News in The Times of Celtic’s letter to Stewart Regan regarding that club’s wish for a Judicial Review into the SFA’s handing of the Rangers EBT crisis increases the pressure on Regan considerably.
The SFA Chief Executive’s ill-advised spat with Pie and Bovril editor David McDonald this week may even be a sign he is devolving, and at least it demonstrates that, despite Twitter disaster after Twitter disaster, Regan doesn’t learn readily from his mistakes.
Also, it appears from the contents of Celtic’s letter that their target in terms of a Judicial Review has been the SFA, and not the SPFL, all along. That chimes with developments as I understand them elsewhere in this process.
Even though it now appears that Celtic and a fan group are seeking a Judicial Review it is by no means certain that it will ever happen.
Having a sound legal basis for it, obtaining standing, and having a reasonable chance of victory are all variables in the equation, and each has to be weighed carefully before progress can be made.
Having said that, if the reason any Judicial Review fails is because of that lawyer-speak we have been subjected to of late, the SFA may yet come to believe that hiding behind legalese is neither in football’s best interests, nor in the interests of the individuals at the SFA who are under fire.
The bottom line as they, is this;
Rangers did acquire an unfair advantage over others by their use of EBTs. The SPL themselves were flabbergasted when Sandy Bryson proclaimed his eponymous ‘imperfectly registered’ doctrine. They all know – everyone in every board room in the country, in every SFA department, in every SPFL office – that cheating took place.
In fact and in spirit.
The jaws of the vice are tightening as we speak. The fans group who are building a case for a Judicial Review give its handle a wee turn every day, and the leak of the Celtic letter to Regan reduces his wiggle room even further.
It is surely now just a matter of time before this ridiculous and infamous chapter in Scotland’s football history is dealt with.
Of course people will accuse anyone who is a Celtic fan, or an Aberdeen fan, or a Dundee United fan (clubs whose rivalry with Rangers is keenest) of partisanship in this affair. That is mere deflection and bears no scrutiny whatsoever.
As a Celtic fan myself, I can’t deny that I am angry at what took place between (at least) 2000 and 2009, but does that mean that as a Celtic fan I have to recuse myself from having an opinion?
And as a former employee of the club, am I excluded from any conversation about the integrity of our game because the club at the centre of the scandal is Rangers? Pull the other one.
SFM, and the wider fans’ movement has been consistently appalled by this sorry chapter over the last six years, but is no kangaroo court. We are not asking for conclusions to be drawn without due process. We see unexplained regulatory anomalies in the processes at Ibrox and Hampden which have never to our knowledge been addressed. We simply wish that they should be.
Further, if my club was at the heart of this nonsense, I think I’d be incandescent with rage that they had allowed me to revel in the joy of winning all those trophies, only to have the achievements cheapened and nullified by their mismanagement. I would regard that as the ultimate betrayal (and Celtic fans can give you a list of club betrayals as long as Mao’s march).
I’d be thinking that those same business practices that apparently had given us so much, had actually caused to fail catastrophically. Having taken delight in the honours, I would have to accept the consequences too.
The SFA, by their corrupt approach to the demise of Rangers, have denied Rangers fans the catharsis that they could benefit from. In fact the authorities’ refusal to deal with the situation in terms of their own rules it has fostered a siege mentality to exist at Ibrox.
This in turn has enabled a series of charlatans, including the current board, to drive the bus in the direction of a brick wall for the last five years.
After the phenomenally successful share issue (something that can’t happen again whilst King is in charge for regulatory reasons), the new Rangers were given seed capital which should have flowered by now with the regular watering of their huge fan base. That £22m, which should have seen the club competing at the top by now has gone, and the potential which existed in 2012 has been diminished severely.
It’s no fun being a fan of Scottish football in the midst of this. But we make a fundamental error if we think that Rangers fans are enjoying it. They are victims in this too, and they have been defrauded by the Murray-era shenanigans, and the circus performers who have been on the scene since then – every bit as much as the rest of us.
The honourable thing (no laughing at the back) for the SFA to do would be to agree to Celtic’s request for a Judicial Review.
If the pressure is turned up another notch or three on the SFA, then maybe we will all get closure, and perhaps finally we can move on.
HomunculusSeptember 25, 2017 at 13:45
Indeed they were.
My point was that in August 2011 when Sherriff Officers called, I was wonderinghow long does it normally take HMRC to decide that action was necessary?
The tax did not suddenly become an overdue payable on say the 1st of August.
Normal attempts at payment had to start a good few weeks/months earlier than 10th August and that by then HMRC finally ran out of patience.
I reckon that had RFC qualified for Europe, no one would have guessed the true position at 31st March and started asking questions.
I got pissed off reading Jack’s piece in the ‘Herald’
I have sent the following email
“Dear Mr Jack,
You say “So, that looks like that and we should all move on”.
What underlies this insistence that we should ‘move on’, on the grounds that the people we want investigated tell us that they are quite satisfied that there is nothing to investigate?
Is that your approach to public affairs, simply to accept what an organisation or individuals ,against which or whom serious allegations are made, tell you?
Have you no basic curiosity? Do you instinctively believe what anyone tells you?
Is it not your understanding, and does not experience tell you, that people can and will lie, can and do make mistakes?That there are facts to be investigated, truth to be established, independently of the ‘accused’?
Further,is it not your understanding that it is not your function (unless, of course, you are paid to write for The Rangers Football Club Ltd/RIFC as opposed to, or in addition to, writing about those entities) to take sides in a controversy and call for investigation to be shut down?
The many questions that are being asked of our Football Authorities have not been answered.
It simply is not enough that you should decide that we should ‘move on’ and accept that a possibly lying and corrupt Football Administration should be permitted to carry on unquestioned.
On the contrary, you should be bending every journalistic effort in the direction of exploring just what exactly the SFA may be so anxious to hide.The allegations made against them are very, very serious:if these were substantiated there would be the possibility of criminal proceedings being instituted.
I think you are failing in your duty by dismissing the allegations out of hand as being groundless or of no great significance, simply because the SFA say so.
