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.
IF the appeal goes to the UTTT can someone tell me what pool of resource the new tribunal members will be drawn from, what are their ‘day jobs’ so to speak ? I think Slim made passing reference recently to these individuals being more highly qualified than those on the FTTT. Any more detail ?
Does the trust still exist? If it does, then why? It can’t benefit Rangers employees since there are none. Surely no-one could object to it closing and its financial affairs wound up?
monsieurbunny says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 11:38
Have to say that’s Mark Daly’s obvious come back in all this (should he or BBC wish to of course). It became apparent on 2nd reading that the majority decision makes little of the termination payments, other than to say these were loans so not a lot we could do about it. Noticeably (and remember as BRHT says judges are clever bar stewards) Dr Poon explicitly dwells on the point, specifically highlighting the existence of the 35.
Mark Daly would need to square the circle of Poon’s 35, his 53 and the comments relating to some side letters being there and others noticeably, conspicuously and, on at least one occasion according to Dr Poon, deliberately not being “surrendered” (copywrite DP acknowledged).
http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmcts/tribunals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Tribunal
Thereek, if we take as an example the appeal by Aberdeen Asset Management to the Upper Tribunal, that was heard by Sir Nicholas Roger Warren who is the President of the Tax and Chancery Chamber of the Upper Tribunal (see also http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/w/17926/Nicholas%20Roger%20Warren+WARREN.aspx ) .
That is the calibre of person we are talking about and he may well take this case too, if it goes to appeal, given its importance.
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.
–––––––––––––––––––––
And there is Lord Nimmo Smith’s job done for him, there and then, without having to even worry about some painfully constructed explanation of why £40-plus million of Rangers cash was transferred, via Jersey, to their players yet it somehow doesn’t constitute “payments”.
The foreign players had their sub trusts cancelled. Those payments ceased to even pretend to be loans. They were, as all three judges says, “contractual”.
And were those “contractual” payments registered with the SFA? No.
Which means that EVERY game played by each one of those five foreign players has to be retrospectively considered a 0-3 loss for Rangers.
Enough to decide the fate of those titles without even considering another sliver of evidence.
And what of the Rangers officials who connived in this extended and extensive breaking of SFA rules?
Lifetime bans?
Seems fair to me.
Martyn Hunter Elgin director and safety advisor:
“I discovered some tickets had been sold that hadn’t gone through the office.”
“I immediately contacted the police to say there was a problem.They then returned for a set of discussions and everyone knows the outcome.
“I was informed that tickets had been sold but I wouldn’t want to expand on that.
“I hope people respect my position on that. I told the police as soon as I was made aware.”
……
Hmmm, so who sold the Tickets that hadn’t gone through Elgins Ticket office?
Home or Away Ally?
Was just thinking if hmrc do appeal could be 2015- 2017 before we get a result.Just around the time when sevco could be back in the top flight and europe again.Imagine the result went against them now that would be fun.
ordinaryfan says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 12:53
0 0 i
Rate This
Martyn Hunter Elgin director and safety advisor:
“I discovered some tickets had been sold that hadn’t gone through the office.”
“I immediately contacted the police to say there was a problem.They then returned for a set of discussions and everyone knows the outcome.
“I was informed that tickets had been sold but I wouldn’t want to expand on that.
“I hope people respect my position on that. I told the police as soon as I was made aware.”
……
Hmmm, so who sold the Tickets that hadn’t gone through Elgins Ticket office?
Home or Away Ally?
======================================================
I’m not sure what you’re implying ordinary fan – would you care to expand on that?
It seems the legislation on Threatening Communications is now being rigorously applied by Strathclyde Police. I shouldn’t imagine it should affect anyone on this blog, as the level of debate stays well away from the making of physical threats and open disclosure of people’s whereabouts.
But this is from the Moderators of the Rangers Media Forum:
“Along with other football forums, we have been contacted by the Football Co-ordination Unit for Scotland (FoCUS) several times in recent weeks requesting details of posters following complaints about threatening or offensive posts. Our response in each case has been to contact the poster and suggest they may wish to contact FoCUS voluntarily. On each occasion the posters have done so.
“We are aware of ongoing cases where posters on football forums have been charged, and may end up with criminal records as a result of their posts.
“FoCUS are satisfied with our approach but they have stated that where they do not receive assistance they are likely to seek a warrant to obtain all details that RM hold of that poster. At RM we do not have the resources, legal or financial, to deal with warrants or to fight such cases through the courts. It is therefore imperative that every poster understands they are responsible for their own posts.
“We cannot overemphasize how serious this matter is.
“Unless you want a criminal record, THINK before you POST.”
