Over the past couple of years, we have built a healthy, vibrant and influential community which recognises the need to counter the corporate propaganda spouted by the mainstream media on behalf of the football authorities.
The media have, not entirely but in the main, been hostage to the patronage of those in charge of the club/media links, and to the narrow demographic of their readership. Despite a continuing rejection of the media’s position by that readership (in terms of year on year slump in sales) there is an obstinate refusal to see what is by now inevitable – the death of the print media. The lamb metaphor in fact ironically moving to the slaughter.
The football authorities in Scotland, once the country that gave the world the beautiful game, are rigid with fear that their own world will fall apart – because they are wedded to the idea that only one football match actually matters. To that end they will do whatever it takes to ensure that it continues. They have long since dispensed with the notion that football is an interdependent industry, and incredibly, even those who are not participants in that match follow like sheep towards the abattoir.
The argument is no longer that one club cheated and got away with it. The debate that we need to have is one about what is paramount in the eyes of the clubs and the media . Is it the inegrity of sporting endeavour, or box-office?
For out part, independent sites like this have accelerated the print media’s demise, and there have been temporary successes in persuading the clubs to uphold the spirit of sport. However our role has up to now been to cast a spotlight on the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and downright lies that routinely pass for news. News that is imagined up by PR agencies and dutifully copied by the lazy pretend-journalists who betray no thought whatsoever during the process.
Despite our successes, it really is not enough. We have the means at our disposal to do more, but do more we need to change ourselves, because the authorities sure as hell aren’t gonna.
We need to provide meaningful insight into the game that removes the Old Firm prism from the light path. We need to provide news that has covered all of the angles. We need to entertain, inform and energise fans of sport and all clubs.
We need to do that from a wholly independent perspective. None of this refusing to tell the truth about club allegiances. There is no reason why intelligent men and women can’t be objective in spite of their own allegiances (although the corollary absolutely holds true). Our experience of the MSM in this country is that the lack of arms-length principles in the media has corrupted it to such an extent that they barely recognise truth and objectivity. We need to be firm on those arms-length principles.
In order to do that we have put together a plan (with enough room to manoeuvre if required) as follows;
We will rebrand and re-launch as the Independent Sports Monitor. We have acquired the domains isMonitor.co.uk and IndependentSportsMonitor.co.uk, and those will be the main urls after the re-launch, hopefully later in the summer.
The change in name reflects the reality of our current debate which is not always confined to Scotland or football. It will also give us the option in future of applying the success of our model to other sports and jurisdictions through partner sites and blogs. This should also help in our efforts to raise funds in the future. However any expansion outwith the domain of Scottish football is some time away, and will depend on the success we have with the core model.
Our mission statement will be;
- ISM will seek to build a community of sports fans whose overarching aim is the integrity of competition in the sport.
- ISM will, without favour, seek to find objective truths on the conduct and administration of sport. We will avoid building relationships with individuals or organisations which would bring us into conflict with that.
- ISM will provide a platform for the views of ALL fans, and guarantee that those views will be heard in a mutually respectful environment.
- ISM will also endeavour to inform and entertain members on a wide range of topics related to our shared love of sport.
- ISM will seek to represent the views of sports fans to sporting authorities and hold the authorities to account.
We have estimated our (modest) costs to expand our role as per recent discussions. The expanded role will take the form of a new Internet Radio Channel where we hope to provide 24/7 content by the end of the year. It will also see a greater news role where we will engage directly with clubs and authorities to seek answers to our questions directly. And we will seek to contact the best fan sites across Scotland with a view to showcasing their content.
We have identified individuals who we want to work (initially on a part time basis) towards our objectives, we have identified premises where we want to conduct our business, and we hope to move into those premises during this summer.
To finance these plans there are a couple of stages;
- Initially (as soon as possible) we need to pay accommodation and hosting costs for the first year. To do so, we hope to appeal to the community itself. Our aim is to raise around £5000 by the end of August.
- There are salary costs (around £15,000) attached to our first year plan, but these have been underwritten by Big Pink, and equipment costs (est. £3000). These will be reimbursed if the advertising campaign we recently started bears any fruit (we will not know about that for a few months).
- It will not be too discouraging if we make losses in the first couple of years, so if necessary we will seek crowd-funding to finance our plans if the resources of the community itself prove inadequate to smooth a path to break-even point.
Our first year may be a perilous hand-to-mouth existence, but I am certain the journey will be an exciting and enjoyable one. We will also need to search our community resources for contacts at clubs; players, officials, ex-players, local journalists etc. Please get in touch if you have any in at your club.
We also hope to tap into the expertise of our community for advice, comment and analysis of developments, and we will be looking for any aspiring presenters, journalists, sound and video editors, graphic designers (and lots of others) to help us find our feet. Any offers of assistance would be gratefully accepted.
We mustn’t lose sight of why we are doing this. It is because we love our sport, because we want to be able to continue to call it that, and because the disconnect we find in Scottish football, that of the conflicting interests of the fans and the money men, will never be addressed as long as the fans are hopelessly split.
The ultimate goal is to allow sport – not our individual clubs – to triumph over the greed and corporate troglodyte-ism of those people who run it. I am confident that we as a community desperately want to be able to make a difference. That is why I am confident we can achieve our aim of becoming a significant player in the game.
andygraham.66 says:
Member: (274 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 8:03 am
Classic from John James:
Imagine how fortunate you would feel when you were appointed to the board of RIFC with little more than a good head of hair to your name?
———-
Just followed one of Clumps’ links via twitter to a bit of John James on the RSL blog. Whoever he is, he takes some merciless swipes at SoS & RST (and Houston & Graham personally). And although appearing no fan of Phil he certainly gives credit where he feels credit is due. Paints a pretty believable picture of the reality on the ground viz a viz financial situation and L5 spin.
Also infers that further loans are satisfying the payroll in June and July and that next season will be funded entirely by ST income and walk-up sales, whatever that amounts to. He and others in the comments section, including ‘Merlin’ (for it is he) also seem to think DK has abandoned ship and taken to his personal lifeboat.
JJ appears to be more than a poster making guesses on a hunch. Perhaps there’s a leak from the inside? Someone who has already seen through the King bravado and is genuinely concerned.
burghGer says:
Member: (9 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 9:03 am
A pretty good post, that shows the dilemma facing TRFC fans now that it has become obvious that the fabled very rich Real Rangers Men, just waiting to parade in with their multi millions, just aren’t there, and never actually were.
I’d say, though, that your assessment ‘Unlike those two I think DK is truly intent on doing what is best for Rangers.’ isn’t quite right, in that King is intent on doing what is best for Dave King, and he believes he can achieve something for himself by being involved at Ibrox. I’m sure he would love to bring success to the club, but isn’t going to do that using his own money, and, besides, his love of ‘Rangers’ has already been called into question with some of his many conflicting statements. As for his ’15 years of involvement with Rangers’, the vast bulk of that 15 years was spent thousands of miles from Ibrox and his time spent involving himself in the club’s affairs could only be assessed at a few months in total. In the meantime he didn’t exactly cover himself in glory by his inaction (complacency?) in allowing a couple of charlatans (Murray and Whyte) to ruin your club.
