Whose assets are they anyway?

It has recently been suggested to me quite strongly by two separate Finance Industry experts that no matter the outcomes of the forthcoming criminal trials into the sale of Rangers and the subsequent disposal of the liquidated assets, it is highly unlikely that the sale will be reversed. In fact BDO (the liquidators of Rangers) see the path of least resistance to any remedy (if guilty verdicts are returned) through the professional indemnity insurance held by organisations involved (I am choosing my words carefully here to comply with the rules surrounding the court case).

There is of course still the dispute between the owners of Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland to consider (although depending on the outcome of the criminal cases, that may be moot).

On the face of it, all of this is good news for TRFC and Dave King. After all, one of the main problems they have been facing is the uncertainty over the ownership of the assets, and if BDO are swinging in the direction indicated above, King and his board are free to move forward – you would think.

The recent plans to raise cash from the fans is I think a smart one, but it is still a sticking plaster applied to a gunshot wound. Rangers already have a gate income which is the envy of not just most Scottish clubs, but clubs much further afield. Their problem is their astronomical fixed costs, their dilapidated infrastructure, and possible cash outflow through the fabled ‘onerous contracts’.

Even putting in place a severe austerity package (which may be unpalatable to fans being asked to part with their cash to buy off pesky shareholders who don’t share King’s vision) does not remove the need to capitalise urgently to repair the stadium and build a squad capable of competing in Scotland. So they need to raise cash, and they need it quickly – because soft loans cannot be provided forever.

So the share issue route is the obvious way to go, and to do that effectively, a listing on an exchange is required. However our sources in the financial world don’t think it is possible that this could happen with the current regime for the following reasons (not in order of importance);

  1. They have absolutely no credible business plan to move forward over the next five years – only a commitment to limping on with soft loans;
  2. The current chairman is a convicted felon;
  3. Two directors of the new company were directors of the company now in liquidation;
  4. They have no line of credit;
  5. They are already in debt to the tune of at least £12m – increasing as I write;
  6. They are unable to repay that debt;
  7. There is still a nominal (even if we accept the BDO position above) doubt over the ownership of assets;
  8. The football team does not play in the top league – and European income isn’t coming soon;
  9. The company have astronomical fixed costs which are way in excess of their income.

So even if the doubt over the ownership of assets is removed, there isn’t an easily navigable route for TRFC into calmer waters.

My own conclusion is that perhaps the biggest single thing that is holding Rangers back is Dave King. I really don’t know what his motivation is. There is speculation that he has his eyes on the increasing cash-pot and diminishing creditor list at the Oldco. Some Rangers bloggers are suggesting  that a land-grab play is taking place. I think the former is far more plausible than the latter, but if we take his RRM credential at face-value, it seems to me that the Rangers-minded thing for him to do would be to reverse himself out of the position he is in.

That might enable the company to raise some of the cash they need to repair the stadium, rebuild the infrastructure within the club (players, management, youth and scouting etc.).

Are King, Taylor and Park really in this so they can indefinitely fork out £10m per year? Will Taylor and Park continue to ally themselves with King if he is the impediment to inward investment that we think he is? Park will most certainly not, and my information, from sources very close to him, is that he is done.

The fractures in KingCo are beginning to appear, and King himself may come under increasing pressure to do what is best for the future of the club, which is to remove himself from the equation and allow those better placed to take it forward.

It is often speculated elsewhere that SFM is a Celtic blog, and even those who give us credit for being a much broader church than that will still insist that we are anti-Rangers, obsessed with Rangers, and out to get Rangers.

The occasional outburst of Schadenfreude from commenters aside (it IS a football forum after all guys) SFM is quite definitely not editorially anti-Rangers.

I think the evidence shows that we are nothing of the kind, and it doesn’t do Rangers any favours to conflate our position on the corrupt nature of the governance of the game with that of the Ibrox club – new or old. Where we do discuss Rangers (as we have in this article), it is with an acknowledgment that the money flying around in football makes all of our clubs vulnerable to the kind of rip-off merchants who have wandered in and out of Ibrox in the past few years.

There are many areas where the SFM consensus is unpalatable to Rangers fans. But protecting all of our clubs and their fans from mismanagement is hopefully not one of them.

Also, despite the many rivalries within the game, Rangers are an important focus (old club or new) for tens of thousands of fans. As such they are of interest to ALL of us who support football in this country. Anyway, I tend to be more obsessive about my own club – and find it rather easier to be objective about others 🙂

My own preference in moving the debate forward is to get the perspective of Rangers fans on these issues. I am ever hopeful that we can have Rangers fans engage with the blog and look for areas where we have common purpose.

Nobody at SFM wants Rangers fans to have no team to support. Nobody here wants the SFA to stay unregulated and unaccountable. Nobody at SFM wants people to make up rules they go along just for the sake of a few quid. I can’t believe that Rangers fans don’t share those values.

I agree that Rangers fans are victims of this affair to a large extent, but the culprits are quite definitely not us at SFM. They need to look closer to home to find them.

This entry was posted in General by Big Pink. Bookmark the permalink.
John Cole

About Big Pink

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,787 thoughts on “Whose assets are they anyway?


  1. An epidemic of itchy scalp-itis has broken out on RM due to this morning’s ruling. A few snippets from the head scratchers:

    They’ve won the right to appeal the tax case. That’s what this all means I think. Meaning it’ll go back to court.

