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

upthehoopsPosted on12:34 pm - Jul 12, 2014


Carfins Finest says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:11 am

Someone somewhere is going to have to stand up and tell the gullible in this fiasco the absolute truth. Maybe HMRC maybe David Murray maybe BDO maybe The SFA or SMSM. I dont know who but it needs to be addressed now or there will be even more serious problems for Scotland.
===================================

I am not kidding when I say I seriously dread the day Celtic have to play Rangers. I can’t speak for fans of other clubs. By the time this eventually happens so many lies will have been portrayed as the truth with the help of the media God only knows what type of carnage might ensue. It goes without saying the same media will hype the occasion for all it’s worth. Who will get the blame for trouble if it happens?

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on1:07 pm - Jul 12, 2014


I agree with upthehoops on the day that Celtic first meet the Govan club. I for one will not be attending.
The saying you could not make it up ( all things sevco) does not hold it’s ground in this country as the SMSM do make it up. They read this website and others and are well aware of the facts concerning the demise and causes of the Ibrox club. They chose to peddle p*** that will sell papers to the detriment of ALL fans.
The BBC programme the other night also peddled the relegated, stripping of trophies P***
Without fear or favour was a term used concerning the truth about this club. Are we as bloggers and the odd journalists the only ones adhering to this term. This latest fiasco about a demo at the opening ceremony by the sevco fans is a result of the fear or favour not being applied in our country (I hope they do have their demo and press from outside this country then can really investigate this club and it’s sordid past) . Why can the truth not be printed in our papers about the people who owned this club in the past and caused the demise of it through a financial risk strategy that is still being dealt with by HMRC and my continue to be for the next few years. Why as barcabhoy highlighted yet again can the truth not be pursued of who the dodgy characters are behind PBH and M. Holdings and more than likely the owners of the Govan club not be investigated by our press and SFA?. We are talking about a man who is on Interpol’s most wanted list (this is an off the radar criminal). As fans I would really want to know if this is true and if so then a demo more suitable could be held outside Ibrox. Everyone outside Ibrox is not the enemy of the club, they are not on most wanted list, they are not taking money continuously out of the club. I can say without fear or favour I personally do not care if the Govan club that plays at Ibrox dies again. What I do fear is if they come back with the false venom that is building by the supporting press then the social unrest the Regan and Doncaster predicted may happen. Only in Scotland could this happen and with only one club.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:26 pm - Jul 12, 2014


Neepheid
Upthehoops.

This nonsense from elements of the SMSM simply has to stop.

It is ill thought divisive drivel produced by lazy hard of thinking “journalists” who are no more than propaganda mouthpieces for the ongoing promotion of the SSFI ( Scottish Sectarian Football Industry )from which they earn a living.

James Forrest’s article is as accurate as it is timely and everyone, especially visiting journalist, should read it..

It is not all bad of course, Graham Speirs has already called out this “We Are The Victims ” lie whose promotion, even though it is untrue, is intended to sell tickets and newspapers.

I posted the following comment on James blog because this is an issue for Scottish society to address not just Scottish football.

” There is a group in the Scottish Media who have much to answer for in stoking division in Scottish society and it is time they were called out by Scottish society.

We need a charter for responsible journalism even if only in the reporting of football matters, because it is a strong thread in the fabric of Scottish society.
The message of social responsibility in this (James’s) article needs to be conveyed far and wide in a year when Scottish society could be in a position to start to govern itself.
Media behaviour should be a top policy issue in the Independence agenda on both sides as it can be a force for cohesion rather than division ”

This is not a Yes/No issue intended to sway one way or another, but the irresponsible media promotion of sectarian football to serve only their ends is an issue that if not addressed by either side will always be divisive and so harmful .

I would therefore like to hear what both sides intend to do about tackling irresponsible journalism in football (if not wider).

So far our politicians have just turned a blind eye or legislated (badly) to deal with the symptoms and not the causes, of which elements in our media are a major part.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on2:54 pm - Jul 12, 2014


Auldheid
100% on the money,It is time to call these excuses for human beings to account for the rantings and serious untruths they are starting to spout before lives are needlesely taken ,the powers that can and should have taken action before now also require to be outed as they will do nothing ,this includes one Mr A Salmond who was party to this disaster when his comments at the beginning counted him in,this train is about to hit the buffers but with devestating results and innocent people possibly suffering in the consequences of the aftermath,if they have not read the blog at the header then they had better do so ,if they have not covered themselves with the type of insurances advised then they will face custodial proceedings and deservedly so ,Mr Derek Johnstone you are now a name on this list and others will follow,ignorant that you are it will not pass for a get out of jail card when the time comes ,and as sure as night follows day ,the time will come for justice for you and your likes ,you have been warned.
Its the way it works

View Comment

twopandaPosted on3:35 pm - Jul 12, 2014


HMRC may not be popular with most folk – but they work within the law and strict guidelines that includes internal audits.

And yet the Bears are being led to believe HMRC was conducting some sort of vendetta against them and their Club? One – that is an incredible claim, and two, where is there any evidence of this `vendetta` or to `the stick the knife in`?

If there was the merest suspicion HMRC was conducting such an action – it would have been noted in Administrators reports to LH – and would have led to an HMRC / Police investigation. No such claim ever presented to the Tribunals, Civil Courts or Football Investigations because it’s nonsense – and, HMRC would have acted on any such claim

Nonsense spun though by irresponsible hacks.

It`s really a manufactured myth to distract, exploit and deceive Bears
[Sound Familiar]

View Comment

jw hardinPosted on3:48 pm - Jul 12, 2014


TSFM

It is our duty to contact everyone and anyone of influence to challenge the mistruths and lies being perpetrated by SMSM re the Govan Club.

Alex Thomson
Stuart Cosgrove
Richard Gordon
Brian Wilson
Joyce McMillan
Shona Robinson (Sports Minister)
George Galloway
Roy Greenslade

just off the top of my head. I’m sure we could add more.

The is no longer a Scottish issue, it should be a concern to UK Gov.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on4:05 pm - Jul 12, 2014


Auldheid says:
July 12, 2014 at 1:26 pm

It is not all bad of course, Graham Speirs has already called out this “We Are The Victims ” lie whose promotion, even though it is untrue, is intended to sell tickets and newspapers.
====================================
The article Graham Spiers recently wrote in the Herald simply pointed out the indisputable fact that the big tax case had no bearing on liquidation. He received dogs abuse on Twitter for stating that. It is beyond me why so many of his peers won’t state the same. It is also of concern to me that statements issued from fans groups apportioning blame to the likes of Peter Lawwell and Rod Petrie are not condemned in the strongest manner by the media. Recent years are a pointer to how far some warped individuals are prepared to go. If this spurious blame game continues without challenge it is reasonable to assume some people may be at risk. It has to end now and it has to be ended from a high level. In the blog above a professional legal mind points out that not only is it the business of HMRC to go after EBT schemes, but that advice is also given to clients this will happen. Would it be beyond the media to speak to a law or accountancy firm to have this confirmed instead of grabbing a pitchfork and howling at the moon with a group of people who are acting like deranged lunatics.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on4:10 pm - Jul 12, 2014


twopanda says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:35 pm
=========================
I spoke to a gentlemen in 2012 who told me in all seriousness that HMRC are heavily infiltrated with Celtic fans and this is the only reason they went after Rangers. I am a Celtic fan but I would be demanding action against HMRC myself if that was how they decided which cases to pursue. Incidentally this gentlemen is a professional, highly educated man, but that is what he believes.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on4:43 pm - Jul 12, 2014


@auldheid and many more…. The rangers fiasco is political when it suits, social/cultural when it suits and just a fitba’ team when it suits….

