What follows is a record of an exchange in October with David Conn of The Guardian in respect of an article written by him in August 2016 reporting the arrival of The Rangers FC in the top tier of the SPFL.
In that article David Conn suggests that there was no tax overdue in respect of “The Wee Tax Case” of 2011 because he was told by the SFA that agreement had been reached with HMRC to postpone payment until after the Takeover by Craig Whyte and on those grounds the SFA granted a licence.
For such an agreement to pass UEFA FFP rules muster it had to be in writing, signed by HMRC and dated 31st March 2011 or earlier. There were behind the scenes discussions on this point and attempts were made separately at the time to obtain such written unpublished documentation that complied with UEFA FFP regulations from Darryl Broadfoot the Head of SFA Communications, but in spite of promises it never arrived.
Not surprising as, had it existed, Celtic would certainly have been informed when they first wrote to the SFA in December 2011 – thereby rendering Resolution 12, placed at the 2013 Celtic AGM requesting UEFA to investigate the UEFA licensing process throughout 2011 as truly unnecessary.
The first e mail (edited with cosmetic changes to aid reading by a wider audience but no change of sense) made the following points to Mr Conn on 9th Oct 2017…..
Dear Mr Conn.
On 5th August 2016 you wrote an article about the arrival of “Rangers” into the top tier of the SPFL.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/05/rangers-scottish-premiership-tax-issue
(* A relevant extract from that article – in italics – can be read separately at the end of this blog)
Given that the Craig Whyte trial in July 2017, revealed discrepancies (already known to the Celtic shareholders pursuing Res12) between what was stated at the trial and what was reported to the SFA and UEFA during 2011 in terms of the status of the wee tax case liability, then it would appear that your article:
- Does not fully reflect what took place, giving the impression over two paragraphs that a written agreement signed by HMRC to postpone payment had been reached between HMRC and RFC by 31st March 2011. Had this been so it would mean that there was no overdue tax payable at 31st March 2011 as UEFA define an overdue payable to tax authorities.
- However what was revealed in court in July 2017 was that RFC had accepted the liability before 31st March 2011 and so it was not “potential” with “discussions continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised”, as reported in RFC Interim accounts on 1st April 2011. It was for this reason the SFA have asked their Compliance Officer to investigate what took place and had there been a written agreement to postpone prior to 31st March 2011, there would have been no need to describe the liability to the SFA in the way that it was.
- Further your article does not fully reflect the reason why “Rangers” had to wait three years before playing in European competition, which was that UEFA viewed “Rangers” as a NEW club/company. This was not mentioned although the SFA, who advised you they held an unpublished HMRC letter also held a copy of a letter dated 8th June 2016 from UEFA Head of Club Licensing Andrea Traverso (copy attached) to that effect.
Consequently will you be following the SFA Compliance Officer investigation, and indeed will you be telling him the basis on which you reported the SFA’s position in your article of August 2016 without revealing sources of course?
Importantly in terms of all your other investigatory work into skulduggery, are you also aware that despite what you may have been told by the SFA, Resolution 12 was and is ultimately about making the SFA more accountable and transparent to supporters, an aim which I think you would surely support and is there any chance of you helping with that aim by considering what has caused the SFA to finally capitulate and do what Res12 asked for in 2013, albeit domestically?
A national football association using the media to try to derail a genuine investigation into their behaviour is surely of national, never mind Scottish, interest?
In some ways it matters little now if Rangers gained and retained that licence by deception as the court statement indicates, with the result the SFA Compliance Officer is conducting an investigation.
What matters more is that the SFA have used the absence of accountability to cover up their part in the licensing process, not just from March through to September 2011 but to ignore genuine enquiries from supporter/shareholders of a member club from 2014 to July 2017. During which time their positions;
- that the bill had not crystallised, or
- was subject to dispute or
- was under appeal or
- that after 31st March, monitoring was not an SFA function, as stated by SFA CEO Stewart Regan,
were exposed (in court) as self-serving myths.
The SFA and how poorly they serve the game in Scotland because they are accountable to no one is THE story of Resolution 12 and you could help bring accountability about by reporting how you were duped by the SFA in August last year and report on what the Compliance Officer finds.
As it is your August article has undermined your reputation somewhat as someone whom I understand seeks better accountability and transparency from football authorities.
PS what Celtic shareholders lawyers reported to SFA, and when, is available if you decide to engage.
Yours etc
After a couple of reminders, one copied to The Guardian Sports Editor a reply was received dated 8th November 2017 in which Mr Conn said.
Hello
Thank you for your emails and apologies for not having replied sooner; I have been very busy recently. I have seen that some questions have been raised about the piece I wrote in relation to this. I understand that this issue has been of great interest to people; however, I do not currently have plans to revisit it.
Thank you for your interest and apologies again for not replying sooner.
D Conn
As the SFA Head of Communications, Darryl Broadfoot, who departed from his post in January 2017, would most probably be the person to whom David Conn spoke. He is the same person who failed to clarify this article at:
by STV reporter Grant Russell, who also recently departed from his job at STV.
