Why We Need to Change

ByTrisidium

Why We Need to Change

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;

  1. ISM will seek to build a community of sports fans whose overarching aim is the integrity of competition in the sport.
  2. 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.
  3. ISM will provide a platform for the views of ALL fans, and guarantee that those views will be heard in a mutually respectful environment.
  4. ISM will also endeavour to inform and entertain members on a wide range of topics related to our shared love of sport.
  5. 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;

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.

 

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.

3,978 Comments so far

tykebhoyPosted on11:44 am - Jul 8, 2015


The Cat NR1 says:
Member: (492 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 11:08 am
==============
Bizarrely omitting current Premiership team Dundee, but including 4 Championship teams and League 1 Dunfermline. If you go to fixtures you can actually filter by 17 teams as Dundee are included there. Only if you apply the filter can you see the other teams but only if its a match against the 17. So all League 1 matches feature Dunfermline and there are no League 2 matches at all.

edit to add: You can guess which Championship team is definitely there but the other 3 are St. Mirren, Hibs and Falkirk

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:51 am - Jul 8, 2015


Just a quick note on the question of the loans being sham transactions.

If HMRC was to win on this point, the precedent would be on a fairly narrow point that would be difficult to translate into other cases.

As I think I understand it, the purpose of this case is to establish the primacy of tax laws. So even if the loan transactions are real and subject to legislation when seen in isolation , PAYE can still be applied if those loan transactions are part of a scheme devised simply to avoid tax. The key thing is taking a purposeful view of the ENTIRE scheme as it is designed to operate.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:04 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Precisely. The fundamental question was never whether the loans were loans or otherwise, it was where the money to fund the loans came from in the first place.

I think its fair to point out Dr Heidi Poon’s lengthy statement (bearing in mind she, I understand, had no need to given the possible consequences for her) to this effect in the original FTT verdict.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on12:39 pm - Jul 8, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:
Member: (94 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 11:51 am

HMRC discuss the Ramsay Principle here

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim12010.htm

PAYE avoidance: application of the Ramsay principle

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:49 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Breaking news: Rangers man (Weir) says (The) ‘Rangers’ are still a big draw. I’d suggest adding – if they continue to pay well over the odds for mercenary players.

Please don’t bother clicking on the link, you’ll learn nothing more than further confirmation of the existence of succulent lamb :slamb: !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33430942

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on1:21 pm - Jul 8, 2015


The constant message from and about Rangers never ever fails to mention the greatness of Rangers . Paul Murray has fallen into the same PR mantra of claiming Rangers are the biggest club in Scotland.

That’s the danger when you have a media who can’t be bothered with the aggravation they would get for challenging this nonsense. Thankfully that’s not a concern that those who comment on Social media have to worry about. Yes we’ll be labelled obsessive , however when that’s the only counter of those who don’t like facts and truth being delivered to them, then you know the well is truly running dry.

For the avoidance of doubt , the information on here is factual , taken from accounts and official stats. It also took the grand total of 15 minutes to compile . Not time consuming when you have the facts readily available.

Firstly. Rangers are not a great club. Not in any sense. They have never been Champions of Europe , which should be the minimum criteria for greatness. In real terms there are very very few great clubs. I have been a member of one ( Barcelona ) for nearly 15 years. During that time I have received hundreds of official communications from the club. Not one has ever made a statement that Barca is a great club. Greatness is earned, and once earned doesn’t need to be shouted about. Everyone knows, and equally everyone can recognise a false claim when they see one. Like 5 stars on a shirt .

Secondly. I have no idea what criteria Paul Murray uses to claim Rangers are the biggest club in Scotland. Biggest suggests more supporters, greater turnover, greater Social Media awareness. Taking each on their own merits,here are the facts.

Turnover ( ie how much £ does each club generate)

Based on the most recent 10 year average from 2000 until 2010 , when both Clubs were in the SPL

* Celtic average turnover £63.016 million

* Rangers average turnover £51.645 million

Celtic therefore generate an average of 22% more than Rangers when both clubs are playing in the top tier of Scottish football.

* Celtic single season record turnover £75.820 million

* Rangers single season record turnover £64.450 million

Celtic therefore generated 17.64 % more than Rangers in their respective best ever financial years .

So no question whatsoever about who is bigger in financial terms.

Social media

Facebook and twitter are significant independent measures of the popularity of clubs in a worldwide basis. They numbers are revealing and completely contradict Paul Murray’s nonsensical claims.

Facebook

Celtic likes 1,347,707

Rangers likes 484,908

Twitter

Celtic followers 282,900

Rangers followers 184,800

Total Social media result.

Celtic 1,630,607

Rangers 669,708

This isn’t even close. Celtic are nearly 250% larger than Rangers on a global basis. Paul Murray knows this. The fact he continues to spout this biggest club nonsense shows how desperate the need for the supporter £ really is.

Average attendances

Since 2000-01 season the total paid attendance for league matches , based on 19 home games per season .

Celtic 15,294,848 with an average paid league match attendance of 53,666

Rangers 13,288,106 with an average paid league match attendance of 46,624

Therefore Celtic have a larger matchday attendance by 15.10 %

Trophies won.

