The Offline Game

ByBig Pink

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/

 

 

About the author

Big Pink administrator

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 Comments so far

TheLawManPosted on9:06 pm - May 15, 2016


Yeah.  Must be me as im the only Rangers fan with that view in the world. 10

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on10:00 pm - May 15, 2016


At the risk of going slightly off topic, my wife and I have simultaneously enjoyed a rare long weekend away from work which has involved overindulging in (mostly Asian) food and copious amounts of alcohol during a period that has coincided with TheLawMan posting a prolonged series of semi-factual opinions (a mixture of fact and unfounded optimism) that has probably given all of us food for thought, yet ultimately left us all exactly where we were before his arrival. Having recently offered a rather tepid apology to TheLawMan regarding his rewriting of history over Leeds United’s insolvency, I’m minded to withdraw that apology in light of the further facts presented later here on SFM. Nonetheless, I do wish TheLawMan well in his endeavours to convince his audience that the world is indeed flat…19     

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on10:03 pm - May 15, 2016


TheLawManMay 15, 2016 at 15:05

“would you seriously bet your last dime on JJ being a Rangers fan or a Non Rangers fan.”
——————————–
I merely invoked JJ (sitonfence) as a credible and apparently well informed Rangers supporter to indicate the relatively parsimonious input we have had from the Blue side of the argument. Posters above appear assured that his self proclamation is valid. To me its immaterial. I rarely visit any other blogging site unless it is alerted to from here. I’m not a gambler and would therefore not be risking a single escudo on whether his claim of allegiance is true or not.

The point I was driving at is that we have had insufficient substantial input from Rangers supporters to assist in formulating our conclusions. This will inevitably have left a gap in our thinking. However I think generally posters are not rabid so where conclusions may appear skewed to you, may be as a result of this lack of contrary input.

Now I know we will be sceptical about your motives and I am sorry if this appears uncharitable. If we had a SFM tardis I’d like you to go back a few years and inject your commentary bit by bit on a range of topics and thereby over time guide the narrative into what I’d imagine you would view as a more balanced channel. I’m just concerned that your well articulated arguments will get buried in an avalanche of responses and thus make it difficult for you to hold your own. No sign of that so far but we have so many legacy issues that you will undoubtedly get worn down if you try to address every single issue over a short period of time.

To provide some succour, you have given me personally food for thought concerning the resolution 12 action. I have not always been able to keep up to speed with the blog due to other commitments so may have been absent when the Res 12 was being formulated. Since this is primarily a Celtic supporters initiative it may be that the detail has been formulated on another blog site. So I was never really up to speed with the fine detail. With that caveat I will give you some ground. I may get thumbs down for doing so but…

Your description of the licensing process does seem plausible. Exactly what was declared to SFA/UEFA at 30th June 2011 is open to conjecture and I have seen logical arguments both for an against a legitimate declaration being made. As this is not a topic of which I am well appraised I will now be tempted to dig a bit deeper. I came across some DOS documentation lately that will assist my thought process and I will try and give time to its fuller consideration. It is not for me to say but I suspect if your assertions do carry weight then the Res 12 guys, who will be well informed on the matter, will likely be giving it some consideration. Perhaps a visit by you to CQN or the suchlike might indeed indicate that this is so.

However the spur to your input was the TJN TOG report and you have really only addressed one element of this (Res 12). There are many other interwoven themes in that report that deserve consideration by Rangers supporters, the media and governing authorities. I would not wish that you exhaust yourself in attempting to counter every issue. As I said previously the blog memory is long and deep and will not be rewritten in a short timescale if ever. It is often the pattern of events that raise concern rather than single instances of what are considered rule bending. Human beings have an innate truth sensing ability that is likely pattern formed rather than simply evidence driven. Our ancestors would have been driven into oblivion if we were susceptible to swallow two dimensional arguments.

Keep up the good work. Try to select a lower gear. Stick around and enjoy the fun, I’m sure we can make this enjoyable. Don’t expect everyone to be at a pace of those who have taken a special interest in particular topics. It is a learning curve for us all and if you make the incline too steep your intended audience will simply slide off.

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on10:08 pm - May 15, 2016


Someone earlier remarked that many SFM posters arrived at their current views through digesting hundreds of posts from very competent and thoughtful minds in a multitude of spheres
Heres one from the RTC Blog over 5 yrs ago before RFC was sold for £1 (genuinely picked at random)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Mark Dickson says:
27/04/2011 at 2:36 pm
 
 Fiorentina played 1 season at the bottom tier of Italian league football after their financial collapse and liquidation but as the new club were essentially (although not legally) a continuation of the same Fiorentina football club and traditions they were promoted a couple of rungs up the ladder on the basis of “Sporting Merit and Achievement” to Series B where they promptly won promotion back into the top flight meaning their absence from Series-A lasted only a couple of years
………. would the SPL/SFL really make a Rangers team start all the way at the bottom and work their way back up?
Whilst fairness dictates they of course should have to work their way back up wouldn’t it also be a gross distortion of those leagues in terms of club size/power and a waste of everybodies time and lost promotion opportunities if it was fairly inevitable they (RFC) would power through the division back to the top flight? Would the SPL automatically grant or reserve them a special place? Can the other SPL clubs afford financially without them in the top flight if that would adversely affect club and overall league finances?
,,,,,,,,,,,
Very prescient Mark
Wherever you are

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on10:42 pm - May 15, 2016


I’m sure I read in the papers that 140 years of Rangers (1872) history ended when the CVA was rejected after 9 minutes of discussion. The Scottish press corps are obviously beyond reproach. 

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on10:44 pm - May 15, 2016


Lawman your work rate is higher.

Incorporation
1 The act or process of forming or creating a Company; the formation of a legal or political body, with the quality of perpetual existence and succession, unless limited by the act of incorporation
Or
 2 The method of making one document of any kind become a part of another separate document by referring to the former in the latter, and declaring that the former shall be taken and considered as a part of the latter the same as if it fully set out therein. This is more fully described as “incorporation by reference.” If the one document is copied at length in the other, it Is called “actual incorporation.”
3. In the civil law. The union of one domain to another.
Note No Russian dolls,  one legal entity.
 
Articles of Association The Rangers Football Club Limited
Extract
“We the several persons whose names and addresses are subscribed, are desirous of being formed into a company in persuance of this Memorandum of Association and we respectively agree to take the number of shares in the capital of the company set opposite to our respective names.”
Registered 27th May 99

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on6:09 am - May 16, 2016


I,like many,have been around since rtc days. Never in all that time have I been so bored with a discussion(or poster) than I have with the Leeds Utd/oc/nc. By all means have a debate, but Enough Already!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:58 am - May 16, 2016


HELPMABOABMAY 16, 2016 at 06:09
===========================
I could be wrong but I thought the mods said a couple of years ago the OC/NC debate had been done to death and was to be left alone. 