The greater good of Scottish Football requires a full and thorough investigation into the SFA’s conduct in its dealings with:
– Sir David Murray’s ‘Rangers FC’ from the first intimation they had of the serious debt and tax problems that that now defunct club had,
– Craig Whyte’s ‘Rangers FC’
-and in its dealings with the new club, ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’ founded by Charles Green in 2012,
-and into the validity and honesty of its reasons for its decision of 11th September not to support the SPFL’s call for a ‘review’.
It is rather a pity that you cannot see that.
It is an even greater pity that you have access to the columns of ‘The Herald’ to push your desire to deflect the quest for Truth.
Your sincerely,
John Clark
AULDHEID
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 at 14:07
=================================
I tend to agree with what you are saying, however unfortunately I have no idea what timescales HMRC normally work to. I would suspect though that in the normal course of events if the debt had been agreed in March of that year then HMRC would have taken action to enforce the debt before seeking assistance from the Court in August.
As I understand it taking the matter to Court would be their last resort, so normal enforcement action would have been taken long before then. At a guess, and it is a pure guess, HMRC would have allowed the taxpayer 30 days from the date of the amount being agreed. So the tax would have been due in the March and would have been considered overdue in April.
Craig Whyte buying the shares during the intervening period may have “muddied the waters” however that really should not have changed the basic position. If HMRC agreed a “time to pay” with him that does not change the fact that the tax was due, just how / when they intended collecting it.
JC I just laughed at the Jack piece.
I know I shouldn’t even bother reading it, but can’t help being curious about how the SMSM is trying to spin “let’s move on”.
IMO, that article just screamed: “copied/pasted from Level42!”.
But in a perverse manner, Jack, Keef, English, Keevins etc. are in fact providing a valuable service to journalism in Scotland.
They are relentlessly converting spoon-fed, misinformed footy fans into better informed, Internet Bampots.
And their declining newspaper circulations / listener numbers prove just how effective they have become!
Keep up the ‘good work’ SMSM: learned nothing since 2012.
Is this where it all began for Square-go Pedro ?
https://www.facebook.com/stvsport/videos/10155988089353712/
PADDY MALARKEYSEPTEMBER 25, 2017 at 19:28
Is this where it all began for Square-go Pedro ?
============================
I wonder what the reaction would have been a few weeks ago when Rangers played Hibs at Ibrox if Neil Lennon had challenged the Rangers Captain as he came off the pitch, then was alleged to have challenged a Rangers coach to a fight in the tunnel. Considering Lennon was the subject of a Police investigation that day due to a goal celebration, Pedro is getting off very lightly for his absurd behaviour on Saturday.
GRECIAN URN
Sorry to see you go GU, but if I may make a couple of points;
1. The amount of TDs for a post simply denotes readers (not necessarily logged in members) who disagree with the sentiments of the post. Worth remembering too that around 45% of our readership re Celtic fans, many of whom sincerely do not believe they are one of Two Cheeks!
I would be far more concerned if Tayred’s comments had been met with a fascistic shout-em-down style abuse. In fact people have disagreed (on both sides) respectfully.b
I would have hoped that you would base your conclusions on that rather than the old PITA TDs.
2. My own view of the singing thing is that there should be zero tolerance for controversial songs if it doesn’t pertain to football. I say that even though I understand the importance of free-speech and the need for some people to have a cultural comfort-blanket (which is how my father and uncles would have viewed the singing of some of the songs).
However this is not a binary world we live in. In the circumstances of the West of Scotland I feel that the free-speech pros are outweighed by the societal division cons – ergo my judgement is shut the feck up please.
That doesn’t mean to say that we can’t talk about it. One of the strengths of SFM has been that folk get a fair hearing. Cross-partisanship by it’s very nature will from time to time show up differences – football and cultural. I never fell out with anyone in my life because of another’s honestly held belief. as long as that belief didn’t extend to supremacist, xenophobic, homophobic or misogynist.
For most of us, what unites us is far more important than people voicing disagreements in a respectful manner.
3. SFM exists so you can participate in debate. Participation in fund raising is secondary, and not mandatory. If you feel you have to bail out because you simply don’t see eye-to-eye with others, I am deeply disappointed – especially since you have been a stalwart of this blog for quite some time.
Have been on to the ad guys about the bloated stuff being served. Will get back to everyone asap with an update.
… and speaking of updates, I feel pretty confident that, bearing in mind Tris’s Tweet last week about the impending JR, there will be some movement very soon on that front.
As we said at the outset of this process, there are no certainties, but the feeling right now is that there is a case for the SFA to answer, and that there is a way of achieving standing to take the case forward.
That is what needs to be done next. The clubs have by and large let us down. Right now we have fans’ groups representing four clubs who have indicated their wish for a review publicly. It is important to widen that support base considerably to show unequivocally that fans of Scottish football are not as phlegmatic as the money-men in the face of cheating.
One small request. Does anyone have any reliable figures with the total ST sales in Scotland this year?
BIG PINKSEPTEMBER 25, 2017 at 19:54
… and speaking of updates, I feel pretty confident that, bearing in mind Tris’s Tweet last week about the impending JR, there will be some movement very soon on that front.
======================
Several informed people are of the same view BP.
On reading the exchange of comments from AULDHEID and Homunculus part of one below.
————
AULDHEIDSEPTEMBER 20, 2017 at 14:16 21 2 Rate This
HomunculusRead Art 43 of UEFA FFP. (sub para h from memory)I think you have argued this point before about HMRC duty of confidentiality, but given the history of tax avoidance/ evasion by football there will be circumstances where it is to HMRCs advantage to be able to share information with national associations and if a taxpayer has consented to enquiry as a club does under FFP then HMRC are more likely to respond positively if it helps them get paid.
