The Offline Game

The scandal in which Scottish football has become embroiled is neither equivocal nor complicated. It happened. It is easily seen to have happened. It is certainly not a degree course in nuclear physics. Why then, are simple facts ignored day after day, week after week, by not just the so called purveyors of truth in the media, but the body of the SFA itself, the clubs?

Five years or so ago, systematic cheating by a club involved in Scottish football was uncovered as a consequence of the club slipping into liquidation. This is easily established as fact.

It soon became clear that the authorities had been aware of the situation for as long as it had been going on, but instead of applying their own rules, which would have saved that club from it’s ultimate demise, they chose to enable it and cover it up. Also, backed up by documentary evidence.

As a consequence of the slide towards liquidation, the authorities went into cover-up overdrive to protect their own position. Inquiries based on rhetorical “you’ll have had your tea!” questions were set up to arrive at predetermined conclusions. The post-truth era in Scottish football had begun in earnest.

The claims of corruption which subsequently emerged were dismissed out of hand by the authorities and the press; first by accusations that it was only Paranoid Celtic fans looking to put the boot into Rangers who were behind the claims, then, when it became clear that it was not only Celtic fans who were angered by the way the integrity of the sport had been shattered, the “mad Celtic fans” epithet was amended to “mad online conspiracy theorists”.

The tactic was clear. NEVER address the issue. Attack the messengers. Ridicule them, mock them, demonise them. Despite that, the message of SFM and others was gaining traction and dangerously for the authorities, becoming difficult to ignore.

Last Autumn SFM was approached in confidence by senior figures in two print media outlets. The request was for us to provide them with the facts we had in bullet points – to make it easier for them to reach their audience, an audience they claimed was not sophisticated enough to absorb the detail and minutiae of the story.

The role of journalists is to do exactly that of course. They had access to the same documentary evidence we had (we know this because we gave it to them), but they wanted us to do their job for them? Leaving aside the scant regard I have for football journalists in this country, I don’t believe they are incapable of carrying out that simple task – but we humoured them anyway and provided them with the “SFA Corruption for Dummies” guide that they asked for.

But what were they really up to?

Remembering the RTC thread where he pointed out that genuine whistle-blowers in this saga were reluctant to come forward because of trust issues – they feared any contact with the MSM would result in their details being provided to those they were exposing – we proceeded with some caution. Amusingly, the same three questions was asked at each meeting; “You must know who Rangers Tax Case is?”, “any idea who John James is?” and, “what team do you support?”. (FYI, my answers were, “No”, “No”, and “Celtic” respectively).

Interestingly, for people who needed clarification by bullet-point, they were well enough versed in the minutiae to attempt to argue the flat-earth case and try to sell us the “it has been established legally that <insert something that hasn’t been established legally here>”

Our only conjecture was that they were trying to convince us we were wrong,  or ascertain how firm a grasp we actually had on the facts to better see who and what they were dealing with, or (most probably) they were reacting aimlessly to online pressure and not really following any plan at all. Perhaps they were seeking to reassure themselves that it was just Celtic fans who were angry – although I fail to see how Celtic or their fans have less credibility when asking legitimate questions about the running of the game just because Rangers were involved.

Subsequently, despite the platitudes of “print and social media should work together” and the like, and despite being furnished with the aforementioned bullet points, no further contact was made with SFM other than a couple of childish comments about SFM on Twitter.

Facts might be facts to us all, but in the case of the print media, they can be ignored on the basis that mad internet bampots are not a credible source, although metaphysical hypotheses are clearly thought to be a far more sensible line of inquiry!

However, facts ARE indeed facts, and in the hands of real journalists like Alec Thomson and those in The Offshore Game (TOG), they are given the credence they merit. Since TOG published the report on the SFA (see below), the facts have emerged from not just the so-called internet bampots. Those facts have survived the scrutiny of several reputable journalists involved in TOG – and their legal advisers.

Accusations more blunt and unequivocal than we have ever made have been published. The genie is most definitely out of the bottle, but the prodigious MSM Twitterati, so meticulous in their investigations into the occupation of Craig Whyte’s female companions, appear to have run out of batteries on their keyboards. “No answer” is the loud reply, since TOG cannot be ridiculed quite so easily without exposing themselves to the same scrutiny they have failed to apply to the SFA.

If I can be as unequivocal about this as possible. Senior journalists in at least two MSM print outlets KNOW there has been a cover up, and that systematic cheating took place. They knew that before the TOG report, long before it, but still they did nothing. Even now they do nothing. They are now playing a reactionary role – as counterpoint to the accessible online truth –  involved in actively concealing that truth from the offline public. An Offline Game if you like.

Of course we are not surprised by that, and as the falling-off-a-cliff circulation figures show, fewer and fewer people are playing their game. Even those who still purchase newspapers believe little of what they read.

The clubs are a different matter. Fans of every single club in this country – and that includes TRFC – will benefit from an inquiry into the handling of this matter. In the light of the TOG report, there is no excuse for the clubs to ignore calls for an inquiry to be set up. In fact by doing so, they are actively embracing corruption.

As we have said time and time again, this is no longer about Rangers. It is about institutionalised mal-governance at Hampden. By assisting the cover-up, the clubs are ensuring that the same corrupt practices are in place, ready to go again when necessary. Those practices which saw journalists and SFA officials cede editorial control (both statements backed up by documentary evidence) of their output to one club, and allow damaging conflicts of interest to circumvent rules.

The Offshore Game has thrown a media spotlight onto a cover-up. The MSM have attempted to bury it in the offline domain, but corruption, however well established,is not unbeatable. We can beat it if we work together – and here is how.

Season ticket renewals are dropping through letterboxes as I write this. If we do nothing other than protest, the clubs will do – just like Stewart Regan says he will – NOTHING!

There is only one way to establish the Independent Inquiry that is demanded in the wake of TOG report. Ask your club if they will vote for an Independent Inquiry to be set up.

If they agree, there is no problem. They are doing the right thing and will be deserving of our support.

Otherwise, send their renewal forms back to them unsigned.

It really is that simple.

 

 

http://www.theoffshoregame.net/475-2/

 

 

This entry was posted in General by Big Pink. Bookmark the permalink.
John Cole

About Big Pink

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

1,833 thoughts on “The Offline Game


  1. nawliteMay 11, 2016 at 21:27

    “The 2012 FFP rules are contained in the post at the top of this page by CastofThousands at 03.42hrs.”
    ————————————
    DuplesisIIMay 11, 2016 at 22:31

    “I think it would actually be the 2010 regulations which applied as the 2012 ones are for the season after this.The 2010 ones have similar provisions though.”
    ————————————-
    I only realised after posting that the UEFA FPP link I provided was to the 2012 edition. In retrospect I should have posted again to highlight this. The reason I did not at the time was the relatively shoddy presumption that any amendments of the earlier edition that would have been in play at the relevant time were unlikely to have fallen on the paragraphs currently under close scrutiny at the moment; so it was still reasonable information. DuplesisII’s gracious acknowledgement that my assumption had luckily been correct is appreciated by me.


  2. THELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 15:18

    many thanks for the response. Although I’m not sure what you are getting at regards “not sure how anyone would know”…….

    It is as clear as day…….. the SFA statement in December 2011 clearly refers to events in March 2011 and June 2011.
    “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
    when the license was granted, on the basis there were no ‘undue payables’ as it appears, *Rangers must have proven;
    1. they had settled to the agreed terms… and
    2. were able to prove that:
    a) it had “fully settled” the overdue payable, or
    b) had concluded a written agreement with HMRC to extend the deadline of payment, or
    c) had agreement in writing from HMRC of a verifiable legal dispute.

    A simple yes or no answer will suffice …..

