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
ALLYJAMBOJULY 2, 2017 at 17:27
Corrupt officialJuly 2, 2017 at 16:33
I think it is fair to assume it is not the toreador’s policy, but something imposed on him by his employers.
GUNNERBJULY 2, 2017 at 17:53 Rate This
Attachment
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.
——————
That was such a great post that i had to re-post it on this page. (hope ok with mods).
Heaven only knows what they will come up with next. That is what makes the ibrox saga fascinating, from communication platforms that will blow our minds to floating pitches to world records with just about whatever they can come up with,to guys known as Green and Whyte. to fan boycott’s that are not boycott’s. To marching on to an empty stadium.You could go on and on.
Any other club would be laughed out the country.The only trouble is that the rest of scottish football and scottish football fans have to put up with it.Just what does the ibrox club/company bring to the scottish game that we can’t do without?
Ally Jambo
Thank you for expertly articulating my intent in referencing the Government, whatever it’s hue, in asking national football associations in the UK what they were doing to avoid taxes going unpaid by avoidance or evasion.
There should a low threshold set above which the national association should be questioned when that threshold is passed and what they are doing to prevent it happening or are going to do to stop it happening again.
If the amount already unpaid by RFC is added to by the SC Decision, governments would culpable if they don’t start asking questions of national associations.
On top of the unpaid tax there is the cost of recovery all of which could be prevented/minimised if national associations either used existing powers to put the tax payer first and not the tax avoiders/evaders or strengthened existing powers to including compulsory checks.
AULDHEID
JULY 2, 2017 at 20:22
If the amount already unpaid by RFC is added to by the SC Decision, governments would culpable if they don’t start asking questions of national associations.
==================================
Why, what would they be culpable of. Are you really suggesting that if they don’t take the national association to task then they somehow shoulder some of the blame for Rangers’ tax avoidance.
The only entity culpable is Rangers.
AuldheidJuly 2, 2017 at 20:22
Ally JamboThank you for expertly articulating my intent in referencing the Government, whatever it’s hue, in asking national football associations in the UK what they were doing to avoid taxes going unpaid by avoidance or evasion.
_______________
Cheers, Auldheid, but no need to thank me for my non-existent expertise
It will be interesting if it should transpire, in the event the EBT appeal fails, that some English clubs have used them, and to see whether or not the UK Government pulls the FA up over their failure to spot questionable payments and report it to HMRC, or even request clarification from them. It’s doubtful, though, that any club would have used the scheme in the same way Rangers did, so it may well be the case that no registration questions would arise.
You can take a horse to water, and you can make it drink it.
The gullible are bent over backwards and the WATP is hilarious, it makes no sense to cosmpoltian footballers who will have to ask of its meaning, wow how do you explain it? How do you tell foreigners and non scots you are not allowed green boots as they are Celtics colours when they running out against a traditional Hibs.
Remember the days of ‘Rangers Tax Case’ ? I think I started reading about 2011. What a revelation it was. Up until that point I, along with a lot of others, meekly accepted what I read in the papers. I knew some journalists were skewed one way or the other but I didn’t realise until RTC that there was other stories out there. Information was withheld from us. Now thanks to social media and especially sites like this we can take it for granted that we will find the truth of what is going on.
So on Wednesday morning I will raise a thumbs up to RTC when that person is vindicated.
I think the happiest time in football off the pitch was when supporters from all over Scotland rallied round to ensure New Rangers were not allowed to be shoehorned into the top league. hope it happens again from Wednesday. Strip the titles.
I am on here every day and read everything. I don’t add to the quality/content of this site due to lack of knowledge but sometimes I get angry with grumpy, antagonistic and very blunt comments. Sorry for my grumpiness. Hope you catch my drift.
HIGHLANDERJULY 2, 2017 at 12:18 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?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Sadly
I have first hand experience of job application forms in which applicants waxed lyrically about their membership and hierarchy in the Ludge
One can only conclude
Either
They were primed to do so by friends who succeeded in getting hired using similar “qualifications”
or
There are people in this world who sincerely believe that being one of the people is a significant qualification worthy of recording on a Job Application
Homunculus
The thought of blaming the Govt for RFC’s debt to tax payers never occured to me. That would be ridiculous
However as a tax payer I would expect them to take steps to ascertain how a loss of millions came about and ask if current rules are as robust as they need to be to put tax payer protection above the protection of football.
