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

HirsutePursuitPosted on2:02 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Auldheid
I think the point is that Rule D1.13 is purely a matter for the SPL.

Although the SPL may have later found that a condition of registration had not been met, it does not alter the fact that they (SPL) had sanctioned the registration at the time the (known) paperwork was submitted.

The SFA simply deal with a registration as valid unless or until they are told otherwise. As the SPL have no power to retrospectively withdraw their approval, the worst that can happen is that the player registration is revoked from the date the fault is found.

Bryson could legitimately comment on the consequences on player registration from the SFA’s perspective: but he had no cause or place to opine on the SPL’s competition rules. He may well have had a strong and perfectly cogent opinion on the SPL rules; but it would mean little more to the commission than yours or mine.

The SFA have general power over player eligibility – in terms of registration, disciplinary matters, international clearance, etc; but have no specific jurisdiction with regard to its league’s competition rules.

Rule D1.13 was part of the competition rules for the SPL. Player eligibility (as well as approval for registration) demanded that all contractual payments were declared.

The SFA have made no move to “close the loophole” for the very good reason that there is no loophole. I think the SFA (and Bryson) are bullet-proof on the registration issue.

The SPFL have dumped Rule D1.13 from the new rulebook – which probably tells you all you need to know. That it will never be used again as a test of player eligibility.

The erroneous conflation of player registration (with the SFA) with eligibility (to play in SPL matches) is just one more false construct to come out of the LNS commission.

Blaming Bryson simply lets the SPL off the hook.

View Comment

ekt1mPosted on2:40 pm - Jul 14, 2014


To the poster who asked about the next appeal step for HMRC, If they choose to appeal it will go to the Supreme Court in London which has a panel of 9 senior Justices sitting. Depending onthe case circumstances, they can select 3 or 5 or7 judges to hear the case.Only in exceptional cases will all 9 sit. This is as I understand the setup, the House of Lords are no longer the highest court of appeal.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:17 pm - Jul 14, 2014


HP
Is there not an overarching stipulation that SPFL rules must align with the SFA’s?

Is it not on this basis that Bryson was called in to give an opinion?

Otherwise if only the SPFL rule is relevant why involve Bryson and the SFA?

If the question should in fact be addressed to the SPFL and their answer is they have pulled D.13 then that is the answer to the question have the rules been changed.
The next question is why the change?
Was it an erroneous rule in the first place that circumvented the intent of the SPFL rule on registration and consequent eligibility and so gave Rangers a technical get out?

View Comment

Carl31Posted on3:38 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Apols if this point has been made already. Its about the possibility of beneficiaries of the MIH/Rangers EBT set-up, mostly players, being pursued to repay loans.
MIH’ paid money into an offshore trust, which in turn paid money into a number of sub-trusts, which in turn paid money as loans to individual beneficiaries. This short sentence sums up how beneficiaries were paid, but not in detail. We know this from the findings in fact of the FTT.
With this in mind it can be reasoned that, whilst the players (beneficiaries) could legally be required to pay money to their sub-trusts, they cannot be required to pay money back all the way back along the ‘path’ to the club. Morally, maybe anyone could argue that money should be paid back to the club, but I would figure that this would need to be some form of gift. It would not be repayment of a loan. The beneficiaries have not borrowed from the club, they have borrowed from a MIH sub-trust.

In the unlikely event that beneficiaries decide they want rid of the affair, and decide to pay back all they have borrowed and draw a line under things, then my question would be, ‘what then happens to the money that would be with the sub-trust’? Would it simply reside there in perpetuity? It’s a moo point*, since I cant envisage any money ever being repaid to a sub-trust by a beneficiary, given the circumstance.

*a point that cows would make and thus not worth considering.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:50 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Money Worries Over

If Man Utd can get £750mil out of Adidas, just imagine how much the biggest, bestest clumpany in the galaxy can get – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28282444

Charles told you all and you laughed – time for another apology I think.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:12 pm - Jul 14, 2014


HP.
Thanks for that. I do understand the point you are making and the SPL, in the commissioning of LNS and at the Commission itself have questions of intent of both the commission itself and the rules, to answer.

However given that the SFA are bound by FIFA Registration rules I had a look at what FIFA say.

Article 5 Registration

1. A player must be registered at an association to play for a club
as either a professional or an amateur in accordance with the
provisions of article 2. Only registered players are eligible to
participate in organised football
. By the act of registering, a
player agrees to abide by the statutes and regulations of FIFA, the
confederations and the associations.

It would seem that for clarity FIFA should say “only players properly registered in compliance with competition rules are eligible to play” or words to that effect

or perhaps this covers it

III. REGISTRATION OF PLAYERS

3. Players may only be registered – subject to the exception provided for
in article 6 paragraph 1 – upon submission of a valid application from
the club to the relevant association during a registration period.

Obviously the RFC players were not validly registered as LNS himself found as full details required to be validly registered were not supplied.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/regulations_on_the_status_and_transfer_of_players_en_33410.pdf

Either way, SFA or SPFL, we need a set of rules that align in cascading fashion from FIFA to SFA to SPFL. The question is do we now have that in a clearly set out way?

In terms of LNS did Rangers only escape the charge of playing ineligible players because of faulty adherence to FIFA rules?

