The Case for a New SFA.

Avatar ByBig Pink

The Case for a New SFA.

After making inquiries into progress on Resolution 12 to the Celtic AGM of 2013 there is little doubt in my mind that the SFA made a serious error in the process of UEFA licensing.

Here are some facts:

 

  1. UEFA does not issue licences to clubs who have due tax bills outstanding,
  2. UEFA require the SFA to satisfy themselves of a club’s eligibility for a licence and that clubs have provided proof no overdue tax payable exists,
  3. UEFA also require a club to tell the SFA and UEFA if, after the issue of a licence there are material changes in their circumstances which would affect their eligibility – including the situation at #1 above,
  4. UEFA awarded Rangers a licence to play in European competition in March 2011,
  5. In May 2011 Rangers received a tax bill, which they did not contest or appeal or agree a payment plan. The bill (which remains unpaid) was overdue by 30 June 2011,
  6. UEFA received no notice of this,
  7. Rangers did not lose their licence and in fact competed in both the Champions’ League and The Europa League in that season.

 

None of these facts are disputed (as far as is known) by anyone connected to the saga. What is in doubt, because the SFA won’t answer the question, is whether they received a copy of the tax bill and the May letter that accompanied it from Rangers or not.

If they did send it to the SFA, Rangers could reasonably argue that they did their bit and the SFA fell down on the job by failing to notify UEFA of their new unfavourable tax status.

If Rangers did not send it, then they had broken not only UEFA FFP rules but more importantly the trust amongst SFA members that full disclosure is honestly made in a self-certification process. The SFA in not carrying out their monitoring responsibilities properly and using the powers UEFA FFP gave them also broke that trust.

In either case, there is a systematic failure by the SFA to administer the sport effectively; either through a failure of trust, a failure of administration – or both.

Even worse, in the four years that have elapsed since this incident, it seems that nothing has been done to put matters right. The SFA have been very active in refusing to answer questions on the matter, particularly this one;

“How will you prevent it happening again?”

 Incredibly, up to now, no measures have been put in place to add rigour to the licensing process. Are they really saying that they think the process was carried out satisfactorily?

No they are saying nothing. Silence and denial, followed by silence and inaction.

So what is the point of this article? Let’s call out the elephant in the room right away – it is unequivocally not to have a go at Rangers. This is no longer really about Rangers at all, but about the SFA’s mal-governance of the game. Besides, clubs affected by this seeming failure on the part of the authorities (in that year Celtic, Dundee United and Hearts and Kilmarnock) are hardly likely to successfully sue a club now in liquidation (although small shareholders might take a different view with regard to the SFA’s conduct).

Nor am I seeking to find some retrospective punishment for the club (as far as I know sanctions are neither available retrospectively, nor useful in this case ) but to be aware that the question above urgently needs to be addressed if the status of football as a sport is to be maintained.

To the extent that this is about what has happened to Rangers, does anyone – no matter what club they owe their allegiance to – seriously consider that TRFC would NOT be in a better situation today had the SFA acted with propriety and applied their rules correctly in 2011/12?

With the kind of money on offer these days for entry into Europe, and the interdependent nature of the game, it seems fairly self-evident that trust is not enough to allow effective regulation, and that incompetent governance where money is the paramount consideration is unacceptable.

The SFA has long enjoyed a misconceived impression of its function as being that of a quasi-legal body, bestowing upon it a status of independence and aloofness from the partisan interest of the clubs. In the main, fans have largely bought into that myth. However the SFA is nothing of the kind.

It is in fact merely a cartel which is allowed to govern itself for its own benefit and is only accountable to the clubs that make up its membership, and not the fans. Check out the last sentences of almost any rule, where discretionary powers awarded to itself effectively render the rule worthless and unenforceable.

Literally, a nihilistic approach to governance

Maybe it is time the SFA scrapped the get out of jail discretionary clauses, and put some robust regulation in place to ensure the financial transparency of all clubs?

Even better, politicians are never slow to tell us of the importance of football to the social fabric of the country – in that case why not follow their own rhetoric, recognise that it cannot be allowed to self regulate in narrow self interest, and legislate to have football governed independently?

If I was a Rangers fan, I’d be thinking that the SFA’s failure to police the UEFA licencing issue helped accelerate the club’s demise – by making it easier to paper over the cracks.

If I was a Celtic, Hearts, Dundee United or Killie fan, well the consequences for them in terms of lost financial and competitive opportunities are fairly obvious.

Conclusion? The clubs can no longer be trusted to run the affairs of the industry themselves.

A new independent, accountable regulatory body (funded by the clubs) is the minimum we need to save the game in this country. It should comprise representatives of the clubs, the fans and other stakeholders – and it should have a holistic remit as its prime directive, whilst ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all clubs.

It can take decisions on the basis of what is good for the game without the baggage of self-interest, and without any west of Scotland institutionalised bias. Of course Scotland isn’t alone in this. Football is a powerful political force across the world, and as developments at FIFA over the past couple of years have demonstrated, it is institutionally corrupt. The clubs can no longer be allowed to run it as they see fit, and we need to begin a campaign which will ultimately convince the pay-at-the-gate fan of the truth of that.

The UEFA licensing issue is only a pebble in the sand of football incompetence and corruption, but it is a microcosm of what ails the game. The good of the sport, and not individual clubs, is paramount. The SFA cannot and will not deliver that.

The case for a new regulatory body is clear, and the status quo is not an option unless the death of the sport is deemed acceptable.

There is little doubt in my mind that unless regime change is effected, in a few decades there will be no regime .

About the author

Avatar

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,255 Comments so far

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:34 pm - Oct 12, 2015


Is there  an element of ‘cross-purposes’ misunderstandings in our various posts relating to the trial and to the civil action ?
There are the criminal charges on  which some chaps are appearing on indictment  on Friday, in the High Court, Edinburgh.
Additionally, and separately, one of those chaps has raised a civil action , also being heard on Friday, but in the Court of Session, in which he is seeking to have his legal expenses relating to his criminal indictment, paid by RIFC.
I tend to become easily confused ( it’s an age thing!)

