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
WOTTPIJUNE 29, 2017 at 16:20
Sorry – but given we have been waiting years for the likes of a successful professionally run multi- millions earning enterprise like Celtic speak out definitively about the cheating that has gone on in the Scottish game why the hell should we be relying on some pub team from Luxembourg to resolve matters?
I just chose Celtic as an example because they are the billy big baws with the power and influence to really make a difference.
=============================
I often wish Celtic would say more, but I think you overestimate the influence they have. I would seriously question whether they have parity of esteem with ‘Rangers’, within the Scottish football and wider Scottish establishment. You only have to think back to the utter outrage against the club in 2010 during the ‘Dougie Dougie’ affair, and going back further when Fergus McCann would not give up his pursuit of justice against Jim Farry.
Here’s the player list that Grant Russel was referring to:
ACT = Club trained ……… AAT = Association Trained
In a squad of 25, clubs are required to have 4 x ACT and a further 4 x ACT or AAT. Failure to meet these criteria mean that you lose a player from your squad. Rangers only have 2 x ACT so their squad is down to 23.
And I assume DW is one of the two yes?
Ignore that, forgot I could do that squeeze fingered zoom thingy.
Sorry, me again, so why isn’t Lee Wallace AAT then? I thought he came from hearts?
HighlanderJune 28, 2017 at 23:55
I have no doubt that the SPFL and SMSM will want to argue that the matter has already been dealt with by LNS and suitable punishment delivered.
However where LNS fails is in the following extract which is highlighted in bold in full below, where LNS said “While there is no question of dishonesty, individual” etc, etc.
It is now clear from the CW trail that the wee tax case liability was accepted by RFC precisely because HMRC had evidence of dishonesty in 2005 when some individual responded to HMRC that there were no side letters in the player files of De Boer and Flo (when at same time there were other side letters in files for signings using the MMGRT ebts – the BTC ones). Someone had to look and not find them and who did with supporting argument is at
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/persistence-beats-resi2tance-the-men-in-the-room/
The point though that has to override even the argument that BTC ebts could have been used by other clubs, which is Supreme Court dependent, is that there WAS individual dishonesty at play, which means the rest of LNS’s decision on the punishment fails as it is based on a false premise.
Add to that:
That LNS was only able to state no question of dishonesty because key HMRC letters of 23 Feb and 20th May 2011 were not provided to him via Harper McLeod when all documentation relating to all ebts with side letters were requested, that deliberate non disclosure is further dishonesty by Duff and Phelps who were well aware at the time of the wee tax case details and its importance.
Plus:
That the TJN/TOG have also asked the SFA to confirm whether or not they were provided with the 20th May 2011 HMRC letter by RFC in May 2011 as they should have been under UEFA licensing rules, which, if they saw it, would have told the SFA in summer 2011 that HMRC were accusing RFC of fraudulent or negligent behaviour, which is yet another reason to question the SFA’s honesty in letting the SPL take the lead in the LNS Commissioning. (Plausible deniability?)
Plus:
One final factor that should see anything Doncaster might argue to stand by LNS consigned to the dustbin of history is from a blog by Ecojohn on Scottish Law Reporter at
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/questions-over-nimmo-smith-inquiry-as.html
Did the then SPL Club reps on the SPL Board know about this guarantee to Charles Green issued in April 2012 at the same time Harper MacLeod were carrying out preliminary work on the eventual LNS Commission?
Quite simply, the prime concern should not be whether the consequences of BTC ebts being illegal means title stripping (which is not to say they should not be but why they would want them is beyond me) what matters is that the whole LNS Commission should be set aside as the sham that it is, created by Regan and Doncaster in an attempt to avoid what they thought would be Armageddon, because whilst it staved of their worst fears, it has doomed Scottish football and the authority of SFA and SPFL to govern to death by a thousand cuts.
Its toxicity from creation to completion is a mark of Cain on Scottish football and if our journos cannot see the long term consequences this represents for our game and their livelihoods, they should live long enough to feel them.
If Carlsberg did irony, the topper would have to be the Supreme Court finding in favour of BDO and not HMRC.
Just think: all of that dishonesty from 2000 onwards to hide what might turn out to be honest anyway would be enough to stop Karma from sleeping at night from laughing.
Whatever the SC Decision and consequences, The LNS Commission has to be set aside, along with those party to its creation, for our game to reach any state of credibility in its honesty.
Our club chairman/CEOs should not be reliant on the fickleness of results being their saviour, they have a duty to uphold the integrity of football, not finding ways of circumventing it.
From LNS Decision.
[107] We nevertheless take a serious view of a breach of rules intended to promote sporting integrity. Greater financial transparency serves to prevent financial irregularities. There is insufficient evidence before us to enable us to draw any conclusion as to exactly how the senior management of Oldco came to the conclusion that the EBT arrangements did not require to be disclosed to the SPL or the SFA. In our view, the apparent assumption both that the side-letter arrangements were entirely discretionary, and that they did not form part of any player’s contractual entitlement, was seriously misconceived. Over the years, the EBT payments disclosed in Oldco’s accounts were very substantial; at their height, during the year to 30 June 2006, they amounted to more than £9 million, against £16.7 million being that year’s figure for wages and salaries. There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities. The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.
[108] Given the seriousness, extent and duration of the non-disclosure, we have concluded that nothing less than a substantial financial penalty on Oldco will suffice. Although we are well aware that, as Oldco is in liquidation with an apparently massive deficiency for creditors (even leaving aside a possible reversal of the Tax Tribunal decision on appeal), in practice any fine is likely to be substantially irrecoverable and to the extent that it is recovered the cost will be borne by the creditors of Oldco, we nevertheless think it essential to mark the seriousness of the contraventions with a large financial penalty. Since Issues 1 to 3 relate to a single course of conduct, a single overall fine is appropriate. Taking into account these considerations, we have decided to impose a fine of £250,000 on Oldco.
STEVIEBCJUNE 29, 2017 at 15:04 7 Votes
Haven’t read it anywhere in the SMSM, but I guess [?] that TRFC’s UEFA opponents are part-timers ?
Even so, on paper at least, you could equate this tie with an SPL team playing – mibbees – a Juniors team ?
TRFC should win this tie easily:
——————-
Someone wrote on this blog (sorry i can’t remember who,so apologies from me)
Anyway. something along the lines of, most of the teams in the SPFL have a mindset that the club that plays out of ibrox is the same club that played out of ibrox pre 2012 And even before they take to the field the opposing team’s mindset by listening to interviews their managers have said before a ball is even kicked that it will be a hard game against a strong rangers side,and more along the same lines of biging up a sevco side as if it was the expensive group of players pre 2012.The SMSM do it to.
One can only hope that the away team even if they are part timers(remember part timers have already beaten a club that plays out of ibrox in recent times)
One can only hope that the away team see the ibrox club for what they are a new club that finished third in the SPFL by a long way.a team who have never played a competitive game together this season,and a team who have never played in europe.
sorry for the long post i’m away to watch Rocky and chear for the underdog
Smugas June 29, 2017 at 18:38
Sorry, me again, so why isn’t Lee Wallace AAT then? I thought he came from hearts?
