Whose assets are they anyway?

Avatar By

I know McDiarmid isn’t as big, but wouldn’t that be …

Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by nawlite.

I know McDiarmid isn’t as big, but wouldn’t that be fairer for RossCo fans than coming all the way to Hampden? After all, if it’s good enough for TSFM, it’s good enough for the SPFL.

At least it’s a 3.00pm KO, I guess.

nawlite Also Commented

Whose assets are they anyway?
Let’s all make sure we don’t fall into the trap they’re all  trying to set on title stripping (SMSM; TRFC*; fans etc). They are trying to frame the argument in terms of the EBTs giving Rangers a sporting advantage by allowing them to outspend other clubs and attract better players. 
Although this is undoubtedly the case, it is absolutely not the reason title stripping should happen. Even if we win this argument, it only allows them wriggle room by way of:-
1.  Investors would have put in the money anyway if needed
2. Players would have signed for (the glorious Glasgow) Rangers anyway
3. Were Alex Rae and Nuno Capucho really sporting advantages?
4. Celtic used EBTs too
5. Most businesses use aggressive tax avoidance
6. Even if it IS tax cheating, the SFA/SPFL have no rules/sanctions that allow for title stripping as a result
This argument also allows other clubs who have ‘overspent’ to gain an advantage (Hearts, Gretna, Dunfermline have been mentioned) to be tarred with the same brush and used as a precedent/threat against title stripping.
We need to remember that Rangers have already been hit with the consequences of their financial mismanagement/cheating. Mainly because of the BTC David Murray couldn’t find a buyer for the club and they ended up being liquidated.
We must keep the argument on title stripping to the actual point – to hide the use of EBTs, Rangers deliberately did not provide the SFA/SPFL with details of all financial contracts/payments in respect of a large number of their players. This is in very clear breach of football rules.
Don’t get sidetracked.

Whose assets are they anyway?
Thanks for all the input, folks, and so quick too. What a resource this forum is.

So Arsenal settled and stepped away from EBTs. Rangers didn’t and suffered the consequences i.e. unable to sell the club and subsequent liquidation.
As I said, I believe it’s mainly the mis-registration thing that leads to the call for title stripping. Does anyone know if Arsenal used side contracts and deliberately withheld them?

Whose assets are they anyway?
I hope I’ve been around here long enough for this not to be seen as trolling – hopefully my fellow Perth attendees will confirm I’m a real TSFM member!! I’m trying to understand the possible truth of one aspect of the TRFC* fans’ arguments re the EBT issue (or witchhunt as they call it).
They are claiming that the call for titles to be stripped is again only due to hatred of Rangers and could only happen in Scotland. Now I’m not suggesting that precedent elsewhere means title stripping shouldn’t happen here, though they are of course (!) and it’s only feeding the victim mentality of that type of fan.
The gist of their argument is that it is widely known/accepted that Arsenal (as one example) used EBTs and that is also my understanding from reading RTC/TSFM over the years. In their view, because there has been no clamour for Arsenal to have titles stripped, there should be no call for Rangers’ titles to be stripped either.
This is where my memory lets me down. I know that the title stripping issue arises from the deliberate mis-registration of players, rather than the failure to pay due tax per se – the punishment for that was DM being unable to sell the club and, hence, liquidation. (Although the sporting advantage of being able to get better players on the cheap also impacts!), but it would be really good if those with more knowledge/better memories than me would clarify the questions below.  
1. Did Arsenal settle with HMRC when challenged over their EBT use? If so, I would see that as meaning Arsenal did not fleece HMRC so there is no need for title-stripping as a form of punishment/deterrent.
2. Have Arsenal yet to be found guilty of illegally using EBTs? Is the Rangers case the ‘stalking horse’ that will allow HMRC to go after the Arsenals and others from the EPL? If so, it will be interesting to see if title stripping is on the subsequent agenda.
3. Did Arsenal operate the EBTs correctly and therefore there is no case to answer?
4. Did Arsenal disclose the EBT payments to the EPL/FA so the question of title stripping is not/will not be an issue because the title stripping argument only arises because of the deliberate mis-registration?
I hope the answers will give me the clarity to debunk this argument when put to me.

Recent Comments by nawlite

Enough is enough
EB, you state that the SFA’s rules allowed them discretion to transfer the membership. Just for clarity – is your reason for doing so purely to clarify for others on here that the SFA did not break their rules in allowing the transfer? I.e. a warning not to claim the SFA breached their rules?
Or is your reason for stating it an argument that the transfer of membership allows the current ‘Rangers’ to claim that it is the same entity as the ‘Rangers’ currently in liquidation?

Enough is enough
AS, you need to remember that as far as the SFA is concerned there’s no uncertainty ‘cos Dave said he would put the money in! So that’s awrite then.

Enough is enough
If Dorrans’ signing was after the accounts cut-off, then I can only see Cardoso, Pena, Herrera, Candeias and Morelos signing for a fee according to TransferMarket. Their fees listed there total only £7,380m not the c£10m shown in the accounts. Anyone any ideas?

Enough is enough
Given that Dave doesn’t have any control, I’m wondering who the nice person at NOAL is who keeps sending TRFC money out of the goodness of his heart?!?

Enough is enough
Tris, you say “Celtic wouldn’t be risking very much if some more equitable model was introducedThey’d still have more money than most.”
Of course they would………but only most in Scotland. That’s my point – why would they weaken themselves against the ‘big’ European clubs whom they have ambitions to better or at least compete with? You suggest they should because somewhere down the line they MIGHT need to improve due to increased competition from better domestic clubs. Seriously? “Let’s weaken ourselves against the clubs we’re aspiring to match in the hope that years ahead we MIGHT get better and they (keeping all their money) don’t”!?!?!?!
Let’s be realistic. You can’t expect a business/club to do that.
I want better competition and improving standards in Scottish football as much as anyone, but the more naïve comments I hear, the more I’m convinced that it can only be done by somehow forcing UEFA to drive it from the top down (or, as you say, the bubble bursts and we start from scratch).

About the author