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.
Interesting read from Alex Thomson
TOMOBLOG: RANGERS TAX http://bit.ly/QlnbSN
Senior says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 14:54
9 2 i Rate This
theglen2012
‘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.’
________________________________
I wanted so much to believe what you say to be a reasonable and realistic riposte to the so called old Rangers bashers.
When I read the above couple of sentences ie. the lunatic fringe consist of 0.02% of the fan base I once again am forced to continue my search for the decent realistic public face of the old Rangers fan base.
How come this 0.02% section of your fan base have several vicious blogs running plus a few nasty magazine and the remainding (99.08%) of the support have absolutely no blogs, or means of putting their views across to the wider footballing community. What an image these 99.08% are prepared to let the 0.02% portray to the wider public of their club……..or is it a case, I suspect, of WE DON’T CARE.
I do not doubt there are many decent supporters in your club as there are in every other club in Scotland – the difference in your case, is that the 99.08% are afraid of the 0.02% – what a club to belong to!
That 0.02% can dictate to the 99.02%
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Senior, maybe the majority of Rangers are just as passive as the fans of Hearts/Livingston/Airdrie/Dundee/Gretna/Motherwell. Add in a superiority complex built in from the club’s having always been one of the top lot in Scottish football and in the last twenty years had an owner playing business in the same ways as Scottish banks. Gretna and Dundee fans surely knew that what was happening at their clubs couldn’t last but were powerless to stop the car crash that their clubs became (I think some even enjoyed the ride). Hearts fans have known for years that it’s only a matter of time before implosion happens along. A number of other clubs finances are ropey – what can the fans do?
Finally, it’s not really for you or me to tell the glen or anyone else what club they should support – I’ll bet you’d never change allegiance, I certainly won’t.
STV are suggesting that Elgin may have points deducted as a result of Sunday’s game being called off.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/elgin-city/202777-elgin-city-could-be-docked-points-by-sfl-for-rangers-postponement/
It seems a reasonable sanction in the circumstances.
If the majority of the Rangers fan base are normal, perfectly reasonable people and the others are a tiny minority then who was singing and chanting at the CIS Cup final 2011. I’m sure most people on here saw and heard that spectacle, even if only on television.
I’m all for inclusivity, but if there are so many reasonable fans who don’t want anything to do with all of the nonsense then not many of them got tickets for that game.
It is all very well saying that places like FF and RM are not representative of Rangers supporters, fair enough one can only go by what one sees and hears. They seemed to be representative of the Rangers supporters who attended that game.
slimshady61 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 13:48
16 0 Rate This
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.
=========================
One aspect of the story that this article missed, is the role of the employee as both “settlor” and “protector” of his [family’s] sub-trust.
http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j6851/TC02372.pdf
In the judgement, the word “protector” appears:
in the document title – 1 time.
In the majority decision – 34 times
In the dissenting opinion – 80 times
The word “settlor” appears:
In the majority decision – 2 times
In the dissenting opinion – 23 times
The majority considered that the employees position as “protector” did not alter the legal standing of the loans. They offered no opinion (as far as I can tell) on the position of the employee as “settlor”.
Dr Poon has given these words/concepts much weight in her dissenting opinion.
It is an important point that the employee, as settlor/protector could exert considerable influence over the trustees by threatening or actually removing them (and their fees 🙂 ).
When the first set of trustees were being investigated by the Jersey authorities – and reluctantly began to make the employee’s loan applications “commercially real” – they were promptly replaced by a more compliant company.
This threat applies as much to the current trustees as it did to the last – and it is the effective veto over the trustees that prevents the loans ever being repaid.
In several cases (overseas based ex-players) sub-trusts were able to be simply closed – and the loans effectively written off – at the behest of the ex-employee/protector/settlor.
It is the (ex-)players ability to control the actions of the trustees that HMRC argued should categorise the EBT loans as taxable emoluments. This is effectively what puts the loan payments “unreservedly at the disposal of the the employee”.
Dr Poon cited a considerable amount of case law in support of her statement.
If/when HMRC appeal, this will be a matter at the heart of their submission.
easyJambo says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 11:24
3 0 Rate This
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 …
———
Thanks for those details. Got to admire the way Hearts’ fans are quietly rallying round the club.
Really do wish everyone of you good luck.
don’t want to sound petty or anything but…
0.02% leaves 99.98%…
just saying, that’s all…
easyJambo says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 16:02
3 0 i
Rate This
STV are suggesting that Elgin may have points deducted as a result of Sunday’s game being called off.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/elgin-city/202777-elgin-city-could-be-docked-points-by-sfl-for-rangers-postponement/
It seems a reasonable sanction in the circumstances.
——————————————————————————————————————-
I am sure Rangers won’t agree with you.
After all the selling of too many tickets was surely a mere ‘adminstrative error’ 🙂
Danish Pastry says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 16:12
Got to admire the way Hearts’ fans are quietly rallying round the club.
