I am privileged to have the chance to post a “guest” article on TSFM. As we get used to the lights being turned out, even temporarily, on RTC, we have a new forum for analysing the various issues which concern supporters of Scottish football.
It is undoubtedly the case that most of these issues involve the Rangers FC, either directly or indirectly, together with their interaction with the governing bodies of Scottish football.
One of the matters mentioned on “The List” page here is the Nimmo Smith report. I try to answer the question about what happened to it below, and note the relevance its apparent disappearance has for the soon to convene SPL Independent Commission.
I would encourage anyone who wants to do so to contribute posts for publication to TSFM.
RTC created from nothing a vibrant community looking at serious and complex issues of finance, law and corporate governance with a huge range of expertise, and not a little humour. TSFM can build on that legacy for the good of football in Scotland, and hopefully to the betterment of our media.
Whatever Happened to the Nimmo Smith Report?
On 21st February 2012 the SFA announced that it had appointed retired judge Lord Nimmo Smith to chair an independent inquiry into Rangers FC. His panel comprised Professor Niall Lothian, Past President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland; Bob Downes, former Director of BT and now Deputy Chairman of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, and Stewart Regan, CEO of the SFA.
The Inquiry was commissioned to investigate the potential breach of a number of SFA Articles of Association and to present its findings to the SFA Board within two weeks. Article 62.2 (q) of the SFA Articles of Association allows the SFA Board to appoint “a commission … to attend to and/or determine any matter(s) referred to it by the Board.”
Stewart Regan was quoted saying: “I am delighted Lord Nimmo Smith has agreed to Chair the Independent Inquiry. I am certain the experience contained within the panel will enable us to achieve more clarity on the situation regarding Rangers FC. There will be no further comment on the investigation until it is complete and its findings presented to the Board.”
One wonders about the use of the word “independent”, bearing in mind that one of the members was the CEO of the commissioning body, and on the Board which would consider it once prepared.
On 2nd March Mr Regan had more to say, although the investigation was not yet complete.
“We are now in the final stages of our independent inquiry into the situation concerning Rangers FC. The report by The Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith is expected to be completed next week and will go to a Special Board Meeting for consideration. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment at this stage in relation to the details gleaned from the inquiry, the potential contents of the report or any possible sanctions.
On 8th March the Special Board Meeting took place to consider the Nimmo Smith Report. Mr Regan commented:-
“I can confirm that the Scottish FA convened a Special Board Meeting at Hampden Park today to discuss the findings of the Independent Inquiry into Rangers FC, prepared by the Chair, The Right Honourable Lord William Nimmo Smith.
“Principally, it is the belief of the Board, taking into account the prima facie evidence presented today, that Mr Craig Whyte is not considered to be a Fit and Proper person to hold a position within Association Football.
“The report submitted by Lord Nimmo Smith, having been considered fully by the Board, highlights a number of other potential rule breaches by the club and its owner. The report will now be used as evidence and forwarded to a Judicial Panel for consideration and determination as per the protocol.
As such, the report’s contents will not be published at this time. Nevertheless, I can confirm that the club is facing a charge of bringing the game into disrepute.”
On 24th April Mr Regan, following the verdict of the Judicial Panel, said the following:-
“It was entirely right that the original inquiry into Rangers FC and Craig Whyte was conducted independently and chaired by the Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith. These findings were presented to the Judicial Panel Tribunal, who returned their verdict last night.”
That all seems clear. Lord Nimmo Smith, with the help of distinguished people like Mr Regan, carried out a quick but thorough investigation, and the results were put to the Judicial Panel for consideration.
However Gary Allan QC, who chaired the Panel, made the following comment on page 59 of the Panel’s written decision.
“It is remarkable that throughout the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal Process there has been repeated, and regrettably wholly misconceived reference to the Report of Lord Nimmo Smith. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Judicial Panel hearing this disciplinary matter was at no time presented with the report, as evidence or otherwise, nor was it presented with any of its findings. No member of the Tribunal has had sight of it. The report was not mentioned by any party at any time in the course of the proceedings. The determinations which were reached, therefore, were reached entirely independently of any view at which any other person, however senior or eminent, may have arrived in fulfilment of his remit prior to the disciplinary hearing.”
How can the Chair of the Panel deny having seen a document which, according to one of the people who sat on the independent committee, was presented to them?
The answer is two-fold.
Firstly, at pages 2 to 3 of the Judicial Panel decision, the procedural nuts and bolts of the case are discussed:-
“The Tribunal … directed that … it would proceed to hear the evidence and submissions and proceed to Determinations in relation to the complaints against both Rangers FC and Mr Whyte.
The Tribunal … noted that … it would proceed on the basis that there was an absolute denial on (Mr Whyte’s) part of each element of the alleged breach of the rules in all its particulars.
The Tribunal directed that accordingly, and notwithstanding the fact that in its written responses Rangers FC in substantial measure admitted the factual averments and a number of the alleged breaches of the rules, … the Tribunal would require to establish a clear factual basis for its Determination of both any alleged breaches and, if applicable, any sanction against either or both Rangers FC or Mr Whyte. … The commission and the circumstances of the alleged breaches would therefore require to be established by the leading of evidence before the Tribunal …
A discussion in relation to the procedure to be adopted took place. It was agreed that the Compliance Officer Mr Lunny would lead evidence ex parte by submission and reference to documentary material but would lead no witnesses, and would invite the Tribunal to accept the evidence in that form as provided in the Judicial Panel Protocol. Mr McLaughlin for Rangers FC, standing its position on the complaints contained in the written response previously submitted had neither issues with that proposal nor any other objection to the procedure which would be adopted. An opportunity would then be afforded to Rangers FC to lead evidence and make submissions as Mr McLaughlin on its behalf saw fit. Mr McLaughlin intimated that he would be likely to lead evidence from four witnesses previously intimated to the Compliance Officer and the Tribunal in terms of the Judicial Panel Protocol.”
At the hearing the positions of Rangers FC and of Mr Whyte were totally at odds. Mr Whyte did not appear nor lodge any substantive reply. He denied everything. On the other hand, Rangers FC “in substantial measure admitted the factual averments and a number of the alleged breaches of the rules”. As the Panel determined, they needed to be satisfied of the right verdict based on the evidence, but as the “prosecution case” was generally admitted, there was less rigour about this than if, for example, Mr Whyte had attended and denied the charges.
If Mr Whyte had appeared to deny the allegations, or if Rangers FC had disputed them, then evidence would have had to come from witnesses, who could have been cross-examined. In that event it would not have been sufficient to present the Nimmo Smith report, because, for all his experience, expertise and eminence, he is not guaranteed to be infallible.
One important principle in judicial and quasi-judicial procedure is the “Best Evidence rule”. If possible, original documents should be produced, rather than copies. Items of physical evidence should be brought to the court, rather than photographs of it. Witnesses should give evidence rather than having witness statements provided to the hearing.
This, I think, provides part of the explanation for the apparently mysterious absence of the Nimmo Smith Report.
The facts of the case had been admitted by the only party who attended the hearing, namely Rangers FC. Therefore Mr Lunny led “evidence ex parte by submission and reference to documentary material”. The Panel made 108 separate “findings in fact” derived from the evidence he put forward and that of Rangers FC.
