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.
JC
Well done for taking this creten to task,do they not realise ,obvisouly not ,that there downright neglect of the truth will cost people their jobs ,people in their own industry,I spoke with a guy last week that had been made redundant from a Sunday paper due to a fall in sales,he said he seen it comming but there was nothing he could do,he would see the reems of pprint go down and used to ask onweekly basis what the print was and was saddened to see the time approach what they where all fearing on the print room floor,he is now in work after 8 months out and says he has eaten into his redundancy and lost any advantage he might have gained if he had been able to get a job quickly,these guys that write the untruths just have no idea of the repurcusions of their untruths,they have no shame.
John Clark says:
August 3, 2014 at 3:24 pm
OT The design is not terribly elegant. The folk I feel sorry for, are those who live and work in the vicinity of Leith Walk. They had months of terrible disruption, with absolutely nothing to show for it.
John Clark says:
August 3, 2014 at 3:16 pm
That’s a belter
John Clark says:
August 3, 2014 at 3:16 pm
1 0 Rate This
Some people either cannot learn or choose not to learn.
I have sent Paul Forsyth of Scotland on Sunday the following email …
——-
Bravo John.
I saw Chick Young getting an earlier mention re his promotion of Ibrox 15 times in a few short minutes. The fact this man continues to receive payment from the licence fee does nothing at all for the BBC and the principles it should have in not actively promoting a single cause. Two years ago Mr Young used his position with the BBC to demand live on air that ‘Rangers are special, they are different from any other club, and should be treated as such’. Earlier this year he so forcibly put across a case for Dave King that the SFA were forced to contact the BBC during the show to deny the statements he was making. So ridiculous is the man that his fondness of Rangers while claiming to support St Mirren is often the butt of jokes from fellow pundits. Not that there is anything wrong with having a fondness for Rangers of course. Demanding they are treated specially after stealing millions from the public purse though is very wrong.
upthehoops says:
August 3, 2014 at 6:21 pm
He is a buffoon. On the other hand, he is a good example of yet another problem that Rangers have: the caliber of their advocates. With friends like these, Rangers actually have all the enemies they might wish for
On Chick Young mentioning Ibrox 15 times.
I very much doubt he was even aware that he was doing this, he just can’t help himself. I doubt he even realised he’d been torn apart by his hero Walter Smith, and that everyone knows it. Anyone else would have hated Smith for that total embarrassment rather than to remain his number one sycophant. He is so convinced that ‘Rangers’ are everything to everyman that his grip on reality, or at least the Rangers’ reality, has gone; if he ever had it. It really is a sad indictment of those running BBC Scotland that they seem unable to see him for what he is, a complete buffoon, who, even if we take his love of one club out of consideration, has absolutely nothing to offer either as a sports journalist nor football pundit.
scapaflow says:
August 3, 2014 at 6:34 pm
upthehoops says:
August 3, 2014 at 6:21 pm
———————————–
He is a buffoon. On the other hand, he is a good example of yet another problem that Rangers have: the caliber of their advocates. With friends like these, Rangers actually have all the enemies they might wish for
========================================
That’s true but even truer is upthehoops’ point that such a person should not be working for the BBC – one can only assume they continue to employ a buffoon who is patently prejudiced towards one team because they feel they themselves share such a prejudice (and can’t find anyone better to express it). Personally I feel that (although some departments, like documentaries, still do good work) the BBC both UK and Scottish have really declined in quality and neutrality in recent years.
coineanachantaighe says:
August 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm
Whenever I find myself getting annoyed about how much Chick gets from the BBC, I remind myself that it will be a tiny percentage of the amount Jeremy Clarkson gets
Seriously, I doubt the producers care about Chick’s view of anything, that he gets the punters listening, responding and complaining is the be all and end all.
With the new league season fast approaching, I wonder if it’s too late for Heart of Midlothian FC to approach the SFA regarding a serious miscarriage of justice perpetrated against them last season. As we are well aware from recent precedent involving a treasured national institution, club and company are two separate entities within the context of a football club. The company is responsible for all financial and disciplinary matters, including, but not exclusive to, the payment of wages, taxes, bills, penalties and fines. The company is the sole entity which may suffer an insolvency event, such as entering administration, or ultimately liquidation.
A club, on the other hand, is merely an ethereal, floating, untouchable entity, whose sole purpose is the collection of titles, trophies, world records and kudos. In a nutshell, bad things happen to football companies, whilst only good things happen to football clubs. We might easily name this ‘the Rangers theory’ in deference to those who invented it.
And so to HMFC’s miscarriage of justice. Hearts had 15 points deducted last season for entering administration, a penalty which ultimately relegated them. However, utilising ‘the Rangers theory’, hasn’t the innocent club been improperly penalised when the punishment was appropriate solely to the company which had the insolvency event? Shouldn’t Heart of Midlothian Football Club (the club) be demanding those 15 points back and a play off with Hamilton to potentially avoid relegation into the bargain?