    “Annex VIII: Notion of ‘overdue payables’
    1. are not settled according to the agreed terms.
    2. For the purpose of the licensing system an overdue payable at 31 December is not considered as overdue if the licence applicant is able to prove by the following 31 March that:
    a) it has fully settled; i.e. paid in full, the overdue payables, unless otherwise individually agreed with the creditor; or
    b) it has concluded a written agreement with the creditor to extend the deadline of the payment of these payables overdue (note: if the creditor has not requested payment of an overdue amount, this is not considered as an extension of the deadline for payment); or
    c) legal claims have been launched and deemed admissible by the competent authority according to national legislation, or proceedings have been opened with the statutory national or international football authorities or relevant arbitration tribunal, with regard to these overdue payables.
    If the decision- making bodies consider that proceedings may have been opened by the licence applicant with the sole purpose of bringing overdue balances into the disputed category (as a way of creating a situation as described above and buying time), the licensor may request additional evidence in order to be satisfied that it is not an obviously unfounded dispute.”


  3. TBK, im really confused as to what the question is but i will have a go though

    Annex VIII states 1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms. 

    As there was no agreed terms for the wee tax case as at 31st March then as per the very clear rule 1 in the above Annex, the amount was NOT an overdue payable and therefore not subject to 2 a, b, c or d.

    I note you highlight the section “(note: if the creditor has not requested payment of an overdue amount, this is not considered as an extension of the deadline for payment)” but this ONLY applies to payables overdue.


  4. TheLawMan
    May 12, 2016 at 14:40
    TBK
    May 12, 2016 at 14:59
     
    Thankyou.
    04


  5. THELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 16:12
    Now I’m confused. I thought you said it was clear that *Rangers submitted no ‘overdue payables’?
    For the purpose of the licensing system an ‘overdue payable’ at 31 December is not considered as overdue if the licence applicant is able to prove the various criteria set out in A B or C (there is no D)

    So did they prove that?  Where does it say *Rangers had no ‘overdue payable’ / liability in Tax?

    ART 50
    8.  The licence applicant must submit to the auditor and/or the licensor the necessary documentary evidence showing the amount payable (if any), as at 31 December of the year preceding the licence season as well as any payable as at 31 March (rolled forward from 31 December), to the competent social/tax authorities as a result of contractual and legal obligations towards its employees.


  6. Sorry to interject,I really don’t have the time expertise or inclination to absorb and understand the recent rather lenghty contributions.
    However,if a tax liability from the early two thousands is not settled by 2011,then surely it is outstanding and payable,and must be overdue.I understand no repayment agreement was in place….what am I missing here,this is an oustanding tax liability,why is this so complicated?


  7. “As there was no agreed terms for …..”
    So if one side never agrees to the terms then that one side can ensure no “Overdue Payables” forever – a flawed argument.
    If HRMC presents bill as XXX is due by yyy date – agreed terms are inherent in the demand. If no appeal carried out then terms are agreed – if payer suggests alternative payment – that only replaces inherent agreed terms on a new agreement if HRMC accepts this offer – so sign that happened.

    In light of no sign of agreed renegociation with HRMC – seems agreed terms in their hands and as they originally specified.


  8. I hope this is ok guys but if not then please delete and advise.  I do this as for months, one of my acquaintances has attempted to post on John James site with similar type posts, often that i have sent him and very rarely do they see the light of day.

    So in response to his claim:  

     In the final analysis I believe the SFA looked at the financial position as of 31.12.10 and subsequently proceeded to approve a licence application on this information and nothing else. It is my opinion that Alastair Johnson deliberately filed his interim results which disclosed the DOS provision after the deadline so as to provide the SFA with no impediment to a green light. 

     

    I cant see the sense in this stance for a few reasons.  The first one being, no matter when the interim accounts were released, the situation was no different on the 31st March.  We either had an “overdue payable” or not as at 31/3/11.  The date the accounts are released play no part in that financial position on that date.

    Secondly, although the closing date for the submissions to the SFA is 31st March, the submission date to UEFA is some 14 days later by which time, if the inference was that the club were trying to hide it, then it would have been known and certainly would not indicate “no impediment to a green light” as suggested.

    Finally, i think on the whole, the main protagonists of Resolution 12 from what i can see have accepted the 31st March position and feel that the 30th June position is the one which requires closer scrutiny.


  9. NTDEAL

     Sorry to interject,I really don’t have the time expertise or inclination to absorb and understand the recent rather lenghty contributions.However,if a tax liability from the early two thousands is not settled by 2011,then surely it is outstanding and payable,and must be overdue.I understand no repayment agreement was in place….what am I missing here,this is an oustanding tax liability,why is this so complicated?

    The Big Tax Case stretches back to the same period but that is still in dispute and no repayment had been agreed at any point due to that dispute and therefore it has never been “overdue payable”

    The small Tax Case became “overdue payable” according to the rules in Annex VIII, 30 days after the HMRC sent the formal determinations which from memory would have been 19th June 2011, subject to disclosure on 30th June 2011.


  10. DJ7

     
    “As there was no agreed terms for …..”So if one side never agrees to the terms then that one side can ensure no “Overdue Payables” forever – a flawed argument.If HRMC presents bill as XXX is due by yyy date – agreed terms are inherent in the demand. If no appeal carried out then terms are agreed – if payer suggests alternative payment – that only replaces inherent agreed terms on a new agreement if HRMC accepts this offer – so sign that happened.
    In light of no sign of agreed renegociation with HRMC – seems agreed terms in their hands and as they originally specified.

    No.  This is not the case.  Agreed terms in relation to Tax implies a due by date.  If HMRC issue a notice and demand for payment by a certain date then that is the date it is required by, unless a subsequent action is taken to a) legally dispute it as in the Big tax case or b) agree a schedule of payments in writing.

    The small tax case became overdue payable on the 19th June 2011. 


  11.  I cant see the sense in this stance for a few reasons. The first one being, no matter when the interim accounts were released, the situation was no different on the 31st March. We either had an “overdue payable” or not as at 31/3/11. The date the accounts are released play no part in that financial position on that date.

     

    As an extension to this point, its like declaring £0 overdue payable at 30th June because you are not going to release your accounts until the middle of August then throwing a £2.5m overdue tax bill.  Or delaying the release of your accounts to the 10th October so you dont need to disclose your overdue payables as at 30th September.

    Its just not a notion that makes no sense at all. 


  12. TheLawManMay 12, 2016 at 16:12 
    TBK, im really confused as to what the question is but i will have a go though
    Annex VIII states 1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms
    As there was no agreed terms for the wee tax case as at 31st March then as per the very clear rule 1 in the above Annex, the amount was NOT an overdue payable and therefore not subject to 2 a, b, c or d.
    I note you highlight the section “(note: if the creditor has not requested payment of an overdue amount, this is not considered as an extension of the deadline for payment)” but this ONLY applies to payables overdue.
    ________________

    Regardless of the dates involved, would it not be solely within HMRC’s gift to decide the ‘agreed terms’ and whether or not they exist? (Why am I asking? Of course it is.) In other words, Rangers could claim all they want that, at any time, there were no agreed terms, or they were in negotiation to agree terms, the fact remains that the bill had been issued, was unpaid, and was overdue! At any time up until repayment terms are agreed, by HMRC, the terms are, due now!! As it stands, there never was ‘agreed terms’, it was, and remains, due now!


  13. ALLYJAMBO

     Regardless of the dates involved, would it not be solely within HMRC’s gift to decide the ‘agreed terms’ and whether or not they exist? (Why am I asking? Of course it is.) In other words, Rangers could claim all they want that, at any time, there were no agreed terms, or they were in negotiation to agree terms, the fact remains that the bill had been issued, was unpaid, and was overdue! At any time up until repayment terms are agreed, by HMRC, the terms are, due now!! As it stands, there never was ‘agreed terms’, it was, and remains, due now!

     

    This is correct.  The bill was issued in the form of a formal determination on the 20th May 2011.  It then became “overdue payable” on the 19th June 2011.