View Comment

exfallhoose2012Posted on6:29 pm - Jul 14, 2014


I suppose to some extent the question, ‘When does a loan cease to be a loan?’ has to some extent been answered – a loan remains a loan until the receiver says, ‘I am not paing it back!’.
What has intrigued me all along is – what happens when the receiver of the loan dies? I presume that his or her estate then owes the money … and does this stop the estate being wound up … until all debts are repaid?
Knowledgeable people – please enlighten me.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:08 pm - Jul 14, 2014


ekt1m says:
July 14, 2014 at 2:40 pm
10 1 Rate This

To the poster who asked about the next appeal step for HMRC, If they choose to appeal it will go to the Supreme Court in London which has a panel of 9 senior Justices sitting. Depending onthe case circumstances, they can select 3 or 5 or7 judges to hear the case.Only in exceptional cases will all 9 sit. This is as I understand the setup, the House of Lords are no longer the highest court of appeal.
==================================

It was myself who was asking mate. Thanks for the info. I’m sure I read a couple of media comments over the weekend mentioning the Court of Session in Edinburgh which confused me. I’d prefer if they can get this case out of Scotland.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on7:23 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Personally I think the old rangers and the new rangers are the same, they continue by the same traditions, values and rules to make those in blazers very rich at the expense of the fans with the help of the complicit media who are thrown a bone now and then. They know their paying audience have a few flaws in their character that presents a great opportunity to continue in their MO for years to come. They have less than talented men running the football business with a game plan of buying short term, survival short terms ’til they need to reach out to the better of fans to show their loyalty to an ancient crest…

Awesome business plan and I see no reason to change it whilst the dunderheid masses follow follow with their sense of being hard done by and not many who want to ask relevant questions. Mind you ask the relevant questions you become a ‘hater’ just like me. I blame the faithers…

I hope the rangers do not go t!ts up until after my team win the rangers international youth tournament the coming weekend.

Give youth a chance…………………………………………………….!!!!!!!

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on7:24 pm - Jul 14, 2014


UPTHEHOOPS
==============
It was myself who was asking mate. Thanks for the info. I’m sure I read a couple of media comments over the weekend mentioning the Court of Session in Edinburgh which confused me. I’d prefer if they can get this case out of Scotland.
===========
Manchester would be nice.

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on7:32 pm - Jul 14, 2014


exfallhoose2012 says:
I presume that his or her estate then owes the money … and does this stop the estate being wound up … until all debts are repaid?

I think their rule is different from the rest of us (isn’t it always). their only certainty is death.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on7:49 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Feb 2000…
Airdrie’s problems worsened when it was revealed that Rangers had arrested the club’s share of the gate receipts for Sunday’s Scottish Cup tie at Dundee United.

Airdrie v Rangers Airdrie’s finances have been tackled by David Murray
Ibrox chairman David Murray applied for an interdict, on behalf of his company Carnegie, for a debt of around £30,000 owed by Airdrie.

Mr Murray said: “I feel very sorry for Airdrie and their supporters but we’re running a business. We have given them repeated warnings and felt they were playing on our good nature.”

🙄

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:14 pm - Jul 14, 2014


The Rangers fans plan demo at Games opening event,
The RANGERS fans are proposing to surround Celtic Park with a “wall of blue” during the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony.

So how will this work with the Lord Advocate Frank Mulhollands promise that anyone who attempts to disrupt the Games by operating cons or committing public disorder crimes should also be aware that the lowest level they will be prosecuted at is the Sheriff Court- where they could face sentences of up to five years in jail and an unlimited fine

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on8:25 pm - Jul 14, 2014


exfallhoose2012 says:
July 14, 2014 at 6:29 pm

“What has intrigued me all along is – what happens when the receiver of the loan dies?”
—————————————-
I think this may have been the intent of the scheme. 50 years or so of inflation would likely have eroded the value of the loan to the point where it would not significantly impact on the player’s estate. Before that time has elapsed however the scheme would likely have been forgotten about and no repayment would be requested at all.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on9:11 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Castofthousands says:
July 14, 2014 at 8:25 pm
0 0 Rate This

exfallhoose2012 says:
July 14, 2014 at 6:29 pm

“What has intrigued me all along is – what happens when the receiver of the loan dies?”
—————————————-
I think this may have been the intent of the scheme. 50 years or so of inflation would likely have eroded the value of the loan to the point where it would not significantly impact on the player’s estate. Before that time has elapsed however the scheme would likely have been forgotten about and no repayment would be requested at all.

=============================
there are a few questions which should have been asked at the FTT, but appear not to have been.My understanding is that nearly all schemes require a scheme auditor. I don’t claim any expertise in this area, never having used an EBT, but guidance issued by the Pensions Regulator would suggest an audit is normally required .

http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-for-trustees.aspx

This raises a few questions in my mind.

1 Does the loan accrue interest , if so how is this treated in the trust accounts.What rate of interest is applied and who decides on the rate. Is there a requirement for the rate to be at normal commercial levels.

2 How does the trust account for the loans. Are they treated as an asset.

For an auditor to sign off a set off accounts he must be sure the assets claimed are capable of being realised at the value stated in the accounts. I would imagine any auditor would require some significant convincing that these loans have any likelihood of being repaid.

3 Given 2 above what impact would there be on the legality of the tax avoidance measure if the loan was questioned by an auditor

4 Who pays the ongoing fees for audit and trustees

5 Assuming trust and sub trust accounts are required why were none produced at the FTT

Of course if accounts are not required to be audited then none of the above apply, however pensions require audited accounts and auditors and trustees are normally very diligent in this area, as MIH are finding out . The current trustees of the Murray Group trusts and sub trusts however appear to be relaxed to the point of being almost comatose. The previous trustees , though, were replaced as soon as they started asking some awkward questions and didn’t automatically carry out requests as expected

Funny that !

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on9:21 pm - Jul 14, 2014


pau1mart1n says:
July 14, 2014 at 7:32 pm
3 0 Rate This

Were the loans not supposed to be payable on the death of the recipient, players in this case. It would then be used as a claim to reduce inheritance tax.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:47 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Re the loan my layman’s understanding was that there were three steps. On day 1 the player received the loan to do with what he liked. He had earned it after all! Step 2 is he dies. He dies owing the loan back. His estate is therefore reduced by the value of the compounded loan. By coincidence the trust then pays out to the players beneficiary LESS ANY OUTSTANDING LOANS.

Jobs a good un.

