The Immortality Project – or – Death and Denial – Guest Post by Humble Pie
Death has a tendency to put everything else into perspective.
My family recently suffered a bereavement. It wasn’t a sudden death but it was still far too quick and far too soon for any of us to get our heads around. As our loved one’s illness progressed, each of us, in our own way, began to prepare for the inevitable. In the end, whilst it was not unexpected, it was nevertheless very traumatic, for everyone concerned.
Grief is a strange and often debilitating set of emotions. Even now, a few months on, when the intense sadness and tears have given way (mostly) to disbelief, we still find it hard to fully comprehend what has happened. We might never completely ‘come to terms’ with that fact, however, we do accept that it DID happen, much as we all wish that it hadn’t.
Many of you will be familiar with the Kubler-Ross model of the five stages of grief; Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Well, I am aware of having experienced each of these stages over the last year, as well as a couple of others which I wasn’t prepared for (a lot of personal reflection, a little guilt and a not insignificant amount of pain).
It seems to me that the Rangers supporters have been purposefully ensnared in an interminable cycle of the first two stages of KR; alternating between the denial of the death of Rangers and anger at what they feel has been done to their beloved club then back again to denial. This, as any first year psychology student will tell you, is a very unhealthy state of mind which, if not addressed, can quickly lead to physiological and behavioural problems.
At its lowest level, for example, people throughout the ages have continued to set places at the dinner table for their long-dead loved ones. They know in their hearts that the person has died but are comforted by the familiarity of doing the same things that they have always done. However, in extreme cases people have even kept and maintained the actual cadavers of the deceased, dressed them, talked to them and watched TV with them, in a state of absolute denial.
In archaeology, accepting and recognising the inevitability of death through conducting ceremonial burial services is considered to be one of the very first signs of a civilised people. You see, grief is a uniquely human and cathartic process i.e. it can produce ‘a feeling of being cleansed emotionally, spiritually, or psychologically as a result of an intense emotional experience’.
In short, grief is ultimately a good thing which leads you through a series of natural psychological steps towards acknowledgement of an unalterable situation, allowing you to take stock, re-evaluate and start to move on with your own life in a positive way.
That is what should have happened with the fans of the old Rangers.
Instead, this ‘never-ending cycle of the undead’ was positively encouraged by those many unscrupulous individuals who saw a way of making a fast buck from maintaining the ‘Then, Now and Forever’ illusion. Worse still, this resurrection fantasy is being facilitated by the very people whom we have entrusted to stop this kind of thing from happening in the first place. If only the SFA or the MSM had told them the truth, they might have had a chance to actually face up to the situation.
Unfortunately, these two bodies were so complicit in Rangers demise, so right up to their necks in the brown smelly stuff, that they were too afraid to face the inevitable anger which would have rightly come their way. So, they made up grim fairy tales to feed to the bereaved souls about non-existent ‘holding companies’, the ethereal ‘club’ which transcends death and by suggesting that it is ‘all a matter of opinion’.
Ernest Becker, in his 1973 Pulitzer Prize winning book ‘The Denial of Death’, posits that “human civilization is no more than an elaborate, symbolic defence mechanism against the knowledge of our own mortality”. This fear of death acts as an emotional and intellectual response to our basic survival instincts.
‘By embarking on what Becker refers to as an ‘immortality project’, in which a person creates or becomes part of something which they feel will last forever, the person feels they too have become part of something eternal; something that will never die, compared to their physical body that will die one day’. When this ‘immortality project’ is threatened it leads inevitably to fear, depression, loss of identity and sense of purpose.
In that case, the initial reaction of the fans to the imminent demise of Rangers was entirely predictable and understandable. “No way, this can’t happen to us, we are the people”. However, as soon as the full realisation of their club’s inexorable slide into liquidation began to sink in, came the expected anger. But towards whom should their righteous wrath be directed?
“Who did this to us, who are these people?” they cried. “Not I”, said Sir Murray of the Mint, “for I was duped”, “Nor I”, said President Ogilvie, “for it was never my role”. “Nor I”, said Mr Smith, “for I never knew nothing or nothing”. “Not us”, squealed the media monkeys in unison, “for that’s what we were told”, “Nor us”, said the SPL “it was nothing to do with us”.
“Who then?, we demand to know who these people are”, howled the horrified hordes. “T’was the Whyte knight”, they all concurred, “he alone caused this calamity”. “And the bampots”, sneered the slimy slug. “And the taxman”, puffed the pundits. “And the unseen hand of Mr Lawwell”, whispered the bilious bears from the safety of their den.
There were even those who tried to warn them, not least Hugh Adam, Phil Mac and RTC but they didn’t want to know. Even when their very own Messrs Green and Traynor spelt out, in no uncertain terms, that liquidation meant the death of their club, still they chose wilful ignorance. The MSM, with access to the same information, encouraged them to keep their heads firmly ensconced, ostrich stylee, on the banks of that ironically blue and white river in Egypt. Which just goes to show ‘you can lead a lamb to knowledge but you can’t make it think’
The point though is that the Rangers fans have heard the truth and once you have heard something you cannot unhear it. Even if you reject it, even if you deny it, it gnaws away at the back of your mind, infecting your subconscious.
Almost a year ago, I posted the following on TSFM. http://theinternetbampot.wordpress.com/2012/09/ in which I postulated that the SFA were too frightened to say anything which might imply that The Rangers were a new club.
Looking back at that post, I am amazed at how little the landscape has changed.
A year on and it has become apparent that the corporate cancer that destroyed Rangers has continued to metastasize in its new host. Charlotte’s revelations may have shown us that the rabbit hole goes much deeper than we first suspected. However, in my humble opinion, the information provided has only succeeded in ‘poisoning the well’ and deflecting attention from the main culprits in this disaster. Layer upon layer of complexity has been added to an already opaque story and the majority of her utterances appear designed to engage the more enquiring minds on this forum and consume their excess mental energy.
I know that some people are bored with this ‘debate’ but, to my mind, the single most important step for the redemption of Scottish football is the fan’s acceptance that The Rangers, who currently ply their trade in the SPFL First Division, are a new club. Once they have accepted that then everything else that they perceive has happened to them will begin to make sense. They will see that rather than everyone having a fly kick at them when they were down, most were actually trying to help them. It will also dawn on them that the very people who have been telling them that there is an anti-Rangers conspiracy against them are actually the same ones who are screwing them over.
Rangers were not relegated to div 3, The Rangers applied as a new club and were granted entry into the bottom tier of Scottish football. They are not banned from European competition, merely ineligible as a new club without the requisite financial ‘history’. Any reference to ‘rulings’ from ECA, ASA, the BBC Trust and any internal or so-called ‘independent’ enquiries are completely irrelevant, as none of these bodies are the final arbiter in this case. Scots Law is clear that there is no distinction between club and company after incorporation, when the company dies the club dies with it. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
Sooner or later The Rangers fans are going to realise this fact and when they do, there will be hell to pay. Until they do, their new club can never become truly cleansed. Only then can they move on and only then can they join together with fans of other clubs to root out the real cancer at the heart of Scottish football. That’s why the MSM and the SFA are still petrified to say anything. In the meantime the real creators of this disaster are sneakily positioning themselves further and further away from the scene of the crime.