    Surely this was the appeal itself, I can’t see where it says it has to be passed back to the tribunal, and it appears to be a judgement that income tax should have been paid

    Seems to be a bit of confusion going on about this, I have seen it said they won the right to appeal it but that this is not the actual final judgemeant? Anyone else seen this or can confirm this is the right to appeal?

    agree with you that everything I am reading seems to say hmrc have won the actual appeal and not the right to appeal, But I have a few people who are adamant they have only won the right to appeal. Confused!

    Yeah, its not crystal clear tbh but the right to appeal is normally a short hearing.

    I’m thoroughly confused

    so is that it then or does D Murray get a right to appeal the appeal hearing? My head is buckled with all this

    Now thats a trickier one and i dont know the definitive answer.  I would certainly hope so, but i have read that it may not be the case.

    So 2-1 to Oldco instead of 3-0, but its the last decision that counts. Hmmm.

    So they’ve won the right to another appeal. What if that appeal is again rejected by a court surely that’s it

    But can we / the oldco appeal this or is it once they’ve won it’s all over?

    still 2-0 that was they’ve won the right to appeal the original verdict so it back to court we go in my opinion of course

    how I understand it is the supreme court have basically ruled that this must go back to court as it could be seen as a advantage.

    So if we go back to court, we win the appeal, do they then appeal the appeal before it goes to the final court? Haha My head is scrambled with it all

    I’m not the most clued up on all this as it fries my brain but would be nice to see statements prepared as immediately to the time of these announcements as possible.

    F—-d up mate how am seeing it is they’ve now won the appeal so now have the chance to go back and look at the original decision. That’s how am seeing it anyway. What happens if it’s still found in our favour I really got no clue tbh

    Can anyone in the know with all this stuff clear something up? Was this the right to appeal of the actual appeal? Does this now go back to court at square one again or is that it done and dusted in HMRC’s favour?


  2. Apropos of nothing, is it still the same broom if you steal the money to buy the 17 shafts and 14 new heads?


  3. Big Pink 4th November 2015 at 12:31 pm #Jackie McNamara and Sid Donnelly appointed as York City management team.
    ===============
    Nice to see jackie back so quickly.
    Hopefully he’ll resurrect his career and move up the league ladder.
    Ex-Norwich manager Nigel Worthington had a short spell at York and having kept them in the league he was unable to make any progress in the following season.
    As with many clubs at that level money is tight and a lot of free transfers and loans is the order of the day, so it is difficult to maintain continuity.


  4. Even tho’ I don’t know what they all mean, It’s a day for using every smiley at our disposal. 
       To all the big hitting Bams out there, who can coont, research, investigate, dissect and were just a bloody great big thorn in the side of the establishment. (You know who you are) without whom this could maybe be under the carpet by now….. Thank you, on behalf of a nation…..But it’s not over yet. Keep it up ! The delay has given Minty loads of time to shift his ill-gottens…..Was that no what it was all about?
    010203040506070809101112131415161718192021222324


  5. One of the immediate items of fallout from today’s decision is how the narrative of the MSM and Rangers fans may change.

    Be interesting to see how those Rangers fans who have hitherto given David Murray a pass will react. The “we were found not guilty” mantra needs to be put to one side for now (BDO appeal?).

    The consequence of the FTT outcome was seen by some as proof that no cheating took place. I wonder if the logic will be followed from there?

    The LNS presupposition that the EBTs were legal and therefore available to other clubs was a nonsense anyway, since other clubs would have been required to embroil themselves in a decade long legal battle to establish the legality of the scheme.

    It gets to the heart of  what has gone on over the last few years. If breaches of the rules of fair play are only predicated on the moving frontiers of legality, the SFA should have had their own rules in place to prevent the seat-of-pants approach to tax management employed by Murray.

    Five years after the exposition of that scheme, STILL nothing has been done. Rangers failings and malpractice are historic. The SFA’s are current.

    What happened this morning is not nearly so important as what the SFA are going to do about it in future.


  6. Regarding the talk of “Title Stripping” and revisiting the LNS decision…here is the get out as explicitly built into the original decision in the case of such an eventuality as today:
     
    From the original LNS Judgement “THE SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED
    DECISION by THE RT HON LORD NIMMO SMITH, NICHOLAS STEWART QC and CHARLES FLINT QC”
     
     [104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequently able to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more31 success. Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law– so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.
    Thoughts?


  7. wottpi
    While there is still the UK Supreme Court option is there any possibility of the individuals who benefited from the EBTs being pursued for unpaid tax on their ‘newly established earnings’?If so there will be a hell of a lot of squeeky bums out there!!
    ——————————————————————————————————

    Couldn’t happen to more deserving people. 19


  8. John Clark 4th November 2015 at 10:11 am #“Rangers International Football Club plc was incorporated in Scotland on 16 November 2012 as a public company with registration number SC437060. The address of the registered office is Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD. The nature of the Group’s operations is that of a football club” _____- You mean it’s NOT a ‘holding company ‘simply operating a club? You mean it’s a Football club, founded in 2012? Cannot be Rangers Football Club, founded in 18-whenever, and  which is now in liquidation. So glad that they’ve realised that.
    =========================
    To be fair JC, that is accurate.
    RIFC PLC is a holding company, and it was set up after the formation of the club (TRFC Ltd, formerly Sevco Scotland Ltd), which it owns 100%. The activity of the group is the operation of the football club (TRFC Ltd), as RIFC PLC serves no other purpose.

