The Way it Works


Parttimearab says: August 9, 2014 at 9:43 am “What is the “Beaufort …

Comment on The Way it Works by Castofthousands.

parttimearab says:
August 9, 2014 at 9:43 am

“What is the “Beaufort Consortium”?”
There was some information placed up a few days ago by a well established though recently dormant poster.

They were pointing out a new name in the circus act which relates to Stockbridge’s new corporate wonga enterprise. I can’t remebemer the name concerned but the post linked two declarations concerning shareholdings which tied it all together. One document concerned BPH and the other Margarita. Beaufort was listed on both documents if I recall correctly. They may have been share nominees.

I can’t find any links handy so I’m afraid you’ll have to follow this up on your own.

I’ve just belatedly found one:–plc/rns/holding-in-company/201309201746395830O/

Here’s the other :–plc–rfc-/rns/holding-in-company/201309201749205838O/

The character that ties it together is Sanjeev Verma.

Castofthousands Also Commented

The Way it Works
coineanachantaighe says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:10 pm

“Second the way the article is worded it pretty well suggests HMRC leaked material deliberately for which there is absolutely no evidence.”
I stumbled across a bit of Charlotte material that referred to a ‘Letter of consent’ that would have allowed Rangers tax files to be examined (I presume). It was in the context of discussions with HMRC in December 2011 and included Whyte, Rangers and Collyer Bristow in the correspondence. Those that know about these sort of things will understand the implications of a letter of consent (I don’t). I suppose it means that files can be placed on the table and discussed. If there were a number of different parties involved in these discussions then I suppose there is multiple routes whereby this information might have emerged.

I was a latecomer to RTC (January 2012) so may have missed the earlier action. However I never got the impression that RTC had bunches of documentation to share. The only file links tended to be newspaper articles and the suchlike. RTC seemed to have insight but there may have been a number of sources from whence this insight could have emerged. Simple logic and a keen mind might explain much of this insight.

The Way it Works
Campbellsmoney says:
August 8, 2014 at 6:09 pm

“The question for me has always been – how did it come to pass that Ticketus failed to take Scots legal advice at the time of entering into the deal? Ignorance, stupidity or negligence?”
Maybe there is more than three possibilities.

CharlotteFakes published dozens of pieces of correspondence via twitter, some of which illustrated that discussions with Ticketus/Octopus were under way well before the club/company purchase. The implications are that Ticketus knew that the funds they were to advance to Whyte/Rangers were to be used in the facilitation of the club/company changing ownership. I don’t think Ticketus could legitimise a deal whereby their funds were to be used to buy the club that they would then have an interest in the seasons tickets of. Whyte had to create a grey area in time whereby he could take ownership of the club using Ticketus money and at the same time offer Ticketus the season tickets required in order to access to purchasing funds.

Whyte needed Ticketus’ funds to purchase the club but only the club owner could sell the season tickets.

So Ticketus needed to play dumb on what the funds advanced to Rangers were being used for.

When Ticketus sued Whyte for their money following administration/liquidation, Whyte insisted on the existence of a collateral warranty between himself and Ticketus/Octopus. This warranty purportedly stated :

“… that in the event of any reorganisation or administration of Rangers the First and Second Defendants and Octopus would support and assist [Mr Whyte]…”
“to ensure that he retained or recovered control of ownership and/or management of Rangers…”

Although Ticketus (Ross Bryan) denied the existence of such a warranty this assertion may indicate that Whyte was led to believe that a path had been made through the fire. He may have been led along that path believing he was fireproof.

If, as Whyte asserts, the possibility of administration was clearly forseen in his negotiations with Ticketus, then this makes it doubly curious that the possible outcomes of such a scenario were not thoroughly considered. Mistakes do happen but if Ticketus were quite aware of how risky this deal was then they should have been so much more on their guard. Accidents tend not to happen when you are on your guard.

The Way it Works
scottc says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:12 am

“The soccer punter data holds data relating to times of cards, goals and penalties.”
All well received. I’ve yet to sit down and study but I appreciate your input and look forward to your further assistance when the data has been frothed up a bit. I thinking the timings will be very important. Any impartiality will betray itself through timing I think. The ends of the games at the end of tight seasons will likely be the place that any such impartiality is incapable of holding fire. Alternatively it may be that there is nothing out of the usual to be discovered.