_________
A bit late in the day, but will sensible discussion now break out on some Rangers forums, rather than the hurling of sectarian insults and threats?
STV Sport@STVSport
Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson resigns from SPL board, citing “professional differences”.
===========================
Professional differences? Reconstruction perhaps? Not prepared to accelerate TRFC’s promotion to the SPL?
Given ST’s recent record on speaking out, I’d hope that he will make his “diferences” public.
liveinhop says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 12:59
0 0 i
Rate This
Was just thinking if hmrc do appeal could be 2015- 2017 before we get a result.Just around the time when sevco could be back in the top flight and europe again.Imagine the result went against them now that would be fun.
====================
1, Sevco cant be “back in the top flight and europe” they have never been in either.
2, If HMRC appeal this decision it won’t really matter to them. That relates to MIH and the former club.
3, From the old club’s perspective an HMRC appeal is really rather irrelevant, they are being liquidated with a debt they can’t afford anuyway. Making it bigger won’t change anything.
4, It might effect former Officers of the company and employees but that’s a different matter.
blu says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 13:01
0 0 Rate This
ordinaryfan says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 12:53
0 0 i
Rate This
Martyn Hunter Elgin director and safety advisor:
“I discovered some tickets had been sold that hadn’t gone through the office.”
“I immediately contacted the police to say there was a problem.They then returned for a set of discussions and everyone knows the outcome.
“I was informed that tickets had been sold but I wouldn’t want to expand on that.
“I hope people respect my position on that. I told the police as soon as I was made aware.”
……
Hmmm, so who sold the Tickets that hadn’t gone through Elgins Ticket office?
Home or Away Ally?
======================================================
I’m not sure what you’re implying ordinary fan – would you care to expand on that?
…………….
Well was it Elgin or RFC who sold too many tickets and tickets that were not allocated by Elgins ticket office.
I don’t see how anyone other than Elgin could sell tickets to their ground in an SFL match. Other than tickets they allocated to another club to sell to their own fans.
baxterparp says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 12:27
3 0 i
Rate This
Does the trust still exist? If it does, then why? It can’t benefit Rangers employees since there are none. Surely no-one could object to it closing and its financial affairs wound up?
================================
MIH still have employees.
Update on Hearts where the possibility of a sale and leaseback of Tynecastle is now on the cards.
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20121127/sergejus-qa_2241384_2993002
27.11.2012
Director Sergejus Fedotovas has taken time to answer some questions on the future of the club and underlines Vladimir Romanov’s willingness to speak to any reasonable buyer who can demonstrate an ability to take Hearts forward.
He also stresses that much work remains to be done in the remaining weeks of the Share Issue.
What kind of deal is the Hearts board looking for from any new owner?
Apart from the terms being acceptable to the current owners, the buyer will need to demonstrate they are a fit person to run the club and have a realistic plan for running the club successfully. The current owners did not highlight preferences of any deal, so a reasonable proposal will have a way forward given it reflects the value of the club and and is acceptable in principle. As a possible option, the club may be sold and the stadium may remain in ownership of UBIG and leased to the club. In this way the value of the deal for the football club only will be reduced and debt repayment will be linked to the stadium.
Will the new owner of Hearts need to buy UBIG’s majority shareholding outright, and if so what is the price?
In my view, the price is the value of the club which is acceptable to the present owners. It is normal that every individual sees this value in a different way but the major thing is that it should be reasonable. The offers which we have received until now were opportunistic rather than reasonable.
Are UBIG willing to write off all, or some, of the debt in order to do a deal?
It depends on the deal. If the buyer is willing to get the club for nothing like the Foundation of Hearts has tried then there should be no expectation of the debt being written off. UBIG has acquired the club with a similar amount of debt and a similar financial situation by paying a consideration for the shares.
The Hearts board must be very pleased with the efforts of the fans so far, raising funds, buying shares and match tickets. Is it more than you expected in such a short time since the Share Issue began?
The effort is outstanding and in my view represents one of the best examples in the world of fans’ support for a football club. It is what we were aiming for, as it was required to preserve the club. And I need to be clear – we are still trying to reach half way through what is required. Many important challenges lie ahead – we are still short of covering our wage and tax bill undertakings for the season.
Do you believe a deal can be done to transfer ownership of Hearts before the end of 2012? Or would it be more realistic for fans to expect a new owner to be in place at some point next year?
The offers received by now fall far away from being reasonable. It is unlikely that this will be pursued. Things may change next year if bidders will reconsider their position or new bidders will emerge – and I know that some people are actively considering things in the background.
You have said you are keen to give the club to the fans, but realistically fans will not be able to raise millions of pounds to buy out Mr Romanov. What do you think a compromise agreement could involve?
