Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?

ByTrisidium

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?

A Blog for Scottish Football Monitor by Stuart Cosgrove

At the height of summer of discontent I was asked to contribute to a BBC radio show with Jim Traynor and Jim Spence. ‘Armageddon’ had just been pronounced and if the media were to be believed Scotland was about to freeze over in a new ice-age: only a cold darkness lay ahead.

To get the radio-show off to a healthy and pretentious start I began by saying that Scottish football was experiencing an “epistemological break”. It was an in-joke with Jim Spence, who I have known since we were both teenage ‘suedeheads.’ I was a mouthy young St Johnstone fan and Jim was an Arabian sand-dancer. But even in those distant days, we shared a mutual distrust of the ‘old firm’ and in our separate ways wanted a better future for our clubs. We both grew up to become products of the fanzine era, Jim as a writer for Dundee United’s ‘The Final Hurdle’ and me as a staff writer for the NME. Without ever having to say it, we had both engaged in a guerrilla-war against what Aberdeen’s Willie Miller once characterised as “West Coast Bias”.

The term ‘epistemological break’ was shamelessly borrowed from French Marxist philosophy. It means a fundamental change in the way we construct and receive knowledge and although I used it on air as a wind-up to test Spencey’s significantly less-reliable Dundee schooling, deep down I meant it.

Social Media has proved to be one of the greatest disruptions in the history of the football supporter – greater than the brake clubs of the 19th century, the football specials on the 1970s; or the fanzine movement of the post-punk era. The pace of change in the way we send, receive and interrogate information has been so dynamic that it has wrong-footed administrators, asset strippers and sports journalists, alike. No matter who you support we are living through media history.

2012 had just witnessed an unprecedented summer of sport. The Olympics provided a snapshot of how sudden and pervasive the shift to social media has become. Over 40% of UK adults claim to have posted comments on websites, blogs or social networking about the Olympics and in younger age-groups that figure tips conclusively to a majority – 61% of 16-24’s posted Olympic comments. Think about that figure for a moment. Well over half of the young people in the UK are now participants in social media and pass comment on sport. The genie is out of the bottle and it will never be forced back. That is the main reason that Armageddon never happened: we no longer live in an age where the media can guarantee our compliance.

On the first day of the 2012-13-season, Rangers were in the deep throes of administration and facing certain liquidation. With no accounts to meet the criteria for SPL membership, one among a body of rules which the old Rangers had themselves been an architect of, the new Rangers could not be granted entry without a wholesale abandonment of the rules. It was not to be.

St Johnstone launched their new season at Tynecastle so I travelled with misplaced hope. We were soundly beaten 2-0 and both Hearts goals were entirely merited. On the day, I did a quick if unscientific survey of two supporters’ buses – the Barossa Saints Club, a more traditional lads-bus and the ‘208 Ladies’ a predominantly female and family-friendly bus. On both buses, over 75% of fans had mobile phones with 3G internet access and the majority of them posted updates or pictures before, during or after the match. They mostly posted via micro-blogging sites such as Facebook or Twitter, many commenting on the game, their day-out and the surroundings. Most were speaking to friends or rival fans. Some were publishing pictures and updating forums or blogs. And when he second a decisive goal went in some were undoubtedly taking stick from Gort, Webby DFC and DeeForLife, the pseudonyms of prominent Dundee fans, who as the newly promoted ‘Club 12’ were suddenly and very temporarily above St Johnstone in the SPL.

By my rough calculations, well over half the St Johnstone support was web-connected. I have no reason to think the Hearts supporters were any different. This small experiment reflects an unprecedented shift in the balance of communication in Scottish football and in the truest sense it is an ‘epistemological break’ with past forms of spectatorship. Social media has been widely misrepresented by old-style radio ‘phone-ins’ and by journalism’s ancien regime. The presumption is that people who are connected to the web are at home, in dingy rooms where they foam at the mouth frustrated by loneliness and mental illness. The term ‘internet bampots’ (coined by Hugh Keevins) and ‘keyboard warriors’ (Gordon Strachan) speaks to a world that is fearful of the web, irked by alternative opinions, and the threat that the new media poses to the traditional exchange of knowledge.

It further assumes that opinion from social networks is naïve, ill-informed, or unreasonable. Whilst some of this may be true, mostly it is not. No one would dispute that there are small enclaves of truly despicable people using social networks and comment sites, but they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the multitude of fans who simply want to talk about their team and share their dreams and memories.

Social media is porous. By that I mean it has cracks, lacunae and fissures. This inevitably means that information leaks out. It can be shared, released and in some cases becomes so energetic it becomes a virus. It is no longer possible to ‘keep secrets’, to withhold information and to allow indiscretions to pass unnoticed. Newspapers have been caught in a whirlwind of change where views can be instantly challenged, authority quickly questioned and pronouncements easily disproved. Many papers – almost all in decline – have been forced to close down their comments forums. Undoubtedly some of that is due to breaches of the rules, the cost of moderation, and the rise in awareness of hate crimes. But another significant factor is that ordinary fans were consistently challenging the opinions and ‘facts’ that newspapers published.

Talking down to fans no longer works and we now have evidence – Armageddon did not happen. The beast that was supposed to devour us all was a toothless fantasy. In the more abrasive language of the terraces – Armageddon shat-it and didn’t turn up.

In one respect the myth of Armageddon was an entirely predictable one. Tabloid newspapers make money from scaring people – health scares, prisoners on the run, fear of terrorism, anxiety about young people, and most recently ‘fear’ of Scottish independence is their stock in trade. Almost every major subject is raised as a spectre to be fearful of. Most newspapers were desperate to ‘save Rangers’ since they themselves feared the consequences of losing even more readership. It was easier to argue that a hideous financial catastrophe would befall Scottish football unless Rangers were fast-tracked back into the SPL. Newspapers found common cause with frightened administrators who could not imagine a world without Rangers, either.

So we were invited to endorse one of the greatest circumlocutions of all time – unless you save a club that has crashed leaving millions of pounds of debt, the game is financially doomed. You would struggle to encounter this bizarre logic in any other walk of life. Unless Rick Astley brings out a new album music will die. That is what they once argued and many still do. That is how desperately illogical the leadership in Scottish football had become.

Armageddon was a tissue of inaccuracies from the outset. It tried to script a disaster-movie of chaotic failure and financial disaster and at the very moment when senior administrators should have been fighting for the livelihood of the league, they were briefing against their own business.

Armageddon was a big inarticulate beast but it faced a mightier opponent – facts. One by one the clubs published their annual accounts. Although this was against the backdrop of a double-dip recession and fiercely difficult economic circumstances it was not all doom and gloom. The arrival of Club 12 (Dundee) meant higher crowds and the potential for increased income at Aberdeen, Dundee United and St Johnstone. To this day, this simple fact remains unfathomable to many people in the Glasgow-dominated media. The arrival of Ross County meant an exciting new top-tier local derby for Inverness Caley Thistle and a breath of fresh air for the SPL. St Johnstone insisted on the first ever SPL meeting outside Glasgow to reflect the new northern and eastern geo-politics of the Scottish game.

