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.
Wee side note here, worth bearing in mind that witnesses should not discuss their evidence prior to appearing in Court. Worse yet agree it. That would be collusion.
This one made me LOL
“Murray agrees he would have read the Share Purchase Agreement but didn’t sign itPhoto of him signing it was from a week later”
Maybe I’m just being silly again, but if the person selling the shares didn’t sign the agreement then who did, and why is there a photograph online with him allegedly signing it.
Findlay putting him in his place again.
Murray “Mr Prentice read that this morning”
Findlay “We call him the Advocate Depute in this court”
Fascinating stuff today from SDM.
Will be interesting to see what other witnesses will have to say to Mr Findlay in the coming days.
WOTTPI
APRIL 26, 2017 at 15:18
================================
Indeed, I don’t think Mr Murrays evidence is entirely the same as Mr McIntyre.
Murray shown an email from him to David Horn from 4 May 2011 (2 days before the takeover)
“we need to get this over the line…or the chance of stability is gone” there is no realistic alternative..nothing is perfect
“Any hope of future funding is lost….our season ticket and future playing squad details will not make good reading”
Murray says that if deal had not gone through club would have been reliant on a bank overdraft
NOTE – What was it Mr McIntyre said about the bank’s position.
HOMUNCULUS
APRIL 26, 2017 at 14:46
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”
========================
Ooooft !!!
I think there could be a few tetchy phone calls between ex-Rangers players to their ex-football agents after that quote ?
So, which Bampot wants to start the crowd-funding page for the ‘Ibrox EBT victims’ ?
It’s the least we can do after all the entertainment provided over the last 5 years or so…
No comment needed
DR headline today;
“Prospective former Rangers owner Bill Ng arrested in Singapore over missing funds at his club”
=========================
What is it about Ibrox ?!
It attracts all types of dodgy chancers…like flies around a :turd icon:
Findlay says no prospect of finishing questioning this afternoon, Lady Stacey sends jury home, back at 10 am tomorrow
It seems they have stood down for the day. Part heard overnight is not good fun. Particularly if the person doing the cross-examination makes it clear he is far from done.
So what’s was going on here.
HOMUNCULUS
APRIL 26, 2017 at 15:48
… So what’s was going on here.
=====================
I managed to zoom in on the photo.
Looks like Minty is writing his lunch sandwich order for Craigy Bhoy to nip round to the local newsagents.
[Who also appeared on the Rangers’ unpaid creditors list.]
Mibbees.
HOMUNCULUS APRIL 26, 2017 at 14:46
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”
======================
I think that was a revelation to many in court. SDM seemed to reveal that with recent changes in the law, and following a decision in HMRC’s favour at the Supreme Court, HMRC will only be pursuing the individuals, without penalties, for the tax due on the amounts received. The Oldco’s liabilities would be limited to NICs.
He said that the tax due would be assessed in the tax year 2018/19 and therefore be payable by the individuals in January 2020.
I have never seen anything in that regard from any legal source, although I do know that, regardless of the Supreme Court decision, HMRC intends pursuing anyone who doesn’t repay their loan to the trust before April 2019, as they will at that point treat the loan as income.
I don’t know if pursuit of such EBT holders would negate the claim against the club as double taxation, but I think SDM has confused the issue by his interpretation of the change in rules about unpaid loans. Basically we are talking about the same thing.
It could be that SDM has been contacted by HMRC, personally as an EBT recipient, and indicated what will happen if he doesn’t repay the loan. If SDM’s £6m was grossed up because it was deemed a net figure, then he would be the recipient of a £4m PAYE bill himself. If HMRC deem the £6m as the gross figure, then he would be liable for 40% of that, or £2.4m.
Homunculus April 26, 2017 at 15:48
======================
The picture of SDM signing something, was actually a set up for press purposes only.
SDM didn’t actually sign the agreement. It was Mike McGill who did so on behalf of Murray Group. SDM indicated that that picture was taken several days after the deal was signed.
EASYJAMBOAPRIL 26, 2017 at 17:19 (EDIT)
Interesting explanation of how it might pan out, EJ. The thing is, the question was in the past tense, and, I’m sure, looking for an answer of how an EBT bill would be met should they have lost the FTTT. Murray’s first sentence seems to me to be referring to advice he/Rangers got prior to the FTTT decision, that they would win the case, which they initially did.
