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.
andytwenty3 says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 08:05
———————————————————
When you put it like that, I hope to read a whole lot more.
In data protection terms – personal information must lead to the identification of a living indivudial and those information must relate to them in a significant biographical sense.
Thus if RTC blogged that Mr Smith had an EBT of £6M then that would be potentially an unlawful disclosure of personal information.
I cannot remember on RTC any such disclosures.
The BBC did disclose such information. There is in the Data Protection Act (“the DPA”) an exemption at section 32 that would permit the lawful disclose of personal information – where this is in the public interest. There are other conditions attached to section 32 but I won’t go into these.
The BBC lawyers must have went over all of the material with a fine tooth comb before the decision to publish was made.
In this instance, it is likely that Mr Murray is more interested in section 55 of the DPA i.e. the unlawful obfaining of personal data without the permission of the Data Controller (that is the organisation responsible for the collection and the processing of the information in question). There are a number of conditions whereby section 55 will not apply. In this regard section 55(2)(d) provides assistance i.e.
“that in the particular circumstances the obtaining, disclosing or procuring was justified as being in the public interest.”
I would argue that the MIH/Rangers Tax Case is in the public interest – particulairly in light of the publication of the FTT I believe that there are questions as to how monies were made available to people – what were the commercial reasons for providing bonuses when the companies concerned were in financial difficulty. However, as the FTTT decided that the proceedings of that case should be held in private it may be difficult for those person(s) who had obtained and/or disclosed the information, that this was in the public interest.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 12:08
“What we shouldn’t start getting carried away with is that this club would still have gone into administration. I don’t think there is any chance that this wouldn’t have happened”
——————————————————————————————————-
Either I’m reading this wrong or CG is actually confirming that RFC would still have gone into administration.
If you say it quickly though,in the middle of a speech.no one would notice.
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 11:52
I did not see your post before I posted my views on the DPA. I agree that the RTC blog did not disclose any personal data.
Where RTC could find difficulty is from section 55 of the DPA – if he/she cannot argue that the receipt of personal information by them was not justified as being in the public interest.
Interestingly, MIH as the data controller has the responsibility to protect the personal data. If the breach came from actions attributable to MIH and they are found to have breached the seventh data protection principal [information security] then the UK Information Commissioner could impose a monetary penalty of up to 500,000.
So my question is this – Mr Murray – have you reported a data protection breach to the UK Information Commissioner 🙂 [This would not apply where he is satisfied that the breach did not orginate from MIH.]
Long Time Lurker says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 12:27
I do remember thinking the Mark Daly programme did two things. It swung a lot of focus onto Mr Murray which RTC, I don’t recall, did. At least not as a beneficiary, hell yeah as the mastermind! Gavin Rae may have separate thoughts of course. Secondly it brought a lot of the facts especially regarding the shere amount of money involved to the wider public who for some strange reason seemed to be completely in the dark about the whole thing up until that point, not unlike the situation now where the only thing the wider public know about the FTTT findings was Rangers won. (example CG today claiming FTTT proves Rangers didn’t cheat – eh no Charlie I think it specifically says they did on serveral counts, just not on the particular charge brought)
For RTC regulars the programme was actually fairly tame in comparison which I took to be down to the amount of legal skimming that had gone on prior to its publication..
Charlie boy also brings one of my previous question back to the fore. I’m not sure we’ll know for certain until the creditors declaraion on 3rd Dec but did HMRC still hold majority opinion in the CVA? And did Ticketus declare their debt or not, the effect of Ticketus not declaring of course being that HMRC’s reduced share got boosted again?
andytwenty3 says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 08:05
Welcome andy a useful contribution to the debate and I hope you stick around.
Minty McAlpine
“CHARLES GREEN has expressed his anger and dismay at the timing of the verdict of the First Tier Tax Tribunal as it has massively affected the current status of Rangers.
So is Chuckles openly expressing anger at Murray and his cohorts for prolonging the Tax case for all these years by hindering the investigation at every single turn?
Is he aware that it probably still isn’t over yet and HMRC are probably going to appeal?
Does he have any understanding whatsoever of what has, and is going on, or is he just having another bout of verbal diarrhoea?
Has anyone in the MSM got the Turnbulls to laugh at him and point out the reasons for the delay?
For MHG (10.6% held by the MBB) watchers:-
MERCHANT HOUSE GROUP PLC (the “Company”)
Cancellation of admission to trading on AIM
The Company regrets to announce that despite considerable efforts by the Board, the Company has been unable to raise sufficient funding in time in order to restore trading on AIM in the Company’s ordinary shares and therefore admission to AIM will be cancelled pursuant to the AIM rules with effect from 7.00am on 28 November 2012.
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/investments/merchant-house-cancels-trading-on-aim-after-funding-failure/1062355.article
TheBlackKnight TBK on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 11:52
SDM chucks a boulder into the water to disturb the clarity
Long Time Lurker
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 12:39
You make a VERY good point. MIH/ Rangers FC 1872 was the data controller.
I believe RTC always sought permission before disclosing anything. Have MIH/RFC1872 disclosed their own info??
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 12:08
3 0 Rate This
ok, without the link – from rangers official site
CHARLES GREEN has expressed his anger and dismay at the timing of the verdict of the First Tier Tax Tribunal as it has massively affected the current status of Rangers.
