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/
Sorry I’ve not posted for a while, but other things have taken up all available hours.
Hence, I’ve only been able to keep up with the new blogs when posted, rather than the body of comments.
So I apologise if anything I say is a repetition or has already been shot down in flames.
So, like The Clumpany I’m back after a break.
.
I was more than a bit concerned late last night to log in and find a warning from the mods about falling subscription revenue.
When I then started to read through the recent comments, I was even more shocked to arrive in the Groundhog Day world of OCNC. I read one or two comments and certainly some were at a different Level to those that I’d seen before on the subject. The timing seemed a bit odd as I was expecting to see pages of comments about the lack of press coverage of the recently published report by TOG into the SFA and the current state of play of Resolution 12. Or even something about how Aberdeen’s new ground would change the power balance in the top division.
.
The introduction of comparatives between the situations at Rangers/Sevco Scotland(or 5088) and Leeds United was something that I’d never expected see again, as I’m sure I’d covered that a few years ago. Perhaps that was elsewhere, but it was a subject that I had researched at the time in great detail for various reasons.
It would be a good like for like comparison only if it were proved that Whyte/Green were acting together to move the entire club as a going concern, thus leaving no change in control and ownership. However, the Pinsent Masons report was accepted (I know) as showing that there were no links between the owners of RFC PLC and Sevco Scotland Ltd. The Leeds United situation was engineered by Ken Bates and left Ken Bates in situ. At that point the comparison falls, although if it were admitted that the Pinsent Masons report was flawed and inaccurate, we could revisit the situation.
I’d say that either Middlesbrough or Darlington represented better examples within the English game, although the outcome doesn’t fit the desired result. One could go back as far as Bristol City, but both the football regulations and company law have changed so much in the intervening period as to make it apples and oranges.
.
The whole cross border comparison is not really a valid excercise other than to further illustrate the completely inadequate nature of the Scottish football regulations as written and the total lack of fitness for purpose of those that are trusted to construct and implement those regulations. The English structure is constantly evolving to try to remain fit for purpose and to deal with all potential scenarios, and that should be the focus of attention.
I had hoped that once the TOG report was released the MSM would have grasped the nettle to put the governance of the game under the microscope, but that seems a forlorn hope as it appears to me that press coverage of the serious side of football in Scotland is broken beyond repair. Everything still seems to be viewed through an OF prism, and it does get depressing reading about Level 5 placed squirrel stories rather than anything dealing with the real issues that have to be addressed before we can look to the future with any degree of optimism.
.
The Cat NR1
If LAWMAN and those of similar views maintain that it was the club that was bought in 2012 it would explain his use of the words demotion, relegation. etc, He believes that a continued un-interrupted Rangers Club was relocated in the lower leagues by ballot.
Others, myself included, believe that the club went bankrupt, the assets were bought and a new club was formed. The balloting was part of an ad hoc application process whereby the re-formed club, which had a Rangers football club identity, sought entry to the Scottish League system. I base this belief not on what I wished to happen but on my experience of actual events
As other SFM posters have pointed out, the fact that there was a ballot in itself is evidence that supports the fact that we were dealing with a new club.
The SFA, by their actions, did treat present day Rangers as a new club back in 2012. Only a new club would be subjected to an application process.
Of course since then it’s a different story. With the SFA , broadcasters and print media reporting on and referring to Rangers as the same club,is it any wonder LAWMAN and other reasonable Rangers minded people maintain their stance.
There is no proof that Rangers are the same club as pre 2012…only people saying it is so.
TheLawManMay 14, 2016 at 12:08
I 100% accept that i have no confirmation this took place but i believe in the balance of all probabilities and based on the premise of common sense, I am confident it was disclosed.
===========================
This confuses me. Here is the crucial sentence from Olverman’s email to Craig Whyte-
My point of confusion is this- why disclose a “postponed settlement”? If the liability has been postponed, there is no need to disclose. If the liability is not postponed, there is a need to disclose, but why then describe it as “postponed”? That makes no sense to me.
Until I see what RFC told the SFA, and what the SFA told UEFA, then, on the balance of probabilities, I will continue to suspect that UEFA were not properly informed of what was, by common consent, an outstanding, unpaid amount due to the tax authority, at 30 June 2011.
Let’s look at motive here. Not much takes place in this world without motive. This was a brand new rule from UEFA, so no one had any idea, at 30/6/11, how UEFA would react to a club showing £2.4m owing to their tax authority. So why take a chance on declaring unpaid tax, when a huge Champions League jackpot was at stake? Just say it was postponed, even though it wasn’t. No problem, surely? Especially if your licensor and regulator (the SFA) are totally on board.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
I believe so, yes.
I believe that if the end goal is one of morality which has creeped in over the last few days in relation to Res 12, then yes the rules should be tightened. I believe the Rangers case was unique and that there were many things at play. If the club wasnt sold, then i believe the payment would have been made in June and there would have been no issue at all. Unfortunately, the club was sold and on this particular point you ask, that is where the problem really kicked in. Again, due to a current court case, i will not make any further comment though I would hope you can read between the lines and understand where im coming from.
I do think there should be a maximum “overdue payable” listed in the rules to remove any reliance on the FAs to make a decision. It is now known that Malaga were allowed to carry 9.42m of overdue payables but what if France has a different standard and refused a licence for 5m?
This is where i disagree. The TOG report was accusing the SFA of being biased towards Rangers. It may not have been their intention but thats what the report said. They claim that the SFA giving Rangers a licence was not fair game. Their arguments, particularly in reference to the Malaga case, were false and misleading. I do think the report coming out and the subsequent challenges and rebuttals has changed peoples views. As i have said before the main protagonists in this have softened. Even they are accepting the TOG report got stuff wrong in relation to the 31st March and having now re-read the rules, more people have reached the conclusion that the only thing to prove now was that Rangers dislclosed the overdue payable as per the email from Ken Olverman. Prior to the report and subsequent rebuttal, most fans simply believed that the decision was corrupt and that the very existence of the money due COMPLETELY BANNED Rangers from getting a licence.