=========
Now that’s what I understand by the word “dignity”. Down in Govan, they think dignity is the manager wearing a suit.
‘Finally, it’s not really for you or me to tell the glen or anyone else what club they should support – I’ll bet you’d never change allegiance, I certainly won’t.’
______________________________________
I don’t know about you but my allegiance comes with a price-tag and that is, that my club play by the rules, try to do the right thing at all times, respect your opponent, and to be magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat.
Could Elgin not argue since the tickets had to be returned to be used they were by way of a ‘loan’.More absurd interpretations of loan have been allowed
wottpi says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 16:46
easyJambo says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 16:02
3 0 i
Rate This
STV are suggesting that Elgin may have points deducted as a result of Sunday’s game being called off.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/elgin-city/202777-elgin-city-could-be-docked-points-by-sfl-for-rangers-postponement/
It seems a reasonable sanction in the circumstances.
——————————————————————————————————————-
I am sure Rangers won’t agree with you.
After all the selling of too many tickets was surely a mere ‘adminstrative error’
—————————————————————————————————
It’ll be good to see how the authorities handle this.I know this is an SFL not SPL case but if the TRFC fans agree that Elgin should be deducted points for selling too many tickets once,how can they complain when they’re stripped of titles for deliberate cheating over 11 years.
On that point,are players contracts lodged with the SFA.I know they won’t get involved at this stage as they would be the appelant body but surely if the SPL have wrong info,then the SFA must also have.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 17:01
At the end of the day, while I was having a wee laugh, the rules should be applied without fear or favour.
Docking points as per the rules is not unreasonable as it is, even for a small club, a big screw up.
However as you suggest this one could have irony written all over it.
Re the players contracts being lodged with the SFA, then I believe they should be held there as well as the SPL or SFL but can’t get a link to oprove that at present.
As mentioned the other day Rangers made at least one injury compensation claim to the SFA when Colin Hendry was injured on international duty. It would be of interest to know what figures they based their claim on. Wages or the EBT loans ‘wages plus’ fugure. The SFA would surely have checked any claim against the records they had on file that season or asked the SPL for a look at their records.
I am sure if the later figure was used for compenstation/insurance claims it was just another administrative error but this time involving a different ruling body.
No question, if Elgin did something wrong and it breaks a rule then apply the documented punishment. Simple!
Meanwhile, in what I’m sure is a coincidence, Grampian Fire & Rescue Service report having to attend the Premier Inn in Elgin at 2.36am yesterday. The Evening Express reports that a “crowd” of residents had to be evacuated.
Elgin’s home game against Rangers, due to be played yesterday, was of course cancelled. This is mentioned in the EE piece, though a connection is not actually made by the journalist.
The reason GF&RS and the Police were called?
A “small blue smoke bomb that football supporters might have” was set off inside the hotel.
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 16:07
——————————————
Fair points except whilst the employees were protectors of their sub-trusts, they were not the settlors, otherwise there would have been no tax case – it would have been income in their hands that they settled. The only employee who could possibly have been construed as a settlor in all of this was Mr Black in view of his overall control of Murray Group.
There are quite a few commentators out there who also consider Mr Black was the real trustee of the monies in all of this and surprisingly that is a point that no one seems to have taken to its fullest extent during the case; in any battle of wills between Mrs Crimson and Mr Black over the destination of the cash, Mrs Crimson would have ended up black and blue – in a notional sense only, I hasten to add, I imply nothing underhand or indeed overhand in that expression!
There are still lots of plays to come in this game, as Mr Black said “there are no winners” – indeed but there may yet be some very sore losers.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 17:01
0 0 Rate This
wottpi says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 16:46
easyJambo says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 16:02
3 0 i
Rate This
STV are suggesting that Elgin may have points deducted as a result of Sunday’s game being called off.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/elgin-city/202777-elgin-city-could-be-docked-points-by-sfl-for-rangers-postponement/
It seems a reasonable sanction in the circumstances.
——————————————————————————————————————-
I am sure Rangers won’t agree with you.
After all the selling of too many tickets was surely a mere ‘adminstrative error’
—————————————————————————————————
It’ll be good to see how the authorities handle this.I know this is an SFL not SPL case but if the TRFC fans agree that Elgin should be deducted points for selling too many tickets once,how can they complain when they’re stripped of titles for deliberate cheating over 11 years.
On that point,are players contracts lodged with the SFA.I know they won’t get involved at this stage as they would be the appelant body but surely if the SPL have wrong info,then the SFA must also have.
———
Murder polis!
There was a report on radio that they had built a temporary stand but that it had not passed a safety test. Was that report just plain wrong? Someone been trying to cash in and hoping no one would notice?
How unlike the football authorities to get pernickety with small clubs while allowing the big boys off with daylight robbery. Whoops, Apocalypse!
PS Elgin should perhaps be looking at player registrations 🙂
abigboydiditandranaway
don’t want to sound petty or anything but…
0.02% leaves 99.98%…
just saying, that’s all’
_____________________
Semantic and pedantic should also be included in your name, if that’s possible!