View Comment

ReiverPosted on8:26 am - May 16, 2016


Cluster one

Cheers mate but I am getting a bit concerned that you are spending a bit too much time in the bookies.22 Don’t put the blame on me if the wife batters you for spending the housekeeping backing Hibs for the SC.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on8:28 am - May 16, 2016


helpmaboabMay 16, 2016 at 06:09  
I,like many,have been around since rtc days. Never in all that time have I been so bored with a discussion(or poster) than I have with the Leeds Utd/oc/nc. By all means have a debate, but Enough Already!
===========
I share your pain.
Once upon a time there was a separate thread for OC/NC matters. That seemed to work, sort of, since nobody visited it or posted on it,and in fact the whole OC/NC debate died off on here for a couple of years.
Now it is back with a vengeance. I lived and worked in both Leeds and Middlesbrough. Anyone interested in the continuity of those clubs should ask their fans. The answer will be that they couldn’t care less. They have a team to follow, playing in their home town, in colours they identify with. They are grateful for that. That’s all that interests them.
In total contrast “The Rangers” fans seem infuriated by even the word liquidation itself. Oh, and Sevco too. They want 2012 airbrushed from the history books. Fans of other clubs don’t agree. For them, 2012 was one long laugh. Very unworthy, but true. How the mighty have fallen! After all, who doesn’t like to see the school bully get a bloody nose? Apart from the school bully himself, of course.
To me, that’s the start and finish of it. Rangers crashed and burned. Something crawled out of the wreckage. OC/NC? Couldn’t really care less. It is the actions of the authorities at that point that really interests me.
July 2012 was genuinely funny. A good laugh was Charles Green attending those meetings at Hampden regarding the future of Sevco Scotland, with a proxy in his pocket allowing him to cast a vote on behalf of RFC. And even funnier, Green being “loaned” the players registered to RFC to allow Sevco Scotland to play a game against Brechin.
No doubt a learned technical case is being constructed right now to explain away that little episode, from a NC/OC perspective. My only interest (hilarity aside) is how the authorities could possibly have let the Brechin game go ahead. That’s the scandal. And all tied in with the 5 way agreement. To me, OC/NC is just a great big squirrel, a diversion from the real issue, which is total failure in the governance of our game. 

View Comment

ReiverPosted on8:45 am - May 16, 2016


I’m going to bow out from the discussions(?) with TLM for the time being. I see no value in discussing the similarity between two events that played out under different legal systems. TLM does not see the need for proof to be supplied whether the cub did declare the overdue payables despite those responsible being proved since to be liars and tax cheats.
I’ll choose to pass in the absence any pertinent points on the subject of the requirement for LNS to be set aside and replaced by a properly constituted investigation, the clarification of the legitimacy of player registrations shown to have been deliberately undertaken without full disclosure, the subject of what the SFA actually DID approve Dave King “fit and proper” to be part of, the reason for approving club board members that had been involved in a previous liquidation event, why a four year old fine has still not been collected or the media’s change of position and reluctance to report any of the aforementioned points.
There are phone calls to be made so I’m off.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:15 am - May 16, 2016


nawliteMay 14, 2016 at 21:02

Thanks again for your response. Suffice to say I think we are almost 100% in agreement over all the salient points. I was perhaps gilding the lily, unnecessarily when the point of view is that Leeds United achieved a CVA (I’m still of an open mind on that one, TLM seemed to make a valid point in that respect by providing evidence that seemed kosher, but I wouldn’t say conclusive).

To clarify, I was only pointing out that, as would be the case in almost every other football club insolvency, it usually happens to clubs that are, at the time, operating under the radar, as very few people, other than their own fans, are all that bothered as it doesn’t have an effect on their own club’s fortunes. In that respect, at least, there is no real comparison with Rangers, who, even if we ignore their size and over-inflated self importance, had cheated football and society at an unprecedented level, and so, were naturally watched very carefully, along with the game’s authorities, in everything they tried to do/get away with.

I think what is being forgotten/ignored by TLM here is that it was not the internet bampots who introduced the Leeds argument, it was the bear excuse makers, desperate for an example to back their ‘same club’ argument. Leeds United’s insolvency is their bit of ‘whataboutery’, not ours. Regardless of the facts surrounding Leeds United, it changes nothing. Rangers FC is now in the process of liquidation, only the chicanery of a known chancer (massively discredited, even amongst those who treated him as a messiah and hung onto his every word) introduced the notion that ‘the club’ had somehow survived the process.

I have always felt the practise of looking at what has happened elsewhere, in other jurisdictions, is quite pointless, as so many other factors, such as the type of complacency I’ve described, come into play.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:26 am - May 16, 2016


I’m going to play devils advocate here a little and say that (despite definite obvious similarities between this OC/NC argument and several other past examples steering us in a certain direction, usually towards a cul de sac) I actually enjoyed the very factual challenge offered by TLM.  For the record I was one of the silent majority that he referred to and I can report, smugly of course, that I most certainly did get it, quite early on in fact, although I suspect not in the manner that he would have wished.

Fundamentally his resolute defence of his view proved that ultimately it came down to his belief that as the end result in the Leeds case was the same, that the mechanics of getting there should just be treated as the same since it gives the outcome that he so desires.  Equally, we are largely of the view (and I’m very pleased to see that it wasn’t a simple blindly follow (follow?10) situation, there was serious but always amicable discussion over it, that there was and is a fundamental difference – the essence of when and why the CVA was considered and all the background surrounding the simple fact that RFC(IL) had danced with the HMRC devil and lost, big time.

TLM writes off the difference as immaterial, demonstrated perfectly when he describes the chairmen’s vote (chairmen who had seen their clubs  be cheated out of money, European/ appropriate league competition and titles for a significant period) as “cutting off their noses.”  It so happens we, the fans who effectively funded the wronged clubs during that period, pointlessly as it happens, see that difference as a little more material.

Same with the Res12/overdue payable issue.  Either it was reported or it wasn’t.  All well and good to say that surely it must have been and to leave it at that.  Again that is a belief that he holds and again, unsurprisingly, it gets him to the outcome that he needs.  The general consensus seems to be ok, fine just show us the return and we’ll pass on to the ever increasing list of holes being dug by certain individuals.  And to be clear Daryl, that’s a return on which the ink is at least dry!).     

Without evidence, one of the founding principles of this blog, we can and will beg to differ.  

View Comment

TBKPosted on9:41 am - May 16, 2016


TLM
you state:
“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.”

You are basing your interpretation as fact. It isn’t. What we do know (as fact) is that correspondences from the SFA show that Grant Thornton submitted the Licence Report on 31 March 2011. It included this statement: 
 “All the recorded payroll taxes at 31 December 2010 have, according to the accounting records of the Club since that date been paid in full by 31 March 2011, with the exception of the continuing discussion between the Club and HM Revenue and Customs in relation to a potential liability of £2.8m associated with contributions between 1999 and 2003 into a discounted option scheme. These amounts have been provided for in full within the interim financial statements.”
you further state:
“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””

One should never assume! (it makes an ASS of U and ME I believe the saying goes….) – or in this case You and Olverman – as you appear to be speaking on his behalf.
Olvermans’ email that you have seen is dated 30 June 2011. Following the timeline and information I have seen, the £2.8m tax liability, was at 31/03/2011 described as a “potential liability”, then said to be “postponed” in the period up to 30/06/2011, then it was an “overdue payable”. 
The amount and timings to a degree are irrelevant. It was a tax liability that had to be paid in full or have a structure agreed in writing to clear the debt. We know for a fact, that is not the case.