Ludicrous? Yet it is precisely this theory, this suspension of reality, that followers of The Rangers think the rest of us should be gullible enough to swallow, just so that they and the football authorities can pretend their old club still exists. When something or someone dies, it is dead regardless of whether someone props up the corpse and puts a blue ‘founded in 1872’ t-shirt on it and pretends it’s the original.
Those seeking the truth need only examine the facts and work forward from those, instead of looking at the desired result then working backwards, as fans of the dead club and the majority of the SMSM do at present. All they’re achieving is the re-writing of history and the invention of myths and fairy tales that make Santa and the tooth fairy seem highly plausible.
scapaflow says:
August 3, 2014 at 6:34 pm
12 1 Rate This
He is a buffoon …
———-
Mind you, what would Jonathan Watson have done withoot Chick?
scapaflow says:
August 3, 2014 at 7:10 pm
‘Seriously, I doubt the producers care about Chick’s view of anything, that he gets the punters listening, responding and complaining is the be all and end all.’
_________________________________
Which puts them on a par with those running Scottish football – forget integrity, honesty and doing what’s right, just cater to the lowest common denominator/loudest voice/simplest minds. Whatever they do, they do not want to connect with those able to think for themselves; ie they prefer the Chris Grahams to the Paul McConvilles.
Have the Vanguard Bears stumbled upon some CF material?
http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/sfa-agenda-exposed-soon.html
COMING SOON: Proof of the SFA’s Anti-Rangers Agenda
Vanguard Bears have come into possession of some potentially explosive documents concerning the SFA’s integrity and impartiality over the handling of Rangers FC’s “punishment” upon entering administration.
The documents and information we will present will leave the footballing authorities with many questions to answer regarding their professionalism and integrity whilst dealing with our club.
While we believe the source of these documents to be extremely credible, the information is being scrutinised at the moment and we hope to be able to publish them as soon as possible.
Aquinas
I can’t see or hear Chick, without immediately thinking of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey86au04OjU
It’s like the Spitting Image meme of David Steel in David Owen’s top pocket, just can’t take ’em seriously anymore
Have to say Im slightly nervous that the VB new info occurred “upon entering administration.” Its a bit like my wife saying that “after an eventful day at the shops I became aware that the car’s airbags did not appear to be fully operational.” You just get the feeling that one or two minor details seem to be being overlooked, and not in a good way!
scapa,
Or Norman Lamont – the man with a yoghurt pot on his head. Ironically this came in a skit about the bland grey-major cabinet trying to think of a ‘feature’ that people would remember them by.
Back on topic – looking again at the VB announcement it seems to refer to the punishment relating to them entering admin (as opposed to using it to simply reference the point in time). Now the points penalty I recall was a fixed formula, a black or white, no grey areas affair. Why would you choose to question the formula’s impartiality or otherwise now I wonder…
Oh, and sorry, just on everyone’s favourite St Mirren supporter. I doubt many Aberdeen fans have forgotten his “No room for sentiment, no club is too big to go down” article of the early noughties either.
Smugas
je ne regrette rien
I’d wait and see what the VBs actually post, its as likely to be the result of data mining the RTC back catalog, as anything really new.
Smugas says:
August 3, 2014 at 11:29 pm
‘..No room for sentiment, no club is too big to go down” ‘
——
Well remembered, Smugas.
How that smart little phrase came back to haunt him!bearing in mind, of course, that his club suffered a worse fate than merely going down- it actually went out of existence altogether. 😀
Smugas says: August 3, 2014 at 11:26 pm
Back on topic – looking again at the VB announcement it seems to refer to the punishment relating to them entering admin (as opposed to using it to simply reference the point in time). Now the points penalty I recall was a fixed formula, a black or white, no grey areas affair. Why would you choose to question the formula’s impartiality or otherwise now I wonder…
=======================
I actually had a look back at the SPL/SFA punishment of RFC and Hearts in light of last week’s announcement about harmonisation SFA and SPFL rules on insolvency.
(8) Insolvency Events
(a.) Each of the Scottish FA and the SPFL Limited will maintain rules in this Area of Overlap.
(b.) The SPFL would have primacy for dealing with any alleged regulatory infraction of its rules.
(c.) The Scottish FA would take no action in respect of any such alleged infraction, except in exceptional circumstances and where specifically authorised by the Scottish FA Board.
My reading of the above would suggest that there would be no longer be a second punishment by the SFA for going into administration (barring the SFA Board intervening), as this would now be an SPFL managed issue.
Hearts received a 15pt penalty plus a registration ban while in administration from the SPFL. They also received a separate ban on registrations to the end of the last transfer window (Jan 2014) by the SFA. In practical terms the SFA ban made no difference to Hearts because the SPFL ban continued until they exited administration in June 2014. However, had Hearts exited administration before the end of January, then the SFA ban would have had a separate and distinct impact.
The SPL gave Rangers a 10pt penalty and imposed a registration ban while they were in administration (I guess the Oldco still has that ban in place, although it has moved onto Liquidation proceedings)
Rangers were fined £50,000 by the SFA for suffering an insolvency event (They requested a fine rather than anything else, although, to my knowledge, the fine was never paid).
