The Real Battle Begins?

Avatar ByTrisidium

The Real Battle Begins?

The increasing attacks on social media by the main stream press, fuelled in some respect by David Murray’s vague threats of litigation against bloggers, has brought into sharp focus the challenges facing the Blogosphere. It also brings into even sharper focus the prescience of Stuart Cosgrove’s assertion that this summer’s ‘epistemological break’  had begun to marginalize the Scottish sporting wing of the MSM.

The reality of that assertion is embedded in the misreporting of the FTT decision as a victory for RFC, falsely alleging that those who operated the EBT scheme had been exonerated, that RFC had ‘done nothing wrong’, and consequently accusing ‘vindictive anti-Rangers bloggers’ of playing a part in the downfall of that once great Scottish institution. It is also evident in Tom English’s rather bitter and one-dimensional anti-RTC polemic today in the Scotland on Sunday. Had it been entitled “Self Preservation”, it may have rung a few more truth bells.

I am not of the belief that the MSM is an instinctively pro-Rangers estate, but I do think that their reportage of the FTT is more geared towards discrediting the newly emergent forces in the social media area than it is towards rehabilitating the public image of RFC or David Murray.

However despite the contempt in which many people here hold the MSM and Murray, English does have a point that we would be foolish to ignore. No-one can deny that we do have a duty to ensure that we are responsible in how we present ourselves to the public. Now that our (and others’) success as a real and creative alternative has spurred the MSM into action, we are subject to greater scrutiny than at any time in the past. Our view is that we have to be pro-actively engaged in setting a standard for ourselves that is above those that the MSM have set for themselves.

We have on TSFM an audience exponentially greater than the number of posts. That presents us with a great opportunity to get our message across, but it also burdens us with an increased responsibility not to fall into the trap which has besought the Succulent Lamb Brigade.

We are a very different animal from RTC. RTC him or herself had information and insight to bring to the table that the administrators of this site do not. The founder and former admin of TSFM had the idea that the talent available from posters on the RTC – not just RTC himself – should continue to have a forum in a post-RTC world, and that those talents could be used to challenge the myths regularly represented as facts by lazy journalists in the MSM.

We have at our disposal on this blog forensic analysis of legal, media and corporate matters. We have an abundance of creative minds, all passionate about the game of football AS WELL AS a partisan love for their chosen club. With all that talent and expertise, we can make an impact on the agenda by challenging the misinformation and substandard journalism of the MSM, and our finest moments are when we do that. We lose authority and influence when the debate is impeded by bald accusation or innuendo backed up with little more than an historical view of our country.

Our biggest impact (and largest audience) is to be found when when our experts have collectively torn apart those myths presented as truths by the MSM, and when we have asked the questions that the MSM either can’t or won’t ask or answer. Those are the things that have driven the traffic to this site, and many of the emails we get congratulate us on that.

Our credibility plummets though when we go down the partisan path. We also get literally hundreds of emails from fans who ask that we cut down on the comments of those who are merely venting outrage at how they see the game being mismanaged (mainly so they can access the important stuff more quickly), and from fans who are just fed up with the constant name-calling – almost exclusively aimed at Ally McCoist and other Rangers figures.

If we claim to be an intellectual and journalistic rung or two above the likes of the Red Tops (not to mention to be decent and respectful of others), we need to refrain from the name calling and accusatory culture. We can ask questions, put items for debate on the public agenda, point out apparent irregularities and anomalies. In rushing to judgement of others from the comfort of the glow of our own laptop screens, we are guilty of the same lazy journalism we see in others. Name calling (all good fun of course on a fan site) is just a lazy thought process and as English says, comes across as “nasty”.

We never saw RTC as a fan-site. The original administrator of this blog never saw TSFM as one either, and nor do we. In order to succeed properly, we need sensible fans of ALL clubs to be comfortable and feel secure in our midst. Of course we are not breaking any laws, but can anyone honestly say that we have evolved into a welcoming place for Rangers fans?

TSFM is not about hounding any one club out of existence or into shame or infamy. In the Rangers saga we have sought to ensure that the football authorities play fair with everyone and stick to their own rules. One well kent RTC contributor, and no friend of Rangers, often said that if the FTT found in favour of Rangers we should move along and accept it. Well they did find in favour of Rangers in the majority of cases. That may not suit many of us, but we are the Scottish Football Monitor, not a Judicial Watchdog. We can say why we disagree with the decision, but criticism of the process through which the decision was arrived at is beyond our purview.

Since the accusation is often made in the MSM, we should state, unequivocally and unreservedly, that we are NOT anti-Rangers. Their fans face the same issues as the rest of us and they are welcome here. We are however, equally unequivocally against the gravy train journalism of the Scottish Football Wing of the MSM (with one or two honourable exceptions).

If the Anti-Blogateers in the press are correct, the popularity of the TSFM will recede as the Rangers Tax case reverts to the back pages before disappearing for good. However I do not believe that they are correct. I don’t believe that Scottish football fans are only motivated by either hatred – or even dislike – of one club. I believe we are more concerned with the game itself than the pot-stirrers in the MSM would have us believe, because we understand the interdependence of football clubs.

But we also understand that the people who run football clubs do not always run their clubs for the benefit of the fans. In the business world, that may not be out of the ordinary, since businesses are run for the benefit of shareholders.
However football reserves for itself a special place in the hearts of people in this country. If the people who run football clubs want to retain that favourable status, they have to be accountable to the fans.

The difficulty in holding them to account though, is that the cosy relationship cultivated between club directors, managers and players and the press renders the access to information a closed shop, and the information itself is heavily filtered and spun.

As long as we keep asking questions in response to the fruit of that cosy relationship, we will be providing people with an alternative angle and viewpoint, allowing them to come to their own conclusions, and not the one the MSM post-presser huddle delivers to us wrapped up in a bow.

For the SFM specifically, we believe that to have any influence, we need to enable the expertise at our disposal to flourish. It is also vital to our project that Rangers fans are included in our dialogue. We just can’t call ourselves the Scottish Football Monitor if they are largely excluded from participation because they feel they are being treated disrespectfully.

We can’t tolerate the accusations and name calling. We need to stick to what we have done best; factual analysis, conjecture based on known facts and on-line discourse leading to searching questions being asked.

One of the things we are looking at for the near future is to set up some kind of formal and transparent channel of communication between the SFM and the football authorities. Being truly representative of fans will make that easier to achieve.

The MSM will continue to attack the social media outlets. In one way you can understand it. Their jobs are at stake. The business model of the print media in particular has changed massively over the last five years, manifesting itself mainly in increasingly under-resourced newsrooms. Consequently it is besought by increasingly unreliable and under-researched journalism, even to the point where much of it is no longer journalism at all.

By comparison the Blogosphere has access to greater human and time resources, is able to react to unfolding events in real time, and crucially (because it has been eschewed instead of embraced by print media proprietors) has been occupied by ordinary folk with little or no vested interest.

We are still in position to provide a service in our small niche of the on-line world. We have rights to publish and speak freely about our passion, but we also have to live up to the attendant responsibilities, and thus the appeal for discretion on posting comments.

Where Tom English got it completely wrong (in the uniquely ironic way the MSM have about them), is that his industry has mistaken the rights others have earned for them as entitlement, and ignored almost completely the responsibility they had to act on behalf of those who pay their wages.

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

3,018 Comments so far

Avatar

Johnbhoy75 (@Johnbhoy75)Posted on11:02 pm - Nov 25, 2012


Blah blah blah, the usual I’m a troll for voicing an opinion contrary to the accepted wisdom on this site.

To answer the question posted by a couple of posters above; When you invest in a venture capital trust, that fund invests in a portfolio of qualifying companies, so the investment is never in one or two Ticketus companies but is spread across fifty or so of them.

View Comment

Avatar

nostarsandbarredPosted on11:07 pm - Nov 25, 2012


Tom English – is a member of the MSM; whilst he has managed to be a voice of reason in some cases, he, and others, would never miss the opportunity to “kick them when they are down” re the internet bampots; however this is disguised, its exactly what is expected IMO. The MSM are in a self-preservation mode; and they don’t like it when their own inadequacies when exposed.

The MSM will continue with the illl-informed analysis, the selective quotes, the “my source understands” claptrap which they have been peddling for years.

Just as well we have TSFM, following on from RTC. Just as well; because the MSM have failed repeatedly to provide any worthwhile analysis throughout, which has been provided here.

MSM; you are going down; and you know it – tough to take ? maybe you should start being more like journalists, and doing your job.

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on11:25 pm - Nov 25, 2012


martybhoy says:
Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 22:44
3 2 Rate This
Johnbhoy75; Thou doth prostesteth too much……Your pseudonym is random…..your trolling is obvious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A strange hypothesis. The randomness or otherwise of pseudonym to troll ratio is something I’d love you to expand on. What do you make of Goosygoosy for instance? Where does that pseudonym feature on the randomometer? And what is his/her troll factor?

View Comment

Avatar

misterhooperPosted on11:26 pm - Nov 25, 2012


Great article, first response is to agree with the name calling problem. Its lame.

View Comment

Avatar

AgrajagPosted on11:29 pm - Nov 25, 2012


I think that people sometimes forget that short of rangers demise Ticketus would actually have made a lot of money.

They bought season tickets at something like 75% of face value, in some instances less. Those tickets would then have been sold at face value with them getting the proceeds.

They stood to get a return of something like £40m for the £27m or so they put in. They actually do it all the time, and even did it with Rangers before. The fans just weren’t aware of it. They were paying their season ticket money to Ticketus, because the club had already taken advances against it to get them to the season ticket window. The tickets were sold by the club in the normal way, ensuring the fans were unaware.

They also thought that their tickets survived liquidation, because they were for games played at Ibrox. Not loans and debts which they would lose as creditors, advance purchases of season tickets for a sporting stadium. It was the Court of Session who told them that didn’t work in Scotland.

Once the period of time (of the season tickets) was over the business would simply be liquidated and the cash divided up amongst the investors. I believe that has to be a 5 year minimum in order for the tax breaks to remain. So after the four years they could simply leave the company dormant for a year. The “cash up”. That way the investors get the benefit of the tax breaks (because of the nature of the business) but at the same time make a profit on their “investment”.