Without getting into the old club new club debate, and looking at Scottish Premier League winners in the modern era ( since 2000) . Pointless counting titles when Queen Victoria was on the throne or Churchill was PM. On that basis Queens Park are a bigger club than Aberdeen

Modern era Champions

Celtic 10

Rangers 5

Scottish Cup Winner

Celtic 6

Rangers 4

Champions league last 16

Celtic 3

Rangers 1

So to summarise Celtic generate significantly more revenue, dwarf Rangers in Social Media followers, are more successful on the pitch, and have significantly higher attendances. King and Murray both promised transparency, so maybe then can explain why they keep feeding false statements to the media and to their own fans

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on1:53 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
Member: (188 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 1:21 pm

The constant message from and about Rangers never ever fails to mention the greatness of Rangers . Paul Murray has fallen into the same PR mantra of claiming Rangers are the biggest club in Scotland.
========================================
One could easily draw the conclusion that there is a massive insecurity complex surrounding all things “Rangers”.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on1:59 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Barca

stop making sense. There are metrics which Rangers excel in but mainly of the negative type.
You forgot world club championship appearances

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on2:05 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Good Afternoon

A great post Barca.
The facts speak for themselves.
Reminds me of a quote from President John F. Kennedy.
JFK said,
“The greatest enemy of truth is often not the lie- deliberate, contrived, and dishonest- but the MYTH –persistent, persuasive and unrealistic”.
The myth of a strong Rangers is indeed just that – a myth. A myth is so much harder to bury than a lie.
They may have been strong once but they are no more. There seems to be no regard for truth.
A reality check will help but what can we do to overcome the myth?
All we can do is keep stating the facts, tell the truth.
John Clark doing a sterling job at Court as usual.
Veritas vincit

View Comment

rabtdogPosted on2:12 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Barca
Yup. Celtic are bigger, richer, more successful by any contemporary measure, better-supported, owned by a genuine foreign billionaire and even had a former UK govt minister with links to the armed forces (armed forces minister, defence minister) and the police and spooks (home secretary) on the board. Cheeky rebels!
Meanwhile the establishment club Rangers (lol) scores worse on all benchmarks, the original club no longer exists, the new Rangers is a con, no one with any PR sense would touch it with a bargepole, they have no banking facilities, no source of easy credit since the, er, credit crunch, ‘a Rangers’ has been absent from the top flight for three seasons (fourth pending) and their chair is a proven tax fraud. But the woeful Scottish Media In Decline™ and the provincial bowling club committee – in panic mode – that is the SFA keep on trying to run through the same fence like a retarded sheep with OCD.
Fortunately, outside this rarified environment known as Glasgow, Scottish football bumbles on…

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:32 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
Member: (188 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 1:21 pm

Total Social media result.

Celtic 1,630,607

Rangers 669,708

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

That is indeed an interesting performance measure Bb.

One could maybe argue that TRFC should/could be much closer to CFC on social media numbers.

And maybe from these totals one could infer that;

– TRFC needs ‘overinvesting’ on their social media presence

– TRFC is failing to connect with a younger demographic, who could in the future
become walk-up Ibrox paying fans, and even ST holders.

Looks like Wee Stevie in IT is otherwise swamped trying to do the online scouting to pull together a squad for next season ?

Social media: another area where TRFC is failing on the commercial/marketing front ?

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on3:35 pm - Jul 8, 2015


There’s got to be something that’s not going to be good for RIFC heading their way if the PM story is all they can come up with even Chris Jack is struggling to dodge the tumbleweed that’s rolling down Edmiston Drive , the nights are fair drawing in.

View Comment

gc58Posted on3:42 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Barcabhoy 1.21pm

A really good account of events.
Can I humbly make one suggestion.

Modern era champions

Celtic 15
Rangers 0

I still believe illicitly won titles should be stripped.
😛 😛 😛

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on4:07 pm - Jul 8, 2015


SociIal media figures might be deemed to show that Celtic sites are Rangers obsessed so are bound both to be bigger and overstated in number of contributions TUPING over these contributions would leave Celtic way behind the TRFC thay being so it proves the whole Barca analysis as deluded.

Meanwhile in the real world TRFC are said to be repeating the Ian Black wage Manouevre on hitherto unknown players of genius…

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on4:31 pm - Jul 8, 2015


tykebhoy says:
Member: (198 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 11:44 am

The Cat NR1 says:
Member: (492 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 11:08 am
==============
Bizarrely omitting current Premiership team Dundee, but including 4 Championship teams and League 1 Dunfermline. If you go to fixtures you can actually filter by 17 teams as Dundee are included there. Only if you apply the filter can you see the other teams but only if its a match against the 17. So all League 1 matches feature Dunfermline and there are no League 2 matches at all.

edit to add: You can guess which Championship team is definitely there but the other 3 are St. Mirren, Hibs and Falkirk
===========================================
Perhaps Dundee were still known as Club 12 when Sky last looked at Scottish football in 2012 following “Rangers” being “demoted” to tier four and the “Old Firm” no longer being in the same division? 👿

That would also explain Dunfermline Athletic being on the list, despite their current position in the league structure.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on5:00 pm - Jul 8, 2015


bfbpuzzled says:
Member: (215 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 4:07 pm
SociIal media figures might be deemed to show that Celtic sites are Rangers obsessed so are bound both to be bigger and overstated in number of contributions TUPING over these contributions would leave Celtic way behind the TRFC thay being so it proves the whole Barca analysis as deluded.