A staged transition, a combination of owning the club and leasing the stadium or combination of an investor-and-fan ownership or a mix. Meanwhile, we are working on improving the business of the club to make it more competitive and more attractive to investors.
Would you be keen to talk more with the Foundation of Hearts and Alex Mackie if they were prepared to offer more to buy the majority shareholding in Hearts?
Tynecastle Stadium alone is worth much more than £5m. We have a competitive club in the SPL and a brand that is well known beyond Scotland. I will just reiterate – we are prepared to speak to any reasonable buyer but there was no reasonable offer from the Foundation.
ordinaryfan says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 13:18
—————————————————————
On wrong track here I’m afarid.
From today’s Scorsman:
Elgin City director Martyn Hunter has spoken of his embarrassment at what he called the ‘greed and stupidity’ that saw nearly 1200 additional tickets sold for the Borough Briggs club’s clash with Rangers, leading to the game’s postponement on safety grounds.
Hunter said: “The reputation of Elgin City has taken a hell of a dunt and I was absolutely shattered when the police took the decision.
“Regardless of the motives, we know the result. We don’t know the exact number of tickets over the capacity that were sold but it was over our safety limit and that’s all that matters.
“I’ve never known anything like it and it was down to greed and stupidity.”
Hunter is only too aware of the threat of at least a fine for the Third Division side, with the possibility of a points deduction as the SFL seek to make an example of the club – however, they are likely to escape with a censure and warning.
• The club’s board are due to meet today to discuss the future of chairman Graham Tatters.
Agrajag says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 13:20
0 0 Rate This
I don’t see how anyone other than Elgin could sell tickets to their ground in an SFL match. Other than tickets they allocated to another club to sell to their own fans.
……………
Exactly. Yet we know the extra tickets were not sold through Elgin’s Ticket Office.
It does look though as though Elgin’s chairman’s reputation may be in tatters.
(Ouch)
Agrajag says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 13:20
0 0 Rate This
I don’t see how anyone other than Elgin could sell tickets to their ground in an SFL match. Other than tickets they allocated to another club to sell to their own fans.
……………
That doesn’t mean they were not allocated by Elgin a different way.
monsieurbunny says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 13:31
1 0 Rate This
It does look though as though Elgin’s chairman’s reputation may be in tatters.
(Ouch)
……………
With a name like Tatters it’s only a matter of time before that bit him on his behind. I would have changed it years ago, you are inviting fate to deal you a heavy blow with a name like that!
Can I add since on a re-read of what I quoted I can see an argument coming: Elgin are responsible for the tickets. They would either have sent an allocation to TRFC to sell or sold them by post themselves. Either way Elgin would be in control of the process, including organising printing of tickets, so it highly unlikely anyone not connected with Elgin would have been able to over-sell.
Unless you’re suggesting forgery? Just possible but I doubt it or otherwise the Elgin board would have been unaware of it until the extra fans turned up at the game.
slimshady61 Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 12:33
Judging by the exuberant displays of “V FOR VICTORY” (or is it “Vindication”?) amongst the hoards of NewClub fans, one would have thought their celebrations would have been slightly tempered by such a result as A.A.M.
If I recall correctly this was a famous (test)case in which their successful appeal was overturned in favour of HMRC on appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
I may also be correct in thinking that HMRC have won 7 out of the last 8 cases (one of which was withdrawn) relating to EBTs on appeal to the UT.
That said, Should MIH/ RFC 1872 succeed in upholding their appeal of their appealed appeal…. should Celtic appeal to HMRC for a rebate for Juninho’s EBT payment? and dare I say it…….. ok I will!…….. an apology from the SMSM and Sevcovites?
re: Elgin
Is it not the case that the Match Commander wanted the ticket allocation restricted. Hence the oversell but not over capacity?
Have they been thrown out the league and the title awarded to SevcoRFC yet for such a dishonest action?
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 13:42
0 0 Rate This
slimshady61 Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 12:33
Judging by the exuberant displays of “V FOR VICTORY” (or is it “Vindication”?) amongst the hoards of NewClub fans, one would have thought their celebrations would have been slightly tempered by such a result as A.A.M.
If I recall correctly this was a famous (test)case in which their successful appeal was overturned in favour of HMRC on appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
I may also be correct in thinking that HMRC have won 7 out of the last 8 cases (one of which was withdrawn) relating to EBTs on appeal to the UT.
That said, Should MIH/ RFC 1872 succeed in upholding their appeal of their appealed appeal…. should Celtic appeal to HMRC for a rebate for Juninho’s EBT payment? and dare I say it…….. ok I will!…….. an apology from the SMSM and Sevcovites?
