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. this rfc situ is not too difficult but to help those media guys……

    to pull the wool over the sfa eyes they had to cheat the taxmans rules
    to pull the wool over the taxmans eyes they had to cheat the sfa rules

    to pull the wool over nobodys eyes yer maw or daw called u sandy or nimmo….

  2. UTH
    I wonder who the players where that where not in the loop to receive an EBT and why they where out of the loop,where they in receipt of other lucrative incentive payments ,or just daft,dumb and blind,my monies on the former.

  3. I think Mr Jolyon Maugham smells an easy money payday in Scotland.

  4. @yourhavingalaugh I believe there was one RFC player who had the moral compass to decline payment by EBT.  Whether that affected his netto payment I don’t know.  There is a photo doing the rounds of a RFC squad photo with the faces of those who had EBTs covered with red dots.  I think there were several faces showing, a couple of players and coaching staff (presumably the most junior)

  5. tykebhoy and yourhavingalaugh
    My post on 5th November listed the Rangers team and EBTs on Helicopter Sunday (albeit the format went a bit wonky!).
    From the starting team only Shota Arveladze doesn’t appear on an EBT list.
    However I wouldn’t rush to praise Mr Arveladze’s moral compass as in May this year in connection with a Dutch Court case his agent claimed that rather than the £2 million and loose change transfer fee reported at the time Rangers actually paid over £8 million.
    Lest We Forget.
    Don’t worry. We won’t.

  6. Celtic’s SLO, JP Taylor is on holiday until 16 th. Nov., in case anyone is/was trying to contact him.

  7. jimbo 7th November 2015 at 6.18pm.
    It’s more skulduggery if you think a spade is a digging implement.
    I’ll settle for cheating.

  8. I like the Stuart and Tam show although I do not get a chance to listen to it often but I did manage five minutes tonight and all I heard is that titles should not be stripped.

    I have heard this phrase so often over the last three days but no one seems to be able to say what should happen. If there is no appeal, and that is still an if, what should be the punishment?
    Surely they aren’t suggesting that another fine is levied because they haven’t played the last one and are refusing to. This is, once again, where the procrastination of the SFA has come home to roost. We take the honours and reject the debts routine. UNACCEPTABLE!

    Are they suggesting there should be no punishment or are they going to fall back on the old “they’ve been punished enough”?

    So here is the question: What punishment, that would act as a future deterrent, should be given for non-payment of tax over a ten year period?
    That is before you even begin to ask questions over player registration.

    The same papers that regularly publish stories from ex-RFC players complaining that they were cheated out of a European Cup final in the early nineties by Marseille are now suggesting that their should be no punishment. I may be wrong but were Marseille not stripped of that European Cup?

    I’ve also heard the line “Well there is no guarantee that Rangers would have bought those players anyway”.
    This is an absolute corker!
    So a club that was over £18M in debt and was sold for a £1 actually had access to £49M?
    Is that really what they are asking me to believe?

    At least Stuart and Tam did ask the question “Were the authorities intimidated by the Rangers support?” 
    Perhaps they should have added “and are continuing to be intimidated”.

  9. I have previously posted on the johnjamessite with no problem. The one post that was not shown was a simple question—Who owns the deeds?
    I posted another ,which may be in moderation. Since when did “integrity” become a dirty word?
    It seems to be you can be tarred with an “integrity brush”. You lot have been found out.

  10. One of the things we are probably all now conditioned to do is ask just why an article is appearing in the SMSM and whose agenda it serves.

    The BF-penned (aye!) words in the DR made me wonder if he was part of a softening up process for the bears – readying them for a strategic withdrawal by DCK or some accommodation with MA that would currently be most unpalatable.

    Have DCK and his 3Bs reached the point where they have run out of options? Will next week bring the straw that will break their camelcoat backs?

    It would certainly be ironic if the Green messiah actually brought Armageddon on Ibrox.

    Scottish Football needs a judiciary prepared to rule without fear or favour.

  11. The film scam guy has no credibility whatsoever. He is blogging in defence of the fact that he has delivered hundreds if not thousands of his clients into the arms of HMRC and the courts.
    He’s as much a scammer as DCK. Literally every day film scams are being called to the Court Rolls in England.

  12. The film thing has been about for a good number of years. HMRC have been looking into them for quite some time.

    As I understand it, that involves people investing money into companies which are alleged to be making films, and supporting the UK film industry. The tax breaks were put in place to support that industry, create jobs, bring money into the country by the films selling abroad. It is not uncommon for the Government to do such things.

    What is the difference twixt that and an EBT and how does it differ from the The Rangers situation.

    Again, as I understand it, the individuals have put money in they already earned and it is down to teach individual to take advice on whether they are a good idea for them or not. They then get tax relief on those investments. For EBTs the clubs set them up and the players were paid their salaries in part through those schemes.

    In essence the film schemes are down to the individuals. The EBTs are down to the employer.

    As I said, just my understanding.

  13. @Homunculus, you are spot on.  

    Film partnerships are something players would invest in, and arrange through their advisors. EBTs were done via employer. 

  14. justshattered,

    Just apply the rules.  When an ineligible player takes to the park the opposing team is awarded a 3-0 win result.  That would do for me.

  15. And by the way Mr Bryson,  it can be done retrospectively.  Sorry, that wont sit comfortably with you and your mindset.

  16. Disappointed with Stuart Cosgrove on the early show but not surprised by Tam Cowan, regarding the possibility of honours being corrected. Stuart’s sympathy is with the non-EBT Rangers players who did nothing wrong. I can understand the logic but has he less sympathy for all the opposing players? Similarly, Tam has sympathy for the Rangers fans who enjoyed watching their team win but seems to have little or none for the fans of opposing teams who watched their team lose.