Quite a few posts ago by the way someone posted the latest from RST. Something like why don’t we sue the SPL/SFA. I’ll tell you why. Because your club (I believe) signed a side agreement to the 5wa saying they wouldn’t, that’s why! Just the same as they (SFA/SPL) signed one saying they wouldn’t take direct action on you either.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on9:55 pm - Jul 14, 2014


JimBhoy says:
July 14, 2014 at 7:23 pm
Personally I think the old rangers and the new rangers are the same,
,,,,,,,,,,
Nope
The old rangers and new rangers are not the same
The new rangers have pandered to the Loonies
The old rangers at least paid lip service to reducing sectarian singing and occasionally remonstrated with fans who “let the club down ” by ignoring appeals to behave themselves
The old rangers at least recognised that behavior of some rangers fans was anti social and publicly supported efforts to stop this happening
The old rangers at least made an effort to distance itself from unsavoury elements in NI attempting to turn the clock back to the era of sectarianism They would not have condoned the Army joining in sectarian singing at Ibrox

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,Several celtic minded posters have commented that they will not be attending the first game involving their club and the new rangers as they expect trouble off the park
This begs the question
Has the proportion of decent Bears at Ibrox diminished since the management started pandering to the Loonies?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:48 pm - Jul 14, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:

July 14, 2014 at 9:55 pm
This begs the question
Has the proportion of decent Bears at Ibrox diminished since the management started pandering to the Loonies?

You have answered your own question.

Army joining in sectarian singing at Ibrox.
Watch the video, you will know the answer 😈

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:02 pm - Jul 14, 2014


I think were all being overhyped by “that game”. It may never ever happen. In fact I think it wont. For obvious financial reasons.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on11:17 pm - Jul 14, 2014


@GoosyGoosy
– Jimbhoy..Personally I think the old rangers and the new rangers are the same–

I was of course being facetious…I do however disagree with the old rangers sentiment you portray (mostly), they are ALWAYS pandering to the loonie majority, lip service well enough said, distancing from it’s NI bretheren aye right, army card has been used by both. Old rangers jumped on the anti-sectarian band wagon I agree with, this new incarnation will in time do the same if it makes political/financial sense…

Rangers, Celtic games causing trouble before, during and after the game… lol check the local hospitals and polis stations mate, it’s a fekin bloodfest, a vile, nasty bloodfest in the name of football.. Decent public servants are exposed to that hatred, violence and vitriol… It makes me feel ashamed… For a game of football… I would be happy if it was never played again..

Celtic do not need rangers… Scotland’s public services do not need that game. Tainted titles because rangers are not competing in the top league is so ironic.. A myth made up by the disgruntled bears as they struggle to beat them that deliver their mail and with near 50 players at the disposal of the peepuls champions…

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:22 pm - Jul 14, 2014


My amateurish researches have led me to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. To paraphrase in layman’s terms, Section13 says:
Parties have a right to appeal to the relevant appellate court
that right can only be exercised with permission
that permission can be given by the Upper Tribunal , or by the relevant appellate court where such permission is refused by the Upper Tribunal
before the Upper tribunal decides on any application for permission to appeal, it has to specify the Court that is to be the relevant appellate court
the court to be specified is whichever of the following courts appears to the Upper tribunal to be most appropriate- The Court of Appeal in England and Wales. the Court of session in Scotland, or the Court of Appeal in No’rn Ireland
This would seem to suggest that if HMRC do appeal, they will need to get Lord Doherty’s permission, and if he doesn’t grant that permission, make application to the Appellate Court specified by Lord Doherty.
Which, I would imagine, would probably be the Court of Session.
Thereafter, you’d be into the realms of judicial review, and , presumably the Supreme court ( one of the judges of which is our friend, Lord Hodge).
But that’s me reading only one little bit of what may ( for all I know) have been superseded legislation! It’s a wonder to me how any ordinary lawyer keeps up to the minute with changes and amendments to legislation-the stuff just pours out in an unending stream!
I hope that there will be an appeal. Leaving aside the particular corporate liars and moral cheats involved in the case about which we speak, the point at issue is of major importance: namely, can the law really be interpreted in such way that any and all corporate liars and cheats can with impunity stuff the taxpayer? Are all the mouthings by political liars and cheats about cracking down on tax evasion really no more than hollow hypocritical hustings soundbites ? ( mmmmm, Osborne? hollow, hypocritical? Perish the thought that I would pass any comment about that smarmy gobs.ite , not even to comment on his gobs.iteness).

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on11:23 pm - Jul 14, 2014


@Cluster one It wasn’t sectarian singing and those photos with soldiers and sectarian scarves were all fake… Otherwise the authorities, the Scottish government, the SFA, the Scottish media would have spoken up about that … Shurley? Away for a lamb sandwich… :slamb:

View Comment

ekt1mPosted on11:35 pm - Jul 14, 2014


Upthehoops/Tic6709, On researching HMRC’s appeal process, it appears that they lodge their appeal within 28 day’s to the Inner House of the Court of Session as you suggested, If they are still not satisfied with the judgement from that court, my reading of the process is that HMRC can ask for a judicial review by the Supreme Court in London. There is still a lot of water to flow under that bridge. Apologies to you John Clark, I was typing my piece as you posted yours.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:44 am - Jul 15, 2014


Barcabhoy says:
July 14, 2014 at 1:12 pm
‘… 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. ‘
————
There is a wonderful contrast to be made between the Lady Butler- Sloss appointment and the appointment of Lord Doherty.
The traditional instinct of Home Secretaries of the stamp of the present incumbent in that office is to circle the wagons, call in favours, don’t rock the boat, don’t turn over any stones. An enquiry? By all means. Let’s find a really good, honest, brilliant judge to head it up. One whose integrity is vouched for by no less a personage than her actor nephew, and her other nephew, a lawyer.Whose dad was the top legal bod in the Government, and brother of the Home Secretary’s appointee, when the matters now to be investigated were originally being not terribly well investigated!
By contrast, the appointment of Lord Doherty as the judge to hear the appeal by HMRC was purely random. Judge Bishopp was unfortunately not available.The ‘establishment’ was determined to ensure that the appeal by HMRC should not only be, but be seen to be, decided by an absolutely impartial judge.
Problem: is there such a thing as an absolutely impartial judge in the Scottish legal establishment? Of course not, may be the cry.
What to do? Why, get a judge who is known to have no reason to have any particular affinity with or inclination, historical, familial, sporting or otherwise based , to favour one of the parties.
Then you get impartiality and true justice, openness and transparency.
Kind of reverse psychology.Like Paddy using pipe-smoking QCs to defend him on charges of football sectarianism.
Especially if the said judge’s ‘background’ is made much of by PR people with a very vested interest in protecting a bunch of corporate liars and cheats.
One ruminates and even ponders, at this late hour of the night. 🙂

