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.
Interesting what follows
Isn`t it
Bears Beware [her indoors said that]
Blimey
Thank you TSFM, you have cured my sore throat!
StevieBC says:
July 17, 2014 at 5:31 pm
####
GW undertook a 120 day review of the business.
—–+
In the short term the strategic focus for the next 120 days will be to:
§ Complete a detailed Business Review looking at all areas of club operations and organisation, developing and implementing required actions
http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=RFC&ArticleCode=ws0fqe80&ArticleHeadline=Annual_General_Meeting_statement
—–
Despite this, he managed to miss the BS stock option. An oversight? Perhaps.
How did the stock option come to light? Did BS turn up with a copy of his contract which revealed, for the first time, that he was entitled to 714 285 shares, upon admission to AIM, since 17 September 2012?
IA has had to pursue his contractual entitlement through the courts, BS is paid out without a whimper despite the fact that not one person currently involved in the administration of the business was aware of his entitlement.
Clearly GW needed longer for his review.
UTT might have gone mostly their way, thus far, but what they did was morally repugnant from a taxpayer’s perspective and totally against the spirit of fair competition from a sporting perspective. They got off lightly regardless of what tripe Ally regurgitates.
For decades the East End of Glasgow has been peppered with dereliction. It’s a relic of the way the city’s industrial heritage waxed and waned. I’m not sure where else in the city you could have sited a clutch of new large buildings in such proximity to each other. Celtic will undoubtedly feel the benefit of their new surroundings but asserting that the whole scheme was concocted purely for this reason is stretching credibility.
Govan is going through a bit of a change presently. The remodelling around the Clyde at Pacific Quay (Science Centre, BBC, STV) may in due course lead to further redevelopment around the apron of Ibrox. Although this is about a mile from the stadium it is the home for some landmark architecture.
In some ways the East End seems to have benefited because it was so run down to start with.
two panda
Agree that naming a stand after Sandy Jardine is a nice touch.
However, I can understand that many people feel more than a little ambivalent about him. Personally, I had him marked down as a decent bloke, and a well deserved member of the hall of fame. Unfortunately Sandy’s behavior during the demise of Rangers Mk1 tarnished his reputation. He was an employee of rangers and an opinion former for many rangers fans, as such, he had a duty to act in a responsible manner. Instead he chose to act as the worst sort of rabble rouser, with talk of lists of ranger’s enemies and petulant threats of removing his name from the Hall of fame, and returning caps. A lot of the bitterness, and unpleasantness, emanating from much of the Ibrox support was fueled by his actions.
I still believe he was a decent bloke, and no doubt his very serious illness was a factor, but, his legacy is not as bright and shinning as it could have, and should have, been
I’ll be the first to admit to being clueless so humour me for a moment whilst I throw an idea out there…
Stockbridge’s share option…
Alleged ‘hidden’ bonus for the players of 5k shares each…
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that these are connected?
Many thanks for indulging me and apologies for time wasting.
Castofthousands says:
July 18, 2014 at 11:57 pm
In some ways the East End seems to have benefited because it was so run down to start with.
======================================
Absolutely, but there are are people who would have you believe Peter Lawwell is powerful enough to have influenced it all on his own. This misplaced anger should be targeted towards the man who beyond any shadow of a doubt ruined their club, David Murray. Instead of punching the air claiming a false victory in the tax case and demanding apologies, they should be demanding an apology from Murray for the position he put the club in. In truth, someone like Lawwell and the board who back him are what they needed pre-liquidation, and what they need more than ever now. Of course, that may have meant all the successes may not have happened, just like the way it was pre-1986. How many of them actually remember that (signing policy apart) Rangers were a properly run football club up until then, living within its means and taking its chances the same way as every other club?
Regarding newco or amalgam (sounds a bit dental) clubs, FC Copenhagen have not listed any of the history belonging to KB or B1903 — the two clubs whose professional departments merged in the early 1990s to create FCK. Both KB (formed 1876) and B1903 (yes, formed in 1903 🙂 ) still exist in their own right, and retain their history, although with teams now playing in the lower leagues and youth leagues.
I know someone tweeted recently about Germany being a newco, but that is a nonsense as pointed out above. FC Copenhagen is in every respect a newco, although with roots in the heritage of two other clubs who continue to thrive in their own right.
