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

briggsbhoyPosted on9:35 pm - Aug 7, 2014


I tell you what that Real side are far better than that mob that humped Celtic

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on9:39 pm - Aug 7, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
August 7, 2014 at 9:16 pm

Glorious failure again but they and St Johnstone did us proud. All this come to early for our teams unfortunately, do we need to start our season earlier?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:45 pm - Aug 7, 2014


briggsbhoy says:
August 7, 2014 at 9:39 pm
1 0 Rate This

Danish Pastry says:
August 7, 2014 at 9:16 pm

Glorious failure again but they and St Johnstone did us proud. All this come to early for our teams unfortunately, do we need to start our season earlier?
———

Great effort. Looks like the Dons will give Ronny some food for thought.

Always difficult for me to see teams like Real prosper, having been involved in 6 years of doping, with no consequences that I know of. Not sour grapes, they were good, but they are where they are because they cheated for 6 years, at least 6 that are known about 😯

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:52 pm - Aug 7, 2014


briggsbhoy says:

August 7, 2014 at 9:39 pm

2

0

Rate This

Danish Pastry says:
August 7, 2014 at 9:16 pm

Glorious failure again but they and St Johnstone did us proud. All this come to early for our teams unfortunately, do we need to start our season earlier?
———————————————————
Yes
Im on my summer football high horse again.
.
you may not have noticed but

The team that beat the well beat Lech 1-0 on aggregate. So a wee team from Iceland with a 1975 capacity ground rounds up a team of ex Danish guys within a year and gets further than any Scottish team.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on9:53 pm - Aug 7, 2014


‘Ello, ello, ello, whats all this then?

keith jackson
‏@tedermeatballs
Gonna charge up the phone. Have a feeling there might be some Rangers breaking news to come tonight as well!

View Comment

johnnymancPosted on9:55 pm - Aug 7, 2014


wottpi says:

August 7, 2014 at 9:07 pm
how did Legia manage to put out a team that was mostly home grown with the addition of a handful of Serbs, Croats and Slovaks put six (with two missed pens) past our best team and why can’t we do something similar.
———————————————————-
Gutted as I was with a very poor show over 2 legs I think we i.e. Scottish football, still suffer, dare I say it, from a wee bit of WATP syndrome. Poland is an established footballing nation of almost 40 million people. I know that economically they and therefore their league is still finding its feet nevertheless that’s a hell of a big player pool to choose from compared to our 5 million.

I do agree that I would like more faith to be shown in local youngsters, eg I’ve still got high hopes for McGeough.

I think the standard of Scottish football has gradually improved over the years, most teams play a passing game, however the standard of other nations has improved at a far greater pace hence we appear to be going backwards.

As always quality youth coaching is the only answer and I’m not in a position to comment on that

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on10:05 pm - Aug 7, 2014


M8Dreamer says:
August 7, 2014 at 8:59 pm

————

I have a deal of symapthy for your viewpoint. I actually believe Scottish Football would be better off if the top Scottish clubs (including Hibs) were to merge with the leagues in England below the Premiership.

On your point about Celtic signing the best Scottish talent and weakening the competition. You must be confusing us with someone else . There are currently 3 Celtic players in the 1st yeam squad signed from Scottish clubs. Scott Brown was signed in 2007, Mulgrew and Stokes in 2010.

Its unreasonable to assume Hibs or Aberdeen would have been able to keep these players if Celtic hadn’t signed them, in the same way there is no point in us blaming Southampton or Norwich for signing our best players.

If it wasn’t them it would have been someone else, and if it wasn’t us signing Brown & co then it would have been someone else

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on10:05 pm - Aug 7, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
August 7, 2014 at 9:29 pm
3 0 Rate This

Someone at LP has already been let go for the original decision.

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on10:11 pm - Aug 7, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
August 7, 2014 at 10:05 pm

Phil, any ideas of jingle jangle jackson’s sevco “news”?

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on10:15 pm - Aug 7, 2014


Keith Jackson is hinting that a Rangers story may break tonight after tomorrow’s papers have went to press.

There is also some internet chatter of a “big” Rangers story breaking tomorrow in the press.

If my memory is right, the last time Keith hinted at a Rangers story was prior to the UTTT result being published.

No hints if the story is a positive or negative one for the club.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:16 pm - Aug 7, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
August 7, 2014 at 10:05 pm
1 0 Rate This

Danish Pastry says:
August 7, 2014 at 9:29 pm
3 0 Rate This

Someone at LP has already been let go for the original decision.
———–

Dearie me. I think I read that (probably on one of your blogs). Not well-pleased then. I suppose they could bale out and take the hit. Hard to see how they will get their money back, never mind make anything on the deal — oh yes, an internal loan with tidy interest …

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:17 pm - Aug 7, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:

August 7, 2014 at 10:05 pm

1

0

Rate This

Danish Pastry says:
August 7, 2014 at 9:29 pm
3 0 Rate This

Someone at LP has already been let go for the original decision.
===================================================================
So presumably the position of those left standing is “make me a profit or else”. Nice position to be in?

