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
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/newcastle-loan-deal-and-stake-in-rangers.18554856
Rab,
I posted a while ago that HMRC gave the Green light to Sevco phoenixing Rangers when they announced they would reject the CVA and place the club into liquidation.
I feel I am beating a worn-out drum with this one but nobody has presented a cogent counter argument to my analysis of the HMRC statement.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/rangers.htm
Examine the statement. It is quite brief but half of it is spent reassuring Rangers fans that the club will carry on.
“..does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club.”
“…ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox.”
“Rangers can make a fresh start.”
Hector actively encouraged a phoenix Rangers.
HMRC are happy to have a club called Rangers paying taxes. playing football and keeping the Bears amused.
They are going after Murray.
Some posters have raised suspicions that political interference forced HMRC to throw the club a lifeline.
I don’t know but it does seem strange.
I would also like to point out that I prefaced my previous post on this matter by stating that without HMRC’s doggedness and fortitude there would have been no RTC, no administration, no liquidation, no Craig Whyte, no Duff and Phelps, no Mr Custard etc…
After all Hector has done it seems a bit petulant to criticise HMRC but I believe it is warranted.
They opened the door to phoenix Rangers and the SFA and Sevco kicked it in.
As always, I may be wrong.
From the Herald interview with Kevin Kyle. MSM accuracy, although inadvertent…
“A refusal to relinquish certain constants lies at the heart of the Ibrox side’s plans to move on up, writes Richard Wilson”
Ordinary Fan 2.50
What is the “Celtic sending Keevins to the naughty step” reference about ?
SparTicketus says:
August 12, 2012 at 05:15
0 0 Rate This
Ordinary Fan 2.50
What is the “Celtic sending Keevins to the naughty step” reference about ?
===========================================================
http://www.talkceltic.net/forum/showthread.php?t=125869
Keevins himself has confirmed his ban although I don’t have any link to confirm.
RayCharles says:
August 12, 2012 at 03:48
“..does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club.”
“…ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox.”
“Rangers can make a fresh start.”
Hector actively encouraged a phoenix Rangers.
——————————————————————-
RayCharles,
Believe me you are not the only one questioning the logic behind Hectors CVA statement.
Prior to Hectors remarkable statement regards the CVA, Green’s position
was “No CVA means No History”. Immediately after, fortified by those quotes above, Green changed his strategy to “new company, same club”. It also seems to have embolden the SFA & SFA to become more pragmatic with the application of the rules. I cannot understand why Hector felt it necessary to expand on the initial statement of intent which is covered in the first paragraph;
“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.
Why did they not just leave it at that?
Could it perhaps be that Hector is no longer so confident regards the BTC? After all, if in the unlikely event, old Rangers win the BTC or the majority of cases, and end up with minimal back tax and penalties. Then Hector might have some explaining to do. It was the BTC hanging over Rangers that made them toxic in the market, even though, albeit under the watchful eyes of Lloyds, they were reducing their debt to manageable amounts.
Either way politcal intervention or covering their backsides Hector seems to have scored a spectacular own goal. Lets face it Hector did not know, or cared, where Rangers ended up playing this season. It was only well coordinated action from the “internet bampots” that prevented an SPL/SFA plan to have Rangers remain in the SPL. It was only concerted effort by supporters across the land to force the SFA/SPL/SFL to apply their own rules that forced Rangers to start again in the 3rd division.
If not, Rangers would have remained a SPL club, same name, colours etc indistinguishable from old Rangers. Hector would have created a business model for all broke or overly ambitious and dodgy football owners to follow with impunity.
Newco Rangers
Newco Rangers came roaring out of the ashes of their former club with a sensational 2-1 victory over Brechin City in the Ramsdens Cup in July, but there’s still a feeling that the Gers could do with an injection of talent in order to take on the might of the Scottish Third Division. Emile Heskey is that talent. Just imagine the former Liverpool man ploughing his way through opponents that spend their weekdays working as postmen, seamlessly linking up with the likes of Robbie Savage*. The stuff dreams are made of.
http://m.talksport.co.uk/magazine/features/120812/rangers-barcelona-manchester-city-world-his-oyster-so-where-next-emile-h-178065
😀
Bestdressedchicken,
Keep writing those emails,
1 130 million pounds owed to creditors
2 Used EBTs illegally for a least 10 years
3 appealed to Court of Session
4 Attack on Appellate
5 Threats of Armageddon if not accepted into SPL or SFL
6 Allowed to join the 3rd Division without any mention of 3 years accounts
7 accepted into 3rd Div as associate member
8 Denied other properly constituted clubs a place in Div 3
9 Played with improper kit
10 Allowed to join Div 3 without a ‘fit and proper’ report being provided.
11 Have used several players this season already who have question marks about their registration.
I have deliberately resisted differentiated between oldco and newco, as obviously these same people themselves wish to muddy the waters – except for the shedding the 130 million pounds, that is, owed to creditors big and small.
I know this list is only the tip of the ice-berg so come on fellow bloggers and add to this list, and please correct above if required. It will be the definitive list of corruption ever overseen by a governing body SPL/SFA and even perhaps the officers charged with implementing the the law of the land.
BTW, the above entity is still playing in our leagues!!!!!!
Had a good day at Pittodrie yesterday. 14,000 for a game against County – who would have thought. 4,000 up on 1st game last season.
Two moments to savour for me, and what were the loudest cheers of the afternoon. 1st was the announcement of the Heid vs Sevco score when the Heid went 2-1 up. The 2nd was the tribute to Teddy Scott. Hats off to the 1500 or so County fans for sportingly applauding Teddy and being fair minded. I don’t expect any media coverage on Sell-out Saturday to be cast in a good light as there was good turn out.
Senior @ 8:27am
Thank you 🙂
Scotland Behave says:
August 12, 2012 at 09:10
0 0 Rate This
Had a good day at Pittodrie yesterday. 14,000 for a game against County – who would have thought. 4,000 up on 1st game last season.