European football meant new income streams for Motherwell. Of course times were tight, football is never free from the ravages of the economy and some clubs predictably showed trading losses. But the underlying reasons were always idiosyncratic and inconsistent never consistent across the board. Inverness had an unprecedented spate of injuries and over-shot their budgets for healthcare and so published a loss £378,000.

Meanwhile Dundee United published healthy accounts having sold David Goodwillie to Blackburn. Celtic reached the Champion’s League group stages with all the new wealth it will bequeath. St Johnstone – led by the ultra-cautious Brown family – had already cut the cost of their squad, bidding farewell to the most expensive players Francisco Sandaza and Lee Croft. The club also benefited from compensation for their departed manager, Derek McInnes and player-coach, Jody Morris. Paradoxically, Bristol City had proven to be more important to the club’s income than Rangers. Again this was not part of the script and proved unfathomable (or more accurately irrelevant) to most in the Glasgow media.

Hearts failed to pay players on time due to serious restraints on squad costs and internal debt. They were duly punished for their repeated misdemeanours. Motherwell and St Mirren despite the economic challenges were navigating different concepts of fan ownership. By November most clubs – with the exception of Celtic – were showing increased SPL attendance on the previous season. Far from the scorched earth failure that we were told was inevitable what has emerged is a more complex eco-system of financial management, in which local dynamics and a more mature cost-efficient reality was being put in place.

It may well be that Armageddon was the last desperate caricature of a form of media that was already in terminal decline. Flash back to 1967 when Scottish football had a so-called ‘golden age’. There was European success, we tamed England at Wembley and names like Law and Baxter brightened dark nights. Back then access to knowledge was a very narrow funnel. Only a small cadre of privileged journalists had access to the managers and players, and so fans waited dutifully for the Daily Record to arrive at their door to tell them what was happening. That system of ‘elite access to knowledge’ was in its last decadent throes nearly thirty years later, when David Murray would dispense wisdom to his favoured journalists. We now know they drank fine wine and ate succulent lamb in Jersey and the most loyal attended Murray’s 50th birthday party at Gleneagles. One journalist was so proud of his invite he danced round the editorial office mocking those who had not been invited. This was the early height of the Rangers EBT era but it is now clear that difficult questions went unasked by either journalists or by football administrators.

Although it may not suit the narrative of this particular blog my first realisation that David Murray’s empire was living on leveraged debt was from a small cadre of Rangers fans. It was around the early years of the Rangers Supporter’s Trust (RST) and they were determined to shake more democracy from the Ibrox boardroom. Whilst real fans of the club argued from the outside, the press took Murray at his loquacious word. He was in many respects their benefactor, their visionary – their moonbeam.

By the 1990s onwards, football journalism had ritualised and festered around the inner sanctums at Ibrox. This was an era where relevance meant being invited to a ‘presser’ at Murray Park, having Ally’s mobile or playing golf with ‘Juke Box,’ ‘Durranty’ or ‘Smudger’. Many journalists, showing a compliant lack of self-awareness, would use these nicknames as if conveyed closeness, familiarity or friendship. It is desperately sad that careers have been built on such paltry notions of access and such demeaning obsequiousness.

Around this period I had become a freelance radio-presenter and was presenting Off the Ball with my friend Tam Cowan, a Motherwell fan. We both wanted to fashion a show which saw football not trough its familiar narratives, but through the lens of the ‘diddy’ teams, a term so demeaning that we tried to reclaim it. Refusing to peddle the inevitability of ‘old firm’ power we sensed that journalistic compliance at Ibrox was now so ingrained that it was ripe for satirising. This was the main reason that Off the Ball branded itself as ‘petty and ill-informed.’ It was a self-mocking antidote to those journalists that could ‘exclusively reveal’ breaking stories from ‘impeccable sources,’ which usually meant they had heard it on the golf-course, from Walter, a man who needed no surname.

Many fans are astonished when I tell them how the journalism of this era actually functioned. On Champions League nights, journalists from opposing papers gathered together to agree what to write. Circulation was in decline, money was tight, agency copy was on the increase and foreign trips were under-scrutiny. No one dared miss the ‘big story’. So sports journalists who commonly boasted about their toughness and who ‘feared no one’ were often so fearful of returning home having missed an angle, that they agreed by consensus to run with variations of the same story. Celtic fans may wish to recoil at the image – but journalists would go into a ‘huddle’ at the end of a press-conference to agree the favoured line.

So the summer of 2012 witnessed an ‘epistemological break’ in how knowledge and information was exchanged. But let me go further and taunt Jim Spence one more time. It was the summer we also witnessed an ‘amygdala-crisis’ exposing the way the media works in Scotland. Amygdala is the nuclei in the brain that manages our tolerance for risk and is the key that often unlocks creative thinking. Many people in relatively high places in the media – a creative industry – demonstrated that they could not conceive of change, nor could they imagine what football would look like if Rangers were not playing in the SPL. They not only resisted change but lacked the imagination to think beyond it. A common language began to emerge that tried to ward off risk and an almost a childlike fear of the dark. ‘Scottish football needs a strong Rangers,’ ‘But there will no competition’; ‘other clubs will suffer’; ‘Draw a line in the sand’; ‘It was one man – Craig Whyte’, ‘They’ve been punished enough’ and of course, the daddy of them all – ‘Armageddon.’

The biggest single barrier to change was the lingering and outmoded notion that Rangers subsidised Scottish football. As a supporter of a club that had spent seven economically stable years in a league that Rangers have never played in made me deeply suspicious and I was in the words of the we-forums ‘seething’ that St Johnstone were portrayed as somehow ‘dependent’ on a club that was already fatefully insolvent. Because so little is known about the experience of the fans of smaller clubs, they are often misrepresented. For seven years my friends and I, travelled home and away in the First Division, often narrowly missing out on promotion as rival clubs like Gretna, Dundee and Livingston all used money they did not have to ‘buy’ success. It remains an incontrovertible fact that St Johnstone FC has been among the most consistent victims of fiscal misdemeanour in Scottish football. That is the irreducible issue. Several clubs have very real reasons to loathe financial mismanagement, rogue-trading and those that gain unfair advantage on the back of unserviceable debt.

Social media has allowed these smaller incremental versions of history to be told when the established media had no interest in telling them. Blogs can dig deeper than the back pages ever can and fans are now more likely to meet on Facebook than on a supporter’s bus. Many players now bypass the press completely and tweet directly with fans. Rio Ferdinand’s recent attack on racism in English football has been conducted entirely via social media, over the heads of the press. In the Rangers Tax Case context, restricted documents are regularly shared online, where they can be analysed and torn apart. Those with specialist skills such as insolvency, tax expertise or accountancy can lend their skills to a web forum and can therefore dispute official versions of events.