Oh! one last thing!

“For the record, FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN there is not a single shred of evidence that the above position wasnt the actual case. ” ……….. Edited that for you!

In December, the SFA offered to assist *Rangers by releasing a statement in regard to the issue of a license: That statement referred to 31 March 2011, not the June or September 2011 deadlines. There is (as will become apparent) a very good reason for that.…….!

Ok, one further last thing…….
“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.”

There are no “LEAKED” (your emphasis) emails or letters between 6th June and 30th June for good reason. You are entitled to you opinion……. But keep digging away anyway 🙂

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on10:00 am - May 16, 2016


SMUGAS

 Either it was reported or it wasn’t. All well and good to say that surely it must have been and to leave it at that. Again that is a belief that he holds and again, unsurprisingly, it gets him to the outcome that he needs

 

Im sorry but that is patently untrue.  Nowhere do i say that.  In fact i clearly state that I cannot say with any certainty it was reported (though I believe it was) and I also state that I would prefer there was a method that would allow the SFA/UEFA to release the details but my belief is that there isnt.

No-one on here can say one way or the other, but my joining of this forum was never to say or portray that “there is nothing to see” and that everything was done by the book.  I joined to dispel myths around Article 50, Article 66, The Malaga ruling, Annex VIII and the SFAs part in the adherence to the rules.

I set out to explain why:
1)  The amount outstanding was not “overdue payable” as at 31st March
2)  The amount outstanding became overdue payable on the 19th June 2011
3)  The overdue payable was required to be disclosed on the 30th June 2011
4)  Having an overdue payable was NOT a breach of the rules and did NOT mean no licence should be issued
5)  The TOGS statement on the Malaga ruling was incorrect

I believe quite a few, if not all, on here now get the above.  I dont believe this would be the case if it wasnt for the issuance of the TOG report and my subsequent rebuttal.

I appreciate the vast majority on here and in other Social Media circles want to get to the truth but in order to get to the truth, then you must look at the rules from a point of truth and not from what people want you to think they are.

Personally, I believe I have at least achieved that and that was my aim.  It wasnt to say Rangers are not guilty.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:01 am - May 16, 2016


Just one last one re the Leeds situation.

The definite parallel with Rangers is that the Leeds/Bates deal stunk just as much as T’Rangers/Green deal.

Here is an interesting article from the Guardian at the time (July 2007) with 20 questions SFM contributors would be proud of.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2007/jul/27/leedsunitedtheunansweredqu

The last question is the most pertinent

20. Why should the Football League make an exception for Leeds and grant Forward’s and Bates’ new company its “golden share” of membership despite the purchase not having been done via a CVA, given that the League has insisted on the CVA process for all 41 of its other clubs which have fallen into insolvency since 1992?

One exceptional rule for a select few but not for others.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:07 am - May 16, 2016


PS Question 18 is also of interest given the ‘basket of assets’ issue.

18 What did KPMG actually sell to Forward’s and Bates’ new company if, as the League insists, players’ registrations remain with the old company until any new company is awarded the “golden share”?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:19 am - May 16, 2016


TheLawManMay 16, 2016 at 10:00

Going back to your views on the incompetence of our footballing authorities, regardless of how rules were applied do you think  the SFA only gave the lightest of touches with regard to the Euro application? Bearing in mind the financial difficulties Rangers were in at the time.
Subsequently, given the ongoing issues with the low standoff football administrators world wide, do you think the SFA needs to provide all fans with a detailed explanation of what occurred and why?

What are the lessons learned and do you believe the SFA have altered any of their procedures to stop such uncertain circumstances happening again? 

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on10:31 am - May 16, 2016


WOTTPI

 
Going back to your views on the incompetence of our footballing authorities, regardless of how rules were applied do you think  the SFA only gave the lightest of touches with regard to the Euro application? Bearing in mind the financial difficulties Rangers were in at the time.Subsequently, given the ongoing issues with the low standoff football administrators world wide, do you think the SFA needs to provide all fans with a detailed explanation of what occurred and why?
What are the lessons learned and do you believe the SFA have altered any of their procedures to stop such uncertain circumstances happening again? 

I honestly havent a clue what they did and i dont think anyone does.  The first thing to note was that this was the first time, i believe, these rules applied and therefore the methodology would have been completely new and foreign to everyone.  As has been stated, UEFA audited the function of the SFA that year and found no breaches in relation to the issuing of the licence.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on10:42 am - May 16, 2016


Can you imagine any Scottish based newspaper asking 1 question never mind 20 ?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:28 am - May 16, 2016


In the interests of clarity Resolution 12 does NOT and never did suggest there was an overdue payable in 2011, it just asked that Celtic ask UEFA Club Financial Control Body to investigate the licensing process as conducted by the SFA in 2011.
It did so on the basis that if a club is granted a UEFA licence it has no overdue payables to tax authorities at 31st March or 30 June, then something had to have changed for Sherriff Officers to have called to collect just six weeks after no overdue payables to HMRC were deemed to exist by RFC/SFA/UEFA.
The resolution did not attempt to reach any conclusion on whether an overdue payable existed nor did it state Celtic would be due compensation or had lost out on CL money, although as shareholders in a club who may have lost share value, it had locus to be placed at the club AGM. All it did was to ask the CFCB who have investigatory powers to establish if their rules were followed properly or not.
So CFCB have a duty if a case is put to them to check. It has been the reluctance of the SFA to take action on being presented with documentation in 2014 or answer questions put to them in July 2015 that could have ended the process at either point.
This reluctance has taken Resolution 12 to some prominence and now requires the UEFA CFCB to examine to ascertain if their rules were applied properly or circumvented.
TLM’s assertion that the Malaga case has no relevance appears to be a reflection of his understanding of Articles 50, 66 and Annex VIII, the actual process and also being unsighted on a series of non disclosures to authority.
On that basis TLM would be wrong and Barcabhoy is right, but only UEFA have the power to clarify and in the interests of such clarity TLM presumably now supports Res12?

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on11:39 am - May 16, 2016


AULDHEID

 “It did so on the basis that if a club is granted a UEFA licence it has no overdue payables to tax authorities at 31st March or 30 June”

 

And this is where the Malaga principle in the TOG report, and you, are wrong.  A Club CAN be granted a UEFA licence if it has overdue payables at either or both of those dates.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:44 am - May 16, 2016


TBKMay 16, 2016 at 09:41
“”In December, the SFA offered to assist *Rangers by releasing a statement in regard to the issue of a license: That statement referred to 31 March 2011, not the June or September 2011 deadlines. There is (as will become apparent) a very good reason for that.…….!”””
_________
TBK, the reference yesterday to the RTC  blogs being back had me dipping in nostalgically to some of the early posts. And this one in particular  caught my eye. The poster was ‘liveinhope’ ( who I hope is still with us), and he has posted  a piece from the ‘Telegraph’
In my view it confirms that the SFA and the old,rotten RFC were hand in glove as they denied the lying.
” liveinhope says:03/12/2011 at 11:54 am “….

