Good Evening.
As we ponder the historic vote to create a new Governing body to oversee Scottish League football, I cannot help but wonder what brilliant minds will be employed in the drawing up of its constitution, rules, memorandum and articles of association?
Clearly, Messrs Doncaster, Longmuir and even Mr Regan as the CEO of the SFA will be spending many hours with those dreaded folk known simply as “ The Lawyers” in an attempt to get the whole thing up and running and written down in the course of a few short weeks.
In truth, that scares me.
It scares me because legal documentation written up in a hurry or in a rush is seldom perfect and often needs amendment—especially when the errors start to show! The old adage of beware of the busy fool sadly applies.
It also scares me because the existing rules under which the game is governed are not, in my humble opinion, particularly well written and seem to differ in certain material respects from those of UEFA. Even then, adopting the wording and the approach of other bodies is not necessarily the way to go.
I am all in favour of some original thought– and that most precious and unusual of commodities known as common sense and plain English.
Further, the various licensing and compliance rules are clearly in need of an overhaul as they have of late produced what can only be best described as a lack of clarity when studied for the purposes of interpretation. Either that or those doing the studying and interpreting are afflicted with what might be described as tortuous or even tortured legal and administrative minds.
If it is not by now clear that the notion of self-certification on financial and other essential disclosure criteria necessary to obtain a footballing licence (whether European or domestic) is a total non-starter — then those in charge of the game are truly bonkers.
Whilst no governing body can wholly control the actions of a member club, or those who run a club, surely provisions can be inserted into any constitution or set of rules that allows and brings about greater vigilance and scrutiny than we have at present—all of course designed to do nothing other than alert the authorities as early as possible if matters are not being conducted properly or fairly.
However, the main change that would make a difference to most of the folk involved in the Scottish game – namely the fans— would be to have the new rules incorporate a measure which allowed football fans themselves to be represented on any executive or committee.
Clearly, this would be a somewhat revolutionary step and would be fought against tooth and nail by some for no reason other than that it has simply not been done before—especially as the league body is there to regulate the affairs of a number of limited companies all of whom have shareholders to account to and the clubs themselves would presumably be the shareholders in the new SPFL Ltd.
Then again to my knowledge Neil Doncaster is not a shareholder in The SPL ltd– is he?
I can hear the argument that a fan representative on a league body might not be impartial, might be unprofessional, might be biased, might lack knowledge or experience, and have their own agenda and so on—just like many chairmen and chief executive officers who already sit on the committees of the existing league bodies.
Remember too that the SFA until relatively recently had disciplinary committees made up almost exclusively of referees. I don’t think anyone would argue that the widening of the make up of that committee has been a backward step.
However, we already have fan representation at clubs like St Mirren and Motherwell, and of course there has been an established Tartan Army body for some time now. Clubs other than the two mentioned above have mechanisms whereby they communicate and consult with fans, although they stop short of full fan participation– very often for supposedly insurmountable legal reasons.
As often as not, the fans want a say in the running of their club, but also want to be able to make representations to the governing bodies via their club.
So why not include the fans directly in the new set up for governing the league?
Any fan representative could be someone proposed by a properly registered fan body such as through official supporters clubs, or could be seconded by the clubs acting in concert with their supporters clubs.
Perhaps a committee of fan representatives could be created, with such a committee having a representative on the various committees of the new league body.
In this way, there would be a fan who could report back to the fan committee and who could represent the interests of the ordinary fan in the street in any of the committees. Equally such a committee of fans could ensure that any behind the scenes discussions on any issue were properly reported, openly discussed, and made public with no fear of hidden agendas, secret meetings, and secret collusive agreements and so forth.
Is any of that unreasonable? Surely many companies consider the views of their biggest customer? This idea is no different.
Surely such a situation would go some way towards establishing some badly needed trust between the governing bodies and the fans themselves?
If necessary, I would not even object to the fan representatives being excluded from having a right to vote on certain matters—as long as they had a full right of audience and a full right of access to all discussions and relative papers which affect the running of the game.
In this way at least there would be openness and transparency.
In short, it would be a move towards what is quaintly referred to as Democracy.
Perhaps, those who run the game at present should consider the life and times of the late great Alexander Hamilton- one of the founding fathers of the United States of America and who played a significant role in helping write the constitution of that country.
Hamilton was a decent and brilliant man in many ways—but he was dead set against Democracy and the liberation of rights for the masses. In fact, he stated that the best that can be hoped for the mass populace is that they be properly armed with a gun and so able to protect themselves against injustice!
Sadly, Hamilton became embroiled in a bitter dispute with the then Vice President of the nation Aaron Burr in July 1804. Hamilton had used his influence and ensured that Burr lost the election to become Governor of New York and had made some withering attacks on the Vice President’s character.
When he refused to apologise, the Vice President took a whacky notion and challenged him to a duel! Even more whacky is the fact that Hamilton accepted the challenge and so the contest took place at Weehawken New Jersey on the morning of 11th July 1804.
The night before, Hamilton wrote a letter which heavily suggested that he would contrive to miss Burr with his shot, and indeed when the pistols fired Hamilton’s bullet struck a branch immediately above Burr’s head.
However, he did not follow the proper procedure for duelling which required a warning from the duellist that they are going to throw their shot away. Hamilton gave no such indication despite the terms of his letter and despite his shot clearly missing his opponent.
Burr however fired and hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen with the result that the former secretary to the treasury and founding father of the constitution died at 2pm on the twelfth of July.
The incident ruined Burr’s career (whilst duelling was still technically legal in New jersey, it had already been outlawed in various other states).
In any event, in Hamilton’s time full and open democracy in the United States of America would have met with many cries of outrage and bitter opposition. Yet, today, the descendants of slaves and everyone from all social standings, all ethnic minorities and every social background has the constitutional right to vote and seek entry to corridors of power.
