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.
parttimearab says:
July 21, 2014 at 11:12 pm
I’m sorry big pink but this is simply inaccurate.
As a fan of another club I have argued (perhaps not always well but to the best of my ability) against the prevailing view (on this site)
I understand (or at least I thought I had understood) TSFM’s view that the OC/NC debate was going nowhere and ended up in circular arguments.
_______________________________________________________________________________
No need to apologise P-TA. Perhaps my mass generalisation was incorrect. Although I don’t know the specifics of your position, I would still contend that the Rangers fans’ views don’t have many subscribers outwith their own circle, but you are of course correct to point out my inaccuracy.
I think – I know – that TSFM’s position on the ongoing debate is that the (almost!) unanimous agreement on the blog led to a succession of sometimes bizarre metaphors all telling the same story, as well as daily outbreaks of outrage every time a story appeared in the press which appeared to support the same club theory.
I tend to agree with that. I think the need to repeat arguments again and again – much like the 1872 mantra – tends to betray a lack of confidence in the position one holds. Consequently, I think that the substantive argument is a red herring because it’s a science v religion thing which defies resolution.
What I do find interesting is Rangers’ need to bring it up again and again. Nobody from Ibrox ever misses an opportunity to talk about the 140 years of history, 1872, most successful club etc, etc.
If they were totally comfortable that they truly had ownership of that history, my guess is that they would have no need to constantly bombard us with reminders. Seems to me that the best way to succeed from their point of view is to ignore it – no matter the rights or wrongs of the substantive case.
And right or wrong, the expectation of Rangers to be able to cherry-pick historical positives and discard the negatives is the single biggest disconnect amongst fans.
Sergio Biscuits says:
July 22, 2014 at 12:14 am
The ’1872′ thing came about in 2009 when Gary Ralston wrote his book about the founders of Rangers.
Apparently having an idea about forming a football club is the important date, even though they didn’t have their first formal meeting, nor play their first match, until 1873.
Hard to believe that for 136 years, even with all the biographers and fans who have written countless books about the old club, not one of them ever picked up that the date was wrong!
Neither did the various characters who ran the club over that time; strange isn’t it?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Maybe not strange – definitely disingenuous!
Big Pink says:
July 22, 2014 at 12:56 am
What I do find interesting is Rangers’ need to bring it up again and again. Nobody from Ibrox ever misses an opportunity to talk about the 140 years of history, 1872, most successful club etc, etc.
If they were totally comfortable that they truly had ownership of that history, my guess is that they would have no need to constantly bombard us with reminders. Seems to me that the best way to succeed from their point of view is to ignore it – no matter the rights or wrongs of the substantive case.
============================================
Whether or not they care to admit it they must be extremely uncomfortable about their position.
Some of the most prominent people in the history of both the old and the new entity have made statements which hardly lend to thinking things are the same. David Murray, Walter Smith, and Charles Green readily spring to mind, and even Green, who turned full circle, had to cling to the notion that he had bought the history, despite previously saying liquidation meant the end of that history.
It is only natural that people will look for any reason to cling to a belief. What is not normal in this case is that the authorities and media seem happy to let them do so. In my view it is utterly inconceivable they would indulge any other set of fans in this way.
parttimearab says
____________________________________
Re OC/NC.
Many of us here see the debate as central to the footballing authorities participation in the attempt to ignore all previous precedent.
In many ways the blog’s raison d’etre is that the footballing authorities have sought to treat the Rangers brand as a special case.
From a spiritual point of view (BP’s Holy Ghost defence) most of us are content that the new club are recognised by the faithful as the successors or even the same as the old club.
However- from a technical point of view – the vast majority look to the rules (as they were intended to be read) and how previous clubs were treated in similar circumstances.
The OC/NC debate is not banned because people cannot expess a view that the current version of Rangers has just two years of history. It is banned, because the opposing sides have arguments that are not (cannot be) addressed by the other.
The OC/NC “debate” comes down entirely to what the parties to the debate mean by the word “club”. Since the parties take the word they to mean different things, then what you have is not a debate, but an endless argument involving two irreconcilable viewpoints. That is why I lobbied to have a separate thread where this endless argument could be played out until the last trumpet sounds, because there certainly won’t be agreement before then. If anybody wants to see what such a “debate” looks like, go to the LSE forum, if you are strong enough.( http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?page=1&ShareTicker=RFC )
Can I ask TSFM to reinstate a prominent link to this forum’s OC/NC thread- the link seemed to vanish a few month’s ago? It is clearly an important issue to many, and they should have a place to express their views.
A wee thing I noticed this week which is just a small observation but in its own way highlights everything about mainstream media v internet bampottery
This is the only place I have read that Sacramento, due to a league game 48hrs earlier, fielded a reserve side v their Scottish opponents
It definitely doesn’t suit the day to day occasional punter reading the paper that their team won a game 2-1 and then it be followed with a caveat…… But,
Wild Bill? Full name Wild Bill Whatacock!
On State Aid I think the Bears are looking in the wrong place, During te Celtic Tiger the EU plunged Billions into road projects in Eire, all of which means more and more Celtc fans can get the Celtic Park quicker and with more comfort. Wild Bill should be investigating that, it’s as relevant as the M74……
Ironically the M74 extension probably benefits fans attending/leaving Ibrox more than those visiting Celtic Park as it cuts out the bottleneck that is the Kingston Bridge. Strange that the mad scribe never factored that in to his lunatic ravings.