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:01 am - Jul 15, 2014


ekt1m says:
July 14, 2014 at 11:35 pm

Upthehoops/Tic6709, On researching HMRC’s appeal process, it appears that they lodge their appeal within 28 day’s to the Inner House of the Court of Session as you suggested, If they are still not satisfied with the judgement from that court, my reading of the process is that HMRC can ask for a judicial review by the Supreme Court in London. There is still a lot of water to flow under that bridge. Apologies to you John Clark, I was typing my piece as you posted yours.
===================================

Again, thanks for the update. Slightly depressing for me the case will remain in Scotland for the next stage of appeal. I can’t of course sit here and say any Scottish Judge would sit with a pre-determined view but issues like the placement of a story about who Lord Doherty supports are a part of Scottish life, as is the seemingly accepted fact that Rangers, then and now, are the Scottish ‘establishment’ team. HMRC won’t admit it, but they may even be resigned to the supreme court already.

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on6:45 am - Jul 15, 2014


HMRC Using their new powers to rattle the tax avoidance cage. Maybe some ex players of the old Team from govan feeling a little queesy this morning. Lets see.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/money/tax/article4147581.ece

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:27 am - Jul 15, 2014


Regardless of the ‘Rangers’ connection, I find the EBT rulings disgusting in the extreme. The idea that smarmy, but clever, people can become wealthy from concocting schemes to allow the already wealthy to become even wealthier by using schemes designed solely to cheat those who pay all their legitimate taxes, is beyond the pale. That successive governments find it ‘impossible’ to create legislation that would end this ‘industry’ once and for ever leads me to the inevitable conclusion that there is absolutely no will at Westminster to stop this ‘industry’, for the purely selfish reasons of self interest. This is the most depressing side of the whole business, and not that it was ‘Rangers’ who got away with it. And yet, in this home of Socialism, our press seem more concerned with the idea of wrongdoings to the perpetrator of this latest tax ‘avoidance’ scheme than with the act of depriving the people of much needed revenue.

The way that tax avoidance is tackled by the legislature seems to mirror that of the latest scourge of society, the ‘legal high’, whereby the law seems impotent in it’s efforts to prevent their proliferation. It may be an extremely naïve idea, but why isn’t the law changed, in both cases (and in every similar case), to one whereby all schemes, all drugs, are illegal until proven otherwise? It seems simple, to make it the responsibility, and the expense, of those people who provide no benefit to the wider society, to prove their case before reaping the financial rewards of these heinous (in their own way) practices. It seems such a simple, and effective, way of sorting these wrongs that there must be some ‘civil rights’ argument against it; but maybe, in the tax ‘avoidance’ industry case, at least, there is just too much personal interest amongst the law makers too.

As someone trapped for a lifetime in the PAYE system (and happy to pay my dues) I cannot fathom an argument in favour of tax loopholes for those most able to pay. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Where there’s no way, or where excuses for meaningful legislation abound, there can be no genuine will.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on9:02 am - Jul 15, 2014


Allyjambo says:
July 15, 2014 at 8:27 am
=============================
Ally, I am sure I have heard in the last few days the government are to legislate to introduce the very scheme you suggest. HMRC takes your cash until you can prove your dodge is legal. I’m going to have to google now, arn’t I?
With 21 of the present government cabinet millionaires, many with their stash in off-shore tax havens, I can’t forsee a rush to legislate.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:18 am - Jul 15, 2014


Bawsman says:
July 15, 2014 at 9:02 am

I really hope they do create this form of legislation.

Millionaires legislating for millionaires, a bit like crooks legislating for crooks! Which is, perhaps, not such a far fetched an analogy if you consider how crooked it is for legislators to legislate in their own, or even their piers’, self interest.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:19 am - Jul 15, 2014


The Craig Houston chap does seem to me to be a genuine supporter. I’m not sure he’s totally up to speed on everything, but then again I’m not sure a football supporter should be expected to double as a finance guru.

His stance on the upcoming marches is a bit worrying, though. But, agree with him or not, he appears to be a straight talker:

He told SportTimes: “Nothing has come officially from the club [regarding the march], but I have been contacted a couple of times unofficially by people from within the club.

“One of them was trying to suggest that we should have a protest against HMRC, the BBC, etc, because of the news that has broken in the last few days.

Is someone within the club really suggesting anti-HMRC and anti-BBC protests because of the BTC? According to Craig Houston there is someone suggesting exactly that!

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/rangers-fans-step-up-ibrox-protests-171039n.24749599

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on9:28 am - Jul 15, 2014


While we are on about EBT and loans ,has a certain loan Ranger had his payed back yet

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on9:58 am - Jul 15, 2014


What’s all the fuss about Celtic’s 3 qualifiers before they can meet the big bhoys, obviously it’s not Celtic’s fault it’s effectively the country our league sits in that has a bias against it. Still the biggest hurdle is match fitness versus maybe some teams who are into their season, but a team like Celtic should be able to prepare enough to handle that IMO. Upshot is we get 3 homes games, telly rights, sponsorship etc, it probably gives Celtic at the very least £1m profit, what’s all the fuss… Better than playing meaning less pre-season friendlies. Just my initial thought for this lovely Tuesday morning..

