Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns

Avatar ByDonald Stewart

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns

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

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

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

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

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

We do not like that thought.

Nor should we.

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

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

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

Supporters Direct – Undemocratic?

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

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

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

We think so… don’t you?

Join the SFSA today! It’s free

About the author

Avatar

Donald Stewart author

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

1,165 Comments so far

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:10 pm - Jul 4, 2017


While one half of me is hurting with laughter the other half is embarrased by the state of Svottish football.
We are right to question why so much effort has been put into ‘saving’ ltonight’s loser when this, despite a new round of financial doping, is the best they have to offer. 
However at the same time we should remind ourselves that this dross (including players they are trying to bin) came third in our top division.
Something serious needs to be done ‘re the state of our game.
Off the Ball on Saturday was questioning what initiatives are needed to change Scottish football. McInnes was dismissive about things trying to have a set number of young home grown players on the park.
Tonight is really a shocking result on a good number of levels.
Why does no one ‘in the game” realise we have absolutely nothing to lose by doing something drastic in terms of breaking away from a philosophy that has been failing for decades.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on10:27 pm - Jul 4, 2017


If we created level playing field academies where you cannot take a player out to a higher level until he reaches a certain age we might have a chance.
Teams should invest in the academies as should the SFA, the players are signed originally to clubs but they all develop within a leauge structured where they play for new academy team names. They can be moved around to give them experience within the setup but they all know each other regardless were they go and they learn the game at the same professional level and education. When returned to their club, if required kept, if not sold to other clubs within our game as first option on say maybe a two year deal and, then free to go elsewhere in transfer.
They could be payed a decent wage and leave to go back to their team when older and a new batch will continously replenish, every player is contracted to play for their country if selected at all levels.
I know its a long shot but the game is fecked in Scotland due to a shortage of home grown skills.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:29 pm - Jul 4, 2017


Here’s what Gary Lineker had to say about tonight’s result. It already has 21.2K likes!

‘Rangers lost to a club in Luxembourg. Not Luxembourg but a club in Luxembourg. Not the best team in Luxembourg, the 4th best in Luxembourg.’

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on10:54 pm - Jul 4, 2017


HomunculusJuly 4, 2017 at 22:02
The declaration is the club giving the power/ right to the football authorities to seek information from HMRC.
That power would be useless if it were not implicit that the Declaration authorises HMRC to provide the information requested, allowing HMRC to do so or at least causes HMRC to confirm with the tax payer that they are happy to provide such info.
Since the provision of the information might help HMRC stop avoidance/ evasion it would not make sense for them to refuse.
I’m going to leave this discussion at that as I suspect you are having a laugh.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:56 pm - Jul 4, 2017


To all those that questioned my club for not calling foul on FFP and so miss out themselves on Europe! 

It’s nights like these that make Europe soooo special…

Admit it, you’re glad Hearts said nothing

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on11:02 pm - Jul 4, 2017


I thought this topical and worth copying over from CQN

auldheid ….how you doing, mate?
I agree the numbers are probably similar, but last time, was it not a case of an outside party (Hector the tax man) to whom the money was owing, and who refused to go along with lie …. hence the crap hitting the fan. Otherwise, the zombies and the league would have continued to try to keep the truth from being discovered …
I am not as up to date on their current financial situation as I am sure you are …. are there larger external creditors this time? I have sort of assumed that their Board are likely financing this …which would likely mean they can cover it up for a while longer …. unless, of course, the league actually bothers to check on their financial situation (sorry, a bit of humor there) . but I could be mistaken.=============
Yes there is that difference in the transparency of the two situations.
It is impossible to tell what their current financial position now is but in truth it should not be supporters asking that question, it should be the Chairmen of all Premier Clubs from Aberdeen down because their income forecasts will include an element of income from 3 or 4 games against TRFC.
How sure can they be that those games are guaranteed and if they are who is underwriting the guarantee?
Scottish Football is only going to get out of this vicious circle when it becomes more transparent and this from an old CU Blog of June 2011 (six years ago) using Financial Fair Play is way to deliver it,
The Licensing Service
This needs to be more transparent. As it stands it is likely to approve Rangers licensing application that enables them to play in next season’s UEFA competitions. This, despite question marks over Ranger’s ownership; the intent of that ownership; (an intent that has still to be conveyed to the other small shareholders in Rangers), not to mention (Scottish media style) a potential crippling tax bill.
 Not only is it likely to approve a license this year in spite of the above, its role in not preventing Rangers getting into the situation they now find themselves in has surely to be investigated and changes made to prevent Rangers, or any Scottish club, endangering themselves and their fellow clubs in the future. In short the Licensing Service that is supposed to protect the financial well being of Scottish clubs has failed and that failure has undermined the integrity of our game.
 The process the SFA use is governed by UEFA and the new UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules that stipulate amongst other things what is to be treated as allowable income and allowable debt come into force for the new season. The problem with the FFP rules is that they are designed to stop rich owners putting money into clubs and thus help restrict player wages, the high cost of which is why so many clubs are carrying so much debt.
Whilst an indirect wage cap will indirectly help Celtic (and Rangers) by making us more wage competitive with our neighbour’s in the Championship and lower EPL, neither ourselves nor Rangers are particularly high wage payers nor do we get income Abramovic style from our major shareholder.
However what Celtic have had to compete with in the last decade is our main rivals Rangers first indulging in a questionable method of paying player wages (EBT’s) and then borrowing beyond their means to repay. This has all but destroyed the integrity of our game, something that can be inferred from the Scotsman article where it says,
‘which last season led the SFA’s legal and moral authority to be undermined by constant challenges.’
It is therefore clear to any observer that the processes that have allowed Rangers to damage themselves and with it the game that the SFA is supposed to protect must be tailored to reflect the reality of the SPL not the EPL.
In Scotland, unlike England where 4 clubs can qualify, the risk of failing to get CL money means the loser can be condemned to being the perpetual bridesmaid or not getting a wedding invite at all, forcing them into taking risks/gambles that can seriously damage the well being of each club, if not end it. So the licensing processes in Scotland have to be tighter to take more of an account of a clubs debt and to confirm that all players at all clubs are contracted on a basis that complies with standard tax law principles. ( a tick against “ Are your players wages subject to PAYE should suffice)
A way of balancing debt with income and expenditure would be a triangulation profile for all clubs. A triangulation profile would have income (A) in one corner, players wages (B) in another and debt (C) in the third. The triangle has to be equilateral and kept in balance and the figures from the accounts supplied to the SFA by clubs have to feed each of the balance points.
It gets more complicated in that what is counted as income has to be defined because some has to be allocated to non football costs,but as these need to be met they have to be included in the formula to set (A). What can be allowed as income will be defined by the UEFA FFP rules but is generally gate money, TV income, merchandising and UEFA money.
Players wages including PAYE and NI should be easy to arrive at and the debt level would have to bear some relationship to the income and wages.
So say for arguments sake (and the multiplier would have to be argued) the debt allowed was 3 times the difference between income and wages (like they used to do in my young days when mortgages bore some relationship to income) then everyone would know if a club was overborrowing if (C) > (A)-(B)*3
A simple spreadsheet drawing on the figures from the accounts with a pie chart to present the picture could be published for each club without divulging the figures beneath and any club not meeting the result of the formula would have their licence to play in UEFA competitions refused as well as it triggering an SFA audit of their accounts.
There is for Scottish Clubs (usually Celtic and Rangers) however an additional issue of what is allowable income for triangulation purposes because of the “skew” affect of Champions League money and the fact that it cannot be depended upon.
Because of the consequences of the proposed profiliing, a club borrowing would have to take a risk that they were always going to have that money as guaranteed income as its loss would risk a refusal of a UEFA license or an audit under the proposed profiling rules.
So what any sensible club would do is not to include money that could not be depended upon in the income, and if they get a windfall (like CL money) that is used it to avoid or to reduce debt levels, not to keep using debt to try and ensure they get the money that enables them to stay in debt, as Rangers have done.
In fact any sensible measure of governance in Scotland with only two realistic competitors for CL money should insist on the CL money being excluded from the debt affordability calculation by removing it from the allowable income. (since Euro Cup money is more dependable and a lot less this could be included as allowable but not CL money)
The principle of limiting debt to what you can afford is one which our banks abandoned to everyone’s cost and is a principle that needs to be restored everywhere never mind being introduced to football. The triangulation profile is a simple representation of that principle and a more detailed one looking at what is and is not admissable as income and what the debt multiplyer might be in the context of Scottish football is required. Any club who wishes to operate as if CL money is guaranteed and is allowable for financial profiling purposes could only do so if they have good reasons to believe that this is the case. Those reasons should be supplied and made public.
Whatever approach is adopted Scottish football needs a more relevant process and the SFA should be saying something about the lack of transparency in the Licensing process and what they intend to do to address it.

