Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns

Avatar ByDonald Stewart

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns

In the aftermath of the recent election and whilst those of us who voted one way are still hoping that our way continues to count, the horse trading has begun. No matter your politics, the fact that a party wholly representing one part of the United Kingdom is suddenly having such a massive influence, coupled with a lack of detail in the public domain over their negotiations, causes people some nervousness; because of the nature of the DUP, for some they claim it terrifies them.

Can we imagine if football was run that way? Can we imagine if it wasn’t?

Having people who have one focus deliberating and influencing your life has always been an issue at the core of the United Kingdom. Proud Scots do not like the power of the English, some English have begun to resent the growing independence of the Scots, the Welsh have turned out to have their own independence and as for the Irish; the Trouble has always never been far behind.

The recognised method of dealing with these issues has now become to allow, where possible, organisations within the domain of the domicile to grow on their own. For some it sows the seeds of an increasing independence as the locals realise they can do it for themselves. It also does, though ensure the organisation is close to its own people and is truly representative of them.

In Scotland, and throughout the last election, the big two – Conservative and Labour parties – have suffered under the accusations of being a “branch office” of their London centric big sister. It has led to people making choices based on the assumption that, at times, neither of the leaders up here have autonomy. When there are policies that will be unpopular in Scotland, they say, the high heid yins in Edinburgh have no choice but to toe the party line.

We do not like that thought.

Nor should we.

I suggested that football has a similar issue. And so. It does…

The views and opinions of the Scottish fans who last Saturday threw up their hands in joy and held their heads in despair all within 90 seconds or so suffer from that lack of representation. As deals are done in secret and “announcements” made over innovations and changes they are collectively silent through the funded organisation established to represent them; at best that organ is muted.

Never has it been more important for the Scottish football fan to feel the importance of their view being heard. Never has it been more important as Project Brave is being undertaken, chairmen are being fined £3,000 for having a bet, we look as though we are going to miss out on another World Cup, expansion of our cup competitions is growing apace, play offs and promotions have delivered their verdicts and handed their budgets to managers who bemoaned last year it was hard, that one of our two giant clubs seems unable to keep itself out of the court room whilst supplying the accused, the defence lawyer, the pantomime villain and a circus or at least two premiership clubs appear to be on the verge of administration.

Supporters Direct – Undemocratic?

The time has come to ensure that the voice of the footballing nation does not come from around the Isles but around the corner. Whilst the work of Supporters Direct has brought a great deal of support and aid to a number of clubs and supporters groups, the fans need something that is much more than a branch office of a bigger organisation.

In the recent past, SD have seemingly been forced to be more visible but let us not be fooled, if you are an ordinary fan, SD have no place for you. You cannot join, you cannot vote, and you cannot influence; so there is not much point. Building a democratic and fair vocal chord for Scottish football fans needs commitment from the bottom up to engage, enlist and enrich the chorus and chanting of disapproval or support for Scottish football.

That’s why I am in the SFSA – isn’t it time for the Scottish Government to take the bull, grasp the thistle and make the clear choice of removing money going all the way to London and giving it to a fans based organisation that represents them here in Scotland?

We think so… don’t you?

Join the SFSA today! It’s free

About the author

Avatar

Donald Stewart author

Donald C Stewart is a lifelong Ayr United fan; the brooding eyes, the depressed demeanour and likelihood to become excited at winning corners a give away. A former Director of Ayr United Football Academy, he is now their Fundraising Manager and Safeguarder. Formerly regular broadcaster for Kicktalk, contributor for Scotzine and now boxing correspondent for Ringside Report and Talking Baws.

1,165 Comments so far

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on12:00 pm - Jul 16, 2017


wrt to the dumb Telegraph article, maybe we should ask wee Craigy himself. 
https://twitter.com/craigwhyte22/status/886529443497484288

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:01 pm - Jul 16, 2017


‘RFC have more chance of winning the Champions League than I have of getting a £5m payout from Oldco! Complete nonsense from @Martin1Williams’

Who said that? None other than the man Martin Williams made a rabble rousing puff peice out of in the Sunday Herald. Our very own EasyJambo should feel quite smug having torn the rag’s nonsense apart earlier.

Take a look at @craigwhyte22’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/craigwhyte22/status/886529443497484288?s=09

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on12:03 pm - Jul 16, 2017


ALLYJAMBOJULY 16, 2017 at 12:01
    SNAP !…15

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:07 pm - Jul 16, 2017


CORRUPT OFFICIALJULY 16, 2017 at 12:03

Indeed, but you won 08snap!

View Comment

tangoed

tangoedPosted on12:22 pm - Jul 16, 2017


HOMUNCULUSJULY 16, 2017 at 11:57 
  
Nope, none whatsoever, I don’t have access to the documentation from either business.
BDO will though, so they will know whether there is any actual evidence that the company they are in the process of liquidating gave £18m to their major shareholder 6 or 7 months before going into administration because they didn’t have enough money to keep the business trading. 
They will also know whether that led them to be in debt to both Ticketus (albeit that we advance sale of tickets) and Wavetower, the company they actually gave the money to.
——————————————————————————————-
Cheers.It’s been nearly 5 years since BDO took over’if they haven’t found a crime to charge Craig Whyte with then they are never going to.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on12:22 pm - Jul 16, 2017


tangoed July 16, 2017 at 11:38 
HOMUNCULUS JULY 16, 2017 at 11:34
Are you suggesting that they gifted £18m or so to their major shareholder.
—————————————————–
Do you have any evidence to say that they did’nt?
====================
Both the indictment and the evidence led in court referred to a £16m Loan from RFC to Wavetower.  The existence of the loan was never challenged, but Findlay successfully argued that the loaned sum was not Financial Assistance, as repayment of RFC’s outstanding debt was ultimately beneficial to the club.

Whyte’s not guilty verdict did not negate the existence of the loan.

Lord Doherty’s decision, on which the Herald article was based, also confirmed that the Oldco was owed £18,453,263.72 by TRFCG/Wavetower. BDO asserted that this amount needed to be offset against TRFCG/Wavetower’s original claim of £18,000,962.29 plus interest.

View Comment

tangoed

tangoedPosted on12:50 pm - Jul 16, 2017


EASYJAMBO
 
JULY 16, 2017 at 12:22
 
Lord Doherty’s decision, on which the Herald article was based, also confirmed that the Oldco was owed £18,453,263.72 by TRFCG/Wavetower. BDO asserted that this amount needed to be offset against TRFCG/Wavetower’s original claim of £18,000,962.29 plus interest.
—————————————-
Thanks.
 
So an agreement does exist between the two parties,you would think that Homunculus is right then,that the debts should cancel each other out.
 
Would it matter that Wavetower have now been dissolved and BDO have no one to chase the loan from?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:05 pm - Jul 16, 2017


tangoed July 16, 2017 at 12:50 
EASYJAMBO   JULY 16, 2017 at 12:22   Lord Doherty’s decision, on which the Herald article was based, also confirmed that the Oldco was owed £18,453,263.72 by TRFCG/Wavetower. BDO asserted that this amount needed to be offset against TRFCG/Wavetower’s original claim of £18,000,962.29 plus interest.
—————————————-
Thanks.   So an agreement does exist between the two parties,you would think that Homunculus is right then,that the debts should cancel each other out.   Would it matter that Wavetower have now been dissolved and BDO have no one to chase the loan from?
==============================
Yes, the two amounts should cancel each other out.

The dissolution of Wavetower doesn’t remove the liability that they had to repay RFC. Obviously it will not be repaid, but I believe that it should remain capable of being off-set against any counter claim.  