As above, im a bit on the fence with that. Personally if i found out that Celtic/Aberdeen/Hearts/Liverpool had £2m owed to the tax man on 30th June, they declared it then they paid it on the 20th August having sold a player then it wouldnt bother me in the slightest and it would be within the current rules. In fact, UEFA actually set out that this was their intention when introducing the 30th September checkpoint. I think carrying some payables is fine within reason and its the “within reason” bit that i think could be changed to make it crystal clear.
Hope that clarifies somewhat my opinion.
NEEPHEID
Just to be crystal clear, there is no “postponed” report or “postponed” status. The disclosure is very simple. Do you have any overdue payables? YES/NO.
By ticking YES (assuming Ken Olverman carried out what he stated on the email) you then need to offer a comment to the current position which is then subject to a potential audit from UEFA Investigatory Body. Its at this point Ken Olverman would state “Although outstanding, we consider this to be postponed as we are currently seeking/discussing a schedule of payments with HMRC”
For the record, there is not a single shred of evidence that the above position wasnt the actual case. There are no LEAKED emails or letters from HMRC to MCR/Rangers between 6th June and 30th June. Not 1 person on here, including me, can confirm or say with any certainty that there was or wasnt communication between both parties during that time. Personally, i would be very surprised indeed, if HMRC took more than 24 days to respond to a letter of such magnitude. Personally, i believe they did write back and that the letter will NOT make its way out into the open.
Oh my this really sucks from what I read what the end vote was about was whether to allow the basket of assets that a certain Mr Green bought which would eventually become the new club called The rangers into the league or not unfortunately for us our clubs allowed a club with no accounts and were they of good standing hard to say as they were a new club into the league set up before other more worthy clubs. Be thankful for the generosity shown to The rangers and get on with it. The rangers are not the same club they have 4 years of history nothing else.I am inclined to give anyone the benefit of the doubt however dodgy characters running the company/club accruing debt like there is no tomorrow soft loans from who knows where.Heavens maybe they really are oldco should we be checking contracts for side letters lol.
TheLawManMay 14, 2016 at 14:13
If it is a “tick box” yes/no system, then what does Olverman’s email mean? If, as you say, postponed tax is not overdue and merits no report, why report it at all?
I would be astonished if HMRC had provided a substantive reply before 30 June. A request for staged payments on an undisputed liability of £2.4m would not be dealt with locally. This would be a policy decision, made in Head Office. There should have been an acknowledgement issued by the local office on receipt of the request. I don’t know why that was not leaked by whichever Ibrox insider was behind these leaks. Maybe he/she thought it not worth copying? Unless maybe the local office failed in its duty, and simply didn’t issue a reminder?
THELAWMANMAY 14, 2016 at 14:03
Thanks for that Lawman. So going forward, do you think that the entire matter could be put to bed by the SFA, if they clearly, and concisely as possible,(within legal constraints) explained their processes and reactions to events.
Regardless of whether you are coming from a Yes they did, or No they didn’t, point of view, but from them, a general purpose, fair and impartial, governing body point of view. For the good of the game, and in the transparent fashion that is so often promised, but never delivered. I would see that as an attempt at strong governance, as opposed to the weak, disjointed and craven image they currently project from behind the bunker door..
Surely that must be a better way forward?., Rather than let it fall into a war of words between fans, and the unnecessary attacks and defences of tribal loyalties that conjures up. Let the SFA answer for themselves. (I say “let”, but I think we both will agree we need to demand it)
It is after all, they who are the main thrust of the report.
TheLawManMay 14, 2016 at 12:08
Thanks for your very full response, Lawman, I will try to avoid more comments regarding your presence on SFM
One thing caught my eye in your response that I do find worth commenting on. It is something I buy into myself, though it does kind of conflict with your belief that we needed your lesson on the rules effecting the Resolution 12 issues. It is the following:
“I 100% accept that i have no confirmation this took place but i believe in the balance of all probabilities and based on the premise of common sense, I am confident it was disclosed”
I too look for what makes sense, particularly in my lack of knowledge of the rules, and it is ‘the balance of probabilities’ that I find most illuminating in the lack of information coming from the SFA. To me, when a body refuses, point blank, to engage then ‘the balance of probabilities’ is that they have something to hide.
I believe that the probabilities of a company run by a man like Craig Whyte choosing to not disclose something that could be problematic far outweigh the probabilities that a license would be issued when we know the magnitude of the overdue payables (not just the value, but what they were, and how they came about). Those probabilities are increased when the SFA remains so determined not to provide anything to dispel the belief that wrong was done!
My time is about to be spoken for – by my wife, so it may be some time before I can engage here, so sorry if it appears that I am ignoring any further response you might make to what I say. Cheers.
NEEPHEID – I dont say that “postponed” shouldnt be disclosed. Not if a bill date has already been established which it had in this case. The requirement was to say YES we have £2.8m overdue payables, then here is the reason.
TYKEBOY –
If you go into the Bears Den and click on my name you will see i posted on there in that name from September 2010, long before this ever became an issue. I was previously under a different poster from 2008 which admin made an error with. I have over 11500 posts on there. Just because the TOG report got me interested enough to read the background of this and challenge it, im now getting paid by someone.
The funny thing is, someone sent me a Private message the other night saying first it will be squirrel, then it will be whats your motive followed by your getting paid. He has just won the full house at the SFM Bingo.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL – Im not sure on that. Would i prefer they had a route to do that and put it to bed ? Absolutely yes. Im just not sure what they can do or say. If they came out and said we are 100% satisfied the licence was given correctly, no-one would still believe them. I believe UEFA have intimated they verbally they were not concerned about it to one of the posters on here but that isnt good enough.Short of breaking any sort of confidentiality, i think their hands are tied and that fans will never be satisfied.
ALLYJAMBO – Thanks for that considered response, it is much appreciated. If there is 1 niggling doubt in my mind that it was disclosed, then you would have hit the nail on the head with why it could it have been possible but again, as its a live court case, the less said the better. I do believe UEFA would have acted by now with the information they have from other fans though which is why im 99.999% convinced it was disclosed.