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:18 pm - Aug 7, 2014


If not a hopeless one.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:34 pm - Aug 7, 2014


Any how’s everyone bar Celtic oot.

I’m no Celtic fan but I hope you win the bloody thing.

If Scotland get thro the qualifiers next year could look very different.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:03 pm - Aug 7, 2014


Keith must be charging up his phone to get a Pretendygers press release that he needs two fingers to outline and copy for his paper.

Its tough at the top table of journalism in Scotland as described by Roy Greenslade earlier.

View Comment

hectorPosted on11:07 pm - Aug 7, 2014


Hope this isn’t Mr Jacksons big Rangers story as in so much else he is so far behind the breaking story that the BBC are well ahead of him. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28699182

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on11:10 pm - Aug 7, 2014


FromKJ.
So David Somers says the RFC board is ready to talk to Dave King. Start of a takeover, complete desperation or smoke and mirrors?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:12 pm - Aug 7, 2014


PhilMacG ends his post of 9.14 pm with the statement

“..LP et al did not-at that point-know about the ‘onerous contracts’.”

I don’t for a minute doubt what he says, of course, because he has a proven track record of accurate reporting.
But if Laxey Partners ( of all such people!) had the wool pulled over their eyes so effectively as to encourage them to invest to the extent that they did, they can’t actually be all that sharp, as sharp ‘hedge fund’ operators go.
A bit of a puzzle, entertaining in its own way.
For my own further entertainment, I sent this email:

“To webqueries@laxeypartners.com
Today at 10:57 PM
For the attention of Mr Colin Kingsnorth

Dear Mr Kingsnorth,

There is a disturbing report circulating that Laxey Partners may have had concealed from them by the Board of RIFC plc the fact that RIFC plc was heavily encumbered by a number of ‘onerous contracts’ , some of which are said to be with companies owned by Directors of RIFC plc.

It appears that these ‘onerous contracts’ seriously impede the implementation of a sensible rationalisation of the finances of the company.

Frankly, I cannot believe that Laxey Partners would have invested relatively heavily in the full knowledge of the existence of these ‘contracts’.
But the contracts are there. And Laxey’s investment is there. The conclusion I draw is that someone somewhere was concealing unpleasant information, and that Laxey allowed themselves-uncharacteristically- to be duped.

What am I to make of this?

Has someone at RIFC plc been telling porkies? Was Laxey lax in blindly accepting what was said about the financial state of RIFC plc?

I think some kind of clarifying statement should be made.

Don’t you?

Yours in sincere puzzlement,

John Clark

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on11:14 pm - Aug 7, 2014


Full exclusive on Somers’ olive branch to Dave King in tomorrow’s Record. You’re welcome.
=======================
Looks like a case of buying more time.

View Comment

DenPosted on11:23 pm - Aug 7, 2014


“How can a club that has burned through so much money, had to take loans to complete last season and which is saddled with a board that has so far shown no signs of any ability to raise much needed investment, afford the luxury of a part-time, £200k a year finance consultant?

“Ibrox is crumbling, Murray Park is crumbling, almost every area of the club, on and off the pitch, needs investment, revenues are down and yet we are seeing a part-time consultant take
home at least £200k a year. It’s ridiculous.”

Chris Graham

——————————————————————–

That lad is quick on the uptake !

Of course people like CG were part of the problem, they fell in behind anyone in power at Ibrox and allowed the whole thing to happen.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:25 pm - Aug 7, 2014


Barcabhoy says:

August 7, 2014 at 10:05 pm

7

1

Rate This

M8Dreamer says:
August 7, 2014 at 8:59 pm

————

I have a deal of symapthy for your viewpoint. I actually believe Scottish Football would be better off if the top Scottish clubs (including Hibs) were to merge with the leagues in England below the Premiership.

On your point about Celtic signing the best Scottish talent and weakening the competition. You must be confusing us with someone else . There are currently 3 Celtic players in the 1st yeam squad signed from Scottish clubs. Scott Brown was signed in 2007, Mulgrew and Stokes in 2010.

Its unreasonable to assume Hibs or Aberdeen would have been able to keep these players if Celtic hadn’t signed them, in the same way there is no point in us blaming Southampton or Norwich for signing our best players.

If it wasn’t them it would have been someone else, and if it wasn’t us signing Brown & co then it would have been someone else
===============================================================
Barca

Ive always deride attempts by the Big two (if their is such a thing anymore).

How about this.

I met a cousin, who I could describe as a Celtic die hard after many years only to find he was disabled to such a degree that he could only walk to Parkhead.

This guy cannot travel on trains buses etc and he has trained himself to walk from Battlefield to the ground. He can only travel 30 mins by car.