There was (maybe still is) an alternative to King, though not one who has endeared himself to the club’s supporters by his lack of fanciful promises. He has bags of money, but isn’t a RRM and so not prepared to throw his money at the club (there never has been anyone prepared to throw his own money at the club).
Ask yourself this, if King hadn’t come onto the scene, and the last board had remained in place, do you think the finances of TRFC would be better, or worse, than they are now? Would the playing squad be better, or worse, than it is now? Would the club’s prospects of survival be better or worse than they are now? Would there be more, or less, empty promises than there are now?
Every business is in big trouble when led by people who promise much, but deliver little – and it makes no difference how much the business means to them.
There is another D King with a colourful past involved in sport about whom it is said if he offers you 50 million when it comes to being paid it is likely that he he will claim that he meant 50 million snowballs (not the Scottish type either).
Moonbeams for snowballs and there we go
Ask yourself this, if King hadn’t come onto the scene, and the last board had remained in place, do you think the finances of TRFC would be better
————————————————————————
Well I would suggest they well could be worse, after all Ashley’s muppets were signing players without medicals, out of the five loans, only one was fit to play … were these directors fit for purpose? If so what was their purpose – it certainly wasn’t for their football acumen.
Here are the two letters in question. I note the RIFC letter states:
“The board is disappointed that Deloitte has chosen to resign due to acts which occurred in 2013 and 2014 whilst RIFC was under different stewardship.”
Is he re-assuring shareholders that the threats have ceased now that the new board are in power?
sorry, I couldn’t include both letters in the one post
Billy Boyce says:
Member: (64 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 10:42 am
“The board is disappointed that Deloitte has chosen to resign due to acts which occurred in 2013 and 2014 whilst RIFC was under different stewardship.”.
Or Deloitte are saying “Yes we know the PLC has an entirely new board, however we are still getting out of it. As Auditors who have already made clear our concerns we don’t want to be about when they come to fruition.”
Billy Boyce says:
Member: (64 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 10:44 am
I guess that letter answers the question ‘have RIFC plc appointed new auditors?’ Looks like the answer is no, though they are consistent, at least, in saying that they are in negotiations with alternative auditors and an announcement will be made in the near future. Does that ring any bells with anyone?
Once again, what was conjecture on here only a day or so ago (looks like they’ve not got new auditors yet), has turned out to be fact! We are pretty good at reading what’s not said, as opposed to what they would like us to believe!
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1057 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 10:59 am
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/312774-dave-king-insists-he-has-a-nomad-lined-up-ahead-of-rangers-takeover/
[Contains Video]
Dave King has insisted that he has lined up a Stock Exchange nominated adviser for Rangers ahead of him assuming control at Ibrox.
Arriving at Glasgow Airport ahead of the EGM, King said that he already had a Nomad who were happy to deal with him and that they would act for Rangers if happy with the club’s accounts. He would not reveal the identity of the company involved but when asked to confirm he had one lined up he said:
===========================================================
In other thoughts King also stated.
“It’s difficult to say [how much]. I said about £20m in the short term but I’m concerned there’s other areas of the club where money’s needed to be spent as well. I think it’ll be north of £20m in the short- to medium-term.
Homunculus says:
Member: (82 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 11:06 am
For most businesses, ‘in the short term’ would mean the next 12 months, while ‘medium term’ would refer to a period of, say, 2-3 years. In RIFC/TRFC’s case, medium term would, at best, be Christmas! Short term, since that King statement, could well have past by already!
burghGer says:
Member: (9 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 9:03 am
With regards Dave King, & comparisons to whyte & green, I’d say this. Unlike those two I think DK is truly intent on doing what is best for Rangers. This purpose isn’t simply ascertained from one or two puff pieces in the SMSM, its borne out from 15 years of involvement with Rangers where not a single person who has crossed his path in that time is in any doubt of the man’s commitment to restoring the club
——————————————
Charles green.
Remember he said King wanted the CVA rejected.Now why would a real rangers man do that? Why? Why?
Given the reasons stated for the resignation by Deloittes I don’t see that any of the other large UK audit companies, EY, PwC or KPMG, would be willing to take on the gig. Also, again given the circumstances, I don’t see any of the Scottish based audit companies being willing to take it on.
So where next? An English based company, at even greater expense, since they’d lack a Glasgow office.
Sorry to jump back a day or so, however with regards Dave King’s claim in the liquidation of the old club. Whilst reading something else I stumbled across this. Note his claim was made at the time of the administration, so would have been prior to the CVA failure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9129002/Rangers-in-administration-Dave-King-statement.html
My own present position
I seem to be one of the few people who actually invested cash into the club. I have made a claim of £20 million on the basis of non-disclosure by the then Chairman, David Murray, of Rangers true financial position as far back as 2000.
Other shareholders may feel deceived like I do and wish to take similar action. (David Murray will no doubt argue to the contrary and the merits of this will be dealt with in due course in the appropriate forum.)
For present purposes however, I simply want to advise the fans and fellow shareholders that any benefit I receive from my claim will be fully reinvested into the restructured football club. I remain 100% committed to the Rangers football club and will do whatever I can to advance its interests.
Cluster One says:
Member: (213 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 11:25 am
Charles green.
Remember he said King wanted the CVA rejected.Now why would a real rangers man do that? Why? Why?
_______________________________
Could the answer to your question be contained in this post from Homunculus says:
Member: (83 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 11:46 am
Sorry to jump back a day or so, however with regards Dave King’s claim in the liquidation of the old club. Whilst reading something else I stumbled across this. Note his claim was made at the time of the administration, so would have been prior to the CVA failure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9129002/Rangers-in-administration-Dave-King-statement.html
My own present position
I seem to be one of the few people who actually invested cash into the club. I have made a claim of £20 million on the basis of non-disclosure by the then Chairman, David Murray, of Rangers true financial position as far back as 2000.
Other shareholders may feel deceived like I do and wish to take similar action. (David Murray will no doubt argue to the contrary and the merits of this will be dealt with in due course in the appropriate forum.)
For present purposes however, I simply want to advise the fans and fellow shareholders that any benefit I receive from my claim will be fully reinvested into the restructured football club. I remain 100% committed to the Rangers football club and will do whatever I can to advance its interests.
______________________________
Is it possible that King would have had more chance of getting something – or a bigger settlement – from liquidation than from a CVA?
With the reason for Rangers auditors quitting now mainstream, we have to assume the Sunday Herald had the story legally checked before publishing. In the absence of auditors, What is the deadline for Rangers submitting audited accounts in terms meeting UEFA requirements? If they don’t meet the deadline do they have to have three more consecutive years of accounts before being allowed to participate in UEFA competition? It would be a blow to the plan to be in the Champions league in three years 🙄
Upthehoops
Or do we now have another GASL aka PM.