TSFM
I apologise.
I genuinely did not consider that my comments could be construed as re-igniting the OC/NC debate.
Sorry. 😳
All,
I think we are looking too much into the results of Rangers in their pre-season tour of North America, in my opinion, that is unfair. It is irrelevant who wins or what the score is as these games are about fitness, trying new systems and establishing what younger players are ready to step up to the next level.
If I supported Rangers I would be more worried about why they are having the tour there instead of England which would have made a lot more sense financially and reached a lot more fans.
More Than One Kind of Spiv
Ladbrokes offering 20/1 that The Rangers will be undefeated in the Championship this season.
So they must be offering very long odds on The Rangers not completing the season – worth a tenner ?
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/724417967?-11344:801:t
As you’ll see, Ladbrokes’ analysis assumes there has been no recent event(s) to invalidate past trends and stats over decades – but then much of their profit relies upon exploiting the ill-informed and over-optimistic.
A Tall Monitor says:
July 22, 2014 at 10:09 am
3 1 Rate This
TSFM
I apologise.
I genuinely did not consider that my comments could be construed as re-igniting the OC/NC debate.
Sorry. 😳
=========================
To be fair, the most recent debate is only debating whether we should debate the OCNC debate or whether the OC/NC debate is not to be debated. We’re not actually debating the OC/NC debate itself. 😛
It’s good to talk. 😆
If anyone wants OCNC action – you’re in the wrong place – visit http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RFC for full-on OCNC cage fighting, no holds barred, biting and gauging encouraged, blood and snot flying daily.
I check there occasionally to see if there is any interesting comment or discussion – there rarely is anymore – they’re all consumed with OCNC ;-).
@MCFC – but then much of their profit relies upon exploiting the ill-informed and over-optimistic.
Spot on mate…
HirsutePursuit says:
July 22, 2014 at 12:05 pm
meta-debates are what the internet was invented for
I tread ever warily (wearily?) back into the OC/NC ground…
On the defensive RFC position (1872, 140 ya de ya) the standpoint I don’t understand is the often quoted from various sources “Our club faced oblivion….” How? The only way the club could have been oblivated (my word, soon to be copyrighted 😎 ) under the terms expressed is if simply no-one turned up to watch. That was/is never going to happen. As I stated earlier this is what set them apart from Gretna I understand although it is unclear what choice in the matter the hardcore of Gretna fans actually had in that which is really the core of the argument about favouritism (which possibly in itself is just size-ism) . The spiritual club is immortal and nobody (with any sense) will argue that point.
Where the problem comes is with the old chestnut, the legal thing. Continuing on the Gretna theme and trying desperately to look forwards and not back (to avoid my post being banned 😳 ) I simply don’t get how we can ever accept a legal ‘thing’ dumping its debt, presumably accrued to bring success and then continuing supposedly unchanged. I struggle to see how any sporting authority would want to open that particular door and literally hold it ajar. Spiritless commercial sponsors yes, but authorities?
A Tall Monitor says:
July 22, 2014 at 10:09 am
7 1 Rate This
TSFM
I apologise.
I genuinely did not consider that my comments could be construed as re-igniting the OC/NC debate.
================
You have a PM.
Graham “Man of Steel” Wallace
So to join Graham’s Fans’ Board you need to be a season ticket holder, approved and nominated by a committee of diehard Rangers men who are appointed by the main Board, then you must be elected by other season ticket holders in a secret ballot overseen by the main Board and Graham himself. This is engineered to ensure that the Fans’ Board is equipped to represent the average bear in the street and speak truth to power. I wonder where Graham drew inspiration from for this model ? Maybe here:
Officially, the Party Congress elects a Central Committee which, in turn, elects the politburo and General Secretary in a process termed democratic centralism. Thus, the politburo was theoretically responsible to the Central Committee. Under Stalin this model was reversed, and it was the General Secretary who determined the composition of the Politburo and Central Committee. This tendency decreased to some extent after Stalin’s death, though in practice the Politburo remained a self-perpetuating body whose decisions de facto had the force of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo
Smugas says:
July 22, 2014 at 1:29 pm
…and there it is. It’s not about ‘Rangers haters’ or being narrow minded; it’s simply about decent people not being prepared to “accept a legal ‘thing’ dumping its debt, presumably accrued to bring success and then continuing supposedly unchanged.” ….and I’m not trying to imply that only decent people frequent on here, or that RFC* being the ‘legal thing’ isn’t a side benefit for some. The bottom line for me is the fact that the fans – because they love their club as they do – are prepared to put aside that decency and don’t even see the debt-dumping as a bad thing. When I make that same argument as to why I refuse to accept the ‘same thing’, I always get ‘other companies do it every day’ or ‘So do you hate Starbucks as well?’ as justification. Their decency is presumably offended by those, but their love of RFC* blinkers them from seeing it. That’s sad.
The state aid ‘scandal’ is such an obvious ploy to divert attention from Ranger’s travails that it is gratifying that it receives only the cursory coverage on TSFM that it deserves. It has only served to enmesh valuable intellect in an escapade that will provide no value to Scottish Football. Football Clubs are big lumps of real estate and the acquisition of all this land would provide fuel for endless conspiracy theories. It would not however move forward the cause of football governance one centimetre.
