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

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on2:39 pm - Jul 7, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
JULY 7, 2017 at 13:48
=============================

You are spot on.

In this case HMRC used their civil powers to issue financial penalties, rather than their criminal powers to prosecute through the criminal Courts.

If someone can tell me how HMRC or anyone else can impose a fine (and it is HMRC themselves who do it not anyone else) for something that is “perfectly legal” I would be most interested.

What Rangers did was not legal, people are getting confused by HMRC’s response to it.    

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on3:19 pm - Jul 7, 2017


I simply want the titles won illicitly to be reviewed and reawarded perhaps with an asterisk to explain to future generations that the re-awards were retrospective and the reason for that.

I say this because all through the cheating years I was shelling out for three season books for my boys and me unaware that the most successful club were at it big time. 

Thats what would have happened in athletics where maybe they are more used to dealing with cheating.

The football world is wee and the vast majority of ex pros and reporters who pontificate to us on BBC Radio Shortbread and tv and in the various dying print titles will not break line because they fear for their future pay cheques.

I am also reminded of the fairly recent Spartans precedent when they were thrown out of the Scottish Cup for the heinous crime of not checking Keith Mcleod had signed the second page of his form. (This wee misdemeanor cost this club a bumper pay cheque that would have been worth nearly 50% of their annual budget)

Like many Scottish fans I just want fairness for all and that includes for Rangers and their fans.

Martin Hannan is calling it right and its worth a read.

The game won’t and can’t move on based on the ongoing cover up of one of our biggest

The fans memories will be here after Regan et al have long departed their overpaid jobs.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:24 pm - Jul 7, 2017


UPTHEHOOPS
JULY 7, 2017 at 07:20

In my view a crowd funded judicial review is the way ahead…
=========================================

I think even a genuine threat of a JR would force the SFA into some action.
[And I am assuming that fans could raise a JR as ‘cheated customers’ ?]

As for the SMSM spin that it’s only CFC fans who want titles stripped,
we have already seen fans from other clubs express their outrage.

And just how would the SMSM explain why there must be many, many taxpayers – who have absolutely no interest in football – who also demand action to be taken against a tax cheating club over 10+ years ?

The SFA have already mishandled their premature SC reaction.
The pressure is now on the SPFL.
The fans don’t have an appetite – they are starving – for titles to be stripped.  14

So, what if the administrators come up with a crappy ‘solution’?

1) TRFC issues a carefully worded, official statement;
– expressing regret for the ‘cheating years’
– expressing regret for the harm the club has caused to Scottish football over the years
– pleading for forgiveness
– promising to promote a brighter, and more socially responsible future for the Ibrox club.

[Expressing contrition would be a tough call in the Blue Room – but only after ST’s have been sold!]

&

2) TRFC agrees to have an asterisk applied to the trophies won erroneously.
i.e. they are not stripped of titles, but ‘clarification’ is added to the history books.

[Don’t know if that would work either, as the bears would still claim 54* and counting! ]

But it looks like the SFA & SPFL have managed to carefully paint themselves into a corner.

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on4:01 pm - Jul 7, 2017


They can claim the moon is made out of blue cheese for all I care as long as the record books are amended appropriately to indicate the EBT years.
I’d prefer the word “Void” or “No award” but I’ll settle for “Rangers*”

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:03 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Homunculus,

But can HMRC penalise (over and above interest) for a tax avoidance scheme that didn’t work?  At what point, particularly with the deliberate subterfuge going on does it become evasion?  Or does it never become evasion?  Just shi*e avoidance! 

Unless the penalties referred to are for late payment. But then that opens up crystalisation issues does it not?

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on4:20 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Patsy
July 7, 2017 at 12:31
—————————–
 
http://www.thenational.scot/news/15393946.Martin_Hannan__Arrogant_SFA_are_wrong_to_dismiss_further_action_on_Rangers_____and_should_not_underestimate_fan__anger/
 
PS if anyone is using an ad blocker you will not see all of this.

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on4:27 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Apologies if this has already been asked & answered but does anyone know how much the “fines” alone amounted to in the “Big tax bill” ?
It seems strange to be fined many millions (or to be even fined at all!) for operating a tax avoidance scheme that was “perfectly legal”  

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on4:35 pm - Jul 7, 2017


StevieBCJuly 7, 2017 at 15:24 
UPTHEHOOPS JULY 7, 2017 at 07:20 … In my view a crowd funded judicial review is the way ahead…
2) TRFC agrees to have an asterisk applied to the trophies won erroneously. i.e. they are not stripped of titles, but ‘clarification’ is added to the history books.

TRFC cannot agree to any of above as they are now a different club to the club that won the trophies, no need to let facts get any more muddied.There is only the Authorities in charge of their all club compliance rules and it is their duty to address irregularities/cheating as is protocol and that is to remove awards handed out and ammend the history with explanation as to ammendement.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:46 pm - Jul 7, 2017


SMUGAS
JULY 7, 2017 at 16:03
=========================

Yes, HMRC can impose penalties for people avoiding tax, over and above any interest due. Interest is not a penalty, it is simply paying the right amount of tax but allowing for the fact that time has passed. 

If someone makes a genuine mistake then they are expected to pay the tax due plus interest. No penalties.

However if they deliberately underpay tax then HMRC have statutory penalties which they can impose. Tax avoidance is a specific form of underpayment, where a person uses a legitimate scheme incorrectly. They don’t just under-declare their income or over-claim their expenses.  

HMRC split these things into a few categories such as, Failure to take reasonable care (30%), Deliberate Understatement (70%), Deliberate Understatement and Concealment (100%).

I think those might be maximum, but can be mitigated downwards a bit by the person’s actions.

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on4:55 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Statement time from Dave King:  https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-message

The bit towards the end where he basically alludes to the fact that the current ibrox entity is overspending beyond their income and that they could be (but they aren’t, HONESTLY THEY AREN’T!!!) engaging in similar dodgy schemes, is absolutely astounding.
The rest of it is just a big two fingers to David Murray & Celtic but that paragraph towards the end is mind boggling given what transpired under his watch at the old club.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on5:28 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Cheers Homunculus.

So if I’m picking you up right even if tax is avoided by deliberate understatement and concealment which arguably it was here that still wouldn’t constitute what HMRC would consider evasion as such?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on5:36 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Ah Dave Dave Dave.  (Big Sigh).

As a general rule tax schemes used to generate savings tend to, well, generate savings.  Tax schemes used to, for instance, improve a playing squad tend to leave the employer with no cash since ‘the saving’ is used to increase the player offer and hence improve the player pool available.  Which of these circumstances sounds more familiar? 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on5:39 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Charlie_KellyJuly 7, 2017 at 16:55

As ever, a very strange statement from King, quite childish, actually, seems to have fully bought into the ‘attack is the best form of defence’ idea, even when he has nothing he needs to defend.

I do wonder, though, what it was in the SFA’s statement that gave him the following impression, unless he’s solely talking of the effect it has on his current club.

‘It is reassuring to note that the SFA promptly and correctly put out a statement confirming, against Celtic’s attempt to influence, that the final tax ruling has no impact whatsoever on the practical and legal findings already made. This is now another matter that we can finally put behind us.’

