 2010 that gave HMRC the precedent leverage to exert pressure on Rangers to settle.

    So much so that when the whole case was put together in Feb 2011 (Annexes 1 to 5 or 6 ) the fact that the scheme had already been found to be irregular, plus the fact that letters had been hidden and HMRC deceived when they asked for them (and probably the amount) led the QC to advise Rangers to settle in March 2011,

    So if I said the DOS ebts had been subject to an FTT (and I think I did somewhere) I meant similar DOS ebts similarly used had been subject to an FTT. With regard to the subsequent appeals by AAM dismissed I cannot recollect if it was for the full amount or fines but regardless the FTT decision on the core amount stood via all appeals.

    So what we had was a liability that Rangers first indicated in their interim accounts on 1st April 2011 as a potential liability although it had actually been accepted as a liability a week earlier, but given time to print the accounts and Chairman A Johnson’s statement, perhaps some slack is in order although it definitely helped it not to be due on 31st March for UEFA license reasons.

    Curiously or maybe understandably HMRC at this point decided not to pursue payment at the end of March and instead held off until May when the takeover took place and the wee tax bill ball started rolling from there to end with Sheriff Officers calling to collect in August 2011. But that is another story where funnily enough the SFA President played a cameo role in December 2011 at a Christmas meal with Craig Whyte and company,

    or was it club?


  46. wakey wakey on Admin Day. Today should be interesting. Should be clear by about 10am UK time.


  47. AULDHEID 8:48 pm

    Bryson’s ‘rule’ that players remained eligible until their improper registration was discovered and that ineligibility could not be applied retrospectively only ever existed in his head, if it ever existed at all. No precedents were cited then or since. I believe it was utterly contrived to secure a predetermined outcome.

    By contrast Rangers broke very clear, unambiguous and sensible SPL rules that should have resulted in dozens of their players being deemed ineligible in matches spanning a whole decade. LNS et al got round this by first of all stating that it was paramount that SFA and SPL rules be consistent, and then opting to choose the unwritten and (in my opinion) perverse SFA rule over the clear, unambiguous SPL rule which (in my opinion) was infinitely more consistent with natural justice. His decision was even more astonishing when one considers that this was an investigation about player eligibility in an SPL competition rather than an SFA competition such as the Scottish Cup.


  48. PS I have never quite been able to decide myself whether the LNS verdict was primarily motivated by what I perceive as institutional bias towards the ‘establishment club’ (TU please).

    The alternative explanation is that a verdict that stated that a club had fielded something like a hundred ineligible players for something like a decade would have been arguably hugely damaging to Scottish football generally, as firstly it meant that the same club had fielded ineligible players in European competitions spanning a decade, and secondly that the national team had perhaps similarly fielded ineligible players in Euro and World Cup qualifiers. Thirdly it would have represented a very damning indictment on governance of Scottish football (TD please).


  49. PPS For the purposes of clarity, LNS et al were never tasked to reach a verdict regarding Rangers’ use per se of EBTs. They were tasked with reaching a verdict about whether Rangers had properly disclosed their use of EBTs to the footballing authorities and the consequences of any failure of disclosure in terms of eligibility. Purely hypothetically, Rangers might have disclosed the EBTs but not conventional remuneration arrangements in which case the panel would have investigated failure to disclose ‘conventional’ salary.

    This is an important distinction in the event of an UTTT (or subsequent higher court) verdict in favour of HMRC in terms of revisiting the honours that almost all of us believe Rangers cheated to win. It would need somebody with an analytical mind for detail (?ecobhoy) and a lot of time on their hands (don’t know, I have a very busy full time job) to go through the SFA and SPL rule books and establish exactly what rules have been broken. I am assuming that a verdict in favour of HMRC would not prompt a revisit from the footballing authorities or individual clubs (for whatever reason) and we would probably be looking at another ‘item 12’ as the only way of raising this. Any resolution would need to be perfectly worded, focused and without wriggle room. And there is no reason why shareholders of clubs other than Celtic could not raise similar resolutions.


  50. Bryce Curdy says:
    March 5, 2014 at 6:24 am
    ========================
    Imagine the SFA had said all players had been improperly registered and were therefore ineligible to play. The consequences for the game would have been massive, and would have stretched way beyond these shores. That is why, in my humble opinion, we were never, ever going to get the verdict many of us still believe would have been the correct one. It is also why I believe (and I speak only as a layperson), we may still be discussing the tax case all the way up to the House of Lords.