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on10:20 am - Jul 15, 2014


Bawsman says:

July 15, 2014 at 9:02 am

6

0

Rate This

Allyjambo says:
July 15, 2014 at 8:27 am
=============================
Ally, I am sure I have heard in the last few days the government are to legislate to introduce the very scheme you suggest. HMRC takes……
————–
Bawsman. See the link in my post at 6.45

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:49 am - Jul 15, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
July 15, 2014 at 9:19 am

Must be nice to have a ‘newspaper’ to act as your PR machine, for free. All it was was a statement by a SoS mouthpiece, backed up by a few words from a churnalist who seems to regard their plans as acceptable, and understandable. No attempt to have the statement qualified by asking questions, like; do you think it was right for Rangers to deliberately mis-register players? or, why do you think they deliberately mis-registered players? or, having been discovered to have deliberately mis-registered players, what would you have had the SPL/SFA do other than to hold an enquiry? As we know, the questions to ask are many, and would have made clear that this whole idea is stupid and groundless, and that that is the reason they are never asked. Still, we all know the bears like an excuse for a march, especially when their take on ‘historical events’ is so far off the mark.

I wonder if they will ever learn that their marches make them look so stupid, that, by comparison, their ‘enemies’ and targets look like paragons of common sense! I wonder what kind of society it is that would be happy to proclaim them as part of it’s ‘fabric’!

View Comment

Shyster Flywheel ShysterPosted on11:00 am - Jul 15, 2014


Allyjambo says:
July 15, 2014 at 8:27 am

As someone trapped for a lifetime in the PAYE system (and happy to pay my dues) I cannot fathom an argument in favour of tax loopholes for those most able to pay. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Where there’s no way, or where excuses for meaningful legislation abound, there can be no genuine will.

———————————————————————————–

As someone who has been trapped in the Norwegian tax system, I cannot see why the Government doesn’t bring in legislation for everyone to be bracketed to pay the top whack of tax (a sliding tax scale dependent on gross income) and then claim tax rebates with their annual tax returns.

Flywheel

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:14 am - Jul 15, 2014


Carfins Finest says:
July 15, 2014 at 10:20 am

Thanks for that CF, but unfortunately I am unable to read the whole article and from what little I can read it appears they are giving the ‘stars’ the opportunity to stump up (and so save some cash) before being taken to a tribunal. A good move in the short term but I’d like to see it become impossible to set up these schemes, there is no moral justification for them, or make it a criminal offence to ‘sell’ tax avoidance schemes that are later found to be illegal.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on11:21 am - Jul 15, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
July 15, 2014 at 9:19 am

Is someone within the club really suggesting anti-HMRC and anti-BBC protests because of the BTC? According to Craig Houston there is someone suggesting exactly that!

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/rangers-fans-step-up-ibrox-protests-
===========================
I am pretty sure Houston isn’t just making it up, so who’s the Ibrox insider looking to stir up a bit of social unrest? My money is on dog-whistler in chief McCoist, and I reckon that would be the safest bet I ever made.

Seriously, that excuse for a human being needs to be reined in by the authorities. Although that should have been done 2 years ago, and since he wasn’t dealt with then for his disgraceful and cowardly “outing” of the members of the authorities’ own tribunal, then I guess he correctly feels himself exempt from any rules or standards of behaviour which apply to others within the jurisdiction of the SFA. A truly despicable individual.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on11:23 am - Jul 15, 2014


Re the marches
I see the phrase [Battles] is being used again ,you really do get concerned about these people being able to walk the streets without supervision ,is there anyone in authority out there that can explain to them exactly where they are at this moment in time ,as for the ET head of sports to quote a 142 year history for a 2 year old club is very poor journolism ,his editor should be worried about his position if his newspaper prints porkies,how many are printed all over this comic ,we should be told as it can no longer be sold as anything else.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:24 am - Jul 15, 2014


Shyster Flywheel Shyster says:
July 15, 2014 at 11:00 am

On the face of it, it seems like a good idea, though I’m sure there would still be an industry created to maximise the amounts claimed back, but at least the money would be paid upfront and I’d expect it’s harder to claim it back than to not pay up in the first place. It must also create a saving for the Treasury as they won’t have to chase payment, nor go to court, as, I suspect, it’s up to the taxpayer to prove their eligibility for a refund.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:32 am - Jul 15, 2014


JimBhoy says:
July 15, 2014 at 9:58 am
9 0 Rate This

… Better than playing meaning less pre-season friendlies. Just my initial thought for this lovely Tuesday morning.
———-

It is a nice morning.

Well, I checked this St Pauli website today and that meaningless friendly seems to have sold 17,000 tickets so far 😀 Prices from 9 to 30 Euros. No bad at all. We’re thinking about a mini break in Northern Deutschland next week so may try to get along to that match with the family.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on11:32 am - Jul 15, 2014


Carfins Finest says:
July 15, 2014 at 10:20 am
0 0 i
Rate This

Bawsman says:

July 15, 2014 at 9:02 am

6

0

Rate This

Allyjambo says:
July 15, 2014 at 8:27 am
=============================
Ally, I am sure I have heard in the last few days the government are to legislate to introduce the very scheme you suggest. HMRC takes……
————–
Bawsman. See the link in my post at 6.45

===================================================
Thanks for that mate, was pounding Lytham sea front for my constitutional when you posted that 😎

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:38 am - Jul 15, 2014


neepheid says:
July 15, 2014 at 11:21 am
5 1 Rate This

I am pretty sure Houston isn’t just making it up …
————

I agree. Bit of a guessing game as to who, though. Didn’t Graham ‘Big Clean Hands’ Wallace not have some smart PR guy shipped in?