The STV article omitted certain references about UEFA treating The Rangers FC/The Rangers International FC as a NEW club/company, a piece of unsolicited information that was contained in a UEFA response to Celtic shareholders’ lawyer from Andrea Traverso, Head of UEFA Club Licensing) and which was copied to the SFA a week before STV published.
Some may also remember the strange episode where The Guardian accepted an advert from the Celtic AGM Resolution 12 requistitioners in 2016 attempting to draw the attention of Resolution 12 on a tax evasion aspect to the wider tax paying British pubic. Having accepted payment for a “Persistence Beats Res12tance” advert, The Guardian for some unexplained reason changed their mind and decided not to publish and refunded the payment.
They have been coy on answering who, what or why they changed their mind and as can be seen from the above reply from David Conn appear unwilling to pursue the UEFA 2011 Licencing issue further (at least for now). Hopefully those plans will change when the SFA investigation is complete, whatever the result.
Mr Broadfoot although no longer an SFA employee, appears to be continuing in some capacity as an SFA spokesman given his appearance on BBC Sportsound on 8th November along with Paul Goodwin of the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) to discuss the findings of an SFSA survey involving over 16,000 supporters that highly criticised the SFA for their governance of Scottish football. The programme segment can be heard here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sQRFX2vOWUvkaeRAEEYL3vzMqdXGFE8T/view?usp=sharing
The overriding point here though is not the credibility of main stream media outlets, which is at an all-time low, but the use of those outlets by the SFA officials using the media in an attempt to produce an outcome that suits them and a single SFA member club at the expense of the value of the shares held by shareholders in another SFA member club.
Awareness of the impact on shareholder value of member clubs by SFA decisions is yet another issue that an enquiry into SFA methods/processes should address, particularly since HMRC made the SFA aware in 2009 of their concerns about Rangers use of ebts in player contracts.
Until such an investigation takes place the SFA will be viewed as no longer fit to govern Scottish football in its present form.
Extract from Conn Article of 5th August.
Even now, an allegation persists the SFA was deficient in allowing Rangers a licence to compete in the Champions League during that season, 2011-12. The case, based on leaked documentation from the time and pressed by a group of Celtic supporters on their club to pursue as resolution 12 of the 2013 annual general meeting, was recently argued strongly in a report by the Tax Justice Network campaign.
The argument is that in breach of Uefa rules against clubs having overdue tax payable, Rangers owed £2.8m on a discounted options scheme following a successful HMRC challenge known as the “wee tax case”.
The SFA is adamant its committee which considered the licence dealt with the issue thoroughly and received the necessary evidence the tax was not overdue according to Uefa rules. One informed source involved with the issue at the time, who did not want to speak publicly owing to continuing criminal proceedings against Whyte arising out of his tenure at Rangers, said that at the initial deadline, 31 March 2011, HMRC had agreed that the £2.8m did not need to be paid until after his May 2011 takeover.
Before subsequent 30 June and 30 September deadlines, Rangers, by then owned by Whyte, are understood to have told the SFA they were in discussions with HMRC over the money owed. Uefa rules allow tax not to be treated as “overdue” where there is a written agreement with the tax authority for payment to be extended.
The SFA, although declining to disclose details of the documentation it received, citing confidentiality with its member clubs, told the Guardian via a spokesperson: “The Scottish FA has always been clear the licensing award issued to Rangers in 2011 by the licensing committee was correct. The process is audited on an annual basis by Uefa.”
Uefa, pressed on the issue again recently, said: “The licence for the 2011-12 season was granted by the SFA and there was no reason for Uefa to doubt this decision.”
Uefa has said it has no need to investigate further if the tax was in fact overdue according to its definition, because after that season, Rangers’ fate anyway equated to a sanction for breach of the rules: they could not play in European competition for the following three years. HMRC, taking a stern view of clubs defaulting on tax, declined to approve a company voluntary arrangement with creditors and Rangers went into liquidation.
On Resolution 11 of Rangers general meeting passing, two things occur.
With 20% of the shareholders who voted casting their vote against it would those same 20% want to take the 20p offer King has been told to make. Particularly if they are going to be diluted and the price of individual shares was to drop below that figure. Bearing in mind if the number of shares are doubled then it almost follows that the value of individual shares must drop significantly.
How quickly will they actually announce they are going to do it. If it drags on one might be forced to consider that they don’t actually want to write their money off getting worthless shares in a loss making business.
easyJamboDecember 1, 2017 at 17:22 (Edit)
It depends on intent. Why was McGregor intent on getting in front of Rose?
To get the ball which was in his power or get rear ended which wasn’t?
The direction of travel looked to me like the consequences of Rose’s knee slamming into McGregor’s rear end. A Spanish Inquisition for McGregor in that he didn’t expect it. 🙂
I’m more inclined to my belief being a bit of an ex tanner baw player brought up playing on the black ash of the inappropriately named Glasgow Green, where on those small pitches and that surface being rear ended was a normal part of the game and my motivation was to get to the ball with as little pain as possible. 🙂
There are penalties given and not given every week and most pass with little or no comment except perhaps to say the ref got that one wrong. Now we have a team given 2 penalties in a week, and it should be noted that they are the first they have been awarded this season, and all hell breaks out.Why have non-Motherwell supporters, especially Hearts fans, got so much to say when the outcome of the game has absolutely no effect on their team’s results. It will be interesting to see if there is so much traffic on here the next time some other team is awarded an iffy penalty.