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:09 pm - Jul 16, 2017


JJ has posted the contents a couple of documents that, if genuine, places a lot of doubt in Ralph Topping’s recent statements.
https://johnjamessite.com/

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:28 pm - Jul 16, 2017


Personally I read them as Topping’s very own  peaceful retirement lifeboat.  Their existence, with a very blatant acknowledgement of sporting advantage is angle 1 (and fair play to JJ for his exclusive).  The apparent ‘exclusion’ of Eric Riley is angle 2.  (My cynical mind does think that’s a bIt convenient (for Celtic ) too btw. And of course the denial of the advantage by ‘the rest’ is angle 3.  

Interesting times.

View Comment

tangoed

tangoedPosted on1:33 pm - Jul 16, 2017


EASYJAMBO
JULY 16, 2017 at 13:05

The dissolution of Wavetower doesn’t remove the liability that they had to repay RFC. Obviously it will not be repaid, but I believe that it should remain capable of being off-set against any counter claim.  
———————————————
Cheers

As long as there is no clauses (such as loan to be repaid in 100 years from now) in the loan agreement then the above should ring about true.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:39 pm - Jul 16, 2017


Just to clarify my “cynical” comment above.  

If we take todays Jj comment at face value then:

a/. Rangers were clearly in the wrong according to the retirement seeking Ralph but can’t be punished any more.

b/. Celtic would have punished obviously (he doesn’t say this but the inference is clear) but were out of the loop and can’t do any more now.

c/. The rest of the conspirators who don’t really matter anyway are now tarred and stuck with the game they deserve.

I appreciate his efforts but I’m concerned he’s writing off the 20% (entirely their own fault of course) whilst trying to appease the 80%.  

View Comment

tangoed

tangoedPosted on2:14 pm - Jul 16, 2017


TANGOEDJULY 16, 2017 at 13:33 EASYJAMBO
 JULY 16, 2017 at 13:05
The dissolution of Wavetower doesn’t remove the liability that they had to repay RFC. Obviously it will not be repaid, but I believe that it should remain capable of being off-set against any counter claim.  ———————————————Cheers
As long as there is no clauses (such as loan to be repaid in 100 years from now) in the loan agreement then the above should ring about true.
———————————————————————————————
EJ sorry if i,m being a pain in the butt here and in contradiction to what i said above but the Bank Debt no longer resides with Wavetower as they gave or sold it away to someone else.
 
Would’nt that have an impact on BDO’s ability to off set the Debts against each other?

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on2:37 pm - Jul 16, 2017


One big the confusing aspects to Topping’s recent statement since we knew he had a negative reaction at the time of the Nimmo-Smith report (I think it was Auldheid who had posted extracts from the minute of the SPL Board meeting to consider the report).
Perhaps, like Dave King, he has just ‘changed his mind’?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on2:40 pm - Jul 16, 2017


SmugasJuly 16, 2017 at 13:28
‘..Personally I read them as Topping’s very own peaceful retirement lifeboat..’
_________
If what JJ writes is true, Topping will never have a moment’s internal peace, but will go to his grave  KNOWING in his heart of hearts that he has abused his office and shown himself to be a perfidious and cowardly  liar, to boot.
And for what and for whom? Some noble ideal? Some honourable person?
I think not.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:46 pm - Jul 16, 2017


tangoed July 16, 2017 at 14:14
EJ sorry if i,m being a pain in the butt here and in contradiction to what i said above but the Bank Debt no longer resides with Wavetower as they gave or sold it away to someone else. Would’nt that have an impact on BDO’s ability to off set the Debts against each other?
====================
I’m not an insolvency expert either, so I can’t say what will happen with 100% certainty.

If I’ve understood your question, you are suggesting that the action taken by H&J to enforce the TRFCG/Wavetower claim is legally separate from the liability to repay the Oldco, RFC (2012), and that former claim could be satisfied, while the latter cannot because of the dissolution of TRFCG/Wavetower.

You could be right, but I’m unsure how the law copes with such eventualities. If you were right, then any company in financial trouble could in theory sell it’s claims for debts to be repaid, to a third party (for a share of the proceeds), while the company liquidates itself and removes any liability to its creditors.

I would think that such an alienation of creditors would be harshly dealt with by the courts and result in lengthy bans for the directors. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:57 pm - Jul 16, 2017


And if that alienation was gratuitous there could be all sorts of issues.

View Comment

LUGOSI

LUGOSIPosted on5:23 pm - Jul 16, 2017


Sometimes you read something and think you’ve already read it.
James Doleman’s Twitter account contains today’s statement by The Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland which commences:
“The Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland is disappointed to note that the Sunday Herald have chose not to cover…”
Leaving aside their no doubt earnest disappointment and an immediate launch into whataboutery this phrase seemed familiar.
A couple of days ago there was a “Club 1872 Statement on Daily Record” issued by Supporters Voice Limited, a Club 1872 company.
This was a statement about a statement. Seemingly the Daily Record, which is barred from Ibrox, Murray Park, Press Conferences etc., is expected to give space to publicise the deepest thoughts of what looks awfully like a Chris Ze List opus.
The Club 1872 statement does indeed include:
“Club 1872 is disappointed to note that the Daily Record chose not to cover…”
Could be a coincidence. They’re not the same. TGOLOS have put the word “have” before the word “chose” making them totally different. Shame they didn’t change “chose” to “chosen”.
So, nothing to see here.
Meanwhile back at TGOLOS:
“Unfortunately this is not the first time the Herald has failed to treat The Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland in an equivalent manner to how it has treated others.”
This is an elegance in style not seen since Ernie Wise and The Plays What He Wrote.
Or is it?
Club 1872:
“Unfortunately this is not the first time the Daily Record has failed to treat Rangers in an equivalent manner to how it has treated others.”
TGOLOS haven’t even bothered putting a rogue “have” in this time.
Let’s play TGOLOS v Club 1872 Bingo.
“…produce skewed and at times completely false coverage…” = Check.
“…examining breaches of IPSO guidelines…” = Check.
“…understands press has a role to play…” = Check.
“…there is a difference between holding to account and pursuing a baseless agenda…” = Check.
“…can choose or not to buy the paper…” = Check.
“…those running it will finally realise that we will no longer accept anything other than a fair and balanced coverage…” = Check.
Looks like Chris Ze List has an excellent claim for Breach of Copyright.
Unless,of course, the copying was sanctioned.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on5:39 pm - Jul 16, 2017


@EJ.  @ Tangoed… 
    I am following the thread, and can understand how one loan cancels the other, but you will need to help me out a bit. 
    What did Worthingtons buy, and then sell on to the other outfit (I forget their name) ….. Surely not just a self cancelling loan and expensive court-case over nothing? 

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on6:37 pm - Jul 16, 2017


I think Topping is making a cowardly titanic moment in that he is asking the captain and crew to remain behind with the vessel while he fecks off on his lifeboat.The SFA are cowardly bastar*s withold your money and switch your betting to non sponsors, do not support anything at hampden and boycott ibrox.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:20 pm - Jul 16, 2017


I’ve just been reading that a number of Rangers fans are unhappy their club has arranged a friendly with Marseille. The reason is that in the 90’s Marseille were guilty of cheating to win games, and some of it was around the time Rangers played them in the Champions League.

I was trying to think of a single word to describe the audacity of any Rangers fan taking this stance, but I can’t really settle on one that would adequately describe it. 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:51 pm - Jul 16, 2017


Corrupt official  July 16, 2017 at 17:39 
@EJ.  @ Tangoed…      I am following the thread, and can understand how one loan cancels the other, but you will need to help me out a bit.      What did Worthingtons buy, and then sell on to the other outfit (I forget their name) ….. Surely not just a self cancelling loan and expensive court-case over nothing? 
====================
You have to remember the hierarchy of the company ownership structure and the securities held over RFC Plc (RFC (2012) Plc)
Company structure (main shareholders)
RFC -> Wavetower/TRFCG -> Law Financial Ltd -> Worthington Group  ……. and
Liberty Corporate -> Law Financial Ltd -> Worthington Group

Securities Over RFC assets
BoS – Lloyds -> Wavetower/TRFCG -> Liberty Corporate

So the ultimate owner of the securities over RFC’s assets was Worthington Group.  When Worthington went into liquidation they had a £3.5m claim pending over RFC’s assets in the name of Wavetower/TRFCG.