    Of course, the group is an entirely different entity from the former Rangers FC, as today’s big tax case announcement and the LNS fine confirm.
    Other than something contained in the notorious 5 WA, I see no reason at all why TRFC Ltd should be responsible for settling the LNS fine, which was a punishment for Rangers FC’s cheating that took place before TFRC Ltd even existed. What a tangled web they weave in order to perpetuate the myth.


  9. Jim Spence‏@JimSpenceSport
    Jings So EBT’s are actually taxable earnings. Next thing somebody will be saying that the law on liquidation is the same as it always was?


  10. Re reversion to EBT recipients; since the appeal verdict today successfully challenges the initial payment from the employer to the principal trust as being, essentially, taxable at source there seems no reason why they could still go after the payments from the sub trusts to the players.

    This was essentially Dr Poons point – that the fault lay in the initial pump priming aspect of the payment to the principal trust since without that the otherwise ‘legal’ payments to the beneficiaries, and the associated home improvement loans to the beneficiary’s father (who co-incidentally played football) simply couldn’t happen – legal or otherwise.

    They’re safe for now.  But their club was sacrificed as a result.


  11. They say bad luck comes in  threes, don’t they?

    Rangers are awaiting the outcome of a tribunal which will rule on whether the Ibrox club has to pay an outstanding amount of £400,000.
    The £250,000 fine, plus costs of £150,000, relates to a charge brought against Rangers oldco by the SPL in relation to the use of undisclosed payments to players in the form of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) over a period of 11 years.
    A commission set up by the SPL, headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, ruled that the league’s rules had been breached and the fine was levied against the oldco, which is now in liquidation.
    The Scottish Professional Football League, created as a result of the merger between the SPL and the Scottish Football League, pursued Rangers newco for payment.
    Rangers admit under the terms of the ‘Five Way Agreement’, which allowed them to participate in Scottish football through entry to the bottom tier, the newco would be responsible for any sanctions imposed on the oldco by Scottish football’s governing bodies.
    But they claim the subsequent actions of the SPFL mean they “waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause.” The SPFL dispute that accusation.
    As a result, the Scottish Football Association was asked to convene an Arbitral Tribunal to rule on the matter.
    The tribunal sat on October 29 and 30 to consider the matter but no decision was reached immediately. Members of the panel will now consider the matter and return a verdict at a later date, though no timescale has been set for a decision to be reached.
    The SPFL rules allow for any outstanding fines or payments due to the league to be deducted from payments that are routinely made to member clubs. The SPFL Board had already intimated to Rangers that they intended to withhold payment of the outstanding fine, prompting Rangers to take the step of asking for arbitration.
    News that a decision on the fine is pending comes on the same day that Rangers published their annual accounts and announced that £2.5m of additional funding would be required by the end of the season.

    Hang on….The annual results; the lost appeal; this £400k cost (probably) and that’s just today!
    Here’s hoping the pressure to revisit the LNS registration findings builds sufficiently to make a fourth piece of bad news in quick succession. As Jimbo quotes above “Furthermore, so far as the footballers are concerned, at least, it seems to us that if bonuses had not been paid they might well have taken their services elsewhere.”, the Lords seem to have provided an open goal that says sporting advantage was gained (I know we already knew that!). Do we need to be applying that pressure ourselves, by email/letter to the SFA/SPFL? After all, we know our clubs and SMSM won’t be doing it – will we? Their prepared get-out of the decision being final even if the appeal decision went against Rangers surely can’t stand up to any sort of pressure.


  12. The Cat NR1 4th November 2015 at 12:55 pm
    Other than something contained in the notorious 5 WA, I see no reason at all why TRFC Ltd should be responsible for settling the LNS fine, which was a punishment for Rangers FC’s cheating that took place before TFRC Ltd even existed. What a tangled web they weave in order to perpetuate the myth.

    Which is why I am absolutely 100% certain that there is a side letter kicking around that the SPL as was would pursue Newco for the 250k per the 5WA, but that that would be an end to it regardless of any future BTC appeals or other legislative pressures.

    Why else would a wily old asset stripper like CG, perfectly averse with liquidation rules and onward liabilities sign up to it?  


  13. Lord Drummond Young, in his opinion said
    The funds are ultimately derived as consideration for the employee’s services, and on that basis they are properly to be considered emoluments or earnings.”
    So there you have it.  4 years after RTC set up, longer than that since the wee tax case and heaven knows how much money spent on lawyers; and finally a simple common sense conclusion.  If you provide a service and receive money, it is earnings.  Earnings are taxed.
    You can only shake your head at the deliberations, presentation, posturings and denials that have taken place over the years.
    Let’s have some proper justice now that the judiciary have outputted some common sense.


  14. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34720850
    HMRC wins Rangers tax case appeal
    The above article contains the following little gem.
    “A consortium led by Charles Green later purchased Rangers’ assets and the team began season 2012/2013 in the Scottish Third Division.”

    I still don’t know who played Brechin in the Ramsden’s Cup on 29 July 2012, which was before the above league season started, and the BBC report refers to “The new Rangers”, illustrated by a photo of someone that looks very much like Elbows sporting the interwoven lettered crest. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19032245
    Some of the headlines on the right might raise a wee chuckle(s), particularly the 01 one.


  15. Alex Thomson has tweeted that HMRC are not going after the players but the liquidators.


  16. Smugas 4th November 2015 at 12:41 pm #
    EJ
    what odds on a points deduction?  Long?
    —————————————–
    I can’t see it, but the SFA and SPFL have some explaining to do. However, I think they will bury their heads in the sand as per usual.