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 18:37
After what has gone before over the clyde ,do you see many serious investors wading in ,or do you see the pressure being applied to the already out of pocket supporters of sevco 2012 .
I must admit ,I wondered why certain peepil plagued this blog lately ,at first I thought it was
1.the old club was finally going to be laid to rest .then I thought
2.the new club was going to suffer an insolvency event but could it be
3 the need to reinforce the BIG LIE as the poor supporters are going to be asked to show their loyalty
to make good on the loans
surely not
“I think that’s a poor analogy Auldheid. However, If a car (McGregor) overtakes you and cuts in sharply into your lane, slams on the anchors, then who is responsible or the collision?”
As someone who was overtaken in the circumstance you describe you can take it from me that the guy behind is blamed; police didn’t want to know despite witness (nor insurance!).
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 18:37
On Resolution 11 of Rangers general meeting passing, two things occur.
With 20% of the shareholders who voted casting their vote against it would those same 20% want to take the 20p offer King has been told to make. Particularly if they are going to be diluted and the price of individual shares was to drop below that figure. Bearing in mind if the number of shares are doubled then it almost follows that the value of individual shares must drop significantly.
How quickly will they actually announce they are going to do it. If it drags on one might be forced to consider that they don’t actually want to write their money off getting worthless shares in a loss making business.
_________________
Was about to post something similar, Homunculus, and say that these figures must make King a very worried man, for who in their right mind, having voted against the resolution, would now be prepared to turn down an offer for an amount they are virtually certain never to have the oportunity of accepting again, and, in fact, will almost certainly see their current value fall well below 20p per share.
So, if King is forced into making the offer, he will most likely have to fork out 20p for each of 12,758,306 shares, which is a total of £2,551,661.20. Add to that the disenfranchised shareholders and he is looking at well in excess of £3m for shares he doesn’t want. Then, of course, there will be uncertainty over the rest of the shares the 28.6% of uncast votes.
But there is, perhaps, another problem for him here, in that these shareholders who don’t want to see their shares diluted if King doesn’t comply with the ruling, are hardly likely to sit back and let him get away with it, and, at the very least, are likely to use his non-compliance as a basis for a legal challenge to any share issue and to have Resolution 11 set aside.
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 1, 2017 at 19:38
So, if King is forced into making the offer, he will most likely have to fork out 20p for each of 12,758,306 shares, which is a total of £2,551,661.20. Add to that the disenfranchised shareholders and he is looking at well in excess of £3m for shares he doesn’t want. Then, of course, there will be uncertainty over the rest of the shares the 28.6% of uncast votes.
But there is, perhaps, also another problem for him.
————-
The cost for setting it all up
Even if the CoS decision goes against the TOP on the spurious grounds of King can’t afford it, those voting against the resolution must surely have excellent grounds to block a one sided share issue that favours a concert party that has failed to honour the Stock Exchange rules. At least one would think that would be the case.
CLUSTER ONEDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 19:42
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 1, 2017 at 19:38So, if King is forced into making the offer, he will most likely have to fork out 20p for each of 12,758,306 shares, which is a total of £2,551,661.20. Add to that the disenfranchised shareholders and he is looking at well in excess of £3m for shares he doesn’t want. Then, of course, there will be uncertainty over the rest of the shares the 28.6% of uncast votes.But there is, perhaps, also another problem for him.————-The cost for setting it all up
___________
You are right, of course, so it’s all adding up, and would surely eat into any monies he has earmaked for RIFC, if, indeed, he as any earmarked.
I made the mistake of connecting on the last penalty incident – calling it against my own team. This picked up some TDs. At the risk of incurring some more, I have to agree with EJ that this one also should not have been a penalty. (I know what have I done – I’m bracing myself for the onslaught!)
EJ’s description of the car cutting in is also a good one. I remember seeing Larson pick up a similar penalty with the ball going out of the box on the RHS of the goal. Only with Larson’s move, he did successfully gain position between player and ball and hold this position and possession momentarily before being bundled over. With Forrest, it all happened too fast, watching it on real time, I think he is ‘responsible’ for the contact and didn’t really take up a position between man and ball. Said that, I don’t think it was a deliberate dive to gain advantage. It’s what, in basketball, would be called a ‘no call’. It happened, no ones fault, play on.
(I know – this is football)
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 18:37
How quickly will they actually announce they are going to do it. If it drags on one might be forced to consider that they don’t actually want to write their money off getting worthless shares in a loss making business.
————-
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 1, 2017 at 19:48 0 0 Rate This
Even if the CoS decision goes against the TOP on the spurious grounds of King can’t afford it, those voting against the resolution must surely have excellent grounds to block a one sided share issue that favours a concert party that has failed to honour the Stock Exchange rules. At least one would think that would be the case.
————–
And if the COS agrees with TOP before they announce when this share issue should take place. What then?
We don’t need any analogy, in motherwell game 1, the player who had a tug at a Celtic player would have been sent off and should have received a second red card for his actions in almost breaking a players leg. The second Motherwell game, the video shows a penalty – you are not allowed to knee someone in the back because your actions are slower.