BDO disputed the claim and took the matter to the CoS, on the basis of the fraudulent takeover and financial assistance charges against Whyte, and in any event the sum claimed was fully offset due to money owed by Wavetower/TRFCG to RFC.  BDO argued that the claim was preventing BDO from distributing an Np in the £1 dividend to creditors.

When BDO last went to court seeking permission to proceed with the liquidation process at the end of May, they found that Worthington has assigned the claim onto Henderson & Jones who were now pursuing a claim of £2.5m.   H&J were given 28 days to formally submit a revised claim to BDO, who would then assess it on its merits and judge on its validity.

That is where we are at, but I don’t know if H&J have progressed the claim, and if BDO have commenced their distribution of the creditors pot.  In any event, I suspect that any distribution will have been delayed by the SC decision on the EBT case, waiting for confirmation from HMRC of the final claim.  

H&J describe themselves on their website as follows:

We will buy claims for immediate money and/or a share of the proceeds. We will then litigate the claim ourselves, taking the expense and risk, and leaving the insolvency practitioner free to close the insolvency.
We work with a range of insolvency practitioners and creditors to maximise recoveries from legal claims without them incurring the risk and cost involved in litigation.
Litigation may not always be an attractive or viable option for many reasons, but that shouldn’t mean the claim has no value. And even when litigating the claim is feasible, selling it may be an attractive alternative.

 

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on8:41 pm - Jul 16, 2017


EASYJAMBOJULY 16, 2017 at 19:51
    Cheers EJ. 
       I was with the fact they were playing pass the parcel with it, but couldn’t reason in the more or less equal loans/debts. 
      Excuse my ignorance once more, but is it the case that the original £3.5m claim, relates to something else, other than the balancing loans?. 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on9:57 pm - Jul 16, 2017


Corrupt official July 16, 2017 at 20:41 
EASYJAMBOJULY 16, 2017 at 19:51     Cheers EJ.         I was with the fact they were playing pass the parcel with it, but couldn’t reason in the more or less equal loans/debts.        Excuse my ignorance once more, but is it the case that the original £3.5m claim, relates to something else, other than the balancing loans?.
=======================
The history of the claim was detailed in the BDO report from Dec 2016.  I understand that the H&J claim was for £2.5m.

Creditors were previously advised that the Joint Liquidators were in a position to pay a first dividend to creditors last summer and that the Committee had previously approved the Joint Liquidators’ proposed Scheme of Division.

As you are aware, the proposed dividend was subsequently delayed as the Joint Liquidators were put on notice of a potential claim by solicitors representing Law Financial Limited (“LFL”), a company which is 100% owned by Worthington Group, and of which Craig Whyte was a former director. LFL indicated in this claim that it had taken an assignment of the floating charge and the debt due to Lloyds Bank Plc (“Lloyds”), and that it had a secured claim of c. £25m in priority to all other creditors.

Following discussions with our legal advisors, the Joint Liquidators made an application to Court seeking directions to set a deadline by which LFL had to submit its formal claim. This was set for 4 September 2015 and, whilst LFL submitted answers to the Joint Liquidators’ application on this date, they did not advance the claim any further. LFL ultimately indicated that it would not be submitting a formal claim in the Liquidation and the Court application was consensually resolved.

However, on 17 September 2015, the Joint Liquidators received formal notice from The Rangers FC Group Limited (a company previously known as Wavetower Limited, “Wavetower”) confirming that it had taken an assignment of the floating charge and debt due to Lloyds and that, as a result, it had a secured claim of some £18m. In effect, Wavetower advanced a secured claim in place of LFL, albeit with a slightly lower quantum.

On 2 October 2015, the Joint Liquidators formally rejected the claim. Following protracted correspondence, Wavetower confirmed it would withdraw both its appeal of the Joint Liquidators’rejection and the claim itself.

Wavetower subsequently submitted a new secured claim of c£3.5m on 12 July 2016. No supporting documentation was provided with the claim, which the Joint Liquidators rejected on 22 August 2016.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:16 pm - Jul 16, 2017


easyJamboJuly 16, 2017 at 19:51
‘….H&J were given 28 days to formally submit a revised claim to BDO, who would then assess it on its merits and judge on its validity…’
________
In loose connection, eJ, did you notice that The Rangers FC Group Ltd ( formerly Wavetower) was formally ‘dissolved’ on 27/06/17?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:23 pm - Jul 16, 2017


Corrupt Official

i don’t know if it will help or confuse further. The following is my understanding which I can reassure everyone is as naive, basic and ill informed as they come, so here goes nothing!!!

Don’t forget that extra money has entered the equation.  In essence, at the beginning a sum of money entered the equation (from Ticketus) and left, via the circuitous route EJ describes, to repay the BOS debt.  Ordinarily there would be no point in Cw/wavetower/law financial/H&J pursuing anything since even if successful in their claim, in the absence of a proper asset sale with proceeds going into the pot, there would be nothing to go after.  It is only the entry of another entirely separate sum of money, the Witney insurance settlement, that has created a prize worth fighting over.  

Thats my take anyway.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:28 pm - Jul 16, 2017


EASYJAMBOJULY 16, 2017 at 21:57
    I appreciate your patience bud, and it would appear BDO were even in the dark as to what the claim pertained to. Reputational damages perhaps?…Even that seems unlikely as it was a judge who gave D&P the nod to bomb him out?…..I’vew just had another read of the BDO report, and don’t see any clues…..I’m sure it will all come out in the wash, but that appears to be quite a bit down the line yet.   
   

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:42 pm - Jul 16, 2017


John Clark July 16, 2017 at 22:16
easyJamboJuly 16, 2017 at 19:51 ‘….H&J were given 28 days to formally submit a revised claim to BDO, who would then assess it on its merits and judge on its validity…’ ________ In loose connection, eJ, did you notice that The Rangers FC Group Ltd ( formerly Wavetower) was formally ‘dissolved’ on 27/06/17?
====================
Yes I had picked that up.  H&J were appointed directors of TRFCG, Law Financial, Liberty Corporate and Sevco 5088, all on 12 June 2017.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:05 pm - Jul 16, 2017


EJ, AJ, Auldheid, JC, C.O. HC  and all the rest of my favourite posters.  Thank you for all your contributions.  I would post something around my favourite football anthems but I would probably get moderated.  In my defence I would say I love the beautiful love songs which Celtic sing, who couldn’t love ‘you will never walk alone’ ? Brings tears to my eyes.
Night night.

View Comment

Avatar

DenPosted on11:08 pm - Jul 16, 2017


It would be good to have the details of the Ticketus arrangements.
I always thought of the Ticketus loan being to Wavetower (wrong). The loan was based on future season tickets which would be issued by Rangers, Ticketus would probably have structured the Contract to be with Rangers FC, not some vehicle owned by a wee fly man. 
Wavetower had a need for the money to clear the Lloyds loan. Lloyds had a floating charge on the assets of Rangers which Whyte wanted transferred to Wavetower.
Since he had control of Rangers FC Whyte created a loan to Wavetower from Rangers, transferring the loaned funds. This time there was no floating charge, just intra Company indebtedness.
It makes sense to most of us to offset the loans but in this case Wavetower had a floating charge on the assets of Rangers (or believed they had). If you were going to put Rangers into Admin or liquidation that floating charge would allow you to take everything up to the value of your loan and stuff the pennies in the pound guys who had no security. Such thoughts would be uppermost in the mind of Whyte and Co. 
It was in Whyte’s interest to preserve the Floating charge as it was potentially an asset (worth money to him/ Wavetower). I guess that the floating charge is what is being passed around.
Whyte tried to keep the Ticketus deal under wraps and I suspect that most people at Rangers were kept in the dark.
It may be unrelated but I have a memory of leaks from Charlotte fakes showing that Ticketus people needed invoices from Rangers and the senior guys in the Whyte team provide one or two which were rejected by Ticketus. Eventually someone at Ticketus did it and provided it to the Rangers people. it struck me as odd that they didn’t go to the Accounts Department to get the invoice done. 
Also the Rangers’ Financial Controller was visited by HMRC about an invoice which he said was “Cut and Paste” and had not come from their Accounts Department. That amounts to false accounting.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:28 pm - Jul 16, 2017


Sorry but I’m back again.  Just had a look at the Fan Footage video of Celtic V Barca.  You should see the amount of stewards & Police around the arena and that’s for a match where the fans love each other!  I won’t mention the security at Linfield!