Not all social media is good. Open-access has meant a disproportionate rise in victim culture. The ‘easily-offended’ prowl every corner of the web desperate to find a morsel that will upset them but that is a small price to pay for greater transparency and even the most ardent bore is no excuse for limiting the free exchange of information.

We have witnessed a summer of seismic change. A discredited era that largely relied on ‘elite access to knowledge’ has all but passed away and information, however complex or seemingly unpalatable, can no longer be withheld from fans. The days of being ‘dooped’ are over.

It has been a privilege to participate in the summer of discontent and I yearn for even greater change to come. Bring it on.

Stuart Cosgrove
Stuart Cosgrove is a St Johnstone fan. He was previously Media Editor of the NME and is now Director of Creative Diversity at Channel 4, where he recently managed coverage of the Paralympics, London 2012. At the weekend he presents the BBC Scotland football show ‘Off the Ball’ with Tam Cowan. He writes here in a personal capacity.

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

3,744 Comments so far

neepheidPosted on6:05 pm - Nov 23, 2012


http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/man-arrested-for-posting-offensive-material-online-on-rangers-big-tax-case-1-2653860

“The Scotsman understands relates to a comment on the Rangers Tax Case blog, but not by blogger themself.”

Sorry about the abysmal grammar, don’t they have sub-editors these days?

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on6:09 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Robert Coyle says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 17:48

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman
via @nickeardley: Arrest over Rangers Tax case blog material Scotsman understands relates to comment on RTC blog, not blogger themsel.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite
—————————————————————————–

Now I know folk occasionally got heated in the posts but nothing said on RTC or this site (or even your average football fan forum where things are less controlled) come within a hundred miles of what on two Rangers forums we know.

I’d advise the guy if he sees this to take copies of as much stuff off these sites as possible and if it goes to court ask show it in evidence of what real “offensive” means.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on6:23 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Where on earth are these muppets getting the idea from that they can sue HMRC
Would that mean that everyone who receives a favourable judgement, would be able to make a claim against HMRC
The BTC was not responsible for RFC(IL)’s insolvency, and HMRC simply acted in the way they always have, by raising an assessment against a tax payer when they believe tax is due

Once again, all of the former and indeed current players, are ignoring the fact that RFC(IL) were not completely exonerated
This mob are becoming even more arrogant and insufferable, if that is possible

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:23 pm - Nov 23, 2012


I think it’s tommy in Glasgow who may have been speaking with the rozzers. Seems to have changed his twitter name to an RTC-type variant. There were threats of physical violence on RM yesterday, though no one got arrested, at least as far as I know.

View Comment

streathambhoyPosted on6:24 pm - Nov 23, 2012


If a post on RTC is the subject of a police investigation when the web is full of the bile and incitement we see described here but which we see no headlines about then the world just gets more and more perverse. You couldn’t get a more erudite and mostly restrained football forum. You also have to question who the complainants are.

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on6:27 pm - Nov 23, 2012


It’s got to be one of the Bears den fruitcakes that’s been lifted surely?

Never anything over the top on here no matter what Tom English says!

View Comment

redetinPosted on6:35 pm - Nov 23, 2012


monsieurbunny says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 18:09
—————————————————————————–

Now I know folk occasionally got heated in the posts but nothing said on RTC or this site (or even your average football fan forum where things are less controlled) come within a hundred miles of what on two Rangers forums we know.

I’d advise the guy if he sees this to take copies of as much stuff off these sites as possible and if it goes to court ask show it in evidence of what real “offensive” means.
________________________________________________

The moderators must see worse stuff than we see posted. I imagine there are some humdingers in there. Even if not posted, they could still be offensive or threatening, couldn’t they?

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on6:40 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Regarding any of the dead club/sevco side suing anyone ,I would really love to see that but I think I know a man who wouldn’t
mints anyone

View Comment

onceabhoyPosted on7:09 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Having read the wonderful coverage by BRTH earlier and a few other summaries of the FTTT findings I can only say I am astounded if it is the case that the judges who made the majority did so because the representation put forward by HMRC legal reps forced them to do so.

Next I ask myself if this is the case:

1. Was this representation put forward because the legal team believed they had no chance of arguing otherwise?
2. Was it put forward because it was felt it wouldn’t effect the tribunal outcome. The case was believed to be strong enough regardless?
3. Could the majority not legally have agreed with their fellow judge that the larger picture was of an obvious scam?
4. Where does this leave the possibility that an appeal would decide otherwise on a point of law?

Also I can’t help but search for Machiavellian manoeuvres behind the reasons for this result.

1.Does this result leave HMRC with more chance of collecting tax from future estates?
2. Does this allow BDO more scope to investigate the workings of previous directors?
3. What legal strength do the supposed side letters (many of which have not been uncovered) carry if HMRC attempt to recover funds?

I am no legal wizard. I have just enough experience of legal issues on a personal level to understand there really is no such thing as an open and shut case. As a football fan who has seen the evidence of side letters in old and new media I have my own thoughts on whether Oldclub calculated a decade or more of deliberate cheating regards SPL/SFA. Rules to which ALL members are signatories.

I look forward to the SPL findings on whether all payments have been disclosed as they have to be. If Oldclub are found guilty I look forward to a similar strong response by the MSM to that we have witnessed over the last few days!

Most of all I look forward to HMRC appealing the result (though many seem to think this unlikely) and a higher court getting to the nub of who actually killed Oldclub and what effect that had on taxation and the countries national sport.

Finally I look forward to someone in MSM growing a pair and stating the obvious:

1. Oldclub died because it did not have the funds to pay creditors.
2. HMRC were owed more than enough to vote liquidation given the money owed vial WTC,PAYE,NIC & admitted liabilities in the BTC.
3. The SPL did not send Newclub down. In fact they were doing all they could to circumvent existing rules re Newclubs until fan power stepped in.
4. Newclub should not be playing in professional football as it stands due to licensing criteria.
5. If/when Oldclub are found to have played non registered players then not only must results of 3-0 be placed on record, the resultant league position should leave Newclub open to compensation claims if it is the case the license was given upon acceptance of liability.

A portion of one battle appears to have been lost, the war has many more battles before peace is declared.

Disclaimer. This is my own rambling and questions given recent events and in no way reflects the view of RTC or TSFM. 😉

View Comment

ekt1mPosted on7:09 pm - Nov 23, 2012


One for the legals on here. Is it true that you can’t sue the Crown in court. As HMRC are bound by statute to pursue and collect all taxation, how can they pulled up for carrying out their statutory duties.

View Comment

iceman63Posted on7:10 pm - Nov 23, 2012


I think we are seeing the Scottish police state in action.

I suspect they have arrested a contributor to RTC whilst ignoring death threats posted daily on RM and FF – says it all. the morons on RM and FF are their lunatics.