————-
He seems certain that the club would still have been his – but surely not for a paltry £5.5m? I would have thought that without the Big Tax Dodge hanging over it the club would have gone to a bidder with a bit more ready cash than Mr Green and his 20 investors.
Following on from the Black Knight’s post, perhaps Murray’s lawyers have been bullishly instructed to robustly pursue the BBC, in relation to Mark Daly’s “The Men Who Sold The Jerseys”?
If so, it will be interesting to see what develops.
I was pretty sure I heard from someone at the time that the BBC had the BAFTA award winning programme “triple legalled”.
taxlawplebeian says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 12:50
Rate This
TheBlackKnight TBK on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 11:52
SDM chucks a boulder into the water to disturb the clarity
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Doesn’t Mr Black suspect the EBT leak came from within HMRC. Is he not trying to create waves for them by demanding an internal enquiry there at a time when that “team” will be thinking about an appeal against a certain perverse FTT decision?
I have posed my contribution in the form of questions as a protection, meagre though it is, against being sued!!
Anyone heard from Imran Ahmad?
taxlawplebeian:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 12:50
“DM chucks a boulder into the already muddied water to further obliterate any clarity, in turn media lap dogs will graciously pick up and run with misinformation along with unquestioned delusional outbursts by the NEWCLUB Chairman”
edited for accuracy….. 😉
David Murray has not done anything, he has simply put out a weak statement via a law firm, if he wanted to he could simply take on RTC head on. He will not do that because he is afraid of exposure. He has simply thrown the MSM and the Tribute Act support a scrap from his table, which they are very grateful for.
ordinaryfan
see above …. 😉
Both Rangers and Leeds feature in Private Eye (City) today – but just ‘reports’ with little else. PE suggests that an appeal would be the usual response to the split decision but that this may not happen as there may be little to gain for the effort and possibly, costs. I can’t remember – did anyone find a link between Oor Hughie and Ken Bates …. or is ‘Sheffield’ a coincidental connection?
bogsdollox Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 13:01
HMRC PR dept would deal with that it will have no bearing on whether they intend to appeal marginal decision.
Regardless as LTL pointed to the so called “leak” is more likely to do with the takeover and not Mr Blacks personal tax details.
Funny how everything is easily confused….. I’m sure BDO will have a copy of the takeover document and information that was on the two computers removed by Duff & Phelps …. wont they?
Laymans view again.
Who would have access to Murrays private finance details?
MIH,RFC maybe HMRC.
If Murray is chasing the leak.it almost certainly came from one of these three.
Don’t see where RTC is involved,unless RTC works/worked for one of these organisations.
May be wrong though.
A basic point which I reckon should be law, given the ridiculous position taken by Scotland’s worst businessman. ( a billion of debt – spectacular !).
All individuals should have all tax returns made freely available.
What on Earth does anyone have to hide? It may be useful in assisting with cases involving tax fraud, moeny laundering benefit fraud and the like. The idea that our legal earnings should be private is in my opinion wholly misguided.
An open society requires individuals to be open and transparent. I suspect that such a law would expose many to the kind of scrutiny they deserve, and be of no consequence to the vast majority of law abiding citizens.
Just an OT thought.
Someone on RTC said that the greatest disinfectant is light! True!
neepheid says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 09:44
Has anyone heard anything about Charles Green’s investor roadshows? Anyone been to one, or know of anyone who has? The whole IPO thing has gone exceptionally quiet, it looks like no share offering this year, and January/February isn’t the best time to try to get money from your supporters. I was really looking forward to reading the prospectus, and finding out what a one-way bet this is (though maybe not in the direction Charles was boasting about a couple of months back).
———————————————————————–
Yesterday there was a thread on Follow Follow containing some pictures of possible investors emerging from Ibrox after a presentation. Apparently they had been given a VIP tour of Ibrox and Murray Park. In the party were brothers Sandy and James Easdale from Greenock who operate the McGills buses business. The registration of the limo at the door was 77SE which would seem to bear that out. A Daily Record online article this morning states that Sandy Easdale had got 27 months for a £1.5 million VAT fraud in 1997.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Sir Charles wooing captains of industry who have a perhaps less than moral past. However, what baffles me is why the Daily Record of all rags should expose such facts at such a delicate time in the share issue campaign. Has Jabba been got at?
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/taxes-are-for-little-people-not-the-people/#more-3366
Taken from KDS poster Auldyin, quoting Wingsland:
Its the big lie approach again. Keep saying something enough times and it becomes true.
The alternative view is provided here: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/big-tax-case-verdict-the-reality/
and this part (if the blogger is correct on the percentage rules) says CG is being economical or is it comical with the truth.
5. [The Lie]“If not for the BTC, Rangers could have exited administration via CVA.”
Demonstrably not true. To succeed a CVA needs to be approved by 75% of creditors (by value). At £21.5m out of £61m, HMRC had roughly 35% of the debt and was not prepared to accept a CVA, which means that the maximum possible vote in favour was 65%. The CVA would still have failed.
(As an unsecured creditor HMRC would have nothing to gain by accepting. The amount of money in the creditors pot is small, and after Duff & Phelps’ fees will be close to zero. The assets were theoretically worth far more in a fire sale, and many serious questions remain to be answered about why Charles Green was able to buy them uncontested for a tiny £5.5m.)
