The Way it Works

Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

The Way it Works

 

Many years ago, I read an article in some legal magazine or other which, to my mind, pointed out something that I had always presumed was obvious.

Namely, that unlike his English Counterpart, the Scottish solicitor is not just a drafter and processor of legal documents, he ( or she ) is a man of business who furnishes advice, and as often as not, will recommend a course of action – possibly involving many different steps or procedures- in any given situation.

Without going into an academic analysis of what this means, may I suggest that a simple definition is that the Scottish solicitor does not always simply do what they are told but will furnish the client with advice for, or against, a certain course of action.

The same applies to accountants and other professionals in my experience. When discussing any business situation, the client should always be aware of the pros and the cons. From there he or she makes a decision based on the advice given – which advice may be taken or rejected.
That is how things work.

If you think about what I have said above, then it follows that one of the principal things an adviser should do for any client, is to suggest a course of action that keeps the client out of court.

Court is a place of last resort. Litigation of any kind is expensive, brings uncertainty, is time consuming and acts as a barrier to unfettered and uninterrupted business planning, strategy and progress because no one can ever be sure of the outcome or the consequences of a court case.
In olden days, court meant choosing your champion to fight against your adversary’s champion. If your guy knocked the other guy of the horse and killed him outright with the lance then you won. It didn’t matter if your guy was also hit with your opponents lance and died a week later as a result – you were still the winner because the other guy died first.

Eventually, society did away with such courts and replaced them with courts of law and the men and women with wigs and gowns as opposed to the lance.

However, you can still win a court battle and suffer a fatal defeat as a consequence.
That is why a court of law should always be regarded as a place of last resort. No one should ever set out on a course of action which runs a high risk of ending up being disputed in court.

Sometimes, of course, a court action is inevitable. On other occasions, people adopt a course of action where the risk of things ending up in court is seen an as an acceptable risk.

This morning’s Daily Record ( and indeed yesterday’s edition ) is spouting David Murray’s mantra that HMRC knifed Rangers but adds there are no winners here. How very MSM. How very lacking in business understanding or searching for the truth.

So, let me explain something.

When you sit down with a firm of accountants who specialise in aggressive tax avoidance schemes such as an EBT scheme or a DOS scheme, one of the things that are spelt out to you is that the scheme you are about to embark upon may well be, indeed is likely to be, challenged in a court of law. Especially if you do not administer it to the letter.

Often as not, the client will be asked to sign up to a contract which specifies that the client will pay hefty fees to lawyers and accountants for setting up the scheme and that fee will include a contribution towards legal fees arising in the event of a legal challenge to the scheme.

That is stipulated at the very outset. You pay £x in advance because you know you are likely to be sued. You also get the benefit of advice which is designed to ensure that your scheme is absolutely watertight in terms of the law, but crucially, there is a rider which states that in the event that the court rules against you then the accountants or lawyers will not be held accountable as you are entering into the whole process knowing that there is a big risk of litigation – and you are told in writing that while you shouldn’t lose, you might lose.

This too is the way it works.

The business advisers will not want litigation, but from the outset they will cover their backs and make it plain to the client that if you sign on the dotted line for an aggressive tax avoidance scheme then you can expect HMRC to take you to court.

Accordingly, the protestations screaming out from the Daily Record this morning about how HMRC killed Rangers are balderdash and bunkum of the highest order.

HMRC did not knife Rangers, they did exactly what was expected of them in the circumstances and the people at MIH knew that the day they started off on any one of their tax avoidance schemes.
Taking the risk in the first place killed Rangers or Rangers PLC if you prefer.

However, the events of yesterday and the day before throw up some other matters worth considering and remembering.

The first is the woeful state of the Rangers accounts by 2005 when there had been yet another share issue underwritten by David Murray. Those accounts showed Rangers PLC to be in a shocking financial state, despite all the rhetoric and dressing from the Directors and the Accountants.

More or less immediately Murray chose to put the club up for sale as it was obvious that the financial traincrash could simply not continue.

However, despite years of searching no buyer could be found.

Further, it should also be remembered that Rangers PLC knew all about the small tax case long before Craig Whyte came along. Those liabilities stemmed from around 2001 but at no time during the Murray era at Ibrox did Sir David put aside the money to pay a bill which no one at Rangers disputed as being due at any time.

Whyte stressed the need for this to be paid long before he ever got the keys to the Marble Staircase, but it wasn’t and there can be only one of two reasons for that.

Either Sir David just didn’t pay the bill concerned ….. or he couldn’t!

The fact is that long before Craig Whyte appeared David Murray could have paid that bill or reached an agreement to pay that bill. However he didn’t and for a period of several years he simply decided he wanted out …. Needed out ….. at any cost!

There is no doubt that he gambled hard and fast with Rangers Football Club, and their finances and their supporters loyalties. He knew , or ought to have known, well in advance that a prolonged and regularly used aggressive tax avoidance scheme, legal or not, was bound to attract the adverse interest and attention of HMRC.

Sir David Murray has been lauded up and down the country for his so called business acumen and business knowledge. He was knighted for the same and received all sorts of unprecedented backing from banks and other institutions.

Does anyone reading this really believe that such a man did not have the foresight, or the advisers around him who had the foresight, to see and know that a large and prolonged dispute with the revenue authorities may well have an adverse effect on the viability and sellability of his business?
Such a suggestion is simply not credible.

Further when the HMRC interest came, Murray’s men, if not Murray himself, did their very best to try and hide the existence of the scheme, the documents surrounding the scheme, the details of the scheme and the intention of the scheme.

They hid all this away from HMRC, The SFA, The SPL and anyone else in authority, with the result that those authorities and bodies had no option but to run to the courts, set up tribunals and convene formal hearings.

When someone does not tell you the truth, starts hiding documents and obfuscating that is the way it works.

However, that is not all that yesterday brought.

The news that Collier Bristow have apparently agreed ( through their insurers no doubt ) to pay the liquidator of Rangers some £20M shows that taking into account the litigation risk, someone somewhere thought it worth making a payment to make a bad situation go away.
Imagine that? What bad situation could that be?

Would it be that somehow or other, creditors, officials and all sorts of other people were misled by a leading firm of solicitors in relation to the affairs of Rangers PLC? Could it really be the case that things were so bad financially at Ibrox, that the only way for even Whyte to be able to get the sale to go through at the princely sum of £1 plus the official bank debt was to have his people mislead funders and eventual creditors?

What does that say about David Murray’s stewardship and the absolute urgent need to get Lloyds TSB out of the picture? Was there really no one else or no other way to take on the debts of Rangers PLC? Apparently not — and that can only be because someone chose to gamble with the finances of the club and leave it in a precarious state.

I am told that when Lloyds took over that account they expressed amazement at how MIH and Rangers PLC were allowed to run up the debts they had with HBOS. Apparently there was incredulity at some of the figures and covenants.

So , when we read in the Record this morning that the HMRC Big Tax case inadvertently brought down Rangers it is very easy to overlook the debt due to the bank, how it arose, the sums due to the same bank through MIH, the extent of the sums due, the banks attitude and the possible attitude and course of action had Whyte not taken them away.