What is interesting is the resort to this tactic in attempt to divert attention from the real issues (whataboutery). I can understand there being some curiosity about the possibility of corruption in public office; it is not unknown. However to turn over a wholes set of individuals in pursuance of a predetermined outcome suggests to me a complete inability to face uncomfortable truths. This does not augur well for the Blue half of Glasgow.
In many ways it is a complement to the TSFM type blogoshpere, that has illustrated how a concerned contributorship can raise a standard and gather around it firm adherents that are staunch without being implacable. ‘State aid’ attempts to act as a counterpoint to this stance and hopes to dilute its effectiveness but I fear in the long run the campaign will subside sorrowfully like an old tenement upon an older mine working. Its importance to us I believe is in its betrayal of a mind set that misunderstands its dilemma.
On the OCNC debate….
Nawlite,
thank you for humouring me and for drawing the debate away from RFC* (I actually meant to put in a sentence to that effect but memory failed). I think its also worth rehighlighting that as well as the polar opposites – both sides having blinkers to maintain their position – you also have this curious mix of media in the middle determined to maintain the comfort blanket. e.g. for every Tam Cowan’s “nobody was relegated” article there seems (to me at least) to be ten Chick’s claiming SDM and Walter were managing down the debt, wilfully ignoring the equity graveyard that was Murray Group. I’m sure it was RTC him/herself who first said that there were an awful lot of inaccuracies in the reporting of this story, but they all seemed to lean in the same direction.
That is exactly the point. “Rangers”, old/new club/company, broke the rules to a point where they should have been expelled from/ not admitted to Scottish senior football. In my opinion, that would be the obvious result of simply applying the rules. For whatever reason, the rules were bent, broken or compromised, just to ensure the survival, somehow, anyhow, of “a “Rangers” in senior football.
That is the truth, nothing to do with OC/NC. With the rules applied as they would have been to any other member of the SFA, “Rangers” would be playing in the juniors for the last 2 seasons. Or not playing at all, if the juniors wouldn’t have them. So rather than focus on sterile debates about NC/OC, how about we focus on exactly how and why Charles Green gained Sevco an entry to SFL3? That, to me, is the real question.
Smugas, I agree completely. I am always challenged and, indeed, challenge myself as to why I’m prepared to argue about the tax-dumping impact of – and on – RFC*, while not so knowledgeable/argumentative (thanks to this site) re Starbucks, Tesco etc. I console myself with the argument that this is a peculiarly Scottish story, with Scottish football authorities, legal system, political system, MSM etc all playing a part in allowing/supporting this debt dumping due to their blinkered love/need for the club to continue. Yet all that just makes me a Rangers hater?!?!
neepheid says:
July 22, 2014 at 2:13 pm
———————————————
Well said neepheid.
Neepheid,
No, to be honest that is not what exercises me most of all in this – intriguing though the answer would be. I have said before that completely separate to the FTT and LNS conclusions and subsequent punishments (if any 🙄 ) that div 4 was still the most likely outcome once commerciality kicked in (albeit stymied by fan pressure from its original goal of Div1 at worst) . Where I come from is if we accept this dump-and-continue policy as ‘normal’ why don’t (pick a club at random) Motherwell sign Messi, Mascherano and Schweinsteiger tomorrow with the very clear intention of dropping both them and the debts they accrue once the silverware is attained.
Where is the line?
neepheid says:
July 22, 2014 at 2:13 pm
That is exactly the point. “Rangers”, old/new club/company, broke the rules to a point where they should have been expelled from/ not admitted to Scottish senior football. In my opinion, that would be the obvious result of simply applying the rules. For whatever reason, the rules were bent, broken or compromised, just to ensure the survival, somehow, anyhow, of “a “Rangers” in senior football.
That is the truth, nothing to do with OC/NC. With the rules applied as they would have been to any other member of the SFA, “Rangers” would be playing in the juniors for the last 2 seasons. Or not playing at all, if the juniors wouldn’t have them. So rather than focus on sterile debates about NC/OC, how about we focus on exactly how and why Charles Green gained Sevco an entry to SFL3? That, to me, is the real question.
========================================
Agree totally. I am of the firm opinion any other Scottish club would just have had to disappear, or as you say, play in the juniors if they’d have them. I include Celtic in that, despite the media often consoling themselves that exactly the same would have happened if it was Celtic. Does anyone honestly believe the authorities and the media would allow a Celtic FC to sit and gloat about having won the European Cup if the taxpayer had been stuffed, other creditors had been stuffed, and a liquidator had been appointed? They would have been outraged at the audacity, and rightly so. That they are not outraged at this club from Ibrox sitting smirking about past glories while all the debt has been dumped shows us Scotland is still a country ridden with decades old bias and prejudice.
Nawlite,
I simplify it slightly, which is probably just a reflection on the extent of my intellect!
Tax dumping is a fact of life. RFC (and Hearts and Motherwell and Gretna and Dundee and Livingston…..) turning up at my home ground to beat the club I support and pay for has a more direct personal impact, particularly but not solely centred on my wallet!
I do actively note however that only one of the above teams appear to be going to extraordinary lengths to claim it wasn’t their fault or indeed if it (their event) and the effect on their competitiveness in the ten years preceding it ever happened at all.