The idea of Elgin being docked points………………….is someone losing their marbles !
slimshady61 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 17:47
3 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 16:07
——————————————
Fair points except whilst the employees were protectors of their sub-trusts, they were not the settlors, otherwise there would have been no tax case – it would have been income in their hands that they settled. The only employee who could possibly have been construed as a settlor in all of this was Mr Black in view of his overall control of Murray Group.
There are quite a few commentators out there who also consider Mr Black was the real trustee of the monies in all of this and surprisingly that is a point that no one seems to have taken to its fullest extent during the case; in any battle of wills between Mrs Crimson and Mr Black over the destination of the cash, Mrs Crimson would have ended up black and blue – in a notional sense only, I hasten to add, I imply nothing underhand or indeed overhand in that expression!
There are still lots of plays to come in this game, as Mr Black said “there are no winners” – indeed but there may yet be some very sore losers.
==========================
http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j6851/TC02372.pdf
Within Dr Poon’s Summary of Findings-in-Fact (page 122), she says:
She says the role of settlor in this case, is played by the employee – since he is the person with the power to procure the creation & termination of a sub-trust. Though, of course, I recognise your point that the traditional view of settlor would see this title lie with the person who initially provides the capital.
The important point, I think, is that the wording of the trust deed effectively allows the employee to wield the traditional power of the settlor.
As regards deducting points from Elgin, if the sanction is not in the SFL rule book, what do you do then? Ignore the rule book? Where have we heard that one before ?
smugas says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 15:27
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.
=================================================================
Didn’t the BBC documentary say they’d seen 40 side letters (only link I could find with this stated, sort of, is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18148818 – if you count up the yesses it amounts to just over 40)
If we take that 5 were seen by the Tribunal does this mean they were among the stuff conceded by MIH or does it mean the side letters disappeared after the BBC saw them? It’s still up on the BBC web site so I presume they are standing by that.
Mind you I can’t believe it’s that straightforward or someone would have pointed this out long before so I expect I am missing something.
ohhappydayz says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 15:57
10 0 Rate This
Interesting read from Alex Thomson
TOMOBLOG: RANGERS TAX http://bit.ly/QlnbSN
============================================
the comments from sevcovians are priceless!
The Elgin thing …….. Human error …… A game has been cancelled? Nobody is dead…… no-one has been hurt…….. no-one deliberately cheated…….there has been no tax evasion/avoidance…….. A mistake, an error! but then again it was against the mighty sevco, the chosen ones…. The ones who get special refs…… The ones who demand protection from the refs?…… Move on it will not be the first game in the 3rd division cancelled this winter nor the last, whether it’s away or at ibrox ( remember the dodgy plumbing last year 🙂 😉 )
Senior says;
Monday, November 26, at 17;48
re; your comments about semantic and pedantic being included in my name
I don’t know if you are new here or not, but………………
we strive for accuracy, no false accounting from me, no siree!!!
Interesting conversation there on the way home from work, I stopped to fuel up and the Danish guy working there asked me where I came from, after informing him I was Scottish the first question was… yep, you guessed it…
HIM: “So do you support Glasgow or Celtics?”
I side stepped the urge to remind him that The Celtics are a team from Boston and a completely different sport, I also cut him some slack on the “Glasgow” thing as that is how Rangers are known in many countries I visited throughout The European Mainland. I did however inform him that we do have other big teams in Scotland, some of whom have been very successful in Europe (this is not something I would normally have said but this blog has given me a different, more positive outlook on the fans of the other clubs)
ME: “I am a Celtic fan”
HIM: “So is it true that Rangers stole money?”
ME: “Well depending on how you look at it, I would not personally say they stole money but for sure they did not contribute as much tax as they should”
HIM: “But I saw a report that said they did not pass on collected tax that the employees paid as part of their salary”
ME: “Well ok, that is true. The previous management team did not pay those contributions after deducting it from the player’s wages”
HIM: “So it is true, they did steal money”
So there you go, a Danish guy living and working in Denmark gets it, why do the MSM in Scotland have trouble explaining it in simple terms?
Just read Thomo’s Blog and it has convinced me an appeal will be put forward by Hector. Let’s remember that Hector has been on this case for YEARS. It is clearly important to them or they would have accepted the offered reduced payment by RFC. They would not have pursued it this far unless they wanted a “Victory”.
Also don’t forget, RFC and MIH have concealed, obstructed and colluded throughout, they have had HMRC chase every piece of information they asked for, they have lead HMRC a merry dance for YEARS.
To put it bluntly, I suspect that King Murray and his Court Jesters have Royally Pi$$ed off Hector.