View Comment

cowanpetePosted on11:49 am - Jul 15, 2014


JimBhoy says:
What’s all the fuss about Celtic’s 3 qualifiers before they can meet the big bhoys, … Upshot is we get 3 homes games, telly rights, sponsorship etc, it probably gives Celtic at the very least £1m profit, what’s all the fuss… Better than playing meaning less pre-season friendlies.
======
whoa there, you’re sounding a wee bit complacent there JimBHoy. As a supporter of a “diddy team” it falls to me to remind you that some of the “diddy Teams” you could meet in the next 2 rounds might not be the pushovers you suggest. I agree with you that qualifiers are better than friendlies, but don’t bank the 1 million yet ok? 🙂 Good luck in the CL of course, and the same to the clubs in the EL this week

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:51 am - Jul 15, 2014


Allyjambo says:
July 15, 2014 at 10:49 am
8 0 Rate This

Must be nice to have a ‘newspaper’ to act as your PR machine …
———–

The Evening Times (among others) and SSB have been so biased and uncritical (synonyms of ‘loyal’?) that they’ve aided and abetted those who’ve milked both RFC and TRFC. Dogs that didn’t bark.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on12:11 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Tough Love

The MSM, SFA, SPFL and establishment were godparents to an only child who’s unchecked self harming hedonism over many years led to its self destruction with no help from its more responsible, mature peers. They are now godparents to an only-toddler that is indulged in all matters, throws attention-seeking tantrums, knows no respect, knows no manners, is blameless of all misbehaviour and finds it impossible to make friends.

I wonder how this one will turn out and how it will meet its end?

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on12:12 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Re Houston.
I believe any advice given from Ibrox was solely to get him away from the front door.
Potential investors don’t really want to see fans protesting about the way the club is run.
Much better to have a common enemy.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on12:14 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Tic 6709 says:
July 15, 2014 at 12:12 pm
I believe any advice given from Ibrox was solely to get him away from the front door.
====================================
Scottish football needs a proper letterbox.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on12:42 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Where’s Wally ?

The MSM PR machine is quick to report all good news (PR pap) on the journey back to where their favourite reborn club belongs.So how strange that we are not getting frequent snippets about progress against the blue print of the journey – the 120 day (sic) review. PMG reports that Mr Wallace is working tirelessly – but to what effect ? Lest we forget – this is the plan against which no progress has been reported – with the exception of the non-event Nerlinger tripe.

———————————————————————————–

A Strategic Plan has been developed which is based upon delivery in the following five key areas to rebuild and refocus the Club in a measured and progressive manner:

1. Developing Football Performance and Capability

2. Focus on Player Asset Management and Youth Development

3. Re-connecting effectively to our Local and Global Fan Base

4. Developing Best in Class Commercial and Operational Capability

5. Strengthening Commitment to our Communities

http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/377

36 months and counting until the first CL qualifier Graham !

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:46 pm - Jul 15, 2014


@COWANPETE Where was I sounding complacent or did I mention diddy teams? The closest I think I referred to was meeting the bigger teams in the group stages, isn’t that fair comment? The bigger nation’s champions do not have to pre-qualify…I did not suggest Celtic have a god given right to qualify, my point was rather that more meaningful games equals more in the coffers unlike playing friendlies with nothing at stake… Why would Celtic not bank on £1m profit from three guaranteed European home games and all that goes with that?

No disrespect but you seemed to have read a pretty simple post and found the wrong end of the stick sir.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:07 pm - Jul 15, 2014


It May Be Nothing . . .

. . .or maybe I’m joining the dots in the wrong order or something, but . .

• Christian Nerlinger fired at Bayern Munich, reportedly for disagreeing with chairman of the supervisory board and president, Uli Hoeness – http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1248317-fc-bayern-why-was-christian-nerlinger-dismissed

• Uli Hoeness jailed for three and half years for tax evasion – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2594106/Ex-Bayern-Munich-president-Uli-Hoeness-prison-revealed-ahead-three-half-year-sentence-tax-evasion.html

• Christian Nerlinger turns down job with football club with convicted tax evader on the board – http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/sep/14/rangers-sandy-easdale

Gebranntes Kind scheut das ?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:20 pm - Jul 15, 2014


I don’t remember Philip Nash becoming a director of TRFC Ltd – more than just a consultant accountant then – who’s man is he ? – http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC425159/THE-RANGERS-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED/directors-secretaries

Also – still no photo of Norman Crighton – after eight months on the RIFC plc board – does he not want to be recognized after wielding the axe or driving the bulldozer – after all he is Laxey’s man, is he not ?
http://www.tsfm.net/the-way-it-works/comment-page-3/#comment-25478

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:27 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Norman Crighton

They could have used this photo from the AGM courtesy of Google – he’s even wearing the blazer and tie – http://files.stv.tv/imagebase/220/623×349/220757-rangers-non-executive-director-norman-crighton-left-and-financial-director-brian-stockbridge-take-.jpg

Other search engines are available.

View Comment

cowanpetePosted on1:32 pm - Jul 15, 2014


@jimbhoy: ” Why would Celtic not bank on £1m profit from three guaranteed European home games and all that goes with that?”
=====
You really need me to answer that? You haven’t even played one game yet and already you are talking about banking 1m profit? Trust me, as of right now, you have ONE guaranteed home game. Your sense of “entitlement” is showing. ANyway, let’s not fall out, the joys of debate and all that.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on2:20 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Painful Brazilian Choice

Would it have been better for Brazil to lose the penalty shootout against Colombia in the quarters rather than get slaughtered in the semis and then for third place ?

Will it be better for The Ranger to miss SPL promotion this season claiming injuries etc rather than scrape through (with honest mistakes) to face the realities (and possible humiliation) of where they belong ?

I hope Mr Dallas’ chaps have been briefed accordingly.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on2:31 pm - Jul 15, 2014


@COWANPETE lol yeah well will be interesting all the Scots teams need to do well and i am sure with favourable draws and a bit of a tailwind I am sure it could be a decent Euro adventure..Hope so for the big teams, the diddy teams and all those inbetween… Surely we need a name for the inbetween teams? In the greater scheme of thing Celtic would be one of the inbetween (Euro-Diddy) teams in Euro competitions.

I hear the SFA have proposed the winner of the championship the season coming qualifies for the Europa… Ok Bollox but you never know..