We all know this. Culturally it sickens me, being half and half myself I would never have any of my kids hate ANY faction of the community. The Rangers racism actively displays this, last week in Blantyre and today all over.. Everyone has the right to march ffs, everyone has the right to a hospital when it costs you and me £30m for two days in NI..

View Comment

twopandaPosted on6:20 pm - Jul 12, 2014


upthehoops says:
July 12, 2014 at 4:10 pm
twopanda says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:35 pm
=========================
I spoke to a gentlemen in 2012 who told me in all seriousness that HMRC are heavily infiltrated with Celtic fans and this is the only reason they went after Rangers. I am a Celtic fan but I would be demanding action against HMRC myself if that was how they decided which cases to pursue. Incidentally this gentleman is a professional, highly educated man, but that is what he believes.
—–
😉
I suppose [with her indoors!] I can possibly be now classed `impartial`. I know and known hundreds of professional Bears. If it’s mentioned at all, it’s a laugh, bit of banter and that`s it. Still friends and colleagues day to day – and people I can trust on judgement. I`ve taken an interest on their views of this mess – and sometimes captured these in posts.

None I know would seriously support the HMRC `Vendetta` nonsense – even her indoors!

[Her `moderate view` is the perps are lined up and shot – but only after a `street` parade to whit her old polis pals would arrange city wide sections of the M77 and M8 to be closed off – ouch!]

The real views from [my] Bears are this latest wheeze is just another attempt to shift the blame
– but there are nutters who`ll buy into anything – including past marches on behalf of CW.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:07 pm - Jul 12, 2014


twopanda says:
July 12, 2014 at 6:20 pm

The real views from [my] Bears are this latest wheeze is just another attempt to shift the blame
– but there are nutters who`ll buy into anything – including past marches on behalf of CW.
==============
Is McCoist at the head of the parade? The very fact that I even ask shows the utter contempt I have for this specimen of pond life.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on8:26 pm - Jul 12, 2014


neepheid says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:07 pm

To be fair to Mr McCoist, if you check the photos of the march on Hampden, the relic of the 17th Century marching alongside Sandy Jardine at he head of the “parade”, was none other than Iain Davidson, Labour MP.

View Comment

andyPosted on8:30 pm - Jul 12, 2014


Rangers boss Ally McCoist wants answers following latest tax case judgement
Ally McCoist: Wants questions answered after HMRC appeal denied

Ally McCoist wants key questions answered after the tax office lost its appeal over oldco Rangers’ use of employee benefit trusts.

The Rangers boss believes the club, including former owner Sir David Murray, and fans are owed answers over the so-called ‘Big Tax Case’.

An upper tier tax tribunal judge last week dismissed the appeal by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which argued that payments made from the benefit trusts to players and other employees should be taxable.

The Murray Group, who formerly owned Rangers, argued they were loans. The ruling effectively substantially reduces HMRC’s £46.2m tax demands, about three-quarters of which referred to the liquidated oldco Rangers club.

Speaking to Sky Sports News at Edinburgh airport as the squad flew out to begin a pre-season tour of north America, McCoist said: “I’m absolutely delighted for Sir David Murray. Sir David actually said also that there are no winners in the case and that doesn’t seem to be too far away from the truth.

“I think it’s a little bit, if anything, satisfaction for the club, for our ex-players, for the supporters, for everybody really, but at the same time, I won’t lie, this will slightly leave a bitter taste in the mouth after what has happened to us in the last two or three years.

“Everybody’s got an explanation to do – probably HMRC, the people that pursued it – there’s a lot of questions that now have to be answered.

“You don’t want to look back, we want to look forward, but at the same time the relevant authorities will have to explain one or two decisions.

“Sir David Murray deserves one or two answers as well. I’ll be watching with interest to see the outcome perhaps of one or two statements and one or two questions that hopefully will be answered.”

The upper tier tribunal has ordered that some of the payments be re-examined, including termination and “guaranteed bonus” payments.

The case played a part in the club entering administration in February 2012 before oldco Rangers was liquidated in June the same year. The club was relaunched as a new company and the judgement has no impact on the current Rangers regime.
__________________

only thing missing is who are these people

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on8:54 pm - Jul 12, 2014


RST statement:

The Rangers Supporters Trust (RST) is deeply concerned with last nights BBC programme, Scotland 2014. It is yet another example of the ongoing perceived anti Rangers bias from our national broadcaster.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
How long before the RST claim that the £20m recovered from Collyer Bristow should be passed to TRFC as compensation for the antics of CW?

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on9:18 pm - Jul 12, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
July 11, 2014 at 4:57 pm

“If a CVA was approved, Oldco continues but the liability to HMRC (and other creditors) would be compromised per the CVA and if it wasn’t then its newco and no liability whatsoever.”
———————————————
Don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story.

If a case for ‘regulatory capture’ can be made then the possibility of ‘media capture’ has much more tangible credentials. The Rangers Supporters Trust statement seems to be an attempt to stamp on any possible deviation from the party line.

I feel some sympathy with Craig Houston of SoS in the reporting Scotland excerpt posted up by Danish Pastry. Mark Daly’s piece did give me the impression that EBT’s were in effect illegal payments. However I still feel the same way even though at this stage they have been ruled as legal. I am unable to look at Mark Daly’s documentary with the critical eye of a tax mitigation expert. If I could I might then be able to judge whether its content was in some way slanted. However from the standpoint of the ordinary guy in the street, even one that has done a teensy weensy wee bit of personal study concerning contracts, these payments looked like remuneration.

When I was a young schoolkid there was a boy in class (Paul) who insisted that his team must win the playtime kickabout. He would pick all but one of the best players for his team. I was always in the diddy team. Should the diddy team ever have the audacity threaten victory, Paul would find a reason to award a last minute penalty against them. Since the best player (Joe) always played for the diddy team, this affront to sporting integrity was not so uncommon. I think Joe relished the challenge of playing against the odds. It was a much more satisfying challenge and tested his skill.

View Comment

twopandaPosted on9:43 pm - Jul 12, 2014


Dog Whistler should be reined in by The Authorities’
But he hasn’t so far
Says all about the `Authorities` we need to know

& btw agreeing NH
– and, Bears I know have no time for that rich pond life either

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:03 pm - Jul 12, 2014


Fatigue du Rangers.

