Acouple of weeks ago we revisited the OCNC debate. This is a useful exercise to turn to periodically, for I have noticed how, with the passage of time, new aspects have become clear as new information emerges, or some ridiculous claim is made and then debunked.
In those circumstances, we are given the opportunity to reassess what we already know using the new known knowns, or finding significance in something previously overlooked, but now shed in a new light.
Or put another way, the Beauty of Hindsight!
In introducing his notion that both ‘sides’ are merely putting their opinion, SFM contributor MarkC recently brought me to see that one side must be correct and factual, while the other will merely be left expressing an opinion. In the same way that one side must be right, because TRFC is either a new club, or it’s not, one argument must be the one that is factually correct and leaving the other as just opinion (at best). Once a factual argument is put forward, it can only be countered with fact, for anything else is just opinion.
Armed with facts, there would be no need to prove that TRFC is a new club, for first it would be necessary for those who claim ‘same club’ to show, using documentary evidence and facts, that ‘Rangers Football Club’ isn’t currently in liquidation.
So, factual evidence; what facts do we have?
Well, it is a fact that Rangers Football Club availed itself of the advantages of incorporation in 1899, and it’s a fact that Rangers Football Club Plc entered the terminal state of liquidation in 2012.
It is also a fact that at no time since this incorporation took place has anyone been aware of any other Rangers Football Club ensconced within Ibrox, no one has written or spoken about it; or not, at least, until a snake oil salesman used it to push his off the shelf company as ‘The Rangers Football Club Limited’.
What’s more, no other failed incorporated football club has ever availed itself of this new notion of the ‘eternal club’. The SFA was apparently unaware of it either, for they never offered up the salvation of its use to the likes of Airdrieonians, or Gretna, or dear old Third Lanark.
In fact it seems to have miraculously appeared only as a result of the failed CVA attempt of Rangers FC Plc, and the words of one of the spivs who surrounded Ibrox at that time (and for some time before, and after).
The only ‘fact’ put forward to support the ‘same club’ argument is that the SPL say, in their rules, that they are the same club. But the rules don’t actually make them the ‘same club’, for it’s not the SPL’s place to say what is and isn’t a club, and they only explain how they would treat the situation under their rules, and as Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit (see appendices I, II and III) brought to our attention, the football authorities had reasons to introduce this to their rules that had nothing to do with establishing a separate club that lives on eternally.
It does, though, as Easyjambo’s post describes, show a willingness by football’s governors to change the rules to support their desired outcome.
As Hirsutepursuit (Appendix II) points out, the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005. So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?
And that brings me to look again at what Lord Nimmo Smith said of how the SPL rules view the continuation of a ‘Rangers’ (see appendix IV for reference). In short, a lot of words that confuse rather than clarify, and give no legal basis, or justification, for what he, or the SPL rules, say. Basically, the rules say ‘Rangers’ continues as the same club because the SPL rules say it does.
Then, in January 2015, Doncaster said this in an interview with the BBC:
“In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time.
“The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.”
What Doncaster seems to be saying here is that TRFC are RFC because LNS said so.
Which is strange because it was the SPL’s own rules, and nothing else, that LNS based his findings on, and to have lent weight to the ‘same club’ argument, LNS would have had to have used some independent reasoning, or examples in law, to back this up. Instead we are left with the following:
- (i) the SPL, through an interpretation of their rules, told LNS that they looked on TRFC as the ‘same club’,
- (ii) so LNS said the SPL looked on TRFC as RFC,
- (iii) and then Doncaster said it’s the same club because LNS said so,
It’s a bit like me telling Big Pink (who is an acknowledged expert in the field of colours) that SFM treat black as white, BP tells the world that SFM treat black as white, and a couple of years down the road I announce that black is white, because Big Pink said so!
SOMETHING IMPORTANT I THINK WE’VE OVERLOOKED
Now here’s a fact for us all to consider. At some point Rangers FC ceased to be a member of the SPL. With the help of Neil Doncaster, Sevco (Scotland) Ltd tried to gain entry to the SPL and to participate as The Rangers FC. They failed.
Whatever entity was trying to gain entry into Scottish football, it was at that time not a member of the SPL, and so never had been under the jurisdiction of the SPL.
Therefore whatever the SPL rules or Doncaster said, or what conclusion LNS reached over the matter when it was based solely on what the SPL rules said, it madeno difference to the new club, since the SPL or Doncaster had no locus in the matter. Sevco were in limbo, and everything then depended on Sevco, as The Rangers FC, getting entry into the SFL.
Now, the ‘same club’ argument’s only factual ‘evidence’ is the SPL’s rules, and if they hadn’t included the recent amendment highlighted in Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit’s posts, then there would be no ‘factual’ evidence, at all, however flimsy it might be.
So let’s take a look at what the SFL’s Constitution and Rules say on the matter, and I will quote the relevant parts!
Here’s what it says on a liquidated club joining the league:
“ …”
And here’s what it says, in full, about how it would treat a liquidated member club:
“ …”
In fact, there is absolutely no mention of liquidated clubs in the SFL’s Constitution and Rules, because the notion that a club could live on after liquidation is just that, a notion invented by a spiv!