Motherwell want to play a physical game, well you just need to accept you are going to cause fouls and penalties. Football is a contact sport but not the way Motherwell play as has been shown in several games. No team is going to lie down and let Motherwell bash their way to a result. I am looking forward to Motherwell playing against some of the teams supported by posters on here.
I am just listening to bbc sportsound from last night and there are peepil on there saying that DK stood up and said a new manager could be backed by funds in the jan window with funds for players .
With his lawyers saying he had no funds at hand and him saying he has no influence in NOAL ,how can he make such a statement .
Did the accounts not state that NOAL were going to fund any shortfall (no mention of the 3 bears ).
How does this look to anyone in the TOP issue .
It looks to me as if DK is giving them the middle finger.
CLUSTER ONEDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 20:16 HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 18:37How quickly will they actually announce they are going to do it. If it drags on one might be forced to consider that they don’t actually want to write their money off getting worthless shares in a loss making business. ————-ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 1, 2017 at 19:48 0 0 Rate ThisEven if the CoS decision goes against the TOP on the spurious grounds of King can’t afford it, those voting against the resolution must surely have excellent grounds to block a one sided share issue that favours a concert party that has failed to honour the Stock Exchange rules. At least one would think that would be the case.————–And if the COS agrees with TOP before they announce when this share issue should take place. What then?
================================
I genuinely don’t see why the Court of Session has to agree with the Takeover Panel decision. Surely they only have to decide how to enforce it.
In any case I doubt RIFC PLC will have a share issue before it. The share issue will surely reduce the value of the individual shares. If the Market Capitalization remains the same and the number of shares increases significantly then the value of the individual shares must decrease.
If that were to get to say 15p, bearing in mind that it is a loss making business requiring millions of pounds in loans just to keep going then why would people not take 20p. That could cost Dave King a lot of money.
FAN OF FOOTBALL
DECEMBER 1, 2017 at 20:25 How does this look to anyone in the TOP issue .
It looks to me as if DK is giving them the middle finger.
========================================
Like he does with everyone else.
The rules are for other people to follow.
Ballyargus December 1, 2017 at 19:13
).
Why have non-Motherwell supporters, especially Hearts fans, got so much to say when the outcome of the game has absolutely no effect on their team’s results.
======================
Perhaps Hearts fans have an interest in the wider “game” beyond the narrow confines of having maroon tinted specs and commenting only on Hearts games (we certainly need another outlet given the way this season is progressing
I’ve been to games at Tynecastle, Stenhousemuir, Falkirk, Airdrie, the Oriam, Cambuslang, Glenafton, Bonnyrigg, Hill of Beath, Penicuik, Whitehill, Dumfries, Blackburn, Bo’ness, Burntisland, Civil Service Strollers, Dalkeith, Haddington, Moffat and Saughton Park, in a range of leagues and age groups so far this season. That’s my interest in the wider game.
Whether or not you want the debate, the two Celtic penalties in the last week were talking points from high profile games. I think the discussion has been conducted in a reasonable and non abusive way which I think is good a good thing for a football blog.
Do you just want Rangers fans to discuss their share issues, accounts and their AGM? As off field issues, they don’t affect Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs, Motherwell or whoever.
Nah. As an Aberdeen man I can confirm you are wrong on at least one of those statements!
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 20:31
I genuinely don’t see why the Court of Session has to agree with the Takeover Panel decision. Surely they only have to decide how to enforce it.
——-
You are correct. Thanks for clarification. the way i worded it was all wrong
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 20:31
If that were to get to say 15p, bearing in mind that it is a loss making business requiring millions of pounds in loans just to keep going then why would people not take 20p. That could cost Dave King a lot of money.
—————-
And if they do take the 20p is that money not just to pay back the loans. It will still be a loss making business requiring millions of pounds in more loans just to keep going
My word just listening to the rest of of bbc sportsound there and I am sure Alec Rea just posed the idea that club 1872 could buy ibrokes and murky park .
I must admit I’m shocked at that ,surely the supporters funding this have to think seriously about what this would entail .
I always knew and have said it will be the supporters of the new club that will have to dig deep but I did not for a minute think the peepil at the helm would go to this extreme .
With all the rumours of major repairs needed and DK being on record as stating funds needing to be found for maintenance who would be liable for this funding .
No, I still can’t believe this idea will come to fruition ,it must be an idea from some well intended supporter ,if not things have just got a bit more serious over there
EASYJAMBO
DECEMBER 1, 2017 at 20:36
Do you just want Rangers fans to discuss their share issues, accounts and their AGM? As off field issues, they don’t affect Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs, Motherwell or whoever.
====================================
Of course those affect other clubs. They are trading at a loss and funding that with ongoing loans and have been doing so since they started. The board of the PLC have publicly admitted that, and that it will continue to be the case.
That seems to fly in the face of Financial Fair Play and it is arguable that they have done other clubs out of European places.
CLUSTER ONE
DECEMBER 1, 2017 at 20:52
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 20:31If that were to get to say 15p, bearing in mind that it is a loss making business requiring millions of pounds in loans just to keep going then why would people not take 20p. That could cost Dave King a lot of money.