Remember that the same bank stepped straight into MIH and began selling off its assets, and that low and behold the same management team who engineered the EBT scheme have openly admitted that there is an unexplained shortfall in the employees’ pension scheme of over £20 Million.

Do you think the employees who have lost out on pension provision are the slightest concerned about whether the tax avoidance scheme funds and their use are legal or not ? – or do you think they might argue that the money used for these so called “discretionary payments” should have been used to fund a proper legally constituted pension scheme which the company and its directors undertook to pay into under contract?

There is still substantial debt due to Lloyds by MIH and part of that debt is the amount by which David Murray and MIH underwrote and guaranteed that last share issue of Rangers PLC in 2004/2005. The principal sum due under that guarantee ( excluding interest and charges ) was greater than the principal sum claimed by HMRC in the big tax case.

Go figure.

However, this saga is far from over especially with regard to “contractually due” severance payments which look as if they will come back to the FTT in the event of the parties concerned not reaching agreement on the tax allegedly due.

Now, this is interesting because apparently there are a number of documents in existence which show that certain players received a payment of £x at the end of their contract as part of a severance deal.

At the time these were made, my recollection is that under normal severance agreement legislation the first £30,000 would be tax free but after that any sums were taxable.

The FTT has never been asked to rule on these payments, and has never heard any evidence about the legality or otherwise of paying these sums gross of tax into an offshore trust. All of that may yet be to come.

However, the most interesting part of this for me is that further court action may be taken in relation to these matters failing agreement between HMRC… and whom?

Rangers PLC ( the employer ) is in Liquidation so perhaps HMRC might claim some of the money from the Liquidator who has just received the £20M from Collier Bristow – then again it could well be that Ticketus have something to say about that.

In his last statement about MIH, David Murray openly proclaimed that the company was all but finished and revealed the pension shortfall and so on – so I doubt if any agreement of any meaning will be reached there.

That then leaves those who supposedly benefited from the contractually due severance payments – namely the players.

Maybe, in the absence of a now defunct employer, they will be asked to cough up the tax.

No doubt they will all go and consult their lawyers and accountants – the men and woman of business – who will give them their best advice – but you can bet your bottom dollar that any such advice will include a paragraph or ten which starts something along the lines of “ However, here is the potential risk in the event of you deciding to …………. “

That is the way it works……. And always has done.

About the author

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

1,546 Comments so far

wottpiPosted on4:01 pm - Jul 28, 2014


Barcabhoy says:
July 28, 2014 at 8:27 am

Was out earlier today so didn’t get the chance to say congrats and hope that you got your share of his salary being Mr Grant appears to have used most of your posts as the basis for his article.

If he is such an avid reader of TSFM then I am hoping see other similar columns asking such difficult questions re the goings on down Govan way and perhaps following up the awkward questions Auldheid and others have raised with regard to the SFA/SPL/LNS and all things DoS/Flo etc. Lord knows he might even take one of Phil’s ‘Bumps’ and run with it!!!

Come on Michael you know you have it in you 🙂

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:06 pm - Jul 28, 2014


Castofthousands.

I think it was absolutely essential for LNS to even proceed on the basis he did, never mind reach the erroneous decision he did ( as a result of deceit or is it perjury?) that the payments made had to be viewed as legal.

I do not have the quote to hand but LNS himself said on the lines that if they were not regular he would be ruling on a much more serious matter ie the equivalent of under the counter payments to avoid detection.

Even Regan came out with the same line and the SPL themselves were keen to get LNS underway before the FTT came out with the then possibility that the BTC payments were irregular. Trust me on this.

The beauty of LNS though is that having justified there being no sporting advantage with BTC ebts because they were deemed regular, no one can argue that sporting advantage did not accrue from using irregular ebts.

I originally thought that only the 2003 title was at risk because De Boer who had a side letter was paid by a DOS ebt in June 2002 covering period up to Feb 2003 when he switched to the BTC scheme, but have realised that Moore, although there appears to be no side letter was paid by an illegal means ( and HMRC could not pursue recovery because of time limits and no proof of negligence/ fraud) in 1999 and regardless of whether this payment was registered with the SFA or not ( I suspect it wasn’t ) it was still an illegal payment which puts the 1999/2000 title at risk along with the redistribution of prize money issue arising then as in 2003.

You can see why SPFL and SFA have got their barge pole out to handle this.

LNS could turn out to be the worst own goal in football history.

Sheer all round incompetence at best and in our face deceit at worst.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:32 pm - Jul 28, 2014


South0fThe Border says:
July 28, 2014 at 3:59 pm
1 0 Rate This

Phil’s got some comments on a few things this afternoon!

———

I’m out of the loop. So I have missed the RIFC statement that guarantees that Murray Park will not be sold…
I am sure Ibrox stadium will not be sold. However it might well be renamed. I would place a bet on that… #32Red
The watering holes of the Square Mile are awash with RIFC sceal. #UsefulTrip
Unpaid suppliers, concerns about Payroll. #MemoryLane
Only lots and lots of Season Ticket sales can save the day. #Loyal
I suppose selling Murray Park will be like signing a new player. #TheSucculentSpin
A Square Mile chap reckons that the first two years of RIFC “will generate ten to fifteen years of corporate litigation.” #OoerMissus
———–

Tried to look up sceal. ‘News’, ‘hearsay’ or ‘gossip’?

View Comment

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on4:51 pm - Jul 28, 2014


Auldheid says:
July 28, 2014 at 4:06 pm

Keep going my man – we could be heading for the party to end them all!

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on5:05 pm - Jul 28, 2014


So is Tony Watt going to Lierge or is that just Belgian waffle???

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on5:18 pm - Jul 28, 2014


AYE READY – AYE RIGHT…. Rangers “administration” not liquidation and Kenny Miller 2012 strip…

K Miller.
2011 Bursaspor 15 (5)
2011–2012 Cardiff City 43 (10)
2012–2014 Vancouver Whitecaps FC 43 (13)

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on6:45 pm - Jul 28, 2014


Auldheid says:
July 28, 2014 at 4:06 pm

“The beauty of LNS though is that having justified there being no sporting advantage with BTC ebts because they were deemed regular, no one can argue that sporting advantage did not accrue from using irregular ebts.”
————————-
It would be tempting to infer intentional misinterpretation of the rules to allow what many see as an unjust decision to be arrived at but it is perhaps prudent to stop short of impugning the integrity of those involved. Rather the error that we perceive may have been a result of misplaced good intentions that sought to minimise the fallout of the situation for the betterment of the sport.

We might speculate on the motives of those involved but to defame individuals without having the resources to fully interrogate their roles would be unwise I think. Certainly there has been much cynicism generated concerning the actions of those involved and I myself have certainly contributed to this. However to make accusations of deliberate wrong doing risks stepping over the line from mere conjecture to outright assertion. I think we are able to aim our missiles from this side of the line as long as our aim is careful.

The LNS enquiry decisions may have underestimated how much scrutiny their findings would come under after the fact. We have had the opportunity to mull them at our leisure and perhaps this conveys a significant advantage over those that were constrained by time to reach their conclusions. However as a professionally assembled quasi-judicial forum they had a duty to arrive at robust conclusions; conclusions that would stand as precedent. It may be that their work was not as well executed as they would have wished. If they have allowed unintended partiality to infect their considerations then I fear they might pay dearly for the misdemeanor.