Rangers deny tax bill threatened European place

Rangers and the Scottish Football Association both last night denied that they are concerned that the club’s liability for an outstanding tax bill – which with penalties and interest amounts to £2.8million – was in breach of Uefa’s licensing regulations regarding European competition and might have disqualified the Ibrox side from playing in the qualifying rounds of both the Champions League and Europa League at the start of this season. A source close to Craig Whyte, the Rangers owner, told The Daily Telegraph that an appeal had been lodged several months ago against the liability – incurred under the previous regime of Sir David Murray and not to be confused with the much larger potential debt to HMRC, which could amount to as much as £49 million if a tribunal verdict goes against the Scottish champions.
The source added emphatically that the existing appeal was not intended to be a defence against Uefa sanctions.
The SFA maintains its official stance that the governing body is satisfied that it rendered information to Uefa that was correct at the March 31 deadline. However, it is unclear if the liability – which did not come to light until late in the due diligence process prior to Whyte’s takeover – comes into the category of a sum in dispute at the time of the deadline, or if any subsequent debate with HMRC about the make-up of the bill would be accepted as a defence against breach of regulations.
Against the background of frequent stories about Rangers’ financial status Ally McCoist declared that if his players were concerned every time they read such headlines, they would be “in an institution”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/8931577/Rangers-deny-tax-bill-threatened-European-place.html
No mention of any appeal in June when the circular was issued.”
_________
That was liveinhope’s post.
And what a great service the still unknown RTC provided for us.
Without him(her?) none of this mucky, dirty cheating would have come to light. Why did the ‘Telegraph’ not get right into the story, instead of meekly accepting the SFA’s self-certified ‘satisfaction’? Where was there any kind of ‘journalism’, any kind of attempt to act as anything other than PR hacks?

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on12:05 pm - May 16, 2016


Not posted for a while but still read every day.
Deflection about Leeds, malaga etc is just that- an attempt to draw parallels that just aren’t there.
In my opinion nothing more than trolling and quite frankly I find it boring.
The bottom line is that Rangers cheated, stiffed their creditors, and are now in Liquidation.
This club which is now in Liquidation was never relegated or demoted.
A new company Sevco Scotland applied for entry to the league, they were admitted to the third division and then changed their name to “The Rangers”. 
“The Rangers” are not back to where they belong, they were never there in the first place.
Long convoluted posts attempting to draw comparisons with other clubs will never alter these inescapable facts.
Please don’t insult our intelligence trying to prove differently.

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on12:10 pm - May 16, 2016


One thing that I find interesting is how in the past couple of days, everyone has stopped talking about season tickets and renewal forms.

Odd that 🙂

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on12:16 pm - May 16, 2016


Hoopy7 @ 12.05 16 May 2016

Bang on ! Couldn’t agree more , Curious to know if Level5 pay by the hour or word for services rendered ?

View Comment

nawlitePosted on12:25 pm - May 16, 2016


I’ve been one of the main posters involved in arguing with Lawman on the Leeds parallel. I’m sorry if arguing this bores others and I’ll stop now.
As evidenced by the previous offlining of the oc/nc issue, I know I’m out of step with most on here for believing that OC/NC is one of the fundamental issues in our pursuit of the authorities for their incompetence/complicity/corruption (delete as appropriate) over the death and resurrection of Rangers.
I’m disappointed when I see comments like “Rangers crashed and burned. Something crawled out of the wreckage. OC/NC? Couldn’t really care less.” or people being happy that ‘Rangers fans can believe what they like; we’ll believe what we know to be the truth’. Sounds a bit like Regan’s “It’s up to the fans”.
In terms of what people choose to believe I too am perfectly happy with that. I have Rangers-supporting family and I’m glad they have the chance to still support a team that they can treat as ‘Rangers’. I’ll always challenge the lie that it IS Rangers, though.
What really matters to me – and should matter to this forum imo – is what the authorities portray as the truth. If we let them continue to allow TRFC* to be perceived as the same club with the same honours and history then we’re supporting an incompetent/complicit/corrupt system and that is exactly what we are supposed to be fighting against. As Neepheid says above “It is the actions of the authorities at that point that really interests me.” So how can we be disinterested in the OC/NC debate? I simply don’t get it. We can’t stop challenging the lie just because neither group will easily change their belief and – as the Lawman proves with his Leeds effort – will interpret ‘evidence’ in such a way as to promote their belief. Remember a lie unchallenged can become the truth. 
Finally, I’m back again to why this matters so much. I’m not even that much of a football fan these days, having been sickened a little with the whole money/business side of the game where the rich do best and are protected, exemplified by Rangers striving; cheating; failure; liquidation and ‘resurrection’. I still love the skill and the game. I’m no Rangers-hater, but I am a fan of fairness and not allowing an unfair advantage.
If we allow the lie to be perpetuated by the authorities, Rangers* would have gained a huge unfair advantage by dumping massive debt with no real detrimental impact. This MUST be balanced by the usual impact of liquidation i.e. a cessation of trade. Of course, Rangers fans will be hurt to accept they cannot add to their history and honours won because that as we know, is so vitally important to them (most successful club in the world, ha), but you know what, liquidation is supposed to hurt! 
All this appears not to matter to the forum and I can’t understand why.

View Comment

the taxman comethPosted on12:27 pm - May 16, 2016


Tlm
any closer to offering an explanation of how rifc plc own rfc how do they prove ownership and where does trfc ltd fit into all this have you been able to find rfc’s list of members or constitution yet if not why

View Comment

bluPosted on12:27 pm - May 16, 2016


WOTTPIMAY 16, 2016 at 10:01

Here is an interesting article from the Guardian at the time (July 2007) with 20 questions SFM contributors would be proud of.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2007/jul/27/leedsunitedtheunan

It still puzzles me that with that level of insight and expertise, David Conn never took on the Rangers Tax Case story. Not newsworthy for his readership? 
 
Also, if may offer an observation on what to some has been a tiresome and circular debate initiated by TLM – with the exception of the odd ad-hom directed at TLM, the responses have been robust, and the quality of contributions over the long weekend have been excellent. TLM seems like a skilled debater and he of course is going to focus on what he sees as the ‘facts’ that support his case, surely no surprise? I welcome TLM’s contribution as a challenge to what has become the settled view on this site (the process eloquently described by Cast of Thousands). It’s surely livened things up and there has been some movement towards a shared view that Scottish football’s administrators have a lot of questions to answer. I don’t think that TLM has managed to do what he hoped though and persuade the SFM readership and contributors that RFC complied fully with UEFA regs on tax debt disclosure because he can’t – in the absence of definitive evidence, he can only surmise. I’m with Auldheid, we shouldn’t accept the ‘nothing to see here’ line because everyone knows there were problems at Rangers and suspicion is justified. Resolution 12 is a possible route to clarifying that particular issue.   
 