  17. jimbo 4th November 2015 at 1:11 pm #
    Alex Thomson has tweeted that HMRC are not going after the players but the liquidators.
    =============================
    They should be able to claim around two thirds of the £18M creditors pot. (notwithstanding Law Financial’s floating charge claim)


  18. Smugas 4th November 2015 at 1:06 pm #The Cat NR1 4th November 2015 at 12:55 pm Other than something contained in the notorious 5 WA, I see no reason at all why TRFC Ltd should be responsible for settling the LNS fine, which was a punishment for Rangers FC’s cheating that took place before TFRC Ltd even existed. What a tangled web they weave in order to perpetuate the myth.Which is why I am absolutely 100% certain that there is a side letter kicking around that the SPL as was would pursue Newco for the 250k per the 5WA, but that that would be an end to it regardless of any future BTC appeals or other legislative pressures.
    Why else would a wily old asset stripper like CG, perfectly averse with liquidation rules and onward liabilities sign up to it?  
    =================
    Was it, in effect, a £250K bribe as the price of admission to the league?
    Until the 5 WA is made public, and those responsible are brought to book, endless theories will circulate and the matter will carry on festering like an unlanced boil (apologies to anyone having lunch) on the backside of Scottish football.

    Perhaps today would a good day for El Presidente to break his sponsored silence and start the process of bringing to account those who sold sporting integrity for £250K? (I’m not holding my breath waiting for that one, though)


  19. Pink 4th November 2015 at 12:44 pm #
    It gets to the heart of what has gone on over the last few years. If breaches of the rules of fair play are only predicated on the moving frontiers of legality, the SFA should have had their own rules in place to prevent the seat-of-pants approach to tax management employed by Murray.
    *****
    To be fair, they had very strict rules in place that ALL payments to players and officials must be declared. Unfortunately, Rangers deliberately deceived them on that front and then the Bryson oxymoron deliberately let everyone off the hook. So it wasn’t rules they needed, but people of integrity and a system of checks and balances.


  20. Shirley LNS MUST revisit his verdict. Won,t hold my breath through!


  21. easyJambo 4th November 2015 at 1:16 pm #jimbo 4th November 2015 at 1:11 pm # Alex Thomson has tweeted that HMRC are not going after the players but the liquidators. ============================= They should be able to claim around two thirds of the £18M creditors pot.
    =====================
    The liability would lay with the employer.
    In effect, they gross up the amount received by the employee as though tax and NI had been deducted, and then collect that from the employer.
    The liquidators have accumulated a fair amount, and HMRC will want their share of that.
    Once the liquidators have finalised their directors’ conduct reports, HMRC may pursue the directors, although CW’s bankruptcy rules him out.


  22. Two points 
    1. LNS proceeded on the basis that the EBT scheme was legal. Simply that the payments should have been declared. Now that it the EBT scheme is determined to be illegal, a separate enquiry can be launched with fresh charges brought. The LNS decision will stand. I believe. New charges covering the sporting advantage element of making illegal payments can and should be brought – subject of course to any possible appeal. It may be a while yet before the five illegal titles are purged from the old club’s history. 
    2. It is not true that the CoS decision has no financial impact on the new club. One would assume that the SPFL will be seeking return of the prizemoney awarded to the old club in the period 2001 – 2009. This would classify as a sporting debt covered by the 5WA, and so falls to the new club. Also. any fines levied on the old club from the new enquiry will find themselves on the desks of the new club. 
     


  23. grecian urn 4th November 2015 at 1:27 pm #
    Shirley LNS MUST revisit his verdict. Won,t hold my breath through!

     
    I refer you to my post at “peterjung 4th November 2015 at 12:47 pm”
     
    They have already anticipated this outcome and have built this into the original decision…..again I quote:
     
    The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful.

    The LNS decision will not be revisited based on this IMHO……


  24. Incidentally, I think a wee light should be shone on an official statement from possibly the only actual legally binding decision made by an actual Scottish Judge in an actual Scottish Law Court (instead of the SFA/SPL/LNS etc.) in this whole affair.

    “A scheme involving payments to various trusts set up in respect of executives and footballers employed by the former Rangers Football Club amounted to “a mere redirection of emoluments or earnings” and was accordingly “subject to income tax”.”

    And there we have it. Not “holding company” or any other such nonsense. “Former club.” As in not the current one.

    It really is a great day.


  25. The CatNR1

    Hence why I said at the time why not make the fine £25m? (or other suitably large payment).

    CG said at the time he had no intention of paying it (unless of course he could extract something back the other way such as a side letter re titles regardless of BTC appeals for instance)  Oldco, by that point, were confined to the liquidation dustbin (interest was only renewed by the Withey payout).  The fine was supposed to reflect an offence close to match fixing or some such.  Certainly it cost the top clubs potentially lucrative CL participation over several years.

    Fundamentally the end result would have been the same (unless they enforce the fine’s payment but do you really think that’s likely atm?) and it might have sat better with all fans in the subsequent knowledge that this was in place of any title stripping.

    I remember at the time a three stage process in my thinking:

    1/  that 250k was simply not enough for the offences involved (long termers will recall RTC’s mantra that for RFC to win the BTC acknowledging the existence of the players’ side letters meant that they should have to lose LNS – common sense dictated they couldn’t win both (common sense – where have I heard that before?)

    2/  As said previously, why the hell would an experienced liquidation operator sign up to the liability?

