To Comply or not to Comply ?

UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?

On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.

Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.

The cases of two clubs::

Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )

and

FC Irtysh  (Kazakhstan) 

are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because

  1. The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
  2. The cases  tell us what might have happened to Rangers  FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.

 

FC Sion  (Olympique des Alpes SA)

Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.

Full details can be read at

http://tiny.cc/y6sxsy

 

but this is a summary.

In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.

In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme,  carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.

The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.

Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:

“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as

“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”

What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.

Sion had declared

“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.

The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.

Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.

Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.

The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.

Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.

The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was  appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.

 

The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.

  1. FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  2. FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
  3. To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
  4. To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
  5. FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.

Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.

It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.

This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.

“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”

The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:

Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.

Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.

This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement

“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “  where he also added

“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”

This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.

In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.

The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.

 


 

The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy  and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.

Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March

It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.

The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber  who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)

The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:

 

  1.  FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  2. To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
  3. To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  4. FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “

 

The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC,  FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.

 

Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.

From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then

  1. Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
  2. At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
  3. The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.

Karma eh!

Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors

“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;

Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the  SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?

This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.

This entry was posted in Blogs, Featured by Auldheid. Bookmark the permalink.
Auldheid

About Auldheid

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

7,185 thoughts on “To Comply or not to Comply ?


  1. “It will awe come oot in the wash” as my wee maw used tae say.
    The 2angers International Space Station Fc Annual Accounts are due this month are they not?
    Should make for an interesting read ?
    ??…?


  2. THELAWMAN2
    JUNE 10, 2018 at 10:36

    Nothing at all. The reason they need to know by end of week is that they are holding the issue with select partners and need to know what those partners are putting in or converting from loans.
    =========================================

    Interesting, how do you know this.

    Subsidiary question, given you know that you presumably also know when the share issue will take place, when will that be.

    Fairly soon I would have thought, with the short timescale given to the second largest shareholder in the PLC. 


  3. THELAWMAN2JUNE 10, 2018 at 00:23 0 13 Rate This
    BIGBOAB1916JUNE 9, 2018 at 23:04 You have an option to PM in here and discuss your private affairs please respect the space afforded for debate and topics,kb space equals money.____________________________________________________
    Where is the PM mode. I certainly cant see it on here.

    Top bar, TLM2


  4. JUSTTHEFACTS
    JUNE 10, 2018 at 11:07

    “It will awe come oot in the wash” as my wee maw used tae say.The 2angers International Space Station Fc Annual Accounts are due this month are they not?Should make for an interesting read 

    No, it’s the end of their financial year, but the accounts won’t be seen until about November


  5. JUSTTHEFACTS
    JUNE 10, 2018 at 11:07
    ================================

    If you are talking about RIFC PLC then the year end is end June, however the accounts don’t have to be out for months. 30 days before the AGM I believe. However the AGM could be end December. So I wouldn’t expect to see them for months.


  6. JUSTTHEFACTSJUNE 10, 2018 at 11:07“It will awe come oot in the wash” as my wee maw used tae say.The 2angers International Space Station Fc Annual Accounts are due this month are they not?Should make for an interesting read 
    ——————————————————————————–
    JTF – are you thinking about the six-monthly interim accounts? Past ones have been pretty much worthless. The annual accounts publication deadline is still some time away.
    RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
    Company number SC437060
    Incorporated on 16 November 2012
    Accounts
    Next accounts made up to 30 June 2018 due by 31 December 2018
    Last accounts made up to 30 June 2017 (lodged 14 Dec 2017)
    Confirmation statement
    Next statement date 16 November 2018 due by 30 November 2018
    Last statement dated 16 November 2017

    THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
    Company number SC425159
    Incorporated on 29 May 2012
    Accounts
    Next accounts made up to 30 June 2018 due by 31 March 2019
    Last accounts made up to 30 June 2017 (lodged 13 Dec 2017)
    Confirmation statement
    Next statement date 29 May 2018 due by 12 June 2018
    Last statement dated 29 May 2017

    The World Cup needs a strong Arbroath.


  7. Boreometer at the ready, …..
    The lawman, aka steerpike, is goin’ to be busy for the next cuppla days, ….


  8. HomunculusJune 10, 2018 at 11:22
    THELAWMAN2 JUNE 10, 2018 at 10:36
    Nothing at all. The reason they need to know by end of week is that they are holding the issue with select partners and need to know what those partners are putting in or converting from loans. =========================================
    Interesting, how do you know this.
    Subsidiary question, given you know that you presumably also know when the share issue will take place, when will that be.
    Fairly soon I would have thought, with the short timescale given to the second largest shareholder in the PLC. 
    ======================================
    I’d have thought Club1872 would like to know who these select partners are.Don’t want to be associated with criminals,scam artists etc.They’d maybe also like to know how much these select partners are guaranteeing(not pledging) & probably would like to know how much a share is going to cost.Surely they would like to have a reasonable idea of where they stand wrt % shareholding,value of shareholding etc after supposed issue.


  9. Lawman2, I’m a little disappointed, if not entirely surprised, that you didn’t respond to my post yesterday regarding how you and your fellow supporters would have reacted if the boot was on the other foot, whereby all that had befallen Rangers in recent years had instead happened to Celtic.

    I appreciate you’re not obliged to answer or respond to any other posts, far less mine, which might often appear somewhat hostile, but I would genuinely be interested in what you perceive your reaction would have been if the roles were reversed.

    I don’t just mean if one or two of the higher profile talking points and matters of contention had happened to Celtic instead of Rangers that you might comment on individually – I mean if every single thing that happened in the past decade or so that involved Rangers was replicated by Celtic right down to the minutest detail.

    For obvious reasons, that makes it difficult to list in its entirety, but it would at least include liquidation, incorporation of a football club into a company, resulting in one legal entity, EBTs, the Five Way Agreement and a myriad of court cases that have dragged the club and Scottish football through the mud for years now.