I am sure the majority of us would happily accept a new Rangers, cleansed of its financial, emotional and supremacist baggage. A club that all decent Rangers fans could support without feeling any guilt about Rangers downfall or that they were being taken for mugs. The prospect of a new dawn in Scottish football, where sporting integrity took primacy and clubs lived within their means was very real. However, as usual the SFA couldn’t miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
The truth is that Scottish football is in the state it is in, not because Rangers died but because those with the power and mandate to effect the prognosis sat back and did nothing. I am sure that they believe that ‘time heals all wounds’ and that the longer this injustice is allowed to stand the more likely it will be accepted by the man in the street. No doubt the authorities feel it is in the national interest to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’. However I cannot accept this. I believe that it is vital that we are able to face up to reality so we can move on for the benefit of all football supporters.
Scottish football is at a crossroads right now, I think we all feel it. Rampant corruption has become so mainstream that many of our fellow supporters have began to accept this as the norm. However, it just doesn’t sit right with me and I suspect that many regular contributors and readers of this blog feel likewise.
We have quite lost our way and we live in a society which spends vast amounts of money paying people like Jack Irvine to ensure that we stay lost. The mainstream media treat us like little imbeciles and demand that we conform to their assumed ‘professional superiority’. The PR machine plays up to our stereotypes and feeds our fantasies while the poorest people pay to swallow their poisonous propaganda and relentless trivia.
So what can we do ? Clearly, battering out a few blog posts and strongly worded letters to the various authorities involved has been rewarded by the square root of FA.
How can we make this an opportunity for growth rather than contributing to the destruction of Scottish football ? It is not good enough to tear down a system unless we have a better system to replace it. However, I believe that it is not the system itself which is broken. It is that those charged with administering the system are hopelessly corrupted, hugely conflicted and unable to apply their rules without fear or favour.
By their incapacity and inaction (wilful or otherwise) the SFA have facilitated a motley crew of various spivs, chancers and con-artists to glean the last few meagre pickings from the bones of the emaciated loyal supporters of this new club purporting to be the once mighty Rangers. They have permitted these ne’er-do-wells to collectively appropriate many tens of millions of pounds from the Rangers fans, the creditors and the public purse. They have already allowed this corporate malignancy to spread to a new host, ‘The Rangers’, and the absence of ‘moral hazard’ makes it more likely that the disease will continue to spread.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “‘Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”
Someone else once said, “The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it’s just sort of a tired feeling.”
I sense that we are all beginning to get tired of this. It is time to stand together, all football fans, face the facts and direct our anger against the officers of the SFA who have allowed this sham to develop into a catastrophe.
I have no doubt that my humble opinions expressed here will raise the ire of many deluded souls. However, I am comfortable in the knowledge that the only people who get mad at you for speaking the truth are those that are living a lie.
RIP Big Man.
Carntyne says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:31 pm
££££
You did appear to imply that Mather would be reluctant to disclose sevco’s financial position due to it’s parlous state. I, on the other hand, believe that when Charles reveals the mountain of money he received from Addidas, the giant wedge of folding he brought to the table as a result of the tie-in with the Dallas Cowboys and the utterly humoungous heap of coin that he garnered from ‘at least three billionaires’, all you sceptics will be eating your words, along with a tasty helping of Bear’s Pakora, courtesy of Charlie’s Chuck Wagon! 😀
Charlottes latest reveals terms made between Sevco and the SPL. Can anyone enlighten me how this would still be binding as we now have the SPFL. Or has the creation of the SPFL also created an exit strategy from these undertakings?
redlichtie says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Any more side letters or agreements we don’t know about?
———————————–
No doubt the first question the editors of tomorrow’s newspapers are asking their journalists to find the answer to! What a story this continues to be.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
September 15, 2013 at 11:25 am
The old board of Rangers PLC failed all ends up — even to the extent that they had to shred some documentation in an attempt to hide Martin Bain’s contract ( this was stated in court by Bain himself ).
They didn’t let me down — they let every fan of Rangers Football Club down and in particular they let the people who had invested money in the club deck debentures down… and that should never be forgotten!
Paul Murray needs to ask some questions of himself in the cold light of day and he has to stop pretending that all on his watch was ok — because it clearly wasn’t!
========================================================================
An excellent read and great to have so many strands pulled together and analysed. I too think PM is a decent guy but when dealing with spivs and the power-crazed I’m afaid decency seldom cuts-it .
So you either have got to have the courage to walk-away often into the wilderness, especially where a football club is involved, and publicise your reasons. In view of the business tentacles and power wielded by DM that would be a very difficult choice and especially if you ain’t a street fighter which PM isn’t then the alternative of staying onboard and fighting your corner just isn’t on.
I think this is one of the great problems for Rangers fans who ‘buy’ a seat on the board even if they come from an unblemished business background. They always have this terrible conflict of interest where if they speak-up they damage what thery love most.
I doubt that no matter his reservations over DM that PM and others probably could never envisage the scale of the calamity which awaited them on the basis that DM was too big to fail because he owed the bank too much.
And I often wonder because of the MIH involvement with HMRC just how much the Rangers Board were aware of the actual amount of tax and NI being claimed against the club for EBTs. The recent release of Board Minutes for RIFC Plc by CF are quite scary in the way that even financial reports weren’t discussed as well as others because of the infighting. Meanwhile £50 million was disappearing down the plug-hole heading for the turdy ocean.
CarlisleCelt says:
September 15, 2013 at 11:28 am
As I understand it Celtic simply floated the private limited company and made it into a PLC, with a tremendously successful share issue.
The original club became a ltd company (1897) which became a PLC (1994), the same PLC is still in existence and there is a direct history from the club being formed to it’s current legal entity.
At the same time as the floatation the owners bought an off the shelf company called PacificShelf595 and changed it’s name to “The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited” in order to retain that name for posterity and to make sure no-one could ever use that name.
There is no dubiety about this, it’s all a matter of public record.
Celtic PLC
Legal Information
Company Registration No.: SC003487
Incorporation Date: 12 Apr 1897
116 Years old
Financial Year End: 30 Jun
Capital: £29,915,294.57
http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/celtic
AND
Celtic Football and Athletic Company
Legal Information
Company Registration No.: SC153534
Incorporation Date: 11 Oct 1994
18 Years old
Financial Year End: 30 Jun
Capital: £2.00
http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/the-celtic-football-and-athletic-company
100BJD says:
September 15, 2013 at 11:32 am
I also found out from a trusted source that although an agreement has been reached with Green, no actual money has changed hands…..which might just join up the dots regarding the lack of clarity or indeed proper PLC governance regarding public notification of appropriate shareholdings.
=================================================================
It’s a bit like the delayed Laxey announcement over Green’s shares they were due because of the 70p flotation price. I wondered if you had cast your eyes over the shareholders I posted as missing from the TRFCL Annual Return and whether any of them ring bells with you?