UTH,
For the absence of doubt my view re commerciality and Div 4 would have applied to CFC too, in my opinion. To be clear that’s the CFC of 2012, not necessarily the liquidation threated version of the mid 90’s.
Smugas says:
July 22, 2014 at 2:23 pm
0 0 Rate This
Neepheid,
No, to be honest that is not what exercises me most of all in this – intriguing though the answer would be. I have said before that completely separate to the FTT and LNS conclusions and subsequent punishments (if any 🙄 ) that div 4 was still the most likely outcome once commerciality kicked in (albeit stymied by fan pressure from its original goal of Div1 at worst) . Where I come from is if we accept this dump-and-continue policy as ‘normal’ why don’t (pick a club at random) Motherwell sign Messi, Mascherano and Schweinsteiger tomorrow with the very clear intention of dropping both them and the debts they accrue once the silverware is attained.
Where is the line?
======================
Commerciality is just an excuse for dishonesty, in this context. The rules are (or should be) the line. In Scottish football, the line is very fuzzy. We need to address the fuzziness of rules that let clubs just do what they want and effectively get away with it.
Smugas says:
July 22, 2014 at 2:37 pm
Smugas , spot on, things have changed in that regard in the last 20 years
Neepheid, Murray summed up the current attitude very well, when he said that the rules were there to be gamed.
Watch My Lips
When was the last time a member of the Board of either RIFC or TRFC spoke to the masses – any member of either Board? I don’t mean quoted on a website or in a press release or named in a statutory AIM announcement. – but actually standing up in public moving their lips on the topic of The Rangers.
Exactly – are those much loved chaps still around and in power and safe and well ? Or have recent stresses been too much, leading to an internal power struggle and silent chistka of ineffectual apparatchiks? David, Graham, James, Norman, Sandy, Philip are you all OK ?
Otherwise, if they remain the leaders of The Rangers men who will lead their great institution to ever greater greatness – I’m not seeing a lot of leadership going on. Are you ?
old club- new club -next new club/same club… I couldn’t care less tbh.. For what THE club and fans often represent, as a footie man, I wouldn’t want any part of that…. Good luck to the Scottish clubs in Europe representing what is good in Scottish football..
@MCFC I remember CW on the steps of Ibrox (a few burly coppers close by) talking to the masses (for the last time) that was fun… Speach was off the radar.. ➡
On the subject of the Scottish meeja… We can hardly blame these guys for not telling the bears like it is. The violence shown many times to those who represent anything that is seen as anti-rangers (in the eyes of the neanderthals) has been ridiculous. Look over at the bears den now on the subject of Ms Haggerty and the BBC. There are still remnants of sectarianism in Scotland, probably not as bad as it has been but with a lot of the rangers factions it’s down right fascism.
I have really enjoyed the comments by rangers fans regards GCC, the commonwealth games and it’s effects on the East end and Celtic and those pesky land deals… The paranoia scale has definitely shifted. 🙂 The Irony is somewhat lost on the bears when the Celik get all the handouts and cheap deals and the rangers get nothing for nothing and have to pay their way… You know where I am going with this… How much did they owe when they went t!ts up? 💡
Been talk of rangers demonstrations because they won the big tax case (again), I know I know, I just hope the games go well and has a positive effect on Scottish tourism and other commercial benefits (obviously mostly benefiting those in the East end) 😀
Another couple of injury worries for the rangers versus the latest pub team, Waldo get the cheque book out mate. For every 10 old crocks rangers sign, Celtic will find five young gems.
—£109k in legal aid… FFS.
QC Gary Allan, 56, whose clients have included wife killer Malcolm Webster and murderer Ashok Kalyanjee, has been made bankrupt.
Allan was on an SFA disciplinary panel who handed Rangers a 12-month transfer embargo and a £160,000 fine in 2012.
Allan criticised Ibrox boss Ally McCoist who, when the punishments were announced, called for names of panel members to be made public. Police later found evidence of threats made against Allan by groups with links to Rangers.
Allan recently applied for bankruptcy after running up debts of £206,374. His request was approved by Accountant In Bankruptcy earlier this month.
Allan, who received more than £109,000 in legal aid payments last year, has declared assets of £9964. He’ll still be able to carry out legal work and appear in court.
Smugas says:
July 22, 2014 at 2:37 pm
For the absence of doubt my view re commerciality and Div 4 would have applied to CFC too, in my opinion.
=========================
In the event of what you say there is no way it would be tolerated a Celtic in division 4 claiming the history while the liquidators move in. It simply wouldn’t be accepted IMO. There may be a commercial argument as you say, but the new Celtic would be told their place and agree to accept it before any football was allowed. Why should it be any other way anyway as liquidation means the end no matter who you are, or how big you are.
It’s good to see that despite bankruptcy, Gary Allan is able to continue with his unbroken QC history. QC Then, QC Now, QC Forever.
No need for an OLDQC/NEWQC debate down the Faculty of Advocates.
scapaflow says:
July 22, 2014 at 2:58 pm
Neepheid, Murray summed up the current attitude very well, when he said that the rules were there to be gamed.