I don’t think Murray means he has heard that the appeal has gone his/Rangers way, just that the players/recipients will be the fall guys, probably as a result, as you’ve quite brilliantly laid out, of Murray receiving his own tax bill, with the NIC liability remaining with the employer. For the employer to be liable for the NIC, I’d suggest they would have to have lost the appeal, and, of course, if the players are getting billed, that too could only happen if the appeal was lost!
I suspect Murray’s only sorrow would be for the cash he’s about to lose, but I wonder if Mr Regan has picked up on this, and if he’ll sleep well tonight!
EASYJAMBOAPRIL 26, 2017 at 17:24
===============================
Cheers EJ, I realised it was a set-up photo from JD’s tweets.
I just thought it displayed how pathetic the whole thing was. Playing to the gullible like that.
I say that on the understanding that other clubs and organisations do exactly the same thing.
It’s all about propaganda and manipulation. Not only McCoist supporting Whyte but the Knight of the realm doing it as well. Add that to Jackson’s “off the radar” billionaire stuff and it was a lovely set-up.
AJ – David Low tweeted this in response to James Doleman’s tweet about the EBT recipients being liable.
David Low @Heavidor 50m50 minutes ago
Liquidator appealing to remove huge HMRC creditor position from the cash pot leaving more for the other creditors.
Taking the above tweet at face value, there is a case for BDO to reduce the HMRC claim as a creditor, if they are indeed going to pursue the individuals as I described above. I don’t know if BDO have actually taken that step or if it is merely speculation on David’s part, based only on James Doleman’s tweet.
Something may have been lost in translation following James’ tweet, mainly because he is unable to place tweets in context because of the 140 character limitation.
James’ original tweet:
James Doleman @jamesdoleman Murray says they had strong legal advice they would win big tax case. Says He understands bill will be paid by recipients, payable 2020
Allyjambo April 26, 2017 at 17:40
EASYJAMBOAPRIL 26, 2017 at 17:19 (EDIT)
Interesting explanation of how it might pan out, EJ. The thing is, the question was in the past tense, and, I’m sure, looking for an answer of how an EBT bill would be met should they have lost the FTTT. Murray’s first sentence seems to me to be referring to advice he/Rangers got prior to the FTTT decision, that they would win the case, which they initially did.
=====================
You are right on that part of James’ tweet. It’s all a bit confusing, but James was tweeting about two different points in the saga, one at the time of the FTTT and the other about the here and now.
EASYJAMBO
APRIL 26, 2017 at 17:19
=========================================
Again cheers EJ, that makes perfect sense.
The rules with EBTs always allowed for the “loans” to be converted to payments. Tax became due at that point and the beneficiary simply declared it, and paid it obviously.
All HMRC appear to be doing would be to apply the rules as if the EBT had been legitimate.
So the beneficiaries would appear to have two choices. Repay the money (one wonders to whom) or pay the tax on it.
Easyjambo
Thanks for your further explanations, clearer now.
Could I ask you about James Doleman’s following tweet?
‘Findlay asked if Murray will comment on issues that may arise later in the case’
Was Findlay reserving the right to re-examine Murray at a later date, ie in the event some (we hope) damning evidence is produced?
A businessman who was previously linked with a bid to buy Rangers has been arrested in Singapore as part of a probe into football funding.
Bill Ng claimed to be fronting a consortium interested in buying Rangers oldco when it was in administration in 2012.
His group eventually pulled out, claiming “uncertainties” around the process, which was overseen by administrators Duff and Phelps.
A company voluntary agreement (CVA) was not reached and the assets of the oldco were sold to a group led by Charles Green, before the company was liquidated.
——————————
Now what are stv (it’s taken from an stv) report.trying to say here..A company voluntary agreement (CVA) was not reached and the assets of the oldco were sold to a group led by Charles Green, before the company was liquidated.
Fascinating reading from the Court today. Of course, it would be wrong to presume anyone innocent or guilty.
What has been most pleasing for me above anything else is people involved in this saga having to speak under oath in a court of law about many issues that we bampots have sought answers on for years. I await with anticipation at the possibility of two people in particular who have acted contemptuously towards ordinary fans these past few years having to take the stand. I’m sure most of you can hazard a good guess at who I mean. I’ll leave it there.
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 8h Murray says supporters owned about 8% of the shares in the club adds “we didn’t pay dividends”
—————————-
Now fans and members of club 1872 own shares in a company.does RIFC pay dividens? Asking as i and maybe some others don’t know how this dividends system works
Does one of the names rhyme with Brave Ring.