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on11:36 pm - Jul 4, 2017


Question
If you agree at the beginning of the season to pay your ST in monthly installments can you cancel your DD and walk away  without  penalty?
Just wondering

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:39 pm - Jul 4, 2017


The 6th Floor must be tearing their hair out!

They perjured themselves to give RFC(IL) an opportunity ( to which they were not entitled) to make a few necessary bob from CL football.

RFC (IL) blew that chance: against Maribor, was it?

Like those who keep doing the same thing but expect different results ( was it Einstein who said that?) they have spent the last five years telling and living the lie that Charles Green’s SevcoScotland/TRFC  are one and the same as RFC(IL) and, turning a blind eye to the disastrous hand-to-mouth-living-on-borrowed- money state of that  new club, slipped  them ,too, an opportunity to take part in European football: a chance that ,like RFC(IL) only much more  spectacularly, the new club has blown!

Scottish Football has, by promoting and fostering a lie, sown the seeds of its own demise.

Instead of strong, purposeful action to safeguard the Integrity of Scottish professional football, a concerted and deceitful effort on a grand scale was put into ‘saving’  one club ( a club that was, ironically, cruelly betrayed by its  Judas of a majority shareholder, who hadn’t the guts himself to carry out the execution, but whose greedy self-interest was exposed during the trial of a minor small-time cr.asset-stripper)

The whole disgusting story of the ‘saga’ is beyond farce.

The Monty Python team could not have come up with a more ludicrous parade of ineffective, bumbling, lying administrators and club directors whose huffing and puffing and strutting sense of ‘destiny’ and ‘rightful place’ has ended up-as did Nazi Germany’s- marking them as being no more than mere opportunist chancers lacking the discipline, the brains and the skills to achieve anything but personal disgrace and failure.

Failure as sportsmen.

Failure as businessmen.

Failure as decent human beings with something other than the aim of making money at whatever cost to honesty and truth and sport.

In my opinion.

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on11:42 pm - Jul 4, 2017


Auldheid  July 4, 2017 at 22:54  
HomunculusJuly 4, 2017 at 22:02 I’m going to leave this discussion at that as I suspect you are having a laugh.
———————————-
Auldheid, I don’t think Homunculus is having a laugh at your expense.  He is asking a very valid question, “Does HMRC disclose a taxpayer’s affairs to a third party?”  As a layman I would like to think it doesn’t unless under a court order or to the police or security services in regards to serious crime etc.
I think the taxpayer (RFC in this instance) would have to give the SFA a mandate to act as its authorised tax agent for such information to be obtained.  Failing that, the SFA would have to ask the taxpayer to obtain the information from HMRC itself then submit it to the SFA for scrutiny.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:26 am - Jul 5, 2017


Billy BoyceJuly 4, 2017 at 23:42
‘…I think the taxpayer (RFC in this instance)..’
______
Eh, cough, cough! 19 surely you mean the ‘non tax-payer’ in this instance!

Auldheid and Homunculus , sound, solid chaps ( or, chapesses, for all I know in these days), seem to be a little at cross-purposes.

Could it be that there is an understanding that SFA member clubs agree as a condition of membership that they authorise HMRC  to provide confirmation that they are not in default, without going into other detail about their  tax affairs?

I don’t know. But it seems likely.

Not that in the case of RFC(IL) any check was made by the SFA. Or, if made, was acted upon!

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on3:13 am - Jul 5, 2017


Worst result in Scottish history?…………..What about Maribor who actually killed one of our clubs?

View Comment

Avatar

Madbhoy24941Posted on8:10 am - Jul 5, 2017


With last night’s result and news that The Rangers are paying out more more on another new signing today, we have to question the finances over at Ibrox.