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on12:10 am - Oct 13, 2015


Greenock Jack has returned to the blog and has agreed to abide by the rules. His message is different to the accepted wisdom here.
If you disagree with what he says, please refrain from attacking him or ridiculing his thoughts. We have asked him to do the same.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on12:14 am - Oct 13, 2015


Homunculus 12th October 2015 at 11:11 pm #Corrupt official 12th October 2015 at 10:47 pm
As I understand it these proceedings are criminal, on indictment and are not a civil matter.
If that is the case then the proceedings are at the behest of the Lord Advocate.   
    ———————————————————————————————–
   Homunculus, In a way that is my point. Clause (a) reads that CG is entitled to his legal costs met,     unless    it is the company themselves who have brought forward the proceedings. 
  That is what certain elements of the SMSM have been putting forward, “Crimes against Rangers”  To my knowledge he has not been charged with crimes against his own club/company, nor was it they who initiated proceedings. If it transpires when the full extent of the charges are known, that he has, then they would have an obvious escape route. 
   There was a wee touch of sarcasm in my original post.   

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:41 am - Oct 13, 2015


Big Pink 13th October 2015 at 12:10 am #
‘Greenock Jack has returned to the blog and has agreed to abide by the rules. ‘
________
Noted.
But-forgive me- I don’t think I know what his message is.
Perhaps you could afford him a ‘blog’ in which he could set out his complete argumentation stall in respect of , say,
the cheating by SDM ( and not the tax case stuff, the cheating of all other clubs by concealing the true amounts he was paying his players)
the possible complicity in that cheating by officers of the SFA,
the definite, concerted , secret and underhand condonation of that cheating  by the signatories of the 5-way agreement,
the ‘show trial’ of the LNS enquiry,
the abject failure  of the Football Authorities to  defend Sporting Integrity by stripping the cheating club, now in liquidation, of the dishonourably ‘won’ titles etc,
and their refusal acknowledge that TRFC is, legally, sportingly, and  as an absolute matter of fact, NOT the RFC of his ancestors.
for starters, I would be very happy to read it.
If on the other hand, he would prefer to get us to ‘move on’ from unpleasant subjects to the factious in-fighting  of various people who, AFTER  SDM  had screwed RFC, subsequently screwed the new club and brought it to its present perilous position, or to solicit support for any particular faction in its demonisation of other factions……… I am not at all interested.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:33 am - Oct 13, 2015


John Clark 12th October 2015 at 11:19 pm # Allyjambo 12th October 2015 at 4:17 pm #‘..One thing’s for sure, Green’s legal team, before the case starts, will want to know they are going to get their money, whatever the verdict..’_______I imagine that in terms of legal costs, the case has already started, in so far as, presumably, all the accused will have had to engage solicitors and QCs for their defence in the ciminal cases. CG will, in addition, already have incurred liability for the costs of his civil action in the matter of getting his legal fees paid! Presumably, snice the two sets of matters are being heard on the same day, the criminal indictments in the High Court and Green’s civil case across the road in Parliament House, he’s in for at least 2 QCs and their bagmen/women, since even the very best QCs and solicitors  cannot bilocate! I’ve no idea how QCs tot up their bills- number of hours spent with the briefing solicitor and client, number of hours of research, number of hours preparing their case, number of hours of Court time, multiplied by £x to the power of y! I shouldn’t laugh.
__________________________________________

And in all likelihood, the loser of the ‘legal costs’ case will have to stump up for the legal costs of the ‘legal costs’ case! Go on, laugh 03 

In view of the nature of each party to the case, there’s bound to be karma regardless of the decision.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:39 am - Oct 13, 2015


John Clark 13th October 2015 at 12:41 am

Or he could just tell us the answer to the question; why now? What has happened, is happening, is about to happen, that has prompted this return?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:18 am - Oct 13, 2015


Allyjambo 13th October 2015 at 9:39 am #
‘…Or he could just tell us the answer to the question; why now? ..’
_______
We’ll wait and see.
 in so far as there is any possibility of any kind of money to be made out of the mess by those not facing any criminal charges of any kind, the factions among them will continue to dog-fight to protect their end of the bone.
I can’t remember which ‘scribes’ are pro-King  and which are anti. But each set will be trying
a) to denigrate the other
b) to rally their own ‘loyal support’ for ‘Rangers’
c) to get us to shut up and ‘move on, going forward!’
The chances that there might have been a Damascene conversion to the Truth are, I suspect, pretty slim.

View Comment

Avatar

BlueGrassPosted on10:21 am - Oct 13, 2015


Good morning !
Let me try and get this conversation back on track with a quick c&p of my first post yesterday that was in the moderation thread and so didn’t really get any timely feedback. It was challenging the BB interpretation of the clause that may be part of the proceedings regards the Charles Green claim for legal expenses to be paid by Rangers.
————————————————————————-

Barcabhoy at 4.20pm yesterday
“my reading of the IPO document was that Green is unequivocally entitled to legal fees, the element relating to guilt seemed to me to refer to any fine or liability ( which I took to mean compensation) not being payable by the company if it was levied directly on Green.”
—————————————————————-

This is the relevant passage that I can find in the Rangers AofA (dated December 2012) and it relates to criminal proceedings:-“…..other than a fine imposed in such proceedings, or a liability incurred in defending proceedings in which the director is convicted and the conviction is final”
———————————————————————-

Given the wording, couldn’t a liability be a debt incurred that related to the cost of his/her defence?