Read the Court of Session ruling. They genuinely believed the administration / liquidation did not effect them as they were not creditors. Duff and Phelps had to make them one or there was no point in new Rangers even starting out. They would have to sell c£10m of season tickets every season (for 4 seasons) before they made a penny for the club.

As I understand it Ticketus did not lodge a claim as a creditor. Quite safe in this instance as the result would have been a nil return anyway.

View Comment

Avatar

slimshady61Posted on11:43 pm - Nov 25, 2012


hangerhead says:
Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 22:55
———————————————-
So would David Murray have been better pursuing the Sark-Lark rather than the
Jersey-BearsEBT

Discuss,,,

View Comment

Avatar

selfassessorPosted on11:49 pm - Nov 25, 2012


Regardless of the result of the FTT(T), you’ve got to ask yourself, was what they did with EBTs fair an honourable; was it Marquis of Queensbury’s?

I don’t think it was and I don’t think any honest minded person in this universe would ever think it was.

If they can sleep with a clear conscious then I don’t know what kind of people they are.

Goodnight.

View Comment

Avatar

timtimPosted on11:52 pm - Nov 25, 2012


You know what really sticks in the craw of certain members of our MSM
the fact that the people picked up the gauntlet ,shook it at the Blazers
and won!
Without RTC TSFM and many other bampot sites Rfc* would have been plying their trade
in the SPL or Div 1 at worst and Craig Whyte would never have been exposed as the charlatan
he was long before he decided to avoid tax and NI .
Their behaviour since the 2-1 verdict shows us they havent learned anything in fact they have got worse. They have resorted to attacking us which suits me just fine
First they ignored us ,then they laughed at us ,now they fight us -then we win
Mr English you have lost your dignity ,Mr Traynor you never had it to lose
The trucculent bampots will fight you with the facts and defeat you with the rule book
the moral victory was won long ago

View Comment

Avatar

SeniorPosted on11:53 pm - Nov 25, 2012


Originally, When I was trolling (sic) trawling on-line through all the flotsam of the RFC,IL shenanigans I, daily access the following on-line newspapers, The Herald, The DR, The Sun, etc., also the BBC, STV. After I discovered RTC and latterly TSFM I have, honestly, not once visited any of the above to get an update on the current situation. Does that not say it all as regard the future of, in particular, the MSM.
There are thousands of old foggies like myself entering the 21st century as far as the information era is concerned, while the MSM are still setting their pages in lead type.

View Comment

Avatar

nickmcguinnessPosted on11:59 pm - Nov 25, 2012


RE: Johnboy75 (no relation!):

Did someone not post, a month or so ago, a breakdown of the flow of funds into the Ticketus 2 scheme that showed a sudden influx of over £20m immediately preceding the signing of the deal with Whyte?
It begged the question of whether that sum may have come from a single source, or a number of related sources.
If so, this would make a nonsense of the calculation for individual losses.
And would suggest that if there was one funder totally committed to this one transaction, that they had a very compelling reason to still be involved in efforts to recoup that cash.
The almost continual involvement of Ticketus in the early stages of the administration/takeover at RFC PLC (as reported in the press) would suggest they were less than sanguine about their losses.
The fact that their public profile evaporated the moment Green’s gang appeared on the scene has also rung alarm bells.
So, anyway, Johnboy, as you’re the expert, answer me this:
Is it possible that an investor in a Ticketus-type scheme could have a personal input into where is investment is, er, invested?

View Comment

Avatar

selfassessorPosted on12:03 am - Nov 26, 2012


timtim on Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 23:52

Timtim, I think it would be surprising not to find some CFC bias on these and RTC pages given their percentage support amongst non TRFC clubs in Scotland.

That said, I have found out far more of real value from these blogs than any Scottish media source; which makes me worried about any independance reporting from MSM.

Bhetter together, says a lifelong bhoy and taxpayer.

View Comment

Avatar

The GlenPosted on12:05 am - Nov 26, 2012


Right off the bat I’ll admit to being a Rangers “sympathiser” – I grew up a Rangers fan and went to Ibrox and away matches for years as an impressionable 8 year old till, I would guess, 14. I loved going to Ibrox. I still count myself as a fan, despite not having been to a game for many years. Mainly due to family and other interests, but also because I found myself disagreeing with a lot of the stuff I heard coming from the terraces. Much of which I had participated in, I’m ashamed to say.

That was then and this is now.

Here’s my thoughts on where we are in 2012.

FTT result: In a legal sense this is a victory for MIH and Rangers. Albeit a partial one. It seems that in the vast majority of cases, RFC have been found not guilty of illegality concerning the EBT years. 2 of the learned persons decided this. One dissented. That, in a strictly legal sense, I would argue, is a victory.

Do I, or anyone with half a brain think that the EBT’s were set up for anything other than paying players higher wages than the club could possibly afford? No. Clearly not. But, the point is, 2 persons with much greater legal acumen then I have decided that, on the evidence provided, it cannot be proven that that is the case.

Did RFC “cheat” by employing this strategy? Certainly the players on the park did not. But should some of those players even have been on the park? Certainly 5 of them should not judging by the comments in the FTT result. But that is a matter which has still to be dealt with. And, indeed, it may be that HMRC will appeal the result and ALL EBT will be shown to have been a “sham”. But that is for another day.

As an aside, I find it interesting that RFC fans are happy to accept the majority verdict but, in the other camp, we have non RFC fans who are happy to accept the minority point of view from the dissenting member. If the decision had gone 2-1 against RFC, I can imagine their fans quoting the “losing” opinion would have been given short shrift here.

If I was a fan of a club other than RFC, I too would be angry that, so far, they seem to have “gotten away with it”. So I understand the anger towards RFC. But being angry does not make FTT decision wrong.

As a decent human being (hopefully!) am I disapointed that RFC had to employ this strategy? Of course. I would like to think that we are all honest enough to pay the correct tax on our earnings. Especially millionaire footballers. But, for the moment, RFC have not been found guilty of tax evasion for the majority of thier playing staff. That seems to be the facts. Sorry.

SPL investigation: If RFC have been found to have either played illegaly registered players or they have made undisclosed payments to players, should those games they played in be noted as a 0-3 defeat? Of course. I would expect nothing less. I would certainly expect it if it was any other team. Without doing the math, I would imagine that certain legue titles and cup victories should be removed from the RFC honours. Again, as a Rangers fan, I would want to see them removed from any other club who were found guilty of the same crime. As to who they should be awarded to, I have no great opinion. Is there any point now? I would suggest that the history books show that various honours were removed from the “winners”.

TRFC 2012: Are they the same team as the team founded 140 years ago? Legally, I would guess not. But, as many people have pointed out, a football team is what you carry in your heart. They are still the same team to me. I’m sorry if that doesn’t suit anyone else’s viewpoint. I don’t care how many titles and cups Rangers have won – and how many they may lose – but there is still a team playing in the same colours, in the same stadium, so I am happy to accept that. Should they win the 3rd division Title, will it be thier first League honour or their 55th? TBH, I don’t care. As long as it’s Rangers, then I’m happy.

Should they even be in the 3rd Division? By the letter of the SFA rules, probably not. But they are. And that’s where we are in 2012. I have to accept that. Maybe some other people do too. You maybe don’t like it, but it is what it is. I would imagine you can email, phone, txt, fax, write to every other team/ruling body in the world, but you wont change that. Sorry.

RTC/STFM anti Rangers: In the last few months of RTC it did feel like that (I did post there, and, although there was no great negative reaction to my posts, there was an overwhelming feeling of it being a bit of a Rangers hate-fest – sorry). TSFM – virtually no Rangers fans post here. I wouldn’t say that that is a fact, but it seems to be to be obvious. If TSFM wants to be all things to all fans, then it needs Rangers fans here. That much is obvious.

One things that does annoy me is the constant posting of what is going on on RM and FF. I’m a Rangers fan. I have many friends who are Rangers fans. Season ticket holders and everything, honest! None of them post on either of those sites. And none of them hold the same views as the majority of posters there seem to. But it is somehow seen as symptomatic as to what is wrong with Rangers and how it is acceptable to vilify the entire fan base of a football club. Who do they actually represent? 0.02 of the support? It just seems to be used as an excuse to tar all Rangers fans with the same brush.

Rangers are where they are. There are 40,000+ people (minus free tickets, of course) going along to watch football matches at Ibrox every week. That shows that the fans still have the same love for the club. Whether you think it is for the right reasons, then that is your opinion.

But, as I have no doubt said before, we are where we are. Like it or not, you can’t turn the clock back, as much as I’m sure we would all like to.

So, to finish. I have written this as a Rangers fan. Although I don’t have as much invested in the club as the real fans who turn up every week, I am one of those millions that CG sees as vital to the clubs future. I will no doubt be seen as some sort of sell-out on the some of the clubs internet forums. But, remember, they are not the majority of the fans of the club.

PS. I have written this in Notepad, in a hurry, so please excuse the lack of spell-chekking…..

View Comment

Avatar

doontheslopePosted on12:38 am - Nov 26, 2012


Theglen2012

Thanks for the effort you put into that.

But there is a lot of cognitive dissonance on display there.

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on12:45 am - Nov 26, 2012


I see there is now a thrust of posts suggesting that this site needs to be less ‘anti-Rangers’…

In my opinion when you discuss the wide ranging issues that Rangers Football Club PLC (now liquidated) created..there are those that will see this as some how Anti-Rangers…which in many cases it is nothing of the sort…

The problem with attracting fans of a club that have been liquidated is they have been fed a very explosive cocktail of misinformation and in some cases lies…combine this with a very robust and at times an ugly and unforgivable threatening attitude towards anyone that has had the duty to make fair and impartial decisions on issues they have been found wanting on… is it any wonder there are precious few who want to venture onto this blog…

When they have come on in the past they have been welcomed to the debate…but it soon vanishes as the odds are stacked against them…

Is it wrong to condemn behaviour and actions that are wrong and in some cases appaling…or do we file that under anti behaviour…

There have been some fairly nasty and at times shocking things to come out of this and it seems to me that in order to shut people up and allow things to go undiscussed…it is described by some as ‘anti-rangers’…utter guff!

We had long standing Hearts fans on this site who were willing to discuss the tax issue at their club…and was done so without anyone being accused of being ‘anti-Hearts’..