Truth is crushed and denied – justice is mocked the truly evil in intent are overlooked and they gun for the erudite objectors.

I don’t actually expect the Nimmo enquiry to happen – they simply cannot allow it to. It would destroy the bizarrenarrative of a rangers as victims we are having. CO will ensure that some deal is donne and no investigation instigated. Scottish football is rotten to the core – and it has allies in the courts and politics to ensure that its rottenness goes unchallenged by troublesome concepts such as liquidation, rules of association, fairness and justice.

The populace deliberately held in ignorance – why for example has the bbc not posted the key and pertinent sections of the FTTT judgement next to the calls for the enquiry to be halted and get a journo to point out that in terms of the non disclosure of contracts and illegal registration

Rangers are bang to rights – and have admitted such in the FTTT but . there is a co-ordinated campaign here – and it is clear that no adverse reporting will be sanctioned. read Stuart’s blog above and you see the mindset of these brainless buffoons. the huddle has decreed the story.. i suspect that few, if any, of the MSM reporters commenting on this have read the judgement at all. they are whipping up a frenzy based upon a complete and deliberate misunderstanding of the verdict handed down. they will shout about a rangers cvictory whilst ignoring the actual judgement itself.

It is beyond parody, betond despicable it is utterly abhorrent behaviour.

Credit – always a first – for Roddy Forsyth’s piece in the telegraph – a wounded bluenose who has seen his club destroyed by an intransigent foolish owner that the majority of the supporters still have faith in.

Perhaps Roddy could be approached for a blog here – his perspective is fundamentally different from most on here and he may pose genuine challenges to our assumptions which can never be a bad thing.

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on7:12 pm - Nov 23, 2012


goosygoosy says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 16:11

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.

==================================

And I take it we will also know how much the total debt to HMRC is, including interest and penalties. Including what they lost in the appeal.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on7:12 pm - Nov 23, 2012


TRFC game with Elgin cancelled at the weekend – because they sold too may tickets?

Eh?

Charlie canna afford the bus fare, more like. 🙂

Funnily enough, a mate of mine’s band just had a gig in Elgin this weekend cancelled – because they didn’t sell ENOUGH tickets! 🙂

View Comment

oldconewtricksPosted on7:13 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Wow, arresting someone for their RTC comments. Meanwhile down on RM or FF they are allowed to abuse, threaten, use sectarian comments and generally pour bile without so much as a by your leave. Some sense of moral order we seem to have in this fine country of ours.

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on7:13 pm - Nov 23, 2012


After reading the posts regarding the FTT findings ,I doubt very much that any of the peepil behind the colours and aliases will be in any hurry to get anyone into an open courtroom any time soon .Something tells me they would all rather everyone just let sleeping DOGS LIE

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on7:16 pm - Nov 23, 2012


BRTH

Good article but I don’t agree with you. The loans didn’t have to be a sham for the right decision to be reached, there was only one question to be answered –
Did the loans constitute monies placed unreservedly at the disposal of the employees? If they did, they were taxable, if they didn’t they weren’t

Alpha male Andrew Thornhill persuaded to fellow male lawyers/alpha males that they didn’t but did not persuade chartered tax adviser Heidi Poon.

This despite the fact that the loans will never be paid back, were lent without security, have an interest charge that will never be collected, equate to the penny what the players were told upon signing on that they would receive and almost all of which have been long spent. Yes they are still legally loans but that does not mean that they cannot at the same time represent monies placed unreservedly at the disposal of the beneficiaries.

The two assenting judges preferred the oral evidence they heard at the hearing, or more likely the summing up they heard in January 2012 (as the hearing had started in October 2010). They swallowed the line about Martin Bain negotiating the CL bonus on the pitch in Famagusta when anyone familiar with Murray’s MO knows something like that would never be left to chance.

Dr Poon instead relied on the written evidence, and in some cases lack of it, accumulated over 10 long years, as best showing the true intentions of all the parties to this sorry case.

Dr Poon’s dissenting judgement is one of the strongest I have read in 27 years of studying this particular branch of law and I think it will come back to bite those currently in triumphalist mood.

Her approach is much more in step with all of the senior courts – the contemporaneous evidence has always been held to be the strongest indicator of what went on.

Assuming HMRC have the appetite for an appeal (we shall know by Christmas Eve), then I have every confidence that the upper tier tribunal – unlikely to include two typical Scottish legal alpha males – will follow the lead given in just about every anti-avoidance case in the past 12 years or so.

View Comment

smartbhoyPosted on7:29 pm - Nov 23, 2012


http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/man-arrested-for-posting-offensive-material-online-on-rangers-big-tax-case-1-2653860

No one as far as I know has posted on RTC for a few months or can?!?!?

Maybe it actually wasn’t a regular poster or reader. For all we know it was a Sevconian riding high on the untruths fed to them by the MSM and letting rip.

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on7:29 pm - Nov 23, 2012


I was wondering about something Jean Alain Boumsong said about the day he signed on at Ragers .
He said he was ready to sign his contract when he noticed that the wages were not what he had agreed and was told it was ok as he would get the rest in another way (I assume EBT ).He said he was reluctant to sign and was given assurances it was all above board .
If correct would he have been signing a contract and an application for a loan of £635,000 on his first day at work ,bearing in mind he was only employed with Ragers for 6 months .
Was JAB ever called by HMRC as a witness ,if not WHY NOT as I am led to believe the reason HMRC got involved was because the CLP raided Ibrox in relation to his transfer to Newcastle

View Comment

goosyPosted on7:29 pm - Nov 23, 2012


BRTH
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?

View Comment

timtimPosted on7:32 pm - Nov 23, 2012


We are well aware how our MSM operates and uses language to mislead

1-“Officers confirmed the allegedly offensive material related to the Rangers tax case.”

2-“The Scotsman understands relates to a comment on the Rangers Tax Case blog”

1- Is a statement of fact verified by the poice themselves , many forums have been discussing the Rangers* tax case including FF and RM

2- Is the usual language used when the MSM want to implicate a particular individual organisation or in this case forum without making a statement of fact
I understand that a fat man in a white beard will visit me next month with lots of presents
my understanding may be misplaced however and he may not turn up

Considering the length of time it has been since any of us has been able to make any comment on RTC it seems to have taken a very long time for the police to act
In the meantime many will be extremely wary of making any comment that could have the police chapping our door
Operation silence of the trucculent lambs underway ?

View Comment

ja606Posted on7:34 pm - Nov 23, 2012


BRTH – On behalf of those among us who have grappled in vain to find reasons behind the decision I thank you. A truly brilliant piece that had me absorbed from the first word.