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on11:40 am - Oct 13, 2015


charles green’s knee ‏@ilPapaFrank 1h1 hour ago
 Eeebyegum Korissa Capital on the revised AR01 #Ouch

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07380537/filing-history …
         

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on1:14 pm - Oct 13, 2015


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) 13th October 2015 at 11:40 am #charles green’s knee ‏@ilPapaFrank 1h1 hour ago  Eeebyegum Korissa Capital on the revised AR01 #Ouch
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07380537/filing-history …
———————————————————————
This refers to a second AR01 lodged on 5 October 2015 regarding THE RANGERS FC GROUP LIMITED and apparently shows a share transfer between Korissa Capital Ltd to Law Financial Ltd which took place on 11 April 2014.
The AR01 documents previously lodged on 17 September and 2 October did not record this transaction.
Corporate Directors are given as Liberty Corporate Ltd and Law Financial.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on1:22 pm - Oct 13, 2015


http://linkis.com/beta.scotsman.com/ne/RBN6I

An article from the Scotsman today,

A JUDGE has set a date for a debate into whether Rangers should pay bill the legal bills of former chief executive Charles Green.
Lawyers acting for the businessman went to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Tuesday in a bid to force the side into paying Mr Green’s expenses.
The entrepreneur, who led a takeover of the Ibrox side in 2012, is one of six men who set to face high court proceedings in the near future in connection to his alleged activities there.
He is expected to stand trial alongside fellow businessmen Craig Whyte, Gary Withey, David Grier, David Whitehouse, Paul Clark and Imran Ahmad.
  The venture capitalist, who once played professional football, wants the club to pay the costs of his defence.
• READ MORE – Rangers ‘will not pay Charles Green legal fees’
On Tuesday, judge Lord Tyre set a date for a two day hearing next month. He decided that proceedings into the matter will take place at the civil court on November 12 and November 13 2015.

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on1:27 pm - Oct 13, 2015


See Henry McLeish pushing for change again. With our new found legal status as representing Scottish fans, can we back this formally/become involved?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/34512062

View Comment

Avatar

JimmyBeeJayPosted on2:12 pm - Oct 13, 2015


I see that the court case for Green was changed to today?  I don’t know how these things work but will Friday’s case now be put back as well?  A wee token appearance and then wait and see?
As I said the other day, rules will change in this case, and it would not surprise me that a lot of the things we know, and have appeared in various web sites, will be somehow be washed away because it is public knowledge?
Like everything else in this pantomime. expect the unexpected!

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on2:15 pm - Oct 13, 2015


neepheid 13th October 2015 at 1:22 pm
‘..Lawyers acting for the businessman went to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Tuesday .’
_______
Thanks for that, neepheid. I was clearly labouring under a misreading  of 6 for 16 which made me think the indictment hearing would be on the same day as the legal fees hearing.05
Apologies to anyone who might have thought my reference was correct.
Charles might have needed only the wan QC, which should keep his bill down!

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on3:01 pm - Oct 13, 2015


JimmyBeeJay 13th October 2015 at 2:12 pm #I see that the court case for Green was changed to today?  I don’t know how these things work but will Friday’s case now be put back as well?  A wee token appearance and then wait and see?

=============
I think that Friday’s hearing will go ahead, but it’s basically just  to hear pleas, and maybe some indication of what will be involved in the full trial, which I guess won’t be for months yet.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:17 pm - Oct 13, 2015


http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk/about-us/what-we-do/10-about-us/17-our-role-in-detail

High Court Cases
The procedure and time limits which apply are slightly different in High Court cases. There, the next step after full committal is the preliminary hearing which must occur within 110 days from the point of full committal. This Hearing gives the judge, among other things, a chance to ascertain the state of preparation of the parties, and he will only allow the matter to proceed to trial when the parties are ready. As with the time limits in Sheriff court cases, this helps to provide a degree of certainty as to when the trial will take place and avoids witnesses turning up at court only to find that the trial has been adjourned to another date. The trial in custody cases must begin within 140 days.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on3:42 pm - Oct 13, 2015


From James Forrest on the Celtic Blog-
“Green’s claim against the club was due to be explored at a hearing on Friday, but a fortuitous gap in the court schedule brought it forward three days.
The Sevco legal representatives mounted their case for having Green’s claim dismissed; the judge, Lord Tyre, disagreed and has announced that the matter will be explored in full during a formal two day hearing at a civil court on 12 – 13 November.
Read more at http://thecelticblog.com/2015/10/blogs/charles-green-wins-the-first-round-of-his-legal-fight-with-sevco#dck0dejiQRCLGxU6.99

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on3:49 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Greenock Jack has returned to the blog , and the Phantom Blogger on twitter has now restricted his lies to followers,which is exactly what Chris Graham did when he was forced out of his blazer after a racist homophobic tweet.

Now none of these events are necessarily connected, but what is absolutely certain is that there are individuals who are determined to undermine and damage this blog, by lies and false allegations. Only those who’s lies are easily exposed go to lengths to hide their falsehoods from anyone other than the gullible
 I would welcome genuine decent comment from all football clubs fans. What we don’t need is paid PR operatives defending criminals, busted flushes and cheats .

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:32 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Barcabhoy 13th October 2015 at 3:49 pm #
…I would welcome genuine decent comment from all football clubs fans. What we don’t need is paid PR operatives defending criminals, busted flushes and cheats .
=================================
1) I think the vast majority of the Bampots here know the score re: trolling, PR plants etc.
And I think we should know by now to just ignore those posts which are trying to be controversial for the sake of it, going off at a tangent –  or just plain wrong.  
2) Donald Findlay QC.
With all these legal development around RFC/TRFC and assorted chancers – will we be witnessing this particular karaoke singer get his nose in the trough ? Not sure if it’s his field of expertise, but would he not feel entitled anyway to grab some Ibrox-related business / cash ?
I think we should be told.  

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:41 pm - Oct 13, 2015


StevieBC 13th October 2015 at 4:32 pm

I don’t imagine Mr Findlay is as popular now as he was in his days of singing traditional ballads.