Makes sense to me.
PS I’m not convinced the only entity culpable was RFC either.
AllyjamboJuly 2, 2017 at 21:44
‘…It will be interesting if it should transpire, in the event the EBT appeal fails, that some English clubs have used them, and to see whether or not the UK Government pulls the FA up over their failure to spot questionable payments and report it to HMRC,.’
___________
Your post reminds us that the FA got a bit of a doing by a UK Parliamentary Committee, and is very aware that it’s efforts to become fit for purpose are being watched.
The UK Parliament clearly has concerns that the FA’s complacent attitude has allowed it to be unheedful of the possibility that ‘football clubs’ may have been, and certainly are capable of being used as conduits for, say, dirty money, or as vehicles providing great opportunities for gambling syndicates to make money by fixing games, or as handy vehicles for tax dodges, bribery and corruption and what not.
If the UK Parliament feels that the FA is failing in a way that might call for legislation to correct it, I think it’s not outwith the bounds of possibilty that the Scottish Parliament might reasonably be asked to have a look at the SFA’s oversight of Scottish Football clubs.
We have seen cheating of the tax-man on a ( relatively) monumental scale by one club ( which is waiting for the statutory period to pass before it legally dissolved)
Homunculus makes the point, quite rightly, that the SFA did not do that bit of cheating. It was SDM’s vile deed, and his alone ( may he pay a severe penalty for that vile betrayal of approximately 5 and a half generations of ‘Rangers’ supporters).
However, the fact remains that if the SFA had had a President at the time who had bothered his arse to build in , in his term of office, mechanisms to ensure that club returns were looked at critically in the light of experience, millions of pounds would not have been lost to the Revenue( if the SC judgment goes that way), and the other, honest, SPL clubs would not have had to compete against a cheat.
I’ve just been trying to read up on the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee.
That is possibly,just possibly, a way in which the attention of the Scottish Government might be drawn to the SFA’s shambolic organisation which allowed one club to possibly cheat the tax-man ( if the SC judgment etc),and definitely allowed one club to cheat its way to honours and titles.
We’ll see what Wednesday brings, to settle the tax-cheating matter.
But the football cheating is already well established.
JEAN7BRODIE
JULY 2, 2017 at 22:59
===========================
So long as people address the content of a post, rather than the person posting it then it’s reasonable surely.
Ad hominem attacks are wrong, I think we must agree that is the case.
The opposite must also be true for that to have any value.
As Tam Cowan would say ( in that annoyingly ignorant way of his- did his mammy never read ‘The People’s Friend’ letters page when he was a boy?
) re my last post ( Geez, I hope not literally so!), I had five minutes to edit it.
But when I tried , as soon as I had posted,to get rid of the apostrophe in ‘its’, and space the sentences for easier reading, the machine said I was not authorised to do so.
How does that come about, mods, please??
Happens to me often JC it just means you’ve ran out of time – not literally of course!
JimboJuly 3, 2017 at 00:12
‘…JC it just means you’ve ran out of time – not literally of course!’
______________________
Well, typing at one word a minute probably doesn’t help, I suppose!
AuldheidJuly 2, 2017 at 23:29
‘..PS I’m not convinced the only entity culpable was RFC either.’
________
Well, when one considers this and that and takes into account the fact that someone of influence in the SFA might have had personal knowledge about the ‘undisclosed payments to players and other staff’ regime in operation at a football club, one really has to share your lack of conviction that only the ‘in liquidation’ club was culpable.
goosygoosyJuly 2, 2017 at 23:16
‘There are people in this world who sincerely believe that being one of the people is a significant qualification worthy of recording on a Job Application’
_________
Who can forget the brilliant Rikki Fulton?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUXhW3JC9Zw
HOMUNCULUSJULY 2, 2017 at 23:32
JEAN7BRODIEJULY 2, 2017 at 22:59===========================
So long as people address the content of a post, rather than the person posting it then it’s reasonable surely.