Where Lord Nimmo Smith’s committee had, for example, analysed documents and offered a conclusion upon their import, the documents would be evidence but His Lordship’s conclusion would not. Similarly where a witness had been interviewed by the Nimmo Smith commission, or provided a statement, the former judge’s views on that would not be evidence, but the witness statement would be.
Mr Lunny, the Compliance Officer, was acting as prosecutor. Effectively Lord Nimmo Smith played the role of a senior detective co-ordinating an investigation, but not actually obtaining any evidence himself. In a criminal trial, where the officer in charge of the investigation has taken no part in the accumulation of the evidence, then their relevance as a witness is very small at best. It is up to the judge or the jury to decide what the totality of evidence means as far as guilt or innocence is concerned.
Therefore whilst I am sure that Lord Nimmo Smith’s report was on Mr Lunny’s table as he went through his presentation, ticking off the relevant parts as he led the primary evidence, the Report itself was not “relevant” evidence for the Panel. It is likely that, in discussion prior to the hearing, Mr Lunny and the solicitor for Rangers FC agreed whether the Nimmo Smith report would be used or not.
Mr Regan said prior to the Panel sitting “The report will now be used as evidence and forwarded to a Judicial Panel for consideration and determination as per the protocol.“ The presentation of the case of course was independent of him, and whilst the Report would have formed the basis for the charges laid against Rangers FC and Mr Whyte, it was not evidence itself, as agreed between the parties.
The second aspect which accords with this explanation is the precise phrase used by Mr Regan. He said, after the decision, “These findings were presented to the Judicial Panel Tribunal.”
He did not say that the report was presented, rather that the findings were. As the findings would form the basis for the “charges” admitted by Rangers FC, then to that extent the Nimmo Smith report played a part in the proceedings.
This issue has relevance now for the forthcoming SPL proceedings involving player payments and registrations which might have broken the rules. To great clamour and consternation from Ibrox direction, Harper MacLeod, the widely respected and highly rated form of solicitors, have carried out an investigation for the SPL into Rangers FC.
Mr Green has made clear that, as far as possible, the case will be fought, and no past titles will be stripped if he can do anything about it. Expect calls for the Harper MacLeod report to be produced.
However, it is in exactly the same position as the Nimmo Smith report was, except this time the accused is not accepting guilt. In that case, the relevant documents and witnesses will need to attend for scrutiny and examination.
On the basis that the First Tier Tax Tribunal, which looked at different but related issues, took many days to conclude, it is highly likely that the SPL case will not have a quick conclusion.
As a final aside, I must compliment Mr Green. All of the media speculation about punishment in the event that the independent commission find guilt on the part of Rangers repeats the mantra from Ibrox that the most severe penalty, namely stripping of titles, is the aim of the SPL.
I suspect that the SPL might believe that too now, on the basis that something which the club and the fans oppose so vigorously must be a draconian penalty.
But, of all of the various penalties listed, stripping titles would not cost the Rangers FC a single penny. The issue has already seen the supporters unite behind their team. Even if the commission finds the case proven, and as a result Rangers lose some of their historic titles, this will be seen by the Ibrox faithful as yet more treachery by the football authorities. Bearing in mind that the SPL rules allow various penalties, including the power to expel the club, impose unlimited fines and place a registration embargo on the club, altering the history books is the best thing for Rangers as a business, rather than a penalty which affects them just now.
Posted by Paul McConville – www.scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com
jockybhoy @11.09 am. Naughty. Methinks someone may regret wandering into the open.Back to the woods .
James Clement Park
Director Summary
James Clement Park has 7 company director or secretary appointments.
Short name – James Park
Director ID : 914799495
Year of Birth: 1954
Address
Cardonald Court Fifty Pitches Way Cardonald Busine
Glasgow
Scotland
G51 4FD
Company Summary
Company Name Company Status
PPR RECOVERIES LIMITED Dissolved
KILCASH MANAGEMENT LIMITED Dissolved
MONTEREY DEVELOPMENTS (SCOTLAND) LIMITED Dissolved
ANDERSON BARCLAY LITIGATION LIMITED Dissolved
MONTEREY ESTATES LIMITED Dissolved
JACK AND JILL CHILDRENS CLOTHING LIMITED Dissolved (Director Resigned 30/04/2010)
MURRAY WHITE (LONDON) LIMITED In Liquidation (Director Resigned 10/07/2010)
http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/914799495
Trying to keep up with all this, so apologies if it’s already been covered! A question – when BDO get stuck into the liquidation/pursuit of offenders process, which won’t come cheap no doubt – who will actually pay their fees? Presumably after Duff & Co. have filled their boots can there be anything left in Oldco (IA)? BDO won’t be taking it on without their fees being guaranteed, so does this mean the taxpayer gets to foot the bill?
James Clement Park / Powwow
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedKingdom/Local%20Assets/Documents/Services/CF/Insolvency%20Web%20Team/Powwow/UK_IWT_Powwow_24-3-2011-ScotProgressReport.pdf
I know it’s insignificant compared to some of their crimes, but yet another rule ignored for “Rangers”.
CLUB COLOURS
87.3 When two clubs, having the same or similar first choice colours registered, engage in a League Championship game, the visiting club shall play in its second or third choice playing kit which must be different and distinct playing kit from the home club’s first choice playing kit. At least 48 hours prior to all Championship, Reserve and Youth matches, the competing clubs shall establish written contact with each other and the match referee to advise of the exact colours and description of the respective club’s playing kits. In the event of a clash of colours on matchday and the away club not having with them their second/third choice registered playing kit, then the away club will require to play in the home club’s second/third choice registered jerseys and/or shorts and/or socks. Both clubs shall change, under similar circumstances, when playing on neutral ground. In the event of any dispute with regard to the playing kit to be worn by either club, the referee’s decision shall be final.
Domaine Jessiaume says:
August 13, 2012 at 20:03
slimshady61 says:
August 13, 2012 at 19:39
=====================
So I’ve seen the agreement, he hasn’t, but he’s wasting time and effort telling me what is and is not contained in it?
Like I said earlier, we all must decide if someone has an agenda and judge for ourselves.
In Slim’s case, he’s just annoyed that I did not defer to him a couple of weeks ago, even though I said then that I agreed with much of what he said about the share float..
ExiledCelt has decided something didn’t happen re the Davis transfer, and is merrily painting himself into a corner over it, quite unnecessarily.
As for “bee in my blue bonnet”, where to start with that? Posting information which may or may not be of general interest is a “bee in my blue bonnet” because I disagree with you?
I have previously told you I am a Celtic fan, not that that should matter, so are you calling me a liar?
The floor is yours.
********
I decided something did not heppen because
(1) Southampton said it did not
(2) English FA were not in the 5 way agreement – otherwise it woudl have been a 6 way agreement
(3) It does nto make any sense for Southampton to pay more than the nominal amout they freely admit to paying.
I am not painting myself into any corner – I cannot be wrong if the information available does nto show otherwise – you cliam that Southampton are liars. My friend who is in the Southampton Fans Group would love to have this information………….
Auldheid says:
August 14, 2012 at 00:22
————————————————-
That reply reads like it was knocked up by a secretary/minder in 10 minutes without even bothering to read more than the first couple of lines of the original message. Wouldn’t be surprised if Margo never even saw it (not that that means she’d have given a damn anyway).