In the absence of the contrivance that a legal training bestows, I tend to look at matters from a viewpoint of natural justice. Indeed I understand that any legal ruling would pay homage to this simple principle. If we were considering the nuances of tax mitigation strategies then we might reasonably be found wanting in our analysis. Luckily however there are more weighty forums trusted to undertake such considerations. We need only concern ourselves with association football; a subject closely scrutinised on a daily basis by many contributors on TSFM. So though we are not experts we do have amongst us an expertise and taken together, it is plausibly insightful.

As you say LNS implied that regular payments that were not in breech of tax law would confer no sporting advantage. Perhaps this is illustrated by the following extract from his decision.

[104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others.

This tells us that LNS is not going to levy sporting sanctions where fair commercial gain has been accrued. This is emphasised later in the same section where the statement is made.

Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law – so as to minimise its tax liabilities.

The next section sums up the tribunals stance on such matters.

[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.

As you imply, the corollary of this is that if a commercial strategy was undertaken by a member club to arrange its tax liabilities in such a manner that WAS in breech of tax law and was therefore beyond the compass of any other team, then sporting advantage would at least be a possibility.

If earlier schemes led to mis-registration that conferred a sporting advantage, since clubs acting legally had no access to them, then this would suggest they should be treated differently to cases that were not currently found tax-illegal. However even this fairly straightforward interpretation would fall victim to the Sandy Bryson edict that a player remained eligible to play until his eligibility was revoked.

It seems more and more preposterous every time I write it down but if you follow the precedent that is where it takes you.

Unfortunately the SPL’s inability to challenge Bryson’s interpretation means that SFA rules may hereafter be held in disrepute by member clubs since their interpretation has become so convoluted that no-one can be quite sure how they are to be construed. Might a club that previously would have acted in good grace concerning its administrative arrangements now feel that it has a certain discretion in arranging its affairs.

Hard cases make for bad law and LNS may be the proof of this. No wisdom appears to flow from it and therefore no credit is likely to be given to its authors.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:54 pm - Jul 28, 2014


South0fThe Border says:
July 28, 2014 at 3:59 pm
=================================

I do not doubt Phil McG’s sources but to me the overriding factor is that the Sevco version of Rangers continues unabated, no matter what. If suppliers are waiting on their money then why do none of them take action to get it? Is it fear of the consequences? Despite the millions owed by the last club from Ibrox it is significant it was the tax collecting authority who finally pulled the plug, and even then only after several months of non-payment. Remind me how many winding up orders HMRC issued to Hearts, but never a single one to Rangers, until the club themselves went public on their finances. Many people claim Rangers are a special case – they certainly seem to be!

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on9:59 pm - Jul 28, 2014


Might a club that previously would have acted in good grace concerning its administrative arrangements now feel that it has a certain discretion in arranging its affairs.

Sandy says “go ahead, make my day”

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:04 pm - Jul 28, 2014


upthehoops says:
July 28, 2014 at 7:54 pm

I have been in no doubt that T’Rangers will struggle along for as long as they can with the aim being to get to the stage where they can start charging top dollar again for premiership football. Once at that stage they will be relatively safe financially but far from meeting their aims of euro glory etc IMHO.

It really is a question if guys like Wallace and Nash can weather the damage done by Green and really turn the ship around into a sustainable model.

We can talk about asbestos, poor results, dodgy commissions and the like. At the end of the day cash is king and it will all come down to whether or not they can pay their bills and/or get credit if required.

Re winding up orders – Anyone running business will probably have experience and knowledge that it is usually the ‘big’ players that are worst at paying their bills and invoices. They work on the basis that the supplier or ‘wee guy’ is peeing his pants for fear of losing a contract etc. That’s how they get away with nonsense time and time again.

Other than cash the biggest liability they have is still relying McCoist, with his previous record, to gain automatic promotion.

Watched the Hearts at the weekend and lots of nice football played. Can’t remember much getting hoofed long into the box despite the new boy Sow being a big laddie. All along the ground and plenty of nice wing play from Billy King.

Will be interesting to see how next Tuesday night compares.

View Comment

bohemianPosted on11:27 pm - Jul 28, 2014


Re Phil earlier, Danish, sceal is Irish Gaelic for story, tale, saga etc told around a fireside by a Seannachai, a passer on of folklore, one who was a repository of a Clann’s oral history. They were offered food and lodging in return for their skills. In modern parlance, e.g. ‘what’s the story?’ , it has transmuted to gossip, idle conversation etc.

View Comment

bohemianPosted on11:38 pm - Jul 28, 2014


Sorry, for fellow pedants, it’s pronounced schkayal, but in one sylabble not 2, think Cahill NOT Kay-hill as the BBC department for the deliberate mispronunciation of Celtic surnames has it.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:51 pm - Jul 28, 2014


Castofthousands

I think they were acting in what they thought were the best interests of football, but I think that the commercial value of the best interests wrongly outweighed the necessity of balancing that against the integrity of the sport that depends on the rules doing what they were intended to do.

In this case it was to deter clubs from acting in an unfair manner that gave them on field advantage (which is what SDM said the ebts were intended to do) and the Bryson rule removes that deterrent value.

It basically says if you can find a legal way to avoid the intent of the rules its ok to do so without checking with the SFA first. Even if you are caught the trophies won are safe. That simply destroys the spirit of sport and encourages taking a punt on its value.

However the Bryson interpretation of eligibility only applies in the LNS decision to legal payments not registered, not illegal ones not registered.

LNS said

(88) “In our opinion, this was a correct decision by Mr McKenzie. There is every reason why the rules of the SFA and the SPL relating to registration should be construed and applied consistently with each other. Mr Bryson’s evidence about the position of the SFA in this regard was clear. In our view, the Rules of the SPL, which admit of a construction consistent with those of the SFA, should be given that construction. All parties concerned – clubs, players and
footballing authorities – should be able to proceed on the faith of an official register. This means that a player’s registration should generally be treated as standing unless and until revoked.
There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset.
But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.”

The problem is that the payments to Moore, De Boer and Flo can only be seen as being of such a fundamental defect since they are fundamentally illegal! So the Bryson rule on eligibility cannot be applied to them under the shield of the LNS Decision.

LNS pronounced on the rules he was asked to investigate. He was not asked to investigate payments by illegal means because the information that would have directed him to do so was not provided to the SPL either in the documentary form requested or in testimony by witnesses one of who had experience of both types of ebts. That requires investigation and an answer.

The SFA and SPL, even if with the best of intentions, have boxed themselves into a corner, otherwise why have they not come out and replied to the TSFM letter of late March which makes no accusations but only points out the fundamental flaw in the commissioning?

I suspect for the good of the game as those on the inside perceive it.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:09 am - Jul 29, 2014


Castofthousands.

Thanks for your thoughts, it keeps minds open.

Just a PS on the fundamental illegality of those ebts.

What made them fundamentally illegal was not just that they used a scheme that was just an indirect route to the players bank accounts but also that RFC concealed the existence of side letters when specifically asked if they existed by HMRC (no question of not knowing they should not be revealed to authorities there) which in turn allowed HMRC to pursue payment out of normal time limits because of such negligent or fraudulent behaviour.