…………………………
Are there many instances where HMRC have failed to launch an appeal in any other or similar EBT cases they have “lost” at the FTTT?
What do you think the chances are of HMRC going forward with an appeal?
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 13:45
0 0 Rate This
re: Elgin
Is it not the case that the Match Commander wanted the ticket allocation restricted. Hence the oversell but not over capacity?
Have they been thrown out the league and the title awarded to SevcoRFC yet for such a dishonest action?
……………….
Sevco will do the sporting and dignified thing and offer a replay, after all, generosity and decency are a fantastic way of “making friends”.
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 13:42
Dextra is worth looking at.
http://thinking.grant-thornton.co.uk/bespoke/index.php/bespoke_templates/article/hmrc_offers_chance_to_avoid_court_and_settle_ebt_enquiries/
“The use of trusts by employers without operating PAYE has been an issue for HMRC for many years. The case of Dextra Accessories Limited vs Macdonald (HMIT), for example, initially found in favour of the taxpayer in 2002 but ultimately the House of Lords decided for HMRC.”
I believe the House of Lords should now be read as Supreme Court.
It’s actually about tax deductions by the employer but the priciple of HMRC not just accepting FTT rulings and going “all the way” is the same.
http://www.taxbar.com/documents/Dextra_Its_Not_Over_Till_PW_000.pdf
baxterparp says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 12:27
Does the trust still exist? If it does, then why? It can’t benefit Rangers employees since there are none. Surely no-one could object to it closing and its financial affairs wound up?
baxterparp, the sub-trusts need to remain open to maintain the fiction that the loans are repayable. The problem with the 5 that the FTT ruled are subject to tax is that the sub-trust were closed when the players moved (back) abroad, and therefore there was no means of them repaying the loans.
ordinaryfan Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 13:52
Eh? I thought it was postponed…. 😉
re: your other question. I believe HMRC WILL appeal.
I must say I have no inside knowledge or otherwise – just a gut feeling
Perhaps with over 8000 cases in waiting and £5 BILLION in revenue to recoup I cant see them letting this one go…… Like I said elsewhere a “victory” Pyrrhus would be proud of 😉
ordinaryfan says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 13:18
Hmmm, so who sold the Tickets that hadn’t gone through Elgins Ticket office?
Home or Away Ally?
======================================================
Ordinary fan, I’m guessing that “Ally” means allocation and isn’t a reference to TRFC’s manager? Either way, on the basis of information available in the media i.e. Elgin City’s public statements on the matter, I’d say it’s a stretch too far to suggest that the team from Govan team has had any role to play in this particular farrago. This is conjecture, but it seems more likely that Elgin couldn’t deliver the safety certificate that would have raised the seating capacity to the level the club had printed tickets for.
was the dundee utd chairman all for spl2 or not ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20512820
DUFC’s Thompson resigns from SPL board. So the SPL chairmen in late November, as I suspected many posts ago, will meet to discuss reconstruction and no doubt find a way, (stadium criteria, anyone?) to fast track TRFC towards top flight.
No doubt they feel safe with season book money safely tucked away and several months before next is due. Plenty time to get these stupid fans on side, they presume.
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again.
SPL chairmen, Armageddon.
Your day is coming.
TSFM
If someone comes on here and says that the lunatic fringe of old Rangers represents 0.02 of the fan base of that club I think it only fair that this outlandish figure should be challenged in an honest and forthright way. The last thing I would have expected was to have my post deleted and the original post with this bogus figure continue on display unchallenged.
I am in favour of all fans commenting on here, but no particular group should be treated with kid gloves.
I hate to say it, but (and the wife will enjoy this) those bookshelves may after all be completed by Christmas.
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 13:42
That said, Should MIH/ RFC 1872 succeed in upholding their appeal of their appealed appeal…. should Celtic appeal to HMRC for a rebate for Juninho’s EBT payment? and dare I say it…….. ok I will!…….. an apology from the SMSM and Sevcovites?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wasn’t Juninho’s EBT payment on termination and didn’t Rangers lose 5 termination cases in their appeal?
http://www.scotsman.com/13:17
Comment From BigHec
Why do you believe RFC were so uncooperative resorting to concealment and obstruction of HMRC and also Police investigations for 8 years?
13:18
Tom English: I wrote a long column about this in last Thursday’s Scotsman. The delaying activities of Mr Red, the Murray Group’s chief tax expert, were shocking and hugely counter-productive for Rangers-on-sunday/webchats
Is it just me or is that not actually an answer to the question I asked of Mr English?
Simple question for Tom English and the others in the MSM: Why did Murray and co delay, obstruct and conceal?