CE says:
August 13, 2012 at 23:54
Horrific treatment of DJ earlier I’m afraid.
Most of his information he has provided so far has been 100% accurate. And to be tarred with the blue brush merely for not towing the party line, is the kind of behaviour I think we should leave to RM, FF and their ilk
************
Got to be kidding me – just because I asked for hsi source? I have a source high up in the Southampton Fans Group who has been told by Southampton FC folsk directly that a nominal amount was paid.
Not once did I say anything about a blue brush – I was askign for the source of his information because my soucre states opposite.
if this is not allowed then so be it
Philip José Farmer says:
August 14, 2012 at 11:36
0 0 Rate This
James Clement Park / Powwow
———————————
section 3.3.2 intercompany balances
Wife sues husband,sound familiar.look who also gets a mention,Blair Nimmo.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/they-even-had-my-car-number-airdrie-s-liquidator-blair-nimmo-tells-rebecca-mcquillan-how-it-feels-to-be-a-hate-figure-1.148795
I am confused about the Davis / Southampton issue for two reasons.
1, Davis was never emplyed by Sevco
2, Sevco never as far as i am aware held his footballing registration.
So why would a club pay anything to Sevco.
What is possible is that the SFA held the registration (from Rangers FC PLC as they were being liquidated). Money was paid to the SFA for the registration, no idea how much. It is then up to the SFA what they do with that money.
Normally one would expect it to go into the creditors pot. However clearly the administrators and the SFA (to say nothing of Rangers or Sevco) couldn’t care less about non-footballing creditors. So I think it is entirely feasible that they decided amongst themselves.
1, The SFA would take the money
2, They would not give it to the administrators (or Rangers FC PLC) as it would then be spilt equally
3, They would allocate it to Sevco (as part of the transfer of an undertaking) on the condition that
4, Sevco agreed that money would be used to partly pay footballing debts.
This allowed them to keep the money in football, keep it away from other creditors and allow Mr Green to claim he was paying some of the debts to Scottish football.
One assumes tha Duff and Phelps would have to agree this, but given their record to date trying to save the business has always been more important that doing the best for creditors. Even when the CVA failed and it became their primary, if not sole, responsibility.
Can one of the small creditors not simply take Sevco to the small claims court ( don’t know if this is the correct title in Scotland) court and claim their money back ?
Surely this would be the acid test and settle once and for all whether this is a new company or not ?
ExiledCelt on August 14, 2012 at 12:05
Hi EC,
My distaste at the blue bonnet comment was not directed at your good self. I’m quite sensitive towards slander such as this having experienced it myself a couple of times on RTC. I’m fully with you on the ‘DR sport understands’ rubbish, I just felt you may have been a touch overly dismissive of DJ because his information didn’t tally with yours.
And I have no problem at all in you discussing DJ’s information and asking for clarification. I just thought you might have been a little hasty in dismissing his post as ‘nonsense’ straight away.
I think it’s a good thing people ‘in the know’ post info on here and it is a tad naïve to expect anyone to reveal sources.
CE – no bother – I was stuck in an airport in the middle of a long flight so my patience was not of the highest order – so to DJ and all – sorry for labelling it “nonsense”.
What did bother me was that I had asked where the info came from – I was being told take it or leave it. If he had said what you stated above, that woudl have been different. Even our sources are not infallible. However mine is a long time friend who is up high in Southamptons Fan Trust and were smashing the club for paying this when they could have got him for free. Even the nomiinal amoutn paid did not go down well as they feel this was paid by the club due to threats from CG – a shakedown if you will.
If DJ does indeed have information that states the public utterances of Southampton are not in tune with what really happened, my friend would love to have that information for obvious reasons…..
I agree we need to avoid the trolls etc – but also avoid labelling others as trolls just because they don’t agree with us – however we alos don’t need to be smarty pants of I know somehting you don’t knwo and refuse to ellaborate – its team work that will get us there – not one upmanship.
ExiledCelt says:
August 14, 2012 at 12:05
Got to be kidding…………..
I have got to agree with ‘EC’ , absolutely nothing wrong with his pursuit of supporting evidence , however if ‘DJ’ doesn’t want to provide supporting evidence of his claims then probably best that he doesn’t post similar claims in the future
Tic 6709 says: August 14, 2012 at 11:14
Methinks someone may regret wandering into the open.Back to the woods .
May be appropriate, given what bears do there… 🙂
Re the discussions about the National team / Levein / Black etc.
Having totally lost any interest in the domestic league programme owing to the SFA/SPL/SFL doing all they could do shoehorn Sevco into the league structure somewhere, I was ready to transfer my “allegiance” to the National side and already had started to blag my way to a ticket for the upcoming match in Brussels.
All this guff about Black has made me rethink. Scottish football is dead, people. Not a single guy with vision in the whole country. It stinks. The mindset which allowed RFC’s behaviour to go unpunished pervades scottish football and always will. We can debate this on blogs and “call for change” but I do not believe we can do anything other than re-arrange the deck-chairs whilst the liner sinks.
Other sports are more deserving of my attention, and financial support.
Just watched a rerun of Peterhead vs I don’t know their name. Jim mcinally had a right go at a well known churnalist in his post match interview. How long can Keevins, Traynor etc get away with getting it wrong so often. These men are denying thoughtful debate wrt football on mass media. Shameful.
Not quite sure what to make of this, but someone is having a right good go at the Hootsmon and its relationship with Craig Whyte.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-827222
stevensanph says:
August 14, 2012 at 10:48
What makes me marvel at the way D&P have not done their job to cut costs is watching the amount of folks sitting on the bench against Brechin and Peterhead.
Swally – chief dog whistler
Durrant – chief arms folder
McDowell – chief whisperer
Stewart – chief background
Now given that moeny is to be saved – we have a goalkeeping coach for 2 goalies, and 3 coaches (including Swally in this just to avoid debate).
Now let’s look at the others
http://www.rangers.co.uk/index.php/teams/backroom-staff
There are another 7 folks in the mix for various activities – making 11 backroom staff.
East Sitling – their next opponents have 3 – 1 of which is vacant
http://www.eaststirlingshirefc.com/the-club/coaching-staff/
Seems bigger benches are needed for SFL3 games not just 4th officials…..
I am a bit bored of this story of late, lots of petty things are of course an annoyance but in the grand scheme of things trivial – I suppose it’s just a further sign that old habits, old loyalties are hard to break or hide.
i think we need something decisive to happen.
What would be decisive?
1) FTT(T) produces it’s findings and the long awaited result of the big tax case.
2) BDO getting their feet under the table as liquidators
3) The SPL enquiry actually producing or declaring something meaningful
4) A ‘nuclear’ explosion …………………………………..
anything else?
Philip José Farmer says:
August 14, 2012 at 09:06
Stanblack says:
August 13, 2012 at 23:15
Phoenix company fraud happens after company goes bankrupt and a second company ………..
=========================================
If it’s “perfectly legal” then on what basis can HMRC demand security of something like 50% of taxes in advance. How can something be perfectly legal but also have a punitive consequences.