Have you any idea of the price agreed for the shares or will that depend on market rate at the time of payment? I doubt the busmen have enough dosh to buy all of Green’s shares though.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
September 15, 2013 at 11:25 am
What an excellent critique of Paul Murray, BRTH. It made me wonder why two, obviously astute, businessmen like McColl and Blin would want to get involved with him (nice guy, useless company director), in such a high risk venture as trying to save TRFC. Then it dawned on me, it was never McColl’s intention to get involved with either Murray or TRFC, he just wants to be seen as making an attempt, genuine I’m sure, to save the football club he is known to support.. Could it also be that Blin, having had time to get to know all those involved, as well as maybe do some more forensic analysis of his ‘club’ than he has done previously as a mere supporter, has seen what you’ve described, and that is why he’s gone quicker than Ally McCoist’s bridie?
Unlike you, BRTH, I don’t have any sympathy with Murray over his ‘lost’ £250,000. He got what he paid for, a few years as a director of RFC with the right to wear the brown brogues and, no doubt, the opportunity to meet fawning people who would be in a position to enhance his career. Nobody’s fault but his own if he wasn’t astute enough to take advantage of it, though I’m sure he will have.
So far the McColl ‘Requisitionists’ have shown the same ability to save TRFC as the Blue Knights did. Hmm, I wonder what other similarities the two entities share?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/168302228/SPL-Undertaking-Letter
When all the legalese is stripped out of this 5 Way Agreement side letter
from Mr Doncaster to Sevco Scotland Ltd (now TRFC),
he is saying to Sevco
‘ I will protect you ‘
and, then he says
‘our secret’.
Protection of Sevco, conducted in secret.
We all knew that already Mr Doncaster, but thanks anyway for the confirmation in writing.
(Big thanks to you CF)
ecobhoy says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:56 am
Since writing last night I see CF has come out with a letter which to me indemnifies the new club from any penalties which is what had happened, although the new club were not indemnified against other financial football debts and I consider what happened as football being owed a debt in moral if not financial terms.
However that aside I see the SPL quoted from the Notice of Commission part of the definition of what payments were to be investigated . I was going to ask a question on the full Notice definition but using what appears in the SPL letter at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/168302228/SPL-Undertaking-Letter
“EBT Payments and Arrangements”
means payments made by RFC into an employee benefit trust or trusts and/or payments made by RFC into sub trusts of such trust or trusts and/or payments by such trusts and/or sub trusts and any and all arrangements, agreements and/or undertakings relating to or concerning such payments;
My question is can the above definition apply to both DOS and EBT payments in the wide sense of what is understood by a trust?
You will appreciate the implications either way. If it cannot were the SPL simply unsighted on the difference?
Should the SFA who hold the registrations not have commissioned LNS given their President knew the difference?
If it can be interpreted as covering both then did Campbell Ogilvie tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to LNS?
The stench of LNS is not going to go away, especially if HMRC get the decision from the UTT. But even if they do not, LNS’s ruling only applied to regular payments or is it like player registration – even when its wrong its right?
The wee tax case is about tax evasion every step of the way from its inception to burial in the EBT debris..
I don’t know Paul Murray therefore I am unable to form a view whether his is ‘decent’ or not. What I do believe is he is currently being given a massive benefit of the doubt from the media, which I do not believe would be afforded to anyone else in his position regarding any other club. Imagine for example Michael Kelly was fronting a group trying to take over Celtic. Kelly’s only ‘crime’ while at Celtic was gross incompetence along with the other Board Members. Would he be getting the open armed welcome Paul Murray is getting or would the media be raking up everything negative they could about his previous time at the club? There is a strong argument that Paul Murray was as incompetent in his time at Rangers as Michael Kelly was at Celtic, yet he is being treated like a returning hero.
To whom it may concern
When RFC(IL) died at the CVA fail, a new club was later born.
The new club was then dressed in the same clothes as the dead club
and put in the same pram that had held RFC.
The old clubs toys were produced and off we went.
But the eejits who produced the newborn picked a crap name – Sevco Scotland Ltd.
So they decided to change it to something better
and what better than the dead club’s name.
It couldn’t be the exact same of course
so they stuck a ‘The’ in front of it.
But on the birth certificate
the name will always be
Sevco Scotland Ltd.
Ach well, maybe they’ll get it right wi’ the next wan.
Auldheid says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:43 pm
ecobhoy says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:56 am
My question is can the above definition apply to both DOS and EBT payments in the wide sense of what is understood by a trust? You will appreciate the implications either way. If it cannot were the SPL simply unsighted on the difference?
Should the SFA who hold the registrations not have commissioned LNS given their President knew the difference? If it can be interpreted as covering both then did Campbell Ogilvie tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to LNS?
=====================================================================
My understanding is it doesn’t apply to any DOS trusts but only to EBT ones because the use of ‘trusts’ to me is to cover the situation where someone might have more than one EBT trust and the heading seems to me to tie what follows as pertaining to EBTs.
I am now convinced the LNS Tribunal was definitely unsighted and it may be that the SPL was too. There is an excuse for LNS because providing the evidence against Rangers was the responsibility of the SPL. But there is no excuse for the SPL who should have been able to identify the difference between DOS and EBT variations prior to the Hearing through their investigations.
So the question is how much of a conspiracy of silence existed between the SFA and SPL or did the SFA just sit tight and decide to say nothing unless asked a direct question. Another very pertinent question is who other than CO at the SFA would know that any DOS agreements existed at Ibrox and the differences between the two schemes.
We also have the inescapable fact that Rangers switched from DSO to EBTs because DOS were declared to illegal tax evasion. Who would have known that at either the SPL or SFA – I would think only CO although it should not have been beyond the wit of the SPL to uncover that fact,
Did CO tell the truth to LNS – well that depends on whether he was ever asked any questions about DOS.
As to the commissioning aspect we run into the old problem that if the SFA had commissioned and run LNS in terms of investigating and presenting the evidence then they couldn’t fulfill the position of the l appellate body. OK it could have been another organised fudge but to even claim that I think you have to identify if there was a feasible alternative.
upthehoops says:
September 15, 2013 at 2:05 pm
4 0 Rate This
I don’t know Paul Murray therefore I am unable to form a view whether his is ‘decent’ or not.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
We do not really know Paul Murray but we know where he worked and what he did and did not do for whatever reason, self preservation ? He was never duped, be serious he worked there for many years and must have been aware of some of the dodgy goings on, even the people talk. Unless Ibrox is a secret monastery with a “real rangers men vow or code of silence prevailing” who knows but it was not for the good and benefit of the team he supports. The SMSM well they do know him and like most of the directors of the then doomed club they do get an easy time of it, again self preservation (paper sales etc). It is still embarrassing there is still not a balanced view. We know what questions should be asked not puff puff questions. Maybe the SMSM has their own code “do not ask real rangers men difficult questions” Their lack of proper probing questions speaks volumes for our press relations with that club.
Only in Scotland.
We can ask and will always ask and are not going away.
As mentioned before what questions will be asked if the HMRC win their appeal at the UTT? If it is proven that rangers used EBT’s illegally will the approach be the same as the DOS approach, keep it quiet and it will go away. Cheating is what it will amount to and all directors at the govan club going back to DM times are at fault. As are the majority of SMSM. Really are the journalist like Spiers and English doing enough? Shsssssss quiet please, nothing to here, question, say or see here.
Looking through the board minutes posted by CF today, if I were a concerned shareholder, I’d glean far more from what is absent than from what is recorded in those there minutes. There is very little – if any – finacial update and scrutiny of management accounts, or business/trading information apparent at all. Instead, what emerges is a theme akin to ‘Musical Chairs at a children’s party’ with pointed squabbling over who occupies what seat.