Now go and enjoy your night with the wife. Im out with mine in a few hours making up for last nights noise when i came back.
Tykeboy
An otherwise reasonable and well constructed post had to removed because of ad hominem attack on Lawman. As we have said, please address the issues and not the ageneda of the poster. If anyone becomes disruptive or derails the blog, we will deal with it.
Lawman
Your one para sarcastic comment directed at Tykeboy – oddly unrelated to his remarks about you – has also been removed.
THELAWMAN
MAY 14, 2016 at 15:41
Don’t remember seeing that Lawman. Do you remember who got that message from UEFA?
THELAWMANMAY 14, 2016 at 15:41
“CORRUPT OFFICIAL – Im not sure on that. Would i prefer they had a route to do that and put it to bed ? Absolutely yes. Im just not sure what they can do or say. If they came out and said we are 100% satisfied the licence was given correctly, no-one would still believe them.”
———————————————————————————————————————————
That’s the trouble with belief….If it is pro, folk tend to believe, and anti, they tend not to. Such is the level of distrust, I wouldn’t believe them. However evidence is a different matter. Not being taken for a mug, or used as some sort of cash cow all count. !
I think we may have to disagree on this one, because I think if they had the goods to bed this, they would have done so by now. I don’t buy the confidentiality of a dead company, and I don’t buy hiding behind court cases. The FPP rules have nothing to do with a court.
How can they say with any degree of confidence that matters were conducted honestly, and then on the other hand say, “We can’t tell you, because criminality may be involved?”.
As things stand, the game is being damaged, on top of an already sustained period of damage, but now it has escaped Hadrian’s Wall. Whatever side of the fence you fall on, this is shocking, and shamefully poor governance.
They should be facing up to the allegations, and not hiding in their bunker like children from the bogey man.
I only wish we had a bogey man in the SMSM to give them something to hide from.
A rerr wee game of football today at Firhill .Plenty of thrills and a lot of good youngsters on show .In the sunshine too! I note the continued circular discussion of TOG report- in the absence of poof, there’s only opinion .Same applies to the old club/new club argument – in the absence of proof, my opinion is that it is a new club wearing the old clubs raiment, but others may disagree .
TRISIDIUM – I may be making this up completely but im sure i saw someone asking what was meant by it early on. I think it was Duplesis or similar name asking Auldheid. Im really not sure about it now if you are asking.
TheLawManMay 14, 2016 at 15:26
NEEPHEID – I dont say that “postponed” shouldnt be disclosed. Not if a bill date has already been established which it had in this case. The requirement was to say YES we have £2.8m overdue payables, then here is the reason.
====================
The possible reasons for the “overdue payable” are very simple- the tax due hadn’t been paid because either RFC had the money, but chose not to pay the tax, and fancied spending it on players, or directors bonuses, or whatever, or RFC simply didn’t have the money to pay- those are reasons.
So why say it was postponed, when it wasn’t? That’s not a reason- that’s simply not true.
ALLYJAMBOMAY 14, 2016 at 15:22
“I 100% accept that i have no confirmation this took place but i believe in the balance of all probabilities and based on the premise of common sense, I am confident it was disclosed”
I too look for what makes sense, particularly in my lack of knowledge of the rules, and it is ‘the balance of probabilities’ that I find most illuminating in the lack of information coming from the SFA. To me, when a body refuses, point blank, to engage then ‘the balance of probabilities’ is that they have something to hide.
===================================
I tend to agree. If you have nothing to hide then disclose. In this instance a body could show exactly what they were presented with and when they were presented with it. They choose not to. Were we not promised transparency, a word often used but rarely followed up on.
To take the silence as supporting the position that everything was above board is a strange one in my view.
Tris I was just about to set up a subscription this weekend. Guess what, no subscription.  
TRISIDIUM – I have looked back and im probably more confused now. Im more than sure someone said there was a verbal confirmation but Auldheids post appears to reference an email.What i have found during a search though is the following quote from the SFA which prior to now, i was not aware of:
Now i guess the default position on this will be, “we need to see it” but this audit ties in with exactly what i was saying around UEFA auditing the licencing process of each countries FA.
NEEPHEIDMAY 14, 2016 at 16:29
TheLawManMay 14, 2016 at 15:26 NEEPHEID – I dont say that “postponed” shouldnt be disclosed. Not if a bill date has already been established which it had in this case. The requirement was to say YES we have £2.8m overdue payables, then here is the reason.
====================
The possible reasons for the “overdue payable” are very simple- the tax due hadn’t been paid because either RFC had the money, but chose not to pay the tax, and fancied spending it on players, or directors bonuses, or whatever, or RFC simply didn’t have the money to pay- those are reasons.
=====================
Is it significant that Craig Whyte bought the club in the period between March and June, it having been reported that as part of the deal he agreed to settle the outstanding tax, and never did.
To be more accurate the shares in the club were bought by Wavetower (subsequently The Rangers FC Group Limited) which incidentally was therefore the holding company when the club was placed into administration.
Lawman
No, my default position would be, “this is not the same thing at all”. I don’t think anyone has ever complained in general about the propriety of the systems in place (to which this appears to refer), but the specific case of 2011 and the RFC licence. The rules are in place, which a UEFA audit would find, but did they audit this particular transaction (a reasonable thing to expect given the accusations that have been flying around for several years now)?
If memory serves, UEFA did tell Reiver (in a telephone conversation) that they would in effect be forced to ignore letters from fans simply because of the backlog caused by Turkish fans mail-bombing them. Not the same thing, but perhaps that is what your recall?
Echoing that I was told just the other day by a UEFA Executive member (via a third party) that despite the seriousness of the allegations, UEFA are in so much disarray with the problems surrounding the Platini affair, that UEFA would have difficulty prioritising it. Of course if the situation is not resolved satisfactorily by the time that organisation recovers, there may be summary consequences for the game in Scotland – already considered a backwater in Europe.