So on another topic, I was surprised to hear Stuart Cosgrove say that St Johnstone had 40% of their prize taken by the SFA. Didn’t know the SFA were in the habit of helping themselves to a split of prize money. Has this always been the case?

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on10:54 pm - Jul 12, 2014


‘The Murray Group, who formerly owned Rangers, argued they were loans’.

I thought the company who formerly owned Rangers went into liquidation. No? The Murray Group are not in Liquidation. Yet.

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on11:06 pm - Jul 12, 2014


North Korea wins the group stage and will play with Portugal (playoff) in the FIFA World Cup in Brazil.

No honestly they did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJoRZOK18Fg

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:14 pm - Jul 12, 2014


I’ve just read James Forrest’s piece, thanks to the link posted earlier by neepheid.
And I’ve read the very good posts relating to it.
There are some telling phrases in Forrest’s piece : ” they hid those contracts” , ” escaped all punishment for that, even when the governing body was expelling teams from the Scottish Cup for failing to sign one piece of paper..” “They had a media which made excuses for them in the face of sectarian songs..”

The dissemination of the Truth of those telling phrases is at the very heart of this blog’s existence. These are the undeniable, objectively proven facts. All the smokescreens in the world cannot hide them or make them go away.
As said before, the greater evil lies at the door of the SMSM in completely – completely- ignoring not just the vile sports- cheating corruption of a club ( the cheating or otherwise of the tax man is, in this context, irrelevant)) but the much viler corruption of the Football Authorities.
Where is the journalist brave/untainted enough to collar those Authorities and give them a Paxman-like grilling, instead of merely printing the prepared ‘press statement’? Where is the journalist prepared to ask to speak to, for example, Auldheid, or Big Pink or Allyjambo or Easyjambo, or any of the posters who are right into factual detail as well as reasoned speculation?
And, significantly, where is the journalist who will ask Sir Stephen House about the possible existence of money-laundering via Scottish football clubs, particularly any with previous ( or continuing) business links with known financial criminals, whether at home or abroad?
The death of a corrupt club is one thing, not all that important in the wider scheme of things. The unhealthy unwillingness of the Media in a ‘free’ country to try to establish the Truth in any situation which affects national bodies or institutions which attract in any way, shape, or form, public monies IS of great concern to us all.
There are much deeper issues involved in this than the death of one football club (or the surprising continuation of another club which appears able to spend money which by all ordinary reckoning it appears not to have, and which has had difficulty publishing wholly accurate Annual Reports!)

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:18 pm - Jul 12, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:

July 12, 2014 at 8:54 p
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
How long before the RST claim that the £20m recovered from Collyer Bristow should be passed to TRFC as compensation for the antics of CW?
==================================================
Err Is there “proof” of this claim?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:28 pm - Jul 12, 2014


nowoldandgrumpy says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:06 pm
‘…North Korea wins the group stage…’
———-
I have to say that it was not your mention of North Korea that was in my mind when commenting about our SMSM in my post of 11.06 pm. But, now that you mention one of the most unquestioned, repressive, one party states in the world………..there might be certain analogies, if not exact parallels.The Fat Boy is not to be questioned about State matters: our Football Authorities are not to be questioned about their grubby little secret deals!

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on11:37 pm - Jul 12, 2014


John Clark says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:28 pm
1 0 Rate This

Now we know where the SMSM get their Sevco stories from. 😀

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:54 pm - Jul 12, 2014


Completely off topic. Who remembers where they were when this happened? I was 11 years old and the whole family watched in my Uncle’s house – magnifico! Arthur Montford – LEGEND!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyQUI79WSW4

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:57 pm - Jul 12, 2014


Castofthousands says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:18 pm
‘… there was a boy in class (Paul) who insisted that his team must win the playtime kickabout. ‘
————-
Did that boy, by any chance, grow up to be a majority shareholder in a football club?
Certainly sounds as if he was well on his way to believing he had a ‘right’ to win and the willingness to cheat in order to do so.Sterling attributes in some quarters of Scottish Football, as we all have learned to our cost.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on12:09 am - Jul 13, 2014


upthehoops says:

July 12, 2014 at 11:54 pm

Completely off topic. Who remembers where they were when this happened? I was 11 years old and the whole family watched in my Uncle’s house – magnifico! Arthur Montford – LEGEND!
===========================================================
I was about to say I was at the rangers end as it was called the. Whatever the dust never settled until we left. Great great night.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:27 am - Jul 13, 2014


upthehoops says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:54 pm
‘.. Who remembers where they were when this happened?’
———–
I was 30 years old, proud dad of a 5-months old son, and had just taken up an economic life-line of a one-step promotion. I was on top of the world, driving a Ford Escort (1970)! But still with a black and white telly.And living in Pollokshields.
Happy days of the old Scotsport “-dum de dum de dum, dum de dum de dum, dum de dum de dum dee dee de dum….And old Arthur ( honourable man) in his jaikets.
And real sports writers-Rafferty, Archer, McIlvanney …… Oh, lacrimae rerum!

View Comment

enough is enoughPosted on12:51 am - Jul 13, 2014


From RM

“Should Rangers now ask for UEFA to investigate the role played by the SFA, SPL. SPFL and the chairmen of clubs that acted in unison to push for the punishment of an innocent club before the verdict was in.

I would also put it to UEFA that Rangers can have no confidence about being treated justly in the future by these organisations and should be moved to the FA in England.”

With apologies to Red …. Scottish football needs more straight- jackets

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:42 am - Jul 13, 2014


Enough is Enough

Those guys don’t know when they are ahead.

They were let off lightly for breaking registration rules designed to stop illegal payments which failed in a number of instances especially the contracts with De Boer and Flo.

Res12 will show just how they tricked HMRC into an extension of the time to pay.

That will show in turn that the extension came too late to qualify as a reason to be exempt from the overdue payable rules and will raise questions every Celtic supporter has been asking about the SFA’S role at that time in June/July 2011.

So I hope they get their way.

What’s the old saying “Be careful what you wish for”.

At last some unity – we all want an investigation into the SFA. Go for it RM.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:25 am - Jul 13, 2014


I see there’s a tabloid headline about Nerlinger saying ‘nein’ to Ibrox. Surprised he was ever mentioned, but gratuitous name-dropping is perhaps a useful ploy when you’re trying to move STs.

Could this week be summed up as ‘Nein and a Row’?

I’ll get my lederhose.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:46 am - Jul 13, 2014


SFA moves into the 21st Century shocker !

I sent another, reasonable question to the SFA asking why I should continue to spend my money on Scottish football when there is – allegedly – widespread corruption at FIFA and the SFA. My family has other, more honest leisure options to persue.

The shocker is that for the first time ever I received an auto response, claiming that my query would be passed to the relevant department.