    With the knowledge and understanding you have now, do you think you would be content at this stage to say, “Oh come on, it’s only a game, let Celtic keep their titles and trophies won during the cheating years – haven’t they suffered enough? Of course they’re the same club, never mind liquidation, they play out of Parkhead in green and white hoops don’t they?”

    An honest answer would be appreciated if you decide to respond.


  10. TORREJOHNBHOY
    JUNE 10, 2018 at 11:38
    ======================================

    Why would the second largest shareholder in the PLC want such information.

    You are almost talking as if they are in some way independent from the board of the PLC and not just expected to get money from the supporters to give to the board in order to meet the predicted shortfall.

    Sorry, give the new manager a war chest.

    Sorry LawMan2, but people like you really are doing the Rangers support a great dis-service. Pretty much as has happened in the past. 

    Don’t get me wrong if people want to put money into their club they are perfectly entitled to, the Hearts support have put millions in over the last few years. Over and above season tickets, merchandising etc. However they knew why they were doing it, and if there was any change they were told about it and the matters were discussed. 

    The differences are stark.

    Well it looks that way to me.


  11. JOCKYBHOYJUNE 10, 2018 at 09:55

    UTH 8:59 Wasn’t Dalglish’s £440k a British record for a transfer fee full stop? I though it was. And I often quote Bob Paisley who said when Keegan departed and Kenny arrived “we’ve sold the best player in England – and bought the best player in Europe”.

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

    Dalglish’s fee was a record between two British clubs at the time, although the fee Hamburg paid Liverpool for Keegan was higher at £500k. Dalglish’s record fee didn’t last too long as Manchester United paid £500k for Gordon McQueen not long after. The real crazy part given the fees English clubs pay now is that £440k in today’s money is worth only £3,018,400. The mind boggles what English clubs may pay for a player of Dalglish’s ability now, in particular if he was being transferred between two English clubs. 

    A great mystery for me is why Dalglish never received player of the year from the Scottish football writers. Even more so when the English writers gave him the award in his first season. 


  12. UPTHEHOOPSJUNE 10, 2018 at 12:54
    JOCKYBHOYJUNE 10, 2018 at 09:55
    UTH 8:59 Wasn’t Dalglish’s £440k a British record for a transfer fee full stop? I though it was. And I often quote Bob Paisley who said when Keegan departed and Kenny arrived “we’ve sold the best player in England – and bought the best player in Europe”.
    ==========================
    Dalglish’s fee was a record between two British clubs at the time, although the fee Hamburg paid Liverpool for Keegan was higher at £500k. Dalglish’s record fee didn’t last too long as Manchester United paid £500k for Gordon McQueen not long after. The real crazy part given the fees English clubs pay now is that £440k in today’s money is worth only £3,018,400. The mind boggles what English clubs may pay for a player of Dalglish’s ability now, in particular if he was being transferred between two English clubs. 
    A great mystery for me is why Dalglish never received player of the year from the Scottish football writers. Even more so when the English writers gave him the award in his first season. 
    ===========

    There was a season where Willie Pettigrew scored more goals than Kenny but he didn’t get the award either.


  13. HIGHLANDERJUNE 10, 2018 at 12:15

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

    I have always been of the firm belief that if everything that happened to Rangers had happened at Celtic there is no way in this world that a new Celtic would be recognised as the old and that there is no way the new Celtic would be able to claim all the previous honours. Even if the authorities were of a mind to try it, the media pressure would not allow it. I have no way of knowing whether my belief is true because it didn’t happen, but there is no evidence that Celtic are viewed as a national treasure by the Scottish establishment in the way Rangers are. 

    However, I will give the final word to Fergus McCann

    “It would’ve cost less, and left the previous owners with nothing, to go into liquidation. But it would also be humiliating for Celtic. So we paid all the bills. Celtic means the same to me as it does to other fans. I identify with the club and wish to be proud of it.”


  14. BOGS DOLLOXJUNE 10, 2018 at 13:03

    There was a season where Willie Pettigrew scored more goals than Kenny but he didn’t get the award either.

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

    Player of the year awards don’t come down to who scored the most goals, although I remember Willie Pettigrew as a very accomplished striker of his era. However Dalglish is one of the greatest post war British players, and as has been stated commanded a British record fee. He played seven full seasons as a Celtic first team player. I find it strange he never once was regarded as the player of the year. My biased view is many in the media simply resented the boyhood Rangers fan becoming a Celtic great. 


  15. THELAWMAN2JUNE 10, 2018 at 10:36
    TORREJOHNBHOYJUNE 10, 2018 at 09:55Morning all.Just wondering if Kings ultimatum to Club 1872 wrt guaranteeing funds before the end of the week has anything to do with the fact that £12.9m of loans are due to be repaid at the beginning of July.
    ————————-
    Nothing at all. The reason they need to know by end of week is that they are holding the issue with select partners and need to know what those partners are putting in or converting .

    =========
    Forgive me for being suspicious but I don’t think that is the reason at all. It’s probably more to do with short circulating the democratic processes of 1872.

    Given the imposed short timescale the Executive (or what is left of it after a spate of resignations stemming from undemocratic practices) will be forced to make a quick decision in everyone’s best interests and will then ask the members to retrospectively rubber stamp that decision.


  16. Re.  Billydug’s attachment.

    The English FA rules/guidelines on Transfer of Assets & Liabilities.

    I can’t find anywhere that the transfer of titles & trophies to the new entity is allowed!  Surely a mistake?

    Is it, was it, actually allowed in the SFA’s and Scottish Leagues’ rules?  Or was that just patched together in a secret agreement when needs must?


  17. Highlander, apologies as I didn’t see your question.

    Genuinely and honestly, I believe I would be 100% consistent.