==============
Tax is complex. Football is simple. In football, the rules can only be gamed because the rules are designed to be gamed. It would be relatively easy to draw up a SFA rulebook that could not be gamed, black and white rules, no discretion, etc. Why are all the important rules subject to “discretion”? Get rid of discretion, and, yes, there will be some hard cases, but it will be clear and impartial. Which is how rules should be.
This could be sorted out by the clubs tomorrow. Why isn’t it? Because they all want to be a “special case” when their time comes. In reality, they will mostly be hung out to dry, but they like to kid themselves that the Board’s discretion will apply to them, just as to “Rangers”. Pathetic, but that’s what they cling to, and that’s why it will never change.
UTH
Accepted/tolerated by whom?
I agree with your point on liquidation and have said many times that the simplest way to achieve the significance is to force a name change in the most commonly used parlance (cup engravings and league tables being the two that spring immediately to mind), adding a “The” or whatever. The ethereal thingy remains the same and the legal thingy is discernibly different. But then what do I know.
JimBhoy says:
July 22, 2014 at 3:36 pm
Allan, who received more than £109,000 in legal aid payments last year, has declared assets of £9964. He’ll still be able to carry out legal work and appear in court.
=============
Really??? Bankrupt lawyers allowed to continue in practice? Somebody please,please tell me that’s not true!
neepheid says:
July 22, 2014 at 3:51 pm
Tax is complex, but the spirit behind the rules is relatively simple. If people approach one aspect of their business life with the attitude that rules are there to be gotten around, its hardly surprising if they apply the same philosophy elsewhere. The test the courts should apply, should be along the lines of, “this tax relief was granted to aid in the production of a movie, lets see the movie. No movie you say? Please pay Hector on your way out”
Its not really a football problem, but a societal one, when politicians think its OK to accept donations from firms/individuals who think its OK to do business with war criminals, for example, then the business/public life moral compass is very definitely broken.
Smugas says:
July 22, 2014 at 3:55 pm
Accepted/tolerated by whom?
===========================================
The SFA, SPFL, the media. All of them would be quite clear that a new Celtic are exactly that, and had no claim to any honours won by the old Celtic. That would be the price for entry to the lowest league for ‘commercial reasons’ in my view. It would be a quite correct stance as well, but it would be such an easy stance to take when it is any club except the club from Ibrox.
Since it’s quiet…
PMacG has previously mentioned that Wallace & Nash appear to be trying to sort things out down Govan way, but with obvious difficulties.
Just out of curiosity, would anyone know at all if either Wallace or Nash are ‘fully engaged’ with the non-playing staff at Ibrox ?
Reason I am asking is that IIRC, during his brief stint at Ibrox, Agent Whyte apparently kept everyone in the dark, he didn’t engage the staff and nobody seemed to know what he was up to – allegedly. Even Gordon Smith admitted he ‘knew nothing about anything’ ! 😉
Anyways, on the face of it, Whyte’s reluctance to develop working relationships seemed aligned to the Bampots’ expectation that he was definitely not planning to be at Ibrox for the long term.
So, is Wallace and Nash keeping everyone in the dark or are staff at Ibrox involved and aware of what these 2 are doing ?
Anyone…?
StevieBC says:
July 22, 2014 at 4:55 pm
As discussed previously some of the auld hands on the Ibrox payroll are probably as much to blame for the mess the club is in as anyone else.
Murray started off the minty moonbeams philosophy and I am sure there are plenty who still believe the club needs to be run in the manner to which it has become accustomed.
Remember Jon Pritchett (Bill Miller’s man) said when he looked at the books there was money flying in all directions and not a lot of value being seen for the expenditure.
Green and then Mather probably found allies in such people, while they played their little game.
If Wallace and Nash are then men to turn the ship around then I suspect they will be keeping a close eye on the ‘enemies within’, playing their cards close to their chest and , if not already done so, are trying to move such people out the door.
Neepheid
Exactly why should a bankrupt lawyer not be allowed to continue working as a lawyer? Bankrupt football players get to carry on playing. Bankrupt policemen get to police, teachers to teach, writers to write, etc etc etc. Why should lawyers not be allowed to continue to earn a living?
Campbellsmoney says:
July 22, 2014 at 5:26 pm
Totally agree being that all those professions have no requirement for the person to be tip top on the financial side of things and therefore there is probably no issue with them continuing in their jobs
However I believe to story is totally different for accountants 🙂
wottpi says:
July 22, 2014 at 5:39 pm
…
However I believe to story is totally different for accountants
===============================================
Since I can tell you are keen to read an accountancy body’s regulations on Conduct & Oversight… 😕
“Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy should not of itself affect membership or student registration. A member or student who is declared bankrupt is required however to notify the Institute, and should continue to act professionally within the Laws of the Institute, including the Code of Ethics…”
http://www.cimaglobal.com/Members/Members-handbook/Conduct-and-oversight/
To be clear the Law Society would have issues with a bankrupt lawyer (handling client money is often a key part of what a lawyer does) but bankruptcy should not mean a lawyer cannot earn a living from being a lawyer.
NEEPHEID
You have a PM
Campbellsmoney says:
July 22, 2014 at 5:26 pm
6 0 Rate This
Neepheid
Exactly why should a bankrupt lawyer not be allowed to continue working as a lawyer? Bankrupt football players get to carry on playing. Bankrupt policemen get to police, teachers to teach, writers to write, etc etc etc. Why should lawyers not be allowed to continue to earn a living?