And we all know what comes after musical chairs, don’t we kids? That’s right: more ‘Jelly and Ice-cream’ 😈
Clowns a plenty, and more than a few spoilt kids misbehaving. But what this party is really lacking more than anything is some grown ups to sort out who’s going to stay behind afterwards and help clear up the mess! 🙄
ecobhoy says:
September 15, 2013 at 2:15 pm
Cheers. On the last point I was thinking Court OI Arbitration on Sport as the appellant body. You can see why it would have been difficult for the SFA to be the commissioners knowing what CO knew.
On the EBT definition I was wondering more on did the DOS Scheme involve a trust in itself. I know it was based on shares being the money envelope and not loans but given it was described as a Rangers Trust by LNS (from memory) in the Aberdeen Asset case which was the precedent was their any form of trust or sub trust arrangement within the DOS? If so does the SPL definition not apply?
Like you I am more inclined to the view the SPL were unsighted because knowledge of the wee tax case that was born from the DOS arrangement only became public in early April 2011 and there was a lot of obfuscation surrounding it and whether it had crystallised put about by the SFA and mimicked by the smsm.
The only ones who can answer this question re DOS are the firm who did the investigation that produced the prima facie case and whoever drafted the Notice of Commission.
Regardless, the key thing here is that a prominent witness to LNS knew a distinction did exist and given his position at the SFA did he not have a responsibility to correct what I believe is a serious flaw in the Notice of Commission?
Further when called by LNS and in declaring what he did about EBTS and his ignorance of the registration aspect, was Campbell Ogilvie telling the whole truth or just the bit that suited the case? Was he unable to tell the whole truth because of his involvement in what was not properly defined by the SPL for fear of incriminating himself?
Finally when LNS decided to treat the Rangers Trust and EBTS as continuous, what advice or clarification did he seek? If none then on what basis was this decision reached? If he got advice what was it? Was it accurate?
LNS can answer that question which is surely a legitimate one for him to be asked (had we any journalist interested in the truth)?
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
September 15, 2013 at 11:56 am
Auldheid says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Bangordub: So the SPL can take action against Sevco Scotland Ltd re the EBT’s IF it proves that those EBT’s constitute a CW event or act as defined?
I would need to check back to see who that is defined.
===================================================================
I’m afraid I keep seeing ‘CW event or act’ as a Craig Whyte one but that surely can’t be the case as I think the EBTs at Rangers had all but finished by the time CW came on the scene and he couldn’t be held responsible in any case for introducing them. The other thing is that a ‘CW act or event’ has been ‘defined’. Where? I don’t remember such a phrase in the (final draft) 5-way Agreement provided by CF.
However this revelation by CF today is another bombshell for Scottish Football because before LNS had even sat the Scottish Footballing Authorities had reached a secret agreement that Sevco Scotland Ltd would escape punishment for EBTs and also for failure to submit the necessary paperwork to the SFA as covered by: ‘any and all arrangements, agreements and/or undertakings relatingto or concerning such payments’.
Now the ludicrous Bryson definition begins to make sense because the SFA and SPL could never admit to this agreement which meant Sevco Scotland Ltd was given clearance before LNS heard a word of evidence. I wonder how he will feel about this if he was hoodwinked and blind-sided?
The agreement stated: ‘The SPL shall not after Completion take or commence disciplinary proceedings against Sevco under and in terms of the SPL Rules (as defined inthe Agreement) for an alleged breach of the SPL Articles (as defined in the Agreement) and/or the SPL Rules by RFC and/or Rangers FC (as defined in the Agreement) prior to Completion in respect of any EBT Payments and Arrangements (as defined below), except where any such EBT Payments and Arrangements shall constitute a CW Enduring Act or Acts (as defined in the Agreement).’
I now have to ask myself is this why LNS had to devise the ‘enduring club’ rationale in that the operating company for Rangers the Club was Sevco Scotland Ltd. Because if it wasn’t then there never ever could have been any action taken with regard to the rule breaches.
But that would require LNS to be aware of the secret agreement and although I haven’t specifically checked today I think LNS only mentions the 5-way agreement and no side deals like this one. So the question is was LNS made aware?
But another fascinating aspect of this release by CF is that although Sevco Scotland is given a secret get out of jail free card then Rangers as a club (whether or not having separate legal personalit) doesn’t get one as it comes under the definition of ‘Person’ in the agreement and I would argue that RIFC Plc also comes under the scope of the definition.
Every little dirty deed and secret of the SPL and SFA are slowly being exposed and what becomes clearer as the days pass is that both bodies created rods for their own backs because their only focus was to protect Rangers and keep them in the top flight.
Ecobhoy,
“The other thing is that a ‘CW act or event’ has been ‘defined’. Where? I don’t remember such a phrase in the (final draft) 5-way Agreement provided by CF.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“CW Exempt Acts” means all acts and omissions of or undertaken under instruction from or with the actual knowledge of Craig Whyte during the period of his tenure as Chairman of RFC, the sanctions for which are enforceable against RFC and not against CW as an individual and which are not CW Enduring Acts;
“CW Enduring Acts” means all acts and omissions of or undertaken under instruction from or with the actual knowledge of Craig Whyte during the period of his tenure as Chairman of RFC, the sanctions for which are enforceable against RFC and not against CW as an individual where such acts or omissions relate to or are in any way connected with, directly or indirectly, corruption, fraud, bribery, match-fixing, unauthorised or undisclosed payments to players or Match Officials, or any matter similar in its reprehensible nature to any of the foregoing which acts or omissions are of at least equal gravity to those found to have been committed by or engaged in by RFC in the JP Determination;
scottc says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Interesting – can you confirm the source of the material please? It still puzzles me as to why CW was rolled into the EBT question as I am struggling to figure-out how CW could be held responsible for EBTs. But is there a tenuous link to the small tax case and the DOS scenario because he was actively involved in trying to prevent HMRC closing the club down over the small tax case.
So was there back at the time of the 5-way agreement as wish to sweep EBTs under the table but keep CW in the frame for public execution on the DOS situation as an ‘enduring act’ even though CW had no actual involvement with them and they pre-dated EBTs.
All he was doing was trying to avoid the tax liability generated by DOS. Something else is going on here that we have yet to spot 💡
scottc says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:14 pm
————————————————————————————
Thought I had read that somewhere, you beat me to it. 😛
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/more-thoughts-on-scots-independence-by-falloch-and-again-by-winston-smith/
response to our “friend” Steerpike September 1, 2013 at 10:53 am
I am intrigued.
Why would CF release this now? I know conventional wisdom said she had ‘000s of docs to go through but you’d surely do search for a 5 way agreement or similar first (or at least in the top 3). My guess, for it is only that, is this was one of, if not her only smoking gun. So again, why release it now? Deal done (between whomsoever and CF) and the SFA are just collateral baggage?
Also, a point not covered. Was PM invited on to the show last night in which case the touchy feely makes more sense or did he ask for the publicity (in which case if we ever needed a paxmanesque interrogation that was it).