Ad hominem attacks are wrong, I think we must agree that is the case.
The opposite must also be true for that to have any value.
____________
I think it is a vital part of SFM that every post can be challenged, for then we stand a greater chance of reaching the truth, and, one day, putting forward the ultimate case for a substantial review of Scottish football and all that has happened in recent (but not just recent) years.
Given the now known known sit appear plausible that the SFA aided and abetted the RFC pauchling -accessories after the fact in fact.
Doubtless there are scots law words for such activities but I cannot remember them and labour under the burden of reading too many American thrillers- probable cause and all that.
ALLYJAMBO
JULY 2, 2017 at 21:44
It will be interesting if it should transpire, in the event the EBT appeal fails, that some English clubs have used them, and to see whether or not the UK Government pulls the FA up over their failure to spot questionable payments and report it to HMRC, or even request clarification from them. It’s doubtful, though, that any club would have used the scheme in the same way Rangers did, so it may well be the case that no registration questions would arise.
——————————————————
ISTR that certain English clubs were advised that their use of EBTs was illegal & were offered settlement terms which were acceptable/taken up.
Ray Parlour’s divorce (as far back as 2004!) seems to have brought the use of EBTs in England into the spotlight.
Plenty to Google if one is interested.
Bfbpuzzled 1041 July 3
Section 170 Of The Customs And Excise Management Act 1979 Provides for__
” Anyperson knowingly concerned in the evasion ”
This Section primarily applied to Duties of Customs And Excise.
The words “Knowingly Concerned ” were The subject of various rulings by the Law Lords over the years .
The Act, CEMA 1979,
remained extant following the merger of H M Customs and the Inland Revenue.
It could be that this section was adapted to cover other duties, such as income tax and national insurance , but I cannot be sure on that.
We can only wait and see!
John Clark
July 3, 2017 at 00:40
Well, typing at one word a minute probably doesn’t help, I suppose!
Ⴑoʜn Ɔlɒɿʞ
Ⴑuly Ƹ, 2017 ɒƚ 00:40
Wɘll, ƚyqinǫ ɒƚ onɘ woɿb ɒ minuƚɘ qɿodɒdly boɘƨn’ƚ ʜɘlq, I ƨuqqoƨɘ!
Using Ms Word or other software to amend/change the text before posting will allow
all manner of changes before being time barred!
The reported ‘banning’ of green boots, [any shades specified ?], is racist!
You can wear traditional black boots, or now pink, yellow, etc.
…but green boots are just not welcome in the TRFC team ?
It’s yet another joke to add to the many that have come out of Ibrox in recent years.
[Whatever happened to the “commercial partnership with Apple”…anyone ?]
And a ‘WATP’ slogan in the opposition dressing room ?
That will be removed quickly, IMO, as every single visiting team will deface the slogan;
“We Were The People”
“We Are The Poor People”
“We Are The Pathetic”
etc.
I guess [?] opposition dressing rooms typically don’t have ‘intimidating’ slogans.
The “This Is Liverpool” badge above the Anfield tunnel was always a classy, subtle ‘reminder’ for home – and visiting – players as they ran out onto the pitch.
But an “in your face” slogan in the opposition dressing room would more likely reflect the insecurities of the Ibrox club, IMO, than instill fear.
This desperate Level42 ‘initiative’ might just help shift a few more ST’s though…
We Aren’t Tax Payers
StevieBC
We’re not a new club we’re not we’re not we’re not. OK.
Did Pedro also go for a walk at the weekend ?
I think we should be told.
And like managers of the defunct Rangers, does Pedro visit Masonic Halls and Orange Lodges to mix with ‘The People’ ?
He obviously knows by now exactly what he has signed up for at Ibrox.
Initially, he came across as a decent / bright chap, so how can he rationalise the nonsense around him – that has nothing to do with football – with his own beliefs and values ?
And if the new season does not get off to a flying start for TRFC, then Pedro will very quickly be pointed out as being “not a RRM”.