In that light, is it really asking too much to allow football fans to have a say and a presence in the running of a game they pay so much to support?
Flocculent Apoidea says:
June 23, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:34 am
Unfortunately for him the fans saw this as liquidation by another name and chased him out of Govan.
“A statement from the Rangers Supporters Trust read: “The Miller bid amounts to nothing other than liquidation by the backdoor and is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of Rangers supporters.”
————————————————————————–
I wonder who prepared the statement for them and who was asked to clear it for publication.
========================================================================
It’s funny I was always a bit suspicious about the relative lack of comment and reaction to CF on Rangers fan sites and did wonder why. I think the recent CF material has made it clear that many of these sites were deeply involved with the club’s PR strategy unbeknown to their readership.
There were all sorts of ‘asides’ about knowing things by senior respected posters which always seemed to bolster the club position. At least Hately got paid for his subterranean activities in the sewers of the SMSM – I suspect the fan bloggers did it for free although perhaps they had an eye on a blue blazer. I wonder how many have been promised that one blazer?
Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 1:45 pm
I believe there was a ‘plane’ crash 🙂
Exiled Celt says:
June 23, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Charlotte giving it to Martin Williams
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rkvnm0
===============================================================
Almost from the word go I believed that CW was in purely to do a job and produce a debt-free Rangers to be continued with Rangers Men and for CW to walk off with a wodge of cash for his efforts.
I thought then and I still do that CW went ‘native’ got infected with rangeritis and the rest became history. He didn’t stick to the original plan and I actually believe he thought he could be the Ibrox saviour which was patently deluded but CW was way beyond rational thought by that time.
It just seems like some kind of recurring nightmare that no one at Ibrox – other than a small percentage of fans – appears to understand that the business model has been flawed for at least for 15 years and no attempt has been made to fix it or create a new one.
It has slowly gotten worse and I think has actually got beyond the level of financial muscle that any Scottish Bluenose businessmen can actually accommodate. Perhaps if we weren’t in this recession there might be some step forward but I just can’t see it.
Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 1:45 pm
7
1
Rate This
Quantcast
————————————————————————————
Reported as it should be!
Well, I think I maybe understand it now. Getting SFL associate membership ( whether on 13 July or later) automatically gives Sevco “registered membership” of the SFA. However any SFL member who is not an assoiciate or full member of the SFA must obtain such membership within 14 days. The only option open to Sevco was the transfer of the existing RFC membership, since they simply could not meet the conditions for obtaining a new SFA associate or full membership. Which takes us to the 5 way agreement for the transfer of RFC’s membership to Sevco.
Where the rule-bending really comes in is the alleged granting of “conditional membership” to Sevco to allow the Brechin game to proceed. From the SFA rules-
“4.2 Members shall be of three classes:- full members, associate members and registered
members.”
I’m not seeing “conditional membership” there. So far as I can see, the concept of “conditional membership” was invented or devised simply to allow the Brechin game to proceed, but I doubt it would stand up if ever challenged in court- which of course it won’t be. But certainly “conditional membership” does not meet the requirements of the SFL rule 16. I wonder whether Sevco actually formally applied to the SFA for associate or full membership of the SFA within 14 days of joining the SFL? Because if they didn’t lodge such an application within 14 days, then their SFL membership automatically lapsed (rule 16 of the SFL). I don’t believe that just asking the SFA to transfer the RFC membership would meet the requirement of that rule. And I doubt that they formally applied, because they simply didn’t meet the criteria.
My conclusion is that the Brechin game probably went ahead while Sevco were no longer members of the SFL under the 14 day rule, and not members of the SFA under any category either, since their registered membership of the SFA would lapse at the same point as their SFL membership, given that it only existed by virtue of that SFL membership. Where do I complain?
YOURHAVINGALAUGH says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:07 am
none of the fixtures would get me to cancel an appointment with a taxidermist.
————————————————————————————————————–
Do you not need to be dead to have an appointment with a taxidermist?
Ah,the wee souls have finished their nap.
Tic 6709 says:
June 23, 2013 at 2:32 pm
1 0 Rate This
Ah,the wee souls have finished their nap.
+++++++++++++++++++++
The flurry of TD’s recently is quite remarkable. These flurries have usually indicated imminent bad news from the “Big Hoose”. Fingers crossed!
The worst thing that could have happened from CG’s perspective was a CVA being agreed. HMRC would never agree a CVA in relation to PAYE/NI, if they did, everyone would do it!!
The CVA was the smoke, D&P acted as mirrors, knocking holes in Bill Miller’s plans, terrifying the rank and file with scare stories about liquidation and an end to history, stories that were printed in full via JT and his pals in the press.
CG was only ever interested in acquiring the assets, it’s almost like someone else was behind him!
CG told supporters in Dubai and Oz that he bought the Albion car park, which SDM had sold to Lloyd’s, for £1.4M after threatening the bank with a boycott. Why? What was so important about a car park which SDM had leased back to oldco for approx £150K over year?
Has CG sold his 14% stake to the ‘activist’ shareholder investors?
Whither Ciarnan ‘I’m going to get my head under the hood’ Prior?
Why has it suddenly gone quiet down Govan way?
Is it:
Walter Smith has dragged the board back to the ‘dignified silence’ of oldco?
Or
You can’t hear yourself think above the noise of the shredder?
For those who don’t have much free time on a Sunday, let me summarise the club/company matter.
In 1873 (not 1872, that was just a ruse to make money a year early for the “140th” anniversary), the club known as Glasgow Rangers was formed.