    3/  Given that it was ‘only’ £250k and that at the time the same club myth was being actively nourished and propagated why the hell was Green not paying it?  Seemed cheap PR to me.  Clearly the emperor even then had little attire.  T’was clear to me anyway.

    I do notice an interesting snippet in what I assume is the STV piece above though.  That the grounds for Rangers seeking arbitration is because ” they (Rangers) claim the subsequent actions of the SPFL mean they “waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause.” The SPFL dispute that accusation.”

    Was the 250k pieces of silver deal originally contrived before or after the 1st Division vote I wonder?


  26. grecian urn 4th November 2015 at 1:27 pm #Shirley LNS MUST revisit his verdict. Won,t hold my breath through!
    =========================
    The whole thing needs to be revisited, not just the verdict.

    The misleading incomplete evidence, and the perverse interpretation of what constitutes sporting advantage are not affected by today’s decision.


  27. Big Pink 4th November 2015 at 12:44 pm

    Be interesting to see how those Rangers fans who have hitherto given David Murray a pass will react. The “we were found not guilty” mantra needs to be put to one side for now (BDO appeal?)

    ——————————————————-
    Can’t see why BDO would appeal as they would then be going against one of the creditors of the oldco they are supposed to be getting the best deal for. If it has been agreed HMRC are a creditor then BDO must surely have to ensure their claims for monies owed by the oldco are pursued, not denied?

    It is the Murray Group or, as is the case now, their liquidators Deloitte who may lodge an appeal if it was felt the CoS verdict was going to have an impact on monies available to the Murray Group creditors that they are duty bound to fight for.


  28. On reflecting back to the appeal itself, John Clark and I remarked on how well Mr Ghosh had managed to relate to Lord Drummond Young, mainly by quoting and bumming up his previous decisions, which brought a smile to LD-Y’s face.  I note that it was he who has produced the written judgement and not Lord Carloway who chaired/led the proceedings.


  29. Rangers Tax-Case ‏@rangerstaxcase 11m11 minutes ago
    Vindication.


  30. This isn’t the sum of all the bad news yet. You need also to factor in DCKs costs for his (I know BP disagrees), upcoming contempt showdown in December.


  31. is RTC back up and running ?
    im getting bombarded with emails from his site 


  32. John James is suggesting that King was duped into his recent visit to these shores.

    King was invited by Ashley to attend a meeting at the latter’s HQ. The duped King takes the red eye from Johannesburg, flies to Glasgow to engage in a pre-meeting briefing, then makes his way by train for a mock meeting. On his return to Scotland he is met by bailiffs and he is duly served with his contempt of court indictment. There are informed reports, currently unconfirmed, suggesting that Paul Murray has also been served. King was played by a master and has nothing but egg on his face.


  33. jimbo 4th November 2015 at 1:37 pm #Honestly wish RTC would come out of retirement in order to give a GIRFUY to James Traynor.
    Here is the bile directed at RTC and bloggers in general: (Link courtesy of The Clumpany) http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/james-traynor-why-this-is-my-last-ever-newspaper-1470050
    ==================
    Perhaps that link should be emailed to Ladbrokes, to let them know what kind of person they are getting into bed with, and how their brand is more likely to be damaged rather than enhanced by that association.

    Their lack of free exposure following RD’s October MoM award, with Celtic controlling the media output using in-house Celtic TV and club photos follows on from Aberdeen’s actions last month when DM won the award amid disrespectful activity by the sponsor.

    If Level 5 carry on acting, Ladbrokes may end up with no club interaction at all and having to rely on has-beens selling books to get their name in the press. There can only be limited mileage in that formula.


  34. So Craig Whyte is banned sine die from football by the SFA because he lied and/or failed to disclose his disqualification as a director, yet now we have three very prominent people still involved in football – Dave King, Paul Murray, and Andrew Dickson (where is the conflicted one nowadays?) – who have just been found guilty of actively participating in illegal tax evasion specifically relating to football. So whither their punishment?


  35. alzipratu 4th November 2015 at 2:04 pm #So Craig Whyte is banned sine die from football by the SFA because he lied and/or failed to disclose his disqualification as a director, yet now we have three very prominent people still involved in football – Dave King, Paul Murray, and Andrew Dickson (where is the conflicted one nowadays?) – who have just been found guilty of actively participating in illegal tax evasion specifically relating to football. So whither their punishment?
    =====================
    Yes, but applying the Bryson interpretation would mean that no punishment is due, surely?
    Craig Whyt’e mistake was getting caught when he did, so Bryson was not applicable.


  36. I note with interest that today’s judgement refers to “the former Rangers Football Club”.

    Just saying 😉


  37. Court of Session in Common Sense Shocker!

    While we let the latest news sink in and await the tidal wave of SMSM guff to cover up and distract…

    and in full knowledge that this is unlikely to be the end of the journey…

    my thoughts are with the people I wish were here to share this particular moment with us.

    A wee glass to be raised tonight in memory of some fine people who never got to see this moment, who were robbed by the cheats and liars of happy moments when they were here, and to RTC (in particular) and to all of the others who have helped to illuminate this scandal for the rest of us.

    It may be mushy sentimentality, but I wish that I could share this moment with my Dad. He knew what we were up against and he would have loved to see it so openly exposed in a court of law.

    Take a deep breathe and let it sink in. ‘mon the Bampots!