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:58 am - Jul 17, 2017


It’s late o’clock on a Sunday night/Monday morning, Mrs C eagerly awaiting my youthful sprint upstairs,but I simply have to share this with you:
as I have sat here this evening, dipping into the blog every now and again, I have been reading.
And I have just come across this sentence: ” In doing so, he gave proof of that barbarity which simply deletes the past and without the slightest scruple claims credit for its achievements.”
Deleting the past…? …Claiming credit?
That’s got a sort of  familiar ring to it, wouldn’t you say?
Can’t quite place it; maybe to do with football or something?
There’s a kind of connection that the synapses aren’t making ( maybe old age).
I’m factoring in the fact that the ‘he’ mentioned is a reference to Mr A Schicklgruber.19

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:58 am - Jul 17, 2017


What I did not know, a propos my immediately preceding post, was that the book in which the sentence I quoted is written, was written by a guy who, with his wife and a whole lot of evacuee children , was drowned when the ‘City of Benares’ was sunk by U-boat 48.
His name was Rudolph Olsen, and the book was published in 1936.[ some 8 years before a Nazi mortar blew my dad’s leg off on Monte Piccolo ]
Olsen  puts our SMSM chaps and chapesses to shame for their disgraceful failure to ask questions, not about dangerous ,high political,world-shattering, apocalyptic matters, but about football governance in a wee small country!
Courage is as courage does.
And there is as little courage as is there is journalistic integrity.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:18 am - Jul 17, 2017


Den July 16, 2017 at 23:08 
It would be good to have the details of the Ticketus arrangements.
============================
Most of the details have been disclosed in various statutory documents, e.g. Companies House, court documents or creditors reports.  The figures vary somewhat from one to another, but the essence of the arrangements can be established.

Rangers use of Ticketus prior to Whyte was normally done on a fee only basis, e.g Ticketus will advance you £3M for three months against ST sales for a fee of £160k. Those figures came from Rangers Financial Director, Donald McIntyre, in court.

Figures from the Whyte period rely on official documents. The MG05S security document lodged at Companies House in May 2011, specified the no. of STs involved as:
2011/12 – 23,154
2012/13 – 27,017
2013/14 – 27,014
2014/15 – 23,154

Payments from Ticketus to RFC were recorded as follows:
The original criminal indictment.
£24,337,094 into Collyer Bristow client account on 07/04/11  (probably included VAT which Ticketus would reclaim)

Lord Hodge’s ruling on 23/04/12
£20,300,912 on 9 May 2011 (first tranche) – for first three seasons (seems like the above figure net of VAT)
£5, 075,213 on 21 Sep 2011 (second tranche) – for more STs from 2012/13 plus 2014/15

D&P Creditors Report 05/04/12
£20,300,000 Advanced May 11 – STs from 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14 (first tranche net of VAT?)
£25,400,000 Revenue expected in return
£3,000,000 Repaid June 2011
£5,000,000 Advanced September 2011 – STs from 2012/13, 2014/15 (second tranche)
£9,300,000 Revenue expected in return
£5,000,000 Repaid September 2011
£26,700,000 Creditors Claim April 2012 – (equates to total revenue expected less amount repaid)

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on8:05 am - Jul 17, 2017


In his recent statement in the Scotsman, Ralph Topping, the outgoing SPFL chairman, hinted, without being specific, at no further action being taken over the Supreme Court EBT decision. As Topping clearly already knows what the SPFL course of action will be, why the delay in announcing it via an official statement? Could this be yet another ploy to get every last drop of season ticket money into club coffers before it is confirmed that the fans are being mugged again, so that those fans are powerless to act as they did in 2012 by putting financial pressure on club chairmen?
 
Also, why didn’t supposed journalist, Alan Pattullo, think to ask a solitary relevant question of Topping instead of printing his PR verbatim? It never occurred to Pattullo to mention the scale of cheating that was supposedly to go unpunished? Seriously?
 
The more I think about our corrupt and inept football authorities hiding behind ‘taking legal advice’ as their reasoning for inaction on Rangers cheating, the more convinced I am that Charles Green persuaded the authorities in 2012 that he would only sign the five-way agreement, and thereby save Rangers, if two additional conditions were attached to the normal legalities covered by such agreements, thereby ensuring that the authorities had a form of their precious Rangers in the league set up.
 
Firstly was a no title-stripping clause, which is why we currently have the ridiculous situation of the guilty party in the biggest cheating scandal ever to hit Scottish sport going completely unpunished.
 
Secondly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Green insisted that the football authorities signed legal obligations to promote to all and sundry that the club had indeed survived liquidation in order to maintain the same club myth.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:51 am - Jul 17, 2017


DEN
JULY 16, 2017 at 23:08  
It would be good to have the details of the Ticketus arrangements.I always thought of the Ticketus loan being to Wavetower (wrong).
===============================

Ticketus did not provide a loan, they bought season tickets, in advance, at a discount, to sell on at face value.

Their profit was the difference between the buying and selling price, minus a commission to the club for selling the tickets on their behalf. The fans were not supposed to know that they were buying from anyone other than the club. 

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:02 am - Jul 17, 2017


HIGHLANDERJULY 17, 2017 at 08:05
      “Firstly was a no title-stripping clause, which is why we currently have the ridiculous situation of the guilty party in the biggest cheating scandal ever to hit Scottish sport going completely unpunished. Secondly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Green insisted that the football authorities signed legal obligations to promote to all and sundry that the club had indeed survived liquidation in order to maintain the same club myth.
    ————————————————————————————————
    I think it highly likely pretendygers resistance to title stripping is two fold. For the fans,  no doubt they think they are defending their glory and against charges of cheating.
     However, for Sevco, I believe they have a far more sinister motive for rallying the troops. 
     The ill-gotten purses !. A pretty penny indeed.
    Under their own secret and sleazy agreement, Sevco shoulder the repayment responsibility. I imagine if there is no re-allocation of the removed titles, these unmerited purses would be repayable to the league and association. 
   In an ideal world, pretendygers would accept the facts, and voluntarily hand over the titles and trophies. Under these circumstances Scottish fitba fans may think better of them, and some sort of amnesty agreed,
   We are talking existence threatening sums of money for the newco, and a product of their own sleazy agreement, but probably a hindrance to making progress. 
   I have long since said Sevco fans are just in the road of our real target, corruption in our game. Removing their opposition would be a massive leap forward. 
   Having said that, I don’t honestly see the day arriving when they will come to believe title-stripping is just a banner to fly while their masters attempt to protect their financial position.
   Look at what they already believe. 
   Think on those vast sums. Not just titles won, but 2nd places, semi-finals etc….It’s huge !
   With every club being a shareholder, , and the director responsibilities to shareholders, there is a route if clubs wish to pursue it.   Clubs in turn, have directors with shareholder responsibilities, and it has not escaped my attention that CFC, the only club facing a resolution on matters, are the only club who have spoken out. 
    You have the power folks. Table a resolution at your club. Lobby shareholders if you are not, Press your owners. 
    If there is no amnesty, Sevco owe you a bucket-load. 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:20 am - Jul 17, 2017


HOMUNCULUSJULY 16, 2017 at 08:52
Why would Wavetower (I know that it’s a different company claiming it now but this is simpler) be owed money anyway. It was Rangers which got the money from Ticketus, which it then gave to Wavetower, to buy the debt from Lloyds. How does that make Wavetower a creditor in Rangers’ liquidation. Even if their security is good then it would be a security over no debt surely. 
But a judgement by Lord Doherty made last year decided to put off any decision on the rights and wrongs of the claim until after Whyte’s fraud trial. He said: “I am satisfied that (i) whether there was a fraudulent scheme involving [Wavetower], and (ii) whether [Wavetower] was the recipient of unlawful financial assistance.. are both issues which arise in the proceedings.