Let us be clear here, last night’s result could happen to any of our teams competing in European competition this or the next years, In fact, we have seen this many times just over the last years. All this crap about being beaten by a ‘bunch of nobodies’ or a ‘team no better than my local pub team’, any team can beat any team on any given day, that is, or at least, that should be football and sport in general. I am always nervous when going into Europe and I will be the same next week, no matter the team, stick 10 men behind the ball and wait for a freak breakaway in the second half of the game is a tactic (quite rightly) used by smaller teams since the invention of the sport.

The real problem in my opinion is that some teams are spending based on future earnings that are not guaranteed. It is ok to speculate based on your attendance figures, based on sponsorship and other incomes that also fluctuate but are at least pretty predictable over a season, we should not however, budget based on qualifying for a specific tournament. When they do not qualify for that tournament, it create issues that can lead to the club finding other ways to cover that shortfall, and in some cases, adopting practices that would be deemed as unfair. This is exaggerated when competing in Europe as the sums involved are pretty substantial.

This is not new, David Murray did it, Craig White did it (even trying to buy someone while in Admin), Charles Green did it, and now the current crop of custodians of the Ibrox club are doing it.

We have rules that govern the sport, they are there to ensure both teams play only with 11 players each, that only the goalie is allowed to touch the ball with hands, to ensure that only players who are eligible to play for that team are on the team-sheet for that specific game, to ensure that players or teams are not disadvantaged by persistent or aggressive fouling or when the ball goes out of play that the game is stopped.

These are basic, universal rules invented to ensure fair play on the pitch, every organization plays by these rules, even if some have different perceptions of what is meant by aggressive.

However, some go further, some organizations adopt strict rules to ensure the clubs and leagues are financially sound, that no individual team can do what they want to buy success, legally or illegally.

So the real question is: Why are Scottish clubs (via The SFA) resisting this?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:52 am - Jul 5, 2017


Good post Madbhoy.  id add two points.  Call it a warm up before the main Supreme Court show.  

Firstly, the searing reality facing Rangers supporters this morning is that the logical ice cold non emotional response to last night is administration.  They could dump their debt (although that’s not their immediate problem depending on, as you say, if they’ve promised a repayment based on group stage participation and fund flows then the debt problems become a little more prominent.). Secondly they could dump their surplus players, indeed it would give some who have come on the promise of Euro football the perfect excuse.  Now that’s not to say they will.  On the basis the 3bs have pumped in money for a love of the club then they face the same reality as 41 other boards this morning.  Namely, the simple acknowledgement that they all proclaim from time to time, that they might as well “shut the doors!”  The point is they claimed their business case was somehow different.  Turns out it’s not!

The second point is simply that our esteemed leaders have basically prostituted themselves to recreate this two club model they clearly hold so dear.  We’ve never seen the business case for it, it is merely implied by the other clubs silence.  Crisis in Scottish Football headlines aside I suspect that situation – this rudderless ship we all pay handsomely for, both literally and certainly emotionally – isn’t going to suddenly change course this morning.  Not unless we slaves all stop rowing!

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:07 am - Jul 5, 2017


AULDHEID
JULY 4, 2017 at 22:54   
HomunculusJuly 4, 2017 at 22:02
The declaration is the club giving the power/ right to the football authorities to seek information from HMRC.
That power would be useless if it were not implicit that the Declaration authorises HMRC to provide the information requested, allowing HMRC to do so or at least causes HMRC to confirm with the tax payer that they are happy to provide such info.
Since the provision of the information might help HMRC stop avoidance/ evasion it would not make sense for them to refuse.
I’m going to leave this discussion at that as I suspect you are having a laugh.
==============================================

I wasn’t “having a laugh” HMRC have a duty of confidentiality, there has to be a legal way in which they can provide information in relation to taxpayers and if that does not exist then they will not provide that information.

I do not see how football regulations provides that gateway, unless it is supported by some sort of legal memorandum of understanding. I very much doubt a Court would give the SFA a production order to force HMRC to provide that information.

It may well be the case that the SFA insist that teams provide them with an authority to obtain the relevant information from HMRC and that HMRC accept that. I simply don’t know, hence asking the question.

This is from their own online guidance.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/about/personal-information-charter

Personal information charter
 All information that HM Revenue & Customs holds is subject to our duty of confidentiality.

We know how important it is to protect customers’ privacy and to comply with the Data Protection Act (1998). As such, we will not give your information to anyone, including government departments and their agencies, local authorities, the police or any other public or private sector bodies, unless we have lawful authority to do so.

Information we may give to others

If the law allows, we may give information about you to:

other government departments and similar bodies
the police and law enforcement agencies
the courts, on production of a valid court order
foreign tax and customs authorities

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on9:35 am - Jul 5, 2017


HMRC will only divulge information about a taxpayer to a third party with that taxpayer’s express authority. There are no “gateways” which would allow HMRC to provide confidential information directly to the likes of the SFA.

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on9:52 am - Jul 5, 2017


appeal dismissed unanimous

View Comment

melbournedee

melbournedeePosted on9:52 am - Jul 5, 2017


Appeal dismissed!  Let the stripping begin.

View Comment

Avatar

Pat ByrnePosted on9:52 am - Jul 5, 2017


appeal has been dismissed

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:54 am - Jul 5, 2017


God bless Heidi Poon

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on9:57 am - Jul 5, 2017


If the LNS verdict/farce isn’t revisited now following todays supreme court verdict then everyone involved in Scottish football might as well pack up and go home.

This is a watershed moment for our game now. Celtic/Aberdeen/Hearts….. all the way down to the lower leagues cannot remain silent on this now.

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on10:01 am - Jul 5, 2017


HOMUNCULUSJULY 4, 2017 at 20:00  
63 votes 95% correct
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.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
This issue had to go all the way to the SC before we found 3 just men
Much quicker to poll SFM !

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:02 am - Jul 5, 2017


For five years or more, they’ve been dodging banana skins. Within 24 hours they’ve gone ass over t*t after both clubs each came across a banana skin they could not avoid!

Whatever happens, whether justice is served, or not, there can be no denying, Rangers Football Club cheated, and will always be remembered as cheats!