It won’t shed any direct light on whether or not  players were improperly registered though, a bigger matter of concern, I think.   

View Comment

TBKPosted on12:29 pm - May 16, 2016


JOHN CLARKMAY 16, 2016 at 11:44
 
Indeed, I noticed that myself… 🙂 …. Which prompted me to look at Duff & Phelps submission to Companies House on 5th April 2012 and tie that up with MCR Letter 6th June 2011.

In 5.8 Duff & Phelps (the then owners of MCR) set out the timeline for MCR’s ‘negotiation’ with HMRC. They also point to “an overview of the companies financial position and assessment that the Company would be unable to continue to trade in the medium term without the introduction of third party funds or shareholder support” (*coughs – ‘going concern’)
Note the term, “and a request made for further time to assess possible new sources of income for the Company to allow time to formulate a proposal to HMRC relating to the balance of the Company’s Small Tax Case Liability”
MCR also noted that:
“the Club no longer has the benefit of a working capital facility”
“the Club and its owners are extremely mindful of the position of HMRC and its requirement to see progress and a formal repayment profile relating to the liability”

The SFA in their Assessment of overdue payables (social/tax Authorities) all of the information put to them (including the above) were quite happy to issue a license on this basis……..

 

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on12:30 pm - May 16, 2016


THE TAXMAN COMETH

 
THELAWMAN 
Completely agree EASYJAMBO hence why i tried, and ultimately failed, to stop posting on it.
For me, your post wins and ends the debate and therefore, from me, absolutely no more on the OC/NC/LEEDS issue and thats a promise this time. 

 

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on12:34 pm - May 16, 2016


BLU

 I don’t think that TLM has managed to do what he hoped though and persuade the SFM readership and contributors that RFC complied fully with UEFA regs on tax debt disclosure because he can’t

 

As previously stated, i didnt hope to persuade you that RFC complied fully, I only hoped that I could clarify the key rules and dispel the myth, which some still hold, that no licence should have been given due to the amount owed to HMRC.

View Comment

CrownStBhoyPosted on12:35 pm - May 16, 2016


Auldheid commented
“only UEFA have the power to clarify and in the interests of such clarity TLM presumably now supports Res12?”
Good luck with that one  21

View Comment

TBKPosted on12:37 pm - May 16, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 16, 2016 at 11:39

you are correct in that it must disclose the debt. If it is overdue, which it was, a written agreement (from the creditor) of the proposed settlement of that liability, is required.
Taking that into consideration and the documentation submitted to the Licensing Committee, the SFA should be able to prove that beyond doubt, shouldn’t they?

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on12:41 pm - May 16, 2016


“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.”
 Does this count?
DOS02: (15/06/2011) 
03

View Comment

bluPosted on12:45 pm - May 16, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 16, 2016 at 12:34

As previously stated, i didnt hope to persuade you that RFC complied fully, I only hoped that I could clarify the key rules and dispel the myth, which some still hold, that no licence should have been given due to the amount owed to HMRC.

OK, that’s a fine point of distinction, but we’re agreed that no-one (other than RFC?) can know whether or not it complied fully. Do you agree that the governing authority would have had to have been deaf, dumb and blind not be aware of the difficulties facing the club and should have sought clarity? 

View Comment

TBKPosted on12:45 pm - May 16, 2016


D. Assessment of overdue payables towards employees and social/ tax authorities

3. The licensor must assess all supporting documents in respect of payables to social and tax authorities in respect of contractual and legal obligations towards the licence applicants employees. In particular he must perform the following steps: 
a) Agree the recorded balance of payroll taxes as at 31 December to the payroll records of the Club.

b) If there is an amount due as 31 March that arose before the previous 31 December, examine that, by 31 March at the latest:
i) an agreement has been reached as per Annex Viii(2b); or
ii) a dispute has arisen as per Anex Viii (2c or d)

c) If applicable, examine documents, including agreements with Tax/Social Authorities and/or correspondence with the competent body, in support of b(i) and/or b(ii) above.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on1:01 pm - May 16, 2016


TBK

 you are correct in that it must disclose the debt.

 
Correct

 If it is overdue, which it was, a written agreement (from the creditor) of the proposed settlement of that liability, is required.

 

Not correct.  If a club has a written agreement, they DONT need to disclose the overdue payable.  If they dont have a written agreement, they DO need to disclose it.  Its really that simple.  Rangers were required to disclose the overdue payable on 30th June.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on1:02 pm - May 16, 2016


WOODSTEIN 

 Does this count?DOS02: (15/06/2011) 

Im not sure.  What is it ? 

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:16 pm - May 16, 2016


TheLawManMay 16, 2016 at 11:39 0 4 i Rate This 
AULDHEID
 “It did so on the basis that if a club is granted a UEFA licence it has no overdue payables to tax authorities at 31st March or 30 June” 
And this is where the Malaga principle in the TOG report, and you, are wrong.  A Club CAN be granted a UEFA licence if it has overdue payables at either or both of those dates.
==================================
Only if certain conditions apply. 
If they do then there are NO overdues payable as UEFA define them.
If the conditions don’t apply then by definition there are  overdues payable and the applicant is in breach of Indicator 4. This causes an investigation starting with request for future Financial forecasts.
That is what happened with Malaga.
Why not RFC?
One would also have to ask what is the point of either Article 50 or Article 66 if all one has to do to swerve them is to say we have overdues payable and UEFA simply ignore?
There have to be consequences of having overdue payables as UEFA define them surely? They don’t have to be ejection from the competition although that is one of the sanctions open to the CFCB.
Again Res12 does not touch on any of this and given it is up to UEFA to decide on reading what was said to them in terms of meeting the condition that no overdue payable existed do you support Res12?
Seems the only solution.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:19 pm - May 16, 2016


naegreetinMay 16, 2016 at 12:16
‘… Curious to know if Level5 pay by the hour or word for services rendered ?.’
___________
I suspect that the ‘defence of the SFA’ is being  organised by a latter-day Goebbels-type apparatchik in the bunker of the 6th Floor at Hampden!
And is, in the end, doomed to failure because based on untruths and the concealment of truth.

View Comment

RaymacPosted on1:28 pm - May 16, 2016


No matter how many angels are dancing round the head of the pin, the whole issue is down to malfeasance on the arbiters of football in Scotland. They kow towed to one club to the detriment of the rest  of the clubs, yet the attitude of the SPFL and the SFA remains one of supreme arrogance. It’s simple. if Rangers are the same club, pay your debts.

View Comment

TBKPosted on1:32 pm - May 16, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 16, 2016 at 13:01

From the documents you have seen, letter of the 5th of May 2011 from HMRC, confirms *Rangers were given 30 days to pay the agreed liability of £2,827,801.00 from the date of the letter.
There is a request for formal acceptance by 16th May 2011. There is also formal note that penalties and interest would accrue if the liability was not met under these terms.