In 1899, Rangers the club was incorporated into Rangers the company, to limit the liability of those running. As the articles of the time indicate, the club and company were synonymous. (Becoming a limited liability company proved to be a sound move as legal action arising from any of the three fatal accidents that occurred at Ibrox over the next 72 years would surely have meant the personal ruin of the owners)
In 2012, Rangers went first into administration and then into liquidation where they will remain until BDO has finished recovering as much as it can for the benefit of the creditors.
And that is it in a nutshell. The club died at the hands of its creditors.
Accept that and we can all move on.
The only resemblance between the club Rangers and a company now playing its trade under that name in the SFL is purely coincidental and for money-making purposes only.
neepheid says:
June 23, 2013 at 2:22 pm
======================================================
I think though before deciding there wasn’t enough time for the SFL membership to ‘automatically’ allow an SFA one we need to know the actual date of membership for Rangers in the SFL. You have made a number of points but without that date we can’t really proceed on facts but only speculation.
I agree we have another Pandora’s Box in the 5-Way Agreement because we haven’t a clue what was in it.
The problem with ‘conditional’ membership is that we don’t have a definition of it in any of the rule books and the SFA also doesn’t supply a definition in its press release. But the following is interesting I believe:
SFL 43. BOARD’S DISCRETION TO MAKE FURTHER RULES
Subject to these Rules, the members of the Board may make any rule which they think fit about how they take decisions and about how such rules are to be recorded, amended or communicated to members of the Board . . .
Now I haven’t looked at the SFA Rules wrt that aspect but is there anything similar there because if there is they could have created the necessary rule to keep things tidy at a moment’s notice.
But I think we have to be realistic and accept that say a Brechin fan lodged a legal objection to the granting of SFA membership. It wouldn’t IMO stand a snowball’s chance in hell of success not when the SFA, SPL and SFL agreed with it. The only way the fan could ‘technically’ succeed I reckon was if there was actually a rule that specifically prevented ‘conditional’ membership.
But in terms of balance of convenience a court would ‘fudge’ its decision anyway and the game would have, in any case, been played a long time previously. But I totally agree with you the ‘conditional membership was devised to allow the Brechin game to go ahead.
Exiled Celt says:
June 23, 2013 at 1:15 pm
———————————–
Charlotte said …
Whilst the £18m was safe, credit lines were to be pulled. Furthermore season ticket money was to be ringfenced and not used for working capital. The existing directors had to ensure that for their own good in the event of an insolvency event.
———————————————
Epanding a little ….
From Recent Charlotte post ….. RB (Octopus) checked with Bain that other Directors were going to be removed ….. clearing the decks ….
Then seperately …… (From Paul McC Blog)
The Directors of “Group” changed the accounting reference date for the company to bring it forward to 30th April. This has the effect of requiring them to prepare the first accounts for the business, formed for the purposes of taking over Rangers, as discussed above, earlier than first needed. But there is an additional consequence of the move, which seems, from commercial confidentiality purposes, to be a very good one.
This was brought to my attention by “Corsica”, a poster on RTC. The effect, perhaps deliberate, and perhaps not, of the change is that the first mention of the takeover in “Groups” published accounts will be for the year ended 30th April 2012. These accounts need not be lodged with Companies House until 31st January 2013!
One suspects that, because of the tax bill being considered by the Tribunal now, there might not be a “Rangers” owned by “Group” by that stage, but we must wait and see.
————-
Well maybe now we do see …….. Paul ‘the’ Prophet McC …… It was never designed to see the light of day !
Am I the only one who predicts that we will see a club which suffers an insolvency event still winning promotion this season. You would have thought that when the authorities revisited the rules regarding insolvency they would have put measures in place to prevent such a scenario as by any reasonable standards it should simply be not allowed to happen. Oh, wait a minute…..
slimshady61 says:
June 23, 2013 at 3:00 pm
I have to say that I thought all full-time clubs have money-making probably at the top of their agendas so I take no exception to that.
As to the discussion over the ‘club’ issue you obviously have your view and are entitled to it and others have differing views are are equally entitled to them. I don’t see the discussion as a mechanism to prove a point as to who is right and who is wrong in terms of their viewpoint.
To me it is more about uncovering the administrative mess that pervades Scottish Football and hopefully by exposing the flaws be able to work towards making the system better. It is obvious to me that there are significant bits of the ‘club’ issue where the actual basic facts are missing and that is true no matter what side or sides of the debate you are on.
I actually think the discussion has been very valuable and I have altered some of my original thoughts and been given a helluva lot more to think about because of the issues raised by other posters. However, I have an open mind on the subject and don’t need to pigeon-hole ‘facts’ to suit a specific angle and I am not suggesting that is what you do – it is merely a general observation.
All discussions have a natural end to them which can be triggered for many reasons but as long as others are prepared to discuss the issues then I will feel free to post and respond until that natural end is reached. I do not regard posters deciding what others should be discussing as forming a natural ending.
Given the Ticketus deal the only way Rangers could even break even was winning the SPL and getting into the Champions league group stages for 4 consecutive years.
How can anyone think that was a genuine business model to try to move the club forward.
An insolvency event was the only option from the moment Craig Whyte bought the debt from Lloyds.
Logically his plan was for administration, at the very least, right from the start. The failure in Europe onlt sped that process up, given that there was no credit available from anyone the club had to steal tax just to keep going. They could hardly hide the fact that they weren’t paying it at all.
Ecobhoy
Where CW & CG not practising taxidermists,if not they certainly fooled me.
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 3m
Sir David Edward Murray witness statement and cross examination. First Tier Tribunal Tax 29 October 2010.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149505482/FTTT-29-October-2010 …
Given what is out in the open, and how long OldCo new this would end liquidation. The dossier CFC had around the time of the worst “goings on” might revitalise my soul. Hope there is an alternative CF.
Two things.