And because liquidation means the end of a football club, there is absolutely no reason for rules covering such an eventuality to be considered within the rules of football.
And as I said earlier:
‘…the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005.
So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?’
What is now obvious is that there was nothing in the rules of Scottish football that gives succour to the notion that TRFC is one and the same football club as RFC.
When the SPL clubs voted against Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, from entering the SPL, they made the SPL rules on the ‘same club’ matter irrelevant.
When Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, entered the SFL, they were, according to the SFL’s own rules, a new club, for there is nothing in the rules that says otherwise, or can be interpreted as saying so!
Of course, by the time Doncaster made his nonsense statement, the SFL had been disbanded, and it’s clubs were now part of the SPFL, with rules tailored to suit those who bought into the ‘same club’ notion. Handy, huh?
WAS IT ALL ABOUT ARMAGEDDON?
We all laughed at the time it was spewed forth, but perhaps Armageddon was a real possibility, but not in the way we were encouraged to believe. We know that RFC owed a significant amount of money (football debts) to clubs outside of Scotland, and so outside of the SFA’s influence. We also know, with some certainty, that the SFA turned a blind eye to, or were incompetent in policing, some of RFC’s wrongdoings (the EBTs and European Licence) and the last thing the SFA, and SPL, would want would be non-Scottish clubs kicking up the inevitable stink and getting UEFA/FIFA involved, and investigating the SFA. So how to prevent it?
Plan D (plans A through to C had been used up trying to save RFC)
Create a scenario where TRFC must pay these debts, is the answer! How to do that? Well there’s that rule in the SPL Rule book! Right! but we must ensure Rangers stay in the SPL! Easy, we’ll frighten the other clubs into voting them into the SPL, and so TRFC will have to pay ‘Rangers’ football debts… Oops, the vote went against us! OK, we can stall the other leagues for a year, let’s get them into the Championship, promotion’s a certainty… Oops, we did it again… Let’s create a new set up, all under the (effective) SPL umbrella, with rules to suit, before anyone notices!
Could it be that all that help wasn’t so much because, or not only because, it was ‘Rangers’, but because of what no Rangers, to pay the non-Scottish football debt, might mean for the SFA and SPL, and so for the whole of Scottish football? Was that the real Armageddon?
Footnote
While putting this blog piece together I found it very difficult to write whenever I had to include the ‘what do you call it’ newly discovered ‘club’ thingy.
I find the ‘big C/little c’ method of describing it to be a nonsense, and at best a poor effort to create whatever it was they (whoever they are) wanted to create.
Even Lord Nimmo Smith, a much more learned man than I, failed to come up with a word, phrase or expression to adequately describe it. In short, a club with a capital ‘C’ is exactly the same as a club with a small ‘c’ – and only a fool could imagine it creates a difference!
Is a game of Football somehow different from a game of football?
But, of course, what can you call something that you can’t see, you can’t feel, can’t hear, can’t smell, something that has never been heard of or spoken of before?
Clearly, LNS could find nothing within the millions of words previously written within the myriad of cases dealt with under Scots Law, UK Law and EU Law, and clubs and associations, both corporate and incorporate, will have been the subject of a fair number of legal cases in the past for him to draw on, yet there was no answer to this conundrum to be found there.
And if Lord Nimmo Smith was unable to draw on his legal knowledge or research, he was merely expressing a layman’s opinion on how the SPL viewed a ‘????????’ club!
In such circumstances, his opinion is no more valid than any other reasonable person’s might be!
Acknowledgements
Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit for the posts I have used in the appendices and my thanks in particular to EJ for kindly providing me with some documents I was unable to find on the internet by myself.
I’d also like to acknowledge the part MarkC played in bringing the debate back to SFM’s attention, it can’t be easy, constantly arguing against the accepted wisdom in any debate, but it always seems to bring out the best in us and something new.
APPENDIX I: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:02
EASTWOODMARCH 1, 2017 at 08:366 Votes …
Deviously, both the SPL (around 10 years ago coinciding with Rangers (In Liquidation) entering very choppy waters) and the SFA more recently, changed their rules to adopt this distinct “Club” (capital ‘C’) type definition, distinguishing it from the “owner and operator” company. It could have been said at the time to be a licence for unscrupulous, badly run “Clubs” to dump debts and shaft creditors, and so it proved with Sevco’s exploitation of these rules.
In 2005 the SPL changed its articles to create the definition of Club (with a capital C) – which actually INCLUDES the ‘owner and operator’. Whether the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED depends on the context of the article in which it is used and to WHICH Club (with a capital C) it is referring.
The SFA did not add the ‘owner and operator’ tag until 2013.
It is interesting because the original SPL articles referred to the clubs (with a lower case c) as its members. Its members each held shares in the SPL. The clubs were listed by their full company names – rather than their trading names.
The Club (with a capital C) definition came about because the SPL were trying to launch SPL2 and one of the clubs (with a lower case c) that could have been included was Brechin.