The fabled 12 month registration ban was imposed by the SFA on the Oldco, not for the insolvency event, but for a separate charge of bringing the game into disrepute (i.e. not paying social taxes).
A (delayed) 12 month registration ban was subsequently accepted by the Newco as part of the 5-way agreement.
Smugas says:
August 3, 2014 at 11:29 pm
Oh, and sorry, just on everyone’s favourite St Mirren supporter. I doubt many Aberdeen fans have forgotten his “No room for sentiment, no club is too big to go down” article of the early noughties either.
………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………….
Without daring to presume to speak on behalf of Aberdeen fans – a happily fractious bunch at the best of times – it seems reasonable to imagine that many will by now be adept at performing auto-imposed Alzheimer’s when it comes to Chick Young: he speaks; we instantly forget. A necessary survival mechanism. Life with his “thoughts” in our heads would kill us.
You are perhaps unique, however, in presenting to the world an instance where Chick happened to get something right. (Startled fans of incorrectness were no doubt relieved when he made an immediate and lasting recovery.)
Kilgore Trout says:
August 2, 2014 at 4:45 pm
I had a quick look at the RandomThoughts blog too before leaving this morning and was quite depressed by the standard of it.
………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………….
Yes. It feels like a curious blend of self-congratulation and self-loathing; a distillation of angry failure. (Been troubled lately by niggling sensations of happiness and hope and an uplifting hunch that human beings may finally be realising their potential? Visit that place. It’s a cure.)
scapaflow says:
August 3, 2014 at 11:30 pm
6 0 Rate This
Smugas
je ne regrette rien
I’d wait and see what the VBs actually post, its as likely to be the result of data mining the RTC back catalog, as anything really new.
==================================
The interesting point for me will not be what the Vanguard Bears actually post, because nothing that comes from that site could ever be considered to be objective in my view. What I am more interested in is how the Scottish media deal with any so called ‘explosive’ material. The established position from over 12 months ago is that they can’t write about or discuss such material due to Leveson constraints and the need to establish the data was legally obtained. None of that material showed Rangers in a good light of course, and to write about it or discuss it would only have made a bad situation even worse. So if something now appears that alleges the SFA as the bad guys and Rangers as the poor wee victims, will the same constraints apply?
I await with great interest.
Oh how I hope the VB go ahead with whatever they plan to do, though how they can do very much is a question they will need to ask/answer. It has been well established, on here, RTC and elsewhere that supporters’ bodies etc are unable to take action over perceived injustices carried out against their clubs as they have no legal right/interest to do so. What’s more, it would be debateable whether even TRFC has this right as (OCNC apart) any injustice would have been carried out against the now dying/dead company (which held the legal persona). Wouldn’t it be nice, though, if they managed to go to court to argue that the club that was RFC and the one that is now TRFC are one and the same so that the new ‘company/club’ could take up their case? I suspect that this will turn into another ‘Celtic land case’ with a lot of noisy claims that will die out in a whimper as they eventually (probably this week) realise they could do more harm to their beliefs than good.
:
August 4, 2014 at 7:37 am
1 0 Rate This
,..It has been well established, on here, RTC and elsewhere that supporters’ bodies etc are unable to take action over perceived injustices carried out against their clubs as they have no legal right/interest to do so.
———
Slightly different AllyJ, but the above got me thinking: When does the season actually start? Tomorrow evening? And do TRFC now have permission to dip into ST monies?
If they start, burn up the £4-5m available, then say they can not continue, where would that leave the fans who’ve paid up front? Would they have recourse to legal action? There is now such open suspicion, especially from the SoS, that the current regime will have great difficulty explaining away an ‘unforeseen’ set of financial circumstances.
That is just in the event, of course, in reality I doubt the SFA and SPFL will now allow newco to go to the wall after all they’ve done — bar selling their granny — to keep it alive.
The the VB statement if they have something then good, lets get it out in the open.
Lets be honest about this. Rangers fans think the authorities favour Celtic. Celtic fans think the authorities favour Rangers. Prior to the debacle down Govan way most fans of other clubs thought the authorities favoured both Rangers and Celtic. Despite many on here altering their view on Celtic, I am sure many fans still hold the third viewpoint.
The whole point is that regardless of where it comes from and what its about, even Keef can do it, if there is credible evidence of the SFA being up to no good then get it out in the open.
Fans from all across the country would be happy to see the whole organisation dismantled and reformed to be fit for purpose.
Has payroll been met?
Has a further wonga loan been required?
Has any winding up orders been issued for non payment of invoices?
Has the For Sale sign been erected at MP?
My guess is the financial worries are still there but the bandwagon will roll on again and the same questions will be asked at the end of next month. However the attendances at the four games in August will be a pointer to the mood of the fans (8k down to the Derby) and a gauge on how much money may flow in through the turnstiles to give confidence to the board.
If they can get another few million via any proposed share issue and maybe punt a player or two and operate with a degree of austerity they will most likely be safe in terms of avoiding financial collapse.