The SFA said that they’d been given legal advice (to not re-visit LNS), they did not say that that advice said there was no impact on the practical and legal findings (the legal findings used in the LNS enquiry have been overturned). The only way that there will be no such impact is by resisting calls to re-examine the findings. 

The statement is, of course, aimed at the bears, but we know it will be accepted, by much of the SMSM, as a go-to factual assessment of what the Supreme Courts ruling means to calls for a new inquiry!

Perhaps the passage I’ve quoted would have more accurately said,

‘It is reassuring to note that the SFA continue to give Rangers all the help and protection they have traditionally given.’

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on5:41 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Let RTC remind us.

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on5:47 pm - Jul 7, 2017


I apologise if someone else has already stated this, having been out of the loop for some time, but am I correct in now understanding that what I had assumed were five stars on the TRFC’s logo are in fact five asterisks?

A continuing and highly visible reminder of their cheating?

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on6:34 pm - Jul 7, 2017


ALLYJAMBOJULY 7, 2017 at 17:39  I thought the SFA statement was appallingly vague and weak.  However, if they really don’t want non Rangers fans to think they lean towards the Ibrox club they simply have to clarify the statement was not made in support of Rangers, or indeed as a slap down to Celtic. They really need to reaffirm they are simply acting on the legal advice they chose to accept. If they don’t refute King on this then he really can say what he likes, if he couldn’t already do so.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on7:03 pm - Jul 7, 2017


RIP wee Bradley Rowely.  words fail me.  Heartbreaking but at least the wee man knew how he was loved throughout the world. The pictures of Jermaine Defoe and Bradley will always be a treasure for football fans Not to take away the supreme love of his parents.

View Comment

Avatar

gr8fulceltPosted on7:11 pm - Jul 7, 2017


I have just emailed this message to the SFA and SPFL and I plan to let my own club know my feelings also – next on the list will be the appropriate governmental authorities.

In light of the Supreme Court decision in the EBT/Rangers tax case, it is imperative that the SPFL/SFA take appropriate disciplinary action to uphold the integrity of Scottish football. Failure to act by the governing bodies will be a dereliction of duty and a clear indication of their unfitness for purpose. This case represents the most serious and longest running fraud in UK sporting history. IT CANNOT BE SWEPT UNDER THE RUG AND FANS WILL NOT SIMPLY MOVE ON in the face of this outrageous cheating by Rangers FC (IL). The governing bodies of Scottish football have thus far contorted themselves to accommodate Rangers FC (IL) and RIFC and to avoid calling to justice those responsible for this heinous attack on our national game. The SPFL/SFA will be complicit co-conspirators if they do not take immediate action to strip the honors fraudulently won during the EBT years. If the governing bodies fail to act they are truly inviting Armageddon to befall Scottish football. Restore our trust that our national game will be played on a level playing field and that SPORTING INTEGRITY IS PARAMOUNT.
Yours sincerely,

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on7:13 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Woodstein @ 17:41, thanks for that. Oh to see the GASL and RTC in the same room at the same time. Let’s all head to Plettenberg Bay.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:33 pm - Jul 7, 2017


King isn’t very bright, is he?

Why even issue a statement – especially if it has nothing to do with TRFC?

King could just sit back and let the SPFL squirm, and release their statement – and then watch them get pelters for it, no doubt.

Only advantage to King, IMO, is that he gets in ‘an early tackle’ on Minty.

[But he also drops himself in it again, with the ‘spending more money than we can afford’ quote. Someone at Ibrox should explain to King what ‘FFP’ actually stands for…and that it has nothing to do with Rome…  15 ]

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on7:45 pm - Jul 7, 2017


UPTHEHOOPSJULY 7, 2017 at 18:34ALLYJAMBOJULY 7, 2017 at 17:39  I thought the SFA statement was appallingly vague and weak.  However, if they really don’t want non Rangers fans to think they lean towards the Ibrox club they simply have to clarify the statement was not made in support of Rangers, or indeed as a slap down to Celtic. They really need to reaffirm they are simply acting on the legal advice they chose to accept. If they don’t refute King on this then he really can say what he likes, if he couldn’t already do so.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The SFA have clearly stated that the reason they are not making a “complaint” is because they have legal advice that such a “complaint” has a low prospect of success and even if successful any potential sanctions have a low prospect of success
This is saying that the be all and end all of making a complaint is the probability of winning the complaint in a court of law and, if winning, the probability of imposing a punishment that cannot be legally challenged. 
That is incorrect 
These “legal probabilities” cannot in all justice be the criteria that decides whether a “complaint” goes ahead
For the very simple reason
This is not a legal issue.
Its about whether a club in liquidation but not yet liquidated complied with SFA rules during the EBT years in the light of the SC decision
The SFA can decide this issue in-house and publicise the result.What happens next is a separate step which may or may not result in title stripping
It will only reach the courts if BDO choose to oppose the “complaint”

And
If RFC have been wound up by then
Nobody can challenge any punishment

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on8:07 pm - Jul 7, 2017


The Chairman of RIFC has certainly come out with all guns blazing today.  He is unapologetic and doesn’t mince his words that there was no sporting advantage gained on the field regardless of the cost.  He is effectively saying RFC would have spent an additional £50m it didn’t have to buy players if the club hadn’t used EBTs.

Contrast this statement with the one he made in June 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2161850/Rangers-crisis-Dave-King-apologises.html

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:24 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Just a random comment lifted from a well known bears’ forum: another reason why Scottish football doesn’t need this cheating club, and their deluded fans. 
===============
“The lynch mob mentality of 2012 is on the rise again,the haters of Rangers(basically the rest of Scottish football)are uniting again and just to say we don’t care what they’re saying is dangerous.
Do not underestimate the bitterness and hatred of Scottish football,we need to be prepared to defend ourselves against these b@stards.”

01

View Comment

Avatar

GaslampPosted on8:29 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Allyjambo July 7, 2017 at 17:39  

As ever, a very strange statement from King, quite childish, actually, seems to have fully bought into the ‘attack is the best form of defence’ idea, even when he has nothing he needs to defend.
I do wonder, though, what it was in the SFA’s statement that gave him the following impression, unless he’s solely talking of the effect it has on his current club.
‘It is reassuring to note that the SFA promptly and correctly put out a statement confirming, against Celtic’s attempt to influence, that the final tax ruling has no impact whatsoever on the practical and legal findings already made. This is now another matter that we can finally put behind us.’
________________________________________________________________________________
Smacks of collusion, doesn’t it?  Would that have been the subject of a previous discussion with Regan, getting ducks in a row and being prepared?  And that’s his way of acknowledging it and congratulating the SFA.  He can’t help himself but you can see right through him, he’s not really that smart is he?