There is nothing better to create a cause of injustice…and a togetherness than to promote the idea of an anti agenda against your club…that’s what appear to be witnessing right now…

View Comment

Avatar

The GlenPosted on12:49 am - Nov 26, 2012


doontheslope says:

Thanks for the effort you put into that.

But there is a lot of cognitive dissonance on display there.
——————
No worries.

TSFM, and other posters, noted than a couple and Rangers voices might be welcomed to the debate.

So I added my thoughts. Take it or leave it.

I have no idea what “cognitive dissonance” is, so hopefully posters will take my post for what it was. A football fan posting his views on his club. Without delving into any form of Psychological evaluation.

View Comment

Avatar

The GlenPosted on12:53 am - Nov 26, 2012


paulmac2 says:

“There is nothing better to create a cause of injustice…and a togetherness than to promote the idea of an anti agenda against your club…that’s what appear to be witnessing right now…”

Hopefully my post does not fit this agenda. I simply posted my thoughts.

There is no agenda from me.

View Comment

Avatar

stmileyPosted on1:12 am - Nov 26, 2012


The article by Tom English contained the following:

“It had documents and detail that were beyond dispute. When illustrating one point it was making it would summon up information that could only have come from somebody within, or very close to, the tribunal. Once, it wrote of Gavin Rae, the former Rangers player. Rae, said the blogger, signed a three-and-a-half-year contract with the club on 1 January 2004, his official contract lodged with the SFA and the SPL showing an annual wage of £260,000. The blogger pointed out that on the same day, 1 January, Rangers provided Rae with a letter that said that money, totalling £336,000, would be deposited in a sub-trust of the Murray Group Remuneration Trust on his behalf. Rae would also receive £1,000 as an appearance for every first-team game he played. It reported that between February 2004 and July 2007, Rae received five payments totalling £336,000 plus appearance fees of £11,000 for season 2003-4, £8,000 for 2005-6 and £20,000 for 2006-7.”

It struck me that, perhaps Tom was boxing clever by printing damning evidence of a registration breach within an opinion piece about the influence of blogs/bloggers in relation to the BTC.

What response would he have got if the article was just about the registration breach?

View Comment

Avatar

RayCharlezPosted on1:21 am - Nov 26, 2012


theglen2012 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 00:49

To put cognitive dissonance in football terms you should think of the Rangers fan who sings Rule Britannia and GSTQ on a Saturday and then goes to a Scotland game on a Wednesday dressed up as Harry Lauder while singing about Scotland becoming a Nation again.

I know quite a few guys like this.

I also know plenty of Celtic fans who have been known to sing Irish rebel songs and espouse hard-line Irish Republican political views and then vote for parties that are committed to supporting the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at elections in Scotland.

I wouldn’t worry too much about cognitive dissonance as I believe we all suffer from it to varying degrees at times (even doontheslope).

It is part of the human condition.

I think the trick is to try to catch yourself out.

That’s when things get interesting.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:21 am - Nov 26, 2012


corsicacharity says:

Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 22:35

Yup Supporters Direct are far from perfect but they have the channels of communication and access that bloggers lack.

Why reinvent a wheel when there us one lying there just waiting to be used?

View Comment

Avatar

stevensanphPosted on1:35 am - Nov 26, 2012


re: theglen2012:

great to read some honest and reasoned stuff from a Rangers fan. Please stick around!

Leaving aside the RTC for a minute, can someone fill me in with what is happening at Tynecastle?

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:43 am - Nov 26, 2012


theglen2012 says:

Monday, November 26, 2012 at 00:05

I nodded in agreement with you on numbers and nature of the Rangers support.

Its in an article that should see the light if day in print form next year

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on1:44 am - Nov 26, 2012


theglen2012 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 00:53
2 0 Rate This
paulmac2 says:

“There is nothing better to create a cause of injustice…and a togetherness than to promote the idea of an anti agenda against your club…that’s what appear to be witnessing right now…”

Hopefully my post does not fit this agenda. I simply posted my thoughts.

There is no agenda from me.
…………………………………………………………….

Not at all….the point being made was that if fans are being told by influential individuals at the club that there is an agenda of sorts against their club…it follows they will rightly or wrongly drift into that mindset…and will most likely enter this site with a more robust position than they would have had…

As you say if fans are only interested in what is in their heart in terms of…there is a team playing in blue…playing at Ibrox then for comfort they will want to believe it is still rangers…

My mother was raised in a rangers household…she understands the club has been liquidated…but she also understands that the stark reality of this would suggest that to accept this means there is nothing…and that to many is unthinkable…so unthinkable that the alternative cannot…must not and will not exist…so she understands the emotional grip that football has on fans…and accepts that fans will be driven to ignore the reality and will defy the reality in what ever way is necessary for the passion to continue…

I fully understand why fans need to hold on to their past…I also understand why fans will point to the facts or reality of the situation…yes there is a one up man ship…there are bragging rights….but in all of this we either need to be honest and up front and accept there are more important things than feeling embarrassed or allowing our damaged ego to obstruct our wish to have an honest and accountable game in Scotland…which appears to have gone AWOL…

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:48 am - Nov 26, 2012


The bottom line for the MSM is their circulation figures. Despite all their protestations, they appear to be in terminal decline. The primary concern of Traynor, English et al is now job preservation, therefore they cannot stray too far in their condemnation of any significant readership group whether it is in Glasgow or Edinburgh.

http://mediatel.co.uk/press/news/2012/11/09/abc-national-newspaper-round-up-october-2012/

From the latest UK figures (October 2012):
Daily Record 268,738, down 8.3% year on year …………….. was 626,646 in 2000
Sunday Mail 308,350, down 21.5% ………………………………..was 751,084 in 2000
Sunday Post 267,971, down 15.4% ………………………………. was 655,634 in 2000
Scotsman 33,071, down 14.7%
Scotland on Sunday 40,085, down 17.5%

The Herald and Sunday Herald are now only releasing six monthly figures to this forum as they now consider themselves regional newspapers

A different source gives slightly different numbers of Scottish sales, but the trend is the same.

http://www.allmediascotland.com/press/19815/daily-newspaper-sales-in-scotland-suffer-more-drops/ Figures are October 2011 compared to October 2012

Daily Mirror – 8.3 per cent drop = from 24,867 on average last October, to 22,805 last month;
Daily Record – 8.6 per drop = 292,390 to 267,075;
Daily Star of Scotland – 19.3 per cent drop = 78,379 to 63,241;
The Scottish Sun – 5.7 per cent drop = 333,812 to 314,822;
Scottish Daily Express – 9.9 per cent drop = 70,574 to 63,601;
Scottish Daily Mail – 5.6 per cent drop = 114,461 to 108,047;
Daily Telegraph – 3.3 per cent drop = 21,116 to 20,416;
Financial Times – 18 per cent drop = 4,226 to 3,461;
The Herald – 13.2 per cent drop = 52,642 to 45,646;
The Guardian – 7.8 per cent drop = 14,038 to 12,936;
Independent – 9.8 per cent drop = 8,066 to 7,276;
The Scotsman – 8.3 per cent drop = 41,758 to 38,289; and
The Times – 14.3 per cent drop = 22,215 to 19,042.

Meanwhile, the Sunday titles sales figures in Scotland are a more mixed bag:
Daily Star of Scotland – Sunday – 120 per cent up = 26,889 to 59,325;
Sunday Mail – 2.7 per cent up = 354,396 to 364,090;
Sunday Mirror – 82.9 per cent up = 21,809 to 39,882;
The People – 84.8 per cent up = 13,209 to 24,415;
Scottish Sunday Express – 24.5 per cent up = 35,337 to 43,992;
Sunday Post – 0.9 per cent down = 224,471 to 222,522;
Scottish Mail on Sunday – 1.25 per cent down = 105,223 to 103,908;
Independent on Sunday – 9.7 per cent up = 6,317 to 6,930;
Observer – 4.2 per cent down = 17,880 to 17,130;
Scotland on Sunday – 9.2 per cent down = 50,897 to 46,214;
Sunday Herald – 31.4 per cent down = 42,111 to 28,873;
Sunday Telegraph – 3.9 per cent down = 18,339 to 17,628;
Sunday Times – 11.2 per cent down = 59,501 to 52,838.

View Comment

Avatar

jockybhoyPosted on5:00 am - Nov 26, 2012


The reason the Sunday titles have been boosted is the cannibalisation of the NoTW readers – hence the tabloid Sundays are up but the “serious” papers continue the downward trend from the Dailies.

What is now interesting is that papers are moving towards “total audience” whereby they include their online sites, apps, etc (the FT has been leading the way on this). Hence the reason for their posting rubbish online (Daily Mail’s website resembers a downmarket showbiz rag but gets a lot of traffic) or letting columnists promote a radical view point and wait for the comments section to explode… It is also interesting to me that so many newpaper sites no longer allow comments on stories relating to certain football teams. Surely the public have a right to question the papers stance on these articles as much as any other. Freedom of speech and all that…

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on5:04 am - Nov 26, 2012


Catching up with Comments…

Can’t help making the observation: why do we have new Commenters now ?

Surely, there was ample opportunity for new posters to make their comments anytime over the last 18 months? Why only comment after the FTT result?

I simply skip past any new posters – as I treat their input with suspicion.

IMO, it’s a no-brainer : the ‘dark forces’ have to try and control online content as a priority – before any EBT/dual contracts investigation.

View Comment

Avatar

jockybhoyPosted on5:13 am - Nov 26, 2012


Agrajag @ 21.46 25/11
Agree absolutely – I posted this on the Scottish Law Thoughts (edited as it was a response to a poster/troll).

jockybhoy November 26, 2012 at 4:37 am

There was only one loser in the Big Tax Case – Oldco Rangers – it was quoted earlier that the tribunal stated: “Parties can no doubt settle the sums due for the limited number of cases mentioned without further reference to the Tribunal” which means that Oldco Rangers owes HMRC money, not the other way round right?

And that’s on top of the Wee Tax Case that Rangers under Murray didn’t contest as well as the taxes owed under Craig Whyte’s brief tenure at Ibrox.