    I’m extremely well known on Rangers Media for speaking my mind and going against the grain. I don’t do that to be controversial. I do that because I say what I believe to be true and if that means me calling out my own club, fans, manager, owner etc etc then so be it.

    7 years ago I was one of the most unpopular posters on that site with my insight and views on Craig Whyte. But I stuck to. My guns and spoke from the heart and with 100% honesty.

    Thats who I am. 


  18. Is there a difference between a ‘transfer’ of assets and ‘buying’ a basket of assets?


  19. Indeed, what’s the rush to get a decision from the second largest shareholder this week if the share issue hasn’t even been announced.

    It’s almost as if there would be no point in doing it if they don’t get the right answer from Club 1872. i.e. you can get every penny we have, including the money set aside for “projects”. 

    Who else would actually put more money in. Not just conversion of loans, the new money which is actually needed. 


  20. Short deadlines caused by inability to plan strategically are never good signs that the ones imposing the deadlines know what they are doing. In particular when such deadlines are imposed upon voluntary organisations with defined purposes red flags are called for.
    There has been a long series of new proposals superseding others which never came to fruition and yet no one seems to have lost credibility among the “selected partners” because of these failures.
    That new phrase “selected partners” is the kind of thing encountered from Nigerian Princes needing accounts to rest their money in. It would not surprise me if the Limpopo King rolls out such a character sometime soon.


  21. A few no bad player winning the writer’s player of the year during that era to be fair. Other than the preposterous year obviously. 

    1969–70 Pat Stanton – Hibernian
    1970–71 Martin Buchan – Aberdeen
    1971–72 Dave Smith – Rangers
    1972–73 George Connelly – Celtic
    1973–74 Scotland World Cup squad – N/A
    1974–75 Sandy Jardine – Rangers
    1975–76 John Greig – Rangers
    1976–77 Danny McGrain – Celtic


  22. THELAWMAN2JUNE 10, 2018 at 13:23
    Highlander, apologies as I didn’t see your question.
    Genuinely and honestly, I believe I would be 100% consistent.
       —————————————————————————————-
       Fortunately Lawman, Scotland can be proud that the Rangers(I.L.) / Sevco route, was not a path Celtic fans, Fergus (UPTHEHOOPS JUNE 10, 2018 at 13:04), nor indeed our fellow Scottish fitba’ fans were prepared to follow. (No to newco). 
       The situation 100% never arose because morals were involved.
       


  23. 1975-76 John Grieg ! Seriously?   He might have been a great LT servant to Rangers, but player of the year!

    So the football writers were as thick as mince back then too.


  24. I have not checked but I’m fairly sure the year Greig won it was the year Pettigrew scored over 30 goals for a Diddy club and never won it. Scottish football has been corrupt for a very long time.

    Welcome aboard Celtic fans


  25. Had a customary look at the late great PMcC’s Random thoughts there,…

    Some things Never change, … 

    Random thoughts, October 7, 2013 at 3:53 pm
     you are just playing into Steerpikes hands and convincing him of his own self worth.
    I would suggest it would be better to completely ignore him and never rise to the bait. He denies and deflects and brings the worst out in people. For me, he is a major factor in reducing the comments section of this blog to childish tit-for-tat which takes us all nowhere.
    As they say don’t feed the trolls. especially steerpike!


  26. Stevie Gerrard in the Scottish Sun on 7 June talking about his Rangers “project “
    ”A lot of the questions I asked and they asked, all the boxes were getting ticked”
    ⭐️⭐️⭐️
    Sounds like certain assurances were given and received but I can’t help thinking the interview won’t go down too well in L’pool unless the Scottish Sun is different from the English one.


  27. Thank you for the response to my questions the other day. Apologies, I have been not been able to give you my own thoughts before now. Real life often gets in the way. 

    I should say that, as things stand (on what I know now), I take the fairly firm view that Rangers should not have been granted a Club Licence for season 2011/12.  However, my mind is not closed to the possibility that I have misunderstood or do not have sight of some important aspect of the matter. I am always open to be persuaded by whatever facts exist.

    i proceed on the basis that you are approaching this discussion with a similar outlook.

    Anyway, in trying to distil where we hold a common view and where our thoughts are diverging, I wonder if we can summarise as follows:

    1. We agree (based on what we now know) that Rangers did not pay sufficient PAYE & NICs in relation to the portion of their salaries that were diverted into the DOS scheme (Wee Tax Case).

    2. We agree that Rangers’ failure to meet the standard legal obligation to collect & pay the relevant taxes was not caused by any failure on the part of HMRC (though actually still, I think, Inland Revenue at the time).

    3. We agree that in the normal (straightforward) operation of PAYE & NICs these would be considered overdue if not paid within the routine deadlines for payment.

    4. We agree that if there is an active challenge to a company’s tax treatment or tax return then the taxes under appeal may* not be considered to be an “overdue payable” during the period of the challenge.

    * I say “may” here as Annexe VIII (Club Licensing & FFP Regulations) 2. c. & d. place responsibility on the licensor (SFA) to satisfy itself that extant appeal proceedings are not simply a device to defer liability and also to examine the circumstances to determine if the appeal has any merit. If the licensor is not satisfied on either point, the amounts under appeal WOULD then still constitute an “overdue payable” under the CL & FFP regulations. The burden is on the licensee to PROVE that no “overdue payables” exist. 

    It is an important point, if not particularly contentious; but please let me know if you’re unhappy with my use of the word “may” here.

    5. We agree that club officials knew that money** was due to the taxman on the 31st March 2011. 

    **Again for absolute clarity, we are referring to a debt that resulted from contractual and legal obligations towards employees that had arisen prior to 31st December 2010.

    6. We agree that there was no active agreement at 31st March 2011 between HMRC & Rangers to defer payment of any outstanding PAYE & NICs.