 In those circumstances hearing the appeal before the criminal proceedings have been concluded would trespass upon matters at issue before the High Court of Justiciary, with the risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings.”I don’t think this should be taken to mean anything, either way. In my view he was simply saying that he was not willing to allow anyone to even discus the matter as anything said could prejudice a High Court case. If anything further happens I personally believe the claim will simply be rejected.
———————-
Now one must wonder why LNS never thought that making a decision on something should not be made until the SC case had been concluded.
But then again he was being paid to come up with a conclusion there and then.
       

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:24 am - Jul 17, 2017


As discussed the other day it may well be the case that, for various reasons, Rangers cannot be punished any more for the improper registration of players and the withholding of documentation from both Tax and Footballing authorities.

Similarly, there is probably no footballing offence relating to not asking for the authorities’ advice on the correct implementation of tax avoidance schemes and the relationship and need to comply with footballing rules.

However that does not deter people from speaking out and saying that, now that all the facts are known and the legal arguments have been resolved in the Supreme Court, football in this country has been greatly damaged by this tawdry affair and that Rangers dealings with both tax and footballing authorities was far from the standard required and expected by Scottish football.

Guys like Topping have nothing to loose from issuing a Turnbull Hutton type statement telling it how it is.

Given it really is a new club playing at Ibrox and SDM is well away from the game what do people have to loose?

If folk don’t think the truth is being spoken then they can sue. However I guess that even the finest legal minds available to the footballing authorities would say they would have little prospect of success if the appropriate words were used to finally put the oldco in their place.

In these Brexit ridden days when 52% is deemed as the ‘will of the people’ surely the majority of clubs and supporters outwith the reaches of Ibrox deserve better than being fobbed off once again.

View Comment

Avatar

causaludendiPosted on11:45 am - Jul 17, 2017


This is from the twittersphere, although I believe it can be found @ stripthetitles.wordpress.
I have already sent my email off.

McDonald’s are one of the SFA’s corporate sponsors. As you can see below there seems to be an ethos gap between McDonalds and the Scottish Football Association.We sent this to McDonald’s Corporate early today. There is not an e-mail address for their marketing dept so we sent it to their media people. Please join us. Just copy and paste the content of this email to the address below. Please encourage more fans to send their own messages drawing attention to the ethos gap. If you would like to construct your own email feel free.
_____________________________________________________________________________
press@us.mcd.com
Subject: Sponsorship of The Scottish Football Association (Scotland)
You should be aware that The Scottish Football Association (Scotland) whom McDonald’s sponsor, are as diametrically opposed to McDonald’s good governance policy as can be.
“The basis for our entire business is that we are ethical, truthful and dependable. It takes time to build a reputation. We are not promoters. We are business people with a solid, permanent, constructive ethical program that will be in style years from now even more than it is today.”– Ray Kroc, 1958
The SFA are none of the above as any cursory check of social media will tell you. The Scottish media are less reliable as a source, most having ignored the corruption in the last five years and only Channel 4 News has put any focus on the problem. See
https://www.channel4.com/news/hmrc-wins-rangers-tax-battle
It would be worth while contacting Alex Thomson who knows quite a bit about the issues. The SFA, in spite of having one of the UK’s biggest sporting scandals happening on its watch have issued a statement saying the matter is closed, which is an abandonment of ethics.
The SFA are an organisation McDonald’s would do well to review its relationship with or if possible (to a round of supporter applause) attempt to instil some of Ray Krogh’s/McDonald’s corporate values.
Perhaps it’s not a news item, but it could become one as the SFA continue to treat their customers like fools. You might wish to refer to your marketing department to consider.
Your Name Here

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:38 pm - Jul 17, 2017


The Celtic Supporters Association response to Stuart Regan.
1. It would be good to know what that advice is.
2. If it makes sense emotions will settle.
So let’s be having it.
http://www.thecsa.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1950&p=6141 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on12:44 pm - Jul 17, 2017


Roger Federer wins wimbledon. Rafa Cabrerabello wins the scottish open. Lewis Hamilton swept the board at silverstone.
 A great weekend for sports fans of these sports to enjoy.
But for us scottish football fans how can we now look forward to the new season of our sport knowing the governing bodies of our sport are happy to see fans of football cheated for years.
If any of the above sports persons are ever found to have won anything this weekend by dishonest ways, (and i’m not saying they did) i bet there would be no opposition to removing their wins

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:47 pm - Jul 17, 2017


In view of what is unfolding you have to ask what is the point of having governers with no power to govern and what are they doing to remedy the situation?

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on1:05 pm - Jul 17, 2017


AULDHEIDJULY 17, 2017 at 12:38       1 Vote 
The Celtic Supporters Association response to Stuart Regan.1. It would be good to know what that advice is.2. If it makes sense emotions will settle.So let’s be having it.http://www.thecsa.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1950&p=6141 
———————
I would like to take issue with one point you make, namely the line “have you actually asked for anyone’s opinion apart from some nameless QC?”As this is a highly complex legal matter we have sought Senior counsel opinion and as a board are content with the advice we have been given and the decisions we have made. There are a myriad of other opinions out there on this subject, the majority of which are linked to vested interests. As such, we are minded to keep this matter objective and rely on expert opinion to aid our decision-making.
Best wishes,Stewart.
—————
and as a board are content with the advice we have been given and the decisions we have made.
——-
But the fans of scottish football are not happy with your board and the decisions that you have made.So what are you going to do about it?
———-
the majority of which are linked to vested interests.

The only vested interest is to see an honest game and to see rules applied.Can you explain vested interests if it’s not to see an honest game and to see rules applied.what are these vested interests that you speak off?

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on1:23 pm - Jul 17, 2017


AULDHEIDJULY 17, 2017 at 12:47       2 Votes 
In view of what is unfolding you have to ask what is the point of having governers with no power to govern and what are they doing to remedy the situation?
—————–
Something i asked a couple of days ago
If the SFA who’s Governance is a primary responsibility and is responsible for administering disciplinary procedures for its member clubs. That is essential in protecting the integrity and reputation of the game at all levels,
——-
Why did the SFA have to seek Senior counsel opinion?
And just how is it a highly complex legal matter?
what makes it a highly complex legal matter?
They,the ibrox club cheated for years. Do your job as Governance is your primary responsibility and you are also responsible for administering disciplinary procedures for all member clubs. You don’t get to pick and choose.All means all.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:31 pm - Jul 17, 2017


AULDHEIDJULY 17, 2017 at 12:38 
The Celtic Supporters Association response to Stuart Regan.1. It would be good to know what that advice is.2. If it makes sense emotions will settle.So let’s be having it.http://www.thecsa.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1950&p=6141 
______________

While reading Regan’s reply, I swear I could see his patronising face, smiling down at all and sundry, like a schoolteacher talking to that child who just would not learn, or, who, to the teacher’s chagrin, always asked the awkward, intelligent questions he could not, or dare not, answer.

His response was so pointedly without explanation that he might as well have responded with: ‘this is just too complex for the ordinary football supporter to understand, believe me, I/we know best!’