Mibbes a bit of spice in The Rangers midfield next season ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36293572
HomunculusMay 14, 2016 at 16:38
Is it significant that Craig Whyte bought the club in the period between March and June, it having been reported that as part of the deal he agreed to settle the outstanding tax, and never did.
===================
Which is why I very much doubt (in the absence of evidence ) that the Whyte regime ever returned any outstanding social taxes to the SFA.Easily resolved , though. The SFA can simply make the relevant documentation public. BDO are unlikely to object. Why would they? Especially if a correct return was made. Of course if an incorrect return was made, or no return, then the silence from Hampden is easily understood (but not in a good way).
So come on, SFA, let’s see the paperwork, clear the air and put all these nasty rumours to bed. I won’t be holding my breath on that one, mind.
TheLawManMay 14, 2016 at 16:36
“Whilst I cannot be any more specific regarding any individual case, I can point out that our licensing system does undergo rigorous quality control checks. The system is ISO9001 registered and was recently audited by UEFA directly. Whilst the UEFA audit referred to decisions for last season. I can highlight that no material variances have been identified in the processes or the decisions that have been taken for clubs.”
SFA quote.
The question is ‘do we believe this?’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36234801
Speirs finally gets a comment out on Off the Ball. Thanks
Tam just wrap it please.
Might I suggest that Allyjambo, The Lawman, Reiver, Corrupt official, Tris all go out for dinner tonight in a neutral territory with their significant others and have a wee friendly chat?
I’d love to be a fly on the wall!
In the meantime BP & Tykebhoy can man the moderating pumps?
TLM
So we have had three days and thousands of words because you “believe” something. Not that you have proof of something, or been told it is true not even circumstantial evidence that it is true. We, on the other hand, have documentation that suggests things are not right. Not just on the UEFA licensing issue but on LNS, unequal handling of player registration issues, the desire by the authorities to take a club’s application to join the leagues and, with a provisional membership, fast track that club through the leagues at the expense of other clubs with full membership. I realise you are reluctant to discuss these and other issues but we are not. As a complete view this engenders a desire to have ANY action to be SHOWN to be beyond doubt.
You may be 99+% certain that everything was handled correctly but those that you have faith in should shatter that faith.
Campbell Ogilvie lied to LNS to spare his old club the proper punishment, Craig Whyte proven in court to have defrauded Ticketus of £20+Million and who removed £10m from the funds of the Worthington Group to pay into Rangers(although it never arrived), who also after the exit from Europe calculatedly stopped paying ALL social taxes, members of the board of a club who DELIBERATELY hid and denied the existence of documentation on employee remunerations from the tax authorities and from lawyers enquiring about their existence. This is who gives you confidence that everything was done properly and fairly. I haven’t even included your trust in UEFA to pick up on anything untoward during a period where they have been shown to be steeped in corruption.
Hmmm?????
I tell you what TLM, maybe you can help me. I have £10M in a Nigerian bank account I wonder……………
I am still open to debate with you though should you care to involve yourself in subject matter of things like improper player registration, manipulated independent enquiries, Scots incorporation laws or back dated punishments. I am even, purely for the sake of moving the debate forward, prepared to concede the overdue payables issue to you.
What do you think?
Lawman, why do you persist in telling us “the club was sold”. It was not. It’s assets were.
Lawman, Sorry, I now see this comment at 14.03 referred to the CW purchase.
NEEPHEIDMAY 14, 2016 at 17:24 HomunculusMay 14, 2016 at 16:38Is it significant that Craig Whyte bought the club in the period between March and June, it having been reported that as part of the deal he agreed to settle the outstanding tax, and never did.
===================
Which is why I very much doubt (in the absence of evidence ) that the Whyte regime ever returned any outstanding social taxes to the SFA.
==========================
The reason Rangers went into administration, had their CVA denied and are now being liquidated is that unfortunately they never passed over the social taxes they had collected to Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs.
Misleading the football authorities in order to get a place in Europe and potentially earning millions of pounds would hardly have been a biggie.
Craig Whyte admitted that he stole the money in order to run the club after they had failed in Europe. Is it so big an ask that they also cheated to get into it in the first place.
The past few days have been insightful. I had not realised or forgotten the deep knowledge in the posters of this blog.
I followed RTC every day but never posted, after he gave up the ghost, post First tax tribunal, so did I.
I wasn’t aware that this blog existed until maybe 18 months ago and started following it. Started posting about a year ago. I contribute little to the blog in any meaningful way, sometimes I try to inject a bit of humour or support posters. But after the past couple of days when what we believe in has been challenged I am left full of admiration for several posters on here. Not least Tris. who has been invisible for ages.
But most of all Reiver has been outstanding. A few months ago he came on here (and elsewhere) pleading to sign the petition. Then spreading the word out by pamphlets. Then contacting everyone you could think of about our issues.
I thought he was an ‘activist’ and he has certainly proved that.
Then, this week he has come out with some brilliant defences and questions with The Lawman.
Not trying to undermine the brilliant comments by many others on here recently but for commitment and dedication, he’s getting up there with Auldheid, JC & EJ.
jimboMay 14, 2016 at 19:42
Well said and thank you Reiver.
ALLYJAMBOMay 14, 2016 at 12:17 “…do you think my reasoning as to why Leeds United were able to get away with their seamless transition, unchallenged, is wrong?”
I have to say I was surprised when you said “I’m out” on this matter. Having introduced the Leeds example and then having various people not buy it, I didn’t think an intelligent guy – like you obviously are – would refuse to debate the rights and wrongs of your claim that this was proof of ‘same club’ just because some people wouldn’t take your word for it.
Apologies for delay in responding AJ – been out for a bit. I’m afraid I do think you’re wrong on this one because as I pointed out in my post addressed to Lawman on 13 May at 12.50, I believe Leeds scenario is manifestly different from Rangers’ and means they didn’t need to “get away with” anything. Leeds was bought as a going concern while still in Administration. They never had a CVA rejected, which is the tipping point for ceasing to exist. I agree with Lawman that ‘old Leeds’ was liquidated, but only after the new owning group (headed by Ken Bates) had completed all the purchase requirements and the empty shell was no longer required.