View Comment

Avatar

DenPosted on8:32 pm - Jul 7, 2017


The King statement is aimed at reassuring the fan base. 
His explanation of why the EBTs conferred no benefit on Rangers is testament to his lack of business knowledge and/or scruples.
Without going on at length.
Rangers were part of Murray Group.
Rangers were constantly spending more than they brought in.
Murray Group funded Rangers’ deficit 
Murray Group funded itself through trading profits and through massive borrowing.
If Rangers avoided taxes Murray Group had to provide less funding.
Funding Murray Group as whole became harder when real banking criteria were applied
Murray Group could no longer fund Rangers
Rangers ran out of money
Murray Group ran out of money.
If it was not for the EBTs Rangers would have had to miss out on some of the players and losing out on some titles; or if they paid the full amount would have run out of money years earlier, thereby missing out on the titles won in those years.
They gained titles whatever way you look at it.
Murray Group did levy Management charges on Rangers but that is common enough and at the end of the day they provided the funding to keep Rangers spending money that they were not earning.
The fact that Murray Group was supported by a Bank in contravention of banking principles is another matter.
I expect that all Directors of Oldco will be given the right to put their own version of events on the Rangers Site.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on8:52 pm - Jul 7, 2017


In the fifties/sixties the term “cash stuffed brown envelope” was almost synonymous with football particularly to pay football players under the counter and so attract them to your club and away from opponents.
EBTS as RFC operated them are the modern day equivalent, unlawful payments hidden from football authority AND opponents to entice a player to play for Rangers.
EBTS should have been fully registered because one purpose of Registration is to deter the practice of under the counter payments, but if you register the ebts they are not under the counter any longer thus becoming taxable and alert wage competitors what they have to beat to recruit the player you are after.
Strip away all the semantics and jargon and its simply a case that Rangers paid players under the counter using ebts as the brown envelope . Does the motivation really matter?
The Registration breach that LNS looked at was on the basis that no unlawful payment had been made but that is now known to be untrue.
What we are left using LNS’s own words are
There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset.”
The situation he referred to was on basis payments were lawful, they were not, so using his own words what we now have is a number of extreme cases stretching over ten years or more where players ineligible from the outset were fielded.
You can see why the football authority want to avoid any review, its not just the sanctions against RFC that worry them. You can also see why LNS was set up to deliver the decision that he did.
 Some sort of financial amnesty between clubs needs to be brokered here to open the way to any inevitable titles removal based on unlawful undeclared payments, but it needs to be done for the good of the game which should be the prime consideration.
All because Sir David Murray systemically used ebts for over 10 years to seek competitive advantage.
At least Dave King got who was primarily to blame right.

View Comment

Avatar

The_SteedPosted on9:33 pm - Jul 7, 2017


I’m sure that it won’t make a blind bit of difference, but I have Emailed (in ascending order);
– My MSP
– The MSPs responsible for sport
– My MP
– My Team (Hearts)
– The SPFL
– UEFA
And if my work Computer had allowed me, I was going to contact both William Hill and Ladbrokes as well but I fell foul of our Internet filtering software!
I’d like to think that one of them might come back to me with some practical advice on what we can do to get another investigation sorted out.  If I get any useful information, i’ll post it on here…

View Comment

Avatar

DunderheidPosted on9:35 pm - Jul 7, 2017


I wonder: can anyone give me a link to the SFA’s rules vis-à-vis the powers of its Board?

I’m interested in seeing what their rules say about the Board’s freedom (or discretion) to act in particular situations …

View Comment

Avatar

cmontheshirePosted on9:39 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Going to have a bit of a rant chaps, as I become more and more furious at the circling of the wagons by the football authorities, the SMSM and the clowns at Ibrox! King has done my head in today!
My head shakes in disbelief at the latest utterance from this buffoon King, he who styles himself ‘Chairman’ of whatever face of the Ibrox undertaking takes his fancy at any given time. How can anyone accept this man to be in a charge of a business, particularly such a controversial business as the Ibrox entity? Today he speaks, almost ex cathedra from the Blue Room (maybe not an appropriate phrase for him), as if he is the one who controls the definitive and true picture of which path the ongoing saga might take. Reading his guff, it is quite obvious the man is deluded in his sanctimonious self-righteousness. In his world, despite the unanimous decision of the 5 non-intellectually challenged Supreme Court judges, what he and the SFA believe, should hold sway. All he and his hinterland continue to offer is their delusional sense of entitlement and their desire to be the dominant, prominent force forever in Scottish football, no matter what the cost is to everyone else in the game. He doesn’t care how it is done but expects the authorities to bend over backwards to accommodate his vision of how things must be, the 5WA being the gorilla in the room for all to see. Just how often can this guy get things so wrong and still have the nerve to expect to retain any credibility? What is it that this infernal entity and its hordes actually expect the rest of to do? Are we supposed to sit back and tolerate the nonsensical expectations they have?
Fans talk of the cheating years of the EBTs but for me that was only about money. The sense of entitlement at Ibrox has been going on for nearly a century and most of what they have wished and expected has prevailed and gone their way, due to compliant football authorities and shockingly helpful placemen in refereeing and administration. During my quite lengthy lifetime, Ibrox and the SFA in particular, often appeared to be the one and same thing, so sprinkled were those in authority with helpful hands in all things Ibroxian. In the Saga, apparently no one has made any correct decisions on  what went on…….. at every turn we get denial after denial….HMRC were wrong, Dr Poon was wrong, the Court of Session was wrong, the Supreme Court is wrong, the Police were wrong etc…… no acceptance of any kind that they were just caught in flagrante… at it…as they say in Glasgow. No sense of shame, repentance, morality or integrity has ever been shown. They are good at faux victimhood, though!
Murray’s cheating years was driven by nothing more than the catastrophe of the team from Parkhead having had the gall to become Champions of Europe and his club hadn’t, especially with the trophy gap narrowing in the last fifty years. It was a fact too far for ra Peepul and it was the obsession to do something about it at all costs, that ultimately drove his club to oblivion. The self-inflicted woes at Ibrox have been caused by nothing more than a manically obsessive sense of entitlement.
Please can someone explain to me, in simple terms, as to why any competitive sport should condone unreserved preference on any of its competitors? Yet, the ‘We are Rangers’ mantra still flourishes and unfettered behaviour from this club, its fans and its unseen helping hands are still tolerated by those in authority within the game. It is absurd and totally unacceptable and we must continue to resist it on every front.
Finally, with my not having been around for a long while, I wish to thank all who continue to contribute to this blog and all the time and effort put into providing the research, knowledge and insight that keeps the rest of us informed of the non-SMSM view of the football world.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:43 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Oldco or new  King’s latest is just a further attempt to secure the world record for the constant stream of piss being uttered by club chairmen.
The fact that this nonsense is reported in the press just goes to show how pointless the MSM is. 
Whether it be the Scotsman strip the titles poll or the comments pages for online editions  it is more than obvious nearly all non Rangers fans want the EBT years reviewed at the very least
Why is the voice of the paying customer being so blatently ignored?

View Comment

Avatar

Pat ByrnePosted on11:16 pm - Jul 7, 2017


Homunculus
This might be something you are clued up on as you seem to have a fairly wide range of knowledge when it comes to company law.
When a company is being liquidated is it not the Liquidators duty to achieve the best financial return for the creditors, it is my understanding that that being the case, would it then be a requirement of the Liquidators to sell the assets in part or in whole to achieve that goal, if so the ‘basket of assets’ that Charles Green aquired should have been sold to the highest bidder. Do we know if these were itemised and what exactly did they include? I know it seems like I am banging on the same drum but something does not sit well with me here, I also was under the impression that Company’s House for obvious reasons  have guidelines with regards to the use of a liquidated company’s name and one of the restrictions that are in place state that the debts of the liquidated company must be paid in full to prevent abusing the advantages of renaming a Newco with a similar name, why therefor are there no objections emanating from Companys House about the flagrant breach of their guidelines? Is it the case that they are blissfully unaware of this or is the reason they ignore this transgression due to the way that Sevco were initially named such and are only recognised as RIFC in the eyes of the SFA and SPFL.
Please excuse my ignorance in these matters if I am barking up the wrong tree but as my old journeyman used to say ‘don’t be shy in asking the stupid question’

View Comment

RyanGosling

RyanGoslingPosted on11:51 pm - Jul 7, 2017


King is a moron and an embarrassment. 