They still don’t get it, do they
In 5 cases that we know of, it has been admitted that payments made to EBTs were in actual fact contractual, as they were bonus payments made under the side letters, therefore RFC(IL) were not cleared of all of the charges
At least that is my understanding of it
What I can’t understand, is if these payments were illegal, why weren’t all of the others
A little off topic, but I just happened to look at the BBC page for the SPL – the top 5 goal scorers are all non-Celtic players (couple of them are ex-Celtic players, it has to be said) – I’ll tell you, that Armageddon is a sickener.
angus1983 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 17:31
Meanwhile, in what I’m sure is a coincidence, Grampian Fire & Rescue Service report having to attend the Premier Inn in Elgin at 2.36am yesterday. The Evening Express reports that a “crowd” of residents had to be evacuated. Elgin’s home game against Rangers, due to be played yesterday, was of course cancelled. This is mentioned in the EE piece, though a connection is not actually made by the journalist. The reason GF&RS and the Police were called? A “small blue smoke bomb that football supporters might have” was set off inside the hotel.
————————————————————-
A twitter message from a Sevco fan has been circulating today. The guy says that the naughty guests let the club down and he appeals to all Sevco supporters to behave themselves when attending other places.
Sadly, this loutish type of behaviour is not limited to followers of one particular team.
On Saturday, the SFL2 Angus old firm game, Brechin v Forfar, 4-1, was entirely trouble free. There was no crowd segregation. Football can be good.
OFOG’s latest piece … on why the fans are all that matter.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-only-people-who-matter/
paulsatim says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 19:37
ohhappydayz says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 15:57
10 0 Rate This
Interesting read from Alex Thomson
TOMOBLOG: RANGERS TAX http://bit.ly/QlnbSN
============================================
the comments from sevcovians are priceless!
=================================================
Actually, no, I think they are very sad.
There are a few guys there who claim to have read the Tribunal decision(correct term?) and yet are stating things like “contracts were shown to the SFA” when it actually strongly states that they deliberately hid a great deal of stuff from the football authorities.
That’s only one example. A lot of these guys (I ignore the ones just calling AT names) from the way they express themselves are not the same kind of loonies seen of RM and FF, they speak as if they are reasonable smart. But the blind spot is incredible – especially from the ones claiming to have read the decision.
If RFC(IL) were completely cleared, why did the Tribunal say that there is still tax due, and that the parties should sort it out between themselves without further recourse to the Tribunal ?
Anyone ?
monsieurbunny says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 20:25
I meant priceless in a “roll eyes smiley” sort of a way. MSM reaching the parts RTC and TSFM cant reach!
paulsatim says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 20:34
————————————————–
Cheers. I suppose in that way we’re saying the same thing.
campsiejoe says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 19:58
Rate This
They still don’t get it, do they
In 5 cases that we know of, it has been admitted that payments made to EBTs were in actual fact contractual, as they were bonus payments made under the side letters, therefore RFC(IL) were not cleared of all of the charges
At least that is my understanding of it
What I can’t understand, is if these payments were illegal, why weren’t all of the others
—————————————————————————————
From my reading – I could easily be wrong I think i have misunderstood and misread it at least three ways so far so not a reliable witness if not a deliberately obstructive one – the 5 cases were of foreign based players whose sub trusts had been closed when they moved overseas – thus rendering them liable as no legal trust to repay the loans to now existed and the monies were thus solely in the control of the employees and therefore subject to tax and NI.
It is crystal clear that the revenue cannot allow this to stand. The implications are horrific for them – I believe around 11 billion worth of other cases is outstanding – they must appeal.
Many of the Tax experts who have comented believe the result was bizarre flying in the face of previous judgements especially over the last ten years – so again I believe HMRC need to appeal.
In real terms for Rangers ( they are now dead) and as regards the contractual nature of the loans for registration purposes(now conceded) the result is no victory. In SPL enquiry terms it confirms the hiding of documentation and consequent illegal registering of players. This was systematic and designed to obtain a material advantage .
The UTT is vital for HMRC – as precedent I suppose or as a warning to others that they will be relentless so co-operate and play the game and pay up or you face years and years of expensive litigation.
The only questions now for the LNS enquiry are the extent of the punishment and the more pressing one of whether the enquiry is allowed to meet.
If it takes place its findings will be damning – the punishment though may not be that severe for the present club. issues of “natural justice” may prevail – whatever one thinks of the SEVCO Rangers they are not the ones who broke these rules on player contracts so punishing them is a bit brutal and perhaps some leniency to new club would allow the focus of the reporting of the findings of the enquiry to be on the extent and nature of the rule breaking by deid club, and without a threat to the club to get their backs up it may even be reported accurately by the MSM ( just kidding!)
All of this assumes SEVCO have the funds available to get that far. No-one has as yet shown figures that add up for them. The deficits estimated for this season ranging from 5.6 to 17 million. By my utterly fag packet and very crude calculation means they could be out of money within the next month or get through to end of March. It may well be that they get through to the summer with the share sale and a forward cash boost of ST money for next season – but then what – no more cash coming in and you can’t get share issues every year can you?