PS My native East End is long overdue some urban regeneration, and much of it still needs a lift. For as long as I can remember parts of Glasgow have appeared on a par with, or worse than, anything I ever saw in the old Eastern Europe. And yet, while much of the old Communist block is now unrecognisable, a wee wander doon Bluevale Street to the flats takes you to a monument to brutalist Britain, well brutalist Scotland in the 1960s. Homes fit for heroes my arse. It would be a #YES for me if I was voting.
In view of Phil’s latest on the uncertainty surrounding any Stockbridge-like secret deals (http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/not-an-option/#more-4866) you’d think a reporter could lift the phone and ask Charles Green if he has a yet-to-be revealed share surprise.
It will never fail to amaze me how some people clearly hear and see what they want to hear and see and when questioned ,well ,if questioned,blurt out the biggest load of Jackanory you will ever hear,reading some of the one sided drivel about the east end of Glasgow is the latest ,maybe the delay in any upgrade over Ibrox way could be down to Minty still having his planning application for the Super Casino and hover pitches still open ,if there is any doubt as to the size of this project just contact the Glasgow Evening Times archive dept as they gave it a lot of coverage with detailed artist drawings of the completed project ,now for this to have happened someone must have agreed a lease for the land ,do we know the contents of this lease agreement,surely Minty would not have gone ahead and told the ET a lot of porkies ,all the old housing on this site has been cleared and awaiting developement and the ET should update its readers on this exclusive ,I am sure it has access to the councils planning people to check the status of developement plans for this area.I will be open minded when I read the response from the ET as development opperchancities can change ,we should be told.
Are any Clyde supporters happy that their Manager is still a propaganda machine in the SMSM for a club down ibrox way ❓
Some people just cant shake of their bad habits ,some still bite and some still stick two fingers up at others,as they say old habits die hard
upthehoops says:
July 19, 2014 at 7:15 am
Regarding the East End.
It has been overlooked by developers and public bodies, not for years, but for decades.
Why is it that people from one part of a city, or even a country, get jealous because money, from wherever, is spent to make somewhere a better place to live?
Ultimately it will be up to the people who live there, and public bodies, to keep the place in good condition when the Commonwealth Games bandwagon leaves town.
All neighbourhoods should be like this. It should not take an external, short term, event to get money spent locally, the money should always be there.
Unfortunately people do not want to pay higher taxes to have better living conditions for people in run down areas. The fact that many of these run down areas fuelled and created the industrial wealth of our nation to begin with and were then abandoned seems to be lost on many.
As has been pointed out earlier the Pacific Quay regeneration, where public money was spent on the Science Centre and the new BBC headquarters, has never been questioned. STV also moved to this area as well as many other businesses creating jobs where few existed. Even before that the same site was originally cleared for the Garden Festival in the 80’s. Was that ‘State Aid’ or is that one of those things that is conveniently forgotten.
Tam Cowan telling it like it is:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Sco2hot/status/490448251951534080/photo/1
Posted by @Scot2hot
Change in football creditors rule on the cards? Could that force a few clubs to make an admin choice sooner rather than later?
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-situation-could-force-7445318
justshatered says:
July 19, 2014 at 12:39 pm
upthehoops says:
July 19, 2014 at 7:15 am
Regarding the East End.
It has been overlooked by developers and public bodies, not for years, but for decades.
Why is it that people from one part of a city, or even a country, get jealous because money, from wherever, is spent to make somewhere a better place to live?
======================================================
Agreed. Our local authority has several towns to look after, and one in particular is more affluent beyond doubt than the rest. Yet the persons from that town frequently complain the authority invests more in the other towns, despite their town being pristine in most areas. I ask them for proof of these funding anomalies but they never have that. Essentially though there appears to be an underlying sense that the less pretty towns are just that and always have been, and are suitable for the majority of the people who live there anyway. In short there seems to be a sense of superiority among some residents of the more affluent town, who clearly believe society has divisions and always will, so let’s make the good areas even better.
At the end of the day I believe there is a sense that Glasgow’s east end was always regarded as the poorest area so why invest in it when you already have better areas, where the more prosperous will live anyway. Celtic have been residents of the east end since inception, and to many of the complainants about the east end regeneration Celtic are regarded as an underclass, so why should money be spent on their part of town. History shows that equality is sometimes viewed as a concession to those who benefit from it, and that to me is the nub of the problem with the east end regeneration.
Cluster One says:
July 19, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Are any Clyde supporters happy that their Manager is still a propaganda machine in the SMSM for a club down ibrox way
——————————————
Not enamoured by the appointment but can you point out, specifically, which part of the SMSM I should continue to ignore?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28368669
Vale chairman Norman Smurthwaite said HMRC have taken the action against PVFC Limited, the club’s holding company.