Two moments to savour for me, and what were the loudest
cheers of the afternoon. 1st was the announcement of the Heid vs Sevco score when the Heid went 2-1 up. The 2nd was the tribute to Teddy Scott. Hats off to the 1500 or so County fans for
sportingly applauding Teddy and being fair minded. I don’t
expect any media coverage on Sell-out Saturday to be cast in a
good light as there was good turn out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A couple of things. Congratulations to Ross County for going a year without losing a league game (36 and counting…). A terrific achievement by any measure.
It will be interesting to see the turnout for Neil Simpson’s richly deserved testimonial on Tuesday. The Scotsman is suggesting some 22,000.
http://m.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/interview-aberdeen-legend-neil-simpson-1-2463598
Accordong to press report, newco blackshirts (away.taps) were too similar to peterheed’s blue so they had to wear training taps instead.
Cannae afford new ones I guess…
bestdressedchicken says:
August 12, 2012 at 01:08
Mate, as 5stars said, carry on screaming.
I just received my tax return for 2011 back from the taxman It puzzles me!!! They are questioning how many dependents I claimed for. I guess it was because of my response to the question: “List all dependents?”I replied: 52000 loyalists,Craig Whyte,David Murray ,23 full time Rfc* players,Duff and Phelps,James Traynor,Chic Young,Campbell Ogilvie,Stewart Regan,Neil Doncaster and Charles Green
Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer. I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHOM DID I MISS?
MSM “Stripping Titles” – I was curious where this “news” came from and that it suddenly appeared
Curious in that there will no doubt be a debate on titles but it seemed premature before the FTT judgement in and SPL investigations complete. Searching Google news – guess what – this story originated in the DR on 18 July; by Keith McLeod [who he?] “EXCLUSIVE: FOOTBALL bosses drafted a bombshell document that included plans to strip Rangers of five SPL titles and four Scottish Cups”. Now I’ve long given up on the DR so this slipped by me but on review it is an extraordinary article of artifice.
According to this, the SPL, SFA, SFL & sevco aka their CEOs namely Doncaster, Regan and Longmuir and CG sat down to draft this secret document to strip titles. Why would they do that before facts are in under due process? Why would they do it at all? – And even involve sevco in secret punishments on title striping? – They had enough on their plate at that point and needed this like a hole in the head. To add icing, indeed it’s revealed that an ultra-confidentiality clause was inserted in the highly secret draft. No problem – all the DR needed was written prior consent confirmation from the SPL, SFA and the SFL before said “top secret draft” could be released by sevco in full to the DR.
Q. SFA, SPL and SFL gave prior consent [in writing!] to sevco to leak a secret report exclusively to the DR?
We live in strange times but not that strange.
This is blatant deception, calculated artifice and yet another discredit to the MSM. Of course the DR can prove me wrong by publishing all the written prior consents if they have nothing to hide. But they won’t, they covered their deception by inserting big question marks at each of the supposed title stripping scenarios in the artile. But why did they do it?
Short Answer; It suited the lot of them to distract from the real secret TV horse trading then on the go.
And now we’re led to believe by the BBC that 9 Newcastle wannabe EPL hopefuls will be loaned out by Ashley to happily play and develop their careers playing in SFL3? – CG presumably picks up most or all of their wages and its called an “investment”? Blimey! – But why does the MSM do this with clearly planted stores?
Short answer: Any news is better than no news and hacks night get lucky once in a while,
And / Or, the puppet masters have a plan for next week
LH COI deliberation must be imminent and that should set off a train of rapid successive actions. This will prove difficult to news-manage so MSM distractions will be wheeled out on mass. I suspect the two examples outlined above are litmus tests or test beds of what they think they can get away with.
Stay alert and tuned Guys. We can expect rapid successive development on LH / D+P / BDO / Liquidation / gloves off investigations in the near future. Now the STs are in – the recently resurgent establishment MSM will try everything to smother embarrassments.
take a bow timtim..lololol
timtim says:
August 12, 2012 at 09:48
———————————-
Just a thought, if a rather disgruntled Bear, fed up with the party line on the usual websites, embarrassed by his teams behaviour over the years, came by here looking for intelligent discussion on where to go from here, I’m not sure they would hang around very long or post their thoughts if they are given the impression that it is acceptable to tar all of their fellow fans with the “Loyalist” tag. I’m sure your post was meant in humour, but this, along with another posters comment re RFC lunatics posting abhorrent views on an injured Celtic player, being extrapolated to read that there are no good Rangers fans out there, will not help this Blog to portray itself as a monitor of Scottish football as opposed to a monitor of the lunatic fringe of the Rangers support.
Just my opinion, of course.
rab says:
August 12, 2012 at 03:09
RayCharles says:
August 12, 2012 at 03:48
So in effect, HMRC are saying that they have no desire to apply the coup de grace on the entity formerly known as Rangers and will turn a blind eye to the flaming birdy rising from the smouldering ashes of the big hoose…
How long do we think they will continue to feel that way about Frankengers when they are unable to pay their bills? All of the analysis done so far says it won’t be long coming….
Also, presumably HMRC are not the only creditor / interested party that could lodge a complaint of phoenixism? Hell, as a regular taxpayer, could I lodge a complaint? They owe me two hospitals…
Of course, any sufficiently miffed creditor would have to take into account the response of the hordes if they decided to take action… ideas on a post for how to deal with this?
I hope BDO get stuck into this asap and start the great rollback.
There seems to be various names being used across the grounds yesterday annoucing the result from the Peterhead V ? game ,to go forward this season so all can identify who exactly the new addition to Scottish Football are can we have a poll to decide on what we want to hear and see in the msm as these newcommers ,they seem to have issues themselves so we need to decide for them ,it could just be Team 12 ,but as Sally would agree ,we need to know who these people are.
