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?
Auldheid says:
June 30, 2013 at 12:01 pm
——————————————————————-
I think for a laugh it’s worth noting that the seller of Edmiston House was Charlotte Ventures
(Edmiston House) Limited – very popular name just now. Purchase Price was £800K + VAT. The purchase of the Albion Carpark lease was £1.5M + VAT.
So is there something else that is included in the £4.5M land purchase figure as Albion and Edmiston only amount to £2.3M + VAT?
On finance leases this is from the AIM Prospectus:
18. Obligations under Finance Lease – As at 31/08/2012
Repayment of borrowings on finance leases fall due as follows:
In one year or less £347,000
Between one and two years £377,000
Between two and five years £815,000
TOTAL £1,539,000
The finance leases relate to funding of the refurbishment of the stadium fast food outlets.
A standard fixed security has been granted over these asset
The finance leases relate to funding of the refurbishment of the stadium fast food outlets.
A standard fixed security has been granted over these asset
davythelotion says:
June 30, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Yup. The 8 year was looking at how to deal with the continuing red line that if they stick to spending what is earned would take until 2018 to get out the black. It coincides with getting more UEFA money which would cover the rental whilst providing a capital injection. A lot can change by then.
Ticket prices were assumed to increase as they climbed the divisions except for this season coming as they have been held.
slimshady61 says:
June 30, 2013 at 11:33 am
maybe he meant per annum!!
Highlander says:
June 30, 2013 at 1:08 pm
When you think of it why should any club who, had UEFA FFP been in place would have failed to get a place, then benefit later from what always was unfair play but simply did not have rules to highlight it?
It is a matter of principle and principles.
Auldheid says:
June 30, 2013 at 2:06 pm
===============================================
As I said accounts ain’t my area but just throwing in my tuppence worth 🙂
But you’re right about the wages turnover ratio especially the way in which the investment in Rangers was sold as heavily based on the playing wages to turnover percentage – another Green world record from memory – and if that memory serves me correctly it was further refined to just first team wages to get it down even lower.
ecobhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 2:15 pm
This is from Prospectus (cheers I forgot where I got it)
• upgrades to Ibrox stadium (approximately £5.5 million);
• acquisition of land assets adjacent to the stadium (£4.5 million);
http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rifc-prospectus.pdf
Remember if purchase prices of Edminston House and the Albion lease are VAT inclusive then it is the net amount which is the important one as they will be able to reclaim the VAT they pay.
Oh and Charlotte Ventures (Edmiston House) Limited will surely be Mr Murray getting his few million out of the new club by selling those things to it.
Gaz says:
June 30, 2013 at 12:48 pm
Auldheid says:
June 30, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Thanks for that, it doesn’t paint a pretty picture and if I’m honest I think it’s if anything better than the reality.
For example I’m not convinced that everyone who attended last year was a paying customer, there was certainly anecdotal evidence that wasn’t the case.
————————————————–
In its previous version I had others have a look and comment and one who worked in a business College in Preston teaching business skills also thought it was generous.
I thought it better in terms of credibility to always place any balance of doubt in a “favouable to the business” direction. Funny thing was a month or two back a Celtic supporter passed it to a Ranger’s supporting mate with some business experience and he thought it was in the right ballpark. As a result of which I got asked for the orginal file from a concerned Rangers supporter and his mates.
The intent was never to destabalise but to try and inform and get Rangers supporters asking the SFA “are you happy to grant a license and should we be happy to buy an SB if you have no problems?
I think they would really rally if they had the truth, although extricating themselves from the hands of the spivs into which SDM delivered them is not going to be easy.
paulsatim says:
June 30, 2013 at 2:21 pm
slimshady61 says:
June 30, 2013 at 11:33 am
maybe he meant per annum!!
====================================================
Love CO’s quote from the DM: ‘I have no knowledge of any side contracts and I would be very surprised if that was the case. If anything comes up that I’m not aware of then I’ll put my hands up.
‘You know the way the club was run. I was a director and we had a controlling shareholder who ran the club. I don’t know what I could have done. Maybe I should have questioned things more.’
Well something has come up and it’s time to put your hands up and explain or will the undignified silence continue? I can only conclude that if telling the truth you were blissfully unaware of all the side contracts going on year after year at Ibrox and therefore you can only be viewed as someone stumbling along with eyes and ears shut tight.
It would also appear that when it came to your duties as a member of a public board that you kept your mouth firmly closed as well.
And your excuse was that DM was in charge – I’m afraid that reveals that you are lacking in moral fibre IMO and you have certainly shown no signs of shaking-off the DM yoke at the SFA – who are you frightened to cross now? Or is it all about clinging to power and earning a few bob?
Scottish Football requires someone in your position to be not only asking the questions but providing the answers to the issues which are poisoning Scottish Football and your succulent lamb eating pals in the SMSM won’t be able to protect you with their complacent silence.
It’s not too late – do the decent thing and then resign and make way for someone whose dignity comes from doing what is right and principled and doping it transparently. Scottish football fans – no matter what club they support – deserve no less!
Castofthousands says:
June 30, 2013 at 12:12 pm
thanks for that I was beginning to wonder when the question was raised. A supplementary though is if HMRC win and Rangers owe them can HMRC pursue The Directors and the ebt beneficiaries who might have an indemnity that is worth hee haw?
This is the link that shows the date of the Upper Tier tribunal hearing.
I would like to attend.
But does anyone know what ‘directions’ means ( against one of the Murray group entries)?
I wouldn’t want to waste a morning only to find it was devoted to ‘procedural’ matters
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/tax-and-chancery-upper-tribunal-/hearings-register.pdf
Auldheid says:
June 30, 2013 at 2:49 pm
I think they would really rally if they had the truth, although extricating themselves from the hands of the spivs into which SDM delivered them is not going to be easy.