There is a very good reason why businesses and authorities respond with such curt and explanation free replies, for to try to explain that which you’d rather avoid, usually because the truth might harm you or your business, can often lead to difficulties and things said that only lead to further questions to be asked and answered.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:40 pm - Jul 17, 2017


Tried to edit and complete the last paragraph of my last post to :

There is a very good reason why businesses and authorities respond with such curt and explanation free replies, for to try to explain that which you’d rather avoid, usually because the truth might harm you or your business, can often lead to difficulties and things said that only lead to further questions to be asked and answered and lead to the collapse of the wall behind which the truth is hidden.

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on1:42 pm - Jul 17, 2017


Correct AJ et al. I currently feel patronised up to my eyeballs07

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:43 pm - Jul 17, 2017


So Scotland’s finest solicitor (who isn’t from Arbroath) is now Senior Council.

Can they not even agree their bunkum before they spout it.

Though to be fair Mr Topping apparently can’t remember his own opinion for a few hours so remembering who was at four meetings, where they discussed something just short of match fixing, might be a bit of a bother for him.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on1:57 pm - Jul 17, 2017


Re the Regan’s reply,
Did i miss the part where he thanked Mr DK for his statement on the SFA Re the SC findings. what it was not there? he must have forgot to add,but i bet he wished he could have slipped it in just as a side note.
Listen DK said we did a good job and that’s alright by us so move along.

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on2:01 pm - Jul 17, 2017


WOTTPI
JULY 17, 2017 at 11:24
 
 Guys like Topping have nothing to lose from issuing a Turnbull Hutton type statement telling it how it is.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
The guy doesn`t know that he doesn`t know
 
Or put another way
When you don`t have integrity you don`t know you have anything to lose

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on2:14 pm - Jul 17, 2017


wottpi
July 17, 2017 at 11:24
As discussed the other day it may well be the case that, for various reasons, Rangers cannot be punished any more for the improper registration of players and the withholding of documentation from both Tax and Footballing authorities.
Similarly, there is probably no footballing offence relating to not asking for the authorities’ advice on the correct implementation of tax avoidance schemes and the relationship and need to comply with footballing rules.
 
There was no involvement of tax issues Eric Riley of Celtic wanted this included but it was not and would probably be on the advice no judge may comment on issues which are the subject matter to be dealt with in a court of law SC. LNS was a loaded commission enquiry (bowling green committee enquiry) set to find on issues they directed him to find in favour of. Tax issues as mentioned could not be disclosed as this would infringe on the pending case of the SC and LNS would not, as an experienced man of law and who would be clued up, enter into giving a verdict or opinion if asked.
This then has left the door open to a subject that was not dealt with, and are the major cancer which the SFA have rules in place to destroy and keep the game honest and virus free,and if so can be recalled now facts have come to light which shows cheating. If the enquiry threw cheating under the rug this is conspiring to bring out favourable results whilst corrupting the truth which you know about. This is basically a real trial now with DNA and evidence available to show the game was been corrupted to the benefit of one club. Non-disclosure was an issue and dealt with but the tax issue was not and could not be, until now and this now throws in doubt the statement all clubs could have did this, however to have done so would include risk, the risk that the taxman would have came calling and it would be knowledge that in order to achieve the aim of the scheme would be to inform the taxman for approval, therefore the team who took the risk hid the scheme and in issuing side letters tried to protect the player from a taxman visit, this would mean also that the letters would have to hidden from registration and in doing so the players are no longer fully registered through an attempt to distract and corrupt administration procedures.
To find that a team uses a scheme to advance a payment undeclared to tax authorities requires you to now be privy to the fact however you are restricted in dealing with this issue if it is in the hands of a superior mind(s) setup to deal with the issue
You as an association are thereby held to deal in the future with any result of an offence which contravenes the integrity of the sport. No association is exempt from its own rules when the facts become known and factual after an event out with informs of the breach of your rules.
The punishments mentioned were designed to deal with matters to hand only even if the result was bent. Revisiting is not an option to relent on it is an option with only one fact, you are required to visit avenues which has brought your game into disrepute this is why events are overturned in the future. You will be guilty of corruption if you attempt to subvert the truth and facts now known leading to you to make decisions corrupting yourself, this is a criminal offence if you subvert the truth whilst acting as a registered business.
There is no way out and they know it is only a matter of time to bring it to a court or force them to relinquish their protection and subversion of facts. All the club 1872 and paper none-sense re CW and floating charge is puff pieces to deflect from the real issue. Two courts have revealed the truth and it is now in the public domain an investigation and removal of corruption is required and this begins by removing ill-gotten gains.
just my opinion others may be able to further or correct my opinions and please do.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on2:22 pm - Jul 17, 2017


excuse some of my grammar, i suffer a rare mild Dyslexia,really i do.

View Comment

CrownStBhoy

CrownStBhoyPosted on2:25 pm - Jul 17, 2017


For anyone who may be interested in the “Strip the Titles” campaign:
https://stripthetitles.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/dear-mcdonalds-were-not-loving-it/comment-page-1/#comment-97
“Strip the Titles” can be found on Twitter.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:31 pm - Jul 17, 2017


Following on from a couple of good points mentioned above, about being able to strip titles, or not ;

1) A restrictive clause is included in the ‘Secret 5 Way Agreement’ ?

I don’t believe that is true, or if its is, it is not worth the paper it’s written on, as those representing the SFA & SPL at the time where acting beyond their authority.

To expand the logic: if the SFA/SPFL claim they cannot strip titles because of the 5WA content, then IMO, they would be implying;

“All senior clubs are bound by our rules – except where we decide to make a secret / private arrangement for the benefit of an unspecified club at any time in the future.” 

2) Amnesty.

You would think that the SFA would have sounded out a sample of clubs before now?

To remove the threat of eternal litigation, an amnesty could be agreed before a proper, independent review of the ‘EBT years’ was initiated.
It appears that most clubs want the fans “to move on”, and costly litigation might not even be on their radar anyway ? 

The details of any amnesty must be made fully public.

A Review’s ToR, selection process for participants, appeal process etc. must also be fully detailed / transparent – for fans to have any confidence.

…to state the beedin’ obvious ? 14

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:39 pm - Jul 17, 2017


CROWNSTBHOY
JULY 17, 2017 at 14:25 
For anyone who may be interested in the “Strip the Titles” campaign:https://stripthetitles.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/dear-mcdonalds-were-not-loving-it/comment-page-1/#comment-97“Strip the Titles” can be found on Twitter.
===============================

…and I also copied mine to;

info@scottishfa.co.uk  16

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on3:41 pm - Jul 17, 2017


LNS Though did comment on the Tax Case. He explicitly stated that as far as his enquiry was concerned the EBT’s were lawful and as such were not a breach of league rules
That is an important point. If the use of EBT’s in relation to their legality/lawfulness/regularity was a matter of no consequence , then LNS had no need to address them. The fact that he found it necessary  to comment on their legality is telling.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is a breach of rules to use tax schemes which are irregular , unlawful , illegal or any of those categories 

Yet there has not been a single enquiry into these tax schemes. Is this because guilt had already been admitted by Rangers ? Is it because it would be impossible to come to any other conclusion that sporting advantage was gained ?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on3:54 pm - Jul 17, 2017


CrownStBhoyJuly 17, 2017 at 14:25
‘..For anyone who may be interested in the “Strip the Titles” campaign:…’
________
Yes, I’m interested and have just sent this to McD’s
”                                                                                                                 Today at 15:44
To press@us.mcd.com
Dear ‘McDonald’s’,A company that justly boasts of the long continuation of its ‘ethical, truthful and dependable’ business basis  would do well to withdraw its sponsorship of any company that does not believe in being honest and dependable.
I imagine that when you look into the  Scottish Football Association(SFA), the body responsible for the governance of professional football in Scotland, you will find that they badly failed in that governance by ,firstly allowing, through defective checking mechanisms, one football club to field ineligible players over more than ten seasons and ,secondly, failing to apply the due penalty for every single breach of the Rule when the truth was finally exposed.
 The SFA are caught in a web of self-protective lies over this issue, and are hiding behind such phrases as ‘complex legal issue’ without as much as telling us what they imagine the  legal issues to be.
 There are many thousands,nay, tens of thousands of fans who believe that the SFA, is, in its own unique way, as corrupt as FIFA( the governing body of world football)was discovered to be by the United States Government and people not so long ago.
 These fans will, of course,  take a  very dim view of companies which,once they are fully apprised of the facts. continue to sponsor the SFA. And, of course, such companies would be tarnished by association.
 I believe that ‘McDonald’s’ currently sponsor the SFA?
 It might be  good idea if you were to investigate the facts ( and, of course, do it independently of merely asking the SFA, which will lie to you as easily and glibly as they have lied to us for four years or more). The facts are very simple, and I would be very happy to give you a heads up if that would be helpful.
 
