3,959 thoughts on “The Immortality Project”

1. 
   

   Auldheid says:
   September 24, 2013 at 1:55 pm
   ……………………………………..

   The very reason the CL format was created was on the demand of the bigger clubs in Europe at the time..

   They wanted the opportunity to earn as much cash as possible from Europe’s premier competition and the European cup’s knockout format didn’t allow that because the possibility of being knocked out after 1 game meant the likes of Juventus…Real Madrid …Inter Milan etc would lose out…especially as the competition was unseeded..

   In essence the big clubs wanted the competition skewered towards them…first came seeding…and when that didn’t always guarantee big pay days…the group stage was introduced…you could now lose a game or 2 and still progress and get handsomely paid..

   It has always been about the money and the bigger the clubs the bigger the influence…
2. 
   

   Paulmac2 says:
   September 24, 2013 at 2:14 pm
   0 0 i
   Rate This

   Auldheid says:
   September 24, 2013 at 1:55 pm
   ……………………………………..
   They wanted the opportunity to earn as much cash as possible from Europe’s premier competition and the European cup’s knockout format didn’t allow that because the possibility of being knocked out after 1 game meant the likes of Juventus…Real Madrid …Inter Milan etc would lose out…especially as the competition was unseeded..
   ———————————————-

   The European Cup was seeded from at least as far back as the late 70s. It may have been introduced after defending champions Liverpool were drawn against Nottingham Forest in the 1st round in 1978 but was certainly in place throughout the 80s.

   Don’t actually disagree with your post I’m just being petty 😈
3. 
   

   Auldheid and Notthehuddle.
   A lot of people under the age of 35 will find it hard to believe but it was Chris Anderson at AFC who championed the home team retaining their home gate as a package he believed would maintain Aberdeen’s decent position at that time. Looking back I can guarantee that none of my fellow Dons fans would have pushed for a faire share of the dosh any more than Celtic fans should now. It is a fact that the differentials between Celtic and the rest (never mind the EPL and Celtic) are much bigger now but I wouldn’t go for gate sharing. Gate money, along with matchday revenue, transfer business, and direct sponsorship is what could and should make the bigger supported and successfull teams richer and quite rightly so. What is required is a radical redistribution of all the rest. Celtic are only making money in Europe as representatives of the Scottish league.
   No argument intended! As I say, it’s unrealistic to expect the team(s) that are currently on top to share it out a bit but it is what is required to make Scottish fitba feasible in Europe.
4. 
   

   I suspect the issue for some people might be that it sounds awfully like Celtic would be bribing other clubs to do their bidding, it could also come across as a bit condescending.

   Personally I think we should move towards summer football, for various reasons, not least of which is that it is just a much more enjoyable experience to sit in the sun watching football than a cold dreech evening. We can worry about competing in major international tournaments when we get close to qualifying for one again. we seem to manage with things like the African Cup of nations which is generally during our season.

   The bottom line though is that it is down to the clubs, on a one club one vote basis and if the majority don’t want that then so be it. I would add that there is absolutely no problem with Celtic or anyone else suggesting changes they think might improve the game. So long as any decision made reflects the views of all of the clubs.
5. 
   

   Sitting in the winter at Scottish football can be uncomfortable: standing was fine, as I recall.

   While many of the posts recently have had a broader base, can I fling this one in?

   For many years I’ve half joked about cup draws in Scotland being fixed. Only half joked, mind!

   So turning attention to our wonderment at clubs perhaps conniving in agreeing to allow an Ibrox side access to Scottish football competitions in July 2012 -all clubs apart from Stranraer, as I recall-, many promogulated (ta, James Farry) that lower league clubs would be rubbing their hands at securing two home matches against a team which would climb through the leagues, making new friends as they lifted themselves to the top, via sporting integrity of course.

   But, what about those clubs who would miss out, specifically teams promoted in and out of the third tier during this triumphant reincarnation? Specifically, teams, as it turned out, like Albion Rovers (relegated), Queen of the South (top of the league for 34 of the 36 fixtures and promoted as champions by 25 points) and Alloa Athletic (in second place 24 weeks in a row, and promoted via the play offs). And, turning attention to the second tier, Falkirk were favourites at the start of season 2012-13 to gain promotion from that league. In August 2012, they received 2 matches against McCoist’s squad.

   All these clubs named have had the ‘benefit’ of the so called blue pound, two of them twice, over the past 14 months.

   But it might all be co-incidental. 😉
6. 
   

   Not The Huddle Malcontent says (and Ernie)

   September 24, 2013 at 2:05 pm

   I know the reaction to gate sharing and I understand the arguments against, hence redistribution of CL income.

   Say it was just £3m creamed off the top leaving say £12m to the top club. Is that going to make the difference between winning or losing the CL? Hardly. All it does is enrich one or two footballers.

   There could be conditions attached to the solidarity payment just to make sure it does not end up in players pockets lower down but is used on football development inside each club.
7. 
   

   Zilch says:
   It has been said before, but it might be worth repeating in the run up to a second financial disaster at Ibrox: maybe the best opportunity for George and other like-minded fans to salvage a team they can rally round would be to do an AFC Wimbledon?
   ========================================================
   This intrigues me. And I wonder why someone hasn’t already started this off if nothing more than as a “Fallback Strategy”.
   Genuine question: at what point in the Scottish Football Pyramid would a NooGers FC be able to join? I mean if all the rules in place were to be applied, and not one single favour was afforded to that new team, where could they officially expect to enter Scottish Football? Lowland League perhaps, or would that obstruct the progress of other clubs who might want to make that step-up?
   And actually this is not just Rangers-centric because Hearts might end up in the same boat.
8. 
   