————-
And reading the link below
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2013/B6.pdf
—————-
27. Before coming to the detail of the case it is worth making a preliminaryobservation. I have referred above to the strong feelings of many football supporters.Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as havinga special status. In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should neverthelessnot be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense ofan unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders. From that perspective it has no special status, and there is no reason why its tax affairs should not be as open to scrutiny as those of any other profit-making organisation. The players, too, have no greater right to conceal their tax affairs from public scrutiny than any other taxpayer. The fact that they are in the public eye is irrelevant. Any application for privacy, anonymity or redaction of detail must therefore be supported by the same type and quality of evidence as would be required of another taxpayer, and will be granted only for the same reasons.
———–
this part stuck out,i don’t know if it has any relevance just the open to scrutiny hit a chord when we know there was not a lot of scrutiny going on.or maybe it was but not very open.
—–
From that perspective it has no special status, and there is no reason why its tax affairs should not be as open to scrutiny as those of any other profit-making organisation. The players, too, have no greater right to conceal their tax affairs from public scrutiny than any other taxpayer. The fact that they are in the public eye isirrelevant.
HomunculusSeptember 25, 2017 at 16:01
From memory formal collection process started on 5th May 2011, with bill following on 28th May.
There followed a series of talks as RFC tried to get a schedule to pay agreed, but HMRC lost patience mid to end July 2011.
As you say that does not impact on when the liability became an overdue payable.
Just hope that if/when crowd funding is instigated for a fans’ JR, that it is simultaneously communicated – explicitly – as the clear, demarcation line, after which any engagement with the SFA or SPFL will not be entertained?
You can just imagine the BS streaming from Hampden, (and the SMSM), to try and avoid legal recourse…
Isn’t it a wonderful world, the world of football?
Now we have Andrea Agnelli,president of Juventus,banned for a year by the Italian football federation.
He is the very recently appointed Chair of the European club Association.
His offence? -Ticket scalping, with the tickets being sold to hardcore ‘ultras’
Agnelli has appealed, of course. The Federation’s prosecutor is quite happy, because ,he says, ” we managed to prove everyone’s guilt but the facts are so serious that I think they should be punished more.The judgment of another Court would be useful, taking into account that the resources coming from ticket scalping went to a criminal organisation..”
What are we to make of a sport which attracts such greedy bast.rds like a turd attracts flies?
Thank God our own wee game here in bonnie Scotland is clean, administered as it is by men of sterling probity and integrity, in a fully transparent and open way, with nothing to hide.
Big Pink. Sept 25 at 19.54
Wrt the JR, I’m reminded of the Barry McGuire song ‘ Four Wheels on my Wagon’.
The SFA, SPFL, RFC (in liquidation), and the SMSM can circle said wagons all they want, but I believe, as in the song, in which a wheel at a time come off as the Injuns (SFSA and Internet bampots?) keep chasing -with the inevitable result that poor Barry is ‘goosed’- the occupants will eventually be held to account.
AULDHEID
SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 at 00:16
==============================
Absolutely, the important point is when the tax was definitely due. Anything after that is just obfuscation. Whether people were trying to get “time to pay” is an irrelevance, but another useful distraction for those of that mindset.
Personally I always considered the tax to be due when the assessment was raised. The matter of enforcement would be put to one side if there were any appeals however once the assessment is raised then the tax is due until a tribunal decides otherwise. In any case, I don’t think this matter went to a tribunal, Rangers just accepted that they owed the tax.
That is the latest possible date the tax was due.
CLUSTER ONE
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 at 22:26
================================
Equally, there is no reason why a football club or football player should have any less expectation of taxpayer’s confidentiality than any other taxpayer.
The default position for HMRC is not to discuss a taxpayers confidential records without their expressed consent, or the existence of another legal gateway, for example a Court Order, an application made by an authorised body under a statutory provision or to publicise a case where someone has been successfully prosecuted.
HOMUNCULUSSEPTEMBER 26, 2017 at 12:40
Thanks for reply
At today’s meeting of Congress, the Scottish FA reported the appointment of Ana Stewart as the new independent non-executive director to the Board of Directors of the Scottish FA. Ana will replace Barrie Jackson, who has been a member of the Board since 2011, when he steps down in December.
Barrie Jackson was the first-ever Independent Non-Executive Director.appointment made on Monday, 12 December 2011
For those not on twitter
————- SPFL News Now@SPFLNewsNow9hWho will get to 55 league titles first?
—————
SPFL News Now@SPFLNewsNow1hReplying to @hoop1888The oldco is still going through the liquidation process, newco was formed and granted Status and was allowed to transfer history etc, fact.
—————-
Apparently you can transfer history now.
Cluster OneSeptember 26, 2017 at 19:02
“……..the Scottish FA reported the appointment of Ana Stewart as the new independent non-executive director to the Board of Directors of the Scottish FA…”
” They view Stewart’s appointment as a strategic move to ensure Scottish football is up to date with technology innovations and well placed to negotiate new deals.”
___________
Hmm!
From a fact-sheet prepared by the Institute of Directors
https://www.iod.com/services/information-and-advice/resources-and-factsheets/details/What-is-the-role-of-the-NonExecutive-Director
‘…..As the Cadbury Report said, they ( non-exec directors) “should bring an independent judgement to bear on issues of strategy, performance and resources including key appointments and standards of conduct”.
‘..Prior to accepting a non-executive appointment, the prospective appointee must ensure they have a comprehensive understanding of the company they are about to join and have undertaken their own due diligence.
‘… Of the utmost importance is their independence of the company management and any of its ‘interested parties’. This means they can bring a degree of objectivity to the board’s deliberations, and play a valuable role in monitoring executive management.’
Is Ana Stewart up-to-date with the ‘saga’?
Will she ( is she a high-ranking ST holder of Dundee/Dundee Utd?) tell us internet bampots to move on?
CLUSTER ONE
SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 at 19:02
…
Ana will replace Barrie Jackson, who has been a member of the Board since 2011, when he steps down in December.
Barrie Jackson was the first-ever Independent Non-Executive Director.appointment made on Monday, 12 December 2011
========================
Must admit, I wasn’t aware that there was a NED at the SFA.