  14. I’ve been dipping in and out all day and the number of posts the guru has up is simply astounding it’s as if he is being paid to sit and watch then deny and counter but I will have a go anyway and say it was definitely black!


  15. Below is an extract from the updated the offshore game blog,after their chat with the lawman,it is quite clear in their view when the liability fell due,

    The FFP rules refer to the need for payments to be made in line with “the agreed terms”. To be clear, we take the agreed terms to mean the statutory obligation to pay taxes. In the case we highlighted the relevant statute is the PAYE legislation. That deadline under these rules for tax relating to payments made through the DOS scheme fell in 2001-2003 and that is the date we consider the liability to have become “overdue”. That interpretation is in line with the way UEFA interprets the rule as set out in the Malaga case, and the way the Italian courts have interpreted it in the Parma case (see below).
    If there is no payment by the due date, a club needs to have a written agreement with the revenue authorities to extend that deadline. At no point did this happen in the DOS case.
    It is for that reason that we regard Rangers to have had an outstanding tax payment on March 31st 2011 and their characterisations of those payments – as ‘potential’ and ‘postponed’ – to be inaccurate.
    It has been said that the liability only became due when the settlement with HMRC was agreed, or alternatively when the appeal period for the Section 80 notices issued by HMRC expired. We believe that interpretation to be wrong, because it would entirely defeat the purpose of the FFP rules.


  16. The SFA have said they have legal advice.
    Has The Lawman ever offered his legal opinion to them?
    Im sure they’d be interested. just saying’ 😉  


  17. TANGOED

     
    an extract from the updated the offshore game blog,after their chat with the lawman,it is quite clear in their view when the liability fell due,
    The FFP rules refer to the need for payments to be made in line with “the agreed terms”. To be clear, we take the agreed terms to mean the statutory obligation to pay taxes

    What The Offshore Game has failed to do, and it has been noticed by prominent posters on here and others involved in the search for justice in their eyes is state when Rangers received a physical bill prior to 31st March, how much it was for, and when was it due to be paid?
    What figure would Rangers have declared as due exactly ?  They did not have any written confirmation of an amount due. 


  18. This might sound daft considering the weightiness of the running debate, but why did they not just pay it? 
    Given that potentially a gateway to a lot of revenue was at stake, the sensible approach would have been to pay up if there was any doubt, and argue the toss with HMRC later regarding a rebate. 
       Unless of course they couldn’t pay, and were hoping to meet the demands from HMRC, from the proceeds of the competition which required no overdue payables as a condition of entry. 
       Or perhaps administration was being planned, and there was no intention to meet HMRC demands at all. 
       I realise of course this is a legal matter, and I am no Lawman (no offence intended, I have enjoyed your input)….But I am a layman with a decent idea of what is right and what is wrong. 
       So in layman’s terms, could Rangers(I.L.) pay the bill,?
       Considering that they entered administration in Feb 2012,  it suggests not, and remains unsettled to this day.
       UEFA and the SFA dodged a bullet when they were knocked out of both competitions, as in Feb 2012 the competitions were still running.
       I would say that the rules were designed to prevent that very scenario.  If the rules are fit for purpose, then Rangers(I.L.) should not have gained entry. 
       If they were entitled entry, then the rules are not fit for purpose.  
      I will leave it to the more enlightened on the rules to debate which side of the fence the rules fall on, but either way. Rangers were in administration before the tournaments ended, and shouldn’t have been involved.  
       


  19. HELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 17:59
     
    What The Offshore Game has failed to do, and it has been noticed by prominent posters on here and others involved in the search for justice in their eyes us state when Rangers received a physical bill prior to 31st March, how much it was for, and when was it due to be paid?What figure would Rangers have declared as due exactly ? They did not have any written confirmation of an amount due.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————–
    Why would rangers need a physical bill,did’nt they know how much they were stealing?
     
    Also it’s when HMRC and UEFA considered the money due NOT rangers.


  20. CORRUPT OFFICIAL 

     This might sound daft considering the weightiness of the running debate, but why did they not just pay it? 

     

    The reasons for this are subject to an ongoing court case and it would therefore be wise to not comment on it at all.


  21. TANGOED

     Why would rangers need a physical bill,did’nt they know how much they were stealing? Also it’s when HMRC and UEFA considered the money due NOT rangers.

     

    To meet the definition of Annex VIII.  To use a silly analogy, when you change your Gas and Electricity supplier, usually there is a period where things dont transfer over, your payment is lower than it should be then all of a sudden it works itself out and in some cases a huge bill is due.  You know its coming and you know you are due to pay it but would it be fair if Scottish Gas sent you a note to say, im sorry your bill is overdue even although we havent confirmed exactly how much it is yet ?


  22. It’s good to see the Blog get back to its best with respectful and reasoned debate.  I’ve been trying to catch up on a day’s worth of posts and will have to re-read them in more detail later

    I can’t add much to the Res 12 issue given the fact that the knowledge and understanding of the subject matter by a number of posters far exceeds my own.

    However I would like to raise one point, which may or may not be relevant.  There was some discussion on the requirement or otherwise to notify the SFA about overdue payables at the end of September 2011.

    We know from an SFA Disciplinary Tribunal chaired by Gary Allan QC that Rangers had stopped remitting payments to HMRC for PAYE, NICs and VAT from September 2011 onwards (19 September was the due date), therefore they did have overdue payables as at 30 September 2011.  What I don’t know is what, if anything,Rangers were required to advise to the SFA in respect of those social taxes.

    For reference to key dates, Rangers lost their CL qualifier to Malmo on 3 August 2011 and their EL qualifier to Maribor on 25 August. These events were the likely triggers for the tax payments to be withheld.

    Here are some extracts from the Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision.

    66. That shortly before 19 September 2011 Mr Ken Olverman was aware that Rangers FC were due to make a payment to HMRC in respect of PAYE income tax, National Insurance Contributions and Value added Tax. On making enquiry with Mr Craig Whyte about said payments, he was not authorised to make the payment which was therefore not paid on the due date. Upon his expressing his concern to Mr Craig Whyte Mr Ken Olverman was in due course instructed that payments to HMRC were to be suspended and withheld. At the time of the first withheld payment in September 2011 Rangers FC’s financial situation was such that it could have made the payment due to HMRC.

    67. That in the course of his subsequent communications with Mr Craig Whyte about the payment of these social taxes due to HMRC Mr Craig Whyte stated to Mr Olverman that non payment of the sums due was a tactic or negotiating ploy intended to improve the position of Rangers FC in any attempted negotiation with HMRC of a settlement in “the Big Tax Case”.

    68. That between September 2011 and February 2012 Rangers FC withheld in excess of £13,000,000 from HMRC due in respect of PAYE income tax, National Insurance Contributions and VAT. As at the date of the Tribunal determination the said sums were still outstanding and due.


  23. I should also add that HMRC instigated an arrestment order to ring fence funds due in the WTC on 2 September 2011.

    IIRC HMRC used the cash it secured by this means to set-off against some of the outstanding VAT due rather than settle the WTC bill.


  24. EASYJAMBO – My view is that you are correct and that Ken Olvermars would have had to disclose them on September 30th.


  25. DJ7
    “Agreement of terms” or “ongoing discussions” or “waiting for a schedule of payments” are all irrelevant.
    These excuses could be used by every club in Europe who owed tax and in some cases national tax law might even support them.

    However in its wisdom, upheld by CAS, UEFA said money owed to the tax authority is considered overdue if not paid according to the agreed terms UNLESS
    there is an agreement in writing at 30 June to EXTEND the deadline (or postpone the deadline) with the creditor.
    the item is under appeal
    it is a frivolous demand with no basis (I paraphrase)
    None of the above conditions applied at 30 June and by 20/21st June under the terms of the 20th May letter there WAS an overdue payable.
    All Res12 asks is to investigate. What that will throw up if they do is either
    a) it wasn’t an overdue payable for reasons UEFA can explain,
    b) it was an overdue payable and was declared as such but they and SFA missed it which means they need to stiffen up their rules.
    c) it was an overdue payable but they were misled by the declaration.
    There is no point in discussing this further because it is a decision for UEFA to make having requisitioned all relevant evidence as they have the power to do.