======================
Yes I’d noticed that too. It’s not like clubs called Rangers to submit duff info to the SFA, and for the SFA just to rubber stamp it. Is it? ….. is it? ………… hullo, hullo, is there anyone there?
Re Wilson/Wallace:
https://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/46/71/42/2467142_DOWNLOAD.pdf
From the above:
41.05 The club bears the legal consequences for fielding a player who is not named onlist A or B, or who is otherwise not eligible to play.
That suggests it is the club’s responsibility to ensure that a player is eligible.
41.06 The UEFA administration decides on questions of player eligibility. Challenged decisions are dealt with by the UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body.
That suggests that UEFA decides post-hoc (after a possible breach), rather than scrutinise supplied lists & looking for errors etc.
42.03 A “locally trained player” is either a “club-trained player” or an “association trainedplayer”.
42.04 A “club-trained player” is a player who, between the age of 15 (or the start of theseason during which he turns 15) and 21 (or the end of the season during whichhe turns 21), and irrespective of his nationality and age, has been registered withhis current club for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons (i.e. aperiod starting with the first official match of the relevant national championshipand ending with the last official match of that relevant national championship) orof 36 months.
42.05 An “association-trained player” is a player who, between the age of 15 (or thestart of the season during which the player turns 15) and 21 (or the end of theseason during which the player turns 21), and irrespective of his nationality andage, has been registered with a club or with other clubs affiliated to the sameassociation as that of his current club for a period, continuous or not, of threeentire seasons or of 36 months.
I see Wilson as an ‘association-trained player’ due to his first spell at RFC as a youth & first-team player.
Surely TRFC aren’t claiming they’re the same club as RFC? Oh-oh!
I also see Wallace as an ‘association-trained player’ from his time at HMFC as a youth & first-team player.
(Apologies for the formatting glitches in the italicised text!)
NORMANBATESMUMFC
JUNE 29, 2017 at 14:10 5-years for a mere £1.5million!How long in the pokey could a disgraced knight of the realm expect for a tax fraud involving many tens of millions?????
==============================
A maximum of 7 years on indictment and 12 months on summary conviction if it’s purely for the type of fraud they are talking about.
Would it not be a case that TRFC havenn’t committed an offence wrt FFP until they set foot on the park tonight, and that any punishment would apply to next season ?
“There is no appetite for the stripping of titles.”
This will be the line promoted by the Scottish mainstream media next week if, as expected, the Supreme Court finds in HMRC’s favour. Of course, there will be no scientific evidence to back up the ‘no appetite’ assertion, but that won’t stop it being bandied about in the press and presented as fact.
I have to say that, contrary to what the media will report, I personally have a voracious appetite for the stripping of titles and trophies and I suspect that a substantial majority of the Scottish football public, who are aware of the facts of the case, would similarly be in favour of expunging titles and trophies from the record books for the affected seasons as the most appropriate form of redress, even if the record books merely displayed an asterisk with accompanying annotation, rather than awarding titles to the runners up.
Auldheid was of course right to point out earlier that the football authorities will claim (erroneously) that the matter of EBTs has already been dealt with by way of the LNS commission. I suspect they will keep their heads below the parapet in the coming weeks and leave the media to do their bidding.
We will be told that it would be futile to consider taking action against Oldco, who were the guilty party, because they no longer exist, and the EBT decision will have no impact on the current owners of the club. It will somehow conveniently escape them that removing titles from the old club (which after all they claim the new club is) would impact on the current owners via the removal of those titles.
Isn’t it remarkable that, throughout the entire history of football, up until 2012 when Rangers failed to exit administration with a CVA, we had never heard of a distinction being made between any football club anywhere in the world and the company who ran that club.
However, since Rangers self-inflicted and ignominious demise in 2012, we are expected to believe that the two are distinct entities (when it suits) and that the club can in no way be held responsible for, or suffer the consequences of the actions of office bearers of the company. Such is the appalling mess created by Messrs Regan, Doncaster and Ogilvie.
How proud they must be for sacrificing the wellbeing and integrity of Scottish football, and selling their own souls, all for the benefit of one delinquent club.
AuldheidJune 29, 2017 at 18:38
‘…..Just think: all of that dishonesty from 2000 onwards to hide what might turn out to be honest anyway would be enough to stop Karma from sleeping at night from laughing.’
___________
In the minds of the cheats, of course, there was every consciousness and realisation that what they were doing was cheating.
That didn’t stop them.
They lied, knowing that they were lying,and hoped that, or, indeed, knew and expected that their lying work would be covered;or if picked up, would be quietly ignored-by compromised persons who had been put in the way of financial resources sufficient to allow for a ‘good night out’ ( as measured by a partisan, deceitful BBC Scotland football commentator)
Their lying of course brought out ,as we have seen, the fundmental self-interested rottenness at the heart of the ‘majority shareholder’, who, to save his own personal fortunes, sold a rotten, cheatng football club into oblivion.
SDM is to be despised, not merely in moral terms, but in ordinary business savvy terms .He made a complete arse of his businesses, and showed himself to be a Judas to the loyal disciples of the ( God be with days!) old, genuine Rangers, now defunct except as a Liquidatee awaiting dissolution.
HighlanderJune 29, 2017 at 23:34
‘…… and I suspect that a substantial majority of the Scottish football public, who are aware of the facts of the case, would similarly be in favour of expunging titles and trophies from the record books for the affected seasons as the most appropriate form of redress, even if the record books merely displayed an asterisk with accompanying annotation, rather than awarding titles to the runners up.’
___________________
Yes, no one likes a cheat.
The casinos in Las Vegas, the kids in the playground, bookies who go to court rather than payout, jockey club stewards, even the Mafia, do not like or accept ‘cheats’
There cannot be anyone who has an interest in football in Scotland who can be unaware of the reasons why Rangers Football Club , founded in 1872, now no longer exists.
Cheating, is the answer, pure and simple.
And as other sports have learned, you have to deal with cheats.
Basically, that means you have to nullify their ‘sporting achievements’, whether those were achieved through drugs and dope or through deceitful bureaucratic practices
With all the shenanigans going on and the cover ups, squirrels and false smsm news it got me thinking back to a time when I was infinitely more innocent and started me thinking of the simple style in which tv programs were formatted to appeal to their audience.
I was then reminded that things were maybe not all that they seemed and this little gem came to mind
https://youtu.be/YAF3fWo8aoM
It was called the Singing Ringing Tree (sorry if the link does not work but you will get it on youtube), it was about a fair maid (supporters), an evil scheming dwarf (sfa) a big bungling bear (no description required), a big fish in a small pond that was rather innefective (CFC?) and a tree that tinkled and shimmered (feck knows) . Anyhoo it totally corrupted my innocent little mind and left me thinking ‘what the he’ll was all that about’, stupidly I believed I had left those days behind me after I progressed on to watching Casey Jones Steaming and a Rolling with the Cannonball Express and apart from a few blips along the way namely the Clangers, the Magic Roundabout and Captain Scarlet I survived relatively unscathed. Unfortunately 2012 came and I have been catapulted into an alternative reality where everything is not what it seems (am I really blogging at 4.30 am?) ach am away tae watch an episode of The Mysterious saving our dear planet Zog from that scheming sadistic earthling Dr Who!