AULDHEID
JULY 2, 2017 at 23:29
Homunculus
The thought of blaming the Govt for RFC’s debt to tax payers never occured to me. That would be ridiculous However as a tax payer I would expect them to take steps to ascertain how a loss of millions came about and ask if current rules are as robust as they need to be to put tax payer protection above the protection of football.Makes sense to me.
PS I’m not convinced the only entity culpable was RFC either.
===================================
They are taking the steps required.
HMRC, the Governments tax collectors have raised assessments against employers and fought appeals against those assessments. That is the Governments proper response to people underpaying.
They have also acted (pardon the pun) to deal with EBTs as a whole. They are now looking at the recipients of the “loans” and are acting against those who received them. They are basically saying these are no loans and taxing those who received them.
This matter is between HMRC, the employer and the recipient of the EBT. It has nothing to do with the national association, well as far as HMRC are concerned. If they decide to change that then there may be a way they can take the national association to task, but I don’t know what it is.
http://www.rossmartin.co.uk/sme-tax-news/2618-ebt-loans-hmrc-to-go-back-20-years
This is going to look messy, click the link if you want to see it formatted properly.
ODDJOB
JULY 3, 2017 at 12:01
============================
Section 170 of that act specifically relates to criminal offences and penalties. It is concerned with excise duty and the like, it does not relate to PAYE.
The criminal offence in relation to PAYE is Section 106A of the taxes management act. It is also a knowingly concerned offence. Criminal offences tend to be that, as they are not “absolute”, the person has to know they are committing the offence and that has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
BFBPUZZLED
JULY 3, 2017 at 10:41
===============================
Sorry if I have picked your meaning up wrong, if no-one has been indicted it’s difficult to see how “art and part” would be relevant mate.
I also think that has to be before or during the crime, not after it in Scotland.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/46/section/293
293 Statutory offences: art and part and aiding and abetting.
(1) A person may be convicted of, and punished for, a contravention of any enactment, notwithstanding that he was guilty of such contravention as art and part only.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above or to any express provision in any enactment having the like effect to this subsection, any person who aids, abets, counsels, procures or incites any other person to commit an offence against the provisions of any enactment shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction, unless the enactment otherwise requires, to the same punishment as might be imposed on conviction of the first-mentioned offence.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/07/03/puma-sink-their-claws-into-sevco/
A chucklesome blog from PMGB explaining the black TRFC tracksuits with the badge on the ‘wrong’ side seen at Glasgow airport on the Ibrox squad leaving for Luxemburg. I have to admit, when I saw the photo on Twitter earlier, I suspected it had been photoshopped, but it appears not. I wonder if any of the new signings, perhaps unaware of their club’s historical (for the whole of it’s history) financial plight, will have the nous to question why their new tracksuits have their badges on a different side to the match tops!
A mistake by Puma, or a ‘get it up ya, ya welchers’ from a rather miffed supplier?
As well as highlighting this badge anomaly, Phil also has an interesting explanation for the sudden lack of kit for sale at the Ibrox superstore
Homunculus
July 3 1941
Thank you for your reply.
I aware of the provisions of section 170 of CEMA.
As I said, I was not sure if similar provisions existed in Revenue Law, So I thank you for pointing to Section 106.
With all the new banners at ibrox and the banning of green footwear.Can i just ask,has some deranged fan took over the running at ibrox?
what next. not allowed to say celtic at any interviews?
HomunculusJuly 3, 2017 at 19:37
‘..They are taking the steps required.
“Under measures proposed in the Finance Bill 2017, HMRC will be able to tax any outstanding EBT loans made since 6 April 1999 on the basis that a non-repayable loan it not a loan, but is disguised pay…”
______________
I may not have understood the whole proposal, of course, but for all that I would like to see tax cheats dealt with, I am very, very uncomfortable with ‘retrospective legislation’.
If Parliament realises it has made an arse of tax legislation I think it has to accept that fact, and redraft the law from a current date. To make a law retrospective is the kind of thing that repressive , one-party tyranical dictatorships do.
I personally cannot accept that a citizen who has not in fact broken the law as is, should be deemed by a new law to have done so in a period of time before the new law is enacted.
That way, madness and tyranny lie!