You see the difficulty the SFA must have been in regards the issuing of the license to *Rangers, that their consultants MCR pointed to in their letter (30 Days later) of 6th June 2011, confirming:
(i) “an overview of the companies financial position and assessment that the Company would be unable to continue to trade in the medium term without the introduction of third party funds or shareholder support” , and
(ii) “the Club no longer has the benefit of a working capital facility” ,and
(iii) “the Club and its owners are extremely mindful of the position of HMRC and its requirement to see progress and a formal repayment profile relating to the liability

The SFA helpfully ignored the issue in June/ September and suggested a statement be released relating to the 31 March 2011.  Why was that?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:40 pm - May 16, 2016


nawliteMay 16, 2016 at 12:25
If TRFC win the SC it will be interesting to see how the SFA record it. If they officially make it number XX as opposed to No1 I think the whole issue will once again  erupt.
However should it be that the titles won by use of ebts that no other club could lawfully avail themselves of were withdrawn (as most believe regardless of LNS) then perhaps there might be a bit lest angst from supporters of other clubs and a reduced willingness to hold on to an officially tainted history.
in short what I’m saying is that the current position of having their cake and eating it is what really riles.

View Comment

TBKPosted on1:53 pm - May 16, 2016


Further I should note;

the letter from HMRC dated 20th May 2011, refers to correspondences on 23rd February and 16th May 2011, and within, issues a formal determination under Regulation 80. 
This is for the “deliberate failure or fraudulent behaviour of the company” that withheld Tax and NIC contributions from 2000 to 2003.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on2:01 pm - May 16, 2016


Auldheid,

Why would that be different to Div 3 winners 2013, Div 2 winners 2014, 2015 did not exist obviously, and Div 1 winners 2016.

It always struck me as odd that no-one was asking the question in May 2013. 

View Comment

MONEYBALLPosted on2:10 pm - May 16, 2016


I was glad that the recent Offshore Game Report shone the light on the LNS commission as well as other issues.
Having read through some of the LNS findings again I was reminded of just how groundless and absurd some of the conclusions appear to be. Apart from the obvious Bryson ruling there are other stretches of reasoning.
The distinction between Rangers as a club and Rangers as a company seems to be assumed without explanation. This distinction is used to make certain observations but then contradicted in aside comments.
Within the Commission’s imagined scenario where the club and company are considered apart, the LNS commission still won’t accuse the “club” part of wrong doing.
It is the board of directors of Oldco as a company, as distinct from the football management or players of Rangers FC as a club, which appears to us to bear the responsibility for the breaches of the relevant rules.
The relevant rules are sporting rules. Can it not be accepted that there was only one entity with a sole defined purpose of succeeding in the football business i.e. winning football matches.
 
The pro cycling comparison has been used extensively as an example of how rule breaking in sport is dealt with. I apologize for using it again.
If we overlay LNS findings on the Lance Armstrong scandal we have this….
 It is the board of the old USPS team performance advisors as distinct from the cyclist, which appears to us to bear the responsibility for the breaches of the relevant rules. All the breaches which we have found were therefore clearly committed by the USPS performance advisors.
We see no room or need for separate findings of breaches by the cyclist, who was not a separate legal entity and was then part (although clearly in cycling and financial terms the key part) of the undertaking of USPS performance advisors. The cyclist is of course now owned and operated by New “” team performance advisors, which bears no responsibility for the matters with which we are concerned.
For the reasons already given, we have decided against the imposition of a sporting sanction. In these circumstances the financial penalty lies only upon the Old USPS team performance advisors and does not affect Lance Armstrong as a cyclist under his new ownership.”
Would this satisfy sports fans?

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on2:17 pm - May 16, 2016


BLU

 OK, that’s a fine point of distinction, but we’re agreed that no-one (other than RFC?) can know whether or not it complied fully. Do you agree that the governing authority would have had to have been deaf, dumb and blind not be aware of the difficulties facing the club and should have sought clarity? 

Im not agreed on that im afraid.  Rangers, the SFA and UEFA will all know at this point in time if Rangers complied fully.  I accept though that back in June 2011, it would only have been the club.  Again, bare in mind though that the SFA’s duty for the 30th June deadline is to gather the submission, reports and financial statements then send it to UEFA.  UEFA then have the chance to audit the information and the SFA have subsequently stated UEFA carried out an audit that season. 

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:21 pm - May 16, 2016


SmugasMay 16, 2016 at 14:01 0 0 i Rate This 
Auldheid,
Why would that be different to Div 3 winners 2013, Div 2 winners 2014, 2015 did not exist obviously, and Div 1 winners 2016.
It always struck me as odd that no-one was asking the question in May 2013. 
+++++++++++++++++
I’m not sure I got your point but had RFC in their history been relegated then won promotion then presumably any title earned would have been either another one to add to the pile or a first one on basis it had not been won before?

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on2:26 pm - May 16, 2016


AULDHEID

 If the conditions don’t apply then by definition there are  overdues payable and the applicant is in breach of Indicator 4. This causes an investigation starting with request for future Financial forecasts.That is what happened with Malaga.Why not RFC?

 

It doesnt “cause an investigation” it “creates a requirement” to provide a future forecast.  This is then sent to UEFA along with the disclosure and reasoning for the overdue payable.  Can you categorically state this was not provided ?

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on2:31 pm - May 16, 2016


AULDHEID

 Only if certain conditions apply. If they do then there are NO overdues payable as UEFA define them.

 

This is still wrong and im really surprised re your continuing stance on this given your background on Res 12 tbh.

For the avoidance of all doubt.Liverpool FC have overdue tax of £3m.
They disclose this on 30th June to the FA
They send the details of why it is overdue
They provide a future forecast as per Article 62
They can get a licence.
There is no requirement for an “investigation” though UEFA investigatory Body can choose to audit it and investigate should they wish.
They need to update on 30th September the current position.
There is no requirement to meet conditions a,b,c and/or d of Article 60.

View Comment

TBKPosted on2:37 pm - May 16, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 16, 2016 at 14:26″Can you categorically state this was not provided ?”

I can. For the reasons I have already set out. 

View Comment

TBKPosted on2:40 pm - May 16, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 16, 2016 at 14:31
as we are theorising, heres one to consider.
*Rangers FC have overdue tax of £3m.They disclose this on 30th June to the SFAThey send spurious details of why it is overdueThey don’t provide an accurate future forecast as per Article 62They still get a licence.

View Comment

bluPosted on2:41 pm - May 16, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 16, 2016 at 14:17 
BLU
 OK, that’s a fine point of distinction, but we’re agreed that no-one (other than RFC?) can know whether or not it complied fully. Do you agree that the governing authority would have had to have been deaf, dumb and blind not be aware of the difficulties facing the club and should have sought clarity? 
Im not agreed on that im afraid.  Rangers, the SFA and UEFA will all know at this point in time if Rangers complied fully.  I accept though that back in June 2011, it would only have been the club.  Again, bare in mind though that the SFA’s duty for the 30th June deadline is to gather the submission, reports and financial statements then send it to UEFA.  UEFA then have the chance to audit the information and the SFA have subsequently stated UEFA carried out an audit that season. 