    As to the idea that you can’t know if Rangers would not have won without EBTs, any club that has been kicked out a completion for having an ineligible sub appear at the end of the game knows all about how rules are rules. By breaking the rules and going to great lengths to conceal this (maybe 14 even having someone at the SFA to help – “Campbell knew”), Rangers didn’t just take a gamble, they showed utter contempt for their opponents and the game itself (and taxpayers, Her Majesty, the armed forces, the NHS…..).

    Correcting the outcome of past games would, I agree with Stuart and Tam, be a nightmare but something needs to be recorded and will probably need an agreed amnesty with UEFA and FIFA to avoid football suing itself to death.  Has anyone recalculated SPL league tables with 3-0 defeats for Rangers games?  Does it alter relegations as well as titles, European qualification and general placings?  My mind may be playing tricks – the SPL did allow the occasional relegation, didn’t it?09

  17. jimbo 7th November 2015 at 11:07 pm #justshattered,
    Just apply the rules.  When an ineligible player takes to the park the opposing team is awarded a 3-0 win result.  That would do for me
      That is the rules Jimbo,  but nobody wants the titles. An asterisk and explanation why will suffice for me. 
        A 3-0 defeat is hardly fair over a cup run, as the opponent in the second round should never have faced Rangers (I.L) and so forth right through to the final. Even in the league there are suspensions for yellow and reds come into play, injuries, etc which over a season all had a bearing on team selection, let alone a decade of them. 
        I think it is fair to say that results cannot be fairly re-calculated to eventually result in a newly configured outcome. We just have to accept that for a decade at least, they totally fecked up everything. Like a combine harvester rattling through a farmers field in winter, the wheat cannot be stuck back in the ground again. 
        I think it also important to point out that it wasn’t our spineless and corrupt governors who brought them to task, but Joe bloggs “fitba fan” who made it happen. Because in the end, and it has been much discussed……That is the only way it will happen. One is as bad as the other and it should be duly noted.
        Jim Spence put it rather eloquently.
      “Currently many fans are demanding that the new Rangers be stripped of the titles that the old Rangers won.” 
        Something like that, along with the asterisks and explanation of the cheating, in the record books will do nicely.


  18. Deekbhoy 6th November 2015 at 4:38 pm

    Seems to be a lack of clarity of the timeframe for any appeal in the BTC case. I have seen 28, 42 and even 56 mentioned. Obviously the Football Authorities cannot act on the ruling at this stage until the time laspses for the appeal or any such appeal is heard.

    I would actually beg to differ. LNS reached a conclusion, based on an assumption that has now been proven false, before the appeals process was exhausted. By the same token, the SFA/SPFL must now revisit the case and apply an appropriate sanction, which in my view should be no less than the stripping of all honours won in the years concerned. If HMRC subsequently lost an appeal to the Supreme Court, those honours may be returned. In the meantime, each time the current Rangers take to the field wearing a crest with five stars, they should face a disrepute charge.

    I also think we could use a snappy slogan for hashtags and the like, and would suggest #settherecordstraight. Any barbs this might appear to contain are of course totally coincidental.

  19. I don’t know where to begin.  Lets take the five stars first.   I will have to moderate my language here.  5 stars?   It is a convention throughout proper football clubs in Europe that a star worn represents a European result.  Except *Rangers shifted the goal posts, a star = 10 domestic titles.  Oh deary me, how small minded.

    CO,  An Asterisk would do for me.  I don’t want their tainted titles but I very do want them marked as such (for history)

    * ‘Won by dubious means’

  20. How s about this for an idea.
    We produce  a “wee black book” akin the red. One.
    It’s only contents being.
    Well you get the idea.
    Handy when your in the pub or need something  to peruse.

  21. jimbo 8th November 2015 at 12:39 am #

    Why not look on those five stars as asterisks ? The badge of shame ? Five tainted titles (at least)

  22. I am serious here.
    Forget all the arguments just publish a tiny tome with all the dodgy games asterisked.
    Will it sell?
    You bet it will.


  23. Just watched the Sons of Lazarus demo outside the Superstore – not a poppy in sight .

  24. eWhat interesting times we live in. I was pleasantly surprised with the CoS decision, not just the outcome, how the findings were written up was refreshing.
    I sense that the SMSM are trying to create doubt with the narrative – this was a complex case, the first 2 stages of appeal found for RFC and RFC(IL), if this were to go to the Supreme Court, then it could swing back etc. etc. Paragraph 57 of the decision blows that out of the water – their Lordships found that this was a simple case, the complexity of trusts was a red herring, which the earlier Tribunals should have ignored. 
    In terms of the accounts for Rangers, it was a good week to bury bad news. I think for the moment, the accounts are where the narrative should be.
    I am no accountant, having read the accounts and some of the commentary on these it is clear that there is a consistent black hole of circa £9 – 10m per year that the club need to find. It gets worse, in that there were a series of income streams available to Rangers in the last accounts that will not reemerge e.g. Commonwealth Games fees.
    An administration event in my view is likely, the club cannot keep going with their current business model. Matters may get terminal on Friday this week, with an exceptional event, if Mr Green wins his case and the club have to honour the contract whereby legal costs are paid. 
    Assuming that administration happens, it is likely that an administrator (outwith Scotland?) will be appointed. I cannot see why/how significant cuts will not be made – millions need to be found if the club are going to honour their remaining sporting commitments.
    If administration happens, this will be a failure of corporate governance – we were led to believe that the SFA required business plans and evidence of sustainability from the Rangers. It is looking like someone has not kept their eye on the ball.

  25. Anyone who has in the past (apart from the whole of the smsm and sfa) felt that the goings on at Ibrox club was the big bad men who done it (apart from anyone called Murray or KIng) and the poor fans are blameless (in a kinda duped sort of way).  Then read below how some of these poor fans think of HMRC verdict.


  26. I’m afraid Mr Maugham has kind of shot his Rangers argument in the foot, or at least seriously weakened it as it relates to that particular EBT.