RFC – Real F**king Cheats

View Comment

Avatar

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on10:03 am - Jul 5, 2017


CHARLIE_KELLYJULY 5, 2017 at 09:57

agree 100% but be prepared for Bryson Mark 2
It’s known to be cheating now but we didn’t know (for sure) they were cheating then
Nothing to see here move along.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:06 am - Jul 5, 2017


Charlie_KellyJuly 5, 2017 at 09:57
‘…If the LNS verdict/farce isn’t revisited now…’
_____________
Surely to God the SFA and SFL have been preparing for this result, and will announce that the ruling by LNS that there had been no sporting advantage (because other clubs could have used the same tax dodge to enhance their spending power) will be set aside, and that over that decade or so RFC(IL)  had cheated their way to numerous titles and honours which must now be stripped from the record, and RFC(IL) formally expelled, with all the consequences that might have for the new club.

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on10:09 am - Jul 5, 2017


I’m well prepared for the SFA/SPFL and the MSM’s spin and lies.

I’m now more focused on what my own club (Celtic) has to say on the matter now. I think all the fans of all the other teams should be feeling the same way.

Let’s face it, we already know what the SFA/SPFL are going to attempt. So I have zero faith in them doing the right thing here. My faith in my own club? – I’d say it’s 50/50 at this point.

View Comment

Avatar

grecian urnPosted on10:15 am - Jul 5, 2017


As one of many that tuped over from the RTC site, I would greatly appreciate a guest blog from her/him, even if it is just to say how vindicated he/she feels.
i think a big debt of thanks is due, and looking forward to the book.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:19 am - Jul 5, 2017


John ClarkJuly 5, 2017 at 10:06  
Charlie_KellyJuly 5, 2017 at 09:57‘…If the LNS verdict/farce isn’t revisited now…’_____________Surely to God the SFA and SFL have been preparing for this result, and will announce that the ruling by LNS that there had been no sporting advantage (because other clubs could have used the same tax dodge to enhance their spending power) will be set aside, and that over that decade or so RFC(IL)  had cheated their way to numerous titles and honours which must now be stripped from the record, and RFC(IL) formally expelled, with all the consequences that might have for the new club.
_______________________

There can be no doubt they’ve been preparing for it, John, but I very much doubt they’ve been preparing to act in an honest and dignified manner.

If they do not announce that they are revisiting the LNS decision, or accepting that, from the words of the LNS determination, that Rangers did, in fact, cheat and so titles will be stripped, they will be saying that cheating, at least in the case of a ‘Rangers’, is acceptable.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:21 am - Jul 5, 2017


GOOSYGOOSY
JULY 5, 2017 at 10:01
========================

I think that’s a bit harsh on the Court of Session, mate. They found similarly. This was Rangers appealing their ruling.

View Comment

Avatar

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on10:24 am - Jul 5, 2017


CHARLIE_KELLYJULY 5, 2017 at 10:0
Let’s face it, we already know what the SFA/SPFL are going to attempt. So I have zero faith in them doing the right thing here. My faith in my own club? – I’d say it’s 50/50 at this point.

Not sure if I’m even that confident, but as both a shareholder and season ticket holder through the entire cheating years I will be writing to the Board asking if they think it is acceptable that I should have spent thousands of pounds and god knows how much time travelling from Yorkshire every 2nd week to watch a rigged game.
Stripping all of the titles and cups wouldn’t make up for anything but it is essential if the Scottish football authorities want to be considered even remotely fit for purpose.  

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:32 am - Jul 5, 2017


HomunculusJuly 5, 2017 at 10:21  
GOOSYGOOSYJULY 5, 2017 at 10:01========================I think that’s a bit harsh on the Court of Session, mate. They found similarly. This was Rangers appealing their ruling.
______________________

I think, also, that this case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, there was much more riding on it than Rangers’ use of EBTs. The ruling is now enshrined in UK law.

And wasn’t the Judgement so very simple to understand? Despite that, though, I still couldn’t believe I’d heard it correctly, when, what seemed too soon in the statement, Lord Hodge said what we all believed he had to say, that the appeal had been dismissed. I just had to wait until I heard it again before breathing that sigh of relief.

Justice, it is all we’ve ever asked for!

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on10:33 am - Jul 5, 2017


If Lord Nimmo Smith is a man of integrity
He will issue a statement this week calling for an Independent Body to consider the implications of the Supreme Court decision on the judgements made by his LNS Commission
I

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:43 am - Jul 5, 2017


Jim Spence, the only true journalist, throughout this whole sorry mess, with the guts and integrity to say it how it is!

‘Jim Spence‏ @JimSpenceSport  28s28 seconds ago MoreWith Proceeds of crime Act, ill gotten gains are stripped. Football is no different after the SC judgement today, Titles won are worthless.’

View Comment

Cygnus X2

Cygnus X2Posted on10:46 am - Jul 5, 2017


It’s been a while since I last posted.

I know this won’t happen, but the timing of the tax case result and the disaster in Europe last night gives the football authorities a unique chance to draw a line under the whole thing and make some kind of amends for their actions over the last few years.

Admit that Rangers cheated, now that the tax case result is undeniable.  Strip the titles.  Stop bending over backwards to placate the blue pound and start to treat the new Rangers on the same terms as every other team in Scotland.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:47 am - Jul 5, 2017


Totally agree Grecian Urn, would love to see RTC post an article.  If I remember he closed his(?) site after the First Tier Tribunal.  I felt so sorry for him after all the work he put in.

As you say, he is now vindicated.

If only it would now lead to the clubs and the authorities doing the decent thing.  But I won’t hold my breath, most of them do not have an ounce of integrity.

Unfortunately most season tickets are now sold so supporters don’t have the power they had in 2012. It’s hard to see a head of steam being built up now for a boycott.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:01 am - Jul 5, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
JULY 5, 2017 at 10:32
==============================

In the liquidation process I believe there is a “liquidation committee” formed from some of the creditors. That is there to express the views of the creditors in how the process is carried out. Clearly the major creditors would want to be on that committee to ensure their views are represented. 

I believe HMRC are on that committee in the Rangers liquidation, I also believe that it was them who picked BDO as the liquidator. 