If I do get a full response I will share with the blog.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:50 am - Jul 13, 2014


StevieBC says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:46 am
============================
Do not expect a response from the SFA. No matter how polite and well constructed your e-mail is they do not engage with the paying customer. If they were subject to a regulator they would have been fined millions for the way they treat their customers.

Come to think of it are the SFA the only body to receive public money and not be subject to any regulation?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:20 am - Jul 13, 2014


StevieBC says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:46 am
=========================
Update. You have prompted me to write to the Minister for Commonwealth games and Sport, Ms Shona Robison, asking why public money is handed every year to the SFA who in turn ignore their paying customers and are not subject to any form of regulation despite receiving taxpayers money. I have three e-mails saved on file sent over the past four years, and have nothing other than an auto response for each.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:50 am - Jul 13, 2014


Scottish football is now seeing in glorious 3-D technicolour the predictable consequences of making Sevco a special case, by letting them into the senior leagues ahead of far, far worthier candidates. Surely we all learn in the primary school playground never to give in to a bully, because they will just be back for more, and more, and more, until you have nothing left to give, including your self respect, which, of course, disappeared the first time you gave in.

The football authorities should have called the bluff of these morons in 2012, and yes, there would have been trouble, but we’re getting that anyway. At least the authorities could have looked the world in the eye, and said that everything had been done in the open and to the letter, and within the spirit of the rules. No shady, secret agreements, no pandering to the vile and dangerous rabble rousing of McCoist and Green, just an open and honest application of the rules.

Not just the football authorities either, the judiciary and the political class have weighed in too, and today we can only look at the results of their interventions and weep at the stupidity of our “establishment”. They have sown the wind, now we must all reap the whirlwind. Thanks a bunch, what an assortment of dimwits we have running the show in this country.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:52 am - Jul 13, 2014


I can take or leave the music of Katie Melua.
While some songs are pleasant enough sometimes her voice has a bit of a ‘whiny’ quality that irks a little.

However when it comes to tax matters the lady’s voice is strong and true.
With regard to her involvement in the Liberty Scheme she says:-

“From what I can remember in 2008 when the Liberty scheme was presented to me it was not presented as ‘an aggressive tax avoidance scheme.’ It was presented as an ‘investment scheme’ that had the potential to legally reduce yearly income tax. Totally legal and legit and my accountants and advisors would take care to complete the formalities which included dealing with HMRC. Seemed pretty straight-forward and simple, so I signed up.”
She went on: “HMRC did later query it, and I paid the full amount of tax years ago. My tax records are completely up to date and I don’t owe HMRC any money.
“Yeah it sucks getting this type of attention, but I commend the investigative journalism that is allowed in Britain. If there is ambiguity in the law then laws should be changed to disallow schemes like this, so that they would never be presented by legitimate tax experts to less experienced people like myself in the first place. Hopefully the debate will lead to positive change for all.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/celebrity/singer-katie-melua-clueless-over-tax-scheme-1-3473830

It seems as though Ms Melua has come out of the debacle wiser and with more experience of how best to deal with her tax affairs.

It is a pity many folk down Govan way are still whining the same old song.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:36 am - Jul 13, 2014


upthehoops says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:54 pm

Such memories 😀 I know exactly where I was, right there, staring down Joe Jordan’s gap toothed grin as he headed the winner. I had the perfect view as he moved towards the ball, and the smile on his face told me he knew he was going to score, even before he headed it. I still feel very privileged to have witnessed that moment.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:22 pm - Jul 13, 2014


One of the purposes of the registration rules was to deter.

The idea most football supporters held was that mis-registration could lead to match results being annulled.

That is a pretty strong deterrent but the Bryson interpretation has removed that deterrent value and it goes all the way through the game from amateur r to junior to senior level.

So is a rule that has lost one of its main purposes to stay in the rule book unchanged?

Will there be rule changes to adapt to the Bryson interpretation or will clubs at all levels take their chances especially at lower levels with the rules as they are?

At the very least there has to be a rule that says where it can be shown a club is involved in systemic mis-registration over a period of time then their players are ineligible and the results void.

Had that rule been in place because someone thought the unthinkable that any club would systemically embark on such an unfair path, would anybody be complaining now if any fell foul to it?

So what are the SFA whose interpretation removed the deterrent value of the registration rules going to do about it?

Are they and the SPFL going to get together to restore one of the purposes of the registration rules or is football now anybody’s unfair game?

View Comment

smallchangePosted on5:12 pm - Jul 13, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:03 pm

20

0

Rate This

Fatigue du Rangers.

So on another topic, I was surprised to hear Stuart Cosgrove say that St Johnstone had 40% of their prize taken by the SFA. Didn’t know the SFA were in the habit of helping themselves to a split of prize money. Has this always been the case?
—————————————————————————————————–

There is some consternation being shown by some fans on Saints websites that, despite winning the cup and receiving the first hefty prize in our history we are not bringing in any new players to bolster our forthcoming foray into Europe. This year’s Scottish Cup winners prize money was reportedly in the region of 700k. If, as is being indicated, the SFA are sclaffing off not far from half (40%) of the prize money it is no wonder (although probably not the only reason) the club is not actively pursing new players. The reason stated for the hive off – it’s because they (SFA) own the brand name.

Does anyone have any information on the historical ‘sclaffing off’ of Scottish Cup prize money by the SFA so that I can hopefully put some minds at rest that it’s not some sort of precedent and it’s not just because we’re a diddy club and therefore only entitled to a percentage. 😕

Thanks.

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on5:17 pm - Jul 13, 2014


So Ally McCoist says that there has to be questions and answers re the demise of Rangers Football Club. I and many many like me agree. So let’s see if I can help him out here with some questions:
To HMRC. Why do you have a vendetta against the mighty Gers.
Answer: We, as the body charged by the Government with raising taxes have to ensure that there are no shenanigans and that everyone who owes taxes pays up. We have dealt with bigger companies than Rangers and we are relentless in our pursuit of taxes owed to the Government.
Question. But we keep winning when the case goes to court. Why do you not accept that we have won and just go away?
Answer: As in any Tax hearing in the past or still to be heard there can be a right to appeal. This right of appeal would be available to Rangers if they thought any result was wrong. I would point out that at the moment the case has been returned to the original FTT for reconsideration on several points and that Rangers have definitely not, as you say ‘Won’ anything. There is also room for another appeal against the result should we decide to go down this road. This is standard practice and not a vendetta.
Question To the SFA.
You relegated Rangers to the lowest division in the land because of your hatred of us. Why?
Rangers were not relegated. They went out of business. They ceased to exist. Rangers have never been relegated anywhere.
Question.But we had to play in league 3 two years ago why was this if we were not relegated?
Answer: We at the SFA bent every rule that we didn’t break to allow a team from Govan playing out of Ibrox to play in football competitions in Scotland. This company was called Sevco Scotland and they played in the Ramsdens Cup first round against Brechin City in 2012 BEFORE changing their name to ‘The Rangers Football Club’.This team were formed by Mr Charles Green who bought the assets of your old Team, Rangers and fooled you all into believing you were the same team.
===============================
I am sure the people on TSFM know the questions Mr McCoist should ask and to whom and may be able to help Ally out here.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:45 pm - Jul 13, 2014


Can anyone help?
Can anyone post a link of an official statement or a signed letter from anyone in authority that states Rangers were demoted to the 3rd division.
The reason i ask is this is the way the SMSM portray what happened to rangers.From memory i believe they were invited in to the 3rd division by clubs. I was just wondering were they got their information from that rangers were demoted. ie was it from an official statement or signed letter.Or is it just an error on the SMSM’s part?
Ps. Can you make a complaint about this kind of misinformation? 😕

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:47 pm - Jul 13, 2014


smallchange says:
July 13, 2014 at 5:12 pm
3 0 Rate This
————

When I heard SC say that my first thought was, ‘What a mean-spirited thing to do.’ I take it the prize money was from the sponsor William Hill? Are they really quite happy for the SFA to demand a hefty share of prize money in this manner? Sounds like an onerous share to me.