Pittodrie selt oot for Simmo’s testimonial vs Man Utd on Tuesday. If only every weekend was the same. But then again Simmo does deserve it for loyalty to the club.
Am I surprised that the BBC did not bother to look at the SFL rules on loan players before they released that statement, no I am not. Usual rubbish from Chris McL who does not appear to check anything before airing it.
Glen ,you are absolutely correct
it was meant in humour , the word loyalist comes from the French “loyal”
which means One who maintains loyalty to an established government, political party, or sovereign, especially during war or revolutionary change. It is only in Scotland where the meaning has different connotations and is always used with a capital L to denote the difference
between loyalist and Loyalist .
The Glen says:
August 12, 2012 at 10:
“being extrapolated to read that there are no good Rangers fans out there, will not help this Blog to portray itself as a monitor of Scottish football as opposed to a monitor of the lunatic fringe of the Rangers support.”
————————–
True enough, but where are these “good” Rangers fans hiding? They have done themselves and their club absolutely no favours by their deafening silence, and by allowing every Rangers forum to be captured and monopolised by what appears to be a substantial group of marginal psychopaths and sociopaths (and a few for whom you can drop the word marginal).
There has been some discussion on here over the last few days regarding the difficulty of discussing any aspect of Rangersgate with apparently normal, respectable people of a Rangers persuasion. I found the discussion interesting, because the experiences of the other posters (sorry, can’t remember who) exactly mirrored my own- denial, anger, refusal to face facts, rage, even, and these are people I’ve known and liked for many years.
The MSM have a lot to answer for, of course, but these people aren’t pop-eyed maniacs or knuckledraggers. They are normal, intelligent people, who surely can’t really believe the garbage that passes for sports journalism in Scotland today. Or can they? What is really going on in the heads of these people?
If my club behaved in the same way as RFC have over the last 10 years, it would be goodnight and goodbye, no turning back, ever. I certainly wouldn’t be arguing black is white with anyone who would listen. What exactly is wrong with these people? Does anyone know?
Is this another one for the spreadsheet, with THRFC wearing their training strip yesterday as their home and away strips clashed on the day.
SFL rules
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.
http://bit.ly/NXvXzV
Just bumping this back up – excellent idea by CH.
Have added a few of the suggestions in noted above.
Malky says:
August 12, 2012 at 00:15
———————————————————————————————————————————
Your analogies made me laugh:) but are nonetheless, spot on. Five stars for five star crooks more like!
Sunday morning and heading into auld reekie for a day of sampling various lagers…and whatever my girlfriend forces me to do in between said lager sampling…we’ll see:)
jammy dodger says:
August 12, 2012 at 10:34
————————–
True enough, but where are these “good” Rangers fans hiding? They have done themselves and their club absolutely no favours by their deafening silence, and by allowing every Rangers forum to be captured and monopolised by what appears to be a substantial group of marginal psychopaths and sociopaths (and a few for whom you can drop the word marginal).
There has been some discussion on here over the last few days regarding the difficulty of discussing any aspect of Rangersgate with apparently normal, respectable people of a Rangers persuasion. I found the discussion interesting, because the experiences of the other posters (sorry, can’t remember who) exactly mirrored my own- denial, anger, refusal to face facts, rage, even, and these are people I’ve known and liked for many years.
The MSM have a lot to answer for, of course, but these people aren’t pop-eyed maniacs or knuckledraggers. They are normal, intelligent people, who surely can’t really believe the garbage that passes for sports journalism in Scotland today. Or can they? What is really going on in the heads of these people?
If my club behaved in the same way as RFC have over the last 10 years, it would be goodnight and goodbye, no turning back, ever. I certainly wouldn’t be arguing black is white with anyone who would listen. What exactly is wrong with these people? Does anyone know?
————————————
I’d guess there are some on here. Who I’m sure are more than happy to discuss what is / was wrong at the club. My point was that, in order to get more, perhaps pigenholing every supporter is not the best way to do this. I’m not displaying mock offense here, btw. Just my tuppence worth as to why some folks might not engage with the ethos of this blog.
Regarding Rangers sites – I occasionally witness people trying hard to swim against the tide but, as you say, it seems that denial and revenge is the order of the day for most.
I’m not sure what is wrong with those who refuse to face the facts. It would take a medical man/woman to fathom that out. And that’s not me, I’m afraid.
———–
timtim, I saw what you did there.
———-
Anyway, back to the real stuff. Apologies for any offtopicness. If that’s a word.
All things considered why are they even letting sevco play games why don’t they just announce them winners of the 3rd division, it would save time and effort having to ignore all their own rules? Something has to be done about this SR, ND, and longmuir have all been very quiet, is something about to happen or is it just wishful thinking!!!
Rangers Media – ‘The Official Peterhead v Rangers Thread’
On a slow Sunday morning have a look, ignore the boogitry (how do they get away with this?), the rest is pure comedy gold. The implosion begins around page 25 but don’t miss out on early pages in order to get a feel for their WATP smug arrogance. I was in convulsions by the end but I won’t spoil it for you.
PS Doesn’t take very long as most of the comments are ‘bearly’ a few choice words.
The Glen says:
August 12, 2012 at 10:58
I posted on FollowFollow the other night, mainly to respond to what was frankly libelous slurs about me. I posted a very apologetic post, which basically said you don’t have to agree with me, but at least go and ask questions of Green.
The next reply was from a Rangers fan who said
“as much as we don’t like what he is saying, maybe we should at least ask the questions…”
No more than 5 minutes later the thread was deleted… it seems, even when the good Rangers fans put their head above the parapet, that they get shot straight back down by those in charge!
This is a decent read which appears to be from mad dog leggat.
Apologies if already posted. BTW this link below only contains the text there are no links to the mad one’s blog, if indeed it is his rantings.