View Comment

jonnyodPosted on7:45 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Another thing on the Jean Alain Boumsong signing his contract and his application on the same day ,If we are to believe football players and their agents would not take a clubs word on something like this ,I wonder how many other EBT loans were applied for on the same day they signed or signed their contract renewals and will this be looked at in the SPL investigation

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on7:50 pm - Nov 23, 2012


goosygoosy @ 19:29

That very thought has crossed my mind on several occasions over the last few days
There are bigger fish to fry, so let’s get a binding UTT ruling

View Comment

bangordubPosted on8:07 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Just a suggestion.
If a contributor to RTC is to face charges, may I suggest that I, for one, am happy to enter the witness box on their behalf.
Anyone else? We could set a record for the length of such a case…. TU if yer up for it

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on8:09 pm - Nov 23, 2012


It just occurs to me that if this arrest of the RTC poster is followed through and nothing is done about RM/FF then it must be something that Alex Thomson would be very interested in.

View Comment

albabhoyPosted on8:10 pm - Nov 23, 2012


For reference, here’s 4 occasions in recent seasons when teams have been thrown out the Scottish Cup for breaking rules.

Dunfermline 7 v 1 Stenhousemuir, Scottish Cup 9th Jan 2012. Dunfermline forced to replay the match as they played Calum Woods, as a second half substitute, in this game.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_cups/8450310.stm

Brechin thrown out the Scottish Cup in January 2008 for playing ineligible players. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_cups/7215487.stm

November 2011 – Spartans thrown out the Scottish Cup because a form had only been dated once, Dated once, now that’s criminal!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15672375

January 2011 – East Stirlingshire thrown out the Scottish Cup.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_cups/9371741.stm

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:23 pm - Nov 23, 2012


A simply outstanding piece BRTH, it made an obscure subject immensely readable for the uninitiated. Deserves a far wider audience – and at the very least pride of place as a follow up blog to Stuart Cosgrove’s.

Thank you.

http://broganrogantrevinoandhogan.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-hoover-the-runaways-and-a-judicial-nod-is-as-good-as-a-wink-on-the-rangers-tax-case/

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:28 pm - Nov 23, 2012


albabhoy says: Friday, November 23, 2012 at 20:10
================================
Here’s another one from just a couple of weeks ago re Annan’s U20 side in the youth cup and a refreshingly honest admission and action from Annan’s chairman

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/news/article/annan-hold-hands-up-in-sfa-youth-cup/

Wednesday 14th November 2012

Annan Athletic have been dismissed from the Scottish FA Youth Cup after admitting an error with the registration of three players who played in their 2-1 success over Montrose in the last Round.

The Third Division side held their hands up to the SFA upon learning that 3 youngsters from their under-16 side had not been properly registered to play in the under-20 tournament and rather than get involved in a lengthy debate they have stepped aside to allow Montrose time to prepare for their match against Dunfermline in the Round Four.

Chairman Henry McClelland said, “There has been an administrative error on our part that we have admitted to. It is a really sore blow for the boys and the club but something that we will learn from and it will not happen again.”

“We could have appealed but that would not have been the right thing to do as we had made a mistake and it would not have been fair to keep Montrose hanging around.”

View Comment

bangordubPosted on8:29 pm - Nov 23, 2012


I meant to add.
Can we start a fund to engage the services of BRTH as council for the defence?
It would guarantee the best courtroom drama bar none. I suggest a donation fund be started if charges are announced and a suggested donation of 1 cinema Ticket plus a giant box of popcorn, about a tenner?

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on8:32 pm - Nov 23, 2012


timtim says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 19:32

We are well aware how our MSM operates and uses language to mislead
———————————————————————-

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.

View Comment

twopandaPosted on8:53 pm - Nov 23, 2012


From FTT Dr Poon – [11. + 12. – pg 63] – Clarification if it helps – reformatted to clarify;-
`MGH & others` Appeal assessment calculated at 46.2m [to 21 April 10] on Five Companies;-

• MGHL
• MGML
• PPGL
• GMML, and;
• RFC

Of the 46.2m MIH Appeal Total – 9.6 m applies to the first four group companies, therefore;
• RFC = 36.6m Base Assessment – [PAYE 27.4m + NI 9.2m]

And again available numbers from Dr Poon FTT reasoning;-
EBTs = 108 total – of which 81 Rangers Employees – and 27 EBTs in other group companies

So -11- missing from the MSM RFC 70 list mentioned on the blog yesterday – [not 37/38! – as I took it! 😕 ]

View Comment

doontheslopePosted on8:55 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Sevco’s match at Elgin postponed for safety reasons due to a thousand extra tickets being sold by mistake.

Couldn’t they have set up a big screen in the town centre to allow the extra travelling support to enjoy the match?

What?

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on9:01 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Elgin chairman resigns

View Comment

iamacantPosted on9:08 pm - Nov 23, 2012


albabhoy says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 20:10

Brechin thrown out the Scottish Cup in January 2008 for playing ineligible players. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_cups/7215487.stm
———————————————————————————————————————
I’m still awaiting response to my enquiry sent to SFL/SFA regarding how many players of RFC(IL) were properly registered to play Brechin at the beginning of the season despie sending it 3 times. I know the greatest football administrator in the world has been busy lately and did previously state he couldn’t do his job properly but this is ridiculous. So much for the much heralded transparency.

I mean, how long does it take to check registration forms. Anyone got the phone number for Spartans?

View Comment

iamacantPosted on9:16 pm - Nov 23, 2012


doontheslope says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 20:55

Sevco’s match at Elgin postponed for safety reasons due to a thousand extra tickets being sold by mistake.
———————————————————————————————————————
Elgin know their ground capacity so they must have printed more than a visiting teams allocation. I reckon the worlds greatest administrator and friends will come down fairly hard on them. After all, how dare Elgin embarass their new friends in the league like this.

Have Elgin lost their marbles?

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on9:21 pm - Nov 23, 2012


iamacant @ 21:16

Very clever 🙂

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on9:27 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Tommy says:

Friday, November 23, 2012 at 20:32

I’m always wary of stuff like that. Yes, it’s a bit strange that they put ‘Old Firm player’ instead of Rangers player, but then presumably when people read the story they would know they truth (or at least, what passes for the truth in the DR).

It reminds me of Phil McG’s claim that the Herald was anti-Celtic, and his evidence was that when the bombs were sent to Lennon, the headline was ‘Celtic Bomb Nut’, the inference being that it was a Celtic supporter who was sending bombs. You could you imagine the editorial meeting at the Herald that day ‘Right, we’ve got our headline that suggests that a Celtic fan is sending bombs (Good work there Billy, by the way). Now any suggestions as to how we can stop them from reading the rest of the story? Or , indeed, given that it’s mainheadline everywhere, seeing the story in every other news outlet in the country? Anyone?’

There’s no doubt there is an editorial slant to most papers, but I think headlines like the one you highlighted are more about cementing the Old Firm myth, that Rangers and Celtic are equal and come as a package.