==================================================================
It isn’t going to be easy as you say. But I believe there are signs of a rally and the interesting thing to me is that some supporters are also showing signs that a return to the old Rangers financial ways is not the answer and, indeed, they oppose Smith and McCoist because they see them as being in that mould.
There is a lot of quite sensible discussion going on and OK those that are thinking are outnumbered but they are posting in a way that is different from anything I have seen previously. It’s always easy to paint any group of people with one brush but experience has taught me that is seldom correct especially not from a longer term perspective.
I think one of the many important roles this site has to offer is to provide information as factually as we can and your own efforts on the financial side is important as was Highlander’s on the coefficient issue.
We will never get through to the closed minds and IMO there is no point even attempting to – we need to reach or at least provide info that thinking Bears can look at and think over and reach their own decision on. I just happen to think that treating them all as one amorphous mass by painting them with one brush is not the way to go and neither is telling them what they MUST think or believe.
At the end of the day they are the ones who must come to a realisation and decision as to what the best way is for them and their club in terms of playing football and they will require to bring it about and it certainly won’t be easy as you say.
john clarke says:
June 30, 2013 at 2:58 pm
But does anyone know what ‘directions’ means ( against one of the Murray group entries)?
I wouldn’t want to waste a morning only to find it was devoted to ‘procedural’ matters
—————————————————————————————————————————-
John Paul McConville has dealt with it at:
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/rangers-tax-appeal-may-be-heard-on-19th-july-2013/
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/when-will-the-rangers-tax-appeal-be-heard-summer-2014-later/
ecobhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 3:09 pm
I’m not surprised at that. Last October myself and a Rangers supporter were asked to contribute a chapter to this book now published
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bigotry-Football-Scotland-John-Flint/dp/0748670378/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372601767&sr=1-1&keywords=Bigotry+Football+and+Scotland
and whilst time has passed and we did not know what each other would write (we have never met) I think that what we both wrote is coming to pass as you described. Not sure my solution will be welcomed in some quarters mind you. 🙂
Auldheid says:
June 30, 2013 at 2:49 pm
The whole accounts thing is a bit of a black art in my view. As one bean counter told me the question isn’t what the profit is, the question is what do you want it to be.
So it doesn’t surprise me that two experienced people had slightly different opinions on your figures, depending on what they wanted to see.
As people have said before though, in Rangers’ current position it is more likely to be cash flow which is an issue rather than fancy dan accounting witchcraft.
john clarke says:
June 30, 2013 at 2:58 pm
0 0 Rate This
This is the link that shows the date of the Upper Tier tribunal hearing.
I would like to attend.
But does anyone know what ‘directions’ means ( against one of the Murray group entries)?
I wouldn’t want to waste a morning only to find it was devoted to ‘procedural’ matters
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A directions hearing is purely to consider procedural matters, foilowing which the judge will issue directions to the parties, aimed at cutting down the time required at the substantive hearing. I think that on the list “directions hearing” refers to all the joined appeals of MIH and RFC. The clerk to the tribunal is usually very helpful on such matters, if you give them a call. I don’t expect a substantive hearing for another 6 months or so.
Auldheid says:
June 30, 2013 at 2:33 pm
acquisition of land assets adjacent to the stadium (£4.5 million)
————————————————————————————————–
I think this is in some ways a throwback to the Casino upgrade plan. I think Green’s thinking and I rely solely on memory here was to – with assistance from Glasgow Council – to buy land round the stadium cheaply so that he could involve developers to build a hotel and also a private clinic and get rental income back to inject into RIFC Plc.
There might have been a couple of other enterprises but I can’t remember them but the principle was the same. The Rangers stake was the ground and the developers raised the capital and did the building. A bit of the pressure on the council was because Celtic were being seen to do well out of the East End refurbishment for the Commonwealth Games so the idea was obviously the Council would have to do a balancing act to keep society ticking along. I wonder who was whispering all this in Green’s ear?
Danish Pastry says:
June 30, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Fleecing , not in my make up, however I think we should set up link to this picture for our TRFC fans to see their new bus and every time the link is clicked it earns 99p for the charity.
http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/blog/2012/09/join-the-christian-aid-tax-justice-tour/
As for CO, it’s a mystery really.
briggsbhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Why did CO leave Rangers after 27 years ? Was the job so much better at Hearts, anybody recall what the reason was?
Did he see the writing on the wall and think by jumping ship and getting distance before the great ship Rangers sank he’d be safe. Was he told there was a job waiting for him at the SFA but he needed to put that distance between him and Rangers again before he got it?
_________________________________________
I posted some time ago that I’d always wondered why CO would make a career move to Hearts, even with my maroon tinted spectacle it appeared to be a downward step. In light of what we have known for some time I suggested that Murray of the David variety foresaw a need to have someone he could trust (because he was deeply involved) at the top of Scottish football to smooth the way through the inevitable storm heading his/Rangers way. It would have been all too obvious if the move was made directly from Ibrox to Hampden and so an ‘incubator’ club had to be found. With a bunch of foreigners in charge at Hearts they were probably the obvious choice as they’d welcome ‘the world’s greatest administrator’ to help them deal with the complexities of Scottish football. At the right time he would be, and was, inducted into the SFA’s Hall of Shame 😉 . I wonder too, if, with Romanov threatening the status quo (I know, he failed), there wasn’t the thought of getting ‘a spy in the camp’ or even a destabilizing influence added to the value of the move to Hearts as opposed to elsewhere. All speculation on my part, I know, but there just had to be some reason for such an esteemed administrator to leave a club with the Champions League in it’s sights, with huge tax free EBTs to come, nights out costing £95,000 etc etc, for a club that could really only dream of dreaming about winning the SPL, let alone the CL 🙁
PS, I know VR claimed Hearts would win the CL, but if CO believed that…
Auldheid says:
June 30, 2013 at 2:55 pm
——————————–
In response to Castofthousands at 12:12 pm
thanks for that I was beginning to wonder when the question was raised. A supplementary though is if HMRC win and Rangers owe them can HMRC pursue The Directors and the ebt beneficiaries who might have an indemnity that is worth hee haw?