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=11653787&t=8719788
For the spreadsheet. (are you able to input and save)
Creation of a new category of SFA membership.
Have conditions on membership that are not required to be met but still granting SFA membership.
Doon the slope says:
August 12, 2012 at 00:07
How do you say, “I needn’t have worried”, in Latin?’
—————-
How would ” non debebam sollicitus fuisse” grab you?
Zilch says:
August 12, 2012 at 10:15
So in effect, HMRC are saying that they have no desire to apply the coup de grace on the entity formerly known as Rangers and will turn a blind eye to the flaming birdy rising from the smouldering ashes of the big hoose
————————————————————-
That is exactly what Hectors statement said. They have no interest in pursuing New Rangers as they cannot being a new company, but why they gave new rangers a green light to phoenix is truly bizarre.
Morning all.
Doing a bit of catch up and found this link.Some interesting info on here:
http://thedemiseofrangersinpictures.blogspot.co.uk/
for the spreadsheet, any change is automatically saved. If you accidently delete something the author is able to go back to any previous spreadsheet. My Rangers sheet was originally open but had to lock it as Rangers fans kept going in and changing figures to mess it up.
Its very easy to go back to previous figures and very easy to block out trouble makers!
Another insight from P McC:
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/a-liquidator-speaks-on-why-a-business-would-be-shut-down-and-assets-sold-off/
stevensanph says at 11:07
‘No more than 5 minutes later the thread was deleted… it seems, even when the good Rangers fans put their head above the parapet, that they get shot straight back down by those in charge!’
Stevensanph, therein lies the problem. These guys on FollowFollow, Rangers Media etc. are not in charge, they THINK they are. I despair for the good Bears who are regularly represented in the Media by people like Dingwall and Graham. I am puzzled that the Club itself often seems to give them some sort of credence. Who are these people? How many Bears do they really represent?
I think it’s time that a decent Bear/s set up a brave new blog along the lines of RTC & TSFM. Keep it anonymous (intimidation will be rife), strictly monitor it and encourage reasoned comment from supporters of other clubs. Get all the discussions that need to be had about RFC, football and otherwise, out in the open in a civilised manner. This needs to be done by Bears for the good of your club, Scottish football and Scottish society in general. Otherwise the lunatics will maintain their perceived control of the asylum. They ultimately will kill the Club off in both its oldco and newco guises. They are living in the dark ages, drinking in the last chance saloon, whilst the rest of the world moves on. It won’t be easy.
What about it Danish Pastry??
Apologies if already posted.
http://t.co/JqxOCfTX
The Demise of Rangers
So that’s it Big Eck’s going to give someone a right hander.
“As for stripping titles, it would be very disappointing if that was to happen to Rangers and I don’t believe it should – and if a guy turns up at my door looking for the medals back, they’ll be getting a right-hander!
Light bulb moment !
Why would he comment when he has largely been forgotten about and why make a statement on the same day as David Murray.
Everyone will admit that when 53 of the EBT beneficiaries were made public Alex McLeish was kind of overlooked. Everyone pointed at Graeme Souness, Walter Smith, Dick Avocaat.
So lets take a closer look at the transactions between Graeme Souness and Alex McLeish.
Souness. EBT £30,000
Blackburn Rovers 2000-2004
Newcastle United 2004-2006
McLeish. EBT £1.7M
Rangers 2001-2006
Barry Ferguson from Rangers to Blackburn Rovers 2003 EBT £2.5M
Lorenzo Amoruso from Rangers to Blackburn Rovers 2003 EBT £639,000
Egil Ostenstad from Blackburn Rovers to Rangers 2003 EBT £370,000
Henning Berg from Blackburn Rovers to Rangers 2003 EBT£0?
Jean Alain Boumsong from Rangers to Newcastle United 2005 EBT £630,000
Olivier Bernard from Newcastle United to Rangers 2006 EBT £224,000
Dr Ian McGuinness from Rangers to Newcastle United 2006 EBT £25,400
Total EBT £6,118,000
Now Graeme Souness might only have received £30,000 but he is implemented in a tax avoidance scheme to the tune of just over £6M, which could soon be tax evasion!
If it is proved to be tax evasion, maybe Souness silence speaks a thousand words.
Now did Alex know about the EBT scam?
Did use the EBT’s as in incentive for players to earn more money?
We will never know the answers but it does look like Alex McLeish had a good friend in Graeme Souness, thanks pal.
Now lets look at the Dundee connection.
Some of you who will read this will remember Dundee’s Financier who would later become a Director who has been making headline of late.
Alex Rae from Rangers to Dundee 2006 EBT £596,000
Gavin Rae from Dundee to Rangers 2004 EBT £376,000
Nacho Novo from Dundee to Rangers 2004 EBT £1.3M
Zurab Khizanishvili from Dundee to Rangers 2003 EBT £405,000
Total EBT £2,677,000
Big Eck with just 2 teams is into it for £8,795,000.
Of the EBT beneficiaries list on the BBC’s website Alex McLeish is responsible for signing 26 of the players on the list.
The total amount paid to these 26 players was £16,684,328
Including Big Ecks £1.7M the total paid via EBT’s during his tenure is a staggering £18,384,328
So he is going to start giving right handers out! I’m afraid that would be classed as police assault.
stevensanph says:
August 12, 2012 at 10:56
http://bit.ly/NXvXzV
Just bumping this back up – excellent idea by CH.
Have added a few of the suggestions in noted above.
================
Timescale for paying off outstanding football debt while being allowed to sign players at will.
twopanda bears says:
August 12, 2012 at 09:57
According to this, the SPL, SFA, SFL & sevco aka their CEOs namely Doncaster, Regan and Longmuir and CG sat down to draft this secret document to strip titles. Why would they do that before facts are in under due process? Why would they do it at all?