The only thing that will screw it up is the performance on the park.
Danish Pastry says:
August 4, 2014 at 8:24 am
‘ There is now such open suspicion, especially from the SoS, that the current regime will have great difficulty explaining away an ‘unforeseen’ set of financial circumstances.’
______________________________________
This is where I think any warning not to use ST monies, from Deloittes, comes into play. If they have, indeed, warned them off using the ST monies, and it is used before Deloittes requirements are met, then the board cannot hide behind claims that any insolvency event was ‘unforeseen’. I suspect Deloittes will ‘allow’ the use of these monies as the games covered by the STs are played at a rate commensurate with one eighteenth of the ST cost as the holders would be getting ‘value’ for their money, or at least getting what they paid for.
And purely in the interests of accuracy I note the “never too big to fail” article by Chick the Younger was 2011. Just shows how much has happened since then (or alternatively just how many ‘close shaves’ Aberdeen have had that I start to confuddle them together!).
As you were.
Yes UTH I am interested to see any shifting patterns of media coverage. A united front of disgruntled fans of all persuasions was always the thing that even the most corrupt dam in the world couldn’t hold back. How I’d laugh – drowned in a sea of irony! with distant fading screams of but but you said…..you promised…..
wottpi says:
August 4, 2014 at 8:52 am
2 0 Rate This
Has payroll been met?
Has a further wonga loan been required?
Has any winding up orders been issued for non payment of invoices?
Has the For Sale sign been erected at MP?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Will GW still be in post by the end of Aug?
Smugas. Chicko boys article was actually penned in Dec 2011, a few months before his beloved team folded. The thing was that it was apropos nothing; nobody was suggesting anywhere that the Dons should not go down if they finished bottom. He’s a clown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/16056249
It included the classic line; “If they go down, Hell mend them. That’s how league tables work and why should other clubs, who have made more prudent signings and worked their passage, suffer instead?”
Glasgow Tan
Just back from a few days in Glasgow with the family – had a great time – saw some fantastic sport – everyone we met was welcoming and friendly – even got to stand on West George Street and yell “come on England” at full volume without attracting attention – dodged most of the rain and caught most of the sun – yes I have a Glasgow tan – and that’s not a euphemism 🙂
Maybe others have mentioned it – haven’t caught up yet – but award for best laugh and Gold for cultural insensitivity must go to John Inverdale (English) who suggested that Barbados should say Hail Marys at half time at Ibrox to prevent a second half rout by New Zealand. Either the HMs were not said or they didn’t permeate the asbestos because it ended 59-0.
Anyway – well done Glasgow – excellent games !
mcfc says:
August 4, 2014 at 11:33 am
2 0 Rate This
——-
Looked good on telly annaw, even Hampden. Closing was just as eclectic as the opening. Thought Ae Fond Kiss, Dougie McLean, the Pipes and Auld Lang Syne were brill.
Too much re-stating of how good Glasgow did, though. Became like US revival meeting. Not sure Kylie’s Moulin Rouge troop and performance really suited the mood either, but that’s the Aussies for you. Their Gold Coast, very sunny. Fair dinkum. @AngrySalmond made all very funny, again.
@MCFC I loved the games even 4 hours watching cyclists in the rain yesterday and then the excellent squash… As a former squash player, haven’t raised a racquet in anger in a few years I was pleased to see my son’s interest in the sport, so much so we are gonna whack a ball off a wall this week…
There were a lot of happy people at the ceremony last night, you could sense the positive vibe the place was buzzing, truly what a sporting event should encapsulate…
Now I can’t wait for the football to start and the boy’s footie too, building a team and had an excellent preseason with them.
I gather that Glasgow has won massive accolades for its friendly spirit and public awareness and quite right too, from the reports I’ve heard from friends who attended the various events. Why then did no-one have generosity to tell Kylie her skirt was caught in her knickers?
@Smugas Now if that was Susan Boyle…. 😯
I think my favourite Chico column from around that time was the one where he claimed that the one good thing about Rangers plight was that Jelavic had been paid for upfront.
I wonder who told him that?
Name change time – I’ve never really liked ‘Shooperb’, and only chose it because I couldn’t log in under my old profile (was ‘AreYouAccusingMeOfMendacity’ in the RTC days) initially, although thanks to some pointers in the last week or so, I can now change it! So if no-one minds….
Regards VB and their materials suggesting an Anti-Rangers agenda at the SFA, can’t wait to see this nugget of fact, truth and wisdom…. I can hear them marching on Hampden demanding answers to all the questions the articles will raise OR alternatively they have picked off a few CF soundbites, checked out PmcC’s blog and been on here too, maybe have a draft of the mythical 5WA…
Remind me of the punishment for administration was it not a points deduction as has happened to many teams? A ban on signing players (they cant afford)?
LIQUIDATION, was that not loss of registration as the business/club folded. Upon registration the ban on over 21’s withheld for a while ’til they could sign up out of contract players (slight bend on the rules in their favour if memory serves) and of course the 5WA allowing smooth passage over other clubs slotting them into the Scottish league, if they paid their football debt. Should be a fun read.