As for the repeated attempts to get someone to say Dr Poon was a lesser member of the tribunal, I think quite the reverse – she, as a tax expert, was on the panel precisely for her expertise in that area. And as such, she could see the EBTs were set up for no other reason than to avoid tax. No-one (not RTC, not Paul, not Phil MacG) has said that EBTs themselves were illegal but the view of most people was the way Rangers used them was against the rules. In this context I am disappointed that the ruling was more of the letter of the law than the spirit of the law – seems to me that the lawyers were focused only on the structure of the EBT not on its purpose.

It’s like the old adage “guns don’t kill people, people do” – well to me it seems “offshore tax vehicles don’t avoid tax, people do”…

Personally I think HMRC have a good shout for an appeal… but i’ve been wrong before.

View Comment

Avatar

jockybhoyPosted on5:25 am - Nov 26, 2012


Johnbhoy75 (@Johnbhoy75) says: Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 23:02

“When you invest in a venture capital trust, that fund invests in a portfolio of qualifying companies, so the investment is never in one or two Ticketus companies but is spread across fifty or so of them.”

In that case wouldn’t the failure of this investment mean the performance of the fund was depressed, returning lower levels than if they hadn’t blown 20m on an investment that returns next to nada, rather than offering a tax break based on investment losses, after all the fund may still make money? Or am i reading that wrong? Genuine question, as i don’t think you are a troll and like most here i welcome posters with specfici knowledge on subjects I am not expert on (that’s most topics btw!).

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on7:48 am - Nov 26, 2012


StevieBC says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 05:04
3 1 Rate This
Catching up with Comments…
Can’t help making the observation: why do we have new
Commenters now ?
Surely, there was ample opportunity for new posters to make
their comments anytime over the last 18 months? Why only
comment after the FTT result?
I simply skip past any new posters – as I treat their input with
suspicion.
IMO, it’s a no-brainer : the ‘dark forces’ have to try and control
online content as a priority – before any EBT/dual contracts
investigation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you don’t mind me saying so, that is a very blinkered position to take.

By ignoring new posters, and therefore potentially new information, aren’t you doing the very thing that we accused most RFC fans of and now accuse most TRFC fans of? Namely ‘burying your head in the sand’.

You are correct that an element of the Ibrox support will be attempting to win hearts and minds by pushing their perspective. There is nothing wrong with that. It’s how debate works.

But if you simply ignore them, are you not simply giving them free rein? If you believe they are talking nonsense, is it not better to challenge that view rather than letting it go unchecked?

View Comment

Avatar

ikiPosted on8:20 am - Nov 26, 2012


theglen2012
As a decent human being (hopefully!) am I disapointed that RFC had to employ this strategy?
============
i would delete ‘had’ and insert ‘chose’.

View Comment

Avatar

TaysiderPosted on8:55 am - Nov 26, 2012


theglen2012 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 00:05

As an occasional poster here and previously on RTC, I’d like to think that any Rangers supporter prepared to join this forum in an open, fair minded spirit would be welcomed, at the least with civility if not a warm embrace!

There is one specific point in your post I’d like to pick up on. As a relative “neutral” I used to see Celtic and Rangers as virtually indistinguishable. They were called the “Old Firm” for good reason, ostensibly great rivals but with a mutual interest in sustaining their ever increasing dominance of Scottish Football through every financial opportunity available (5% agency fees anyone) and happy to contemplate jumping ship out of Scotland regardless of what that did for Scottish League football.

Over the last year and a half there has been a change in that I have a greater level of respect for Celtic fans because of the quality of contributions by many here. Many have demonstrated a willingness to engage in reasonably constructive, rational, fact based debate.

But I have found no equivalence in any Rangers forum, indeed quite the opposite. In most clubs fans websites you find a few bampots (in the truest sense) but equally a number of reasonable folk who it is not hard to, if not agree with, at least have sympathy with their views.

Why is there no such place for Rangers fans, or is there and I have missed it? Is it because of the nature of this crisis that makes it easy for fans of other clubs to examine what Rangers have done but difficult for any Rangers fan to critically examine failings by their club? Or does it say something about their support?

For me the failure for a more considered, responsible voice to emerge from the Rangers side (and that goes right to the top with comments like those from McCoist and others) is one of the biggest concerns here. How can you have a process that involves genuine truth and reconciliation when one side are so angry, so to my mind irrational and apparently filled with hate. I’ve no problem with the new company being considered as a continuation of Rangers. I’ve always thought that was a side issue. Ultimately if you have the fans the club will continue in some shape or form. But without the truth and reconciliation stuff happening, I fear that the hatred will continue also, or even get worse.

View Comment

Avatar

stevensanphPosted on9:08 am - Nov 26, 2012


Taysider:

Fully agree with your reasoning. Over in Saintee world we have the Weareperth.co.uk forum… Anyone that goes there today would probably be expecting to see threads about what a wonderful team we have right now, how we are performing well above expectations etc…. after all, we are 1 point off the lead of the SPL.

Well – no. Instead there is threads bickering about whether Lomas is the right manager, how we were ridiculously lucky to beat Killie and how the whole squad need a kick up the backside. (oh, and how biased the ref was in our favor on the weekend).

I too grew up with a deep disrespect of all things Old Firm. I did not see any distingusing difference between Rangers or Celtic. However, like you the RTC case has changed my view, in that I have interact with many well informed and humble Celtic fans who realise they are part of Scottish football. I have struggled to find any such source or outlet for Rangers fans…

The challenge going forward for this site is to identify where these Rangers fans are (they are out there somewhere, just as the Celtic fans were), and engage them in the discussion. Until a facet of the Rangers support steps up and tries to get involved with their club, while entertaining reasonable debate, and holding those in power responsible for their actions, nothing will change.

If we at TSFM can help in any small way to engage the likeminded Rangers fans and give them a voice, then the site truly will be worthy of the name the Scottish Football Monitor. The Rangers fans are out there somewhere, and just as I’ve found many likeminded Celtic fans, I would love to meet those from the blue side of Glasgow.

View Comment

Avatar

corsicacharityPosted on9:11 am - Nov 26, 2012


Auldheid (@Auldheid) on Monday, November 26, 2012 at 01:21
4 0 Rate This
corsicacharity says:

Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 22:35

Yup Supporters Direct are far from perfect but they have the channels of communication and access that bloggers lack.

Why reinvent a wheel when there us one lying there just waiting to be used?

********

Sorry Auldheid (again), I have a lot of respect and time for you but I really think you’re wrong here. I don’t know if you recall, but corsica had conversations with SD (chair and entire senior management team) in the summer so from the horses’ mouth they bottled it/couldn’t give a fig. That is a spectacular and unforgivable fail in my eyes.

I’ve not yet looked but I will have a look at the other organisation; maybe there’s some hope there…

View Comment

Avatar

SeniorPosted on9:41 am - Nov 26, 2012


There are a couple of things that annoys me on this site and formally on the old RTC one.

1. This nuclear option thing. It always struck me as a lazy comfort thing and used as the big bad boogie man threat when it suited, if events were not following a certain agenda.

2. This thing about bashing Old Rangers. For goodness sake, cop on The purported biggest club in Scotland if not the world are found to be cheating on a grand scale, and had been for ten years or more, and somebody has the neck to ask they be treated by genuine fans of other clubs with kid gloves.Come into the real world these clubs have lost incalculable monies and many titles by this cheating. In my opinion they have got off lightly, particularly on this site.
This site is the go-too site if you want reasonable balanced debate on the present shambles that is called Scottish football administration. Perhaps it’s for this reason it is constantly under attack by the lazy timid MSM.

View Comment

Avatar

neepheidPosted on9:52 am - Nov 26, 2012


Johnbhoy75 (@Johnbhoy75) says:
Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 23:02

Blah blah blah, the usual I’m a troll for voicing an opinion contrary to the accepted wisdom on this site.

To answer the question posted by a couple of posters above; When you invest in a venture capital trust, that fund invests in a portfolio of qualifying companies, so the investment is never in one or two Ticketus companies but is spread across fifty or so of them.
==================
As one of the questioners, thanks for that- there had been some posts previously, here and on RTC, which indicated that the Ticketus/RFC deal was funded by just a few individual investors. I’ve checked out the Octopus and HMRC websites, and it appears that Ticketus represents £100m out of a £500m EIS scheme. Does the fact that it was an EIS scheme rather than a VCT make any difference to the way that risk is spread among investors?

I still think that Octupus will be taking all available steps to protect their investment.I take your point about it being good to be able to show that EIS investments have genuine risk attached, from a political standpoint, but this particular example will make investors nervous, in my view, as it does reflect badly on the way Octopus looks after their money.

It will be interesting to see whether Ticketus is still on the list of creditors next month (3rd December?)

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:57 am - Nov 26, 2012


theglen2012 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 00:05

A great post.

However the only thing I would take issue with is that while there are nutters on RM and FF and they of course do not reflect the views of many decent fans who have not willing to put their head above the parapet, we cannot get away from the fact that the outing of the tribunial and the various threats of boycotts etc came from officials paid by the Ibrox club, both oldco and newco.

While the language may have been a bit more sophisticated the underlying message was the same as can be found on RM and FF i.e ‘Don’t mess with us or we come looking for you, we will find you and you will be sorry!’

And therein lies the problem for Rangers and until they manage to shake off that badge they will almost certainly be disliked by a good number of Scottish Football Fans.

View Comment

Avatar

SeniorPosted on9:57 am - Nov 26, 2012


One other thing, the face Servco/ old Rangers fans present to the world, (correct if I’m wrong) is a bitter dangerous mob who are more interested in maintaining a type of status quo which will see them on top in perpetuity. How they achieve this is of no concern to them – that is for other foolish fans to tolerate. If their is another public face to Servco/old Rangers ie. Blog, supporters group, magazine,etc I apologise, I have not come across it.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on10:00 am - Nov 26, 2012


SFL chief David Longmuir promises investigation into Elgin City call off
By Kenny McKay 26 November 2012 09:02 GMT
Call off: Elgin’s match with Rangers was postponed after too many tickets were sold.© stv

Scottish Football League chiefs are set to decide whether Elgin City will face sanctions after their match with Division Three leaders Rangers was forced to be canceled.

The game, which was scheduled for a 12am kick-off on Sunday was called off on Friday afternoon on safety grounds after it emerged that the Moray club had sold 25% more tickets than their stadium capacity allowed.