This of course does not cover the “now you see it now you don’t” status of Ticketus who depending on the argument are and are not creditors. I do wish they would make up their minds.
……………….
Anyone is the MSM look past their “victory” and start attempting to produce some facts?
Anyone in the MSM been critical of Murray in any way for his dealings with a publicly funded bank?
Anyone in the MSM going to ask why he lied and said he had never taken a penny from RFC after he was found to have took well over £6 million?
Anyone going to ask him why he obstructed Police and HMRC investigations, and concealed documentation requested by HMRC, who are acting on behalf of the Tax Paying public?
Anyone in the MSM going to ask him anything other than for his autograph?
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 11:52
…………………………………………………
One gets the impression Mr. Murray is not too keen to take out a personal prosecution….instead is looking for a third party to do it on his behalf…
What might he be afraid of? apart from the personal cost to do so?
What will happen if MIH/RFC(IL) and HMRC do not come to an agreement about the level of tax to be repaid ?
exfallhoose2012 says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 13:11
3 0 Rate This
Both Rangers and Leeds feature in Private Eye (City) today – but just ‘reports’ with little else. PE suggests that an appeal would be the usual response to the split decision but that this may not happen as there may be little to gain for the effort and possibly, costs. I can’t remember – did anyone find a link between Oor Hughie and Ken Bates …. or is ‘Sheffield’ a coincidental connection?
………………..
Unsure about a connection between Bates and Chucky, but plenty of “coincidental” links to Sheffield.
*
Director Summary
Robert G Goldstein has 3 current or previous company director or secretary appointments.
Short name – Robert Goldstein
Director ID : 913831581
Year of Birth: 1955
Address
Tournament Hills
Las Vegas,
Nevada 89134
Usa
Company Summary
Company Name Company Status
LAS VEGAS SANDS (SHEFFIELD UNITED) LIMITED Dissolved
LAS VEGAS SANDS (IBROX) LIMITED Dissolved
LAS VEGAS SANDS (UK) LIMITED In Liquidation (Director Resigned 23/08/2012)
smugas says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 11:22
============================
The impression people had of Rangers financial position has been false for many years.
There was always this assumption that Celtic and Rangers were roughly the same size, domestically and as such Rangers could compete with Celtic financially, even without tax schemes of one form or another.
That simply wasn’t true, Celtic had three major advantages.
1, A Nike deal, worth a guaranteed £5m per year (effectively cost free).
2, Around 3,000 paying customers, which equates to about say £1.25
3, Better merchandising income, net around £1.5m.
With other items Celtic were around £8m better off (bottom line) than Rangers. Excluding Europe and transfer dealings.
This is new Rangers, and whilst they have a large number of season tickets, those are being sold at about 65% of the price charged by the old club. They have a lower income from sponsorships etc and will have lower TV money and prize money. There will be nothing from Europe. However they still have large overheads like stadium upkeep, Murray Park, policing and stewards, insurance, utilities, ground staff etc. The new clubs finances will not be in a good position.
This will be the case for at least a couple of years, if they survive. If they struggled at the start of SFL3, and in the Ramsden’s, and in the Cup then they will struggle in SFL2 and SFL1. Without season ticket prices increasing then they will have the same squad on the same wages. They simply cannot afford better.
If / when they get back to the SPL and if they can do so holding onto the majority of the support they will still have to live within their means. That to me means that other clubs will find it much easier to compete on a level playing field with them. Particularly if the fans demand success / new players / competing with Celtic and without it walk away. It is a difficult balancing act for top clubs.
Had New Rangers been allowed straight back into the SPL then it would have been a different story. Income would have stayed the same or close to it. They would have been debt free, so no interest payments or charges. They would have been the second force in Scottish football. No question.
It didn’t happen, much as they, the authorities and the MSM hoped and expected it would. New Rangers will find it very difficult to get to that level, and if they do it could take years. Unless of course people cheat to get them back to the top, with lots more income and without the debt. That was stopped by the fans before, I hope it will happen again. Nothing against Rangers, just fair treatment for everyone. If they get a place in a league higher than they belong in then another team misses out on that place.
Oh and with regard nice wee stories about a hush on the underground. That must have been another load of people who couldn’t get a ticket for the infamous CIS final of 2011.
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 12:22
APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE FOR THE CAPITALS – NOT THROUGH ANGER OR SHOUTING – JUST FOR EMPHASIS!
“CHARLES GREEN has expressed his anger and dismay at the timing of the verdict of the First Tier Tax Tribunal as it has massively affected the current status of Rangers.”
————–
I thought Charles was trying to convey that if Mr Red and Mr Black had not messed HMRC around from 2004, this matter could have been resolved many, many years ago.
He also suggests – quite rightly – that RFC could have avoided administration and liquidation had they cooperated with HMRC and in getting the case to FTTT. Without these extraordinary delays he would not have been able to purchase the valuable assets of RFC at such a low price, gain control of TRFC and rightly or wrongly, go on to make what he anticipates to be a substantial profit.