I noticed that EasyJambo and MelbourneDee also rose to this bait. I’ll bear this in mind and if I can come up with anything substantive widen the circle in that direction initially.

Recent Comments by Castofthousands

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
I was watching some youtube concerning chaos theory a few days ago. Not that I understood it fully but the basic concepts were intelligible to me.

Chaotic behavour might be experienced by bridges for instance during high wind events. The predictable environment for which the structure was designed to sustain might be breached and oscillations set up that ultimately shake the thing to bits.
It seems that any system can sustain a certain level of complexity: Parameters that are exceeded without any catastrophic consequences. However if the ‘complexity’ continues to increase then it is likely that at some point the system will fall into chaos.
I think that is where we might be in the timeline of the farrago. Pressure has been ratcheted up over a number of years and now a major event has introduced a whole new level of complexity.
The SFA currently probably have the least control over events than at any time since 2012. Their tactics will be reactive: They will have no coherent forward strategy: They will not be in possession of an ethical framework that might help guide them to safety.
LNS now looks like part of the cover up. However this malfeasance was hidden in plain sight. Rather than being an instrument to mock football fans and supporters it has now turned into a gravestone that seems only to be lacking an inscription and dates. Football supporters weren’t meant to be able to decipher the legal jargon. In reality if you scratch the surface of the rhetoric of bile there is beneath a cohort of supporters who have a firm grip on the facts. Those supporters help inform their associates and thus attempts to create a false narrative have been foiled.
The situation is finely balanced between order and chaos. Who knows what events might sway this balance.
Perhaps a fans group will take some sort of legal action. Perhaps clubs will start to exact influence. Perhaps a wealthy private individual will take it upon themselves to mount some kind of legal challenge to LNS. These option may not all be feasible but there may be many others not yet considered that are.
Either way it looks like the good ship SFA is taking another voyage through the icebergs.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
AllyjamboJuly 8, 2017 at 10:09

“Until now, we have all looked at the mis-registration aspect only to be a ploy to avoid detection by HMRC, and undoubtedly it was, but I think it has blinded us to the quite simple fact that improper payments, definitely illegal within the confines of football, and possibly criminal within the law of the land, were made.”

Is the general lack of inertia in addressing this matter a symptom of a wider culture of casual payments within the game? We know that historically football has been quite lax in its fiscal controls. Does this history confer a collective guilt that makes clubs reluctant to become animated in current circumstances?

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
 DunderheidJuly 7, 2017 at 21:35
I wonder: can anyone give me a link to the SFA’s rules vis-à-vis the powers of its Board?

Might be amongst this lot. Hopefully the multiple links will stick.
SFA articles of association
SFA registration procedures
SFA cup competition rules
SFA’s club licensing criteria (December 2013),%20Admin,%20Finance,Codes%20(2).pdf

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
DarkbeforedawnJuly 6, 2017 at 10:54

“Rangers were never, at any time, accused of operating an illegal tax evasion scheme and if they had been, this would be a criminal proceedings and not a civil one.”
” However, I cannot think of a single example in history where a club has had trophies stripped for owing a debt?”

The validity of the honours won during the EBT period is not questioned simply because the club had debts. The footballing integrity argument arises from the mis-registration of players.
RFC might argue that they believed the payments they made were legitimate loans and need therefore not appear as part of a players contract on their registration document. To accept such a level of ‘self-certification’ however would render the whole registration process pointless. The so called loans were so obviously part of the players contract that their absence from the registration process could be best explained by a wish to keep them hidden from simple scrutiny.
In effect the registration rules were circumvented to facilitate a commercial risk.
That doesn’t look a lot like sporting integrity to me.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
HirsutePursuitJuly 6, 2017 at 00:35
“Similarly, the commission could accept the idea that the EBT arrangements were legal in all cases.”
I appreciate you are simply stating the commission’s premise but it seems such a fundamental error for LNS’ panel to base their decision significantly on a separate decision that was subject to appeal (FTT BTC ruling). It was such an obviously contentious case that it would seem naive to latch onto it for any kind of justification.

About the author