The footballing operations are run by a different company, PVFC.
– Can anyone enlighten me as to how “footballing operations” are distinct from a football club? Is it just for all things fiscal?
bailemeanach says:
July 19, 2014 at 4:29 pm
2 0 Rate This
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28368669
Vale chairman Norman Smurthwaite said HMRC have taken the action against PVFC Limited, the club’s holding company.
The footballing operations are run by a different company, PVFC.
– Can anyone enlighten me as to how “footballing operations” are distinct from a football club? Is it just for all things fiscal?
===========
It’s exactly the same structure as at “Rangers”. A company runs the football side, that company is itself owned by another company- the holding company, which may or may not do something other than just hold shares in the football company.
“Football operations” just means that everything to do with the football side is owned by the football company, such as player registrations, maybe the ground, and all football related contracts and income lie with the football company. A football “club”, in the commonly used sense of the word “club” is unable to enter into contracts or own anything. A company is needed to do all that stuff.
Neepheid – thanks for the response. My understanding is that in the commercial environment – a “club” is meaningless.
So what we have is a company, sat underneath the security umbrella of another company, purely to avoid liability when any onerous bills come their way. Umbrella.com ultimately fold, making way for NewcoUmbrella.com to come along and carry on the uninterrupted fan-based culturally significant kind of activities
Flocculent Apoidea says:
July 19, 2014 at 2:17 pm
Not enamoured by the appointment but can you point out, specifically, which part of the SMSM I should continue to ignore?
Everything but page 3
From the Evening Times- at least one missing person alert can now be cancelled, although still apparently no trace of the King across the water.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/gough-issues-rallying-call-to-rangers-fans-171817n.24781307
bailemeanach says:
July 19, 2014 at 5:29 pm
‘..So what we have is a company, sat underneath the security umbrella of another company,’
————
What we appear also to have is the kind of numptie BBC Radio Stoke sports ‘reporter’ as we have in BBC Radio Scotland. Not able or willing to do anything other than merely print what some mini-CG says in a prepared statement. Where do they dig them up, these godawful apologies for ‘journalists’- I thought it was only our home-bred oafs that we had to worry about! ❗
John Clark
It’s a woefully inadequate piece of “reporting” which is why I shared it here.
Here’s the entire piece:
Port Vale: Winding-up petition will not harm club, says chairman
A winding-up petition served to Port Vale by Revenue & Customs (HMRC) over an unpaid tax bill will not affect the football segment of the League One club, reports BBC Radio Stoke.
Vale chairman Norman Smurthwaite said HMRC have taken the action against PVFC Limited, the club’s holding company.
The footballing operations are run by a different company, PVFC.
Smurthwaite said a funding error has caused the problem and is expecting the order to be withdrawn.
As it stands, Vale are due to appear in court in London on 18 August.
The club previously faced a winding-up petition in February 2012, before going into administration the following month.
They were in administration for eight months in total, a spell which came to an end in November 2012 when businessman Paul Wildes completed his takeover of the club.
Manager Micky Adams led the side to ninth place in League One last season, 13 points outside the play-off places.
In true John Clark style, I’m about to fire off some basic questions to BBC Radio Stoke
Haven’t been around since start of world cup….seems I’ve stumbled into the old OCNC thread by accident……I’d have thought this site had moved passed the petty “your died” stuff by now and that people had better things to do with their time….
Sadly not it would appear…
Parttimerab,
Analysis of similar events to what has gone on in Scottish football recently are good for this site to participate in, as it allows us to develop our perspective.
PARTTIMEARAB can’t see what you’re referring to, other than the W/E Germany thing, which didn’t create an awful amount of traffic?
When Craig Whyte was questioned about it this week, here is what he said:
“The SFA case has been ‘stayed’ which I’m surprised hasn’t been reported. It could rear it’s head again but I doubt Regan & Ogilvie want to be cross examined in court”
Paul Larkin @paullarkin74 1h
Why haven’t the SFA chased £200k from Craig Whyte http://www.thefrontofthebus.blogspot.ie/2014/07/why-havent-sfa-chased-200k-from-craig.html?m=1 …
Reply 8 Retweet 4 Favorite
Auldheid @Auldheid 1h
@paullarkin74 What is interesting about that dinner is what led to it. Regan ‘ s draft to Rangers re the SFA granting of the UEFA licence
Reply 1 Retweet 2 Favorite
hunskelper @hunskelper007 59m
@Auldheid @paullarkin74 because as everyone knows he doesn’t have it so why are ticketus pursuing 24M odd that
John Clark –
The following has been submitted to BBC West Midlands:
Dear Radio Stoke,
Your piece on the HMRC case vs Port Vale FC comes across as woefully inadequate.