    From his “part 2”


    “But I should also make this point. There were two different types of arrangement before the Court of Session: one for footballers and one for managers. And this criticism I have advanced of the Decision may be stronger for managers than for footballers. Because footballers did enter into an agreement (called a side-letter) when they signed with Rangers in which they seem to have agreed that payments should be made to an EBT rather than to them. But Managers didn’t sign an agreement – although they too were found by the Court of Session to have agreed.”

    So basically, as people have been saying here for quite some time. Rangers mucked up the EBT and used it for tax avoidance. They did not use it for discretionary payments at all.

    And also

    “It’s not easy for an outsider – like me – to look at a case and say what the answer should be. The answer is often quite sensitive to the facts. The advocates arguing the case – and the judge or judges hearing it – know those facts better than the outsider does. And that’s a particular problem in this case. I’m not sure why – perhaps it’s because the Court of Session decided the case on an entirely new argument – but the facts relevant to this new argument are not terribly clear from the Decision.

    So, although I stand by the problems I have set out above with the Decision, it is perfectly possible that my analysis is wrong. You know this, of course. But it’s important that I say it.”

    So basically you don’t know all of the facts, so you are using conjecture, and also backing down for the instances where there were side letters. Your argument against the decision isn’t as strong on those. Of course it isn’t, it’s rubbish.

    Can we also look at managers, those without side letter and at the fact the case is decided on a “balance of probabilities” proof. In the majority of cases there were side letters. On the Ramsey Principle the EBT was there for no other reason than to avoid tax in those cases. What was it probably there for in the other cases.

    Common sense.

  27. I’m not very savvy when it comes to trying to read newspapers online. So perhaps someone could check the Sunday Mail/Daily Record.
    As far as I can see, the great sporting football cheat, the dishonourable knight, is beginning his rehab: with talk of buying the Tata steel thingy in Motherwell.
    That that man should even appear in daylight says a lot for the kind of brass-necked operator he iis. Very bad cess to him, and may he never prosper in any of his business ventures.

  28. valentinesclown
    that is the worst”i’m a victim” page ive ever read,it’s got tax evaders,child abuse and even a mention for jim spence,the guy that wrote needs to see a doctor

  29. Valentines
     re VGB
    its the old adage,if you repeat something often enough,so we have now to believe nothing actually happened,these creatures that live under stones and in the darkest of tunnels appear every so often and spout their nonsense about the way his dead club was run ,seriously deluded people and dangerous company to even be near spouting this nonsense ,our SFA just don’t realise what they are responsible for and should come out from under their stones and deal with this ,once and for all.

  30. John Clark 8th November 2015 at 9:24 am



    Former Rangers chairman Sir David Murray could be set to buy two Scottish steel plants under threat of closure.

    MURRAY, who made his fortune in the steel business, is said to be considering a bid to rescue Tata Steel plants Dalzell in Motherwell and Cambuslang’s Clydebridge.

    FORMER Rangers chairman Sir David Murray could be set to buy two Scottish steel plants under threat of closure.

    Murray, who made his fortune in the steel business, is said to be considering a bid to rescue Tata Steel plants Dalzell in Motherwell and Cambuslang’s Clydebridge.

    The Sunday Times reports that Murray’s plan to make the plants viable involves importing raw materials used in manufacturing from abroad, as opposed to from Tata’s Scunthorpe supplier.

    It comes after a protest march in Motherwell yesterday in which supporters of the plants rallied to put pressure on the Scottish Government to protect the industry.

    A Scottish government spokesman said it is “working closely” with Tata and industry unions to “secure an alternative commercial operator for the sites.”

    Businessman Murray bought Rangers in 1988 and it was during his tenure that the club used Employee Benefits Trusts to pay players.

    Last week courts ruled that Rangers broke tax rules by usuing the sheme which left the taxman millions of pounds out of pocket.

  31. Stuart & Tam were a mixed bag yesterday. On the evening show they seemed to face down reality a bit more, probably due to the correspondence received in the afternoon after the lunchtime show.

    Guest Graham Spiers continues to puzzle and frustrate. Trying too had to be all things to all men. One thing that he came away with was that it was Craig Whyte who sank Rangers and the EBTs had nothing to do with that. Hmm…I’ve no doubt completely misunderstood but wasn’t the bill from the ‘wee tax case’ part of the debt mountain under Whyte that killed Rangers FC? And didn’t that go all the way back to EBTs where guilt not contested? 

    Btw, nice offer from St Mirren yesterday. €6.99 for online match ticket. Excellent coverage in spite the relatively low gantry position (grrrrr). Interesting half-time feature as well. So that’s Raith & St Mirren with one-off match day online tickets. I’ll keep looking for others…

    PS Bravo for latest podcasts BP

  32. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1630607.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_11_08

    SIR DAVID MURRAY, the former owner of Rangers Football Club, is poised to step in and rescue hundreds of jobs threatened by the closure of steel plants in Scotland.

    Sources close to the negotiations said Murray is in “pole position” to purchase Dalzell in Motherwell and Clydebridge in Cambuslang, two Tata Steel plants which are facing closure with the loss of 270 jobs.

    An insider said: “Nothing is in black and white yet, but Murray believes he has the customer base, and can sharply reduce costs by sourcing the raw material the plants need from abroad.”

    Murray, who made his fortune in the steel business prior to taking over Rangers, believes the businesses can be made profitable by buying the steel slab that the plants require to make rolled steel more cheaply from abroad.

    (Subscription required for full article)

  33. I have read many articles about how Rangers may not have been able to attract certain players if they had paid tax, as they would have required an extra 49m.
    I also read (from The SMSM) claims that some of those players may still have come to Rangers (Citing Nacho Novo as an example of a player who would have come anyway).
    This is confusing the issue, nobody is claiming that players would not have signed on, what is clear is that Rangers did not have the money. They could not afford to sign or pay those players or have a squad of that size. If they had offered Giggs 100k per week to play, he may also have signed but they did not have that sort of money without doing something illegal.
    49m is only a number that covers the BTC, Rangers overspent well over 100m during that time, this shortfall having been covered by the stupidity of others. A key element of covering most of the other shortfall was the transfer of 50m of debt to another company, I will say no more on who footed the bill for that one.
    The point is that Rangers were able to afford the players and squad that they had during that period with over 100m of funds that should not have been available to them, funds that were not available to the other teams.
    The only thing I can think of that would have provided a clearer sporting advantage would have been to instruct opposition teams to play without a goalkeeper!