FTT Majority Judges Ruling: – Legal Definition of `recoverable` anybody? – [their legal phasing]
– `able to be regained or secured by means of a legal process` ?
Is there a legal process to recover EBT trust and sub-trust funds? – There either is or there isn`t – or?
i wonder if HMRC knew what the likely outcome would be of this part of the FTTT and by any naughty reasons, kept on stressing they were not looking into the case as a sham, but purely from a TAX avoidance issue.
Specifically also of course, not only allowing all necessary data for BDO to pursue multiple (now confirmed legally) threads, but also because of the naming of 35 EBT recipients who all had side letters, including FIVE players, who were not properly registered with the SFA or SPL thus deliberately breaking the rules.
iceman63 @ 20:42
the 5 cases were of foreign based players whose sub trusts had been closed when they moved overseas – thus rendering them liable as no legal trust to repay the loans to now existed and the monies were thus solely in the control of the employees and therefore subject to tax and NI.
If that is the case, then it shows that the whole thing is a sham and a huge con
Redetin, thanks very much for the update on the Angus derby – glad it passed off peacefully and no nastiness unlike its Highland counterpart last month.
Does anyone share my sense of shock that the SFA have not seen fit to charge Ross County over their fans’ disgraceful banner at the Tulloch Stadium?
In an ill-concealed reference to the merger of the two former Inverness teams to form ICT, they held up a picture of what can only be described as an angry cross-breed, emblazened below which were the offensive words “Mongrels Since 1994”. If that was not incitement to violence across the Beauly Firth, I don’t know what was.
PS anyone any idea what happened to the SFA enquiry into the Zombie banner at Celtic Park? Has it been kicked into the long grass just next to the open grave?
Slim
link re: banner judgement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19911519
slimshady61 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 20:59
Redetin, thanks very much for the update on the Angus derby – glad it passed off peacefully and no nastiness unlike its Highland counterpart last month.
—————-
Slim, pure class, what did we do without you.
The nastiness in the north I blame on the Kessock bridge, should never have been built.
I understand that cyber policeman, like the poor, will always be with us, but to take time to point out a discrepancy of a fraction of one per cent, particularly when the original figure was pulled out of the ether in the first place, must be a new benchmark for cyber policing.
In a week when such an infamous finding is produce by the FTT, and then for one to proceed down the road of counting how many angels dance on a pinhead must be indicative of a very dreary disposition indeed..
Lord Wobbly says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 07:48
StevieBC says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 05:04
…
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…
==========================================================
I don’t mind at all LW – and of course you are ‘absolutely’ correct !
I posted my ill-judged comment following an extremely sociable afternoon/evening – and when in no fit state to be allowed anywhere near a keyboard. 🙄
I should really know by now…don’t drink and type.
I know I really shouldn’t, but I had a wee look at Traynor in the Record today. It’s superb stuff. It really ticks all the boxes – the long suffering Rangers fans, Neil Lennon having nothing to say on the verdict despite having plenty to say earlier, how the bampots should eat humble pie instead of succulent lamb (nice of him to acknowledge his favourite dish).
Kudos Jim, you’ve really raised your game.
Initially from KDS.
Brian H Donohoe – Register history | MP’s page
4. Sponsorship or financial or material support
My election fighting fund has received registrable donations from Media House, Glasgow. (Registered 24 February 2005)
No surprise then that he is calling for a parliamentary enquiry into how HMRC treated RFC(IL).
madbhoy24941 says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 19:40
We get, I’m sure many other get it and even some Rangers Supporters get it. The perception now however for an element of the Rangers support which is being supported by sections of the MSM seems to be that they somehow unjustly fell into the hands of CW, could have continued to reduce their debts and shouldn’t be where they are now because they weren’t guilty of any wrong doing. If they were reducing their debt even pre CW days it was because they were using tax loopholes to avoid tax and save money and employ better players. Nothing wrong you could say in taking advantage of a tax scheme but tell Jimmy Carr that after he was outed for it. Have the press arrived outside any players houses and harrassed them and asked “do you think it is right not to pay any tax on your earnings when your are wealthy enough and the man at the bottom is struggling?
I wish!
On another point all this talk of RTC doing a runner as Rangers are seeking financial retribution in some form or finding out who was feeding the information. What a lot of nonesense, they had the opportunity to ask these questions for almost 18 months but didn’t-wonder why! I know the answer dont you ? I personally think that MSM had been put in the shade for so long and found wanting because of the work of RTC, the FFT result gave them their first opportunity to kick RTC by not printing the full facts.
Angus1983
The ‘Premier’ Inn? Really? Now isn’t that ironic….!
…….at least it wasn’t 5 star.
I will get my coat
The Away End have done a tidy bit of attendance analysis:
@TheAwayEnd: NEW ARTICLE: SPL crowds compared to last season http://t.co/nF0EBzec http://t.co/dfhEO2y4
I’ve heard tell of Leggoland before, but I had a bit of a look tonight. I think someone must be having laugh at Rangers expense – he can’t be for real ,surely? That’s got to be a spoof.