========================================
This link sets out HMRC’s guidance on asking for a security where tax may be at risk.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/securitydeposit/index.htm#2
HMRC can ask employers and traders to pay a security where there is serious risk that they won’t pay their taxes or duties. The legislation has been introduced to tackle the behavior of a minority of businesses who deliberately choose not to pay tax. These businesses often evade tax by becoming insolvent but immediately start up a new company and continue to trade. This is a way of stepping away from their debts to both HMRC and other traders.
CE says:
August 14, 2012 at 11:41
CLUB COLOURS
{snipped}… In the event of any dispute with regard to the playing kit to be worn by either club, the referee’s decision shall be final.
——
Swally: “We’re not wearing PD’s away kit.”
Ref: “OK. Got any training tops that you may have packed by accident, with numbers on and that?”.
Domaine Jessiaume,Slim Shady,Exiled Celt.
You are all excellent posters on this blog but I think the Davis/Southampton issue is taking up an awfy lot of your time.Was there,was there not a fee paid.The truth will out eventually.Lets call it a draw.Give us more of your better stuff.
midcalderan says:
August 14, 2012 at 13:11
The legislation has been introduced to tackle the behavior of a minority of businesses who deliberately choose not to pay tax. These businesses often evade tax by becoming insolvent but immediately start up a new company and continue to trade.
===============================
So they don’t think it’s “perfectly legal” really.
They also don’t think aggresive tax avoidance schemes which cross into, or verge on becoming, evasion are “perfectly legal” either.
Hence the penalties imposed for doing it.
ExiledCelt says:
August 14, 2012 at 13:08
1 0 i
Rate This
stevensanph says:
August 14, 2012 at 10:48
What makes me marvel at the way D&P have not done their job to cut costs is watching the amount of folks sitting on the bench against Brechin and Peterhead.
Swally – chief dog whistler
Durrant – chief arms folder
McDowell – chief whisperer
Stewart – chief background
Now given that moeny is to be saved – we have a goalkeeping coach for 2 goalies, and 3 coaches (including Swally in this just to avoid debate).
=============================
Duff and Phelps have absolutely no interest in this new business, whether it be in relation to cost cutting or anything else.
Thay are the administrators for Rangers FC PLC as was. Sevco (or whatever it is now called) is nothing to do with them, it is just the company which bought the assets of the business they were carrying out the administration for.
The fans should be concerned about how money is being spent and on what, and should be worried about whether their new club has a sustainable business model. However that is up to them. They are more likely to continue with a siege mentality an describe anyone who points these things out as being anti Rangers.
Mr Green is now pandering to this in order to get them behind him. It is working.
There are none so blind as those who will not see, the past is simply being repeated. Spend money you don’t have in order to buy perceived sussess. If and when it ll comes back to haunt you blame someone else for your own failings.
A repost from the nightshift. (You all know its one almighty cover up by now, don’t you?)
Some of you might remember a post of a letter to Margo McDonald copied to the First Minister on 10th July.
Here is a copy plus the reply just received.
Note a) the urge to move on and avoid the issue of SFA governance
b) the excuse for non interference that totally ignores how the UK Parliament managed to get involved without upsetting UFA/FIFA.
It is like being treated like an idiot by a moron. (Oh and why pay good taxpayer money to an organisation that allows a member to dodge double to treble figure millions in tax and just watch them do it?)
.
Dear Margo
(Copied to First Minister, Alex Salmond)
I am writing to you in your capacity as Chairperson of Cross-Party Group on Sport at Hollyrood concerning the matter of the governance of Scottish football, where the unfolding saga at Glasgow Rangers FC suggests that whilst the SFA have made some reform inroads in response to the Henry McLeish recommendations in terms of transparency, much still needs to be done on accountability and other issues.
The SFA are the organisation charged with the care of a sport that does form a major part of the fabric of Scottish society and their lack of accountability and clarity of authority raises “fit for purpose” questions.
I appreciate that governments as a matter of policy do not get involved in football matters but note that in England in 2008 and 2009 an All Party Parliamentary Football Group
http://www.allpartyfootball.com/about.htm and
http://www.allpartyfootball.com/about.htm
looked at the governance of English Football and following their investigations produced a report in April 2009 “ English Football and its Governance”
http://www.allpartyfootball.com/APFG_Report_on_English_Football_&_Its_Governance_April_2009%5b1%5d.pdf
The integrity of the game in Scotland has all but been destroyed, not just by what has happened at Rangers, but by the handling of the consequential emerging issues by the SPL and SFA. Both seem ultimately unaccountable to anyone in Scotland and unclear on their respective responsibilities to each other and the game in general. I am therefore writing to suggest that the Scottish government could adopt a similar approach as in England and have an all party enquiry to look at:
The accountability of the SFA
clarity of roles and responsibilities between the various authorities (SFA/SPL etc)
If any of the recommendations in the English report are applicable here, particularly Chapter Three in terms of improved accountability.
There is no record of FIFA/UEFA objection to this approach; in fact they might welcome the input of a similar all party enquiry to restore confidence in the governance of the game in Scotland as would the Scottish Public.
I appreciate that the all party group in England consisted of volunteers but such is the passion for the game in this country I think there will be a cohort of the willing, including supporters trusts and associations to take part.
I await your views and the views of the First Minister to whom this is copied with interest.
The Reply
Dear Auldheid
Thank you for your email of 10 July on issues relating to Scottish Football. I have been asked to reply.
As I am sure you can appreciate there have been a number of developments since your correspondence. As our national game, the Scottish Government’s commitment to football and to its future is beyond doubt. Year on year we have invested record amounts in football development and facilities. We will deliver a world class National Performance Centre for Sport which will have football at its heart and the First Minister recently announced the Scottish Government would sponsor the 2012/13 Scottish Communities League Cup in recognition of the important role our clubs play in communities across Scotland.
Decisions around league membership and restructuring are entirely a matter for the football authorities and individual clubs. We respect the decisions by members of the Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League and appreciate this will require a period of adjustment for both Rangers and many other football clubs. In order to ensure the continued development of Scottish football we recognise that the focus should now turn to the restructuring and reform required.
As you may know, Fifa rules strictly prohibit what they perceive as ‘political interference’ from Governments in their members’ affairs and there have been well known examples in recent years where members have been suspended or threatened with a suspension for what Fifa perceive as Government interference. As a result, the Scottish Government, like other governments, recognises the right of independent sports governing bodies such as the Scottish FA to structure themselves as they see fit without interference from Scottish Ministers.
Yours sincerely
Talk about digging a hole…..
Charlie’s latest rant against all things (Scottish) football this morning ,
apparently he doesn’t care if he gets fined!!!
http://sport.stv.tv/football/149577-charles-green-there-is-an-agenda-against-rangers-in-scottish-football/
Charlie Green doing a Craig Whyte and talking about agendas against RFC’s Tribute Act and how he will be the one to finally stand up for the club. Lemmings.
tomtom says:
August 14, 2012 at 09:31
Auldheid,
The text in their response,
“As you may know, Fifa rules strictly prohibit what they perceive as ‘political interference’ from Governments in their members’ affairs and there have been well known examples in recent years where members have been suspended or threatened with a suspension for what Fifa perceive as Government interference.”
What the hell was Salmond doing talking to HMRC then. If the First Minister discussing such a topic with the revenue arm of the national government is not “poilitical Interference” then what is it.
Like most government departments you learn more from their replies than you would ever imagine.