A nice wee “shooty in” EBT case going all the way to the Supreme Court would have been a Godsend to them.

The primary purpose of a Committee is to assist theoffice holder in fulfilling his or her duties. This couldinvolve helping them to make key decisions, for exampleto take legal action to recover assets, to represent theinterests of the main body of unsecured creditors, or toprovide the office holder with the benefit of specialistknowledge either about the company or the industry inwhich the company operates. The office holder shouldalways take into account the views of the Committeebut is not obliged to follow their wishes. The Committeecannot direct an office holder in relation to the conductof the insolvency proceeding.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on11:06 am - Jul 5, 2017


Have asked RTC about his blogging intentions and offered host or reblog anything he comes up with.

I think that Jim Spence, RTC, and the ate Paul McConville are due our appreciation, not for merely having been proved correct, but for their role as an oasis of bravery in a a coward-filled MSM desert.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on11:08 am - Jul 5, 2017


Goosy,

You make an excellent point. The law, as James Doleman always insists, is full of people of integrity. Perhaps as a retired man, Nimmo-Smith does not feel compelled to hold himself to the same high standards of his profession – but he should.

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on11:09 am - Jul 5, 2017


LNS relied on on the law as he believed it to be based on the rulings current when he was instructed.
The law has been finally confirmed as not what he believed it to be and there is a responsibility on those who instructed him to proceed from the argument he used (he believed that other Clubs could have used the RFC EBT arrangements within the law and so no sporting advantage was gained) to apply the law as it is now confirmed to be -sporting advantage was gained by illegitimate means including side letters- to apply the 0-3 convention and the consequences of that in respect of any titles prize monies and so on for RFC which Club should RIP.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on11:14 am - Jul 5, 2017


RTC has tweeted a mini-blog

https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase/status/882541898585583616

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:33 am - Jul 5, 2017


This is almost a worked example of the word unequivocal.

In a written judgment, the judges said:

“The sums paid to the trustee of the Principal Trust for a footballer constituted the footballer’s earnings. The risk that the trustee might not set up a sub-trust or give a loan of the sub-trust funds to the footballer does not alter the nature of the payments made to the trustee of the Principal Trust .

“The discretionary bonuses made available to RFC’s employees through the same trust mechanisms also fall within the tax charge as these were given in respect of the employee’s work.

“Payment to the Principal Trust should have been subject to deduction of income tax under the PAYE regulations.”

Tax was due when the money was paid into the trust (by Rangers). Tax was due when the money was paid out to the player*. The scheme failed from the off.

Kind of what we have been saying for years.

*Clearly if PAYE had been dealt with earlier then it did not have to be again. 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:42 am - Jul 5, 2017


HomunculusJuly 5, 2017 at 11:33  
This is almost a worked example of the word unequivocal.

________________________

And perhaps an expertly written precis of what we’ve all been banging on about for the past five years, and more!

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:59 am - Jul 5, 2017


AllyjamboJuly 5, 2017 at 11:42
‘…an expertly written precis ‘
__________
In the light of which we can see how amateurish and shallow was the judgment of the ‘majority’ of the First Tier tax tribunal, compared with Dr Poon’s carefully thorough and reasoned   ‘minority’ opinion.
Here’s to her.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:02 pm - Jul 5, 2017


What you deep reading chaps have been looking for.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0073-judgment.pdf

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on12:25 pm - Jul 5, 2017


“In a statement issued to the Press Association, Sir David said: “I am hugely disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Court of Session, reversing the decisions of the specialist tax First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal in this matter.
“The decision runs counter to the legal advice which was consistently provided to Rangers Football Club, that on the basis of the law and legal precedent at the time, the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such.
 “It should be emphasised that there have been no allegations made by HMRC or any of the courts that the club was involved in tax evasion, which is a criminal offence.
“The decision will be greeted with dismay by the ordinary creditors of the club, many of which are small businesses, who will now receive a much lower distribution in the liquidation of the club, which occurred during the ownership of Craig Whyte, than may otherwise have been the case.
“I have not had the opportunity to discuss the decision in detail with Tax Counsel, but will do so, particularly in light of proposed legislation, which will alter the tax position applying to loans made by trusts to employees. Once the impact has been assessed, a further statement will be issued.”
————————————————————————————-
Just to emphasise, apart from ‘it wisnae me’, SDM says that there was a “liquidation of the club”.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Avatar

ZilchPosted on12:32 pm - Jul 5, 2017


Thank you RTC.
Thank you TSFM.
Thank you Phil.
Thank you Jim Spence, Tomo, and a vanishingly small number of journalists who told the truth.
My thoughts are with the guys we are missing today who knew the truth but are not here to see it emerge from the Supreme Court. They are vindicated.
It is past time for our clubs to take the game back, restore sporting integrity and eliminate everyone that took the illegal money, turned a blind eye or contributed to the corruption.
There is no excuse left.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on12:49 pm - Jul 5, 2017


“The decision will be greeted with dismay by the ordinary creditors of the club, many of which are small businesses, who will now receive a much lower distribution in the liquidation of the club, which occurred during the ownership of Craig Whyte, than may otherwise have been the case.“I have not had the opportunity to discuss the decision in detail with Tax Counsel, but will do so, particularly in light of proposed legislation, which will alter the tax position applying to loans made by trusts to employees. Once the impact has been assessed, a further statement will be issued.”
Have to ask sDM would he have taken on the Tax bill had interested parties said no to taking over. Would sDM have liquidated his beloved RFC i believe there was no future, no investor would have taken on the tax, it had to be liquidation no one had the money, or was silly enough to take it on. Craig White saved the club been liquidated at the hands of RRM, however we now know different from todays result, RRCrooks ran the institution into the ground, cheated their own and stiffed creditors and have been caught, next to go is the two crooks running the rigged game, Regan and Doncaster time is up, the LNS enquiry was a private affair and setup to pass today was public and the result based on integrity and law and the law won. 

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:58 pm - Jul 5, 2017


I see SPFL Board have made a statement regarding Supreme Court Decision.