I’ve also thoroughly enjoyed the detailed debate on club status. How you guys have the time is beyond me. Thanks again. I am enlightened and FWIW, sorry Duplesis, I’m still not buying it simply because the assets did not magically arrive at Ibrox to be subsequently bought out. They were there, at least latterly, as a result of unsustainable debt and there’s no escaping that fact.
Secondly, the subject of revisionism (neat link) I noted the above comment several posts ago
“Two groups stopped the plan working. HMRC and the fans of Scottish football who let their teams know that a place in the SPL or SFL1 were both unacceptable.”
I agree on HMRC – in fact HMRC’s clear guidance on CVA acceptance should have been the deal maker on 15th February 2012 when someone switched on the Christmas tree lights on the word “sham”
I also agree, come July 2012 that the fans of all other clubs would not accept SPL or Div 1. I wonder however, in February, how many fans would have accepted the div 1 option? Had the authorities, as always advised by RFC’s power brokers, come up with a mock relegation scenario I wonder how much of the current long term pain could actually have been avoided?
Just thinking. Keep up the good work all.
Now here’s the words of a realist (Mr Hannah)
==========================
From:
Sandy Jardine
Date: 5 July 2011
To: David Martin , Irene Munro , RamsaySmith , Lois Boyle , Jim Hannah, Carol Patton , Stephen Kerr Cc: ali.russell@rangers.co.uk, Gordon Smith , C_Whyte
Dear all
If we are inviting members of the committee to the next Rangers v Celtic match would it not makesense to seat them in the stands beside our supporters rather than the Directors Box They would then get a true feel for an old firm match
Regards
sandy
From:
Jim Hannah
Date: 5 July 2011
To: Sandy Jardine , David Martin ,Irene Munro , Ramsay Smith , LoisBoyle , Carol Patton , Stephen Kerr Cc: ali.russell@rangers.co.uk, Gordon Smith , C_Whyte
Hi All
I certainly would not tempt fate by putting them in with our fans, I would situate them in the DirectorsBox, just my thoughts.
Regards Jim
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 39m
Sir David Edward Murray witness statement and cross examination. First Tier Tribunal Tax 29 October 2010.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149505482/FTTT-29-October-2010 …
View summary Reply Retweet Favourite More
*******************************************************
Enjoy! Been looking forward to this one!
Smugas says:
June 23, 2013 at 4:46 pm
If they had achieved a CVA (which would never have happened but they needed the pretence to keep the fans onside) then they would have been the same club. So would automatically have stayed in the SPL.
i.e. if they were the same club there would be no need to apply for anything.
It is only liquidation and the forming of a new club that required them having to apply for a position in a Scottish league. Firstly the SPL, which was rejected, then the SFL.
So that couldn’t really have happened back in February, the CVA had to be rejected first.
davythelotion says:
June 23, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Why has it suddenly gone quiet down Govan way?
Is it:
Walter Smith has dragged the board back to the ‘dignified silence’ of oldco?
Or
You can’t hear yourself think above the noise of the shredder?
_____________
season tickets sales
harder to get the mugs to part with the money if they are all leaking to the papers
Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Granted, and the point I was making, badly, was that it was, or should have been, clear that the CVA would be rejected, big tax case crystalising or not. Had RFC taken the bull by the horns from then (ignoring the commonly held view that they were expecting SPL football regardless) my point was that Div1 might have been a single bitter pill.
Smugas says:
June 23, 2013 at 5:10 pm
I’m sorry but I’m not really getting your point.
I don’t see the time at which Rangers had an option to go into the SFL1 and what that would have achieved anyway. If the CVA was achieved (never going to happen) then they stayed in the SPL. If it failed (bound to) then they got liquidated. So I don’t see the SFL1 option.
Caveat Emptor says:
June 23, 2013 at 4:58 pm
2 3 Rate This
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 39m
Sir David Edward Murray witness statement and cross examination. First Tier Tribunal Tax 29 October 2010.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149505482/FTTT-29-October-2010 …
View summary Reply Retweet Favourite More
___________________
to sum murrays evidence up
it wisnae me
Caveat Emptor says: June 23, 2013 at 4:58 pm
…
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149505482/FTTT-29-October-2010 … *******************************************************
Enjoy! Been looking forward to this one!
==================================
Curious observation on (S)DM’s opening remarks.
On Murray’s own introduction he starts by explaining to the FTTT he has a knighthood – and 2 honourary Doctorates from 2 Uni’s. Was he feeling a wee bit insecure for a change… ?
martybhoy says:
June 23, 2013 at 5:35 pm
———————————-
@marty ….. what was the Penny Arcade thing all about anyway ….. never did get it ?
YOURHAVINGALAUGH says:
I actually think they thought they were Revivalists – but it seems that taxidermy ended up a more appropriate trade especially with all those Phoenixes to stuff 🙂
StevieBC says:
June 23, 2013 at 5:33 pm
It’s an attempt by the person who wrote the statement (Thornhill or one of his minions) to establish his bona fides as a proper businessman and not the smoke and mirrors charlatan he really is.
Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm
I certainly would not tempt fate by putting them in with our fans, I would situate them in the Directors Box, just my thoughts.
=================================================================
It appears the Ibrox pies are mince but surely the fans wouldn’t have eaten the committee members.
Of course it actually reveals that the committee was most certainly following the Three Wise Monkeys line – they should have demanded to be spread out in all different parts of the stadium ffs. Right enough the fans are probably better behaved than a lot of those in the DB.
SDM uses money, borrowed from the Bank of Scotland, in the name of Luxemburg company, to buy a property, renovate it and on completion sell it at a profit of 1.8 million euros. The profit is then put into The Trust, and he then takes it out by way of a loan. (Ever to be repaid?) Does that sum it up?