———————

The numbers are from the official club sites for Facebook and Twitter. Not from fan sites

Pesky things facts……..

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on5:11 pm - Jul 8, 2015


facts should never get in the way of what TRFC followers believe, a bit like certain bald politicians who use fake university degrees…

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:39 pm - Jul 8, 2015


I see TRFC will play some trialists in the game against the Spurs youth team this week.
I did ask a couple of days ago if anyone knew how many trialists TRFC can have play for them in the petrofact cup as they don’t have a big enough squad just now with only two signings(I remembered they had a thing about trialists at the beginning).
Also the thing about trialists at ibrox. How does this fit in with king’s “Whatever it takes”
Could TRFC have half a dozen trialists against Peaterhead to try and get them over the line and into the next round, thus kicking the can down the road a bit.

Sorry if i ask to many questions

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:52 pm - Jul 8, 2015


TheClumpany says:
Member: (107 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 6:59 pm
————–
Yahoo still have it as The Light Blues have been forced to operate without a team of spies since the club’s liquidation three summers ago.And it has not been changed yet 😮

View Comment

burghGerPosted on8:35 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
Member: (189 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 1:21 pm

As one of few Gers posters on here, i feel I have a right to reply… 🙂

Rangers FC are Scotland’s most successful club, having been Champions of Scotland on 54 occasions, a world record for domestic championships.

Now the second place team is currently 8 titles behind us, naturally benefitting from our financial implosion, enforced demotion to the 4th tier & subsequent struggles. But the lead remains, & until it doesnt, we’ll take pride in being the all-time ‘numero uno’. ?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on8:42 pm - Jul 8, 2015


“enforced demotion”???

When did that happen?

View Comment

EddiegoldtopPosted on8:42 pm - Jul 8, 2015


An update on my quest to have answers from the SFA…

Unfortunately it looks like I have come up against a brick wall for the time being.
Despite the club CEO giving his word that they would ask questions , he has come back to me with a change of mind ” due to Internal difficulties ” .
I have not been privi to the reasons for the turnaround but can take an educated guess given the additions to their board at and around the time of my asking. IMO 2 board members are friends of the SFA and changes may have been made to the board to enable a satisfactory vote. It’s only my guess .
However , I have Informed the club that it is unlikely that they will receive any further sponsorship from me when this current deal ends.
It is anyone’s guess as to how much they will miss my substantial 5 figure sum ?
Going forward , I have not given up hope of finding a willing club owner who would have the courage to ask questions on my behalf .
All suggestions are welcome !

I am encouraged that others are continuing to take up the challenge of questioning the authorities with a view to transparency , accountability and justice towards sporting Integrity.
And I look forward to them being successful with that too….

I’m happy to answer any questions that anyone may want to ask just as long as it doesn’t breach any confidentialities etc.

Finally, thank you for all the encouragement throughout my quest , it is much appreciated .

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on8:45 pm - Jul 8, 2015


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33442455

It’s happened at last, after so many years of waiting.

A blue shorted football club has announced a link up with the Dallas Cowboys, which will entail full use of the hoverpitch. No mention of a supercasino, but that may be in the small print.

Unfortunately, Charles Green was unavailable for comment.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on8:55 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Burghger, you’re entitled to your belief in the survival myth, so I won’t put forward all the arguments you must have missed being new around here, that prove that Rangers FC is no more. However, I will take issue with you about Rangers FC being demoted to the 4th tier. (Ignore the fact that a liquidated club can’t be demoted – can’t have anything done to it, really).

Even the SPFL – who are still trying to promulgate the survival myth because they are afraid of the possibility of Rangers FC fans being lost to the game – confirm that there was no demotion. I have an email from them that states, and I quote “This led to Oldco being liquidated. Newco applied for membership of the SFL and was granted associate membership but on condition it started in SFL Division Three. Newco bought the assets of Oldco from the administrations and took Rangers FC into the SFL. Rangers FC were not relegated from the SPL.” The fact is there was no demotion. Please share this with your fellow fans. The good news is that you can accept this as fact without having to accept my view that the club was liquidated. The SPFL makes sure to state that TRFC* started in Division 3 because the OLDCO was liquidated, not the Old club.

It would be great if Rangers fans could stop promoting this ‘demotion’ lie. If you could stop using that phrase and encourage other fans to do so, it would prove you can accept some facts….and as the SPFL email doesn’t actually threaten the survival myth, you can safely accept the fact as confirmed by them.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on9:15 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Cluster One says:
Member: (219 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 7:39 pm

I see TRFC will play some trialists in the game against the Spurs youth team this week.
I did ask a couple of days ago if anyone knew how many trialists TRFC can have play for them in the petrofact cup
——————————————-

I believe the challenge cup rules apply cluster one. That is a club may play a maximum of two trialists and only in round one of the competition.

http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthespfl_1375800603.pdf

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on9:22 pm - Jul 8, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:
Member: (95 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 8:42 pm

“enforced demotion”???

When did that happen?
=========================================
Possibly at the same time as being forced to start the Scottish Cup campaign several rounds too early? 🙄

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:24 pm - Jul 8, 2015


The Cat NR1 says:
Member: (496 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 8:45 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33442455

It’s happened at last, after so many years of waiting.

A blue shorted football club has announced a link up with the Dallas Cowboys, which will entail full use of the hoverpitch. No mention of a supercasino, but that may be in the small print.