=================================================================
I would like to know why Green was allowed to represent both companies when in negotiations with the SFA/SPL.
======================================================================
Timtim…great idea…may i use “rsponse” this the next time I have clients’ Income tax returns to complete?
isnibs says:
August 12, 2012 at 12:44
Now Graeme Souness might only have received £30,000 but he is implemented in a tax avoidance scheme to the tune of just over £6M, which could soon be tax evasion!
____
has RTC not already stated that souness received far more than the 30k mentioned by the bbc?
isnibs says:
August 12, 2012 at 12:44
Souness. EBT £30,000
I am sorry but I cannot see a case for wrongdoing at such a paltry sum.
OT, Just passing on good wishes to Joburgtim of this parish after triple by-pass op.Get well.
Rangers Tax-Case
@rangerstaxcase
Souness received significantly more than £30,000. His only reply is that we are taking the facts out of context.
Re TRFC strips
The argument is that the TRFC strip clashed with PFC, presumably ruled by the referee at short notice.
Some questions…
This might seem reasonable except that
1 why did TRFC not take another strip as a precaution?
2 do they only have 2 strips with the required SFL logos?
3 what requirements are in place by the SFL for clubs to check on the suitability of their strips prior to matches taking place? Presumably it is the clubs’ responsibility to turn up appropropriately prepared to meet the rules. Did TRFC do enough research on their opponents in SFL3 to avoid such embarassments? They do seem to have enough staff…
4 is the referee the sole arbiter of this decision?
5 if not, can the decision be overturned by the SFL?
And finally
6 what would happen to any other club in this situation? Does anyone have any information on precedent from League or junior football?
From personal knowledge of admittedly very junior referees and how they are trained & supervised, there is often prior notification/checking of strips etc and consultation with referee supervisors / SFA. Does any of this take place in senior football? If so, and I can’t think why there wouldn’t be, ( i recall radio broadasts that explained that referees checked with the SFA to get approval to cancel games at short notice in bad weather, etc), then it would seem that TRFC are again being given special treatment.
Andy says:
August 12, 2012 at 13:19Rangers Tax-Case
@rangerstaxcase
Souness received significantly more than £30,000. His only reply is that we are taking the facts out of context.
OK but you do not know what Souness may or may not recieved, ask yourself you are manager of Newcastle probably on a million or so a year you are going to risk that for what? 0.3% of a transfer!
OK so he buys Boumsong for 8.5m yet he gets 30k as a bung, whats more a recorded bung!
what do agents charge now.
As much as I dislike Souness, i dont think he was up to this.
Enfakid says:
August 12, 2012 at 13:33
0 0 Rate This
Andy says:
August 12, 2012 at 13:19Rangers Tax-Case
@rangerstaxcase
Souness received significantly more than £30,000. His only reply is that we are taking the facts out of context.
OK but you do not know what Souness may or may not recieved, ask yourself you are manager of Newcastle probably on a million or so a year you are going to risk that for what? 0.3% of a transfer!
OK so he buys Boumsong for 8.5m yet he gets 30k as a bung, whats more a recorded bung!
what do agents charge now.
As much as I dislike Souness, i dont think he was up to this.
_______________
why was he receiving money a decade after he left rangers ?
Andy says:
August 12, 2012 at 13:36
Very good question Andy, however maybe he feels he does not need to answer the question. He is a very wealthy man why would he risk everything for 30 K
Enfakid says:
August 12, 2012 at 13:13
Souness. EBT £30,000
I am sorry but I cannot see a case for wrongdoing at such a paltry sum.
—–
Might be paltry to you, but to most people who are interested in Scottish football, 30k is a lot of money. And if you, as a mere normal citizen, get caught evading tax on 30k, or even worse overclaiming benefits to the extent of 30k, then you will be facing big fines or jailtime (only if it’s benefits, of course). So where do you draw the line at wrongdoing? £30k, £100k, or £100m? Lower? Or does it depend on whether it’s the “Bigclub” involved or not? Truly sickening.
New Tomoblog up
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-confluence-interest/2511
AT blog up
alex thomson @alextomo
The Rangers Tomoblog http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-confluence-interest/2511
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
AT oooooooooooft
Andy says:
August 12, 2012 at 13:36
2 0 i Rate This
Enfakid says:
August 12, 2012 at 13:33
0 0 Rate This
Andy says:
August 12, 2012 at 13:19Rangers Tax-Case
@rangerstaxcase
Souness received significantly more than £30,000. His only reply is that we are taking the facts out of context.
OK but you do not know what Souness may or may not recieved, ask yourself you are manager of Newcastle probably on a million or so a year you are going to risk that for what? 0.3% of a transfer!
OK so he buys Boumsong for 8.5m yet he gets 30k as a bung, whats more a recorded bung!
what do agents charge now.
As much as I dislike Souness, i dont think he was up to this.
_______________
why was he receiving money a decade after he left rangers ?
the real question i’d have asked if i was newcastle owner would have been ” graeme, why did we not get him in the summer?? are you not meant to be watching players all the time, not just rangers.”
Enfakid says:
August 12, 2012 at 11:49
——
‘That is exactly what Hectors statement said. They have no interest in pursuing New Rangers as they cannot being a new company, but why they gave new rangers a green light to phoenix is truly bizarre.’
—
You’re right about HMRC being unable, under the Law as it appears to stand, to seek payment of the taxes due by one company from another ( as the law would have it) entirely different company.
That’s because, incredibly, there is nothing legally to connect the tax guilt of the Murray or Whyte Boards of the old rotten club with CG’s ‘new company’.
In this situation, the fact that the new company looks like, sounds like, behaves like, dresses like, has the same customers and the same premises as the old club AND is for all practical purposes treated BY THE FOOTBALL AUTHORITIES as the old club, is neither here nor there-it appears that HMRC can legally do nothing about it!