======================
Bankrupt policemen? I’m sure you are correct, but I’m honestly gobsmacked. What next- bankrupt tax inspectors? And please don’t ask me why not!
Anyway, as I’m frequently reminded, by now I’m just a relic of the Scottish working class of a bygone age, where debt was to be avoided at all costs, but if you did borrow money, you made sure you paid it back. I’m sure that the brave new world of bankrupt lawyers, policemen and civil servants makes much more sense to most people these days. “Sir” David Murray was a man of the future, whereas I’m just stuck in the past.
Big Pink says:
July 21, 2014 at 9:24 pm
For that reason, if for nothing else, the 1872 thing grinds a bit on me and is especially noticeable because it is in fact a revisionist position (no Neil Kinnock jokes please).
However one other thing appears strange, and that is the fact that they have to say it twice on the Rangers shop. It’s almost as though the HSD does not invoke the same confidence amongst the company as it does within the faithful.
With deference to our Bard scholar JC, I think we have a case of “The Rangers doth protest too much, methinks”
—————————————–
AND
JimBhoy says:
July 22, 2014 at 3:24 pm
JimBhoy says:
July 22, 2014 at 3:24 pm
On the subject of the Scottish meeja… We can hardly blame these guys for not telling the bears like it is.
———————————
Big Pink “The Rangers doth protest too much, methinks”
JimBhoy On the subject of the Scottish meeja
The 140 year history thing is now almost said in every interview of the scottish meeja and now they have a new one. Over the last week or so a different TRFC player has had a full page interview, Every player says much the same thing in the last paragraph ” The championship will be the bestest best ever.”I’ve heard a lot of people saying it’s going to be the most interesting league in scotland”…McCulloch.
“The championship will be the most exciting league in scotland”…Nicky Clark.
“The championship will probably be more difficult and competitive than the premiership”…Lewis Macleod
The same with kris Boyd interview and kenny miller.
What grinds me is how do they know? and why do they have to keep telling everyone? Are they trying to convince themselves and the deluded masses.
Rant over….
Also in keeping with the world cup sweep on here, The next TRFC player to give a full page interview with the last paragrath saying the championship will be the bestest,best league ever will be……..?
Go on have a guess :razz
Ps …SMSM give it a rest
At least at 55, as of today, we can all take the money we have accrued in pensions, ie, money we have invested and pre-paid tax on and take it all and dispose as we see fit, well minus a second round of tax..
8 yrs time first favourite at crayford for JB…
@Cluster One not a lot upsets me about what is stated in papers, players chat, former players nonsense… It keeps the myth going and in some ways prolongs the agony that the bears are going thru until they (fans) realise that they are no the peepul, just people and they have no right to greater treatment than others… Personally I would not want any public figure harmed by nutters for what they write or say, that was really my point..
Cluster One says:
July 22, 2014 at 7:41 pm
…The championship will be the bestest best ever.”I’ve heard a lot of people saying it’s going to be the most interesting league in scotland”…McCulloch…
============================
According to the SMSM, it seems to be a given that there will be an incredibly close, very competitive 3 way slugfest between TRFC, Hearts and Hibs over the course of next season in the Championship.
But what if it’s not ? 😯
And what if during the season TRFC suffers further financial problems – even go into administration – and lose more players ?
[Of course in theory the same could happen to Hearts, Hibs or any other team.]
What if Hearts and Hibs gain promotion – and TRFC finishes 5th, outside the Play Off spots ?
Will Ogilvie self-combust ?
Will McCoist insist that his team is being victimised for finishing 5th – and should also be given a play off spot ?
Is that the nightmare scenario for the SFA/SPL and the TRFC board and fans ? [Aside from TRFC relegation that is !]
Proof that TRFC is just not good enough to get into the SPL ?
Or will TRFC just not be ‘allowed’ to finish 5th…? 🙄
StevieBC says:
July 22, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Or will TRFC just not be ‘allowed’ to finish 5th…?
On the pre-season tour TRFC have not had a penalty, yet every second or third game last season they got one.
The Championship needs more American Refs 😉
StevieBC says:
July 22, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Is that the nightmare scenario for the SFA/SPL and the TRFC board and fans ? [Aside from TRFC relegation that is !]
Proof that TRFC is just not good enough to get into the SPL ?
Or will TRFC just not be ‘allowed’ to finish 5th…?
=============
It simply can’t be allowed to happen, There are too many people in positions of power in the game who have staked all on a rapid “Rangers” rise through the ranks.
They will be in the top tier for 2015/16 whatever it takes. That is the sad truth. If there was any doubt about it, ask yourself this- would McCoist still be manager? Sorry to be so cynical, but that’s how I see it.
upthehoops says:
July 22, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Agree totally. I am of the firm opinion any other Scottish club would just have had to disappear, or as you say, play in the juniors if they’d have them. I include Celtic in that, despite the media often consoling themselves that exactly the same would have happened if it was Celtic. Does anyone honestly believe the authorities and the media would allow a Celtic FC to sit and gloat about having won the European Cup if the taxpayer had been stuffed, other creditors had been stuffed, and a liquidator had been appointed? They would have been outraged at the audacity, and rightly so. That they are not outraged at this club from Ibrox sitting smirking about past glories while all the debt has been dumped shows us Scotland is still a country ridden with decades old bias and prejudice.
