The Offline Game

By

TBKMAY 12, 2016 at 12:17THELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 12:00 Is it odd? …

Comment on The Offline Game by TBK.

TBKMAY 12, 2016 at 12:17THELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 12:00
Is it odd? that a statement issued by the SFA in December 2011, as younote, “refers to 31st March 2011 when as rightly stated, no disclosure was required.” when the license was issued in June 2011 because:“Since the potential liability was under discussion by Rangers FC and HM Revenue & Customs as at 31st March 2011, it could not be considered an overdue payable as defined by Article 50.We are satisfied that the evidence from all parties complied with Article 50 and, on that basis, a licence was awarded for season 2011-12. ”
THELAWMAN I note you haven’t responded to the above, yet responded to later posts.…….Any thoughts?

PS. The SFA concluded its audit in 2010/2011 AS ITS IN THE 2011 ANNUAL REPORT.

TBK Also Commented

The Offline Game
Comments from Regan are unsurprising:

“My understanding is that the requisitioners have accepted that they have no issues with the granting of the licence to Rangers in 2011 . ”

Have they? Perhaps someone would like to update me and other shareholders on that. I personally, disagree entirely with that statement!

“Our position on that is that we have complied with UEFA requirements in the period immediately following March 2011 and clearly if there is still an issue with the requisitioners then that’s for them to take up with UEFA.

Why? This is a Scottish Football issue. Why is it left to a group of shareholders, of one particular Club, to pursue something we know is amiss? Is it telling that even your communiques still refer to “immediately following March 2011” and not June / July / August or September 2011? Again a group of shareholders are left to ask questions and no doubt will continue to receive threats for doing so.

“We’ve said if they do that then we’ll fully cooperate and comply with any requests for information from UEFA and we’ve provided details at UEFA for the requisitioners to make contact.

Hope it isn’t Campbell (I may have forgotten or perhaps I don’t know how to use the shredder m’lord) Ogilvie!!


“So we believe that the matter has been communicated to those involved and they will deal with it as they see fit.”

………………….Said Pontius Pilot! 


The Offline Game
It is noteworthy that my Club, like the SFA, still remain silent on this issue, whilst individuals are hounded and threatened by an ignorant mob of bigots that align themselves with the *Rangers support.


The Offline Game
sad that it has had to come to having to put a newspaper ad in a foreign newspaper, as the powers that be and journalists in Scotland refuse to bring to the attention of the wider public……..

. http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/tanks-on-the-lawns-of-uefa/

The premier business paper where Uefa is headquartered in Nyon, Tribune de Geneve, today ran an advert, paid for by public subscription, questioning the governance of Scottish football.
The advert asked readers to reference The Offshore Game report: Doing SFA for Fair Play and explained some of the issues governance, accountability and oversight in Scottish football.  It reads:
“A report by The Offshore Game (TOG), an arm of The Tax Justice Network (TJN), has highlighted examples of poor SFA governance in respect of:
• A Commission established in 2012 by the Scottish Premier League to investigate the use of employee benefit trusts to reduce the tax paid to HMRC by an SFA member club where the SFA provided key testimony which is now being questioned.
• The processing of a UEFA Licence in 2011 by The SFA when Court Officers called to collect overdue tax from a member club between Champions League and Europa League qualifying games. Proving there were no overdue and unpaid taxes was a condition of granting then retaining a licence to compete in both UEFA competitions. The tax concerned was never paid!
• The SFA have neither commented on the TJN report nor attempted to address the issues it raises. The TJN has called for an independent review of the SFA to make it more accountable.
• A group of shareholders of Celtic PLC acting in terms of Resolution 12 of the Celtic PLC AGM of 2013, have been pressing the SFA for over two years for a satisfactory explanation of their administration of the UEFA licensing process in 2011. In the absence of any meaningful reply they have now taken up the case with the UEFA Club Financial Control Body.
The TOG report highlights the financial cost over a decade to the British Taxpayer in Millions of pounds. The cost to Scottish football in terms of the loss of trust placed in the SFA to govern the Scottish game with integrity is incalculable.
Football fans everywhere are invited to read this important report into the game in Scotland.”
Our game suffers from a perceived lack of oversight, accountability and governance; fundamental requirements in modern sport which have been painfully lacking across world football for decades.  Uefa now have an opportunity to measure where Scottish football, and their own processes, are on these metrics.