Speaking at a meeting organised by fans group Supporters Direct, SFL chief executive David Longmuir said that he will reflect on whether Elgin are due any punishment for their part in the games cancelation.

He said: “We made a decision late on Friday afternoon to call the game off on the grounds of public safety.

“We should not have to deal with Elgin to make clubs realise that this should not happen.

“I’ve asked them to furnihsh me with a full report of the circumstances that brought the game to be called off and I’ll look at that in conjuction with the report I get from my operations manager and our board will make a decision if any in a very short time scale.”

Thousands of fans were set to descend on Elgin’s Borough Briggs on Sunday with Moray Council officials having sanctioned an increase in capacity to 4520.

However, along with Grampian Police, the council was forced to pull the plug on the much anticipated game in the midst of confusion over the number of tickets that were actually sold for the event.

Despite the error, which was compounded by the fact that the game was set to be broadcast live, Mr Longmuir said that he had every confidence that SFL clubs had the ability to cater for the big crowds that Rangers attract in a safe and financially fair way.

He said: “I’m confident that the SFL clubs in the Third Division are adequately prepared to cope with the crowd limits they have been set, there is no doubt about that.

“We work together [with the police], we have operations meetings, we put a lot of effort into preparation and planning into a game and we put the same amount of effort into this game as we do to a cup final at Hampden.

“I’m more than comfortable with the leagues ability to cope with big crowds, provided they stick to what is allowable and on this occiaion this obviously wasn’t the case and therefore it’s a message to any club who is contemplating that kind of conduct, we wont tolerate it, the game wont go ahead.

“I’ll be taking steps within the next short space of time to remind clubs and reinforce the message of the minimum recommended prices that we have always applied to the Third Division.

“We should not be profiteering at the expense of safety, its more about safety than profiteering for me.

The club released a statement on Saturday pledging to repay those who had purchased tickets for the game.

It read: “Following a meeting of the Elgin City Board this morning, we can confirm that a full investigation into the over-sale of tickets for the postponed match this Sunday against Rangers is ongoing. The club officials are working closely with Grampian Police, the local authority and the Scottish Football League to establish the full facts in this matter.

“We would ask all fans to note that tickets issued for the game due to be played on Sunday 25th November 2012 will not be valid for the re-scheduled date. The club advises that those holding tickets issued by Elgin City return these to the club for a full refund. Tickets purchased via Rangers FC for this match should contact the Rangers Ticket Office.

“Once again Elgin City Football Club wishes to apologise sincerely to all fans and the local community for the postponement of this game.”

View Comment

Avatar

jockybhoyPosted on10:10 am - Nov 26, 2012


I gave u a TU senior for point 2 but on point 1 I disagree. I don’t knowe if it was barca’s original “nuclear” option but if the fact that a football club had set up an off shore trust in secret in the name of a manager no longer employed by said club, but who did buy players from that club… Well I think the media would have followed that story to its conclusion.

For the record I do not imply any criticism of any of the parties involved and I am sure they would be the first to come out with a strong defence of their EBT arrangement if anybody did do so…

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:17 am - Nov 26, 2012


Re Ticketus.

Ticketus 2 LLP was set up in late 2009, controlling funds of approx £70m via around 40 service companies. As I understand it, the Rangers “investment” came exclusively from service companies which are currently controlled by Ticketus 2 LLP.

While it is true that Ticketus is but a small part of the Octopus operation; no-one (unless they are part of that operation) can tell us specifically where the money to fund the Ticketus 2 LLP service companies came from. It could be a composite fund from thousands of investors, or it could be a packaged investment opportunity – procured for the specific purpose for which it was used. We simply don’t know.

The shareholders in each of the Ticketus service companies controlled by Ticketus 2 LLP are:
Octopus Investment Nominees Ltd and OCS Services Ltd.

I would speculate (though I do not know) that a small shareholding in each service company is assigned to Octopus, managed via OCS Services Ltd and the majority shareholding is held by individual investor(s), managed by Octopus Investment Nominees Ltd. As I say, I do not know; but this would seem to be plausible.

If there is a link between the individual investor(s) in Ticketus 2 LLP (and/or the associated service companies) and Charles Green’s consortium, it is extremely unlikely, I would have thought, that Octopus (as a corporate entity) has had any part to play.

That is not to say that the Ticketus investor(s) have not sought to protect their investment by acting independently. Certainly, if the Ticketus 2 LLP investors are a small and related group, it would seem more likely than not, that they would actively consider what options they had to recoup some or all of their original investment(s).

I do not know who the Ticketus 2 LLP investor(s) is/are. I do not know who has the ultimate controlling interest in Charles Green’s consortium.

Could they be substantially the same people? Of course they could. Circumstantial evidence supports a theory that they may be. Are they? I simply do not know.

There are very, very few people who can say, with 100% certainty, they know the answer to this question.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on10:20 am - Nov 26, 2012


wottpi says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 09:57

theglen2012 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 00:05

A great post.

However the only thing I would take issue with is that while there are nutters on RM and FF and they of course do not reflect the views of many decent fans who have not willing to put their head above the parapet, we cannot get away from the fact that the outing of the tribunial and the various threats of boycotts etc came from officials paid by the Ibrox club, both oldco and newco.

While the language may have been a bit more sophisticated the underlying message was the same as can be found on RM and FF i.e ‘Don’t mess with us or we come looking for you, we will find you and you will be sorry!’

And therein lies the problem for Rangers and until they manage to shake off that badge they will almost certainly be disliked by a good number of Scottish Football Fans.
=============================================================
It’s not,in my experience,that decent RFC fans will not speak out that causes an impasse,it’s because even the decent fans(and their are many)believe exactly what they’re told.
RFC have been punished enough.
We’re still the same club.We weren’t liquidated,the company was.
The SPL/SFA even the MSM are all kicking us whilst we’re down.
thr FTT proves the SPL investigation is a waste of time.
We’re done for EBTs but Celtic got away with it.
It wasn’t RFC that didn’t pay tax,it was Whyte.
We were relegated.
etc etc.
and my favourite according to a decent fan:

Celtic were not treated like this when they were liquidated(honestly!).

The difference is the RFC decent fans don’t agree with the threats,intimidation general embarassing beheviour of the rest but they do believe that no one should be questioning their clubs actions.They should not face sanctions.It’s a conspiracy against RFC but we’ll be back where we rightfully belong,in spite of everyone else.
I’d love to see more RFC fans on here discussing the past,present and future of not only their club but Scottish football.I can’t see it happening in any significant number as in my experience,even the decent fans still believe they’re hard done by and rather come on here and discuss,it’s easier to just dismiss the blog as anti-Rangers.that way they don’t have to discuss anything thet don’t want to hear.
We don’t toe the party line so we don’t count.

View Comment

Avatar

BernieYa (@BernieYa1)Posted on10:21 am - Nov 26, 2012


I agree with Taysider. The old firm, together, tipped the pool table up, so that all the balls ran to their side of the table. Rangers imploding meant there was a chink between them, and other clubs fans seized the opportunity and widened the chink. Often, i think Celtic went allong with this unwillingly because they knew their power was erroded.

Now, its highly unlikely that we’ll ever go back to the old cosy order where Rangers & Celtic can collude and disadvantage other clubs. And, hopefully, permanently, we’ll all be able to call out lazy, toadying lickspittle journalism based more on reader numbers than fact.

I too, had a look at some Rangers forums over the weekend and was staggered at the bile. There is no place for that in my football. And i 100% agree, in todays world of social media and transparency the real story is THE Rangers continue to be hijacked by (kindly) very old fashioned beings.

Occasionally, I pose the question to colleagues, imagine Rangers fans were a person, what would that person’s psychology be?

And, I keep asking Rangers fans I know, is it time you guys developed some self-awareness and have a think about why fans of other clubs dislike you so?

But, the lights don’t seem to go on. There is a name for that kind of psychology … Here are symptoms:

It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
1.Callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
2.Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;
3.Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
4.Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
5.Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
6.Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

View Comment

Avatar

TaysiderPosted on10:24 am - Nov 26, 2012


Senior says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 09:41

2. This thing about bashing Old Rangers. For goodness sake, cop on The purported biggest club in Scotland if not the world are found to be cheating on a grand scale, and had been for ten years or more, and somebody has the neck to ask they be treated by genuine fans of other clubs with kid gloves.

If by kid gloves Senior you mean with a degree of civility rather than saying you can only post here if you agree that your club are the biggest cheating xxxxxx ever in the history of football, then I would confess to be in favour of the kid gloves approach!

To me what you have at the moment is the Rangers support in a state close to a war mentality with the rest of Scottish football and as the saying goes, the first casualty of war is the truth. Their fan base is being mobilised by a leadership that is milking a spirit of unity in the face of what is portrayed as perverse adversity to the hilt, aided by the failure or cowardice of the MSM to have the honesty to set out what seems patently obvious to us in terms of how the club have handled undisclosed (to HMRC and the SPL) player payments over the last 10 years and the benefit to Rangers of fielding players they otherwise could not afford. Trying to get an intelligent fact based dialogue going with the more open minded Rangers fans seems to me an obvious avenue to attempt to counter the poisonous myths that are at risk of becoming entrenched in their support.

Stevensaph

I have dipped into the site a few times. Change a few facts and it could be a United forum, even with an element of irrationality creeping in when sentiments about Dundee FC are being expressed!

View Comment

Robert Coyle

Robert CoylePosted on10:29 am - Nov 26, 2012


Johnbhoy75 (@Johnbhoy75) says:
Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 22:12

The investors would have made large profits from their income tax relief. £1 invested in an EIS or VCT usually gets a relief of 25% to 30%. A loss of 2.7% from the Rangers debacle is acceptable in this context.