Yours in the interests of clean sport,
 (real name)

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on4:16 pm - Jul 17, 2017


Disciplinary proceedings have been opened following the UEFA Champions League second round qualifying first leg match between Linfield FC and Celtic FC (0-2), played on 14 July in Northern Ireland.
Charges against Linfield FC:
• Throwing of objects – Art. 16 (2) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (DR)• Field invasion by supporters – Art. 16 (2) DR
Charges against Celtic FC:
• Player Leigh Griffiths – provoking spectators (after the end of the match) – Art. 15 (1) (a) DR• Improper conduct of the team (5 cards or more) – Art. 15 (4) DR
This case will be dealt with by the UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body on 20 July.
—————-
Now if celtic appeal LG yellow card and they win the Improper conduct of the team (5 cards or more) – Art. 15 (4) DR
Can’t stand.
Interesting the charges against Lingfield don’t include sectarian singing by their supporters

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:55 pm - Jul 17, 2017


BIGBOAB1916JULY 17, 2017 at 14:14

I get where you are coming from but my point is that the issue of improper registration appears to have been dealt with (wrongly in my opinion, but there you go). If John James’ emails are genuine then it appears that in 2013 a majority of SPL board disregarded Toppings concerns over the fine/punishment being too lenient and wanted to carry on regardless without taking the LNS matter to appeal.

The issue of the retrospective illegality of the tax avoidance schemes is  a bit more complicated as the Rangers argument was that at the time they believed they were acting within the law and the loans were not payments that needed to be declared to the footballing authorities and were not subject to PAYE and NI.

While folk make comparisons with drugs cheats such as Lance Armstong and athletes, many of these cases are ones where banned substances where taken but the cheating was only discovered later through new evidence or improved testing methods.

Rangers case is more akin to previously taking a questionable performing enhancing substance that has now been ruled as being on the banned list – a la Sharapova and meldonium.

As a general drug it was one was not approved for use in the USA but it was deemed OK by the Russian medical bodies, so it was dodgy in some respects but there were arguments that could be made for her taking it.

Sharapova took the substance for 10 years before it was added to the sports banned list in 2016. When it was detected  in her system post the 2016 introduction she was fined and given 24 month (reduced to 15 months) ban.

However she has not been stripped of her any titles she won pre-2016.

The difference between Sharapova and Rangers is that a good deal of top players came out against Sharapova and through direct quotes or implications said she was a cheat. Jennifer Capriati called for title stripping but clearly that has fallen on deaf ears when it comes to the tennis authorities who have stuck to what they can do within their rules and those of the World Anti Doping Agency.

Similarly the press was more than happy to stick the knife in an call her out as a cheat.

The argument with regard to title stripping will go on forever but my main concern is that no-one in the football establishment or press appears to have the balls to call out Rangers and SDM for behaviour that was simply not up to standard and that no open and transparent review appears to be proposed to learn lessons and ensure this type of thing cannot happen again.

If Sharapova, who is second on the all time prize money list for female tennis players,  can be called out by her fellow pros- why not Rangers? She certainly fits the bill of coming across as being a bit cold, arrogant, aloof and being detached from the rest of the game 🙂

The irony is that Dave King, back in 2012, has perhaps been the only person ‘inside the game’ to say something half decent on the whole affair. (Pity he has changed his tune now!!) 

Until the majority of people inside the game come out and openly criticize the underhand wheeling-dealing that went on at Ibrox during the DOS/EBT years no-one is going to be able to move on, title stripping or not.

 

  

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on5:39 pm - Jul 17, 2017


STEVIEBC

JULY 17, 2017 at 15:31        

Following on from a couple of good points mentioned above, about being able to strip titles, or not ;
1) A restrictive clause is included in the ‘Secret 5 Way Agreement’ ?
I don’t believe that is true, or if its is, it is not worth the paper it’s written on, as those representing the SFA & SPL at the time where acting beyond their authority.
To expand the logic: if the SFA/SPFL claim they cannot strip titles because of the 5WA content, then IMO, they would be implying;
“All senior clubs are bound by our rules – except where we decide to make a secret / private arrangement for the benefit of an unspecified club at any time in the future.” 
——————————-

Stevie,

There’s a very small circle of people who actually know what’s in the 5WA/side-letters/adjuncts. I don’t.

The advice that the SFA & SPFL are getting from their ‘Big Giant Legal Heids’ appears to be based on protecting those bodies (and members) from exposure/embarrassment/possible litigation, not on protecting the integrity of the game, which, after all, is their supposed purpose. 

That, in itself, should be enough to make one wonder what is included in the documents known as the 5WA. I’m in the ‘anything’s possible from C. Green’ camp. Perhaps he did ask for no title stripping & was surprised when his request was granted. Perhaps there’s a time limit on the 5WA & nothing included in it is presently actionable. 

We just don’t know. Without transparency from the SFA & SPFL, we’ll likely never know.

…until Chuckles writes his book!

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on6:12 pm - Jul 17, 2017


wottpiJuly 17, 2017
The issue of the retrospective illegality of the tax avoidance schemes is  a bit more complicated as the Rangers argument was that at the time they believed they were acting within the law and the loans were not payments that needed to be declared to the footballing authorities and were not subject to PAYE and NI.
http://www.step.org/news/tax-advisors-defeat-professional-negligence-claim-despite-failing-warn-ebt-scheme-risks
They cannot plead ignorance as the evidence was available that EBTs are not lawful if you hide the details see above. Charles Green claimed they had declared them on old co accounts, then why side letters as you must submit accounts to SFA for auditing so no secret there. Side letters confirms the guilt.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on6:14 pm - Jul 17, 2017


We shall not be screwed

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on6:28 pm - Jul 17, 2017


JINGSO.JIMSIEJULY 17, 2017 at 17:39  
There’s a very small circle of people who actually know what’s in the 5WA/side-letters/adjuncts. I don’t.

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

This has always puzzled me. Why are 41 Club’s board of directors happy for there to be a secret agreement to benefit the 42nd club? Surely they must want to know what’s in it, and what that club has been promised? I also doubt if the English media for example, would sit in silence if the FA held a secret agreement for the sole benefit of Manchester Utd, or Chelsea. Would the German media accept their FA holding a secret agreement for the benefit of Bayern Munich, or the French media with PSG etc? It must be a very, very small number of people who know, and they must be up to their necks in it. Why oh why the media think it’s actually okay is utterly beyond me. 

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:34 pm - Jul 17, 2017


@ UPTHEHOOPS 1828:

Being of a cynical nature, I’d suspect that when Capt. Mainwaring & Sgt. Wilson, sorry I mean Reagan & Doncaster, briefed the lower ranks, there was much use of terms similar to ‘expert’ or even ‘legal advice’, ‘civil disobedience’, ‘police involvement’, ‘need to know’, ‘confidentiality’ and, of course, ‘executive powers’ etc. etc.

There may even have been a Cpl. Jones (Ogilvie?) in the room, shouting ‘Don’t panic, don’t panic!’