I note from the Friday Craig Mather statement he again claims audited accounts are being prepared for release. Does it really take that long to produce accounts are are they trying to persuade the auditors to be as creative as possible?
ianjs says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:29 pm
scottc says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:14 pm
————————————————————————————
Thought I had read that somewhere, you beat me to it. 😛
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/more-thoughts-on-scots-independence-by-falloch-and-again-by-winston-smith/
response to our “friend” Steerpike September 1, 2013 at 10:53 am
==============================================================
I’ve had a look but the Scotslawthoughts poster unfortunately doesn’t provide the source of the definition which leaves things hanging a bit.
Smugas says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Apologies, in the interests of factual accuracy on here – were the SPL just collateral damage?
As you were
ecobhoy says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:01 pm
12
1
Rate This
Quantcast
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
September 15, 2013 at 11:56 am
Auldheid says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Bangordub: So the SPL can take action against Sevco Scotland Ltd re the EBT’s IF it proves that those EBT’s constitute a CW event or act as defined?
I would need to check back to see who that is defined.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CW’s only involvement was to avoid paying the wee tax bill which started from May 2011 but given the SFA played a role in assisting him to do so I’d be surprised if they meant or wanted that role to be investigated in Aug 2012 when LNS commissioned.
I read CW events to mean everything nefarious he was involved in except the ongoing avoidance of the wee tax bill simply because it was not seen as avoidance by the SFA but a legitimate position to take.
It never was in my view for many reasons regarding UEFA rules but that is part Two of the Wee Tax case The UEFA Licence 2011.
Part One is what gave rise to (DOS) it and has been explained already.
ecobhoy says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:57 pm
This gives more information (I think)
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/60008041287/five
CW ENDURING ACTS
Found it and it does come from 5-way agreement issued previously by Charlotte which I need to check and see if I have.
However is referred to at: http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/60008041287/five
Auldheid says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:03 pm
CW Enduring Act
————————————————————
It is a puzzle as to why this is included. As I said above CW can’t be held responsible for the creation or operation of DOS or EBT schemes or what flows from them. If CO didn’t realise what was going on and the breaches of football rules how could anyone expect CW to be au fait.
You hit the nail on the head when you say that it couldn’t even have been on the basis of failing to pay the money due on the wee tax case as the SFA opened the Euro Doors on the basis this wasn’t a debt due but a sum under negotiation. They can’t have it both ways.
But it still begs the question – why was it inserted?
From Twitterland.
Thoughts anyone?
Sam Gracey @SamGracey2 29m
@paullarkin74 Heads up. Sevco accountant refused to sign off without details of ALL shareholders & asset owners. There for all to see Monday
So the mischief maker in me says that presumably the SFA asked for the wee tax case to be settled (why else would CW stipulate it in his offer) and then chose not to follow it up, including issuing a euro licence along the way.
I don’t suppose that makes it an enforceable CW enduring act and therefore outwith the 5WA by any chance. The authorities obviously wouldn’t pursue this line, but their member clubs? Especially if their member clubs were under threat of not selling SB’s, so soon after the 2014 UTT result as well….
I’d expect another stitch up of course (of the above conjecture, not the UTT) but the way to placate fans would of course be to demand heads at SFA and SPFL, as a goodwill gesture you understand.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:17 pm
It begs the question, why would anyone not supply that information to their own auditors.
SPL = SPFL, same company number.
Smugas says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:18 pm
So the mischief maker in me says that presumably the SFA asked for the wee tax case to be settled …
=============================
I don’t think asking for it to be paid would be enough. Payment of all social taxes is not a negotiable. It is a basic requirement.
As I remember it Rangers acknowledged that the tax was due, but came to an “agreement” with HMRC on how it would be paid. That was sufficient for the SFA to grant the European licence.
Rangers then reneged on the deal with HMRC.
Auldhied can possibly confirm this.
Is it possible that the auditor will be unable to finalise their work.
Therefore they will need to get a new one.
Therefore the process will have to begin over.
Therefore the AGM will have to be put back.
ForresDee says:
SPL = SPFL, same company number.
————————————
I wonder if we could reach the strange situation where the authorities insist that the SPL and SPFL are different despite having the same company number, and that the two Rangers are the same despite having two different company numbers.
Nah, that would be crazy…..
Tif Finn says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:27 pm
nowoldandgrumpy says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:17 pm
It begs the question, why would anyone not supply that information to their own auditors.
==============================================================
Well they didn’t supply the TRFCL shareholders names on their Annual Return to Companies House and don’t forget that the TRFCL shareholders had their shares swapped on a 1-for-1 basis for RIFC Plc shares.
So they are caught between a rock and a hard place and the vice is tightening if there are some names they don’t want to reveal.
All depends if the tweet is acurate and as I don’t know the pooster I have no idea.
loamfeet says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:49 pm
ForresDee says:
SPL = SPFL, same company number.
————————————
I wonder if we could reach the strange situation where the authorities insist that the SPL and SPFL are different despite having the same company number, and that the two Rangers are the same despite having two different company numbers. Nah, that would be crazy…
===============================================================
I have already dusted down my rapier and chain mail in anticipation of the ‘continuing company’ argument I feel coming on 😆
nowoldandgrumpy says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Thoughts anyone?
Sam Gracey @SamGracey2 29m
@paullarkin74 Heads up. Sevco accountant refused to sign off without details of ALL shareholders & asset owners. There for all to see Monday
===================================================
Perhaps they have also asked for a list of debenture holders.
ecobhoy says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:49 pm
At least this tweeter has said it will be clear to everyone on Monday, so a reasonable timescale on his prediction.
Tif Finn says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:31 pm
2
0
Rate This
Quantcast
Smugas says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:18 pm
So the mischief maker in me says that presumably the SFA asked for the wee tax case to be settled …
=============================
I don’t think asking for it to be paid would be enough. Payment of all social taxes is not a negotiable. It is a basic requirement.
As I remember it Rangers acknowledged that the tax was due, but came to an “agreement” with HMRC on how it would be paid. That was sufficient for the SFA to grant the European licence.
Rangers then reneged on the deal with HMRC.
Auldhied can possibly confirm this.
======================
There never was at any time, in any form, a deal to pay HMRC on the wee tax case. The latter were determined not to include it as part of the EBT case that was ongoing at the time or let it drift.
Conflating the two was Rangers strategy (one that LNS unwittingly possibly) adopted and seems to be one to try and bury one inside the other as if they were the same and as I have been shouting from the cyberspace rooftops they were not.
Regan used this approach when he tweeted at one point that at the time the licence was granted tax matterS were subject to ongoing discussion.
You can read it at
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/a-baffling-silence/
where Phil asks the SFA at Q1 and 2 to clarify what Regan meant. The SFA declined.
All of this will come out idc and it will be a best seller.
ecobhoy, sorry not to have got back to you earlier. I was away being busy. 🙂
You found it though, so all’s well
Auldheid says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Thanks for that.
I was under the impression that Rangers had sought review by HMRC and prolonged that as long as possible. When it got to the stage that they could no longer delay things they agreed a “time to pay” arrangement. Using this to satisfy the SFA that the matter had been dealt with to the satisfaction of the tax gathering authorities.
If even that is not the case then either Rangers lied to the SFA or the SFA gave them their licence on a total fabrication which they were aware of. That makes things even worse than I thought it was.
I thought they made the deal in order to get the licence then reneged on it. It turns out they never made the deal at all. That is lying and cheating pure and simple.