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1059 comments)
‘..Is it possible that King would have had more chance of getting something – or a bigger settlement – from liquidation than from a CVA?’
___________
Entirely possible, I would think, if he was already anticipating a cheap purchase of the assets on Liquidation.
We have all learned that the same finance sharks are constantly circling in the same waters.
The scent of a Business in trouble draws them like flies to a (how does one spell ‘toaly’?). If they don’t actually know each other, they will have heard of the successful ploys of their peers.. The big sharks will know of the mini-sharks, who in turn have their little pilot white fishes to lead them to potential feeding grounds.
What murky,murky connections may be in this whole unending,unedifying saga..How far back does the death of RFC have its origins?
And to go a little off-topic, as a layman I was idly reading about the ‘Financial Reporting Council.’ Grand, re-assuring title for the body exercising statutory authority and control over accounting standards and audit companies.
And lo and behold, The Financial Control Council is itself a limited company, not a Government agency! Which is part-funded by the rest of us to do some work in ‘regulating ‘ the various accountancy firms blah blah blah.
And then I read that it itself came under heavy fire because some the people it used to check out the HBOS scandal and some other of the really dirty financial work of that time, had been employees of the ‘guilty’ parties.
And I thought, “ffs!”
In the world of money, are anyone’s hands clean? 🙁
Homunculus says:
Member: (83 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 8:19 am
=================================
The positive media spin for Rangers is quite incredible given the following:
– They have no NOMAD
– They have no Auditors
– They have no credit facilities
– They have to borrow money from Directors every month to pay wages
– They make next to nothing from Kit merchandising
– Almost every asset they have has been used as security
You really would think there is a few good stories in there for the media to go after.
burghGer says:
Member: (9 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 9:03 am
With regards Dave King, & comparisons to whyte & green, I’d say this. Unlike those two I think DK is truly intent on doing what is best for Rangers. This purpose isn’t simply ascertained from one or two puff pieces in the SMSM, its borne out from 15 years of involvement with Rangers where not a single person who has crossed his path in that time is in any doubt of the man’s commitment to restoring the club.
—————–
It is my belief, based on the number of games and time I have spent in Ibrox (both as a fan watching the game and as an employee) that Dave King has hardly watched a Rangers match in the last 30 years. I, along with many other fans, seek bars and clubs, to watch the team play when travelling on business or holiday; he does not always make the effort to see the game even when in Scotland!
I am a self-confessed Rangers Hater and I have spent more time at Ibrox than this guy, what does that tell you about his ‘lifelong fan’ tag?
He is a man interested only in money and how that Money makes him more money, it is my belief he has taken an interest in The Rangers to continue with that plan.
IMO….
I’m puzzled myself as to why DK wanted the CVA rejected. You could argue that he was confident Gers would remain in the SPL either way, which would’ve been a fair assumption at that point. But that doesn’t apply to the european ban a newco would entail.
In addition, the CVA proposal specified that Green’s lot would pick up the club, through a business and assets sale, anyway. So it wasnt as if rejecting the cva would block Green et al.
King’s only chance of retrieving his £20 million was a liquidation of OldCo. Could this have been his real motive for rejecting it? Lets say that would be one of the first questions id ask him!
Madbhoy24941 says:
Member: (81 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 1:28 pm
More or less how I view his ‘love’ for TRFC/Rangers(IL).
He is happy to fly across the Atlantic to watch a golf tournament but, apparently, can’t be bothered, or won’t pay the cost, to install the relatively cheap IT to ensure he never misses any of his beloved club’s matches. I suspect he’s always put more time and effort into reducing his golf handicap than he has into fulfilling his duties as a director of Rangers or TRFC.
On Dave King’s love of golf and golfists.
http://www.pga.com/news/industry-news/gary-player-oppose-1-million-claim-former-caddie-and-business-partner
Player to oppose $1 million claim by former caddie and business partner
JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Gary Player will oppose a claim of $1 million by his former caddie and business partner in South Africa for an unpaid loan, the lawyer representing the golf great said on Wednesday.
Dave King gained an interim court order that potentially allows him to sue 77-year-old Player for assets the nine-time major champion and Hall of Famer holds in South Africa, including shares in a stud farm in the rural town of Colesberg.
Homunculus says:
Member: (84 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 1:52 pm
Perhaps the loan to Gary Player was part of a ‘holistic’ package? 😉
upthehoops says:
Member: (769 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 1:24 pm
Homunculus says:
Member: (83 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 8:19 am
=================================
The positive media spin for Rangers is quite incredible given the following:
– They have no NOMAD
– They have no Auditors
– They have no credit facilities
– They have to borrow money from Directors every month to pay wages
– They make next to nothing from Kit merchandising
– Almost every asset they have has been used as security
You really would think there is a few good stories in there for the media to go after.
===================================================
Shall we have a bash?
“ Rangers have shown the way for Scottish Football to operate as a lean and mean virtual company. No assets, no income, no NOMAD, no listing, no auditors, no credit facilities and no squad.
A virtual spokesperson for Rangers, Mr Paul Hairstyle said “It is believed that this is a new world record. Our virtual approach allows us to say categorically that we have virtually nae chance.”
Scottish Football needs virtue over virtual. And a strong Arbroath.
burghGer says:
Member: (10 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 1:30 pm
‘..In addition, the CVA proposal specified that Green’s lot would pick up the club, through a business and assets sale, anyway. So it wasnt as if rejecting the cva would block Green et al.’
_________
That prompts me to wonder whether D&P and CG moved too fast for him.They moved exceeding fast indeed to ‘preferred bidder’ stage.
If he felt that some smart-alec mountebank had outsmarted him that would make his attempts to get in there now to get something of his ‘entitlement’ (as he might see it) back.
I wonder is anyone looking into how smartly they moved? 😉
Don’t think so John. Wasn’t Bill wotsisname conferred with preferred bidder status months before that?
Deloittes-
The 19th June letter from Deloitte says they received “…threatening or intimidating messages from anonymous third party sources” and accordingly resigned.
The letter 3rd July letter from RIFC says that Deloitte chose to resign “due to acts which occurred…whilst RIFC was under different stewardship”.
Although the timings in the RIFC letter are factually correct, why was it worth stating such an obvious fact? Is it supposed to carry an implication that the intimidation was in some way related to the previous board(s)? Deloittes’ letter, however, states that the the messages were anonymous, i.e. they are not certain of the sources, other than they believe them to be “third party” i.e. coming from a source outside the two main parties involved. That is, they exonerate themselves and the Rangers board in place at the time as being the culprits.
If that is the case, then whose agenda would it have suited at the time to stir up such intimidation? (I don’t plan to go back through the details to try to work it out.)