Then again I hope they do have something that can oust the leaders of our game, I am sure CO will not be part of that removal process though unless it is to join his friends at Ibrox.
Vanguard Bears have come into possession of some potentially explosive documents concerning the SFA’s integrity and impartiality over the handling of Rangers FC’s “punishment” upon entering administration.
JimBhoy says:
August 4, 2014 at 3:39 pm
I don’t think there is anything that could oust the people in charge of the game, or, even embarrass them into resigning. They all seem totally convinced that they have acted at all times for the “good of the game”, and that those like us who say otherwise, are irrelevant little people who should shut up and be grateful for their efforts.
@Scapaflow I think the most the VBs will have is proof that CG signed them up to the onerous 5WA… At the time my personal thoughts were new rangers should not have been liable for old rangers football debts, albeit Charlie did manage to get some cash for some of the old rangers players if memory serves.. Can’t have your cake and eat it, although some have had that thru the years and still expect it.
JimBhoy says:
August 4, 2014 at 4:23 pm
Jim they do seem to be the proof of Uncle Joe’s maxim that “Gratitude is a disease of dogs”!
Man City have been my English team for more than 30 years, thanks to the wonderful Colin Bell. I wonder if anyone else is worried, like me, by the fairness of the loan signing of Frank Lampard from New York City after his move there from Chelsea on a free. Not from the potential breaching of FFP rules which is what Arsene Wenger has highlighted (and City have denied, confirming THEY wil pay all his wages) but from how easily a rich club like City could get round fairness generally.
I’m sure when Chelsea allowed him to leave, they wouldn’t have done so if he was going straight to a direct competitor but that is effectively what is happening simply because City are rich enough to afford to own a club elsewhere. I’m sure that Lampard could have been loaned to any club anywhere during the MLS close season – it benefits both the player and the club that owns him – but by owning New York City, City must have a big advantage in securing him on loan than another club.
I believe City plan to own more clubs in other FIFA areas and some other rich clubs already have at least ‘feeder’ or ‘development’ relationships with cubs elsewhere, so does this mean that any club transferring or freeing their players to such owned/feeder/development clubs must now start to consider if they should, given the strong possibility that they might end up back at direct competitors due to those relationships?
Just seems like one more way the rich benefit due to their financial muscle.
On another tack, well done to Stephen Naismith for his efforts in giving Everton tickets away to the jobless in Liverpool for this season. The BBC report mentions that he moved to Everton on a free transfer from RFC* – is this technically correct and a way for them to avoid mentioning the TUPE issue, or does the TUPE issue mean it can’t correctly be called a free transfer? Just wondering.
Nawlite,
Steven Naismith decided not to transfer his contract to the newco, and therefore became a free agent. So he did move to Everton on a free transfer, and his prior club was Rangers, but he did not move from Rangers to Everton as there was a short spell in between when he was a free agent.
Just catching up on this which is overdue and welcome.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=13548&newsCategoryID=1
If any football authority is looking in remember that rules that are not policed, where a club has shown itself all too willing to break the rules and cover up that they have or justify their action purely on legal grounds, are not worth the paper they are written on.
Not quite sure what to make of this at all! Satire?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/31/the-fiver-celtic-big-cup-woe
Auldheid says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:22 pm
having rules that are in line from the top of the game to the bottom is a sensible thing to do. However, why on earth is there still no route to the CAS?
Question for the rules experts. Phil’s latest blog is alleging that Zaliukas’ signing on fee was not in with this months paycheck, would that constitute a breach of the player payments on time rule?
SSB callers kicking off with selective amnesia.
“Found not guilty … don’t you think we are due an apology?”
Not one of the pundits currently contesting the claim.
PS Yellohoose, reads like a piece written under the influence of a few bevvies 🙂
scapaflow says:
August 4, 2014 at 6:33 pm
Might need to be stated in his contract (the one that gets registered with the SFA but doesn’t need to be correct so long as nobody notices) that he would be paid a signing on fee of £xxx on a certain date (first pay day) before action could be taken. It might get awkward if Zaliukas makes a complaint though, but he’s used to similar problems under Romanov and probably thinks it’s something that happens in Scotland 🙄
Allyjambo says:
August 4, 2014 at 6:51 pm
1 0 Rate This
———
He must be happy to be in employment. If he’s owed anything I reckon he’d haud his wheesht, at least for the time being.
Danish Pastry says:
August 4, 2014 at 7:01 pm
An own goal on Sunday might just do the trick, or he might just mention the possibility at the next team talk 😉 – Signing on fee in his account on Friday, perhaps!
wottpi says:
August 4, 2014 at 8:44 am
The the VB statement if they have something then good, lets get it out in the open.
Lets be honest about this. Rangers fans think the authorities favour Celtic. Celtic fans think the authorities favour Rangers. Prior to the debacle down Govan way most fans of other clubs thought the authorities favoured both Rangers and Celtic. Despite many on here altering their view on Celtic, I am sure many fans still hold the third viewpoint.