    So, based on the things to which we agree (if I am understanding your position correctly), the nub of the matter is not that Rangers did not owe any back taxes. Nor is it that they did not know they owed back taxes. It is simply that the “bill” – the demand for payment – did not arrive until after the 31st March deadline for Club Licensing submissions.

    Your position, I think, is that “agreed terms” in this case is not covered by the normal (straightforward) operation of PAYE & NICs – but instead required the explicit demand for payment that was sent on 20th May.

    Is that a fair summary so far?

    If so, I think this is where we go our separate ways.

    As I understand the normal (straightforward) operation of PAYE & NICs at the time, it was assumed and built into the system then (as it still is now) that taxpayers, employers and Inland Revenue/HMRC will make errors from time to time. When these errors (honest or otherwise) are later discovered, there are normal (straightforward) procedures that apply.

    Inland Revenue/HMRC make a new assessment of the tax position which is presented to the taxpayer. If the error was from previous tax years, interest is routinely applied as the “applicable deadlines” have been missed. The debt is treated as overdue. The taxpayer is invited to make a payment (or sometimes given a specific payment schedule) to bring them back into line with the “agreed terms”.

    The “error” in this case was in believing that that the DOS scheme operated correctly as a tax efficient method of rewarding employees (compounded by the provision of side-letters).

    Any normal (straightforward) assessment is effectively a notice which says,

     – We have discovered something which shows that you have paid less tax than you ought to have done (under the standard “agreed terms”).
     – This is why you should have paid more (how the “agreed terms” were not met)
     – This is the additional tax you should have paid in the tax years x, y and z (and is therefore overdue)
     – This is the amount of interest that will be applied to the overdue amounts
     – This is the amount you must pay now to bring your affairs back into order
     – This is what you must do if you disagree with our assessment

    Of course, if the taxpayer feels that the assessment is wrong it could be appealed internally and then subsequently to the FTT(T) – within the specified time limits.

    If the taxpayer comes to accept the assessment, the taxpayer should then pay the overdue amount in its entirety or come to an agreement over a payment schedule. Until the payment is made or a payment schedule is agreed the amounts owed remain overdue.

    It is only if an appeal fails or abandoned (or no appeal is submitted within the time limits) and the taxpayer still fails to pay that formal collection proceedings begin. Again, the amounts owed are already overdue.

    In one sense, I think the DEMAND for payment (within 30 days), can be taken as an agreed payment schedule. When that demand was made (20th May 2011) the club was given 30 days before court action would commence.

    The funny thing is, I think it was because the DEMAND for payment came after the 31st March that it is fatal to your case.

    If the letter had been sent on the 31st March, the club would have had until 20th April to comply. It would then, under Annex VIII 2.b. been able to prove that it had ”…concluded an agreement which had been accepted in by the creditor in writing to extend the deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline…”

    But, on 31st March no such agreement was in place and (as you have already agreed) the club had no live appeal ongoing and its officials had accepted that the debt was real.

    So, from the foregoing, it seems pretty straightforward to me that a debt was accepted as existing on the 31st March, no appeal was in place and that the debts came about from the failure to comply with the “agreed terms” of the operation of PAYE & NICs from previous tax years.

    Am I missing something?


  28. BOGS DOLLOX 14.10.
    PFA Player of the year winners, Celtic 23, Rangers 10, 1 shared between them.
    Sportswriters Player of the year winners, Celtic 23, Rangers 16.
    Corruption? 


  29. SLIMJIM
    BOGS DOLLOX 14.10.PFA Player of the year winners, Celtic 23, Rangers 10, 1 shared between them.Sportswriters Player of the year winners, Celtic 23, Rangers 16.Corruption?
    ………
    perhaps not…
    But it could be easily perceived as – unsurprisingly – showing a definite OF-bias.
    eg only 1 non-OF/ diddy-club player since 1990 in PFA.
    A scatter more from the “Sportswriters”…


  30. EX LUDOJUNE 10, 2018 at 15:00

    Stevie Gerrard in the Scottish Sun on 7 June talking about his Rangers “project “”A lot of the questions I asked and they asked, all the boxes were getting ticked”

    Sounds like certain assurances were given and received but I can’t help thinking the interview won’t go down too well in L’pool unless the Scottish Sun is different from the English one.

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

    Dave – “So Stevie, what are the main assurances you are looking for?”

    Stevie – “Will I have a transfer budget of at least £20m per season?”

    Dave – “Yes, no problem” Tick!

    Stevie – “I would like my first signing to be Martin Skrtel, but he will cost £4-5m and is on about £70k a week in Turkey. Can you get him to join Rangers?”

    Dave – “yes, no problem” Tick”

    Stevie “Is there anything you would like to ask me Dave?”

    Dave – “Yes…if you read in a newspaper that a person had been described by a Judge as being glib and shameless, would you know what it meant?”

    Stevie – “Not really Dave, no. Why do you ask?”

    Dave – “oh nothing…forget I ever said it” Tick!


  31. SLIMJIMJUNE 10, 2018 at 15:18
    Common sense would decree that the richest Clubs tend to have a higher quality player in their squads.
    Especially as whenever a player of decent quality emerged at other Clubs both Celtic and Rangers were guilty of snapping them up before they reach that level of being top player in the League.
    What I get from the results is the Players themselves who face these winners on the pitch have it spot on whereas the media who base their view on opinion have had a tendency to be more bias towards one Club.
    If it’s  corruption yer after…. ?


  32. HOMUNCULUSJUNE 10, 2018 at 12:16

    Sorry LawMan2, but people like you really are doing the Rangers support a great dis-service. Pretty much as has happened in the past. 