I take it Stuart was correct and knew what he was talking about? On the odd occasion he is mistaken. He recently stated that James McDivitt was the first man to walk on space. That was Alexei Leonov, though. McDivitt wasn’t even the first American — that was Ed White 😆 Anyhow, anorak observations aside, I almost hope Stuart is wrong about the 40%!

View Comment

ianagainPosted on7:51 pm - Jul 13, 2014


By pure coincidence I give you George Clooney on the self same subject viz a viz the press creating issues:

Clooney further explained a major concern of his with the story is that “this lie involves larger issues.”

“The irresponsibility, in this day and age, to exploit religious differences where none exist, is at the very least negligent and more appropriately dangerous,” he wrote. “We have family members all over the world, and the idea that someone would inflame any part of that world for the sole reason of selling papers should be criminal.”
Thanks George.

The whole story:
http://www.imediaethics.org/News/4615/Daily_mail_apologizes_after_george_clooney_slams_bogus_fiance_story.php

View Comment

BroadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on8:13 pm - Jul 13, 2014


Cluster One says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:45 pm

Where are the “Rangers Relegated!!!” headlines?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:12 pm - Jul 13, 2014


Broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:

July 13, 2014 at 8:13 Cluster One says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:45 pm

Where are the “Rangers Relegated!!!” headlines? Here is a demotion one 😉
pmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9449882/Rangers-demotion-leaves-Walter-Smith-fearing-SPL-could-be-on-a-par-with-League-of-Ireland.html

And here is a relegated one
http://www.tsn.ca/soccer/story/?id=400540

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on10:45 pm - Jul 13, 2014


John Clark says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:57 pm

“Did that boy, by any chance, grow up to be a majority shareholder in a football club?”
——————————————
I believe he suffered a bit of a personal crisis later in life. The need to dominate was probably a sign of a deeper insecurity. Hopefully he has navigated his personal traumas and is now a well adjusted individual, like I nearly am.

View Comment

BroadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on10:56 pm - Jul 13, 2014


Cluster One says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:12 pm

😯

Where are all the “Side letters? What side letters?” headlines?

:mrgreen:

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on11:05 pm - Jul 13, 2014


Auldheid says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:22 pm

“Will there be rule changes to adapt to the Bryson interpretation or will clubs at all levels take their chances especially at lower levels with the rules as they are?”
———————————————–
I think the Bryson interpretation was just concocted on the spur of the moment on the basis that football fans would be too stupid to find fault with the expediency. There is no other logical explanation that strikes me as plausible. Posters have provided me with a number of links to articles describing sanctions made against teams who have been found to have players incorrectly registered. These irregularities are almost exclusively discovered after the match concerned has been played. The rule couldn’t be breached otherwise. The excerpt from LNS appears below. Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to what I am missing.

I know a fine was levied for the ‘administrative oversight’ but this was not proportionate to sanctions dispensed for what appears to be similar infringements. Again the only logic I can see is that the infringements were so numerous that to have levied a proportionate fine would have resulted in acute embarrassment for Rangers, now in liquidation. To knowingly have fielded players that had been improperly registered should have attracted sanctions at the highest end of the available tariff.
————

[86] Evidence was given by Alexander Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA, who described the registration process. During the course of his evidence he explained that, once a player had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registration was revoked. Accordingly, even if there had been a breach of the SFA registration procedures, such as a breach of SFA Article 12.3, the registration of a player was not treated as being invalid from the outset, and stood unless and until it was revoked.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:49 pm - Jul 13, 2014


Castofthousands says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:05 pm
‘..I believe he suffered a bit of a personal crisis later in life. The need to dominate was probably a sign of a deeper insecurity. Hopefully he has navigated his personal traumas and is now a well adjusted individual, like I nearly am.’
———
I had originally intended to refer to the fact in the late 1940s/early 1950s there were to be found in most primary schools kids who were ‘victims’ of the war.But it would have taken me far off topic.
As we all know now, school children ‘bullies’ are not self-made and wholly responsible.The one or two that I remember from my school-days were from very, very, difficult backgrounds.And, like you, I hope their adult lives were better.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on11:57 pm - Jul 13, 2014


Cluster one,

Doubt such things exist. However, there has been much reporting that Rangers are the same club, therefore the logical conclusion since they went from too to bottom division was demotion was the reason. I don’t agree with this, but if you were pre disposed to that conclusion as many are and were, that’s how the perception has been reached,

With regards to St Johnstone, can anyone help with more information as I’ve been unable to find much? Best case scenario from the couple of stories I found were that 42 percent of St Johnstone’s Scottish Cup revenue was due to the SFA. If the SFA are actually due ANY percentage of the prize money then I think that is absurd, ridiculous and corrupt. And if it is the case I would like to think that we on this forum would do all we can to promote this fact among the public in order to get the rules changed. Big if though, as as I have said above I do not have the full facts on this.

View Comment

TorquemadaPosted on12:12 am - Jul 14, 2014


Germany schermany pah!
Still not as many stars as Sevco!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:28 am - Jul 14, 2014


Cluster One says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:45 pm
‘..Can anyone post a link of an official statement or a signed letter from anyone in authority that states Rangers were demoted to the 3rd division.’
—————-
I for one certainly cannot, Cluster One.
What I can give you are the words of Neil Doncaster in a letter to me in March of this year.
I quote:
” Rangers FC, then operated by Oldco, were deducted 10 points when they entered administration on 14 February 2012. This was in accordance with the SPL’s Rules at that time. Oldco applied for their share in the SPL to be transferred to the Rangers NewCo.This application was overwhelmingly rejected by the membership of the SPL at that time. Again, this process was entirely in accordance with the SPL Rules at that time.
NewCo was then admitted into associate membership of the Scottish Football League ( with its team playing in division three) by a vote of the SFL member clubs. Once again, this process was in accordance with the SFL Rules at that time..”