==============================================
I don’t mind people holding any viewpoint, except one which holds a law abiding club which pays its dues to society together with a club which illegally withheld millions from society. I really hope we we are past the stage of Celtic being lumped in with Rangers at every turn, at least among fans of other clubs. Celtic really don’t deserve it. As for the authorities favouring both, I can’t wait to hear just what rules were broken and invented to help Celtic, in the way they were broken and invented to help Rangers.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
August 4, 2014 at 7:21 pm
1 0 Rate This
———-
Phil, could the season ticket boycott actually turn out to be good thing for the board? You can imagine some full houses for the initial fixtures, which must look a bit tasty for the fans. Paying at the gate brings in more cash, albeit in small bursts. But it’s cash in hand.
Yellohoose says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Not quite sure what to make of this at all! Satire?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/31/the-fiver-celtic-big-cup-woe
—————————
If that is satire then it’s pretty poor, in fact, it appears to be nothing more than a poorly thought out rant at nothing.
Very poor and 2 minutes of my life wasted reading it.
I often hear, and read, that the LNS Commission found that the failure of Rangers to disclose the Side Letters to the SPL and SFA was an administrative error.
This was not my understanding of the LNS decision so, with some trepidation , I referred the Commission Report.
On page 2, S1 (3) it states that:
‘Oldco through its senior management decided that such side letter arrangements should not be disclosed to the football authorities, and the Board of directors sanctioned the making of payments under the side letter arrangements without taking any legal or accountancy advice to justify the non disclosure.’
They also state in considering the side letters in P17 S48 that:
‘It is clear to us (as we believe it must have been to anyone at Oldco with even a basic grasp of legal matters) that the undertaking was contractually binding as between Oldco and the player.’
Interestingly in P14 S43 Mr Odam (Finance Director) said of the side letters:
‘My understanding at the time was that the letters were non Contractual.’
He stated that he had discussed it with Mr McMillan (Tax Manager), Mr Horne (Murray Group internal solicitor). Would any of these three gentlemen have “even a basic grasp of legal matters”.
Andrew Dickson, one time Financial Controller and subsequently Head of Football Administration was also aware of the side letters and stated he didn’t think they needed to be registered.
LNS P32 S107 states:
‘We nevertheless take the view that the non disclosure must be regarded as deliberate’.
I felt at the time and still do that the LNS Commission in no way exonerated Rangers and on closer reading my view is strengthened. Personal view that they faltered at the sanction hurdle but their findings on fact were damning.
In summary, far from non registration being an administrative error it was decided at Board and senior Executive level not to comply with the rules. Final quote from Page 31 S 105;
‘it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose side letters to the SPL and SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT Scheme’.
Den says:
August 4, 2014 at 8:24 pm
It is worth remembering that a certain Mr Ogilvy was lauded by the Club chairman as Company’s expert on Footbal Administration. One of the primary functions of a Company Secretary is ensuring that the Company complies with the laws and regulations laid down by the state, and any rules and regulations that pertain to their particular industry.
It has always been a puzzle to me how Mr Ogilvy remained in blissful ignorance of this deliberate circumventing of the industry rules, given his position as Company Secretary.
Almost as big a puzzle as to why the clubs choose to be blind to this rich part of his professional history. 👿
Den says:
August 4, 2014 at 8:24 pm
3 0 Rate This
I often hear, and read, that the LNS Commission found that the failure of Rangers to disclose the Side Letters to the SPL and SFA was an administrative error.
This was not my understanding of the LNS decision so, with some trepidation , I referred the Commission Report.
On page 2, S1 (3) it states that:
‘Oldco through its senior management decided that such side letter arrangements should not be disclosed to the football authorities …
———
And that is exactly what one of tonight’s callers to SSB has wiped from his memory Den. The SSB pundits are still either none too bright or all too willing to engage in myth-making and pot-stirring — by not stating the known facts. Instead, SSB allowed an unjustified rant against DU, Aberdeen, Kilmarnock (?!), Hibs and Celtic regarding title stripping.
Guilty of deliberate deception and an offence second only to match-fixing, yet the rest of Scottish football should offer apologies to cheats? No shame. No wonder people want this unrepentant new lot to fail.
Danish Pastry says:
August 4, 2014 at 7:37 pm
They would much rather have another 20,000 Season Tickets sold at this stage.
Scapaflow
It is amazing how many high flyers quickly forget details of events that they are central to, and how many Directors play no role in events, it is a wonder that they remember to negotiate their bonus and claim their expense but they always manage to do so.
I was also thinking today of the SFA tribunal which found that the offences were second only to match fixing and was going to have a look back at that(nice reminder by Danish Pastry).
Given the weight of evidence it is remarkable that LNS decided to further burden the creditors of Rangers solely.