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on2:42 pm - Jul 15, 2014


cowanpete says:
July 15, 2014 at 1:32 pm
13 0 i
Rate This

@jimbhoy: ” Why would Celtic not bank on £1m profit from three guaranteed European home games and all that goes with that?”
=====
You really need me to answer that? You haven’t even played one game yet and already you are talking about banking 1m profit? Trust me, as of right now, you have ONE guaranteed home game. Your sense of “entitlement” is showing. ANyway, let’s not fall out, the joys of debate and all that.

=========================================

I think the financial rewards (windfall – cash in the bank – payments) for ALL the SPFL teams due to Celtic’s European progress have not been inconsiderable in the last few seasons. In fact Celtic is probably the SPFL’s biggest sponsor, that surely, bestows a certain degree on entitlement? 😛

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on2:44 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Up to £29 for championship football at Ibrox and up to £33 if it’s versus Hearts and Hibs.. This might be another factor to make the ‘pay at the gate’ bears be a tad more choosy about their home games…

Well worth it to be able to sing wtf you want, some may say…

View Comment

cowanpetePosted on3:10 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Bawsman, Celtic need the teams in the SPFL as much as these teams need Celtic. If I’m in a minority of one here then so be it.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:30 pm - Jul 15, 2014


From BBC’s “Tuesday’s Scottish gossip” – http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28306052

Scotland fans are unhappy at the prospect of paying up to £60 for a ticket to see the friendly with England at Celtic Park – £15 more than than the Euro 2016 qualifier with Germany. (Various)

Took my 14 yo son to see England v Peru friendly at Wembley – £51 each – no child/youth prices.

Good evening with a feelgood factor before the reality of playing real opposition. But to be honest, mediocre football and pretty poor value for money really.

But then again you might fancy a good win against the old foe while they’re lower than low.

btw how much would Alex Salmon pay for 7-1 ?

View Comment

Gym TrainerPosted on3:44 pm - Jul 15, 2014


btw how much would Alex Salmon pay for 7-1 ?

I’m sure he’d not be too trout of pocket :mrgreen:

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on3:50 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Re Scotland V England
Are we just about to contribute to the bonus scheme for Ogilvie and co ,they must be splitting there sides at the thought of the fans putting their dough into the Ogilvie Friday night out fund [copyright acknowledged aka Chick Young]

View Comment

ekt1mPosted on3:53 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Out of interest just Googled the German National Team managers. There have only been 10 managers since 1926-2014, a total of 88 years, all have been German nationals. Otto Nerz 1926-1936. Sepp Herberger 1936-1964. Helmut Schoen 1964-1978. Jupp Derwall 1978- 1984. Franz Beckenbauer 1984 1990. Rudi Vogts 1990-1998. Eric Ribbeck 1998-2000. Rudi Voller 2000-2004. Jurgen Klinsman 2004-2008. Jochim Loew 2008- Date. Most of them were assistants to their predecessors and took over the reins from them. It say’s a lot about the FFB set-up and their results over the years vindicate them. EDIT. Prior to 1926 a commitee picked the team, something Scotland continued up to the 1960’s.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on4:10 pm - Jul 15, 2014


yourhavingalaugh says:
July 15, 2014 at 3:50 pm
0 0 Rate This

Re Scotland V England
Are we just about to contribute to the bonus scheme for Ogilvie and co ,they must be splitting there sides at the thought of the fans putting their dough into the Ogilvie Friday night out fund [copyright acknowledged aka Chick Young]
==========
I won’t be going near Scottish football while Ogilvie is in post. And if he is elevated to FIFA, which I am sure is the plan, then I’ll extend my boycott to world football. I know it doesn’t make any real difference (copyright my children) but it does make me feel just that little bit cleaner.

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on4:24 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Roy Greenslade going where the SMSM fear to,or are unwillingly to tread:
theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jul/15/journalist-safety-rangers …

Some of the comments, well,…..

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on4:30 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Roy Greenslade article . Without fear or favour

http://t.co/TbFzWuJqkV

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:09 pm - Jul 15, 2014


neepheid says:
July 15, 2014 at 4:10 pm

I won’t be going near Scottish football while Ogilvie is in post. And if he is elevated to FIFA, which I am sure is the plan, then I’ll extend my boycott to world football…
=================================================
And with Ogilvie’s dodgy background, he would be the ideal, eventual successor to Blatter at FIFA.
Ogilvie would be sure to uphold the values which have been championed by Blatter and even his predecessor Havelange, going all the way back to 1974…
Ogilvie would fit right in. 👿

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on5:17 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Bawsman says:
July 15, 2014 at 2:42 pm
8 4 Rate This

cowanpete says:
July 15, 2014 at 1:32 pm
13 0 i
Rate This

@jimbhoy: ” Why would Celtic not bank on £1m profit from three guaranteed European home games and all that goes with that?”
=====
You really need me to answer that? You haven’t even played one game yet and already you are talking about banking 1m profit? Trust me, as of right now, you have ONE guaranteed home game. Your sense of “entitlement” is showing. ANyway, let’s not fall out, the joys of debate and all that.

=========================================

I think the financial rewards (windfall – cash in the bank – payments) for ALL the SPFL teams due to Celtic’s European progress have not been inconsiderable in the last few seasons. In fact Celtic is probably the SPFL’s biggest sponsor, that surely, bestows a certain degree on entitlement? 😛

———————————————————————————–

Of course its UEFA who put that money into the SPFL pot not Celtic so maybe just a hint of entitlement showing again? 😉

A bit like motherwell fan last year talking about how they had given up 2nd place prize money for the benefit of other teams. That would be 2nd place prize money that would be available to any team that finished second and the comment came in the first few weeks of the season! 😉

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:57 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Matty Roth says:
July 15, 2014 at 5:17 pm

Of course its UEFA who put that money into the SPFL pot not Celtic so maybe just a hint of entitlement showing again? 😉
=======================================

I’m sure you’ll agree without Celtic’s efforts UEFA would not have put anything in. Perhaps a better focus for the forum would be to wonder if the SFA had awarded Celtic the CL licence in 2011 as they should have, there may have been money forthcoming then as well. There may not have been of course, but the team who were wrongly awarded the licence failed spectacularly – utterly so.