I think he forgot to include in his statement, “Mr Black and Mr Red, I thank you both for bringing about this chain of events”.
ordinaryfan says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 13:03
…………………………………………………………………
It conveys and supports the perception of innocence….as well as suggesting legal redress should anyone else consider publication of details he doesn’t like…
Scaremongering at its best!
ordinaryfan says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 13:360
u
……………….
Anyone is the MSM look past their “victory” and start attempting to produce some facts?
Anyone in the MSM been critical of Murray in any way for his dealings with a publicly funded bank?
Anyone in the MSM going to ask why he lied and said he had never taken a penny from RFC after he was found to have took well over £6 million?
Anyone going to ask him why he obstructed Police and HMRC investigations, and concealed documentation requested by HMRC, who are acting on behalf of the Tax Paying public?
Anyone in the MSM going to ask him anything other than for his autograph?
===========================================================
Re Murray taking £6M from RFC – are you sure? I thought his EBT dough came from MIH – but please correct me if I’m wrong.
I wonder how Chuckles is getting on with his proposed IPO timetable?
Page 4
Deal Structure and Timetable
•Seeking to raise £15 – 25m
•New share placing and offer for subscription
•AIM listing
Timetable
Nov 12th-23rd ********************************* Institutional Marketing
Nov 26th ************************************** Placing Letters
Dec 2nd ************************************** Offer for Subscription Commences
Dec 17th ************************************* Completion and monies due
Is Chuckles uneasy at the verdict because he fears it could end with him being ousted from Ibrox by Walter and co? Walters timing was, as usual, very convenient. He returns to Ibrox just in time for the FTTT result which favoured RFC, did he have a heads-up on the result? Is Green now worried that with his “role” now looking to be complete, he is for the scrapheap whilst the usual suspects return to take up their “rightful place” at the Establishment Club?
midcalderan says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 13:50
I actually thought you were serious there for a moment… very funny 😉
easyJambo says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 13:53
I wonder how Chuckles is getting on with his proposed IPO timetable?
———————————————————————————————
Has anyone seen anything that looks like a prospectus yet?.
Offer for Subscription commences Dec 2nd!
Is it common for this to be on Sunday?.
Tempted to think that CG knows his Share Issue is dead in the water.His rant today is just the start of the multitude of excuses we’ll be hearing over the next few weeks.It’s the FTTs fault for not announcing the result at a time it suited him.
Does anyone know yet what sort of shares are on offer and in what company name are they being issued?.
Well worth a read:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/126591
MIH only admited to be existence of the side letters after a warrant was issued and the documents/emails were were found on the company’s computers. Surely the police could not have leaked information – as if.
Re Murray taking £6M from RFC – are you sure? I thought his EBT dough came from MIH – but please correct me if I’m wrong.
either way, we all paid it.
Would the expression ‘crocodile anguish’ sum up today’s proclamation from Greenland?
🙂
midcalderan says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 13:50
I thought Charles was trying to convey that if Mr Red and Mr Black had not messed HMRC around from 2004, this matter could have been resolved many, many years ago.
=================================================================
theres a thing
in 2004 HMRC knocked on the door and said…hey, we think you owe us a few quid.
At that point in time it would have been 3 years worth – and i think they were quite conservative in their use in the 1st few years
so it might have simply been a £3-5M bill.
Given the spending going on at that time, not actually that big a deal
But, lets say they
1. paid that bill
2. stopped using the scheme
what would have happened?
the bill could have been paid without too much immediate impact – given the money being thrown around
but what if the club then had to compete “on a level playing field”
Would the same players have been signed? some might have been, maybe even the better ones, but they certainly wouldn’t have had the same volume of players signed – so a smaller squad
Would they have won as many cups/titles?
How would that have affected attendances/income?
More importantly, would it have impacted how the club was run? would Minty still have put the club/bank/MIH into so much debt?
HMRC also chapped Celtics door in 2004/5 over Juninho – they paid up and never bothere with it again – consequently, they never had a huge financial shadow hanging over them and no one called them into question over immoral practices or bare faced cheating.
The club are where they are through their own fault. But how different would the story have been if they had played the game back in 2004?
It’s been quite a few years, since I last held a hard copy of the Daily Revisionist in my hand and to this day I can still remember the circumstances – it wasn’t exactly a ‘Watergate’ type exposé or a natural disaster that kept the moment alive in my memory … it was just that I was ‘caught short’ on the West Highland Way and desperate to avoid my own seismic event.
Long before I even moved out here to Italy, I had given up buying Scottish tabloid comics, but I do have to admit that I still occasionally take a digital peek at their headlines; just to establish at what murky depths our sports journalists are now currently feeding.
These past few days the red tops have surpassed even my very low expectations of crass and evasive reporting, with both front and back pages delivering the tranquillising news to the Bears of a ‘Shock and Awesome’ victory over HMRC. Coverage that was so over the top (and misleading), that it came as something of a disappointment when the DR didn’t include Dolby Surround Sound when I opened their mollifying banner headlines on my computer.
In complete contrast, pick up a newspaper in Glasgow’s twinned city of Turin, and you’ll find a very different media beast … when Juventus, the Establishment team and historically the most successful team in Italy were found guilty of match fixing in the ‘Calciopoli’ scandal, they were universally slated by every journalist and TV commentator in the media.