View Comment

Avatar

BlueGrassPosted on4:52 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Barcabhoy
My previous post challenged your interpretation regarding a phrase that may have relevance to the Charles Green claim for Rangers to pay his legal fees. Do you have a view on that? 
 
Could you clarify what you mean by the phrase “decent comment”? It just sounds a bit ‘1984’ to me. 
For the avoidance of doubt, no-one is actually paying me for posting in here (but I would welcome any offers lol) and neither am I connected to the other individuals you mention. 

View Comment

Famous song

Famous songPosted on5:24 pm - Oct 13, 2015


There being no Alloa match on Saturday, I ventured to a junior game in West Lothian. I eavesdropped a half time discussion on a number of footie related topics, and also current developments at Rangers. Leaving out the racism and swearing, little to report other than that they were “robbed”, it goes “right back to Murray”, and that my informant’s informant was “high up”, as they inevitably are. This confirms snippets and opinions heard at my place of work, and on social media.

Oh dear. TRFC and in turn RIFC are not the victims of the alleged fraud. They are its supposed beneficiaries. Worse yet, the former seems to have become a shibboleth for the SMSM. It is as if The South Sea was found to have been seriously out of pocket after the eponymous Bubble.

But spare a thought for our friends in the media. The tergiversations of the last three years – Oldco, Newco, operating company, exiting administration etc – are as nought when considering what they are going to be expected to report on. Sevco 5088, Sevco Scotland, purchase of assets, intellectual property, and the first and second years’ accounts, sorry 141st and 142nd, are a mere start, and all getting a forensic examination in open court. How will the poor darlings cope?

We have a section of our society who believe that their football club was relegated, despite that not one of them can remember it happening, how it was announced on the news, or what the Daily Record headlines were the next day. We might call it the continuation of the continuity myth. Well, they’re in for a bumpy ride with coming developments.

As I tell my TRFC supporting friends, I wouldn’t lie about my own club’s history, and I’m damned if I’ll lie about theirs.

View Comment

Avatar

LUGOSIPosted on5:28 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Well…
I can only speak for myself but so far I haven’t read anything fom Greenock Jack that I disagree with.
So far as Friday is concerned I would be surprised if Mr Findlay, QC is not representing one of the Sevco Seven.
Say or think what you will but he is extraordinarily good at his job.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on5:47 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Famous song 13th October 2015 at 5:24 pm #
“The tergiversations …”

What a great word

View Comment

Avatar

BlueGrassPosted on5:55 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Lugosi
Thanks !
I only wanted to talk about the issues of which I’m not one. I’m only another poster, albeit probably one with a different view on some of those issues and one who hopes a messageboard that will criticise other media over a one-sided approach, will tolerate different opinions and viewpoints.

After twice being presented with the ‘riot act’ I’d like to hope that we can now just get on with the issues instead now. 

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on6:07 pm - Oct 13, 2015


BP et  al,
Re our upcoming soiree, I hope that someone has had the courtesy to invite Mr Neil Patey to join us.
Wi’ ma heid fairly birlin’ wi a’ this “fit asset is owned by fit chancer ‘n far’s the money” game, we’d a’ benefit from his perceptive and at times heroically oddball insights.
Fit aboot it?
Scottish Football needs professional help.

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on6:28 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Blue Grass,

My view was simply my reading of the IPO document, which i presume reflects Green’s contract. The principal of providing a Director with legal cover , and remember this also covered Walter Smith and ALL other directors, but effectively withdrawing that cover if guilty seems illogical to me.
The legal aid system doesn’t demand repayment if the individual charged is found guilty, but it also doesn’t pay fines or compensation to victims on behalf of the guilty.
Green’s contract seems to me to parallel that.
Decent comment is one which is made to enhance debate on the blog, not to deflect debate away from issues which , for example King or Rangers or the SFA, would rather never saw the light of day.

Are you Greenock Jack ?  If so why change your username ?  Your previous response is somewhat confusing  

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:04 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Barcabhoy 13th October 2015 at 6:28 pm

As I have said before, I tend to agree with your position if only intuitively.

Clearly Lord Tyre believes that the matter is worthy of debate though, as he has set two days aside for it.

That really is mixed news for the new club. Whilst it gives them an opportunity to try to set that part of his contract aside that opportunity is now a good 5 or 6 weeks away as I understand it. They will realistically have to behave as if losing is a distinct possibility and put a contingency plan in place. 

That can’t be helpful from a cash flow perspective, or indeed seeking outside funding.

View Comment

Avatar

BlueGrassPosted on7:09 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Barcabhoy
The same clause was included in the Rangers AofA (dated Dec.2012). What I challenged was your interpretaion of the wording ‘a liability incurred in defending proceedings’. You thought it refers to compensation and I wondered if it may refer to or include a debt incurred from legal expenses. 
Any lawyers out there?

As for the comparison to Legal Aid, would it be reasonable to assume that the majority of company directors might be much more likely to have the wherewithall to meet the legal expenses if found guilty of criminal charges than those who qualify for Legal Aid.
That is to say it might be seen as simply a fruitless pursuit to recuperate legal expenses from Legal Aid recipients whilst to offer legal expenses to directors who are found guilty of fraud seems a perverse and self defeating benefit to offer.

The other obvious question concerns any subsequent modification to that clause, including within the termination agreement.

Yes, I was GJ but now quite happy as BlueGrass.
No conspirational reason for the change, simply that trying to log-on as GJ would never see me past first base so I registered with a different username.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on7:24 pm - Oct 13, 2015


BlueGrass 13th October 2015 at 5:55 pm #
‘…After twice being presented with the ‘riot act’ I’d like to hope that we can now just get on with the issues instead now. ‘
_______
And what, precisely,  are the issues that we should be ‘getting on with’?
Do you accept, for example, that TRFC is Not RFC,
that SDM destroyed RFc ( long before any selling of the club for £1 to chancer Whyte) by his cheating spending,
that the football authorities failed to act properly in dealing with the cheating by removing titles and honours won by ‘ineligible players’,
and that they reached a  despicable secret deal with chancer Green to try at all costs,  to create and maintain a pure fiction that ‘RFC’  is still somehow alive?
Those are the principal issues, not to mention the disgrace to their ‘profession’ that so many compromised hacks and spin doctors have shown themselves to be.