In fact, Octopus are under pressure from HMRC to demonstrate that their investments are not sham risk free vehicles that facilitate tax avoidance but are indeed within the spirit of the regulation, i.e. they invest in entrepreneurial and risky businesses. The losses from Rangers will go a long way in this cause.
—————————————-
Are there processes in place that would prevent money launderers from using ticketus as a way of getting rid of illegal money?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:37 am - Nov 26, 2012


On the Ticketus front I would be staggered if they had allowed the basic triangle of investment – loanee – asset ownership to be broken. I know there was the speculation about Scottish Law and whether they didn’t realise their ST deal would not continue across a liquidation scenario, but it seems a pretty costly error to have made, no? Similarly you would have thought Craig Whyte would be squealing just a little bit more if he was faced with a 24m lawsuit and no assets or effective floating charge at all. Your arguement (and I believe you’re genuine JB so stick in) seems to be that Ticketus have gone quiet for no other reason than professional embarrassment that they may have made a mistake – that they realise that whilst they can pursue CW he doesn’t appear to be worth a grand dime. I accept that for TU/Octopus to accept such would obviously have repercussions on the perception of competence of the parent group right enough.

Oh, and Senior “This site is the go-too site if you want reasonable balanced debate on the present shambles that is called Scottish football administration.” Agreed. Does this tie in with “The purported biggest club in Scotland if not the world are found to be cheating on a grand scale.” Possibly not. Remember losing bucket loads through your own fault and then not paying your bills is morally reprehensible. It is not cheating.

View Comment

Avatar

Gary Denham (@yashin19)Posted on10:38 am - Nov 26, 2012


100% agree with bringing Rangers fans back into the fold. Even the casual Rangers fans have developed a siege mentality over the last 12 months, and you can’t exactly blame them for thinking that way.

Ironically, I think Rangers fans have the most to gain from a challenge to the MSM. If Rangers’ ownership had been held to account more often over the past decade, the club as it was may not have been liquidated.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on10:38 am - Nov 26, 2012


corsicacharity says:

Monday, November 26, 2012 at 09:11

Fair enough, that is inside info I do not have. The point I would like to clarify is that of access.

A few years back a number of fellow bloggers and I on another site found ourselves quite enraged at a number of issues relating to the SFA but had the same problem of being ignored when we wrote as individuals.

We eventually met as small group and found out at the same time a much larger and representative group was meeting to deal with some of the issues we had concerns with.

So we went along as a small group to the next meeting to hear what was being said and at the follow up meeting were able to influence the representative group (some members of which had an undeserved poor reputation amongst the suporters they worked very hard to represent) and that influence found its way in the form of a resolution for change to the heart of the SFA. Indeed one of the smaller issues was dealt with almost immediately and the larger ones were pursued diligently thereafter with the SFA and one major issue, misuse of the Disciplinary system was addressed.

What I am suggesting is piggy backing and if the only pig with the right representational status is facing the wrong direction turn it around, however if there are other pigs facing the right way with the necessary access, use them. (Sorry readers about the use of the word pig but piggybacking best describes the way it was done and has no reflection on the organisations who were good enough to shoulder us.)

I wish you guys who want to make change happen the best of luck, just be patient but persistent.

View Comment

Avatar

hayzaboyPosted on10:38 am - Nov 26, 2012


In response to Seniors recent post re ” The Nucleur Option” I wouldnt dismiss it just yet.The thought of RTC & bb bluffing so to speak doesnt seem too likely to me given the gravitas of these contributors.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on10:43 am - Nov 26, 2012


smugas says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 10:37

” Remember losing bucket loads through your own fault and then not paying your bills is morally reprehensible. It is not cheating”

Maybe not.
But deliberately fielding players registered illegally,at home and abroad over more than a decade most definitely is.

View Comment

Avatar

midcalderanPosted on10:56 am - Nov 26, 2012


theglen2012 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 00:05

Do I, or anyone with half a brain think that the EBT’s were set up for anything other than paying players higher wages than the club could possibly afford? No. Clearly not. But, the point is, 2 persons with much greater legal acumen then I have decided that, on the evidence provided, it cannot be proven that that is the case.
————————————

TG2012, thanks for the interesting post. Whilst I agree that the verdict for the time being is no doubt a tax related victory for RFC, please correct me if I’m wrong but from the dissenting judges’ comments at Page 67, Para 35, I thought Mr Black may have admitted in evidence that was precisely the reason why EBTs were used.

“As for Mr Black, he denied that the scheme was for tax avoidance in cross-examination, though he went on to describe the scheme as ‘a method of us acquiring, especially football wise, better players in a more cost effective manner than we would be able to do so’; that the club had been ‘very ambitious at that time’; and ‘it was seen as a correct and proper way for us to proceed’; that Rangers ‘have been very successful, because we’ve been able to attract players of a certain standard that, perhaps, we may not have been able to otherwise’ (Day 5/126).”

Keep posting.

View Comment

Avatar

ianjsPosted on10:56 am - Nov 26, 2012


easyJambo says: Monday, November 26, 2012 at 01:48

easyJambo What is more damning is the results of the Yougov poll on media TRUST.
Here are figures for the proportion of Britons who trust each of a range of media and political groups to tell the truth.

BBC news journalists 44%
ITV news journalists 41%
Journalists on ‘upmarket’ papers (e.g. Times, Telegraph, Guardian) 38%
My local MP 37%
Leading Labour politicians 23%
Senior civil servants in Whitehall 21%
Leading Conservative politicians 19%
Journalists on ‘mid-market’ newspapers (e.g. Mail, Express) 18%
Leading Liberal Democrat politicians 16%
Senior officials in the European Union 13%
Journalists on red- top tabloid newspapers (e.g. Sun, Mirror) 10%

Trust in 2003 Change since 2003
BBC news journalists 81% -37
ITV news journalists 82% -41
Journalists on ‘upmarket’ papers (e.g. Times, Telegraph, Guardian) 65% -27
My local MP 44% -7
Leading Labour politicians 25% -2
Senior civil servants in Whitehall 26% -5
Leading Conservative politicians 20% -1
Journalists on ‘mid-market’ newspapers (e.g., Mail, Express) 36% -18
Leading Liberal Democrat politicians 36% -20
Journalists on red-top tabloid newspapers (e.g. Sun, Mirror) 14% -4

Nobody likes them any more

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on10:57 am - Nov 26, 2012


theglen2012 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 00:05
77 4 Rate This
Right off the bat I’ll admit to being a Rangers “sympathiser” – I grew up a Rangers fan and went to Ibrox and away matches for years as an impressionable ….
————

Bravo theglen, interesting post with a lot of valid points. I’ve had a parallel experience to yours from age 8-14, though perhaps in an earlier era. But after that I was of the attitude that stevensanph describes above, regarding the OF.

My personal scunneration with all things non-football in Glasgow, and with Ibrox in particular, turned me into an almost-neutral. Later, I viewed what started with Souness as a betrayal of Scottish youth. Have always felt football clubs are an essential part of community and with a social responsibility. (Current arguments that there are ‘too many clubs’ is simply absurd and insulting. If a local community gathers around a sports club then who are big-time football managers, pundits or administrators to say that they are wrong? Football doesn’t need a Lord Beeching plan.)

Anyway, Rangers spending huge sums on mercenaries while neglecting the kids in the backyard – who were crying out for opportunity in an area of high unemployment – borders on unforgiveable. But the news that these already over-paid players were further pampered with tens of thousands in tax-free payments, via elaboate business schemes, only adds insult to injury.

Like you, I am puzzled that non-Rangers fans would ever visit RM and FF. I glanced them at the beginning of this story and discovered they appeared to be inhabited by some very sad and disturbed people. On the other hand, pronouncements from club personnel and ‘moderate’ fans seem pretty much in tune with the extremist element of late. I know there are lots of fine, decent people who follow Rangers. The sad part is that they appear to have no voice. Maybe they are speechless at the way the club has morphed into a surreal British entity?

I’ve actually been reading up on some of the lesser clubs of late – the likes of Clyde, Thistle and many others outside the SPL. Hopefully, many teams who traditionally were part of the old First Division will soon be reguler features in an expanded top league.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on11:06 am - Nov 26, 2012


Taysider says:

Monday, November 26, 2012 at 08:55

On the truth and reconciliation aspect there was some interest in it from someone who had the power to take it forward.

His advisers said that there was no one ready to engage with. They are being proven correct.

it is intersting however that this group have been set up

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19749789 as revealed after Turnbull Hutton criticised the SG.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/National/article/25732/raith-rovers-chairman-fires-volley-at-holyrood-over-its-efforts-to-address-sectarianism.html

perhaps once the full grief cycle (denial, anger, bargainning depression, acceptance has been travelled the right conditions will emerge.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:09 am - Nov 26, 2012


Paul Mcconvile outliens the process and timetable for possible appeals to the FTTT decision.

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/how-to-appeal-from-the-first-tier-tribunal-tax-to-the-upper-tribunal/#more-2642

If it goes all the way we are looking at 2017!!!!!!!!!!

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie BrownPosted on11:13 am - Nov 26, 2012


Stevensamph,
Since you asked the current situation at Tynecastle is i believe as follows;
1. Hearts have agreed an extension and 2 part payment plan on the 450k small tax bill due. This is due to be paid by 3rd december and is dependant on guaranteed income Hearts will receive from 300k still due from Rangers as payment for David Templeton, i hope we have an arrestment order ready to secure these funds as obviously any delays could have critical impact, and also the gate share money and split of TV money that Hearts will receive from this weekends live Scottish Cup derby with Hibs.
2. At last reports over 600k funds had been raised by fans in shares, merchandising and match tickets.
3. The players and staff have agreed a temporary deferment of wages, whether this will trigger further SPL sanctions or censure remains to be seen.
4. I believe there has been some hearing thus far of the Tax Tribunal for the disputed 1.75M Big Tax Case, i don’t know if the hearing is ongoing, delayed or being negotiated/settled however I was informed that a small but important breakthrough had been established and this would improve Hearts prospects.
Forgive me if any of this is inaccurate but it is my summary of current events as best i understand them. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on11:22 am - Nov 26, 2012


torrejohnbhoy says:

Monday, November 26, 2012 at 10:43

smugas says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 10:37

” Remember losing bucket loads through your own fault and then not paying your bills is morally reprehensible. It is not cheating”

Maybe not.
But deliberately fielding players registered illegally,at home and abroad over more than a decade most definitely is.
====================================
Correct. For the scheme to meet its objectives players had to sign under it. They only did so with assurances that formed part of their contract. These assurances were not revealed to the SFA nor were the sums that were the true inducement to sign (bungs to you and me).