And can’t remember if there was discussion about this role in the past by the Bampots ?
But you would think that any self-respecting NED would have resigned from the SFA – at anytime after 2012 – rather than be associated with this dodgy outfit ?
And any self-respecting, prospective NED would politely decline an SFA offer – until it had cleaned up it’s act first ?
You would think…?
STEVIEBCSEPTEMBER 26, 2017 at 20:16
Must admit, I wasn’t aware that there was a NED at the SFA.
————–
Sorry i forgot to post link.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1986&newsID=9045
——————
And can’t remember if there was discussion about this role in the past by the Bampots ?
————-
I think his name may have cropped up here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3093620/Did-Scottish-FA-break-rules-process-granting-new-Rangers-chairman-Dave-King-fit-proper-status.html
————
Rangers chairman Dave King was awarded fit-and-proper status this weekEight members of the SFA board made the final decision on Tuesday Sportsmail has learned of surprise and concern among members of the 11-man Professional Game Board over their exclusion from decision.
However Sportsmail understands that, after ruling on Murray, members of the PGB now want clarification on why they were excluded from voting on King.
The current PGB consists of Rod Petrie (Hibs), Neil Doncaster (SPFL), Ralph Topping (SPFL), Peter Lawwell (Celtic), Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen), Mike Mulraney (Alloa), Sandy Stables (Highland League), Andrew Waddell (Lowland League), Stewart Regan (SFA chief executive), Campbell Ogilvie (SFA President) and Alan McRae (first vice-president of the SFA).
The main SFA board consists of
Regan, Ogilvie, McRae, Petrie, Barrie Jackson, the independent non-executive director, Peter Lawwell, Ralph Topping and Tom Johnston of the Junior FA.
JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 26, 2017 at 19:54
From a fact-sheet prepared by the Institute of Directorshttps://www.iod.com/services/information-and-advice/resources-and-factsheets/details/What-is-the-role-of-the-NonExecutive-Director
—————–
The UK Corporate Governance Code advises that the balance of executive and non-executive directors should be such that no individual or small group of individuals can dominate the board’s decision-making. Non-executive directors should comprise not less than half the board.
————
Then you read the link above.
surprise and concern among members of the 11-man Professional Game Board over their exclusion from decision.However Sportsmail understands that, after ruling on Murray, members of the PGB now want clarification on why they were excluded from voting on King.
I just scrolled back up the page,I have posted alot tonight, Sorry about that.
Thanks for all replies
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/pedro-caixinha-ripped-rangers-home-11240654
Looks like the Daily Record have been enlisted as the main agents in ‘Operation Pedro Out’. As well as someone singing like a Canary of course! Pedro should be careful in case he actually offered his resignation during the alleged rant!
If only the Record could be as concerned about those who govern the game in Scotland, and their ability to do it in an open, honest, fair manner.
UPTHEHOOPSSEPTEMBER 27, 2017 at 07:09
——
All is not well in the camp by the looks of things,and it looks like Phil was ahead of the game on this one
https://johnjamessite.com/2017/09/27/raking-over-a-rigged-game/#comments
JJ has posted emails allegedly confirming SFA had knowledge prior to the cut off dates, I don’t know if these are the same ones other sources have been alluding to but they seem to be genuine enough and pretty conclusive
PAT BYRNESEPTEMBER 27, 2017 at 09:13
The June E Mail from Olverman has been published before on Twitter and the Comment then was taken as coming from Olverman.
The final sentence tells you that comment, whilst an accurate observation, is not from Olverman but that apart the body of the e mail is accurate and questions posed by JJ, particularly what happened at Hotel De Ville are spot on.
Whoops it’s Hotel du Vin of course.
Either predictive text. (It wasnt)
Senior moments forming a caravan with less spaces between or
I cannot tell my town hall from my licquor store. 🙂
Pedro press conference today. Can’t tell if it’s a language problem, but last I looked, there were no elephants in Vegas. Worth a listen …
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuqSfZglDKg
Good evening all. Haven’t written here in a while but still follow avidly for any morsel of information that the SMSM seem to ignore but SFM always seems to find interesting enough to initiate debate. I am compelled to write this evening as I have just seen that TRFC Military Charity day raised the sum of £4800 for a local veterans hospital.
Now. The episode that I find hardest to swallow throughout all the shenanigans at Ibrox was the re directing of the charity funds raised when a charity game between TRFC and AC Milan was arranged. The proceeds were to be split evenly after expenses were deducted. However someone at Ibrox decided that the club/company were more in need of the funds and so the money was ‘redirected’. Utterly disgusting episode and although condemned by the charities commission etc. the funds were never properly dispersed.
So to todays wonderful news of the money raised recently. I find it really hard to digest that £4800 pounds were raised from a crowd of almost 50’000 fans. If you bear in mind that there was a £1.00 added to the programme price hat was to go directly to the charity. There was also a bucket collection on the day plus the sale of charity merchandise.
So how many programmes do you think were sold to a 50.000 crowd especially knowing that £1.00 from each sale was going to their favourite charity? 1000,2000,5000? I am sure you can have a reasonable guess.
Bucket collections at a venue this size would normally generate around £10,000 alone.
Merchandise sales generating around £4000 is not out of the question.
So. Whilst every penny sent to the hospital will be gladly accepted I am afraid I cannot for the life of me see how so little could have been raised by so many for so few.
Carfins Finest September 27, 2017 at 18:25
———————————————
Astonishing figures as you say.
The OSCR report into the Milan game can be downloaded from here.
https://www.oscr.org.uk/downloadfile.aspx?id=33&type=3&charityid=SC033287
The report confirms that the charity only received 10% or £38,286 of the net profit from the game, which suggests that there serious questions to be asked about the £4,800 generated from the latest event.
Thanks to Carfins Finest and Easyjambo for bringing this to our attention, needs to be widely spread.
CARFINS FINESTSEPTEMBER 27, 2017 at 18:25
I have just seen that TRFC Military Charity day raised the sum of £4800 for a local veterans hospital.