Why did they take that course of action consistently from start to finish? Presumption of their own guilt maybe?
blu says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 14:04
0 0 Rate This
ordinaryfan says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 13:18
Hmmm, so who sold the Tickets that hadn’t gone through Elgins Ticket office?
Home or Away Ally?
======================================================
Ordinary fan, I’m guessing that “Ally” means allocation and isn’t a reference to TRFC’s manager? Either way, on the basis of information available in the media i.e. Elgin City’s public statements on the matter, I’d say it’s a stretch too far to suggest that the team from Govan team has had any role to play in this particular farrago. This is conjecture, but it seems more likely that Elgin couldn’t deliver the safety certificate that would have raised the seating capacity to the level the club had printed tickets for.
…..
Sorry Blu, the “Home or Away Ally” reference was my poor attempt at a joke. Question of Sport would offer contestants the option of a Home Or Away question.
I was wondering whether the home or away team had oversold tickets because Elgin stated that they hadn’t been issued through their Ticket Office.
Monsieur Bunny pretty much cleared it up with his post at 13:30
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/aberdeen/201526-spl-reconstruction-plans-identical-to-really-boring-austrian-experiment/
bogsdollox says: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 14:09
============================
The five cases were not related to termination of contracts, nor is there any reference to them all being foreign players, although at least two of them are identified as such Mr Inverness(Nacho Novo?) and Mr Barrow.
The FTTT report categorises the five cases under “guaranteed bonuses”
From pages 54/55 (paragraph 210) of the report:
(iv) Footballers: guaranteed bonuses
210. Finally, Mr Thornhill noted five cases where peculiarly trust payments were made in respect of guaranteed bonuses. These relate to Messrs Selby, Inverness, Doncaster, Barrow, and Furness, as confirmed by his instructing solicitor’s letter of 29 September 2011. The Appellants concede that in these cases there is a sufficient nexus with a contractual right to create a tax liability (paras 19 and 20 of Supplementary Skeletal Argument of 4 November 2011).
Dear Tom English…we know you look in
so, RTC was anti-rangers and anti-media according to you
please give me your thoughts on this post lifted from followfollow today
“English is just another two-faced Irish parasite conning a living out of us.
Happy go lucky, erudite, jolly craicster on the surface………..bitter anti Rangers / Protestant hating bigot to the core.”
oh, and there’s plenty more like it…..we await your condemnation
denny r says
I don’t get the reasoning that because players leave RFC and the country that the loans have to be closed.
Its possible that these players didn’t “trust” the sytem and made sure they had everything ended and accounts emptied before they left the country – it would have more difficult to “trust” the former employer if you’re in a different country and have dodgy paperwork.
Even then, wouldn’t that also be the case for any player who left?
Why were these different? it sure ain’t because they have a non UK passport and have left RFC.
Captain Haddock says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 14:41
denny r says
I don’t get the reasoning that because players leave RFC and the country that the loans have to be closed.
Its possible that these players didn’t “trust” the sytem and made sure they had everything ended and accounts emptied before they left the country – it would have more difficult to “trust” the former employer if you’re in a different country and have dodgy paperwork.
Even then, wouldn’t that also be the case for any player who left?
Why were these different? it sure ain’t because they have a non UK passport and have left RFC.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Many overseas countries do not recognise the legal fiction of treating a Trust as being a seperate entity from the settlor or benificiaries (Holland is one). Therefore to avoid tax issues for the players in their home country their sub trust was wound up.
So after the ftt we know that payments were loans . Now will Mark Daly redact the title of his bafta award winning programme to The Man(Mr Black)Who Loaned The Jersey’s. mmmm
If hmrc appeal will this go on until 2017 whaaaat . I have never read so much since rtc & tsfm have came on the scene, And learned so much. Cognitive dissonnance anyone . brilliant stuff
as plausible a reason as any for specifically excluding the 5. Equally we must note that in paragraph 210 “..The Appellants concede that in these cases there is a sufficient nexus with a contractual right to create a tax liability…” but in paragraph 75 of the dissenting decision “…The Appellants have not confirmed the amounts concerned for these five players in terms of their guaranteed bonuses, and have qualified that the agreement is made without concession to any liability…” but then in paragraph 76 HMRC “.. further submit that ……the five agreed players were not exceptions but illustrations of similar arrangement being made to discharge a contractual obligation of guaranteed bonuses through the trust mechanism.”
I read that as the appellants concede on the fact (what Dr Poon calls the ‘reality’) but not on the liability, but seem then to attempt to draw a line in the sand for the remainder – what I am taking to be the 35 referred to in her paragraph 96.
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 14:25
bogsdollox says: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 14:09
============================
The five cases were not related to termination of contracts, nor is there any reference to them all being foreign players, although at least two of them are identified as such Mr Inverness(Nacho Novo?) and Mr Barrow.