  34. Homunculus
    oh here we go david murray is now a saviour,he wouldnt by chance be trying to be nice just after a certain tax case would he ?

  35. Valentine’s clown
    The Vanguard Bears article is delusional in the extreme but it should remind everyone if a reminder was needed,that a large section of that team’s supporters will never ever show contrition or regret for the damage they have wreaked on our game.Strip them of titles.Who cares? We know and they know they cheated their way to all of them.

  36. Danish Pastry 8th November 2015 at 9:54 am
    To all intents and purposes correct but a slight correction.  The WTC sum of £4m that Whyte agreed to pay, but didn’t between his May 11 takeover and the Valentine’s day 2012 insolvency, was not for the EBT’s they did not contest.  It was the DOS (Discount Options Scheme?) that RFC had previously been told they would lose if they contested.

    One could argue that little sporting advantage was gained with the DOS operation because one of the 3 beneficiaries was Torre Andre Flo 07

  37. Murray is said to be considering…

    Building a super casino with a hover pitch?
    Signing Ronaldo?

    Let’s see what actually happens. Perhaps he’s found some miraculous way to undercut cheap Chinese steel imports. In the meantime it’s good PR after a week that has severely damaged his reputation. Pure coincidence, of course.

  38. Big Pink

    If the report of the SPFL meeting from E Tim is correct

    Then perhaps SFM has helped get across to clubs the extent of that influencing.

    I believe the report because had I seen the extent of the “influencing” I’d be punching someone’s nose.

  39. Whooaaa
    Just lets rewind for a few seconds,are we to believe that a failed business man who’se previous venture into the steel industry which collapsed under enormous debts,which is bigger,enormous or massive,anyway,the fallout from this failed venture is still being calculated and here we are being told the shining knight is riding to the rescue,aye right,but hey let’s give Rangers fans the chance to comment first as the bloggers on here will be too stunned to reply for a while,
    ps,does a certain Mr Masterton name appear anywhere in the new venture,just asking.

  40. All Murray has to do is get a loan of the money, oh yes that might be a problem these days. Damn where are generous banks or pension funds when you need them

  41. Madbhoy  24941

    Whilst all of what you say of financial doping is true there still are  no rules in Scottish football that make it wrong.

    Indeed UEFA FFP which finally set out rules to prevent such in UEFA competition  only began in 2010/11.

    My point is you cannot break a rule which does not exist.
    So I fall back on LNS’S words about a fundamental defect, which provable  dishonesty is, requires a players registration to be ineligible FROM THE OUTSET.
    These guys hide behind the rules so karma suggests we use their own words to ensure we get at  the truth that deception and covering up took place on a huge scale that was fundamentally wrong.

  42. Homunculus

    Is that a desperate attempt by Sir David Murray to keep his title?  🙂

  43. I’d like to think Mr. Maugham carried out a perfect ‘three point turn’ in his driving test.

    He’s obviously had practice!

    What’s the best advice a lawyer can give?

    “Yes, no & maybe.”

  44. In the words of the (fictional) Martha Clifford “my patience are exhausted” with the supposed upper end of the SMSM.
    I have sent the following, by email, to the Editor of ‘Scotland on Sunday’:
    “Dear Ian Stewart,
    The deceitful and devious Sir David Murray –cheated all of us taxpayers out of millions-cheated his fellow members and ‘competitors’ of the then SPL , and the members of the SFA, and member clubs of some clubs who participated in UEFA competitions-and created a set of circumstances which led our Football Authorities into a de facto aquiescence in the ‘rigging’ of Scottish Football.
    And ‘Scotland on Sunday’, i.e you, have nothing at all to say? No questions to ask? No observations to make? No defence of Sporting Integrity? No call for an investigation into the nonsense of the 5-Way Agreement and the absurdity of ‘same club’ as far as sporting achievements go, but a quite different entity when it comes to avoiding the penalties that should have been imposed on the liquidated RFC?
    I think that that is a gross dereliction of any kind of journalistic duty, which ranks you alongside those Football Authorities who who lack the moral courage to run with the truth.
    Yours sincerely,
    (real name)  ”

  45. I see that ‘Warbs’ has joined the debate about Celtic needing a consistent challenge in order to make progress in Europe.


    Presumably he’s never heard of Bayern Munich, who seem to do perfectly well in Europe despite their domestic dominance.

  46. Auldheid 8th November 2015 at 11:11 am #Madbhoy  24941
    Whilst all of what you say of financial doping is true there still are  no rules in Scottish football that make it wrong.

    Yes Auldheid, I agree and I know having invested a lot of time researching and debating this specific subject matter. This is why your ‘crusade’ is very important and the work and time spent so far, well worth it.

    My post was more directed at the SMSM who are trying to dismiss the idea that if Rangers (or the players) did actually pay the tax owed, those players could still have signed on.

    We are still singing from the same hymn sheet  🙂

  47. Has the argument not moved on from” they might have still signed”?

    The fact is that they did sign, the tax was not paid, the side letters not submitted to the Football authorities, therefore they were illegally registered.

    The tax due is HMRC’s business and the eligibility is the SPFL/SFA’s business.

    As far as I can see, there are two seperate issues, although linked.

    The question of whether those players would have signed is a squirrel.

    The other nut hoarding rodent is Cosgrove’s kite about punishing the 4 or 5 non EBT enhanced players.

    Tell that one to the three other members of a 4×100 metres relay team who were clean!

  48. Those saying games should not be reversed and resulting trophies stripped seem to be basing this argument on a number of strands. As I see it

    1, Players might have signed anyway.