View Comment

Avatar

Bayview GoldPosted on7:28 pm - Oct 13, 2015


thinking aloud re the debate over the legal expense question, I would imagine that there is a connection to the charge specifics of the criminal case as to how the coverage question is answered, typically this type of indemnification from a company or an insurer only holds for actions not against the company. for example if charges of defrauding the company are brought against you it is not normal for the company to be liable to pay your costs in that scenario. However if charges are brought against you in relation to a third party whilst an officer of the company then it would be expected that the coverage or agreement holds.
Without seeing the specifics of the actual contract then the guilty/not-guilty part is difficult to answer and we are all looking at tea leaves trying to see a pattern. I’m not sure that any of the publicly available or posted docs have the entirety.
Going back to the other aspect of this and a point I have raised before, there is a narrative that CG is being prosecuted for alleged actions against the “club”, my belief is that he is being prosecuted for alleged actions against third parties on BEHALF of the “club”, as representative officer of said “club”. This doesn’t fit the victim mentality but makes more logical sense to me given what we know, and also fits the thinking behind the “club” potentially being on the hook for his legal defence.

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on7:30 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Blue Grass,

Thank you for clarifying. The advantage of only ever using one username across all platforms is that discussion is more valid and relevant to previous discussion.

With regard to Green’s contract the only view that will ultimately matter is Lord Tyre’s, unless there is an appeal. Green will no doubt have the original correspondance for his contract and for the IPO which will show the intent of the clauses in the contract. Green presumably, or possibly Malcolm Murray or another director, would have been the instructing client for ALL Directors contracts and for the IPO prospectus. 

Whoever instructed the solictors responsible will be fully aware of the intent behind each clause, and the solicitors would have written contracts in such a way as to reflect that intent. There would have been standard clauses included, but again these would have been discussed with regard to intent and enforceability . Given Green’s open and transparent statements about being there  to make money, it seems unlikely to me he would agree to anything that could have defeated his objectives.

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on7:32 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Can anything be read into Lord Tyre setting aside 2 days for the hearing to determine whether Charles Green can secure payment of his legal fees from his former employers?
My first thought is that Green’s case may have merit, given the fact that his Lordship did not move to dismiss the claim.
On a separate matter, a few weeks ago Sons of Struth were suggesting that HMRC had lost their appeal to the Court of Session. Has the Court reached a decision yet? If not, it sounds as if SoS were blowing hot air.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:35 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Extract from DR article today;
“A JUDGE has set a date for the case which will determine whether Rangers should pay bill the legal bills of former Ibrox chief executive Charles Green.
Lawyers acting for the businessman went to the Court of Session in Edinburgh today in a bid to force the club to pay Mr Green’s expenses.
The case had been due to be heard on Friday but was moved forward as Lord Tyre was free to hear the case…”
=======================
So was this is a ploy to keep the public – aka the taxpayers who fund the court system – away from the proceedings ?
Are there going to be any further court restrictions on the forthcoming cases related to RFC/TRFC ? 
Hopefully not. 

I defer to our resident Court Correspondent JC to give any input / correction ?  22

View Comment

Avatar

BlueGrassPosted on7:41 pm - Oct 13, 2015


John Clark
I may post on issues as the come up or I may even bring an issue up myself in time but I don’t intend to address the ‘Spanish Inquisition’ you have prepared as it will only develop into the type of debate which strays from the days business and ends up with me being the troll sent on his way.
Goodnight

View Comment

Avatar

jimmciPosted on7:52 pm - Oct 13, 2015


I see the lexicon of the Herald is being stretched again in a valiant attempt to dampen things down in the Sou’ side.
Lord Tyre has scheduled a two day hearing to see if Mr Green has a valid legal case to ask for his legal fees to be paid by Rangers. Not sure if it’s RIFC OR TRFC but it’s one of the associated companies.
However, according to the Herald, Lord Tyre has scheduled a debate, not a hearing.
At what point will the SMSM start to say things as they are when matters Rangers are involved?Then we see the ABC circulation figures and is it really any wonder that sales are plummeting?

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on7:54 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Ah, the nights are fair drawin in, aren’t they.22

View Comment

Avatar

BlueGrassPosted on7:57 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Barcabhoy 730pm
“…..Green presumably, or possibly Malcolm Murray or another director, would have been the instructing client for ALL Directors contracts and for the IPO prospectus. 
Whoever instructed the solictors responsible will be fully aware of the intent behind each clause, and the solicitors would have written contracts in such a way as to reflect that intent. There would have been standard clauses included, but again these would have been discussed with regard to intent and enforceability . Given Green’s open and transparent statements about being there  to make money, it seems unlikely to me he would agree to anything that could have defeated his objectives.”
—————————————–
It’s interesting you mention the varying options as to individual directors for the role of instructing client because there may have been very different priorities for one in particular, compared to the rest.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on8:05 pm - Oct 13, 2015


StevieBC 13th October 2015 at 7:35 pm #
‘…So was this is a ploy to keep the public – aka the taxpayers who fund the court system – away from the proceedings ?’
__________
Ha, ha! That I should know!02
I think CG would be anxious to get his legals to push for as early a hearing as possible, and it was probably right that if a little window opened up earlier, even by a few days, the opportunity  should be taken to get the Court to fix a date that might be sooner than it might have been if nothing was considered before Friday..
There was no expectation , I think, that any judgement would have been made on the actual issue as early as Friday. And I expect that the hearing in November will be open to the public.
[ Ps. I am still of the view that the Companies Act does not allow a company to pay one of its directors expenses in defending himself against criminal charges, if he is convicted of those charges!]