So I would absolve HMRC of any blame.
They acted strictly within their legal powers.
It is, as I have argued in other posts, the fault of Parliament that the nature of ‘Limited Companies’ is such that creditors cannot pursue the individual owners/directors personally for recoverey of debts owed to them by a failed company, but can have redress only against ‘the company.’ And, the Law says ,in effect, if there isn’t enough money to meet their debts, tough titty!
HMRC can, and will, go after the directors/owners for any unpaid tax due on personal remuneration from whatever source. But they will not do so directly on behalf of the creditors: any tax recovered will simply go into the Treasury’s coffers.
There are hundreds of company administrations and liquidations every year, many of them as shifty and dishonest as that of the poisonous club of which we speak.
HMRC’s statement is one that they have had to make many, many times, as they watch powerlessly as the shysters shaft the community.
For us, It is the SFA who should properly be the target of our rage and indignation.
They have cravenly failed to deal properly OVER MANY YEARS with RFC .
In my opinion, their unwillingness to expose and end the complicity of senior SFA members either in the wrongdoings of that club or in the covering up of those wrongdoings, has put them in the shameful position of having to propagate the belief that, contrary to all facts, “The Rangers” are , in their eyes ,’continuity RFC’.
I am hopeful, though, and I believe ,that the Independent Commission will find such sufficiency of evidence of many years of breach of serious rules regarding player registration as to prove that RFC ought to have been expelled ‘sine die’ from Scottish football long ago.
They were not expelled then, when it might really have mattered.
Nevertheless, although RFC(IA) exists now only as a legal concept, the sentence of expulsion will still need to be passed retrospectively.
And, in consequence, all titles, honours, or credit whatsoever ascribed to that club over the guilty years will fall to be expunged from the record.
Delenda est memoria Carthaginis.
jammy dodger says:
August 12, 2012 at 13:51
Might be paltry to you, but to most people who are interested in Scottish football, 30k is a lot of money. And if you, as a mere normal citizen, get caught evading tax on 30k, or even worse overclaiming benefits to the extent of 30k, then you will be facing big fines or jailtime (only if it’s benefits, of course). So where do you draw the line at wrongdoing? £30k, £100k, or £100m? Lower? Or does it depend on whether it’s the “Bigclub” involved or not? Truly sickening.
—————————————————————————————————–
My sincere apology,I was not relating the sum of 30k to us but relating it to football wages were it could conceivably be only a weeks wage,
It was I understand poorly addressed, however the point is still valid iif you are earning 1 m pounds a year why risk it for 30k?
Enfakid says:
August 12, 2012 at 11:49
——
‘That is exactly what Hectors statement said. They have no interest in pursuing New Rangers as they cannot being a new company, but why they gave new rangers a green light to phoenix is truly bizarre.’
—
You’re right about HMRC being unable, under the Law as it appears to stand, to seek payment of the taxes due by one company from another ( as the law would have it) entirely different company.
That’s because, incredibly, there is nothing legally to connect the tax guilt of the Murray or Whyte Boards of the old rotten club with CG’s ‘new company’.
In this situation, the fact that the new company looks like, sounds like, behaves like, dresses like, has the same customers and the same premises as the old club AND is for all practical purposes treated BY THE FOOTBALL AUTHORITIES as the old club, is neither here nor there-it appears that HMRC can legally do nothing about it!
So I would absolve HMRC of any blame.
They acted strictly within their legal powers.
It is, as I have argued in other posts, the fault of Parliament that the nature of ‘Limited Companies’ is such that creditors cannot pursue the individual owners/directors personally for recoverey of debts owed to them by a failed company, but can have redress only against ‘the company.’ And, the Law says ,in effect, if there isn’t enough money to meet their debts, tough titty!
HMRC can, and will, go after the directors/owners for any unpaid tax due on personal remuneration from whatever source. But they will not do so directly on behalf of the creditors: any tax recovered will simply go into the Treasury’s coffers.
Tere are h*ndreds of company administrations and liquidations every year, many of them as shifty and dishonest as that of the poisonous club of which we speak.
HMRC’s statement is one that they have had to make many, many times, as they watch powerlessly as the shysters shaft the community.
For us, It is the SFA who should properly be the target of our rage and indignation.
They have cravenly failed to deal properly OVER MANY YEARS with RFC .
In my opinion, their unwillingness to expose and end the complicity of senior SFA members either in the wrongdoings of that club or in the covering up of those wrongdoings, has put them in the shameful position of having to propagate the belief that, contrary to all facts, “The Rangers” are , in their eyes ,’continuity RFC’.
I am hopeful, though, and I believe ,that the Independent Commission will find such sufficiency of evidence of many years of breach of serious rules regarding player registration as to prove that RFC ought to have been expelled ‘sine die’ from Scottish football long ago.
They were not expelled then, when it might really have mattered.
Nevertheless, although RFC(IA) exists now only as a legal concept, the sentence of expulsion will still need to be passed retrospectively.
And, in consequence, all titles, honours, or credit whatsoever ascribed to that club over the guilty years will fall to be expunged from the record.
Delenda est memoria Carthaginis.
(re-posted because of h*ndreds!)
Apologies if I am asking a question already answered.
Can anyone tell me if players agents received a percentage of the EBT payments/loans paid?
For those wondering why Souness would get involved in something that appears dodgy, in one word greed
It’s the same with brokers etc, who get involved with insider dealing
None of them need the money, but if there is a quick buck to be made, they will have their snouts in the trough in jig time
Enfakid at 12:53
twopanda bears at 09:57
According to this, the SPL, SFA, SFL & sevco aka their CEOs namely Doncaster, Regan and Longmuir and CG sat down to draft this secret document to strip titles. Why would they do that before facts are in under due process? Why would they do it at all?
=================================================================
I would like to know why Green was allowed to represent both companies when in negotiations with the SFA/SPL.