Unfortunately, Charles Green was unavailable for comment.
============================================================
Did Charlie ever find that elusive email from the Dallas Cowboys ?

Sometimes I do miss him.
He was highly entertaining and took the absolute p!ss out of our pathetic SMSM, who obediently regurgitated his silly nonsense without question or qualification.

500 million loyal bears indeed – that’s 1 in 14 people on this planet !
Who knew ? 😯

View Comment

burghGerPosted on9:30 pm - Jul 8, 2015


I agree we were not relegated, in the sense of finishing bottom of the league & dropping down based on sporting merit (lack of). That’s why I tend to avoid the “r” word as its more closely tied to the standard method of dropping a league, to which that SPFL source was no doubt referring.

But demoted? In the general, dictionary sense of “to reduce in grade, rank, or status”?

Our continuation – if accepted, as I clearly do – entails a “reduction in grade”, by pure logical necessity, given the 4th tier is a lower grade than the top tier.

Was it enforced? Regardless of whether you presuppose new or old club, “Sevco” did not begin season 2012-13 in the 4th tier by mere chance, or necessity. There were two separate votes by other Scottish clubs that, if the results had been different, would’ve altered the league level at which said club (whether new or old) would’ve played 2012-13. The votes were decisive, they determined the matter, so to that extent “sevco’s” fate was enforced upon it, contingent upon the outcome of those votes.

So there you have it. Continuation, plus the facts of how Club X’s 2012-13 league position was contingent upon others’ decisions, entails enforced demotion.

To grant someone’s “entitled to belief in the survival myth”, but quibble with their claim of demotion, is like saying “You’re entitled to your belief that you’re an unmarried man, but how dare you claim to be a bachelor!…” ?

View Comment

nawlitePosted on9:41 pm - Jul 8, 2015


You’re ignoring the point of a new entity having to start afresh in the bottom tier. Given that a new entity has no right to start any higher, that is the only logical place for a new entity to start. Now whether that new entity is a new company (as you believe), or a new club (as I believe) you can surely see that the SFA is saying that a new entity started out in the bottom tier so was not demoted to the bottom tier.

View Comment

HaywirePosted on10:03 pm - Jul 8, 2015


burghGer says:
July 8, 2015 at 9:30 pm

I agree we were not relegated, in the sense of finishing bottom of the league & dropping down based on sporting merit (lack of). That’s why I tend to avoid the “r” word as its more closely tied to the standard method of dropping a league, to which that SPFL source was no doubt referring.

………………………………………………………

Mods, hope you are keeping an eye on this!
Looks as though Footyfan com Steerpike cum whatever has re-emerged in a new coat of many colours. Actually, I think it is more like the king’s new clothes. We get the usual disingenuous stuff (Is it a criminal trial?/for demotion read relegation, etc) Posters waste so much time on these poseurs instead of concentrating on the real issues.

View Comment

HaywirePosted on10:05 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Hello Ryan G. – are you out there? Did you respond to my query of a couple of days ago?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:06 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Why worry over semantics ?

Rangers were demoted, Rangers is the same club, Rangers has 54 titles, Rangers plays at Ibrox, Rangers is the biggest club.

Sorted.

But…Rangers is also arguably insolvent, doesn’t have a full squad, can’t afford to buy players, plays in a dilapidated stadium, is a club which is generally looked down on by all other 41 clubs in the SPFL for past misbehaviours, and it is a club which has been the laughing stock of Scottish football for 3+ years now.

Rangers is undeniably b*ggered for the long-term, and forget future titles or Euro glory: the best case scenario is that a Rangers club is even in existence in the long-term.

Scottish football doesn’t need a ‘strong Rangers’, but ‘Rangers’ desperately needs the continued help and favours from Scottish football to survive.

View Comment

justshateredPosted on10:10 pm - Jul 8, 2015


I read recently about the HMRC appeal regarding the use of EBT’s by RFC to pay various members of staff.

As we have all been told, until they are blue in the face (no pun intended) by the MSM, that the club was owned by a ‘Holding Company’ why was the club affected at all by the claim?
I mean if the club did not own the players contracts why were they being chased for the money?
Why did they not use the ‘Holding Company’ defence during the hearings?
Indeed why did they have to set up a trust at all if the ‘Holding Company’ was completely separate from the club?

I guess HMRC should just be added to the list of ‘THE DUPED’!
After all:
The fans in the old RFC were DUPED into buying shares in a ‘Holding Company’ when they were told it was a Football Club.

Dave King was DUPED into investing into the old RFC by David Murray.

People who bought debenture seats in the old RFC were DUPED as they were told that they were buying into the club but that can’t be the case because the club, we are told, still exists and yet the debentures have been cancelled.

David Murray was DUPED by Craig Whyte on the sale of RFC.

Craig Whyte was DUPED by Ally McCoist when he thought he was a manager.

Craig Whyte seems to have been DUPED by Charles Green.

Charles Green seems to DUPED just about everyone he came into contact with.

Charles Green in turn seems to have been DUPED by Mike Ashley over the details of the merchandising contract (if we believe what we read in the press).

The fans were DUPED into buying shares in a new ‘HOLDING COMPANY’ when they were told it was the club.

SFA/SPL/SFL/SPFL all seem to have been DUPED by anyone who is currently ensconced atop the marble staircase.

Graham Wallace DUPED everyone with his 120 day review.