An SPFL spokesman said: “The Board of the SPFL notes today’s judgement of the Supreme Court. We will now take time to examine the ‎judgement in detail and to consider any implications for the SPFL.”Read more at http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-statement-74/#W1MPbLw8rJC4BdPi.99
Perhaps they may find it informative reading this TSFM blog from Sept 2014
How Not To Govern Scottish Football

to remind them why they decided not to appeal the LNS Decision at the time when more than one board member was unhappy with the findings then check their records, then consider the other points made in the blog..

Note the links contained to other TSFM blogs do not work but they are archived.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:59 pm - Jul 5, 2017


Still glaringly obvious to me that Whytes sole role was to get the security back from the bank.  To return the assets in-house as it were.  He thought he was doing SDM a “Rangers” favour.  He didn’t realise (I suspect) that he was actually just a “Metals” patsy.

View Comment

Avatar

realshocksPosted on1:16 pm - Jul 5, 2017


I’ve just joined the site, and I would like to thank all of the contributors to this blog/forum. It has been informative and entertaining, with posters offering different slants and backgrounds on Scottish football; people who support various clubs (although it seems that many are Celts like myself). Anyway, after today’s final decision on the big tax case I find myself feeling angry, rather than gloating or smug. I hope that guys like yourselves can find a way to make sure that justice is done for supporters of all Scottish football supporters. The stripping of titles/trophies should be a “no-brainer” now, but to my mind the most important issue is about the future of the game. We desperately need a clearance of those officials who are now irrevocably tarnished with both incompetence and corruption. 
Personally, I would like this process to be inclusive of Rangers*, but it seems that the gods are against such a thing. Anyway, thanks for all the knowledge, the stories, the legal nuances and banter. You rock!

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on1:31 pm - Jul 5, 2017


SDM chutzpah in the face of truth is astonishing. The Ayr chairman was right when he told him that he could not but his Club because he had no money- now then and forever indeed.
Your boys took a helluva beating on and off the park

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on1:32 pm - Jul 5, 2017


Phil  Mac
“The final verdict of the cheats of Ibrox”

View Comment

Avatar

mungoboyPosted on1:36 pm - Jul 5, 2017


I’m having a great day today.
Not only is it my grandson’s 2nd birthday but 2 minutes after the SC announcement, thanks to modern technology, I was aware of the decision as I sat here in sunny SW France.
Since then I’ve been humming a popular local ditty along the lines of
Allons bampots de l’internet, le jour de gloire est arrivé’
However, as others have said, also in my mind are those no longer with us to witness this day. We know who they are and they’re in our thoughts.
Anyway, cold beer beckons.
to paraphrase yet again, if Kronenbourg did weeks……… ??

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:46 pm - Jul 5, 2017


redlichtieJuly 5, 2017 at 12:25  
“In a statement issued to the Press Association, Sir David said: “I am hugely disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Court of Session, reversing the decisions of the specialist tax First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal in this matter.“The decision runs counter to the legal advice which was consistently provided to Rangers Football Club, that on the basis of the law and legal precedent at the time, the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such. “It should be emphasised that there have been no allegations made by HMRC or any of the courts that the club was involved in tax evasion, which is a criminal offence.“The decision will be greeted with dismay by the ordinary creditors of the club, many of which are small businesses, who will now receive a much lower distribution in the liquidation of the club, which occurred during the ownership of Craig Whyte, than may otherwise have been the case.
redlichtieJuly 5, 2017 at 12:25       
10 Votes
 
“In a statement issued to the Press Association, Sir David said: “I am hugely disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Court of Session, reversing the decisions of the specialist tax First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal in this matter.“The decision runs counter to the legal advice which was consistently provided to Rangers Football Club, that on the basis of the law and legal precedent at the time, the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such. “It should be emphasised that there have been no allegations made by HMRC or any of the courts that the club was involved in tax evasion, which is a criminal offence.“The decision will be greeted with dismay by the ordinary creditors of the club, many of which are small businesses, who will now receive a much lower distribution in the liquidation of the club, which occurred during the ownership of Craig Whyte, than may otherwise have been the case.“I have not had the opportunity to discuss the decision in detail with Tax Counsel, but will do so, particularly in light of proposed legislation, which will alter the tax position applying to loans made by trusts to employees. Once the impact has been assessed, a further statement will be issued.”————————————————————————————-Just to emphasise, apart from ‘it wisnae me’, SDM says that there was a “liquidation of the club”.Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
————————————————————————————-Just to emphasise, apart from ‘it wisnae me’, SDM says that there was a “liquidation of the club”.Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
_________________

FFS (excuse my language), does the man know no shame? It’s only a few weeks ago that his part in Rangers liquidation, that has resulted in these very creditors losing so much money, was revealed in court. The liquidation of Rangers Football Club might have ‘occurred’ during the ownership of Craig Whyte, but the seeds were sown, and the corn grew until it was rotting, long before Whyte became involved. He is clearly inferring that it is HMRC’s fault that the creditors are losing even more money!

But it’s OK, no crime was committed. Immorality is fine, then, whenever the establishment are involved!

PS I wonder why he felt it necessary to emphasise no ‘criminal offence’ had taken place, or, indeed, mention Craig Whyte and the cub’s liquidation, at all! A squirrel let loose, perhaps!

PPS I find the last paragraph perhaps more revealing than it first appeared (to me) to be. Could the disgraced knight be worrying that HMRC will be able to remove their claim against the liquidated company and seek payment from the EBT recipients. While some will have little or no money to pay what they owe, and some might well have already transferred their assets into their wives’ names, Sir (said in a most disdainful way) David Murray might well find himself having to pay up all the millions he owes. How sweet that would be!

He said:
.“I have not had the opportunity to discuss the decision in detail with Tax Counsel, but will do so, particularly in light of proposed legislation, which will alter the tax position applying to loans made by trusts to employees. Once the impact has been assessed, a further statement will be issued.”

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:50 pm - Jul 5, 2017


Sorry, I made a cock up of copying and pasting my previous post, please ignore the duplication. It’s been a funny old day (last 24 hours, actually, jings, it’s not even been 24 hours…you wait 5 years for a bus, then…) 14

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on2:02 pm - Jul 5, 2017


If the Supreme Courts ruling was a lesson in being unequivocal David Murray’s statement was a lesson in obfuscation.

The creditors lost out because the club he previously owned went into liquidation.

The club went into liquidation because it was a failed business model and was in it’s death throes when he sold it to a total charlatan, who had previously been banned as a director and liked to indulge in gratuitous alienation. 