   UPPER TRIBUNAL Case number: FTC/15/2013
   TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER
   THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
   REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Appellants
   -and-
   (1) MURRAY GROUP HOLDINGS LTD
   (2) MURRAY GROUP MANAGEMENT LTD
   (3) THE PREMIER PROPERTY GROUP LTD
   (4) G M MINING LTD
   (5) RFC 2012 PLC (in liquidation)
   (formerly The Rangers Football Club plc) Respondents
   FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL Case numbers: SC3113-3117/2009
   TAX CHAMBER
   (1) MURRAY GROUP HOLDINGS LTD
   (2) MURRAY GROUP MANAGEMENT LTD
   (3) THE PREMIER PROPERTY GROUP LTD
   (4) G M MINING LTD
   (5) RFC 2012 PLC (in liquidation)
   (formerly The Rangers Football Club plc) Appellants
   -and-
   THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
   REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents
   Tribunal: Judge Colin Bishopp
   Sitting in Edinburgh on 19 July 2013
   After hearing Mr Andrew Thornhill QC, Mr Jonathan Bremner and Mr Thomas
   Chacko, counsel, for the respondents in the Upper Tribunal and appellants in the
   First-tier Tribunal, and Mr Roderick Thomson QC for the appellants in the Upper
   Tribunal and respondents in the First-tier Tribunal
   It is directed that:
   1. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s
   Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) shall proceed in accordance with the
   following directions;
   2
   2. All further hearings in these appeals, whether before the Upper Tribunal or
   the First-tier Tribunal, shall be in public, and no decisions shall be
   anonymised or redacted, save that
   (a) the names of the HMRC officers who gave evidence to the First-tier
   Tribunal shall not be made public;
   (b) the names of those other witnesses who were not compellable and who
   gave evidence to the First-tier Tribunal after having been assured of
   anonymity shall not be made public;
   (c) the parties have permission to apply for variation of this part of this
   direction.
   3. The parties shall, by 13 September 2013, send to the Upper Tribunal and
   each other their estimates of the time required for the hearing of the appeal
   together with particulars of the dates inconvenient to them in the period from
   6 January to 31 March 2014 inclusive.
   4. HMRC shall send their skeleton argument and list of authorities to be relied
   on to the tribunal and the Murray Group by not less than two months before
   the date fixed for the start of the hearing.
   5. The Murray Group shall send its skeleton argument and list of authorities to
   be relied on to the tribunal and HMRC by not less than one month before the
   date fixed for the start of the hearing.
   6. The parties have permission to apply.
   Colin Bishopp
   Upper Tribunal Judge
   President, First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
   Release date: 9 August 2013
   3
   REASONS FOR DIRECTION
   1. On 29 October 2012 the First-tier Tribunal released its decision in the appeal of
   Murray Group Holdings Ltd and others—for simplicity I shall refer to the appellants (as
   they then were) collectively as the Murray Group—against a decision of the then
   respondents, to whom I shall refer as HMRC, relating to a series of assessments made in
   respect of an employees’ benefit trust (“EBT”) which had been established by the Murray
   Group. The decision, which was not unanimous, was substantially in favour of the
   Murray Group; but HMRC have since secured permission to appeal to the Upper
   Tribunal. I emphasise that I am not concerned in these reasons with the merits of that
   appeal, but only with the manner in which the litigation between the parties is to be
   continued, and nothing which follows should be taken as an expression of opinion on the
   merits.
   2. The questions which need to be considered at this stage, shortly stated, are as
   follows:
   (1) Should various matters which the majority of the First-tier Tribunal left
   undecided (“the undecided issues”) be determined by that tribunal
   before the appeal to the Upper Tribunal proceeds?
   (2) If so, should a tribunal composed of the same judge and members make
   the necessary determinations, or should a differently-constituted panel
   do so?
   (3) Alternatively, should the matter proceed now to the Upper Tribunal?
   (4) If the answer to question (3) is yes, should the Upper Tribunal
   determine all the issues in the appeal, making its own findings about
   the undecided issues, or confine itself to the issues which the majority
   decided?
   (5) To what extent, if at all, should any further hearing, whether before the
   Upper Tribunal or the First-tier Tribunal, be held in private; and to
   what extent, if at all, should any part of the resulting decision or
   decisions be anonymised or redacted?
   3. Before embarking on an analysis of those questions it is necessary to explain
   something of the background. I begin by mentioning that, as the issues relate to the
   conduct of the litigation in the Upper Tribunal and the First-tier Tribunal, I sat as a judge
   of both tribunals in order that all of the issues could be determined at once.
   4. One of the Murray Group companies was Rangers Football Club plc (“RFC”),
   whose financial stability was known to be threatened by (among other things) tax debts,
   or at least claimed tax debts. As is well known, RFC collapsed into administration in
   March 2012, followed by liquidation in October 2012. It has been re-named RFC 2012
   plc. The greater part of its business, and with it most of its assets, were purchased from
   the administrators in June 2012 by Sevco Scotland Ltd, which has since been re-named
   The Rangers Football Club Ltd. Although the professional football team known as
   Rangers had played in the Scottish Premier League until 2012, the collapse led to the
   ejection of the team from that league, and a team known as Rangers now plays in the
   Scottish Third Division.
   4
   5. It is no secret that professional football generates strong feelings among large
   numbers of its followers, and that those strong feelings manifest themselves in different
   ways. Rightly or wrongly—and I should not be taken as expressing any opinion one way
   or the other on the matter—those managing RFC have been blamed by some for its
   collapse and for what is, or is seen as, the relegation of the team. There has been
   particular focus on RFC’s tax affairs, and principally the assessments which are the
   subject of the present appeal. It is undisputed that various threats of a serious nature
   have been made, and that the Strathclyde Police have been compelled to offer advice and
   protection to several individuals involved in RFC’s affairs. Some of the threats have
   come from disappointed Rangers supporters; others from supporters of rival teams who
   have formed the opinion that RFC’s use of the EBT gave it an unfair financial advantage.
   6. Largely because of those threats the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal was held
   in private. Some of the witnesses who gave oral evidence were resident outside the
   jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts and tribunals, and therefore could not be
   compelled to give evidence; they did so only on condition that their names were not
   revealed. The two HMRC officers who had dealt with the matter, too, were believed to
   be under threat and their identities were concealed. In consequence the decision was
   released in a heavily redacted and anonymised form. There was also a long interval
   between the conclusion of the hearing and the release of the decision, occasioned in part
   by the complicated nature of the issues and in part by the fact that the tribunal was not
   unanimous—the panel members spent some time in discussions in the hope of achieving
   agreement and when it became clear that would not be possible the dissenting member
   wrote a lengthy decision of her own, necessarily taking time to do so. Those factors led
   to a suspicion in some quarters that material which could and should have been in the
   public domain was being concealed for inappropriate reasons. I do not accept that there
   is any substance in the suspicion, but I am conscious that there is disquiet and I am of the
   firm view that nothing should be done which might aggravate it without compelling
   reason.
   7. Because a direction had been made by the First-tier Tribunal that its hearings
   should be held in private, and that direction had not been revoked or amended before I
   sat to hear the present applications, I heard them in private. But there is nothing sensitive
   about the directions I have decided to make, nor in my reasons for doing so.
   Accordingly, and irrespective of my conclusions in respect of the fifth of the questions I
   have identified above, I have decided that my direction and these reasons for it should be
   publicly available.
   8. Before continuing I should make some observations about the fact that the Firsttier
   Tribunal’s decision was reached by a majority. Article 8 of the First-tier Tribunal and
   Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Order 2008 (SI 2008/2835) provides that “If
   the decision of the tribunal is not unanimous, the decision of the majority is the decision
   of the tribunal”. In this case, the judge and one of the members (whom I shall call, in
   what follows, “the majority”) were in agreement that the appeal should be substantially
   allowed. The other member took the view that it should be dismissed. By virtue of article
   8, her dissenting opinion, as I shall call it, does not rank as a decision—the only decision
   which does is that of the majority—and has no formal standing of any kind. However, as
   the dissenting member decided to write an opinion, with reasons, and publish them, those
   reasons are available to be deployed before the Upper Tribunal to the extent that HMRC
   (or, for that matter, the Murray Group) wish to deploy them as arguments.
   5
   9. The first four of the issues I have identified above can be considered together,
   before I make detailed directions, since ultimately they all require a judgment to be made