————
Was there any cost paid towards the soldiers who took part, if any cost?
Was there abseiling from the roof? and how much did this cost, health and safety and everything.
was there dinner laid on for the soldiers?
were they given a free seat to watch the game?
was there a deduction of costs from money raised?
If they did only raise £4800 from a 50,000 crowd and there were no costs that is an Astonishing figure right enough
The things you end up looking up.
abseil events start from as little as £850 and include:
Specialist abseil equipmentSite Visits to the charity abseil venueRisk AssessmentsStaffingAbseil instructionPricing for your charity abseil event is dependent on a number of factors including the amount of staffing and abseil equipment required.
Don’t know if i should have posted the link.
I remember at the time that OSCR were very understanding indeed of the ‘good faith’ of the Trustees of the Rangers Charity foundation as money was switched to help, in effect, a club desperate for readies.
I assumed, of course, that OSCR investigators would themselves have been acting in perfect good faith and in proper discharge of their legal duties. But that they could be so apparently naïve kind of surprised me.
Their report did, however, have a wee incidental sting in the tail.
On page 4 there is this absolute assertion : ” The Rangers Football Club plc was renamed ‘RFC 2012 plc’ and entered liquidation on 31 October 2012′.
So, however lenient they may have felt when it came to dealing with Trustees in breach of their legal duties, they had to tell things as they were in the matter of Liquidation. No ‘holding company’ was put into Liquidation, but a football club- none other than the Rangers Football Club plc!
In the words of the sainted fornicator and adulterer, ‘facts are chiels that winna ding’!
For those of you who like “ferreting” about and may not have heard of
The Internet Archive. https://archive.org/about/
JC. 11 million books and texts!
279 billion web pages
11 million books and texts
4 million audio recordings (including
160,000 live concerts)3 million videos (including 1 million Television News programs)
1 million images
100,000 software programs
woodsteinSeptember 28, 2017 at 00:11
‘…For those of you who like “ferreting” about and may not have heard of The Internet Archive…’
_______
I hadn’t heard of The Internet Archive, and am grateful for the link.
But I did hear some guy on a Radio 4 discussion a year or so ago make the observation that within a few years, every piece of human knowledge on every conceivable subject and in every detail would be available at the click of a switch.
Incidentally,I heard a journalist speak on radio about the fact that he is bound by his contract to use Twitter and/or Facebook or any other of the social media gear that ‘people’ use, so that his newspaper/radio/tv station shows itself to be as up to the minute as any punter in the street.
The question that raises is: do journalists ever try to find out the truth, or do they merely repeat what others have said or are saying?
We on this blog have reason to believe that the SMSM journalists [ one or two honourable exceptions] simply do not understand that being what used to be called ‘a Reporter’ ( guys wearing hats with a wee card stuck in the hatband that said ” press”) did not mean someone whose job it was to simply report without question what some politician ,or crooked businessman, or crooked sports administrator said!
No, it was understood that a ‘reporter’s’ job was to approach any kind of anything coming from anybody in government, in business and commerce, in legal and judicial circles, in military and police, as being immediately suspect until proven otherwise.
Now, it seems, the approach is rather the opposite.
In at least as far as reporting on Scottish Football administration and the ‘saga’ is concerned.
Given the lack of an independent review and while we are waiting on the outcome of the Compliance Officers Euro Licence decision along with whether or not a Judicial Review is going to take place, I was wondering if anyone was able to actually summarise what actual lessons have been learned by the footballing authorities from the whole Rangers saga and what rule changes have occurred as a result.
We often hear of ‘lessons being learned’ but, on the face of it, I am not convinced things have changed enough for the same types of issues to occur again.
I maybe be wrong but think it would be interesting if any fellow bampots who had the time and inclination could spell out exactly what has changed.
WOTTPISEPTEMBER 28, 2017 at 09:23
“We often hear of ‘lessons being learned’ but, on the face of it, I am not convinced things have changed enough for the same types of issues to occur again.
——————————————————————————————————-
I was thinking something similar last night WOTTPI, in particular wrt the decision to allow Sevco into Europe this season. Due to the result with Progres, the issue withered, but the question over their entitlement of entry still remains (Until the accounts surface).
Considering the doubts that have arisen over the 2011 license, and the ensuing furore that followed, for a further “Administrative error” to slip through after such allegations, would be the most blatant “Administrative error” ever.
However, when the accounts do appear, it may be possible to open up another front of attack.
Does it matter what year the SFA get busted for initially, if it opens a door to “previous”, with a similar sounding previous club with similar boards?
Bearing in mind there are zero court cases surrounding this years license, it may be a more productive pursuit.
WOTTPISEPTEMBER 28, 2017 at 09:23
Corrupt Official.
The lesson that should be learned is that the club licensing system whether National (domestic) or UEFA FFP particularly on finance, is as much use as a chocolate fireguard and the solution is to strengthen the guard not try and cover up the fire.
If ever there was a need for transparency that exceeds the need for confidentiality, Club Licensing is where it should happen.
It should also be delegated by SFA to the SPFL to use independent professional auditors from anywhere the SPFL chooses to do the job.
If the CompOff investigation is properly and independently done the above should be one recommendation as a result.
John Clark
September 28, 2017 at 01:10
“The question that raises is: do journalists ever try to find out the truth, or do they merely repeat what others have said or are saying?”
———————————————————————-
The Difference Between Public Relations and Journalism is Subjective vs. Objective Writing
In 1891
Oscar Wilde wrote:
“In old days men had the rack. Now they have the Press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralizing. Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it.
We are dominated by (delete)Journalism(delete) Public Relations”
Fixed it for you Oscar.
BDO back in court on Wednesday of next week in their action against Duff & Phelps’ conduct of the administration period.
LORD TYRE – N Marchant, Clerk
Wednesday 4th October
By Order between 9.00am and 10.00am
P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under para75 – Shepherd & Wedderburn – Wright Johnston & Mackenzie LLP
Paragraph 75 from Schedule B1 (Administration) of the Insolvency Act 1986, for information:
easyJamboSeptember 28, 2017 at 18:06
‘BDO back in court on Wednesday of next week..’