“A winding-up petition served to Port Vale by Revenue & Customs (HMRC) over an unpaid tax bill will not affect the football segment of the League One club, reports BBC Radio Stoke.
Vale chairman Norman Smurthwaite said HMRC have taken the action against PVFC Limited, the club’s holding company.
The footballing operations are run by a different company, PVFC. “
How can a “football segment” be distinct from a football club? Are we to assume that a company can be shielded under an umbrella company to evade tax, so when an onerous bill arrives (such as public tax & VAT) the umbrella company folds into liquidation, allowing a new umbrella company to come along and allow the core business to carry on?
BBC needs to clarify what is going on here. The reporting above makes no sense to the average responsible tax payer.
If I were a Port Vale fan I wouldn’t wish to donate a thin dime to the company, or indeed the “holding company” until I had clarification of the nature of this dispute, and how either of these companies intends to meet their fiscal dues to society.
I eagerly await some proper facts from your reporter.
___________________________
It’a a bit ham fisted by your high standards but I’ll furnish you with their response if and when it arrives
1 0 Rate This
PARTTIMEARAB can’t see what you’re referring to, other than the W/E Germany thing, which didn’t create an awful amount of traffic?
———————————————–
The fact that it was there at all says an awful lot IMO…
The fact that it was there at all says an awful lot IMO…
______________________
An insignificant number of comments in an arid period. It says very little to me.
RyanGosling says:
July 19, 2014 at 8:11 pm
Parttimerab,
Analysis of similar events to what has gone on in Scottish football recently are good for this site to participate in, as it allows us to develop our perspective.
———————————————————————-
Ryan
I agree wholeheartedly……but TSFM set up the OCNC thread which closed off this whole topic…it seems to have crept back (and not just through the E/W Germany stuff)
lately)
Let me be clear..I have no problem with anyone’s option one way or the other (and some may recall that I have taken the..err minority view on this subject)…but it’s either a topic for full discussion or not I would have thought…and if it’s o/t then it’s o/t for all…no?
Irony. Today The Rangers play this team: Sacramento Republic FC is an American professional soccer team based in Sacramento, California. Founded in 2012, the team made its debut in the USL Pro in 2014.
That’s the 3rd level in the pyramid of US football.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
July 19, 2014 at 8:23 pm
————-
Don’t know anything about Paul Larkin, so I checked the twitter feed. There was a link to an interview about a film he’s making ‘The Asterisk Years’. Pretty interesting project. Hadn’t heard about it before.
http://www.spreaker.com/user/homebhoys/asterisk-years-film-update-interview
neepheid says:
July 19, 2014 at 5:42 pm
6 0 Rate This
‘And nine-in-a-row winning captain Gough said: “Ibrox stadium is the spiritual home of our great club but also to many thousands of fans.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Correction: Ibrox has been home to two clubs.
The first one may have had moments of greatness, but its memory will be forever sullied by decades of discrimination and, latterly, Sir David Murray’s ham fisted management.
The second one has yet to achieve anything that could be considered any better than distinctly average.
bailemeanach says:
July 19, 2014 at 8:17 pm
1 0 Rate This
PARTTIMEARAB can’t see what you’re referring to, other than the W/E Germany thing, which didn’t create an awful amount of traffic?
—————-
and conveniently we have a very recent example….
Lord Wobbly says:
July 19, 2014 at 9:17 pm
Correction: Ibrox has been home to two clubs.
[apologies your lordship but this saved me trawling back through the last four weeks to find an example]
Danish Pastry says:
July 19, 2014 at 9:14 pm
0 0 Rate This
nowoldandgrumpy says:
July 19, 2014 at 8:23 pm
Yes I have managed to listen to a couple of them. Some startling stuff.
http://www.sacrepublicfc.com/match-preview-sacramento-republic-fc-v-rangers-fc/#.U8rZHPldXoE
note the history blurb
and its caped crusader night with jiffy lube . . .
Someone surely must be shaking their heads and saying why oh why? “Why are we hear?”
. . . what is the point of this tour, is it as simple as a pre-friendly tour?