The only thing i agree agree with him on is that without EBTs Rangers would still have signed and paid those players, at least in the early days, Murray was on enough of an ego trip and had enough easy access to funds that he’d have got them anyway, the only difference is that the whole show would have come crashing down a lot quicker than it did. So probably around the time of the Lehmans crash all of a sudden Rangers players would go unpaid and the club would have folded. 

But yeah, King is a moron. What in earth is he thinking drawing attention to the fact that he was closely involved in that whole fiasco? If you can’t say anything sensible say nothing at all. 

And the team team is an utter embarrassment as well. Shouldn’t miss the opportunity to say that. 

View Comment

Avatar

armchairsupporterPosted on11:58 pm - Jul 7, 2017


BILLY BOYCEJULY 7, 2017 at 20:07 12 Votes
The Chairman of RIFC has certainly come out with all guns blazing today. He is unapologetic and doesn’t mince his words that there was no sporting advantage gained on the field regardless of the cost. He is effectively saying RFC would have spent an additional £50m it didn’t have to buy players if the club hadn’t used EBTs.
Contrast this statement with the one he made in June 2012http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2161850/Rangers-crisis-Dave-King-apologises.html
_______________________________
Read in conjunction with King’s latest statement, this was priceless. And, as both contradictory statements cannot be true, clear evidence that King is a glib and shameless liar. Or had that already been established?

View Comment

Avatar

ZilchPosted on12:11 am - Jul 8, 2017


Imagine, for a moment, how different this situation would be if you could replace The Rangers with Celtic as the guys caught with their pants down by the Supreme Court.

Imagine if it was Aberdeen or Hearts or Livingstone or Spartans or some wee Saturday league team.

Can you picture the SMSM outrage all over the back pages?

What would you be hearing from the fine upstanding RRM if it was them that had been cheated of victories?

Have the SFA got a big track record of letting the wee guys get away with administrative errors?

Don’t think so…

Now let’s go forward in time.

How are future “errors” going to be handled?

Are you confident that it’s a level playing field for your team?

What if your team is up against The Rangers?

Still think it is a level playing field?

What if there’s some way they could help them by screwing your team?

Think they won’t do it?

Really?

This is not about the past.

This is all about the future.

It is absolutely clear that we have all been screwed over by the SFA and that the game was and currently is rigged in favour of one Establishment team.

If there’s to be any future for our sport in this country, we must have an unequivocal reckoning for past misdeeds both at Ibrox and at the SFA.

This is the time for all clubs to measure their self-respect and decide what their future will be.

A future of equals or cannon fodder for the Establishment that treats them with such disdain?

Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath now more than ever. It needs a Turnbull Hutton now more than ever. It needs each and every club to settle on self-respect and to demand sporting integrity over all other concerns.

It needs to present a future that we can believe in as fans.

If it isn’t a level playing field it’s not a real sport and it’s all over.

Make sure your club knows that your self-respect demands that you will never accept a return to the past.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on12:36 am - Jul 8, 2017


The SFA might need reminded that an action can be brought against businesses that knowingly decieve their customers, just saying like, there is an alternative.
Scottish Football Association Ltd
Company number SC005453

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:49 am - Jul 8, 2017


There seems to me to be a fairly simple way of sorting this out.

Forget, for a moment the issue in terms of titles. Think instead in terms of prize money.

The SPFL board have a fiduciary duty to ensure that its shareholders interests are protected.

If prize money has been paid to a member and it is later established that the club had been cheating, that prize money can lawfully be reclaimed and reassigned to its rightful owners.

The SPFL should be making a claim against Rangers (IL) as an unsecured creditor for an amount equal to all prize money paid to Rangers (IL) during the EBT years.

Clubs that have been underpaid (due to the overpayment to RFC IL) should now be seeking payment from the SPFL of all outstanding sums.

Assuming the SPFL submits a claim with the liquidators, it will have complied with its fiduciary duty to achieve the best result for its shareholders – even if the sum ultimately achieved is no more than a couple of pence in the pound. It is unlikely, in these circumstances, that the SPFL itself could be held liable for the difference.

However, if the SPFL makes no claim with the liquidators, it may well be leaving itself open to claims from individual clubs or groups of clubs for the entire amount now owed to each.

The amounts owed to Celtic and probably Aberdeen, Hearts and others could well be in the millions. Most other ex-SPL clubs will be owed six figure sums.

The difference between finishing second and third was huge. For example, Livingston, who finished 3rd in 2001/02 may have lost out on 1/2 million on that season alone.

The SPFL simply cannot afford to do nothing.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:09 am - Jul 8, 2017


‘..Contrast this statement with the one he made in June 2012..’
____________
Chapeau to you, Billy Boyce, for your memory recall and/or diligent research! Whatis this blog like!
“And I follow the logic of the argument that if we lose the tax case then we probably gained some competitive advantage”
King is clearly not a well man. To be so unaware and unmindful of the contradictions between what he said and what he now says  is possibly symptomatic of early onset of the big A.
Or some other form of illness.
Seriously.(But I am not medically qualified, so perhaps I should just say that the South Africa judge got it spot on, and settle for gasl)

View Comment

Robbyp

RobbypPosted on4:25 am - Jul 8, 2017


I just fired off a couple of emails to both Puma and 32 Red, to ask for their thoughts on being associated with a club at the centre of the biggest sporting scandal in British history.  I’ll report back any response.  Don’t hold your breath though.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:42 am - Jul 8, 2017


ROBBYPJULY 8, 2017 at 04:25   
I just fired off a couple of emails to both Puma and 32 Red, to ask for their thoughts on being associated with a club at the centre of the biggest sporting scandal in British history.  I’ll report back any response.  Don’t hold your breath though.

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

If you do get an answer from either of them, which I doubt, I expect it will be whatever Rangers, the SFA or both tell them is the case. Just like the ASA and BBC Trust did. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:48 am - Jul 8, 2017


PAT BYRNE
JULY 7, 2017 at 23:16   
Homunculus
This might be something you are clued up on as you seem to have a fairly wide range of knowledge when it comes to company law.
When a company is being liquidated is it not the Liquidators duty to achieve the best financial return for the creditors, it is my understanding that that being the case, would it then be a requirement of the Liquidators to sell the assets in part or in whole to achieve that goal, if so the ‘basket of assets’ that Charles Green aquired should have been sold to the highest bidder.
—————————————————

Far from it, I know bits and pieces about bits and pieces. I would say that whilst I agree with you it is pretty pointless trying to compare what happened at Rangers to what should or would have happened anywhere else in similar circumstances. You are of course correct in what you say but given my opinion this was a con from start to finish the normal rules didn’t apply. 