Quite frankly I am glad the old club and all of it’s baggage died. Corrupt to the core.
Tif Finn says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:44 pm
6
0
Rate This
Quantcast
Auldheid says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:05 pm
__________________________
Rangers did lie to the SFA and had a responsibility to provide proof of any written arrangement to the SFA. The SFA failed to get this and had a responsibility to do so but chose to believe what CW told them……
P34 of PDF 28/2/2013 LNS Commission decision:
Annex
The Scottish Premier League: Notice of Commission
A. Notice
The Board of the Company (defined below) has, in terms of Rule G3, appointed a Commission
to inquire, in terms of Rule G1.1, into the Issues (defined below), to determine, in terms of Rule
G1.2, whether there has with respect to the Issues been a breach or breaches of and/or a failure or
failures to fulfil the Rules and, in the event that the Commission determines that there has with
respect to the Issues been a breach or breaches of and/or a failure or failures to fulfil the Rules, to
exercise such of the powers in Rules G6.1 and G6.2 as the Commission shall think appropriate.
B. Definitions
In this notice capitalised words and phrases have their defined meanings as specified in this
notice and in the Rules of the Scottish Premier League.
“Company”
The Scottish Premier League Limited, Hampden Park, Glasgow, G51 2XD
“EBT Payments and Arrangements”
Payments made by or for Rangers PLC into an employee benefit trust or trusts for the benefit of
Players, including the Specified Players, employed by Rangers PLC as Professional Players,
Registered and/or to be Registered as Professional Players with the Scottish Premier League and
Playing and/or to Play for Rangers FC in the Scottish Premier League and payments made by or
for Rangers PLC into a sub-trust or sub-trusts of such trust or trusts of which such Players were
beneficiaries, payments by such trust or trusts and/or sub-trust or sub-trusts to such Players
and/or for the benefit of such Players and any and all arrangements, agreements and/or
undertakings and the like or similar relating to or concerning any of such Players and payments.
“Issues”
The issues for inquiry into and determination by the Commission set out in paragraph C. of this
notice.
Comment:
For the period 23 Nov 2000 to 21 May 2002 (Period 1) should the DOS Scheme payments not have come under the scope of the Commission with this sentence from above:
“………and any and all arrangements, agreements and/or
undertakings and the like or similar relating to or concerning any of such Players and payments.”
Tif Finn says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:44 pm
I don’t think it actually matters whether RFC agreed a “time to pay” the simple fact is that the bill was outstanding and that is the rule.
RFC should not have been granted a licence because the bill was overdue or outstanding.
This is what really annoys me about our weak, condescending, and glib chief exec of the SFA when he talks about bills ‘crystalizing’. In no way shape or form is this word mentioned anywhere in the rule.
The rule is unambiguous; that a licence should not be granted if there is outstanding bill for social taxes. The taxes were outstanding because they were uncovered, and reported upon, in the lead up to CW buying RFC. In fact this was one of the reasons the buying price fell to £1.
So the bill had been accepted and had not been paid and that makes it outstanding/not paid/overdue or what ever else you want to call it.
loamfeet says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:49 pm
I wonder if we could reach the strange situation where the authorities insist that the SPL and SPFL are different despite having the same company number,
——
They’d never get away with that. You can change the name of the company, directors, headed notepaper etc as much as you like, but it remains the same company as long as that number remains the same.
justshatered says:
September 15, 2013 at 6:14 pm
As it happens it doesn’t really matter, as no such agreement was in place.
However as I understand the logic, if there is a “time to pay” then the money is not “outstanding” in a twisted logic. It doesn’t become outstanding until they fail to make the agreed payments.
It’s cheating either way, but as Auldhied has now explained it there wasn’t even a twisted logic, it was simply cheating based on a lie.
Will anything be done about this now though???? 😥
Tif Finn says:
September 15, 2013 at 6:21 pm
Surely it only becomes a lie if the lie has crystalized !!!!!
justshatered says:
September 15, 2013 at 6:25 pm
Even then if it doesn’t create a sporting advantage the rule can just be ignored anyway.
Even if there is no mention of sporting advantage in the rule.
paulonotini says:
September 15, 2013 at 6:10 pm
For the period 23 Nov 2000 to 21 May 2002 (Period 1) should the DOS Scheme payments not have come under the scope of the Commission with this sentence from above:
“………and any and all arrangements, agreements and/or undertakings and the like or similar relating to or concerning any of such Players and payments.”
===========================================================
I think the Heading of the definition is important viz: “EBT Payments and Arrangements” which can be split into “EBT Payments” and “Arrangements”.
IMO The EBT Payments does not include DOS payments and the “Arrangements” refers to those pesky issues like making returns to the SFA etc.
Neither the FTT nor LNS seem to recognise the existance of DOS by name and LNS states that he realises there are two schemes but that the EBT one is just a continuation of the initial one and there appears to be a belief it was also a similar scheme to the EBTs. What we now know thanks to Auldheid is that the initial scheme was DOS based although it wasn’t named as such.
So it appears from what is publicly available that LNS never knew of the difference and much more importantly didn’t therefore know that DOS payment schemes were found to be illegal under tax law through the FTTT Decision in the Aberdeen Asset Management appeal against HMRC.
The UTT Appeal in that case wasn’t against the verdict of the FTTT but to determine whether the employee or employer was liable to pay the NI and tax and the UTT held the employer responsible.
I would appear that the DSO implications were avoided like the plague at LNS because in the three cases involved the payments were illegal and CW had already accepted that and agreed to pay the small tax case but of course never did and the rest is history.
The question is why the SPL didn’t unearth the DOS link and put it in evidence and why the SFA President didn’t feel the need to say anything. Perhaps is his defence that he didn’t knopw of the AAM DOS determination by the FTTT. He couldn’t deny knowing the difference between EBTs and DOS and the material released makes that obvious IMO.
Angus1983 says:
September 15, 2013 at 6:20 pm
loamfeet says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:49 pm
I wonder if we could reach the strange situation where the authorities insist that the SPL and SPFL are different despite having the same company number,
——
They’d never get away with that. You can change the name of the company, directors, headed notepaper etc as much as you like, but it remains the same company as long as that number remains the same.
==========================================
I’m sure D&P would find a loophole for them 🙄
It seems the delay in getting the accounts out was the message from the previous tweet.
It now appears they will be published with all details requested by the auditors, well maybe.
Mitchei @FM2308 2h
@SamGracey2 @paullarkin74 Does that mean they will issue unaudited accounts on Monday?
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Sam Gracey @SamGracey2 2h
@FM2308 @paullarkin74 I understand it WILL be audited accounts plus shareholder and asset details.
Ecobhoy
With regards to the degree of SPL pre knowledge of the DOS scheme it has been pointed out to me by a fellow traveller that the original SPL statement of 5th March 2012 now at
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B62m3ggkEX2RR2hIRWgxV0hOS1U/edit?usp=sharing
(but maybe still on the SPL site) states that THE SPL has instructed an investigation into payments from 1st July 1998 but in the actual notice of LNS Commission that became 23rd November 2000. Nor does it make any mention of trusts as a payment vehicle. But that became part of the Commissioning but did it have to?