  38.  The respondents are members of a group of companies whose ultimate parent company is Murray International Holdings Ltd.  The first respondent is a subsidiary holding company, and the other four respondents are members of what is referred to as the Murray Group of companies.  In tax years from 2001/02 to 2008/09 the respondents entered into a series of transactions pursuant to a scheme designed to avoid the payment of income tax and National Insurance contributions (“NICs”) in respect of their employees.  Those transactions have resulted in assessments by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) to income tax under the Pay As You Earn (“PAYE”) system and corresponding NICs.  The respondents appealed against those assessments.  Their appeal was heard before the First-tier Tribunal, who on 29 October 2012 upheld the appeal; that was the decision of a majority of the First-tier Tribunal (Mr Kenneth Mure, QC, and Scott Rae, WS); the third member of the Tribunal, Dr Heidi Poon, CA, dissented.  The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lord Doherty), which on 8 July 2014 refused the appeal and on 22 August 2014 granted permission to appeal on one ground to the Court of Session.  Following that determination the appellant, who represents HMRC, has appealed to the Court of Session.  The first to fourth respondents are now in liquidation and the fifth respondents, RFC 2012 PLC, are now the only party opposing the appeal.  We should note that, although the appeal relates to NICs as well as income tax, it is a matter of agreement that our decision on the income tax issue will apply equally to NICs; consequently the discussion is confined to income tax and the PAYE system.

    wottpi at 1:41 – looks like the rest of Murray Group has moved on and BDO would be the only party considering appeal. though, as noted above, why would they act against the interests of the major creditor of RFC 2012?


  39. The Cat NR1 4th November 2015 at 1:59 pm #andy 4th November 2015 at 1:54 pm #is RTC back up and running ? im getting bombarded with emails from his site  =============== https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/
    ========================
    The article posted today is the first for nearly three years, but it looks like an incomplete draft. There are a couple of errors, such as saying debtors instead of creditors, and the final section is missing.


  40. The Cat Nr1

    I was of course being sarcastic but I do agree with the gist of your point. I suspect however that if Craig wanted to, he could have driven a coach and horses through his ban by simply using the Bryson interpretation: namely, his F&P declaration was accepted as true at the time by the SFA and he could not be punished retrospectively.

    That’s the problem with lying and corruption; it always gets untangled in the end because the knots one requires to tie oneself in to keep it hidden, eventually unravels to reveal oneself more naked than the day one was born.


  41. Zilch at 2.16pm

    Agreed! A toast to the RTC 11 and all the other bampots, with a particularl nod to those who are sadly gone from us – Corsica and Paul McConville


  42. Smugas 4th November 2015 at 1:37 pm #The CatNR1
    <EDIT>
    I do notice an interesting snippet in what I assume is the STV piece above though.  That the grounds for Rangers seeking arbitration is because ” they (Rangers) claim the subsequent actions of the SPFL mean they “waived all and any right it may have had to insist upon payment under the clause.” The SPFL dispute that accusation.”
    Was the 250k pieces of silver deal originally contrived before or after the 1st Division vote I wonder?
    ========================
    Smugas
    The STV article contains the following just above the bit that you quote
    “Rangers admit under the terms of the ‘Five Way Agreement’, which allowed them to participate in Scottish football through entry to the bottom tier, the newco would be responsible for any sanctions imposed on the oldco by Scottish football’s governing bodies.”

    What was the quid pro quo in the final 5 WA? Is the above entirely accurate?
    You may well be right that SPL/SFL Division 1 status was the minimum acceptable consideration from the SPL/SFL that the Sevco 5088/Scotland side would sign up to before parting with their £250K.


  43. Why would BDO defend this?

    Well perhaps because they have a duty to all of the creditors of Rangers and at the time of their appointment the judgement was in their favour.  If HMRC have a lesser amount owing then the liquidator achieves a better outcome for all of the creditors.

    If HMRC, as now, have a higher amount owing then HMRC benefit by getting a lower percentage on a higher debt, other creditors lose.

    Not saying they’ll appeal to the Supreme Court though. They would have to weigh up the cost of appealing with the likelihood of it being found in their favour. I suspect this is the end of it.


  44. At long last, justice is being done!
    What will “the writers and critics” who bad mouthed RTC and the “anonymous bloggers” have to say now?  I look forward to Traynor’s retractions:
    Daily Record, 3rd Dec. 2012
    James Traynor: Why this is my last ever newspaper column
    ” ………  Unfortunately, there has been the last twisted and bitter year during which Scottish football, unable to deal with the Rangers crisis in a civilised manner, has tried to tear itself apart. All in the name of sporting integrity, of course.
    Actually, for the last couple of years some of the most bilious types have been allowed to emerge from the shadows and spew invective that sadly became regarded as fact, even though what they were saying and writing wasn’t even close to being definitive. Or honest. Overnight all sorts of anonymous bloggers became experts. These champions of decency had all the answers. They knew better than anyone else. They said over and over Rangers would be done for cheating the tax man.
    They were wrong, the Rangers Tax Case blog in particular. Yet he/her/they stated: “This blog has been accurate on all of the major points of the case except the one that matters most to date – the FTT (First-tier Tax Tribunal) outcome”.

    Bob Dylan’s words come to mind:

    Come writers and critics
    Who prophesize with your pen
    And keep your eyes wide
    The chance won’t come again
    And don’t speak too soon
    For the wheel’s still in spin
    And there’s no tellin’ who
    That it’s namin’
    For theloser now
    Will be later to win
    For the times they are a-changin.

    What’s next to change then?