    ————————————————————————————————-

    As an avid and known “disliker” of King and Club 1872, can you explain what dis-service im doing to the Rangers support? 03


  33. HOMUNCULUSJUNE 10, 2018 at 13:26

    Indeed, what’s the rush to get a decision from the second largest shareholder this week if the share issue hasn’t even been announced.
    —————
    When Level5 went all £15 mill bid for an ibrox striker soon there was a £3mill loan from close brothers.
    A kind of look we have a £15mill asset that we can sell,a loan can be paid back no problem.
    We now have ££££ from club 1872.A kind of look we can get this sort of cash every year.
    Maybe they are looking for another loan,or maybe someone wants their cash back now hence the rush to get a decision from the second largest shareholder this week 
    Phew! we can pay it,or maybe not depending on how much 1872 has.
    just my opinion


  34. HIRSUTEPURSUITJUNE 10, 2018 at 15:03

    1. We agree (based on what we now know) that Rangers did not pay sufficient PAYE & NICs in relation to the portion of their salaries that were diverted into the DOS scheme (Wee Tax Case).

    Yes

    2. We agree that Rangers’ failure to meet the standard legal obligation to collect & pay the relevant taxes was not caused by any failure on the part of HMRC (though actually still, I think, Inland Revenue at the time).

    Yes

    3. We agree that in the normal (straightforward) operation of PAYE & NICs these would be considered overdue if not paid within the routine deadlines for payment.

    Yes

    4. We agree that if there is an active challenge to a company’s tax treatment or tax return then the taxes under appeal may* not be considered to be an “overdue payable” during the period of the challenge.
    * I say “may” here as Annexe VIII (Club Licensing & FFP Regulations) 2. c. & d. place responsibility on the licensor (SFA) to satisfy itself that extant appeal proceedings are not simply a device to defer liability and also to examine the circumstances to determine if the appeal has any merit. If the licensor is not satisfied on either point, the amounts under appeal WOULD then still constitute an “overdue payable” under the CL & FFP regulations. The burden is on the licensee to PROVE that no “overdue payables” exist. 

    I dont think we have nailed this one yet.  Point 2 onwards in that annexe are not up for debate.  We do not meet the criteria for any of them so if we fail on Point 1, we fail full stop.  Point 1 is the only one that matters for the 31st March date, in Rangers instance.

    5. We agree that club officials knew that money** was due to the taxman on the 31st March 2011. 
    **Again for absolute clarity, we are referring to a debt that resulted from contractual and legal obligations towards employees that had arisen prior to 31st December 2010.

    Yes

    6. We agree that there was no active agreement at 31st March 2011 between HMRC & Rangers to defer payment of any outstanding PAYE & NICs.

    Yes

    So, based on the things to which we agree (if I am understanding your position correctly), the nub of the matter is not that Rangers did not owe any back taxes. Nor is it that they did not know they owed back taxes. It is simply that the “bill” – the demand for payment – did not arrive until after the 31st March deadline for Club Licensing submissions.
    Your position, I think, is that “agreed terms” in this case is not covered by the normal (straightforward) operation of PAYE & NICs – but instead required the explicit demand for payment that was sent on 20th May.
    Is that a fair summary so far?

    Yes

    If so, I think this is where we go our separate ways.
    As I understand the normal (straightforward) operation of PAYE & NICs at the time, it was assumed and built into the system then (as it still is now) that taxpayers, employers and Inland Revenue/HMRC will make errors from time to time. When these errors (honest or otherwise) are later discovered, there are normal (straightforward) procedures that apply.
    Inland Revenue/HMRC make a new assessment of the tax position which is presented to the taxpayer. If the error was from previous tax years, interest is routinely applied as the “applicable deadlines” have been missed.

    Agree to this point.

    The debt is treated as overdue.

    No.  And this is the crucial point in it all for me.  When an appeal is made, or a back audit is carried out and HMRC arrive at an additional payment, that additional payment is not “overdue” until its “overdue”

    As per my example with my ex, when they excluded certain items her accountant claimed for, they gave her X days to pay it (i think i previously said 30, but im thinking it might have been 90, though the amount doesnt matter) By giving her X days to pay it, they are not saying its overdue.  It will only be overdue if she hasnt paid by X days + 1.

    The taxpayer is invited to make a payment (or sometimes given a specific payment schedule) to bring them back into line with the “agreed terms”.

    Agreed, but subject to my views above.

    The “error” in this case was in believing that that the DOS scheme operated correctly as a tax efficient method of rewarding employees (compounded by the provision of side-letters).

    Agreed

    Any normal (straightforward) assessment is effectively a notice which says,
     – We have discovered something which shows that you have paid less tax than you ought to have done (under the standard “agreed terms”).

     
    Agreed

    – This is why you should have paid more (how the “agreed terms” were not met)

     
    Agreed on first part, but not part in brackets… (until the agreed terms of the additional payment are set out)

    – This is the additional tax you should have paid in the tax years x, y and z (and is therefore overdue) 

    Agreed on first part, but not part in brackets… (until the agreed terms of the additional payment are set out)

    – This is the amount of interest that will be applied to the overdue amounts 

    “previously unpaid amounts” not “overdue”

    – This is the amount you must pay now to bring your affairs back into order – This is what you must do if you disagree with our assessment
    Of course, if the taxpayer feels that the assessment is wrong it could be appealed internally and then subsequently to the FTT(T) – within the specified time limits.

    Agreed.

    If the taxpayer comes to accept the assessment, the taxpayer should then pay the overdue amount in its entirety or come to an agreement over a payment schedule. Until the payment is made or a payment schedule is agreed the amounts owed remain overdue.
    It is only if an appeal fails or abandoned (or no appeal is submitted within the time limits) and the taxpayer still fails to pay that formal collection proceedings begin. Again, the amounts owed are already overdue.