It may only have been a very, very small number on Rangers/MIH Board who took the decision to not report the additionality to the contract to the SFA but their motives are pretty clear, to obtain the sporting advantage the scheme offered.

Rangers/Sevco would find the attitude of the rest of football would turn round if they were just to admit the got it all wrong. What is it about being wrong and in the wrong that they fear so?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:24 am - Nov 26, 2012


stevensanph says: Monday, November 26, 2012 at 01:35

Leaving aside the RTC for a minute, can someone fill me in with what is happening at Tynecastle?
===========================

Charlie Brown says: Monday, November 26, 2012 at 11:13
==========================================

If only we knew the full story, but here is a summary of what I know:

The bare facts are that the club agreed a two stage payment with HMRC re the “small” tax bill (£490K). The first instalment should already have been made with the second due on 3rd December. Part of that agreement was the Hearts would have to be up to date will all their other tax liabilities for VAT/PAYE/NIC, otherwise the winding up order would be progressed.

A number of players also agreed to defer their wages for November. However, the SPL have insisted that these are made up in December otherwise the club will face further sanctions for failing to pay wages on time. The club is already subject to a registration embargo until 23rd December for previous delays.

As far as fund raising is concerned, the club reported at the end of last week that £600K (of the proposed £1.79M) had been raised in the share off thus far. The share offer is open until 19th December. With just over three weeks left it is unlikely that the initial target will be met, which leads to further short term uncertainty, with January player sales a real possibility.

The club also sold out their last game against St Mirren, attracting around an extra 4,000 more than they could otherwise have expected. Oddly, tickets for this week’s Celtic game have not sold out as yet (around 1700 left), although that has probably got more to do with a “school night” evening k.o., live TV coverage and the previous fraught relationship between the respective fans. The next home game against Aberdeen is selling similar numbers, with a good away contingent expected, given their league position.

A run to the league cup semi and a draw against Hibs in the Scottish Cup should also have boosted the coffers, as should a staged payment of £300K (for Templeton, I think) which is due in the next week or so.

Taking all the income streams into consideration the club should be able to fund both the tax bill and player wages for at least until the transfer window closes.

Vlad is reported to have turned down two offers for the club, one from the “Foundation of Hearts” and the other from ex Livingston owner Angelo Massone who reportedly offered £4.5M. The Foundation is seeking to raise funds through pledges for a membership/monthly subscripotion. I don’t know how well this is progressing as the organisers haven’t been as transparent as they could have been.

It is not clear how much Vlad would want to part with the club, but it will be nowhere near the share valuation (based on the offer document) of £17.9M plus the £22M UBIG debt (as it was last reported in 2011). There is also the gorilla in the room of Hearts “Big” tax case for £1.75M (plus interest and penalties?) which is due to be heard by an FTTT about now.

My thoughts
My fear is that, despite the best efforts of the fans raising funds in all sorts of ways, the club will do a Bradford Bulls and end up in administration anyway, with the loss of the fans contributions. You can only go to the well so many times before it dries up. The share scheme take up will already have peaked and will not triple in size in the next three weeks. If they manage to get through until March, then next season’s ST money will start to come in. If they need to spend that money to stay afloat during the summer then how will they pay next season’s bills. The big tax case still remains a big known unknown .

Vlad and the Board haven’t exactly been open with the current state of the finances. The Board and the Auditors signed off the accounts in April 2012 as a going concern (qualified in the case of the auditors), based on the continued support of UBIG. Yet we know UBIG cut off subsidies to the club in January 2012. The share offer numbers were from the last published accounts (to June 2011) and were thus 16 months out of date. There remains no plan as to how the tax case will be paid for if the FTTT rules against Hearts, or how the main part of the debt to UBIG will be serviced going forward.

Hearts income should have been up in recent months with early season ticket sales, the cup final success, a “premium priced” sell out against Liverpool, Templeton transfer. Like Bradford all this money could well be ending up in a black hole.

I dearly hope that my pessimistic view of affairs is wrong, but that is how I read it. I had a chat at the weekend with two senior figures, one in a fans organisation and one in a club associated organisation. It is fair to say that one was wholly behind the current fans efforts, but the other, like me, was less hopeful (he was an accountant!).

View Comment

Avatar

broganrogantrevinoandhoganPosted on11:27 am - Nov 26, 2012


Good Morning.

It is very interesting to note the comments and reaction of a whole host of factions and interests which have come on the back of the FTT decision. Yet, many of those who have commented seem to me to have not stopped to think about what that decision says clearly– and indeed what it implies.

As this is a football forum, it is, in many respects, not the ideal place for a forensic dissection of every word and nuance coming from the tribunal, yet the implications for the ordinary football fan cannot in any way be discussed without a cursory attempt to explain the decision.

It is in this area where the Mainstream press are still very guilty of criticism, in that the general reporting is that “Rangers”– who were not allowed to make any representations to the tribunal at all— had won– and that HMRC had lost.

This, of course, is just not accurate at all.

Murray International Holdings made all the representations to the Tribunal and if I recall correctly Rangers PLC were not allowed to say squat to the tribunal. That would be Rangers PLC under the ownership of the Murray flag and Rangers PLC under the ownership of Craig Whyte and even Rangers PLC under the Administration of Duff & Phelps!

So let’s be clear here.

Murray International Holdings have conceded to the tribunal and HMRC that former employees of Rangers PLC were somehow in breach of the tax regulations.

No director of Rangers PLC were allowed to say jack shit about the issue– unless they got the approval of Mr Black and his cohorts.

Further, it is clear from Tribunals detailed findings that there were people at Director level who were of the view that the whole tax enquiry was being dealt with in an expeditious, timeous and satisfactory manner– when in fact it was not.

Now- either those people are lying ( and I personally get the general flavour that they were not ) or they were being misled by someone at board level from within Ibrox or from MIH.

It is made abundantly plain that there was delay, obfuscation, attempts at hiding documents, delay in providing documents and so on. MIH in some respects come out of this very very badly.

However MIH are not Rangers PLC and for the life of me I cannot understand why the MSM do not see the real story here– and that is the effect of MIH and the so called “business professional” on football, its fans and its players.

No Rangers player who was not one of the chosen few with an EBT could ever be accused of cheating in any way shape or form.

Rangers players who were given a remuneration package involving an EBT which they were told was legal could ever be accused of cheating.– That was their wage– that was how it was going to be paid– take it or leave it. Dr Poon makes it plain that in her view the EBT and the wage were inter changeable at times– but even if that was understood by the players– they were still not guilty of cheating.

All they did was play football in games which they won lost or drew.

The Rangers Fans did not cheat– they had no idea that this was going on and even if they did then they were powerless to change it.

However, those fans and those players may well have been cheated by their own board– because they ( rightly) expected their club to be run in such a fashion that all competition was decided on the pitch and that any victory gained could never be taken away by a committee or a panel at some point in the future.

Yesterday Billy Dodds had an article in the Herald with which I fundamentally disagree. He commented on the FTT finding and said that despite this– the SPL commission might take away his winners medal. He also explained further about his EBT being in connection with his move to Dundee United and stressed that he never kicked a ball for Rangers while being paid through the EBT. In short– the idea of taking away his medal is totally unfair.

I agree and disagree with him.

I agree that it is totally unfair on Billy Dodds. He played his heart out for any team that employed him as a professional. He did not seek to do anything wrong, bend the rules or anything like that– and the glory of winning a league title should be his to celebrate.

Instead, there is real potential for the shine to be rubbed off that achievement as a result of someone somewhere not filing the right paperwork either because of negligence or because they deliberately decided not to register it because it would have brought to light an accepted “aggressive tax avoidance scheme” that may have been frowned on by the footballing authorities.

That is a travesty for a player like Dodds.

The SPL Commission and the FTT are looking at two different tests– two different sets of rules– two different obligations on the part of guys with suits shirts and ties—- not shinpads, shorts and boots.

Scottish Football — and Rangers FC in particular– has got into this mess and all these hearings commissions and panels as a result of the suits and the blazers– not the players the fans and for once at least– not even because of the referees, linesmen and other officials.

The SFA and SPL guys could have dome a better job. The “Auditor” who is meant to inspect and scrutinise the paperwork of every club has clearly been sleeping here– asking no questions and carrying out no meaningful audit.

However the clear question that has to be asked– whether at Rangers or Hearts or previously
at Dundee, Livingstone or Gretna– can football continue to be sold down the river by businessmen willing to take a chance on saving a few bucks with a tax scheme that requires mesmeric administration to stay legal, or who vastly overspend the clubs money, or who just govern a limited company in a wholly wreckless manner?

I was once told of a former Rangers Player who was taken to his bank by his agent (a solicitor who represented nationally and internationally known players) with a view to the banker discussing investments and pensions. The Banker was appalled to find the player, who was nearing the end of his career, constantly looking at his watch and making it plain he did not want to be there.

When he was challenged about this– and about his obvious lack of gratitude for the banker taking time out to try and encourage the man to save some cash etc for his old age— the player simply said ” Look– I understand none of this stuff– and I have arranged to meet someone for a game of snooker at 3pm!– Eh just do what’s right and I will see you later. Thanks!”–and he left.

The Banker thought this guy was extremely rude.

I think he was being something else—- dead honest!

Footballers and Football fans just want to see a ball being kicked about and when the ref blows the final whistle that is what signals the result— you then go and discuss that in the pub.

To me– that is what football is all about.

While I am at it– it is not about hating anyone who supports another team and all that nonsense and I really do wish all of that stuff would just simply disappear as football as a sport is better than that– should be better than that.

This whole debacle is not about football anymore– it is about the governance of a company– possibly by a very few at that company– who decided that football in its truest sense should come second to the running of business in a fashion that gets them– not the players or the fans– they greatest advantage and the greatest amount of kudos.

If Tom English is being fair— he can allege that RTC– whoever that is—- appears to have ran away— but at the same time he should also point out that it is abundantly clear that some within the MIH group ran away from football a long long time ago– so much so that they would not let anyone from Rangers say a single word to this Tribunal!!!

Whatsmore, they ran away from football long before anyone had heard of RTC and internet bampots —- and no one seemed to notice!