The playing staff DUPED everyone into thinking they were professional footballers. (ok that one is a bit below the belt).

Mike Ashley was DUPED into lending money to a financial basket case of a ‘HOLDING COMPANY’.

Mike Ashley’s two place men were DUPED into thinking they could make a difference in the above financial basket case.

The three bears were DUPED by Dave King about turning the club, sorry ‘HOLDING COMPANY’, around.

Paul Murray was DUPED by Dave King because he thought Dave had the money to plough in.

Dave King (he was second on the list originally) was DUPED for a second time into thinking that Real Rangers Men could turn this around.

Warbutton and Weir were DUPED into thinking they would have a ‘warchest’ to fund this years transfer activity.

The fans ……………. well DUPE me once shame on you!
DUPE me twice shame on me!
DUPE me a fifth time shame on all my pets!
DUPE me a tenth time shame on all my family members!
DUPE me a fifteenth time ……………… well I’m just plain thick!

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on10:17 pm - Jul 8, 2015


not only not demoted but allowed to enter the League ahead of other candidates.

If a country gets 53 gold medals in the Olympics but no more and another gets 54 bronze but no more which is more successful?

I am afraid that the most successful club in the World trope is risible. Numbers of European cups or South American championships would weigh more in that reckoning.

Not only is the clim risible it is self destructive as it is used to prop up an unreal weltanschaung stopping progress being made. That holds back proper understanding in the fanbase and is a very useful cover for spivvery which has been mercilessly exploited.

The only thing that will set you free is the truth. That truth is only useful if the current incarnation survives or if a new club is started now or after the current processes follow their current path over the cliff.

still could be worse you could have B Ferguson as your manager…

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on10:36 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Haywire,

I didn’t see your previous comment at the time (just looked back and found it). To answer, there was a poster recently who completely hijacked the conversation and to be honest the whole place felt like a re run of about three years ago. I may have zoned out slightly. If someone ends up running about sixteen different arguments with about forty different posters you need to have an epic case of multiple personalities to be able to, or more importantly want to, keep up.

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on10:37 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Funny thing about the most successful club argument is that when Celtic overtake their number eventually, they will argue blind it’s Real Madrid

It’s been Real Madrid for a very long time

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:47 pm - Jul 8, 2015


gunnerb says:
Member: (38 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 9:15 pm
—————Thanks for reply

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on11:20 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Carfins Finest says:
Member: (136 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 8:09 am

“So, If the latest case re the EBT’s comes down in favour of HMRC and the upshot is the removal of titles etc. will these titles be removed from the Old Company?”
———————————
Paracetamol at the ready!

The LNS commission deemed that the EBT payments were not irregular since this mechanism would have been open for any club to take advantage of.

This was part of the basis of his ‘no sporting advantage’ finding.

Should it transpire at some point in the future that EBT’s should have been subject to tax and that use of the EBT scheme as constituted by Rangers would not have been open to other clubs since in effect they breached tax law, then this would appear to fly in the face of LNS conclusion. It could be argued that the ‘no sporting advantage’ finding could not stand as Rangers (IL) gained an UNFAIR financial advantage in employing a scheme that subsequently has been found on some level to be fraudulent.

The LNS argument that such a scheme was available for other clubs to take advantage of would be flawed since for other clubs to do so would have similarly left them open to HMRC successful challenge. In effect LNS, in hypothetical retrospect, could not recommend such a scheme for the use of other clubs if to do so was to place these other clubs on the wrong side of the law.

I say hypothetical since we don’t know the outcome of the EBT hearings at present.

Should HMRC win their case decisively then this would call into question at least part of LNS decision. However it is my very ill informed opinion that to revisit LNS would require judicial review and to do that someone would have to front up the money for such a process. I can’t see that happening.

Although LNS and EBT’s were inextricably linked, they are not the same thing. LNS was ostensibly about player registrations. The crucial piece of evidence that prevented any potential for title stripping was the expert evidence given by Sandy Bryson (The SFA’s Head of Registration) who effectively advised that once a player was registered then that registration remained valid unless it was revoked.

(Please excuse me if my terminology lacks precision on this point. I think the gist is valid however).

So even if HMRC do win their case and someone was bold enough to call for and fund a judicial review, the Bryson expert evidence might prevent any title stripping since title stripping could only be considered if the players concerned were incorrectly registered (I find it hard to express this argument since my command of the English language is too limited to encapsulate the point I am attempting to make).

So a win for HMRC wouldn’t give rise to title stripping, although arguably it should do. There would still be two major stumbling blocks in the way: The need for judicial review (in my humblest of opinions) and the ethereal fly in the ointment which was the expert evidence given by the SFA’s Head of Registration.

You can open your eyes again now.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on11:21 pm - Jul 8, 2015


The claim was to be Scotland’s most successful club in this instance. Perhaps that is a move away from claiming to be more succesful than the Real Madrids or Barcas or Ajax or Liverpool or so many more succesful Clubs.

I would subscribe to the Barcabhoy interpretation. Not only that but many of the EBT titles were bought in an attempt to emulate Celtic”s European cup. Had that not been done then Rangers would have had several fewer titles and Celtic perhaps more but Rangers might not have been liquidated. The five stars are a badge commemorating past failure and present lack of understanding of truth.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:29 pm - Jul 8, 2015


And here am I, toiling and moiling all day with Troutman and Easyjambo, and coming home to find I’ve made a right embarrassing hames of a bit of work for an organisation that I do a bit of voluntary work for,the sorting out of which might be troublesome, vexation and tribulation all around I see.