Big Chuck (Pte. Walker?) played the SFA/SPL/SFL like an old fiddle. Paganini would have been proud of him.

(Jim Ballantyne would be Pte. Pike in my fanciful scenario.)

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on7:34 pm - Jul 17, 2017


There is undoubtedly a code of silence but it’s never been clear if they didn’t know and are too embarrassed to admit or that they did know and, em, were too embarrassed to admit it.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on8:48 pm - Jul 17, 2017


BIGBOAB1916JULY 17, 2017 at 18:12

I agree that comes down to the nub of the matter. PBW told them how to ‘drive the bus’ but SDM decided to take a slightly different path. 

As discussed many times in the past this was mostly likely due to football agents and their clients not being able to trust a club’s ability to honour a commitment without a bit of paper being signed.

Yes it can be said that that is where SDM went wrong and undertook an ‘illegal’ practice in realtion to how to run an EBT. 

It is that underhand practice that I believe Rangers need to be called out on. An honest broker and member of the footballing fraternity would have taken advice and counsel from the relevant authorities before taking such action. 

However that is the legal technicality that was being argued for years in the courts. For a time it looked that the legal opinion was in favour of Rangers. Thank God for the non-legal input of Dr Hedi Poon who saw the woods for the trees. 

Unfortunately, for the man on the street, this is how many a dodgy business/finance deal is played out. You get away with what you can and put off the consequences until further down the line. You either don’t get caught at all or you have a a time and leeway to legally procrastinate and set up something else to keep yourself in the money.

All the evidence points to Rangers and SDM having been caught fair and square but delayed and procrastinated their way through the whole process adding cost to the tax payer in court costs in addition to those monies already lost to her majesty. Why BDO even prolonged the whole episode god only knows!

It is easy to run fast and loose with everyone else’s money when you have your millions stashed away.

I know that SDM told a family member of mine many years ago, probably the 90s, that he and his family was secure for life and well beyond. He just continued in business because he enjoyed the buzz of it all, doing deals, wheeling and dealing etc. 

I think we both agree that regardless of whether or not footballing rules were broken the authorities need to publicly call out on the dishonourable behaviour of Rangers and those associated with them during the DOS/EBT years.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:02 pm - Jul 17, 2017


As a bit of an aside from the usual nonsense, I note that Griffiths is being potentially going to be done for his scarf wrapping antics.

Similar to Broonie getting booked within a couple of minutes against England for an opening tackle that goes unpunished in the SPFL it seems certain things that pass for the norm in Scottish Football are not tolerated by others on the continent.

(Clearly Euro refs need to be taught about Buckie bottle but that’s a different story)

If a ban is on the way for that one then Rodgers may best adopt the Brailsford philosophy of ‘Marginal Gains’ and tell him to cut that scarf tying out and do his talking on the pitch by making sure he is available for all future fixtures.

Having seen Leigh bang in a fair few game winning goals at Tynecastle in recent years I can attest he doesn’t have to rub our noses in it. The goals are more than enough.  🙂

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on9:57 pm - Jul 17, 2017


I wish LG would refrain from tying Celtic scarfs on the goalposts.  But I can understand the reasons why he does it.  He comes in for the most vile verbal abuse if not worse!  Why? I don’t know.  I wish he would/could rise above it.  But he is who he is.  A human being who doesn’t take kindly to abuse.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on11:03 pm - Jul 17, 2017


wottpi July 17, 2017 at 20:48
As discussed many times in the past this was mostly likely due to football agents and their clients not being able to trust a club’s ability to honour a commitment without a bit of paper being signed.
I see a lot in what you state to be probably how they thought or planned the EBT use. However i believe if the above statement you make above re the agents has signed the death warrant, as it is clear as day to the layman when two or more people engage in drawing up an agreement to ensure the reliability of the agreement for financial gain, this forms a second contract and the argument of mistaken it as not been intended as dual contracts will not hold in law.
Whatever way you look at the EBTs they are dual contracts and drawn up without consent this is the crime if you want, no-one is above the law and you cannot use the SFA and football to suit yourself. Even loans are contracts if strings are attached.
Anyway nice chatting and stay strong.

View Comment

Avatar

DenPosted on11:04 pm - Jul 17, 2017


EASYJAMBO
JULY 17, 2017 at 02:18
Thank you for the information.  

HOMUNCULUS
JULY 17, 2017 at 08:51
I stand corrected on calling the transaction a loan. 

The fans were not supposed to know that they were buying from anyone other than the club. 

There was lot of deception and that was a key one.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:13 pm - Jul 17, 2017


BIGBOAB1916JULY 17, 2017 at 23:03

Unfortunately the law does not operate in the ways of simple of folks like ye and me.

We can smell shite at 100yds but the lawyers and others just smell cash 🙂

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

Lawyers on the other hand will argue the toss to convince you its a swan.

Take care.

View Comment

Avatar

The_SteedPosted on7:48 am - Jul 18, 2017


A quick update on the perhaps unsurprising response from my bout of Emailing;

– My MSP – no response
– The MSPs responsible for sport – generic response to acknowledge receipt
– My MP – no response
– My Team (Hearts) – no response
– The SPFL – no response
– UEFA – no response

I’ll give the politicians the benefit of the doubt since I think both the Scottish and UK Parliaments are both in recess, but pretty poor show from the footballing side of things…

View Comment

Avatar

roddybhoyPosted on8:50 am - Jul 18, 2017


All very depressing stuff so far , Celtic have made a statement and its went all quiet since but I suppose they will need to say something else when its obvious they are being ignored by all the guilty ones hoping its all gonna go away. Been hearing that other clubs arent happy but dont know if this is true or not. I would like to think that behind the scenes clubs like Celtic , Aberdeen , Hearts , Hibs etc are in contact , although ALL the clubs big and small should be on top of this. It beggars belief if the clubs do not act. Surely, Surely the clubs must realise that the status quo can not go on. Scottish football administration just is nt working , a blind man can see that. The fees on lawyers etc that has been wasted to the game is ridiculous just because we have cowardly conflicted people in charge who continually pass the buck and hide. This should nt be a complicated situation , its been obvious for years the scale of cheating , it has now been proven so by the highest court in the land . If they were a real serious and professional body this would have been an easy decision for them …ie…just apply the rules. For me as a football fan first and a Celtic fan Titles should definitely be stripped BUT more importantly than that it is clearly the corruptness that is involved by the SFA and SPFL that to me is worse. Rangers Tried cheating , got caught and to date have never been punished …Bad very bad, but the Authorities who get public money to run a clean game knew they were cheating, ( Ogilvie etc) helped them conceal the cheating , they themselves have been caught AND still they lie and avoid the real issues , In my mind this is much worse . As a Celtic fan I love all the positives on the playing side just now BUT I really dont know if I could support football in Scotland anymore if this HUGE corrupt issue isnt dealt with , for me if there is no SFA , SPFL clear out of the guilty parties it looks like feking DIY and shopping at the weekend from now on in

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:56 am - Jul 18, 2017


WOTTPI
JULY 17, 2017 at 20:48 
I agree that comes down to the nub of the matter. PBW told them how to ‘drive the bus’ but SDM decided to take a slightly different path. 
As discussed many times in the past this was mostly likely due to football agents and their clients not being able to trust a club’s ability to honour a commitment without a bit of paper being signed.
Yes it can be said that that is where SDM went wrong and undertook an ‘illegal’ practice in realtion to how to run an EBT. 

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

In my reading of it the Supreme Court went way beyond the whole side letter issue and gave HMRC even more than they wanted.

Basically I believe they said if you get paid for doing your job then it’s wages for tax purposes. 

I thought they would rule that was only if it was contractual, which is how I always understood EBTs worked but it seems not. 

The upshot of that would be that even if there are no side letters, for example for the likes of Campbell Ogilvie, then they can either repay the money, or pay the tax on it.

View Comment

Comments are closed.