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on8:06 pm - Oct 13, 2015


I have been puzzling about Green’s alleged indemnity for legal costs, and trying to reconcile this with the Companies Act provisions, which John Clark mentioned last night, in particular S232 CA2006.
I have found this very clear summary from our good friends Pinsent Masons here- http://www.out-law.com/en/topics/corporate/directors-duties1/indemnity-and-insurance-protection-for-directors/
I have extracted the following from the article-

IndemnitiesA company can indemnify its directors against personal liability so long as the indemnity does not cover:

  • liability to the company in cases where the company sues the director – only liability to third parties can be the subject of an indemnity;
  • liability for fines for criminal conduct or fines imposed by a regulator such as the Financial Services Authority (FSA);
  • other liabilities (such as legal costs) in criminal cases where the director is convicted, or in civil cases brought by the company where the final judgment goes against the director.

So a company can give an indemnity that will commit it to paying any or all of the following:

  • directors’ legal costs in civil claims brought by a third party, even if the judgment goes against them;
  • the costs of any damages or other award made against directors if they lose civil claims brought against them by a third party;
  • directors’ legal costs if they are acquitted in criminal proceedings;
View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:06 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Re the Green claim for expenses, I have copied this from the articles of association. I assume that his contract and those of the other directors reflects this position.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:12 pm - Oct 13, 2015


neepheid 13th October 2015 at 8:06 pm

Thanks for that.

So it would seem that the director is not entitled to having legal costs paid if he is convicted.

Presumably that then means they don’t have to pay anything until the case has been heard and he has been acquitted.

Certainly not what I had thought, another school day on here. 

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on8:18 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Corporate criminal liability
In the absence of legislation which expressly creates criminal liability for companies, corporate liability can be established by non-vicarious liability arising from the so-called “identification principle”. The identification principle determines whether the offender was a directing mind and will of the company. In general, for a company to be convicted of a fraud offence, the prosecutor must show that a director or senior officer of the company was personally guilty of a fraud offence

http://uk.practicallaw.com/1-550-5966

When a director is accused of a fraud which is alleged to have occurred in the course of his activity as an officer of the company, the liability for that offence (if a guilty verdict is returned) would generally be borne by both the director and the company.

So, for example, if it is alleged that a director had organised a public offering of shares which was in some way irregular, the company could expect to be held equally liable if the director was found guilty of criminal behaviour. 

In those circumstances, for the company to pay for the best defence possible is not a matter of altruism – it is a matter of self preservation 


 

View Comment

Avatar

Bayview GoldPosted on8:19 pm - Oct 13, 2015


neepheid 13th October 2015 at 8:06 pm

Thanks NH seems pretty clear on the guilty/not guilty aspect, good post!

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:20 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Jean,

Yes the dark nights are drawing in.  When I was a child I used to love it, Halloween, Guy Falkes night and Christmas coming up.  Not so much now. 

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on8:28 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Aw Jimbo, I was nearly crying there! Give yourself a shake, it’s still magical. Lots to look forward to. 21

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on8:30 pm - Oct 13, 2015


neepheid 13th October 2015 at 8:06 pm #

Do the provisions of the Company Act [re indemnities] for Directors only apply to current Directors?

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:42 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Homunculus 13th October 2015 at 7:04 pm #Barcabhoy 13th October 2015 at 6:28 pm
As I have said before, I tend to agree with your position if only intuitively.
Clearly Lord Tyre believes that the matter is worthy of debate though, as he has set two days aside for it.
That really is mixed news for the new club. Whilst it gives them an opportunity to try to set that part of his contract aside that opportunity is now a good 5 or 6 weeks away as I understand it. They will realistically have to behave as if losing is a distinct possibility and put a contingency plan in place. 
That can’t be helpful from a cash flow perspective, or indeed seeking outside funding.
====================================

As things stand do they have enough cash to last five or six weeks without external funding? 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on8:48 pm - Oct 13, 2015


HirsutePursuit 13th October 2015 at 8:18 pm   

You just had to throw that in, didn’t you! 11 Now it looks like we might have to debate the possibility of RIFC/TRFC ending up in the dock, or being held equally guilty should any of the directors be found guilty themselves.

Or have I totally misunderstood your post?              

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on8:57 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Jean,

Your right, I went to my nephews 21st yesterday.  My own 62nd last Saturday with family and it was fun!

But you know what makes me happy on this site?   The Smileys!   I complained about the old ones several times and BP or Tris responded.   On one of the first nights when the new ones appeared I went mental with them and now I am so proud that the big heavy hitters are using them too!

031014130721

Luv ya Jean 2119

Oh an u2 BP & Tris in a manly way.

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on9:03 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Kings reluctance to defend Green when RIFC & TRFC were the beneficiaries of the deal Green did with Duff and Phelps, can surely only be down to either 

A) No cash 
or 
B) It suits Kingco for those companies to be liquidated 

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on9:10 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Homunculus 13th October 2015 at 8:12 pm #neepheid 13th October 2015 at 8:06 pm
Thanks for that.
So it would seem that the director is not entitled to having legal costs paid if he is convicted.
Presumably that then means they don’t have to pay anything until the case has been heard and he has been acquitted.
=========
I didn’t read it like that, because the indemnity becomes a bit meaningless if you can’t cover your costs up front. No top lawyer would take you on. I believe that the company can fund a director’s defence until a guilty verdict is passed. That would fit with the presumption of innocence. Once found guilty, the director becomes liable to repay the company. It says as much here-
http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/law/ownership-and-management/the-board-of-directors/indemnifying-directors-against-legal-liabilities-and-costs

The company can pay your legal costs if a criminal case is brought against you, as they arise, but you have to repay them if you are found guilty. You can’t be indemnified against fines from regulatory authorities, or fines imposed if you are found guilty of a criminal offence.