The FTTT report categorises the five cases under “guaranteed bonuses”
From pages 54/55 (paragraph 210) of the report:
(iv) Footballers: guaranteed bonuses
210. Finally, Mr Thornhill noted five cases where peculiarly trust payments were made in respect of guaranteed bonuses. These relate to Messrs Selby, Inverness….
__________________________________
From the FTT(T),
“(d) Mr Inverness’s loans were used to fund lifestyle spending.”
I wonder what Mr Inverness’s loan application said.
“Finally, Mr Thornhill noted five cases where peculiarly trust payments were made in respect of guaranteed bonuses.”
—-
So were these bonuses that were in the written contracts lodged with the SFA – but were actually paid via sub trust “loans”?
Or guaranteed bonuses that were not in those contracts?
Either way round, that’s a pretty damning admission from Mr Thornhill.
Just having a look at the latest Leggoland blog.
As a reasonable person, I truly cannot believe that anyone can get away with such jingoistic, flag-waving tripe without being ridiculed from the rooftops (OK, I guess he is, but even so …).
I mean – Rangers as Churchill, and SDM as Stalin? Gasp.
His attempts at then unmasking “enemies” are odious and sinister.
The whole problem with the Rangers family is that they see themselves as some form of mini-state which is under siege by ungodly hordes. The People really do think they collectively are some kind of special entity, an unofficial supreme race with unassailable rights – including a natural right to a certain position in Scotland – not just supporters of a fitba team.
They talk of spreading joy and goodwill among the smaller teams of Scotland. Honestly, what other group of supporters would have the arrogance to even consider coming out with pish like that?
The mentality is unhealthy, the thinking is twisted. Hugely.
As has been said before, it really does appear that this attitude is prevalent among the bears. Where is the reasoned discussion, the spark of intellgence? Glen, who recently posted here, surely cannot be alone in having internet access and wishing to engage in serious discussion about his Club(s).
To any normal, decent Rangers fans out there – I’m sorry if you’re offended by this. Please step forward and build a new type of reputation for the team you support.
/rant_over
nick
was it not prime examples of where mih/rfc2012 made a pigs ear out of the “process” ?
angus 1983
I always knew that any tribute act that appeared in the guise of ragers would have to be launched with a siege mentality ,a no one likes us times 10 if you like .I must admit though to being amazed at just how easily this has ,not only been achieved but has been achieved so overwhelmingly in spite of a social media platform ,10 yrs ago I could understand it better but in this day and age it really is hard to believe .
IMO this saga has not ended and there are more players to come to the table ,maybe then someone will make sense of it all
Douglas Fraser @BBCDouglsFraser
Sir David Murray’s lawyers have asked Crown Office to investigate his claim that there was an unlawful leak of his tax details
Press release
27/11/12
SIR DAVID MURRAY TAKES LEGAL ACTION OVER TAX LEAKS
(Issued on behalf of Levy & McRae Solicitors and Notaries Public)
Professor Peter Watson of Levy & McRae has confirmed that he has been instructed by Sir David Murray to submit a complaint to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service regarding the publication of information relating to his tax affairs.
Professor Watson said: “Sir David regards such information as private and confidential and the publication of such information as unlawful. He has asked that this matter is investigated and that anyone found guilty of breaching the law is the subject of prosecution.”
A guest blog by an old aquaintance:
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/the-dangers-of-blogging-and-the-crazy-world-of-the-old-firm-guest-post-by-adam/
Oh the irony, IMO there really is some peepil that you could not give a red neck with a blow torch
I presume “Mr Black” will want to see the judges Mure, Rae and Poon prosecuted for leaking 195 pages of his “confidential” tax matters?
http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/202988-rangers-tax-case-leaks-sir-david-murray-makes-criminal-complaint/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Lawyers for former Rangers owner Sir David Murray have called for a criminal investigation to be launched after details of his tax affairs were published in the media and online.
In a statement released on Tuesday, his lawyers Levy and McRae stated that they had been instructed to “submit a complaint to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service regarding the publication of information relating to his tax affairs”.
The complaint is believed to centre on information about Sir David’s use of employee benefit trusts (EBTs) at Rangers and Murray International Holdings.
Last week a long-awaited First Tier Tax Tribunal found that most of the offshore trusts were “valid” and loans are “recoverable” by the trusts, although it conceded some advances to players were taxable and any bill is likely to be “substantially reduced” from the initial £46.2m assessment.
In the 18 months before the verdict, the ‘big tax case’ had been the subject of widespread coverage in traditional media outlets and on websites.