   about the most efficient and cost-effective means of resolving the litigation. The Murray
   Group’s position, in summary, is that the proper course is for the appeal to the Upper
   Tribunal to be stayed while the outstanding issues are determined by the same panel of
   the First-tier Tribunal; HMRC’s position is that the Upper Tribunal should determine the
   appeal to it first since all else is dependent on the outcome of that appeal. The
   outstanding issues, I should add, were the determination, in the light of the majority’s
   conclusions, of the tax treatment of the contributions to the EBT made by the Murray
   Group in respect of five individuals, and of the loans made by the trusts to those
   individuals. The majority expressed the hope, if not the expectation, that the parties
   would be able to resolve those matters for themselves, but unfortunately they have not
   been able to do so.
   10. For the Murray Group Mr Andrew Thornhill QC, leading Mr Jonathan Bremner
   and Mr Thomas Chacko, argued that the manner in which the majority had expressed the
   hope to which I have referred indicated a readiness to resume the hearing if agreement
   could not be reached. That opportunity should be taken first in order that a single,
   composite appeal could be heard by the Upper Tribunal. Until then that appeal should be
   stayed. The majority had expressly refrained from giving a concluded view and, in the
   absence of such a view, it was difficult to see how the Upper Tribunal could properly
   determine the entirety of the matter.
   11. An appellant has the right to have his appeal determined, and, as Megaw LJ said in
   the context of an application to stay civil proceedings until parallel criminal proceedings
   had been determined, in Jefferson Ltd v Bhetcha [1979] 1 WLR 898 at 905, “the burden
   is on the defendant in the civil action [for which read respondent in an appeal such as
   this] to show that it is just and convenient that the plaintiff’s ordinary rights of having his
   claim processed and heard and decided should be interfered with.” There is no reason for
   such interference in this case. The First-tier Tribunal is seised of the appeal, has not
   concluded it, and should now do so. The Upper Tribunal can deal (in the present
   context) only with appeals against decisions; it cannot deal with an appeal when there is
   no decision. The Upper Tribunal cannot find any further facts which might be necessary
   for its decision on the outstanding issues; it is permitted by the Tribunals, Courts and
   Enforcement Act 2007 s 12(2)(b)(ii) and (4) to make findings of fact only when it is remaking
   a decision of the First-tier Tribunal. The evidence relevant to the outstanding
   issues has already been heard by the First-tier Tribunal and it is that tribunal which
   should make findings in the light of the evidence it has heard.
   12. The breadth of HMRC’s attack on the majority’s decision is considerable, and it is
   likely to take a long time for the appeal to be heard—Mr Roderick Thomson QC,
   appearing before me for HMRC, suggested as much as four weeks. Whatever the
   outcome, there is the prospect of a further appeal, in view of the importance of the issues
   and the amount of tax at stake. If the outstanding issues have then to be resolved by the
   First-tier Tribunal, in perhaps three or four years’ time, the evidence will be stale and
   recollections will have faded. There may thereafter be another appeal, prolonging the
   final resolution of the matter even further.
   13. The course advocated by the Murray Group, by contrast, avoided most of those
   difficulties. The outstanding issues could be resolved quite quickly, particularly if the
   6
   same panel were to determine them. A hearing of no more than two days should be
   sufficient and the appeal to the Upper Tribunal could then proceed, with minimal delay,
   and encompass all of the challenges HMRC wished to make against the resulting
   decision. That was in essence the course adopted by the Special Commissioners in J D
   Wetherspoon plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (sitting in 2007: see [2008]
   STC (SCD) 460) and, following transfer of the Special Commissioners’ jurisdiction to it,
   the First-tier Tribunal (sitting in 2009: see [2009] UKFTT 734 (TC)), and endorsed by
   Briggs J and Judge Nowlan in the Upper Tribunal at [2012] STC 1450. The case related
   to the tax treatment of various items of expenditure. The Special Commissioners were
   invited to deal with two of the taxpayer’s public houses as samples, but in fact did
   something slightly different. The Upper Tribunal put the matter in this way:
   “4. In delivering the first decision, the Special Commissioners sensibly confined
   their review still further, so as to focus their reasoning upon a much smaller number
   of specific items, in the expectation (which proved to be unfounded) that the parties
   would be able to resolve the remainder by the application of the principles applied
   by the Special Commissioners in relation to those few.
   5. That approach did lead to a substantial narrowing of issues (subject of course
   to appeal) as to the effect of the principles applied in the first decision upon the other
   items in dispute. Nonetheless, there remained a substantial body of what were
   described in the second decision as ‘unclear items’, which the First-tier Tribunal
   (‘FTT’) then dealt with, but only in relation to the Prince of Wales pub, in the
   second decision. For this purpose they relied upon the evidence (including crossexamination)
   deployed at the hearing in 2007, together with further submissions of
   counsel on the unclear items.
   6. Neither party was content with the decisions. There has therefore been an
   appeal by JDW and a cross-appeal by HMRC.”
   14. A similar approach should be adopted here. The delay will be minimal, and the
   prospect of two appeals to the Upper Tribunal, and of two possible sets of onward
   appeals, eliminated. There was no discernable prejudice to HMRC in proceeding in that
   manner.
   15. HMRC’s complaint that the majority refused to make various findings (a
   contention with which I deal in more detail below) and their consequent argument that
   any direction that the remainder of the appeal should be heard by a differently constituted
   tribunal is misconceived. The majority had not refused to make findings at all, but only to
   make the findings for which HMRC had argued. The complaint is based upon a
   misunderstanding of para 232 of the majority’s decision:
   “We are unable to make further Findings in Fact in support of there being an
   orchestrated scheme extending to the payment in effect of wages or salary absolutely
   and unreservedly to the employees involved, as Mr Thomson urged us to do. We
   considered this with some care in view of his trenchant criticism of certain
   witnesses’ evidence.”
   16. That was simply a statement that there was insufficient evidence before the tribunal
   on which it could make the finding HMRC wanted. But even if there were any merit in
   HMRC’s complaint, it would be most unusual to change the composition of a tribunal
   part-way through a case. It would lead to delay, since the relevant evidence would have
   to be heard again, and consequent expense; and there would be a considerable risk of
   7
   inconsistency between the findings of the original panel and those of any new panel
   which might be appointed.
   17. HMRC argued, through Mr Thomson, that the least difficult means of resolving
   the outstanding issues was for the matter to proceed now to the Upper Tribunal, and for
   it to make any findings of fact which were necessary for its eventual decision, of which
   there might well be none. Once complete findings of law were made by the Upper
   Tribunal, the resolution of the outstanding issues would largely if not wholly follow,
   without the need to make further findings of fact. Even if the Upper Tribunal felt it
   needed to make such findings, it would not need to hear evidence in order to do so—it
   could make findings from the recitation of the evidence set out in the majority’s decision.
   18. The majority plainly considered that the First-tier Tribunal was no longer seised of
   the matter, as it had made all the findings it intended to make and in some respects (as
   Mr Thomson put it) had abdicated its responsibility for making findings both of fact and
   of law. The dissenting member had been able to make such findings, but if the appeal
   were returned to the First-tier Tribunal for continuation of the hearing there could be no
   confidence in the ability of the majority to make such findings in the light of their failure
   to do so in their decision. It was not the case that the majority had merely failed to make
   the findings HMRC wanted; they had failed to make findings at all in several critical
   respects. At para 7 of the decision the majority said
   “Evidence was led at length over 17 days. The account of each witness is
   summarised in turn and at the conclusion of this section we set out our preliminary
   Findings-in-Fact on the less controversial aspects. Later, in the concluding section of
   the Decision, we comment on the more contentious factual issues.”
   19. Although the second sentence of that paragraph proved to be correct, the third did
   not. The findings of fact set out at para 103 of the majority’s decision were drawn almost
   entirely from a statement of agreed facts prepared by the parties or were otherwise
   undisputed; there was very little analysis of (or comment on) the disputed evidence, and
   no findings based upon it. The majority simply failed in its duty to make findings from
   disputed evidence. One was left with the impression that, since HMRC did not rely on an
   allegation of sham, the majority took every document at face value and did not ask itself
   what was the true purpose of the arrangements. HMRC’s submissions on that point were
   recited but not addressed.
   20. This is not a case in which the majority reserved various issues for agreement
   between the parties or, in default of such agreement, resolution by the tribunal at a