I would argue that payments by a means that were negligent of the rules or even fraudulent in terms of keeping them hidden from tax authority makes them as so fundamentally illegal even Bryson could not convert them.

View Comment

buckfastswallierPosted on12:25 am - Jul 29, 2014


we live by law for reason and human natural justice,
when that reason is subsumed by law
for its own breath, and its own interests,
then we cannot expect others to live under law.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:49 am - Jul 29, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
July 28, 2014 at 4:32 pm
‘..Tried to look up sceal. ‘News’, ‘hearsay’ or ‘gossip’?’
——-
DP,good on you for your researches( and isn’t this blog great for throwing up interesting little things that make us look things up and expand our knowledge and broaden our horizons?)
‘Story’ as in , for example, ‘what’s the story?'[ meaning ‘what’s all happening?’] is probably meant, in the context.
‘Sceal’ literally means ‘story’. There is, and I have a copy of it, a wee book written by an Irishman, entitled ‘mo sceal fein'( = ‘my (own)story’ which contributed in its own way to the revival of the Irish language in the late 19th century.
It is interesting that although RTE Radio, the Irish national radio/tv station,broadcasts mainly in English, its announcers and presenters slip as easily into Irish as the BBC Alba chaps and chapesses slip into Scottish Gaelic.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:53 am - Jul 29, 2014


Auldheid says:
July 28, 2014 at 11:51 pm
‘… why have they not come out and replied to the TSFM letter of late March which makes no accusations but only points out the fundamental flaw in the commissioning?

I suspect for the good of the game as those on the inside perceive it.’
——-
And I, and many others, suspect that those ‘on the inside’ had a perception
that sporting integrity came a very poor second both to pounds shillings and pence and the perceived need to avoid ‘civic unrest’ and/or the ‘unravelling’ of the fabric of society!

In short, the ‘Authorities’, never in a month of Sundays thought that their belated, but still welcome at the time, introduction of the concept of an ‘independent’ judicial panel, would ever find RFC in the dock. On charges of consistent and blatant cheating, deserving of expulsion from senior football.
They therefore crapped it, and went to extraordinary lengths so to manipulate and construct the case for the ‘prosecution’ as to make a mockery of the supposed prosecution, while hypocritically proclaiming the independence of the process.
They do not now know how to reply to searching questions.None of the parties involved can be sure that all the parties involved will keep schtum. Conspirators by their very nature cannot trust each other- after all, if you know that your fellow conspirator is a liar and a cheat same as you, you will naturally believe he will lie to and cheat you just as readily. like the scorpion, liars and cheats do it because they are liars and cheats. Simples.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on6:20 am - Jul 29, 2014


Auldheid………Is there some response as yet from the Res 12 question please?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:32 am - Jul 29, 2014


I hear the message via the jungle drums is getting louder regarding the direct sale of Murray Park.

So the SSC have no say in the matter?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on10:02 am - Jul 29, 2014


Auldheid

‘I suspect for the good of the game as those on the inside perceive it.’

That short sentence is why self-regulation is a fundamentally bad idea, because, invariably the self regulators conflate their narrow interests, with the wider public interest.

Self -regulation is no regulation, but merely an invitation to engage in the fiddling of the rules by those charged with enforcing them, that we have seen in Scottish Foorball

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:06 am - Jul 29, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
July 29, 2014 at 9:32 am
—————————-

http://m.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-fans-group-fears-murray-park-is-to-be-sold-1-3491440#.U9dagoPvG3Y.twitter

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on10:21 am - Jul 29, 2014


John Clark says:
July 28, 2014 at 2:05 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JC, I think we would all expect en-masse resignations in the event of another ‘financial crisis’ enveloping Ibrox. However we have witnessed a debacle of staggering proportions in the last couple of years, the likes of which should have warranted a media feeding frenzy resulting in sackings / resignations. Instead we are consistently told that one of the main protagonists, a man who, purely on the basis of the available evidence, appears to have wilfully mis-directed and misled an investigatory tribunal, is a man of unimpeachable integrity, a ‘truly decent guy’. The same man who transferred his (now worthless) shares in a football club that is currently being liquidated to his wife when he took up an administrative role at another Scottish football club, thus circumventing the rules as laid down by the SFA. Coincidentally to some, ironically to others, Heart of Midlothian FC, the other club, also experienced financial difficulties. It should be noted that I am not suggesting, nor has it been suggested from other quarters, that he was culpable for these ‘financial events’ in any way other than failing to fully discharge his duties of directorship. He is now presiding over an authority that refuses to engage with its’ customer base. An authority, that in the eyes of a large section of its’ customer base, appears to be little more than a shambolic cabal interested only in protecting a status-quo of division and disharmony. That this man has not faced robust questioning is little short of disgraceful, in my opinion, humble or otherwise. In any other sphere of public life this debacle would’ve provoked an outcry. Yet we are deafened by silence. It truly angers me and leaves me shaking my head in bewilderment.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:29 am - Jul 29, 2014


Bawsman

Nothing new but should have an update over the weekend.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:30 am - Jul 29, 2014


Scapaflow

Indeed and regulation should start at FIFA.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on10:37 am - Jul 29, 2014


Auldheid says:
July 29, 2014 at 10:30 am

Indeed it should. That particular Emperor’s court is long overdue a good clear out.

View Comment

st pats bhoyPosted on10:54 am - Jul 29, 2014


The Campbell Ogilvie affair displays a breathtaking arrogance on his part. Outstanding loan funded by a member club, the EBT side letters which he chose not to inform his current employers about in the full knowledge that rules were not just being broken but trampled over. The European licence granted to the former RFC on his watch.
It’s way beyond compromised, it’s off the scale but he’s still there hiding in his Hampden bunker. Try emailing the SFA on any of the above issues and you get an auto generated reply…..appropriate person/department will be in touch blah blah blah.
Fat chance, why? I think we already know the answers.
This is the biggest scandal ever to hit Scottish football yet this man is still in situ.
He has no moral compass, that’s the bottom line.
Is he corrupt?
Is the SFA corrupt?
Make up your own mind on the evidence available and the SFA’s refusal to answer the many questions surrounding their President.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on10:58 am - Jul 29, 2014


st pats bhoy says:
July 29, 2014 at 10:54 am

Look a bit closer to home, he was re-elected unopposed after all, and the modest rule change to widen the gene pool was voted down.

The root causes of the problems lie with the clubs.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on11:18 am - Jul 29, 2014


Scapaflow says:

July 29 2014 @ 10’58 am

Look closer a bit to home

The clubs seem to have forgotten the unequivocal message sent by the fans in 2012. That message warned of a season ticket boycott, similar to that which is threatening TRIFC now.

I firmly believe that the power to disinfect the hierarchy is in the hands, perhaps more properly, the feet of ticket buyers.

I also believe in eddiegoldtop`s sponsorship drive.

FOLLOW the money

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on11:31 am - Jul 29, 2014


oddjob says:
July 29, 2014 at 11:18 am

That looks to have been a one off event.It didn’t take long for that power to dissipate,as we drifted back into our comfortable fragmented, tribal ways.