Missed headline of the week :
“Rangers in new EBT shock”
EBT = Elgin’s Ballsed-up Tickets
as promised I did the re-read looking for the ’35’ reference. Can’t see any cases where paragraph numbers could have been used in error tbh.
Dr Poon actually identifies them when discussing the termination payments at page 92 paragraph 96 – something along the lines of in 35 cases the trust was used to pay termination payments to exiting (note no ‘c’ I saw most of them and entirely agree) players when said termination payment was presumably calculated on a contractual basis. Regrettably two things stand out – firstly that trust payments seem to be used to replace the contractual figure, rather than to contribute towards them (basically rangers were saving the 40% tax on the salaried element by giving the ex-player 100% of his golden handshake via trust less 30k which was salaried and I bet you can all guess why) and secondly no mention of culpability having been accepted for these cases other than the 5 specifically mentioned.
Two further points. Why would a player be paid to leave if it was not contractual? Sorry but I cannot believe the herald editor didn’t ask Mr Dodds this question prior to publication this week.
Secondly, and sorry to labour this point, the ruling refers to a letter written by Rangers on 29th September 2011. It (the ruling) reads:
“The Appellants have declared by way of letter that five players…had their guaranteed bonuses paid to them via the trust mechanism.
It continues to say that the appellants have neither quantified the payments or accepted any liability.
Question. In a footballing sense might Rangers not have been better to admit to this declaration of partial guilt before now? To me that is the crux of the Murray versus Rangers arguement and I’m sorry were I LNS I wouldn’t take kindly to it spoiling my christmas
briggsbhoy says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 22:41
I think that’s the last thing we need – accusations of homophobia to go alongside the latent anti-Rangers sentiments……
Seriously, is he actually for real? His article today was like someone had sat down and thought to themselves ‘Right, what would a stereotypical caricature of a Rangers fan write?’
As we sometimes struggle to find a way to get over just what the true picture really is in terms that the MSM and their readers understand, I noticed a comment by AT on his blog that might be useful :
“All talk of victory is like celebrating winning the cup minutes from time when you know the other lot could score and send the whole thing to extra time.”
To take the football analogy a step further it is also very much like they are facing Manchester United and ‘Fergie Time’ has still to be played.
For Fergie though read HMRC…..
We have just been lectured, so this is very un pc, but the white brick’s man assessment of the situation needs to be heard.
—————
“Slowly, carefully and right out there in front of their eyes, all the conspiracy theorists of the Celtic Brigade, whether cowering inside BBC Scotland’s headquarters, hunkered down in Donegal, hiding behind the anonymity of a diseased and sinister blog, are watching through cracks in their fingers as all their evil work unravels…”
campsiejoe says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 20:31
==========================
As I understand it, in a limited number of cases it was proven that the payments were contractual (guaranteed), failed the test of an EBT and as such tax, interest and penalties are due. Working it out between themselves won’t be complicated, it’s the figure HMRC already assessed for. The Tribunal has left that to the appellant and respondent to sort out.
With regard the others, there is a strong implication, at least, that documentations were missing from the relevant files. Rangers having drawn out supplying those for a protracted period, possibly years. Two of the tribunal seem to have taken the view that, as the contractual nature of the payments was not shown, and the trust was accepted as not a sham (by both sides lawyers) then tax was not shown to be due.
The other amounts are therefore loans, rather than payments and no tax is due on them.
To me there have been a few “guilty” verdicts and a lot more “not proven”.
I believe that the difference in opinion, a huge one, was because two people were lawyers and one an accountant. The lawyers looked at things in a strictly legal sense and took no practicality into account. The accountant looked at the facts, and allowed herself to draw conclusions from them, using real World experience, and heaven forfend “common sense”.
Just my understanding.
stmiley says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 21:03
————————————
Cheers. I was abroad when that came out and it never made it on to the few tweets that I look at.
Total farce – we can all sleep peacefully in our beds now, knowing that being afraid of zombies and wanting to survive in any two-way fight against them is not (yet) against any law of this fine land.
Martybhoy, thanks for your good wishes. In the last days of (his) empire, King Hubris II (aka RTC) had taken to deducting PAYE and NIC from my weekly fiver and I just wasn’t having it. Especially when Adam was flaunting his unbroken tenner in my face.
TSFM, seeing my fiscal distress, has kindly advanced me a small loan, all on very commercial terms y’understand, via his offshore set up on Sark – the ‘Sarky Mullarkey Sub Trust 5420’.
The loan is in no way whatsoever to be classified as pay for my tax purposes, it’s a real kosher, halal loan, immediately repayable upon me reaching 5,276,842 thumbs up for this post; I am writing the cheque as I type (no men feat, beleve yu mi)
PS Sir David Black’s new money making idea is to sue Wonga for £50M over their “pay day loans” product – he says he thought of it first when he bought/borrowed Tore Andre Flo (the p is silent)
“Go ahead, make my pay”
By the way, on RTC and his amazing disappearing blog, I am hoping it is because he is off to write part one of his trilogy.