———————————————————
I have pondered tis also …….. While not an expert, I would assume that this is the case as I believe that there is precedent ….. can any legal minded posters refer us to case examples ?
There will be a lot of sqeaky bums …. 83 according to CF (excluding MIH employees etc that may be handled different ?)
Is also one of the reasons I was confused by CF post and have been reading posts on here with interest.
Does anyone know if TRFC has appointed a new team doctor yet for the forthcoming season? Or More importantly a Facilities manager to oversee not only this years dilapidations but last years also?
What was noticeable last year was the state of the paintwork on the rusty metal Saltires in the main stand, later covered up with vinyl signage, and what about the Asbestos works mentioned before?
Auldheid, does your season’s cash flow projections include the monies required for the properties maintenance and upkeep works?
Auldheid says:
June 30, 2013 at 3:20 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 3:09 pm
===============================================
Ah didn’t realise a publication date had been set so I’ll order one.
I have relatives, good friends and drinking mates who are Rangers fans and I have the same on the Celtic side. My viewpoint on Rangers/Celtic in general was formed and comes mainly from being raised with a mixed background and different schooling.
An advantage I find with having Rangers-supporting contact in real life is that I know these people well and over the years have formed my personal opinions as to the value that should be placed on what they say and, more importantly, whether they are basically good human beings or not.
The same is true of Celtic fans I know and it goes way beyond just deciding about people as people just because of the football team they support which is so often determined by historical factors such as what your dad and his dad supported. So rationality can often be in short supply with football fans and I am no different.
The value in my broad viewpoint, compared to some, is it helps me make some kind of judgement about what I see being said on Rangers fan sites and how closely it equates to my ‘objective population’ might be a way of describing it.
As I say I think there are positive signs but its early days and too soon to know if they will develop or be snuffed out. I try to remain an optimist but know it’s a slow process and Green has put the clock back at least a decade in many ways. I seriously don’t believe he understood the sub-plot and just saw it as a good way to raise money.
He was IMO used by much more dangerous and darker forces whose main interest isn’t in football or even spivvery and now he’s gone and hopefully some sanity will return and we can get on with the road to building an inclusive society. But the one of the major road blocks which is becoming clearer by the day is the cowardice of politicians from all parties in grasping the nettle and uprooting it. In a sense the SFA and its disgraceful inaction are merely a symptom of the disease at the core of the body politic.
99p in the UK or $1.59
http://s24.postimg.org/e2v9b3xw5/Rangers_New_Bus_99p.jpg
To take a tour of a Bruce’s bus.
It truly is genius.
Surely the difference in the asset monies will be down to the purchase of suitable secure premises to park the super coach, after all you cant just leave this out on the street,can you.
Auldheid says:
June 30, 2013 at 2:55 pm
“…can HMRC pursue The Directors and the ebt beneficiaries who might have an indemnity that is worth hee haw?
——————–
Just working through the logic. I understand that the concept of an EBT was designed to provide investment funds to the beneficiary. The idea was that beneficiaries would borrow the money and invest it in high yielding ventures thus keeping the profit when the loan repayment fell due.
Now, RFC(IL) were controlling the payments but the trusts legal relationship complicates matters. RFC(IL) are being chased for the tax so there does appear to be a defined liability there. I suppose BDO could find that the Directors acted recklessly in resorting to such payment regimes but it would all get very legal I suspect, which usually means they get away with it.
Castofthousands says:
June 30, 2013 at 4:39 pm
The big question I imagine will be if they abused the system.
Remember the EBT should be a discretionary, non contractual payment into the sub-trust. The loan part comes later and is between the trustee and the beneficiary, neither of whom are Rangers.
So the crux of the matter was, were these payments into the sub trusts discretionary. If not who knew that they weren’t. Did the directors in fact knowingly abuse the system. Was tax due at the point the payments were made and action taken to evade paying that tax.
It is worth bearing in mind that the loans out of the sub trust can be converted to payments, tax becomes due if that is done though.
Castofthousands says:
June 30, 2013 at 4:39 pm
———————————-
One of the issues was that it was demonstrated that the Trustee was not independant as required and HMRC while demonstrating this, did not seem to follow fully through. Poon did but her determination was the dissenting view. The primary example used was the change of Trustee after the original trustee attempted to use the normal cheques and balances on loan request. The settlelor (RFC) objected to the delay and requests and simply moved to a more compliant Trustee, showing that infact RFC were controlling the Trust Fund.
#HowDoesThatWork
I understand that this is just one thread in the whole legal arguments but did seem like an open goa IMOl.
Remember also that some of the EBT’s (maybe all ?) also came with an indemnity against future tax liability …. ???.
#worthless
I think it is also worth bearing in mind that it was the same Rangers which Craig Whyte placed into administration and subsequent liquidation due to their failure to pay millions of pounds to HMRC. And that it is BDO who are looking into that part, it was HMRC who put them in as liquidators.
Things are far from over for the previous Rangers’ owners and boards. There is potentially a lot still to happen from their point of view.
ecobhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 3:58 pm
——————————-
I have a go at the Government, SMSM and the SFA in it and it follows your theme. Its only a small part but I hope you enjoy all the contributions.