HIGHLANDERJUNE 29, 2017 at 23:34
“There is no appetite for the stripping of titles.” This will be the line promoted by the Scottish mainstream media next week if, as expected, the Supreme Court finds in HMRC’s favour. Of course, there will be no scientific evidence to back up the ‘no appetite’ assertion, but that won’t stop it being bandied about in the press and presented as fact.
========================
What would really help is if prominent ex-Celtic figures such as Paul Lambert and Martin O’Neill would refrain from telling the media ‘the titles were won on the park’. It would be better to wake up to the fact that as professionals they were put at a disadvantage because the club they worked for chose to operate honestly, while the one winning the titles did not. If they profess to love the Celtic fans as much as they say (and I don’t doubt they do), then consider how much money those fans spent for years when their team was being cheated. Fans of other clubs were cheated too.
What I do await with interest is any statement from Celtic should BDO’s appeal fail. A statement was released following the HMRC appeal win in the Court of Session, making it clear that Celtic believed sporting advantage had been gained. The statement also said Celtic were aware a further appeal could happen therefore no more would be said at the time. Should Celtic make a statement though it will not do for them to act alone. Other clubs must officially speak up as well, otherwise it will be played out in the media as an O*d F*rm issue, a view which will be aided and abetted by the authorities.
It would appear there are issues with the ongoing sales of Rangers merchandise, certainly replica tops. One wonders if that is only through the megastore and Sports Direct have the remaining stock. Or if everything has been sold out already and they will need to have Puma manufacture more.
It seems very strange, surely the massive sales of the top when the new deal was put in place were very predictable and they would already have dealt with this stuff. They had their first European tie coming up, at home, to a sell-out crowd. This has to be an opportunity missed.
Never mind on the park, they really need to have a look at the commercial department. This seems like a massive gaff.
From 27th June
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-78/
SUPPORTERS will appreciate that, in advance of last week’s successful conclusion of new commercial arrangements between Rangers and Sports Direct, demand for replica shirts and other products was low as a result of the boycott.
Accordingly only limited amounts of stock were immediately available and we understand that the vast majority of what was available has already been sold. Unfortunately this means that we are not anticipating any further deliveries of Replica kit to the Megastore in advance of Thursday’s game.
Rangers are liaising with PUMA on the production and sale of new batches of replica kit but this will unfortunately take some time to produce. We are currently working with our partners to ascertain what can be achieved and will let supporters know as soon as we have reliable dates.
We apologise for any inconvenience and thank our supporters for their revived interest in the Club’s retail products
Pat Byrne above referenced Casey Jones. I don’t seek to spoil any happy childhood memories but it’s worth noting that the real Casey Jones was a speed freak who caused a number of derailments through going to fast and had to face discipline hearings as a result. The image of a jolly engineer fighting the occasional criminal was much more palatable to world wide tv audiences.
EX LUDOJUNE 30, 2017
Wha wid have thocht it, Casey Jones a reckless speed freak, deary me where is this all going to end, alternative reality it is then, why does this not surprise me?
Back in the ethereal universe, the incompetence of the current board running things from the big hoose knows no bounds, with hardly a squeak from the press, the holding Co has succeeded beyond all expectations to royally bugger up the sale of replica tops despite having unsold stock that according to MA detractors would clothe a third world country for many years to come.
What really is concerning though is that if there is a thorough investigation by Uefa into the running of the game in this country, the implications of it could result in sanctions that could affect the participation of our clubs in Europe, in the back of the vaults of my memory, there is a case where a country was expelled from competing in European competitions for a period, if that was the case and a similar scenario happened here, I would happily see my team sit on the sidelines for a year just to see justice done to the cheating barstewards that are in charge here, maybe then we could have some clarity in our game.
HighlanderJune 29, 2017 at 23:34 “There is no appetite for the stripping of titles.”
——————————————————————–
Like you I have a ravenous appetite for stripping the titles. Such a hunger that a massive portion of succulent lamb would be just a starter. Wednesday cannot comer quick enough, I know sometimes appeals can be successful but deep down IMO there is no way that RFC behaved in any fair sporting manner. Hiding of side letters IMO is enough to condemn them never mind the WTC.
If HMRC decision stands then directors of every club in Scotland should seek justice against their cheating and all fans should demand the same. Also some members on the board of this new club (King, Johnston and Paul Murray) were on the board of Rangers now IL. They as such should be no where near any football in any positions of power.
I contacted my club a few years ago concerning issues at Ibrox. I received a reply along the lines of nothing being finalised due to ongoing court case/appeals in reference to EBT’s . If HMRC decision stands I will be writing again to my club. I have been a paying supporter during all the years of EBT’s and DOS and have spent thousands of pounds to a sport that basically IMO was not a sport. So I await with hunger for Wednesday and I imagine a lot of fans have an appetite for stripping titles hopefully our clubs have the same hunger.
No doubt the SFA, SPFL and SMSM may all lose their appetite come Wednesday (if they have not already lost if just now).
If I remember correctly EBTs relating to 5 Rangers players have already been accepted as having tax due on them. Rangers have admitted it.
The internet provides four names, I do not know if they are correct, probably best not to post them here.
The point is, they have already admitted to cheating through the incorrect use of EBTs and the tax avoidance that entailed.
The result of the appeal only goes to quantify the scale of that cheating.
So if the appeal is upheld the result will actually be “They didn’t cheat quite as much as people thought”.
That’s ignoring the rest of the stuff like failing to pay VAT and PAYE for most of a season, and failing to pay the “wee tax case” in spite of agreeing the debt was due and promising to pay it.
Rangers cheated, the question left is how much money was involved.
You know how, even after all this time, a question comes into your head that you feel sure hasn’t been asked before (though it may well have been
), well I’d like to see the following question(s) put to the wider football world:
If Rangers’ use of both EBTs and the DOS scheme was not cheating, how on earth could any club, ever, be considered to have cheated? Is it impossible for a (football) club to cheat?
Even if we were daft enough to accept the company and club separation myth, the question would remain. How can a (football) club ever be held to have cheated, if paying players’ wages in the way Rangers did is not considered cheating?
Taken a step further, is it possible that a club, found guilty of doping some, or all, of their players with performance enhancing drugs, could retain titles won on the grounds that it was the company, and not the club, that provided the drugs (and gave the players ‘side letters’ to absolve them (ha) of all responsibility)?
Taking it another step further, or maybe it’s back, when it was discovered that Rangers, under Craig Whyte, had withheld tax and NIC payments they were held to have acted just one step below match fixing, and the ‘club’ was penalised (rather leniently) for what was clearly considered to be cheating.
Now, it was the ‘club’ that was penalised, however you view the myth, for it was not allowed to sign any more players (ha) for one full year (haha). It was a football penalty that was handed out, for the type of crime that the myth-pushers would have us believe was committed by the ‘company’ and not the ‘club’.
Would anyone, within the football authorities or SMSM, dare to suggest that, had Rangers won the league under Whyte, having failed to pay those social taxes, have been allowed to keep the title?
Please note, the last question is not referring to ‘what would have happened if…’, it’s purely in light of the fact that RFC didn’t win the league, they all hate Whyte and are happy to do him down, and for them to suggest that Rangers wouldn’t have had the title stripped would be tantamount to admitting that we are all correct in claiming favouritism for the Ibrox club(s)!