I am fearing however that this may be more to do with his concerns about the vindictive and litigious nature of certain of the participants in this sorry (“there are no winners”) saga who, having gone to great, nay extraordinary, lengths to hide their sordid little secrets from us the public over the past decade, up to and including the private hearings and the anonymised decision, are now jumping up and down metaphorically speaking screaming black / crimson / red / scarlet / magenta / blue murder just because some of the unpalatable truth leaked out in the process.
“there are no winners” – nice phrase, SIr David – if you don’t mind the SPL will be using it quite a lot in relation to the trophies of the last decade when they announce the outcome of the enquiry into dual contracts.
Whats happened to the nightshift and early morning paper delivery?
Top news for today being Elgin’s punishment I believe. 3 point deduction?
Just having a look at the comments on AT’s blog … hang on while I pick my jaw up off the floor.
Keep it up, Alex. It must be quite fun for you to read the Peepil’s nonsense.
Meanwhile … an Appeal to the Upper Tribunal does not have to be simply “on a point of law”, as has been bandied about. From justice.gov.uk:
—
Reasons (grounds) for appealing:
In most cases you can only appeal against the decision of a First-tier
Tribunal if it was wrong in law. Examples of where the tribunal may be
wrong in law include:
The tribunal did not apply the correct law or wrongly interpreted
the law.
The tribunal made a procedural error.
The tribunal had no evidence, or not enough evidence, to support
its decision.
The tribunal did not give adequate reasons for its decision in the
written statement of its reasons.
This list is not exhaustive and the tribunal may be wrong in law for some
other reason not mentioned here.
—
What I mean is – “wrong on a point of law” suggests a misinterpretation of e.g. a single paragraph in legislation.
“Wrong in law” widens the horizon somewhat.
Big T @tommye2
@mdkster @thecroakgang Ramsay coverted to statute, interesting view. Should FTT have examined the facts more closley. http://www.taxbar.com/documents/If_Ramsay_Were_in_Statutory_Form_PS_000.pdf …
Retweeted by Law & Beating Barca
View conversation Reply Retweet Favorite
smugas says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 22:42
as promised I did the re-read looking for the ’35′ reference. Can’t see any cases where paragraph numbers could have been used in error tbh.
___________________________________________
smugas, refer to paragraph 233 on page 58. If you cut and paste as I did below**, you’ll cut the number 35 from the margin into the text. You’ll see the 35 makes no sense in this context. Hope this clarifies.
** “233. Accordingly, the assessments made fall to be reduced substantially. It was
conceded that advances in favour of certain players are taxable and liable to NIC, and
35 we have found that in certain other limited instances, there may be a similar liability.
To that extent the assessments should stand. In these circumstances we expect that it
is sufficient that we allow the Appeal in principle. Parties can no doubt settle the
sums due for the limited number of cases mentioned without further reference to the
Tribunal.”
smugas says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 22:42
as promised I did the re-read looking for the ’35′ reference. Can’t see any cases where paragraph numbers could have been used in error tbh.
___________________________________________
smugas, refer to paragraph 233 on page 58. If you cut and paste as I did below**, you’ll cut the number 35 from the margin into the text. You’ll see the 35 makes no sense in this context. Hope this clarifies.
** “233. Accordingly, the assessments made fall to be reduced substantially. It was
conceded that advances in favour of certain players are taxable and liable to NIC, and
35 we have found that in certain other limited instances, there may be a similar liability.
To that extent the assessments should stand. In these circumstances we expect that it
is sufficient that we allow the Appeal in principle. Parties can no doubt settle the
sums due for the limited number of cases mentioned without further reference to the
Tribunal.”
___________________
Thanks RDT. No, I’m definitely going with Dr Poons declaration of the figure. Any legal beagles want to explain the difference in termination payments to me? Dr Poon specifically noted three main types.
Payments in lieu of notice (PILON). These have got to be contractual yes, the payment level and the in lieu bit must give it away.
% of transfer fee. From what I can gather this is a golden handshake to the player. Presumably the thinking is that the player plays very well for team A, gets his move to the EPL and this is his reward (from team A). Crucially there is evidence that the accepted practise seemed to be that the player accepted this bit in trust, but in so doing waived his right to the PILON payment so I assume the arguement would be that no PILON payment therefore no contractual payment. Problem. Did the players accept these proposed transfer splits on a nod and a wink or did their lawyers and agents not have it written up to the hilt (hence Billy Dodd’s resolute defence).
Inducement to play for a different club – the so called Shilton payment. Again sorry, contractual, left right and centre.
slimshady61:Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 00:09
forgive me if I am wrong but did RTC not say they would return with a breakdown of the verdict, regardless of the outcome? I agree it certainly does seem strange that the entire site has been ostensibly ‘removed’. Why MIH or Rangers FC 1872 did not take action before the result also seems strange…. does it not?