CLUSTER ONE
APRIL 26, 2017 at 18:38
============================
As I understand it dividends are effectively how people make money from holding shares in a company (without selling those shares).
So if the company decides to pay a dividend then the shareholders get their cut depending on how many shares they hold.
Again as I understand it not all shares earn a dividend if one is declared.
RIFC PLC does not make money so it won’t be paying dividends.
The cognoscenti can correct any of that which is wrong, it’s my simple understanding.
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 26, 2017 at 18:38
Does one of the names rhyme with Brave Ring.
=================================
If you are asking re my post at 18:29 then the answer is no. Think more of two men who are in charge of overseeing the entire game, but have refused to engage in any meaningful debate on this saga at any point. If called as a witness, they can’t treat the court with the smug arrogance they have treated football fans with.
Homunculus
Dividends are one of the kinds of returns on shares they are paid from profits generated and not retined in the company. Normally it is hoped that dividends wil come twice annually and increase over time as the company performs better becoming more profitable. As the dividends increase so the capital value of the shares may increase providing a second type of potential return.
There is some fancy arithmetic to compare investments one to another and over complication of that contributed to the fall of the Bank of Scotland and others
Allyjambo April 26, 2017 at 18:14
Easyjambo
Thanks for your further explanations, clearer now.
Could I ask you about James Doleman’s following tweet?
‘Findlay asked if Murray will comment on issues that may arise later in the case’
Was Findlay reserving the right to re-examine Murray at a later date, ie in the event some (we hope) damning evidence is produced?
=====================
IIRC, it is actually the reverse. He is trying to avoid having him recalled as a witness.
Findlay proposed to put some hypothetical scenarios to SDM that may come up later in the trial from other witnesses and he was seeking what SDM’s response would be.
(this wasn’t said in court … so it is just my example)
In my scenario Findlay would say something along the lines of: “If Alastair Johnston testifies later in the trial that the Independent Board Committee (IBC) was strongly opposed the deal going through, what would be your response to that?”
The above scenario won’t actually happen as SDM was asked earlier today about the IBC’s position. He initially said that it was neutral, but later admitted that some members were opposed. SDM explained that he didn’t believe that the IBC’s reasons for opposing the deal were sufficient to pull it. I was surprised that Findlay didn’t follow up on that very much, although he could return to it tomorrow, although I’m sure he will refer to in with Alastair Johnston.
Unfortunately I won’t be there tomorrow so I will have to rely on James’ tweets like everybody else.
As an aside I noted that Craig Houston was in the public benches.
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 26, 2017 at 18:41
—————
BFBPUZZLEDAPRIL 26, 2017 at 18:53
—————————
Thanks for some clarification on these matters
Surely by the end of this trial, regardless of the verdict, there will be sufficient information in the public domain to force real and meaningful change in the governance of Scottish football.
The SFA leadership , in particular, will surely be in an untenable position. Heads must surely roll and I hope that will be the catalyst for a complete restructuring of the governance model.
Meaningful change for the future must be the primary objective. Whilst a review of titles awarded is important to some and understandable in the circumstances it is not as important as the main prize, a game which is consistently, fairly and transparently governed from this point forward.
BFBPUZZLED
APRIL 26, 2017 at 18:53
=====================================
Thanks for clearing that up.
Surely The Knight admitting that both tax schemes were put in place in order to buy players they would never have been able to afford is the smoking gun for the SFA WHEN the Tax Case goes against his former club/company/entity/whatever??
CLUSTER ONE
shareholders happily / unwittingly signed up for no dividends…and minimal prospects of share price growth either.
APRIL 26, 2017 at 18:38
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 8h Murray says supporters owned about 8% of the shares in the club adds “we didn’t pay dividends”
—————————
-Now fans and members of club 1872 own shares in a company.does RIFC pay dividens? Asking as i and maybe some others don’t know how this dividends system works
================================
Just to add to clarifications above.
It’s quite normal for a footie club not to pay dividends.
It’s also not unusual for other businesses to choose not to pay out dividends, e.g. tech companies / fast-growing companies.
Of course, the idea is that by not paying out, the company is providing itself with ‘cheap’ finance for organic growth, typically.
The idea is that it aids share valuation growth, and this could also provide a more tax efficient return for shareholders.