The question remains, if the actions of a football club’s board cannot constitute cheating, what can?
I know there were many Rangers players who were involved in the EBTs scheme but not all players who played for Rangers during the time period got into it. Why? What was the criteria as to which players the offer was made? Did some players refuse the EBTs due to the immorality of not paying their social taxes?
Whereas the players are not as culpable (probably taking advice from ‘experts’) as the Murray group, especially David Murray who introduced the scheme after getting their fingers burnt with the WTC, I still hope HMRC go after each individual recipient to stump what they owe the country. I have no sympathy.
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 30, 2017 at 12:05 If I remember correctly EBTs relating to 5 Rangers players have already been accepted as having tax due on them. Rangers have admitted it.
The internet provides four names, I do not know if they are correct, probably best not to post them here.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Was it ever revealed if HMRC went after the players for unpaid tax?
Did any of them get bankrupted or fled abroad never to return?
Or
Was this yet another story the SMSM ran away from?
PAT BYRNE
JUNE 30, 2017 at 04:28
With all the shenanigans going on and the cover ups, squirrels and false smsm news…
I was then reminded that things were maybe not all that they seemed…
=============================
Absolutely, PB.
Probably like most Bampots, I was brought up believing, [or indoctrinated], that the BBC was the bestest, most impartial news organisation on the planet.
I was aware of bias in the media, but since 2012 my eyes have certainly been opened about how poor the MSM really is, and that the BBC is – generally – sh!t !
Of course, we didn’t have t’internet back in the day to verify the quality of BBC output, but now us plebs know too much. [Still waiting for government internet censorship in the UK/West – mibbees on the back of additional terrorism related legislation?]
Anyways, apart from seeing the SFA get its comeuppance, the sight of the SMSM, [print media initially], disappearing down the plug hole sustains my interest as an Internet Bampot !
I had a conversation along similar lines with a Rangers supporting mate who was adamant that what had happened regarding both the Wee & Big Tax Cases was merely an administrative error made by the company as a result of bad advice being given to company officials regarding taxation issues. According to him, the innocent football club and the players in particular could not be held accountable for the actions of the company. The players won those titles and trophies fairly and squarely on the pitch.
I pointed out that the 15 point penalty imposed on Hearts in 2013 for going into administration ultimately resulted in the club, not just a company, being relegated and that perhaps Hearts should have appealed to the football authorities about the wrong entity being penalised, as the players were entirely innocent of any involvement in the financial car crash caused by the company.
My mate’s worldview amply illustrates the mindset of many supporters of FC Shapeshifters of Govan. Whether matters relate solely to the football club, or just the company, or both, or neither, is determined entirely by how best it suits their agenda, with only the flimsiest of links to reality, the law, and the rules and regulations that the rest of us must adhere to.
From Rangers Media regarding Chris Graham being in the Directors’ Box last night .They just don’t seem to get it .
Barely a racist.
He posted a daft tweet showing a stupid wee drawing of a make believe cunt.
We’d all be racists and bigots for every tarrier joke, Muslim, Irish, French, Catholic joke we posted/laughed at/shared.
PADDY MALARKEYJUNE 30, 2017 at 16:20
Yup, they excuse one of their number’s bigotry and racism with examples of their collective bigotry and racism.
They really, really don’t get it!
I would recommend anyone who hasn’t already seen it to read this article from the Guardian, which really goes to the heart of Scottish football, at least as I understand it.
The comments section is also well worth a read, with some walks down memory lane, for me at least.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/29/montrose-scotland-football-longest-suffering-fans-21-seasons-fourth-division
HIGHLANDERJUNE 30, 2017 at 15:47
A very good example of how the club is penalised, not because of the actions of the company, but because of the actions of the club’s board, and so, the actions of the club, itself.
There is a reason why the Scottish Football League had written rules, and penalties, covering one of their number entering administration, and absolutely none covering liquidation. That reason was that the penalty was considered a deterent to any club playing fast and loose with their finances in an attempt to win titles by spending more money than their rivals. The club would be penalised for it’s own actions, pure and simple, as was the case with Hearts, and a few others.
No rules existed for a club entering liquidation, as there would be no club on which to serve any penalty. Of course, these particular rules, covering a club’s insolvency, were not drawn up with the possibility of it affecting Rangers in mind!
Since we found out that the result between BDO and HMRC will become clear next week, there has been much talk if HMRC win and rangers have been found guilty of cheating on a grand scale that titles won by rangers during the cheating years should be stripped etc.
What i have not read or heard much of is should an individual who was at the helm during these(if HMRC win) cheating years also be stripped of something?
The shock that the guy at the top had his knighthood removed, could just be “The eye’s wide open”
moment that shows the fan’s of no title stripping just how bad the cheating was.
Eg. A conversation that could go like this down the pub… look the cheating was that bad the every £10 for every £5 guy had his knighthood removed, do you now understand how bad it was? And you are complaining they stripped the titles. Think about it for a min.
Slightly left of centre for me, but I’m very annoyed that some numptie radio presenter from USA, who had just chanced on Annie Lennox on the internet. Invited her to go for a USA got’s talent type contest!
I’m raging! One of the best Scottish exports since whiskey!
I suspect it’s a bear from USA trying to play down the connection between the gorgeous Annie and the handsome Bobby (sp)
Annie is a well known Celtic Supporter, listen to this for proof:
Sweet dreams are made of this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg
Aye, well, it’s dark o’clock, and time to slip out a wee apology to UKAnti-doping.
I posted just the other week that I had phoned Anti-Doping to query why my numerous emails since February had not been responded to ( other than by automated ‘we have received your message’ thingies.) And had been told that I would be phoned back, but hadn’t been.
I phoned again today.
A very charmingly-voiced and delightfully helpful and sparkly girl/woman , with no hint of irritation or annoyance or defensiveness , said that she had replied to me by email on 14 April.
I said that, although I was in Australia at that time, I had been checking my emails on an almost daily basis, and had not seen any such reply from UK Anti-doping.
We concluded that perhaps her reply might have gone into spam or trash. And I said that I simply delete anything and everything in those places without reading them.
Fair enough.
But then, as I was scrolling through my inbox for April , I saw an email not from ‘UK Anti-doping’, but from a person named xxxx.
not knowing anyone of that name at the time, I didn’t even open that email!
But it turned out that the person named xxxx was replying to me from UK Anti-doping.
So my apologies to her for the irascible tone of my emails.
Here is the email response to my query about whether the SFA’s excuse for their lack of dope-testing of players had any basis in truth.
13/04/17
Dear….
Thanks for your email. I am sorry that no one has replied to you before now.
In answer to your question, firstly no organisation receives funding from UKAD. That is not how we operate. We have in the past undertaken public interest testing in Scottish Football. However we did not undertake any public interest testing in Scottish Football last year in 2016/17. We currently have a contract with the Scottish Football Association to undertake testing so some testing is currently happening. This contract will be reviewed by the Scottish Football Association at the end of the season.