    Agreed subject to the same argument above about the word “overdue”

    In one sense, I think the DEMAND for payment (within 30 days), can be taken as an agreed payment schedule. When that demand was made (20th May 2011) the club was given 30 days before court action would commence.
    The funny thing is, I think it was because the DEMAND for payment came after the 31st March that it is fatal to your case.
    If the letter had been sent on the 31st March, the club would have had until 20th April to comply. It would then, under Annex VIII 2.b. been able to prove that it had ”…concluded an agreement which had been accepted in by the creditor in writing to extend the deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline…”
    But, on 31st March no such agreement was in place and (as you have already agreed) the club had no live appeal ongoing and its officials had accepted that the debt was real.
    So, from the foregoing, it seems pretty straightforward to me that a debt was accepted as existing on the 31st March, no appeal was in place and that the debts came about from the failure to comply with the “agreed terms” of the operation of PAYE & NICs from previous tax years.
    Am I missing something?

    I believe the exact opposite.  The issuance of that letter with the agreed terms is fatal to the opposite case.  It is that letter that introduces “agreed terms” as per Annex Viii (1) to this situation as previously, HMRC and the club were trying to come to an agreed position and as late as 5th May 2011, HMRC were still not definitively stating thats how much they wanted, as they wanted Rangers to officially accept the re-assessment.

    One thing i will say is i appreciate the way you are coming to this debate and walking through it in this manner rather than the usual way the topic is debated.  Its much appreciated.


  35. THELAWMAN2JUNE 10, 2018 at 17:23
    Still talking to me / answering my questions ?
    Mibbes presenting your opinions as fact and cherry-picking parts of governing legislation to bolster your thoughts is not being helpful to them . I’ve also noticed that sometimes you accidentally mis transcribe what you see, leading to a subtle change in meaning (you’ve got plenty of time to locate the posts )and I would suggest that is doing them no favours .Don’t be coy – your knowledge of this fiasco extends well beyond just Club1872 and Dave King .


  36. CLUSTER ON
    JUNE 10, 2018 at 17:30
    When Level5 went all £15 mill bid for an ibrox striker soon there was a £3mill loan from close brothers.
    =====================================

    The loan from Close intrigues me.

    Dave King said there would be a shortfall of £4m for that year, and that he would cover it.

    Then there came the £3m from Close.

    So does that mean the club needed the £3m, in addition to the £4m King said he was putting in. Or was the Close money instead of him putting it in.

    I suppose we won’t know until November, if that is when the accounts come out. It will be simple enough to look at outstanding loans as at end June 2018 I would have thought. 


  37. Homunculus,

    Might be possible that the Close cash paid off one or more of the soft loans?


  38. BIG PINKJUNE 10, 2018 at 18:37
    Or even monies outstanding to management teams (resigned or not) ?


  39. BIG PINK
    JUNE 10, 2018 at 18:37
    ==================================

    That never even occurred, entirely possible I suppose. 

    If so it has obviously been kept very quiet. 

    One would have thought if anyone was getting their loan cleared, at least in part, then they would have been disposing of their shares as well. If they had any in the first place of course. 


  40. Homunculus June 10, 2018 at 17:53
    The loan from Close intrigues me.
    Dave King said there would be a shortfall of £4m for that year, and that he would cover it.
    Then there came the £3m from Close.
    So does that mean the club needed the £3m, in addition to the £4m King said he was putting in. Or was the Close money instead of him putting it in.
    =======================
    My guess would be replacement cash rather than an additional requirement.

    If asked, King would likely say that he agreed to procure the £4m, rather than provide it personally. It may be that Barry Scott, Alastair Johnston and Close collectively provided the £4m or thereabouts. The personal guarantee would only underwrite any shortfall.

    The £3.2m promised for season 2018/19 may come from share issues, Club 1872 et al.


  41. Lawman,

    would it be be fair to say that in your ex’s case the accountant fully declared what he/she perceived to be allowable expenditures which in a subsequent “back audit” HMRC did not agree?

    I  only ask as that would bring us back to the arguement as to whether the players and hence their employer correctly declared their earnings in the first place.


  42. JustTheFacts
    June 8, 2018 at 22:05  
    “All I would ask is for The Lawman to have a good look at the Govt Link I have posted numerous times and give me his honest interpretation of it as an evidently intelligent and polite human bear.”
     
    Frustrating isn’t it.
    I worked all my life in Insurance and I had similar problems getting people to read the fantastic documents.
    One of the risks covered by a Business Combined policy or as a stand alone cover was Loss of Licence (Liquor) So I visited quite a few Clubs (working mens,  golf, bowling etc.
    When I asked if they were  incorporated or unincorporated their eyes narrowed.
    Why? They invariably asked.
    Because this form asks for name on the first line, and if you are incorporated
    It will be Auchinshoogle Bowling Club Limited
    If you are not it will be the committee and members of the
    Auchinshoogle Bowling Club
    Then company/club legal differences were explained, and a discussion on the merits of incorporation.
    I got wise to this and arranged for a local solicitor to have this typed out, reducing the hassle.


  43. EASYJAMBO
    JUNE 10, 2018 at 19:07

    If asked, King would likely say that he agreed to procure the £4m, rather than provide it personally. It may be that Barry Scott, Alastair Johnston and Close collectively provided the £4m or thereabouts. The personal guarantee would only underwrite any shortfall.
    The £3.2m promised for season 2018/19 may come from share issues, Club 1872 et al.

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

    Not really my reading of what was said in the accounts EJ.

    “At the time of preparation, the forecasts identified that the Group would require a minimum of £4.0m additional funding by the end of season 2017/18 in order to meet its liabilities as they fall due. The first tranche of funding is required in November 2017.

    Further funding amounting to £3.2m is forecast to be required during the 2018/19 season. However, the final amount is dependent on future football performance and European football participation amongst other factors.