One of the major journalistic investigations that looked into the EBT scheme was the Men Who Sold the Jerseys documentary by BBC Scotland’s Mark Daly, which recently won a Scottish Bafta.
It is believed the complaint from Sir David relates to establishing the source that leaked the details of the EBT payments at Rangers to the BBC, as well as on the Rangers Tax Case blog and other sites.
Earlier this year the blog won the Orwell Prize for its work, but, following the decision of the tribunal, all posts on the site dating back to last March were deleted, with a single article replacing them that stated the result of the case had come as a “surprise”.
On Tuesday, Professor Watson said: “Sir David regards such information as private and confidential and the publication of such information as unlawful. He has asked that this matter is investigated and that anyone found guilty of breaching the law is the subject of prosecution.”
The three-person tribunal could not reach a unanimous decision on the club’s use of EBTs between 2001 and 2010, while HM Revenue and Customs said it was “disappointed” with the tribunal’s findings.
Sir David sold his 85% in Rangers oldco for £1 to Craig Whyte last May. In February this year the club appointed administrators with debts of up to £134m.
In June administrators Duff and Phelps confirmed it had failed to secure a route out of the insolvency event and the club’s assets were sold to a newco owned by a Charles Green-led consortium in a £5.5m deal. The oldco, now RFC 2012 plc, formerly The Rangers Football Club plc, has been placed into liquidation.
To be honest, it is no surprise that Murray is more than a tad upset at his tax details being released
I mean, how would you react if it was revealed that you had allegedly helped yourself to £6 million when the businesses that you said you had an obligation to, were in total financial meltdown
Any action Murray takes, will I suggest, be no more than another attempt to deflect criticism from his role in the whole omnishambles
Perhaps Crown Office, Strathclyde Police, BDO and HMRC will decide to look at why people were removing millions of pounds as “bonuses” from a business which was running at substantial losses, and which ended up being liquidated owing the Crown millions of pounds, to say nothing of the millions owed to other people.
They might want to consider the gratuitous alienation of that businesses assets, resulting in nothing being available to pay off those bills. Or the malfeasance of the people running that business.
.
Sir David Murray, through his lawyers making a complaint to Crown Office is pretty much meaningless.
Or maybe Crown Office want to look at the background to the administration of Rangers, and the evidence of it’s contrived nature. Maybe even the subsequent liquidation of the same club. Contrived insolvency is a serious matter after all
thereek says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 12:21
Your query re Upper Tier tribunal:
have a wee look at this link :
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/tribunals-organisation-chart.pdf‘
reading this, I conclude as follows:
The overall President of all the Upper AND First Tier Tribunals is Lord Justice Jeremy Sullivan ( a very senior post)
In respect of Tribunals dealing with tax matters:
The Upper tier Tax Chamber president is Mr Justice Nicholas Warren. He hears appeals from the FTTT.
(And unless the overall president ( Jeremy Sullivan) decides otherwise, appeals from the FTTT are heard by ONE judge only.This is in section 5 of the tribunals act which came into force about 2011)
The president of the First tier Tax Chamber is Judge Colin Bishop.
Lord Justice Sullivan was appointed in 2011 as the first Lord president of Tribunals in the wholly revised judiciaryTribunals structure.
£25000 fine for Elgin??? £5000 of which to go to a charity of sevco’s choosing!!! RFF pathetic
Peter A Smith @PeterAdamSmith
Elgin fined £25k plus expenses for RFC – £5k of which to be donated to a charity of Rangers’ choice. More on http://STV.tv/news
Expand
Well after that we announcement it looks like the BBC have been warned who’s next ?
In my experience peepil don’t like their dirty washing being aired in public in our street it’s called gossip ,think the peepil with money call it their business though .Either way they don’t want peepil to know what they have been up to
Anyone know what this is about?
I refer to the bit at the end about Celtic’s Green Brigade.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2012/1127/1224327200392.html
Before I get a load of td’s I’m asking as this is very relevant to monitoring whats happening in Scottish football in my opinion
nowoldandgrumpy
Is that the first uttereings from the MSM that a certain result was not what it was reported as a few days ago ,just a couple of wee lines in there that don’t tow the party line IMO
Hate to say it, but IMO Jack and his lackeys are playing a blinder…
Whether or not Minty’s statement produces anything tangible it serves its purpose: to sow doubt into the minds of those pesky Internet Bampots – and others in the media.
If they have any ‘interesting’ information to share about Minty or RFC, [or even ‘nuclear’ information], then they might hesitate now.
The MSM and the internet forums of TRFC are successfully creating an unpleasant atmosphere of revenge and intimidation. If I had anything significant to share, [which unfortunately I don’t], I would think long and hard about putting it online – even with added security measures to conceal identity and source.