If the SC were to rule that , for example, EBT schemes as operated by, say, the sports-rules-cheating SDM were in fact, under existing tax legislation, entirely legal, then it would a monstrous thing for Parliament to think of retrospectively declaring them to have been illegal.
The satisfaction of seeing SDM and the others being done for what they themselves would have believed to be sailing close to the wind legally wouldn’t cancel out the dangers inherent in allowing Parliament to make new laws retrospective.
If no law existing law has been breached, it is a wicked thing to pass a new law that says that what was legal in the past was illegal!
None of us would be safe!
HomunculusJuly 3, 2017 at 19:37
If they decide to change that then there may be a way they can take the national association to task, but I don’t know what it is.
====================
That is the point I was making, HMRC should look at weaknesses in current arrangements and strengthen them by legislation if necessary.
Surely it makes sense to make national associations who already have the powers to make checks with HMRC, obliged to make checks and document the outcome?
The SFA had an opportunity to check the position on the wtc liability with HMRC in 2011 before notifying UEFA of list of clubs granted a licence, but did not do so according to Regan’s stance on where SFA responsibility stopped.
Strengthening the arrangements might stop the avoidance/evasion in the first place, saving lost tax plus the cost of recovery where a national association was less than diligent.
John ClarkJuly 3, 2017 at 23:33
I am not sure, John, but I think the changes in the law, as regard tax avoidance/evasion, is based on the view that the law was, in fact, broken at the point the tax wasn’t paid, but it has required a very long and drawn out (usually drawn out by the offender) court case to prove it.
Look at it this way, the law already exists that says all income is taxable, but there are legal ways of reducing that liablility. Along comes a smart sh*t of an accountant with a very complex method of avoiding paying the bulk of what’s due, and a wealthy, overpaid, upstanding member of the community decides to use it to his/her benefit to upstandingly deny the community the wherewithal to run essential services.
The tax laws, mainly due to the fact that it is those due to pay most tax who own the people who run the country and make the laws, are extremely complex, and that complexity creates loopholes that disguise individuals’ tax liabilities, but the schemes created do not change the existing laws. It is HMRC’s role in the resulting cases to prove that the existing laws were broken, and that the avoidance/evasion scheme was illegal.
What I am saying is, that, at the time of the avoidance, the law was broken, and the scheme used was never legal. In my mind the change to the law is an acknowledgement of that fact and doesn’t retrospectively change the tax laws themselves, but says, ‘you’re no longer getting away with breaking the tax laws just because you used a complex scheme to disguise the fact you were breaking the law at the time!
Or, to put it another way, the law surrounding tax avoidance hasn’t been changed, instead HMRC has just been given new powers to retrieve the tax that has always been due!
What ever happened to the Port star/struck off lawyer that was advising Rangers on the BTC I think his name was Paul Walker, he came away with ‘if TRFC win the BTC he will be a hero’ or something similar. Well not long to wait for the return of the prodigal son, another charlatans in a long line of charlatans that have attached themselves to this shambles of a business, someone should do the kind thing and put them out of their misery.
To be fair he also said (something like) “I sold them a bus. It’s not my fault if they drive it incorrectly, recklessly and illegally.”
Paul Baxendale Walker
Well we all know what happened to that bus!
I don’t think anything is being changed retrospectively, it is just being enforced as far as I am aware.
Rangers avoided paying tax when they paid players wages through EBTs. The side letters (contracts) prove that. They were contractual payments, agreed in advance
EBT “loans” must be at the discretion of the trustee, once the money has been paid in the employer and employee have no control over it. That was clearly not the case, which the side letters prove.
The Government, through HMRC are simply now collecting the money they are due, they are just doing it by going to the employee for it. Basically you got money, you have a couple of options with regards that money. If you have not converted or repaid the loan by a certain date then we will bill you for the tax on it. Realistically who would repay the full amount rather than the tax on it.
Bearing in mind under an EBT the “loan” could always be converted to income and therefore not be repayable. The recipient simply had to pay the tax due on it and it was theirs.
AULDHEID
JULY 4, 2017 at 00:46
================================
Forgive my ignorance, what checks can the SFA make with HMRC. Is this in relation to the tax that clubs have declared.