There is a long line of things which should have happened but didn’t. Or shouldn’t have happened but did.

This is just from memory, people will remember other events which were part of the con.

1, When the administrators took over they should have immediately started cutting costs. They didn’t, the only players who left were a couple who chose to if I recall correctly. Look at what happened at Hearts, with a proper administrator. It must have been painful but it saved the club (along with the hard work and support of the Hearts support). 

2, They actually tried to bring a striker in. An IP I was speaking to at the time, who had done work in football, could not understand that at all. They were a club in administration spending money and increasing the wage bill. Or at least trying to. 

3, They made a firm agreement to sell the assets to someone (Sevco 5088) should the CVA fail. That was totally wrong. If the CVA failed the only consideration should be to maximise the fund for the creditors. It was the liquidator’s job to do that, not the administrators to do it in advance. Saving the business to help it continue trading should not have been a concern, it was clearly the only one.

4, They then actually sold the assets to a totally different company (Sevco Scotland)  and no-one has ever been able to say how or why that happened. Hence all the talk of a deed of novation. The reality is Green didn’t need Whyte any more so conned him. 

5, Sevco Scotland revalued all of the assets in their accounts and on paper made a massive profit. I know these are to an extent nonsense figures but I also struggle to believe that the administrators acted in the best interests of the creditors in relation to a CVA. The assets were in my opinion seriously undervalued. Especially when you remember that Green expected to pick up prize money from the previous season, paying off a chunk of the price straight away. 

6, I think it is telling that after the CVA failed Charles Green said something along the lines of “HMRC should have told us that back in February if that was their intention”.  He also said that “I knew on February 20 we would buy the club. That’s why I’ve been working for four months.” Which was strange as he had came to the party quite late on.

I think the whole thing was a con from start to finish, that the desired outcome was that Rangers would get a CVA, would walk away from massive debts, would still be in the top division, and would be competitive immediately.

I think that failed because the Scottish support did not allow the first bit to happen and HMRC blocked the latter. Green (part of the plan) ultimately conned the people who he was supposed to be working for. The CVA failure meant the shares Whyte held became irrelevant as the company was getting liquidated. He then worked with D&P to move the assets into his own company and created the continuation myth. 

Everything subsequent has been bordering on the farcical, on and off the pitch. 

Sorry that doesn’t really answer your question but I really don’t think any sort of normal rules applied. 

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on8:03 am - Jul 8, 2017


It’s obvious from recent posts that the Supreme Court’s decision and its aftermath have had a profound effect on the SFM readership, understandably so, as evidenced by the number of new and long-time-absent posters making their views known.

It is always worth reading the considered and unbiased opinion of Rangers fan Ryan Gosling too when such a huge story breaks, illustrating the point that there are sensible and realistic supporters of the Ibrox club out there.

There have been some excellent points made by a host of posters in the past couple of days, none better in my humble opinion than CMONTHESHIRE’s superb post at 21:39 yesterday.

Personally, I’m going to allow the SPFL a week or so to make their position known (although I suspect I already know what that is) before emailing my club to let my feelings known. 

View Comment

Avatar

DunderheidPosted on9:02 am - Jul 8, 2017


Perhaps a question for the blog’s ‘cognoscenti’ …

As I see things just now, the SFA (through its Board) is itself bringing the game into disrepute.

Faced, therefore, with a situation in which our local/national governing body is in denial regarding a gross breach of its rules, and is attempting to thwart efforts to have this wrong corrected, is there a means by which a group individuals can raise a complaint with UEFA or FIFA.

Or does such a complaint need to be raised via a member of the SFA?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:14 am - Jul 8, 2017


Comments from fans of a variety of clubs, all presumably Scotsman readers.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/aberdeen/scotsman-poll-majority-of-fans-want-rangers-titles-stripped-1-4498216

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:41 am - Jul 8, 2017


DunderheidJuly 8, 2017 at 09:02
‘… is there a means by which a group individuals can raise a complaint with UEFA or FIFA.’
_______________
I imagine that even though the SFA and SPFL are ‘private’ bodies, a person adversely affected by the abuse/misuse/ disregard  by those bodies of their internal disciplinary procedures which  resulted in a plainly unjust  determination, could seek recourse through the Courts via judicial review.

The Court’s power to intervene in the internal matters of private companies is NOT as extensive as it is in relation to public bodies, but  it is there.

And perhaps, since the SFA receives public monies, the Court’s might be able to view it as next best thing to a public body.

[I’m no lawyer, but during one of the saga court-cases I sat in on, there was a bit of discussion on the question of whether the Courts can get involved in judicial review of how a private orgnisation uses its internal disciplinary procedures, e.g, where an employee is sacked arbitrarily without any regard to the company’s own disciplinary rules and an Employment Tribunal erroneously in law disallows the employee’s appeal]

If no directly affected football club has the savvy to seek legal advice on the possibility of seeking judicial review of the SFA/SPL’s misuse/misapplication of their disciplinary rules, it’s unlikely that we football supporters would be regarded as having any locus in such a matter.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:50 am - Jul 8, 2017


DenJuly 7, 2017 at 20:32  
The King statement is aimed at reassuring the fan base. His explanation of why the EBTs conferred no benefit on Rangers is testament to his lack of business knowledge and/or scruples.Without going on at length.Rangers were part of Murray Group.Rangers were constantly spending more than they brought in.Murray Group funded Rangers’ deficit Murray Group funded itself through trading profits and through massive borrowing.If Rangers avoided taxes Murray Group had to provide less funding.Funding Murray Group as whole became harder when real banking criteria were appliedMurray Group could no longer fund RangersRangers ran out of moneyMurray Group ran out of money.If it was not for the EBTs Rangers would have had to miss out on some of the players and losing out on some titles; or if they paid the full amount would have run out of money years earlier, thereby missing out on the titles won in those years.They gained titles whatever way you look at it.Murray Group did levy Management charges on Rangers but that is common enough and at the end of the day they provided the funding to keep Rangers spending money that they were not earning.The fact that Murray Group was supported by a Bank in contravention of banking principles is another matter.I expect that all Directors of Oldco will be given the right to put their own version of events on the Rangers Site.
_______________________

I find the notion that Rangers were somehow not guilty of anything because there was money available from another source if they hadn’t used EBTs quite ludicrous, in fact, extremely ludicrous, and deserving of the utmost contempt from all sources. So what if they had an alternative source of funds, the b*st*rds still chose to use an illegal scheme! It matters not one jot, if they did have alternative funding available, they chose to cheat, and only the thickest, most cowardly of their excuse makers would refuse to acknowledge this, loud and clear.

That anyone should use such a defence only serves to highlight how ludicrous their position is. It’s no different than the man who steals a car saying he shouldn’t be punished because he already had one of his own!

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:56 am - Jul 8, 2017


The idea that they would have bought in the same players and paid the same wages without the EBTs is risible. 

Where were these tens of millions coming from, further debt. Who  was providing the money to increase the debt. How was it going to be repaid, they won what they won by cheating, they would not have won any more by doing it without cheating.

So tens of millions more debt, but no more income.

So even if someone was willing to put that money in, which is doubtful, it would juts have led to an earlier death.