So I sit down, not, sadly , with a Fat Yak but a Duke St brew, remember that I have an unread ‘Herald’ purchased this morning on my way to court 2, fish it out and begin to read.

Dave Finlay. Who he?
I have just sent him this email:

Dave! ( and pardon the informality)

I cannot let you away with the garbage that appeared in today’s “The Herald”, bearing your by-line, about :

a) ‘Dave King [ taking] control of the club’: no, he did not. He took control of the new club founded in 2012 , originally named Sevco 5088 , and having a different legal existence and company number from RFC(IL)

b) ‘ a Charles Green-led consortium bought the liquidated assets of the club’: no, RFC the club was Liquidated. Charles bought the assets that had belonged to the club. (And at a knockdown price, which no one seems to question in the light of the valuation place on them in the IPO)

c) ‘woes on and off the park that saw Rangers relegated to the third division’: no. Rangers were liquidated. They were out of football altogether. The new club was not in a league, had played no matches, could not be relegated. The new club had to apply, had to APPLY, to join a professional league. And , some would say, were damned lucky at all to get in to the third division.

For the life of me I cannot decide whether you are too stupid to grasp these facts, or too partisan to let the facts trouble your mind.

I sincerely hope that it is the former condition.Stupidity can be forgiven. Deliberate obfuscation and distortion of facts by a ‘journalist’ would be unforgivable.

Yours with the best will in the world, and the hope that you will man up and begin to tell it like it is,

John Clark “

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on11:38 pm - Jul 8, 2015


Would there be a paper trail if an incorporated company is disincorporated ?

View Comment

stifflersmomPosted on11:45 pm - Jul 8, 2015


I see the BBC are reporting that a rare system of 5 Stars have been discovered……..apparently they are a ‘truly exotic star system’ some 250 million light years away, separated by more than the distance of Pluto’s orbit around the sun.

Yep. I’ve seen them somewhere before.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33428506
Night all.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:10 am - Jul 9, 2015


I seem to have got my blogs crossed, so here are posts relating to the consequences of HMRC v MGH rather than reporting on the current appeal.
One
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (477 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 6:47 pm

Looking ahead has anyone given any thought to what a decision in favour of HMRC would mean for the LNS Decision based on the premise that at that time the ebts used were not themselves irregular if it turns out they were?

Additionally does evidence that LNS only reached his decision because the true nature of some ebts used, ie the early DOS ones, were irregular also impact on the validity of the Decision he reached?

The fact that the SPFL, SFA and Harper MacLeod have not responded to the impact of the witheld evidence when it was presented to them suggests that they recognise that it does undermine the findings of the LNS Commission but are refusing to comment.

If HMRC win their appeal is a no comment by them which is already questionable become untenable.

In short could the LNS Commission be allowed to stand if HMRC win, especially if evidence exists that the Commission was misdirected and so misconstituted in the first place?

Two
Smugas says:
Member: (870 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 6:53 pm

Hate to pee on the parade but there is an alternative finding, where the appeal gets chucked, deservedly or otherwise

Three
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (477 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 7:14 pm

Smugas

After the original decision which supports the view that RFC properly arranged its tax affairs under the tax laws at the time but laws that have changed so that subsequently such an arrangement would be illegal, then anything can happen.

It’s like using Time Shift to validate a wrongdoing or closing the stable door.

Brysonesque in approach.

Four Smugas says:
Member: (870 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 7:44 pm

Sorry auld heid you’ve lost me with that one! I was merely reminding the blog that the decision could still go against HMRC in which case prepare for an onslaught of how we all had it ‘infamy’ and how the old company should never have gone down, reducing debt etc etc ya de blumin ya. of course one interesting twist from such an outcome is that it would make Kings CVA stance very questionable. But then it was only the holding company wasn’t it?

Five
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1284 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 7:51 pm

Smugas on July 8, 2015 at 6:53 pm

Hate to pee on the parade but there is an alternative finding, where the appeal gets chucked, deservedly or otherwise!
——

To be honest, it’s very hard to believe in an HMRC victory. Recent high-profile cases I’ve followed have left me with very little faith in the ‘Scottish’ judiciary to do the right thing. How many of those currently sitting in judgement on this case are members of a secret society? Is it public knowledge? If not, it should be.

Six
gunnerb says:
Member: (38 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 10:06 pm

Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (475 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 6:47 pm

Looking ahead has anyone given any thought to what a decision in favour of HMRC would mean for the LNS Decision based on the premise that at that time the ebts used were not themselves irregular if it turns out they were?
——————————————-

Did LNS not state in his closing remarks that the decision would not be revisited regardless of any final judicial outcome with regard to EBT use ? If so then the rubber ear will once again be reached for, as they batten down the hatches and wait for the storm to clear.

Seven
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (477 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 10:09 pm

Smugas says:
Member: (870 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 7:44 pm

Sorry auld heid you’ve lost me with that one! I was merely reminding the blog that the decision could still go against HMRC in which case prepare for an onslaught of how we all had it ‘infamy’ and how the old company should never have gone down, reducing debt etc etc ya de blumin ya. of course one interesting twist from such an outcome is that it would make Kings CVA stance very questionable. But then it was only the holding company wasn’t it?
———————-
Oh that! Well to save us from the “we did nothing wrong” claims

1. Why hide full player registrations details for 10 years?

2. Why lie in 2005 about the side letters that were part of the registrations when specifically asked by HMRC if side letters existed for two players paid by DOS ebts?