—————-
And if they do take the 20p is that money not just to pay back the loans. It will still be a loss making business requiring millions of pounds in more loans just to keep going
==========================
No, if people were to take the 20p offer it would have nothing to do with RIFC PLC or the loans.
It would simply be Dave King buying their shares and paying them. It would not affect the PLC whatsoever. Other than King owning a higher percentage of it.
CLUSTER ONEDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 20:47 3 0 Rate This
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 20:31I genuinely don’t see why the Court of Session has to agree with the Takeover Panel decision. Surely they only have to decide how to enforce it.
——-You are correct. Thanks for clarification. the way i worded it was all wrong
==============================
No, you may be correct, it really depends how the Court of Session sees it’s role.
It is only my opinion that role is simply to enforce the ruling. They may decide that they have a wider remit than that and almost act as a higher Court of appeal. Deciding that Dave King does not have to make the offer.
We really are on novel ground here. No-one knows what is going to happen.
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 21:10
===================================================
what would make DK go to this point
lack of funds
loss of his faculties
friends in high places
all of the above
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 21:06 If there was a share issue and CoS then enforced the TOP ruling , would Mr King be liable to buy all shares, excluding those the concert party hold ,at 20p a pop ? Why would he issue more ?
Sorry? What?
The players were ineligible on the grounds of their undeclared contracts. I’m not seeing where the unpaid tax comes into their eligibility or otherwise?
Ah wait, I think I see. When you say “hiding side letters” you’re talking about from HMRC? And you’re asking me to ignore that part of that strategy was to also hide them from the SFA to which my answer obviously referred? Is that it?
As I understand it football clubs were obliged to inform the football authorities in Scotland about their players’ contracts.
Rangers told them about the players’ contracts but failed to mention the “side letters” which were also in relation to contractual payments.
Why they did that (and we all know the answer) is irrelevant. The fact is that they did it.
They therefore lied to the authorities and by doing so cheated.
Dave King spending on Ibrox? I went into the changing rooms at Ibrox Park, there was a big chunk out of the door frame on the home dressing room entrance, went back 3 months later, it was still not repaired. Cant they afford a joiner? Also,the telly in the home changing room is the sort you only see in charity shops, massively deep big silver thing. £300 for a flat screen would sort that. He’s at it.
In your order:
1/. You mean hiding them from HMRC? No. Hiding them from SFA? Very very verboten.
2/. Not cheating? Seriously?
3/. Enough to retrospectively strip titles? Questionable. Enough to overturn each game 3-0? Well I understand those were the rules in place at the time.
4/. I can only apologise. The category bit makes no sense to me. Do answers 1-3 help?
5/. LNS – which bit of LNS are we discussing? The bit Neil wanted us to discuss leading us to your conclusions whilst consciously ignoring all the nasty stuff that didn’t fit then and doesn’t fit now? That’s kind of important.
Rangers told them about the players’ contracts but failed to mention the “side letters” which were also in relation to contractual payments.
What did the side letters say?
Wee Ernie,
They have been ruled illegal, so your same clubs owe many millions, pay up sir.
EB @ 23.02
Player ineligibility gives rise to a given fixture being forfeited. You had a significant number play is several fixtures over several years so title stripping seems an inevitable consequence. No?
whether it’s worth it off a dead club is a different arguement as we’ve discussed previously.
EB, are you telling us that you do not know that a player’s full remuneration must be included in his contract and registered correctly for the player to be eligible to play in the, then, SPL, regardless of whether or not he has a thing called a side letter, an invention, apparently, of David Murray or one of his acolytes. As Auldheid explained to you earlier, by not registering the full remuneration, Rangers were carrying out the equivalent of payments in little brown envelopes. Regardless of side letters, regardless of tax paid or tax not paid, that is cheating.
But I think you know all this, and are only being deliberately obtuse to draw out this long winded nonsense to achieve whatever it is you are trying to do, which is definitely not to get at the truth of your old club’s demise.
No (and I haven’t changed my mind fwiw). Quite the opposite in fact. I said on day 1 of this farce that for you to win the BTC was to lose LNS or vice versa. On the basis that the club was dead regardless I wasn’t overly bothered which way round it was tbh.
To answer your point if Rangers had won the BTC they still wouldn’t have declared all of the players earnings to the SFA and so would have been subject to the results forfeit mentioned previously.
Does that help?
Ernest/Nial /steery,
you seem to talk a lot about Diouf , .have you met him ?
Someone on here definitely doesn’t want SFM to be discussing Dave King.
Loans don’t materialise out of thin air in anyone’s language either. Touché.
i thought the side letters were secret? Or have you understandably changed your mind on that?
Hello again. I would just like to say I feel I know everyone of you who post regularly. Have learned so much from you all. The unbroken thread that runs through this site is the sincere search for the truth in all matters pertaining to the the demise of rangers. Unfortunately now and again someone joins the site who is bent on distorting every opinion and fact presented. I’m sorry to say that Ernest b., in my opinion, falls into that category.
But I’m just a woman, I’m sure you men know better. ? kind regards clarabo(w) ?
Sir Dim,
To answer your point if Rangers had won the BTC they still wouldn’t have declared all of the players earnings to the SFA and so would have been subject to the results forfeit mentioned previously.