Brechin is not a company, so could not as a club (with a lower case c) become a member/shareholder in the SPL. To cover this eventuality, a form of words was created that would allow the club (with a lower case c) to play in the SPL even if the share was not actually held by the club (with a lower case c).
If a club (with a lower case c) has not been incorporated, the club (with a lower case c) cannot own anything. In such cases, the assets are held by its members (usually a committee member or members). Since the original articles defined the member/shareholder as a club (with a lower case c), it would have resulted in the committee member who took ownership of the SPL share being defined as the club (with a lower case c).
The reference to ‘undertaking of a football club’ in the definition of Club (with a capital C) meant that it could refer to both an incorporated body and an unincorporated body of persons.
So the context of when the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED from the definition of a Club (with a capital C) is only when that owner and operator is not a club (with a lower case c).
What is even more interesting is that three non-corporate clubs (with a lower case c) have each been listed as members/shareholders of the current SPFL – even though none have the legal personality to own anything.
…which is strange.
APPENDIX II: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:32
I should add that LNS found The Rangers Football Club PLC (the owner and operator) guilty of offences that predate the creation, in 2005, of the definition of Clubs (with a capital C).
Even if you accept that Rangers FC (the Club with a capital C) can be separated from The Rangers Football Club PLC/RFC 2012 (the owner and operator) – which, to be clear, I do not – that distinction only came about in 2005.
So if there is guilt prior to 2005, that guilt lay with the club (with a lower case c).
LNS didn’t seem to spot the distinction.
…which is even stranger.
APPENDIX III: EASYJAMBO
March 2, 2017 at 08:01
My recollection of the change in the SPL and SFA rules on “Owner and Operator” was implemented in early 2006, as the SFA wished to sanction Vladimir Romanov for his comments, but couldn’t do so because he held no official post at the club (small “c”).
It was Vlad’s son Roman who was Hearts chairman at the time, although Vlad was the major shareholder. So feel free to blame Vlad for the change in the rules.
Hearts were fined £10,000 by the SFA for Vlad’s comments about referees in October 2006. The DR article below, suggests that the SFA rule change came into effect in May that year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart
APPENDIX IV
(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.
While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.
So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator.
While there can be no Question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions Which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the list of preliminary issues.
ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 25, 2017 at 12:02 4 Votes
Cross-examination continues with questions about P Murray’s proposal to take over RFC.
Main point so far – shares would have been underwritten by party who wanted to remain confidential.
—————————
ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 25, 2017 at 14:40 13 Votes
McIntyre shown email in which he mentions the Murray Group has been ‘conservative in their disclosure’ to Whyte over the ongoing tax cases.
Findlay: ‘Murray holdings were hiding things basically’McIntyre: ‘They weren’t putting information in the data room’
I can hear some rather dramatic music in the background at this point…
——————————-
ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 25, 2017 at 14:48 12 Votes
McIntyre shown an email he got from Murray International Holdings saying ‘No need to provide any correspondence with the bank’
Email also states ‘no need to provide a three year forecast’
Findlay suggests Murray International ‘were not approaching this ‘with openness in mind’McIntyre replies ‘they were being selective’
McIntyre says plan was to disclose ‘sensitive information’ later in the process ‘you have to weigh openness and confidentiality’
Email also says ‘executive salaries’ were not to be disclosed to Mr Whyte‘They were trying to hide information’ Findlay says
———————-
Was Dave king on the rangers board when all this openess and transparency was going on,asking for a friend
STEVIEBCAPRIL 25, 2017 at 17:05
The DR report online of today’s proceedings fails to mention the bombshell confirmation of the Wee Tax Case – and the implications about Rangers’ honesty in 2011 – and the implication that the SFA / Regan were complicit.Thanks goodness we have Bampots to report the whole truth – from a court of law !
=========================
Given the admissions made in court about when the wee tax case was accepted by Rangers, I expect this to really blow up once the case is over. I’m sure I have seen Auldheid state elsewhere that the Resolution 12 people have asked Celtic to say nothing while the case is ongoing, and that the SFA won’t comment at this time either. I think things are already panning out as the Resolution 12 people suspected they would.
Apologies not relevant.
Thanks to all who kept us up to date with what was happening today(note to myself, take a couple of days off and catch up)
but what will be the best days to take off and catch up? knowing me i’ll take a day off and it will be one of those quite days in the case
But then again you never know
So, Mr. Regan: ‘corrupt’ or ‘incompetent’ ?
Your choice.
STEVIEBC
APRIL 25, 2017 at 19:12
=================================
Can I suggest that “both” should be an option available to him.
Yesterday and today, I was at the High Court, having received a jury citation, unfortunately, it wasn’t for the Craig Whyte trial, but during a break,I had the pleasure of complimenting Mr Findlay, on his performance to date, he was modest and said “long way to go yet”….