I suspect that the clubs, SFA & SPFL have learned from that experience, and the next time, (possibly very soon), that “extraordinary” measures are required to protect their interests, they will be a bit smarter about how they go about it.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:18 pm - Jul 29, 2014


I don’t think Murray Park will be a quick sell (in it’s present form) unless to one of the current investors with a more longer term view of what that land can bring and that for me would be at a price very much in favour of the buyer. We will probably never know, much like who has their grubby hands on those onerous contracts. Maybe those with the contracts involved in MP will be given the facility just to take it off the hands of rangers and to close down those long term burdensome contracts.
Maybe Rangers could train back at where it all started I am sure it could be spun positively that training on a public park on Glasgow Green was a way of getting back to the club routes and those who started the club. Charles Green could do that I am sure.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on12:51 pm - Jul 29, 2014


Scapaflow says:

July 29 2014 @ 11:31 am

It was indeed a one off event, perhaps because the supporters believed that they had achieved their objective, in that Sevco were outside looking for a ticket to get in.

At that point their anger subsided, but if it becomes clear, as it undoubtedly looks very likely, that they have been duped, that anger will quickly return.

The only way to beat a cartel is not to buy it’s product.

All the Big ideas and plans are not worth a hill of beans when the coffers are nearing empty.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on1:21 pm - Jul 29, 2014


oddjob says:
July 29, 2014 at 12:51 pm

Duped? In the name of the wee man :mrgreen:

With the possible exception of Craig Whyte ( :mrgreen: ) there no duped people in this saga, only those who have chosen to remain willfully ignorant!

View Comment

oddjobPosted on1:39 pm - Jul 29, 2014


Scapaflow says:

July 29 2014 @ 1:21 pm

Duped.

It is my belief that Scottish football fans were deceived(duped) into believing that strong measures had been taken by the Football authorities in Scotland at the time of the liquidation of Rangers.

The secret five way agreement, which I do not think has been fully revealed, will likely confirm that deception.

Scapaflow, I initially responded to your post regarding “looking a bit closer to home”. If you read my replies closely you will see that that is what I am suggesting.

Be interested to know the name of the wee man!

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on1:51 pm - Jul 29, 2014


oddjob says:
July 29, 2014 at 1:39 pm

Absent the infamous agreement. there was plenty of evidence at the time of dirty work behind the scenes, the pressure put on the SFL clubs by the big boys for example.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on3:12 pm - Jul 29, 2014


At the boxing and there is a sevco fan (in his top) his son and the granny sat behind. In terms of mis-information and bending the facts I’ll tell you what the two of them a fair filling the wee guys with nonesense. Apparently we would automatically could not be part of The Commonwealth as we would be independent and Alex Salmond is trying to get rid of the union jack. The Empire still exists obviously !

View Comment

the taxman comethPosted on3:17 pm - Jul 29, 2014


All this talk of sale and leaseback and sale murrray park .. Did i miss the announcement that the contingent liability had been dealt with?

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on4:20 pm - Jul 29, 2014


All this talk of the “contingent liability” always seems to me to be a bit of a red herring. If the effect of this “threat” was that assets could not be dealt with in any way – why would it only impact upon heritable property? After all other assets are being dealt with on a daily basis in the ordinary course of trade.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:06 pm - Jul 29, 2014


Campbell, I think you are correct in this. Sport Scotland would still need to be dealt with. The most elegant solution would be for the SFA to take it over as a combined HQ/Academy. I believe this would actually meet Sport Scotland’s original terms, in a way that the current & previous owners never did

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on5:29 pm - Jul 29, 2014


I am intrigued to see today that every main news outlet has happily done the bidding of the Rangers fans in their concerns about Murray Park possibly being sold. I have yet to read one article where the fans have offered any evidence other than a strong suspicion. Yet how often have other groups of fans (indeed a collective group on here), requested answers to questions sometimes based on a lot more than just a strong suspicion, but the media simply don’t want to know. Even when they chose to report on Resolution 12 at the Celtic AGM they refused to report accurately on what is was about, despite all the information they needed being freely available. It is clear that one side of the Rangers debate has the media in it’s pocket, that being the ‘real Rangers’ side. The rest of us clearly don’t have a voice, because the media have never chosen to report on any of our concerns, despite all the evidence that’s available.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on5:47 pm - Jul 29, 2014


the taxman cometh says:
July 29, 2014 at 3:17 pm

“All this talk of sale and leaseback and sale murray park .. Did i miss the announcement that the contingent liability had been dealt with?”
——————————
I’m thinking you are referring to the potential Sevco 5088 contingent liability. A poster a while back noted a change in address for Sevco 5088. It is now shown as :

Riverbank House
2 Swan Lake
London
EC4R 3TT

This is an address used by Field Fisher Waterhouse. FFW acted in the Whyte ‘duping’ and were therefore assumed to be in the Green camp. That Sevco 5088 is now registered at their address suggests something has happened concerning ownership (The old address was Limeharbour in the early days and I recall a Vine Street address also).

So whether Whyte has settled or the whole drama was nothing more than a diversionary tactic, it may be that that particular contingent liability is no longer an issue.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:54 pm - Jul 29, 2014


oddjob says:
July 29, 2014 at 1:39 pm
yourhavingalaugh says:
July 29, 2014 at 5:43 pm

:mrgreen:

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:01 pm - Jul 29, 2014


Ally got off the plane and straight in to budget talks with GW, But as yet has not come out and said what is left in the budget.
REMEMBER THIS.
McCoist this week sought clarity from Green over transfer budgets after the chief executive failed to deliver the five players he had been hoping for before the August deadline.And Green responded by insisting that £10m will be ring-fenced from the £22.2m raised ahead of the club being floated on the London Stock Exchange, with unspecified further funds on the horizon if season-ticket sales are again healthy.

I DON’T SEE ANY RESPONSE FROM GRAHAM WALLACE.
Things must be real bad down ibrox way if GW can’t respond by insisting £10 million is ring fenced from the next share issue.
or maybe GW can’t play the SMSM like a fiddle 😀

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on6:03 pm - Jul 29, 2014


Just checking on the Vine Street address, this was an FFW office also. An Ecojon post on Scotslawthoughts provided an overview of the to and fro of address changes that were perhaps a symptom of the struggle for control or an distractionary game of tennis.

The following from CompanyCheck summarises manoeuvres at the bottom under ‘event history’. Most notable is the exit of Earley and Whyte at the beginning of this year followed closely by Law Financial. It was Law Financial that were supposed to be championing Whyte’s bid to wrest control from that arch badyin, C. Green.

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/08011390#trading-addresses

View Comment

andyPosted on7:25 pm - Jul 29, 2014


TUESDAY, 29 JULY 2014 16:30
Rangers Launch Club Membership
WRITTEN BY RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB
Rangers Launch Club Membership
MANAGER Ally McCoist and Captain Lee McCulloch joined a group of fans at Murray Park today (Tuesday 29, July 2014) to launch Rangers Club Membership – an initiative designed to bring supporters closer than ever to their Club.