Recent Comments by TBK

John Clark Meets “The SFA”
RyanGosling at 12:10 pm

Correct Ryan, the tax evasion was 10 years later 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9N1NEeWZKWHRhRG8/view


John Clark Meets “The SFA”
Utterly disgraceful treatment of Angela Haggerty! Mob mentality now control the media.

Perhaps the reason The Herald will not take on the legality issue is because its true……… I imagine UEFA and FIFA wouldn’t be too concerned over a Club Director expressing his delight at a song about genocide?…. no …. me either.


John Clark Meets “The SFA”
friendlybear 7:48 pm

Many thanks for the response FB. Yes, I believe if the EBTs are found to be deliberate withholding/ evasion then action should be taken. The DOS schemes clearly point to that by way of the HMRC Tax inspectors comments and letters.  An asterisk against the titles would suffice. As CG and the Newco purchased the titles, they could lay claim to the others (as they currently do)….. I have no issue with that.
‘Moving on’ would need to take other issues in hand: as in SFA Governance & involvement/ resolution 12 etc before the hearts and minds of many are won.


John Clark Meets “The SFA”
friendlybear at 4:35 pm
Hello friendlybear, I believe this is a website open to all, *subject to conviviality and gentlemanly (occasionally ladies) conduct. Hopefully you can add to the considered debate. 02

Not wishing to draw you into battle……. (or whataboutery) but out of genuine interest (as I have many ‘Gers fans that on the face of it, appear to think like you) ……..what do you think should/could have been done in regards to the Tax issue should it be found that the players were genuinely using a scheme to evade tax. Financial advantage aside, would you deem that fair? Should titles won be set aside with an asterisk?
If LNS is reopened/ reconsidered due to the legality would a fair result be setting aside if proven that “cheating” did occur?


John Clark Meets “The SFA”
whilst Rosco’s squirrel is the usual regurgitation of confused hearsay and made up stuff from no legal standing whatsoever, it is worth keeping in mind that both Duff & Phelps and BDO are legality bound (by the constraints of Company Law) to deal with facts.

The facts are that RFC2012 (In Liquidation) formerly Rangers FC PLC 1872 was the Company and the Club. They were ‘synonymous’ on incorporation. *Rangers FC 1872 own Article’s of Association confirm this.
Both BDO and D&P refer to Club and Company being synonymous…… as did the new *Rangers PLC in its notifications to the Stock Exchange when it was listed.
End of argument…….

BDO also helpfully point to a number of areas in which it cannot disassemble the facts. 

“SPL Prize Money 2011/12 Season
A number of creditors and shareholders have asked us to clarify how the SPL prize money due to the Company for finishing second in the 2011/12 season was dealt with. We can advise that the right to this prize money was sold to Newco as part of the business and assets of the Company. Subsequently, to gain entry into the Football League, both Newco and the Company agreed to waive any rights to this money, which was retained by the SPL.”

LNS ‘Commission’ (a Commission led by SDM neighbour and friend, that was paid to give an opinion) also states:
[45] Paragraphs 2 and 6 of the list of preliminary issues advance essentially the same argument, which is that on 14 June 2012, when the business and assets of Oldco were purchased and transferred to Newco, Rangers FC ceased to be a Club as defined in the Rules, and is accordingly not subject to the jurisdiction of the SPL, and thus of this Commission, in relation to any breach or breaches of the Rules committed in the period prior to that date. The SPL disputes that Rangers FC ceased to be a Club on 14 June 2012, and argues that the relevant date is 3 August 2012; but in our view nothing turns on the exact date, as all the breaches alleged in the Notice of Commission relate to a period before the earlier of these two dates.

I have no issue with *Rangers fans claiming continuity (spiritually or otherwise). Its their belief. They are entitled to it. What is not acceptable is for anyone to deride this site for the debate they encourage.

…………..Some ‘folk’ just won’t accept cheating or manipulation of the truth!


About the author