Or perhaps they are just oversensitive, following the loss of the NOMAD, about the company losing another professional organisation.
Tartanwulver says:
Member: (245 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 5:02 pm
Deloittes’ letter, however, states that the the messages were anonymous, i.e. they are not certain of the sources, other than they believe them to be “third party” i.e. coming from a source outside the two main parties involved.
=================================================
Tartan, surely there were only two main parties involved between company and auditor in 2013/14. The board at that time, and Deloittes themselves. Any other person/body outside of that would be considered third party.
If anything Deloittes appear to be absolving the board in place at the time of any involvement in the threats.
They then go on to challenge the current board to apply to the courts if they want to withhold that information from shareholders.
Are these two statements on BBC online intended to mean the same thing?
BBC Headline
Celtic must meet £1.5m Ciftci price
Nadir Ciftci would consider a transfer to Celtic – if the Scottish champions meet Dundee United’s valuation.
Suggesting
Nadir Ciftci wants Celtic to offer £1.5m before he will consider a move
When the actual quote is
Pierre van Hooijdonk told BBC Scotland: “There are only two offers on the table at the moment from two clubs.
“He told Wigan he does not want to go there. If United accept an offer from Celtic, we could talk.”
Pedant alert.
I think it was Allyjambo suggested that the Auditors prepare the accounts. Somebody (Paddy?) then suggested that the new signing from Motherwell could be Auditing them in the background.
The Auditors do not prepare the accounts they only audit accounts prepared either by internal company accountants or accountants contracted in to prepare the accounts. The latter is only usually the case in SME (Small and Medium Enterprises) who don’t have the need for someone with such expertise on the permanent workforce. The auditors other than being appointed by the company (normally the board) must be totally independent of the company and certainly can not be on the payroll. The Motherwell signing can be involved in the preparation of the accounts but he can not audit them.
As others have said as a PLC RIFC need to present audited accounts to both Company’s House and the shareholders within 6 months of the year end, so by 31st Decemeber. Not having an Auditor will not be an excuse. I think somebody noted last years accounts were registered about a week late. The audited 2010/11 accounts of the company from which TRFC obtained the assets were never forthcoming and we all now how that worked out. So in answer to the UEFA licence question RIFC will need to present Audited accounts even if they are punished for them being late. The alternative is an Insolvency event in the remainder of 2015 or early in 2016.
On the DCK £20m if it is correct that the claim is based on SDM “keeping him out of the loop” shirley his claim is against SDM not Wavetower which bought the club from SDM for a shiny pound (or mibbe 2). Also for burghGer King was on the SDM board and did not act when SDM set the crash course, only lately claiming he was left in the dark. He was on the Craig Whyte board and did not act when that bus was set on a crash course and didn’t speak of being kept in the dark until the bus crashed. Will he claim he is in the dark when this bus crashes despite the fact he can turn on the headlights as he’s driving it.
Trisidium says:
Moderator: (229 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 4:42 pm
‘..Don’t think so John. Wasn’t Bill wotsisname conferred with preferred bidder status months before that?’
_____
Aye, I think Miller was pencilled in as the first ‘saviour’ to show that the Administrators were going through the motions.
King and his mob wouldn’t have been interested in ponying up £11M, I suspect, but it’s possible that the Charles boy may have had some kind of information fast-track edge, I opine, that none of the others, including King, were able to find.
However it came about, King definitely got spat in the eye, and wants revenge.
John,
I think he wants his £20m back. I see no RRM credentials at all.
Corrupt official says
5 July 2015 5.29 p.m.
______________________________
The Deloittes’ letter states that its staff had threatening or intimidating messages from anonymous third parties during 2013 and 2014. Why are the auditors so confident of it being from ‘third parties’ as opposed to just ‘parties’. What do they know that we don’t?
You would think that any professional body being subjected to this treatment would go straight to the police. The police have the necessary technology to monitor mail, e-mails and telephone calls and, hopefully, identify the culprits. Was this ever done? Deloittes owe it to their employees to provide every possible protection in the workplace. Why allow the intimidation go on for so long?
The cynic in me thinks that Deloittes and RIFC have come together to use these so called threats as the official reason for parting company. I am of the view that it suited Deloittes to escape the poisoned chalice without having to spell out the real reason for doing so i.e. the trading whilst insolvent.
billy Boyce -there may be professional regulations which would make what you suggest perilous for Deloitte. These might be for individuals and the firm itself. I am not a CA but have been a member of one chartered institution and bringing the profession into disrepute by conduct unbecoming was a bad thing indeed. Telling untruths about threats and concealing insolvent trading might fall under such a provision. Sometimes things are what they seem, I guess that is the case with TRFC however how things seem to us here might not be how they seem to others.
Billy Boyce says:
Member: (65 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 6:28 pm
Corrupt official says
5 July 2015 5.29 p.m
The cynic in me thinks that Deloittes and RIFC have come together to use these so called threats as the official reason for parting company.
—————————————————-
BB
A cynical mind is a wise stance from which to approach all things RIFC.
Deloittes are a huge firm though and must come across insolvent trading every day. They must flag it up regularly in many companies. Why do you think they would look for a get out other than the stated reason? It’s not as if they had any prior relations with the new board, and don’t intend to have any future involvement, so owe them nothing.
Maybe there has been police intervention, hence the delay in the statement. I don’t know, but agree they have a duty of care to their employees and the police should have been informed if threats and intimidation were at play.
on the european qualification front for any scottish team there will be 3 qualifiers to get to champions league or 3/4 qualifiers to get to euroa league in the near future, looks like the next 5 years.
For celtic their pathway as champions is aided by being seeded through the qualifiers, but celtic must keep playig to their seeding to keep this co-efficient.
If celtic were not to be champions, any one else would be lucky to be seeded once, the 2 non-seeded rounds would be pretty tortuous, teams like:
FC Basel Sui 84.875
FC Salzburg Aut 43.135
Viktoria Plzen Cze 41.825
Steaua Bucuresti ** Rom 40.259
Celtic ** Sco 39.080
APOEL Nicosia ** Cyp 35.460
BATE Borisov ** Bls 35.150
Ludogorets Razgrad ** Bul 25.350
Dinamo Zagreb ** Cro 24.700
information courtesy of the wonderful site:
http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/seedcl2015.html
In europa league quaifying a similar scenario would exist for all teams except celtic where the scottish club would not be seeded in the 3rd and 4th qualifying rounds, playing equally difficult teams.
http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/seedel2015.html
The overall upshot is that the critical question for any scottish club other than celtic is that getting to the europa league group stage s a very big ask. For celtic champions league is a realistic but difficult task, but some years will not be acheived such as last year.
Any scottish club other than celtic cannot realisticlly budget for any substntial income from european participation, possibly only one home gate and minimal tv money.
Celtic can realistically hope to acheive a number of home gates and a group stage and tv money being ok or wonderfful depending upon europa leage/champions league participation. However, as has been shown celtic carry the risk of a poor early season with a new manager as seen by gordon strachan/neil lennon/ronny delia.