    2, The games were won on the field, nothing to do with finances.

    3, Other selected players, managers say they don’t want it to happen

    4, Other people could have used EBTs if they chose to but didn’t

    5, EBTs were not “illegal” if operated properly.

    There really isn’t a great deal of point in arguing with any of that. It is both irrelevant and specious. What could have happened makes no difference. What the other competitors want is irrelevant. All that matters is what did happen in the past and what should happen in the future.

    A, Rangers avoided tax, allowing them to make higher net payments to players than they would otherwise have been able to. (In reality all it did was minimise the overspend but again that is pretty much irrelevant). To suggest that did not make the squad stronger is simply to admit they did a bad job of cheating. Incompetence is no excuse.

    B, Rangers lied to the footballing authorities in Scotland by concealing the side letters (let’s just call them second contracts) that formed part of the avoidance at A. Why would they hide them if they thought they were perfectly acceptable.

    Rangers have been found guilty of both A and B. It is a preposterous situation to say they should retain what they “won” during that period of sustained, deliberate, systematic cheating.

  49. ThomTheThim 8th November 2015 at 1:20 pm


    We seem to have been having very similar thoughts at the same time.

  50. Below is a copy of part of conversation I had on Facebook with a Rangers supporting mate recently. He’s a thoroughly decent bloke but he is undoubtedly blighted by the wearing of blue-tinted goggles. Sorry it’s a bit lengthy and apologies for a couple of instances of plagiarism on my part.


    I feel compelled to mention the not insignificant matter of Rangers Football Club having been found guilty of systematic cheating over a period of a decade or so, not least because I was asked to apologise for calling them cheats three years ago, when they first appealed HMRC’s decision about tax due on EBTs.
    Let me first of all make it abundantly clear that Rangers cheated, quite separate to, and in addition to, the offences detailed in yesterday’s announcement of the Court of Session’s decision on EBTs, so regardless of whether there is a future appeal, they are cheats. Yesterday’s announcement only changes the number of times Rangers cheated and the amount of money involved, not that they did or didn’t cheat. They incontrovertibly did.
    So, what to do about such cheating on an industrial scale? Well, perhaps unsurprisingly Dave King (‘The Rangers’ current chairman and convicted felon, whom a High Court Judge described as “a mendacious witness whose evidence should not be accepted on any issue unless it is supported by documents and other objective evidence”) tells us it doesn’t affect the new club. Except of course for the minor matter that he, along with our inept football authorities, expects us to continue swallowing the big lie that old and new club are one and the same.
    Rangers fans and much of our media are wont to tell us that the Lord Nimmo Smith commission found in Rangers favour three years ago. That is, at best, deliberately misleading. LNS found Rangers guilty as charged and fined them £250,000, a sum which has yet to be paid. However, LNS’s jaw dropping ‘no-sporting-advantage’ decision was met with widespread incredulity until it became apparent that our football authorities deliberately supplied the commission with a mixture of incomplete information (eg tax avoidance relating to DOS EBTs that Rangers had already admitted to, but which were conveniently excluded from the scope of the enquiry, thus avoiding sanction) and perverse logic (eg the SFA’s Sandy Bryson expounding the ridiculous notion that misregistered players weren’t deemed ineligible to play until that moment in the future when the misregistration was noticed by the authorities. In other words, if I murdered my wife 20 years ago and buried her under the patio, I’m not a murderer and she’s not dead because I’ve not been caught yet! Or a pregnant woman isn’t actually pregnant until she announces the fact!). This failure of the football authorities to bring Rangers Football Club to task for a myriad of misdemeanours has been a recurring theme throughout the years. One could be forgiven for thinking that they had a rulebook all of their own, or indeed, had no need for one at all. Who could forget the genius idea of asking the club to investigate itself into alleged links between Whyte and Green for example? The findings of LNS need revisiting urgently in light of both the deliberate misdirection by the football authorities and yesterday’s statement from the law lords that Rangers employed players that they couldn’t legally afford. The standard punishment for fielding just one ineligible player is the imposition of a 0-3 defeat. Now imagine the vast number of players and games that were affected, both domestically and in Europe. The scale of the problem created by Rangers cheating is mind-boggling.
    What Dave King and The Rangers fans want is to pick the best bits (titles, cups, glory) of the old club, but claim “a big boy did it and ran away” when it comes to accepting responsibility for the negatives (massive debts, cheating on a massive scale). I’m afraid they can’t have it both ways. They are quick to point out that Rangers was under the ownership of a different company during the bad old cheating days, yet conveniently they don’t apportion their 54 titles according to which company/owner operated the club.
    As for that tired old “same club” lie which our football authorities (Neil Doncaster in particular) still try to perpetuate, despite the myth being debunked over and over again, yet apparently it still must be true because the SPFL said so – does that mean we just accept every utterance from Sepp Blatter and his colleagues in FIFA and UEFA as fact? What’s that? Fraud and corruption, you say? From our football authorities? Who’d have thunk!
    There are many, many facts that prove that the club which died in 2012 is not the one which currently plies its trade in the Championship, not least of which is: if the demise of the company didn’t affect the club, how did the club find its way to the bottom tier of Scottish football since it certainly didn’t get relegated? The 10 point penalty for entering administration meant comfortably finishing in 2nd place in the SPL in 2012, so it assuredly wasn’t relegated. There was no punishment dished out by the SFA or SPL when liquidation followed, as that would’ve required a board meeting to agree such a sanction, and that never happened. They weren’t placed in the 4th tier by the other clubs either, since the clubs had no power to do so, nor were they demoted. Not even one of our intrepid journalists (or more accurately stenographers) have thought to ask this rather obvious question, despite knowing all the relevant facts. They, like the football authorities, are complicit in maintaining the big lie via blatant propaganda. In trying to answer my question, Rangers fans ignore the aforementioned pesky, inconvenient facts by attempting to rewrite history with blatant lies, which may or may not end with words such as Hey Presto, Abracadabra or Shazam! The simple fact is that the old club no longer existed after it failed to agree a CVA with its creditors, hence Charles Green’s new club requiring to apply for entry into the SFL.
    If, on the other hand, our football authorities insist on telling us that club and company are indeed separate, (and LNS argued otherwise, contrary to the myth) whereby the mystical, ethereal club is immortal, forever serviced by a never-ending line of financially suicidal, disposable companies willing to throw huge amounts of money into a black hole, it would have been useful if they’d told us in advance of their plans to introduce what in effect is a franchise system, instead of introducing that franchise system after the event purely to maintain the illusion that the dead club which was propped up draped in a ‘born in 1872’ blue t-shirt was actually still alive.
    Finally, if the crimes committed by Rangers were carried out by any other club, you can bet your bottom dollar they’d be expelled from football altogether, and justifiably so. And yes, if my club (Hearts) was ever found guilty of cheating on anything like the industrial scale Rangers have, I’d expect to see them dealt with severely. Contrary to the misguided notion doing the rounds in the media that there is no appetite for revisiting the outcome of financial doping (Oh yeah? Says who exactly?), the question on the lips of the SFA’s new president shouldn’t be “should titles/trophies be stripped?” It should instead be “how many titles/trophies should be stripped and for how long should we banish them?” If you disagree with me, presumably you also think that Lance Armstrong shouldn’t have had his titles stripped by USADA?
    What’s that old saying again about karma being a bitch?