  45. Cat NR1

    I may be wrong but the way I read that extract was that the 5WA allowed them to participate, as we know eventually ending up as participation in Division 4.  My conjecture was that a slightly higher entry level was ‘offered’ prior to their signing which then wasn’t delivered.

    Does anyone have a quick ready reckoner on when the final 5WA was announced relative to the 1st Division vote? 


  46. alzipratu 4th November 2015 at 2:26 pm #The Cat Nr1
    I was of course being sarcastic but I do agree with the gist of your point. I suspect however that if Craig wanted to, he could have driven a coach and horses through his ban by simply using the Bryson interpretation: namely, his F&P declaration was accepted as true at the time by the SFA and he could not be punished retrospectively.
    That’s the problem with lying and corruption; it always gets untangled in the end because the knots one requires to tie oneself in to keep it hidden, eventually unravels to reveal oneself more naked than the day one was born.
    ===================
    In due course it will all unravel itself.
    Ibroxgate certainly makes Watergate look like a one act play by comparison.
    We’re looking more along the lines of the length of a Lord of the Rings trilogy or even the Harry Potter serial, rather than All the Presidents Men when this screenplay gets filmed.


  47. Prohibby 4th November 2015 at 2:45 pm #At long last, justice is being done!
    <EDIT>
    What’s next to change then?
    ======================
    Lord Livingston resigns his Celtic PLC directorship?


  48. LNS and without regard to HMRC appeal could be read that the possibility of today’s outcome should not be considered in his initial considerations to avoid an and if of type conclusion. there is nothing there which stops the new improved outcome being referred back. Indeed it might be suggested that the no regard comment made a kind of provision for that. Innocent until proven guilty not innocent even if proved guilty. 
    The comments in the judgement point directly to the conclusion that sporting advanTage was gained via tax evasion. The SFA has a dilemma here and the current climate in world football with polis turning up at all kind of doors might encourage them to do the right thing.
    Lance Armstrong used to be a great hero of mine and I wasted many days watching him in the Tour De France, his crime was proven years after the event and at that point titles were stripped prize money and sponsorship recalled and more. if Cycling can do the right thing then so could the SFA.
    Correct though draconian punishment would have seen Clyde in the Premier League after the season second place in the first division was achieved. it might only have been one season but we could have said we were there. I am sure other clubs would have similar tales to tell


  49. RE RTC “new” blog.  Although dated today it talks about “interims” released “yesterday morning” with a commentary by “Alastair Johnson”.  I suspect this is referring to the last ever accounts, albeit interims, produced by RFC(IL) in the spring of 2011 as Craig Whyte removed Alastair of his duties in May.

    Re an appeal.  Not a legal type but I would be amazed if BDO would think appealing judicial opinion such as “self-evident” and “common sense” has much chance of success.


  50. Smugas 4th November 2015 at 2:50 pm #Cat NR1
    I may be wrong but the way I read that extract was that the 5WA allowed them to participate, as we know eventually ending up as participation in Division 4.  My conjecture was that a slightly higher entry level was ‘offered’ prior to their signing which then wasn’t delivered.
    Does anyone have a quick ready reckoner on when the final 5WA was announced relative to the 1st Division vote? 
    =========================
    Was the 5 WA final version ever signed?

    I seem to remember CG  (possibly) stating that it wasn’t signed by either version of Sevco.

    If DK had said that, I wouldn’t even have bothered to mention it, but once whoever it was had played Brechin in the Ramsdens Cup, the SFL/SFA were backed into a corner. Did they allow that game to go ahead without having received the final signed 5 WA from Sevco Scotland? (or had they been renamed TRFC by then?).  Certainly, a verbal or draft version was used to facilitate the proposed gerrymandering of the league structure, with the Club 12 scandal effectively costing Dundee FC a season or even two seasons of competitive top flight football.


  51. The RTC commented a few years ago in the early days that HMRC if they lossed any verdict on EBT’s they would appeal and appeal to the highest level as the evidence is overwhelming.
    I kept the faith and sporting integrity matters. LNS ah well……………………


  52. EMPHASIS OF MATTER – GOING CONCERNIn forming our opinion on the financial statements, which is not modified, we have considered the adequacy of the disclosures in note 1 to the financial statements concerning the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern. In order to continue operations for the next 12 months the group is dependent upon raising additional finance. Failure to secure additional funding would result in the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt as to the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include the adjustments that would result if the Group was unable to continue as a going concern.
    ——————————————————————————————————–
    This is from the Independent Auditors report.

    This reads, to me, like a ‘qualified’ endorsement of the Going Concern status. Is that correct?


  53. Homunculus 4th November 2015 at 12:19 pm #On “Phantom Tax Bills”, from 2012.
    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-could-owed-tens-millions-1449760
    Rangers could be owed tens of millions in damages over phantom tax bill, says ex-Ibrox director Paul Murray

    And he believes they may well discover grounds on which lawyers could claw back in excess of £50m in lost revenue and damages.
    ============================
    Have we heard an update on this wee cracker?

    I may need to sue Paul Murray to recover the cost of damage to a keyboad and two monitors caused by being sprayed with tea when I read his comments.


  54. Some top quality pot/kettle action in the Chairman’s Report of the RIFC PLC 2015 accounts.
    The rest of the Chairman’s Report may or may not be true, and given the author’s reputation, I’ll just look at the numbers and the statutory disclosures to see how the group is performing.

    “The extensive and ongoing coverage of the Club’s off-field activities also impacted negatively on the image and reputation of the Club as a result of key individuals resorting to the use of leaked and often false information to the media as a tool to advance the interests of certain stakeholders to the detriment of others.”