CLUSTER ONE
what next. not allowed to say celtic at any interviews?
that would be one way to gag the lying king
From today’s print version of’The Scotsman”:
“Mr Blue has sued Mr Ashley after claiming he did not stick to a commercial agreement…. He says Mr Ashley promised to pay him £15 million if he used his expertise to increase Sports Dirict’s share price to £8 a share. He say Mr Ashley paid only £1 million.'”
( The Mr Blue is not a FTTT-type coded name, but Jeffrey Blue, an investment w banker)
HomunculusJuly 4, 2017 at 09:41
Bearing in mind under an EBT the “loan” could always be converted to income and therefore not be repayable. The recipient simply had to pay the tax due on it and it was theirs.
———————————————————————————
And that could be the SMSM cry. “It was the players who cheated!”
Anybody know what time tomorrow we will know the SC decision? I’m not confident the appeal will be kicked out. Don’t know why but there have been so many unexplainable decisions during this saga!
bordersdonJuly 4, 2017 at 11:47
________
Here are the details:
Future judgmentsWednesday 5 July 201709:45Courtroom 2 RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation) (formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) (Appellant) v Advocate General for Scotland (Respondent) (Scotland)
Proposed bench for hand-down: Lord Neuberger, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
The hand-downs will be streamed on Supreme Court Live and will then be made available on the Supreme Court’s video on demand service.
John ClarkJuly 4, 2017 at 12:00
bordersdonJuly 4, 2017 at 11:47________Here are the details:Future judgmentsWednesday 5 July 201709:45Courtroom 2 RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation) (formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) (Appellant) v Advocate General for Scotland (Respondent) (Scotland)Proposed bench for hand-down: Lord Neuberger, Lord Reed, Lord HodgeThe hand-downs will be streamed on Supreme Court Live and will then be made available on the Supreme Court’s video on demand service.
_________
With thanks, again, to James Doeman:
The ‘big tax case” judgment will be streamed live online at 9.45am tomorrow. link is below https://t.co/NOEKMF3E60
HOMUNCULUS
JULY 3, 2017 at 19:37
Interesting reading Homunculus. Let’s say that ‘a player’ repays his EBT loan prior to the 2019 deadline.
What will happen to the money? It was paid by RFC Plc into a trust fund over which they (allegedly) had no control.
Will the money just sit in the trust fund forever more, available (or not) to the player to make short term borrowings?
Or will it simply be left in the fund gathering dust? Will the liquidators be able to reclaim it somehow?
I realise you won’t know the answers to these questions, but it makes for an interesting thought experiment.
It would be held in trust for the players siblings on his eventual death as was the scheme’s original intention Shirley?
There was one notable example in the FTTT (might have been UTTT) where a foreign based player (RVB from memory) stated an intention to leave his children’s trust fund to be invested (i.e. and not be loaned against in the interim) and asked for proof on the investment criteria/strategy being used by the trustees to be met with looks of incredulity all around if I recall correctly.
scottcJuly 4, 2017 at 12:49 HOMUNCULUS JULY 3, 2017 at 19:37 Interesting reading Homunculus. Let’s say that ‘a player’ repays his EBT loan prior to the 2019 deadline. What will happen to the money? It was paid by RFC Plc into a trust fund over which they (allegedly) had no control. Will the money just sit in the trust fund forever more, available (or not) to the player to make short term borrowings? Or will it simply be left in the fund gathering dust? Will the liquidators be able to reclaim it somehow? I realise you won’t know the answers to these questions, but it makes for an interesting thought experiment.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
I don’t see that happening somehow.
So Mr Whatevercolouryouwere, the Supreme Court have upheld the Court of Session’s verdict that your £1m EBT was in fact taxable income and the tax is now due.
Repaying “the loan” may not remove the liability and anyway, I’m sure any ex-player/manager/executive with the choice of paying £400,000 tax, or repaying £1m to the trust would soon choose the former????
BORDERSDONJULY 4, 2017 at 11:47 And that could be the SMSM cry. “It was the players who cheated!”Anybody know what time tomorrow we will know the SC decision? I’m not confident the appeal will be kicked out. Don’t know why but there have been so many unexplainable decisions during this saga!