View Comment

iamacantPosted on9:27 pm - Nov 23, 2012


campsiejoe says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 21:21

iamacant @ 21:16

Very clever
————————————————————————————————————-
100% proof that I am not a RFC(IL) supporter 😉

View Comment

doontheslopePosted on9:32 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Should the footballing authorities award the Elgin match as a 0-3 win to Sevco?

What?

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on9:39 pm - Nov 23, 2012


slimshady61 says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 19:16

Agreed.

“Her approach is much more in step with all of the senior courts – the contemporaneous evidence has always been held to be the strongest indicator of what went on. ”

Which is why she went to such lengths to set it out as a different Finding of Facts from the other two because it led to an incorrect legal analysis of the transactions.

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on9:43 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Mr Turquoise by the way is David Glen, tax partner at PWC.

At a PWC Budget Breakfast meeting a few years ago, the partners were asked to start their presentation with a photo of someone who to them was a hero.

Whose mug shot did young David put up on the board? Yip, you’ve guessed it, Mr Ipswich himself, wee Bazza.. In an instant, he had lost half or more of his audience

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on9:50 pm - Nov 23, 2012


slimshady61 says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 21:43

Mr Turquoise by the way is David Glen, tax partner at PWC.

At a PWC Budget Breakfast meeting a few years ago, the partners were asked to start their presentation with a photo of someone who to them was a hero.

Whose mug shot did young David put up on the board? Yip, you’ve guessed it, Mr Ipswich himself, wee Bazza.. In an instant, he had lost half or more of his audience

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Correct me if I’m wrong but are you saying he is a FUD?

View Comment

stmileyPosted on10:25 pm - Nov 23, 2012


RangersMedia are fervently trying to assist SDM in his quest to bring to account, those he believes slandered his good name.

I think they may be trying to redress the stance of their googlebot, which ran from June till Tuesday.

“Murray and Whyte cannot, and should not, ever be forgiven for what they did to our club!”

View Comment

broganrogantrevinoandhoganPosted on10:33 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Good Evening.

Thank you for the many complimentary comments on my post on the FTT decision earlier today.

Slim

Can I be clear in that all I was trying to do today was interpret what I thought was being said in the judgement as opposed to what I thought should be in the judgement having studied all the cases etc including Ramsay.

What I can see is that if the Revenue specifically say that the trusts and the loans have to be treated as having real legal effect– then I can see why the judges would say that money received under what would be a recognised loan simply cannot be a payment of money.

To say otherwise would make no sense to me.

Had the revenue simply said we see that there are purported loan docs, and purported trust documents, but we do not believe that these are any more than evidential writings designed to disguise the true nature of the transaction— then the judges would at least have been forced to enquire into that notion and test it against the evidence.

Further you will note that there does not appear to be any detailed notes on evidence which goes through the signing of each document and the intention behind the signatures– you know like asking the signatories ” Is that your signature?” and ” Please explain what you understood these documents to represent and explain their workings” and so on.

By the way I am not suggesting for a moment that Dr Poon was not the author of her judgement either— just that there is undoubtedly legal drafting in there from somewhere.

I have been out of the court game for many years now and spend most of my time working away from what might be termed “Legal stuff”— so I am not holding myself out as any sort of expert at all and have no firm thoughts on how to interpret Ramsay and so on..

However, I spent enough years looking at judgements and opinions to be able to feel my way around pages of legalese and think, at least, that I know what it means– I hope.

Thankfully, next week I will be looking at rate cards for advertising, digitised video content for release on the internet, investor agreements, board minutes ( should that be bored minutes?) chase a man about trade mark protection and most important of all— buy a carpet!!!

Of these I am most likely to bugger up the last but then if I do then it will be the fault of the fool who has entrusted me with such a task.

Oh– and I have to write a blog about an Acorn.

Mercifully– there will not be a tax case in sight!!! lol

So forgive me If I do not either agree or disagree with your synopsis at the moment as I would have to feel in the mood to go and look at the books etc and next week’s diary is as full as I am going to let it get ha ha.

Cheers

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on10:43 pm - Nov 23, 2012


BRHT-

“I have been out of the court game for many years now and spend most of my time working away from what might be termed “Legal stuff”— so I am not holding myself out as any sort of expert at all and have no firm thoughts on how to interpret Ramsay and so on..”

So why post a legal analysis in the way you did? Are you familiar with the Ramsay principle and the taxes since?

View Comment

midcalderanPosted on10:44 pm - Nov 23, 2012


slimshady61 says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 19:16
48 0 Rate This
BRTH

Good article but I don’t agree with you. The loans didn’t have to be a sham for the right decision to be reached, there was only one question to be answered –
————————-
As much as I respect BRTH’s view, I’m with you on this.

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on10:46 pm - Nov 23, 2012


For “taxes” please read “tax cases”. Thank you.

View Comment

broganrogantrevinoandhoganPosted on10:50 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Bogsdollox

Because– sad old bugger that I am– I found the arguments and the reasoning… interesting.

Yes I know it sounds boring– but such an argument is that part of the law that I like– finding your way through the minefield if you like.

On reading the judgement, looking at what they reported as the submissions, studying the language of the cases as repeated in that judgement etc— I genuinely found it interesting– in fact I think my first comment on the decision was something along the lines that the whole thing has a lot in it and is fascinating.

That is all really– but God I wouldn’t want to do it every day!!

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on11:01 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 22:50

And thanks for taking the time to do it.

I still think that BDO will potentially use the material from Dr Poon to argue that Rangers made the loans, and as such the players et al are debtors to the club. Allowing them to try to recover the money from the people who got it.

I think it is particularly heinous that someone took about £6m from a business as bonuses, in the form of “loans”, when the business was actually running at a loss. In effect that money was stolen from the creditors and if there is a way to get that back for them, along with the rest, then great.

View Comment

midcalderanPosted on11:02 pm - Nov 23, 2012


doontheslope says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 20:55
29 1 Rate This
Sevco’s match at Elgin postponed for safety reasons due to a thousand extra tickets being sold by mistake.

Couldn’t they have set up a big screen in the town centre to allow the extra travelling support to enjoy the match?

What?
———————-
Can’t think of any reason why they wouldn’t unless the standby TV engineer is on holiday.

View Comment

corsicacharityPosted on11:04 pm - Nov 23, 2012


There is some talk on twitter about an investigation unit in north west england taking a keen interest in RFC and their tax case. I think I can now safely say that corsica passed some info privately to RTC back in January and I don’t think it ended up on the blog:

“It appears that xxx and others have been asked some very searching questions by HMRC, the Insolvency Service and City of London Police (not Strathclyde – apparently they are being kept in the dark for “political” reasons) about a certain football club’s affairs and one individual in particular. Apparently, there is some unfinished business and some fishy business that certain government agencies would like to put to bed. It would appear therefore that not only are the club being used as a test case but so too is that individual.”

To avoid the obvious rejoinder: the inference – when I spoke to corsica – was that it was felt that Strathclyde Police could not necessarily be trusted to act with complete impartiality and, at the time, he assumed it was Whyte they were referring to. Perhaps he was wrong on the latter?