    Football in this country simply can’t ever be the same again. Had the SFA made it clear the new club were exactly that, with no claim on the previous club’s history, we could have had a chance. Right now I still fully intend to renew my Celtic season ticket, because I love the club, but sometimes I do wonder why I’m paying money to watch games in what is almost certainly now one of the most corrupt football nations on the planet.


  51. UPTHEHOOPS 7:20 am

    Slightly to my surprise, the overwhelming majority (33 out of 36) seem to believe it was simply down to pro-Rangers bias.

    Worth pointing out that the two explanations are not mutually exclusive.


  52. Fisani
    wakey wakey on Admin Day. Today should be interesting. Should be clear by about 10am UK time.
    —————————————————————————————–
    Those who are so precise in their predictions on these types of calls should have learnt their lessons. There is no doubt that they have their sources but naming the actual date in such a fluid situation is brave, stupid or attention seeking.

    At the sametime you have David Somers almost trying to grab attention and make headlines with his response to DK statement II, but not actually wanting to say anything.

    There has been a lot written about the overdue TRFC accounts, with the most pointed prose coming from Slimshady. He has said that there would be detail within these accounts that the spivs would rather not become public. I buy that but what kind of detail is it he refers to? The financial numbers have already been worked into the Group accounts and published with Deloittes giving RIFC the going-concern nod.

    Do Deloittes have to sign off on the same numbers again?
    Or is it that the obligation for TRFC is to file the accounts at Company House and no going concern sign off is necessary?


  53. Bryce Curdy says:
    March 5, 2014 at 7:14 am

    It would need somebody with an analytical mind for detail (?ecobhoy) and a lot of time on their hands (don’t know, I have a very busy full time job) to go through the SFA and SPL rule books and establish exactly what rules have been broken.

    I am assuming that a verdict in favour of HMRC would not prompt a revisit from the footballing authorities or individual clubs (for whatever reason) and we would probably be looking at another ‘item 12′ as the only way of raising this. Any resolution would need to be perfectly worded, focused and without wriggle room. And there is no reason why shareholders of clubs other than Celtic could not raise similar resolutions.
    ============================================================================
    My mind sadly isn’t always ‘analytical’ and even when it is that doesn’t always mean that I arrive at the ‘correct’ conclusions.

    However I have applied a lot of thought and posted here and elsewhere on LNS. I’ve listened to other points of view and amended my conclusions in some areas as a result. But I haven’t seen any new suggestions on the issue recently that tempts me to stir what to me are very cold embers.

    I exclude Auldheid’s approach from that generalisation. I have no problem in admitting that in the beginning I did not agree or perhaps, more correctly, didn’t actually understand his argument or realise the vital importance of it.

    To me that is the only way to move forward from LNS and the ludicrous ‘Bryson Definition’. I would agree with you that irrespective of the UTT decision or any subsequent appeal LNS will not be reconvened to rehear/rethink its original remit. That is because the SPL accepted the legality of the EBTs, as per the FTTT decision, and stated that any appeal overturning that position would not be relied on by the SPL.

    Like you I have pressures on my time and therefore try and make the best use of it and I feel I have nothing to add to the hundreds of detailed posts I have made on the subject – many of which attracted huge numbers of TDs especially when feelings were running high after the initial release of the findings.

    I see your suggestion that a starting point would be for someone to go through the SFA and SPL rule books and establish exactly what rules have been broken. Actually LNS did this in great detail and it doesn’t really matter what rules anyone believes might have been broken or not. What matters is what LNS thought and ruled on.

    Then we have the ‘interpretation’ element that arises and that’s down to the rule-makers and past precedents might have been useful if they were actually provided as evidence.

    My concluded opinion which remains as it has been for a long time is that LNS made the correct decision on the evidence presented to the tribunal – I think he was left with no choice. I have also always entertained the notion that it was hoped he would strip titles from Rangers which would have been legally overturned.

    However IMO LNS and his two colleagues were much too wily old birds to be caught in that trap which would have left the SFA and SPL with clean hands and the legal system shouldering the blame for Rangers being left with titles intact.


  54. Bryce,

    I would TU and TD on your options, as they most certainly are not mutually exclusive.

    In my post at tea time yesterday, I mentioned the Appalling Vista decision by Lord Denning.


  55. Greenock Jack says:
    March 5, 2014 at 8:30 am

    Fisani
    wakey wakey on Admin Day. Today should be interesting. Should be clear by about 10am UK time.
    —————————————————————————————–
    Those who are so precise in their predictions on these types of calls should have learnt their lessons.