As this is the inaugural season for Club Membership all supporters who join will become Founder Members including all season ticket holders, who will automatically receive complimentary Founder Membership.
Club Members will enjoy a series of exclusive benefits bringing them closer to the Club and the team as well as access to Member only events and promotions.
Membership will bring enhanced participation with the Club including the ability for Members to apply for a position on the Fans Board and to vote in the Fans Board elections; exclusive members only email in advance of every home game; Members only prize draws; behind the scenes experiences including Q&A sessions with the Manager/CEO/Players and a Members only training day at Ibrox.
Members will also have the chance to enjoy discounts across the Club including Matchday Hospitality, Ibrox Stadium Tours and non-matchday dining at the Argyle House Restaurant.
As a Rangers Junior Founder Member supporters will have the opportunity to be mascots at home games, have access to exclusive online content and competitions and will receive a Junior Founder Member only pack including a scarf, wristband, bag and stickers in addition to their Founder Member badge, certificate and card.
Season ticket holders can take up their benefits from today and their pack, which includes the Founder Member badge, certificate and card will be issued in the next 4-6 weeks.
Non season ticket holders can purchase Club Membership online at rangers.co.uk/membership priced £24.99 plus P&P* for adults and £14.99 plus P&P* for juniors. Members can benefit from the many benefits right away and Founder Member welcome packs will be posted within 4-6 weeks from purchase.
Ally McCoist commented: “This initiative is a fantastic way for our fans to get closer than ever to their Club. As Rangers Founder Members supporters can apply to join the Fans Board or vote in the upcoming Fans Board elections, have the opportunity to take part in exclusive Q&A sessions with the CEO and myself, attend a members only training session at Ibrox or have the chance of a behind the scenes tour of Murray Park.
“I am also delighted that all Rangers season ticket holders are being given Founder Member status automatically and will receive all the benefits associated with that. Our supporters have shown unbelievable passion, loyalty and commitment to Rangers, especially in the last few seasons, and I can’t thank them enough for their continued backing.
“I encourage all fans to become Founder Members of the Club, get even closer and take advantage of the exclusive range of benefits on offer. We are on our way back to the top of Scottish football and together the journey will be much easier.”
Lee McCulloch added: “The Rangers fans are the lifeblood of this great institution and initiatives like Club Membership are a key way to reward that incredible loyalty. Our supporters have backed the team in huge numbers at Ibrox and in away games in the past few seasons and I am sure they will get right behind us once again when the campaign begins.
“The players and management staff are all looking forward to the opening league game against Hearts where we will unfurl the League One flag and honour the late Sandy Jardine and I ask all Rangers fans to sign up for Club Membership and be part of this exciting initiative.”
____________________
or have the chance of a behind the scenes tour of Murray Park
______
they better be quick with that one

500,000 fans £25 each

problems sorted :mrgreen:

View Comment

James ForrestPosted on7:57 pm - Jul 29, 2014


Today’s On Fields of Green.

They hacked us over this one. Must have hit a nerve!

http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/armageddon-averted/

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on8:22 pm - Jul 29, 2014


James Forrest says:
July 29, 2014 at 7:57 pm
——————————
An absolute peach of an article James. My hat is off to you sir.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:10 pm - Jul 29, 2014


#John Clark & #bohemian:

Thanks, regarding ‘sceal’ — more of the same today!

View Comment

indy14Posted on9:42 pm - Jul 29, 2014


I love the analysis and time spent on here by everybody, you are my betters in your in depth knowledge , contacts, dissection of the THE rangers situation. I must however raise a point I have made and continue to make periodically on here.
Craig Whyte, SIR? Murray, Green and all the other characters post Green are and always have been working in cahoots.
Murray sold a pup to Whyte, he knew what and who Whyte was, he knew what he’d do, and they arranged for Whyte to be the fall guy. Murray escapes “history intact” Whyte takes over, gets the sh!t stick and is well aware he has to plunge TRFC into liquidation. He does so, pretends to get duped by green, Green becomes the saviour, who sells the tickets and brings in the onerous contracts and syphons out the cash to all, meanwhile Whyte pretends to be p!ssed off….everything else is icing…..sorry guys but it doesn’t take what was it? 4 -5 months of negotiations and checks and more checks for the contracts to be signed between Whyte and Murray unless EVERY DETAIL had been pre agreed with the SFA and EVERY stakeholder in this little con. This is up there with Redford and Newman in “The Sting” Whyte Green and all are still in it.

View Comment

bailemeanachPosted on11:35 pm - Jul 29, 2014


FAO John Clark (and any other interested parties)

JC – having received no acknowledgment from BBC re the shoddy Port Vale article, I emailed my disappointment at lack of response. I quickly received an apology and a request to send on my original gripe – which I have done. Fair play to the editorial manager – he is off on hols now but copied in colleagues to take up the matter in his absence. He has promised a full investigation and appropriate response, which of course I shall furnish you with upon receipt.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:58 am - Jul 30, 2014


bailemeanach says:
July 29, 2014 at 11:35 pm
‘…FAO John Clark (and any other interested parties)..’
——–
Thank you,bally. It will be interesting to see how the reply you will receive explains just how exactly the ‘report’ was no more than a blurb, unquestioned, swallowed whole and no more than a PR job.

In my private opinion,the BBC has, in modern times ( i.e. from about ‘Round the Horne’ days) been working towards its own specialist agenda, rather than to its Charter.
It has forgotten that WE, all of us, pay for it, and that it absolutely MUST remain totally impartial and NOT seek to lead public opinion, but simply to seek the truth by asking hard questions,and report the facts.
And NOT to act as PR agents for any organisation, whether governmental or sporting or business or social.
Here in Scotland,we have evidence a-plenty of guys like JT and CY doing the very opposite of ‘objective reporting’
And I, as you, found it distressing that their English equivalents were of the same stamp.
Bad cess to them all!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:23 am - Jul 30, 2014


indy14 says:
July 29, 2014 at 9:42 pm
‘.. unless EVERY DETAIL had been pre agreed with the SFA and EVERY stakeholder in this little con. This is up there with Redford and Newman in “The Sting” Whyte Green and all are still in it..’
———
And the really astonishing thing is that there is not a ‘journalist’ who has tried to dig out the evidence of the whole Murray/ Whyte/Green/D&P nexus.

Perhaps BDO might be more successful in teasing out the grubby, grubby , shabby, shabby dirty little machinations that even ( God save the mark) knights of the realm are capable of.
The integrity (ha! do they even know the meaning of the word?) of BBC Radio Scotland and the BBC generally is at stake.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on7:47 am - Jul 30, 2014


Murray Park is safe by all accounts.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chairman-david-somers-hits-3933763

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:00 am - Jul 30, 2014


wottpi says:
July 30, 2014 at 7:47 am
1 0 Rate This

Murray Park is safe by all accounts.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chairman-david-somers-hits-3933763
———

One Somers does not it easier to swallow make … er … somethimg like that 🙂

Panic over, all is well with the world. And TRFC more or less through to next round of Petrofac as Hibs appear to have no say in the matter and Barry V-Sign discovers Clyde’s genetic link to Walter.

(Cue theme tune from ‘Soap’)

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on9:59 am - Jul 30, 2014


Auldheid……….You have a PM.

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on11:07 am - Jul 30, 2014


Ralph Topping & Peter Lawwell appointed to SFA board.