Strange position since loans are not considered earnings in anyone’s language.
Do you know what was in the side letters?
At last your Ernie has broken off is milkround to understand that the loans where not earnings but a tax dodge, now declared illegal. The fastest taxing milkman in the West of Scotland, now agrees that his club cheated for decades and tried to write of many millions of debt and remain in the top league. unfortunately a few chairmen grew a backbone and told The new Rangersno, so they had to start again as a new club in the bottom tier.
The new The Rangers might look like a ger, unfortunately, sing like a ger and might ask what scool you went to like a ger but unfortunately for Wee Ernie, it is The Ger.
No. But the lack of any funds to make a loan would kind of make it immaterial wouldn’t it? Look up Poon, H in the phone book if you want to learn more.
re side letters I’ve actually forgotten so yes and no! Was it a contractual obligation to pay relative to services rendered, what any language would call ‘earnings’ or was it an offer to pay tax should the scam fall through. I forget which. Sorry.
claraboDecember 2, 2017 at 00:06
‘… But I’m just a woman, I’m sure you men know better. ..’
___________
Not since Jemma Fay has had such an influence, clarabo!
On your observation that ‘Unfortunately now and again someone joins the site who is bent on distorting every opinion and fact presented’ I think most of us agree.
( interestingly, and a flight of fancy on my part, the only person I have heard use the expression ‘dearie me’,apart from my sainted Aunt Sarah ( b.1896, died 1982), is Tam Cowan!
Not that for one minute would I think that such as he would post on SFM.
“Side Letter”
Gavin Rae signed a three and a half-year contract with Rangers on 1 January 2004. This contract- the official one filed with the SFA & SPL- lists an annual wage of £260,000. Curiously, the contract does not mention appearance money or bonuses. On the very same day, 1 January 2004, Rangers provided Gavin Rae with a letter that said that money would be deposited in a sub-trust of the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust on his behalf. These amounts total £336,000. The letter also said that Rae would receive £1,000 as an appearance fee for every competitive first-team game played. From February 2004 to July 2007, Rae received five payments totalling £336,000. He also received the following amounts through the EBT for appearances: £11,000 (2003/04); £8,000 (2005/06); £20,000 (2006/07). The appearance money matches his first team appearances for Rangers.
This side letter torpedoes the argument that these payments were not contractual. (A simple guide to contract formation under Scots Law can be found here. Short version: these letters constitute a contract under Scots Law). This letter, and the others like it, demonstrate that Rangers used the EBT scheme to pay wages (appearance money) and contractual obligations related to employment. This is just one fragment of the masses of evidence that demonstrate that Rangers were “at it”.
woodsteinDecember 2, 2017 at 00:46
‘…This side letter torpedoes the argument that these payments were not contractual.’
___________
And makes anything that Rae has to say about ‘Rangers’ on BBC Radio Scotland’s ‘Sportsound’ as tainted as the titles and honours ‘won’ by RFC(IL) in the EBT years, and as tainted as anything said by Alec McLeish, Ally McCoist, ‘Barry’ , and other EBT beneficiaries as they are wheeled on to ‘Sportsound’ with monotonous regularity to help propagate the Big Lie.
MacIntyre, Wilson,Speirs and others of the Peter Thomson radio Scotland fraternity did not, of course, receive any EBTs…… Pieces of succulent lamb, perhaps, would have been their measly reward for their readiness to fail as ‘journalists’ to get right into the dirty cheating that SDM indulged in, and report it in full and truthfully.
I blush for them.
HomunculusDecember 1, 2017 at 21:10
‘…..They may decide that they have a wider remit than that and almost act as a higher Court of appeal.
___________
No danger of that , Homunculus.
Lord Bannatyne said expressly that he was not sitting as any kind of appeal judge:he cannot decide that the TAB decision was wrong.
He has to make an order ‘to secure compliance’ by King.
His difficulty, as he seemed to express, was over whether the word ‘may’ meant ‘must’, and if it did, what kind of order he could make-if King was indeed ‘penniless’!
What would be served by ordering a person to do something that was impossible?
King’s QC argued that King had no control over his family trust, and therefore did not have the resources to ‘comply’.
and you’ll see from the Rangers FC investors page that King tries to suggest that he doesn’t have control.
So it comes down to whether lord Bannatyne has decided to order a deep dig into the truth , with evidence, of what King says.
And where is ‘evidence’ likely to come from? no where but the very Trust!
Which is likely to swear what King wants it to swear.
The bast.rds know their way about.
EBT’s!! Paul’s the Man
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/how-ebts-work-and-how-they-go-wrong-the-melchester-rovers-debacle/
Or we can just sweep everything under the carpet! Like how it used to be.
Time for one of you chaps to put a new blog up maybe write a blog about EB and the art of talking rubbish whilst never answering a straight question reminds me of a lawyer type the sleazy shady kind that is.BP drop me a line when this plonker leaves there are 10 pages here and most make sense when you ignore the eb con.
The side letters were not cash in a brown envelope.
———
WOODSTEINDECEMBER 2, 2017 at 00:46 a side letter that said that money would be deposited in a sub-trust of the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust on his behalf.