  26. LAWMAN 18:14
    To meet the definition of Annex VIII.  To use a silly analogy, when you change your Gas and Electricity supplier, usually there is a period where things dont transfer over, your payment is lower than it should be then all of a sudden it works itself out and in some cases a huge bill is due.  You know its coming and you know you are due to pay it but would it be fair if Scottish Gas sent you a note to say, im sorry your bill is overdue even although we havent confirmed exactly how much it is yet ?

    Rubbish – you are seriously undermining your position with a statement like that.  Tango was quite correct earlier – the tax was due from 2001/3, the amount was well known.  RFC (IL) were cheating – surprise, surprise !


  27. AULDHEID, DJ7 was replying to a post about the 31st March deadline, not the 30th June deadline.  Would that change your view ?


  28. THELAWMAN
    MAY 12, 2016 at 18:14

    To meet the definition of Annex VIII. To use a silly analogy, when you change your Gas and Electricity supplier, usually there is a period where things dont transfer over, your payment is lower than it should be then all of a sudden it works itself out and in some cases a huge bill is due. You know its coming and you know you are due to pay it but would it be fair if Scottish Gas sent you a note to say, im sorry your bill is overdue even although we havent confirmed exactly how much it is yet ?
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————

    As long as they did’nt send the bill out before it’s due date then yes it would be fair as you would have been informed about the possibility that this may happen.Rangers knew in 2004 about the possibility of a bill coming their way,that’s why they lied about the side letters to delay any action that HMRC may have taken at that time.No lies and rangers would have known back then exactly how much was due.


  29. JIMMY BONESMAY 12, 2016 at 18:38

    Rubbish – you are seriously undermining your position with a statement like that. Tango was quite correct earlier – the tax was due from 2001/3, the amount was well known. RFC (IL) were cheating – surprise, surprise !
    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    JB the info came from these guys the offshore game,heres the link,

    http://www.theoffshoregame.net/the-uefa-licence-issue/

    They seem to have a clear understanding as to when HMRC and UEFA would consider the tax due.


  30. Got a reply from the BBC about under reporting of The Offshore Game Report:


    Thank you for your comments about our sport coverage on 6 May 2016. 
    To answer your first point, we will continue to refer to Rangers FC as the same team; where we will make a distinction is between the old company and the company which currently runs the club. This is in line with the BBC Trust findings on the matter, details of which are available at
     
    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf
     
    Our sports news team is well aware of this Tax Justice Network story. We’re also acutely aware of the gravity of this issue, and of its importance to some in our audience. It’s a highly complex story, with various editorial and legal issues therein. It’s therefore right and proper that the BBC takes the necessary journalistic steps, and time, before deciding on whether it warrants independent reportage by us.
     
    Thank you, once again, for taking the time to contact us.
     
    Details of the BBC complaints process are available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml
     
    Kind regards
     
    Brian Morgan
    BBC Complaints


  31. TheLawManMay 12, 2016 at 17:20 
    ALLYJAMBO
     Regardless of the dates involved, would it not be solely within HMRC’s gift to decide the ‘agreed terms’ and whether or not they exist? (Why am I asking? Of course it is.) In other words, Rangers could claim all they want that, at any time, there were no agreed terms, or they were in negotiation to agree terms, the fact remains that the bill had been issued, was unpaid, and was overdue! At any time up until repayment terms are agreed, by HMRC, the terms are, due now!! As it stands, there never was ‘agreed terms’, it was, and remains, due now! 
    This is correct.  The bill was issued in the form of a formal determination on the 20th May 2011.  It then became “overdue payable” on the 19th June 2011.
    ____________________

    Cheers, TL. That falls neatly into line with what the Resolution 12 guys are claiming, which itself makes whatever the position was at 31 March immaterial.

    By my understanding, if the fact is that this outstanding payable wasn’t declared to UEFA, then there was indeed a breach. While, if it was declared, and accepted as OK by UEFA, the SFA will have documentary evidence to this effect. Why then have they not put this issue to bed by announcing the fact and displaying that evidence? There may be a good reason, but then, they could tell us what that reason is!

    There is, of course, well within the nature of those at the SFA, a desire to be secretive, and well documented tendencies to lie! We have good reason to believe they have something to hide whenever they remain silent! Whatever the truth of the matter, Rangers are well out of the reach of any consequences, so Resolution 12 doesn’t seek to punish them. Only the SFA can be affected by what they seek. And what they seek is an honest explanation of what happened when Rangers were granted their last European License! 

    In fact, it is only by a successful conclusion to Resolution 12 that you will ever be able to know whether or not your theory is correct!


  32. DuplesisIIMay 12, 2016 at 06:12 
    HirsuitePursuit and Auldheid With reference to your posts which follow my post of 23:36 yesterday, to save time, can I suggest I set out my understanding of the position, and you can confirm which parts of it you agree and disagree with? We can then set aside the bits we agree on, and do a proper analysis of the articles and the Malaga case (and other CAS case law) on the parts we do not? (I should say TLM might have a completely different understanding of things, so any errors I make are my own, and not his.)
    1. March 2011.
    My take is that the WTC was not an overdue payable as at this date, because the determination was not made until 20th May 2011. I think from Auldheid’s post of 12/5/16 at 00:46, that is also his position, and RES 12 proceeds on the basis that the WTC was not overdue on March 2011.
    (a) Am I right about that?
    Correct and although ToG from a tax justice viewpoint consider tax owed goes back to the first year it wasn’t paid because of ebts (an argument Res12 considered) the SFA in justifying the granting of the licence made great play of the fact no bill had “crystallised” at 31st March, a fact which could not be dismissed so was never the basis for Res12. “Crystallised” could mean anything to not received to received but disputed (which is a defence Regan gave to justify granting). However since we know the bill did not arrive until 20th May it could not possibly have “crystallised” at 31st March because it was being disputed. In any case it wasn’t. Liability was accepted on 23 March 2011following earlier advice on 3 March from a QC. There was nothing potential about it at 1st April as stated by Alastair Johnson in the Interim accounts.
    (b) If so, is it agreed for present purposes that the granting of the licence as at March 2011 was not inappropriate on the basis of the WTC?
    Correct see above and never at any time a point of dispute in spite of SFA efforts to portray it as such. in correspondence with them.
    2. June 2011 My take is that Articles 65 and 66 require the disclosure of overdue payables as at 30th June, but:
    (a) Having an overdue payable does not automatically result in the licence being invalidated/revoked etc, but (b) Results in UEFA potentially auditing the club,
    Correct. and (c) In any event results in the additional requirement to demonstrate that there are no overdue payables as at 30th September 2011.
    Correct
    3. What was declared as at June 2011
    My take on this is that – bluntly – I don’t know what, if anything, was declared to UEFA by/re RFC as at June 2011
    (a) Do either of you?
    Only UEFA know what was in the 30th June submission although the  e mail from Olverman to CW states what was shown (presumably on the submission) which if it was the same does not excuse the item from being an overdue payable and so causing UEFA to do an audit. As they didn’t the question has to be why?
    (b) If so are you able to tell us? See above
    Auldheid, on this point, your post of 12/5/16 at 00:22 infers in the 3rd paragraph that it is unlikely that RFC in would have declared there were overdue payables as at June 2011, but at the 5th paragraph says that in September 2011 the SFA confirmed to RFC that UEFA were satisfied with the submission on overdue payments as at 30th June.
    I’m having difficulty in reconciling the 2 statements, so I’m particularly interested in your response on this.
    My 3rd para suggests that it was against RFC’s interests to declare an overdue payable at 30 June because of its consequences but by September remember two significant events had happened
    a) the bill had crystalised in terms of turning up (see previous)
    b) Sherriif Officers had turned up on 10th August.
    We can infer from the rest of the SFA e mail of 19 September that it was this public event that saw a request for information under Article 67 but why UEFA in mid September did not ask any questions about June is something only they will know. Perhaps the fact that RFC had exited both competitions was a factor? Who knows but here is what SFA told RFC.
     “In view of recent media reports, could you provide us with a brief written update of the current situation re the amount due to HMRC, as required under Article 67 of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations. UEFA will be aware of the situation and a brief statement should satisfy their requirements. There is no indication that this will result in any follow up action from UEFA as the Club Financial Control Panel already has a large number of cases to consider at its next meeting.
    Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you. Let me know if you wish to discuss.”
    The declaration under Article 67 might come up in court.