The 23rd November is a strange date to pick but if the intent was to preclude the De Boer or Flo arrangements well Flo’s commenced on 23rd November 2000 and both he and De Boer were paid under it after Nov 2000 and LNS was investigating both EBT Payments and Arrangements after that time.
“EBT Payments and Arrangements” Payments made by or for Rangers PLC into an employee benefit trust or trusts for the benefit of Players, including the Specified Players, employed by Rangers PLC as Professional Players, Registered and/or to be Registered as Professional Players with the Scottish Premier League and Playing and/or to Play for Rangers FC in the Scottish Premier League and payments made by or for Rangers PLC into a sub-trust or sub-trusts of such trust or trusts of which such Players were beneficiaries, payments by such trust or trusts and/or sub-trust or sub-trusts to such Players and/or for the benefit of such Players and any and all arrangements, agreements and/or undertakings and the like or similar relating to or concerning any of such Players and payments.
Was this commissioning really intended to get at the truth or provide a means of swerving the DOS payments because of the implications of including them?
Surely the whole point of LNS was to investigate non reporting of side letters with regard to any payment arrangements, far less trust arrangements and regardless of the trust arrangement involved?
On that point The Rangers Employee Benefit Trust that LNS treats as continuous of EBTs does in fact relate to the DOS scheme,
DOS involved a Trust arrangement and undisclosed side letters so why was it not dealt with according to its nature and hidden inside the larger EBT arrangement?.
Who advised whom on the Notice of Commission?
ecobhoy says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:52 pm
10 0 Rate This
loamfeet says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:49 pm
ForresDee says:
SPL = SPFL, same company number.
————————————
I wonder if we could reach the strange situation where the authorities insist that the SPL and SPFL are different despite having the same company number, and that the two Rangers are the same despite having two different company numbers. Nah, that would be crazy…
====================================================
I have already dusted down my rapier and chain mail in anticipation of the ‘continuing company’ argument I feel coming on
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not to mention the resetting of history.
That works on two levels if you think about it
😀
Fencing? Resetting? Oh please yourselves.
Ecobhoy at 6.51
I was posting at same time as you were. See new information in my post.
paulonotini says:
September 15, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Given that the DOS arrangement was called The Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (I’ve checked) then it is difficult to see how it is not covered in the definition in the NoC..
Which makes the decision to view it as continuous (which I take to mean as the same as the EBT arrangement) flawed.
LNS made that decision.
sixtaeseven says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:38 am
I discovered in this article that “Rangers” have two boards, one Football board and one PLC board:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24091694
Is this common in modern football, or are they trying to reinforce their notion of club and company being distinct entities?
=======
Others have already answered your question, but I’m not surprised you’re confused.
Although the separate existence of RIFC PLC and TRFCL is widely known on this forum, that BBC article is the first time I can remember seeing anything about it in the MSM. Even then, they confuse the issue by talking about “Rangers’ football board”, although they later do go on to mention the two companies by name.
Then in today’s Herald, we have this gem:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/murray-vote-plea-to-fans-in-ibrox-war.22153039
“The latest verbal salvoes between the parties battling for control of the club came on the day Rangers announced Sandy Easdale, co-owner of McGill’s Buses, had been appointed to the PLC board, joining his brother James, who is also a director of Rangers International Football Club plc.”
It is of course the TRFCL board, and NOT the plc board, that Sandy is joining.
Confused? You will be, if you rely on the MSM for your information.
Interesting that ‘Walter’ was a director, and later chairman, of the PLC board, but not of the TRFCL board, where you’d think his experience would be more valuable (or at least relevant). To me, this strengthens the suspicion that it was all a cynical exercise to sell shares and season tickets.
By the way, I see some clever posters have worked out how to enclose quoted material inside a nice box.
Is there a page somewhere that explains this and other formatting tricks?
(Perhaps it could be added to the FAQ.)
Auldheid Echoboy
The way the SPL/McKenzie have dealt with the whole situation looks very unprofessional from the outside eye.Whether that was intentional or not is another issue.The whole situation from commissioning,changing dates under investigation(intially 1998,then 2000),delay in the Commission,RFC not going,then they did get represention,Bryson evidence,then McKenzie strange performance etc etc,something just doesn’t sit right with the whole thing.
Auldheid says:
September 15, 2013 at 7:32 pm
3 0 Rate This
paulonotini says:
September 15, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Given that the DOS arrangement was called The Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (I’ve checked) then it is difficult to see why it is not covered in the definition in the NoC..
Which makes the decision to view it as continuous (which I take to mean as the same as the EBT arrangement) flawed.
LNS made that decision.
===================
It’s becoming more obvious that LNS was flawed on so many levels, other than the obvious fudge it was; it’s heartening to see it slowly being dissected on here and out in the larger world.
We are still a long way off from truth and justice though!
Paul Murray is no innocent in business.
Our paths crossed c.7 years ago when he and a fellow entrepreneur tried to buy a stake in a company I was advising. Big talk about ongoing relationships, benefit of his business knowledge and contacts and warchests of cash for expansion. He was hunted out when repeated requests to “show me the money” failed to produce any cash. Subsequently found out he had lined up a buyer for his shares even before he had bought them. Some long term relationship!
Haven’t heard from him since except in relation to RFC.
Paul Murray – Investors – 17 million
Compare and contrast
A year ago…..
Blue Knights takeover bid worth £17m to Ibrox club as Paul Murray strikes deal with Ticketus
Keith Jackson – Daily Record – 3rd April 2012
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/scotnews12/120403-ticketus.html
Yesterday………….
Ex-Rangers director Paul Murray demands fiscal transparency
Paul Murray has told BBC Scotland the current board at Rangers needs to demonstrate financial transparency.
Murray was part of a group of shareholders who have withdrawn demands for an extraordinary meeting and the removal of certain board members.
“This is a board – by their own admission – raised about £50m or £60m pounds and there’s only £10m left,” said Murray.
“You can see why investors who put £17m into the club are concerned.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24095962
Wonder if the same investors with 17 million are connected – note Blue Knights were only party to go into partnership with Ticketus
Could it be without Imrahn in there to provide them oversight, Ticketus are getting worried over their dues and are worried others are raking off too much?
There is some twitter chatter that audited accounts are likely tomorrow, had a look on sevcomedia
Optimism abounds
“Misread the question. Thought it just said IPO and season tickets.
Also have to include things like the merchandising and sponsorship deals. No idea what they are worth, but should be a fair chunk.
Still have to be very cautious though. “
from the scotsman today:
“”STEWART Regan is hopeful that UEFA can be convinced that Hampden is a suitable venue for Euro 2020 games, despite falling short on hospitality facilities.
Hampden currently has just over a quarter of the required corporate spaces, and an upgrade to add the rest could cost £10 million. But Regan is hopeful that UEFA see the hospitality numbers as a guide rather than a rule, and that Hampden’s other features see it selected. “”
I really hope the SFA will learn that rules have to be followed. Unlike the SFA’s own rules, which clearly can be modified to suit circumstances.
Scottish Football needs fewer blazers stuffing their faces at the UEFA trough.
By the way – the story regarding Celtic and owing a huge sum to Co-op – Jack Irvine mentioned it so it must be true…..
JackIrvine @JackIrvine 13 Sep
@greeng1888 @stevendoyle75 @BBCDouglasF Away and give the Co-op back their money.