Son’s of Struth march, the movie,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTndtUkZrD4#t=10
martin c says:
July 19, 2014 at 10:05 pm
and its caped crusader night with jiffy lube . . .
========================
capes to be worn by players and auctioned of for local charity
Maybe an idea they could bring home for their own charity efforts, substituting capes for something else more appropriate to their own support
nowoldandgrumpy says:
July 19, 2014 at 9:34 pm
2 0 Rate This
———–
Had not heard of this film project. Audiobook too. Is it perceived as being too much of a Celtic-fan-driven project and therefore not mentioned on here? Seems pretty relevant.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eki9M1u4L7g
http://www.theasteriskyears.com
bailemeanach says:
July 19, 2014 at 8:30 pm
———
Thank you, bally…
You and I do not consider that a general reminder on the blog of the deceit practised upon us can ever be OT, or that fudging the truth through inadequate and/or partisan ‘journalism’ can be allowed to be forgotten, for the convenience of guilty minds or minds unwilling to face the consequences of deceit.
I look forward to the reply you may receive.
neepheid says:
July 19, 2014 at 5:42 pm
Thousands of supporters are set to march from Kinning Park to the Gers’ home on Saturday.
And nine-in-a-row winning captain Gough said: “Ibrox stadium is the spiritual home of our great club but also to many thousands of fans.
“The fans should march to safeguard our home and quite rightly ask for legal assurances from the board.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Mmm……
Whats the difference between a home and a spiritual home of a great club ?
Is it this?
A living thing can die but a spirit lives forever
So even if Rangers die they aren’t dead as long as there is a team playing out of Ibrox?
If so
The ball is squarely at the feet of the Spivs
“March all you like
But when push comes to shove”
“Pay up or die again”
John Clark says:
July 19, 2014 at 11:17 pm
________________________________
John, 2-3 years ago I would have had a “tut” to myself and turned the page.
Good folk like yourself have been an inspiration – now I go asking questions and challenging nonsense that we are expected to accept as facts. My blood pressure has risen, but my eyes have been opened, and I am thankful to this blog for it is such an education
Classy nacho 😕
Parttimearab; maybe I picked it up wrong but I was fairly certain that the FDR / DDR thing was initially said in jest with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
Also, I fail to see a re-ignition of any large scale OC/NC debate. Are we to take it from your’ post that there should ne’er anither word be spake of …
I agree it can become tiresome however, if you fail to correct a lie or an untruth or a falsehood then eventually that lie becomes accepted as Gospel. Like the untruth that Bonnie Prince Charlie was some Scottish hero, marching his army all that way south. Whereas he was more Italian born and raised (as evidenced by his flight from Culloden…?! 😉 😳 ) and couldn’t have held a candle to Alexander II’s exploits – a true warrior King, but I digress.
So while some may be happy to let sleeping dogs lie, to move on and forget a couple of ‘minor’ indiscretions (in fact why don’t WE apologise for having the temerity to expect “roolz is roolz”…) for the greater good (whos’ greater good I ask?), I’m afraid my answer is pòg mo thòin! I have no interest in getting into a full blown OC / NC argument with anyone but I shall, whenever required, respectfully point out inaccuracies, untruths or downright lies. And I would like to think that those in possession of the full facts would do the same. An example of which was to recently make my dear mother aware of (s)DM and his latest travails – my mother still being convinced that he was the Scottish Sir Richard Branson. But again, I digress.
As they say, for evil to triumph good men need do nothing.
And to think I only came on to see if thon silly idea floating amongst my sawdust re. the hidden shares was possible. I conclude from the complete lack of uptake that it was indeed but a silly idea with no possible basis in reality. Back to the stalls for me!
http://t.co/ekTd8xYgEI
From James Forrest, an interesting take on Scottish journalism and the current outbreak of a severe epidemic of “victim syndrome” at Ibrox.
Took a look at tribute act, The Rangers FC, triumphant tour of USA to discover their first result on Tuesday was a 3-1 defeat at the hands of Ventura County Fusion, an American soccer team based in Ventura, California, United States. Founded in 2006, the team plays in the USL Premier Development League, the fourth tier of the American Soccer … poor performance must be down to jet lag!
Took a look at the tribute act’s next instalment of their much heralded tour of North America. Next stop is British Columbia to play Victoria Highlanders, a team that plays in the USL Premier Development League (PDL) the fourth tier of the American Soccer Pyramid and has a history 4 years longer than T’Rangers.