   further hearing. It is apparent from the wording of para 233 of the majority’s decision
   (“… we expect that it is sufficient that we allow the Appeal in principle. Parties can no
   doubt settle the sums due for the limited number of cases mentioned without further
   reference to the Tribunal”) that the majority did not contemplate a further hearing at
   which residual matters might be decided, but considered that it had discharged its
   function. The position here is quite different from that in Wetherspoon, where the Special
   Commissioners said at [2008] STC (SCD) 460 at [117]
   “We have only been able to give a decision in principle on the main issues. We
   adjourn the appeal for the parties to consider whether the outstanding matters can be
   disposed of by agreement.”
   8
   21. They then went on to make directions for the further conduct of the appeal should
   that be necessary. There are no similar directions in this case.
   22. The parallel with Jefferson v Bhetcha which Mr Thornhill had tried to draw was
   false, since the issue there was quite different, namely whether an application for
   summary judgment in civil proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of criminal
   proceedings against the defendant because the defendant would be obliged, in order to
   answer the application for summary judgment, to disclose her defence in the criminal
   proceedings. That is quite a different consideration from the question which arises in this
   case.
   23. I have little doubt that there is substance in both sides’ arguments, and I do not
   find this a case in which the way forward is clear-cut. I can see merit in directing that the
   hearing before the First-tier Tribunal be continued in order that such further findings of
   fact as are relevant but which have not yet been made can be made. Although the Upper
   Tribunal does have the power to make findings of fact in the context of an appeal from
   the First-tier Tribunal, it is clear to me from the wording of the legislation that the power
   is to be exercised only when the findings to be made are clear, and as a means of enabling
   the Upper Tribunal to re-make a decision; I agree with Mr Thornhill that it is not a
   mechanism by which deficiencies in the execution by a First-tier Tribunal of its factfinding
   task can be cured. On the other hand, although I think the assertion that the Firsttier
   Tribunal abdicated its responsibility overstates the position, I see the force of Mr
   Thomson’s argument that findings of fact which could have been made were not, and
   that the wording of para 233 of the majority decision suggests that the majority did not
   expect the parties to apply for a continuation of the hearing.
   24. In order to reach a conclusion on the first four of the issues it is, in my judgment,
   necessary to consider what it is which divides the parties. The essential question before
   the First-tier Tribunal was whether, as HMRC say, payments made into the EBT were
   emoluments subject to PAYE and NICs deductions or, as the Murray Group argues, they
   were not so subject. That is also the fundamental issue before the Upper Tribunal. With
   limited exceptions which are of no present importance, the majority came to a conclusion
   on that question in the Murray Group’s favour. What it did not decide (instead leaving
   the parties to agree) was whether that conclusion held good, needed modification or
   should not apply at all in the cases of five individuals in which, as it put it (see para 211
   of the majority decision) “exceptional circumstances may arise”.
   25. In my view the determining factor should be the means by which the matter may be
   resolved most efficiently, and in weighing that factor against the background and the
   parties’ arguments as I have described I have come to the conclusion that the more
   effective course is for the Upper Tribunal to determine the fundamental issue first. If it
   upholds the majority but does not feel able to determine the outcome in respect of the
   five individuals it is true that it will have to remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal for
   that determination to be made, and in that case two hearings will be necessary. However,
   if it upholds the majority but finds it possible to deal with those five individuals’
   circumstances itself, or alternatively reverses the majority in a manner which is
   determinative of those five cases, only one hearing will be necessary. Even if it reverses
   the majority but does not feel able to resolve the five cases, it will be able to remit the
   matter to be determined in accordance with its view of the law rather than the (on this
   hypothesis) incorrect view of the majority. Thus on this basis two hearings are possible
   9
   but not inevitable. By contrast, as it seems to me, the Murray Group’s proposal
   guarantees two hearings and risks three: one to determine the outcome in respect of the
   five individuals; a second before the Upper Tribunal; and a third before the First-tier
   Tribunal, re-visiting its findings of fact in the light of the Upper Tribunal’s conclusion.
   The risk may be slight, but it cannot be discounted and in my judgment makes it clear
   that the balance of convenience dictates that the appeal to the Upper Tribunal should
   proceed.
   26. I do not need to consider the remaining detail of issues (1) to (4) set out above,
   save to observe that if the appeal or any part of it is to be remitted to the First-tier
   Tribunal it will be for the Upper Tribunal judge making the remission to decide whether
   the same or a different panel should deal with the matter. I now turn to the questions of
   privacy and anonymisation.
   27. Before coming to the detail of the case it is worth making a preliminary
   observation. I have referred above to the strong feelings of many football supporters.
   Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having
   a special status. In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless
   not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense of
   an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common
   purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its
   shareholders. From that perspective it has no special status, and there is no reason why
   its tax affairs should not be as open to scrutiny as those of any other profit-making
   organisation. The players, too, have no greater right to conceal their tax affairs from
   public scrutiny than any other taxpayer. The fact that they are in the public eye is
   irrelevant. Any application for privacy, anonymity or redaction of detail must therefore
   be supported by the same type and quality of evidence as would be required of another
   taxpayer, and will be granted only for the same reasons.
   28. It was common ground before me that the presumption is that tax appeals are
   heard in public, and with no concealment of identity or detail. I accept that, in the past,
   there was good reason to fear that the personal safety of certain individuals was
   threatened; but the information now before me indicates that the threats have abated and
   have probably disappeared. Even if the identities of some individuals were concealed in
   the First-tier Tribunal’s decision, the nature of the issues was not. Most of the individuals
   who were involved in, or were beneficiaries of, the EBT have been identified, without
   any concealment, in the published report prepared for the Scottish Premier League Ltd
   by the Rt Hon Lord Nimmo Smith, Mr Nicholas Stewart QC and Mr Charles Flint QC.
   The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was mentioned in the report and was taken into
   account by its authors and, although there is no direct link between the report and the
   decision, it does not require a great deal of ingenuity to work out, with reasonable
   accuracy, to whom the code names used by the First-tier Tribunal refer.
   29. Against that background there seems to me to be little, if any, legitimate purpose
   to be served by holding hearings in private, by anonymising the decision, or by redaction,
   and I therefore direct that future hearings, whether in the Upper Tribunal or the First-tier
   Tribunal, shall be in public, and that no anonymisation or redaction shall take place. I
   impose, however, three provisos. First, as I have said, the two HMRC officers involved
   in the case had their identities concealed. Although there is no current evidence of
   possible threats against them I see no justification for exposing public servants carrying
   10out their duty to a potential risk without good cause; none was identified and Mr
   Thornhill did not oppose their being afforded continuing anonymity. Second, certain
   other witnesses gave evidence only after having been assured of anonymity. Mr Thomson
   made the point that they might nevertheless have been willing to give evidence without
   anonymity, or might be prepared to waive it now; and he suggested that the matter might
   be revisited. Leaving aside the impracticability of asking the witnesses and evaluating
   their replies, it seems to me to be wrong in principle to offer anonymity to a witness as
   an inducement to his testifying, only to remove his anonymity later. I direct therefore that
   the identities of those witnesses which were concealed for this reason shall continue to be
   concealed. It may be, that by marrying the SFA report with the First-tier Tribunal’s
   decision the concealment can be defeated, but that fact does not seem to me to affect the
   principle. Third, it is possible that renewed threats may be made, or there is other reason
   to fear for the safety of some individuals. Should that be the case, the parties have
   permission to apply to the Upper Tribunal or, as the case may require, the First-tier
   Tribunal, for an appropriate variation of my direction.
   30. The further directions I have made were uncontroversial, and I need not explain
   them.
   Colin Bishopp
   Upper Tribunal Judge
   President, First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
   Release date: 9 August 2013
9. 
   