There is no solution to improving this as the mainstay of scottish teams are scottish players and without improvements in the quality of players coming through and being retained the current situation will persist. Note scottish football can develop other EU players but has not seemed to do so, other than other english speaking nationals, e.g. Irish, Australian.
Scottish football teams being within the UK has a direct effect through immigration policy on those non european players who can come in.
Summer football may help a little but not a lot.
TV/papers continually makes a lot of european football and the race for cl/el places as it fills air time and paper space, however the benefit of cl/el euro money only reaches celtic really.
Cannot see it changing much as scotland in general has sustainable clubs living within their means.
Scottish football does not need spend to accumulate….
Scottish football needs a strong 42 clubs (SPFL), acheiving all they can.
Scottish football needs a strong 86 clubs (SFA), acheiving all they can.
Scottish football needs improved ability of scottish players/improved ability of players developed in scotland.
Buddy
Dave King was a director of Rangers Football CLub (RFC) from 30th March 2000 to 1 june 2012.
Maybe we should ask him as a director how he did not stop RFC entering administraton/liquidation and how as a director he did not protect the interests of all the shareholders.
It is for this reason i do not understand how he has a claim for £20 million against RFC (now in liquidation). Why BDO are entertaining his clim at all.
Surely as a director it was his duty to blow the whistle on the lack of contingency for the Big tax case.
Surely as a director it was his duty to blow the whistle on the craig whyte disqualification on his appointment and Dave King through the board he was on would have sign craig whytes Fit & Proper Person Form.
Then he should have blown the whistle on the non-payment of VAT/PAYE during craig whytes time. Or is he going to use the Goron Smith excuse (he was CEO) of i did not know what was going on.
All this leads me to the current day, where his behaviour is still pretty suspect. Though it is entertaining in a car crash TV type of way.
Buddy
Scottish Football needs strong directors.
Scottish Football needs more directors like turnbull hutton.
buddy_holly says:
Member: (13 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 8:08 pm
Dave King was a director of Rangers Football CLub (RFC) from 30th March 2000 to 1 june 2012.
Maybe we should ask him as a director how he did not stop RFC entering administraton/liquidation and how as a director he did not protect the interests of all the shareholders.
It is for this reason i do not understand how he has a claim for £20 million against RFC (now in liquidation). Why BDO are entertaining his clim at all.
Surely as a director it was his duty to blow the whistle on the lack of contingency for the Big tax case.
Surely as a director it was his duty to blow the whistle on the craig whyte disqualification on his appointment and Dave King through the board he was on would have sign craig whytes Fit & Proper Person Form.
Then he should have blown the whistle on the non-payment of VAT/PAYE during craig whytes time. Or is he going to use the Goron Smith excuse (he was CEO) of i did not know what was going on.
All this leads me to the current day, where his behaviour is still pretty suspect. Though it is entertaining in a car crash TV type of way.
Buddy
=========================
That old director’s fiduciary duty chestnut just keeps on turning up over and over again.
An hour since the last post!
I’ve been re-reading Lord Doherty’s judgement for this last hour, refreshing the aging memory, and have a smile on my face at Mr Thornhill’s remark ( at para 52), when he was arguing that if the FTT had got it wrong, the whole thing should be referred back to them, and that Lord Doherty (as UTTT) should not rehear the whole case): “if there had been an error of law, it had been an honest misunderstanding of the legally required approach”.
Seems that the world of Law may have its equivalent of the ‘honest mistakes’ of football referees! 😀
John Clark says:
Member: (945 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 10:44 pm
An hour since the last post!
I’ve been re-reading Lord Doherty’s judgement for this last hour, refreshing the aging memory, and have a smile on my face at Mr Thornhill’s remark ( at para 52), when he was arguing that if the FTT had got it wrong, the whole thing should be referred back to them, and that Lord Doherty (as UTTT) should not rehear the whole case): “if there had been an error of law, it had been an honest misunderstanding of the legally required approach”.
Seems that the world of Law may have its equivalent of the ‘honest mistakes’ of football referees! ?
===================================
So is it a Bryson interpretation or trial by Sportscene after that honest mistake?
I’m sure that Black & Simonsen Bookmakers would have the odds sorted.
John Clark says:
Member: (945 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 10:44 pm
Ah, Lord Doherty. The guy “outed” as a Celtic season ticket holder in the run up to the tribunal. Vintage SMSM! 🙂
burghGer says:
Member: (11 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 10:53 pm
‘Ah, Lord Doherty….’
_________
It was my impression at the time that the last thing that Mr Thornhill wanted was for Lord D to send the case back to a differently constituted tribunal! If it had to go back , he wanted it to go back to the original chaps, whose limited capacities were cruelly exposed by Dr Poon, but whose hearts, hands and minds, in my view, were essentially in the ‘right’ place , as was Bryson’s at the LNS panel…
Billy Boyce says:
Member: (65 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 10:42 am
“Here are the two letters in question.”
————————
Who would threaten an auditor?
Presuming the media were on message during the reporting period of 2014 then the wider public would have been blissfully unaware of any contentious issue within the RIFC accounts. If a supporter was to make a spurious threat to the accountants then this could easily be passed off as high spirits or random lunacy. However if it was not Joe Public that rattled Deloitte’s cage, then who was it?
Surely the main motive behind any threat is to coerce the victim into taken a preferred course of action. I think this must narrow down the list of potential culprits significantly. Who would know the contents of the accounts and the potential Deloitte’s attitude toward them?
I noted recent discussion concerning a qualification being placed on Rangers accounts (sorry for not being up to speed on the detail). It seems to me that such statements are the type of thing that might attract ire and for which coercion might be adopted in a desperate attempt to stave off the likelihood.
Why else would you threaten an auditor? Surely the only viable circumstances you would do this is when the auditor looked likely to place a damaging qualification on your accounts and the number of people who would be aware of such an eventuality must be quite exclusive.
Castofthousands says:
Member: (231 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 11:23 pm
‘..Who would threaten an auditor?’
___________
Who, indeed?
As you say, your angry fan in the street is hardly likely to have been aware of what was happening on the accounts side, and if he was,his threats would have been un-targeted mutterings to a Deloitte’s phone number (not email address: they don’t publish them in any obvious way on their web page).
Was there any criminal tendency in or around the Board room at the material time? Anyone with knowledge both of the parlous state of finances and, perhaps, some knowledge of how to deal with guys that look like upsetting your own wee local businesses?
Threats, a la ‘we know who you are and where you live’ kind?
Surely to God not.
Surely??
Companies House sayzzzzzzzz..
TRFC Ltd
Neither an AP01 nor TM01 were filed in respect of the directorship of Chris Graham. Given the short term of the appointment, that is not a huge surprise particularly as the annual return (AR01) was due so soon after (filed 24 June for info. to 29 May).