==========================================
You remind me of the question I would love to have seen raised in the Scottish Parliament but never was, which is a pity as it raises poltical questions about the type of government an independent Scotland might be ruled by.
Going back to the response to my letter the tax payer gives the SFA millions, but the SFA cannot police clubs well enough to stop them paying due taxes and the Government thinks it is ok to stand back because UEFA/FIFA will not like it? Hands up all those who voted for Platini or Blatter in the last election.
The Question that never got tabled.
I refer to the First Minister’s letter of 2?th March 2011 to Walter Smith Manager of Glasgow Rangers released under a Freedom of Information request by Ms Lorna Stevens under reference request-1 06335-a32b31 b4@whatdothevknow.com.
In it the First Minster said
“You should also be given great credit for making Rangers as competitive as they were in Europe this 5.season, especially given the financial constraints that you have been operating under Since you returned to the club.”
Does the First Minister still hold this view given that Rangers/Mr Smith spent £9.8M net (£29.3M out £19.5M in ) after his arrival in the years 2007/2008, which along with the wages necessary to bring the on field success the FM gave Mr Smith/Rangers credit for, contributed to driving the net debt reported in club annual Accounts from around £6M in 2006 to around £31M in 2009?
Does the First Minister now agree that had that debt been kept nearer the 2006 level, Rangers would not now be in the predicament they now face of owing the public purse to a degree that required the FM to speak to HMRC as also reported but not fully revealed in the same information request?
Further: does the FM subscribe to this over dependence on debt approach to financial management and does it form any part of current government policy?
This is interesting.
I tried the link in my previous post to see if it was working to find out it was’nt. I then went to the What Do They Know Web Site to try and find the orginal and came across this one today. Apologies if its been mentioned but it looks like the issue is still live.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rangers_fc_football_governance#incoming-303887
From: Jack McMinigal
14 August 2012
Dear Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
I would like to request copies of information referred
to during the discussions on the subject of football governance
related to Rangers FC on 3rd July 2012 and 10th July 2012, as
mentioned in the formal minutes available at the following link:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commo…
The formal minutes of 3rd July 2012 mention that the discussion on
Rangers FC would be continued on 10th July 2012, yet there is no
subsequent mention of this matter in the formal minutes of 10th
July 2012, or any other date.
Yours faithfully,
Jack McMinigal
Green going out on the streets to speak to a queue of season ticket purchasers seems a bit desperate. Perhaps next time he’ll take a guitar and a bucket with him.
From the STV article:
I will give you an example. This morning, I had a phone call from the SPL telling us we can’t put our old games on the website because we don’t own the archive rights.
“’And by the way, Charles, don’t get angry. You shouldn’t think we are being vindictive, it’s just what the agreement says”.
“Tell me how I took that? I was walking on the ceiling. I think there is an agenda.
So obviously he is angry that TRFC are not allowed to break the agreement. Just goes to show the ‘we are above the law’ arrogance that still exists at the club(s).
“There’s no-one spoke for this club for three or four years. It’s not had anyone standing up.”
No Herr Charles, no-one’s been speaking up for you. 😆
Apart from practically the entire Scottish MSM(which happily includes a plethora of ex-players, managers, debenture holders, and out and out cheerleaders), and the Presidents and Chief exec’s of the SPL, SFA and SFL. Oh and politicians in Westminster, Holyrood and Stormont. And don’t forget your Dog Whistler and the Loyal followers who hang on his every slight. And Leggo.
But apart from that, no-ones standing up for you. 🙄
michael b says:
August 14, 2012 at 14:04
Maybe if he understood the rules he would find that they apply to all clubs and maybe he should spend a bit of time grappling with that weird (to him) concept.
QOSman says: August 14, 2012 at 13:02
Not quite sure what to make of this, but someone is having a right good go at the Hootsmon and its relationship with Craig Whyte. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-827222
As soon as I saw that it wasn’t a piece “vetted” by CNN, and that the publisher was actually Onlinepublishing company, it rang a bell: Giovanni Di Stefano is the founder of the Company. He is known as ‘The devil’s Advocate’ for having represented a number of high profile persons (eg Saddam Hussein)…. and also being mad enough to “call on the New York District Attorney to look into a number of individuals and organisations he claims are complicit in a fraud at the club”…He said: “I filed a complaint because there are shareholders in America.”
The only person that should be speaking for the “club” should be Doris Stokes.
That support really do deserve everything they have coming to them if they believe that horses**t coming out of charlie’s mouth “i’m going to be in with the bears”aye right counting the heads more like.I know they love making churchill like speeches so here’a mine “never in the game of football have so many been conned by so few”
jockybhoy says:
August 14, 2012 at 14:46
Jockybhoy, thanks for the info. The piece did have the whiff of Bedlam about it, right enough.
I had to read Green’s statement twice thinking it a spoof wind-up article at first. Let’s just analyse his words shall we?
“We’re not having, excuse my French, people taking the pee out of us anymore,” said Green. “It’s finished.
– Well the old Rangers took quite a lot more than pee out of Scottish football, the taxpayer, and a lot of honest traders but presumably that was a lot less serious than some urine extraction.
“I will give you an example. This morning, I had a phone call from the SPL telling us we can’t put our old games on the website because we don’t own the archive rights.
– That’ll be the games against Brechin and Peterhead presumably, being the only ones your club has played.
“’And by the way, Charles, don’t get angry. You shouldn’t think we are being vindictive, it’s just what the agreement says”.
– Presumably Mr Green had got angry, after all sticking to the rules was never old Rangers’ way.
“Tell me how I took that? I was walking on the ceiling. I think there is an agenda.
– The agenda might just be to enforce the rules for a change. Bring it on!. BTW while you are up there on the ceiling say hi to Lionel Ritchie.
“There’s still battles to be won. I shan’t let you down. I said to someone earlier that when everyone was against us, we stayed. People are now warming to us and we are staying.
– We shall fight them on the beaches etc. We know everyone hates you, that’ll include the authorities, main stream media all of whom have gone out of their way to allow your new club into the SFL3 by the fastest possible route. People are not warming to you – they are locking their doors and closing their windows as you and your supporters drive past.
“But if we leave fans to one side for a moment, while ever that lot are against us, I’m not leaving. There’s no-one spoke for this club for three or four years. It’s not had anyone standing up.
– See above under authorities, MSM doing their best for your new club as they’ve always done for the old one.
“I am going to get fined every week, I suspect, or I will get banned.”
– Well if the inquiry into your statements takes as long as Sally’s you’ll be retired long before they get round to banning you.
Charlie boy makes Mad Vlad look sane
Philip José Farmer says:
August 14, 2012 at 13:41
Sorry – to clarify – D&P were the admins for the OLD co – correct. However to have it stand any chance in the hew guise, they should have done their jobs.
Having worked at United Airlines, the company was totally different afterwards having got rid of the contracts it wanted to, the staff it wanted to. Only then could the new company begin nto start with a profit.
If D&P had doen their jobs, players woudl have been sold to get moeny for the creditors, staff cuts would have been made and contracts redone so that the New Sevco had a chance of success. Now if CG wants ot make cutbacks he has to pay redundancies – D&P really messed it up for anyone taking it over. A massive outlay keeping a club afloat unable to cut its cloth accordingly. Its a recipe for disaster!
Jockybhoy@14.46
QOSman @15.02
Any headline, purportedly endorsed by CNN, which includes the word “abbetting” might not be what it seems !