It seems clear enough to me that the old club had died, had lost any right and entitlement to be in Scottish Football AT ALL.
And that the NEW club , by the complete fudge of the ‘5-way agreement’ ,had its brand new APPLICATION for membership in Scottish Football accepted by the SFL into the third division and then IRREGULARLY granted SFA membership without regard to the normal rules.
In other words, there is no question of a club having been ‘demoted’.
A club died. And a new club was by a FIDDLE allowed to enter the SFA.
And that’s what this blog has been all about: the entire illegitimacy of the whole proceedings, and the pseudo legal crap that was spun and continues to be spun by the men guilty of endorsing and facilitating that illegitimacy, and the men in the SMSM who did not, will not, expose that sham for what it is.
It truly gars me greet that our game continues to be run on the basis of a lying, cheating , secret deal with a blustering, bullying , dog-whistling shyster and his many successors in office at the new, illegitimate club.

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on12:41 am - Jul 14, 2014


I can just imagine David Murray thinking to himself whether it was wise to have a pop at HMRC and the bank after the UTT result.
If anyone comes out and explains their position, he should to come under some serious scrutiny.
From HMRC’s perspective, Rangers under his watch had already operated an illegal tax scheme. They had lied about the existence of various documents and attempted to mislead HMRC in a totally unacceptable manner.
When certain documents did come to light, it was as a result of a police raid due to suspicious transfer activity. After the decision to go after Rangers and look for a finding that would let them go after many more EBT schemes, it came to light that contractual side letters did exist, despite lies to the contrary and evidence was found that board members (Bain) were shredding relevant documents in order to keep them from HMRC. ALL of this was Murray’s responsibility and frankly he should be serving the same ban as Craig Whyte.
HMRC did exactly the right thing. Not assessing the Rangers EBT as taxable would have been seriously negligent.
The bank were in a similar place. Lloyds were acutely aware of the money pit that was MIH and of the need to separate Rangers to sever a public relations problem while going after Murray.
They tried to make Rangers solvent but because of Murray it was impossible. They knew that Murray was a failed businessman running a failed business in a way so as to pretend he was a success. He was burning the bank’s money. They knew Murray’s character well and it forced their hand. Forcing the sale and getting their money actually gave Rangers a chance if survival. It wasn’t Lloyds’ fault that Whyte didn’t have the cash. It wasn’t their responsibility to make sure either. That was Murray’s and he went ahead despite it being clear the Whyte was totally unsuitable, because he needed to pay the bank (and HMRC) and didn’t want to hand back any of the millions he had personally taken out of Rangers over the years and couldn’t access MIH because he’d ruined that business too and the bank wouldn’t let him.
Murray is probably the least savoury character in the whole sorry tale. At least Green doesn’t care that people know he was there to make himself rich and didn’t care about the football. When push came to shove, Murray didn’t dip into his own personal wealth to protect Rangers. Having set up a way in which his family can buy certain MIH assets cheap before the firesale is publicly on, he then sacrificed Rangers so he could pretend it wasn’t his fault that they were in such a sorry state.
A bit of humility from Murray might have given Rangers a fighting chance of survival. A personal investment from Murray and a £6million loan repayment alongside some honest dealing with the bank would have given than time to restructure and avoid the need for a patsy like Craig Whyte while the club was stabilised at a non CL dependant level, Murray park was sold, a plan to reduce the wage bill that was acceptable to Lloyds was introduced and after all that, possibly a credible buyer might be found if Murray accepted any BTC liability. Instead he chose to protect his own ego. This man has lost almost a billion pounds and been the controlling director of a company with grossly underfunded pension funds, but he will never personally be poor or receive the criticism his actions merit.
I really hope the idiotic stories about blaming HMRC or Lloyds forces them to explain their position. The Rangers saga will not end properly until Murray’s role is analysed and he is exposed as a hubristic failure, who should never be allowed to control any kind of business again – ever!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:19 am - Jul 14, 2014


ptd1978 says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:41 am
‘.The Rangers saga will not end properly until Murray’s role is analysed .’
———-
The analysis is quite straightforward. Which part of the fish rots first?
As we have seen in the finance and banking world, if the top guy is unprincipled, the whole organisation rots.
The SMSM , like the rest of us, know exactly who is responsible for the death of RFC-and the reasons why.
And it is not and never was CW.
The fish was rotten long before he bought it: which is why he was able to buy it, of course, for less than the price of a can of tuna chunks, even at LIDL prices!
The way the former majority shareholder has been able to deflect blame from himself is yet another indication of how the SMSM behaved like those little fish (pilot fish?), which gratefully remove irritations from the ‘big fish’ in return for being allowed to live. ( Can’t quite work a ‘succulent lamb’ connection in there ,but you know what I mean)

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on2:35 am - Jul 14, 2014


Castofthousands says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:05 pm
3 0 Rate This

Auldheid says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:22 pm

“Will there be rule changes to adapt to the Bryson interpretation or will clubs at all levels take their chances especially at lower levels with the rules as they are?”
———————————————–
I think the Bryson interpretation was just concocted on the spur of the moment on the basis that football fans would be too stupid to find fault with the expediency. There is no other logical explanation that strikes me as plausible. Posters have provided me with a number of links to articles describing sanctions made against teams who have been found to have players incorrectly registered. These irregularities are almost exclusively discovered after the match concerned has been played. The rule couldn’t be breached otherwise. The excerpt from LNS appears below. Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to what I am missing.

I know a fine was levied for the ‘administrative oversight’ but this was not proportionate to sanctions dispensed for what appears to be similar infringements. Again the only logic I can see is that the infringements were so numerous that to have levied a proportionate fine would have resulted in acute embarrassment for Rangers, now in liquidation. To knowingly have fielded players that had been improperly registered should have attracted sanctions at the highest end of the available tariff.
————

[86] Evidence was given by Alexander Bryson, Head of Registrations at the SFA, who described the registration process. During the course of his evidence he explained that, once a player had been registered with the SFA, he remained registered unless and until his registration was revoked. Accordingly, even if there had been a breach of the SFA registration procedures, such as a breach of SFA Article 12.3, the registration of a player was not treated as being invalid from the outset, and stood unless and until it was revoked.
==============================================
He may well have been correct on the matter of REGISTRATION. What he didn’t say is that the players were ELIGIBLE.

What he said, I paraphrase, is that even if the players are improperly registered, the registration stands until it is revoked. This is simply how the SFA deal with the matter of registration irregularities..

The SPLs rule regarding the obligation to fully disclose contract details covers registration and eligibility. While Sandy Bryson is entitled to say that the SFA would not revoke a registration retrospectively, he has no locus to make any comment on the players eligibility as a consequence of a failure to fully disclose his contract of employment.

So, even though the players remained registered, they should still have been deemed ineligible to play in official matches.

The criticism of Bryson is, in my opinion, misplaced. The criticism should rest entirely with the people who allowed the conflation of REGISTRATION and ELIGIBILITY to go unchallenged.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:55 am - Jul 14, 2014


Good morning – Monday again 🙁

I realise we still await confirmation that HMRC will take the BTC to the next stage of the appeal process. Can any of our posters advise me on the next stage.