This team was a genuine colossus in world football, with a trophy room overflowing with trophies, yet decisions taken by the very top of their management hierarchy, decided unequivocally, to cheat their way to further success. They were subsequently relegated to Serie B, stripped of two titles (2005/2006) and were justifiably pilloried across the whole spectrum of Italian society by refusing to accept their obvious wrongdoing and guilt ( a police wiretap demolished their defence strategy).
TuttoSport – the daily sports tabloid based in Turin and normally the most vociferous of Juve supporters in print, decided they couldn’t defend in any way, the club’s actions and became one of their fiercest critics. And needless to say the country’s biggest selling sports daily; La Gazzetta dello Sport (de facto supporters of the Milan clubs) declared open season on ‘La Vecchia Signora’ and ripped into them for months.
In a country where corruption is truly a way of life, the media have been unstinting in their pursuit of anyone or any club that discredits their national sport, a valued principal that our own MSM have somehow lost over the years. And even this week, there was continuing criticism in the tabloids, on the lenient sentence that Antonio Conte (the Juve manager) received, for remaining silent about match fixing at his former club; Siena.
As a group, the Italian media should take great credit for sustaining this united front in their investigations of cheating football clubs. A practice that has seen them publish evidence of corruption in a host of top flight clubs since the 70’s. Consequently this type of openness and honesty, allows the fans to invest their trust in Italian sports journalism, knowing that the professionals will get to the heart of a developing story and publish a balanced report, allowing them in turn to make up their own minds on the subject.
Can that be said about our own MSM? – an incestuous cabal of old and cold blooded hacks, who continually produce a conveyor belt, of the same palliative stories for one particular readership, and then highlight their own incompetence by trying to stem and discredit the undercurrent of truth, that frequently appears on the many well informed social media sites.
Where will the Scottish media go from here? utilising my uncanny Delphic ability on the SPL side letter adjudication … a guilty verdict will be reported by the tabloids with the restrained formality of an obituary, but if it’s NOT GUILTY! the headlines will be in Technicolour and Cinerama
(and a free pair of 3D glasses thrown in with every copy).
Whatever Chucks about 2 weeks awry from the usual timetable. I recommend he reads pages 22 to 32 and see if he still wants to bother.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/publications/documents/a-guide-to-aim.pdf
erm….. someone needs to have a word with Mr Delusional…… 3rd division “NEWCLUB” aint in the top 24 TOP CLUBS in Scotland never mind the Universe……..
I’m beginning to think he is deliberately p/ssing off everyone in Scotland so the titles will be stripped and the fans go in open revolt. It sells him some more season tickets in the 5billion fanbase worldwide then why not…… 😉
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/threat-of-title-stripping-leaves-charles-green-opposed-to-spl-reconstruction-plans-1-2664355?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
“CHARLES Green is refusing to back the SPL’s proposed changes to Scottish football while the threat of Rangers being stripped of their titles is still a possibility.
The SPL are proposing altering Scottish football to create two leagues of 12 which would split into three divisions of eight after two rounds of fixtures, with no provision made for the remaining 18 teams.
The SFL, on the other hand, unveiled plans for a 3-tier system of 16, 10 and 16 teams respectively and whilst Charles Green is yet to study either plan in great detail, the Rangers chief is adamant that the club wouldn’t return to the SPL in its current state.
Green stated: “I have said before that I wouldn’t return to the SPL in its current form and I stand by that – it just won’t happen.”
Green is still unhappy with the club’s treatment by the SPL, especially the threat of title-stripping and the delay until late January before a decision will be made.
The former Sheffield United chief doesn’t believe stripping Rangers of previously won titles will have the desired effect, and while he has refused to engage with the SPL, Green added: “I accept that while Rangers are the biggest club in Scotland we are not the only club, and while we have to do what’s right for Rangers we have to do what’s right for Scottish football.
“There are a lot of questions out there that need answered and as Rangers are the biggest club in Scotland, we will be playing an active part with all of the groups to see how this problem in Scotland can be fixed and how we can mend the hurt that has been caused in the last year or more.”
The Rangers chief admitted that he was yet to see the proposals from both the SPL and SFL but said that he needed more information before deciding what the best route for the Ibrox club was.”
pau1mart1n says: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 14:17
Re Murray taking £6M from RFC – are you sure? I thought his EBT dough came from MIH – but please correct me if I’m wrong.
either way, we all paid it.
==============================
The total sum recorded as EBT contributions in RFC’s accounts amounted to £47.8M.
Mark Daly’s BBC programme and the BBC website listed a total of £44.5M in the subtrusts of RFC players and officials, including £6.3M in David Murray’s own EBT.
The difference between the two totals may reflect the admin fees and other costs of the trustee companies (Equity & Trident).
I think it is safe to assume that SDM diverted funds primarily from RFC into his own trust fund.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 12:08
Statement from TRFC website: CHARLES GREEN has talked nonsense …
——
I’m beginning to wonder if Mr Charles really could be as thick as he makes out. I had considered him to be a smart player for a while there, but to come out with absolute rubbish which is so easily confirmed as nonsense … just beggars belief.
I would be absolutely horrified if this man was in charge of the Club I support.
majorcoverup says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 14:16
4 0 i
Rate This
MIH only admited to be existence of the side letters after a warrant was issued and the documents/emails were were found on the company’s computers. Surely the police could not have leaked information – as if.