Yours Sincerely, ”
I should add that I explained that I had raised the query, not because I thought that drug-taking was a problem in Scottish Football ( although, mind you, ….) but because we know that our SFA can lie to us, in other matters.
And we are ready to believe that they will lie as readily about the reasons why they have no more check on footballer use of performance-enhancing substances than they have of club statements of what they pay their players.
Sharp as needle, she asked whether I might have any particular,specific concern about a particular possible case of drug use …
No, was my reply.
With the Supreme Court’s pronouncement due in a matter of days and a decision in favour of HMRC viewed by most as a racing certainty, it’s perhaps worth reflecting on a range of bizarre and baffling decisions which have littered the past five or six years of comedy gold emanating from Govan.
Feel free to add your own examples, but who could forget the verbal gymnastics required to come up with the LNS ‘no sporting advantage’ farce? That decision hinged largely on Sandy Bryson’s ludicrously manufactured statement which explained that “a player, once registered with the ruling body, remained registered with them until such time as his contract ended or that player left their club’s employment.” Consequently, even though the complete details of his contract had been wilfully withheld or any other breach had occurred, that registration, once accepted, would stand.
Of course, the biggest farce of all involved our illustrious football authorities awarding the titles and trophies of a dead club to a new club which didn’t even exist when those titles and trophies were won!
There have been dozens of instances of misdemeanours large and small attributed to the current club playing out of Ibrox, any one of which would have seen any other club up before the authorities on a charge of bringing the game into disrepute.
It is almost as if they have a set of rules all to themselves. It is with that thought in mind that I would urge you not to count your chickens with regard to the Supreme Court decision.
However, as I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, Rangers have already been established as being guilty of cheating, regardless of the imminent EBT decision, which will simply quantify the extent of that cheating.
HIGHLANDERJULY 1, 2017 at 08:09
There have been dozens of instances of misdemeanours large and small attributed to the current club playing out of Ibrox, any one of which would have seen any other club up before the authorities on a charge of bringing the game into disrepute.
———-
Not paying a £250,000 fine even after appeal was lost and the SPFL taking years to then collect it by withholding prize money.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-lose-ebt-side-letters-7631674
————————
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13197137.Rangers_vow_to_take_EBT_fine_to_arbitration_after_losing_SFA_appeal/
HighlanderJuly 1, 2017 at 08:09
Totally agree with the thrust of your post, and something I’d like to add re your mention of the ‘Sandy Bryson’ effect. You wrote:
‘…but who could forget the verbal gymnastics required to come up with the LNS ‘no sporting advantage’ farce? That decision hinged largely on Sandy Bryson’s ludicrously manufactured statement which explained that “a player, once registered with the ruling body, remained registered with them until such time as his contract ended or that player left their club’s employment.” Consequently, even though the complete details of his contract had been wilfully withheld or any other breach had occurred, that registration, once accepted, would stand.’
The LNS enquiry was set up to be heard in the traditional British court adversarial method, as we witnessed with the Whyte case, where James Doleman’s excellent coverage gave us the taste of how each witness gave the evidence the respective counsel had called them to give, and was then subjected to a vigorous cross-examination. So effective was Donald Findlay’s cross-examinations that he didn’t need to call any defence witnesses to gain a ‘not guilty’ verdict.
For some inexplicable reason (though, in truth, we know why), the ‘prosecution’ did not challenge Bryson’s ludicrous assertion that once registered a player remains registered, no matter what. Surely, the obvious question would have been, ‘can you show us a selection of previous cases where players have been ‘imperfectly registered’ with no retrospective action taken, including examples of cases that involved deliberate ‘imperfect registration?’ What’s more, if I remember correctly, Bryson’s evidence didn’t say that the SFA’s rules stated that this was how previously accepted mis-registrations’ should be dealt with, rather it pointed to endemic incompetence amongst the SFA staff, the witness included; surely cause, within itself, to doubt the reliability of this witnesses evidence!
For any inquiry, no matter what method it uses, to be effective, and transparently honest, every witness must be subjected, at the very least, to the obvious questions to verify the veracity of their evidence. That was not done in the LNS enquiry. We all know why!
CLUSTER ONEJUNE 23, 2017 at 21:30 18 Votes
A little point that may have been lost in all the retail news and share buying was a footnote at the end of some articles…….Kind said that the Mark warburton’s legal threat over his sacking by rangers in February has failed to materialise.He said i haven’t heard from mark warburton i regard that threat of litigation as nothing more than frivolous.It has disappeared and it has gone.———-Now i have no doubt that Mr king has not heard from mark warburton as his case was taken up by the England’s League Managers association,who are dealing with the case.————-Legal experts from England’s League Managers have taken up Warburton’s case after he was unexpectedly forced out of Ibrox.———————Would the England’s League Managers association if asked. confirm or deny that the case has ended or not.?
—————
Taking some inspiration from John Clark i looked up the England’s League Managers association. and under there key contacts i found.
Lindsay Gordon – Director – In House Lawyer
Email Me
Lindsay joined the LMA in January 2015 having worked in private practice for the past 10 years. During her time in private practice Lindsay established a well-regarded sports niche and was recognised in the 2014 and 2015 editions of the Legal 500 for her work advising clubs, managers, coaches and players across a range of sports.
Lindsay is responsible for advising members on all employment related matters including contract queries, technical and disciplinary issues and integrity matters.
————–
Email me…So i did. I asked first if she was the correct person to ask since she was responsible for advising members on all employment related matters including contract queries, technical and disciplinary issues and integrity matters.and could she confirm or deny that the case between mark warburton and the ibrox club had ended or not.?
I have not as yet had a reply,even to say one way or the other that she is or is not the correct person to ask.Never mind if the MW ,ibrox case is something she has dealt with.
The difference between clubs:
“Livingston hit with five point deduction and £10,000 fine after pleading guilty to SPFL charges relating to non-payment of taxes”
“The matter was the subject of a voluntary declaration by the club prior to the delayed court hearings, which we expect to quantify the amounts misappropriated by officials of the company.”
Why didn’t Rangers ‘voluntary declare’ their non payment of taxes like Livi. did?
Take the hit and move on. No? Here we are decades later and awaiting a court ruling on Wednesday that they cheated football and society, something we already know. Barring a secret society conspiracy on Wednesday, they are doomed! for all it’s worth!
Cluster OneJuly 1, 2017 at 09:44
My own thoughts are that the MW & others case has been settled out of court, at a cost in the region of £1.5m, hence the reported directors’ loan of a similar amount. I am sure that King has announced it in the way he has to suggest yet another ‘victory’ over anti-‘Rangers’ sources while hiding the fact that his own stupidity has cost the club yet more money!
Needless to say, I hope I am wrong, and the case has still to be settled, with the reported loan required for ‘normal’ running costs!
ALLYJAMBOJULY 1, 2017 at 10:25 Rate This
Cluster OneJuly 1, 2017 at 09:44
My own thoughts are that the MW & others case has been settled out of court, at a cost in the region of £1.5m, hence the reported directors’ loan of a similar amount. I am sure that King has announced it in the way he has to suggest yet another ‘victory’
——————
I would have thought the same also,but i just can’t trust a word Mr king say’s that is why i was looking for clarification from another source.