________
I don’t think meetings were anything to do with stripped titles – I believe they were haggling over TV divi-ups.
Doncaster et al stressing money lost but little on specifics – “7 – figure sum [1m] lost to the SPL particularly on overseas rights” – so SKY/ESPN 80m over 5 years [16m] now 75m over 5 years [15m]
SKY agreed 30 SPL + 5 sevconians live SFL games – but no financials breakdown disclosed
ESPN agreed 30 SPL + 10 sevconians live games [incl. 3 SFL at Ibrox] – but no financial breakdown
BBC Alba has agreed a new 3 year deal to cover the Ramsdens Cup, BBC / SKY seems to have covered for Internationals and the main fixtures Scottish League and FA Cups for 60m 2010-14. Can’t find figures on what BBC pays currently or if reviewed post RFC[IA]
Adding SKY/ESPN fixtures – that’s 75 live games – 60 SPL and 15 SFL sevconians [20%]
If sevconians can attract TV interest and revenue I don`t begrudge them their fair share – and if that gives a platform for SFL Clubs which is positive then good. But there are existing rules for distribution of TV revenues in the SPL and SFL. Any changes affect every Club in Scotland, their future plans, and all their supporters in part reflected in what they pay for STs and match day tickets for the next five years.
Just SKY/ESPN alone at least 75m over the next 5 years. – This is serious money which interests SPL DNA acutely – Add the BBC and BBC Alba + live Scottish Cups revenues to be shared with Clubs in a new landscape and you may appreciate my scepticism that any meeting including the SPL,SFA, SFL and CG was just so not about any titles stripping.– What was haggled in the TV horse trading?
It`s about time there was detail transparency on how all this TV money is split up over the next five years.
And about time the MSM performed their proper role and stopped punting PR nonsense.
Enfakid says:
August 12, 2012 at 14:14
0 0 Rate This
jammy dodger says:
August 12, 2012 at 13:51
Might be paltry to you, but to most people who are interested in
Scottish football, 30k is a lot of money. And if you, as a mere
normal citizen, get caught evading tax on 30k, or even worse
overclaiming benefits to the extent of 30k, then you will be facing
big fines or jailtime (only if it’s benefits, of course). So where do
you draw the line at wrongdoing? £30k, £100k, or £100m? Lower?
Or does it depend on whether it’s the “Bigclub” involved or not?
Truly sickening.
—————————————————————————————————–
My sincere apology,I was not relating the sum of 30k to us but
relating it to football wages were it could conceivably be only a
weeks wage,
It was I understand poorly addressed, however the point is still
valid iif you are earning 1 m pounds a year why risk it for 30k?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The amount makes no difference. The prior wealth of the individual makes no difference. A more pertinent question would be ‘was the £30k a one-off?’. RTC says not. So where does the £30k come in the scheme of things? Was it the first? The last? The most? The least?
john clarke says:
August 12, 2012 at 14:16
In this situation, the fact that the new company looks like, sounds like, behaves like, dresses like, has the same customers and the same premises as the old club AND is for all practical purposes treated BY THE FOOTBALL AUTHORITIES as the old club, is neither here nor there-it appears that HMRC can legally do nothing about it!
So I would absolve HMRC of any blame.
They acted strictly within their legal powers.
==========================================================
That is an excellent post.
My sincere apology,I was not relating the sum of 30k to us but relating it to football wages were it could conceivably be only a weeks wage,
It was I understand poorly addressed, however the point is still valid iif you are earning 1 m pounds a year why risk it for 30k?
_____
it was significantly more than 30k
Enfakid says:
August 12, 2012 at 13:13
How much do you have to steal/embezzle before it becomes a criminal act?
In my book it happens at 1 penny.
Afternoon All,
I have just read Alex Thompson’s recent blog referenced above. He makes many points but the one that struck me relates to Campbell Ogilvie. As Alex writes, Mr Ogilvie would appear clearly conflicted. I don’t recollect reading any reports of action taken by the SFA to prevent this conflict should the matter be referred to them. Can anyone point me to statements, if any exist, regarding this ?
Enfakid says:
August 12, 2012 at 14:14
jMy sincere apology,I was not relating the sum of 30k to us but relating it to football wages were it could conceivably be only a weeks wage,
It was I understand poorly addressed, however the point is still valid iif you are earning 1 m pounds a year why risk it for 30k?
=====
Very well put, Enfakid, and please accept my apologies for my rather dismissive response earlier (it’s the rage again!)
As background, I spent my working life in the Inland Revenue, dealing with the likes of Mr S (not him personally, of course, or I couldn’t comment). These people (the very rich) treat lesser mortals with utter contempt (that’s you and me, by the way) and view tax as something paid only by chumps (again, that’s you and me). They are driven by arrogance, avarice and complete disdain for lesser mortals.
30k is nothing to him in real terms, but he won’t pay tax on it, why should he? If he starts paying tax on 30k, pretty soon he’ll be paying tax on all his income, like all us other “wee people”- and we really couldn’t have that, could we? It’s time people in this country woke up and smelt the coffee. We are being ripped, good style, by a bunch of parasites. Who actually contribute nothing (or as little as possible), but who truly think that the likes of us aren’t worth scraping off their shoe soles- sadly, that’s where we have got to in this country of ours.
The amount makes no difference. The prior wealth of the individual makes no difference. A more pertinent question would be ‘was the £30k a one-off?’. RTC says not. So where does the £30k come in the scheme of things? Was it the first? The last? The most? The least?
========================================================================
Then ask the question? As for RTC says “not”,
really? Well that is a surprise.
Enfakid says:
August 12, 2012 at 14:51
0 0 Rate This
The amount makes no difference. The prior wealth of the
individual makes no difference. A more pertinent question would be ‘was the £30k a one-off?’. RTC says not. So where does the £30k come in the scheme of things? Was it the first? The last? The most? The least?