ExiledCelt says:
August 14, 2012 at 15:12
The contrast between deadrangers/zombierangers and Portsmouth is very revealing. I always considered the English FA to be as corrupt as the SFA. I stand corrected. There is NO football association remotely as corrupt as our own. Charlie had another pop at the SFA again today – he knows they don’t have the spheres to go after him – and, even if they did, Ogilvie would stop them. So what about hector, Strathclyde Polis, et al? Why the inaction. Could somebody check if the Glasgow hospitals are having higher numbers of hand/wrist stress-injuries from all the knuckle-crunching required to keep this scam going?
ExiledCelt says:
August 14, 2012 at 15:12
=================
I responded to your original post in the way I did because I read it as being in the present tense. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
I do agree with some of what you say, but not all of it. For example Duff and Phelps original primary concern was keeping the company afloat as a viable going concern, rather than maximising the return for the creditors as you seem to suggest. It is open to debate whether the policies they decided on were the best way to go about that though.
To have it stand any chance in the new guise is (or should have been) an absolute irrelevance to them. Once the CVA had failed then their interest in the new business should have been no more than ensuring the maximum return for the creditors. It was not their concern to keep the business going, only the company. The company was being liquidated, all that was left was to maximise what they could get for the assets.
In essence I think we agree, though perhaps coming at it from different directions. Duff and Phelps had two massive “failures” in my view.
1, Their actions did not serve to keep the company afloat when they should have done.
2, Their actions did not best serve the creditors when they should have down.
However as I opined earlier this was never treated in the way it should have been. Their real job was to keep the business afloat (not the company), to ditch as much debt as possible, and to take it out of the hands of the current owners. Did they really fail in that, it seems to have been what happened. It is what a lot of people thought would happen quite a long time ago. Not a pre-pack but a way of moving all of the assets as a going concern whilst leaving the debts with the old company.
However It was envisaged that the new club would then trade in the SPL, missing out on Europe for a few seasons, but little more than that. If it wasn’t for the internet bampots and the pressure put on the other clubs that is exactly what would have happened.
@charlesp_sky: Levein clarifies comments regarding Rangers players- says it’s unlikely RFC players would be picked if squad was at full strength
PJF – we are not far apart as you say.
However to make T’rangers an attractive package for a CVA or even an attempt at it would have mean a lot of pruning – if that had been done maybe Bill Miller would not have seen a 30 million pound hole and ran away – even with the pretence of being in SPL with 3 years out of Europe. There was a price to pay for the CVA – plus then money to pump in to keep it afloat. If D&P really wanted a CVA, it would have been pruned so that only the price being paid would be discussed – meaning more money for the creditors since the purchase would be a lean company. Hector may well have said no anyway…
My own hope was that a new lean Rangers woudl have emerged in SFL3 cuting their cloths accordingly, giving youth a chance with someone (not meaning him but someone of that ilk) like Billy Stark bringing them up through the divisions. By cutting their cloth the ultra supremecists would have had to fall by the wayside (hard to be we are ra peepil when you are struggling) and the good Rangers fans (there are many on here as examples) could have taken back their club.
Instead the need for STs to sustain a monster meant CG could not break with the past and its easier to make a fast killing out of morons thinking its a cause instead of a football club when there is no break from the past.
D&P coudl have doen us all a service – as could SFA/SPL – instead the internet bampots could not empower the powers that be to eradicate this nonsense from our game – and potentially our society.
My fear is that it will come back worse than before – angry at being denied its “rightful” place at the top and wanting to even scores.
I hope somehwere along the lines someone puts the shakles otherwise the gorllia in the room will become a King Kong……very sad!!!!
Charlie Brown @ 13.08
i think we need something decisive to happen.
What would be decisive?
1) FTT(T) produces it’s findings and the long awaited result of the big tax case.
2) BDO getting their feet under the table as liquidators
3) The SPL enquiry actually producing or declaring something meaningful
4) A ‘nuclear’ explosion …………………………………..
anything else?
Yeah,Charlie. The football authorities to apply the rules to Shapeshifter FC.
So no delays here then:
Hearts midfielder David Templeton has accepted an offer of a two match ban after he was charged with violent conduct during Sunday’s Edinburgh derby.
The Scottish FA had issued a notice of complaint this morning against Templeton, after compliance officer Vincent Lunny judged that the Hearts midfielder was adjudged to have kicked out at Hibs player James McPake during the first Edinburgh derby of the season which ended 1-1.
A hearing was set to take place on Thursday 16th August, however the player has accepted an offer of a two match ban and he will serve that with immediate effect.
Templeton will now miss the home tie against Inverness Caledonian Thistle on Saturday 18th August and also the away match against Aberdeen on Sunday 26th August.
Green is a clown.
Firstly his company is only a few months old and so no one could have spoken up for them during the last four years.
As for Rangers(IA), and soon to be in liquidation, Murray and Whyte had plenty to say. It is pathetic that they still feel hard done by when they are the ones who have done everyone. They have been allowed to pheonix by an inept SFA who will come to regret what they ahve allowed.
The poison which will emanate from this carbunkle in Govan will be there for everyone to see.
Society and Football would have been better off if they had put the dead dog down.
People including myself have blamed Regan and Doncaster, but have we been shooting the messenger?
They are responsible to Boards, members of which are clubs including Celtic but we hear nothing from the clubs in opposition to the shenanigans, why?
The gift which keeps on giving has much more to give.
Have I missed something ( dont start ) I thought the deadline for buying ST’s was last Friday at 7pm.What is the nonsense spouted on Sky,queue’s round the block?.
Is Sevco’s next game all ticket,or have they pulled another fast one ?.
I have been thinking about how I can express my further thoughts om the second paragraph of HMRC’s statement in June.
Although the legal niceties may have been sewn up (possibly) by master-practitioners in the black arts of company chicanery, I feel , in common with other well-respected posters, that HMRC overstepped their proper limits by adding that second paragraph.
I have therefore written the following letter to my Westminster MP.
Of course, I signed the letter with my real name and put my full postal address.
Needless to say, I have deleted them from this copy.
“Mr Ian Murray, MP
House of Commons,
London, SW1 0AA
Dear Mr Murray, ,
HMRC statement on Rangers FC (IA)
May I draw your attention, please, to this statement, which was posted on the HMRC website on or about 13th June 2012. (As you will, I am sure, have kept yourself generally informed of the events surrounding and attaching to the shambles that affairs at Rangers FC has become, I will not insult you by giving a précis of that disgraceful saga)
‘Statement on Rangers Football Club”
“A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.
So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start.”
In particular, I refer you to the last sentence of this statement as one that should concern all UK tax-payers.
It is being interpreted as a signal to Mr Charles Green’s consortium (which set up and owns ‘The Rangers Ltd FC”) that, notwithstanding that that club is being claimed as being, and is in fact being recognised by the Scottish Football Authorities, as being simply a continuation of the former RFC(IA), it will not be deemed to be such by HMRC in relation to any tax liabilities attaching to RFC(IA).
Mr Green’s club has the same staff, uses the same premises, lays claim to the football history, plays in the same colours and strip, and appeals to the same market-place and customers as RFC(IA), and issues renewal season tickets to the same fan base.