Not being one of the SMSM i thought unlike them i may ask for clarification from another source
@Jimbo – surely you mean the best Scottish export since whisky? Rather than whiskey!!!
Cluster OneJuly 1, 2017 at 10:55
ALLYJAMBOJULY 1, 2017 at 10:25 Rate This Cluster OneJuly 1, 2017 at 09:44My own thoughts are that the MW & others case has been settled out of court, at a cost in the region of £1.5m, hence the reported directors’ loan of a similar amount. I am sure that King has announced it in the way he has to suggest yet another ‘victory’——————I would have thought the same also,but i just can’t trust a word Mr king say’s that is why i was looking for clarification from another source.Not being one of the SMSM i thought unlike them i may ask for clarification from another source
_____________________________
The thing is, CO, King didn’t say a word for you, or anybody else, to trust (in this instance), he merely intimated that the matter might have disappeared! That is what makes me think he is trying to hide something, while, at the same time, grab some kudos from the gullible.
People like King don’t always lie, sometimes they make do with not telling the truth – a bit like telling the world how he’d ‘reached a favourable settlement’ with the SA authorities, when he should have said he’d paid the fine that had kept him out of jail! Not a lie, but not the truth either.
Assuming the case has been ‘settled’ – with our unquestioning media, one day, quite soon, it will become a ‘fact’ that MW and others’ case fell apart, as I am sure any out of court settlement will contain a confidentiality clause, which, sadly, will mean you will get a reply that says, ‘due to our members’ confidentiality…’ (which would probably be their reply, no matter what the truth is).
We will know, and can be pretty certain, that if we hear nothing about it, and/or MW’s time at Ibrox, that the three have been paid off and have to stay schtum!
ALLYJAMBOJULY 1, 2017 at 12:48
Thanks for reply.
The thing is, CO, King didn’t say a word for you, or anybody else, to trust (in this instance), he merely intimated that the matter might have disappeared! That is what makes me think he is trying to hide something, while, at the same time, grab some kudos from the gullible.
————–
So don’t take anything he say’s at face value.
Since we are monitoring the SFA with the aim of its reform perhaps we can learn from the Al Capone story.
They couldnt get Al for distributing illicit booze but they did get him on tax evasion.
Now the SFA are not guilty of tax evasion per se but they have rules which if followed as intended would prevent others from evading tax.
Regardless of the SC outcome it is a fact that Rangers FC owed HMRC between £14 and £17m from unpaid VAT/PAYE/ Wtc ebt liability.
Now were the SFA so intent on saving a delinquent club that they were more interested in circumventing the rules and not using their powers to apply them, than they were making sure the tax payer was not robbed?
That £17m could rise to £41m plus penalties if SC find for HMRC but preventative action should not depend on the scale of the robbery.
The SFA as far as I know have no legal responsibility to protect the tax payer but the Government do. Regardless of whether that is the one in Holyrood or Westminster and whatever it’s hue, as taxpayers we have every right to ask our MPs/MSP’S what their policy is regarding national football associations who aid and abet clubs to evade tax.
Get a law against such on the statute books and there will be no more self certification nods and winks at play as national associations would be accountable and FIFA/UEFA could do SFA about it.
I might just write to my MP cc MSP to find out their policy.
Calling something the Wee Tax Case when it is nearly £3,000,000 is to use a misnomer. I can see the perception now ” it is only a wee tax case so we didnae do much wrong at most” a multi-million tax avoidance involving misrepresentation to HMRC to the SFA and to anyone else involved is a large scandal calling for proper and consign punishment on top of normal consequences of 0-3 when any of the tax case players were involved.
BFBPUZZLED
JULY 1, 2017 at 17:14
==============================
An excellent point.
I reckon that between that and the 5 EBTs they have admitted there is tax avoidance of c£5m.
That in itself is a huge scandal and it has already been admitted and is public knowledge.
That’s not counting the VAT and tax not paid which led to administration.
AULDHEID
JULY 1, 2017 at 15:37
==========================
As far a I am aware no-one has been accused of tax evasion, which is a criminal offence.
The tax involved is also not a devolved issue, so nothing to do with Hollyrood.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40468277
Welll who would have thought it.
I assume that’s the Naismith Revisionism piece. My particular favourite, when he discusses returning to the completely unmodified, unchanged and absolutely definitely unaltered club is that he will but “he feels he owes Norwich something first.”
cos nobody likes to welch on a debt eh Stevie!
No , Rangers face Uefa ‘thrown objects’ probe after Europa League qualifier.
THEREDPILLJULY 1, 2017 at 17:52 Rate This
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40468277Welll who would have thought it.
——————-
during their return to European football?
Wonder if UEFA will treat it as a first offence? Will be interesting the wording used if UEFA bring any disciplinary proceedings against the ibrox club.
case set to be reviewed Friday 07 July
In that case TRP you have a real treat in store reading Naismiths piece (BBC this pm, sorry can’t do links). Perfectly straightforward and obvious that the club, you know the lads all together merrily winning stuff would continue but they kept throwing all this “legal stuff” at us.
You mean legal stuff stuff like the liquidation of your employer yes?
SMUGAS
See what you mean, CV. out ,quick reverse gear ,sad face,geese a job gonna geese a job ?
a propos of nothing in particular, I’ve just dipped into Companies House website ( as one does, from time to time to see what’s what in respect of a particularly badly run company).
the link is https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159
Now I don’t pretend to anything other than a half-arsed understanding of the world of capitalists, but I do know that not meeting ‘due dates’ shows, at the least, a degree of managerial incompetence.
In the case of TRFC the assumption has to be that they simply cannot or will not comply with Companies House requirements.
And apparently that’s quite a serious matter :
“This guide tells you about the confirmation statement that replaces the annual return. Your company must deliver a confirmation statement to us at least once a year, even if the company is dormant. If you don’t do this, there could be serious consequences. The registrar might assume your company isn’t carrying on business or in operation and take steps to strike it from the register. If the registrar strikes a company off the register, it ceases to exist and its assets become Crown property.
If your company’s in operation, the company, its directors and any other officers could be prosecuted because they’re responsible for ensuring they submit the confirmation statement on time. Failing to do this is a criminal offence.”
One can easily get the impression that there is absolutely no one at the helm of TRFC Ltd/RIFC.
No on with enough savvy to at least try to attend to the basics?
Homunculus
If the tax should have been paid but wasn’t then the tax payer was robbed. Call it avoidance or evasion, either way to me as a regular tax payer for 53 years it’s robbery.
Yup I’m aware of devolved powers but as the SG have tax gathering powers I’d like to hear their policy on a national football associations attitude towards their responsibilities to the tax payer.
A cc should cover it.
AuldheidJuly 1, 2017 at 23:19
‘..as the SG have tax gathering powers I’d like to hear their policy on a national football associations attitude towards their responsibilities to the tax payer. ‘
______
Oh,come on, Auldheid!
I think we had an adumbration of their policy when our then First Minister had a word ( not shared with the general public, of course) with HMRC about the tax debt of RFC(IL).
Fabric of society? Not massive tax cheats?
Your man Salmond was way out of line, badly miscalculated the situation.
No one, absolutely no one, accepts special pleading for tax cheats.( Except folk who are tax cheats!)