————-
who needs a brown envelope these days when money can be deposited straight into a sub trust
AULDHEIDDECEMBER 2, 2017 at 01:48
Ah the old illegal DOS scheme or the WTC as it is also known .
Always wondered why nothing has been done about that wee doozy ,it’s as if it never happened .
Funnily enough wasn’t DK a director during the EBT years
In other news Jack and Jill didn’t go up the hill. Nobody fell and Jacks bandage is a result of a completely unrelated incident. Jill maintains her pail is actually a nice hat which is fortunate given her apparent clumsiness. The well when looked at holistically is clearly short of a pail full of water but one cannot retrospectively blame the path being wet as a reason for Jack falling nor can it be implied that the two incidents are in any way related. And Jack didn’t fall anyway remember. At least he did but declared it not to be a fall.
So, to summarise. Nobody fell. Nobody stole water. The water which categorically wasn’t stolen wasn’t wasted in creating a slip hazard on which nobody slipped. The well remains a bucket short and Jack has a bandaged head but he resents the implication that these factors might be in any way related. Jane still has a nice hat. With a handle. But it’s a bit bashed. Mary’s lambs died due to thirst but Jack says that’s just tough.
Fin.
Now that DK has been given the go ahead regarding Res 11.
I do hope the sevco 2012 fans and subscribers do their due diligence ,I’d hate for them to be the latest ones to be DUPED
I guess their quandary is do they take the 20p if offered or do they accept that using what limited funds are available IF they are injected as promised gives the business a better basis on which to grow that value bearing in mind the proposed dilution.
EB has certainly been having had some fun with some of us and for constantly trying to wind up this site.
For whatever reason he or she is camped here with disruption in mind.
We’ve made it easy for him/her by responding politely.
We know he or she has no interest in real discussion or finding any insights.
We know he or she will be smiling every time he or she reels one of us in.
We know he or she will be sharing his “glory” somewhere, probably on the dark web.
For some reason EB can’t help it and will never play by the rules which make this site successful.
We can.
Please count to ten, stop, cease and desist even if your first reaction is to treat him or her the same way you’d treat any other poster.
No thumbs up or down, no direct responses, no direct interaction.
He or she has been given a fair crack of the whip and now please just ignore his or her machinations.
Playing catch up this morning and I note EB is continuing 24/7. I also noted that Fan Of Football made a reference to murky park. Was this a wee Freudian slip? Is Auchenhowie to be renamed Murty Park in recognition of Mr Murty’s contributions in the post Pedro era? Come on FOF, spill the beans!
Anyone seen or heard of the SFA’s compliance officer recently?
Just asking………………….
EX LUDODECEMBER 2, 2017 at 08:48
Sorry LUDO no gossip here
My references
Ragers
ibrokes
murky park
Are me just reminding myself of the saga that was RFC demise and death .
JUSTBECAUSEYOUREPARANOIDDECEMBER 2, 2017 at 08:53 0 0 Rate This
Anyone seen or heard of the SFA’s compliance officer recently?Just asking………………….
===============================================================
Think he was on the blog last night explaining to us that there was nothing wrong with side letters.
Finloch, agreed, EB is best ignored now.
FINLOCHDECEMBER 2, 2017 at 08:33
spot on
although in his own little way he has reminded us of how corrupt a governing body would have to be to have allowed us to be where we are in 2017
sorry have to go
me and santa are dropping the tooth fairy off on the way to see nessie
claraboDecember 2, 2017 at 00:06
Hello again. I would just like to say I feel I know everyone of you who post regularly. Have learned so much from you all. The unbroken thread that runs through this site is the sincere search for the truth in all matters pertaining to the the demise of rangers. Unfortunately now and again someone joins the site who is bent on distorting every opinion and fact presented. I’m sorry to say that Ernest b., in my opinion, falls into that category. But I’m just a woman, I’m sure you men know better. ? kind regards clarabo(w) ?
___________________
And as a woman, you can spot a man who’s talking balls, a mile off
JOHN CLARK
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 02:31
HomunculusDecember 1, 2017 at 21:10‘…..They may decide that they have a wider remit than that and almost act as a higher Court of appeal.___________No danger of that , Homunculus.
Lord Bannatyne said expressly that he was not sitting as any kind of appeal judge:he cannot decide that the TAB decision was wrong.
He has to make an order ‘to secure compliance’ by King.
His difficulty, as he seemed to express, was over whether the word ‘may’ meant ‘must’, and if it did, what kind of order he could make-if King was indeed ‘penniless’!
What would be served by ordering a person to do something that was impossible?
=======================================
The first part makes for good reading, thanks for that JC.
With regard “What would be served by ordering a person to do something that was impossible?”
That would suggest that someone who has no money cannot have a fine imposed on them. That cannot surely be the case. The Court must order King to make the offer. If he does not, for whatever reason, it must decide what sanctions to impose on him.
It has to be that simple or we are as well doing away with the Takeover Panel and the rules in place to protect shareholders.
EB seems to be enjoying the noteriety on here however a by product of his/her output is an opportunity for posters on here to dust down and re-examine evidence which has stood the test of time and established beyond all reasonable doubt that there is something rotten in the state of Scottish football. It is, as has been stated elsewhere, a developing story however the genesis of the saga is certainly worth revisiting from time to time. Remember, new posters, like EB, land on this site from time and may be wondering what it’s all about.