=============================
The Police are perfectly entitled to pass information to other bodies provided the circumstances are right and the correct procedures followed.
It was long supposed on RTC that the Police Warant at Ibrox, and the search there had provided HMRC / IR with material they needed.
Another thing the MSM tend to ignore, how dignified is it that your premises are searched under warrant and (coincidentally) material taken which relates to your outstanding tax case. One wonders if there would have been any documents left had the police not seized those which hadn’t been shredded.
Is that as bad as Sheriff’s Officers serving on you and arresting your bank account.
Probably.
TheBlackKnight TBK says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 14:49
The SFL, on the other hand, unveiled plans for a 3-tier system of 16, 10 and 16 teams respectively and whilst Charles Green is yet to study either plan in great detail, the Rangers chief is adamant that the club wouldn’t return to the SPL in its current state.
Was it not Charles green who broke the news of this before fecking of to London for some roadshow??
thereek says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 09:23
‘JC – any replies yet from MoD ?…’-
———–
Afraid not.
In the ordinary way, I wouldn’t have expected a reply much within about four to six weeks, though.
I do think there will be replies. The Services at any level are very conscious of their good name and image.
( I could very nearly draft the letter for them-probably nearly word for word!).
The important thing was that some letter of protest has crossed a desk and will at least have been read and been noted.
Charles Green stated: “I have said before that I wouldn’t return to the SPL in its current form and I stand by that – it just won’t happen.”
But just to confuse everyone…….
“What we said we would do – and what Ally said he would do – and that’s get the team out on the park week in week out and get promotion and work our way to the top division – whatever that top division is called.”
And if that is not enough, he rants about what has gone on for the last 12 months before stating that is none of his concern and he is only looking to the future, not the past. Split personality by the looks of it.
Good afternoon folks. Today I am posting with the aid of a good friend; the “F7” button within MS Word and posting without the aid of my good Buddy Weiser. My last post surely winning the award for the most inaccurate spelling in the entire history of the Internet. And, I can imagine, I am up against some pretty spectacular competition on that score.
In said previous post I mentioned a number pertaining to what I saw as the amount of posters on RFC fan forums compared to the Clubs’ fan base – cunningly disguised by not using a % – this was, as has been pointed out by some posters, a random (small) number. I have no evidence whatsoever that it was fact (it clearly isn’t). So whether it was 0.02, 0.2, 20, I am not claiming it as fact. What I should have done was prefaced it with “probably” or “IMHO there may be”. What I was trying to say was that “IMHO” that it is not the majority of fans of the club who post on RFC forums (although it most certainly is a vocal crowd).
So my apologies to any posters who were irked by this. This was certainly not my intention. I would certainly have questioned anyone who posted an assumed number of any other teams fan base. It was also not my intention that posts which questioned it should be removed.
Hopefully I have explained myself and we can draw a line under that issue now.
Regarding my thoughts as to “that’s where we are and we have to get on with it” – that is easier written from the perspective of a Rangers fan, as you can imagine. I appreciate that others would not be as sympathetic. But I meant no malice by it.
And nice to see another Rangers voice on the blog earlier today.
Anyhow, regarding the Elgin fine – and apologies if I’ve missed anything here – how was it decided that the sum of £5000 should go to a charity of Rangers choosing? (which is a great gesture, regardless – but why not more?). Were Rangers asked how much they thought should be donated or was this decision taken by the ruling body?
And just quickly while I’m on, can anyone say whether, in relation to the £5 grand to be given, not directly by the penalised club, but to a third party to pass on to THEIR choice of charity, such a penalty has been used before?
Seems a strange kind of notion.
It’ll be stranger still when 10 shares come back through the post!
Sorry Glen cheap shot I know. Couldn’t resist. Seriously, when I first saw it I immediately thought PR move by Greenco (as I think your final question also alludes to, apologies if not) but he seems to not be taking the bait on that one.
Looks like Chuck has ” The Sixth Sense”
Rangers chief executive Charles Green has urged the Scottish Football League to take steps to avoid a repeat of the Elgin City ticket fiasco.
Last Sunday’s televised match between the two clubs was postponed on Friday after it emerged too many tickets had been sold for the Irn-Bru Third Division clash at Borough Briggs.
He told RangersTV: “You couldn’t make it up but it’s something that seems to happen in Scottish football. I keep saying I can’t be surprised and a week later something like this happens.”
Pity he didnt cancel the hotel booking the week before!!!!!!
angus1983 says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 15:12
I’m beginning to wonder if Mr Charles really could be as thick as he makes out. I had considered him to be a smart player for a while there, but to come out with absolute rubbish which is so easily confirmed as nonsense … just beggars belief.
——————————————————————
Patience – just wait till the MSM tear his nonsense to pieces. I’m sure Keith Jackson is already exposing Sir Charles as I type.
easyJambo says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 15:02
It’s still possible MIH made the contributions to the Trust that Murray took out, isn’t it? I’d have thought confirming that would be quite a crucial detail for Murray and Rangers fans to confirm either way as it affects how his entire tenure of Rangers could be viewed.
easyJambo says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 15:020
Rate This
pau1mart1n says: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 14:17
Re Murray taking £6M from RFC – are you sure? I thought his EBT dough came from MIH – but please correct me if I’m wrong.
either way, we all paid it.