    Indeed. Sometimes people are a bit swift in quoting their sources who appear to have information regarding dates of future events. As stated on TSFM before, this eventually becomes a “boy who cried wolf” kind of thing.

    As for applying rules without fear or favour, has Mr Lunny yet activated Mr Lennon’s suspended touchline ban (which was conditional on him staying out of the playing zone), following his pitch incursions at Pittodrie recently?


  56. Greenock Jack says:
    March 5, 2014 at 8:30 am

    Do Deloittes have to sign off on the same numbers again?
    Or is it that the obligation for TRFC is to file the accounts at Company House and no going concern sign off is necessary?
    ==========================================================
    I have undernoted an interesting few pars from: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/infoAndGuide/faq/accountsAndReports.shtml

    Still not sure whether TRFCL must submit audited accounts but it seems clear that if it has applied for exemption then it won’t be allowed unless the relevant exemption documentation has been filed to Companies House prior to the filing date then the accounts will be rejected unless accompanied by an auditor’s report.

    Can a subsidiary claim exemption from audit?

    Yes, from 1 October 2012 a subsidiary then it may claim exemption from audit, in certain circumstances, if it delivers if it delivers certain documents to the registrar as specified in The Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts and Audit Exemptions and Change of Accounting Framework) Regulations 2012.

    What documents must a subsidiary undertaking file with the registrar in order to claim the above exemption?

    The company must send the following documents:

    A written notice of agreement by all members of the company that they consent to the exemption from audit in respect of the relevant financial year;

    Form AA06 (for a company) or Form LL AA06 (for an LLP) – statement from the parent undertaking that it guarantees the subsidiary company under section 479C of the Companies Act 2006 for the relevant financial year;

    A copy of the parents company’s consolidated accounts including a copy of the auditors report and annual report to those accounts.

    Please note that in order for the exemption to apply all three of these documents must be submitted before the filing deadline for the accounts. If they do not, then the company accounts must include an auditors report, or they will be rejected.

    What names and signatures should be given on the accounts for the purposes of filing with Companies House?

    For filing, the copies of the accounts must state the following:

    The copy of the balance sheet must show the printed name of the director who signed it on behalf of the board; the copy of the balance sheet must also be signed by a director; the copy of the directors’ report must include the printed name of the director or company secretary who signed the report on behalf of the board; and if the company has to attach an auditor’s report to the accounts, the copy of the auditor’s report must state the auditor’s name.

    Please note that a legible signature on a balance sheet will not satisfy the additional requirement for a printed name. Companies House will reject any accounts that do not meet the above requirements.

    Where the auditor is a firm the auditor’s report must state the name of the auditor and the name of the person who signed it as senior statutory auditor on behalf of the firm.


  57. Ecobhoy’s final words on LNS – ‘LNS made the correct decision on the evidence presented” – brings a shudder. Did the various Scottish Football authorities contrive to ensure that the information presented was only that which would bring about the judgement eventually given? Then we have JC’s summary of yesterday – Mr Thornton was claiming that all the relevant points made by Hector’s men at the FTTT would be dealt with, that the FTTT’s findings would be shown to have been correct given what was presented to them. The legal gentlemen representing us, the tax payers, may very well turn out to be the weak link. This should have been an open and shut case – have Hector’s men been overconfident … or simply not good enough?


  58. Eco@9:04

    Cheers for digging that out.
    In the case of an exemption, does anyone know if the documentation required to be submitted would show-up on the Companies House webcheck?


  59. Angus1983 says:
    March 5, 2014 at 9:02 am
    Greenock Jack says:
    March 5, 2014 at 8:30 am

    Fisani
    wakey wakey on Admin Day. Today should be interesting. Should be clear by about 10am UK time.
    =========================================================
    I think that the failure even to organise an admin is symptomatic of the absolute breakdown that appears to be happening at Ibrox. Many competing interests seem to be pulling in different directions and few it seems have much regard for footballing interests in the longer term.

    The latest over Laxeys and their ‘loan’ just beggars belief. If the Rangers guy who is offereing the money on better terms gets it then that blows Wallace out of the water either in terms of ability or credibility or perhaps both.

    How can Wallace possibly explain that the fan offered the money before the deal was concluded and asked for 2/3 days to organise the transfer but it appears time was too much of the essence to get their hands on the money to allow this.

    And yet Wallace says the loan was all part of the ‘plan’.