Worth also bearing in mind the unpaid VAT from the Ticketus Invoices. I believe that that is also being handled seperately. As a reminder, Ken O the financial controller of RFC at the time stated on oath that he had never seen them before he was presented with them by HMRC and that they did not appear to be normal RFC invoices … infact he observed, that they looked more like ‘clip art’ !. He also stated that No Ticketus arrangements appeared on RFC accounts nor had any monies been recieved by RFC from Ticketus.
Of course thanks to CF we have sight of these ‘alleged’ clip art invoices and the supporting emails.
#JailTime
Gaz says:
June 30, 2013 at 4:00 pm
2
0
Rate This
Quantcast
99p in the UK or $1.59
http://s24.postimg.org/e2v9b3xw5/Rangers_New_Bus_99p.jpg
To take a tour of a Bruce’s bus.
It truly is genius.
—————————————–
Is it an all day ticket 😀
Palacio67 says:
June 30, 2013 at 3:48 pm
There is a facilities cost of £550,000 from previous accounts, when provided, included that I think will cover maintenance although I discount the total of which facilities costs was a part by 1/5th. Perhaps i should have added another £50,000 to the facilities cost..
Auldheid says:
June 30, 2013 at 6:08 pm
0 0 Rate This
Palacio67 says:
June 30, 2013 at 3:48 pm
There is a facilities cost of £550,000 from previous accounts, when provided, included that I think will cover maintenance although I discount the total of which facilities costs was a part by 1/5th. Perhaps i should have added another £50,000 to the facilities cost..
—————————————
Thanks Auldheid. This figure is most probably the initial Maintenance (Hard Facilities) and Cleaning (Soft Facilities) running costs made up, by the cost of a cleaning contract and a couple of Maintenance Engineers ( Technical and Fabric ) carrying out general PPM works.( Usually sourced from a FM firm)
Over and above that there will also be quoted works for larger repairs to the fabric/building/ machinery outside that scope.
Are TRFC just getting by by paying the minimum cost of Maintenance, with essential repairs being pushed into the long grass? We already know the Absestos issue is a sensitive case, they even felt the need to mention it in the AIM flotation.
YOURHAVINGALAUGH says:
June 30, 2013 at 10:40 am
16 1 Rate This
Smugas
And has Keevins finally scraped right through the bottom of the barrel with his piece in the same paper,
============================================
I was talking to a fairly senior employee of the newspaper industry recently. The Daily Record and Sunday Mail run at about 275K copies a day, compared to over 800K a decade ago. The Daily Record are hoping to get the contract to print the Daily Mail, which may screw the Herald who currently print the Mail, as the Herald run less than 50K copies a day of their own paper, with the Mail at about 100K. The Scotsman (also printed by the Record) runs slightly more than the Herald.
The newspaper industry is shafted. Keevins and the pathetic Craig Burley are nothing other than shock jocks and are irrelevant.
Has someone got a copy of what Burley printed today as I do not want to go near the paper’s website
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FMattMcGlone9%2Fstatus%2F351340328332169218%2Fphoto%2F1&h=VAQFDNybI
Try this Valentinesclown.
upthehoops says:
June 30, 2013 at 6:39 pm
the Herald run less than 50K copies a day of their own paper, with the Mail at about 100K. The Scotsman (also printed by the Record) runs slightly more than the Herald.
============================================================================
Circulation figures have always been smoke and mirrors. But I also know that the Herald print run is approx 50k but the Scotsman is less and almost at implosion point. It will be the first to go and that might keep the Herald running a bit longer but not much more – maybe 12-24 months.
I always remember back to when the Record started its Costa Edition in Spain – well thereby hangs a tale of smoke and mirrors. However I have learnt that a contract to print a certain amount doesn’t actually mean that is the amount actually printed – go figure – and I am not a ‘fairly senior employee’ in the newspaper industry. But I know what’s what 🙂
newtz says:
June 30, 2013 at 6:02 pm
The Ticketus deal is a weird one.
It seems to be Rangers who raised the invoices, or was it Rangers Group (Wavetower).
However, whichever one, neither is going to supply any goods or services to Ticketus, albeit Ticketus has paid for them. So the VAT position must be quite complicated, as it seems to have been Rangers making the supply (which never happened) and Wavetower receiving the money.
Gaz says:
June 30, 2013 at 7:49 pm
————————————
Ticketus claimed the VAT having paid and HMRC started asking questions having never recieved it. Since was against RFC that’s were they went looking for it,
Charlotte,
Thanks for the recent EBT stuff on Smith, Souness and Ogilvie.
Would this be an opportune time to reveal any such arrangements regarding McCoist?
Red Lichtie
Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.
PS Predictive text offered “Wounded” instead of “Souness”. Is it trying to tell us something?
newtz says:
June 30, 2013 at 8:04 pm
That’s why it gets complicated.
Rangers may have raised the invoices (if they did), however they have never made a supply to Ticketus and have never been paid one, so why would output tax be due.
Alternatively they could raise a credit note, knowing they would never be paid anyway and cancel the output tax that way.
Unless HMRC take the view that the payment to Wavetower constituted a tax point as they were the holding company at the time.
Like I say, it is quite complicated.
Palacio67 says:
June 30, 2013 at 6:34 pm
Are TRFC just getting by by paying the minimum cost of Maintenance, with essential repairs being pushed into the long grass? We already know the Asbestos issue is a sensitive case, they even felt the need to mention it in the AIM flotation.