View Comment

Avatar

willmacufreePosted on11:45 am - Nov 26, 2012


smugas says: Monday, November 26, 2012 at 10:37

“Remember losing bucket loads through your own fault and then not paying your bills is morally reprehensible. It is not cheating.”
==========
Smugas,

It’s been said on here many times that trading by using taxpayers’ money to cover costs, therefore while insolvent, is not only cheating but illegal. Didn’t oldclub under Whyte do this? I ask because I’m not sure of the facts here.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on11:48 am - Nov 26, 2012


theglen2012 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 00:05

——

Thank you for that, theglen! Very refreshing to hear reasoned and sensible comment from the Rangers side of the fence.

Stick around – it’d be enlightening to get your take on matters as they arise.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on12:02 pm - Nov 26, 2012


TSFM says:
Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 18:39

With respect Angus, what arrant nonsense.

——

With respect (always brings to mind “I’m not a racist, but …” 🙂 ), no it’s not.

I don’t wish to labour the point, and I’m elated that we have a Rangers man getting on board as we speak. Boundaries, thought processes and respect, hopefully, will widen.

View Comment

Avatar

rapscallionPosted on12:10 pm - Nov 26, 2012


Theglen 00:05
Brogan etc 11.27
Angus 1983 11.48

Absolutely agreed. If we are to have reasoned debate then we need reasoned comment from all sides. Both these articles articulate sound reasoning.

I agree with Angus, more please. I say that not because of his excellent choice of year, but because he is correct. I rarely comment but with more fine posts like these, I’ll be inspired.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on12:14 pm - Nov 26, 2012


Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 11:27

If Tom English is being fair he can allege that RTC – whoever that is – appears to have run away, but at the same time he should also point out that it is abundantly clear that some within the MIH group ran away from football a long long time ago– so much so that they would not let anyone from Rangers say a single word to this Tribunal!!!

——

A very good point, BRTH.

Even if it has a touch of whataboutery in the way you phrased it. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on12:23 pm - Nov 26, 2012


angus1983 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 12:14
0 0 Rate This
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 11:27

If Tom English is being fair he can allege that RTC – whoever that is – appears to have run away, but at the same time he should also point out that it is abundantly clear that some within the MIH group ran away from football a long long time ago– so much so that they would not let anyone from Rangers say a single word to this Tribunal!!!

——

A very good point, BRTH.

Even if it has a touch of whataboutery in the way you phrased it.

……………………..

Mr English is not that stupid, he has been dealing with Bampots for well over a year now and knows there is every possibility of RTC reappearing with the “loaded gun”.

View Comment

Shooperb

ShooperbPosted on1:12 pm - Nov 26, 2012


theglen2012 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 00:05

Interestingly, I think what you said backs up the point I’d made earlier in this blog – Most of the comments on here about RM, Vanguard Bears etc will almost always make reference to the language used on there and the mentality of posters, but they tend to ignore who these insults and anger are directed at. In 99% of these posts, they are usually directed at someone who dared to post with a reasonable and questioning point of view, and guess who they are? They are Rangers fans!

Like I said, it appears that the guy with the loudest voice dictates what a ‘True Rangers Fan’ should think and feel – if you’re not for us, you’re against us. It’s not that there aren’t engaging and questioning Rangers fans out there, it’s just that they get drowned out by the numpties, and we should be encouraging engagement with them. Ultimately, they have far more in common with the fans of all clubs on here than they do with the rabid mob.

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on1:33 pm - Nov 26, 2012


@slimshady
“a thinking man’s Mark Hateley”

I have yet to finish reading your post, so perplexed am I at this concept.

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest. (@edunne58)Posted on1:38 pm - Nov 26, 2012


In my opinion the FTT hearing has given the SPL enquiry all the evidence they could ever need to find Oldco Rangers guilty of fielding inneligible players over the years in question. Is there any benefit to HMRC in awaiting the outcome of the SPL hearing before proceeding with an appeal? Would this still fall inside the timeframe set asside for lodging an appeal?

View Comment

Avatar

slimshady61Posted on1:48 pm - Nov 26, 2012


Another Interesting take on the FTT result at http://www.mlmsolutions.co.uk/Blog/uncategorized/guest-blog-by-chartered-tax-adviser-hmrc-rangers-big-tax-case-judgement.html – especially the fact that anonymity was granted and the real reason for the delay in this case. I haven’t read anything along these lines in the MSM to date, although Tom English did briefly refer to Rangers’ prevarication with HMRC

As I’ve said previously, until we know whether or not there is going to be an appeal, talk of victory for Rangers or defeat for the Revenue is wholly premature and jumping the gun.

View Comment

scapaflow14

scapaflow14Posted on2:09 pm - Nov 26, 2012


slimshady61 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 13:48

Interesting article Slim, and a timely reminder to us all, that whatever the MIH/Rangers press releases might be saying, this ain’t over

View Comment

Avatar

goosyPosted on2:35 pm - Nov 26, 2012


HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 10:17
That is not to say that the Ticketus investor(s) have not sought to protect their investment by acting independently. Certainly, if the Ticketus 2 LLP investors are a small and related group, it would seem more likely than not, that they would actively consider what options they had to recoup some or all of their original investment(s).
I do not know who the Ticketus 2 LLP investor(s) is/are. I do not know who has the ultimate controlling interest in Charles Green’s consortium.
Could they be substantially the same people? Of course they could. Circumstantial evidence supports a theory that they may be. Are they? I simply do not know.
There are very, very few people who can say, with 100% certainty; they know the answer to this question.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Spot on HP
We can only interpret the facts that we know
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Like.
Ticketus accounts to Q3 March/April2011 show cumulative “sales” for 9 months of £13m net
i.e.
Ticketus only managed to encourage £13m of inward investment in 9 months This included the few months of the year (JFM) when all football clubs are short of cash and borrow money
But by Q4 2011 Ticketus were showing sales of £44m. So they took in £31m net between March/April 2011 and June/July 2011.
,,,,,,,,,,,,
So Ticketus were not funded to put £24.4m into the Collyer Bristow account in April 2011 but were able to do so during the first week in May 2011
,,,,,,,,,,,
In late May 2011 Ticketus required RFC VAT invoices for £24.4m to include in their annual VAT return.
According to the BBC Ticketus emailed Whyte (not the RFC Accountant responsible for RFC VAT) requesting these invoices. According to evidence given to the SPL Panel by the RFC Accountant, Whyte supplied these invoices using what appeared to be “Clip Art”. The RFC Accountant also admitted he was unaware of the existence of these invoices or indeed the ST deal until after May 2011
…………
So it is a matter of fact that Ticketus colluded with Whyte in bypassing the RFC Accountant for RFC VAT invoices and accepted “Clip Art”
……….
Like
Octopus wholly owned Co Fern Trading took out a floating charge over the assets of Ticketus on 14 March 2012
,,,,,,,,,,,,
So it is now possible to quickly liquidate the Ticketus operation at short notice if this becomes necessary for whatever reason
…………….
Like
Ticketus described their withdrawal from the Blue Knights bid as follows
Ticketus first and foremost has a duty to its investors to protect the investment that it currently has in the Club. Our willingness to work with all interested bidders, and to try and be part of a solution for the Club, was undertaken with the objective to agree terms that would satisfy both our investors’ needs as well as being in the interests of the Club, its fans and its creditors. Regrettably over the course of this week it became impossible to reconcile these interests with the proposals put forward by the Blue Knights as the terms of a deal became clearer.
…………
So Ticketus are on record as claiming they have a duty to their investors to work with all interested bidders
………..
14 May 2012
Ticketus has confirmed it has “no future involvement” in Rangers as administrators accepted an offer from consortium headed by Charles Green.
The London firm said it now expects to become a creditor in the company voluntary agreement (CVA) Mr. Green said his group is striving to achieve
…………..
Well that’s clear enough……. or is it?
Is it saying Ticketus will become a Creditor in RFC liquidation or just a Creditor in an RFC CVA?
If Ticketus meant they were a Creditor in both a CVA and liquidation then we can expect them to apply to become an RFC liquidation Creditor on 3 Dec
If their 14 May Statement was simply spin doctoring and another plan is in play then Ticketus will not be on the liquidation Creditors list
We won`t have long to wait now

View Comment

Avatar

slimshady61Posted on2:57 pm - Nov 26, 2012


Senior says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 14:54
———————————
yes except by Charles Green’s calculations (500 million fans worldwide), 0.02% of the support amounts to 100,000 people….

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on3:16 pm - Nov 26, 2012


http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/great-rangers-tax-avoidance-scheme/3227

Thomo take.

View Comment

Avatar

tomtomPosted on3:18 pm - Nov 26, 2012


slimshady61 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 14:57

Senior says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 14:54
———————————
yes except by Charles Green’s calculations (500 million fans worldwide), 0.02% of the support amounts to 100,000 people…

————————————–

That should get their petition read out in parliament 😀

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on3:27 pm - Nov 26, 2012


I feel a need for me to reurn to the FTTT verdict tonight. Two particular issues. Mr Dodds (Purple from memory) seems to be saying in his herald piece that he was due the money for leaving Rangers, yet according to the popuplist MSM interpretation of the FTTT he wasn’t formally contracted, and almost certainly not in the SPL’s contracts register, to be receiving it in the first place. I agree with BRHT that Doddsy is clearly innocent as demonstrated in his aired belief that he had actually paid tax on what he was receiving. Having said that surely to goodness he put his piece via the lawyer on the way to the editors desk. Or maybe not.

the second thing I want to re-read the numbers re the cases. The paragraph and line number being mistaken for the number of cases apparently being droppped (which I take to mean paid up) is plausible, just seems odd.

View Comment

Avatar

Madbhoy24941Posted on3:28 pm - Nov 26, 2012


angus1983 says:

Monday, November 26, 2012 at 12:14

A very good point, BRTH.

Even if it has a touch of whataboutery in the way you phrased it.
—————————————————————————————-

Don’t forget he is or was involved in law, that means he must always point to precedence. Try to do that without the use of “whataboutery” 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:31 pm - Nov 26, 2012


smugas says: Monday, November 26, 2012 at 15:27

I feel a need for me to reurn to the FTTT verdict tonight. Two particular issues. Mr Dodds (Purple from memory)
===============================
I don’t think Dodd was a witness at the tribunal. Mr Purple was almost certainly Neil McCann.

View Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.