His life is that team what’s he going to do when they play in England

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on11:28 pm - Aug 7, 2014


Ah, good old Dave King getting a mention again. There’s more chance of me putting in £30m than there is of him doing it.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on11:32 pm - Aug 7, 2014


Wrt KJ’s story.
If the board are only allowed to sell shares to existing shareholders,then how does King fit the bill,unless they’ve asked him for a loan.
If things are as bad as this,then surely King just has to sit tight.
To me this will be another nothing story released to appease the fans.Somers and co all know Kings background and the potential troubles that would bring with AIM,etc. But they still push the idea forward.Things must be getting really desperate.

View Comment

DenPosted on11:33 pm - Aug 7, 2014


John Clark

Nailed it. How can an established investor walk blindly into a public shambles and then say they didn’t know about the onerous contracts. They are in every spivs toolkit and while Laxey may not be spivs they must rub shoulders with them all the time and should be aware of their tendencies.

I wonder what kind of response you will get.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on11:34 pm - Aug 7, 2014


scottc says:
August 7, 2014 at 3:16 pm

“CoT, For your database (and I think it is a great idea) there are loads of places to get a certain amount of historical data.”
————————–
That’s a great looking data set. The CSV opened in excel fully formatted (I have quite an old release on my PC) so looks to be oven ready. I would need an explanation of the column headings or an indication of where I can find the key. The CSV data looks a lot more comprehensive than I can see on the website but you obviously know how to extract it so that bridge can be crossed later. A bit of collaboration would be good but perhaps it needs to be knocked into shape a bit first before it is kicked about. I’d like to familiarise myself with the 1314 data to get a feel for it. Once I’ve got my head around it I can start to play with it a bit and see what emerges. If it looks like it will fly then earlier years can be drawn in.
There is certainly enough detail there to get a prototype up and running. Further detail could maybe be added later as the insight grows.
Could you PM me with the key to the column titles or where to go to retrieve them. You could include any useful hints on what approach to take. Perhaps we could knock it into shape between us and then share any findings with the blog to encourage interest and get feedback and support on the method.
I was working with some big data sets a while back so I have my eye in for this kind of task and it does appear an interesting challenge.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:37 pm - Aug 7, 2014


I meant deride attempts about moves to England

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:44 pm - Aug 7, 2014


RyanGosling says:

August 7, 2014 at 11:28 pm

1

0

Rate This

Ah, good old Dave King getting a mention again. There’s more chance of me putting in £30m than there is of him doing it.
============================================

Ryan

Surely no

Where was this?
The SA tax review?

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on11:50 pm - Aug 7, 2014


Ianagain, I got it from Torrejohnbhoys post at 11:10, and I believe he was quoting Galactic Empire Sports Champion Ventriolquist Of The Year Keith Jackson.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on11:59 pm - Aug 7, 2014


RyanGosling says:
August 7, 2014 at 11:50 pm
0 0 Rate This

Ianagain, I got it from Torrejohnbhoys post at 11:10, and I believe he was quoting Galactic Empire Sports Champion Ventriolquist Of The Year Keith Jackson.
=========================
Keith Jackson tweeted that there was a breaking story wrt Rangers tonight.
Turns out it’s a piece with an interview with Somers saying they’ll offer an olive branch to Dave King.
Make of it what you will.

View Comment

The GlenPosted on12:21 am - Aug 8, 2014


The irony here is that while there appear to be two people in charge at Rangers (Wallace and Nash) trying to save cash and keep the show on the road, enter a real Rangers man (King), steeped in Rangers traditions. Avoiding tax and spending money he doesn’t actually have.

Brilliant.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:21 am - Aug 8, 2014


Den says:
August 7, 2014 at 11:33 pm
‘..John Clark..I wonder what kind of response you will get.’
——-
I think I can predict that they will reply, and the reply will politely thank me for my enquiry, and ask whether I am a shareholder/investor.
(I smile at the possibility that they may indeed have a John Clark on their books as a substantial investor!)
I will, naturally, reply truthfully that I am not, but that I am considering…
And that will be the end of the correspondence.
These guys do not employ more than a couple of people to answer the phone and do the wee secretarial bit.
Kingsnorth personally will see my email and decide whether and how to respond.

I’ll let you know.

View Comment

MercDocPosted on12:36 am - Aug 8, 2014


Taken from
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hmrc-seek-leave-appeal-result-4021074

And I quote , ‘The saga goes back to “oldco Rangers” – a term used by some to describe the club before its sale and subsequent liquadation – using Employee Benefit Trusts (EBT).’