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on11:09 pm - Nov 23, 2012


bogsdollox @ 22:43

Why should the fact that BRTH is no longer a practising lawyer prevent him from writing a piece on the FTT findings
I can only speak for myself, but it helped me better understand what has really gone on, a view shared by many people, judging by the comments on here, and on his blog
He applied a lawyer’s mind to the findings, which in itself is surely a bonus for all of us laymen

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on11:20 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Agrajag @ 23:01

I don’t see how they can use the minority finding in that way
The majority ruled that the trusts were for the most part legal, and so it follows that the “mechanics” were also legal
In my opinion BDO would be chasing shadows if they went down that route
As for Mr Black helping himself to bonuses for running a failing business, well that is another story

View Comment

midcalderanPosted on11:24 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 22:33
10 0 Rate This
Good Evening.

Thank you for the many complimentary comments on my post on the FTT decision earlier today.

Slim

Can I be clear in that all I was trying …
———————
Salute to both Slim & BRTH. Differences of opinion is why we have tribunals & courts.

View Comment

Stifler’s MomPosted on11:24 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Just thinking…

does anyone else think that today’s developments are an attempt by someone, perhaps the complainant, to ‘out’ RTC? By that, I mean if there ever was a case that went in front of the beak, would RTC be called upon as a witness?

Just a thought….

View Comment

midcalderanPosted on11:33 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 22:50
13 0 Rate This
Bogsdollox

Because– sad old bugger that I am– I found the arguments and the reasoning… interesting.
——————
Although we don’t always agree. please keep blogging.

View Comment

doontheslopePosted on11:35 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Corsicacharity

Didn’t the Stevenson enquiry conclude that there were “inconsistencies in the evidence given by Graeme Sounness” ? (With regard to Monaco based agent Willie McKay’s, Jean Alain Boumsong, signing for Rangers (IL) for nothing, then six months later signing for Newcastle for 8 million, while Alex McLeish was manager at Rangers (IL) )

(Sorry for the clarity, I cant remember all of their colours.)

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on11:36 pm - Nov 23, 2012


campsiejoe says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 23:20

=============================

The FTT is the lowest level of the Tribunal / Court system. The reason it does not set precedent is that there is nothing lower for it to set precedent over.

And also, it would not be the first time that a panel’s decision had been taken somewhere like the Court of Session, for them to totally over-turn that ruling.

I just see it as a possibility that BDO must consider, if they are acting in the best interests of the creditors.

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on11:42 pm - Nov 23, 2012


midcalderan says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 23:24

2

1

Rate This

Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 22:33
10 0 Rate This
Good Evening.

Thank you for the many complimentary comments on my post on the FTT decision earlier today.

Slim

Can I be clear in that all I was trying …
———————
Salute to both Slim & BRTH. Differences of opinion is why we have tribunals & courts.

============================

Nonsense.

View Comment

john clarkePosted on11:47 pm - Nov 23, 2012


ordinaryfan says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 02:20

‘Any idea how often HMRC lose at this stage in an appeal and how often do HMRC appeal verdicts that go against them?
I know every case is different, particularly this one, but are usually aggressive with appeals?’
—–

The following is from ‘Accountancy News’ a day or so ago.( the link is below)

It doesn’t quite answer your question, I’m afraid, but it’s of interest in giving us an idea of the context in which HMRC works, and the volume of ‘avoidance’ cases they try to nail as being dodgy tax scams!
——–

“HMRC has identified about 30,000 users of ‘partnership loss’ schemes and disguised remuneration schemes and sought litigation against ‘lead cases’ to demonstrate to other users that the scheme will not succeed in the courts.

However, while it regularly wins in such cases, its investigations can take many years to resolve and it cannot always successfully apply the rulings from lead cases to other cases.

Concerns were also raised in the report that the taxman does not monitor its costs and has not yet identified how it will evaluate its effectiveness.

This, said the NAO, “limits its ability to make informed decisions about where to direct its avoidance activity”.

Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said today: “HMRC must push harder to find an effective way to tackle the promoters and users of the most aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Though its disclosure regime has helped to change the market, it has had little impact on the persistent use of highly contrived schemes which deprives the public purse of billions of pounds.

“It is inherently difficult to stop tax avoidance as it is not illegal. But HMRC needs to demonstrate how it is going to reduce the 41,000 avoidance cases it currently has open.” ”

(Read more: http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2226278/nao-hmrc-in-uphill-battle-against-tax-avoidance#ixzz2D5eMHszz)

————
The real weakness, in my opinion, lies in the fact that our legislators, who frame the tax laws, tend still to be, in the main, the very people whose main concern in life is to protect their own personal or family wealth, derived from business or landed interests.

There is no way a Cameron or Osborne, for example, or a Lord Lawson or other Tory (unelected!) Peer, would ever propose, or agree to, any piece of tax legislation that would do serious damage to their interests.

And some of the loudest complainers against the independent body set up to monitor MP expenses have been the worst kind of snout-in-in -the -trough Labour MP!

In the case of the wealthy, tax is for the little people. In the case of some venal, working-class MPs, tax is for them who don’t have the capacity to cheat successfully.

HMRC can only do what the ‘law’ allows them. And even then, if their political masters do not fund them adequately, they cannot do even that much, on the scale required..

That said, I will, as a taxpayer, be astounded if they do not appeal the FTTT decision.

As a football supporter, however, I am more interested in

a) what the Nimmo Smith commission establishes

b) if ‘guilt’ is established, what penalties/punishments will be applied to the dead club

c) whether any punishment is meted out to Charles Green’s new club on the grounds that the 5-way agreement seems to have been predicated on the assumption that the new club is the old club.

View Comment

midcalderanPosted on11:48 pm - Nov 23, 2012


doontheslope says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 23:35
1 0 Rate This
Corsicacharity

(Sorry for the clarity, I cant remember all of their colours.)
————–
Your clarity is colouring my judgment. Need to go out to work now and no access to TSFM.

View Comment

midcalderanPosted on11:56 pm - Nov 23, 2012


Agrajag says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 23:42
1 1 Rate This
midcalderan says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 23:24

Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 22:33
10 0 Rate This
Good Evening.

Thank you for the many complimentary comments on my post on the FTT decision earlier today.

Slim

Can I be clear in that all I was trying …
———————
Salute to both Slim & BRTH. Differences of opinion is why we have tribunals & courts.

============================

Nonsense.
——————-
Please explain

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on12:01 am - Nov 24, 2012


midcalderan says:

———————
Salute to both Slim & BRTH. Differences of opinion is why we have tribunals & courts.

============================

Nonsense.
——————-
Please explain

====================================

Irony doesn’t really work if you have to explain it.

View Comment

midcalderanPosted on12:05 am - Nov 24, 2012


Agrajag says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 00:01
————–
I give up. The blog policeman wins.