He takes no risk but all the profit?
One paragraph that tells you all you need to know about David Murrays character.
“26. I have always taken a close interest in the performance of Rangers and have served on two separate occasions as Chairman of the Club over a period of seventeen years. I have often played a role in securing the transfer of a player to Rangers. Very often, agreed the transfer fee with the player’s existing club and would also discuss in principle the broad outline of the package that Rangers would be prepared to offer the player. I did not, however, concern myself with the detail of the contractual negotiation with the player.That was the responsibility of the senior management personnel at the Club, in particular Douglas Odam,Martin Bain and Andrew Dickson. Their brief was to secure the agreement of the player but at the minimum overall cost to the Club.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/149505482/FTTT-29-October-2010
Tweet from Jungle Jim (@JimSleith) on CF twitter feed:
@JimSleith
@CharlotteFakes page numbered 126 point 23,is dm stating he used ebt to acquire players they otherwise could not afford #nosportingadvantage
6:26pm – 23 Jun 13
So an admission by Mr Murray that they did indeed attract players ‘of a certain standard’ that may not have been able to otherwise had it not been for the trust. It’s written in black and white for all to see.
Danish Pastry says:
June 23, 2013 at 6:21 pm
So an admission by Mr Murray that they did indeed attract players ‘of a certain standard’ that may not have been able to otherwise had it not been for the trust. It’s written in black and white for all to see.
=========================================================
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me introduce you to one Alexander Bryson Esq. He’ll soon put a stop to any of this sporting advantage nonsense.
Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Apologies Gaz, too abstract a theory following the level of precision seen in the last 24 hours certainly.
You are correct in saying there was not a div 1 option. That required the powers that be to take the bull by the horns and actually do something constructive – literally! The method would have been a simple penalty applied to old gers for contract ‘irregularities,’ a plea bargain if you will to say that if they (old gers) accepted relegation then no further action would be taken with regards to titles etc, and whilst the whole CVA/liquidation process would still have to run its course it would do so in a business sense, outwith the footballing world. In essence what I am saying is that from feb 2012 every team would have known what was happening and we wouldn’t have had the farce that was/is the last 16 months.
The division 1 scenario was available, in so far as it was as available as what has eventually happened. Personally I just feel it wasn’t considered, but for entirely different reasons it was literally unthinkable for some. In the intervening 5 months from February to July there is no doubt fans attitudes hardened.
Its far fetched, so not worthy of any further debate especially on this forensic forum – what is done is done. But from a personal point of view with the luxury of being outwith the auspices of the old firm bubble it would actually have been an acceptable outcome to me in February, and would have caused the remaining 95% of the teams (and I accept only representing 20% of the fans) a helluva lot less hassle in the process.
But then I return to my opening sentance – it required the bull to be taken by the horns, not for the authorities to bend over and invite the bull to do what bulls do.
Caveat Emptor says:
June 23, 2013 at 4:58 pm
2 3 Rate This
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 39m
Sir David Edward Murray witness statement and cross examination. First Tier Tribunal Tax 29 October 2010.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doesn’t like having to answer these damned impertinent questions, does he? Seems to get quite tetchy at times.
Q. I’m sorry. 11 July 2001. You will see at the top of the page it seems to have been faxed on 13 July 2001 from Morgans?
A. Yes.
Q. It is to you. He says: “Dear David. “Neil McCann. I refer to our various telephone conversations and in particular our discussion on Tuesday 10 July. I have spoken to Neil again today and he’s happy to accept the proposal of GBP 16,000 plus GBP 4,000 as offered by you.” I won’t take you through all the preceding correspondence. But there was some preceding letters leading up to this where there was some negotiation?
A. Yes, but what I would do — because that would not be a contract. That was just the broad brush of a contract.That would be passed to people within the club who would then put definitive paperwork. Because that is not the final contract. That’s the broad terms of an agreement.
Cont..
Q. And the duration is set out, the annual salary is set out, it being GBP 8,000 per week, contribution to remuneration trust. I will not read all the figures out in that paragraph. Underneath we see the appearance fees are set out, bonuses per agreement and first team squad. Use of a motor vehicle. Private health cover: The club will meet whole terms and conditions of contract, about injury and illness, a 10% transfer fee and a mention of agent’s commission at the end there.So it appears that, in this instance, those things were the subject of discussion. Would that be
A. I would not get into that finer detail. He may address the letter to me, but when he addresses it to me it’s on behalf of the club and I would pass it on to other people. You’re talking about something happening nearly 10 years going. I can remember most things but I can’t quite remember the detail of every single contract. As I said, I would pass that on. He would do it probably as a courtesy to me. But that would be the framework.That would not be the definitive contract.
Q. I appreciate that. What I am suggesting to you is it looks as though there were discussions between you and him that resulted in this document, which would have included the various things that are in the schedule. I appreciate that it would then be passed on —
A. He will probably have sent it to me as the principal of the club. It doesn’t necessarily mean (a) I’ve done the negotiations, (b) I’ve agreed it and that’s become the final, formal contract.
I’ve never seen so many thumbs down! The bears must be getting restless…..maybe scottish football’s very own colostomy bag is leaking so much even they are beginning to smell the sewage.
Danish Pastry
I would hold on to that SDM statement in case we need it when the UTT hear HMRC’s appeal.
If HMRC lose then there is no advantage to other clubs as they had the same choice to risk ebts. It is not Ranger’s fault if they were too cute for their rivals.
However if HMRC win then Rangers used an illegal system to obtain players that other clubs could not use to recruit (well without breaking the law)
That is a game changer in respects of everything that has happened to date and such a decision takes the consequences out of football’s hands.