………..alternatively we might know the source………….
Fairways says:
Paul Murray is no innocent in business.
Big talk about ongoing relationships…
benefit of his business knowledge…
warchests of cash for expansion
he was hunted out…
“show me the money” failed to produce any cash.
subsequently found out he had lined up a buyer for his shares even before he had bought them..
some long term relationship!
Haven’t heard from him since except in relation to RFC.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Fairways…I have edited your most incisive comments into a “bullet point” layout which in my limited capacity sums up the whole fiasco that is Rangers, be it In Administration/Liquidation/Disguise or otherwise…!
However, since he is a CA I can only assume that he is acting totally within the remit of his “profession” and regulatory body…!
Exiledcelt says:
September 15, 2013 at 8:48 pm
===============================
The Co-op Bank story was very suspicious. It certainly allowed the hard of thinking to believe Celtic were up to their necks for £34M rather than having the facility in place.
upthehoops says:
September 15, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Exiledcelt says:
September 15, 2013 at 8:48 pm
===============================
The Co-op Bank story was very suspicious. It certainly allowed the hard of thinking to believe Celtic were up to their necks for £34M rather than having the facility in place.
*********
Good thing is it was disseminated by everyone (including Celtic fans) and then shown to be nonsense – but at least it was disseminated. If only some other followers could start at least asking a question – any question!
Barcabhoy says:
What Paul Murray, his beknighted namesake and everyone else pushing that line fails to recognize , is that Rangers were running on empty before Whyte tipped up.
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
Of all Barcabhoy’s posts, this line, for me at least, is the most accurate.
There is no need for any accountancy let alone bookeeping background required…simply that old straightforward concept of “common sense”.
It reminds me of my old line to my mother on a Saturday evening, having travelled to certain football grounds in Glasgow (in days when there were at least five!)….”Haw maw…ah’ve got nae money left…!)
Her reply was…..well you really should know…so I will not elaborate!
Exiledcelt says:
September 15, 2013 at 9:15 pm
=================================
Absolutely. Some groups of fans ask questions much sooner than others. Some groups of fans don’t even ask questions.
Auldheid says:
September 15, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Was this commissioning really intended to get at the truth or provide a means of swerving the DOS payments because of the implications of including them? Surely the whole point of LNS was to investigate non reporting of side letters with regard to any payment arrangements, far less trust arrangements and regardless of the trust arrangement involved?
On that point The Rangers Employee Benefit Trust that LNS treats as continuous of EBTs does in fact relate to the DOS scheme, DOS involved a Trust arrangement and undisclosed side letters so why was it not dealt with according to its nature and hidden inside the larger EBT arrangement?.
Who advised whom on the Notice of Commission?
==================================================================
You’ll remember that away back I didn’t realise that the DOS operated by Rangers required side letters and therefore mistakenly didn’t pay them the attention that I should have, Thank goodness you dug deeper ❗
I think LNS was kept totally in the dark over the DOS cases because I have a strong suspicion that his mind would make the automatic link to Aberdeen Asset Management and he would know what the FTTT had decided.
So we are left with what did the SPL know. This is unclear because of the inadequate preparation and investigation the SPL carried out when preparing their case for submission to LNS and the woeful presentation of it before the tribunal.
So was it just slipshod work or was there a plan to keep certain critical things under wraps and possibly keep them from LNS. I don’t know the answer to that but if there is a transcript of proceedings or if it was possible to see the various documents submitted and statements by Counsel it might help us come to a decision. But I doubt if we will ever get this info.
The Rangers DOS should have been included in the LNS NOC of that there can be no argument and the President of the SFA CO knew there was two schemes both requiring side letters and the DOS one had previously been found to be illegal. Didn’t CO know that and if he didn’t why did Rangers switch from using DOS to EBTs?
They must think oor heid’s zip upra back 😆
I suggest a wee look at http://www.twitter.com/bglendenning – he of the guardian podcast. Mentioned the H word in reference to the Govan club
I don’t think he got away with it
Just wait til they find out he’s Irish
Is Media House International Ltd. facing its own financial challenges ?
==========================================================
Our dear fiend (sic 😉 ) Jack Irvine might be the master of the dark arts, bullying, disinformation etc…allegedly…
but – on the face of it – it looks like his Executive Chairman skills maybe somewhat lacking ?
I had a brief look at the financials of his above company – and they don’t look very positive at all.
His numbers may need some ‘PR’ creative assistance to try and change their underlying message.
Seems like he had a decent year ended April 2005, when the ‘Net Worth’ calculation was £525K.
That figure has been declining until this year ended April 2013, it was quoted as just shy of £90K.
Would anyone have any relevant info. to complement / substantiate the apparent downward trend of Media House financials since 2005 ?
Perhaps Jack needs TRFC more than they need him ?
Wonder if his company will get stiffed again if there is another Govan club insolvency event ?
============================================================================
To be clear, I was too lazy to do my own analyses, and have simply lifted the above numbers from publicly available information as gleaned from the company annual returns at Duedil website.
https://www.duedil.com/company/SC174986/media-house-international-limited/financials
Just need to input your email address / password to create a free account.
Good Evening.
Forgive me, but my mind is troubled. Yes, I know that is an obvious statement with a plethora of evidence to suggest “deeply troubled” but bear with me.
Why on earth would the SPL grant a side letter in the terms produced by Charlotte in favour of Sevco Scotland Ltd ?
OK perhaps the answer has already been supplied by others who suggest that they were sweeping the EBT and DOS schemes under the carpet and limiting any future action to any Craig Whyte related matters.
At least that is what the side letter seems to say, and of course it defines CW events… sort of.
But I am wondering why Sevco would want such a letter from the SPL? Afraid of title stripping ( arguing that they bought the titles from Rangers PLC ) ? ……. Maybe.
Limiting the liability in terms of punishment should the FTT or the UTT ultimately rule in favour of HMRC? ……. Maybe.
However, its strikes me that such a letter might just be useless unless it is accompanied by a similar one from the SFA…… after all that is the appeal body and it is clearly stated that in a conflict between SFA rules and SPL rules then the SFA rules shall apply.
Pragmatically the only two bodies who could appeal any decision are the SPL ( who are hardly likely to appeal their own decision ) or Sevco Scotland Ltd.
But what if something occurred which lead the SPL to hand down a punishment on EBT matters or EBT related matters which Sevco felt was against the spirit of the side letter? How do they enforce that?
In the absence of a similar letter from the SFA, then surely the SFA could determine some form of sanction against Sevco…. especially when many argue that Sevco actually operate the same club as was involved in the EBT cases?
Confused?
Yes me too….. why have a five way agreement where only one party indemnifies the new boy in town?
essexbeancounter notes that PM is a CA.
It thus beggars belief that he is not aware of the inaccuracies and distortions he has made in his statements to BBC Radio Scotland.
He is either unfit to serve on a company board because he is unable to grasp the true position or because he is guilty of gross duplicity.
If that is not enough as was set out by BRTH & ecobhoy he failed spectacularly to carry out his duties as a director of Oldco over a substantial period. Supine struggles to describe it. If unable to influence board matters and/or company strategy the honourable thing to do was resign and put on record his reasons for so doing.
Scottish football does not need people like Paul Murray.