The gist of my post was this “You are focussing on the Leeds example, stating that they were liquidated yet are still treated by the football authorities as the same club. Your interpretation of that fact is that Rangers, who were likewise liquidated, should also be treated as the same club because Charles Green bought the club before liquidation just like Ken Bates.Although roughly similar, the situations are definitely NOT the same, in my opinion.I agree that ‘old Leeds’ was liquidated, similar to Rangers FC, which is in course of being liquidated. The key difference is in the REJECTION OF A CVA.In Rangers’ case, HMRC held a sufficient proportion of the overall debt to give them the power to reject a CVA without worrying about the views of other creditors. As soon as the CVA was rejected, Rangers were consigned to liquidation and ceased to trade. This happens as soon as a CVA is rejected and as a result, the Club could NOT be sold as a going concern. Effectively, the rejection of a CVA means the Club ceases to exist there and then albeit the time required to ingather funds etc means it has to be maintained meantime. This is why Charles Green could buy only the assets of the club and not the club itself. A club consigned to liquidation cannot be bought as a going concern. In Leeds case, HMRC wanted to refuse the proposed CVA as they felt it did not offer them enough, but as they held less than 25% of the overall debt, they did not have the power to do so on their own. As other creditors were willing to accept the proposed CVA, HMRC’s only option was to challenge the acceptance of the proposed CVA in court. This challenge was allowed by the courts and the appeal was scheduled to be heard some months later. What this means is that ‘old Leeds’ was not consigned to liquidation at that point. That would only happen if/when the proposed CVA was rejected. At that point Leeds remained a going concern albeit still in Administration. Realising the club would not be able to trade until the scheduled appeal, the administrators were able to again offer the club for sale AS A GOING CONCERN. Ken Bates’ group significantly increased their offer, meaning creditors received more than initially offered and bought the club AS A GOING CONCERN – not the assets, the CLUB. Subsequent to that purchase, satisfied with the amount they were to receive, HMRC dropped their (now unnecessary) appeal. Later still, once the purchase was worked through and ‘old Leeds’ was no longer necessary, the new owners liquidated ‘old Leeds’.I’m no legal expert and won’t state opinion as fact, but I believe from research that the above is true and the two scenarios are very different. I don’t believe, therefore, that the Leeds United case supports the argument that Rangers is the same club.”
Lawman you have chastised others for not believing your Leeds story or not understanding what you are telling them, but I notice that you did not respond to my post (you may have missed it) and genuinely hope that – as a self-proclaimed expert on the Leeds case -you will comment on my interpretation of what happened and how the key difference of CVA rejection means the Leeds case cannot be used to support a claim that Rangers must, like Leeds, be the same club. Have I too misunderstood some stuff off the internet?
I know that since my post, you have said to another poster that because no one will ever change their mind, you wouldn’t discuss it further, but I hope you will since I asked before you said that!
Again, I genuinely hope you give me your view on my take on the Leeds situation compared to the Rangers situation.
I apologise to TheLawMan for claiming that he was guilty of rewriting Leeds United’s history in respect of its apparent liquidation. My apology is entirely based on his assurances that his quotes are indeed from the sources he claims they are from, as they aren’t substantiated by links to an official website. I have learnt something new about that particular insolvency event.
That is as far as the good news stretches for TheLawMan, because as Hirsuite Pursuit rightly pointed out, Leeds United are viewed as a new club by the football authorities down south. My apology to TheLawMan is in any case partial, because he has demonstrably failed to provide evidence of Charles Green having purchased anything other than the assets of the defunct club, which was the thrust of my accusation of TheLawMan rewriting history.
Indeed, he has failed miserably to address many of the questions asked of him, including my own bewilderment as to why club chairmen had a vote on which division The Rangers should be ‘relegated to’, considering they weren’t relegated in the first place! Never in the history of Scottish football had clubs been required to vote to accept a club into their leagues, and indeed which division. A change of ownership (or change of corporate structure) had never previously required a vote by clubs, so what was it that differentiated this particular scenario, TheLawMan?
I’ll give you a clue. Your old club is being liquidated.
Homunculus
May 14, 2016 at 16:38
“Is it significant that Craig Whyte bought the club in the period between March and June, it having been reported that as part of the deal he agreed to settle the outstanding tax, and never did”
neepheid
May 14, 2016 at 17:24
Which is why I very much doubt (in the absence of evidence ) that the Whyte regime ever returned any outstanding social taxes to the SFA.
——————————————————–
That is why I posted on May 12, 2016 at 21:13
Share Purchase Agreement signed 5th May 2011 (extracts)
There were promises made and never kept, doing what he did best.
However, Charlotte played a blinder and posted 28 billet-doux:-
DOS01 to DOS28, with an index and helpful precis for each one.
Example.
DOS28 “Further counsel obtained. Based on several untruths and it’s a desperate measure again – stalling for time.”
jimboMay 14, 2016 at 19:42
“Reiver has been outstanding”
Hear, hear.
I think Lawmans initial post was in response to a post that I made. In summary my view was that I believed Rangers were incorrectly awarded a licence but that couldn’t be proved without Uefa co-operation . My conclusion was that it was likely that Whyte lied to Uefa and misled them into awarding the licence.
I have read all of the subsequent arguments about what the relevant clauses and rules could mean and the interpretation put on them by both sides of the argument. I don’t propose to debate that, rather i’d just ask a question.
There is a list of organizations who have an interest in proving Res 12 has no merit. These organizations could embarass the Res 12 requisitioners by releasing proof , if it existed , that Uefa issued the licence properly and after being fully aware of Rangers overdue tax payable at June 30.
Rangers themselves
The SFA
Uefa
Duff and Phelps
If proof existed it would be the easiest thing to provide that to the Daily Record who would doubtlessly run a front page ridiculing the Res 12 guys and Celtic . In fact you can easily understand that The Record would drool at the thought of such an opportunity.
Yet…..