So the club was sold then liquidated, do the SOS, VB, UOF, CG, AMc, SDM, CW, RFC, TRFC, know this.
I’m still confused

View Comment

MercDocPosted on1:01 am - Aug 8, 2014


Instead of debating referee decisions, would it not be easier to highlight dubious decisions regarding the football authorities. Not just the SFA but UEFA, FIFA. Theres a gold mine of information out there and I’m pretty sure its been going on for decades. Italy, Scotland is rife as well as many other nations.
Collate this information for all to see. Its our game, lets take it back! 😀
Power to the People, Freedom! and all that.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:48 am - Aug 8, 2014


Castofthousands says: August 7, 2014 at 11:34 pm
———————————–
I can guess at a number of the early column headings

FTHG Full Time Home Goals
FTAG Full Time Away Goals
FTR Full Time Result
HTHG Half Time Home Goals
HTAG Half Time Away Goals
HTR Half Time Result
Referee
HS Home Shots
AS Away Shots
HST Home Shots on Target
AST Away Shots on Target
HF Home Fouls
AF Away Fouls
HC Home Corners
AC Away Corners
HY Home Yellows
AY Away Yellows
HR Home Reds
AR Away Reds

Beyond that I’m struggling

View Comment

melbournedeePosted on5:20 am - Aug 8, 2014


easyJambo says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:48 am

The other columns all relate to betting odds from various betting agencies.

It’s a pity there is no data on penalties awarded so we can’t analyse which referees may be prone to giving home penalties in the second half when the home team isn’t ahead – and I’m not just referring to one specific club!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:05 am - Aug 8, 2014


wottpi says:
August 7, 2014 at 9:07 pm
4 0 Rate This

My live football next year will involve father and son bonding sessions, sometimes across three generations, watching Hearts at Tynecastle.

However last night I took my Dad to Murrayfield to experience a CL game and hope that Celtic might pull of a great escape for the good of the countries euro future hopes. Being older and wiser he commented that if Celtic had keep the three players on that got subbed they still wouldn’t have scored.

Frankly I’d be embarrassed to take such a get out if it came to fruition.
=======================================

There is not a club in Europe, including Hearts, who would not bite your hand off to be re-instated in this way. Celtic were well beaten over the two legs, but if Legia broke an established UEFA rule, then sh*t happens.

If it comes to pass (and we’ll wait and see) then I for one will not be embarrassed one bit. All we ask for on this blog is that established rules are followed. Should UEFA just make a rule up depending on who the team involved is? Isn’t that type of thing exactly what we are trying to stop via this blog?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:16 am - Aug 8, 2014


RyanGosling says:
August 7, 2014 at 11:28 pm
24 0 Rate This

Ah, good old Dave King getting a mention again. There’s more chance of me putting in £30m than there is of him doing it.
===============================

I could always tell you had a few bob!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on7:57 am - Aug 8, 2014


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 11:59 pm
RyanGosling says:
August 7, 2014 at 11:50 pm

Ianagain, I got it from Torrejohnbhoys post at 11:10, and I believe he was quoting Galactic Empire Sports Champion Ventriolquist Of The Year Keith Jackson.
=========================
Keith Jackson tweeted that there was a breaking story wrt Rangers tonight.
Turns out it’s a piece with an interview with Somers saying they’ll offer an olive branch to Dave King. Make of it what you will.
=================================
In my experience when an olive branch is offered something is desired in return.

As there’s no hope of King investing a penny then what would Somers want? All I can think of is King to tell the fans to buy STs and save the club.

I think many many Bears have come to realise that King is a busted flush – all wind & p*sh – and his recent disappearance from Ibrox is seen as abject surrender in the face of the enemy 👿

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:05 am - Aug 8, 2014


upthehoops says:
August 7, 2014 at 7:37 pm

Now that HMRC have decided to appeal the UTT decision I anticipate a collective sigh from the SMSM asking why they simply can’t just accept they’ve lost and move on. No doubt we will get the ironic line of ‘why are they spending public money on this’, before setting out to find out who the Judge supports. Of course, unless the Judge is a Celtic fan we will never be told. That IS the way it works, isn’t it?
==================================================
I see HMRC have stated that they have received £800 million from companies who used EBTs and have caved-in and they expect more.

These companies are coughing-up because they see that Hector is serious about this one and the more he legally pursues Rangers and the Murray Group EBTs the more that sensible businesses calculate it’s cheaper to do a deal with HMRC and pay the tax and NI owed.

It’s also heartening to note that HMRC eventually wins 80% of the legal actions it takes to recover tax 😆

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on8:53 am - Aug 8, 2014


ecobhoy says:

August 8, 2014 at 8:05 am

‘These companies are coughing-up because they see that Hector is serious about this one and the more he legally pursues Rangers and the Murray Group EBTs the more that sensible businesses calculate it’s cheaper to do a deal with HMRC and pay the tax and NI owed.’

Eco.
These companies obviously see the sense in coughing up what is owed to HMRC. In the case of TRFC am I correct in saying that the onus to pay the Tax and NI would fall on the individual as the company/club concerned is no longer with us so to speak?