    I actually thought Wallace might be a good appointment for Rangers to bring stability and to start to bring things under control which might – a big ‘might’ btw – allow fresh investment to take place to meet running costs.

    But I fear Wallace is not the guy I thought he was going to be and there are a number of possibilities for that. He appears to be in a most perilous personal position and strugglin to cope. And must be wondering why he was ever talked into the job in the first place. Still I’m sure he will have an iron clad pay-off deal in his contract 😆


  60. Greenock Jack says:
    March 5, 2014 at 8:30 am

    Do Deloittes have to sign off on the same numbers again?
    Or is it that the obligation for TRFC is to file the accounts at Company House and no going concern sign off is necessary?
    =======================
    I asked a couple of similar questions on this yesterday, but I don’t think I got an answer.

    As you say, everything that will be in TRFC’s accounts must have formed part of the audit of RIFC PLC. I personally find it hard to understand how any firm of accountants could give a clear audit certificate to a company without first having audited its 100% owned trading subsidiary, which accounts for almost all the financial transactions and owns (we are told) all the group assets.

    The only scenario I can come up with to explain the reluctance to submit the TRFC accounts to Companies House is that although they have been audited, they are not certified on a “going concern” basis. Which would not prevent submission to CH, but would be very embarrassing for the PLC.

    Or could the TRFC accounts contain a lot more detail than we have yet had regarding the early shareholder history of Sevco, and the big switcheroony from Sevco5088? Again, that could be the source of a lot of embarrassment, so best just to pay the fines?

    It is all very interesting, so why doesn’t one of our intrepid MSM journalists ask a few pertinent question? Why aren’t the fans groups all over this? I think this is the only forum which has even mentioned the lateness of the accounts.


  61. Eco
    I think that the failure even to organise an admin is symptomatic of the absolute breakdown that appears to be happening at Ibrox. Many competing interests seem to be pulling in different directions and few it seems have much regard for footballing interests in the longer term.
    ————————————–

    There are currently so many points of focus at Ibrox that Wallace isn’t having the forensic finger pointed in his direction. On the face of it his position is untenable.

    You talk of “failure to organise an admin”, how can you preume that their intention was to do so at that or this particular time?


  62. exfallhoose2012 says:
    March 5, 2014 at 9:16 am

    Ecobhoy’s final words on LNS – ‘LNS made the correct decision on the evidence presented” – brings a shudder. Did the various Scottish Football authorities contrive to ensure that the information presented was only that which would bring about the judgement eventually given? Then we have JC’s summary of yesterday – Mr Thornton was claiming that all the relevant points made by Hector’s men at the FTTT would be dealt with, that the FTTT’s findings would be shown to have been correct given what was presented to them. The legal gentlemen representing us, the tax payers, may very well turn out to be the weak link. This should have been an open and shut case – have Hector’s men been overconfident … or simply not good enough?
    =================================================================
    On LNS I have always found it difficult to understand what looks to me like generally terrible research and presentation of the SPL case. Whether that was just what happens day and daily in legal debate or contrived is impossible to say.

    Then the ‘Bryson Interpretation’ and the failure to dig deeper, question it, challenge it, or call other SFA witnesses to explain it and when it came into being and how many times it had previously operated – well that leaves me with a shudder as well. I have to add the caveat that we don’t have a transcript of the proceedings, any relevant written evidence, nor the counsels’ statements nor their skeleton arguments so perhaps I am being over-jaundiced but I doubt it.

    so Conspiracy? Possibly – but I’m sure it was only for the greater good of Scottish Football as viewed from Hampden’s Ivory Tower 😎

    On the UTT/FTTT issue I think the biggest problem is that the HMRC are bound by the law whereas it would appear that some of those acting for the other side didn’t seem to adhere to the same principles so that a police raid was required to gather vital evidence whose existance had been denied.

    HMRC presented a case at the FTTT which appears to have been basically accepted by Heidi and ignored by the Two Duffers who apparently went to sleep after HMRC declared that the trusts weren’r ‘shams’. At that point it was game, set and match against HMRC and I don’t think it mattered what else they said.

    Conspiracy? I doubt it – just a jumping to a conclusion without taking into account all of the evidence or correctly applying the law to the evidence or so it would appear to my non-legal mind.