  51. Does anyone have details of the published wage bills for Rangers RIP and Celtic for the period of cheating (let’s ignore the DSO seasons).


  52. A few posts flew back and forth between my Rangers-supporting mate and I, including one where he (justifiably?) called Hearts cheats for winning the cup back in 2006 whilst owing millions of pounds. As a Hearts fan, I’m always conscious of, embarrassed by, and apologetic for the debt we shed in the administration process. My reply to some of his points were as follows. Apologies again for the lack of brevity.


    I deliberately left a little gap since making my last point on here for two reasons. Firstly to allow you time to answer how Rangers ended up in the fourth tier of Scottish football, and secondly to allow me time to consider your point about Hearts ‘cheating’ by winning a cup whilst being millions of pounds in debt, thus giving them an unfair advantage over their opponents. On reflection, you do have a valid point and I will be willing to concede that Hearts cheated and should hand over the trophy to beaten finalists, Gretna. Oh no wait! Gretna FC are no more – they were liquidated not too long after that cup final, the only cup final win I’ve ever been present at. Of course Gretna 2008 replaced them and they now play in the Lowland League, in the same colours, in front of the same fans, at the same stadium, Raydale Park. They do not however claim to be the same club as the one that died, nor would they be allowed to.
    However, I digress. I would be perfectly willing to concede that Hearts cheated, and have our cup win expunged from the record books, so long as this policy was applied universally, or at least nationwide. This would affect all those clubs who gained an unfair advantage by operating with huge debts and would therefore include the likes of Dunfermline, Motherwell, Dundee, Livingston etc, all of whom went into administration in the past. As far as I’m aware (without doing any research), none of these clubs won any titles or trophies during the periods they were heavily in debt, although I’ll be happy to be corrected. There is however one club, or more accurately two clubs, who would be greatly affected by this new policy – Rangers and new club The Rangers. It might well be the case that there would be a considerable overlap between the titles and trophies that should be stripped from Rangers for the cheating occasioned by the EBTs and those stripped as a result of this new policy, but that’s a minor detail. The Rangers would of course have to start all over again at the bottom, possibly even in the Lowland League, because, as their recent accounts show, they are millions of pounds in debt and have been virtually since the day Charles Green founded them three years ago. They therefore have an unfair advantage over their opponents who are all living within their means.
    So, there we have it. In the interests of fairness, I’ll happily concede that Hearts cheated and I’d be content to erase our cup win from the records, once you reciprocate with all those titles and cups, and admit that your clubs cheated. Is it a deal?
    My second point covers one of your questions from the other night that I’d inadvertently missed. “Why the interest in a team you claim no longer exists?” In one of my previous posts I compared Rangers cheating to that of cyclist Lance Armstrong. Both involved doping, one of which was financial. The comparisons don’t stop there. Armstrong denied doping for many years before he was caught, in no small part due to the doggedness and determination of one journalist. Now I’ll stress that I’m in no way, shape or form comparing myself to him, but like him, I can’t stand injustice. In essence, my gripe isn’t really with Rangers, it’s with the corrupt football authorities who are supposed to be the guardians of our game, but who not only turned a blind eye to Rangers cheating, they actively assisted them in that cheating and continue to treat the rest of us like morons by concocting and maintaining a ‘same club’ fallacy that’s less plausible than Santa Claus. That fallacy was invented for the sole purpose of ensuring that Rangers precious world record 54 titles was salvaged. The media in this country contribute to the illusion of continuity by avoiding asking a solitary relevant question like those I posed above that you couldn’t answer. When Stewart Regan of the SFA last touched on the subject three years ago he claimed that what they did was “for the good of Scottish football” and to avoid civil unrest and financial armaggedon. He did not mention that the club had survived liquidation because he knew full well that legally, the club was dead, because club and company had been one and the same since incorporation in 1899. What he and his buffoon sidekick Doncaster have done since then is maintain the appearance that old and new clubs are the same, but they also know that if anyone had the gumption to challenge this legally, the SFA/SPL/SFL/SPFL would be laughed out of court. If you and your fellow bluenoses don’t want to take off those blue-tinted goggles and face the truth, that’s your prerogative. Just don’t expect the rest of us who live in the real world to be duped by a set of supporters and football authorities who have so far been duped by David Murray, Craig Whyte and Charles Green. Did I miss anyone? Oh yeah, serial liar and convicted criminal, Dave King. What could possibly go wrong?
    Finally, I have never and will never want there not to be a team playing in blue out of Ibrox for you to support. That is not what my crusade is all about. I know the thinking of The Rangers, its supporters and the football authorities is that this will all blow over due to apathy and the myth will in time become fact. I for one am determined that that won’t happen and that one day, just like with Lance Armstrong and the Hillsborough tragedy, the truth will emerge, possibly even as soon as the upcoming court cases.