However, in a footie business not many clubs actually make profits, with some notable exceptions like CFC, Arsenal, [and Hibs last year], etc.
And I think the Directors of footie clubs must play on the emotional aspect that fans would likely never sell their shares, and would not be pushing for any dividend payout – even if there were any profits made – if it helps the team.
But with RFC, then TRFC it seems that the ‘bearish’
Doubt Club 1872 would ever have expected a dividend anyway.
I seek the blog’s indulgence
The Scottish Youth Cup final is on tonight. It is being broadcast live on the SFA YouTube Channel.
If anyone wants to watch it then it can be found here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELPl_pOazCk&feature=youtu.be
I’m a bit bemused about the BBC coverage of SDM saying “categorically” that he wouldn’t have sold to Whyte if he knew about the Ticketus deal.
The reason I’m bemused was because there was further discussion about “third party funding”. SDM said that Whyte had assured him that the funds to be used for the purchase were his own. However Findlay drew his attention to paragraph 6.1.3 of the SPA which states that the Purchaser warrants and undertakes that:
“it immediately has available from its own and third party resources on an unconditional basis (subject only to Completion) the cash resources necessary to:”
SDM was questioned about the 3rd party reference, and basically confirmed that he hadn’t picked up on this.
He said he only became aware of the Ticketus deal in December 2011 (it was actually 13 October 2011), when he was precognosed by Levy and McCrae in connection with Martin Bain’s dispute with the club. Findlay then took him through a series of texts in November and December 2011, phone calls, plus a lunch meeting in Monaco and asked his why he hadn’t raised the Ticketus issue with Whyte at any of those opportunities. SDM tried to deflect by saying that he was questioning Whyte whether or not he had met his investment commitments.
Extracted from the Sun yesterday;
“…and a devastating… investigation into the financial collapse of the club accused [him] of blatant corruption by running ‘an inefficient and unscrupulous one-man business’.
Significantly they added, ‘the circumstances of the closure merited a police enquiry’.
…
The death throes of the club were a football black comedy, but there was nothing funny about it for the players or their faithful fans.
…
Yet when the closure came it was a shock… “It was awful, we went through a raft of emotions, we just couldn’t take it in.”
…
“It wouldn’t happen today, someone would have come along to rescue the club.
“[he] was a mystery man. I never understood his agenda…it turned into a tragedy for everyone…”
=====================================================
Of course, that was about Third Lanark, and their own bogey man who led them into extinction, with their last home game on 25/04/67.
Sounds rather familiar – even 50 years later.
STEVIEBCAPRIL 26, 2017 at 19:28
supporters owned about 8% of the shares in the club adds “we didn’t pay dividends”
And now club 1872 has shares in a company with no dividends to receive either …….the emotional aspect that fans would likely never sell their shares, and would not be pushing for any dividend payout – even if there were any profits made – if it helps the team.
thanks again
HT Celtic 2 (Wardrop, Miller) Rangers 0
Nice wee touch there. Celtic GK took out his own player. Celtic player hurt a bit. Rangers player comes up and puts his arm around the Celtic player.
Celtic just scored again as I type. 3 – 0
Not much of a crowd at Hampden. But an ave. of 17k watching on utube.
Thanks for the sensible approach to the trial on here folks. Some really dynamite stuff has emerged so far and BP is planning to highlight much of the outcomes on next week’s podcast.
With potentially two more days to go before that, it may be a long show ?
I know it is frustrating to be unable to comment, and that will be the case for the next 11 weeks. No doubt after that, the dam will burst.
Well done to the young Celtic side tonight nice touch at the end opening the gate for all the Celtic fans to come in.
I laughed at a comment on another site. Reckoned the young bear cubs would beat the 1st. team. To be fair it was a good game to watch on a quiet Wednesday night. Plenty of good potential on display.
As usual some players with the least ability were a bit ‘agricultural’. Nothing new there!
TRISIDIUMAPRIL 26, 2017 at 23:23
===========================
I think you might need an extra back up server when the Trial is over Tris!
I went down to the pub yesterday at about 3pm. I excitedly updated the owner who is a big Celtic fan, ST holder, all the news from James Doleman’s tweets.
He gave me a kindly smile and said OK. I could read in his eyes “get a life”.
I said to Reiver on here about a year ago us folk who are interested in the skulduggery of Scottish Football are in a minority.