Jack, IMO, has to maintain a climate of fear right up to the EBT investigation – if it actually happens.
He can’t have any other bad news coming out whilst he is portraying his client as being ‘an innocent victim’ who has been ‘punished unfairly’, blah, blah, blah.
As the MSM is back to doing what it does best, i.e. regurgitating PR nonsense – I don’t have high expectations of the investigation. Hope I’m wrong though.
Brenda says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 19:57
£5000 of which to go to a charity of sevco’s choosing!!!
===========================
If they are anything like the old cub they will probably just keep it.
bangordub says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 20:20
Anyone know what this is about?
I refer to the bit at the end about Celtic’s Green Brigade.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2012/1127/1224327200392.html
Before I get a load of td’s I’m asking as this is very relevant to monitoring whats happening in Scottish football in my opinion
==============================
Which bit don’t you understand.
And, sorry if this seems daft, but if you don’t understand what it is about how can you make the comment that it is “very relevant to monitoring whats happening in Scottish football”
You really do know what it’s about, now don’t you.
StevieBC says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 20:30
Is that how they managed to shut up people like Paul McC, Phil B, Phil MacG and Alex T.
Agrajag says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 20:40
StevieBC says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 20:30
Is that how they managed to shut up people like Paul McC, Phil B, Phil MacG and Alex T.
================================
As I wrote, I do hope I am wrong.
And I can only guess that Minty did not act/threaten before now because he thought the FTTT was going to be a devastating loss for him and MIH/RFC.
Maybe he was surprised – like most – that the FTT result was not ‘as bad’ as expected ?
But I think his tactics will be different now wrt online and MSM comment.
Agrajag says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 20:35
Yes Agrajag, I was asking for opinions,
I’ll spell it out next time
greenockjack says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 17:26
1 6 i
Rate This
Press release
27/11/12
SIR DAVID MURRAY TAKES LEGAL ACTION OVER TAX LEAKS
(Issued on behalf of Levy & McRae Solicitors and Notaries Public)
Professor Peter Watson of Levy & McRae has confirmed that he has been instructed by Sir David Murray to submit a complaint to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service regarding the publication of information relating to his tax affairs.
Professor Watson said: “Sir David regards such information as private and confidential and the publication of such information as unlawful. He has asked that this matter is investigated and that anyone found guilty of breaching the law is the subject of prosecution.”
===================================================================
Well good luck with that one buddy!
Sabre rattling from Mr Black
StevieBC says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 20:47
==================================
What has he actually done.
If I understand it correctly he has had his lawyer write to Crown Office to complain, and ask that they investigate how private MIH material appears to have gotten into the public domain.
This has then been made out as a big deal by the MSM, spurred on by the PR agent.
Has he done anything meaningful, like sue the BBC for basing a whole award winning documentary on the leaked material.
Here’s the quote from the article above.
“Sir David regards such information as private and confidential and the publication of such information as unlawful. He has asked that this matter is investigated and that anyone found guilty of breaching the law is the subject of prosecution.”
Of course he has asked for that. So what, it’s hardly surprising or a big deal. If in fact there was someone else leaking those details. Maybe it was MIH themselves, or Rangers themselves. It might even have been someone from his own board, as was. They would be really well placed to have all of the details, and be updated on how the tribunal was going.
bangordub says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 20:50
Yes Agrajag, I was asking for opinions,
I’ll spell it out next time
======================================
So what’s your opinion, spell it out this time.
You think it’s really important to monitor, but don’t know what it means, how does that work.
Aberdeen are to have millions of pounds of club debt converted into ‘preference shares’ which may help new stadium plans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20516243
A couple of observations re SDM and his spouting nonsense about prosecutions.
1. Why now. No new information has appeared for months.
2.The lack of any lawsuit or threat of for defamation. The truth was all that was printed and broadcast.
A strange and rather pathrtic intervention. Is he simply trying to prevent further even more damaging info to come out or is it another strand of the Media House lie fest.
Agrajag says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 20:56
StevieBC says:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 20:47
==================================
What has he actually done.
If I understand it correctly he has had his lawyer write to Crown Office to complain, and ask that they investigate how private MIH material appears to have gotten into the public domain.
This has then been made out as a big deal by the MSM, spurred on by the PR agent…
=====================================================================
Exactly – nothing. But, IMO, he is playing a ‘good game’.
As CH mentions above: sabre rattling.
The PR has to be maintained that T/RFC is a victim, and anything else wrt to ‘punishment’ is just being vindictive, etc…
My background is not PR so just an opinion of course.
But I would be interested to get ‘twopandas’ take on Jack/Minty’s PR strategy as I got the impression he had a relevant background ?