I also had a look around the crowded foyer, for a few of the denizens of this place, but didn’t feel comfortable, walking up to total strangers, offering a funny handshake and saying “SFM, are you a member”
I think for occasions such as this, we need t-shirts or badges, maybe a secret code word-:)
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/856808149352939520
“Findlay says is vital to the defence”
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/856808492295958528
“Findlay agrees “this is not a public inquiry it is a trial “Lady Stacey accepts his statement
———————————————————————————————-
A reference to Nimmo-Smith ladies and gentlemen?
Can anybody provide more context?
In other news…
Former Rangers winger Willie Henderson claims £50million is required for new players if the Ibrox club is to compete with Celtic.
—————
Dear God….
Away from the crime of the century, there was much talk last week about the benefit to Ross County of Alex Schalk’s dive against Celtic. As a Dunfermline resident, here’s news of another ridiculous dive I saw. As well as probably depriving DAFC of points, this one turned round a one-goal deficit and eventually led to Falkirk picking up 3 points to reinforce their play off place.
It seems like these clubs are only too glad to take the suspension and pick up the vital points at this time of year!! You can find the dive itself on YouTube.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39710204
CYGNUS X-1
APRIL 25, 2017 at 19:37
…
I think for occasions such as this, we need t-shirts or badges, maybe a secret code word-:)
==============================
Tinfoil hats ?!
Yet more toxic fallout from the SFA / Clubs appeasing RFC & then TRFC;
this case is not only dragging the Ibrox clubs through the mud – it is also dragging Scottish football through the mud.
Not exactly making the Scottish game more appealing for major, potential sponsors either ?
Cygnus X-1April 25, 2017 at 19:37 (Edit)
Yesterday and today, I was at the High Court, having received a jury citation, unfortunately, it wasn’t for the Craig Whyte trial, but during a break,I had the pleasure of complimenting Mr Findlay, on his performance to date, he was modest and said “long way to go yet”….I also had a look around the crowded foyer, for a few of the denizens of this place, but didn’t feel comfortable, walking up to total strangers, offering a funny handshake and saying “SFM, are you a member” I think for occasions such as this, we need t-shirts or badges, maybe a secret code word-:)
________________________
Phew, for a moment there I thought you were about to say ‘secret handshake’!!!!
StevieBCApril 25, 2017 at 19:51 (Edit)
CYGNUS X-1 APRIL 25, 2017 at 19:37…I think for occasions such as this, we need t-shirts or badges, maybe a secret code word-:) ==============================Tinfoil hats ?!
Yet more toxic fallout from the SFA / Clubs appeasing RFC & then TRFC; this case is not only dragging the Ibrox clubs through the mud – it is also dragging Scottish football through the mud.
Not exactly making the Scottish game more appealing for major, potential sponsors either ?
_____________________
Oh I don’t know, Lawyers4U might be more than a little bit interested
STEVIEBCAPRIL 25, 2017 at 19:51
“Not exactly making the Scottish game more appealing for major, potential sponsors either ?”
—————————————————————————————————————-
Don’t bet against “Lawyers R Us” putting in for the gig Stevie.
“Want a fudge, then call the ludge”, freefone us pn :- Govan won nothing, won nothing won nothing.
Lady Stacey made a comment today about the legality of tax evasion/avoidance, when seeking clarification from Findlay about a line of questioning about the wee tax case. Findlay had been asking about the scheme but in terms of tax avoidance rather than evasion when it became clear that tax rules had been broken. Her Ladyship commented that as soon as the rules are broken (in her view) it becomes evasion.
We have another 11 weeks or so of court ?!
There’ll be a popcorn shortage in Scotland soon.
As an aside, it looks like the SMSM have lifted a shared / PA? / Level42 ? version of events today.
e.g. the ET, DR, BBC, Scotsman all have very similarly worded articles.
And each leaves out mentioning the significance of ‘The Wee Tax Case’ dates, wrt e.g. Regan’s very public Tweets.
I thought there were a few MSM folks attending court ?
You would think for such a high profile – and local – court case, Editors would want their own ‘journalists’ to draft the copy ?
EASYJAMBO
APRIL 25, 2017 at 20:07
=================================
I’m afraid she is wrong EJ. Tax evasion is this country is tried under Sect 106A of the Taxes Management Act or as common law fraud.
Neither is an absolute offence.
It would be stunning if a Judge was to be using the normal English meaning of evasion in such circumstances.
STEVIEBC
APRIL 25, 2017 at 19:12
So, Mr. Regan: ‘corrupt’ or ‘incompetent’ ?Your choice.
=================================
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 25, 2017 at 19:24
Can I suggest that “both” should be an option available to him.
=========================================
Sadly,given his “armageddon” comments he probably believes or was persuaded to believe that he was acting in the best interests of Scottish football. If only he had the gumption to apply the rules as laid down he would be able to walk away clean. Play up and play the game Mr.Regan!
After reading most of the out put from the CW court case,and reading alot of DCK statements over the last year.
I am of the firm belief that the ibrox boards from then and now their moto must have been and still is now is “Let’s kick the can down the road” by the time it’s picked up it will be someone else’s problem not ours.