It all went a bit Steerpikes Leeds at the end didn’t it.
If only such such determination and fortitude had been employed 10 years ago. Blinded by silver and moonbeams I guess.
SmugasDecember 2, 2017 at 10:14
It all went a bit Steerpikes Leeds at the end didn’t it. If only such such determination and fortitude had been employed 10 years ago. Blinded by silver and moonbeams I guess.
__________________________
Sadly, it was that ‘determination and fortitude’ that kept them on the road they were on. Determination is only a good thing when you are determined to do the right thing, and fortitude can only be shown once you recognise that bad things are happening to you, or those around you, and to them, ‘bad things’ were not winning everything available.
You are right that they were blinded by silver and moonbeams, but just like now, they are not prepared to accept anything else! It’s their rightful place, you know!
JUSTBECAUSEYOUREPARANOIDDECEMBER 2, 2017 at 08:53 0 0 Rate ThisAnyone seen or heard of the SFA’s compliance officer recently?Just asking………………….
Seems to be moving at a snails pace ,then again finding out the truth then hunting for somewhere to bury could take a while
FAN OF FOOTBALL
perhaps it will go here
Ex LudoDecember 2, 2017 at 09:35
‘….Remember, new posters, like EB, land on this site from time and may be wondering what it’s all about.’
_____________
A very good point to make,indeed.
For as long as the Lie continues to be propagated, the Truth has to be re-asserted.
Digging The Hole Ever Deeper
08/08/2012
https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/digging-the-hole-ever-deeper/
This week has seen strident denials from David Murray that Rangers have done anything wrong in paying 83 employees through the Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (MGMRT). According to Murray: “No rules were breached or circumvented, and I reject and resent any suggestion that anything was done which amounted to cheating.” This blog-post will provide an illustrative example that demonstrates just how absurdly untrue Murray’s claim really is.
First a quick recap of the rules. For the MGMRT, an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT), to be operated legally for tax purposes, money is deposited in the trust by the employer. Thereafter, the employer must have no control or involvement in the disbursement of funds. Employees can then apply to the trust for loans. The loans must be discretionary i.e. contractual obligations or wages (of any kind) cannot be paid tax-free through an EBT. Any payment through an EBT for wages or other contractual obligations would be liable to tax. Paying wages or other obligations through an EBT without deducting PAYE & National Insurance is a breach of UK tax law and is illegal. HMRC has investigated Rangers’ use of the MGMRT EBT and found it to be a sham designed to avoid due PAYE & NIC. The Rangers FC plc (In Administration) appealed this determination and this appeal was heard by the now infamous First Tier Tribunal (Tax). Rangers FC (the oldco) was able to pay higher wages to sign and retain better quality players during the decade in which the scheme operated. In fact, had Rangers paid staff the same take home wage, the club would have had to find an extra £49m to pay tax on these wages legally. This much we have discussed many times.
Use link to read all.
HomunculusDecember 2, 2017 at 09:33
‘……With regard “What would be served by ordering a person to do something that was impossible?”’
_________
I maybe should have made it clear that that was not a question that I myself was asking-it was my guess at what Lord Bannatyne might have been asking himself in his evident perplexity.
Retrospective tax legislation: a clash of two moral imperatives
by Cathya Djanogly, Pinsent Masons LLP
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-518-8006?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1
Nothing to do with Scottish football governance , but a reminder how PR works . The editor’s notes are worth noting .
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1786892278/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&psc=1&tag=ho01f-21
justbecauseyoureparanoid 08:53 said:
‘Anyone seen or heard of the SFA’s compliance officer recently?’
Good question, after all this time.
I may have missed it, but can I also ask: Has anyone seen his precise terms of reference; and can anyone tell us to whom he will report?
I can expand if it helps EB. The two lawyers went with the failed lawyers original hypothesis that they were loans which they were. The accountant (correctly in my opinion) essentially said, (and I acknowledge I am paraphrasing,) it doesn’t matter if they’re loans or not. Without the earnings the loans can’t exist. This explains my ‘out of the ether’ comment earlier. It also explains why the failed lawyer recommended at the outset that the scheme wasn’t used for ultra transparent easily reconcileable earnings for high profile individuals.
Interesting article Woodstein. Appears more sympathetic towards tax dodging but does put up the counter arguments; fair enough from a company that makes money from “wealth management” Key for me is the judgements that set precedence that the avoiders are aware of the risk. We (as a society) appear to be able to applaud risk takers who are quick to lobby on how much wealth they generate (where it goes is another story) but only if the rest of us are there to pick up the tab for the downside. Some risk.
For me the answer is to make “aggressive tax avoidance” (Osborne’s classification,) illegal. It is called “aggressive tax avoidance” now in guidelines, awareness of risk is one bit, use for reasons other than intended is another, it is measurable, it’s not disputable and it’s a tax on the rest of us.
But I thought LNS was an expert in logic (whatever that is).
Simple litmus test, if RFC had paid the tax owed would you have grounds for title stripping based solely on the hiding of side letters?
Yes. That is definately cheating. The clue is in the word “hiding”.