==============================
The total sum recorded as EBT contributions in RFC’s accounts amounted to £47.8M.
Mark Daly’s BBC programme and the BBC website listed a total of £44.5M in the subtrusts of RFC players and officials, including £6.3M in David Murray’s own EBT.
The difference between the two totals may reflect the admin fees and other costs of the trustee companies (Equity & Trident).
I think it is safe to assume that SDM diverted funds primarily from RFC into his own trust fund.
=========================================================================
Apologies for starting the hare running on this one but I wouldn’t assume anything. The total sum contributed to the Remuneration Trust by Rangers may have been £44.5M but what was the total contributed by RFC and MIH? Some facts would be good to clear this one up
Just to add on that as well, my understanding of the trust mechanism was that Rangers entered into a commitment to the trust, essentially a commitment to their players’ wives and kids for a given figure TO BE paid out when the player died. The players themselves then borrowed against this commitment with the borrowed funds being supplied by Rangers, distributed by the trustee. However the commitment and loan were presumably two different figures with the former, the notional commitment being higher than the actual cash loan to account for the interest the players were technically, but not actually, paying. This is how I understand the trust set up gets around the beneficial loan problem. So, question is the figure declared by the auditors, is that actual cash paid or the notional commitment?
smugas says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 16:43
========================================
I think Dr Poon dealt with this point in here judgement in that the cash put in to the EBT by RFC was more or less the same as the loan given to the player. The interest just rolls up and is never paid
andytwenty3 says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 08:05
theglen2012 says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 15:31
Hi Guys.
Great to seen some Rangers fans coming onto the site and contributing in an intelligent fashion.
Previously folks have come on in support of Rangers but we were lucky if a handful got anywhere close to a debate or gave their thoughts of how they saw things panning out.
Would be interesting to know what you two think of the next stage of the saga, i.e whats your views on Mr Green, the current and future financial position, the share issue, who owns what etc.
For whats its worth I have always said that taking all things into consideration things are probably tight but Mr Charles may just manage to pull it of and keep the show on the road this season. What happens after that is then another story in terms of how to balance the books in relation to income and fans expectations. Talk of hotels and cancer centers are all very well but they are not going to be generating additional income anytime soon.
If the club is not run on a tight budget then another visit to the fans for cash will be just around the corner. Mr Charles clearly put a stop to any major spending at the last transfer window despite Ally saying he wanted 6 to 8 players. So to my mind in that instance his actions were a lot better than his words (which at times appear to be pure guff).
If the crowds keep paying up then Rangers will still have an income far greater than all other teams bar Celtic. It is really how they manage the cash that is the issue IMO.
Your thoughts would be welcomed.
bogsdollox says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 16:48
Why would the loan administrators require fund flows to be discounted using LIBOR plus margin if it was going to be ignored in any case? I took this to mean that the eventual trust payout was designed, in fact accurately calculated, to cancel the amount the player had borrowed plus interest.
smugas says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 17:04
Rate This
bogsdollox says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 16:48
Why would the loan administrators require fund flows to be discounted using LIBOR plus margin if it was going to be ignored in any case? I took this to mean that the eventual trust payout was designed, in fact accurately calculated, to cancel the amount the player had borrowed plus interest.
=======================================================================
Where did you get that from? I may be bang wrong but the reference to LIBOR is that the loans are charged at that rate plus a few percent and this never changed over the whole life of the EBT’s. I didn’t pick up any discounting although I believe the Trust Company got a slice of the action.
What does it matter to CG if titles are stripped from ragers (IL) it has nothing at all to do with Sevco that plays out of Ibrokes now ,that team never won the titles because they have never played a single game in the SPL .
If they were the same club ,why ……….
1.Would CG have stated on TV when DK told the MSM liquidation was the only route ,that King can’t be a supporter if he is suggesting liquidation as that would mean losing the history ?
2.Why would CG offer 3m more for a CVA if he could have liquidated them and got the lot for 5.5m
3.Why were sevco not seeded in this seasons SC
4.Why if they were only relegated did they not compete in the CL qualifiers or EL for finishing 2nd in the SPL (they did after all recieve the 2nd place prize money or so we were told )
5.Why can they not compete in European competitions for at least 3yrs .
6.Why are their debenture scheme tickets null and void (as reported by a holder on SSB )
CG says what he wants to on RM why don’t people leave it there as it’s clearly aimed at the gullible and not meant for wider publication
theglen2012 says:
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 15:31
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On a serious note TG…will you be acquiring certificates/shares in Charlies investment opportunity?
And if so…would it be rude to ask how much are you thinking of giving him?
Ps. We don’t think his offer is Kosha…and would suggest you give it very careful consideration if you are thinking of parting with any dough!
http://m.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/convicted-tax-fraudster-courted-by-rangers-chief-executive-charles-green-1-2664875
We are sorry to say that you have found our ‘sorry’ page while
visiting m.scotsman.com
You may be attempting to get to a page that doesn’t exist or our web gurus are currently trying to fix the issue.