Had a great laugh with a Bear this afternoon.. Talking about football side of things. Res 12 etc. was beyond this guys interest. He is just a pure Ger. Wish we could get back to these days. But there are so many guilty parties to why people like me feel cheated and want justice. People above and beyond the ordinary punter. So many people guilty for why football is now like the Craig Whyte trial is the talking point.
I see PMGB has posted a short blog about his ongoing correspondence with Glasgow City Council, seeking sight of their correspondence with TRFC over the safety issues at Ibrox. He seems confident he will receive a reply soon. I wonder if the revelation, from the court case, that safety work was required back in 2010, and that it would appear to have not been addressed yet, will encourage them to give him a more full and frank answer than the last time!
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/04/25/getting-frantic-about-donegal-imposed-deadlines/
Could it be that, after 5 years of avoiding so many banana skins, they are about to slip on quite a few within a short space of time?
While the current case can’t hurt TRFC directly (though the supporters might well be), the fallout from this health and safety liability could shine too bright a light for anyone to feel safe in continuing to cover up/turn a blind eye to whatever ails the ‘Big Hoose’!
Aj, as far as I can see the supporters aren’t the least bit interested. I don’t look at other TRFC* sites, but on the Bear’s Den – which has a Boardroom and Financial section – there isn’t even a thread devoted to the crime of the century.
NAWLITE
APRIL 25, 2017 at 22:40
===================================
Follow Follow have been ignoring what happened today in a willful manner.
They must realise how significant what happened is, but still choose not to face up to it.
It is similar to the current issues their chairman has with the Court of Session. Best not to talk about it and it might go away.
Subservience is a life choice, it precludes personal responsibility.
NAWLITEAPRIL 25, 2017 at 22:40
Aj, as far as I can see the supporters aren’t the least bit interested. I don’t look at other TRFC* sites, but on the Bear’s Den – which has a Boardroom and Financial section – there isn’t even a thread devoted to the crime of the century.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Quite remarkable considering that for a few years now, almost every pretendyger has wanted to see wee Craigy swing from the gallows, and Halloween and his merry men have been stalking him up and down the country. You would think they would be showing a bit more interest.
Maybe a breakdown in communications from HQ?. I imagine communications might improve if HQ is called, and appears, locally as a witness.
upthehoopsApril 25, 2017 at 18:45 I’m sure I have seen Auldheid state elsewhere that the Resolution 12 people have asked Celtic to say nothing while the case is ongoing, and that the SFA won’t comment at this time either. I think things are already panning out as the Resolution 12 people suspected they would.
============================
Better if possible. 🙂
it is not wee Craigy they will want to see swing soon:
calling 1872, no reply, 1872 …………………………………….
AULDHEIDAPRIL 26, 2017 at 00:48
upthehoopsApril 25, 2017 at 18:45 I’m sure I have seen Auldheid state elsewhere that the Resolution 12 people have asked Celtic to say nothing while the case is ongoing, and that the SFA won’t comment at this time either. I think things are already panning out as the Resolution 12 people suspected they would. ============================Better if possible.
===============================
I was hoping you would comment Auldheid! However, things not going well enough yet for the media to dare venture towards this. Even those among them who were tripping over each other last year to headline Mr Regan’s version of events. Now there would be no need to incriminate Mr Regan by simply asking him why an admission under oath in a court confirmed the wee tax case was accepted by Rangers before 31 March 2011, which conflicts with the SFA line on the matter. What did the SFA know and when did they know it is a fair enough question to ask in my view. In terms of journalism what’s not to like I wonder! The fact is though they seem to be reacting like a vampire to a crucifix.
Off to work now. Looking forward to my lunchtime update from the various bampots!
nawliteApril 25, 2017 at 22:40 (Edit)
Aj, as far as I can see the supporters aren’t the least bit interested. I don’t look at other TRFC* sites, but on the Bear’s Den – which has a Boardroom and Financial section – there isn’t even a thread devoted to the crime of the century.
_________________________
Might I suggest this lack of interest is more to do with hurt and fear than them actually being uninterested?
It’s human nature to look for someone to blame whenever you lose something you care about, and they’ve spent the last 5 years blaming Whyte for their loss. They will be harbouring a great fear that Whyte might get off with it, and so they ignore the proceedings and, by not hearing the evidence, they can then blame the police, the judges and Uncle Tom Cobley, for ‘letting Whyte off with it’. They can then continue to vilify Whyte!
The more that people pointed out that David Murray was to blame, along with the rest of his lickspittle board, the harder their resolve got that he was a duped hero. Murray is as important to their lost history as the unfairly won trophies; they no more want to lose him than they do those titles!
But make no mistake, they are hurting, as surely as they are hurting over Sunday’s result!
I would agree that there seems to be a head in the sand attitude on the main Rangers forums.
There was previously a long thread about Whyte going to trial in the boardroom section of RM. This has now disappeared.
You would’ve thought there would be some fans discussing the events in court??