TRFC does not show DK as a director, although he is shown as a director of the holding company RIFC PLC (that’s a proper holding company if any myth propagandists are still awake this late on a Sunday).
That would explain DK’s lack of interest in day to day TFRC activities.
The registered charges make interesting reading, although they have already been discussed on here fairly recently.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/charges
DK is shown as a director of the holding company RIFC PLC (that’s a proper holding company by the way), but his nationality is shown as United Kingdom rather than the historic standard British or more recently accepted Scottish or English. (If Green and Whyte had done that we’d have been full of conspiracy theories, if we were that way inclined.)
John Clark says:
Member: (946 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 11:18 pm
Ah, the old “Bryson interpretation”. To be fair it could’ve been called the “McKenzie/Bryson Interpretation”, given the decidedly flimsy case put forward by the prosecution described here…
“Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to mean that if, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence was that a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to play in terms of SPL Rule D1.11.
He accepted however that there was scope for a different construction of the rule, to the effect that, as the lodging of the document in question was a condition of registration, the registration of the player would be liable to revocation, with the consequence that the player would thereafter become ineligible to play.
Mr McKenzie accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player. It became apparent from his submissions that Mr McKenzie was not pressing for a finding that [Rangers played ineligble players] had been proved.”
COT & John Clark, “Who would threaten Auditors” How about the “suits” who waylaid the “bomber” in broad daylight and persuaded him to “button his lip”.
The Cat NR1 says:
Member: (485 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 11:43 pm
‘… but his nationality is shown as United Kingdom ..’
_________
I think that that is now the only option that is given on most online thingies.I noticed it when extending my visa on my Australia trip recently, but Mrs C tells me ( and she should know) that for a good while now airline ticket stuff has always given just United Kingdom as an option for UK ‘subjects’.
There must be a reader of this blog who knows what that is all about?
and when it began, that we can’t use “British” or, as I always did, “Scottish”.
John Clark says:
Member: (948 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 11:42 pm
Castofthousands says:
Member: (231 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 11:23 pm
‘..Who would threaten an auditor?’
___________
Who, indeed?
As you say, your angry fan in the street is hardly likely to have been aware of what was happening on the accounts side, and if he was,his threats would have been un-targeted mutterings to a Deloitte’s phone number (not email address: they don’t publish them in any obvious way on their web page).
Was there any criminal tendency in or around the Board room at the material time? Anyone with knowledge both of the parlous state of finances and, perhaps, some knowledge of how to deal with guys that look like upsetting your own wee local businesses?
Threats, a la ‘we know who you are and where you live’ kind?
Surely to God not.
Surely??
//////////////////////////////////////
TRY ASKING Neil Lennon and quiet a few others
What these people are capable of
Let alone the threats they make
Bullets through the post
Letter Bombs
Attacks in the street
etc etc etc
so sorry to say
Its not Surly Not
Its for Gods sake
NOT AGAIN!!! 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁
burghGer says:
Member: (12 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 11:52 pm
‘.. It became apparent from his submissions that Mr McKenzie was not pressing for a finding that [Rangers played ineligble players] had been proved.”’
_______
You bet he wasn’t!
Maybe he had had a wee telephone call from a ‘suit’? 😆
One wonders sometimes how some human beings live with themselves.They can’t all have necks of brass!
There must, here and there, be the odd honest guy? Even allowing for the kind of ‘cosa nostra’ SFA mindset?
Scottish Football needs some honest whistleblowers!
The DR running with a nice story of Wes Fotheringham and his ambitions
I personally have no problem with this as We all have dreams and aspirations
My problem is with everything that is going on in the world
and the even more insignificant problems at TRFC ( yes insignificant compared to the worlds real problems)
Would the ink and time not be better used reporting on something more tangible and news worthy?
John Clark says:
Member: (948 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 12:02 am
The Cat NR1 says:
Member: (485 comments)
July 5, 2015 at 11:43 pm
‘… but his nationality is shown as United Kingdom ..’
_________
I think that that is now the only option that is given on most online thingies.I noticed it when extending my visa on my Australia trip recently, but Mrs C tells me ( and she should know) that for a good while now airline ticket stuff has always given just United Kingdom as an option for UK ‘subjects’.
There must be a reader of this blog who knows what that is all about?
and when it began, that we can’t use “British” or, as I always did, “Scottish”.
=======================
JC
It was hand written as United Kingdom, so he could just as easily have written Castlemilk Born Billionaire Islander or anything equally as exciting.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history should allow access to the AP01 filed on 30 May. Compare and contrast with Paul Murray and John Gilligan’s AP01 forms filed on 20 March.
We always use British on AP01 and other such forms, as British is the correct (where applicable) nationality, whereas United Kingdom is the residence.
DK should know that, but it’s nothing other a minor (and irrelevant) point of (non) interest on a quiet Sunday/Monday overnight.
The odd thing is the non-appointment to the board of the trading subdidiary TRFC, which is the football club (that’s the club not the holding company if any MSM employees are reading in their spare time). We previously had the convicted criminal Alexander Easdale on the TRFC Ltd board but not on the RIFC PLC board, but now the situation is reversed with Mr D C King.
The Cat NR1 says:
Member: (486 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 1:01 am
‘..JC
It was hand written as United Kingdom, so he could just as easily have written Castlemilk Born Billionaire Islander or anything equally as exciting.’
______
I defer to your knowledge and experience!
But maybe he, as a frequent international traveller, has become accustomed to the online kind of stuff, which gives only “united Kingdom” as an option for British subjects..
It annoys the hell out of me that we cannot put “Scottish” as our nationality on these internet feckin things.It was bad enough when we couldn’t put ‘British’ which at least is an adjective. But to have to put ‘United Kingdom’, a noun, as a descriptor is just feckin ungrammatical…. and a breach of my human rights!
tcup 2012 says:
Member: (272 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 12:28 am
The DR running with a nice story of Wes Fotheringham and his ambitions
I personally have no problem with this as We all have dreams and aspirations
My problem is with everything that is going on in the world
and the even more insignificant problems at TRFC ( yes insignificant compared to the worlds real problems)
Would the ink and time not be better used reporting on something more tangible and news worthy?
==================================
As long as there’s space at the bottom for the Ibrox season ticket advert (sorry, I mean impartial reporting of ticket prices and availability at Firhill, Celtic Park, Hampden Park, Broadwood (and even Gayfield and Bayview) etc etc), it doesn’t matter, does it? 👿
Will we see cracked CFC, AFC and SJFC crests tomorrow morning alongside the banner advert for the free TRFC three year anniversary celebration music CD featuring Charles Green conducting the Royal (Loyal?) Philharmonic Orchestra’s production of Britten’s (that’s Tony not NR33’s Benjamin) adaptation of Handels’s Zadoc the Priest?
Who gives a feck, at the end of the day?
If we don’t buy it, it will wither and die and disappear eventually.