Having taken some time to digest the FTT decision, I thought AT’s blog was an excellent summary.
The issue of how much RFC(IL) owed became moot as soon as they were (IL). The principle of utilising a tax avoidance scheme may not have been proven to the tribunal’s satisfaction but I think the clear position given on side letters & therefore improperly registered players was very important. The SPL investigation delay was to give themselves room should there be any appeal by HMRC.
However I fear that if there is no appeal by HMRC there will be one final lifting of the carpet to hide the investigation, quickly followed by league reconstruction to place TRFC in the top league.
Everyone will be happy, except every non TRFC fan in the country and the game along with many clubs will die.
Armageddon.
smugas says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 10:12
smugas says:
Monday, November 26, 2012 at 22:42
as promised I did the re-read looking for the ’35′ reference. Can’t see any cases where paragraph numbers could have been used in error tbh.
_____________________________________
smugas,
For further clarification, the 35 is actually a line number. The lines are numbered marginally 5, 10, 15, 20…etc.
Sorry to be a bore.
Just one example to remind folk that this blog still needs to be supported:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/bbc-documentary-hardened-views-on-rangers-but-now-different-questions-need-to-be-addressed.19522821
I won’t bother pointing out all the things wrong with the article, except to say he hasn’t bothered to read the FTT decision or has just ignored what he doesn’t want to see.
BBC get a rap too, with posters in comments claimnig BBC ran a deliberate campaign against Rangers.
That Rangers lost the “Wee tax case”, 5 of the Tribunal cases and didn’t pay about £18m. in PAYE/NI doesn’t get a mention.
As a point of fairness I include this link too:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/spiers-on-sport-rangers-ebts-whats-right-and-whats-wrong.1353522759
Decent first half but avoids mentioning the smaller proven tax dodging and too forgiving of Murray (remembering his lovely lamb dinners?)
I think it might be appropriate to jump back in time again, just a wee reminder of the HMRC statement way back when the old club had their proposed CVA rejected and HMRC made it clear that their intention was to liquidate that club.
“A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.”
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/rangers.htm
A strong indication of HMRC’s intentions, via the liquidator, that they do not intend letting the actions of those running Rangers just go away. I do not imaging that the FTT result, albeit they have found for both parties (whatever anyone tries to tell us) will weaken that resolve. In fact I would have thought the slaughtering of the practices by the Rangers board will only go to strengthening that resolve.
Bearing in mind as well “…pursuit of possible claims against those responsible…”. To me that clearly indicates investigating the possibility of recovering money in addition to potential criminal proceedings.
Still waiting to see this “victory” for Rangers that the MSM are telling us about. The debt, to HMRC alone, is still going to be substantial, probably £20m+. HMRC are still going to try to recover it. BDO are still going to be working for HMRC. The SPL panel still has to rule on fielding ineligible players. The “victory” has provided, if anything, further evidence to support the prima facie case. The titles “won” are still up for grabs. HMRC still have the option of appealing.
Pyrrhic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 10:18
————————————-
I am fairly comfortable RTC removed it himself/herself.
Some of the more poisonous elements claim they have screen grabs of the pages they want – presumably those with extracted documents?
Are the MIH afficionados going to go after targets like BBC Scotland or The Sun? Or pursue the harder target of bloggers like RTC?
I think we know the answer to that – it tells you more about the pursuers than the pursued.
In footballing parlance,we’re only halfway through 56 days of added time the 4th official indicated on the board, so the game far from over yet.
slimshady61:Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 11:14
indeed 😉
smugas says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 10:12
==================================
The BBC stated they’d seen evidence of 53 side letters and put up a list of Rangers staff who’d got EBTs, stating where they’d seen a side letter for an individual. If you count these they come up to just over 40.
Yes I know I posted this before but no one has replied yet to say whether this minus the 5 mentioned by the FTT comes to the figure of 30 (+?) mentioned by some here and elsewhere or what became of the other side letters.
Were they – or some of them – involved in the small number of cases admitted by Murray’s team in which case why not all? Were some dismissed and if so why?
Or did the BBC only see direct evidence of a handful and only had indirect evidence of the rest and they either didn’t exist, weren’t relevant in individual cases or disappeared?
I’m hoping someone can sort out the confusion I’m experiencing over this.
I see General Hogmanay Melchett has signed the e-petition. Government investigation?
Well, that should allow the bit of Her Majesty’s union jack-flavoured government – that’s not so popular with the quintessential – to put out any information about how the investigation was stalled and thwarted by Her Majesty’s most loyal subjects. Little did we know that when they said, ‘No surrender’ they were referring to important documents that would not be handed over 🙂
Perhaps the investigation could start by naming people who would rather be known as their favourite colour than by their real name?
Rule Britannia, yah-boo-sucks to you, Fritsie, et cetera.