Don’t ask me about the mechanics of this- it strikes me as an absolute nightmare. Let’s imagine the company pays a million for its director’s defence team, but he’s found guilty and sent to prison. The company will have a hard job getting its money back in most cases, I would imagine.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:19 pm - Oct 13, 2015


neepheid 13th October 2015 at 9:10 pm

Again, thanks for that.

Pure conjecture here from me. The hearing in front of Lord Tyre may then be regarding what if anything the PLC has to pay upfront.

Green will argue that they need to pay his bills as they arise, then if he loses get their money back from him. (Good luck with that).

The PLC will argue that it is onerous for them to have to pay just now. However if he wins then they will pay him what he has spent. (Good luck with that).

If they are told they have to pay then it really could be nightmare. It could be a considerable time before a case even starts, far less reaches a conclusion. 

It really is a dreadful mess, and the delay can’t be helping anyone.

View Comment

Avatar

Bayview GoldPosted on9:20 pm - Oct 13, 2015


HirsutePursuit 13th October 2015 at 8:18 pm
Allyjambo 13th October 2015 at 8:48 pm

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (ok too late 14 ) this is a very important point and the glee from supporters of the “club” over the case may be short lived. Officers of a company are in the legal sense acting for a company therefore as HP posted liability may fall on the company. This is true to an extent for any employee but much more important for officers and executives. Remember TRFC are Sevco Scotland despite what the press may lead you to believe, Sevco scotland were set up and run by CG therefore they may be liable for any misdeeds occurring while CG was in place – potential liability for a company does not end on termination of the employee.
Where I am confused (and looking for help here) is that the charges outlined so far don’t seem to be clearly aligned to any specific time frame. There are three distinct trigger events that were chock full of potential shenanigans (although TRFC seemed to stretch laws/regulations on a daily basis)

1) Purchase of RFC Ltd from Murray by Whyte & the ticketus saga
2) Purchase of the RFC assets by Sevco from D&P and the switcheroo
3) The RIFC IPO
#1 seemed to have a case pending based on earlier arrests but that seems to have gone away – is it the opinion here that 1 & 2 have now been folded together?
#3 – this one has a much bigger potential liability for RIFC – is this in any way forming part of the upcoming trial?
Each of these has distinct and different “victims” of any alleged wrong doing.
Hopefully I have steered a non-judgmental way through discussing public domain knowledge of a live proceeding!

Scottish football needs a strong something or other.

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on9:24 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Aha Jimbo my birthday was on 2nd October. I was 62 as well but only feel about 30ish. Probably look about 90 though!!! Happy birthday02
I haven’t posted for a while but spend hours a day reading. I am really grateful to all you erudite people for keeping us up to date with what’s happening.

View Comment

Avatar

BlueGrassPosted on9:25 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Barcabhoy
Kings reluctance to defend Green when RIFC & TRFC were the beneficiaries of the deal Green did with Duff and Phelps, can surely only be down to either 
A) No cash or B) It suits Kingco for those companies to be liquidated 
—————————————————————————
or
C) his legal advisors tell him he doesn’t have to (dependent on certain criteria) court case coming soon.

Judge reckons on 2 days debate being required must mean c) is plausible.

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on9:32 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Blue Grass

The consequences of Green being found guilty of crimes whilst employed as CEO of RIFC & TRFC , could be fatal to those companies , as detailed by HP above 

why would you risk Green not paying for the best possible advice ? 

View Comment

Avatar

Kilgore TroutPosted on9:36 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Bayview Gold @ 9:20pm

“Scottish football needs a strong something or other.”

Disinfectant.

View Comment

Avatar

BlueGrassPosted on9:43 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Barcabhoy
You use the word “could” and are I think guessing, without the in-depth knowledge of the situation that King will have, regarding the current state of play of oldco, RIFC, TRFC, RRL, short-term funding plans, legal advice/matters etc.

Reality tends to unwind and develop.

ps. Green was only CEO of RIFC

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on9:43 pm - Oct 13, 2015


John James is putting his money on a Green victory:
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/round-one-to-charles-green/

View Comment

Avatar

BlueGrassPosted on10:01 pm - Oct 13, 2015


John James is speaking through an agenda and has been for months. We’ll have to wait until Lord Tyre rules to know the answer to this (subject to appeal). Some of what JJ says will be based in truth but a percentage depends on said agenda.

As a Rangers supporter you have had to get used to it over the past few years.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:02 pm - Oct 13, 2015


I wonder if Craig Whyte had similar legal indemnity provisions in his contract with RFC 2012 (IL) and that BDO will have to cough up from the creditors pot, or if they can set that contract aside as liquidators, assuming that such provisions existed.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:17 pm - Oct 13, 2015


It seems the insurance company (assuming they are insured)are clearly not involved at this stage. Their remit is simply to cough up, or not, depending on the final outcome. That will either be to CG or RIFC, and that is what Lord Tyre has to determine. 
    If RIFC/TRFC have to meet the interim payments, they will either be reimbursed by the insurers, or have to pursue CG. From their perspective, a not guilty verdict would be most favourable, and all remains as is, (The assets, IPO etc) and recompense will come via the easier channel from the insurers, and not by having to pursue an incarcerated CG.
    With current cash flow difficulties, RIFC/TRFC are in a “Heads you win, Tails I lose situation. On top of that they have the “narrative” conflict, whereby a not guilty verdict is desirable from the club/company point of view, while the club/company fans are baying for blood and a guilty verdict. 
    To willingly be seen to offer support to CG will be viewed as tantamount to treason, while not to, will definitely be suicide. They really need him to have the best defence money can buy for him. From a PR point of view, it would be best to be seen to have been forced into it by some nasty judge. 
    

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on10:38 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Blue Grass
King’s doesn’t have  inside knowledge of the outcome of Green’s trial , he isn’t a creditor of Oldco and therefore is in no better position than anyone else in that regard . He has had 7 months to progress matters at Rangers Retail and has failed to report a single step forward. 