Re Wee Tax Liability – considering yesterday’s revelation that Rangers admitted liability for the tax in late 2010 I am surprised at the leniency shown by HMRC in their efforts to collect the overdue amount until Feb 2012 when it was too late to recover the tax . I am thinking of Hearts as an example under Romanoff , from memory they were served with court action by HMRC fairly swiftly on discovery of a tax liability .
Maybe Mr Salmond’s plea to go easy on part of the fabric of our nation went heeded !
Please someone (EJ) correct me if I am wrong but were Hearts under Romanoff not serial offenders with regard to tax and paying players wages. As far as I am aware the wee tax case was the first time the old Rangers came to the attention of HMRC.
THEOLDCOURSE APRIL 26, 2017 at 07:48
——————————
Hearts did get involved with HMRC, by paying some of their loan players from Kaunas, in Lithuania, rather than Scotland. Hearts ended up with a bill of approx £1.5m as a result.
Investigation into Rangers tax arrangements started in 2004 so they pre-date Romanov’s involvement at Hearts.
I believe Hearts were threatened with winding up by HMRC on four occasions. One a year from 2009 to 2012. I’m afraid that as I understand it the problem boiled down to overspending, then using the tax collected to pay bills, rather than handing that money over to HMRC. Though they did eventually make the payments when really pushed.
The big differences I can see with Hearts however is that they accepted that it was their owner who was responsible for their problems and didn’t go about blaming just about everyone else. They also went through a proper administration process when they had to and took the hard medicine to get their club back on track.
The most important issue for me is that the fans accepted what had happened and have got behind their club in numbers, financing the re-building and not looking for a “sugar daddy” to sort it for them. Yes Ann Budge has provided funding but as I understand it that is short term to allow them to get organised. The plan is for her to stand down when the club is stabilised.
To go from administration and relegation to promotion, moving towards fan ownership and extending the stadium in such a short period is really good going and is a credit to the Hearts support. I think it says a lot that they actually posted a profit during the administration period. Not quite a million pounds but close to it. That was done by cutting costs dramatically, for the most part wages. That is exactly what an administration is supposed to do. Again it is to the supporters credit that they still went in numbers to support their team.
ALLY JAMBO April 25th.
I can hear some rather dramatic music in the background at this point…
Jaws theme?
Not Scottish football related as far as I am aware but it appears HMRC have been taking action in the UK and France in relation to football transfers, tax and NI. Newcastle and West Ham have been mentioned. It seems Lee Charnley has been arrested in relation to this.
David Murray first up today. Jings crivens, help ma bob!
Murray days before 2008 his business was turning over £600m pa
Murray says he has a ‘friendship’ with Graham Souness’ and through him learned Rangers was for sale
‘I was actually an Ayr United supporter’ Murray tells the court
Murray says the company acquired shares worth £6m to gain overall control of Rangers in 1988
Murray says he became chairman of Rangers Football Club PLC after 6 months
Murray ‘it’s very hard to win and run a successful business at the same time’
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 26, 2017 at 10:03
Maybe not directly related to Scottish Football but given the Ashley connection and Newcastle loan players in the pertinent time it does have the potential to add further bonk to the bonkers situation. What a circus 🙂
Murray says supporters owned about 8% of the shares in the club adds ‘we didn’t pay dividends’
Murray: ‘football is an emotional game and people invest for emotional reasons’ says Rangers was ‘very, very important’ to him
Murray says there was no ‘cross-linkage’ from a banking perspective between the club and Murray group
Was a ‘stand alone deal’ he says
Murray ‘football wise we were very successful during my tenure’ says finances ‘reliant on Europe’
Murray says in 2007 he ‘needed a change and thought the club needed a change’ adds ‘Rangers was 10% of my business, getting 90% of my time’
Murray says in 2007 he decided to sell his shares and ‘recruited a team of brokers to promote it’
Murray says he had a buyer in 06/07 but at the last minute ‘I pulled out of the deal’ as ‘not in best interest of the club.’
Murray says about potential buyer ‘I didn’t agree with what they were going to do with the club’ no other offers of note
Murray says in 2008 ‘the steel sector collapsed…the property sector collapsed…and my bank collapsed’
Murray says Lloyds were the bankers to 23 football clubs but ‘did not, long term, want to be in the football sector’
Murray says indebtedness to the bank was in ‘low 30s’ and reduced to £18m two years later
In 2009 Murray stepped down as chairman for ‘personal reasons’
Murray says all the club directors knew the club was ‘on the market’
Murray says Rangers I used the services of Ticketus but he had never met anyone from the company. ‘read about it in minutes’
Murray can’t give precise details of how many ties Rangers used Ticketus, agrees was ‘from time to time’
Murray says offers to buy his shares before Whyte arrived ‘were not of a serious nature’ cites lack of ‘proof of funds’
So, clearly, it had nothing to do with what any potential buyers found ‘under the bonnet’ that prevented an earlier sale of the club
Murray says he thinks the idea Rangers were in financial difficulties ‘have been hugely exaggerated’ compares to Aberdeen and Hearts
Murray:’I think Rangers was in a reasonable situation’ adds £18m overdraft on assets of £70m
Agrees bank wanted to ‘reduce their facility’
Murray says he never heard any discussion of Administration when he was on the board, ‘may have happened later’
Murray says financial situation of club was ‘manageable’
Murray says club agreed to pay £2.8m over ‘small tax case’
Says EBTs ‘were not contractual’ and were ‘in the accounts’
Murray says EBTs ‘Gave us the opportunity to get players we otherwise couldn’t afford’
Are you watching Mr Regan? Are you paying attention, Lord Nimmo Smith?
ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 26, 2017 at 11:03
Murray says EBTs ‘Gave us the opportunity to get players we otherwise couldn’t afford’
========================================================
But they didn’t get any sporting advantage from getting those better players so that’s OK.
Murray ‘I was under no financial pressure to stand down as chairman of Rangers. I stepped down for personal reasons’
Murray: ‘It was important that whoever we sold it to preserved the continuity of what the club had achieved’
Murray says he met Whyte in the South of France in November 2010. Had a ‘chaperone’ who took minutes to send to the takeover panel
Murray says he passed the Whyte takeover proposal to his ‘team’ to deal with
Murray says he had seen proof of funds from Whyte’s solicitors and ‘everything seemed fine’
Anybody else noticed how pivotal the date November 2010 might appear to be? I’m sure there was something rather serious happened in that month too, didn’t Rangers receive a letter from someone?
HomunculusApril 26, 2017 at 11:05ALLYJAMBO APRIL 26, 2017 at 11:03 Murray says EBTs ‘Gave us the opportunity to get players we otherwise couldn’t afford’========================================================
But they didn’t get any sporting advantage from getting those better players so that’s OK.
———————————————————————————
Every other club could have done the same thing silly!!!
Court now being shown email from Gary Withey to Murray’s lawyer Oct 2010.
Says ‘up to £33m of funding’ available for the acquisition.
Murray says ‘I left a template for the boys to negotiate the deal’ with Whyte..
Murray confirms his shares were sold for £1. says originally price was £4m but he wanted to ensure future for players
1/2
‘We were trying to do what was in the best interests of the club’ Says total value of deal £48m
Court rises for morning break
Interesting morning so far. Murray has defended his position and that of Rangers in fairly strong terms. However I believe that Findlay will see opportunities to challenge Murray’s assertions once we get to the cross examination.
Been pretty dry stuff this morning, but I think we can see how Murray’s examination is moving towards the completion of the sale to Whyte. I expect we will get a more insightful examination from Mr Findlay.
I’m afraid I have to go to work later this afternoon so won’t be able to continue with the updates of James Doleman’s tweets after the lunch break, though I will be able to follow them at work later on and maybe comment too, but updating the tweets won’t be possible. I hope someone can take over so those not lucky enough to have jobs like mine (you know, the folk with real jobs) can get a flavour of today’s proceedings when they get home
Tomorrow I should be able to post for most of the day, but could have problems in late afternoon, while Friday, my shameless employers have arranged for me to be on a course – all bloody day!!!
Examination of Murray continues
Do HMRC know something we don’t?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39716009
Murray says deal was £18m to bank £5m per year for players, £1.7m to refurbish stadium, £2.8m for ‘small tax case’ £5m working capital.
Interesting that the £1.7m for Health and Safety liability in the indictment, become ‘stadium refurbishment’ according to the man under who’s watch the stadium was alleged to have deteriorated
Murray says if Whyte did not have the money at the time of the transaction he would have cancelled the deal
Murray ‘there was some tidying up to be done’ but says Rangers could have carried on.
Murray said he did not go over the deal with a ‘fine tooth comb’ adding ‘you have to rely on your lawyers’
On paying off the bank debt with future season ticket money Murray says ‘we could have done that ourselves’
Murray ‘We wouldn’t have considered Ticketus’
Murray says he first found out about Ticketus deal in 2012
Murray says Whyte ‘indicated he had his own source of funds’ no mention of a third party other than his own company, Liberty capital
Murray ‘Up until today I’ve only been in the company of Mr Whyte 4 times’
Document shown to court: email, 4 March 2011 from Craig Whyte to Ross Bryan
1/?
Document says Whyte has mentioned to Sir David Murray that a third party fund would be providing ‘a significant chunk of the financing’
Murray says he has no recollection of conversation
Is Chuckles still in France or will he be coming home soon.
Andrew Black @BBCAndrewBlackSir David says it was about being able to buy players which they may not have had the money to buy otherwise
James Doleman @jamesdolemanMurray on EBTs: “Gave us the opportunity to get players we otherwise couldn’t afford”
Note the subtle difference in the wording By the BBC Reporter and James Doleman.
May not have the money versus ‘Couldn’t afford’.
James seems to be quoting verbatim whilst the BBC guy is adding in his own words.