It has even agreed, indeed, to settle some of the footballing debts of RFC(IA) and accept some of the footballing penalties imposed on RFC(IA), as a condition of continuing SFA membership.
It has, however, by the legal (but fundamentally dishonest and immoral) device allowed under present Insolvency legislation, namely, the device of ‘going into ‘Administration’’, cheated h*ndreds of individuals, companies, and public bodies out of substantial sums due to them.
So, while claiming, for the very obvious commercial advantages in so doing, to be the same club as before, Mr Green’s consortium refuses nevertheless to accept any responsibility or liability for the manifold and serious disadvantages attaching to that club.
I would ask you, as my constituency Member of Parliament, to forward this letter to the appropriate level in HMRC, with the request that they issue a further statement to make it clear that
a) by making the statement in question, they have NOT compromised their position in the matter of pursuing ‘continuity Rangers’ for any outstanding tax and National Insurance debt that may have accrued, and that such pursuit will not be abandoned,
and
b) they will have a serious word (with whoever authorised that ill-advised statement) about the partisan nature of the assurance that football will ‘continue at Ibrox’ and that ‘Rangers can make a fresh start.’
I am sure that you are as concerned as I am, and as many thousands of others are, that HMRC should always be absolutely neutral in their public statements , and should guard against even the faintest suspicion that they have been subjected to undue social or other illicit pressure to accommodate any individual or company.
I am publishing this letter on the ‘social media’ ( under my nom-de-plume, of course: as you know, there are some lunatics out there whose normal means of expressing disagreement is to chuck bricks through windows).
Yours sincerely, ”
I sent the letter off by this afternoon’s mail.
ExiledCelt says:
August 14, 2012 at 16:31
0 0 i
Rate This
PJF – we are not far apart as you say.
However to make T’rangers an attractive package for a CVA or even an attempt at it would have mean a lot of pruning – if that had been done maybe Bill Miller would not have seen a 30 million pound hole and ran away – even with the pretence of being in SPL with 3 years out of Europe. There was a price to pay for the CVA – plus then money to pump in to keep it afloat. If D&P really wanted a CVA, it would have been pruned so that only the price being paid would be discussed – meaning more money for the creditors since the purchase would be a lean company. Hector may well have said no anyway…
====================
The CVA was not going to happen, and they all knew that right from the start.
What Craig Whyte did and the money he stole made that 100% certain. HMRC were never going to accept it when a business had collected millions in PAYE and VAT and simply spent it.
This was not an administration and a debt to HMRC based on undeclared tax on income, which may have been the subject of some sort of deal to achieve the CVA, this was money collected from staff and customers and not remitted. Anyone with knowledge of these things knew that HMRC do not do deals or accept CVAs in those circumstances. The “something is better than nothing” argument whilst intuitively attractive is also not true where HMRC are concerned.
There was certainly a pretence of a CVA happening, but it was never a realistic option so long as HMRC held >25% of the debt. All of the talk of verbal agreements and HMRC being supportive of a CVA was lies, as simple as that. That deception was necessary to avoid telling the support that the company was going to be liquidated. Drip fed bad news was the tactic employed.
What has happened has been the plan all along, other than failing to get the SPL place. Green has been involved all along. In fact he was even quoted as saying “If HMRC knew that they were going to block the CVA as a matter of policy then why didn’t they tell us back in February” (paraphrase).
However if the support are willing to accept beig treated like this, indeed are openly hostile to anyone even suggesting it then so be it.
Tic 6709 says:
August 14, 2012 at 16:49
==================
Renewels were from 7th to 13th.
New season tickets went on sale today.
Kind of off topic recently heard a recording of Scottish cup round 3 at celtic park a few years ago between Celtic and deid rangers…….. Derek Johnstone admitting throughout the commentary that dallas was giving some really bad decisions against Celtic…….imagine that eh? Peter Martin then comes in and says these little decisions don’t mean anything it’s not as if someone has stolen money from your bank account!!!! Maybe they did know!!!
My apologies. I seem accidentally to have ‘copied and pasted’ some other posts, unconnected with my letter to Ian Murray, MP.
It wouldn’t have happened if I had not had to re-post because of ‘h*ndreds’
Maybe I’ll get the hang of the technique one of these days.
Hoopy 7 – Green is a dangerous clown
I think on listening to his pandering to the peepil
“Everyone has an agrend against us, no one stood up for you for 4 years, I want to sit with the bears cos the boardroom is boring, when the queue is that side of the invisible line, Ally (note – not Alastair anymore) gets to sign who he wants, pardon the french, walking on the ceiling….
I have one question……….
Who the hell cannot see throught this?
My feeling is you have to have a pea sized brain with the IQ of a lump of coal not to see that he is playing to the crowd like an amateur politician (the movie The Cnadidate had two more beleivable folks).
Yet I see on RM that it is working a treat……….
Are these the people who reply to the emails from the Nigerian bank manager?
Is Scottish education that bad they cannot see his patter for what its worth?
I really despair for my fellow Scots who cannot see The Emperor has no clothes………..there is no deabte that will ever win these CG believers over……
With Sandy Pullar and Dog Whistler adding a great supporting act, it unreal.
As that other idiot Bush tried and failed once to say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me….
wow just wow!
Philip José Farmer says:
August 14, 2012 at 16:55
Agreed 100%
PJF, Thanks,so i did miss something, bugger.
Charlie Green really is a piece of work. Standing amongst the follow followers orating like a North Korean leader.
I’m honestly surprised it has taken him so long to tune into the “no one likes us, we don’t care” mentality to get the loyal to prize open their wallets.
The support have clearly learned nothing. Rabble rousers in chief Sally and Sandy systematically and comprehensively turned the whole of the footballing country against them with their threats and intimidation, and now Charlie wants a slice of that action, to fill his own pockets.
His comments concerning rights to show old games on their website, put the cherry on top.
Charlie, the reason you cannot show these games is because that was a different (and now dead) team playing! You know this, I know this, and most people with an ounce of sense know this.
I however fully agree though that these facts are entirely irrelevant as you are targeting fundamentalists here.
It’s all really, really cynical. Nothing shrewd, smart or clever about it. Just entirely base, and quite honestly, shameful.
And there is more…over on RM
New strip design as told 14/08/12
#1 BROOMBROX
Davie Cooper
Group: True Blue
Topics: 822
Posts: 8,738
Rep:84
Joined: 28-October 09
Gender:Male
Location:QUEENS COUNTRY
Posted Today, 11:18 AM
told by C Green to supporters at the ticket office , Orange numbers , orange cuffs,orange colar , orange stripes
Apparently Charles has alos announced a new strip – and will contain the colour 0rnge (moderators) – RM is all excited about this!
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=235092&view=findpost&p=1060330253
Exiled Celt
Look like Ticketus might get their cash back after all ,as long as the hordes are happy being led by their blue noses to the cash-line .
What if Wattie’s bid was a ruse (he seems to have went all quiet )
What if Bomber was not in the loop and the scammers felt they had no choice but to put him right .(he seems to have went all quiet )
What if CWs job was done when HMRC pulled the plug (he seems to have went all quiet)
Thinking back .isn’t it really strange that after years of trying to find a mug punter to take the cash black hole off his hands DM sells to CW( who would make a spiv blush),who then manages to find a company to purchase 5yrs future ticket sales in a club with a possible 60m tax bill hanging over it (NO THIS IS NOT A FAIRYTALE ) this is what happened .