_________________________________________________________________________
Your interpretation of events and hypothetical situations do not add up to facts and show us nothing about a Scotland of today being ridden with decades old bias and prejudice, as you claim. Sectarianism, which I guess is what you’re talking about, does not always flow in one direction. It’s also perhaps a west of Scotland-centric view.
A cursory glance at Wikipedia informs me Celtic have won the league 45 times, Scottish cup 36 times, League cup 14 times and the European Cup. Not bad for a team who has absolutely everyone and everything against them. All the time.
The vast majority on here are in broad agreement on the issues of the last few years but I believe your views expressed above belong on a Celtic site. For me they devalue TSFM and mean as a site it will struggle to be taken seriously. I’m aware I always seem to post in reply to you but we agree on more than we disagree. Just not on this.
incredibleadamspark says:
July 22, 2014 at 9:02 pm
===========================
I did say no other Scottish club, not just Celtic. I do not believe Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen, Motherwell etc would be tolerated trying to claim they are the same club . The decades old bias and prejudice I refer to is pro-Rangers. They are not frequently referred to as the establishment club for nothing, and that, in my humble opinion, is why the media and the authorities have fallen over themselves to indulge the same club view. It is also why the Scottish First Minister and other Scottish and UK MPs spoke of them in such high terms re their importance to society. What, exactly, does that make the rest of the clubs?
This one is so far of topic that it may end up on Mars and I know this is TSFM but outside of cyberspace the Commonwealth Games are about to start. The biggest sporting event to hit these shores in ages and a Ryder Cup coming up. If way off topic can we have a CG thread or will we continue to witter on about a 2 year old e-mail by a spiv who may not have known a spiv that knew a middle east bloke that once had a rap sheet for being a bit iffy. Even if it was to have a look at the venues and the so called dodgy land deals at least it would mark the passing of the games. This is not an attack on the blog but if it is to remain relevant a better way to put out the message of this blog is to appeal to a larger demographic. ❓
incredibleadamspark says:
July 22, 2014 at 9:02 pm
___________________________________
What devalues this site is comments which misrepresent others. Upthehoops did not make any Celtic-centric comment on this occasion. He talked about preferential treatment for rangers – not about any anti-Celtic agenda. I think there is a consensus here that concurs with what he said, and it was not at odds with your observations about Celtic’s trophy haul – which also enjoys a consensus here.
Perhaps you are speaking about other comments, but you did include a specific post before you criticised UtH.
Let the moderators take care of how the blog progresses and refrain from attacking someone for the views they hold – or make comments with regard to moderation on the Mod thread.. Perhaps you spoke too soon, but you crossed a line that would have had UtH sent to the naughty step had he done the same..
UtH
Thanks for your considered response.
I watched the Celtic match there on Celtic TV and at the end, as the camera did a bit of panning around I’m thinking “What a magnificent football arena.” I was wondering then if Anne Budge was thinking the same………. 😉
TSFM says:
July 22, 2014 at 9:51 pm
Let the moderators take care of how the blog progresses and refrain from attacking someone for the views they hold – or make comments with regard to moderation on the Mod thread.. Perhaps you spoke too soon, but you crossed a line that would have had UtH sent to the naughty step had he done the same..
=================================
Cheers TSFM. I well remember the last time I was on the naughty step!
Auldheid says:
July 22, 2014 at 9:58 pm
I watched the Celtic match there on Celtic TV and at the end, as the camera did a bit of panning around I’m thinking “What a magnificent football arena.” I was wondering then if Anne Budge was thinking the same………. 😉
========================================
My daughter used my ticket for the game. She has just texted me saying how impressed she was with the atmosphere at Murrayfield.
Dissapointed there has been no mention of the Commonwealth Chess games that have already taken place at the City of Glasgow Colleges and was beamed out on the internet recently ,great attendance at this event and no trouble ,this sport just does not get enough coverage.
Hector, while accepting your suggestion that the site is possibly too focussed on the RFC* issues (though it remains a big issue in Scottish Football – especially in the close season), you must realise that your wish to have a Commonwealth Games discussion/thread is probably more than a little off topic for a site called The Scottish Football Monitor. If you choose to walk away because a site called that doesn’t cover the Games, that’s a bit odd!
upthehoops says:
July 22, 2014 at 10:04 pm
As I suggested a few weeks ago when there was talk of the SFA possibly not taking up the lease on Hampden – Make Murrayfield the National Stadium, the footballing authorities can pay for upgrading the east stand thus probably being able to increase the capacity to 75-80k?. Good transport links, trams from the airport, trains, buses, close by in the city centre, away from the west coast nonsense, traditional ends, home advantage if Iborx and Celtic park used when Hampden not available etc etc. What’s not to like??
TSFM says:
July 22, 2014 at 9:51 pm
___________________________________
What devalues this site is comments which misrepresent others. Upthehoops did not make any Celtic-centric comment on this occasion. He talked about preferential treatment for rangers – not about any anti-Celtic agenda. I think there is a consensus here that concurs with what he said, and it was not at odds with your observations about Celtic’s trophy haul – which also enjoys a consensus here.
Perhaps you are speaking about other comments, but you did include a specific post before you criticised UtH.