He thinks this is a positive message, really.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:09 am - Jul 8, 2017


AuldheidJuly 7, 2017 at 20:52  
In the fifties/sixties the term “cash stuffed brown envelope” was almost synonymous with football particularly to pay football players under the counter and so attract them to your club and away from opponents.EBTS as RFC operated them are the modern day equivalent, unlawful payments hidden from football authority AND opponents to entice a player to play for Rangers.EBTS should have been fully registered because one purpose of Registration is to deter the practice of under the counter payments, but if you register the ebts they are not under the counter any longer thus becoming taxable and alert wage competitors what they have to beat to recruit the player you are after.Strip away all the semantics and jargon and its simply a case that Rangers paid players under the counter using ebts as the brown envelope . Does the motivation really matter?The Registration breach that LNS looked at was on the basis that no unlawful payment had been made but that is now known to be untrue.What we are left using LNS’s own words areThere may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset.”The situation he referred to was on basis payments were lawful, they were not, so using his own words what we now have is a number of extreme cases stretching over ten years or more where players ineligible from the outset were fielded.You can see why the football authority want to avoid any review, its not just the sanctions against RFC that worry them. You can also see why LNS was set up to deliver the decision that he did. Some sort of financial amnesty between clubs needs to be brokered here to open the way to any inevitable titles removal based on unlawful undeclared payments, but it needs to be done for the good of the game which should be the prime consideration.All because Sir David Murray systemically used ebts for over 10 years to seek competitive advantage.At least Dave King got who was primarily to blame right.
_______________________

Your post made me realise that there is another aspect to Rangers use of EBTs other than the tax dodging element or the deliberate mis-registering of players. They were, as you so rightly say, illegal (at least under the rules of sport) payments, pure and simple, to induce players to sign for them.

Until now, we have all looked at the mis-registration aspect only to be a ploy to avoid detection by HMRC, and undoubtedly it was, but I think it has blinded us to the quite simple fact that improper payments, definitely illegal within the confines of football, and possibly criminal within the law of the land, were made.

It may not be necessary to revisit LNS after all, to review the findings, quite simply, the SFA/SPL should start a fresh investigation into illegal, ‘under the counter’, payments to players!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:09 am - Jul 8, 2017


Homunculus

…How was it going to be repaid, they won what they won by cheating, they would not have won any more by doing it without cheating….

i once listened to An educated bear who really should have known better wax lyrical as to how EBTs didn’t affect the outcome it just allowed them to win them “with style”

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:24 am - Jul 8, 2017


RyanGoslingJuly 7, 2017 at 23:51  
King is a moron and an embarrassment. The only thing i agree agree with him on is that without EBTs Rangers would still have signed and paid those players, at least in the early days, Murray was on enough of an ego trip and had enough easy access to funds that he’d have got them anyway, the only difference is that the whole show would have come crashing down a lot quicker than it did. So probably around the time of the Lehmans crash all of a sudden Rangers players would go unpaid and the club would have folded. But yeah, King is a moron. What in earth is he thinking drawing attention to the fact that he was closely involved in that whole fiasco? If you can’t say anything sensible say nothing at all. And the team team is an utter embarrassment as well. Shouldn’t miss the opportunity to say that. 
_______________

Good post, Ryan, and good to see a true bear with a solid grip on the reality at ibrox these days. One matter I’d take up with you in your post though, is (as I pointed out in an earlier post, so sorry for repeating myself so soon), the notion that Rangers could have funded the players from a different source is quite ludicrous, for they chose to use EBTs, they chose to mis-register the players, and they chose to cheat. If they could have, indeed, used an honest method of funding those signings, then it only makes what they did worse!

View Comment

Avatar

DunderheidPosted on10:36 am - Jul 8, 2017


Thanks for that, JC @ 09:41.

[Who seems to think he’s a resident sage … (Smiley-winky thing)]

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on11:37 am - Jul 8, 2017


Isn’t this whole “They would still have won” or “Wouldn’t have won” debate just a bit of red herring?
What difference does it make?
They fielded ineligible players. The rules are clear, it’s a 3-0 defeat for every match affected. The inevitable result of that would of course be the loss of honours for RFC or “Title stripping” as it has now come to be referred to.
If certain ex-rangers players, current directors, supporters etc… feel that rangers would have won those trophies regardless then more fool them for cheating in the first place!

View Comment

RyanGosling

RyanGoslingPosted on11:41 am - Jul 8, 2017


Thanks Allyjambo. My point was not that Rangers could have afforded those players without EBTs (they couldn’t even afford them with EBTs!) but that Murray had access to all kinds of money in those days, and in my view would have put more of his “own” money in. 

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:48 am - Jul 8, 2017


Re DCK’s bullish (have I spelled that correctly 06) proclamation yesterday:

It begins, ‘Personal statement from Dave King…’.

The second-last paragraph then contains the phrase, ‘While I am Chairman…’

One or the other Dave, it can’t be both.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on11:57 am - Jul 8, 2017


The part of kings statement about the SFA and his kind of congratulating them. How does that now sit with the ibrox fans who had it in for the SFA.?
Still having computer problems,think it’s time to get a pad05

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on12:02 pm - Jul 8, 2017


Further to my post above Didn’t Legia Warsaw make this exact argument in 2014 when they brought on a late sub (who it later transpired wasn’t eligible to play) when they were 2-0 up against Celtic (6-1 overall on aggregate) with less than 5 minutes to play.
Legia argued that “we would still have won even if he hadn’t come on”. Now let’s face it, they would still have won but they were still given short shrift by UEFA because “rules are rules” and Legia broke them.
There is no way any right thinking person could argue that Legia Warsaw were engaging in any sort of underhand tactics. It is clear this was an admin error on their part. A monumental one as it turned out but an error (or ‘honest mistake’) none the less.
What RFC done was calculated & deliberate so for them to receive a less severe punishment than Legia Warsaw (and various smaller Scottish clubs who have made stupid admin mistakes over the years) simply beggars belief.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on12:23 pm - Jul 8, 2017


Dave king believes that 4 of the 6 titles celtic won don’t count as a rangers were not in the league. But titles won with mis-registered players they should be allowed to keep.
Any ibrox fan who has any credibility left for Dave king must have a serious look in the mirror.
kings other statement about overspending.Just how is that sitting with the guys who have been writing the loan cheques is anyones guess

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:36 pm - Jul 8, 2017


RYANGOSLING
JULY 8, 2017 at 11:41
==============================

Let’s assume you are either right or wrong, I think that’s a reasonable position.

If you are right Rangers would have gone tens of millions more into debt, but had no extra income, so would simply have died quicker. I think you said that yourself earlier. 

On a plus side they would not have had to hide side-letters from HMRC and the football authorities, and not cheated in that way. They were found guilty of that cheating and fined £250,000. What did the man say, just short of match fixing or something like that. That is now a blot on Rangers’ history, whatever else happens, let’s not forget that.

If you are wrong Rangers would have spent far less money on wages, leading to a much weakened squad. It is unlikely they would have won as much as they did. We will never actually know the answer to that, but logically Rangers would not have won as much with a far weaker squad.  This would probably have led to less income, from Europe for example.