===================================
I’m not entirely confident HMRC will succeed either. In the event they don’t then I’m sure a wave of triumphalism will follow, followed by venomous accusations of HMRC witch hunts driven by anti-Rangers prejudice. However, let’s never forget the following.
RFC2012 were liquidated due to unpaid tax, penalties and interest amounting to £14m, as well as the wee tax case which amounted to another £4m. The fact that they operated EBT’s under the big tax case made them toxic to serious, creditable buyers. It is obvious with the case being allowed to go to two tribunals and two different courts that it is arguable enough in legal minds for HMRC to pursue, and for RFC2012 to defend. All that a BDO victory will mean is that the liquidated entity owes less to HMRC. It was clear from the Craig Whyte trial they were going under as soon as the lifeline of Champions League football was cut, no matter who was in charge. No amount of MSM protests in the event of a BDO victory will change any of that.
Straw poll if anyone fancies it.
Vote 5 stars if you think the appeal will be rejected.
Vote 1 star if you think it will be upheld.
That will give a good idea of the overall opinion of the blog.
I will do the bizarre thing and mark my own post. 5 stars from me, the appeal will be rejected.
It’s just a bit of fun.
Well, well, well. Progress is being made, sorry, I mean Progres have just gone one up, 1-1 on aggregate!
Oops apocalypse – if the score remains 2-0 on the night it might cover up a failed appeal in the Supreme Court
From what I’ve seen of this match, Progres are now deservedly 2-0 up! 2-1 on aggregate!
By the way, the Progres substitute goalie, been on about an hour, is absolute mince, fortunately he’s only had one save to make!
HOMUNCULUSJULY 4, 2017 at 09:46 5 Votes
AULDHEIDJULY 4, 2017 at 00:46================================
Forgive my ignorance, what checks can the SFA make with HMRC. Is this in relation to the tax that clubs have declared.
=======
At the three check points at 31st March under Art 50, June 30th under Art66 and 30 Sept under Art67, the SFA using the powers under Art 43, could ask HMRC if what has been submitted to the national association by the club in respect of their tax position is an accurate reflection of the position as HMRC see it.
The power to check with HMRC exists it’s a matter of making it compulsory.
AULDHEID
JULY 4, 2017 at 20:24
===============================
Thanks for that.
Are HMRC compelled to provide taxpayers details, surely that would be a breach of confidentiality.
Bring back Ally McC!
Shades of 2012…Spend a lot of money believing they will go far in Europe, and, woops.
Sadly we will never know if Progres had it in mind to lodge an appeal under FFP rules!
Oh dear Pedro.
Você está sendo demitido pela manhã.
For this result tonight Scottish football has turned itself pretzel shaped to do what?
This fixation on the Ibrox club that denies the reality of their situation and consequences of it has to end and if any media who are saying how shocking this is I mean you.
Homunculus
I’ll copy over Art43 of UEFA FFP that contains the powers later.
Had that power been exercised in 2011 a licence could not have been granted and discovery of deceit occured early enough to take earlier action.
After that result players wearing green boots are the least of his worries. Mixed feelings as this is not good for Scottish football but on the other hand they get all they deserve and we can trace it all back to SDM and the SFA for letting this basket case of a club limp on. FF will be worth a nosey tonight. Where do they go from here ?
For anyone unaware of the fact, this was the first time Progres Niederkorn have ever won a match in Europe.
TRFC not only played poorly, they looked to have no shape and no idea either. They did hit the bar three times, but should have scored, quite easily, with two of those efforts.
I think there will be quite a few ‘duvet days’ taken tomorrow in many a workplace in Scotland!
Tonight’s result has to go down as the worst in the club’s entire five day history in Europe.
What a shock, Ryan Jack failed to grab a hold of the game. Sat too deep it seems, well duh. There’s a reason that very few tears were shed in the North East when he didn’t sign a new deal.
AULDHEID
JULY 4, 2017 at 20:45
===============================
Thanks for that, I would be really interested in seeing that.
As you have suggested, if they have the power and have any interest in fair play then why not use the power.