   Paulmac2 says:

   September 24, 2013 at 2:14 pm

   The problem is the invasion into sporting thinking of commercial thinking. In the latter the competition gets put out of business and you take over their customers.

   In the former you depend on the competitor to HAVE a business.

   We are witnessing the impact of the two opposing schools of thought. One driven by ethics the other greed.
10. 
    

    Auldheid,

    Well done for perking up a slow day!

    I have long been of the opinion that following the miraculous survival post liquidation (anyone know the frog joke?) of sevco giving rise to their temporary absence from their rightful place (could my tongue be any further in my cheek) the only team that would challenge Celtic’s superiority was the Celtic Board. I wouldn’t under estimate their ability to score ‘against the run of play.’ Unfortunately those pesky players keep pulling off displays like Barca and Shaktar ruining what otherwise seemed like a profitable plan.

    Celtic scraping through your stage 1 with relatively cheap players = very profitable.
    Celtic getting through your stage 2 to group stages = very profitable.
    Celtic building team structure a la O’Neil but failing to get through group stages through luck, avarice or even good old conspiracy = not very profitable at all.

    I would recommend your club doesn’t give the board a free hand if option 3 comes about.
11. 
    

    Bawsman. @ 2.44pm. This was gone over in great detail on this site in August whence John Clarke said he would be there when the tribunal sits, and report back. Apologies for raising it.
12. 
    

    Bawsman says:
    September 24, 2013 at 2:44 pm
    —
    Glad you posted this, Bawsman.
    It makes good reading, and shows the original ‘majority’ to be right hopeless lawyers, who plainly were not all that hellish interested in establishing all the relevant facts, in their keenness to assist the Murray group.
    Para 19 “The findings of fact set out at para 103 of the majority’s decision were drawn almost
    entirely from a statement of agreed facts prepared by the parties or were otherwise
    undisputed; there was very little analysis of (or comment on) the disputed evidence, and
    no findings based upon it. The majority simply failed in its duty to make findings from
    disputed evidence. One was left with the impression that, since HMRC did not rely on an
    allegation of sham, the majority took every document at face value and did not ask itself
    what was the true purpose of the arrangements. HMRC’s submissions on that point were
    recited but not addressed.The majority simply failed in its duty to make findings from
    disputed evidence. One was left with the impression that, since HMRC did not rely on an
    allegation of sham, the majority took every document at face value and did not ask itself
    what was the true purpose of the arrangements. HMRC’s submissions on that point were
    recited but not addressed.

    Para 23: ” I see the force of Mr Thomson’s argument that findings of fact which could have been made were not, and that the wording of para 233 of the majority decision suggests that the majority did not
    expect the parties to apply for a continuation of the hearing.”

    Judge Bishop is on the ball!
    I look forward to the hearing!
13. 
    

    On subject of seeding in CL – it started in 1967/68

    The 1967/68 competition saw the introduction of two new regulations. Firstly, a seeding system would ensure that the teams from countries that had already supplied finalists would be kept apart until the later stages of the competition. Secondly, a new ruling that sought to separate two evenly matched teams without the need for playing a replay was introduced. It was decided by UEFA that ties in the first round that finished level after two legs would be decided by doubling the value of goals scored away from home. In other words, the team that had scored the most away goals would go through. One of the teams to benefit immediately was a former winner of the competition. Benfica were considered overwhelming favourites to dispose of the Belfast club Glentoran in the opening round, but it took a late Eusebio equaliser in Northern Ireland to salvage a 1-1 draw in the first leg and the return game remained goalless – thus Benfica sneaked through to the second round courtesy of the new away goals rule.

    http://www.europeancuphistory.com/euro68.html
14. 
    

    At least one net is tightening

    http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2296553/icaew-member-charged-in-hbos-loans-investigation
15. 
    

    Re distribution of CL incomes.

    Last February when it became apparent that Celtic were going to have a good year financially i espoused to some Celtic friends of mine that it would be nice to see Celtic give back some of the earnings to regular supporters. I imagined that this could be done in the form of a one of season ticket reduction. I would now like to see Celtic form a new internal policy of reducing season tickets in seasons directly following cl group stage qualification…. Would set a good example to all other clubs who participate Iraq hope to participate in said competition….

    My reasoning was that if Celtic are to be the leaders and dominant in Scottish football fir the immediately foreseeable future that it would be in their and Scottish football’sbest interest to lead by example.

    In that vein and along the lines of what somebody mentioned above, i think that farther funds from this success could be distributed within the spfl to the betterment of Scottish football. I would like to see this take the form of a fund ring fenced for youth development. That monies endowed in said fund would only be dispersed for the purpose of youth development. A certain percentage of the funds would be for membership squads, a lower percentage for championship and so on down the professional food chain. A portion of the funds could also be ring fenced for local development of the local non professional game.

    I think this would be in the long term interests of Celtic as it could lead to better competition within the premiership, but could also lead to development of more Scottish talent which would give Celtic more options access to cheaper home grown talent in the transfer market down the line. Also this would set a good example for other reams who hope to challenge fir European competition in the years ahead.

    Re summer/winter leagues. It is inevitable that the transfer market will remain summer dominated. If we were to change to a summer season you would run the risk of having your team decimated mid season as i would imagine players would want it written into their contracts that they be available during this period. This could lead to players being distracted by potential moves at a time when domestic success is not actually secured.

    Jer
16. 
    

    Some good ideas being kicked about. However, its the shareholders money really, so I don’t see how Celtic can take action on their own, even if they wanted to, which is dubious to say the least. There needs to be a change in culture at the SPFL, and also at the SFA. With the same old faces playing musical chairs, change is very definitely not on the agenda.
17. 
    

    Whilst Auldheids’s proposal is in some ways admirable, it is still, as has already been pointed out, a bribe
    The problem with a bribe, is that eventually the recipients see it as a form of weakness, and human nature being what it is, they get greedy
    At what point does the organisation with the cash say enough is enough, and we will pay no more
    The fallout from that will set Scottish football a problem that we can well do without, in my opinion
    Additionally, why stop with CL cash ?
    Would there be demands that every team competing in Europe contributes to the bribe ?
    Sorry, but the suggestion does not get my support
18. 
    

    OT

    TSFM – ‘cos I am nosey.

    The ‘Stat’ counter displayed in the bottom left hand corner of the screen, [00088265], next to where the wee face usually appears…

    Is this the TSFM counter ? What does it count ? Unique users views / cumulative daily views…?
19. 
    

    scapaflow says:
    September 24, 2013 at 4:35 pm
    4 0 Rate This

    Some good ideas being kicked about. However, its the shareholders money really, so I don’t see how Celtic can take action on their own, even if they wanted to, which is dubious to say the least. There needs to be a change in culture at the SPFL, and also at the SFA. With the same old faces playing musical chairs, change is very definitely not on the agenda.

    =====================

    SFA could easily change the rules to state all UEFA participation/prize money needs to be split based on a formula that trickles down the league.

    Celtic and it’s shareholders could have little say in the matter
20. 
    

    This might help Stevie http://statcounter.com/
    Cheers
21. 
    

    Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    September 24, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    Do you think the SFA could easily do this, I’m not so sure.

    If a club has qualified for a UEFA tournament and it is UEFA making the payments to them (in addition to what they earn themselves) could the SFA simply take some of the money UEFA were paying to be distributed elsewhere.

    I’m not saying they couldn’t, I just don’t necessarily agree with your assesment that the SFA could simply change the rules to do it. They could change the rules on eligibility I suppose, but how would they justify the national champion not being in the CL (albeit qualifying stages). Which is the qualification we are talking about really, the one which makes money.
22. 
    

    Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    September 24, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    Exactly that’s my point, but I think hell will freeze over before the current board(s) members would consider doing anything, let alone something as radical as that! 😉
23. 
    

    Can we run a competition as to when the Sevco accounts will be released? Brenda’s clock must surely have combusted by now
24. 
    

    Now this should be interesting; in particular the reference to Holyrood having a policy review, rather than legislation – I think safe standing areas will be a very popular move for all teams who had to introduce all seated stadia. Would certainly generate a better atmosphere at games.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24232993
25. 
    

    Bangordub

    i don’t expect the accounts next week, but i reckon next monday will see something that will delay the accounts for a period to be defined

    this may impact scheduling of AGM
26. 
    

    ——–
    @bbcjimspence
    After a week’s break on the mountain bike and in the running shoes, an even trimmer me returns to the airwaves for Dundee v ICT tonight.
    4:55pm – 24 Sep 13
    ———

    Viva Jim Spence!
27. 
    

    Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    September 24, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    Bangordub

    i don’t expect the accounts next week, but i reckon next monday will see something that will delay the accounts for a period to be defined – this may impact scheduling of AGM.
    ===================================================================
    Sounds interesting ❗ Has this anything to do with Companies House requesting the missing shareholder info wrt TRFCL I wonder ❓
28. 
    

    ecobhoy
    I see you are attracting a lot of attention from certain prolific posters on SLT .
    You must be touching a nerve ,Keep up the good work . 😆
29. 
    

    Bangordub/Brenda – I think the watch was exchanged for a calendar – its now being exchanged for a 5 year planner.

    Anyone else wondering why the cost of an EGM was raised as the issue to defer it and no one questioned it from the Blue side, when according to the Rangeritis sufferers, the club/company (or clumpany as it is now known) is cash rich and debt free?

    Just to clarify for me since the spivs have confused me too – I have no clue nowadays who is talking about which element of the clumpany – so I don’t know if the AGM is for RIFC or TRFC or both? Which part or portions of the conglomerated super clumpany are we talking about here?
30. 
    

    ecobhoy says:
    September 24, 2013 at 6:52 pm
    2 0 Rate This

    Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    September 24, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    Bangordub

    i don’t expect the accounts next week, but i reckon next monday will see something that will delay the accounts for a period to be defined – this may impact scheduling of AGM.
    ===================================================================
    Sounds interesting ❗ Has this anything to do with Companies House requesting the missing shareholder info wrt TRFCL I wonder ❓

    ——————————–

    no inside info/knowledge or tip offs at all

    but the AGM is expected to be confirmed sometime next week – they won’t be having and AGM without accounts

    something has to happen to get them out of announcing the agm and publishing the accounts

    what that is I don’t know – personally, i hope it’s ADMIN, but who knows
31. 
    

    Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    September 24, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    no inside info/knowledge or tip offs at all

    but the AGM is expected to be confirmed sometime next week – they won’t be having and AGM without accounts

    something has to happen to get them out of announcing the agm and publishing the accounts

    what that is I don’t know – personally, i hope it’s ADMIN, but who knows

    Was it not rumoured a week or two ago that the accountants were having “some difficulty” signing off on the accounts? That would sound like a good reason to delay things
32. 
    

    Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    September 24, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    AARRGGHHHH KLAXON SOUNDS!!!!!!!!

    you are one step away from suggesting a return to gate sharing!!!!

    chaos will follow!!! 😀

    I do agree that the rewards are skewed, the league needs to distribute finances more evenly, to make the league more balanced and competitive and in the long run, more attractive.

    I’m glad you brought gate sharing up, NTHM.

    I thoroughly agree with that last sentence of yours, and Auldheid’s concise summation that “The problem is the invasion into sporting thinking of commercial thinking. In the latter the competition gets put out of business and you take over their customers.”

    It’s difficult for fans to think beyond the immediate interests of their own team (cf RFC2012’s glorious history so cruelly ended by overspending), but in the long run, the health of our national league is the most important, not the health of one or two clubs. Indeed, the dominance of one or two unusually large clubs can be quite detrimental to the health of the game.

    Some will still call for a rationalisation of teams through competitive attrition – that is certainly the way of it in the marketplace. We are still suffering from such an unquestioned approach in banking and finance where the big ate the small and everything was great until it imploded in market failure.

    Not many have a tribal and emotional affiliation to a bank, so I would hope that fans are able to see the merits of avoiding market failure in Scottish football, even if this means not grabbing every penny going for your own team.
33. 
    

    If the Ibrox club are not paying their taxes, it would be in the interests of their fans to see Admin as soon as possible rather than risk running up a tax bill that ensured the CVA would fail and liquidation follow.

    That applied 2 years ago, and applies now.
34. 
    

    fergusslayedtheblues says:
    September 24, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    ecobhoy
    I see you are attracting a lot of attention from certain prolific posters on SLT .
    You must be touching a nerve ,Keep up the good work . 😆
    ===========================================================
    Lots of nerves are twitching IMHO 😆

    However those you refer to on SLT I don’t recoginse as posters but merely trolls which means I don’t read amy of their drivel let alone respond to it 👿
35. 
    

    Is this not deja vu…all over again ? 🙄

    Under Craigie’s ‘stewardship’ the AGM – IIRC – was due in November, then delayed until December, [latest date to hold it was 31/12/11], and then in January there were reported excuses that Grant Thornton ‘were causing the delay’ by not signing-off the accounts.

    And then of course Valentine’s Day happened !

    Could the same thing happen here – just delay, delay then admin in the new year ?
36. 
    

    In case we forget never mind Euro moneys this year already has seen money re distributed down the tables. Motherwell and Celtic already sacrificed the majority.

    This example uses the current SPL prize pot of £17,965,000 per season.

    Premiership

    1 £2,405,000 (-£315,000)
    2 £1,718,000 (-£682,000)
    3 £1,460,000 (-£60,000)
    4 £1,289,000 (-£71,000)
    5 £1,203,000 (-£77,000)
    6 £1,117,000 (-£83,000)
    7 £1,057,000 (-£63,000)
    8 £1,005,000 (-£35,000)
    9 £988,000 (+£28,000)
    10 £902,000 (+£22,000)
    11 £816,000 (+£16,000)
    12 £730,000 (+£10,000
37. 
    

    ianagain says:
    September 24, 2013 at 8:10 pm

    Let’s also not forget (unlike the SMSM) that Celtic getting into the group stages of the CL means that the clubs in the top tier will share in a bonus payout, which was over £1 million to the SPL teams last year.
38. 
    

    First things first. Good to hear Jim Spence back doing his job, talking about football on open all mics. Welcome back Jim and good luck to you sir.

    Next, and in relation to the grandsons of William, there are several really important issues which must come to a head in the next few weeks. Any one of which could be considered a seminal moment in and of itself.

    1, Will they release audited accounts. If not why not and what are the consequences. If they do what are they going to say.