1. Will the entire case be re-examined in a court of law meaning all key witnesses will be required to give evidence in the public domain? Or do HMRC simply continue with the argument they took to the UTT?

2. Who makes the decision on the case once heard – is it one single Judge or is there a panel?

I am making an assumption that HMRC will definitely appeal this, and I will not be in the least surprised if they do.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:23 am - Jul 14, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:
July 14, 2014 at 2:35 am

I know a fine was levied for the ‘administrative oversight’ but this was not proportionate to sanctions dispensed for what appears to be similar infringements. Again the only logic I can see is that the infringements were so numerous that to have levied a proportionate fine would have resulted in acute embarrassment for Rangers, now in liquidation. To knowingly have fielded players that had been improperly registered should have attracted sanctions at the highest end of the available tariff.
————

The fall out for the entire game, which could have involved European and International fixtures was, in my opinion, just too great for the authorities to countenance. The Bryson interpretation avoided that, however inexplicable it seems based on how previous registration breaches were dealt with.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:17 am - Jul 14, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:
July 14, 2014 at 2:35 am
8 1 Rate This

Castofthousands says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:05 pm
3 0 Rate This

Auldheid says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:22 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My thoughts on the registration issue was it is all very well to talk about revoking a players registration but IIRC I couldn’t find anything on the web to say how the SFA revocation process worked.

So my questions to Bryson would have been –

Does the revoking of registrations really exist outwith your head,if so what is the process?
Does it have an appeal procedure?
Is their precedent for players having their registration revoked?

View Comment

tomtomPosted on10:23 am - Jul 14, 2014


wottpi says:
July 14, 2014 at 9:17 am
4 0 Rate This

HirsutePursuit says:
July 14, 2014 at 2:35 am
8 1 Rate This

Castofthousands says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:05 pm
3 0 Rate This

Auldheid says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:22 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My thoughts on the registration issue was it is all very well to talk about revoking a players registration but IIRC I couldn’t find anything on the web to say how the SFA revocation process worked.

So my questions to Bryson would have been –

Does the revoking of registrations really exist outwith your head,if so what is the process?
Does it have an appeal procedure?
Is their precedent for players having their registration revoked?
==================================
As a normal sensible person you would of course ask those questions. But if you were a lawyer who had been instructed/briefed to accept this bizarre version of events without question then………???

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:41 am - Jul 14, 2014


tomtom says:
July 14, 2014 at 10:23 am

So my questions to Bryson would have been –
Does the revoking of registrations really exist outwith your head,if so what is the process?
Does it have an appeal procedure?
Is their precedent for players having their registration revoked?
================
It is now clear that no one in that room wanted those questions asked. Not LNS, not counsel for the authorities, and not counsel for Rangers. Bryson’s answers fitted precisely with the agenda of all parties. A complete, grubby little stitch-up.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:56 am - Jul 14, 2014


HP
Whilst Bryson ‘ s interrogation could have pursued a more probing direction ( ooh er missus) Mr Bryson has long years of administrative experience at all levels of football and out of responsibility to the game at all levels could have and should have made your point about eligibility.
His responsibility is to football not telling a judge what suits a desired result.
So imo he does bear some responsibility for not elaborating on the consequences of improper registration on eligibility.

Not providing the whole picture is an SFA trait. Ogilvie did not mention some ebts were illegal and so misinformed the judge and on another matter the SFA conveniently omitted to mention the monitoring role of Article 66 when Celtic asked question about the granting of the UEFA licence in 2011.
I’m not sure what the term is for when a question is answered truthfully but not fully, or information that would provide a full answer is kept back.

Disingenuous perhaps?

Anyway no doubt Mr Broadfoot has registered the question on the SFA’ s software system or perhaps a few e mails are required to get an answer.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:02 am - Jul 14, 2014


John Clark
If you ask the SFA and it suits there purpose, you will probably find their rules can be interpreted in such a way that a lambfish is just really another term for any fish less than a month old.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:33 am - Jul 14, 2014


John Clark
On the more serious point about SDM’S role at Rangers the facts on debt and ebts, the rehiring of Walter Smith, the switch from ebts to debt from 2007 to build a 3iar title winning squad paid for by future revenue from the CL are all there for any analytical journalist to see. (The debt went up 5 fold Chick not down).

The BTC hove into view around 2008 but no provision was made to meet it.

Had such a provision been made then buyers would not have been put off as SDM is now claiming, but that provision would have meant a poorer squad and no titles but the debt would have stayed at £6m and Lloyds would have not pushed to recoup if RFC had that level of debt and were operating on a sustainable basis.

So SDM bears the major responsibility for the decision he took in 2007 to push Rangers into debt that could only be serviced by consistent entry into the CL and this produced the oddest of honest mistakes in some games which may have been honest but the absolute need to win titles resulted in a degree of scepticism & the occasional Levein type rant never seen before.

As we have seen the first time from when his irresponsible spend policy bore fruit in 2009 that RFC failed to play in the CL, the baw wiz burst.

The need to play in the CL is an important part in the analysis of what has made Scottish football much poorer in every sense since the CL became a money spinner for those who reached the final stages.

The rewards are too tempting not to cheat for folk with no morals and football has more than its share of them, but the cost of failure is too high as well.

Clubs not winning titles or qualfying for the CL should simply prepare to try again the next season, not go bust.

Sir David Murray has much to answer for with regard to crimes against RFC and assault on the integrity of our game, but UEFA have left the Oor Wullie pie on the window sill with its tempting aroma wafting through the air just asking for it to be snatched by any passing “entrepenuer”.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:51 am - Jul 14, 2014


John Clark 12.28

The rules that prevent a transfer of SFA membership actually allow it at the SFA’s discretion.

Since its within the rules The SFA can say it was not irregular.

The question is why was a discretionary transfer needed at all when there already was a process in place at that time which would have seen full SFA membership granted in five years if TRIFC had applied for Associate Membership of the SFA within 14 days of getting Associate Membership of the SFL.

It was a commercial expedient and no doubt part of what CG demanded for him to sign the 5 way agreement.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on11:58 am - Jul 14, 2014


Auldheid says:
July 14, 2014 at 10:56 am
============================
Can you furnish me with the e-mail address please.

It’s becoming a bit of a personal challenge to elicit ANY kind of response from ANY SFA/SPFL office bearer. I can add Mr. Broadfoot to the list.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on12:12 pm - Jul 14, 2014


ptd1978 says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:41 am
71 0 Rate This

I can just imagine David Murray thinking to himself whether it was wise to have a pop at HMRC and the bank after the UTT result …
————

Great post. Perhaps his penchant for bluster and bravado blind him to potential consequences? I’d have thought too, that he’s left a few folk severely miffed by playing a blame game.