P.S Nice to see you contributing again Eco.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on9:03 am - Aug 8, 2014


Upthehoops – wealth off the radar mate.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on9:11 am - Aug 8, 2014


HMRC appeal was no suprise. I always quote from RTC when it was stated that there was no certainties concerning tax cases including the Ibrox case, but HMRC will appeal and appeal and appeal as the evidence is overwhelming. That satisfies me as I pay tax and would like all to pay tax. Rules are rules. Talking about rules surely the fans of the Govan club do not seriously think that Dave is back and is going to rule.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on9:12 am - Aug 8, 2014


upthehoops says:

August 8, 2014 at 7:05 am

There is not a club in Europe, including Hearts, who would not bite your hand off to be re-instated in this way. Celtic were well beaten over the two legs, but if Legia broke an established UEFA rule, then sh*t happens.

If it comes to pass (and we’ll wait and see) then I for one will not be embarrassed one bit. All we ask for on this blog is that established rules are followed. Should UEFA just make a rule up depending on who the team involved is? Isn’t that type of thing exactly what we are trying to stop via this blog?
____________________________________________________________________

Not at all – and I hope the opposite is the case. There has been a general consensus that sides who have made honest mistakes in carrying out the registration process have been treated harshly in comparison to those who have sought to gain advantage by systematically breaking the rules.

Your observation about the rush by clubs to take advantage of this situation may well be correct, but only underlines the intrinsically corrupting effect money has on sport.

Legia clearly did not seek to gain any advantage by fielding the player concerned (if as I understand correctly he only came on for a win bonus appearance after the tie was dead), and as Celtic fan, I would be deeply ashamed if Celtic sought to use this kind of opportunity to their own benefit.

I think that even if UEFA found Legia to be in breach of the regulations, Celtic would have to protest the result to begin the mechanism of having the result overturned. I think that would be staggering hypocrisy in view of Celtic’s failure to protest systematic abuse of the rules (to gain an advantage) in Scotland.

If on the other hand UEFA automatically award the tie to Celtic, what a fantastic gesture it would be if the Parkhead board were to make it clear to UEFA that they were satisfied that Legia had won fairly and squarely.

Pragmatically, they may, perhaps wisely, take the view that a potentially greater humping awaits if they were to progress to the final qualifying round.

In short, for Celtic to make it clear that they do not wish to take advantage of the situation on the principle of sporting integrity, a win/win opportunity presents itself.

I hope they do just that.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on9:24 am - Aug 8, 2014


A friend of mine owns a very large business in which there were EBT’s. The background was that another shareholder had passed away and the business wanted to buy some of his shares to provide shares for members of staff.

The vehicle chosen was EBT and the motives were absolutely genuine. They were however caught by HMRC’s general view on EBT’s. They were fully open with HMRC , who understood the intent was not tax evasion.

The outcome was a settlement at a reduced value from the original demand, with no penalties . HMRC are perfectly reasonable where they see reasonable behavior and full co-operation. MIH based on the transcripts from FTT & UTT , have been completely unreasonable, totally unco-operative and further lied and engaged in deception.

No wonder HMRC are taking this all the way

View Comment

fara1968Posted on9:31 am - Aug 8, 2014


Big Pink @ 9:12
Would Celtic be allowed by stock market rules not to protest? In the interest of shareholders?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:48 am - Aug 8, 2014


Yesterday I speculated that the time might be approaching when the RIFC board have to bite the bullet and put TRFC into administration. A post was later made in response with the very valid point that administration would result in a points deduction which they would want to avoid. This is a valid point, but only for the board of TRFC, not for the board of RIFC, who are legally bound to do their best for the shareholders of the plc.

Should the plan be to find a buyer for the football club/company then it will not matter to RIFC how the club fares after parting. Clearly, the club will be far more attractive to a buyer without the penalty, but, on the other hand, if the club goes through an administration, shedding so many overpaid employees, it would become a more financially viable proposition. At some point Nash and Wallace will, presumably, get to the point where all avenues of fresh finance have been walked down only to return empty handed and the value of RIFC plc will start to drop beyond a recoverable position.

Of course, there are variables caused by the known unknowns of onerous contracts and whatever it is that the likes of BPH and Margerita don’t want uncovered, and also any unknown unknowns, but there has to come a point, in any loss making business, when the point of no return is reached beyond which recovery is impossible.

The PR spin is now the reduced rights issue and holding the begging bowl out to an enemy of the board – which both appear to be more of a holding operation at best, with a last huzzah most likely, than viable strategies for a continuing operation.

I’d suggest that without some good news that we are unaware of, that now is the optimum time for an administration rather than to wait, missing the transfer window to refresh the side after shedding overpaid staff, while burning off more of whatever funds they have left.

View Comment

gc58Posted on9:56 am - Aug 8, 2014


The situation with Celtic and the possibility of progression in Europe reminds me of 1972 when one minute Rangers were out, by virtue of a penalty shoot-out defeat, and the next minute they were awarded the victory, by virtue of away goals scored in extra time.
Not exactly the same situation but definitely in the same ballpark. All I ask is that rules are applied and the playing of ineligible players is not within the rules.
Rangers went on to win the tournament that year.
Could Celtic do likewise? 😆 😆 😆

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:57 am - Aug 8, 2014


It seems that Celtic have been reprieved.