John ClarkJuly 2, 2017 at 00:38
That was the then and he was wrong.
Where is he now?
The principle of paying tax is inarguable, it is real, and where Alex is now is that reality asserting itself.
We really must rid ourselves of the idea that just because its Rangers they (and those of their thinking) are immune from reality no matter how much they deny it.
Auldheid
in which case I strongly recommend you DONT read the Naismith piece!!!
Can I just say something in Steven Naismith’s defence? I didn’t like him as a footballer but that aside, what struck me most from his interview was the amount of charity work he does. Came across as a humble working class lad who realises that he has struck gold in being a professional footballer in this day and age. He tries to give back a bit. I could never dislike him now even though he said he would never like to play for Celtic! (Thank God). Still a good human being I think.
AULDHEID
JULY 1, 2017 at 23:19
Homunculus
If the tax should have been paid but wasn’t then the tax payer was robbed. Call it avoidance or evasion, either way to me as a regular tax payer for 53 years it’s robbery.
Yup I’m aware of devolved powers but as the SG have tax gathering powers I’d like to hear their policy on a national football associations attitude towards their responsibilities to the tax payer. A cc should cover it.
====================================
Call it robbery if you want but they are different things. Evasion is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, avoidance is not HMRC deal with it using their civil powers, hence the fines in addition to the original tax due.
The Scottish Government do have tax raising powers but as far as PAYE is concerned the power relates to the level at which the higher rate of tax is paid and as far as I am aware the got that power post the events in question. They certainly hadn’t started using it until this year. At the most recent budget the Westminster Government raised the higher rate threshold to £43,000, in Scotland it was frozen at £40,000. The Westminster Government plan to increase it to £45,000, the Scottish Government don’t.
I’m sorry if you are offended by this but it was none of the Scottish Governments business when Alex Salmond tried to speak up on Rangers’ behalf, people here were rightly annoyed about it. Surely now asking them to get involved is a bit of double standards, at least where the tax matters are concerned.
Sorry but I don’t know what you mean by a cc,
JOHN CLARK
JULY 1, 2017 at 23:17
=============================
That’s a strange one.
The confirmation statement is basically just to confirm that certain things haven’t changed, and if they have changed to let Companies House know.
If none of those have changed then it is a basic administrative matter as far as I am aware. So either they are trying to hide something, or really are as much of a shambles off the park as people think.
Homunculus
I get the difference but tomatoe or tomato its still unpaid tax that should have been paid.
Cc means copy to as in an e mail. So one to my MP and cc MSP just in case he thinks the SFA need to be asked questions and replies saying so even whilst saying the matter is not devolved.
I’d like to know what they think.
HomunculusJuly 2, 2017 at 09:08
I’m sorry if you are offended by this but it was none of the Scottish Governments business when Alex Salmond tried to speak up on Rangers’ behalf, people here were rightly annoyed about it. Surely now asking them to get involved is a bit of double standards, at least where the tax matters are concerned.
_______________________–
Although I agree that we should avoid double standards, I don’t think Auldheid is suggesting the two governments get involved in the same way as Alex Sammond did. My understanding of what Auldheid is saying is that one, or both, should comment on (I’d suggest they should investigate) the SFA‘s part in the various Rangers tax avoidance episodes to determine whether they, as the governing body of Scottish football, were doing all that they could/should do to ensure that the clubs they govern were/are meeting their social taxes. That is not the same, nor is it the opposite, of what Alex Sammond is accused of doing when he urged HMRC to go easy on RFC! I can see no double standards there, but I understand why you feel strongly that we should avoid any double standards.
The SFA is a self-policing organisation, of an industry that sees millions of pounds change hands every year, it must surely have a duty to both it’s own members, and to the wider social community, to ensure that money moves in an honest and fair way! Clearly HMRC once believed they did, by ensuring that all players contracts were correctly registered at the SFA and available for inspection by the proper authorities. The Bryson defence proves that not only did Rangers wilfully hide the true remuneration of it’s players, with the sole purpose of hiding it from HMRC, it also showed that the SFA were making, and perhaps still make, no effort to prevent such cheating of clubs and society!
I would have thought it in everyone’s interest that our government(s) ensure that all self-policing organisations are carrying out their duties to the full, particularly where the collection of taxes is concerned (though I’m sure they don’t) – but here we have possibly the highest profile case of multiple tax avoidance our country has ever seen, surely that must be enough to encourage any government to comment on, unfavourably, and, hopefully, investigate, the part played by the avoider’s governing body, who, by their, at best, incompetence, facilitated that avoidance!
SMUGASJULY 2, 2017 at 06:16
There is a reality where TRFC and RFC are not the same.
It is that reality that allows TRFC to play in Europe because TRFC have no tax overdue to HMRC.
They should be careful what they wish for.
TRFC and RFC can never be the same club that applies for a UEFA licence.
That’s reality no matter how much the media peddle an illusion.
John ClarkJuly 1, 2017 at 23:17
a propos of nothing in particular, I’ve just dipped into Companies House website ( as one does, from time to time to see what’s what in respect of a particularly badly run company).the link is https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159Now I don’t pretend to anything other than a half-arsed understanding of the world of capitalists, but I do know that not meeting ‘due dates’ shows, at the least, a degree of managerial incompetence.In the case of TRFC the assumption has to be that they simply cannot or will not comply with Companies House requirements.And apparently that’s quite a serious matter :“This guide tells you about the confirmation statement that replaces the annual return. Your company must deliver a confirmation statement to us at least once a year, even if the company is dormant. If you don’t do this, there could be serious consequences. The registrar might assume your company isn’t carrying on business or in operation and take steps to strike it from the register. If the registrar strikes a company off the register, it ceases to exist and its assets become Crown property.If your company’s in operation, the company, its directors and any other officers could be prosecuted because they’re responsible for ensuring they submit the confirmation statement on time. Failing to do this is a criminal offence.”One can easily get the impression that there is absolutely no one at the helm of TRFC Ltd/RIFC.No on with enough savvy to at least try to attend to the basics?
________________________
While I have absolutely no doubt they will not be brought to book for this ‘oversight’, it does, as you say, further highlight the incompetence that has always existed at TRFC. I say ‘incompetence’, but suspect it might be more a case of deliberate avoidance of something they find difficult to perform. I’ll leave it to you all to imagine what that might be.
I wonder if there’s any connection between this ‘confirmation statement’ and the production of the unaudited accounts! I wonder if a ‘confirmation statement’ confirms that the unaudited accounts are, in fact, as accurate and honest as they would have been if audited! Just a whimsical thought…
Yesterday I brought up the subject of the number of jaw dropping decisions that have benefited Rangers* throughout the past five or six years. I did so to remind people that, while it is assumed that the Supreme Court decision on EBTs will favour HMRC, it is not over until the heavy-set female employs her melodic vocal chords.
This got me thinking about how such contrived decisions could be arrived at and who was able to pull the strings to make them happen.
I have to first of all admit to being totally oblivious to any form of advantage being gained by Rangers* prior to the events of 2012. As a Hearts fan, I admit to having had no love for ‘either cheek of the same arse’ during my formative years, viewing Celtic fans’ claims of not having a level playing field as paranoia and simply part of the tit-for-tat that forms part of normal inter-club rivalry.