Although we can still snigger in the meantime at the wee snippets that get put up for international ridicule.
Joseph Goebbels, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (Comical Ali) and Bernard Ingham would struggle to keep a straight face.
John Clark says:
Member: (950 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 1:21 am
The Cat NR1 says:
Member: (486 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 1:01 am
‘..JC
It was hand written as United Kingdom, so he could just as easily have written Castlemilk Born Billionaire Islander or anything equally as exciting.’
______
I defer to your knowledge and experience!
But maybe he, as a frequent international traveller, has become accustomed to the online kind of stuff, which gives only “united Kingdom” as an option for British subjects..
It annoys the hell out of me that we cannot put “Scottish” as our nationality on these internet feckin things.It was bad enough when we couldn’t put ‘British’ which at least is an adjective. But to have to put ‘United Kingdom’, a noun, as a descriptor is just feckin ungrammatical…. and a breach of my human rights!
==================================================
Agreed.
My nationality is certainly not “United Kingdom” 👿
The Cat NR1:
Joseph Goebbels, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (Comical Ali) and Bernard Ingham would struggle to keep a straight face…
===============================================================================
Cat…pure dead brilliant…who said that beancounters do not have a sense of humour? 😀 😀 😀
PS…who was Bernard Ingham? 😈
The John James chap of RSL has taken to tweeting (as @sitonfence) The latest:
His latest post on RSL states that ST renewal forms were sent out to the 48000 or so fans who have held a season ticket at one time since 2012. In other words, the boycotters were allowed to renew along with last year’s ST holders. That claim should be simple enough to confirm/refute. Ryan?
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/105215-rangers-director-dave-king-lodges-20m-creditors-claim-against-club/
On the fascinating (to me, anyway 🙄 ) topic of King’s claim as a creditor, the most useful article I have found is linked to above. Here’s the bit that interests me-
That indicates to me that the administrators acknowledged King’s claim, but did not accept it as valid.
I had previously assumed that King hadn’t claimed in the administration, but had waited until the liquidators were appointed before lodging his claim.
Like others, I am still totally confused about how King can have any claim as a creditor, but perhaps BDO will clarify at some stage. The matter could well end up in court.
And from the same article, a direct quote from King regarding his opposition to the CVA, since a couple of contributors yesterday seemed to doubt that King wanted a liquidation-
y4rmy says:
Member: (95 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 9:26 am
If this claim is true it should be fairly apparent.
If the “boycotters” have had to wait until the public sale starts then there will be a large number rushing in to get their tickets when the public sale starts. I think that is Wednesday 8th. I would imagine a lot of them will be looking to get the same seat they had before, to sit with their mates they have gone to games with for years. Some may want away from their current location but that’s another story. In any case they would want in quick to have a choice.
However if the claim is true then they will already have bought their tickets and all that will remain will be any new customers for season tickets. For the same reasons as above I think if the opportunity was there then most would have taken it.
I would suggest that would be catastrophic and that there is every possibility Mr King will sell little more than half of the 45,000 he was looking to get rid of. That allied to limited retail income and remaining on Championship levels for TV money, prize money, match day tickets etc would make things extremelly difficult.
A vital week in the new clubs short history.
It seems an auditor is still a pipe dream,on checking the official site the audit committee is still not in place to decide who will get the gig,on further reading ,the directors info has still not been updated,is the IT guy on garden leave also,we should be told,also now nearly a full month since any shares have shifted on their side market,transparency my @rse.
y4rmy says:
Member: (95 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 9:26 am
That suggestion is false. Renewal forms were sent out to those with season tickets to renew. I’m not sure how you would renew a season ticket that you don’t have. Some folk who boycotted had their seats taken & now aren’t happy they’re not available!
yourhavingalaugh says:
Member: (309 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 9:47 am
I would take everything you read on the official website with a healthy does of salt (if that’s not oxymoronic).
They don’t seem to update basic details on anything like a regular basis. I belive that as of fairly recently they still had the same NOMAD, who resigned quite some time ago.
Anyone reading the official site whilst deciding whether or not to purchase shares would be seriously misled.
Just some unsupported thoughts on the Deloitte’s resignation letter.
Could it be the norm for a resigning auditor to provide a ‘reason’ that doesn’t cite the state of the accounts/company? After all, any concerns should have been highlighted within the reports and any new auditors should be able to make up their own minds regarding the suitability of the company to become a client. Surely the letter would be considered confidential and not for publication, leaving the company to make the announcement as they see fit.
What I am thinking is that there was the cited threats and intimidation, and so the the letter gives justifiable reason for the resignation, but it lets both parties ‘off the hook’. For RIFC it avoids the words ‘going concern’, allowing them to leak the letter as comfort for supporters and shareholders in a way that doesn’t do further harm to the company’s prospects as a going concern. I’d imagine Deloittes will have satisfied their legal requirements within the report and accounts and that there is no such requirement for them to include any reference to the accounts in their letter, even if they didn’t want to continue as auditors regardless of the threats.
I seem to remember that there was some publicity/discussion about the individual auditor’s name being withheld from the report and accounts and this latest information obviously ties in with that.
Sympathy has to go out to the people who had to face these threats and intimidation. It must have been a new, and possibly unprecedented, experience for people employed by such high profile auditors where any ‘threats’ would most likely be of a professional nature of lost contracts or damage to careers, rather than actual bodily harm.
Very doubtful that any prominent firm of auditors will now be prepared to take them on, further damaging their prospects of a successful share issue or acceptance by a stock exchange. They certainly don’t do themselves any favours, that’s for sure!
essexbeancounter says:
Member: (214 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 7:02 am
The Cat NR1:
Joseph Goebbels, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (Comical Ali) and Bernard Ingham would struggle to keep a straight face…
===============================================================================
Cat…pure dead brilliant…who said that beancounters do not have a sense of humour? ? ? ?
PS…who was Bernard Ingham? ?
==================
Cheers EB.
Is Jack Irvine Bernard Ingham’s long long brother?
However, James Traynor and Comical Ali are completely unrelated as far as I’m aware, which ia a great shame as Warburton’s weapons of mass destruction would make a great theme for Level 5 in more ways than one.
The Cat NR1 says:
Member: (489 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 10:14 am
essexbeancounter says:
Member: (214 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 7:02 am
The Cat NR1:
Joseph Goebbels, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (Comical Ali) and Bernard Ingham would struggle to keep a straight face…
===============================================================================
Cat…pure dead brilliant…who said that beancounters do not have a sense of humour? ? ? ?
PS…who was Bernard Ingham? ?
==================
Cheers EB.
Is Jack Irvine Bernard Ingham’s long lost brother?
However, James Traynor and Comical Ali are completely unrelated as far as I’m aware, which ia a great shame as Warburton’s weapons of mass destruction would make a great theme for Level 5 in more ways than one.
[Edited to correct obvious error]
@AllyJambo if the letter was leaked by RIFC would that not be rather extreme.