Didn’t know much about him before RTC and have been wondering if a warts-and-all SDM biography exits. I was searching and came across this wee article (probably known to many on here, but new to me), a kind of recent ‘Sir Dave for Dummies’ summary.

http://www.ianfraser.org/i’m-still-in-the-game-says-murray/

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on12:22 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Quel surprise
Picked up the Herald on Sunday sports supplement this morning to have a wee read through ,Billy Dodds has a full back page which he basicly fills with the problems the new Celtic Manager is going to come up against and he might just be lucky to be in the job at the end of his first season ,the piece is littered with words such as necessity,failure,haunt him,meaningful,pivotal,absurd,pressures,resounding failure,pilloried,cruel ,harsh,might be forgiven,spectacular failure,crying out for George Samaras,I kid you not ,my, I hope Ronny Delia does not get to read this article as he might just go home ,well done Billy for the welcome you have given to the man ,if anyone gets the article up change the name to a certain manager of an old club that was liquidated a few years back and this piece would have fitted perfectly as what he has written came to be for this manager ,the only difference is there where no consequences for that manager ,strange that Billy.
I was also totaly gobsmacked with your last section that I take it you could not help yourself to mention the tax story from last week regards this liquidated club where you boldly state ,and I quote [It is time to call this off] unquote,for a second there I could have mistakingly take this as comming from someone who had an EBT,see how easy it can be to have misread something .

View Comment

scottcPosted on12:25 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Auldheid says:
July 14, 2014 at 10:56 am

I’m not sure what the term is for when a question is answered truthfully but not fully, or information that would provide a full answer is kept back.

Isn’t it being “economical with the actualité”. Courtesy of Alan Clark

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on12:26 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Isn’t there an easier way to contact the SFA. Just send a private message using the TSFM system to whichever of their people appear on here irregularly.

I’m sure there was one on a few weeks ago. Jarmo or some such like name

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:59 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Bawsman

In a Twiiter exchange last week Darryl Broadfoot mentioned that the SFA had software for recording replies to correspondence.

I took that to mean the kind of Help Desk/Customer service software most organisations use who have a customer service ethic .

I thought it might be a sign that the SFA are trying to develop such an ethic.

The only e mail contact I have is from the SFA web site and its

info@scottishfa.co.uk

An e mail there marked for Mr Broadfoot’s attention in Subject Line might get a reply.

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on1:03 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Just a thought – would I be right in thinking that since 50 million of Rangers debt was shifted off the Rangers portion of the MIH debt to BoS, and onto the main MIH debt, and BoS is now tax payer owned with very little prospect of getting back the MIH debt, then , in effect, Rangers have shafted the tax payers in this country twice over? Is that a world record?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:08 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Danish Pastry

I liked this bit from that article.

” He admitted that things started to go pear-shaped in August 2008, when Rangers, which is 92%-owned by MIH, crashed out of the UEFA cup after losing 2-1 to Kaunas, a defeat that cost Rangers £10m in lost revenues. This was the first in a series of blows Murray describes as a “quadruple ” whammy”.

Nice to hear it from the horses mouth. So rather than cut his clothe to accept that Rangers had to operate at a more realistic level he went off on his spend to get the CL money without doing the sums to calculate if the income so raised exceeded the expenditure on a sustainable basis.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on1:11 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Auldheid says:
July 14, 2014 at 12:59 pm
============================

Many thanks, e-mail sent…………..He’ll be expecting it now that he has read this. :mrgreen:

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on1:12 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Onto more serious matters……

Excellent article BRTH.

Murray of course was not duped by anyone. I doubt there is a single journalist anywhere who believes that. Keith Jackson confirmed to me in a twitter conversation that he didn’t believe it , and he told Murray that directly.

That though doesn’t stop the media from publishing comment from the likes of Bomber Brown & McCoist , who just play to a permanently offended gallery. To be fair to the media , if there was someone ,of relevance to the situation , who wanted to put an alternate view then I’m sure the media would publish that as well.

From a media perspective a spat with one side of the Rangers family blaming HMRC & exonerating Murray and another side cutting through that nonsense and taking aim fair and square at Murray , would be good for business.

I don’t expect ex players , by and large , to go against Murray. Many had EBT ‘s and have probably been advised to keep their head down. The players from the generation prior to the EBT scandal though should be criticising Murray. Their achievements are not under scrutiny. They won fair and square , but their legacy has been tarnished by what happened subsequently.
The biggest disappointments though have been those on Murray’s board who have only sought to protect themselves. These guys must have , and certainly had a duty to , known that Murray wasn’t duped and that Murray was playing fast and loose with tax, financial and sporting rules.

Why has Alistair Johnston , Martin Bain , John McLelland and Dave King suddenly lost the power of speech. Do they not owe it to the Rangers community to put the truth out there ?

Rangers have been found guilty of multiple breaches of the tax laws . That fact has been well documented here, although largely downplayed in the tabloids and by some broadcasters.

The case though has generated huge public interest . The rulings by the FTT and the UTT have had a light shone on them from areas of Scottish society outwith the narrow confines of the financial and legal communities who would normally be interested in such a dull topic.

The UTT verdict wasn’t unsurprising given the palaver that preceded it . I have some sympathy with Lord Doherty , who must have been under intolerable pressure . There is no way a Celtic season ticket holder should have been asked to rule on this matter. That isn’t in any way to impugn his integrity, merely that justice has to be seen to be done, and the layman will wonder whether the front page story , placed by Jack Irvine, made it impossible for Lord Doherty to be as critical of the FTT verdict as another judge with absolutely no interest in football may have been.

The one thing that did surprise me was the UTT’s decision and reasons virtually ignored all of the points raised by Ms Poon. In fact other than 2 very short paragraphs they weren’t even referenced.

I do think that given the huge public interest in this case , we the public are owed a plain English answer to the following.

When you offer a player a contract which includes a written guarantee of £X per month in the form of a loan , and separately provide a written commitment that the loan will never have to be repaid. How in those circumstances can this be anything other than remuneration , and therefore taxable.

Strip away all the legal jargon and precedents and it comes down to that .

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on1:15 pm - Jul 14, 2014


That wiz kwik 😯

Thanks for your message.

It will be passed to the appropriate department and we may contact you in due course.

Scottish FA
Hampden Park
Glasgow G42 9AY
0141 616 6000

Best wishes
The Scottish FA

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on1:22 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Auldheid says:
July 14, 2014 at 1:08 pm
1 0 Rate This

” He admitted that things started to go pear-shaped in August 2008, when Rangers, which is 92%-owned by MIH, crashed out of the UEFA cup after losing 2-1 to Kaunas, a defeat that cost Rangers £10m in lost revenues …

‘Nice to hear it from the horses mouth …’
————-

Indeed. Some business plan.

Makes the dodgy 2011 CL place machinations all the more telling. Wouldn’t surprise me if some of the current pot-stirring and bogus victim claims are to fend off any attempts to seek redress for the RFC participation by clubs cheated out of places and money.

Hope the clubs affected will remain single-minded in their pursuit of justice.

View Comment

Comments are closed.