Click here to try again
Alternatively if that fails and you return to this error page, please click here to try the homepage
One of the curiosities of the Administration a creditor reports was the presence of tabulations of the amounts due to non-preferred non-secured creditors. [13.5 from the final report] as such; Curious in that no similar financials debt tabulation seems evident for secured creditors – esp: RFC Group
Assuming any secured creditors esp RFCG have not lent any `security` – as a form of `loan` `recoverable` in the `not too distant future` for `practical` purposes in a `definitive deed`. – They`re going to want their security back or lodge claim to be repaid [repaid can be found in a dictionary as p/t of repay]
The time [for this strangely odd custom for the rich greedy and arrogant – in Scots Law] to kick-off should be the creditors meeting with liquidators advertised for the 4th and seemingly scheduled on 3rd December.
From:
Rangers coach Kenny McDowall has advised midfielder Ian Black to stop complaining about the rough treatment he and his team-mates allegedly receive from their Third Division rivals.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9696820/Rangers-coach-Kenny-McDowall-tells-Ian-Black-to-stop-complaining-about-Third-Division-rivals.html
to:
Ian Black: I’m loving life at Ibrox
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/ian-black-im-loving-life-at-ibrox-108398n.19530591
Kenny McDowall is an effective shoulder to cry on it seems.
bogsdollox says: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 16:32
Apologies for starting the hare running on this one but I wouldn’t assume anything. The total sum contributed to the Remuneration Trust by Rangers may have been £44.5M but what was the total contributed by RFC and MIH? Some facts would be good to clear this one up
=============================================
From Dr Poon’s judgement
The overall totals contributed into the main Trust were £55.5m and €5.3m, and the
30 sums allocated to the individual sub-trusts were £52.9m and €5.3m in the decade from
April 2001 to March 2010; ………………………
…………… The differential between £55.5m and £52.9m would have been accounted for, to a large extent, by fee and expense payments to the Trustee………………
———————————————–
So we have RFC Accounts figures of £47.8M (44.5M net) and total Group figures of £55.5M (£52.9M net). I don’t know where the Euro sums are accounted for.
Without going through the 10 years of MIH annual accounts for 2001-2010, it might not be possible to provide an exact correlation. MIH also changed their accounting date at one point and produced results for a 17 month period in 2008-09
There were EBTs for 81 RFC employees and 27 for other Group companies. Given the size of SDM’s EBT (£6.3M) I still think that it it highly probable that his contributions came from RFC.
Enough for now …….. I’ve got a game to go to 🙂
Re the fine handed to Elgin FC.
In a financial climate that is strangling some clubs in Scotland who in the SFL thought it would be a good idea to hand out a financial penalty to Elgin FC for the recent ticket fiasco. Surely the SFL could have been a wee bit more inventive with their penalty. As for the 5k to be given to a charity of Sevcos choice well this just beggars belief. Sevcos prdecessor, RFC always seemed capable of generating charity money for good causes but seemed to have difficulty actually handing money over. Ironic.
Carfins Finest
I don’t think there last charity event went too much to plan for the actual charities that is !
Although I have contributed a guest-blog on the land of ‘Armageddon’ I have never actually posted here, so forgive my virginity. Its great to see fans from all clubs contributing and that has been the case for a very long time now. The new posts coming from a Rangers perspective are hugely welcome. I too hope these numbers grow and we can reach a greater quality of debate within football spectatorship.
My reason for posting was that the esteemed blogger ‘Doontheslope’ asked why I had apologised on the pronouncement of the FTTT result, as I had nothing to feel sorry for.
The answer is simple. I had written a blog that was about the largely postive impacts of social media but within the body of the blog I had included comments that the FTTT result has rendered inaccurate. I had said that RFC (ia) had crashed leaving an estimated £134m of debt, which proved to be exaggerated and wrong. The debt is still significant – and a matter of significant public concern – but will come nowhere close to £134m. I proffered the figure not as speculative opinion but as a fact, and since I am now wrong I have apologised.
My second reason is to back up a long held belief that ‘always being right’ corrodes the soul and diminshes debate in almost every walk of public life. A failure to admit wrong-doing dogs Scottish football and is one of the greatest barriers to a better football democracy. So that’s why I said sorry.
Now all that’s off my chest I’m going up to Perth to watch St Johnstone play Hibernian FC in a top of the table clash. (sic) You will remember they are a team from Edinburgh who prefered to play ‘doontheslope’ in the hillock known as Easter Road. I do hope the St Johnstone season-ticket-holder David Wothersopon remembers his roots and scores a questionable own goal and I will happily come back tomorrow and apologise for further ‘wrong doing’ and the squalid way we won the three points. 🙂
PS I used my real name because its my real name and I sincerely believe we have to take ‘secrecy,’ ‘paranoia’ and ‘fear’ out of this debate too.
bogsdollox says: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 16:32
but what was the total contributed by RFC and MIH?
RFC – 0
MIH – 0
MIH’s friendly bank manager – all of it
Us when said bank needed bailed out – all of it
too simplistic??
From the guys on KDS:
28 Nov 2012, 04:36 PM
From HenryClarson earlier
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/katrina-tannahill/26/552/b02
Ms Crimson?.
http://www.cenkos-ci.com/our-people/all-people/robert-tannahill.aspx
I wonder if they are related in any way?