  63. Greenock Jack says:
    March 5, 2014 at 9:18 am
    0 0 Rate This

    Eco@9:04

    Cheers for digging that out.
    In the case of an exemption, does anyone know if the documentation required to be submitted would show-up on the Companies House webcheck?
    ========
    To claim exemption, a form AA06 would have to be submitted to CH by RIFC before the filing date. I have just had a look at the form, which clearly states that all information on the form will appear on the public record.

    http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/forms/generalForms/LL_AA06_statement_of_guarantee_by_a_parent_undertaking_of_a_subsidiary_limited_liability_partnership.pdf

    I’m not sure whether that is the record of the parent or the subsidiary.


  64. On admin, I could absolutely fall on my sword (in about 20 mins according to some) but I genuinely believe we are dealing with the threat of admin and all of its implications to all the various parties (i.e. grab yer deckchairs) as opposed to an actual event as such. All the pointers to me suggest sabre rattling, nothing more. I’ve said before that I felt that Phil and now Thommo’s exclusive leaks were being used to said effect. But by whom? And for what purpose.

    On LNS. Agree, it needs fresh detail rather than speculative prodding which the UTTT was always going to bring. The only other factor that might re-open it would be someone appealing against a decision using Bryson as a precedent. The mistake for me was in coming to the correct guilty verdict that they did, but then, on the basis it was being imposed on a liquidated company anyway, why £250,000, the left leg of one of 84 EBT recipients? Why not (pluck from air) £20m to reflect the gravity, depth and spread of the offences. Practically the end result would have been exactly the same but the message would have been somewhat clearer – don’t take the P!ss whether you’re RFC or not.


  65. Greenock Jack says:
    March 5, 2014 at 9:38 am

    Eco
    I think that the failure even to organise an admin is symptomatic of the absolute breakdown that appears to be happening at Ibrox. Many competing interests seem to be pulling in different directions and few it seems have much regard for footballing interests in the longer term.
    ————————————–
    You talk of “failure to organise an admin”, how can you preume that their intention was to do so at that or this particular time?
    ====================================================
    Well if you have an alternative cast-iron solution to the multi-faceted financial solutions that beset Rangers then please feel free to expound on them. They might, in the fullness of time, have no more relevance than my opinion that the best hope for Ranger’s survival is through administration.

    In saying that I have made no comment on how many times Scottish Football Authorities will allow the corruption of our game by allowing a club to buy success by deliberately subventing the rules over admin penalties and then ditching the debts incurred.


  66. Neepheid
    So as no forms are showing on the CH website we can take it that an exemption hasn’t been applied for. Unless there was a delay in this submission appearing.

    TRFC accounts are therefore simply overdue and a late-filing penalty of 150 pounds sterling applies.

    Brings us to the question of licensing, requirements and deadlines. Anyone know the facts of the matter?


  67. Eco, I’m guessing you meant multi faceted problems? 😆

    What are they? They have successfully brought in bridging loans – in fact they’re now fighting over each other to provide them – to get to the end of the season, or thereabouts. We assume, a massive assumption I know, that the creditor journal is normal and taxes are up to date. Apart from one very very obvious creditor who also has a vested interest in flogging off TRFC to the highest bidder, who co-incidentally has a vested interest in whether their sales package is in administration or not (and crucially when it will come out of said admin) I cannot see where the creditor pressure is coming from at this precise moment. Absolutely it requires an unhealthy short term focus of 2 months max, a cast iron guarantee that it needs more cash to get beyond that and a very good probablility that it will need more cash over and above the ST receipts unless the model is radically changed but these are all multi facted problems for 6 months hence (in terms of impact, not planning), not 6 hours away as some would have us believe.


  68. Smugas says:
    March 5, 2014 at 10:09 am

    Eco, I’m guessing you meant multi faceted problems? 😆

    What are they? They have successfully brought in bridging loans – in fact they’re now fighting over each other to provide them – to get to the end of the season, or thereabouts. We assume, a massive assumption I know, that the creditor journal is normal and taxes are up to date. Apart from one very very obvious creditor who also has a vested interest in flogging off TRFC to the highest bidder, who co-incidentally has a vested interest in whether their sales package is in administration or not (and crucially when it will come out of said admin) I cannot see where the creditor pressure is coming from at this precise moment. Absolutely it requires an unhealthy short term focus of 2 months max, a cast iron guarantee that it needs more cash to get beyond that and a very good probablility that it will need more cash over and above the ST receipts unless the model is radically changed but these are all multi facted problems for 6 months hence (in terms of impact, not planning), not 6 hours away as some would have us believe.
    =============================================
    Yes I did mean problems rather than solutions 😳

    However I am delighted to hear from you how well things are down Ibrox Way – so no worries then and nothing to see 😉

Comments are closed.