Court now being shown Share Purchase Agreement between Murray International, Wavetower and Liberty Capital
Share purchase agreement dated 6 May 2011
The share purchase agreement states that the purchaser has immediate access to the funds on completion of the agreement
Murray says he wasn’t present when Share Purchase Agreement signed
Carfins FinestApril 26, 2017 at 12:26 (Edit)
Andrew Black @BBCAndrewBlackSir David says it was about being able to buy players which they may not have had the money to buy otherwise
James Doleman @jamesdolemanMurray on EBTs: “Gave us the opportunity to get players we otherwise couldn’t afford”
Note the subtle difference in the wording By the BBC Reporter and James Doleman.
May not have the money versus ‘Couldn’t afford’.James seems to be quoting verbatim whilst the BBC guy is adding in his own words.
_______________________
David Murray, it was, who introduced the concept of ‘Succulent Lamb’! I wonder if he has a sheep on his family crest
Murray says if he knew the source of Whyte’s funds as Ticketus ‘categorically we would not have done the deal’
Murray says the deal with Ticketus was ‘selling the future’ and would be ‘unsustainable’
Murray says season tickets are ‘an asset to the club’ and only the board could have approved transacting with season tickets
Murray says that after the sale he had a meeting with Whyte in Monaco, and put his concerns in a letter
Murray on Whyte deal with Ticketus ‘I did not know about it until December 2012’
Adds, ‘I can see why the club ran into trouble’
Murray says no personal incentive for him in the sale ‘only the satisfaction of seeing the club in the right hands’
Advocate Depute ends his examination
BORDERSDON
APRIL 26, 2017 at 11:21
Every other club could have done the same thing silly!!!
=============================================
Sorry, I forgot about that.
The same way every other set of fans would have invaded the pitch to protect the players, women, children and infirm in a totally non-aggressive manner.
Findlay asks if in a complex business you have to rely on advisors, ‘of course’ Murray replies
Findlay ‘Football can be very unpredictable…a bad refereeing decision can see millions of pounds evaporate before your eyes’
Murray ‘yes’
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/857163197987553281
“Murray “it’s very hard to win and run a successful business at the same time.”
——————————————————————————————
Nail on head….Running the club within its means meant failure on the field.
Murray says he had only ‘minimal’ involvement in the running of the football club after he stepped down as chairman in 2009
Findlay now going over Directors of Rangers from 2009
Murray says h agreed with Bank of Scotland to get a ‘turnaround specialist’ on the board
Murray says David King had been on the board since 2001
Findlay ‘What was a South African businessman doing on the board of a Scottish club?
Murray replies that King has made an investment
Murray says kit deal was worth £4.8m to the club
Murray says making the Champions League was ‘bigger than season ticket money £20m v around £12m
Is Findlay going to go down the route of getting knocked out of Europe cost the club tens of millions hence the plan falling apart.
Murray said club would budget for at least second in the league
Court rises for lunch, back at 2pm
It seems the English take footballers betting on matches more seriously than we do up here.
https://twitter.com/SkySportsNewsHQ/status/857203217373024256
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/24060801
Rangers midfielder Ian Black has been given a 10-match ban after admitting to a breach of Scottish FA regulations on football betting.
The 28-year-old will serve an immediate three-game ban, while seven matches are suspended until the end of the season.
The player must also pay a fine of £7,500.
Black was accused of gambling on 160 matches over a seven-year period, including betting against his own team on three occasions.
The SFA has a blanket ban on footballers betting on any matches.
Rangers Football Club notes today’s verdict by the Judicial Panel which has imposed a 10-match ban and £7,500 fineRangers statement
The penalty applies to charges of “betting on three football matches on then-registered club not to win” and “betting on a further 10 football matches that involved then-registered club”.
A third charge of “betting on a further 147 football matches” resulted in a censure.
AllyjamboApril 25, 2017 at 15:52
‘…John ClarkApril 25, 2017 at 15:41 (Edit)
Not certain John, but I think James Doleman said in that excellent podcast, that speculating on future witnesses is a no no..
__________________
yes, Aj, thank you. The mods were on to it very quickly, thankfully, beause that post is tagged
“John ClarkYour comment is awaiting moderation.April 25, 2017 at 15:41”
The last thing I would want to do is fall foul of the ‘restrictions’, not so much on my own account as for fear of compromising SFM.
better to play things absolutely safe if there’s even a possibility that one may have inadvertently trodden where one ought not to have trodden!
It looks like Murray is trying to be a smart 4r53 and Findlay has put him in his place.
Findlay “The rules of this place are I ask questions and if there is no objection you answer them.”
Murray “sorry to change the subject”
Findlay “In these courts we call changing the subject not answering the question”
Findlay asks about big tax case, Murray agrees could be a £50m liability”So who was going to pay that?” Findlay asks.
Yup, it seems Findlay is doing what he is paid for, defending his client and willing to make others uncomfortable in doing it.
It’s revelation time again, if Mr Murray is correct. I wonder if this is a guess or the actual position.
“Murray says they had strong legal advice they would win big tax case. Says He understands bill will be paid by recipients, payable 2020”
How arrogant is this man … “we had decided to pay it” … really, tax really was optional for you then.
“Findlay asks Murray about evidence he had settled the small tax case. Murray says “we had decided to pay it” but later Whyte took it on”