His  inside advantage relates to the exact trading position at RIFC & TRFC and the potential for further loans from shareholders. Therefore when I said ” could ” it’s clear that my view is risk to RIFC & TRFC is a possibility . Should I have said ” would ” then that’s a stronger statement. King has no advantage in knowing whether a guilty verdict “could ” or ” would ” be potentially fatal to RIFC as neither he or anyone else knows exactly if or in what way a guilty verdict could lead to. 

Logic though suggests it could be highly problematic in a number of areas 

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on10:53 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Corrupt official 13th October 2015 at 10:17 pm #It seems the insurance company (assuming they are insured)are clearly not involved at this stage.
=====================
If there was a paid up insurance policy, surely payment of legal fees would be a matter between Green and the insurers? Why would RIFC/TRFC be involved at all? The fact that Green is taking action against his former employer directly surely indicates that this is an uninsured claim?
I do agree that the interests of TRFC are best served by an acquittal, but maybe King’s personal interests are best served by a guilty verdict.  In other words, if the outcome of the various court cases brings down the house of cards, then King (and Ashley) can either start again from scratch, or walk away blameless. Is that what King wants? Because if King wanted RIFC/TRFC to survive, surely he should be backing Green to the full extent of his well stuffed warchest.1414

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:55 pm - Oct 13, 2015


Jean, at the risk of us getting kicked out of here for being O/T .  That’s amazing we are 1 day apart.  I’m the 3rd Oct.  My mother God Bless her was the 4th.  I was her Birthday Bhoy 03

Take care Jean.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on11:23 pm - Oct 13, 2015


neepheid 13th October 2015 at 10:53 pm
   “If there was a paid up insurance policy, surely payment of legal fees would be a matter between Green and the insurers?”
    ——————————————————————————————————-
   NH. The way I see it is that whether they have insurance or not, is somewhat immaterial in the current climate, and the matter hinges on who pays in the interim. The fact that it is RIFC/TRFC defending the action leads me to believe that either way, insured or not,the insurers do not cough until conclusion of all proceedings. Otherwise, I doubt RIFC/TRFC would be troubled too much by the claim. They would simply pass it on. 
    As per both our previous posts, a guilty verdict does not bite until it is reached. Insurance companies do not like having lumps bitten out of them, and clearly a percentage of their clients will not all be innocent. It would make sense for them not to cough until conclusion, as opposed to pursuing numerous incarcerated clients for reimbursement.

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on11:42 pm - Oct 13, 2015


jean7brodie 13th October 2015 at 9:24 pm
 
jimbo 13th October 2015 at 10:55 pm
 
Ok I’ll raise,  29th October.10
 
On another note:-
 
https://www.abi.org.uk/Insurance-and-savings/Products/Business-insurance/Liability-insurance/Directors-and-officers-liability-insurance
 
Normally taken out by the Company.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on11:46 pm - Oct 13, 2015


neepheid 13th October 2015 at 10:53 pm. 
    Sorry Bud, I forgot part 2 of your reply. 
It may well be the case that DCK will happily throw in his hand for a new one, but it is not without problems. Fraudulently obtaining SFA membership may be one of them if it transpires CW was involved and the PM conclusions are shown to be bunkum.  Then there are ASSET ownership problems to contend with, the IPO, etc which can really swing in any old way if guilty is returned. 
   Admittedly, that would all be pre DCK involvement, and probably be lost by forming a newco newco, but the impact on the “club” part of things is really unquantifiable. What would happen with the past 3 years results and ,tv,sponsorship money (possibly) fraudulently obtained under false membership? Some of which must surely be fitba debts, players illegally registered, transfer fees. It could well be that everything performed over the past wee while could be deemed well hooky, and even with a newco newco, some of that blame must be laid at the door of the club.  
   They will need to get off the ladder, and slide back down the back of the snake to begin another journey. I just don’t see it. ….And don’t forget the history. A break? A continuation?..How do they PR their way out of that one.? 

View Comment

Avatar

LUGOSIPosted on12:35 am - Oct 14, 2015


I see that Lord Tyre has put Charles Green’s case out for a Debate in November.
This is the same Lord Tyre who refused to ring-fence £500,000 for Imran Ahmad last February.
What are the odds on the same judge being given two cases involving parties who held positions such as those held by CG and IA when there are over thirty potential judges?
Someone, sometime, somewhere is going to feel the backlash.
There may well be a tsunami which will be felt as far away as, say, South Africa.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on7:36 am - Oct 14, 2015


John Clark

Can you check your pm/e mail me.

Auldheid046@gmail.com 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on8:12 am - Oct 14, 2015


Auldheid 14th October 2015 at 7:36 am #
‘..Can you check your pm/e mail me.’
______
Yes, Auldheid, have done, thank you.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on8:39 am - Oct 14, 2015


Bayview Gold 13th October 2015 at 9:20 pm
———————-
The Crown Office has been given until mid December to serve Indictments on charges related to the purchase of SDM’s stake in oldco.

The alleged offences around D&P’s asset sale, the ‘Sevco switcheroo’ and the IPO are being bundled together with early proceedings beginning this week.

…as I understand matters. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:03 am - Oct 14, 2015


HirsutePursuit 14th October 2015 at 8:39 am
‘…The alleged offences around D&P’s asset sale, the ‘Sevco switcheroo’ and the IPO are being bundled together with early proceedings beginning this week. …as I understand matters. ‘
________
I hope your understanding is correct, that everything from the sale to CW through to the IPO is being examined. I expect it will be, and, if so, then well done the legal brains in the COPFS in being able to sort and sift the alleged facts and evidence etc etc.
I do hope I can get in to Court on Friday!
 

              
 

View Comment

Avatar

redetinPosted on10:34 am - Oct 14, 2015


Has anyone been held to account for alleged non-payment of VAT, Income tax and NICs?
Are these alleged offences part of the current case?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30242028

View Comment

Comments are closed.