View Comment

wildwoodPosted on7:01 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Disappointed that, if quoted correctly, Ronny Deila has jumped on the diddy club bashing bandwagon before he’s seen a competitive scottish ba’ kicked.

I agree that Celtic (as Scottish champions) should go directly to the group stages ahead of 2nd & 3rd placed teams from other leagues and I wish Celtic all the very best in Europe.

But

He needs the rest of us that make up the league for Celtic to have a league to win.

“Manager Ronny Deila says it is “stupid” that Celtic have to negotiate three qualifying rounds just to make the group stages of the Champions League.
Thanks to Scotland’s poor club ranking, Celtic must beat Icelandic side KR Reykjavik and two other teams to make the group phase.
“Celtic have been fighting for many years with the best teams in Europe,” said Norwegian Deila.
“It is stupid the Scottish coefficient is not regarded as good enough.”

It’s very unfair that going to the last 16, as we did two years ago, is not going to be recognised

The Scottish champions, who reached the last 16 in 2013, are aiming for a third consecutive season in the group phase.
“I knew before I came here that we had three qualifying rounds,” added Deila, who was appointed on 6 June.
“That’s wrong because you have to take into consideration the club, not the country.
“We need the biggest clubs in the Champions League, who have deserved it.
“It’s very unfair that going to the last 16, as we did two years ago, is not going to be recognised.
“But it’s a problem in every small country. We maybe have one good team but the other ones are dragging that team down.”
Deila’s side take on KR Reykjavik in the second qualifying round of Europe’s premier club competition.
It will be the Norwegian’s first competitive match since his switch from Stromsgodset to replace Neil Lennon.”

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:23 pm - Jul 15, 2014


ekt1m says:
July 15, 2014 at 3:53 pm

Prior to 1926 a commitee picked the team, something Scotland continued up to the 1960′s.
———————————————–

Story told to me by a Lisbon Lion. When Jock Stein was in temporary charge of Scotland in the 60’s the selectors run a draft past him of the players they had picked. There were 12 Rangers players. Big Jock asked them if they knew that he could only play 11 men in the team!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:44 pm - Jul 15, 2014


wildwood says:
July 15, 2014 at 7:01 p
=============================
I agree, assuming he is being accurately quoted, the term ‘dragging the team down’ was not the best to use in relation to smaller clubs. Let’s hope the general theme changes this season. Remember there is one group of fans who doesn’t want ANY Scottish club to succeed in Europe.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on8:15 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Upthehoops, I assume the group of fans you are talking about is Rangers fans. Rangers, rightly enough, are the focus of a lot of discussion on here, almost exclusively negative. The point made about the Celtic managers comments had absolutely nothing to do with Rangers. There is no need to include a dig at Rangers in every single post. It was unnecessary and irrelevant in this case. Indeed in your previous post you also added on something to do with Rangers at the end of a negative comment regarding Celtic. I don’t think you need to deflect or add a whatabout type comment just because some deserved criticism was given by Matty Roth.

View Comment

twopandaPosted on8:23 pm - Jul 15, 2014


New to this techo gabble stuff as you well know, but,
Scanning, skipping and skimming through stuff out on interweb
Some Gers Supporters out there need to get a grip &, zip-it
Really they do

View Comment

ianagainPosted on8:27 pm - Jul 15, 2014


Matty Roth says:

July 15, 2014 at 5:17 pm

3

4

Rate This

Bawsman says:
July 15, 2014 at 2:42 pm
8 4 Rate This

cowanpete says:
July 15, 2014 at 1:32 pm
13 0 i
Rate This

@jimbhoy: ” Why would Celtic not bank on £1m profit from three guaranteed European home games and all that goes with that?”
=====
You really need me to answer that? You haven’t even played one game yet and already you are talking about banking 1m profit? Trust me, as of right now, you have ONE guaranteed home game. Your sense of “entitlement” is showing. ANyway, let’s not fall out, the joys of debate and all that.

=========================================

I think the financial rewards (windfall – cash in the bank – payments) for ALL the SPFL teams due to Celtic’s European progress have not been inconsiderable in the last few seasons. In fact Celtic is probably the SPFL’s biggest sponsor, that surely, bestows a certain degree on entitlement? 😛

———————————————————————————–

Of course its UEFA who put that money into the SPFL pot not Celtic so maybe just a hint of entitlement showing again? 😉

A bit like motherwell fan last year talking about how they had given up 2nd place prize money for the benefit of other teams. That would be 2nd place prize money that would be available to any team that finished second and the comment came in the first few weeks of the season! 😉
====================================================================
That was me Matty because heres what happened after we inherited Sevcos 2nd place.
redistribution.

League position at end of Season 2012/13 % of 2012/13Net Commercial Revenues

1. 17.0% (was 17% last year)

2. 10.5% (was 15% last year)

3. 9.5% ( was 9.5% last year)

4. 9.0% (up 0.5 % on last year )

5. 8.5% (up 0.5 % on last year )

6. 8.0% (up 0.5 % on last year )

7. 7.5% (up 0.5 % on last year )

8. 7.0% (up 0.5 % on last year )

9. 6.5% (up 0.5 % on last year )

10. 6.0% (up 0.5 % on last year )

11. 5.5% (up 0.5 % on last year )

12. 5.0% (up 0.5 % on last year )

Then this year:
Premiership

1 £2,405,000 (-£315,000)

2 £1,718,000 (-£682,000)

3 £1,460,000 (-£60,000)

4 £1,289,000 (-£71,000)

5 £1,203,000 (-£77,000)

6 £1,117,000 (-£83,000)

7 £1,057,000 (-£63,000)

8 £1,005,000 (-£35,000)

9 £988,000 (+£28,000)

10 £902,000 (+£22,000)

11 £816,000 (+£16,000)

12 £730,000 (+£10,000)

Its the way it works.

View Comment

Comments are closed.