What’s the story?
keith jackson @tedermeatballs · 45m
Here’s a wee question. How much did HMRC know about Craig Whyte’s tax dodging tendencies BEFORE he bought RFC?
keith jackson @tedermeatballs · 9m
Full story and reaction from a furious Alastair Johnston in tomorrow’s @Daily_Record
easyJambo says:
August 4, 2014 at 10:59 pm
I look forward to finding out, without buying the Record though.
Perhaps he would like to comment on what David Murray and members of his board knew of Whyte’s business history.
HMRC were not party to the sale of Rangers to Whyte and have to be very careful about revealing details of an individual’s tax affairs.
Murray and his board were deeply involved and had a duty of care. I might even buy the Record if he was furious enough to answer the real question.
Nearly three years later he is furious, slow to anger
easyJambo, me thinks HMRC were all over Craig Thomas, for a long time, Murray must have known, the day in court could be interesting: Craig Thomas Whyte, can you point to the person who introduced you to Ticketus.
easyJambo says:
August 4, 2014 at 10:59 pm
What’s the story?
———————-
The story is simple, discredit CW and HMRC at every opportunity.
Create a situation where the fans can buy into the lie that HMRC had a grudge against RFC and that the only person(s) responsible for the troubles of that last few years is Craig Whyte and HMRC.
Someone is doing the bidding of Charlie boy……………..
THEY ARE ALL AGAINST US!
Rangers Fans take note: This is the same Alastair Johnston who did not tell you everything he knew, and he knew a lot more than has already been disclosed…….And you can take that to the bank!
Den says:
August 4, 2014 at 11:17 pm
Actually Den, this latest twist is going to be hilarious. There were plenty of warnings that Mr Whyte was a wrong un – all of which were ignored, in favour of the Motherwell Born Billionaire crap peddled by Mr Jackson.
The brass neck of Mr Jackson, is part of a matched set whose partner is worn by Mr Ogilvy.
You could not make this sh!t up
Den says:
August 4, 2014 at 8:24 pm
“I often hear, and read, that the LNS Commission found that the failure of Rangers to disclose the Side Letters to the SPL and SFA was an administrative error.”
—————————-
I have to put my hand up as someone who has used that line, though not to minimise the error but rather to contrast the punishment with the reality of the situation.
I’ve had a look back through LNS and can’t see that particular phrase in use. It might be in ‘Reasons for decisions’ but I’ll need to consider that later. In my own defence perhaps I picked up the phrase as a flavour rather than a specific ingredient of the reports findings. The following extract from para 107 might act in mitigation on my own behalf:
This construance does not sit easily with the phrases you have quoted and others within the findings. If the conclusion was that there was deliberate non-disclosure then on the balance of probability I think conclusions could have been drawn as to why senior management failed to make the necessary disclosures. This apologetic tone along with the derisory punishment may have given me the impression that non-disclosure, however deliberate, was not being treated as culpable. There is something apologetic about such phrases that detract from what a proportionate sanction would have indicated.
The question still remains whether, if Rangers had included EBT payments on the registration documentation, whether this would have strengthened HMRC’s case at the FTT.
easyJambo says:
August 4, 2014 at 10:59 pm
“How much did HMRC know about Craig Whyte’s tax dodging tendencies BEFORE he bought RFC?”
————————-
There is a snippet of a ‘Charlotte’ document that states that Craig Whyte came to the attention of HMRC’s ‘High Net Worth Unit’ office in Edinburgh in November 2010, six months before he bought Rangers. Demands were sent to Whyte in April 2011 concerning outstanding sums apparently.
Castofthousands says:
August 5, 2014 at 12:29 am
Wouldn’t be in the least surprised, but under what authority would HMRC be acting, had they attempted o interfere in a legal transaction between consenting parties? Anyway, didn’t the sainted Alastair Johnston produce a dossier on Mr Whyte, that Mr Murray ignored? Methinks the lady doth protest too much
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/the-whyte-files-private-investigation-revealed-1407428
Well here’s the article.
It too long to post, so it’s your choice to give a hit to the DR on not.
Has KJ stolen the VB’s thunder?
easyJambo says:
August 5, 2014 at 12:37 am
Yeah, the key bit is that the Enforcement Directorate are looking into the actions of the Board prior to the sale. This is really a very public plea from Mr Johnston to the effect of “It wisnae me, I tried tae tell them, but that nasty boy David widnae listen”
CYA PR, though it does make Jackson look like a dick again, for peddling the MBB crap
EDIT
In relation to the VB story, has it ever been disclosed who at Rangers signed the self-certification that Mr Whyte was a fit and proper person?
With some trepidation over straying into a no-go area for the blog, here is a link to an article by Ralph Topping in today’s FT.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05fd0768-1bcd-11e4-9db1-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz39T0jzBHw
Only posted because a) timing is strange and b) RT’s world view is very much at odds with the south govan mindset.
OT in passing, how much lack of self-awareness does it need for the boss of a gambling organisation to bewail the imbalance in the economy towards financial “services”?
Castofthousands says:
August 5, 2014 at 12:29 am
0
0
Rate This
easyJambo says:
August 4, 2014 at 10:59 pm
“How much did HMRC know about Craig Whyte’s tax dodging tendencies BEFORE he bought RFC?”