==============================================================================
As to the first question about pushing essential repairs into the long grass yea Rangers are probably doing that in common with most UK businesses in the current recession. It will eventually cost more in the long term to fix than the annual maintenance charges but, as long as health & safety isn’t compromised, it’s a perfectly acceptable position to adopt.
Obviously asbestos is another issue because that can never be compromised because of the health risk involved, which we know only so well on Clydeside.
You are correct it was mentioned in the AIM prospectus and this is what was stated by the surveyors: ‘We have not had sight of an Asbestos Risk Assessment relative to the subjects and cannot report that they are free from risk in this respect. Accordingly, we have made the assumption that such an investigation would not disclose the presence of any such material in any adverse situation or condition.’
I have seen many attacks on Rangers and the asbestos risk at Ibrox and I have yet to see anything that actually indicates that any risk to public health exists. There may well be a risk but I know of no evidence of it and if I believed it existed I would make an immediate complaint to the Health & Safety Executive.
That’s not to say that there’s no asbestos at Ibrox – I believe that in some of the older structural steelwork there might well be asbestos used as a fireproofing. It creates absolutely no health risk as long as it is protected and not breaking up with asbestos fibres being released.
The form of words used by the Ibrox surveyors is normal because back when asbestos was used it wasn’t perceived as being dangerous and once in place and protected and in a sense ‘hidden’ it only becomes dangerous if things are ripped apart to expose it and obviously no surveyor does that.
Asbestos is everywhere: It’s in factories, offices. homes and probably in Parkhead. I have often seen references to dangerous asbestos at Ibrox but have never seen a shred of evidence to back-up the claims which until now I have ignored by and large.
However I think it should be addressed because of the H&S aspects and I would urge anyone with any information about dangerous asbestos at Ibrox or Parkhead to contact the H&S Executive so that they can investigate. I trust that any information given is accurate otherwise it will be ignored.
And now for something a wee bit lighter 🙂
I wonder if anyone else saw the advert on telly last night for the new online casino advertising great ways to lose money, called – wait for it-
MrGreen.com
Couldn’t be, could it? 😉
Allyjambo says:
June 30, 2013 at 8:27 pm
Couldn’t be, could it? 😉
===================================================
Definitely not – Mr Green always made money 🙂
Gaz says:
June 30, 2013 at 7:49 pm
1
0
Rate This
newtz says:
June 30, 2013 at 6:02 pm
The Ticketus deal is a weird one.
It seems to be Rangers who raised the invoices, or was it Rangers Group (Wavetower).
However, whichever one, neither is going to supply any goods or services to Ticketus, albeit Ticketus has paid for them. So the VAT position must be quite complicated, as it seems to have been Rangers making the supply (which never happened) and Wavetower receiving the money.
My reading of the Ticketus invoices is that Andrew Harding of Octopus investments made up the invoices after Betts, Grier and Bryan had struggled to get the format right. It would appear that Betts was the only Rangers person involved.
I would expect that Ticketus claimed the VAT on the amount as input VAT (reducing their bill). If Ken Olverman didn’t see it (and Betts refers to keeping it away from Ken on his memo of 6July 2011) then Rangers probably declare it as output tax therefore wouldn’t have paid the sum to HMRC.
This episode with the invoices would appear to be false accounting which is a criminal offense.
Eco/Upthehoops
The smoke in dailys like the Scostman are that the major hotel chains offer these free at check in,now thats a lot of papers throughout our small country that has an average of 10k rooms that would offer this facility ,now who is the leader in actual sales ,or ,is there infuence ,surely not.
Palacio67 says:
June 30, 2013 at 7:25 pm
1 0 Rate This
———————————————————————————————-
Thanks Palacio67. Burley is in the same category as Hateley. It is beyond belief that their opinion and bile can be put in a newspaper ( loosely speaking) and not brought to task. And to think they may be getting 2 incomes for this.
I have never bought a newspaper in Scotland for years and the above 2 jokers are always there to remind me and cement my stance that I never will (although they are not alone in this).
Paper sales are decreasing in this country due to them not seeking the truth or knowing the truth but choosing not to print it.
Here is the truth when the papers go bust I for one will rejoice. Shame on you all.
ecobhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 8:16 pm
However I think it should be addressed because of the H&S aspects and I would urge anyone with any information about dangerous asbestos at Ibrox or Parkhead to contact the H&S Executive so that they can investigate. I trust that any information given is accurate otherwise it will be ignored.
==========================
What about Tynecastle, or Tannadice, or Pittodrie, or Firhill etc etc etc.
Or should they just report it if it’s at Parkhead in addition to Ibrox.
newtz says:
June 30, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Remember also that some of the EBT’s (maybe all ?) also came with an indemnity against future tax liability …. ???. #worthless
===================================================================
One of the complicating factors is that during the period in which Rangers were using EBTs the actual law changed so what was OK in the earlier period wasn’t in the latter one. Indeed Rangers decided to stop using the EBTs because they ceased to be advantageous in tax terms.
Deliberate misuse of EBTs was never OK.
They decided to stop using them because they were only “advantageous” if they did misuse them.
ecobhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 8:32 pm
1
1
Rate This
Quantcast
Allyjambo says:
June 30, 2013 at 8:27 pm
Couldn’t be, could it? 😉
===================================================
Definitely not – Mr Green always made money 🙂
_____________________________
That’s what I mean, it’s MrGreen’s casino, and the casino always wins – leaving very few of it’s customers as winners 🙁
Someones hit the TD too soon
My post above stated:
“then Rangers probably declare it as output tax therefore wouldn’t have paid the sum to HMRC”
Should be:
“then Rangers probably didn’t declare it as output tax therefore wouldn’t have paid the sum to HMRC”
And offence not offense
ecobhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 7:36 pm
===================================
It’s all a far cry from when a Journalist with a major title was considered a top job. Having said that I’m glad we bampots have got us to a place where we don’t have to rely on said major titles who only told us what they wanted us to know. God only knows what might have happened these past few years if there was no Internet and we played by 1970’s rules. Here’s a few guesses.