The creditors are now losing out even more because the tax avoidance scheme that he put in place (and got over £6m tax free from) has now been definitively ruled as being illegal.

The man has no shame, he is a self-preserving disgrace. It is everyone else’s fault but his. Something he presumably learned whilst he owned and operated Rangers, its certainly the same mentality as the club and it’s support always seem to have. 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on2:05 pm - Jul 5, 2017


AuldheidJuly 5, 2017 at 12:58  
I see SPFL Board have made a statement regarding Supreme Court Decision.An SPFL spokesman said: “The Board of the SPFL notes today’s judgement of the Supreme Court. We will now take time to examine the ‎judgement in detail and to consider any implications for the SPFL.”Read more at http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-statement-74/#W1MPbLw8rJC4BdPi.99
___________________

Hmm, a bit better than I expected, I genuinely thought that Doncaster would have something ready to state categorically that there would be no title stripping, he’s had a very long time to find the words that might excuse such cowardly inaction. Could it be that he hasn’t been able to find the necessary words, as excusing this cheating is not possible, and/or has been told by the clubs, ‘no way, Jose, we will decide, and tell you what to do!’

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:15 pm - Jul 5, 2017


 Hmm, a bit better than I expected, I genuinely thought that Doncaster would have something ready to state categorically that there would be no title stripping, he’s had a very long time to find the words that might excuse such cowardly inaction. Could it be that he hasn’t been able to find the necessary words, as excusing this cheating is not possible, and/or has been told by the clubs, ‘no way, Jose, we will decide, and tell you what to do!’

One might speculate that his members (he only discovered last night he had more than two) haven’t sold as many season tickets as they would like yet and that their marketing efforts could do with a shot in the arm/kick in the proverbials at the expense of a known proven ‘criminal.’  Sure it would be mob mentality at its worst, but if its good for the goose….  One would only be speculating of course.

And I’m perfectly aware of the double entendre in the first sentence thank you.  I’m just trying not to think about it.  

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on2:21 pm - Jul 5, 2017


Homunculus  July 5, 2017 at 14:02
——————————
Are we talking about the same Sir David Murray who not so long ago demanded that Airdrie cough up a £30k debt or go to the wall?  He was applauded in the Scottish press for being so courageous to do so and put sentiment to one side.  In true Godfather style he explained that it was business and not personal.  The Diamonds’ fate was due to the bold Knight’s integrity.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on2:27 pm - Jul 5, 2017


BILLY BOYCE
JULY 5, 2017 at 14:21
============================

Well remembered.

Ibrox chairman David Murray applied for an interdict, on behalf of his company Carnegie, for a debt of around Ł30,000 owed by Airdrie. 

Mr Murray said: “I feel very sorry for Airdrie and their supporters but we’re running a business. We have given them repeated warnings and felt they were playing on our good nature.” 

The Scottish Football Association described the move as “a private matter between the clubs” and made clear there had been no contact with either party. 

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on2:30 pm - Jul 5, 2017


AllyjamboJuly 5, 2017 at 13:46      i 3 Votes 
redlichtieJuly 5, 2017 at 12:25  
 “It should be emphasised that there have been no allegations made by HMRC or any of the courts that the club was involved in tax evasion, which is a criminal offence
==============
This from the guy who set RFC on the ebt trail  with DOS that required side letters to encourage 2 players to sign in 2000 that MIH/RFC failed to disclose to HMRC in 2005 causing them later in Feb 2011 to accuse MIH/RFC of fraud or negligence.
Even that might not make it a criminal offence in civil law, but it was a criminal offence against Scottish Football.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on2:36 pm - Jul 5, 2017


AllyjamboJuly 5, 2017 at 14:05

The SPFL Board have to be the deciding party not Doncaster.
They took a decision in 2013 on the basis of the information fed to them as result of what was disclosed at the time.
What was not disclosed (and should have been) and what has emerged from the CW trial in respect of why the wtc liability was accepted should require them to revisit their decision in 2013 not to appeal.

View Comment

tangoed

tangoedPosted on2:44 pm - Jul 5, 2017


Celtic calling for review of LNS decision
 
 
WE note today’s decision by the Supreme Court. Celtic’s position on this issue has been consistent – that this has always been a matter for the courts of law and also the Scottish football authorities, whose rules are intended to uphold sporting integrity.
In 2013, we expressed surprise – shared by many observers and supporters of the game – over the findings of the SPL Commission that no competitive or sporting advantage had resulted. Today’s decision only re-affirms that view.
We are sure now that the footballing authorities in Scotland will wish to review this matter. Celtic awaits the outcome of their review.
 
 
http://www.celticfc.net/news/12873

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on2:47 pm - Jul 5, 2017


Celtic’s statement appears to assume there will be a review.
This is either because they have been told ‘off the record’ that there will be a review or because they’re trying to put pressure on the SPFL/SFA to have a review.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:55 pm - Jul 5, 2017


Would it be possible for member clubs to take the case to the Court of Arbitration in Sport if SFA/SPFL try to move us all along ?

View Comment

tangoed

tangoedPosted on2:58 pm - Jul 5, 2017


CHARLIE_KELLY JULY 5, 2017 at 14:47
 
I would suggest it’s the latter,(putting the pressure on)
 
Will any other club be applying the pressure for a review?

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on3:11 pm - Jul 5, 2017


Always happy to be wrong if our quest for justice is served, but I am astonished at the Celtic statement – especially the final sentences of the second and third paragraph.

Of course it could be sabre-rattling to impress the bampots, but they needn’t have gone so far.

Curiously too, Hugh Keevins has broken ranks and seems to be calling for honours being set aside;

https://twitter.com/shinjukushug/status/882576405145542656

Tipping point? Event horizon? 

Whatever it is strange how the actuality of something we all predicted in theory has changed prevailing conditions. 

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on3:13 pm - Jul 5, 2017


Tangoed,

An excellent point. Even if the Celtic statement is just some window dressing, it has left the door ajar for others to stick a foot in.