  55. Personally, and it is just a feeling, I do not think the matter placed before Lord Nimmo Smith will be looked at again.

    The ruling is that Rangers did lie and cheat. They are not going to change that. They are guilty and it has been proven.

    The punishment was a big fine, that was based on LNS saying that he would not consider a sporting penalty because no sporting advantage had been gained. This was based on what he was told by the “expert witness”, that once players were registered then they remained registered until that registration was removed. As such they were eligible to play.

    So, unless Bryson changes his evidence the penalty will stay the same.

    I totally agree that this is wrong, perverse even. However my feeling is that today’s news will not change the penalty imposed.


  56. Mark Daly also taking the opportunity to reiterate the “curious £30,000 payment to former manager Graeme Souness 10 years after he left the club.” Good on you, Mark. Will you, or any other ‘journalist’ ask Souness what that was about? I’m looking forward to the Platini-esque reply “Emmm, it was for something I did for David back in nineteen-canteen. A contract for the work, you say? No!”


  57. Wow Just Wow !
    An HMRC win, and dreadful accounts slipped out the back door the sameday !
    1) On the football side, shirley this will lead to inevitable, awkward questions on the SFA’s competence – and the whole cheating episode of the BTC & WTC era ?

    2) On the business side, the SFA must formally contact RIFC/TRFC, as the independent auditors have very publically called into question the club’s ability to fulfil its fixtures this season.
    easyJambo 4th November 2015 at 9:24 am #….“EMPHASIS OF MATTER – GOING CONCERN…
    In order to continue operations for the next 12 months the group is dependent upon raising additional finance…”

    3) And…I can’t wait to see the contortions the SMSM ‘journalists’ get themselves into over the next few days trying to spin their p!sh, and conveniently forgetting what they have written over the last 3 years or so about the dodgy club.

    And congrats RTC ! 


  58. Am I being thick, or are RIFC PLC really operating without a chief executive?
    It looks like all the reports are signed off by the chairman.

    No wonder no-one wants to touch the company with a barge pole, if one of the basic tenets of UK corporate governance is absent.
    I haven’t even got to the numbers yet, but the alarm bells are going off left, right and centre.


  59. I am sure many on here are unaware of the Jeremy Kyle show. However a  mainstay of the show is the lie detector test. Even better when a couple do a double lie detector to see if they are both cheating.

    The scenario that usually unfolds is  that one of the couple is outed as a cheat and the other party goes ballistic and has full confidence in the test. ‘I knew it , I knew it’ comes the call. However when their results show them also to be a cheat, suddenly the lie detector is all wrong.

    I note that today some Bears have resorted to the usual victim mentality and having previously ‘talked up’ our Lordships for previous sound decisions, suddenly the attack hounds are out looking for signs of Timmyness and hidden agendas.

    Needless to say a huge spoonfuls of Whataboutery (Juninhio etc) and ‘why were HMRC only picking on us’ are also being taken.

    Like the love cheats on Jeremy Kyle they just can’t see it and nor can they accept it that the scheme there club ran was designed to avoid paying tax to help them buy and pay for players they couldn’t otherwise afford and that the management of the club were even more foolish by allowing side letters to be produced against the advice of Baxendale. Similarly they conveniently forget that LNS did find them guilty of duping the footballing authorities by not disclosing the aforementioned side letters. 

    Like the spamheids on Jeremy Kyle many a Bear will be in an ongoing dysfunctional relationship with the rest of Scottish Football until they face up to the reality that the situation they find themselves in was one of their clubs own making.


  60. JJ differentiating current and former club  no doubt all kinds of unsavoury accusations will be heading his way courtesy of the sweary site and others. This verdict confirms for them the entire conspiracy agin them too little cognition and too much dissonance if you ask me


  61. Just a quick thing from the accounts.

    Amounts due from subsidiary undertakings £18,099,000, up from £15,647,000.

    I assume that’s the money TRFC Ltd currently owe to RIFC PLC. The figure is shown as £0 for the group as a whole.

    Oh and it was clearly a very good day to release these account, as they are not having as much comment made on them as one would have expected.


  62. I’ve just had a look at the SFA & SPFL websites.
    The SFA ‘News’ area hasn’t been updated since last Thursday.
    The SPFL ‘News – Press Releases’ hasn’t been updated since the 16th of October.
    Asleep at the wheel?


  63. @The Cat NR1
    different title but the man responsible for day to day running of the club since June is Stuart Robertson as Managing Director.  I think PMGB has been hinting though at some tension behind this executive director and the NED who has taken no emoluments from the club but to all intents and purposes appears to be running it in the absence of his South African based puppetmaster.


  64. PMGB (whom I see has issued his latest) did mention that Stewart Robertson new CEO was experiencing, ahem, issues.


  65. I posted this comment on Alex Thomson’s blog earlier, but I must still be in moderation.

    “A previous legal judgement ruled that the club gained no advantage.”
    Alex, if you are referring to the Lord Nimmo Smith “judgment” then your comment (above) is not correct.  LNS, having a legal background, was engaged by the Scottish football authorities purely as a consultant.  His pronouncements on the Rangers BTC or title-stripping have absolutely no standing in law.


  66. I would love it, just love it…to hear Ogilvie’s opinion on this HMRC win!
    Would any SMSM journalist even think about approaching him ?
    [I know.]
    OK then, what about obtaining the current SFA President’s opinion?
    [I know.]

Comments are closed.