Follow follow the money and the truth will out ,
BDO do your bloody job and stop dragging your heels ,or are you quite HAPPY to join the long list of others that have been made to look totally incompetent,or worse
Re CGs rabble rousing
I predicted as much a while back that any new owner after HMRC was stiffed would launch a share issue on the back of the “NO ONE LIKES US MANTRY” .I must admit though I thought it would have been peepil with ragers links ,then again maybe their next in line when CG takes his cut of the fans dough .
All too predictable I.m afraid ,that goodness for the real football fans for at least putting them out the SPL (against all the odds ).
Well ,I hope the SFA/SPL/SFL leaders hope they know what they have allowed to be unleashed here as if it’s true about CGs latest address to the hordes and rumour of an orange away strip .
IMO CG may think this is the best way to ensure a return on his and his backers investment but they will disappear when they get what they wanted ,it will be the rest of us that are left with the legacy of their greed .
Then the real rangers fans will have been fatally undermined and it will leave only the worst element of the dead clubs fan base that brought nothing positive to their club .
Truly a black day for Scottish football .
Why is chuck g so surprised the SPL knocked back his request to show their older games ?
They have just sold the rights to youtube have they not ??
john clarke says:
August 14, 2012 at 16:54
,,,,,,,Well done John
look forward to hearing the response
,,,,,,,,,,,
Re-reading that statement I see another piece of SFA speak
ie
“Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed SALE OF THE CLUB. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.
So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a SALE OF THE FOOTBALL ASSETS to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start.”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Is it just me or is the deliberate equating of “sale of assets” to “sale of club” not a massive error by HMRC?
eg
It is saying
Whoever buys “Woolworths” assets have bought “Woolworths” the entity with all its brand history and heritage as far as HMRC are concerned The new owner need have any fear that HMRC will regard them as the same “company” as far as claims or litigation are concerned
This is a policy statement by HMRC
It is saying that HMRC are changing their definition of a phoenix
They will now exclude any actions which the purchaser of the assets carries out that relate to claiming the brand, the heritage and the way the new business makes its living
Meaning for Sevco
Phoenixing will exclude any behavour or modus operandi that relates to RFC(IA)This only seems to leave the re-emergence of the same directors as before and the sale of assets at below cost as the only items where phoenixing could be construed
,,,,,,,,,,,,
The good news is that every football club in Scotland now have a template for shrugging off debt and keeping some Paye and VAT for the small cost of liquidation
,,,,,,,,
Could this be Craigie Boy`s real end game?
Setting himself up as an Consultant to distressed football clubs?
That would surely get the last laugh on Hector !
Green needs to be held to account for his statements. Was there not a comment that he was advised by Petrie about what to expect in Scottish football.
It is clear that he is playing to the bigots. This is the man that the SFA, SPL and SFL prostituted themselves to.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/149639-francisco-sandaza-rangers-ambition-is-to-sweep-the-board-this-season/
Sandaza though maintains his team will up their game and also holds a belief they may not have to work their way up the ladder to return to the top flight.
“I’m not sure about the laws,” said the Spaniard. “More than two years? I don’t think so. Next year or a maximum of two years we will be back in the SPL.
==========================================
I know we are all expecting league reconstruction, and most likely it will be raised soon in an attempt to have Trfc at the top table ( possibly spl2 ), in time for next season. I hope this will be resisted as furiously as the attempt to have Trfc in spl, then div1 this season. Someone posted earlier about black bragging to his hearts pals that he would be in spl this season. Well here we have sandaza quoted as saying he thinks only a year or two before he will be there, and that he is unsure of the laws.
Im not unsure of the laws on promotion, no-one is, they are very clear.
Why was this not challanged by the journalist, what assurances does sandaza have.
We all know this is coming, we need to be ready to bombard our clubs again, we cannot allow this new club with their fans who are happy to destroy other clubs, along with the sfa/spl/sfl, who care nothing for us and only hanker after a dead club, to poison our game any further.
There must be loads of people on here who know footballers and other connected figures, has anyone heard anything about reconstruction.
How does the compliance officer manage to punish Templeton in two days but it take months for TFPL and Green to face any punishment.
So Charles ‘Grizzly’ Green is going to sit with the Bears.I seem to recall Mike Ashley did the same at Newcastle and when they were near relegation they resented him big time.If it wasn’t for the cash from the sale of Carroll he’d of been out on his a***.Green doesn’t have the luxury of a big sale. In time, he’ll get mauled.
PJF
“If HMRC knew that they were going to block the CVA as a matter of policy then why didn’t they tell us back in February”.
Green didn’t arrive until May, so who are the ‘us’?
I wondered if anyone else had clocked this when he said it. Well spotted. Green is a conniving git and Craig Whyte is still involved. However, lets keep at them and make sure these scheming corrupt scumbags come unstuck.
Keep blogging!
rab says:
August 14, 2012 at 18:28
Rab ,,,The SFA/SPL will be hoping we all fall for the MSM brainwashing of how bad our game is without 2012 fc in the SPL and the MSM have a season to convince us all .
Well in my case they should not waste their time any moves to allow 2012 fc to bypass the correct route to top league and they can stick their corrupt football were the sun doesn’t shine.
There is no point in all of us going on about how corrupt Scottish football is. We must get up off our butts and do something about it.
This is the first time a war can be fought and won from the armchair/laptop. It will not be won unless we get emailing. Remember ‘the pen is only mightier than the sword’ when it is used and used often. So get emailing.
If we sit back and do nothing we can never look at ourselves in the face again.
We have no choice in this matter it is our duty to defend the game of football in Scotland.
It would be just unforgivable if, having the means to win this war at our disposal, we just sat back
and moaned to ourselves.
rab says:
August 14, 2012 at 18:28
2 0 Rate This
Spot on; I think the authorities continue to be blissfully ignorant of just how much this means to the vast majority of football supporters in Scotland. As someone once said “Every move you make, every breath you take, we’ll be watching you”
After having listened to Houston’s explanation for Mr Black’s selection ( pretty poor) and now having heard Mr Levein’s on reflection on the beeb I’m wondering ! I must admit I was in support of the comments posted that this was all about support for you know who. On reflection I don’t think that is the case and my thoughts are that on this blog we can (not everybody) be all to quick to jump in with both feet with anything that seems in someway supportive of you know who. Posts were alluding to the fact there was collusion when in fact I know believe CL did what he did off his own back. As a side note I was playing football with my old Gers pals (I’m the token Celt) and one commented to me before we started playing about Black’s poor performance against Brechin and this was before we knew he’d been picked.
Ps everything seems to a colour thing, black, green, white, brown
john clarke says:
August 14, 2012 at 16:41
====================
Well done. Let us know when you get a reply.
I have never posted a rumour before,but,just got a text saying that BDO are going to declare the sale of the assets null &void.Now I did not know they were on the case already,so folks ,Is it possible they were working behind the scenes.I suppose they could have been preparing,I would expect that they have been through as much information as is possible before Hodge signs off on the Admin. Now is this Possible.
The more i think about it,the less likely it becomes,but, I trust the man who sent it,he’s never been wrong before.
Anybody else ?.or is this just a flash rumour to wind people up?.