I think all most of us are saying is that we would have preferred if Rangers hadn’t indulged in tax avoidance, leading to them almost certainly winning things they shouldn’t have and earning income other clubs would otherwise have had access to. Since they did indulge in it (and it kind of doesn’t matter if they had other options they, did it) we just want the record books to reflect that.

As a Celtic supporter I do not want a single league or cup added to our history, we did not win them. I just want the record to reflect that Rangers didn’t win them (fairly) either. 

Supporters of other clubs may feel differently as they may have won a trophy during that period had Rangers played the game fairly. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:48 pm - Jul 8, 2017


The club 1872 threats to the rest of Scottish football has now been published.

I’ll let you decide just how sinister it is yourself.

I think it’s fair to say that absolutely nothing has changed with regards the level of arrogance displayed.

http://club1872.co.uk/news/club-1872-statement-on-big-tax-case-verdict/

Club 1872 Statement on ‘Big Tax Case’ Verdict

8 July, 2017

Club 1872 has taken some time to consider the verdict in the ‘Big Tax Case’ (BTC) as we wanted to gauge the immediate reaction of sections of the media, Scottish football clubs, their supporters groups and the Scottish football authorities. That reaction has been, in the main, as hysterical, inaccurate and agenda driven as we expected. It appears there is still a desire in certain quarters for Scottish football to eat itself alive.

Contrary to the line taken by several dishonest media commentators, encouraged predominantly by Peter Lawwell and Celtic Football Club, this result does not mean that Rangers have “broken the law”, “acted illegally”, “cheated” or gained any sporting advantage through the historic use of EBT payments.

The Lord Nimmo Smith tribunal dealt comprehensively with this matter and, as the SFA has correctly reiterated, is final and binding.

Despite this, we remain concerned that the SPFL board may attempt to act on behalf of Celtic in this matter. It is our belief that a small number of other SPFL clubs, including Aberdeen and Dundee Utd, would like to see them do so. We are also aware that historically the SPFL lawyer, Rod McKenzie has taken an extremely hostile attitude towards Rangers Football Club which we do not believe is founded in his legal opinions.

Should it be the case that the SPFL do decide to act for the benefit of Celtic, then the clubs represented on that board should be aware that Club 1872, and we are sure Rangers Football Club and the wider Rangers support, will use every legal means necessary to challenge those who promote, support or facilitate such a course of action.

That will include, but not be limited to, mounting a legal challenge to the SPFL, boycotting publications whose journalists misreport the facts of the matter and demanding SPFL and SFA investigations into any and all dubious actions by those clubs over the period of the last 50 years.

The investigations we will demand specifically involve, but are not limited to, the actions of several boards, individual board members and employees of Celtic Football Club, across a variety of issues which have been in the public domain for many years but never properly addressed by the football authorities.

We will also demand that the football authorities open multiple investigations and examine in public, and in detail, all deals which allowed Scottish football clubs to write off their debts and the fit and proper status of all majority and joint owners of SPFL clubs. We will not be lectured on integrity, sporting or otherwise, by the clubs involved.

The last time there was an attempt to steal our titles, those involved operated in an environment where Rangers and the Rangers support were in a state of turmoil. The focus of our support was in removing various unsavoury characters from within our own club. That will not be the case this time and any clubs, club officials and commentators involved in any such dishonest and self-serving campaign will be met by wide-ranging, robust, legal and economic challenges at every step of the way.

It would be our preference for Scottish football to return to a more normalised condition where sporting endeavour on the pitch is the source of rivalry between clubs. If that is not the wish of the wider Scottish footballing community then they will find us to be extremely committed opponents nonetheless.

54 and counting.

Issued by Supporters Voice Limited, a Club 1872 company.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:52 pm - Jul 8, 2017


RYANGOSLINGJULY 8, 2017 at 11:41 
Thanks Allyjambo. My point was not that Rangers could have afforded those players without EBTs (they couldn’t even afford them with EBTs!) but that Murray had access to all kinds of money in those days, and in my view would have put more of his “own” money in. 
____________

Sorry, Ryan, but I still have to pick fault with what you say, as it is a point not worth making; for, in the unsubstantiated belief that Murray did have access to legitimate funding (and that depends on what might be considered legitimate) his use, and disguising of, EBTs only becomes a much bigger disgrace, for himself and his club!

There is nothing that can mitigate Rangers, nor reduce the level of their cheating, by introducing this notion, thus suggesting they could have signed some of the players, anyway! Besides, not every player they signed had an EBT, how do you know that all of the available legitimate funds were’t used up on them?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:00 pm - Jul 8, 2017


DunderheidJuly 8, 2017 at 10:36
‘…[Who seems to think he’s a resident sage … (Smiley-winky thing)]
____________
Ha,ha!19
I wish!
No, my thoughts were turning to the possibility of making an application for judicial review, as I put my Lottery ticket on last night.
I did indeed ( as I learned a few minutes ago when I checked my emails) have a win.
But £3.10, while it might be an appropriate fee for QCs who speak of ‘manifestations’ and ‘ethereal somethings which express what it’s all about’, I doubt whether it would put a gleam in the eye of even the most avaricious.05
Crowd-funding, anybody?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:09 pm - Jul 8, 2017


Ref the club 1872 froth.

Dear Neil and Stuart.

Welcome to the world entirely of your creation.  Created by doing nothing.  And your solution is…. to do nothing.

pathetic, them and you.

yours

Fitba

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:20 pm - Jul 8, 2017


HomunculusJuly 8, 2017 at 12:48
‘..The club 1872 threats to the rest of Scottish football has now been published.’
________
i’ve just read the rant.
I nearly jumped to my feet with a cry of ‘Sieg Heil’!!
Good Lord, change a few words and it could have been written by Goebbels himself in “Der Angriff” ( a paper he founded in 1927), bad, evil bast.r. as he was.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on1:28 pm - Jul 8, 2017


Either the players were told that in the event of a tax bill been presented to them this contract would include an idemnity clause or they were told outright that there is no tax to be paid on their trust.
No player would sign if he knew later he could personally be taxed on the earning or benefit so assurances were in place to facilitate, this then leads to the obvious, if you are gauranteeing this then submit all information to the SFA and keep the players details legal and keep the scheme in your honest opinion legal, this provides a better argument if it collapses, if you wish to conceal it you have cheated the rules you knew about consenting to provide all information, thats why you employ contract lawyers for this to keep it legal.
The players won fair and square on the park is not in dispute, what is in dispute is they should not have been on the park as there were never registered to be on the park endoff.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:30 pm - Jul 8, 2017


So so many things to laugh at in the froth but just on one point, could someone point me towards ANY example where Harper Maceods man for the SPL Rod Mackenzie acted with any hostility whatsoever towards their clubs?

funny if it wasn’t so dangerous for the game.