  53. Just realised he meant Hearts cup win versus Hibs, but you get the gist.

  54. Highlander 8th November 2015 at 1:31 pm #
    Highlander 8th November 2015 at 2:17 pm #
    Absolutely brilliant, Highlander. That’s gone straight into my Top 5 OC/NC posts.
    Chapeau, sir.


  56. ThomTheThim 8th November 2015 at 1:20 pm
    We seem to have been having very similar thoughts at the same time.
    8 0 Rate ThisView Comment

    In which case, I am honoured.

    Reading the eTims’ article, about the Hampden mole, hopefully the report is true.
    Even if it is not, it puts it out there that this is what should happen and will be in the minds of all SPFL clubs.
    playing the SMSM at their own game.

  57. David Murray really is a repulsive excuse of a human being.

    The humble business tycoon is said to be considering rescuing a couple of steel companies.  Could I politely suggest to ‘Sir’ David that in the very unlikely event he actually does have some spare cash, that he should actually choose between repaying the money he personally stole from the taxpayer  when he paid himself an illegal EBT in excess of £6 million,  or alternatively repays to the country the cost of bailing out his failed business empire.  And if ‘Sir’ David wants a third choice he could replace the money he is robbing from members of his pension scheme.

  58. Auldheid 8th November 2015 at 10:56 am #Big Pink
    If the report of the SPFL meeting from E Tim is correct http://etims.net/?p=8089
    Then perhaps SFM has helped get across to clubs the extent of that influencing.
    I see that johnjames is reporting in remarkably similar terms and adding some additional material.
    We need to be careful not to jump to the conclusion that this is corroboration as we don’t know the source(s).
    For all we know jj may just have lifted and embellished the etims story.
    If the story is true however we are perhaps on the cusp of fairly dramatic developments.
    I suspect that the football authorities will shortly issue a statement saying that they are monitoring the situation and will comment further once it is clear if there is to be an appeal against the judgement in favour of HMRC.
    If such an appeal is not lodged in the required timescale IMHO the game is up and a proper investigation, with all the consequences that may bring, should be automatic.
    This may not be the only bad news on the way for the bears. In fact if CG wins his legal costs case in the coming weeks then that might mean the arrival of the prophecised armageddon after all – but for those directors who have undertaken to financially support potless RIFC/TRFC.
    Scottish Football needs to recommit to maintaining sporting integrity in our game.

  59. Big Pink, Tris

    Yesterday morning I canvassed enthusiasm amongst the SFM community for actively seeking the support of the other clubs in demanding sporting integrity in light of Thursday’s Court of Session decision.  Essentially I was proposing 41 SFM members would each contact as many supporters clubs and Internet forums for a given club as possible.  He or she would explain the SFM viewpoint and provide a template letter(s) that the organisation or members of the organisation could then forward to the relevant chairman/board members/footballing authorities.

    It appears that there is sufficient appetite amongst SFM bloggers.  Is this a project you think worthy of your time and effort?

    PS I am hearing from a very reliable source close to Mr Lawwell that reports of anger and demands for justice from the other clubs reported on eTims are overstated.

  60. Bryce Curdy 8th November 2015 at 3:42 pm #David Murray really is a repulsive excuse of a human being.
    The humble business tycoon is said to be considering rescuing a couple of steel companies.  Could I politely suggest to ‘Sir’ David that in the very unlikely event he actually does have some spare cash, that he should actually choose between repaying the money he personally stole from the taxpayer  when he paid himself an illegal EBT in excess of £6 million,  or alternatively repays to the country the cost of bailing out his failed business empire.  And if ‘Sir’ David wants a third choice he could replace the money he is robbing from members of his pension scheme.
    Bryce, you have summed up my feelings 100%.
    What potentially makes this worse is the lurking suspicion that this is a PR exercise aimed at ameleriorating the recent damage done to SDM’s reputation and preserving the ‘S’ part.
    Many workers will have hopes raised and bodies like Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government will be pressured if not forced to support such an initiative.
    Remembering that famous ‘sniff test’ may I suggest to SE/SG that a clothes peg firmly placed on the nose may be required to deal with the stench of having to work with SDM.
    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

  61. Rangers XI v Hibs 22 May 2005 (‘Helicopter Sunday’):
    EBT, EBT, EBT, EBT, EBT, Arveladze, EBT(c), EBT, EBT, EBT, EBT.
    McGregor, EBT, EBT, EBT, McCormack, EBT, EBT

    “No appetite for ‘title stripping'”?  I’m positively ravenous.

  62. For anyone wishing to carry out a similar exercise this may be helpful.


    This table contains the names of Rangers players, coaches and staff who were beneficiaries of the Murray Group Remuneration Trust, and how much they received through that trust.

    It also lists the names of people where the BBC has seen evidence that they received side-letters – a promise to make contributions to their individual sub-trusts.

    BBC Scotland asked everyone in the Employee Benefit Trust scheme featured in the documentary Rangers: The Men Who Sold the Jerseys, broadcast in 2012, about their use of the trust.

    None would tell us anything about their EBTs.


    Given the current discussions the second para, regarding what the side letters were is really important. ” … a promise to make contributions to their individual sub-trusts.”

    As the CoS said, as soon as the money was paid into the trusts the player had control of that money, as such it was a payment for tax purposes.

  63. redlichtie 8th November 2015 at 4:05 pm #Auldheid 8th November 2015 at 10:56 am #Big PinkI see that johnjames is reporting in remarkably similar terms and adding some additional material.
    Bit too similar for my liking.