The tribute act’s final match is against Ottawa Fury FC, a Canadian professional soccer team based in Ottawa, Ontario. Founded in 2011, the team made its debut in the North American Soccer League in 2014.
Why on earth would you waste what little reserves you have to cross the Atlantic to play such low level competition?
Re PARTIMEARAB’s earlier comment
First of all, although I am a regular “lurker”, this is the first time I have ever posted a comment, so I ask the more erudite and respected members of this community to bear with my contribution.
Yes, there is a place for the OC/NC debate in the separate thread; however …
… I believe that the Port Vale dimension offers a wider opportunity to attempt to have some things faced up to seriously.
The evidence over the past few years tells me that there is little chance of the media (and I include the BBC – not just in Scotland) and the football “authorities” (pah!) properly addressing this issue from the taxpayer’s point of view.
This is an issue that transcends football, though football is the catalyst in this community.
Now that we have an example of an English company and associated football club starting to play the “it’s the company not the club” game, may I suggest that each and every member of this community (which I hope covers a decent spread across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England) writes to his/her Member of Parliament to ask them how they view the social, economic and taxation implications of allowing companies that operate football clubs to behave in such a cavalier fashion?
Never mind the shenanigans going on in Ibrox, the bottom line surely is that, irrespective of the fact that there is a company (any company) operating a football club, the primary business of the company (and, in reality, the reason for the company’s existence) is football and that is why the company exists. Why then should the company legally, morally and legitimately be allowed to say that the football club is at arm’s length from the company and therefore not liable when the operation of that football club runs into financial difficulties, for whatever reason?
This is, potentially, a wider issue than a football one for this country and we now have at least two clear examples in the UK (not just Scotland) of this farcical situation and I suggest we ought to try to make this a properly political issue by involving MPs, some of whom may care enough to at least query the regulation of football in this country.
Shall we do it, folks?
Back to lurking now.
selfassessor says:
July 20, 2014 at 9:34 am
0
0
Rate This
The tribute act’s final match is against Ottawa Fury FC, a Canadian professional soccer team based in Ottawa, Ontario. Founded in 2011, the team made its debut in the North American Soccer League in 2014.
Why on earth would you waste what little reserves you have to cross the Atlantic to play such low level competition?
===============
It continues the myth that the same team that once was mighty and rich, even though it never was,still survives and continues like before as if nothing changed.
On the American tour for TRFC.How can a company/club that borrowed money a few months back afford such a jolly outing for the lads? If money was tight surely the team could have arranged friendlies at home with stronger teams than the current tour provides. Home gates would also have helped the coffers. This would unfortunatley not fit the narrative.
Ottawa Fury finished the spring season of their fourth level league in 6th place with 3 wins out of 9 matches!
Previous Post: I understan access to Ibrox Park would have been limited due to CG’s but a tour nearer home with 50/50 split gates could have been arranged i am sure.
It has been suggested, from more than one source, that RIFC / TRFC are not footing the bill for the Nth American tour. Phil Mac has stated as such on his blog.
Carfins Finest says:
July 20, 2014 at 9:41 am
‘….It continues the myth that the same team that once was mighty and rich..’
—————
It happens that for the last few days my wife and I have had a couple of young Californians staying with us.
It would have been serendipitous if they had come from Ventura itself, but sadly they don’t.
Nevertheless, I have been explaining to them something of the rottenness of Scottish Football administration and how the SMSM has tended to gloss over the truth of matters., and how a certain new club appears to have pulled the wool over the eyes of VenturaFusion.
I then felt that I had some kind of obligation to Ventura Fusion to let them have some facts of which they may have been ignorant.
So, I fired off this email to their Director of Communications. [I’m ready to accept that, unlike a straightforward reminder of ‘the Big Lie’, this may be a bit off topic, but I don’t see the oldco/newco thread]
Anyway, here it is:
“Dear Mr Page,
I watched, and read a little bit about, the recent game between Ventura Fusion County and “The” Rangers Football Club of Glasgow, a game which VCFusion won by a comfortable margin.
In the clip of the commentary on the game , I heard “The” Rangers FC being described as Rangers Football Club. This made me wonder whether your commentator appreciates the difference that the definite article can make in a sentence..
Because, of course, ‘Rangers Football Club’ are currently in liquidation, and therefore cannot be “The” Rangers FC
The club that VCFusion played is actually a NEW club, legally incorporated in 2012.