If I’m honest, of the two, I probably marginally preferred the club from Ibrox, not because of any religious or cultural standpoint (as a born-again atheist, I absconded from my Church Of Scotland Sunday School at the age of ten or eleven and never went back), simply because more of my classmates were bluenoses. Any such slight preference was almost indiscernible though, the truth being that I disliked Rangers and Celtic in equal measure.
All that changed though in 2012 when my eyes were at last opened to the outrageous bias shown towards the club(s) operating out of Ibrox. I finally began to realise that there was much more than coincidence at play in the enormous amount of bewildering decisions that assisted the new Govan club during the five years of ‘the Rangers saga’. It was evident that someone was, and still is, subverting natural justice in favour of the club that died and its chaotic offspring.
But who and how? That’s where my solitary braincell comes to a shuddering halt, a dead end and I require the assistance of others more learned in such matters. I don’t know enough, for example, about Masonic Lodges, Orange Orders and other secret societies to fathom how they could conceivably influence decisions taken by, for example the SFA and SPFL boards, each of which appear to have no obvious Rangers-serving advantage. Indeed, if you look at the constituents of those current boards, you could argue that, on the face of it, Rangers are under-represented and disadvantaged, contrary to the myth that these organisations are pro-Rangers biased. None of this changes my view that Rangers* are given unwarranted assistance from quarters unknown. I just need someone more intelligent than me to explain, who and how?
One final point I forgot to include in my previous post is that I fail to see how Rangers-minded journalists and editors exist in sufficient numbers to be able to facilitate the printing of blatant propaganda.
My ‘back-of-a-fag-packet’ figures suggest that Rangers & Celtic fans each constitute around 35% of the football supporting population, while fans of the other clubs make up the remaining 30%. How are those who represent only a little over one third of the population able to exert such influence?
What is it that Level 5 have in their armoury that results in the rest of the media kowtowing to their heavily biased output?
I may be way off the mark, but the story in Sevconia appears to be one of p*ssing off players that they want to exit. Most players are actually contracted to wear the boots they wear.
Would banning certain boots cause them a certain financial disadvantage?
https://thecelticblog.com/2017/07/blogs/a-celtic-fans-open-letter-to-the-sfa-on-caixinhas-hate-filled-code/
I’ve just read the above linked piece on the Celtic Blog and think it’s worth reading. It highlights a letter from a female Celtic fan to the SFA over Caixinha’s personal journey into the dark arts at Ibrox. The binning of green boots, is, of course, something to provide us with some mirth, but the idea that WATP might be added to the dressing room décor at Ibrox is quite deplorable. I’d like to add to the words of that young lady how I find it even more disgusting that this is being promoted on this most heinous of weekends, the Glasgow Orange Walk F**king Weekend, I am sure it’s not a coincidence!
I do hope for the man’s sake, that Caixinha is blissfully unaware of what he’s letting himself get caught up in, and that one day he will be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
I didn’t think that club couldn’t get any lower, and I am sure it will engineer some more lunacy to disgust us for a while yet, making it’s liquidation all the more desirable.
Anybody notice I’m a bit sickened by the recent goings on by those who disgrace Scottish society and the colour orange?
Banning green boots…
Painting slogans on the walls…
This has the whiff of the input of a certain very short-term board member about it.
It’ll be the ‘Awrange Tap’ next, mark my words!
Corrupt officialJuly 2, 2017 at 14:27
I may be way off the mark, but the story in Sevconia appears to be one of p*ssing off players that they want to exit. Most players are actually contracted to wear the boots they wear. Would banning certain boots cause them a certain financial disadvantage?
_______________
I’ve a feeling that at the home of dupery, Caixinha has been duped into being the Catholic mouthpiece for what he thinks is just a bit of a wheeze, and, of course, there’s no way that TRFC can order, or even encourage, players to break any contracts they have with kit suppliers, especially if they have the contracts registered properly with the SFA
Now I used to think, until fairly recently, that WATP was just a sad piece of hubris referring to Rangers (IL) ‘superiority’ over…everyone else in the world? and so I am sure Pedro the Catholic mouthpiece believes something similar, they are, after all, only four words, each totally inoffensive in their own right. They take on a different meaning, though, when they surround the people who call Ibrox ‘home’!
Here I go, banging that drum again, but surely, the words WATP take on a much stronger and inciteful meaning, within Scottish football, than the words ‘Mafia’ and ‘Monkeys’! I am sure that, remembering this, the SFA will treat the Celtic supporter’s letter I mention above seriously and take the appropriate action and issue Caixinha and TRFC with a fine equal to that that they happily meted out to Romanov and Hearts!
ALLYJAMBOJULY 2, 2017 at 15:14
A check back on my historical posts will show I have continually put forward the theory that when folks, who on first impression seem reasonable human beings, get to the top of the famous marble staircase they get nabbed and injected in the neck with a special toxic poison.
Having learned from the PLG experience, Pedro must have been given an extra big dose by the looks of it, to help get over the fact that he clearly doesn’t come from a background where he would automatically be considered one of the ‘People’.
Eventually, for the likes of Barton and Warburton it wears off and you end up wondering what the hell you got yourself into.
Others of course, like Gough, are hooked and even when they thought they had kicked the habit by turning their back on their pusher, they keep going back for regular top-up shots.
Caixinha is just another in a line of people pandering to a certain element of their support. It just illustrates how much they desperately need them onside and will give them what they want, right or wrong.
Ban green boots and paint “we are the people” on the walls at Ibrox. For the love of goodness, how crass can you get.
I supposed Charles Green already used the “orange top” version so they might not want to go down that road again for a wee while.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 2, 2017 at 15:34
Corrupt officialJuly 2, 2017 at 14:27
“Now I used to think, until fairly recently, that WATP was just a sad piece of hubris referring to Rangers (IL) ‘superiority’
—————————————————————————————————-
Ditto Ally, and I must confess as to having zero knowledge of the origins of the phrase, or indeed what they consider it’s meaning, but it cannot be denied that in recent times, the tone of the phrase appears to be more sinister and delivered with venom.
This latest edict regarding boots has clearly targeted individuals, and it would be a safe bet punting on whose locker door will be first for the attention of the stensil.
But encouraging graffiti in the changing rooms?…. Fitba players being fitba players, and inkies being inkies, it’s practically begging for some home improvements.
I wonder what Banksie would make of it?
It seems the sign thing is true, though I don’t know if it’s in the dressing rooms as well
Corrupt officialJuly 2, 2017 at 16:33
I am sure I read that it was what the ‘Billy Boys’ shouted as they prepared to wade ‘up to their knees…’ If not that, it was something equally unpleasant. I seem to have undergone a West of Scotland social history course in the past few years
Even if, perchance, it isn’t anything more than that ‘superiority’ thing, it still doesn’t belong in football!
I honestly thought that this green boots malarkey was a level five squirrel released to distract attention from the lacklustre performance in the ropey league qualifier and an impending unrequited supreme court decision on the appeal by BDO. Then I realised that genus Sciuridae is unlikely to harbour a large enough member of the family to cope with the EBT finale. It is repulsively fascinating watching ‘the people’. Heaven only knows what they will come up with next.