1) Rangers would never have liquidated
2) Hugh Dallas would still be in charge of SFA Refereeing
3) Dougle McDonald would have survived to normal Referee retirement age
4) Celtic would be in ‘crisis’ for various reasons many times a year
5) etc
upthehoops says:
June 30, 2013 at 9:47 pm
God only knows what might have happened these past few years if there was no Internet and we played by 1970′s rules.
=======================================================
I totally agree with you as regards sports journos – they are still as much the crawlers as they have always been. But the really sad thing is that for a variety of reasons we have lost the backbone of pretty good news and investigative journos, fotogs and photojournalists that we used to have, They have all but disappeared and that is a real loss. Not just to journalism but to society.
I think these days any good Scots journo gets out of the country asap and they are wise to do so IMO.
ecobhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 3:18 pm
‘what ‘directions’ means ‘ -‘.John Paul McConville has dealt with it at’
——-
Thanks for that, ecobhoy.
I can’t believe I didn’t read Paul’s blog at the time.
If I did, it ( worryingly!) clearly escaped my memory.
I take heart from the fact that Paul observed that the’ directions’ word does not appear against the RFC(IL) entry, so it might be a substantive hearing.
If the Tribunal is open to the public, I intend to be there.
Gaz says:
June 30, 2013 at 8:12 pm
———————————-
maybe worthwhile reading the email chain CF supplied and also the SFA investigation finding against RFC while in Admin (the one determining non declaration of directorship disqualification)
The emails show Ross B asking for the Invoices on RFC letterhead to keep his Board happy. First email had no letterhead and Ross got a bit pissed off.
TU was simply the vehicle for Octopus (Ross said No employees) funding.
Money against future ticket sales including current (2011/12)
When stated something like 38K tickets sold ….. Ross reminded that £9m immediately due and money was held on trust and NOT to be used as working capital ……. #ShitHitsFan
£5m was original money paid to kick deal off …
£9m due immediately by RFC (as target sales achieved) – then Octopus will immediately pay next part of agreemnt
Seems like RFC decided to use the VAT element as working capital
YOURHAVINGALAUGH says:
June 30, 2013 at 8:43 pm
2
2
Rate This
Eco/Upthehoops
The smoke in dailys like the Scostman are that the major hotel chains offer these free at check in,now thats a lot of papers throughout our small country that has an average of 10k rooms that would offer this facility ,now who is the leader in actual sales ,or ,is there infuence ,surely not.
=======================================================================
Yea – also trains, planes, promos. Papers are dying and still haven’t figured how to make money out of the internet mainly because they are trying to get away with a ‘printed’ version online. They totally lack the imagination to succeed in a rapidly changing environment.
Of course it’s not just sales that is a problem as ad revenue is probably more important in terms of income generation. That’s obviously suffering for various reasons and the recession isn’t helping. But I’m not up to date on how the Herald and Scotsman are doing there although everything I hear points towards the Scotsman just clinging on by its fingernails.
Tbh I’ll be disappointed if it goes because I’ve always rated it superior in terms of news, business and political reporting to the Herald.
ecobhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 10:22 pm
===============================
Re-the lack of investigative Journo’s in the present day with the balls to go after a story. Does the flip side of the Internet and the ease with which it can be used to threaten and/or discredit people put Journo’s off going after a story in some cases…or am I being too kind to them?
neepheid says:
June 30, 2013 at 3:27 pm
‘…I think that on the list “directions hearing” refers to all the joined appeals of MIH and RFC. ‘
——-
Just seen your post, neepheid, and thank you for it.
You’re probably right, since the RFC(IL) and Murray Group are so interconnected.
I’ll go along, anyway, if it is open to me to do so, just in case, as Paul seemed to think possible, the RFC (IL) bit might actually be dealt with, legal argument wise.
newtz says:
June 30, 2013 at 10:32 pm
Part of the reason they went into administration and subsequent liquidation was the non payment of VAT. Given that a lot of that would come from season ticket sales on which the output tax was not declared then from Rangers’ (the original club) perspective it shouldn’t really matter whether those tickets were sold directly to a customer or to Ticketus for onward sale.
(Albeit Ticketus (if they were VAT registered), would be entitled to reclaim the sale as input tax).
That of course is if it was Rangers as a taxable entity for VAT purposes was actually making the supply. I don’t know if Wavetower (Rangers Group) were VAT registered, or if it was that entity which made the reply and received the payment. However given the level of sales (to Ticketus) it would be impossible for them not to have been registered.
Bottom line, who sold the tickets, who received payment, who made the supply.
upthehoops says:
June 30, 2013 at 6:39 pm
+++++++
Newspapers have always inflated their ‘sale’ figures by including freebies. The total is used as a factor in calculating advertisement space. Ad sales has been the real business of newspapers for at least 30 years. Journalism has decreased in importance proportionally. Newspapers now employ people who translate press releases into copy. The use of these translators by Media House is no surprise. The radio shows who use these translators are and revenue hungry, hence the binning of Real radio’s phone in. Clyde will be next.
upthehoops says:
June 30, 2013 at 10:38 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 10:22 pm
===============================
Re-the lack of investigative Journo’s in the present day with the balls to go after a story. Does the flip side of the Internet and the ease with which it can be used to threaten and/or discredit people put Journo’s off going after a story in some cases…or am I being too kind to them?
—————————————————————————————————————————–
I don’t think the lack of investigative journos is connected with the internet but more to do with lack of cash.
