Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?


Have I got this right? The Trust is legal The £40m or …

Comment on Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show? by goosy.

Have I got this right?
The Trust is legal
The £40m or so of funds deposited by RFC are legal
The loans to players are legal
The repayment due to the trust by the players are legal
Actions by the Trust to award loans of certain amounts to certain players on certain dates in return for certain services done on behalf of RFC were discretionery decisions made at the request of RFC using a process controlled by RFC
The Trust could legally have ignored any request from RFC to make any loan to any player at any time. But they never did because the Trust followed a process designed by RFC
Or put another way
For over 10 yrs
RFC have used a compliant Trust who do their bidding despite not being legally obliged to do so

So whats the problem?

All RFC (BDO) need to do is request the Trust to collect in the loans and send the money to RFC

What reason could the Trust give for refusing to action this request?
They have demonstrated over 10 yrs that they never turn down any request from RFC regarding
movement of Trust funds
Why should they start being nasty now?
Particularly as HMRC are now involved

goosy Also Commented

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
Tommy says:

Friday, November 23, 2012 at 20:32

I think a prime example of that was last year (?) when the Daily Record had the banner healine, “Old Firm player on rape charge” (or words to that effect).

This ‘tawdry rag’ (copyright The Sun) deliberately linked Celtic’s name to a matter it had absolutely nothing to do with.

With Rangers now deid they wont be able to use that term again

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
You last piece is outstanding forensics. You conclude that two majority Judges based their decision on the fact that HMRC accepted from the outset that the Trust was legal. You hint that if perhaps if HMRC had challenged the validity of the Trust the majority Judges may have sided with the minority decision which is based on solely on the evidence. You support this argument by pointing out that there were no points of rebuttal made by the majority Judges in the opinion of the minority Judge
You even hint that the minority Judge may have had some legal help in her choice of language

Let’s suppose you`re correct and what we have are two Judges colluding to be “hamstrung by trust law” while one Judge bases an opposite view on “common sense” interpretation of the evidence Meaning they all agree that the evidence points to an HMRC unanimous verdict

It seems a bit perverse for HMRC to have conceded the legality of the Trust from the outset. What advantage did HMRC get from that?
If there was no advantage then was there an ulterior motive?
Which got me thinking?
It was strongly suggested on RTC and in the MSM that HMRC were intent on nailing EBTs especially in football clubs and were hoping to use a victory over RFC as a clear example to others
A lateral thought
What if the FTT was never viewed by HMRC as the end game?
What If their goal all along was a binding Appeal Tribunal Decision?
Could HMRC have deliberately risked a majority losing verdict at the FTT with the intention of securing a precedent decision at a subsequent Appeal Tribunal?

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
torrejohnbhoy says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 11:13

Charles Green news (DR to expats)
“BDO have issued a statement which could delay Charles Green’s proposed £20m Sevco share issue.
With the First Tier Tribunal in the big tax case finally delivered BDO are ready to begin their task of identifying how the club crashed out of business- and recovering the best possible deal for creditors.
BDO have issued a statement promising to recover all possible monies for creditors.”
While there are a number of areas that they will have to forensically investigate the £5.5m sale of the club assets to Green’s consortium is likely to come under scrutiny particularly with Green going on record claiming that the new club have assets rated at £80m.
Hers another thought that might delay Charles Green’s proposed £20m Sevco share issue.
The Green Consortium bought RFC assets from D&P for £5.5m less the value of any players who walked (up to £2.75m).So most likely Green paid no more than £2.75m.
Some of the sale terms were confidential. Thus it is possible that the sale included transfer to Sevco 5088 of certain RFC debts due to Spivs This would mean residual Creditors got a bigger share of the liquidation pot.
It also means the debts due to Spivs were rescued from the Creditor List.
If the floating charge debts of Whyte(£27.5m and Close Leasing( £xm) and the Ticketus ST contract worth £40m were indeed moved under the Sale Agreement then clearly the new business is immediately in debt to the tune of over £67m
Which takes us neatly to todays BDO statement
I`ve always wondered why Green made a statement claiming that Sevco have assets rated at £80m. I was also puzzled why Green boasted that Sevco was “debt free”.
He could have said nothing.
If Sevco have £2.75m of assets revalued to £80m and liabilities valued at something over £67m then it is indeed “debt free” even though the arithmetic is still secret.
Why is it important for Green to have made these two statements?
If you are appealing to thousands of gullible people to invest in Sevco, you have to claim it is debt free. Otherwise people will think their money will go to reducing debt. Particularly if you may be forced by events to disclose a massive debt that you had to take on to “save the club”
We will know on 3 Dec if any Creditors have been removed from the RFC Creditor List
On that date all Creditors of RFC must register with BDO if they want a share of the liquidation pot.