  33. The Lawman
    I note that most of the points you have made have been countered or accepted by others so I don’t see the point going back over.
    I’m also a bit reluctant to engage because whilst my aim has always been (and I can prove it) to make the SFA accountable and fit for purpose, having blogged on that matter since 2011 and suggested how Rangers could have been saved by Govt intervention in an Edinburgh University publication on Football Bigotry in Scotland, I am aware that on Rangers forums I am being portrayed as a Rangers hater, a bigot and someone who hates Rangers.
    All lies which would not bother me but when my identity is being hawked around Rangers forums and my location in Spain (based on an old information and thankfully some 25 miles out) is being highlighted with some malice, I am reluctant to engage any further with you unless you can give me assurances you do not know those involved and do not subscribe to their views but like me want an SFA that will look after the interests of all clubs including your own in a fair and even handed way.


  34. EASYJAMBO

     
    Cheers, TL. That falls neatly into line with what the Resolution 12 guys are claiming, which itself makes whatever the position was at 31 March immaterial.
    By my understanding, if the fact is that this outstanding payable wasn’t declared to UEFA, then there was indeed a breach. While, if it was declared, and accepted as OK by UEFA, the SFA will have documentary evidence to this effect. Why then have they not put this issue to bed by announcing the fact and displaying that evidence? There may be a good reason, but then, they could tell us what that reason is!

    Again, fully agree with what you say and also how it could be put to bed incidentally, however the SFA will simply not have the authority to disclose it as the information will be classed as commercially confidential. 


  35. I posted up a recollection from the LNS inquiry earlier that the level of fine levied for the mis-registration offences found against Rangers(IL) was mitigated due to the financial predicament of the club/company at that time. However it comes to mind only now that a stipulation of the 5 way agreement was that Sevco Scotland/5088 accept responsibility for footballing debts of its former incarnation.
    This is obviously a fortunate co-incidence for the resurrected club, since for it to be otherwise would suggest a level of orchestration of events of a conspiratorial nature.

    I’ll need to check the LNS report to see if my recollection of the reason for mitigating the fine is accurate.


  36. THELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 18:09
         “The reasons for this are subject to an ongoing court case and it would therefore be wise to not comment on it at all.”
                          —————————————————————————————————–
       Thanks for the reply, and I am happy to withdraw that question. 
       How about the second question, 
       So in layman’s terms, could Rangers(I.L.) pay the bill,? 


  37. There seem to be several contrary opinions here, and a lot depends on them.

    One, and the offline chaps seem to take it, is that the tax was due when it should first have been paid. That was way back in the early 2000’s. I won’t indulge in irrelevant analogies here, I will simply say that if something happened which caused tax to be due (and Rangers when caught admitted that) then it was due at that time, not later.

    Another seems to be that the tax was due when Rangers got caught cheating by not paying it. As far as I am aware, even if that is the case, Rangers agreed with HMRC it was due before the relevant dates. In simple terms they agreed that the tax was unpaid and that as such it was due to be paid.

    Yet another seems to be that even by Rangers admitting the tax was due it was not the case, for the purposes of UEFA granting a licence. And that since Rangers effectively lied to the SFA with regards the position, nothing was actually wrong with the granting of that licence. Getting the SFA off the hook, they could only act on what they were told. 

    It appears to me that what we are doing here is conducting exercises in semantics and twisted logic. Using overly complex arguments in order to substantiate a position. 


  38. HOMUNCULUSMAY 12, 2016 at 19:45 

    It appears to me that what we are doing here is conducting exercises in semantics and twisted logic. Using overly complex arguments in order to substantiate a position. 

    Exactly what this forum has been fighting against since its inception!


  39.  
    EASYJAMBO
      Cheers, TL. That falls neatly into line with what the Resolution 12 guys are claiming, which itself makes whatever the position was at 31 March immaterial. By my understanding, if the fact is that this outstanding payable wasn’t declared to UEFA, then there was indeed a breach. While, if it was declared, and accepted as OK by UEFA, the SFA will have documentary evidence to this effect. Why then have they not put this issue to bed by announcing the fact and displaying that evidence? There may be a good reason, but then, they could tell us what that reason is!Again, fully agree with what you say and also how it could be put to bed incidentally, however the SFA will simply not have the authority to disclose it as the information will be classed as commercially confidential
    _______________________

    Whose confidentiality would be broken by the SFA revealing the details, and if this is the reason for their silence on the matter, why don’t they say so?

    PS I’m ALLYjambo, not EASY, though it is easy to get us mixed up10


  40. HOMUNCULUSMAY 12, 2016 at 19:45

    Agree 100% with what you have posted some folks have a hard time seeing the forest because of the trees.Tax was due when it was due just because you try and hide what is due it is still due If I steal your wallet it is still stolen whether you realise it’s gone or not. I don’t think I’m wrong to want the cheaters to be brought to book by stripping all suspect titles and cups anyway I need to go howl at the moon even though I’m not a celtic fan lol.  


  41. ALLYJAMBO

     
    Whose confidentiality would be broken by the SFA revealing the details, and if this is the reason for their silence on the matter, why don’t they say so?
    PS I’m ALLYjambo, not EASY, though it is easy to get us mixed up

    Sorry for the mix up and apologies in advance to both of you for doing it again in the future which i will do. 07All those documents between all the clubs and the SFA are commercially sensitive and they have a duty of care to their members.   


  42. TheLawManMay 12, 2016 at 18:14  
    To use a silly analogy, when you change your Gas and Electricity supplier, usually there is a period where things dont transfer over, your payment is lower than it should be then all of a sudden it works itself out and in some cases a huge bill is due.  You know its coming and you know you are due to pay it but would it be fair if Scottish Gas sent you a note to say, im sorry your bill is overdue even although we havent confirmed exactly how much it is yet ?
    ========================
    That is indeed a silly analogy. PAYE tax is nothing like a gas bill. The onus is entirely on the employer to calculate tax and nic in respect of each employee, deduct it from wages, and remit it timeously to HMRC. A failure to operate PAYE does not delay liability until HMRC find out. The liability is created by the employer when they fail to operate PAYE. Regulation 80 determinations are not assessments- they are a collection mechanism to allow existing unpaid PAYE liabilities to be recovered.


  43. SHUGMAY 12, 2016 at 20:08  I don’t think I’m wrong to want the cheaters to be brought to book by stripping all suspect titles and cups anyway I need to go howl at the moon even though I’m not a celtic fan lol.
    ================================

    I’ve never understood why the media (and apparently the SFA too), render someones opinion on cheating invalid because the person is a Celtic fan, yet that is what seems to be the case. We even had Graham Spiers tweeting last night to a former Herald Editor that he has been aware of certain issues but get’s attacked by zealots from both sides and that’s why he won’t mention it. Yet the issues he referred to did not involve any actual or alleged wrongdoing by Celtic. So why does he think Celtic fans have no right to get angry about this?


  44. Lawman:

    All those documents between all the clubs and the SFA are commercially sensitive and they have a duty of care to their members.   

    I can’t  and won’t accept that as a consequence of this a veil of secrecy is drawn over SFA process and accountability is lost.