It is helluva expensive to have someone investigating stories in depth because the actual success rate in what you actually get into print at the end of the day is fairly low and I would think if you managed 25% as a newspaper you were doing well. And it could take up to a month and probably never less than 1-2 weeks for a decent in-depth exclusive. In the same period a journo these days would churn out hundreds of pap stories to fill space. Readers know they’re rubbish and it’s one of the reasons they’ve stopped buying.
One of the best investigative reporters in Scotland in recent decades was Mike Hildrey at the Evening Times and he was the only investigative reporter on the paper. Don’t get me wrong there are also some good heavyweight general news reporters who often have a specific interest that they excel in and you could have say 2/3 of them in most papers.
But the cutting of staff as budgets have been savaged means there’s almost no time to investigate anything. It’s just filling space as cheaply as possible.
As to being threatened by an internet creep who thinks they are a hard-man because they are ‘anonymous’ an investigative news reporter would track them down and turn up on their doorstep with a cameraman and do a story on them and leave the cops and their maw to do the rest.
Sadly, there are also very few responsible posters on the internet compared to the number posting personal biased opinions based on absolutely zero facts. It’s the curse of what could be so much better in terms of analysis and getting the truth, based on facts and not personal bias, out there.
There has to be some responsibility to keep the ‘freedom’ in check to the extent that rumour shouldn’t be repeated just because someone else has posted it – every poster should be checking their material and the Rangers asbestos story is a case in point. I keep seeing it being referred to but I never see anything that provides a shred of evidence that any asbestos at Ibrox is in a dangerous condition.
Many football grounds are from an era where asbestos has probably been used at some stage and if not in original construction then at a later date usually for fireproofing of exposed steelwork which was done when the danger of heat on unprotected steel was realised. Sadly when this was done the medical dangers of asbestos wasn’t fully understood.
I know it’s easy to attack sports journos and in lots of ways the system is more at fault than them. To get to the top in sports reporting terms you’ve got to be reporting on Celtic or Rangers. If you’re not reporting on them you will never sit on top of the midden in professional terms.
The difficulty is that to keep your place there then you can’t fall out with whatever club is your ticket to the dunghill and therein lies the problem. If you lose your access then you will be replaced. I have always thought that the only way to stop what is generally perceived to be favouritism is to cycle the sports guys in terms of the teams they cover.
But a news reporter or investigative journo will probably only hit an individual or company once or at the very most 2/3 times and never ever need to go back and they were never pals to begin with. The only time I have seen news journos run into trouble is when they get too closely involved in one side or the other of criminal rivals and that can be slightly more scary than getting banned from Ibrox or Parkhead 🙂
Gaz says:
June 30, 2013 at 10:54 pm
———————————–
as you say bottom line is …
who sold the tickets … RFC(IL)
who received payment … RFC(IL)
who made the supply…. Octopus through Ticketus as the vehicle
All VAT registered
martybhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 11:25 pm
Gaz…..we all know who to all of these questions…..the key is WHEN.
======================
Really, how do you know.
Can you provide your source.
newtz says:
June 30, 2013 at 11:38 pm
0
0
Rate This
Gaz says:
June 30, 2013 at 10:54 pm
———————————–
as you say bottom line is …
who sold the tickets … RFC(IL)
who received payment … RFC(IL)
who made the supply…. Octopus through Ticketus as the vehicle
All VAT registered
=============================
I thought Wavetower received the payment. Then used it to buy the debt from Lloyds.
I don’t see how Octopus could have made the supply, they were the customers. Either Rangers or Wavetower must have made the supply.
davythelotion says:
June 30, 2013 at 11:36 pm
2 0 Rate This
upthehoops says:
June 30, 2013 at 6:39 pm
+++++++
Newspapers have always inflated their ‘sale’ figures by including freebies. The total is used as a factor in calculating advertisement space. Ad sales has been the real business of newspapers for at least 30 years. Journalism has decreased in importance proportionally. Newspapers now employ people who translate press releases into copy. The use of these translators by Media House is no surprise. The radio shows who use these translators are and revenue hungry, hence the binning of Real radio’s phone in. Clyde will be next.
Does Scotland publish audited circulation figure which differentiate paid for and freebie copies as Ireland does?
Gaz says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:02 am
——————————–
Source #1 – You need to read the CF emails surrounding the TU invoices
as a starter Invoice Chat 1 – http://www.scribd.com/doc/148997804/Invoice-Chat-1
Will leave the rest for you as they are sequential on Scribed
Source #2 – You need to read the Ticketus Vs CW decision
Source #3 – You need to read the SFA Judicial Panel Findings …. also referred to in part within it
Reblogged here …
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/the-sfa-judicial-panel-verdict-on-rangers-full-text/
Hope that helps
Gaz says:
July 1, 2013 at 12:02 am
———————————-
Maybe the point you are missing is that the ST’s were owned by Octopus (paid up front for) … the first 28K ST’s I believe. As Ross reminded Bain …. That money is OURS …. NOT yours
@Gaz
Also, (again included in the emails) …
It was crucial part of the deal that the Lloyds debt was cleared and the two direcectors representing Lloyds were removed prompto so as not to raise suspicion …. Lloyds could not discover the mechanism of the previous deal …. the email show Ross B explaining this ……… This is where Octopus may have some difficulty in the ongoing BDO investigation
#Accountability
Gaz says:
June 30, 2013 at 10:54 pm
newtz says:
June 30, 2013 at 10:32 pm
Part of the reason they went into administration and subsequent liquidation was the non payment of VAT. Given that a lot of that would come from season ticket sales on which the output tax was not declared then from Rangers’ (the original club) perspective it shouldn’t really matter whether those tickets were sold directly to a customer or to Ticketus for onward sale.