___________
I hope to be there!
And I’m annoyed at missing today’s action between Clarke and Gormley QPM!
I looked at yesterday’s (Wednesday’s) Roll and saw this :
LADY WOLFFE
PETITION DEPARTMENT
TO BE ALLOCATED
STARRED MOTIONS
1 hourPD194/14 ………
1 hourPD154/16 …….. 30 minsPD247/16 30 minsA293/16 Paul Clark v Philip Gormley
What I did not notice on the same Roll but further up was this
Thursday 28th September
EXTRA DIVISION
INNER HOUSE STARRED MOTIONS
A292/16……….
A293/16 Paul Clark v Philip Gormley QPM &c
I didn’t see that until half an hour ago when I looked at today’s issue! So, a bit of shoddy clerking there, I’d say.
John Clark September 28, 2017 at 20:12
—————————
I was aware of today’s Paul Clark hearing and should have mentioned it yesterday. However, I don’t think this action adds much to the story, other than to provide some background as to why the fraud charges against the D&P guys were dropped.
I’m much more interested in what BDO has to say about the conduct of the D&P guys during the administration of the oldco. What did they do that they shouldn’t have and what didn’t they do what they should have?
easyJamboSeptember 28, 2017 at 20:59
‘..What did they do that they shouldn’t have and what didn’t they do what they should have?’
__________
Many people were somewhat surprised at how little the assets of a big football club fetched when they were sold by the Administrator.
Perhaps BDO are alleging that the Administrators ought to have made more of an effort before they awarded CG ‘exclusivity’?
I wonder whether the buyer of the assets has been cited as a witness? Or perhaps whether Bill Miller, or Mr Ng, or even the Blue Knights have made statements about whether they were given the option of simply buying the assets?
Next week’s hearing probably won’t get much beyond procedural matters, but it might nevertheless be interesting.
John Clark September 28, 2017 at 22:13
Perhaps BDO are alleging that the Administrators ought to have made more of an effort before they awarded CG ‘exclusivity’?
=====================
That’s the bit that I don’t get. Why was CG the only person who was allowed to purchase the assets of the oldco as a newco. Was that option ever available to other prospective buyers?
I get the low sale value of the assets, particularly as the assets were only of use to a football club, and that the newco had no licence to play football on 14 June 2012. I’m sure that Lord Bannatyne commented to that effect at one of the preliminary hearings when he described it as a sale of distressed assets, when the Advocate Depute was unable to provide an alternative figure that would represent a market value for the asset sale.
The assets only had a real value once a licence was obtained. That was reflected in the “fair value” of assets and the “negative goodwill” figures posted in the RIFC accounts in 2013.
“The negative goodwill release of £20.5 million is a credit to the income statement based on a calculation showing the fair value of net assets acquired of £27.2 million and a consideration of £6.7 million.”
However, if the administrators had been given assurances from the SFA beforehand, that a licence would be available to the newco, then clearly the asset sale should have raised a lot more than it did.
wottpiSeptember 28, 2017 at 09:23
‘…..it would be interesting if any fellow bampots who had the time and inclination could spell out exactly what has changed.’
___________
wottpi,
You will remember that part of the SFA statement of 11th September read as follows:
“Moreover, the events of the last six years have contributed directly to many amendments to the Scottish FA Articles and Judicial Panel Protocol to address the key learnings. These include:
•
An enhanced role for the Board in our governance structure
•
Stronger powers for the PGB and the NPGB
•
Strengthened processes in relation to insolvency and change of control
•
Bolstering the duty of good faith
•
Clarity on what information is to be lodged within the context of players’ contracts
•
A clearer separation of powers between the executive and judicial activities of the Scottish FA and a more specific and detailed menu of sanctions. ”
Now,I for one haven’t the time or the means to explore how these various ‘amendments’ can of themselves prevent ‘abuse’.
The old rules were perfectly clear and simple:
clubs had to give details of all payments made to their players
failure to do so meant that their players were not properly registered
being not properly registered equalled being ‘ineligible’
fielding ‘ineligible’ player(s) meant ( broadly) that the game went to the opposing team
and, again, actually owing ‘social taxes’ that the tax authorities were chasing you for at certain dates meant you could not be licensed to participate in UEFA competitions.
The rules were perfectly adequate and were applied with great vigour and force to the nth degree-except to CW’s ‘Rangers’.
The allegations made against the SFA are not about the rules having been in some way deficient, but about them having been knowingly and deliberately ignored and circumvented by persons not operating in good faith, and those persons getting away with it because of complicity in that bad faith by the very Authority which should have nailed it!
A body can hypocritically and smugly change, amend, re-write, the rules as much as it likes after its alleged failure to apply their existing rules has achieved its dishonourable aims and purposes.
Unless and until the allegations against the SFA are fully explored and investigated, who will credit anything they say?
easyJamboSeptember 28, 2017 at 22:49
‘..when the Advocate Depute was unable to provide an alternative figure that would represent a market value for the asset sale…’
___________
How well I remember that!
Let’s hope that, if BDO are going down the road of querying the low valuation, they have done some research and have found a solid basis for suggesting that a much higher valuation would have been justified!
What might constitute a solid basis? Why, what else but evidence that there had been a bit of jiggery pokery , like secret assurances (perhaps over a meal in Auldheid’s ‘hotel de ville’
) of immediate membership of the SPL?
But perhaps BDO are pursuing some other aspect of the Administrators’ handling of the Administration, unconnected with the value put on the assets?
Whatever, it should be an interesting day in Court.
A body can hypocritically and smugly change, amend, re-write, the rules as much as it likes after its alleged failure to apply their existing rules has achieved its dishonourable aims and purposes.
JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 29, 2017 at 00:23
————
What a great piece of writing
For those not on twitter————- SPFL News Now@SPFLNewsNow9hWho will get to 55 league titles first?—————SPFL News Now@SPFLNewsNow1hReplying to @hoop1888The oldco is still going through the liquidation process, newco was formed and granted Status and was allowed to transfer history etc, fact.—————-Apparently you can transfer history now.