Raman Bhardwaj ‏@STVRaman 23s
Led to believe that Celtic are back in the champions league

Robert T. Błaszczak ‏@RobertBlaszczak · 39s
LEGIA ARE OUT

View Comment

BigGavPosted on10:18 am - Aug 8, 2014


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 11:59 pm

Keith Jackson tweeted that there was a breaking story wrt Rangers tonight.
Turns out it’s a piece with an interview with Somers saying they’ll offer an olive branch to Dave King.
Make of it what you will.
———

Basically, it’s a non-story.
Somers makes no mention of an ‘olive branch’. What he says is this:
“We are always open to dialogue with new investors, including Dave King. On an occasion in the future when we might be talking to new investors, I would expect us to have a courtesy conversation with him.”
And that’s it. Basically, nothing has changed.

Full report: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chairman-david-somers-reveals-4022731

View Comment

mcfcPosted on10:21 am - Aug 8, 2014


Beware of Bears Exploding with Indignation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28701951

Expelled for fielding one ineligible player for a few minutes of a tie they’d won by a mile – what kind of justice is that 🙂

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on10:24 am - Aug 8, 2014


From the BBC – http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28701951

Celtic still in the CL.

Shame about the Dons going out last night along with St Johnstone. Celtic in the CL will keep my interest alive.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:28 am - Aug 8, 2014


From UEFA http://www.uefa.org/disciplinary/index.html#

Legia forfeit Celtic match

The UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body has met today and announced the following disciplinary decision following the 2014/15 UEFA Champions League third qualifying round tie in Edinburgh between Celtic FC and Legia Warszawa on 6 August 2014.

Legia have been sanctioned for fielding an ineligible player (article 18 of the UEFA Champions League regulations and article 21 of the Disciplinary Regulations). The match has been declared as forfeit meaning Legia Warszawa have lost the match 3-0.

As a consequence, Celtic have qualified for the UEFA Champions League play-offs on away goals (agg: 4-4) and Legia will compete in the UEFA Europa League play-offs.

In addition the player Bartosz Bereszynski has been suspended for one additional UEFA competition match for which he would be otherwise eligible. This suspension shall be added to the remaining two match suspension which the player still has to serve in accordance with the Control and Disciplinary Body decision of 13 February 2014.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:32 am - Aug 8, 2014


TSFM said –

“Not wishing to rain on this particular stream of thought, but isn’t it possible that this is nothing more than a belt and braces approach by SFA/SPL lawyers to something that had a high likelihood of being referred to m’learned friends some ways down the line?

Any legal types care to comment?
Campbellsmoney?”
——————————-
I did post (about an hour before you 🙂 )

Barcabhoy – you mentioned secured loan notes and CVA control. Secured creditors do not get a vote in a CVA.

And Celtic reinstated to CL. I don’t know exactly how I feel about this. The punishment seems disproportionate to the offence but where would you draw the line? Eligibility is a key tenet of football – the clubs all know that. Its not Celtic’s fault. It is ridiculous in my book to suggest that Celtic should turn this down (regardless of any considerations about shareholder duties (which in my view are irrelevant here)). Rules is rules is rules I am afraid. No point having them if you ain’t going to apply them.

As we all know on here.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on10:36 am - Aug 8, 2014


gc58 says:
August 8, 2014 at 9:56 am

The situation with Celtic and the possibility of progression in Europe reminds me of 1972 when one minute Rangers were out, by virtue of a penalty shoot-out defeat, and the next minute they were awarded the victory, by virtue of away goals scored in extra time.
Not exactly the same situation but definitely in the same ballpark.
____________________________________________________________________

The situation wrt RFC in 1972 was that the referee did not apply the rules correctly himself and had to correct himself later.

Nothing at all like this situation.

Fara1968

I really do not know, although you could argue that in terms of the PR coup it would give Celtic, the board could justify it financially.

I am really surprised and deeply mortified by UEFA’s decision. This is much more seriously flawed than the one visited on Celtic in 1984 over the Vienna Rapid affair. Legia’s ‘crime’ is that they failed to fill in a form correctly in the last round. In any moral or sporting sense they should be in that draw.

I hope they appeal successfully – and I sincerely hope Celtic back them.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on10:37 am - Aug 8, 2014


If I was a Rich Fan

Remember Bill Miller’s man said about Rangers something to the effect of “This is not a turn around opportunity. This is a chance for a rich fan to spend tens of millions on a club he loves.”

Is King that fan?

I see no evidence so far. If you were loaded and minded that way you’d just pay the ransom quickly to minimized the suffering of your loved one – wouldn’t you?