Recent Comments by goosy

Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
JULY 28, 2017 at 11:42
I really think that the SFSA could – and should – grasp an opportunity like the SPFL statement to assume a moral leadership of fans of Scottish football. I’m not sure what it is they hope to provide in terms of moral authority if they are not fearless enough to address directly the biggest and still evolving scandal the game has seen. I am hoping that like Celtic, they are taking time to respond. The question is, how can they ignore it?
Its not all that difficult
.At their next  Board meeting the current SFSA Board should vote on whether they are prepared to make upholding sporting integrity the prime goal of their Mission Statement. All other goals will be subservient to this aim. Key Performance Indicators should then be developed to measure whether the governing bodies are upholding integrity going forward. Regular reports should be emailed to members when, as we expect corruption continues to be manifest in mismanagement of current rules and the law of the land. However The SFSA should avoid public involvement  on any topic until they have a fully functioning  democratically elected Board comprised of Fan Directors.
The focus on integrity should   automatically make resolving corruption the number one goal for the immediate term. It would enable an umbrella coalition to be established  between the SFSA and  other groups solely responsible for pursuing the Judicial Review route. The idea would be that the SFSA address an d measure progress on long term implications of removing the elephant while the rest of the coalition get on with shoving it out the window
Steps should be taken immediately to introduce democracy to SFSA using as a voter roll the names of all those for whom they have email addresses. Groups claiming to represent many unnamed members should be charged with adding them to the email voters roll by a target cut off date. The election of Fan Shadow Directors to overlap with the current Board should proceed on a democratic basis shortly after the cut off date. Whether this is  by direct election or through some temporary representative body should be thought through and voted on by email.
The views of the Celtic Board are no longer relevant
They had the opportunity to stand up and be counted .Instead they cooperated by their silence in a disgraceful, unethical and shameless strategy. Their focus now should be removing Bro Walfrids Statue from Celtic Park before it falls over in shame

Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
AULDHEIDJULY 27, 2017 at 22:11
Goosey GooseyWhen there is 0% chance of opening the door, 20% is worth backing.
Like I said
I`ve yet to meet the person with 80% integrity
Or put another way
I don`t trust people who have proven untrustworthy on an integrity issue on even one occasion 
Sometimes I have no choice but to put my fate in their hands 
Some worked out. Some didn`t work out
But because I had no choice I went along with it unwillingly
That wasn`t trust. It was Hobsons choice
When I have the choice not to trust them because there are other options 
I don`t trust them and go for an alternative
Having said that
Its a free country (apart from what we both agree on)
People may put their trust in SFAS using whatever criteria they deem most important 
For me when dealing with corruption there is zero room for compromise.
Its  an issue of integrity, right or wrong ,good or evil, black or white
I won`t  trust SFAS
So as I said before
I`m out

Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
AULDHEIDJULY 27, 2017 at 21:32 goosygoosyJuly 27, 2017 at 20:38 (Edit)
Read my post about capacity building. Have you anything better to suggest be done in their place? Are you going to do the work those volunteers do or are you happy just to snoop and snipe?
i have great respect for you and your track record in opposing corruption
I am too long in the tooth now to believe platitudes without checking the facts. I  am happy to contribute to a crowd funding initiative seeking a JR of the corruption associated with the recent past
I`m not snowed either by face to face meetings with people who have proven they lack integrity.
Thats a virtue you either have or you don`t have