==========================================
Then ask the question? As for RTC says “not”,
really? Well that is a surprise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have been asking the question. And other questions. That’s how RTC became an award winning bampot. See Alex Thomson’s latest for further reading.
Not sure what you mean by your “Really? Well that is surprise” comment. RTC states that he/she has seen evidence that corroborates it. Why would it be a surprise to say so?
John clarke says:
August 12, 2012 at 14:16
“So I would absolve HMRC of any blame.
They acted strictly within their legal powers.”
======
In making the statement they did, HMRC, in my view, strayed well outside their proper sphere of operations. What business was it of theirs to effectively endorse Sevco as successor company? Why issue a statement at all? As you say, there are thousands of company insolvencies every year, involving Revenue debt. How many statements from HMRC have you ever seen regarding individual insolvencies?
I have never seen such a statement from HMRC in any other case, effectively endorsing the continuation of an insolvent company’s trade (debt free, of course) by another company. This whole aspect stinks, HMRC have clearly been leaned on, politically, and even worse, they have caved in.
Never, ever say anything about any taxpayer’s affairs, I was taught- now, tell me, what exactly was the problem with applying that maxim in this case?
Alex Thomson was also asking. Not sure if he ever got a reply.
alex thomson
@alextomo
Souness’s lawyer will ask him soonest why he got EBT 30k 10y after leaving fmr RFC? If Souness answers/refuses, you’ll know either way.
Jammy dodger,
If you are correct then the role of HMRC should be on the list for monitoring.
Unfortunately it would probably take a major political heavy to start asking questions and at the public enquiry level, so not much chance of that. Might be interesting if there are are whistleblowers on the staff.
Sadly, my bit about “being put on the list” reminds me of the classic Dad’s Army episode
“you too will go on the list, what’s your name?”
“don’t tell him, Pike!”
Drat, will the list be devalued because of this?
Wilson’s still at it I see. Shamelessly ‘presstituting’ himself in this morning’s edition of that fast becoming a tabloid, The Herald. This was today’s closing piece…
“Rangers, too, have something to prove; it is that they can retain their standards and their aspirations”.
Retain their standards? God(s) forbid. Their aspirations? Richard, this is the club that set fire to the rule book and proceeded to ride roughshod over authority and successfully cheat each and every one of us, be that the tax payer, footballing counterparts, the fans and their sponsors (it’s time Tennents realised it too!).
Third division football should be reported and if they chose to dedicate column inches to one then let’s see them strike a balance and give the same to all!
Wilson really does take the biscuit when it comes to impartiality…..or is it just me?
john clarke says:
August 12, 2012 at 14:16
In this situation, the fact that the new company looks like, sounds like, behaves like, dresses like, has the same customers and the same premises as the old club AND is for all practical purposes treated BY THE FOOTBALL AUTHORITIES as the old club, is neither here nor there-it appears that HMRC can legally do nothing about it!
So I would absolve HMRC of any blame.
They acted strictly within their legal powers.
____________________________________________________
Whilst I wouldn’t disagree with your summation jc, it still doesn’t explain why HMRC felt it necessary to go beyond the statement on the CVA rejection to add an unecessary paragraph endorsing and opening the door to the cheap asset sale of Ipox etc, and the phoenixing of the mighty morphin power rangers.
There seemed to be absolutely no legitimate reason for this statement and no precedent for it. Quite frankly it seemed none of HMRC’s business whether football was ever played at Ipox again, or whether something called “rangers” continued to exist. In fact it would seem counter productive as it would encourage other clubs to stiff the treasury knowing they could just phoenix and HMRC would, having set a precedent, do nothing to stop it.
So the question for me would be. Why? And does it have any connection to the refusal to answer under FOI rules, of the Scottish Government, of the nature and substance of their intervention and discussion with HMRC on “rangers”. What is so explosive in the conversation that it would prejudice relations between the Scottish Government and the UK Treasury? And does it have any bearing on the HMRC “blessing” statement to the continuation of Rangers?
Conspiracy theory stuff maybe, but the reason conspiracy theories sometimes flourish is the absence of answers to questions like the ones above.
Hope someone adds these questions to the spreadsheet. I don’t want to muck it up by trying!
john clarke says:
August 12, 2012 at 14:16
In this situation, the fact that the new company looks like, sounds like, behaves like, dresses like, has the same customers and the same premises as the old club AND is for all practical purposes treated BY THE FOOTBALL AUTHORITIES as the old club, is neither here nor there-it appears that HMRC can legally do nothing about it!
So I would absolve HMRC of any blame.
They acted strictly within their legal powers.
____________________________________________________
Whilst I wouldn’t disagree with your summation jc, it still doesn’t explain why HMRC felt it necessary to go beyond the statement on the CVA rejection to add an unecessary paragraph endorsing and opening the door to the cheap asset sale of Ipox etc, and the phoenixing of the mighty morphin power rangers.
There seemed to be absolutely no legitimate reason for this statement and no precedent for it. Quite frankly it seemed none of HMRC’s business whether football was ever played at Ipox again, or whether something called “rangers” continued to exist. In fact it would seem counter productive as it would encourage other clubs to stiff the treasury knowing they could just phoenix and HMRC would, having set a precedent, do nothing to stop it.
So the question for me would be. Why? And does it have any connection to the refusal to answer under FOI rules, of the Scottish Government, of the nature and substance of their intervention and discussion with HMRC on “rangers”. What is so explsive in the conversation that it would prejudice relations between the Scottish Government and the UK Treasury? And does it have any bearing on the HMRC “blessing” statement to the continuation of Rangers?
Conspir-acy theory stuff maybe, but the reason conspir-acy theories sometimes flourish is the absence of answers to questions like the ones above.
Hope someone adds these questions to the spreadsheet. I don’t want to muck it up by trying!