Shareholders in all clubs are entitled to ask their clubs to seek compensation for lost prize money and the SFA will have been proven by then not to have applied club licensing rules that go back to 2005 at least (but not in as fair play focussed form before 2011) as they should have and will be held responsible in Rangers place for allowing a club to use a scheme that gave Rangers an advantage not open to other clubs.
So keep SDM’s statement in mind as evidence that Rangers deliberately embarked on a scheme to enable them not only to purchase players of a certain standard but also to stop other clubs attracting the same player who was tempted by the higher pay without Rangers paying the cost of the difference.
Its more about ebts given them a commercial advantage in the player market and if ebts are illegal Rangers gained that wage competitive advantage by illegal means to the cost of other clubs.
No advantage over other clubs.
Being pedantic Auldheid, it’s not that EBTs were illegal. It’s that Rangers systematically and deliberately chose to use them in an illegal manner. Allowing the to make higher payments than they would have been able to, and thus attracting better quality players.
The mere existence of the side letters and the contractual nature of the payments prove that.
The illegal part was when the (contractual) payments were made into the trusts, not when the “loans” were granted.
Robert Coyle says:
June 23, 2013 at 7:21 pm
2 1 Rate This
Cont..
Q. And the duration is set out, the annual salary is set out, it being GBP 8,000 per week, contribution to remuneration trust. I will not read all the figures out in that paragraph. Underneath we see the appearance fees are set out, bonuses per agreement and first team squad. Use of a motor vehicle. Private health cover: The club will meet whole terms and conditions of contract, about injury and illness, a 10% transfer fee and a mention of agent’s commission at the end there.So it appears that, in this instance, those things were the subject of discussion….
================================================================
if i read that correctly [are you looking in LNS !]
…”The club will meet whole terms and conditions of contract…”
The CLUB ????!!!!!!
did i read that correctly?
it was faxed to SDM as he was head of the CLUB, and SDM said
…”The CLUB will meet whole terms and conditions of contract…
not the holding company or the parent company or the company…but…The CLUB will…
jimlarkin says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:01 pm
How could the club guarantees what decision a group of independent trustees would come to when a player applied for a loan from his sub-trust.
But of course those weren’t actually contractual payments, they couldn’t be.
If the UTT find in favour of HMRC then it can be implied, nay, proven, that a sporting advantage was enjoyed by RFC over a considerable period of time. However, as much as most people will feel a sense of vindication, it will change the current landscape not a jot. A Phyrric victory which will not alter the LNS findings, will not change the stance of the SFA and will not dent the sense of entitlement of the WATP faction.
I believe, however, that in the longer term, the view of Scottish football will be that this was a shameful episode that tarnished all of Scottish society, where a ‘rogue’ trader was allowed to ride roughshod over our sport and run up massive debts in pursuit of a supremacist agenda that will by then be consigned to history.
Wishful thinking I know. I am from West Scotland and have grown up with the ‘beat of the drum’ (got stuck behind them yesterday) but my fervent hope is that their pernicious influence will eventually wane.
Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 7:56 pm
———————————–
Remember also the seperate indemnity against tax – I believe against the Club and not MIH
So since this is now worhless, then at some point in time – maybe after current appeal, and in the case HMRC are successful – then Hector will be seeking reparation from the individuals …….. #lotsOfSqueakyBums
Even failure of appeal does not prevent this course of action – hector remember stated that this was one of the reasons why they would not accept CVA …..
Will be up to each individual to choose to fight demand – pay up – go bankrupt – do a runner – [REMOVED _TSFM] ……. ohhh – that’s not funny at all …. Sorry [NO IT WASN’T]
Caveat Emptor says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:09 pm
Wishful thinking I know. I am from West Scotland and have grown up with the ‘beat of the drum’ (got stuck behind them yesterday) but my fervent hope is that their pernicious influence will eventually wane.
++++++++++
Best of luck with that one- I was saying the same back in the 60’s, but I honestly think that it’s currently getting worse, not better.
neepheid says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:24 pm
6 1 Rate This
Caveat Emptor says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:09 pm
++++++++++
Best of luck with that one- I was saying the same back in the 60′s, but I honestly think that it’s currently getting worse, not better.
*********************************
Without going into too much detail, I live ‘in the thick of it’ and agree with your assertion to a point. The ‘displays’ are definitely getting smaller but, as you say, the attitudes are as hard as ever.
Couple of tweets appearing asking if Deloittes refusing to sign off Sevco accounts. Anyone heard anything, apart from tonight’s tweets?
newtz says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:28 pm
If you mean by referencing Erskine Hospital for disabled ex-servicemen in a poor-taste attempt at humour and then, rather than simply deleting it, compounding the issue by “apologising” for your bad taste you certainly touched a nerve with me. Many posters on here quite rightly criticised The Rangers’ disgraceful use of the armed forces for propaganda purposes. Using their injured comrades to get a cheap laugh is equally, if not more, disgraceful. And for the record, only because it will matter to some on here, I’ve been a Celtic fan since 1962.
paulsatim says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:45 pm
1 1 Rate This
Couple of tweets appearing asking if Deloittes refusing to sign off Sevco accounts. Anyone heard anything, apart from tonight’s tweets?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I posted recently that RIFC were due to publish a 6 month report for AIM by 31st May. That report is essentially on the lines of full audited accounts, so Deloittes would have to sign off the report. Maybe they aren’t willing to certify accounts on a going concern basis? Anyway AIM surely can’t let this drift much longer. Can they?
Boys and Girls, If the TDrs are on here so much the better.
It means they are not out threatening to burn down stadiums,
Threatening innocent tweeters
Trying to get books banned for telling the truth.
Bring it on.
When is the 6 month period over, presumably 6 months after the date of the floatation.
How long do they have after that to actually publish the report, and does it actually have to be “audited” or just an abbreviated comment by the auditor.