Not a word , not even a hint from any of the above . Even if there was anything indicative of Uefa knowing Rangers admitted overdue payables and Uefa said not a problem, then the idea it wouldn’t be leaked to Level 5 and onwards to their outlets in the Rangers support, is laughable.
Common sense tells you that it’s overwhelmingly likely no evidence exists to support the notion that Whyte was truthful to Uefa. The conclusion is the same one i reached in my original post . Whyte lied to Uefa and Rangers got a licence on the back of this lie
The Lawman, You got bother sleeping too? I can’t sleep beyond 6 hours at a stretch. I get up at ridiculous hours. The only comfort I get is remembering Sir Peter Parker’s comments about his success. He used to run British Railways and then British Airways (I think!) He said, I can’t drive a train, or fly a plane, but I have two sleeps a day!
Jimbo, I get by on 5 hours a day normally. However tonight or this morning, I haven’t been to bed yet. Long night out. LOL
A trait I think you share with Margaret Thatcher, but she had the good sense to have a couple of Whiskeys to knock her out before going to bed with hubby. (no disrespect). If you ever read the ‘Dear Bill’ articles on Private Eye you will get it.
Anyway, I don’t agree with anything you say, but you say it in a nice way.
Morning All,
Going back to the rebuttal from ToG I agree with them in that the tax due date ( for the DOS) was hereditary from TY2k.
Im my humble opinion as at 30/05/3/2011 this was grossly outstanding. The scheme had been deemed illegal.
These monies were obtained by RFC implimenting a fraudulent system. RFC lied about the system being used; until they were caught cheating. Only then did they admit to fraud, when caught red handed.
It was blatently withheld and lied about. RFC held their hands up only when caught.
To me this means that they money was owed as soon as the tax was calculated way back in 2007?. As soon as RFC were caught having lied to HMRC then the money, and interest and penalties were due immediately.
In my eyes this is simple. They should never have been granted a licence as they used an illegal means to collect the monies.
At 30/03/2011 they had an outstanding amount due for social taxes……and had, admittedly, done for many years.
BARCABHOYMAY 15, 2016 at 01:54
=======================
If Whyte lied to UEFA it would be very simple for the SFA to clear themselves over this. Whyte lied to many people, even though utter fools in the media believed him for a while. However, given his present hate figure stance among the media, wouldn’t it be better if the SFA said ‘look, this guy lied to us, and he lied to UEFA. He shouldn’t have got a licence and we apologise but there is nothing we can do’. So why don’t they?
Furthermore, are the SFA about to award Rangers a licence to play in Europe next year if they win the cup? Do they qualify for one under FPP rules?
A seismic change happened to our game yesterday when the unheralded Edinburgh City beat East Stirling to become the first non league club to win through our over clumsy pyramid play offs.
They will be the first of several over the next few years as aspiring well-run clubs realign upwards and some names we have lived with all our lives move the other way.
Some potentially into oblivion and some to regroup and come back fighting.
My first memory of East Stirling was as a club in our top league.
This was when they had at least one season in our old First Division in the early 60s because the comic The Valiant used to give out DIY league tables and East Stirling was one of the names on my ladder along with Hearts, Hibs, Rangers, Aberdeen and Celtic.
I wish them well and hope for their fans and their community that they can bounce back.
UTH
Not only FFP rules but I think the SFA will have a bit of explaining to do issueing a license to a club with £4.2m tax oustanding
and also £15m + in PAYE ,NIC that CW used to get the dead club to the end of the season .
After all we are all to believe they are the same club .
Looks like we may be running headlong into another Res 12 type issue this season with no debate about time scales and date checks
Same club my jacksie
Re the overdue payable
I seem to recall that the WTC bill was accepted by the club under Murray so would have been due and CW was appaealing the penalties £1.4m only .
In fact I recall there being talk of the WTC bill being a deal breaker as to CW buying the old club . Asking price dropped from £5m to a pound ,as the BILL was non – negotiable and would have to be honoured
IMO the issue has to be investigated by UEFA
THELAWMANMAY 15, 2016 at 04:26
HIGHLANDER. Fair point. The government controlled, Companies House who controls all documents in conjunction with Company Law “apparently” holds shot information and we should rely on Wikipedia, CQN and blogs on the Internet.
We should apply this to all situations and ignore company law, government websites and simply believe what we want based on prejudices. That’s the future. Well done HIGHLANDER for setting the tone. Some man. LOL
=====================================
Do you genuinely believe that because a document has been submitted to Companies House, and is therefore viewable on it’s website that it then becomes more reliable.
In my opinion all that can really be taken from it being there is that it has been accurately reproduced.
I am fairly certain that every fraudulent set of account produced in this country are accurately reproduced on the Companies House website (assuming they have been submitted). That does not make them any less fraudulent.
I addition, there are documents which simply don’t have to be submitted to Companies House, which paint an important part of the picture. For example the new Rangers having cumulative losses of around £30m in a 3 year period will be reflected there through the submitted accounts. The old Rangers being liquidated with debts of around £100m probably wont.
HomunculusMay 15, 2016 at 09:41
And let’s not forget the “tug of love” over who controlled Sevco 5088. The two camps (Green and Whyte?) were each pushing appointment of director forms through Companies House more or less weekly to try to establish their control of the company. Dissolution notices as well, I seem to recall..
Only last week I lodged an appointment form for myself in respect of a family company. All above board in my case, of course, but there were absolutely no checks that I am in fact a validly appointed director.
Companies House is just a huge filing cabinet for forms submitted on behalf of companies. Some forms are legally required by a certain date, in which case fines are issued. However in my experience, nothing is checked for underlying validity.
There have been some nice words said here recently but I feel that it is important for me to reject them. It becomes divisive if individual posts are given more respect than others as we all say the same thing in different ways, we all want the same thing. It is the combined effort that will see us achieve the success that we desire. Having said that, it is my belief that the success will ultimately come from the Res12 efforts. They have the potential to have the clout of their club behind them and, while I have always wanted this to be club non-specific, I do recognise that there are many advantages to this approach. The rest of us though need to keep applying pressure. We have seen the reluctance of Lawwell et al to accede to the Res 12 requests to such an extent that it appears that the Res 12 are being played until they get fed up and go away. We can let all clubs know that we are here to stay until some form of believable, reliable investigation is achieved. We can also let Lawwell know that we believe in what the Res12 guys are trying to achieve.