(Albeit Ticketus (if they were VAT registered), would be entitled to reclaim the sale as input tax).
That of course is if it was Rangers as a taxable entity for VAT purposes was actually making the supply. I don’t know if Wavetower (Rangers Group) were VAT registered, or if it was that entity which made the reply and received the payment. However given the level of sales (to Ticketus) it would be impossible for them not to have been registered.
Bottom line, who sold the tickets, who received payment, who made the supply.
===================================================================
The invoices were from the Rangers Football Club PLC, which I believe was what Wavetower was re named. So they were the seller of the tickets (or future tickets). The Purchaser was Ticketus (part of Octopus).
As I mentioned above it looks like Ticketus eventually produced the invoices, effectively billing themselves.
My guess is that Ticketus had placed the funds in the Escrow Account controlled by Collyer Bristow (CB) and when the invoices were approved by Ticketus the funds would be released to RFC PLC by CB.
For some reason the Management had difficulties getting invoices through normal channels (mention of Lloyds being tricky) and they seem to have gone outside of the normal channels.
It looks like Lloyds were paid by 29 June according to Ross Bryan.
A point to note is that in June Mr Bryan asked Phil Betts for the invoices and he asked David Grier to produce the invoices dated May (which they were). It is most unusual to backdate an invoice by that period, and HMRC should take a keen interest.
39.
martybhoy says:
@Gaz
to save you reading through the Judicial report …..
74. That in the course of the latter part of August 2011 Mr Ken Olverman was contacted by two senior officials of the Customs and Excise (VAT) division of HMRC. Their enquiry was in relation to invoices which had been discovered in the business records of Ticketus which bore to have been raised by Rangers FC. The invoices related to sums of many millions of pounds and the VAT element in each of them had been the subject of offset by Ticketus in the submission of its VAT returns for the last period. Such was the size and impact of this offset of VAT which had been paid by Ticketus in respect of these invoices, that Ticketus had made a claim for payment of a substantial sum to it by HMRC by way of recovery of VAT paid.
75. That Mr Ken Olverman, the Financial Controller of Rangers FC had no knowledge of the existence of the invoices purportedly raised by Rangers FC. The raising of such invoices was a matter which fell squarely within his sphere of responsibility and it was inconceivable that such invoices for such large sums could be raised and issued from the finance office of Rangers FC without his knowledge. He had no knowledge of any agreement with Ticketus which might give rise to any invoice within the period concerned. He was unaware of any current transaction with Ticketus and knew that no sums of money had been received in recent times from Ticketus into any accounts of Rangers FC.
76. That in the course of September 2011 Mr Ken Olverman had sight of the said invoices. The nature and format of the invoices was entirely different to that of invoices raised within the finance office of Rangers FC. He was of the view that it appeared as though “Clip Art” computer processes had been involved in their creation. They did not appear to him to resemble any invoices he had ever seen issued by Rangers FC. Having sight of the invoices confirmed his view even further that they had not been created within the finance office of Rangers FC.
32
77. That Mr Ken Olverman believed from his conversations with the HMRC official that the invoices were the subject of further investigation. He accordingly took no further action in relation to the invoices. He did not make enquiry of Mr Craig Whyte nor of Mr Gary Withey. He did not inform any of the current directors of Rangers FC of the matter.
Hope that helps bed it ….
Castofthousands says:
June 30, 2013 at 12:17 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 30, 2013 at 10:05 am
“But I have never actually understood whether any Rangers liability for repayment could be transferred to Murray International Holdings who you will note are shown as Rangers ‘Agent’ in the CF material.”
———————
Can you post a document showing this ‘agency’ relationship?.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MIH tax department were acting as Tax agents for Rangers i.e representing them for tax purposes as we know.
If appointed as a tax agent it entitles you to receive correspondence and hellish demands and assessments from HMRC.
slimshady61 says:
June 30, 2013 at 11:33 am
69
1
Rate This
paulsatim says:
June 30, 2013 at 12:27 am
————————————
The interesting bit out of those disclosures was that last year we were assured “all” CO was loaned under the EBT was £95K, the cost of a Friday night out in Glasgow according to Chick Young.
Indeed CO himself said that this was all he got – see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2116686/Rangers-crisis-Campbell-Ogilvie-received-95k-EBT-cash.html.
Yet this determination suggests he got £150K – the cost of a night out in the South of France.. For someone who was a director/company secretary at RFC for 27 years, yet professes that he had nothing to do with anything at Ibrox, that seems like quite a lot of money.
Someone has not been telling the truth – did CO just forget about the other £55K or was that for something “completely different” to paraphrase Monty Python ?
If that Daily Mail report is accurate, CO must come out and explain the discrepancy.
£54(K) to £150(K)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You know why there is a difference. He got £95K in hand. But if it had been subject to tax they would have had to pay him £150k to get back to the £95k after tax. What game are you playing here?
Gaz says:
June 30, 2013 at 8:12 pm
newtz says:
June 30, 2013 at 8:04 pm
That’s why it gets complicated.
Rangers may have raised the invoices (if they did), however they have never made a supply to Ticketus and have never been paid one, so why would output tax be due.
Alternatively they could raise a credit note, knowing they would never be paid anyway and cancel the output tax that way.
Unless HMRC take the view that the payment to Wavetower constituted a tax point as they were the holding company at the time.
Like I say, it is quite complicated.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If Ticketus lent to Wavetower as seems possible and not to Rangers in return for future season ticket sales they are merely lending. That is not good for VAT recovery nor is it any good for maintaining their tax favoured status under the EIS/VCT legislation.