ZEROTOLERANCE1903
JULY 4, 2017 at 20:52
================================
To be fair if Ryan Jack hadn’t joined Rangers he wouldn’t even have been playing in Europe tonight.
Aberdeen join the competition in the next round.
The shameless one will be either making calls or taking calls from folks who just pumped in soft loans, wonder how those conversations are going. Squeaky bum time
Ah Mr Loan-Person, I’m glad you called, I was just about to call you actually. Looks like it’ll be about 7 mill. What’s that? A dividend? Em no. Eh? You mean you thought…….oh. Hello………….Hello?
briggsbhoyJuly 4, 2017 at 20:59 The shameless one will be either making calls or taking calls from folks who just pumped in soft loans, wonder how those conversations are going. Squeaky bum time
__________________
I very much doubt King will be taking any calls from Scotland, or Luxemburg, tonight, unless he was waiting on a call to tell him the result!
I wonder if there were promises of loans and/or investment on the proviso TRFC reached the Euro group stages. I wouldn’t be surprised if such promises were made, with King pushing the ‘return to Europe’ claim as his big incentive, but the rich RRMs are maybe now wise enough to ‘wait and see’. Well they didn’t have to wait long to see that not much has changed since the days of Green and McCoist.
Homunculus.
Here is Art 43 from UEFA FFP 2010 that applied in 2011 but its much the same in later editions.
I now realise that I was working from that baseline and assumed (wrongly) others knew that. The para (h) is the relevant one.
IV. LEGAL CRITERIA
Article 43 – Declaration in respect of participation in UEFA club competitions
1 The licence applicant must submit a legally valid declaration confirming the
following:
a) It recognises as legally binding the statutes, regulations, directives and
decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and, if any, the
national league as well as the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS) in Lausanne as provided in the relevant articles of the UEFA Statutes;
b) At national level it will play in competitions recognised and endorsed by the
UEFA member association (e.g. national championship, national cup);
c) At international level it will participate in competitions recognised by UEFA or
FIFA (to avoid any doubt, this provision does not relate to friendly matches);
d) It will promptly inform the licensor about any significant change, event or
condition of major economic importance;
e) It will abide by and observe the club licensing regulations of the UEFA
member association;
f) It will abide by and observe the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play
Regulations;
g) All submitted documents are complete and correct;
h) It authorises the competent national club licensing administration and
national club licensing bodies, the UEFA administration, the Club Financial
Control Panel and the UEFA Organs for the Administration of Justice to
examine any relevant document and seek information from any relevant
public authority or private body in accordance with national law;
i) It acknowledges that UEFA reserves the right to execute compliance audits
at national level in accordance with Article 71.
2 The declaration must be executed by an authorised signatory of the licence
applicant no more than three months prior to the deadline for its submission to
the licensor.
Looks like TRFC hasn’t made any Progres at all since 2012.
They still need a RRM sugar daddy – who is happy to write off many millions at Ibrox…
I almost feel sorry for TRFC.
…almost.
AULDHEID
JULY 4, 2017 at 21:43
Homunculus.
Here is Art 43 from UEFA FFP 2010 that applied in 2011 but its much the same in later editions. I now realise that I was working from that baseline and assumed (wrongly) others knew that. The para (h) is the relevant one.
h) It authorises the competent national club licensing administration andnational club licensing bodies, the UEFA administration, the Club FinancialControl Panel and the UEFA Organs for the Administration of Justice toexamine any relevant document and seek information from any relevantpublic authority or private body in accordance with national law;
================================
That authorises the national authority to “… seek information from any relevant public authority or private body”.
It doesn’t really say why HMRC would provide them with confidential taxpayers information.
Football authorising associations to ask the tax authorities for information is not really the same as the tax authority being willing (or able) to provide it mate.
What I am interested in is what authorises or compels HMRC to provide the information if it is requested. They can’t just provide confidential material because someone asks for it.
A big income will now be lost on that third strip that king promised could be out soon. the question will now be when will the next loans be needed
https://twitter.com/KenEzzMin/status/882341214858735616
Looks like Pedro is having to explain, quite forcefully, that he doesn’t care what the bears think, there will be no green boots at Ibrox
(I hope the link works, it should be a photo of the great man himself)