Let the moderators take care of how the blog progresses and refrain from attacking someone for the views they hold – or make comments with regard to moderation on the Mod thread.. Perhaps you spoke too soon, but you crossed a line that would have had UtH sent to the naughty step had he done the same..
________________________________________________________________________________________
I certainly did no such thing as attack or criticise UtH for his views; I disagreed with UtHs views and there is a big difference in that. In no way was it personal. I stand by what I wrote so if I crossed a line that would’ve sent UtH to the naughty step you can point me in that direction and I’ll take a seat there for a while. Wouldn’t want any preferential treatment 😉
upthehoops says:
July 22, 2014 at 2:24 pm
41
5
Rate This
neepheid says:
July 22, 2014 at 2:13 pm
That is exactly the point. “Rangers”, old/new club/company, broke the rules to a point where they should have been expelled from/ not admitted to Scottish senior football. In my opinion, that would be the obvious result of simply applying the rules. For whatever reason, the rules were bent, broken or compromised, just to ensure the survival, somehow, anyhow, of “a “Rangers” in senior football.
That is the truth, nothing to do with OC/NC. With the rules applied as they would have been to any other member of the SFA, “Rangers” would be playing in the juniors for the last 2 seasons. Or not playing at all, if the juniors wouldn’t have them. So rather than focus on sterile debates about NC/OC, how about we focus on exactly how and why Charles Green gained Sevco an entry to SFL3? That, to me, is the real question.
========================================
Agree totally. I am of the firm opinion any other Scottish club would just have had to disappear, or as you say, play in the juniors if they’d have them. I include Celtic in that, despite the media often consoling themselves that exactly the same would have happened if it was Celtic. Does anyone honestly believe the authorities and the media would allow a Celtic FC to sit and gloat about having won the European Cup if the taxpayer had been stuffed, other creditors had been stuffed, and a liquidator had been appointed? They would have been outraged at the audacity, and rightly so. That they are not outraged at this club from Ibrox sitting smirking about past glories while all the debt has been dumped shows us Scotland is still a country ridden with decades old bias and prejudice.
==========================
I agree with the analysis that any club that behaved with as scant disregard for the integrity of Scottish football as Rangers did should not be allowed anywhere near the same level of professional participation unless there was an admission by them that they broke trust with the other clubs and they begged forgiveness.
The commercial reality though is that they were never going to suffer that fate and I can understand that. What I cannot understand or indeed accept is that
1. the breaking of trust has been covered up by legal legerdemain and that the club responsible for destroying the integrity of Scottish football is being allowed back with the same uncorrected thinking. (In fact worse, returning with a misguided sense of grievance. Scholars of history will be well aware what the Dolchstoßlegende (stab in the back) myth did for world peace and a similar myth is trying to take root and become fact.)
2. The football authorities have themselves not recognised that their rules and processes have been been abused and there has to be an investigation into how that happened , how was it possible and what steps need to be taken to prevent it happening again.
Imagine Resolution 12 to the Celtic AGM were to show that UEFA FFP rules failed because Rangers lied about their tax situation to get at CL money and the SFA “did a Serbian”, that is were less than diligent in checking what they were told was true and did not transgress what FFP was attempting to establish – fair play.
If that were the case (and it may not be, but supposing it was) would UEFA not have a look to see what happened, how was it possible and what steps need to be taken to prevent it happening again or their flagship fair play game was a bogey?
If they failed to investigate we would all switch to tiddlywinks, but the absolute need to protect the integrity of UEFA competitions would ensure that UEFA would act (see Malmo and Red Star cases as examples) so why is Scottish football apparently doing nothing to restore the integrity that Rangers under Sir David Murray destroyed?
This is what I do not understand, unless Campbell Ogilvie is working under the radar to fix things when it should all be done above board.
Naw lite thanks for the reply. At no point did I say I wanted to walk away from TSFM and my only mention of another focus point was RTC which stands for Rangers Tax Case . Your post mentions RFC* which I have no Idea what that this. I have asked for the removal of a post by myself as it is obviously out of kilter with this blog end of story. If you would care to do a post on” the RFC* issues ” I am sure the blog would be all ears. There was an RFC once upon a time but it had 5 *
I thought my hubby was beginning to see beyond the smsm (and to be fair to him he is) but tonight whilst talking about the “Championship” and how he thought it would be more competitive than the SPL he said “well rangers have worked their way up”. We’ve had a wee bit of a disagreement on that. Might be separate beds tonight!
Just back in from Murrayfield. Great atmosphere, and the organisation around the stadium was first class. Really showed Hampden up for the dump that it is. They should hold some of Scotland’s qualifiers there instead of Glasgow.
Hector, you’re being obtuse and ignoring my point which was that you wanted this forum to discuss the Commonwealth Games rather than discuss the ins and outs of the historic and current issues at Rangers Football Club (As I’m sure you know RFC* is a common way on here of describing Rangers Football Club, with the asterisk indicating that it’s not quite the Rangers Football Club of old). You asked TSFM to remove your post suggesting a Games thread and at the same time implied that by refusing a Games thread, we were ignoring other important issues to narrowly focus only on RFC*. Don’t play games, please.
Too late to edit my last post but hubby is beginning to question what he reads in SMSM.
On a lighter note – have enjoyed European nights at Murrayfield and it’s a great experience (remember hubby is a Jambo).