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on1:32 pm - Jul 8, 2017


The SC Judgement
The LNS Commission was deliberately set up by the governing bodies as a non legal investigatory body
Nevertheless
The SFA Statement openly admitted that they had engaged a senior counsel to examine the legal prospect of successfully “winning” a “complaint” and the prospect  of “winning” any sanctions they deemed appropriate in the event of “winning” the “complaint”.
So the SFA  are saying that any decision by them to review the LNS outcome can only be reviewed in the context of it ending up as a court case.
Which begs the obvious question
Who would the SFA be facing in Court?
The culprit is RFC in liquidation who are represented by BDO until they are liquidated when they will have nobody to represent them
So who has the legal right then to oppose the SFA in court? 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
IMO
The SFA line that this issue  will end up in court can only mean one thing
i.e.
LNS long ago told the SFA he would not be prepared to reconvene his Enquiry in the event of HMRC winning the tax case

In a recent post I suggested that Lord Nimmo Smith as a man of integrity should make a statement this week on the implications of the SC judgement on the decisions he took in his Enquiry
Sadly
Lord Nimmo Smith made no statement despite being the central person in this matter.
By making no statement he is demonstrating a wish to be kept out of the issue.
IMO
His reputation for integrity is now damaged

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on1:50 pm - Jul 8, 2017


Homunculus
July 8, 2017 at 07:48

“6, I think it is telling..”
——————————————————
 
So do I
 

12th June 2012

“To see them today saying this is a ‘policy decision’ leaves me speechless. If that’s the case, is that a policy that was invented this week?
“If not, why weren’t we told that in February or March? We could have gone into a NewCo then and saved a huge amount of money and time.
“It would also have removed the false hope from Rangers fans. There is no possible way that this is better for creditors.
“I’ve read HMRC’s statement which says they’ve chosen this route so that they can pursue former directors.
“I’m not a lawyer but if a former director has done something wrong, he should be pursued. I don’t believe turning down a CVA is a price worth paying to pursue previous directors.”
 
And Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-takeover-new-owner-charles-green-vexed-by-negative-energy-at-ibrox-1-2355765
 
Para 9
“I knew on February 20 we would buy the club. That’s why I’ve been working for four months.”

Considering

“On 13 February 2012 Rangers filed legal papers at the Court of Session giving notice of their intention to enter administration.”

Charlie was definitely a fast worker,  was he also a prophet (correct spelling)07
 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:15 pm - Jul 8, 2017


Goosy,

A start would be LNS explaining to ALL of the clubs satisfaction why his sentence couldn’t be revisited.  (His guilty verdict would stand if that is what they want).  

1/. If he stands by his no advantage view then fine.  Explain why, in light of the ruling that all clubs couldn’t use EBTs why it doesn’t change.  

2/.  If he is willing to change his verdict (or sentance) but doesn’t feel it would change having reviewed the additional information then again, explain why.  

3/.  If there is something else preventing him selecting reverse (for instance an indemnity) are the SFA/SPFL willing for that to be identified to ALL clubs.  

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:26 pm - Jul 8, 2017


Oh my lord.  I am actually embarrassed for Gordon Smith just now.  Sportsound for anyone not listening. He has been given Jim Traynor’s bullet point list but should probably have done a bit of rehearsing first.

Ex SFA CEO. Dearie me.

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on2:26 pm - Jul 8, 2017


Just listening to BBCsportsound discussing EBT,s. No appetite as usual. Not one indicating that Oldco cheated. The whole panel are suggesting that the SFA are waiting to see if there is a ground swell from fans and clubs to see if they should do something.  FFS they are supposed to look after our sport without fear and favour, do something that is their job the SC decision is legal.   Worse during Stuart Cosgrove and off ball Chic Young stated that the players were not registered improperly as he just thought it was a tax issue and actually mentioned Messi and Ronaldo.  FFS do not dupe us or if you do not realise the players were registered illegally leave your job.

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on2:32 pm - Jul 8, 2017


SMUGASJULY 8, 2017 at 14:15 Goosy,
A start would be LNS explaining to ALL of the clubs satisfaction why his sentence couldn’t be revisited.  (His guilty verdict would stand if that is what they want).  
1/. If he stands by his no advantage view then fine.  Explain why, in light of the ruling that all clubs couldn’t use EBTs why it doesn’t change.  
2/.  If he is willing to change his verdict (or sentance) but doesn’t feel it would change having reviewed the additional information then again, explain why.  
3/.  If there is something else preventing him selecting reverse (for instance an indemnity) are the SFA/SPFL willing for that to be identified to ALL clubs.  
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
SMUGAS
Maybe this post  explains why neither the SFA nor LNS want to get involved
Club1872 statement thread

“They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *Rangers* way! “

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:33 pm - Jul 8, 2017


Ok fair dos.  Smiffy has concluded (gone off message presumably) that the matter should be reviewed.  

And I agree with him.

damn it!

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on3:10 pm - Jul 8, 2017


Gordon Smith’s comment today on Sportsound, the ironic “There’s a lot of ignorance out there” is so good, we have decided to include it in the strapline to the site.

View Comment

CrownStBhoy

CrownStBhoyPosted on3:15 pm - Jul 8, 2017


The Celtic statement, it would seem to me, is at least suggesting that, as a result of the BTC, it is now proven that cheating took place and the result of the LNS commission was quite simply wrong because of the starting points from which they based their conclusions.

Because of the strength (IMO) of the Celtic statement I cannot see them leaving it at that: despite Brysonism ineligible players were fielded, this must be dealt with.

I’m inclined to the opinion that Celtic will not now rest until a suitable conclusion (for all the concerned cheated) is agreed upon.

However, and very unfortunately, I have the feeling that any such agreement will include the abandonment of Res12 including pursuance of any perceived conspiratorial guilt attributable to the SFA/SPFL and all monetary consideration that should have been due to other clubs during the cheating years.

I particularly hope that re Res12 I’m very wrong!

As for King’s “Personal statement” re Celtic’s statement; as usual the man is lyingly preparing the way to line his own pockets via this year’s AGM when, at last, he is able to achieve a 75% vote for yet another share issue.

And…to my knowledge, Celtic have never officially called for title stripping nor employed Lawyers to play football on or off the Park, except Stuart Armstrong :).

Soon time for Celtic to make a comment on Kings repeated digs; as forClub 1872 latest – totally deranged!

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on3:17 pm - Jul 8, 2017


Re awaiting/expecting a statement from Billy Nimmo Smith: he won’t say anything until he’s being paid for it. He’ll then say what his client wants. He’s a lawyer, after all. 

Re the Club1872 statement: that’s extraordinary for an organisation that owns 10% of shares in the holding company. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that some of the contents may well be able to be challenged in court. I wonder who has deeper pockets; Club1872 or one (or all) of the companies they seem intent on maligning?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:53 pm - Jul 8, 2017


JINGSO.JIMSIE
JULY 8, 2017 at 15:17
=============================

Fair point.

It would appear that Club 1872 are now the second biggest shareholder.

Would such a group, making such a provocative statement, and threatening the whole of Scottish football, be bringing the game into disrepute.

Once again we have a CIC* (Community Interest Company – LOL) which is the second biggest shareholders, acting like a group of neanderthals.

New Oasis Asset Limited 11,869,505 14.57%
Club 1872 Shares CIC 8,732,254 10.71%
George Alexander Taylor 7,575,000 9.30%
Alexander Easdale 5,256,110 6.45%
Douglas Park 5,000,000 6.14%
Julian Wolhardt 3,632,500 4.45%
River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP 3,523,059 4.32%
George Letham 3,299,515 4.05%

*A community interest company (CIC) is a type of company introduced by the United Kingdom government in 2005 under the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004, designed for social enterprises that want to use their profits and assets for the public good.

View Comment

Comments are closed.