Under Insolvency legislation it could not be incorporated as Rangers FC, but was incorporated under the name Sevco Scotland. It subsequently changed its name to ‘Rangers 2012’ before finally becoming “THE Rangers Football Club” in an attempt to hoodwink people into thinking it was the same club as the club that had died at the hands of the Liquidator.
Your commentator, God bless him, talked about the team Ventura Fusion was playing as if that team had had a long and distinguished history, as if, in fact, it was “Rangers FC ‘
He could not have been expected to know any better.
But, just for the record let me just state a fact or two:
The historic Rangers Football Club became horribly insolvent due to extravagant spending by its then majority shareholder. It could not pay its debts, particularly its taxes. The majority shareholder ignominiously sold it for one pound sterling.The new owner ran it into Administration.The Administrators , questionably in the eyes of many, failed to save it as a going concern. It was not taken over or bought as such by another owner. No. It was LIQUIDATED, and died as a soccer club.
It lost its entitlement to be a member of the Scottish Premier League, and therefore it lost its membership of the Scottish Football Association.
The assets were bought by a consortium which created a new football club. This new club was refused entry into the Scottish Premier League. However, in highly questionable circumstances , it was reluctantly granted entry into the bottommost tier of Scottish senior professional football, and then was granted entry into the Scottish Football Association and allowed to play , in a highly questionable secret deal.
By any ordinary use of language, “THE” Rangers Football Club has NO claim to the history, or the league titles and cup trophies won by the now dead club.
In arranging a ‘friendly’ with “THE Rangers FC”, VenturaFusion appear to have mistakenly thought they were going to play the old Rangers Football Club, now in liquidation.(Or they were inaccurately persuaded that that was the case).
I feel that you personally, as well as many of those VenturaFusion fans who came to watch the embarrassing defeat their team inflicted on the bogus visitors must , while enjoying the win, have been set to wondering at how dreadfully low must be the standard of Scottish football if this much-hyped team were in fact the historic Rangers Football Club that pre-match publicity had described them as..
Personally, I feel your innocent fans were cheated by the new team ( in pretty much the same way as the old, dead Rangers FC and their majority shareholder cheated Scottish Football for years).
I further feel that you owe your supporters, who paid good money to watch a hyped-up new team masquerading as a famous old team, an apology for misleading advertising.
Yours sincerely, “
causaludendi says:
July 20, 2014 at 10:02 am
4 0 Rate This
It has been suggested, from more than one source, that RIFC / TRFC are not footing the bill for the Nth American tour. Phil Mac has stated as such on his blog.
————-
That makes more sense. Could be the North American supporters group who’ve funded it or even a private individual with a few bob to spare.
A Tall Monitor.@ 9.40am.
Never mind the shenanigans going on in Ibrox, the bottom line surely is that, irrespective of the fact that there is a company (any company) operating a football club, the primary business of the company (and, in reality, the reason for the company’s existence) is football and that is why the company exists. Why then should the company legally, morally and legitimately be allowed to say that the football club is at arm’s length from the company and therefore not liable when the operation of that football club runs into financial difficulties, for whatever reason?
===============================
Perfect summary.
I saw this tweet from Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20. In this a new rule? Or was it always thus?
Danish Pastry says:
July 20, 2014 at 11:07 am
It has always been thus. It is also further evidence, that we have the standard of Football administration we have, because, that is how the clubs want it.
It does not matter who is funding the TRFC tour as they are entitled to source funding from the best paying source available ,as JC points out we all hope the clubs have been told the truth or have these clubs just [wrongly] assumed who they where playing,sometimes it is best to leave a situation as is/was as there is no real harm done but if there was real intent to con people into thinking the tribute act they where watching was the original then there are serious implications as to how this act should be allowed to continue,one question someone might be able to answer ,do clubs require permission of their football association to play friendlies and if so there must be conditions to meet to do this,anyone?
I note Jim Spence tweeting that SPFL AGM is tomorrow and still no sign of sponsor. JS suggesting a Barca charity type thing may be in order.
If nothing is forthcoming, especially as the Championship is going to be the world’s most exciting league , will anyone at the AGM question the performance of Doncaster and his team, given he got a £28k pay rise last May.
I scanned the Sunday Post at my dear old mother’s this morning and they claim the fans are close to getting security over Ibrox as they have been demanding. If they have any sort of funding they should ensure a good lawyer reviews whatever this so called ‘security’ is.
On a wider note I still can’t get my head round why they think they are so special they should expect so much just for parting with a few hundred pounds, which they get to watch games in return for.