I still can’t wait until it all kicks off again at 10am. I might well go back down to the local at 3pm and bore the shit out of him again. I will have done my duty.
There’s an article detailing part of the exchange between Findlay and Murray yesterday, in today’s Daily Record. I would consider it as pretty accurate as I remember it. I think it is worth a read, if only to get a picture in your mind about how the questioning progressed.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/ex-rangers-owner-sir-david-10303632
Goaunyersel Jimbo @ 7.30 27 April – you keep doing your public service duty in keeping the inhabitants of your local informed as they won’t get it from the rags they read – keep boring the sh*t out of them !
Another exchange from yesterday that has been barely reported was that Murray was on the verge of selling the club to an unnamed purchaser in August 2006. They got as far as meeting at the Dorchester Hotel where the deal was due to be concluded, but Murray pulled out at the last minute when the purchaser told him that he planned to reconfigure the stadium and build some flats on adjacent land. Murray said that he was unhappy with the proposed development, so pulled out.
I can’t find very much on the deal from my initial searches, although I know that Tom Hunter had previously been mentioned as a potential buyer. Does anyone recall anything about this deal?
You would think that the trial would be a significant story for Scottish based newspapers. Strange that the Herald, at least its on-line version, has totally ignored it. I couldn’t find any reference to it at all.
Really enjoying the coverage if the court case on here, possibly the first case I’ve ever wanted “Rumpole of the Findlay” to win…Remind me who again was the defendant and who was prosecuting? It does seem almost an inverse scenario…
Now I appreciate that a lot of the information coming out is probably more fuel for us bampots on here than smoking guns in the case in question, but I am agog for more revelations direct from the minty fresh mouth of the Knight of the Realm…
Keep it up bampots!
BIGBOAB1916APRIL 26, 2017 at 23:26
Joking aside am I correct in saying that despite all the coverage, live on the web and full radio coverage on BBC Sportsound, what is effectively a wee laddies cup final between the two Glasgow clubs was played behind closed doors for fear of crowd trouble.
Frankly, as a nation of football lovers, we should all be ashamed of such a situation being required in the 21st century.
Utter disgrace.
EASYJAMBOAPRIL 27, 2017 at 07:58
EJ. Does this help………..
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/football/pompey/we-are-in-talks-to-buy-the-club-say-russians-1-2390431
http://dothebouncy.com/main/threads/article-no-russian-takeover-imminent.27000/
Or maybe this guy.
http://mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/id/prince-albert-of-monaco/
Parties called into court…hmm Party Time!
James Doleman @jamesdoleman41s Jury come into court. Judge says one juror is ill today so case cannot proceed Proceedings adjourned until tomorrow #WhyteTrial
Judge announces the witness is ill today so cannot proceed. Proceedings adjourned until tomorrow!
Looks like EJ chose the right day to miss
Oops, sorry, it’s a juror who is ill!
Apropos of nothing at all, I just watched the documentary “Betting on Zero”, in which a former Herbalife distributor tells how he realised he was never going to make any money from his nutrition clubs, and that most people in his position would have recruited a new distributor and sold their lease to them. “The kind of people that can do that, I mean, they’re crooks. When you know, when you’re trying to get somebody into a business, that you know they are going to fail… that is a crook.”
Jimbo @ 07.30 27 April
“No Play To-day” – Jimbo , you should go down to the pub & bore the sh*t out of them debating Pedro’s “10 second principle” he intends utilising in Saturday’s Glasgow Derby instead .
In the Record it states 10 text messages.
It was in fact 10 pages worth of text messages.
Might have been an honest mistake
Naegreetin
Think I’ll talk instead about last night’s youth cup final. That should be fun, I can’t remember most of their names for a start! I’ll just make most of it up as I go along.
BallyargusApril 27, 2017 at 08:47
You would think that the trial would be a significant story for Scottish based newspapers. Strange that the Herald, at least its on-line version, has totally ignored it. I couldn’t find any reference to it at all.
==============================================
Fairly decent coverage in print edition it has to be said.
Was eager to see today’s court updates, but alas… 🙁
The DR headline today;
“Sir David Murray tells Craig Whyte trial EBTs gave Rangers chance ‘to get players we perhaps wouldn’t be able to afford”
Immediate reaction was surprise that the DR seemed to be going off script: it looked like an implied dig at the SFA /LNS view of ‘no sporting advantage’ boll*x.