We are seeing cracks beginning to appear in the resistance to publicity being given to our issues. This is not the time now to start believing that the end is near, far from it. I think we will find that many of the cracks are controlled openings that will close again very quickly if we miss the opportunity to force a crowbar in to at least to keep them open or, better still, to widen them. The purpose of the grudging references in the press to the TOG report may be no more than the setting up of a scenario where the reply to us is “We have dealt with that, let’s move on”. We need to ensure that that opportunity is not afforded them.
TLM
Up till now I have avoided the RFC/Leeds comparison debate partially because I don’t know how Leeds are viewed in an OC/NC context down south but mainly because cross-border comparisons are futile and spurious.
Scotland and England have different legal systems and, particularly in the area of club/company division, interpretation can have different outcomes. In Scotland incorporation law defines the separation of club and owning company as being non-existent, they are one in the same entity. In England the combination is not so tight. This is the reason that the ASA ruled in the way it did, it used English law as the measure. Likewise the BBC in London ruled that the BBC Scotland had been incorrect in their coverage of the issue, English law was used. BBC Scotland knew this and, at the time, stood by their reporting because of Scots law. Oh that whatever discouraged the independence of their views subsequently could now be revealed and we could return to FULL reporting of the issues.
It may be, as I have mused in the past, that a super-injunction is in place and that would certainly explain, and excuse, the media for the perceived bias that we now have. But who would have the money and the contacts to achieve such a super-injunction? I have my opinion but all I am prepared to say is –
It is not Ryan Giggs
HOMUNCULUS
Seriously ? So whats happened here then. Do you believe the Joint Administrators of Leeds United wrongly submitted a document confirming the failure of the CVA before placing the company in liquidation 4 years prior to the Rangers situation because they too were part of the plan to come in 2012.
RIEVER, not that you said any differently but just for the avoidance of any doubt on my position, i TOO hope there is a legal way without breaking any confidentiality that the SFA or UEFA can put this to bed once and for all. Having said that, i fear there wont be a way and i also KNOW that it will just move the problem along.
Prejudices? Really? Please explain. This should be interesting.
UPTHEHOOPS
My understanding is that UEFA have applied the “special permission” rule outlined in Article 15 and in conjunction with Annex XI sections f, g and h all of which apply to Rangers. The provisional licence has been granted but it has to be remembered that Hibs stand in the way of this of course and its not by a long shot, a given.
HIGHLANDER
It wont be interesting at all. Its very simple. If i dont like a situation, then my view on things can be prejudiced to the point where no matter what is laid in front of me, i wont change my mind.
Too often, the word prejudiced is taken as something else.
THELAWMAN
MAY 15, 2016 at 10:51
“If i dont like a situation, then my view on things can be prejudiced to the point where no matter what is laid in front of me, i wont change my mind.”
Hallelujah, we have a breakthrough! Nice admission.
ps, your earlier argument falls short simply because I wasn’t referring to your Companies House link, but a paragraph or two of text that you produced with no link to give it context.
Perhaps now you’re wide awake again you’ll be able to explain a couple of my other points you conveniently ignored, like the fact that Charles Green purchased the assets of the defunct club and why the other club chairmen got to vote on The Rangers application to join firstly the SPL, and then the SFL?
TLM @1037
I think now we are talking the same language. How about that you concentrate your efforts on your fellow supporters on their sites and persuade them that it is for the good of the game as a whole for ALL fans of ALL clubs to put up a concerted action aimed at rooting out the rot at the SFA and SPFL?
It can do nothing but help.
Honestly hope this is my last post for the next 24 hours, I am going out shortly to watch my club’s last game of the season and regardless of the result (who knows?) we will be presented with the league trophy by someone I hope is cheered with a hearty chorus of boos.
It’s been a roller coaster season for us and today will be a mixture of happiness and sadness. Just like our history. I take great pride in why my club was started, where it began and by whom. Even today despite any faults, the amount of charitable work carried out by my club and it’s fans is praiseworthy.
Today we see the departure of an honest and decent man in Ronny Deila, tried his best but too soon in his career. I think I will have tears in my eyes when I see him say goodbye.
I know many fans of other clubs would love to be in our place being Scottish Champions and that I should get a right good kick up the backside for saying today could be anything other than complete joy.
I try my best to be empathetic to other fans position. For instance Hibs supporters being continually let down on the big occasions, I hope they win the Scottish cup this year, for them. TRFC decent fans who had to suffer the on pitch dismal displays under Ally McCoist. I could go on with other examples.
But today especially East Stirlingshire fans who have seen their team relegated from Div. 2. What that can feel like for those small bunch of supporters (320 ave. home attendance) one can only guess. Founded 7 years before Celtic, they have a history and family ties and loyalties. I should be very grateful.
It’s a funny old game.
If I may return to the general media’s coverage of the TOG report. I find it extremely telling that none of the MSM reporters who have referred to the report have elicited any response from the SFA and SPFL. In fact I can see no reference to any of these guys even approaching these bodies for a comment. The question is. What does that say to us?
THELAWMANMAY 15, 2016 at 10:33 Do you believe the Joint Administrators of Leeds United wrongly submitted a document confirming the failure of the CVA before placing the company in liquidation 4 years prior to the Rangers situation because they too were part of the plan to come in 2012.
==============================
No, I believe that Leeds United initially obtained a CVA by getting over 75% of the creditors to vote for it. However HMRC then took KPMG to court over how they had handled the administration process. I also believe that HMRC subsequently dropped their action about a month later.
I also believe that the administrators sold the club to Ken Bates anyway.
Absolutely nothing to do with Rangers, it wasn’t then and it isn’t now. Rangers failed to pay something like £14m in social taxes, were placed into administration, failed to get a CVA and are currently being liquidated with debts of c£100m. A new club bought the assets as part of that process and is currently playing football in Scotland. Nothing which happened at Leeds United changes that.