    The Board have discussed the Club’s forecast cash shortfall and have reached an agreement with New Oasis Asset Limited whereby they will provide additional loan facilities as necessary to meet the above requirements.

    Further to this, New Oasis Asset Limited and certain investors have agreed to extend their existing loan facilities to July 2019.”


  44. HOMUNCULUSJUNE 10, 2018 at 17:53
    The loan from Close intrigues me.
    Dave King said there would be a shortfall of £4m for that year, and that he would cover it.
    Then there came the £3m from Close.
    So does that mean the club needed the £3m, in addition to the £4m King said he was putting in. Or was the Close money instead of him putting it in.
    —————
    My thoughts are £3m from Close.And king keeping his on standby for a SG revolution.A revolution that i can’t see coming.


  45. The Board have discussed the Club’s forecast cash shortfall and have reached an agreement with New Oasis Asset Limited whereby they will provide additional loan facilities as necessary to meet the above requirements.
    Wonder what the TOP think of this NOAL loaning money to a club that has a member as a chairman making decisons regards NOAL s spending but cannot make the NOAL honour the shares issue.
    http://www.scottishlegal.com/article/judges-publish-reasons-rejecting-rangers-chairmans-appeal-court-order-make-11m-share-offer


  46. HOMUNCULUSJUNE 10, 2018 at 17:53
    10
    0 Rate This
    CLUSTER ONJUNE 10, 2018 at 17:30
    ———————-
    Right who stole the E?


  47. Homunculus June 10, 2018 at 19:47

    Not really my reading of what was said in the accounts EJ.

    The Board have discussed the Club’s forecast cash shortfall and have reached an agreement with New Oasis Asset Limited whereby they will provide additional loan facilities as necessary to meet the above requirements.
    ================================
    I’ve seen that sort of claim before, not least during the Whyte trial.

    Let’s say I have the opportunity to participate in a new business adventure if I can contribute £10k, as a loan with the option of being repaid at some specified point in the future, or converted into shares if the business goes well.  I don’t actually have the free cash available, so I borrow it, half from a low interest credit card, the other half from family members of friends who believe I’m good for the cash.

    Now, have “I” provided a £10K loan facility or not? 

    Donald Findlay argued that point as to how Whyte personally funded the takeover by procuring the funds from other sources.


  48. EASYJAMBO
    JUNE 10, 2018 at 20:22
    0
    Homunculus
    June 10, 2018 
    Not really my reading of what was said in the accounts EJ.
    The Board have discussed the Club’s forecast cash shortfall and have reached an agreement with New Oasis Asset Limited whereby they will provide additional loan facilities as necessary to meet the above requirements.

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

    I’ve seen that sort of claim before, not least during the Whyte trial.

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

    I lifted that quoted part straight from the audited accounts and don’t see it as ambiguous. 

    If you see it differently fair enough. 


  49. Easyjambo 

    Donald Findlay argued that point as to how Whyte personally funded the takeover by procuring the funds from other sources.
    ————————————

    He may have curried favour by getting an unexperienced jury believing him but let’s be honest, he was talking Tam McKnight. 


  50. SMUGASJUNE 10, 2018 at 19:16
    would it be be fair to say that in your ex’s case the accountant fully declared what he/she perceived to be allowable expenditures which in a subsequent “back audit” HMRC did not agree?
    I  only ask as that would bring us back to the arguement as to whether the players and hence their employer correctly declared their earnings in the first place.
    ———————————————–

    I can’t say for definite but my experience of doing my own returns tells me No that wouldn’t be the case. 

    Allowable expenses is a heading rather than detail, or it certainly was for years when I was doing them before handing off to an accountant more recently.  

    It would be a total figure added in with the calculation kept in the  background. 


  51. PADDY MALARKEYJUNE 10, 2018 at 17:47
    THELAWMAN2JUNE 10, 2018 at 17:23Still talking to me / answering my questions ?Mibbes presenting your opinions as fact and cherry-picking parts of governing legislation to bolster your thoughts is not being helpful to them . I’ve also noticed that sometimes you accidentally mis transcribe what you see, leading to a subtle change in meaning (you’ve got plenty of time to locate the posts )and I would suggest that is doing them no favours .Don’t be coy – your knowledge of this fiasco extends well beyond just Club1872 and Dave King .
    ———————————————————————-
    I respect your opinion on that but to counter it,  If you are suggesting all my stuff on the issues are opinions then likewise you have to agree the opinions of the opposing views are just that…. Opinions.

    I’m happy to look at anything you believe I have mis transcribed as I can assure you it’s not my intention and I’m happy to answer any questions as honestly as I can unless I have been asked not to on a certain subject. 


  52. Homunculus June 10, 2018 at 20:28
    TheLawMan2 June 10, 2018 at 20:42
    ==============================
    H – I’m not disputing how it reads to most people, including myself, but I’m offering a different interpretation that someone may put on such a commitment. It’s a slant that a court could be persuaded to accept. I think non Rangers fans call it a “Brysonism” these days.

    TLM – The “unexperienced” (sp?) jury, as you put it, is rightly or wrongly the hand that you are dealt if you are defending a criminal charge. It’s the same set up whether it is a complex financial crime or an assault charge following a bit of pavement dancing outside a pub.


  53. ScottC. 

    Thanks mate. Found it. 

    Just the facts, I have sent a message. You may get it twice as not sure if it worked first time. 


  54. Easyjambo not sure how auto correct managed to auto wrong there. 
    I agree with that, but my point being is that no one with an ounce of common sense truly believes whyte funded the takeover. 
    It remains a mystery to this day as to how the AD didn’t accurately get across how that money was funded and by whom whilst Findlay danced a merry go round and shouted squirrel everytime he spoke. 


  55. Lawman @ 20.48

    yes, but fundamentally that “figure” is declared as existing, it just depends whether HMRC accept it as allowable against income or not.  