3 Why conceal the evidence of the wrongdoing at 2 from the SPL lawyers contained in one HMRC letter charging negligence or fraud by RFC in order for HMRC to justify pursuit of payment of the £2.8M (wee) tax bill?

4. Why lie to UEFA in 2011 about the status of the wee tax bill?

5. Why not provide the actual wee tax bill to the SFA in 2011 to meet UEFA FFP requirements for retaining the 2011 UEFA licence along with another revealing HMRC letter accompanying the bill

6. Why keep the same documents at 5 from the SPL lawyers in 2012?

7. Why walk away from the millions of non tax debt using insolvency law and try to carry on as before as an SPL club?

If they protest innocence I think it can be shown they protest too much although I would not expect the above to be pointed out by mainstream media even if they had the evidence.

If HMRC do win however much of the foregoing dwindles in comparison to robbing the UK taxpayer of the £50M plus (?) tax evaded.

The shame of admitting that however might play its part in the judicial proceedings, if it hasn’t already.

Eight
Castofthousands says:
Member: (239 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 10:46 pm

Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (476 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 6:47 pm

“Looking ahead has anyone given any thought to what a decision in favour of HMRC would mean for the LNS Decision based on the premise that at that time the ebts used were not themselves irregular if it turns out they were?”
———————-
I was reading something or other a while back which trespassed into legal territory and which made me think that if EBT’s were found irregular then there was a parallel with the consequences of LNS.

From this vague imprecise stance I think that the LNS findings would need to be subject to judicial review to have them overturned. The LNS commission was a one off and not part of some kind of disciplinary continuum operated by the SFA/SPL. Therefore there will be no instituted mechanism for his decision to be revisited should it transpire that the basis for his decision was flawed.

I doubt judicial review is a straightforward process. You’d need an interested party with sufficient funds to have eminent lawyers babbling with each other for weeks on end to have any chance of success. It’d be way beyond SFM financial resources. I can’t see the likes of Celtic taking an interest either since they have stood at a barge poles length from the whole farrago.

The best you could do would be to strip the facts back to the bare bones and expose the inconsistencies on SFM and elsewhere and hope that some memory of the reality settled in the collective consciousness. Scant reward for much effort perhaps but I’d certainly take it onboard.

Nine Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (477 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 11:27 pm

Castofthousands says:
Member: (238 comments)

July 8, 2015 at 10:46 pm

The best you could do would be to strip the facts back to the bare bones and expose the inconsistencies on SFM and elsewhere and hope that some memory of the reality settled in the collective consciousness. Scant reward for much effort perhaps but I’d certainly take it onboard.
============================
Thanks for your thoughts. Pretty near mine, I don’t fancy putting the LNS skulduggery per se to that legal confubulation and I’m not sure who would benefit anyway.

I think the LNS Decision is discredited already in the minds of most football fans by the interpretational gymnastics which ruled on player eligibility and so no title stripping.

However if it can be further discredited by the footballing public knowing that the Commission’s Decision was only made possible because of deception by RFC I think I’ll settle for that, although I would expect questions to be asked by the SFA and SPL as to why key documents were not supplied as required and requested, given it has happened more than once and possibly at the hands of the same individual/s.

I mean should whoever is responsible, if still in the game in any position of authority, lose their place in Scottish football?

Thumbs Up for Yes. Thumbs Down for No

View Comment

rougvielovesthejunglePosted on8:04 am - Jul 9, 2015


Stuart McCall has a wee gig on TalkSport radio this morning.

Asked about the new club, he reassures the millions of Sevco supporting listeners that ‘from a financial perspective the main thing now is that the men calling the shots are TRANSPARENT’!!!!

Thanks Stuart, the table, the dog and the carpet are all now covered in coffee.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on8:44 am - Jul 9, 2015


ClusterOne at the risk of irking others. TRFC have actually made 4 signings not 2. Admittedly unless they intend using a goalkeeper as an outfield player only 3 of them would be starting eleven replacements for those that left. They could of course register Weir as a player in an emergency too.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on8:46 am - Jul 9, 2015


Transparent in the sense that we all can see right through them or more correctly the binary star Murray minor and Rex Africanus

View Comment

y4rmyPosted on9:22 am - Jul 9, 2015


Transparent? Dave King is almost invisible.

I might be mistaken, but didn’t Stuart McCall once say ‘Dave Who?’ when asked about King in a press conference? Anyway, I like McCall and it’s gracious of him given the way he was treated.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on9:55 am - Jul 9, 2015


tykebhoy says:
Member: (199 comments)

July 9, 2015 at 8:44 am
They could of course register Weir as a player in an emergency too
————————————————
And here he is dashing off to phone 999 😀

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhVaTp4aUVxj3RJsb5bhwXP7gUr_cTMQu09hGeQCIPYvKtsg0O

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on9:56 am - Jul 9, 2015


rougvielovesthejungle says:
Member: (58 comments)

July 9, 2015 at 8:04 am

Stuart McCall has a wee gig on TalkSport radio this morning.