If RIFC/TRFFC reach the AGM intact (Dec 2014?) and a resolution is passed to allow sale of the remaining 40m shares (estimated) to non-shareholders at say 25p and DK bought them all it would cost him £10m for less that 40% of RIFC. Or he could spend £10m buying current shares at 30p and get just over 50% of current shares. That of course assumes that current shareholders would sell at the market price – and are not being greedy and are not deep in the red from buying at a much higher, previous market price. There is also the issue of shareholders losing influence over onerous contracts and all that lovely bear-coin. Oh what a mess. Would DK really pay £10m for 40% of such a mess?

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on10:41 am - Aug 8, 2014


BigGav says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:18 am
0 0 Rate This

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 11:59 pm

Keith Jackson tweeted that there was a breaking story wrt Rangers tonight.
Turns out it’s a piece with an interview with Somers saying they’ll offer an olive branch to Dave King.
Make of it what you will.
———

Basically, it’s a non-story.
Somers makes no mention of an ‘olive branch’. What he says is this:
“We are always open to dialogue with new investors, including Dave King. On an occasion in the future when we might be talking to new investors, I would expect us to have a courtesy conversation with him.”
And that’s it. Basically, nothing has changed.

Full report: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chairman-david-somers-reveals-4022731
===============
To me it’s only a story to buy the board time.Throw in the name of the guy the fans want and you get them onside for a wee while more.Meanwhile,the bills continue to stack up.
Signs of desperation everywhere.
Anyone know how ticket sales are going for Sundays game?.
I read elsewhere that Hearts have been given a bigger allocation than usual.Are TRFC not expecting to sell theirs?
Also read that Hearts fans were being asked for £33 per ticket.Perhaps one of our resident Jambos could keep us right.If true,that’s shocking.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on10:42 am - Aug 8, 2014


Campbellsmoney

I was just wondering if I was the only Celtic supporter on the planet who wants Legia reinstated, when up pops the Ranking Blog Buddie 🙂

Now I’m wondering if I’m the only Scottish football supporter who wants Legia reinstated 😈

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on10:43 am - Aug 8, 2014


Re Legia

I feel very mixed about this. Om the one hand the rules are the rules. On the other rules should be applied with common sense and compassion.

In this case, I think a fine would have been appropriate. This seems to be a genuine honest mistake, as opposed to an SFA/SPFL honest mistake, where the the only honesty involves the honest display of outrage when the sods get caught!

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on10:50 am - Aug 8, 2014


This from the Herald:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/fans-accuse-the-taxman-of-witch-hunt-against-rangers.24987451

I see they don’t mention that Rangers admitted several instances of “guilt” (repeated regularly on here) or that it is quite common for HMRC to pursue such cases all the way as far as they can go.

In other words it’s an article that (not blatantly, but subtly) to my mind anyway that HMRC are being unfair. If you put one side of a case strongly and say little for the other side I’d say you’re putting one side’s case. In fact a few other accusations are made against HMRC with no comeback by them (e.g. HMRC supposedly leaked Rangers tax details).

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on10:52 am - Aug 8, 2014


Am I missing something here? The Legia player was banned for 3 matches for the last match of last seasons Europa campaign. Wednesday was Legia’s 4th match in this season’s champions league having disposed of St Petricks over two legs in the 2nd qualifying round. Why did one/both of the St Patricks matches not count towards the 3 match ban?

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on10:54 am - Aug 8, 2014


I too feel that the punishment meted out to Legia Warsaw is disproportionate. I believe an earlier post noted a not dissimilar situation that merited a £15K fine.

Where’s Mr Brysonski when you need him? 🙂

Scottish Football needs strong Hearts.

View Comment

Silent PartnerPosted on10:56 am - Aug 8, 2014


@Big Pink 10.42

You are not alone. This punishment seems extremely harsh, but, for clarification, Legia did not include the player in the squad for the St Pat’s game as opposed to it being a paperwork error. This is not a Spartans situation. It won’t be the first time they’ve had a player suspended and they had to include him. Also, Celtic don’t have it within their gift to allow Legia to progress; they could I suppose forfeit their own place … unlikely (gift horses and all that)

Overall, Celtic will feel embarrassed but not ashamed as you posted earlier.

And. Yes, I am a Celtic supporter.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:58 am - Aug 8, 2014


Celtic correctly in CL and LW correctly in Uefa (albeit that is perhaps just a happy co-incidence) and rules correctly upheld. And all 36 hours after it occurred. Case closed. I’m not really seeing anyone’s problem with this?

Danish Pastry says:

August 7, 2014 at 9:16 pm

“Scottish fitba at its best: skill, commitment, high-energy, never-say-die. Love it.”