Basically they would be saying look our Auditors didn’t resign because they were unconformable with the possibility of having to sign us off as a going concern based for the third year running on the flimsiest of evidence of guaranteed director funded credit lines, they resigned because they were being intimidated. The only positive spin they could put on that is the intimidation was from Rangers haters and regardless which reputable auditors would want to take up a gig where the last incumbents were subject to intimidation.
Following JC(e)’s earlier comment re Mr Thornhill, I have noticed on my recent travels to various tax conferences, extensive reference is made to his “victory” over HMRC in “The Rangers Case” (sic).
When I point out that,(having disclosed my non-tax planning interest!) that not only is the victory merely partial, but that the matter has been referred back to the FTT, the room falls silent…. 😀
But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
EBC,
To be fair if I’d pulled off what Mr Thornhill achieved versus HMRC given the amounts and apparent ‘guilt’ in evidence I’d be pretty vocal about it too!
Smug even!
With regards the season tickets / boycotters.
I suspect that, as is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I have read on some forums that if previous season ticket holders (boycotters) phoned in and quoted their Rangers reference number then so long as the seat had not been taken by another person (who bought a ticket during the boycott) then they could go ahead and buy it.
I believe the logic was that if the seat was sitting free, then it would go up for sale at the general sale anyway, so selling it to it’s old occupant suited both the customer and the club. They got their old seat, the club got a sale and no-one lost out. It all semms very sensible and pragmatic.
If however the seat had been taken up by someone else then it was simply a case of waiting until the general sale. The new season ticket holder obviously took preference and even if they had not taken it up yet the club had to wait until that period was over until they sold it to someone else.
I cannot confirm whtheer this is true or not, or whether it was people winding other supporters up. However there was talk of it on certain forums.
essexbeancounter says:
Member: (215 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 10:59 am
It’s amazing how many things which were reported as a “victory” weren’t quite that. As you say the “victory” at the FTT was actually a defeat in several cases, involving several million pounds. If those cases had stood on their own it would have been seen as a crushing defeat but they were easily concealed within the “victory”.
If I remember correctly the other main “victory” with regards side letters actually resulted in something like a £250,000 fine. Not the sort of “victory” I would be looking for, found guilty and fined heavily.
“The three-man commission, which also comprised QCs Nicholas Stewart and Charles Flint, were unanimous in their decision.
They found that Rangers, under Sir David Murray’s stewardship, entered into side-letter arrangements with a large number of players, with the club making payments to an offshore Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) and payments made to players in the form of loans.
The commission found that those arrangements – which were required to be disclosed under the rules of the SPL and the Scottish Football Association – were not disclosed to the football authorities.”
Someone posted recently about If Rangers were to be Scottish Champions in 3 years time (I Know!) what would be the entry details re. qualifying rounds & seeding. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks.
essexbeancounter says:
Member: (215 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 10:59 am
Following JC(e)’s earlier comment re Mr Thornhill, I have noticed on my recent travels to various tax conferences, extensive reference is made to his “victory” over HMRC in “The Rangers Case” (sic).
When I point out that,(having disclosed my non-tax planning interest!) that not only is the victory merely partial, but that the matter has been referred back to the FTT, the room falls silent…. ?
But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
———————————
I’ve tried this.
At the original hearing RFC(IL) admitted some charges,so a liability was confirmed.For how much we don’t know but RFC won most so it was reported as a victory.A bill though,was now due to HMRC.
At the appeal,Lord Docherty basically awarded some more,how much we don’t know,to HMRC,so the bill went up!
Still cheered as a victory though.Sounds like one of Kings “Favourable Settlements”.
Although the MSM hailed this victory HMRC stated the were not happy with partial victories and have appealed again.WRT this appeal,the Murray Group is no more so who,if anyone will fight RFC(IL)s corner?.
I think BDO have said they’ll make sure the creditors are represented,the largest being HMRC who are the ones raising the appeal.They also had BDO appointed as liquidators.
So BDO hired by HMRC,are representing HMRC(creditor),against HMRC.
I wish I’d became a lawyer. 😕
Homunculus says:
Member: (88 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 11:30 am
You are correct of course in relation to the guilty verdict/£250’000 fine. From a Rangers fans’ perspective I’d say this about Lord Nimmo Smith’s Commission.
1. Trophy-stripping was clearly the big, highly-publicised, fear amongst supporters and the receipt of confirmation that was not happening was a “JFK moment” for most Rangers fans. Personally, a construction site in Nairn 🙂
2. If you were a director of OldCo then it most certainly was a guilty verdict. However from the football perspective, Lord Nimmo Smith was, to the ire of many no doubt, explicit in admonishing that side of the whole enterprise…
“It is the board of directors of Oldco as a company, as distinct from the football
management or players of Rangers FC as a club, which appears to us to bear the responsibility
for the breaches of the relevant rules. All the breaches which we have found were therefore
clearly committed by Oldco.
We see no room or need for separate findings of breaches by Rangers FC, which was not a separate legal entity and was then part (although clearly in football and financial terms the key part) of the undertaking of Oldco. Rangers FC is of course now owned and operated by Newco, which bears no responsibility for the matters with which we are concerned.
For the reasons already given, we have decided against the imposition of a sporting
sanction. In these circumstances the financial penalty lies only upon Oldco and does not affect
Rangers FC as a football club under its new ownership.”
From “DECISION by THE RT HON LORD NIMMO SMITH, NICHOLAS STEWART QC and CHARLES FLINT QC” (February 2013) https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/commission-decision-28-02-2013.pdf
tykebhoy says:
Member: (192 comments)
July 6, 2015 at 10:33 am
@AllyJambo if the letter was leaked by RIFC would that not be rather extreme.
Basically they would be saying look our Auditors didn’t resign because they were unconformable with the possibility of having to sign us off as a going concern based for the third year running on the flimsiest of evidence of guaranteed director funded credit lines, they resigned because they were being intimidated. The only positive spin they could put on that is the intimidation was from Rangers haters and regardless which reputable auditors would want to take up a gig where the last incumbents were subject to intimidation.
———-
As I said, it’s just some thoughts on the letter. One thing’s for sure, the letter has been leaked, whether deliberately by the board or a mole, or completely accidently finding it’s way into the wrong hands, it’s still less damaging to the club than if it had intimated deep financial problems. We know these massive problems exist, but to have it in writing, from the auditors, would be devastating to the supporters who are still happy to believe the PR, while confirmation to those who have suspected that what we here, and elsewhere, have been saying all along is true.
It may, of course, be by way of a warning, intended to be kept from the public, to any would be new auditors that there are more problems for them at this company than mere dodgy accounts!
Sadly, some, perhaps many, will see this letter as welcome proof that the power of ‘Rangers’ is still alive (to intimidate even major institutions) and may even encourage ST sales amongst those pathetic individuals. That, after all, is what their silly marches are all about, a demonstration of their power to intimidate.