Thanks for responding thelawman. So it’s possible that RFC said at 31st March and 30th June, “Everything’s fine”‘ the SFA forwarded this to UEFA, UEFA audited the process – i.e. the SFA’s record-keeping and that was all the boxes ticked? Nothing further to concern us here, no issues for 30th September deadline?

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on2:43 pm - May 16, 2016


TBK – How so?

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on2:49 pm - May 16, 2016


BLU 

 Thanks for responding thelawman. So it’s possible that RFC said at 31st March and 30th June, “Everything’s fine”‘ the SFA forwarded this to UEFA, UEFA audited the process – i.e. the SFA’s record-keeping and that was all the boxes ticked? Nothing further to concern us here, no issues for 30th September deadline?

 

Apologies in advance but i think this is now the 4th time i have said this in the last 48 hours.  Nobody on here can confirm if Rangers disclosed that overdue payable on the 30th June.  I am 99.9% certain they did for 3 reasons.

1)  Ken Olvermans email said he was disclosing it……. COUNTER(that doesnt mean he did)

2)  There was no reason NOT to disclose it because the rules allowed them to…….. COUNTER(that doesnt mean he did)

3)  UEFA have been getting hammered by emails, mail and phone calls on this for years and its my belief they would have looked at the file by now to check it out………….COUNTER(doesnt mean they did)

For the above 3 reasons, i believe it was disclosed and the requirements according to the rules were met and subsequent audits proved everything to be fine.  I STILL accept though that it may not have been disclosed and that no-one on here can say for definite either way.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:04 pm - May 16, 2016


TheLawManMay 15, 2016 at 15:05 
CASTOFTHOUSANDS – Thanks for the words. I do have a question for you and all other posters though and i BEG, yes BEG,  you to all take a step bag and try to be impartial on this silly question.  
Imagine the scenario, JJ was being sued for libel and his identity was about to break tomorrow and you were absolutely forced to stick your every asset and last penny on an even money silly bet, would you seriously bet your last dime on JJ being a Rangers fan or a Non Rangers fan.
There has been lots of deletions of information and telling words/language that would make my mind up.  Never mind Even money, i would take 1/50 on him being NOT rather than 5000/1 on him supporting Rangers.
___________________________
TLM,

I can fully understand your questioning JJ’s Rangers Supporter credentials, he certainly doesn’t come across as a member of the WATP mentality that is the usual hallmark of Rangers bloggers. The thing is, though, there is nothing in your post that makes it clear what the point is that you are trying to make. Is it that just because he isn’t a Rangers supporter that we shouldn’t believe anything of what he says? Are you suggesting that only Rangers supporters could possibly be correct in anything to do with their club? Or are you just making a random dig at someone who is quite ‘vocal’ of his disdain for you?

Since the start of his blog, when he was particularly scathing of, and full of warnings to fellow supporters to beware, King, I have made the point that whether or not what he says is 100% accurate, all Rangers supporters should pay heed to him, and examine what he says from all angles other than from the belief that no Real Rangers Man – like King – would lie to them.

Whatever the Rangers status of JJ, it bears no value on this blog, where, ‘JJ says…’ holds no bearing on our general position. He does, though, like you have done, provide us with subject matter to debate.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on3:15 pm - May 16, 2016


ALLYJAMBO

 
The thing is, though, there is nothing in your post that makes it clear what the point is that you are trying to make

I was simply replying to this point made to me:
 

 Though we have and have had contributors of a Blue persuasion offer their views (I think JJ’s pseudonym of ‘sitonfence’ posted on RTC) it is not often we are appraised of such detailed and well rehearsed arguments. We have latched onto his contributions hungrily but he is not the whole world. He is just one man (we presume) making his point of view known. He should not be expected to have all the answers. None of us do.

 

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on3:23 pm - May 16, 2016


TheLawMan
May 16, 2016 at 13:02
 
DOS02: (15/06/2011) 
To: Board of Directors
From: Kenneth Olverman
Date: 15 June 2011
Confirmation  of  HMRC meeting 11/05/2011
May Management Accounts
Other Matters
Tax
a) Discounted Option Scheme
A meeting took place with HMRC on 11 May. The meeting was attended by Donald McIntyre and Stephen Clancy and David Grier of MCR. HMRC will not allow the position of the £2.8m to drift, and may consider the penalty position if this was to occur. A payment to account would be taken into consideration in assessing the level of penalty loading.
The desire from MCR’s point of view is to wrap the DOS and the Remuneration Trust settlement into one.

*  RFC Management accounts don’t account for any settlement until 2012.

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on3:23 pm - May 16, 2016


OK folks, we’ve been round the block a few times here. Lawman is 99.999% sure that RFC were innocent. Most of the rest of us are 99.999% for the same reasons, that they aren’t.

On the licencing issue, compelling as Lawman is, he hasn’t the same grasp of the issue – or paid as much attention to the detail – as Auldheid. Not saying he can’t be right, but as somebody said before, I can’t be sure Australia exists either as I have never been there.

That said, I’m putting my money on the TOG report. The rest is just wishful thinking.

To test these competing hypotheses, I am sure most of us see the wisdom in demanding ALL of our clubs draw a line under it immediately by establishing an independent inquiry into the allegations in the report. Until that happens, let us draw a line under it.

Anyone disagree that there should be an inquiry? 

View Comment

TBKPosted on3:27 pm - May 16, 2016


TLM, I refer back to my post at 13:32.

Whilst it is noted Wavetower bought the controlling interest in *Rangers Fc on the 6th May 2011, MCR confirm in their letter of 6th June 2011;
(i) “an overview of the Companies financial position and assessment that the Company would be unable to continue to trade in the medium term without the introduction of third party funds or shareholder support”.

You would agree it is simple for the SFA to be able to confirm the assurances were given by *Rangers that the submitted forecasts negated this at 30 June.

(ii) “the Club no longer has the benefit of a working capital facility” 

You would agree it is simple for the SFA to be able to confirm that proof were given by *Rangers that the current standing of the Club and its agreement with the Bank negated this at 30 June.

(iii) “the Club and its owners are extremely mindful of the position of HMRC and its requirement to see progress and a formal repayment profile relating to the liability”
You would agree it is simple for the SFA to be able to confirm the documentation they were given by *Rangers that the agreed liability had an agreed (in writing) payment schedule and was not a material affect to the financial forecasts also submitted at 30 June.

I still note that the SFA ignored the issue in June/ September and suggested a statement be released relating to the 31 March 2011………Why was that?

Is that a reasonable question to ask?

View Comment

TBKPosted on3:29 pm - May 16, 2016


TRISIDIUMMAY 16, 2016 at 15:23

I believe that IS what is required as there are far too many questions that remain unanswered. 

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on3:41 pm - May 16, 2016


TRISIDIUM

 OK folks, we’ve been round the block a few times here. Lawman is 99.999% sure that RFC were innocent. Most of the rest of us are 99.999% for the same reasons, that they aren’t.