View Comment

st pats bhoyPosted on12:03 pm - Jul 30, 2014


Old Co/ New Co

Is it not the case that one of the UEFA statutes is designed to prevent clubs shedding football and social taxes by reforming as another entity.
In the case of TRIFC, who are adamant that it’s the same club, history intact etc, how is it possible for New Co to qualify for a licence with historical debts due to HMRC……..leaving aside the clandestine actions of their man on the inside?

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on12:26 pm - Jul 30, 2014


I think the perception of ‘Rangers hating’ is not entirely without substance or justification. The fallout from Rangers liquidation seems to have crystallised what was previously portrayed as Celtic paranoia into a far more cogent feeling of disenfranchisement. The paranoia it appears was not unjustified. Under this realisation, supporters of Celtic and other clubs were angered that they should have made such an emotional investment into a sport whose governors were unable to act in an ethical manner.

Rangers supporters too were angered. They could not recognise any preferential treatment and felt insulted when so much evidence of partiality emerged.

It reminds me of situations where national referees are unwilling to sanction high profile players. They do not want to attract the ire of big name club’s, Managers, their supporters and sympathetic media; why put pressure on yourself. The flaw in this mindset is immediately exposed when these same players get involved in international competitions. Here there is no preferential treatment and cossetted players can find themselves subject to strict interpretations of the rules that they are unaccustomed to. This can result in these same players getting sent off as their frustration and even malevolence surfaces. With enough international experience these players learn to curb their behaviour but not before their team has suffered set backs due to their misguided self importance.

The moral of the story is that rules need to be applied fairly and equally. Failure to do this harms all concerned; both those that are preferred and those that are disadvantaged. It is too simple an analogy to point out that a child that was not fairly and rightly guided by their parents might suffer problems later in life when they leave the parental fold and venture into the real world. The idea that you can cheat, especially in sport, is in many ways misguided. If you lapse into indisciplined practices then it is likely that your departure from good conducts will at some point return to haunt you.

Celtic are probably the biggest victims in the Rangers debacle. They are partly to blame themselves for allowing the Old Firm myth to grow so monstrously. This strategy was likely part of Murray’s attempt at European glory which required the aggrandisement of as much of Scottish Football’s wealth as possible to fund the campaign. However in the absence of Rangers, Celtic’s outlook has altered dramatically in a way that they could not have easily envisioned. At least Rangers had forewarning of the impending catastrophe.

I think lessons will have been learned. It will probably be necessary to keep up a constant background noise to ensure that all parties do not quickly forget the shortcomings that have been identified. This is unfortunate for Ranger’s supporters but its circumstances have not been artificially manufactured by the supporters of other clubs.

View Comment

PW1874Posted on12:29 pm - Jul 30, 2014


It looks like the SFA won’t be introducing vanishing spray for the coming season after baulking at the cost.

Quite right too! The SFA have used so much vanishing spray over the last couple of seasons I’m not surprised the costs of re-stocking are off-the-radar.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11781/9398891/scottish-premiership-the-sfa-is-investigating-the-costs-of-introducing-vanishing-spray-for-referees

View Comment

PW1874Posted on12:38 pm - Jul 30, 2014


Talking of vanishing spray, it seems to have been applied quite liberally to large parts of Ralph Topping’s CV.

After Ralph’s stellar Chairmanship of the SPL, isn’t it reassuring the SFA have opted for one of football’s great administrators to bring fresh ideas, a new approach and some forward thinking to our game………..oh wait a minute!

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on12:55 pm - Jul 30, 2014


#Castofthousands

Once perceived by many fans as the axis of self-interest.

Celtic are probably the biggest victims in the Rangers debacle. They are partly to blame themselves for allowing the Old Firm myth to grow so monstrously.

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on2:04 pm - Jul 30, 2014


Castofthousands says:
July 30, 2014 at 12:26 pm

Celtic’s outlook has altered dramatically in a way that they could not have easily envisioned. At least Rangers had forewarning of the impending catastrophe.
____________________________________________________________

I think it’s interesting to ponder what Celtic (or even other clubs) really knew about what was going in. As the scale and depravity of the various schemes has been unearthed it becomes less and less plausible that Celtic knew absolutely nothing. This is the incestuous world of Scottish football, both clubs were in the market for the same players, Rangers signed Novo whilst Celtic HIJACKED(c)Daily Record the likes of Hartley, Samaras and Commons. There must have been agents involved in oldco’s EBT scams who also dealt with Celtic. Celtic did after all dabble with an EBT for Junhinho in 2004/5 when the old Rangers’ scam was reaching it’s height. How were Celtic introduced to this scam? It seems plausible that whomever did, might have mentioned the fact that by the way your closest rivals are using this arrangement too. They were perhaps unaware of the size and scale and depravity of the whole operation but they must’ve at least suspected something. Like I said this is the incestuous world of Scottish football, where players become pundits (Billy Dodds etc) and player agents and both clubs were operating in the same player market, surely clubs have some ballpark yardstick of what their competitors are paying in terms of salaries and incentives or frankly they’re not very competent. If so I can only imagine what members of the Celtic board were thinking when Celtic fans were making increasingly loud and vociferous pleas/demands for more money to be spent on players particularly from around 2008/9 transfer window when Celtic eventually lost the league and were panned by many fans and the media for not splurging millions on Steven Fletcher.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on2:08 pm - Jul 30, 2014


andygraham.66 says:
July 30, 2014 at 11:07 am
5 1 Rate This

Ralph Topping & Peter Lawwell appointed to SFA board.
——

What does it all mean?

Excuse my ignorance, is Topping an old-school Ogilvieist or a reformer? Not too au fait with the opaque world of the SFA inner politics.

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on3:00 pm - Jul 30, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
July 30, 2014 at 2:08 pm
2 0 i
Rate This

andygraham.66 says:
July 30, 2014 at 11:07 am
5 1 Rate This

Ralph Topping & Peter Lawwell appointed to SFA board.
——

What does it all mean?

Excuse my ignorance, is Topping an old-school Ogilvieist or a reformer? Not too au fait with the opaque world of the SFA inner politics.

____________________________________________________________________

Excuse my ignorance too, but was Lawwell not already appointed to position of supreme SFA commander or some such many months ago to the ire of many RFC fans? Is this a change of role?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:35 pm - Jul 30, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
July 30, 2014 at 2:08 pm

DP:- Ralph Topping is the thoroughly discredited ex-Chairman of the SPL, who presided over the shenanigans when Rangers Mk1 died.

This is simply another turn in the same old game of musical chairs, the same old discredited bums, getting to try out a new comfy seat for size. (Not so much deja vu as S2D2, same sh!t, different day)

It would be funny, if it wasn’t so bloody tragic

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:52 pm - Jul 30, 2014


I should have added that perhaps things really are going to go pear shaped down Govan way, cos that is the only explanation for this reforming of the Z Team, , why else resurrect the feckwits responsible for this never-ending omnishambles.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:30 pm - Jul 30, 2014


scapaflow says:
July 30, 2014 at 3:52 pm

It may well be time to circle the wagons, again. PMGB has another blog up http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/interesting-times-at-sevco/ which, amongst other things, suggests Nash might be replacing Wallace. Or he might follow Wallace out the door (or escape).