[Although this was not referred to in the DR article itself.]
But then again, there could very well be many – who probably buy the DR – who could interpret that headline as:
“Yes…but the LNS Commission has already proved that there was no sporting advantage. So there !”
etc…
[The Bampot Court Reporters probably deserve a day off.]
HomunculusApril 26, 2017 at 18:41
‘….Again as I understand it not all shares earn a dividend if one is declared….’
_________________
I betray my ignorance of these matters when I say that I was surprised to learn that only(I think) Desmond is/was paid a dividend on his shareholding in Celtic plc. Something to do with the kind of shares he holds.
In my naivety I thought that if a company made money the shareholders generally got a few bob.I thought that was the point of having shares!
I’ve been doing stuff round the house today and had Radio 2 and BBC Shortbread on in the background.
I have to congratulate the Scottish Football Supporters Association for a wee running story and their subject matter and coverage.
if you haven’t heard it, they have raised the moral issue of football being overcosy with the gambling industry.
It followed on from Joey Barton raising the issue yesterday making a fair point about a common addiction and a contradictory and hypocritical relationship with our sport.
The story even made the Kaye Adams programme this morning and was debated for an hour and has hit every news too.
Some knucklehead sports journo from The (in terminal decline) Herald was on and confirmed several times just how off the pace he was.
Phil Goodlad has even just updated his piece to make the point that there has been no response from SFA or SPFL.
Well done SFSA.
FINLOCH
APRIL 27, 2017 at 15:29
…I have to congratulate the Scottish Football Supporters Association for a wee running story and their subject matter and coverage.if you haven’t heard it, they have raised the moral issue of football being overcosy with the gambling industry…
============================
Absolutely, FINLOCH !
The Barton punishment seemed rather harsh, and it looked like it was payback for his disciplinary record over his career ?
Anyway, football – like any sport IMO – should only be aligned with sponsors who reflect the positive aspects of competition;
e.g. health & fitness / wellbeing, community, teamwork, inclusion and accessibility, etc…
No sport, IMO, should be linked with e.g. ;
– gambling
– booze
– fast food
– junk food
– legal ‘shark loans’
etc.
Just because certain sponsors pay the most money doesn’t make it right.
Would the SFA have accepted sponsorship from Pablo Escobar if he was willing to pay excessive millions for the privilege ?
[Or replace Escobar with any other wealthy, dodgy person / organisation.]
The fact that neither the SFA nor SPFL responded to this discussion is rather telling – but consistent.
FinlochApril 27, 2017 at 15:29
‘….Well done SFSA.’
_____
Finloch, it looks as if the Scottish Football Supporters Association ,not subvented by the SFA, is truly independent of it ,and can therefore fearlessly articulate concerns about the governance of our game.
I endorse your ‘Well done, SFSA’
John Clark April 27, 2017 at 15:07
I betray my ignorance of these matters when I say that I was surprised to learn that only(I think) Desmond is/was paid a dividend on his shareholding in Celtic plc. Something to do with the kind of shares he holds.In my naivety I thought that if a company made money the shareholders generally got a few bob.I thought that was the point of having shares!
————————————–
There a quite a few holders of Cumulative Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS), of which Desmond holds around 32%.
The shares attract a dividend of 6% on the sums originally invested. Shareholders then have the option of taking the dividend in cash or have it reinvested in the form of Ordinary shares. The shares can also be converted to ordinary shares (which some shareholders have done over the years).
The last accounts stated:
A 6% (before tax credit deduction) non-equity dividend of £0.52m (2015: £0.52m) was paid on 1 September 2016 to those holders of Convertible Cumulative Preference Shares on the share register at 29 July 2016. A number of shareholders elected to participate in the Company’s scrip dividend reinvestment scheme for the financial year to 30 June 2016. Those shareholders have received new Ordinary Shares in lieu of cash.
…and
Mandates representing 1,308,243 Preference Shares are in place for the scrip dividend reinvestment scheme. Approximately £47,597 (2015: £37,693) of dividends for the financial year to 30 June 2016 will be reinvested. 64,734 new Ordinary Shares were issued under the scheme at the beginning of September 2016.
Desmond was entitled to approx £170k in dividends so must have take all, or the largest portion, in cash.
Around 18m CCPS shares were originally issued at 60p, raising in excess of £10m. Around 16m remain in issue, of which Desmond holds 5.13m
Did the juror really have a sore throat ??