_____________________________________________________
And, incidentally, there is a body somewhere who can “allow” history, which seems to include titles & trophies to be transferred.
The transfer of titles needs explanation by the authority who is custodian of those titles, either the league (now SPFL) or the association (SFA).
Back to the start of this particular thread. “THE VICE CLOSES”. Sadly, very sadly, I see nothing to give me hope that this is the case. Celtic seem to have gone quiet (were they playing to the supporters all along?), other clubs are silent at best and the SMSM, to a man/woman, have moved on and have accepted the continuity myth. The compliance thingy will be fudged, otherwise it would not be happening. The calls for a Judicial Review are muted or have I missed the crowd funding appeal? If, or more likely when, the new club win the league cup, Scottish cup or premier league it will be added to the old club’s total (including the cheating years). In other words the b******s have won.
Hell I hope I am wrong in all of these pessimistic thoughts but not feeling very good about it. Sorry, help me somebody and tell me I’m talking s***e!
Ann Budge participated in a Q&A session at a Hearts Shareholders Association dinner last night (I wasn’t there). Inevitably, she was asked about the lack of a review. Here’s how one attendee recorded the question and answer.
Q11 – The Rangers Tax case has been well documented and there isn’t going to be a review. Celtic are unhappy and are pressing for a review. What’s your opinion?
Ann – This is awkward as she sits on the SPFL Board. Her view is similar to many others in that we have been through all sorts of reviews but it’s time to look forward, you won’t be able to please all supporters, that’s just not possible. She does think that we need to review what happened to make sure it doesn’t happen again and so that we can learn from our mistakes. The SPFL did suggest a review, however, the SFA said no and there is nothing to be gained without both the SFA & the SPFL working together to move forward. But she agreed that this hasn’t gone away and will rumble on as Celtic push on.
,,,. and another question about her being on the SPFL Board.
Q14 – Can you tell us a bit about being on the SPFL Board and do you regret joining?
Ann – This is her second term and she did consider not standing again as it can be very frustrating at times, however, there were five new representatives and she was the only member from the previous term. There is lots going on, the Hampden contract is coming to an end and they need to decide if the SPFL want to continue using Hampden and the SFA has to decide this as well. The current media deal runs out in 2020 and negotiations will begin in 2018 for that.
EASYJAMBOSEPTEMBER 28, 2017 at 22:49
John Clark September 28, 2017 at 22:13Perhaps BDO are alleging that the Administrators ought to have made more of an effort before they awarded CG ‘exclusivity’?=====================That’s the bit that I don’t get. Why was CG the only person who was allowed to purchase the assets of the oldco as a newco. Was that option ever available to other prospective buyers?
I get the low sale value of the assets, particularly as the assets were only of use to a football club, and that the newco had no licence to play football on 14 June 2012. I’m sure that Lord Bannatyne commented to that effect at one of the preliminary hearings when he described it as a sale of distressed assets, when the Advocate Depute was unable to provide an alternative figure that would represent a market value for the asset sale.
The assets only had a real value once a licence was obtained. That was reflected in the “fair value” of assets and the “negative goodwill” figures posted in the RIFC accounts in 2013.“The negative goodwill release of £20.5 million is a credit to the income statement based on a calculation showing the fair value of net assets acquired of £27.2 million and a consideration of £6.7 million.”
However, if the administrators had been given assurances from the SFA beforehand, that a licence would be available to the newco, then clearly the asset sale should have raised a lot more than it did.
_________________
It would be nice to think that somewhere in the deliberations over what might be deemed to be “fair value” a definition is given of what Charles Green actually bought, for surely the value of the assets increases quite considerably if they included a football club with a huge support (and a huge captive income) togeher with a record number of trophies.
What a delicious Catch 22 situation that would be, to have to decide if it was a fair valuation of distressed assets, or the cost of purchasing a ‘football club’ with a massive support. Imagine trying to defend that position, whereby you might get away scot free by stating you, as administrators, only sold the distressed assets of a liquidating football club, and that the idea that you sold a ‘football club’ came solely from the purchaser after the sale desperate to instantly enhance the assets’ value! But you, the administrators, definitely did not sell a ‘football club’.
This must be another court case for the SMSM to ignore.
After these distressed assets, only of use to a football team, actively playing in a professional league, were bought, there were immediately revalued:
“Revaluation increase on land and buildings is put at £33.98 million in total, though the club also notes if those properties were to be sold at that value the tax bill would be £7.8 million.
…Finance director Brian Stockbridge said: “A revaluation process was undertaken during the period; Ibrox stadium and Murray Park were revalued at £40 million, and intangibles (brand and er history? JB) were valued at £19 million on acquisition.”
Administrators of the oldco Rangers, Duff & Phelps, sold the “intangible” assets to Green’s consortium for £1.” Source: http://www.insider.co.uk/company-results-forecasts/rangers-report-7m-operating-loss-9872346
Arguably the fact that it was sold to a football team who could make use of the facilities there was a greater value than £4.5m that wasn’t realised, but that may be being churlish.
What we do know is that all the assets of worth were bought for £5.5m and that included everything, property, brand, history, fixtures and fittings, seemingly playing contracts (people are assets too – I’ve been sold in my time! JB) as well as prize money apparently owed to the previous entity…
For the full breakdown I refer you to the sadly missed Paul McConville site: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/for-sevcos-5-5m-it-bought-all-rangers-players-fixed-assets-goodwill-and-2-67m-prize-money/amp/
its clear the assets were hugely undervalued when sold.
jockybhoySeptember 29, 2017 at 12:40
For the full breakdown I refer you to the sadly missed Paul McConville site: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/for-sevcos-5-5m-it-bought-all-rangers-players-fixed-assets-goodwill-and-2-67m-prize-money/amp/ its clear the assets were hugely undervalued when sold.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Isn’t it easily proved they were sold at undervalue simply because there were other interested parties who were offering more than the £5.5m.