And a Sociedad who’s ability to play diagonals in midfield particularly with their heads that left me mesmerised.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on11:00 am - Aug 8, 2014


tykebhoy says:

August 8, 2014 at 10:52 am

Am I missing something here? The Legia player was banned for 3 matches for the last match of last seasons Europa campaign. Wednesday was Legia’s 4th match in this season’s champions league having disposed of St Petricks over two legs in the 2nd qualifying round. Why did one/both of the St Patricks matches not count towards the 3 match ban?
______________________________________________________________

Because, although he was banned, Legia should have registered him for the previous matches in order to set the meter running on his ban. Since they didn’t register him in the previous three matches, his ban was still in place.

It is a bit ridiculous that you get turfed out of a competition for what amounts to a bureaucratic SNAFU.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on11:02 am - Aug 8, 2014


coineanachantaighe, surely it is far beyond “supposedly” that details were leaked, given the material that appeared on RTC regularly and on a BBC documentary. Evidence suggests that beyond a reasonable doubt a huge volume of confidential information was leaked by HMRC in the case of Rangers.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on11:02 am - Aug 8, 2014


Silent Partner says:

August 8, 2014 at 10:56 am

@Big Pink 10.42

You are not alone. This punishment seems extremely harsh, but, for clarification, Legia did not include the player in the squad for the St Pat’s game as opposed to it being a paperwork error.
___________________________________________________________

SP

That is what I meant by paperwork error. They failed to complete a form to register the player, thus triggering the meter on his ban.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on11:05 am - Aug 8, 2014


Ryan,

I’m pretty sure the information did not come from HMRC. Far more likely that it came from Ibrox.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on11:07 am - Aug 8, 2014


Big Pink,

Given how damaging the revelations were to the Rangers brand and public perception, why would Rangers have leaked such information?

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on11:10 am - Aug 8, 2014


RyanGosling says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:02 am
0 0 Rate This
=====================
Ryan are you suggesting HMRC are now leaking info to Phil and also to Charlotte in the past? There is plenty of reasonable doubt that HMRC or an employee therof were responsible for leaks to BBC/RTC because Phil and Charlotte certainly have a lot of insider information too. Ibrox has more leaks than a sieve!

View Comment

scottcPosted on11:12 am - Aug 8, 2014


melbournedee says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:20 am

easyJambo says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:48 am

The other columns all relate to betting odds from various betting agencies.

It’s a pity there is no data on penalties awarded so we can’t analyse which referees may be prone to giving home penalties in the second half when the home team isn’t ahead – and I’m not just referring to one specific club!

That’s why we need to combine data from multiple sources. The soccer punter data holds data relating to times of cards, goals and penalties. That CSV is the only place I’ve found the referees named.

CoT. You have a PM

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on11:14 am - Aug 8, 2014


RyanGosling says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:07 am

Ryan, they needn’t have been “official” Rangers leaks. Rangers the club(s), just like Rangers the fans, have more splits and factions than the Peoples Front of Judea!

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:16 am - Aug 8, 2014


upthehoops says:

August 8, 2014 at 7:05 am

Big Pink says:
August 8, 2014 at 9:12 am
16 0 Rate This

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I never said that clubs wouldn’t take up the opportunity to progress
I never said that the rules shouldn’t be applied
I merely said that I would be embarrassed by getting through in such a manner.

Big Pinks response is more eloquent than I anything I could ever written and I tip my hat to him for posting such a measured and intelligent view on the issues.

Now that the intial decision appears to have been made it will be interesting to see what happens now.

As pointed out, as a Plc, the board at Celtic must have a duty to protect the company and that brings with it its own issues.

If that means Celtic getting themselves into a situation similar to claiming you are self made millionaires on the basis of the rules allowing you to keep a suitcase full of money you found on the street, then so be it. However it is not something I would be wanting to brag about or lord it over others, especially if progress is then made into the big money stages.

For me it would have to be a red face instead of a brass neck! 🙂

Of course if Celtic do progress the hilarity that will ensue with Bears arguing all ways and every ways about how rules should be applied will keep the blog gong into next century.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:17 am - Aug 8, 2014


coineanachantaighe says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:50 am
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/fans-accuse-the-taxman-of-witch-hunt-against-rangers.24987451
================================
Having a bad day? Read this and imagine how bad everyday must be inside Chris Graham’s head.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on11:19 am - Aug 8, 2014


Ryan

Not from Rangers. From inside Ibrox. The level of disaffection on the board and in senior management towards the end of DM’s time was great.

In my view it is far more likely that information about the tax affairs came from there.

My cynic’s view of this is that anyone leaking had to have a motive. RTC was not paying anyone for info, so bribing of HMRC operatives seems unlikely. On the other hand people who have been slighted in the workplace are very motivated to get even.

Not impossible that it came from HMRC, but they do have a good record at keeping shtum.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:23 am - Aug 8, 2014


Given all the talk of hard cash being needed at Ibrox I note we are on Yellow Alert ourselves.

I’ve just donated and would urge others to do so to avoid the pot calling the kettle black and getting to a point TSFM has to ask Dave King for some help:-)

View Comment

Comments are closed.