    2, Will they have an AGM next month, as promised, or will they make it drag on and on for as long as possible.

    3, If they have an AGM will the “requisitioners” be able to take control of the board or will the current incumbents be able to retain their control.

    4, If the new lot take over what will they find swept under the carpet, will the shareholders stay or try to get out with this new board taking over.

    5, Will the new board (if such takes over) be able to bring in much needed funds and if so how. Will it be a new share offering, will it be sale of assets, will it be borrowing, where will it come from and on what terms.

    The new club seems to have managed to get into a right royal mess in jig time. How will they get out of it and move forward.

    The Rangers support are still talking about getting back where they belong (sic) will they be about at all come the end of their second season. Will the PLC have sold the football business and who will have bought it. Who will own the assets like the stadium and on what basis will the club be playing there.

    It really is an incredibly important time for the youngest club in Scottish senior football.
39. 
    

    Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    September 24, 2013 at 7:25 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    September 24, 2013 at 6:52 pm
    Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    September 24, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    Bangordub

    i don’t expect the accounts next week, but i reckon next monday will see something that will delay the accounts for a period to be defined – this may impact scheduling of AGM.
    ===================================================================
    Sounds interesting ❗ Has this anything to do with Companies House requesting the missing shareholder info wrt TRFCL I wonder ❓
    ——————————–
    no inside info/knowledge or tip offs at all but the AGM is expected to be confirmed sometime next week – they won’t be having an AGM without accounts. something has to happen to get them out of announcing the agm and publishing the accounts
    ===================================================
    If I had any inside info then I would never admit it nor give any indication of it. That’s how people learn to trust you and give you more 😎

    Quite simply I was quite amazed at the Rangers Offishal announcement on how Companies House were totally happy with the incomplete Annual Return for TRFCL.

    There is no way it can be accepted because it is patently incomplete and Companies House would leave itself open to severe censure from its Masters if it failed to ensure that the legal requirements were followed.

    So as I say I was bemused by the Rangers announcement which could only be aimed at Bear consumption as it will all end in tears IMO. The Bears were over the moon at the strong line taken against the BBC for getting it ‘wrong’ according to Rangers and demanding the Beeb be sued. Sadly the Bears will be crying in their Sugar Puffs shortly.

    This deflection has a sting in the tail and that will happen when Companies House ask either Capita or TRFCL to supply the missing info and they will.

    Companies House doesn’t tend to react at warp speed but they will move either this weel or next and what will Rangers say then? Or more importantly what will they do?

    Will they supply the missing shareholder and shareholding info or play for time? If they don’t supply it then people might begin to wonder what the problem is in revealing the names of former shareholders. After all Green has appeared on telly stating it was a matter of public record who they are and the SFA knows as well. The SFA have never contradicted his statement so who am I to do so?

    My problem is I can’t find it in the public record which might be because the original investors were to be shareholders in Sevco 5088 Ltd. And lo and behold the Annual Return of this RIFC PLC subsidiary was due in May this year and has yet to be filed.

    However, if I was the BBC I would be checking with Companies House every day to see when they have asked for the missing info. I believe TRFCL have 14 days from this request by Companies House to supply the information.

    Again I am puzzled that TRFCL state that Capita Registrars were responsible for the filing of the TRFCL overdue Annual Return. These people are professionals and paid a lotta lotta money and I have difficulties in believing they don’t know how to complete an Annual Return form correctly with the statutory information.
40. 
    

    StevieBC @7.56pm. Hammer, nail, hit. It’s been on the cards since McColl/ Murray withdrew their EGM requisition that this AGM will never take place (all over a measly £50k/£60k.Aye that will be right) A book should be started on the date of the Admin, I’ll go for Dec.14th. the day after Chuckles shares lock-in expires.
41. 
    

    The clock is puffed oot and I was keeping time on so many different things I’m a bit puffed oot too 😉 I know it riles some people but although I try not to listen to SSB much these days (it was bad for my health) I listened tonight because frankiebhoy was on coz he’s very entertaining and refreshingly honest 😀 one of the callers a Kilmarnock supporter called mr mccoist ‘slimy’ !!! He was cut off 😆
42. 
    

    Come to think of it. what would happen to all these locked shares, if Admin occurred before 13Dec.2013.? One for our accounting posters.
43. 
    

    ecobhoy says:
    September 24, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    The recent issue of Private Eye doesn’t exactly give Companies House a thumbs up, see the In the City section (pages 36 and 37).
44. 
    

    Brenda, I think we should all chip in and get you one of these ………..for each wrist……..and I still don’t think it will be enough!! https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wristwatch+with+multiple+faces&client=tablet-android-samsung&hl=en-GB&source=android-browser-suggest&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=2uxBUvzVBuOP7AaJmICQCA&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=800&dpr=1#biv=i%7C261%3Bd%7CwXxoKt1XyI69jM%3A
45. 
    

    Brenda, I salute your clock’s indefatigability!
46. 
    

    OT, but as a Scottish football fan, I found this Guardian piece interesting http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/sep/18/barcelona-gerardo-martino-tiki-taka
47. 
    

    Brenda says:
    September 24, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    Brenda, you need to move into a NASA style control room where they have something like 20 clocks covering different time zones
    You could re-programme them to track the various events
48. 
    

    Thanks boys (girls??) but I think I should retire and hand the clock to a younger member of TSFM I just hope karma gets it’s act together and bites ‘slimy’ & co right on the ass 😆
49. 
    

    ekt1m says:
    September 24, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    Come to think of it. what would happen to all these locked shares, if Admin occurred before 13Dec.2013.? One for our accounting posters.
    ——————————————————————-
    The shareholders would see their investment wiped out.
    That’s also why December 13th,in my opinion,is a red herring.
    No money(not my words,the RIFC financial directors)
    Possible Companies House Action
    Rumoured SFO/Crown Office action
    Still possible actions from BDO
    Possible bad news from Collyer Bristow v Everybody?.
    Potential repercussions from UTT wrt Nimmo Smith?

    I’m sure the good folk on here could add to this list.

    The only 2 parties involved see to be the bus boys,whose motives are unclear and a consortium made up of a failed ex-director and a very rich guy who want to get investors involved but don’t want to put anything in themselves.
    Any serious investor with cash available,if they know anything about business,will not be buying Greens shares.That’s why Green has a binding agreement with the Easdales.We don’t know the details though.
    IMO things will move quickly now.
    Mather and the board have publicly agreed to hold an AGM by 31st October.That means Audited Accounts must be available soon.There have already been too many postponements,delays etc.
    A delay to the Accounts publication and therefore the AGM would be the biggest nail in the coffin.
    The board have no choice.It’s now all or nothing.
50. 
    

    Brenda, With the greatest respect to all your timepieces……….In this case they are useless. You need a Tardis.. 🙂
51. 
    

    OMG Only one Dougie Imrie!!!!
    Hal Stewart would be proud tonight…now there’s a man who would have sorted out the SFA .
52. 
    

    Hal Stewart would have made Turnbull Hutton look like Campbell Ogilvie!!

    Mon The Ton 😀
53. 
    

    Morton on the verge of a great result for Scottish football!!

    As a Celtic fan I’ll be gutted, but as a football fan,,, I will also be gutted lol

    Scottish football needs a strong stramash
54. 
    

    Sounds like a few stramashes at the end, Arthur will be dancing like a 2 year old tonight
55. 
    

    Armagedi….armagedon…. So I can’t spell it, it’s not the end of the world.