It must be some feeling, in court, trying to be economical with the truth, when everyone knows you are at it. I’d rather sleep at night then look in the mirror when I get up.#dignity.
Ref Aulheid comments above ref UTT etc..intellectually and theoretically right …but. Sorry….WRONG!
And I know the point has been made multiple times…..EVEN if UTT finds in RANGERS favour..they are still condemned forever.
A class board of directors running a large sports organisation would and should never lower themselves to not pay their way in society and should have thought through the implications of their ( at best tax avoidance and at worst tax evasion) actions….and btw to have then further lowered themselves to the point of also deceiving every single stakeholder in our national sport is reprehensible to say the least…
( Eg as i said above ..and yes..all said before ..UK treasury were definitely deprived of multiple millions .of tax revenues……just one minor recent public example forgetting obvious NHS implications …….listening on 5 live on Friday afternoon hearing live the story of a father of a young kid killed in Afghanistan because they ran out of properly armoured vehicles…and another whose son was killed because they ran out of night goggles .and he was the only soldier in his platoon without a set…can you believe that?. )
Whether the contribution by avoidance or evasion of tax by Rangers to this particular set of issues /lack of funding is 1 pence or 1 million pounds..it is nonetheless a contribution..
So they should hang their heads in shame whether they win lose or draw the UTT
So..Sorry Auldheid ..the clever tax strategy card doesn’t hold water…..This is SPORT not market driven capital business enterprise (despite the way football has evolved in recent times) ..and deceiving every fan in Scottish football,depriving every other club of prize money etc over 10 and more probably 20 plus years is also disgraceful…this is their legacy..not smart tax management!
Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:07 pm
17 12
jimlarkin says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:01 pm
How could the club guarantees what decision a group of independent trustees would come to when a player applied for a loan from his sub-trust.
But of course those weren’t actually contractual payments, they couldn’t be.
————————————-
That’s the best laugh Gaz, some of the players were told that they had to have the side letters or they would not be signing for Rangers (IL). They were TOLD how much their Loan (sic) was going to be and how it was going to be paid to them. They were then told it was contractual and not to worry.
Amazing how with a wee bit digging and fellow posters raising points what you can turn-up.
Scottish FA issues Rangers update
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Now that the status of Rangers FC has been clarified by the respective league bodies, the Scottish FA has compiled the following information to provide clarity and guidance on the remaining issues to be resolved.
When will the Scottish FA consider Rangers application for membership?
Now that the Scottish Football League have made a conditional acceptance of Rangers FC in Irn Bru Division Three we will now consider the club’s application for membership transfer this week.
How can Rangers be considered for membership when they can’t provide four years’ financial statements?
Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements.
When will the Appellate Tribunal be reconvened?
The Scottish FA has been in dialogue with Rangers FC in respect of the outstanding disciplinary sanction. The decision of the Court of Session to set aside the 12-month registration embargo was complicated by Rangers FC’s administration and subsequent request from Sevco Scotland for a transfer of membership of the Scottish FA. Again, now that the club’s status has been confirmed by the SPL and SFL, we will consider the award of transfer once Rangers FC satisfy the necessary criteria.
Will Rangers’ original punishments be transferred to Newco?
The Scottish FA Board has the power to transfer membership under Article 14.1, which states:
“. . . Transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board, which will have the complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.”
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10204
In a nutshell Rangers didn’t get membership of the SFA through playing in the SFL. Rangers’ SFA membership formerly belonged to Rangers Football Club PLC and this was transferred to Sevco Scotland Ltd. It is quite clear from the above SFA statement that any terms and conditions could be applied to the transferred membership as seen fit by the SFA.
Obviously because of the tightness of time and complexity of the Rangers situation, from a footballing perspective, as well as the different footballing authorities involved the SFA were entitled to – under Article 14.1 – to apply a holding conditional membership for the Brechin game.
I’m quite sure that there was arm twisting going on behind the scenes and until the SPL share was actually transferred the SFA would have wanted to keep some kind of control on Rangers so another reason for the conditional membership as they had run out of time because of the Brechin game and the SPL share hadn’t officially been transferred to Dundee.
I have had a good look at the SFA Articles and as well as the right to make whatever terms it requires on the transfer of membership Article 62 would also confer on the SFA Board IMO the right to award a conditional membership if it wishes. This is a very common catch-all power for most organisations to allow unusual circumstances to be dealt with that aren’t covered by existing rules.
Article 7 states: ‘Full members and associate members shall be entitled to a certificate of membership in such form and terms as the Board may determine’ which also IMO makes it clear that that a conditional membership can be issued.
There never were two separate SFA registrations in effect at the same time. There was only one which was originally held by oldco Rangers and this was transferred to newco Rangers via a conditional membership on 27 July 2012 and this became a full membership on 3 August 2012.
And for any doubters who don’t believe the SFA statement then if Rangers had received their SFA membership through being a member of the SFL then that SFA membership would have been an associate one for 5 years before being converted to a full one.
Gaz says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:28 pm
0 0 Rate This
When is the 6 month period over, presumably 6 months after the date of the floatation.
How long do they have after that to actually publish the report, and does it actually have to be “audited” or just an abbreviated comment by the auditor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The 6 months is from the end date of the financials included in the prospectus- that was 31 August 2012. So the 6 month period is to 28 February. The report is to be published no later than 3 months from the end of the period, so by 31 May. Here is the relevant extract from the AIM rules.
“Half-yearly reports
18. An AIM company must prepare a half-yearly report in respect of the six month period from
the end of the financial period for which financial information has been disclosed in its
admission document and at least every subsequent six months thereafter (apart from the
final period of six months preceding its accounting reference date for its annual audited
accounts). All such reports must be notified without delay and in any event not later than
three months after the end of the relevant period.