Those bidders appeared to be forever hitting obstacles put in their path when trying to get their bid on the table. It appeared at the time that it was pre-determined where the assets were going to land up.
BOGS DOLLOX
SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 at 13:20
==============================
They admitted the assets were undervalued when they released negative goodwill in the first set of accounts. It’s as simple and definitive as that.
The administrator lied and cheated. There was never any doubt that the assets would be kept together and who they would be going to. The creditors were cheated, and from Rangers own figures they were cheated out of £20m.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/13264821.Question_time_on_Rangers__accounts/
“A release of negative goodwill, a gain occurring when the price paid for an acquisition is less than the value of its net tangible assets, of almost £20.5m was recorded in the profit and loss account.”
HomunculusSeptember 29, 2017 at 15:13
BOGS DOLLOX SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 at 13:20 ==============================
They admitted the assets were undervalued when they released negative goodwill in the first set of accounts. It’s as simple and definitive as that.
The administrator lied and cheated. There was never any doubt that the assets would be kept together and who they would be going to. The creditors were cheated, and from Rangers own figures they were cheated out of £20m.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/13264821.Question_time_on_Rangers__accounts/
“A release of negative goodwill, a gain occurring when the price paid for an acquisition is less than the value of its net tangible assets, of almost £20.5m was recorded in the profit and loss account.”
==========================
This is from a summary BDP Report to creditors
” As part of a wider agreement with the Joint Administrators which was finalised prior to the CVA meetings, Newco was obliged to purchase the business, history and certain assets of the Company should the CVA fail. Accordingly a going concern sale to Newco completed shortly after the meetings, which has resulted in the Joint Administrators achieving the second objective identified on the previous page, as a better result for creditors has been achieved than if the Company had been wound up without having first being in Administration.”
A going concern sale??? Of what? It has to be The Rangers Identity, because the only place Rangers FC were going of concern was liquidation.
But how can an identity humph a stadium etc to a new company and can an identity with its history really be sold? Did Duff and Phelps mean Newco would be a going concern, which with the debt dumped on Oldco would be true, but the language suggests the legal entity that was Oldco or is it its identity as Rangers FC, never went bust.
Myths are what happen when you get sophistry merchants involved in the running of our game, like Pharisees* they know how to use words to justify their deeds with absolutely no feel for the ethics, the underlying spirit (in this case of sport) that words are meant to convey.
JOHN CLARK
SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 at 00:23
==============================
I would suggest Rangers own figure for the undervaluation would be a decent starting point.
Release of negative goodwill to income £20,465,000
The auditors must have been happy with that.
Given that Green paid something in the region of £5,000,000 if I recall correctly then they appear to have sold the assets for something like 20% of what they were worth.
AULDHEID
SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 at 16:02
==================================
Bear in mind the idea was effectively the same entity with a different owner, with Whyte being behind Green. Whyte’s shares would have gone to Green as part of the CVA plan. When the CVA failed the shares no longer meant anything.
Same company, same club, same players, still in the SPL (as was) just with tens of millions in debt done away with. An ideal scenario, if you are totally without honour.
The liquidation and subsequent lies about continuity are based on the failure of the CVA.
Looks like the end game is fast approaching for Pedro then ?
High stakes to humiliate Miller by sending him to train with the youth players.
If TRFC don’t win tonight then the Level42 knives could be out via the compliant SMSM.
In hindsight, it might have been better making Miller the cheap, interim manager rather than recruit Pedro ?
Mibbees Pedro’s agent is circulating his CV around England already…
But, other than a RRM – who the hell would want to be involved in this vipers’ nest in Govan ?
Starting to resemble the Ryanair management model: blithely churn through football managers…until available, qualified applicants just don’t want a job with the dodgy outfit ?
Some headlines of the time
And a Bill miller one
ok..it’s quite. the in’s and out’s
i must try harder
then there were three
ok here it is.I must remember to reduce file
BOGS DOLLOXSEPTEMBER 29, 2017 at 13:20
Isn’t it easily proved they were sold at undervalue simply because there were other interested parties who were offering more than the £5.5m.
Those bidders appeared to be forever hitting obstacles put in their path when trying to get their bid on the table. It appeared at the time that it was pre-determined where the assets were going to land up.
————
£11 million
Sorry Mods for hogging the page i had 5 min to spare and scanned some articles i thought could tie in with the conversation
CLUSTER ONE
SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 at 19:33 …
=========================
That reminds me.
Is it not about that time again, when Brian Kennedy reappears in the SMSM ‘to kick the tyres’ at Ibrox ?!
And Phil had mentioned before that in September RIFC/TRFC required another soft loan of c.GBP3M or GBP4M.
And I’m guessing today was payday…
STEVIEBCSEPTEMBER 29, 2017 at 19:48
That reminds me.
Is it not about that time again, when Brian Kennedy reappears in the SMSM ‘to kick the tyres’ at Ibrox ?!
Ok nobody (so far) has said I’m talking s***e! . Stevie, Phil has so many developing stories and the rest that his credibility bottomed out long ago? Sevco will not go bust! Why would they? 40K plus season books| I wish we had a third of that! Same old same old soon. Glass still half empty despite several refills tonight. Pedro seems safe for now?
bordersdonSeptember 29, 2017 at 21:24
Ok nobody (so far) has said I’m talking s***e! . Stevie, Phil has so many developing stories and the rest that his credibility bottomed out long ago? Sevco will not go bust! Why would they? 40K plus season books| I wish we had a third of that! Same old same old soon. Glass still half empty despite several refills tonight. Pedro seems safe for now?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Events like the demise of MKII Rangers don’t happen overnight.You need to be more patient.
There is no doubt they are running out of money (again). They may have 40k season books but that is meaningless if it doesn’t equal the outgoings; and it doesn’t. There comes a time in every soft loaners career when he can see all he is doing is throwing good money after bad.
The next accounts will be informative and another worry for the governing bodies..