    Maximum caution on this story, there’s more chance of the trees in my garden growing ten pound notes than there is of the member clubs of the SPFL growing a pair.

  64. tearsofjoy 8th November 2015 at 2:15 pm #
    Does anyone have details of the published wage bills for Rangers RIP and Celtic for the period of cheating (let’s ignore the DSO seasons).
    Screenshot of spreadsheet attached.

  65. Highlander 8th November 2015 at 2:17 pm #
    Re the argument about tainted titles for those clubs which spent to excess during the last 20 years or so.

    You can probably categorise the clubs in five different ways.
    1) Those who have never been in debt – who?
    2) Those who have been in debt but have managed it without issue – Celtic, St Johnstone, ICT, Ross Co. Hamilton etc.
    3) Those who have been in debt to excess but have agreed a reduced settlement with their lenders, allowing then to continue relatively unscathed.- Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Kilmarnock, Hibs  
    4) Those who have been in debt to excess and have been unable to pay their bills resulting in administration, but have achieved a CVA. – Motherwell, Dundee, Livingston, Hearts, Dunfermline. – All received points penalties (except Motherwell whose Administration predated points penalties) 
    5) Those who have been in debt to excess and have been unable to pay their bills resulting in Administration, but have not achieved a CVA and have subsequently been Liquidated.  Airdrionians, Gretna, Rangers – The latter two both received points penalties while all three lost their league place following liquidation.
    All the above sanctions seem reasonable to me.

    Another group for consideration for tainted titles are those clubs whose tax arrangement have been determined as illegal. – Celtic, Hearts, Rangers

    1) Celtic’s involvement with the Juninho EBT resulted in Celtic voluntarily settling the debt with HMRC.
    2) Hearts paid some loan players a proportion of their wages in Lithuania between 2007-09, rather than the UK. HMRC argued that as the income was earned in in the UK, tax should be paid it the UK. Hearts agreed a repayment settlement with HMRC in 2012, although administration intervened before the amount was paid off.       
    3) Rangers employed two separate tax avoidance schemes involving EBTs, the first of which was deemed illegal in 2011 but with no attempt made to repay the debt. The second has just been declared as illegal on appeal to the CoS. The “club” still disputes its liability.  Furthermore, the non disclosure of associated contract details resulted in a fine of £250K (still unpaid), with no sporting advantage deemed on the basis of the tax avoidance scheme(s) being lawful.
    What are the appropriate sanctions for each of the above?

  66. easyJambo 7:01 pm

    i was reading your post and as usual was thinking what a fine contribution it was, until I came to the claim that Juninho’s salary arrangements had been deemed illegal.  When did this determination take place?  Must have missed it.  Neither an accurate nor fair representation of what took place.

  67. For anyone who is interested, here is a LONG post I made on my Strandsky Tales and Stories blog way back before the FTT  decision came in and before Lance Armstrong gave up pretending that he was on the level.

    We now know so much more, but at the tine there were a whole load of questions to be asked in the event of the tax case going against MIH.

    My apologies for the length of the post but the comparison was apt and I posed some questions and scenarios which the MSM were missing back in the day and are still missing now.


  68. Carrying on from where I left off, my understanding is that EBTs were not deemed illegal per se by the Court of Sesiion, but rather Rangers’ use of them was.

    Brian Quinn and/or other members of the Celtic board looked at Juninho’s remuneration arrangements and decided they were not 100% comfortable with them and decided to pay up in order to remove any possible doubt.

    Lumping this in the same category with events at Rangers is unhelpful.  They were totally different in terms of nature, deliberate intent, resolution, scale and duration, and I’ve probably missed several categories.

  69. redlichtie 8th November 2015 at 4:15 pm =======================================Bryce, you have summed up my feelings 100%.What potentially makes this worse is the lurking suspicion that this is a PR exercise aimed at ameleriorating the recent damage done to SDM’s reputation and preserving the ‘S’ part.Many workers will have hopes raised and bodies like Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government will be pressured if not forced to support such an initiative.Remembering that famous ‘sniff test’ may I suggest to SE/SG that a clothes peg firmly placed on the nose may be required to deal with the stench of having to work with SDM.Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
    I wonder who does (S)DM’s PR these days? A ‘succulent lamb’, perhaps?

    Surely the SE/SG/SNP would smell the reek long before they got in a room with (S)DM?

  70. easyJambo 8th November 2015 at 7:01 pm


    As I understand it Celtic came to an EBT arrangement with Juninho. The Chairman at the time, Brian Quinn found out about it and told the relevant department to contact HMRC and establish how to sort the situation out, that was in 2008. That as I understand it was done and Celtic paid the required amount to settle the matter.

    Juninho was with Celtic 2004 / 2005 season. He played a total of 22 games, including 4 in Europe. He played 14 times in the league.

    Celtic won the Scottish Cup that season, in which Juninho played twice.

    If people decide that Celtic should lose their only trophy for that season I can live with that. I cannot really argue any other way, if they used the EBT they used it, no matter that they discovered the error themselves and dealt with it in the correct manner.

    PS, he scored once for Celtic, in a win over Hearts.

  71. Bryce Curdy 8th November 2015 at 7:31 pm # easyJambo 7:01 pm
    i was reading your post and as usual was thinking what a fine contribution it was, until I came to the claim that Juninho’s salary arrangements had been deemed illegal.  When did this determination take place?  Must have missed it.  Neither an accurate nor fair representation of what took place.
    If you wish to be pedantic about it then I apologise, however I do feel that was appropriate to mention it, lest I be accused of being one sided  in ignoring the claims (however misguided) about Celtic’s historic tax arrangements. The gist of the point in relation to Juninho is that a Celtic Board member obviously considered it to be, or was likely to be, determined illegal, and took steps to pay the tax liability, and well done to Brian Quinn for that judgement. 

  72. Just to add to my last, Celtic had included the payments to the trust for Juninho in the accounts. Brian Quinn simply felt that there were potential tax issues and wanted to get it sorted.

Comments are closed.