    It troubles me a great deal, not because a confidential, off the record briefing to the Res 12 people would have made the last four years of their struggle unnecessary; nor because of the irony implicit in the words SFA and duty of care being put together in the same sentence, but because if true, then that ‘commercial sensitivity’ would become a fraudster’s charter.

    If we can’t prove that the SFA have carried out due process because they are hiding behind commercial sensitivities (although to be fair to them, they have never at any time claimed such a thing) then they can tell us anything they like on a whole range of subjects, from licencing to FFP and beyond. Indeed how could clubs A-M be sure that clubs N-Z were being afforded special treatment?

    If true in fact, that would be conclusive proof that the SFA were indeed institutionally unfit for purpose.  


  45. TRISIDIUM

     It troubles me a great deal, not because a confidential, off the record briefing to the Res 12 people would have made the last four years of their struggle unnecessary; nor because of the irony implicit in the words SFA and duty of care being put together in the same sentence, but because if true, then that ‘commercial sensitivity’ would become a fraudster’s charter.

     

    UEFA Investigatory Board audit submissions and the disclosures so not sure how it could become a fraudster’s charter.  It would be very easy to catch them and the whole of Scottish Football would be gone.


  46. Share Purchase Agreement  signed 5th May 2011 (extracts)
     
    Definitions
     
    Tax Liability
     
    means the liability of the Company in respect of the  discount option scheme associated with player contributions between 199? and 2003 assessed at £2,827,801;
     
    6.7  The Purchaser undertakes to the Seller and the Company at Completion to contribute to the Company an amount equal to the Tax Liability to be held and paid by the Purchaser’s Solicitors under the terms of the Purchaser’s Solicitors Undertaking and to procure that such amount (together with interest accrued thereon) is, w’hen such Tax Liability becomes due and payable, requested by the Company under the terms of the Purchaser’s Solicitors Undertaking and, when received in whole or in pari by the Company, applied by the Company to settle the Tax Liability. The Purchaser shall have no recourse against the Company in respect of any amounts paid by the Purchaser or to the Company pursuant to the provisions of this Clause 6.7 save as set out in Clause 6.13.
     
     
    Collyer Bristow 6th May 2011
    SPA CLAUSE 6.7: TAX LIABILITY
    3.1 We hereby undertake to you that we shall from Completion irrevocably hold an amount equal to the Tax Liability strictly to your order and for your account and we hereby irrevocably undertake to transfer the whole sum plus all interest accrued thereon to the Company’s Account as soon as practicable after you give notice in writing to us at our address stated at the top of this letter for the attention of Gary Withey that you require such transfer.
     —-
    From what I could remember the Share Purchase Agreement  between
    Murray MHL Limited, Wavetower Limited,  and Liberty Capital limited mentioned the wee Tax Case  (DOS),  the above  are  extracts from this.
     
    The last digit of the DOS start date was unreadable so I show it as ?


  47. Could someone please post me up a link to the Lord Nimmo Smith inquiry report. My own version seems to have broken.


  48. Lawman

    UEFA Investigatory Board audit submissions and the disclosures so not sure how it could become a fraudster’s charter. It would be very easy to catch them and the whole of Scottish Football would be gone.
     

     

     

    With respect, that is a very naive conclusion. Your assumption is exactly the same one I had with resepect to SFA governance five years or so ago. Not been very easy to deal with things at all at Hampden.

    If it was so easy, UEFA would be able to sort this out once and for all by making a statement.

    It would certainly suit the SFA narrative, but as I said even they are not making that claim. Instead, they have consistently attacked the messengers and avoided the substance of the issue. It simply isn’t true that transparency should suffer because of commercial imperatives – although I wouldn’t say the same thing about conflicted individuals.

    In a different kind of industry, perhaps we would have confidence that regulations would be carried out appropriately – but in other industries the ‘regulatory’ body wouldn’t be policing itself. For fear of conflicts of interest it would be independent. Of course the SFA are not a true regulatory body at all. They are there to serve the interests of the industry itself – and not its customers.

    If they have a duty of care it is primarily owed to the industry as a whole – and then individual member clubs. And anyway, why wouldn’t RFC(IL) allow them to release that information? No commercial damage is doable from their perspective.

    Hiding behind commercial confidentiality is not a valid reason for a failure to explain due process and satisfy ALL clubs and fans that it has been carried out (especially if there are grounds, established in good faith, that the process has been subverted). It is in my view a bogus reason.

    You may believe it to be true, but there is no evidence anywhere that backs up that claim as far as I can see. If there is any, I’m gonna look even dafter than usual, but I think I’m relatively safe on this one.


  49. WOODSTEIN – Very interesting find indeed.  “is, when such Tax Liability becomes due and payable” goes to the state of mind of both legal teams at the conclusion of contracts on 6th May and backs up the assertion it only became due and payable on the 20th May and therefore an “overdue payable” on the 19th June.


  50. THELAWMAN
    MAY 12, 2016 at 10:46
    WOTTPI – The precedents you set out are nothing like the precedent of Rangers .

    Gretna were actually relegated to the 3rd division, some similarities there, but again, their club and assets were not bought during the administration/liquidation process.  

    Another Gretna was formed, again completely separate to the process and did not attempt to get back into the top league.

    The closest precedent in all of this is that of Leeds United whose administration and subsequent entry “into liquidation” is an exact replica of Rangers. 

    THELAWMAN, I’ve enjoyed reading your contributions over the past 24 hours or so, because, as many others have mentioned, it is healthy to debate the major issues with supporters of all our clubs, including Rangers*.

    However,  I regrettably have to point out that whenever you stray away from the UEFA licensing issue, which you obviously have a keen interest in, you become highly susceptible to an affliction which affects a high percentage of your fellow fans, namely the incessant desire to rewrite history.

    For example, when you say that Gretna’s club and assets were not bought during the administration/liquidation process (implying Rangers club and assets were bought), you let yourself down. The club was not bought by Charles Green (this fact was recently confirmed in court by Charles Green’s QC), only the assets. Those assets were listed but there was no mention of the club in that list. Indeed, the club was in no position to be purchased, given that it was lying on the mortuary slab.

    Secondly, you mention that Leeds United’s administration and liquidation is an exact replica of Rangers. Well yes, except for the crucial distinction that Leeds United didn’t go into liquidation. An agreement was reached with HMRC at the eleventh hour that allowed a CVA to be processed, thus avoiding liquidation.

    With all due respect, I trust your knowledge of UEFA licensing isn’t as poor as your grasp of other basic facts?


  51. HomunculusMay 12, 2016 at 19:45
    ‘..It appears to me that what we are doing here is conducting exercises in semantics and twisted logic…’
    _________
     I agree.
    I am not, I think, a particularly stupid person. Stewart Regan is intelligent enough to have given me, and  would have found me intelligent enough to follow, a straightforward exposition of the SFA’s reasons, without breaking any ‘commercial confidentiality’ rules, if the SFA had had legitimate and valid reasons under the rules for putting RFC(IL) in the way of Champions’ league monies.
    He could have done so in a few minutes, and left me then to check his reasons against the facts.
    He did not do so.
    I deduce from that he KNOWS, like the rest of us, that the facts do not admit of any wriggle room from the conclusion that the SFA were at the very least grossly negligent or more likely deliberately deceitful in not updating themselves on the actual state of indebtedness at the critically material time.
    I think we can safely assume that the SFA were relying on the omertà ( pronounced omerTAH) that exists in parts of Scottish Football and generally in the SMSM, that ensures that awkward questions are neither asked nor answered by those who know ‘what’s good for them’.
    They believe that they, like SDM , can get away with fundamental and monumental cheating on behalf of one club, and are ready to brazen it out shamelessly.
    (What would I do if Regan told me he had incontrovertible evidence that I and the RES 12 chaps were wrong? Why, what else but to reply as he did to my question to him about the incontrovertible evidence that supports the Res 12  case:”Nothing!”)