The information contained in a half-yearly report must include at least a balance sheet, an
income statement, a cash flow statement and must contain comparative figures for the
corresponding period in the preceding financial year. Additionally the half-yearly report
must be presented and prepared in a form consistent with that which will be adopted in the
AIM company’s annual accounts having regard to the accounting standards applicable to
such annual accounts.”
Jack Jarvis says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:48 pm
————————————
Certainly not …. and if accidently implied that then I humbley apologise … It did not occur that it could be taken that way ….. Apologies again to anyone that did read it that way.
neepheid says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:03 pm
Thanks neepheid!
tailothebank says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:37 pm
Remember they have already lost their appeal in relation to 5 or 6 players.
It has already been ruled by HMRC, and upheld at tribunal that rangers cheated on their tax with regard to the EBTs. That’s done, dusted and agreed.
That’s in addition to the wee tax case.
That’s in addition to the PAYE and VAT they simply didn’t pay.
Best guess, without interest or penalties, about £15m that has already been determined and agreed. . Before the UTT on the EBTs is even finalised.
So it’s not pennies, not by a long way. It’s a huge scandal and a disgrace.
As well as the accounts for RIFC Plc it will be worth seeing whether the annual return for TRFCL is submitted by the due date which is 26 June 2013. What will be of interest in particular will be the shareholder details and share capital.
ecobhoy says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:39 pm
Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements.
—————————————————————————————-
No mention of seco buying the buisness then.
Apology accepted Newtz. Can you clarify the Erskine reference?
Sevco soz..
neepheid says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Thank you. I take it that as they are a PLC this should have already been made public by now.
ecobhoy says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:39 pm
Obviously because of the tightness of time and complexity of the Rangers situation, from a footballing perspective, as well as the different footballing authorities involved the SFA were entitled to – under Article 14.1 – to apply a holding conditional membership for the Brechin game.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agreed with every word in your post until I got to this. I cannot read into Article 14.1 any power to confer a “conditional membership”. I have looked in vain for any mention of “conditional membership” in the articles. There is none. In fact the SFA in their statement make no mention of any conditional membership of the SFA.
Here is article 4.2 “Members shall be of three classes:- full members, associate members and registered
members.” That article excludes the possibility of any such thing as “conditional membership” in my opinion.
It now seems pretty clear to me that Sevco played at Brechin without membership of either the SFA or the SFL.
What annoys me most I think is the haste involved that required the SFA to invent the conditional membership to allow A Rangers to play Brechin. It was only a cup game FFS, and it would not have been the end of the world if A Rangers didn’t compete in one competition if the alternative was to get things done “right” for the rest of the season. (By “right” I mean given that they were trying to do do something they shouldn’t, they should however be trying to do it using the rules they had as much as possible).
Would the players have been insured if there had been a serious injury? Would the SFA have been bankrupted if a club took them to court over it?
The shenanigans proved to me the overwhelming need within the SFA hierachy for A Rangers not just to exist but to be succesful by presumably being a favourite to win that competition. It maybe was seen as the end of their world that A Rangers were not going to continue as if nothing had happened. So much for sporting integrity, and therefore what could us fans not suspect will still going on to protect A Rangers.?
It was disgraceful then, and is still disgraceful now.
SDM’s statement to the FTT P126 line 21 :
“Q. As regards football players, was it a success in getting good football players, do you think?
A. As a club, we have been very successful, because we’ve been able to attract players of a certain standard that, perhaps, we may not have been able to do otherwise.”
I suggest that this is evidence of competitive advantage having been achieved from the horse’s mouth!
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Jack Jarvis says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:55 pm
————————————
Jack have sent you a PM with personal apology
will send a seperate PM detailing … what i thought was a joke … but in hindsight is not so funny …
Thanks
Tic 6709 says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:14 pm
25
9
Rate This
Quantcast
Boys and Girls, If the TDrs are on here so much the better.
It means they are not out threatening to burn down stadiums,
Threatening innocent tweeters
Trying to get books banned for telling the truth.
Bring it on.
===========================
As I said yesterday, they have learned how to register a TD.
You can be sure however that none of them will have read any of the posts.
Tic6709
I think the wains are away for some bawbaws their thumbs are in their mouths ,but,if I was you ,I would haud my wheest ,let them have a good night .
neepheid says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:40 pm
18. An AIM company must prepare a half-yearly report in respect of the six month period from the end of the financial period for which financial information has been disclosed in its admission document and at least every subsequent six months thereafter (apart from the final period of six months preceding its accounting reference date for its annual audited accounts).
=============================================================
My brain has frozen on this one. So there was accounts due on 28/2/2013 and there will be another set due on 28/08/2013. But will there then be a set due on 28/02/2014 or does the fact that Companies House shows the next accounts due on 16 May 2014 mean that the ones due on 28/02/2013 won’t be done because they will within 6 months of the annual accounts date.
If so that means there would be no accounts after 28/08/2013 until 16/05/2014 + 3 months after that which would mean 12 months with no accounts.
I may be getting it wrong but if I’m right it means a long period at what could be a financially significant time without any oversight.
I have just read SDM’s statement
As I read it, an extraordinary and utterly unconnected image floated in my mind.
An image of the dock at Nuremberg,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nuremberg-1-.jpg
I can’t think why that image should so suddenly have come into my mind, just at the point where SDM tacks on an ‘OKAY?!’ to his reply to the sharp-as-a-tack Dr Poon,who was in there like a terrier after a barn rat.
For a supposedly clever fellow, with the means to pay for coaching in how to respond to cross-examination, SDM’s performance was about as self-incriminating in its evasiveness as a dodgy EBT scheme!
(What school did he go to? He should demand a refund of the fees!)