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on3:17 pm - Jul 5, 2017


As Great statements go though, it is sadly lacking in words like “Dignity” or “Besmirched” and phrases such as “Parity of esteem”
I’m sure the good folk at ‘club 1872’ will not disappoint on that front when their inevitable counter statement is published.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:18 pm - Jul 5, 2017


AuldheidJuly 5, 2017 at 14:36  
AllyjamboJuly 5, 2017 at 14:05The SPFL Board have to be the deciding party not Doncaster.They took a decision in 2013 on the basis of the information fed to them as result of what was disclosed at the time.What was not disclosed (and should have been) and what has emerged from the CW trial in respect of why the wtc liability was accepted should require them to revisit their decision in 2013 not to appeal.
_______________

In light of what’s come out recently, in court, and the result of the EBT appeal, there can be absolutely no viable reason for not re-examining the LNS decision. There can never be a good reason for not seeking to expose, and penalise, wrongdoing, and when that wrongdoing has been exposed, so undeniably, then there can be no excuse for not revisiting an enquiry that had a decision based on erroneous beliefs, beliefs that the case relied heavily upon. 

Now we find that Doncaster, as the representative of the SPL, and a man who undoubtedly sides with Rangers of whichever version is pertinent at the time, hasn’t been able to formulate a viable excuse for not revisiting the LNS enquiry. He’s had years to think up an excuse and has known for a week that he would need to come up with one today. He hasn’t, and that can only be because he hasn’t been able to invent one.

The thing about excuses is, they don’t have to be thought up if they are genuine. If Doncaster, representing the SPFL, had a genuine excuse for any inaction, he would have been able to produce it today, even if there were some dissenting voices from within the SPFL. The same goes for the SPFL itself, and it’s member clubs, if a genuine excuse exists, it’s easy to tell the world, instantly.

I’m not suggesting that this means that LNS will be revisited, rather that there will be no viable excuse for not revisiting it produced, and it will be left to the SMSM to prevent the anger and truth from going any further than the internet.

My hope remains, however, that this non-announcement means there are some, at least, dissenting voices within the SPFL not prepared to protect these cheats any further! 

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:19 pm - Jul 5, 2017


Yes, further vindication of the value and accuracy of the output from RTC, Paul, Phil etc.

Whilst the Bampots knew the truth, the SMSM consistently failed their customers – until they had no choice but to report the truth e.g. court decisions.

The footy fans must be – generally – much more informed now, and much less trusting of the SMSM’s output.
And that can only be good for the game, long-term, IMO.

But precious few SMSM sports ‘journalists’ have learned much in the last 6 years or so, and that’s why they are becoming more irrelevant by the day…and they must take some responsibility for accelerating the demise of their own industry.
 
RFC was a cheating institution: it’s now official.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:25 pm - Jul 5, 2017


tangoedJuly 5, 2017 at 14:44  
Celtic calling for review of LNS decision  WE note today’s decision by the Supreme Court. Celtic’s position on this issue has been consistent – that this has always been a matter for the courts of law and also the Scottish football authorities, whose rules are intended to uphold sporting integrity.In 2013, we expressed surprise – shared by many observers and supporters of the game – over the findings of the SPL Commission that no competitive or sporting advantage had resulted. Today’s decision only re-affirms that view.We are sure now that the footballing authorities in Scotland will wish to review this matter. Celtic awaits the outcome of their review.  http://www.celticfc.net/news/12873
____________________

Just read this after posting the above, and am delighted to see it. Could this be the reason for Doncaster’s lack of a statement of the SPFL’s position – that he didn’t dare back Rangers(IL) knowing this was coming down the pike.

Well said, Celtic, you’ve done your supporters proud today, and the integrity of Scottish football a great service. I hope other leading clubs will follow with statements of their own.

View Comment

Avatar

bordersdonPosted on3:32 pm - Jul 5, 2017


AllyjamboJuly 5, 2017 at 15:25
Just read this after posting the above, and am delighted to see it. Could this be the reason for Doncaster’s lack of a statement of the SPFL’s position – that he didn’t dare back Rangers(IL) knowing this was coming down the pike.
Well said, Celtic, you’ve done your supporters proud today, and the integrity of Scottish football a great service. I hope other leading clubs will follow with statements of their own.
———————————————————————-
Hear hear and mair hear!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on3:33 pm - Jul 5, 2017


AJ @ 15.18

I’ve always thought Doncaster played a decent long game in this.  Consistently, it wasn’t what he was saying that supported the lie but rather what he was clearly making great efforts not to say.  (There are one or two exceptions of course).  I would guess his position today will be the same as it was yesterday.  Namely that if it is proven that EBTs were illegal then you (Rangers) are on your own.  1 against 41. 

If I was to guess at his next play it will be something along the lines of “Doesn’t really matter, Rangers in common parlance will always be Rangers etc etc”, a situation, a dialogue if you like, that he knows full well that he helped to create precisely by his inaction.  And damn fine well he knows it too.  They will then try and dump as much of the crap on the oldco/club thingy as possible and hope we just all move along.  Again.  

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:40 pm - Jul 5, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
JULY 5, 2017 at 15:25…
WE note today’s decision by the Supreme Court.

Celtic awaits the outcome of their review.  
http://www.celticfc.net/news/12873
____________________

Well said, Celtic, you’ve done your supporters proud today, and the integrity of Scottish football a great service. I hope other leading clubs will follow with statements of their own.
================

Absolutely, AJ.

This is a fairly tame / bland statement from CFC, and there is no reason whatsoever why ALL the other 40 senior clubs can’t issue a similar statement, IMO.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on3:48 pm - Jul 5, 2017


CFC Statement

http://www.celticfc.net/news/12873 
  ——————————————————————
@ZILCHJULY 5, 2017 at 12:32 
Thank you RTC.Thank you TSFM.Thank you Phil.Thank you Jim Spence, Tomo, and a vanishingly small number of journalists who told the truth.My thoughts are with the guys we are missing today who knew the truth but are not here to see it emerge from the Supreme Court. They are vindicated.It is past time for our clubs to take the game back, restore sporting integrity and eliminate everyone that took the illegal money, turned a blind eye or contributed to the corruption.There is no excuse left.
    —————————————————————————————
    Zilch, As well as the noteable afore mentioned, a place should be reserved for the man behind Charlotte Fakes, for releasing a wealth of details. A big thanks to him. 10

View Comment

Comments are closed.