I`ve yet to meet the person with 80% integrity
So as far as SFAS are concerned
I`m out

Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
Oh Dear as PMG might say
I fear I may have tripped over a can of worms in my previous post at 14.56
Thinking back to the sterling work done by the combined efforts of talented posters on the RTC Blog
I thought it might be fun to have a look at SFSA in a bit more detail
Current Office address 4 Woodside Pl, Glasgow G3 7QL
 If you Google Earth this address and postcode there`s a man walking along the pavement who looks awfully like a member of the SPFL. Can`t be sure of course  as faces are blurred with Google Earth but the odd way of walking seems familiar.
It was enough to pique my curiosity so I had a look elsewhere on the web
Lo and behold
Up comes the following
Official Launch early April 2015
“The SFSA, which says it has reached 40,000 pledges of support from Scottish fans’ groups at club level, will include a national advisory group.
It will contain experts on football and governance matters, including former First Minister Henry McLeish and Maureen McGonigle, founder of Scottish Women in Sport, and from academia and the business world.
They will work with a football advisory group that so far includes fans from Aberdeen, Ayr United, Celtic, Dumbarton, Hearts and Rangers”
Does 40,000 pledges of support from a Club Group mean every member of that Club has registered an email address with SFSA?
Or does it mean one person from each supporters group registered on behalf of their members with or without their consent? Does this explain why the SFSA had 40000  members before it was launched ?
“Whereabouts on the current website can you find the names of the fans on the Advisory Group from Aberdeen, Ayr United, Celtic, Dumbarton, Hearts and Rangers”
Why are members of the Advisory Group selected by the unelected CEO and Chairman of the SFSA Board and not elected by the members?
The Fans’ Manifesto
Fans want change
Scottish football needs and deserves a future. As a movement of some 50,000 fans (and growing) the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) believes that it really is possible to renew, reform and reclaim the game. But the engine of that transformation has to be those who love and follow the game. That is what this Fans’ Manifesto is all about.
 In 2015 we asked football supporters across Scotland what they wanted to see for the future. We got an amazing 10,000 responses.
 Among the mass of ideas and comments there were aspirations large and small. In this document we have distilled some of the biggest ones, and combined them with ideas that have now been in circulation – buttressed by a number of other surveys – for some time. This Manifesto contains nine key pointers towards the future of football game in Scotland. It is intended not as an end, but as the beginning of a renewed national conversation that needs to reach out well beyond the established boundaries if it is going to bring credible action
 01 Bring back the fans through competitive pricing and family facilities at every club
02 Make football in Scotland media-friendly and innovative at every level
03 Re-market the Scottish game, pressing for financial fair shares and transparency REFORM THE GAME
04 Rebuild the game with larger divisions, more variety and improved competition
05 Equip every club to be a ‘community hub’ for wellbeing and entertainment
 06 Re-invest in youth through fresh plans for training and education
07 A ‘diversity drive’: 25% fan representation on all governing bodies in five years, 50% women, a permanent place for the national fans’ body
08 Regular, independent auditing and review of the performance of governing bodies and clubs
 09 Extend community and collaborative ownership, create a fans’ right to bid or buy when clubs are for sale, create a fans’ bank or fund
Did any of the 10000 fans who responded to the survey mention that there might be a problem with corruption at the SFA and SPFL?
If so
Were they so few in number that their concerns were excluded from the Fans Manifesto?
Did any of the 10000 fans who responded to the survey mention sectarian singing, intimidation of officials, letter bomb training, assaults in the street as potential issues being ignored by the governing bodies?
Or in a nutshell
Did any of the 10000 fans who responded to the survey mention dissatisfaction at the manner in which the SFA and SPFL were handling the Rangers situation?
Or to summarise the above
Did the SFSA sanitise the 10000 responses of their own volition or did they do so at the request of a 3rd party?
There are stacks of angles  to the above which could be addressed by many of the fine posters who inhabit this blog
Whats clear so far is that SFSA are not a democratic organisation despite being in existence for well over a year 
Its also clear that despite their “plan” to eventually become democratic they are unfit in the immediate term to represent Fans concerned about the way the Rangers saga has been corruptly managed by the governing bodies 
Indeed their own manifesto specifically ignores the biggest scandal in Scottish football in living memory

Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
Early Warning
This post might be unpopular
I`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong 
If there is one thing suspicious  in all of this corrupt saga it`s the  convenient emergence on the public stage  of the SFSA in the last fortnight
 This self-appointed  body with apparently no funds is stuffed with self-appointed  politicians One of them at least  has been found guilty of having dirty hands. It has created a community company appointed its own Board and defined its own remit before its public launch. It doesn`t once use the words morality or integrity or fairness or corruption to justify its existence. It doesn`t even mention  a goal of being transparent to its members  It has  invited German football academics to tell their unelected Board what sort of questions Scottish fans  should be asked  about. It has went on to unilaterally approve  a bland  survey questionnaire that will consume a few months help dissipate the  anger of some  fans and tell us nothing we don`t know already.

The official SFSA top down remit will take years to completion. It smacks strongly of how the English Child Abuse Enquiry was set up years ago by politicians determined to protect politicians and their establishment allies. Its Terms of Reference were deliberately set so wide that many of the accused and their victims passed away before their case got considered. And that`s exactly what could happen here.
Or put more simply
It’s not an organisation claiming the simple  raison d`etre of upholding sporting integrity
Survey Document
The survey document smacks of long term civil service thinking. It starts from the premise that things might actually be hunky dory, so let’s take the next few months to quantify  the “general level of disquiet”. This top down approach is a recipe for time wasting and switching off the members. It is frankly smacks of the sort of approach you would expect from Soviet era Trade Unions. The festering sore that is the Rangers tax case doesn`t qualify for a mention. SFA and Police management of  sectarian behaviour is ignored, Nothing is asked about how our corrupt governing bodies are paralysed about physical intimidation in football.how keeping the peace outranks morality. This is despite letter bomb training, street assaults and threats to torch a football ground. Most of all is the complete absence of an SFSA declaration of transparency.
Corrupt SPFL Statement

Its early days for the SFSA
So far they have not commented on the SFA and SPFL Statement. Does their Board have no opinion?
Is it because the leadership of the SFSA is well aware it is not a “Fan Elected Body”?
It has no mandate to speak for its members. So they are obliged to keep quiet.
However, having no mandate also means they should not respond to any  appeals from our corrupt authorities to engage in private  discussions
It is clear that the governing bodies wish to avoid discussing the corruption crisis in terms of sporting integrity. Their strategy is moving the goal posts from integrity to legal mumbo jumbo. Their aim is to confuse the peasants. Their premise is that  limited knowledge of the judicial system will force the peasants into disgruntled forelock tugging compliance
Move along peasant
If its legal and immoral then its ok 
If it’s against integrity  but within the rules its ok
Sometimes rules have to be bent if we think it’s necessary
Trust Us. That`s what happens in business
They forget that we peasants have simple minds. We see issues in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. We expect integrity to be the backbone of organisations who claim to be trustworthy.
Whats more worrying 
I would not be a bit surprised if the SFSA are  the first to be invited by the corrupt SPFL and corrupt SFA to come and talk to them in private about their forthcoming “Independent” meaning corrupt Review. Indeed they might even end up as “Representing the Fans ” on this stitch up.
That would be outrageous
 Unelected politicians one with dirty hands representing you on integrity issues with that lot
I don`t see the SFSA fulfilling the role of speaking for fans in the specific one off battle against  the corruption witnessed over the past few years.
In particular
The current un-elected SFSA Board may attempt to act in this role by cooperating with the so called SPFL Independent Review or try to subvert the timetable of the  Judicial Review that is currently gathering momentum
If this happens
it will be a sign that they see themselves as budding members of the establishment. People who are in cahoots with the corruption we are trying to root out.
And as for representing fans  to the governing bodies on any other issues.
The acid test  will be whether they replace the SFSA Board with elected fan representatives  BEFORE they have their first formal  meeting with the SG or football governing bodies.

About the author