    Well done Morton.
56. 
    

    Tailothebank says:
    September 24, 2013 at 9:45 pm
    =================================
    As a rather stunned Celtic fan I can only say well done to Morton. Listened to the 2nd half and extra time on Celtic TV and I don’t think we would have scored if the game went on to midnight. Enjoy your night and good luck in the next round.
57. 
    

    Absolute Heart attack material …but worth it…Unbelievable!
    Chick young commentary pathetic and brilliant at the same time !
    All the millions in the world mean nothing at times like this…..The Celtic management and fans didn’t show enough respect to win this tournament..
    Morton are in a relegation battle with no forward line…but manage to pull this off..Fabulous!
58. 
    

    Tailothebank says:
    September 24, 2013 at 10:21 pm
    All the millions in the world mean nothing at times like this…..The Celtic management and fans didn’t show enough respect to win this tournament..
    =======================================
    I said earlier well done and enjoy your night, and I still mean that. I do think the above is subjective and unnecessary though.
59. 
    

    Much as I have a “whatever the opposite of a soft spot is” for Morton (goes back to the days when Andy Ritchie always seemed to scupper Aberdeen) … hats off tonight. 😛

    At least a diddy team will get to win the diddy cup this year. 🙂
60. 
    

    Tailothebank says:

    September 24, 2013 at 10:21 pm

    Not sure I agree with the criticism of Celtic fans, they have spent a lot of money recently, and the huge gaps in the stadium at the weekend shows that they are choosing not to turn up for ‘run of the mill’ SPFL games either.

    The team the Celtic management picked was strong enough to win this match, but the joy of football is that every now and again nights like this happen, and I hope you enjoy it to the full.

    Not having seen the game, I’m not qualified to comment, but perhaps the lack of respect was shown by the Celtic players in thinking they just had to turn up and win?
61. 
    

    Well done Morton

    ( Spittoon Ding 😉 )
62. 
    

    Agree about Chick, awful and brilliant at the same time. He had Celtic winning the penalty then Dougie Imrie stepping up for Celtic again. But his enthusiasm and frantic delivery is worth some praise.

    I would love to see Accies’ conquerors St Johnstone win their first major cup this season, but just glad there will be no Celtic or that new mob in another cup final.

    Kudos to Richard Gordon for his retort to Chick, “Is there still an Old Firm, Chick”. 😆
63. 
    

    Well done the diddies
    Chic still believes there is an ‘old firm’ apparently 😳
64. 
    

    Up the hoops..
    Mea culpa! mea culpa!
    ..but big clubs all over the UK are taking risks like this in the league cups by not playing their full team …
    I am not daft enough to realise that had 50000 and a full team turned up then this would have been very different ….but hey ho!
65. 
    

    I think the “lack of respect” comment is unnecessary and detracts from a great result for your team and also Scottish football. Pleased that other teams will be able to enjoy a big day out at Hampden and get some silverware. Plus side for Celtic is a kick up the backside and hopefully less papering over the cracks that we don’t have a goal scorer now other than Stokes.

    3 different winners in 3 years – Kilmarnock, St Mirren previously – and now hopefully Inverness or St Johnstone can go onto win their first major trophies!

    Armageddon is a terrific thing is it not?
66. 
    

    bobferris says:
    September 24, 2013 at 10:32 pm
    I heard that too
    Is that Richard now on the Sevconian hit list ?
67. 
    

    StevieBC,

    The counter was in use over the weekend for a wee while to verify some other stats. It appears to be telling us there is more activity than WordPress tells us. So only more questions and fewer answers 🙁
68. 
    

    bobferris says:

    September 24, 2013 at 10:32 pm

    Agree about Chick, awful and brilliant at the same time. He had Celtic winning the penalty then Dougie Imrie stepping up for Celtic again. But his enthusiasm and frantic delivery is worth some praise.

    I would love to see Accies’ conquerors St Johnstone win their first major cup this season, but just glad there will be no Celtic or that new mob in another cup final.

    ************

    Was following game at work here in USA via BBC text updates (cannot get radio at work etc – so I take what I can get).

    Anyway – I assume the text was being done following Chick as they had

    Penalty awarded
    Saved by Caraux
    Penalty awarded to Morton
    Scored by Imrie

    So it seemed as if Celtic missed the penalty and Morton ran up the park and got their penalty.

    It has now been corrected to taken out the “Saved by Caraux”, but it had me confused as hell at the time!

    Maybe Chick was upset seeing how Morton is no friend of his beloved St Mirren. Or his hair got in his eyes!
69. 
    

    After listening to tonight’s Open All Mics, don’t you just long for a bigger to league with 3 up & 3 down, and where the likes of Morton, Dundee, Accies, and others can get back where they belong. A way to refresh the league and spread the money around.

    Btw, judging by the BBC interview I thought Neil Lennon was very gracious in defeat. Nice to hear.
70. 
    

    Exiled Celt says:
    September 24, 2013 at 10:54 pm
    …
    Was following game at work here in USA via BBC text updates (cannot get radio at work etc – so I take what I can get).

    Anyway – I assume the text was being done following Chick as they had…
    ===============================
    If you really want to hear Chic’s dulcet tones on the radio, you can access live UK radio transmissions at

    http://www.radiofeeds.co.uk/mp3.asp

    [Someone had helpfully posted this on RTC, and link is reliable.]
71. 
    

    Exiled Celt says:
    September 24, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    Time to pension Chick off
    Initially he said it was a penalty to Celtic after ambrose had comitted the foul
    Someone corrected him saying Morton, but the bold Chick still seemed confused
72. 
    

    Thanks for that StevieBC – will use that at home – unfortunately streaming is NSFW. These afternoon kickoffs on weekdays are such a hassle 🙂
73. 
    

    One of the arguments constantly rolled out against bigger leagues by the likes of Gordon Dalziel is that teams like (your)Morton(s) just aren’t good enough to compete with premier league clubs, never mind take on the champions.

    Well, his presience and understanding of the vagaries of Scottish football have been highlighted yet again tonight.

    From a competiton point of view there is no valid argument, in my opinion, against bigger leagues. Playing a wider variety of teams with less frequency means results like tonight’s would be more likely leading to closer points tallies at both ends of the table.

    Anyway, well done Morton and the rest of tonights victors
74. 
    

    Just recently back from The Celtic game, and as someone who lives less than two miles from Cappielow, I would like to congratulate Morton on their win. They played superb, were n’t all that dirty and did n’t really over exaggerate the time wasting. Every young fan remembers a game that started their love of football, hopefully tonight a lot of young Morton fans felt that feeling for the love of the game, a good honest game.
    Well done.
75. 
    

    Focus guys… Focus…
    For most of the night this blog has revolved around football, rather than the underhand shenanigans of the establishment! Get a grip!
    Whilst tonight result is – I admit – an entertaining distraction, I can easily get all this informed sports debate and discussion elsewhere. And now that not even the Tulloch, home of my beloved Caley can rightly be called a football free zone these days, it seems that soon there may be nowhere left that us chiselly old scroats can go for a proper old mither about the post armageddon apocalyse that has befallen our beloved sport, without having to confront the spectacle of grown men debating the intricacies of honest gladitorial contest played out in atmosphere of repectful rivalry between fans with more in common then dividing them.
    I think its about time the SFA did their duty and stepped in to bring this situation back to the shambles to which we have all become accustomed.
    (psst … Vince Lunny, that’s you cue!)