  52. TRISIDIUM

     You may believe it to be true, but there is no evidence anywhere that backs up that claim as far as I can see. If there is any, I’m gonna look even dafter than usual, but I think I’m relatively safe on this one.

     

    Im sorry but it is simple commercial business.  This was played out in court recently in relation to Dave King.  The SFA were under no obligation to disclose anything to Mike Ashley and indeed were bound in law, not to disclose any details on Dave King.

    The only person who could forego that confidentiality was Dave King and he did this pre-trial which resulted in Mike Ashley giving up the ghost.

    The SFA wouldnt last a day if they started to disclose confidential submissions from their member clubs without express written permission from them.

    As i have said, UEFA Investigatory Body carries out the audits of the information sent to them by the SFA and the rest of the footballing authorities.  If they found the SFA to be doing anything dodgy, UEFA would close Scottish Football down.


  53. HighlanderMay 12, 2016 at 21:40
    ‘……Well yes, except for the crucial distinction that Leeds United didn’t go into liquidation. An agreement was reached with HMRC at the eleventh hour that allowed a CVA to be processed, thus avoiding liquidation….’
    __________
    A very salient point, indeed. I’ve no reason to doubt The Lawman’s sincerity, but every reason to believe he has bought into the Big Lie having been subjected to it for four years, and, perhaps, subconsciously being desperate to believe it.
    It’s this particular aspect that so riles me about  BBC Scotland, whose’ Business /Finance Matters’  ( Fraser?) person did not even try to educate the punters about what liquidation means , and the utter and complete difference between that and Liquidation.
    The Rangers saga was, if nothing else, a ‘business news’ story,  but  although I saw Fraser in Court twice, I think, in the early days, he either copped out, or was told to cop out,  of true reportage of what actually , in the world of finance and business, had happened, and what it meant.
    This general non-reporting of the truth allowed the myth to be created that Rangers still lived on, a myth gratefully grasped as a fundamental fact by even otherwise sensible and intelligent people. ( But not, I think, by Donald finlay, QC.)


  54. HIGHLANDER

     THELAWMAN, I’ve enjoyed reading your contributions over the past 24 hours or so, because, as many others have mentioned, it is healthy to debate the major issues with supporters of all our clubs, including Rangers*.

     

    Thank you.

     However,  I regrettably have to point out that whenever you stray away from the UEFA licensing issue, which you obviously have a keen interest in, you become highly susceptible to an affliction which affects a high percentage of your fellow fans, namely the incessant desire to rewrite history.

     

    I always respect others opinion.  I disagree with the above of course.

     For example, when you say that Gretna’s club and assets were not bought during the administration/liquidation process (implying Rangersclub and assets were bought), you let yourself down. The club was not bought by Charles Green (this fact was recently confirmed in court by Charles Green’s QC), only the assets. 

     

    I struggle with this tactic in relation to Green.  For years, all non Rangers fans laughed at his lies and nonsense yet when he goes to court to try and win a case using any means possible, he is treated as a beacon of truth.  You are right that his QC attempted to claim that in court.  However, you should be aware that simply stating in court does not make it true.  In fact, Green and his QC lost that case.  Clearly he wasnt persuasive enough in his arguments.

     
    Secondly, you mention that Leeds United’s administration and liquidation is an exact replica of Rangers. Well yes, except for the crucial distinction that Leeds United didn’t go into liquidation. An agreement was reached with HMRC at the eleventh hour that allowed a CVA to be processed, thus avoiding liquidation.

     
    Im afraid you are 100% wrong on this.  It is a myth that they were saved from liquidation.  A CVA was initially approved then it was challenged at the very last minute on Day 27 of the 28 day appeals process by HMRC.  The administrators then decided to rush through a quick sale to Ken Bates who set up a newco and bought the assets just like in the case of Rangers and a 15 point penalty was handed to the club in time for the new season.  The oldco went into liquidation in February 2008.

    http://www.mightyleeds.co.uk/pdf/season200708chronology.pdf
    Tuesday, 3 July 2007 – Just before the 16.00 BST deadline, HMRC serves notice of their intentions to challenge the CVA.

    Friday, 6 July 2007 – A preliminary High Court hearing in Leeds is adjourned after setting 3 September as the date for the full hearing.

    Tuesday, 10 July 2007 – KPMG announce that the club has been sold to Ken Bates for an undisclosed sum

    Thursday, 2 August 2007 – David Hartnett, the second most powerful official at HMRC, insists that Leeds must pay the £7.7m owed in tax.The Football League impose a 15-point penalty after KPMG reject a call to reconstitute the CVA.That meant the deadlock could not be resolved and the League felt decisive action had to be taken with the season just a week away. United’s share in the League has now been transferred to the new company.

    Thursday, 9 August 2007 – The chairmen of the other 71 Football League clubs vote “overwhelmingly” to sanction Leeds and then again to uphold the original punishment. In both cases, the outcome was higher than a 75% majority vote.

    15th February 2008
    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00170600/insolvency

    Leeds United oldco are placed into liquidation

     With all due respect, I trust your knowledge of UEFA licensing isn’t as poor as your grasp of other basic facts?

     

    And with the same due respect, I hope you are man enough to apologise.


  55. As I understand it Mike Ashley gave up the ghost when he received the evidence that the SFA did not actually clear Dave King as fit and proper to sit on the board of a football club in Scotland. He even called them out to talk about it in public.

    Dave King sits on the board of RIFC PLC. However he does not sit on the board of TRFC Ltd. 

    He is on the board of the PLC which owns the shares in the club, he is not on the board of the club. No matter how much he and the SMSM may wish to portray that as being the case.

    Brian Stockbridge, David Somers, Craig Mather, Derek Llambias, Charles Green, James Easdale, Sandy Easdale and Imran Ahmad have all sat on the board of TRFC Ltd. 

    Dave King hasn’t. 


  56. JOHN CLARK

     ……Well yes, except for the crucial distinction that Leeds United didn’t go into liquidation. An agreement was reached with HMRC at the eleventh hour that allowed a CVA to be processed, thus avoiding liquidation….’__________A very salient point

     

    As detailed above it is not salient at all.  In fact the myth lies at the other side of the fence.  Leeds United oldco did NOT achieve a CVA due to a last minute challenge.  Ken Bates bought the assets in the same manner as Charles Green.  Leeds United oldco was put into liquidation just as Rangers oldco was.

    The only difference in the two situations is that Leeds initially achieved the CVA but it was challenged at last minute by HMRC.  As we all know, Rangers didnt get that far.


  57. Lawman

    Im sorry but it is simple commercial business.

    I am equally regretful about disagreeing, but it is still not true. Even if it was, what have RFC (IL) got to hide?

    Just not true. 


  58. One thing I can agree with the Lawman is the difficulty in navigating replies including quotes.They appear in truncated single word’s spread feet in length if you are using a phone.
    Not conducive to following any thread.


  59. HOMUNCULUS – I am no supporter of King.  In fact i wouldnt have King or Murray anywhere near my club.  But im not fooled by the Ashley presser either.  That was an attempt to save face.  His case was about King being Fit and Proper as Chairman of the Company.  The Football board was never mentioned until the game was over.


  60. TRISIDIUM

     
    I am equally regretful about disagreeing, but it is still not true. Even if it was, what have RFC (IL) got to hide?
    Just not true. 

     

    Just to make sure i understand you here TRISIDIUM.  Are you saying that I could go to the SFA tomorrow and ask to see Aberdeens financial disclosures for the European licence last season and its your contention that the SFA should show be transparent and show me them ?


  61. THELAWMAN 
    Leeds did not go into liquidation they where sold while in administration under the exceptional circumstances rule that the FA  and creditors agreed too 


  62. As I understand it the SFA can make a decision on whether someone is fit and proper to run a football club in Scotland and that is the limit of their purview. They cannot actually prohibit anyone owning shares in a company or sitting on it’s board. 