    Whilst I accept your premise, and thank you using your own personal experience to demonstrate it, you will excuse me if I consider it slightly removed from declaring income as discretionary, blatantly ignoring and concealing its contractual nature and in the end blatantly lying as to their very existence.


  56. Sorry, not to interject Lawman/EJ but I wonder if putting himself on the wrong end of a 24m personal guarantee might have been a bloody convincing squirrel!  No he didn’t fund it.  But he was liable for it.


  57. SMUGASJUNE 10, 2018 
    yes, but fundamentally that “figure” is declared as existing, it just depends whether HMRC accept it as allowable against income or not.  
    Whilst I accept your premise, and thank you using your own personal experience to demonstrate it, you will excuse me if I consider it slightly removed from declaring income as discretionary, blatantly ignoring and concealing its contractual nature and in the end blatantly lying as to their very existence.

    ____________________________

    I wasnt comparing the method of what happened in borh cases nor the morality of it. I was only using the example to note that upon an HMRC challenge of a tax return, once the correct amount of tax owed was established, it did not mean that the tax was “overdue.”  It just meant it was now due.


  58. SMUGASJUNE 10, 2018 at 21:18
    Sorry, not to interject Lawman/EJ but I wonder if putting himself on the wrong end of a 24m personal guarantee might have been a bloody convincing squirrel!  No he didn’t fund it.  But he was liable for it.

    ____________________________________

    Lol. Aye. Look how that worked out eh. There never was a personal guarantee. Lucky if he had 24,000 never mind 24m.

    He funded the purchase by delaying the payment of the sale in order to get ticketus to lend the money to Rangers who then loaned the money to his company who then paid the sale price.

    It was blatant. The AD was thick as sheit.


  59. THELAWMAN2JUNE 10, 2018 at 20:53
    Hola . Where did I suggest “all” ? You tend to mix fact and opinion , but are happy to let the reader believe it’s all fact .
    Do your own homework – you don’t want to be called lazy , although I suspect that’s not the worst you have been called so mibbes it’s no big thing .


  60. TheLawMan2 June 10, 2018 at 21:12
    It remains a mystery to this day as to how the AD didn’t accurately get across how that money was funded and by whom whilst Findlay danced a merry go round and shouted squirrel everytime he spoke. 
    ============================
    I have a view on that but, as there are still live actions related to the wider criminal case, I won’t elaborate. You know that Whyte was the only person to face a jury. Have you asked yourself why or sought to find out?  You also say that you were a prospective prosecution witness. Was the AD able to present all the evidence that he had?


  61. On a wonderful day when an amazing Scottish cricket team vanquished (just) the auld enemy here is a heartfelt plea to our moderators. 
    There are many posters who add value to this site and make it worth visiting. 
    Lawman is not one of them. 
    And never has been in his Oozletwit outpourings designed to lead us in self diminishing circles.
    I propose we give him his own particular section the same way we gave to Jimbos music.


  62. Easyjambo

    Was the AD able to present all the evidence that he had?

    ___________________

    He was able to. He chose not to.  He thought it would be better to put Ally McCoist and Walter Smith on the stand rather than present eroneous documents and apparent evidence of dishonesty to the court.
    Who knows what was going through his head.


  63. If you withhold information from HMRC but if that information was provided and tax would have been due . Wouldn’t it have been due when the information should’ve been provided and only the amount to be calculated + interest and charges.


  64. PADDY MALARKEYJUNE 10, 2018 at 21:34
    THELAWMAN2JUNE 10, 2018 at 20:53Hola . Where did I suggest “all” ? You tend to mix fact and opinion , but are happy to let the reader believe it’s all fact .Do your own homework – you don’t want to be called lazy , although I suspect that’s not the worst you have been called so mibbes it’s no big thing .

    ______________________________

    How do you distinguish the difference? Do you need to make a disclaimer after each sentence? FACT is used a lot on here about certain things. 

    More often than not though, its actually opinions.


  65. THELAWMAN2
    JUNE 10, 2018 at 21:28

    He funded the purchase by delaying the payment of the sale in order to get ticketus to lend the money to Rangers who then loaned the money to his company who then paid the sale price.
    =======================================

    Ticketus did not lend money to anyone in this transaction.

    They made advance payments for season tickets, which they got at a discount. The club would then sell them at face value to the supporters and pass the proceeds to Ticketus minus a commission.

    Why are people still saying Ticketus provided a loan, it isn’t true. 


  66. Well said Finloch.  Lets stifle debate and not let anyone with an oposing opinion have their voice on a Social Media forum. 18


  67. TheLawMan2 June 10, 2018 at 21:28
    He funded the purchase by delaying the payment of the sale in order to get ticketus to lend the money to Rangers who then loaned the money to his company who then paid the sale price.
    ================================
    You pick up others for inaccurate use of words or descriptions, but the above isn’t strictly accurate. 

    The sale of the club was completed by the symbolic payment of a £1 on Friday 6 May 2011.  Whyte then reportedly held a Board meeting between him and Phil Betts over the weekend to formalise the Ticketus agreement, before the transfer of funds between the Club, the holding company and the Bank which was completed on Monday 9th May 2011.

    Whyte had to “own” the club in order to complete the Ticketus deal.   


  68. TheLawMan2 June 10, 2018 at 21:42
    Easyjambo
    Was the AD able to present all the evidence that he had?
    ___________________
    He was able to. He chose not to.  He thought it would be better to put Ally McCoist and Walter Smith on the stand rather than present eroneous documents and apparent evidence of dishonesty to the court. Who knows what was going through his head.
    ==============================
    I’m afraid we will have to disagree on that one.  I’d expect more information to become available over the coming months.  Watch this space.


  69. Lawman I am suggesting that you are given your own designated thread.

    Whats not to like?

     

Comments are closed.