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15250649.Cops_quiz_man_outside_Craig_Whyte_trial_after_former_Rangers_owner_makes_complaint/
STEVIEBC
APRIL 27, 2017 at 15:03
Was eager to see today’s court updates, but alas…
The DR headline today;
“Sir David Murray tells Craig Whyte trial EBTs gave Rangers chance ‘to get players we perhaps wouldn’t be able to afford”
Immediate reaction was surprise that the DR seemed to be going off script: it looked like an implied dig at the SFA /LNS view of ‘no sporting advantage’ boll*x. [Although this was not referred to in the DR article itself.]
But then again, there could very well be many – who probably buy the DR – who could interpret that headline as:
“Yes…but the LNS Commission has already proved that there was no sporting advantage. So there !” etc…
[The Bampot Court Reporters probably deserve a day off.]
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I may be wrong but at the time when LNS report came out
Didn’t LNS say that the reason there was no sporting advantage was that using an EBT scheme to pay players was open to any other club who wanted to have one?
Implying
Title stripping was a risk any club could have taken if they wanted to adopt an EBT scheme that had never been challenged by HMRC.The fact that Rangers took the risk and the scheme turned out to be legal at the time of the LNS Enquiry simply confirmed they had successfully managed a risk that other clubs were not prepared to take
Or put another way
The LNS view boiled down to this
For EBTs to provide a sporting advantage they have to be proven to be an illegal method of paying players
Titles can only be stripped if EBTs are proved illegal and thus not open to other clubs to use without breaking the law
Because
It should not be possible for a club to risk breaking the law,subsequently be found guilty and still retain the benefits of their illegal actions
So under the LNS scenario
Titles can only be stripped if EBTs are found to be illegal
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Despite the above
The Bampot view was that it wasn’t whether the EBT scheme was legal or iIlegal but the fact that loan details and side letters were not included in contracts provided to the SFA that broke the rules
Meaning the Bampot view was
Titles should be stripped irrespective of whether EBTs were legal sa there are numerous examples of the SFA punishing clubs for not disclosing full details of player contracts
STEVIEBC
they accepted dave king,so the answer is yes they would
Despite the fact I’m posting from California and as such I don’t believe Contempt of Court is enforceable , I intend to respect the spirit of the law and avoid comment on the Whyte Trial
So I’ll restrict my thoughts to a couple of other topics
Dermott’s pref shares and his Divi make sense from an investment perspective. Club 1872 should take note. Their rush to fund projects and invest in worthless shares betrays their naivety. It’s not surprising they are being taken advantage of and are being hijacked .
Invest emotionally if you must, but at least have the brains to protect yourself .
LNS
I disagree a little with the view that the perceived Bampot position is as stated above. I agree it’s held by a lot , but not all. My view is that LNS was flawed and was a sham set up by Doncaster. However if the SC uphold the appeal and set aside the COS verdict then I don’t see grounds to demand it being overturned
Obviously if the SC uphold the COS position then LNS should be set aside in my view
There is already evidence , under oath in a court of law , during a criminal trial, that demands at the very least an enquiry along LNS lines , but without the terms of reference set by Doncaster
There may be more of a similar nature that comes from further evidence . Which means it’s probably wise to hear it all before concluding what should be done next
goosygoosy
April 27, 2017 at 17:25
The Bampot view was that it wasn’t whether the EBT scheme was legal or iIlegal but the fact that loan details and side letters were not included in contracts provided to the SFA that broke the rules
Meaning the Bampot view was
Titles should be stripped irrespective of whether EBTs were legal sa there are numerous examples of the SFA punishing clubs for not disclosing full details of player contracts
=====
Indeed, LNS found RFC(IL) GUILTY and fined them £250,000, so the “no sporting advantage” argument cannot logically be based on the freedom of other clubs to do the same thing.
TAMJARTMARQUEZAPRIL 17, 2017 at 09:50 IF Celtic appeal the Brown red card is that cheating?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, No it’s in the rules they can appeal a straight red card. the ref got the penalty wrong who’s to say he got the red card wrong,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Just incase someone is reading the Blog in the year 4040 and we are all dead and buried.And was wondering…I wonder if they appealed that red card and i wonder what happened.
——————
NEWS | Scott Brown sending off reduced to a yellow card following claim of wrongful dismissal
CLUSTER ONE
he git the penalty wrong ????????? clear as day