    They decided that they would ignore Dave King being the chairman of a PLC which owned the shares in such a business and in doing so appeared to pass him fit and proper, whilst doing no such thing. If they had decided he was fit and proper I have no doubt he would be on the board of TRFC Ltd

    It’s actually a reasonably clever bit of obfuscation, smoke and mirrors if you will.

    Mike Ashley’s team saw though it and agreed to drop the case, if they were shown the relevant paperwork (subject to a confidentiality agreement). They achieved what they sought to achieve.

    That is only my take on events. 


  63. tangoed
    May 12, 2016 at 22:41
     
    You beat me to it.
     Company Check
    The Rangers Football Club Limited SC425159
    Company Age 3 Years
    Status Active
     
    Leeds United Association Football Club Limited (The)
     
    Company Age 95 Years
    Status  Active


  64. With all due respect Lawman it is disingenuous to try & compare Rangers situation with Leeds.

    I think I’ll leave it to the blog of the late great Paul McConville to explain it best.

    Rangers’ fans erroneously point to the case of Leeds United FC as evidence of a club that has a continuous historical timeline intact after liquidation. In 2007, Leeds United AFC Ltd, under the threat of liquidation, was sold to Leeds United FC Ltd, but with the important proviso that HMRC would agree to a CVA. HMRC did eventually agree to a CVA and Leeds was saved from compulsory liquidation. The club suffered a points deduction and after paying off the creditors and the proper and orderly transfer of assets from Leeds United AFC Ltd to Leeds United FC Ltd, the old club company was voluntarily wound up. If a CVA had not been agreed and Leeds United AFC Ltd had been forced into compulsory liquidation then Leeds United FC Ltd (i.e. the new company) would not have been able to claim the history of the old club. Rangers FC is a very different case indeed and Rangers fans cannot point to the example of Leeds FC as an exemplar of club survival after liquidation.

    https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/the-death-of-rangers-fc-guest-post-by-johnbhoy/comment-page-1/

    You should find the above link rather enlightening. 


  65. TheLawManMay 12, 2016 at 22:23
    ‘…The only difference in the two situations is that Leeds initially achieved the CVA but it was challenged at last minute by HMRC..’
    _______
    I am happy to stand corrected , of  course
    But I don’t think my principal observation about the ‘Big Lie’ is affected.
    Whatever about Leeds, RFC certainly got nowhere near to being bought out of Administration as a continuing, living, going concern.
    There were certainly a number of people ostensibly ready to do that.
    These, however, were all frightened off in one way or another, until Liquidation was seen as the the desirable option; and the goods and chattels of a once ‘respected’ football club were hawked about , until sold to  the (not necessarily) highest bidder.  (Some say, by no means to  the highest bidder!).
    Liquidation happened. The club died, as surely as Third Lanark, and Gretna, and….has since then languished in Liquidation, completely out of Scottish Football, ineligible to compete , unable to win any titles or football honours of any kind from season 2012/13 onwards.
    These are incontrovertible facts.


  66. Auldheid @19:15

    Thanks for your response.
    It looks like we’re pretty much in agreement on the interpretation of the rules, and it really comes down to what if anything was declared at June 2011 (which neither of us know.)
    I note your comments on the Article 67 declaration, and given what you say, won’t get in to that!


  67. TONY, WOODSTEIN AND TANGOED

    I provided the link to Companies House which you should click on and go to filing history.  You will see the CVA being aborted and the oldco being placed in liquidation.

    I can 100% assure you the CVA did NOT go through and 100% assure they went into liquidation.

    Use Companies House which cannot be wrong.


  68. JOHN CLARK.
    “These are incontrovertible facts”
    No. They are not. For 1, Rangers were NOT liquidated. They are in liquidation. There is a difference. What I’m confused about though is that 30 minutes ago Leeds situation was a salient point. Now that I have corrected the myth, we have just to ignore it.


  69. “Today’s proceedings in re HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARYFIRST DIVISION–1STAPPEAL COURT –LJG+2 JUDGESCRIMINAL APPEAL ROLLunder THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1995A SITTING will be held on:THURSDAY 12THMAY AND FRIDAY 13THMAY 2016.At half past teno’clock forenoon, for the disposal of the following:-CROWN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1995.”
    ___
    So I attend.
    The Bench comprised Lord Carloway, Lord Menzies ( who, in the course of the proceedings,  apologised for his coughing and sneezing, and discreetly sent someone to fetch his cough drops or whatever ) and Lord Bracadale.
    I was one of three  non-legal persons present, except for the police officer who came in from time to time. No Press or broadcasting person was present.
    In Court 3 in Parliament House, there is a glass screen separating the well of the Court ( where the QCs and advocates are seated) from the benches for solicitor bag-people, and the public.
    The front three of these benches was occupied by legal folk. I was in the fourth bench.
    Behind me were Whitehouse and Clark.
    When proceedings began, there was no reference to reporting restrictions. So I made my usual illegible squiggles quite openly, and was not prevented from doing so.
    At lunch break, I went to look for the clerk of court. He had disappeared. So, in passing, I asked a bewigged chap (on the Advocate depute’s side) whether the reporting restrictions that applied to the Preliminary Hearings in the criminal case applied to this matter. Such a nice chap. He said he didn’t know for sure, but suggested that I shouldn’t report anything  at lunch time until we knew for sure.
    After my Scotch pie and cup of tea on South Bridge, I wandered back to the Court, and just before proceedings recommenced, this very nice Advocate chap I had been speaking to came from the well of the court, up the steps to the bench I was on, and told me most civilly that the restriction order was still in force.
    So, there’s bugger all that I can tell you!
    Except , perhaps, that the Advocate-depute stated his three grounds of appeal, and cited numerous legal precedents. The Bench asked some ( to me, sharp questions) as they listened to the Advocate-Depute’s submissions.
    The Advocate-Depute was on his feet all day, citing this or that case precedent, and being asked to show the relevance of the cases cited to the present case.
    Proceedings for the day finished at 4.15.
    Sadly, I have to go to London tomorrow on a family, happy, occasion, so I will miss what Counsel for Grier has to say as to why the appeal should be disallowed.
    If any poster within striking distance of Court 3 could nip along at 10.30 tomorrow?


  70. TheLawManMay 12, 2016 at 23:55
    ‘… For 1, Rangers were NOT liquidated. They are in liquidation. ‘
    ________
    God bless you, man! is the kindest thing I can say.
    What can you mean?
    RFC no longer functions as legal entity, they are gone as a football club, as a business, as any kind of legal persona other than that of a body that owes millions of pounds to the taxman and a lot of money to its creditors.
    What CAN you mean?


  71. THELAWMAN
    Within six days, the club slipped into administration and relegation was confirmed by the mandatory 10-point deduction imposed on clubs who enter administration.
    Dennis Wise A summer of torment began at Elland Road. After gaining creditor approval to bring the club out of administration the new owners (Leeds United 2007 Ltd) – led by chairman Ken Bates – were almost thwarted when the Inland Revenue objected to the CVA. 
    The club’s administrators KMPG put the club for sale for a second time, and once again, Leeds United 2007 were successful in buying the club.
    However, without an approved CVA – the Inland Revnue’s objection nullified the CVA – the Football League insisted upon on 15-point sanction before returning the “Golden Share” (Membership of the League). That proposal was supported by the majority of Football League chairmen, who voted in favour of a points sanction on the  basis that the club emerged from administration without a valid CVA, despite the fact a valid CVA was unachieveable.
    And so it was that the club began the 2007/08 season 15 points adrift at the foot of League One. In a remarkable campaign, Dennis Wise’s men won their opening seven games and went on to hit top spot


  72. The SFA is corrupt and not fit for purpose. That is not an opinion. That is a demonstrable truism. Given this truth I have no confidence in the SFA and the only way to regain confidence is for there to be an Independent Enquiry and mass resignations with re election of trustworthy and competent officials who show no fear or favour. 

Comments are closed.