While Phil is saying that circa £600,000 is now due to creditors, some of it critical, he says Deloittes have accepted the current regime are innocent of the mess RIFC are in. Not sure if this means they are prepared to sign off accounts.

Of course, salaries are now just about due, and he reckons more money is required from shareholders to meet them. Could be TRFC will become the world record holders of debt owed by a debt-free football club!

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:46 pm - Jul 30, 2014


Allyjambo says:
July 30, 2014 at 4:30 pm

Ally, I hope that the fans can find it in them to once again put the best interests of Scottish Football above everything else, because, on past experience, the Hampden Z Team wouldn’t recognize the best interests of Scottish Football if they marched into the Boardroom and sang Flower of Scotland.

‘Twould make you weep

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:12 pm - Jul 30, 2014


scapaflow says:
July 30, 2014 at 4:46 pm

Unlike the time RFC entered administration (in the lead up to liquidation) the ‘power’ of the supporters of Scottish football will be diminished as STs will have already been sold. However, these same supporters will know that power exists and will be emboldened to direct their voices at their clubs. Armageddon is clearly not going to happen and saving TRFC is less of a financial benefit than was previously believed. While I’ve no doubt that those in power at Hampden will wish to do all in their power to help TRFC, their arguments will be less potent, while those they are aimed at are less likely to believe them. It will then be up to the clubs to decide how they will vote (if it comes to that). In truth, if the worst that happens to TRFC is administration, there are rules in place (and we’ll all love the decision that has to be made re first or second admin) that are tried and tested making shenanigans almost impossible.

It is beginning to look, though, that something is brewing, with changes at Ibrox – Nash/defensive announcements re Ibrox and MP – as well as those at Hampden.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:30 pm - Jul 30, 2014


” if the worst that happens to TRFC is administration, there are rules in place (and we’ll all love the decision that has to be made re first or second admin) that are tried and tested making shenanigans almost impossible.”

Ha, it will be entertaining, though I predict a spate of logic chopping that would make a Jesuit blush.

I am not a big fan of boycotts, but, in this case, should the clubs bahaviour run to form, a boycott of all cup fixtures would be one possible tactic, that would hit all concerned, in the one place they really care about, their cashflows

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on6:22 pm - Jul 30, 2014


Let’s hope that he adopts a more Corinthian spirit in his new job…

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/ex-referee-hugh-dallas-to-head-up-greek-league-1-3493970

View Comment

justshateredPosted on6:56 pm - Jul 30, 2014


The news that Ralph Topping is back looks like an attempt to even up the voting figures within the board.
This could be the precursor to the impending cash problems rumoured to be about to strike where the all powerful board make decisions “for the good of the game”.

Phil has intimated that there is a few hefty invoices outstanding and I’m convinced these will be paid come hell or high water; yes even before the players get paid. Remember the players don’t have the power to turn off electricity or refuse stock for kiosks. No they will simply have to report them to the SFA via their union. This was the same union that thoroughly endorsed their members losing 70% of their wages when RFC went into administration. Just for a minute imagine if your union rep had gone to the media trumpeting you losing 70% of your wages. You would lynch him.

Anyway back to the oncoming storm (and I don’t mean the return of Dr Who), I think the people in charge of this scandal are once again lining up the ducks. Ogilvie has been informed of the impending implosion and hence Topping is back.
The season will start and, if ‘The Rangers’ do go into Administration, then all hell will break loose. The media will demand no points deduction, the players will be blackmailed to play for virtually nothing, and the fans will be ordered to blame anyone bar where it should be. Meanwhile the SFA will be scurrying around attempting to use the ‘discretion’ card. How the SPFL will react is anyone’s guess.

I think this is when the final blackmail card will be played; either pony up for special season tickets or, and this is where it will get really dirty, RIFC will sell the club to whatever knights are in town and keep the properties, leasing them back to the club. If neither of these options are bought into then the club will shut. Simples!
The big creditor here is RIFC. The club owes them more than £16M and rising (from last accounts). RIFC own the lot and, if the club does not directly own the properties, then the club can be sold independently of the properties. The fans who bought into the IPO now have shares in a property company while the new owners have to fund a huge loss making enterprise while also paying rent. They in turn will have another share issue and fleece the gullible yet again.
This will be the final indignity for the fans; buying shares in a football club after telling everyone for two years that you could not own shares in a football club. Job done.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on7:02 pm - Jul 30, 2014


BBC shortbread interview Autumn 2014

CY: Mr Doncaster could you explain why Rangers only received the penalty for a first Administration offence, when everyone knows they are Rangers Now, Rangers Then, Rangers Forever?

ND: I am very glad you asked that question Chick. I can only repeat the excellent explanation given by The SFA’s Director of Sophistry, Sandy Bryson. The SFA rcognised in 2012 that in a sporting sense, Rangers were the same club, they had merely gone through an unfortunate episode that necessitated the creation of a new entity to deal with the tedious financial matters. Sadly, as you know, the financial arm has again gotten into a little difficulty, and to keep us onside with the European rules, we are forced to recognise this as a first rather than a second Administration offence.

CY: So there you have it folks, it’s all Europe’s fault, we are still Rangers Now, Rangers Then, Rangers Forever”

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on7:17 pm - Jul 30, 2014


Justshattered

SPFL rules

“Default in Player and Football Manager/Coaching Staff Remuneration
E17 Except in circumstances where there is a bona fide dispute as to liability for
payment by the Club, where the Club is entitled to deduct or otherwise withhold
payment of a sum otherwise due or where the Club takes, suffers or is subject to an
Insolvency Event, any Club which shall fail to pay any sum due by it to a Player
under and in terms of that Player’s Contract of Service and/or any sum due by it
under a contract of employment to any Official engaged in football management
and/or football coaching (a “Remuneration Default”) shall be in breach of these
Rules.
E18 Any Club which suffers or is subject to a Remuneration Default shall within 2 days
of such default notify the Secretary in writing of any such default with details of the
amount(s) and Player(s) and/or Official(s) concerned and if it fails to so notify the
Secretary it shall be in breach of these Rules.
E19 Any Club which commits a Remuneration Default shall not, except with the consent
of the Board, be entitled or permitted to Register any Professional Player with the
League and the League shall not register such a Player until the Board is satisfied
that such Remuneration Default shall no longer continue or subsist.”

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on7:18 pm - Jul 30, 2014


Lord Wobbly says:
Let’s hope that he adopts a more Corinthian spirit in his new job…

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/ex-referee-hugh-dallas-to-head-up-greek-league-1-3493970

kyriagos recommended him & wants andy davis as well.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on7:34 pm - Jul 30, 2014


justshatered says:
July 30, 2014 at 6:56 pm

Interesting take on things. However, I am slightly confused with your reference to Topping’s appointment as an attempt to even up the voting. As far as I am aware, there is zero evidence of any split on the boards of the SFA or SPL, (after the two chaps resigned, anyway)in 2012. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that the SFA & SPL were united as one man, to do whatever it took to mitigate any adverse impact on Rangers.

Since, the faces are exactly the same, all be it in slightly different seats, I would be most interested in any evidence you have of things being otherwise!

View Comment

Comments are closed.