“If nothing is forthcoming, especially as the Championship is going to be the world’s most exciting league , will anyone at the AGM question the performance of Doncaster and his team, given he got a £28k pay rise last May.”
No there will be no questions, only lots of excuses. Mr Doncaster was well rewarded for carrying out his instructions, I see no sign that the clubs have any appetite for change whatsoever.
Mr Doncaster is a convenient Monkey, we should be concentrating on the Organ Grinders
scapaflow says:
July 20, 2014 at 1:36 pm
Mr Doncaster is a convenient Monkey, we should be concentrating on the Organ Grinders
======================
Spot on. Doncaster didn’t award himself a pay rise, he got it for services rendered to the clubs who employ him. Anyone who has an issue with Doncaster’s performance or remuneration should take the matter up with the club they support. Best of luck with that, by the way.
neepheid says:
July 20, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Exactly. To be fair initiatives like Resolution 12 are the way to go. But, lets not kid ourselves, the root cause(s) of the problem(s) lie with the clubs.
The SFA AGM should have dispelled any doubts on that score. The SFA Board finally brought forward very modest proposals to widen the gene pool for candidates for President, only for the clubs to vote them down.
I am afraid the moral corruption is both systemic and endemic
Can anyone point me to a reasonably detailed report of the proceedings at the 2014 SFA AGM? Given Mr Regan’s well publicised adherence to the principles of openness and transparency, I thought such information would be easy to find. Silly old me!
neepheid says:
July 20, 2014 at 2:47 pm
I just typed in SFA AGM 2014 into the SFA website, and got back SFA results!
For many years I sat on the local Community Council, by law i was required to make the minutes of every meeting available to the public, though in reality CCs have no power, and pitiful bugets. The SFA is a “charity” which receives millions of pounds of public money every year, (and at the community level does a lot of good work), but it treats fans and tax payers with contempt. They are accountable only to themselves.
scapaflow says:
July 20, 2014 at 3:01 pm
=======================
Rather than focusing on NC/OC or Club/company debates, which quite frankly will never result in any outcome, because we are into areas of semantics and psychology which are always debatable, how about we focus the collective efforts of this forum into obtaining from Regan the transparency he promised us on taking up the job. Surely it is not much to ask that the SFA publish minutes of its AGM on its website? As an objective that is, at least, achievable. And if the SFA refuse, then we know who to blame- and by the way it’s not Regan, it’s the clubs.
Tic 6709 says:
July 20, 2014 at 10:57 am
A Tall Monitor.@ 9.40am.
Never mind the shenanigans going on in Ibrox, the bottom line surely is that, irrespective of the fact that there is a company (any company) operating a football club, the primary business of the company (and, in reality, the reason for the company’s existence) is football and that is why the company exists. Why then should the company legally, morally and legitimately be allowed to say that the football club is at arm’s length from the company and therefore not liable when the operation of that football club runs into financial difficulties, for whatever reason?
===============================
Perfect summary.
=====================================================
And that gentlemen, is a “perfect summary” of British company law in the 21st century…makes you feel proud does it not?
essexbeancounter says:
July 20, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Actually its a pretty good summary of just how broken UK PLC is, and, why many countries look on the City of London as little more than a banana republic with a great Opera Company.
I saw an earlier link to a podcast by Hail Hail Media with Paul Larkin at
http://www.spreaker.com/user/homebhoys/asterisk-years-film-update-interview
Its a good listen directed at the kind of stuff TSFM debates and dissects and indeed Paul kindly acknowledges and so publicises the work here. Cheers Paul.
I wanted to draw attention to a point he makes about not being dependent on the msm for getting the truth out there and how in fact social media is becoming the way to do that.
I found a bit of comfort in that as one of the things that keep me going is that if you keep trying to challenge what is published on paper as truth you eventually prevail.
I remember getting ribbed on CQN for repeatedly pulling folk up who said Rangers needed three years accounts before they could get back into Europe. ” NAW ITS THREE YEARS MEMBERSHIP OF THEIR NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Article 12 of UEFA FFP” was my yell.
I rarely have to whisper that now because over time it becomes the accepted truth because it IS the truth.
So to everyone who just keeps plugging away remember tha,t like the wee boy throwing stranded shellfish one by one back into the sea, one by one, with every post/letter you do make a difference.
So, shall we sit back and do nothing, or shall we try, in our own small football corner, to ask our MPs what they think of the 2 examples we have in front of us (what has happened/is happening in Ibrox and the recent Port Vale example)?
It would be good to seek a reaction; shall we all try?