————————-
There is a snippet of a ‘Charlotte’ document that states that Craig Whyte came to the attention of HMRC’s ‘High Net Worth Unit’ office in Edinburgh in November 2010, six months before he bought Rangers. Demands were sent to Whyte in April 2011 concerning outstanding sums apparently.
============================
The real story that Jackson could never tell is that in May 2011 just 13 days after Whyte bought Rangers for a penny the Edinburgh HMRC Debt Collection office served notice on Whyte for unpaid overdue tax of £3,741,835.29!
Now given Rangers complained about leaks from HMRC and Edinburgh is a financial centre and Sir Duped Murray has his HQ there, what are the chances SDM never got a whiff that CW was skint? A bill does not get from assessment to debt collection in 13 days.
I wonder if Mr Jackson will be so keen to report on the degree of drift allowed Sir Duped Murray in collecting the wee tax case bill, with HMRC conveniently waiting until after the takeover before pursuing collection.
The wee tax bill was based on unpaid tax going back to 2000 to 2003. Rangers accepted liability at end of March 2011 but 7 weeks passed before HMRC started collection proceedings.
Sir Duped Murray is a right ungrateful knight setting his poodle on HMRC who did SDM a favour and cost the taxpayer – aye us- £2.8m in uncollected tax by doing so.
Now that is the story but will any journo pick up and run with it? I’ll go and check my flying pig sty in case a squadron has landed.
All this talk of HMRC recently – isn’t it getting close to the deadline when they can appeal the UTT verdict? Personally I believe it’s not worth their while as long as appeals are held in Scotland. Not that I’m suggesting for a minute the Judges sit with a pre-determined view, but there are so many external influences that come to bear. Ultimately a successful appeal would rule that for a decade Rangers illegally paid players more than they could otherwise afford and as a result gained success at home and reached a European final. The consequences for football are massive. Indirectly that would have a seismic impact on the LNS ruling. What HMRC are asking the appeal to rule on is that Rangers illegally operated EBT’s, and that’s all.
As I said, having the appeal heard in Scotland comes with many external influences to bear.
All the talk of how effective the season ticket strike is makes me wonder…
I am not sure I believe there are around 15,000 people striking as no one fans group is able to demonstrate that kind of reach.
I reckon it’s more likely that there are maybe 1 or 2,000 “striking” and the rest have just decided enough is enough and if they go, it will be pay at the gate based on performance and results.
Castofthousands says:
August 5, 2014 at 12:21 am
3
0
Rate This
Den says:
August 4, 2014 at 8:24 pm
“I often hear, and read, that the LNS Commission found that the failure of Rangers to disclose the Side Letters to the SPL and SFA was an administrative error.”
—————————-
I have to put my hand up as someone who has used that line, though not to minimise the error but rather to contrast the punishment with the reality of the situation.
I’ve had a look back through LNS and can’t see that particular phrase in use. It might be in ‘Reasons for decisions’ but I’ll need to consider that later. In my own defence perhaps I picked up the phrase as a flavour rather than a specific ingredient of the reports findings. The following extract from para 107 might act in mitigation on my own behalf:
There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA
———————————————————–
The extract you posted does not say it was administrative error, it mentions senior management.
If you read further they stste that the decision was ‘seriously misconcieved’, the ‘directors of Oldco must bear a heavy esponsibility’, ‘non disclosure must be regarded as deliberate’. it refers to Odam’s evidence and their view from this that the EBT was a factor in the decision.
Perhaps the use of the word ‘how’ indicates that they didn’t know if the decision was made at executive level, via board minutes or in shredable tablet form.
The actual findings of LNS are quite scathing,
On the question of sanctions it becomes a lot less convincing.
If Rangers had provided the side letters AND HMRC had sight of them then it would have strengthened HMRCs hand a bit. The existence of the side letters was known at the FTTT and were not decisive as the legal minds were more convinced by the Trust mechanism.
The EBT saga is very confusing and I think LNS was wrong to introduce the concepts of ‘IRREGULAR Payments’ and ‘UNFAIR competitive advantage’. There were contractual documents due to be delivered relating to payments and these documents were deliberately withheld to gain some benefit or advantage. The rules were in place to promote the integrity of the game LNS Page 30 S104 and other places.
From what I’m getting from this, Rangers were in trouble, Craig Whyte was also in trouble. Rangers had become an Albatross round SDM’s neck, Wee Tax, Probable Big Tax case. Money going down the drain. SDM’s other companies not doing to good either.
Craig Whyte also wanted by the Tax man, for something totally different to the Rangers scenario.
Tax Man gets proof of Tax due and chases him. It just so happens the proof that was needed was the sale of Rangers. Craig Whyte could have bought any other company and the same fate would have befallen said company but he didn’t. A Perfect Storm
But what does it matter anyway, Rangers are an ever ongoing, ever all-knowing ethereal entity, which cannot die, never diminish but always surprise. The quicker us Plebs know this the better!
I’m confused