HOMONCULUS – purely sticking to the Leeds United case, it appears I cant help you any longer. I believe the Notice of move from administration to liquidation issued by the Joint administrators in conjunction with the Joint Liquidators and submitted to Companies House as per the Companies Act 2006 and Insolvency Act 1986 and you clearly believe guys on the internet.
HIGHLANDERMAY 15, 2016 at 11:04
Perhaps now you’re wide awake again you’ll be able to explain a couple of my other points you conveniently ignored, like the fact that Charles Green purchased the assets of the defunct club and why the other club chairmen got to vote on The Rangers application to join firstly the SPL, and then the SFL?
===================================
Again, I think this is the important issue which is too often ignored as it is blindingly obvious.
If Rangers were relegated (or demoted) then why were there several votes.
1, To keep them in the SPL, why was it even an option if they were relegated.
2, To allow them into the SFL, it is an automatic right if they were relegated from the SPL (as was)
3, Which division of the SFL (as was) to place them in, if they were relegated then it was division 1.
The votes were whether or not to allow them in, and at what level, it really is as simple as that.
The only club which abstained in any of the votes, as I understand it, was Kilmarnock. Perhaps they believed it was the same club, making the voting process meaningless.
I’ve just had opportunity to listen to yesterday’s Off The Ball podcast where Stuart, Tam and Graeme Speirs discuss the TJN report on SFA.
Its at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07bfmdl starting at 36.40
Tam seems to find it complicated and dry so here is a simple analogy that might help Tam grasp what exercises those folk who think the issue matters.
Four years ago Tam there was a burglary at your house.
You called in the police and Officers Ogilvee and Reegan turned up.
Whilst Officer Reegan was taking your statement Officer Ogilvee was pocketing an expensive watch that the burglar had missed.
A few days later you start to realise that the watch was in fact not missing when the officers called so you visit the police station. They laugh you off as mistaken.
How many years pass before you decide its not an important issue that the police are crooks?
Or do you think its not important that those charged with policing Scottish Football in governance terms are honest and seen to be so?
THAT IS THE ISSUE
lAWMAN
“clearly believe guys on the internet.”
I’ve enjoyed reading you here on the internet.
THELAWMANMAY 15, 2016 at 12:06
“… guys on the internet”.
You mean like you, or do you think you are the only “guy on the internet” capable of obtaining information, analyzing it and drawing conclusions from it.
Mods, yes I will leave it at that, there are issues to be discussed and getting into further pointless circular debate doesn’t help that.
The difference being that the document is an unquestionable statement of fact. It sets out EXACTLY what happened in 2008 and clearly states EXACTLY what i posted on here. Its incredible there are some still challenging this legal document lodged at Companies House. Mind boggling.
I discovered today that the RTC Blog with many if not all of its articles and posts has been restored online
commencing March 2011
See https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/the-wee-tax-bill-a-scam-explored/
subsequent blogs can be accessed by clicking on the next article
Lawman,
I’m feeling left out and you’ve hurt my feelings
You’re answering other people on the Leeds comparison, but not me! Despite my asking twice for you to comment and when I’m happy to agree with you and your links that show old Leeds moved from administration to liquidation.
The key difference I pointed out (twice) is that Leeds proposed CVA was never rejected, so they were never officially consigned to liquidation while Rangers was as soon as their proposed CVA was rejected by HMRC. That meant that while Leeds could therefore be sold as a going concern i.e. a club, ‘Rangers’ could only be sold as a basket of liquidated assets which Charles Green used to set up a new club.
Will you please give me your view on that.
THELAWMANMAY 15, 2016 at 11:08
Had a busy weemend and not had time to review earlier posts so sorry if the following has been covered, however I have a question, or two.
Firstly, here are my impressions of what you have been saying. (Happy to be corrected if misrepresenting things).
You have put forward the argument why the WTC tax liability was not overdue at the time of Euro licence application and appear to say the licence was given/approved by the SFA in the appropriate manner.
Therefore rules applied appropriately (?), nothing to see here – move along.
You have discussed the precedents of Leeds and Gretna with regard to the oldco/newco argument. Given times constraints to the start of the season Leeds issues with CVA and HMRC appeals were dealt with by the Football League’s ‘exceptional circumstances’ rule. The SFL appear to have used their rules to protect the game by putting a club, Gretna, in administration into Div 3 due to the uncertainty with regard to how it’s financial future would pan out.
Therefore in the Rangers case the SPL used their rules to vote on allowing the newco entity Sevco to take on the share held the oldco entity Rangers. The democratic vote said no.
Therefore rules applied appropriately (?), nothing to see here – move along.
The SFL then used their discretionary rules/powers to consider an application of a club / newco who was not a member of their organisation and one that was not relegated into the SFL by consequence of league position and the standard agreement. The democratic vote, said start at the bottom.
Therefore rules applied appropriately(?), nothing to see here – move along.
The SFA then, after both Leagues deliberations as above, used their discretionary rules/powers to give conditional membership to Sevco and then transferred full membership.
Therefore rules apples appropriately (?), nothing to see here – move along.
Given the above I am therefore wondering, as you appear to have agreed with others on here that you don’t have much time for our footballing authorities, if you believe they have gone wrong somewhere in relation to the treatment of Rangers? If so where?
Or do you believe Rangers have been treated correctly within the rules used by the SFA, and the then SPL & SFL and your lack of confidence in the footballing authorities is related to other matters unconnected with the much discussed Euro Licence, oldco/newco issues?
NAWLITE as stated, I’m finished on the OC/nC debate. There is simply no point.
TheLawMan
May 15, 2016 at 12.53
NAWLITE as stated, I’m finished on the OC/nC debate. There is simply no point.
——————————————————————————————-
But as recently as 12.20, you were willing to debate the Leeds links with others and stated again your ‘proof’ that Leeds moved from administration to liquidation. Why won’t you comment on my important distinction between the Leeds and Rangers situations?