View Comment

AgrajagPosted on12:10 am - Nov 24, 2012


midcalderan says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 00:05

————–
I give up. The blog policeman wins.

============================

You said ” Differences of opinion is why we have …”

I replied “Nonsense”

It was intended as badinage, sorry if it offended you. Clearly we have a different sense of humour. No “blog Policeman” about it, just a bad joke.

View Comment

john clarkePosted on12:18 am - Nov 24, 2012


campsiejoe says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 23:20
‘..I don’t see how they can use the minority finding in that way
The majority ruled that the trusts were for the most part legal, and so it follows that the “mechanics” were also legal.’
—-
I suppose the question is: do the liquidators, in exercising their responsibilities to creditors, have any ‘locus’ in the matter of mounting a legal challenge against the FTTT’s decision ( either independently of, or in conjunction with, HMRC) in their attempts to find as much money as is properly due to be included in the assets available for disbursement to creditors?

In the absence of a successful challenge that overturned the FTTT’s decision, there would seem to be little room for clawing back the ‘loan’ money.

Plenty of work for the legal profession there, perhaps.

View Comment

midcalderanPosted on12:23 am - Nov 24, 2012


Agrajag says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 00:10

midcalderan says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 00:05

————–
I give up. The blog policeman wins.

============================

You said ” Differences of opinion is why we have …”

I replied “Nonsense”

It was intended as badinage, sorry if it offended you. Clearly we have a different sense of humour. No “blog Policeman” about it, just a bad joke.
—————
You may wonder why I’m still online. The night watchman let me into his hut to use his computer. We’re obviously on a different level of intellect but but have looked up the the meaning of the words you’ve used, I can now laugh at your joke.

View Comment

john clarkePosted on12:30 am - Nov 24, 2012


Agrajag says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 00:01
‘..Irony doesn’t really work if you have to explain it.’

Had me going for a while, as well!
Not a few of us have fallen foul of forgetting that the cold, printed word cannot convey irony, sarcasm, witty repartee, the way that the face-to-face spoken word , by tone of voice and facial expression, can.
( His Lordship, the Lord Wobbly, has a special gift in his use of sharp wit.A bit like Alexander P-pe . (I left the ‘o’ out in case the full word is a trigger for ‘administration’)!)

View Comment

doontheslopePosted on12:30 am - Nov 24, 2012


Aggrajag

“Nonsense!”
—————————–
I enjoyed your use of irony.

Midcalderan

“The night watchman let me into his hut to use his computer.”
——————————————————————————-
Again, great use of metaphor.

View Comment

midcalderanPosted on12:35 am - Nov 24, 2012


john clarke says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 00:30
0 0 Rate This
Agrajag says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 00:01
‘..Irony doesn’t really work if you have to explain it.’

Had me going for a while, as well!-
————-
Are you related to Henry Kissinger JC? Really need to go now, my boss is on patrol.

View Comment

john clarkePosted on1:02 am - Nov 24, 2012


In my post of at 23.47 tonight, I reproduced an item from ‘Accountancy News’.

There was a name mentioned in that item that instantly brought to mind a man, who lived four hundred-odd years ago, and who bore that first name, and who to me is an absolute hero of ‘integrity’- that name is Amyas.

And I refer to Amyas Paulet.

Here is what he wrote to Queen Elizabeth I:

” I am so unhappy to have lived to see to see this unhappy day in which i am required by direction from my most gracious sovereign to do an act which God and the law forbiddeth…. God forbid that I should make so foul a shipwreck of my conscience, or leave so great a blot on my poor posterity, to shed blood without law or warrant”

This was in reply to the strong hint from that truly evil Queen that, as gaoler of Queen Mary of Scotland, England and France, he would do himself a bit of all right if he arranged to have her quietly assassinated while in his custody.

Amyas Paulet had been chosen as gaoler because he absolutely detested Mary Q of Scots and all and everything she stood for, and was actually, as her gaoler, quite personally unpleasant to her.

But, when the chips were down, he was prepared to risk perhaps even his own life, certainly his place in court, rather than compromise himself in his own conscience.

An example to us all, and especially to those who have no notion of personal integrity, such as certain football club owners and newspaper men.

View Comment

Charlie BrownPosted on1:38 am - Nov 24, 2012


something that i find a bit mystifying is the apparent reluctance of any of our clubs to remove the various heads of our football organisations for their ineptitude and mishandling of events over the past year.
How on earth can Doncaster still have the support of the SPL clubs?
How do Longmuir and Ballantyne still command a majority of the SFL clubs?
How do Regan and Ogilvie survive when they are answerable to all clubs?
These guys utterly botched events over the summer as well as tried to connive, bully and deceive and yet every single one of them remains in post to negotiate league reconstruction.
How? Why?

View Comment

john clarkePosted on1:39 am - Nov 24, 2012


midcalderan says:
Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 00:35
‘..Are you related to Henry Kissinger JC? …..’
—-
Happily, no.

But what I would give to have that kind of wonderful, indescribable, compelling kind of voice!

He could ( still can I think) talk the same kind of sh-te as, say, Charlie Green flogging shares, but his voice, unlike Charlie’s Yorkshire fruit-market barra-boy’s, rumbled with ‘authority’ and ‘gravitas’.

View Comment

Charlie BrownPosted on1:58 am - Nov 24, 2012


Another sore thumb as far as Iam concerned is the apparent lack of any concerns about the actions of the men responsible for Rangers football administration over the last decade ie Ogilvie, McClelland, Bain and Andrew Dickson? Even worse that some of these held office bearing positions at the SFA and SPL yet deceived or didn’t seek to address the rules of football as they applied to their club but also for the organisations they were supposed to be representing and upholding it’s rules?
Unless this is part of the remit of the LNS Commission but i haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere?
It’s like it’s a non issue yet in football terms it is perhaps the biggest travesty? These guys knowingly submitted false or incomplete information and never sought to establish or enforce correct protocols?

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on2:04 am - Nov 24, 2012


Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Friday, November 23, 2012 at 22:50

Bogsdollox

Because– sad old bugger that I am– I found the arguments and the reasoning… interesting.

Yes I know it sounds boring– but such an argument is that part of the law that I like– finding your way through the minefield if you like.

On reading the judgement, looking at what they reported as the submissions, studying the language of the cases as repeated in that judgement etc— I genuinely found it interesting– in fact I think my first comment on the decision was something along the lines that the whole thing has a lot in it and is fascinating.

That is all really– but God I wouldn’t want to do it every day!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That wasn’t my concern. I am impressed by your writing, for its insight and of course entertainment value.

However, you ventured an opinion on the law (which you say you no longer practice) and neither was tax law a speciality when you did. So your analysis is based on what exactly?

Many on this blog treat your writings in the same way as the Bears read Jabba. Think on that before venturing a “considered opinion” or is your agenda a different one entirely?

View Comment

Leave a Reply