 

I have to take issue with the inference above and attempt to, in my opinion, bring implied morality into it.

Im 99.99% sure that Rangers complied with the regulations of Article 66 and Annex VIII of the UEFA FFP Guidelines.

Im leaving the moral issue of “innocence” aside as to bring that into this debate then we would need to consider some circumstantial evidence of Tax avoidance and to a much greater extent Direct evidence of systemic Tax Evasion in Scottish football over the last 30+ years by more than Rangers. 

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on4:03 pm - May 16, 2016


THELAWMAN
MAY 16, 2016 at 15:41
 

TRISIDIUM

 OK folks, we’ve been round the block a few times here. Lawman is 99.999% sure that RFC were innocent. Most of the rest of us are 99.999% for the same reasons, that they aren’t.
 

I have to take issue with the inference above and attempt to, in my opinion, bring implied morality into it.

Im 99.99% sure that Rangers complied with the regulations of Article 66 and Annex VIII of the UEFA FFP Guidelines.

Im leaving the moral issue of “innocence” aside as to bring that into this debate then we would need to consider some circumstantial evidence of Tax avoidance and to a much greater extent Direct evidence of systemic Tax Evasion in Scottish football over the last 30+ years by more than Rangers. 

Take as much issue as you like Lawman. The question isn’t one of morality, it’s of illegality.  If you are saying that we should ignore what happened at Ibrox because they were they only ones daft enough to get caught, then your moral compass is spinning in a rather random fashion – but let us see the evidence you speak of..

I think Bill McMurdo said he had evidence of impropriety/tax/evasion/bungs etc. Perhaps you can enlighten us where didn’t.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:08 pm - May 16, 2016


I have to take issue with the inference above and attempt to, in my opinion, bring implied morality into it.
Im 99.99% sure that Rangers complied with the regulations of Article 66 and Annex VIII of the UEFA FFP Guidelines. 
Im leaving the moral issue of “innocence” aside as to bring that into this debate then we would need to consider some circumstantial evidence of Tax avoidance and to a much greater extent Direct evidence of systemic Tax Evasion in Scottish football over the last 30+ years by more than Rangers.

 

To paraphrase someone who wrote a blog once – If you fail to disclose contractual obligations with regards to registration requirements then you break the rules.  If you fully disclose those arrangements and thus meet said rules but then decide the better for paying tax on them anyway then you break a basic understanding of tax liability (I avoided the use of the word “rules”, or “law” as I know exactly where that would have gone).  You don’t kinda meet them both.  Not outwith Hampden.
  

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on4:10 pm - May 16, 2016


Apologies for the post removal TBK, but I think we are in full time troll alert now. That’s around four days and industrial-level 200 posts of latitude which regretfully has come to an end.

I always start off hopeful that someone new will come good, and many of us have given him the benefit of the doubt too, but again our welcome has been taken advantage of.

There is no place for arrogance on SFM, and one poster shouldn’t be hijacking the agenda by ignoring questions put to him and pursuing a narrow route.

If Lawman returns with a fresh attitude and acceptance that there are different points of view from his, he will be welcome.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on4:11 pm - May 16, 2016


TRISIDIUM 

 Take as much issue as you like Lawman. The question isn’t one of morality, it’s of illegality.  If you are saying that we should ignore what happened at Ibrox because they were they only ones daft enough to get caught, then your moral compass is spinning in a rather random fashion – but let us see the evidence you speak of..

 

Im not asking anyone to ignore anything and I would happily stick to the facts around Article 50,66 and Annex VIII.  However when emotive terms such as “innocent” are used, and to be fair, since a lot of the barriers have been coming down over the last 7 days, it often turns to a question of morality rather than strict regulations, then i have avoided getting dragged in.

As read in John 8-7 “Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone”  

View Comment

TBKPosted on4:14 pm - May 16, 2016


TRISIDIUMMAY 16, 2016 at 16:10

Understood sir! Standing down 🙂

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on4:15 pm - May 16, 2016


Since we ‘re still postulating, what if RFC(IL) filled in the form accurately and it was modified by someone else to ensure compliance with UEFA requirements . Plausible ?
The reason that I mentioned Parma earlier was that ,in one of their incarnations, they were denied a European licence due to the late payment of income tax on salaries.Ring any bells ?

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on4:16 pm - May 16, 2016


I think I will now lie down for a time 🙂

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:23 pm - May 16, 2016


Keeping well out of the ongoing debate…

Just a general observation which got me thinking, what with the continuing defence of the indefensible, wrt TRFC and the support of the SFA, and SPFL, etc. 

What has been the opportunity cost to Scottish football as a result of the SFA/SPFL, deciding to choose to support one club, seemingly without regard to the potential impact on the 41 other senior clubs – and their fans ?

We have seen Doncaster have some difficulties with obtaining sponsors for the leagues, we know the TV deals have been poor in relation to other ‘minor’ Euro leagues, and presumably there has already been a ‘Net’ impact on attendances at games / sale of ST’s – nevermind potential loss of support for the national team as money generated goes into the SFA’s coffers.

Where would Scottish football be today if the SFA and SPL/SFL had followed their own rules properly following RFC administration and the revelation of the EBT’s and the concealment of players’ full contracts ?

It’s all hypothetical of course, but it would be interesting to be able to somehow quantify that e.g. since 2012 the actions of RFC/TRFC/SFA/SPFL have cost the whole of Scottish football GBP X Millions ?  
[And has there been any negative impact at grass roots level as well ?]

The whole Scottish game has undeniably suffered because of ‘one’ club’s actions – and enabled by a bent Hampden governance.  

The average punter/Bampot should be able to agree with that assertion, IMO – even TRFC fans !
   

View Comment

TBKPosted on4:24 pm - May 16, 2016


has anyone looked at the financial forecast from MCR 6th June? It specifically notes a figure of £5.344m at 17th June.

Would it be rude to ask what this payment was for?

View Comment

bluPosted on4:31 pm - May 16, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 16, 2016 at 14:49

Thanks for clarifying. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:42 pm - May 16, 2016


TheLawManMay 16, 2016 at 15:15

Thanks for yet another response.

I now see that you were answering another post, but don’t see the connection with what you say about JJ and the content of CoT’s post. It seems to me that CoT was merely using JJ as an example to demonstrate how other well thought out and presented posts by Rangers/TRFC supporters are accepted and debated here. I don’t see the relevance of your attack on JJ in that context. The fact is we accept what JJ, as a Rangers supporter, says, and debate it, then accept or discard it, on it’s merits (as we see them); though, he too, didn’t take too well to us not taking his every word as gospel.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:42 pm - May 16, 2016


TrisidiumMay 16, 2016 at 15:23 

To test these competing hypotheses, I am sure most of us see the wisdom in demanding ALL of our clubs draw a line under it immediately by establishing an independent inquiry into the allegations in the report. Until that happens, let us draw a line under it.
Anyone disagree that there should be an inquiry?
========================
Makes sense to me. 

View Comment

Comments are closed.