Asked about the new club, he reassures the millions of Sevco supporting listeners that ‘from a financial perspective the main thing now is that the men calling the shots are TRANSPARENT’!!!

———————–

You could read that 2 ways. He could be claiming that is NOW the case or he could be telling the board that this is what the fans need before trusting them…..

View Comment

burghGerPosted on10:01 am - Jul 9, 2015


paddy malarkey says:
Member: (48 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 11:38 pm
“Would there be a paper trail if an incorporated company is disincorporated?”
___________________

By “disincorporated”, do you mean – as HMRC do – “when your company changes from a private limited company to a sole trader or partnership owned business”? By this they mean “the company transfers its business to some or all of its shareholders”.

I suppose the “paper trail” would consist of evidence of a transfer of business and assets to certain individuals (in contrast to a transfer to another company).

HMRC source – https://www.gov.uk/corporation-tax-disincorporation-relief

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:10 am - Jul 9, 2015


burghGer,

can you explain how it should be that someone who has to ask the following (regarding something that must have been viewed by every intelligent Rangers supporter to be of such extreme importance that their full capacity to understand the purpose and aim of the case, and it’s implications); should then feel they have such a fine grasp of the complexities, legal and sporting, of the OC/NC debate as to be able to pontificate in the way you did in the post shown at the bottom of this post.

You seem to float between being an uninformed, but inquisitive, poster to one who considers himself to have a firm grasp of something as complex and demanding as company law.

To be clear I’m not suggesting that your second post displays a greater grasp of the law than your first, not by a long chalk, just questioning how someone can be so sure (within their own mind) that they can have the answer to one legal argument, while unable to even grasp the point/purpose of another case, of far more importance to his club, that has been going on, and debated heavily, for over three years!

Posts referred to:

burghGer says:
Member: (20 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 10:23 am
Excuse asking the apparent obvious, but what is this court hearing seeking to establish? Whether any laws were broken? Could they be criminal charges? Or is this about whether certain tax avoidance arrangements were successful or should have incurred a bill, according to the tax laws/rules?

burghGer says:
Member: (20 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 9:30 pm
I agree we were not relegated, in the sense of finishing bottom of the league & dropping down based on sporting merit (lack of). That’s why I tend to avoid the “r” word as its more closely tied to the standard method of dropping a league, to which that SPFL source was no doubt referring.

But demoted? In the general, dictionary sense of “to reduce in grade, rank, or status”?

Our continuation – if accepted, as I clearly do – entails a “reduction in grade”, by pure logical necessity, given the 4th tier is a lower grade than the top tier.

Was it enforced? Regardless of whether you presuppose new or old club, “Sevco” did not begin season 2012-13 in the 4th tier by mere chance, or necessity. There were two separate votes by other Scottish clubs that, if the results had been different, would’ve altered the league level at which said club (whether new or old) would’ve played 2012-13. The votes were decisive, they determined the matter, so to that extent “sevco’s” fate was enforced upon it, contingent upon the outcome of those votes.

So there you have it. Continuation, plus the facts of how Club X’s 2012-13 league position was contingent upon others’ decisions, entails enforced demotion.

To grant someone’s “entitled to belief in the survival myth”, but quibble with their claim of demotion, is like saying “You’re entitled to your belief that you’re an unmarried man, but how dare you claim to be a bachelor!…” ?

View Comment

motor redPosted on10:35 am - Jul 9, 2015


maybe burghger would like to answer these questions posed earlier.

1. Why hide full player registrations details for 10 years?

2. Why lie in 2005 about the side letters that were part of the registrations when specifically asked by HMRC if side letters existed for two players paid by DOS ebts?

3 Why conceal the evidence of the wrongdoing at 2 from the SPL lawyers contained in one HMRC letter charging negligence or fraud by RFC in order for HMRC to justify pursuit of payment of the £2.8M (wee) tax bill?

4. Why lie to UEFA in 2011 about the status of the wee tax bill?

5. Why not provide the actual wee tax bill to the SFA in 2011 to meet UEFA FFP requirements for retaining the 2011 UEFA licence along with another revealing HMRC letter accompanying the bill

6. Why keep the same documents at 5 from the SPL lawyers in 2012?

7. Why walk away from the millions of non tax debt using insolvency law and try to carry on as before as an SPL club?

please do enlighten us.

View Comment

burghGerPosted on10:45 am - Jul 9, 2015


Allyjambo,

Re my first post, the fine detail of the tax case is very complicated and I’ve not delved into the various nuances in great depth. Sorry 🙂 . Whether certain aspects of how it was operated might creep into deliberate, possibly fraudlant/law-breaking actions, seems to be a question in the mind of other posters on here. I suppose I’m no different.

Re my second post, not sure if you’re mixed up with a different post, but it makes no reference to legal or sporting “complexities”, “company law”, etc. Actually a very straightforward point.

I was simply replying to another poster who, whilst recognising my entitlment to believe in RFC continuation, was quibbling on the claim of “enforced demotion”. As I explained, the latter follows logically from the former, given that SPL/SFL clubs votes were decisive in determining the destination league of X Club, however you wish to define it.

View Comment

burghGerPosted on11:06 am - Jul 9, 2015


motor red says:
Member: (19 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 10:35 am

Former “custodians” of Rangers were striving to get away with a tax dodge.

7 questions answered by one sentence. Not bad, eh? 🙂

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on11:56 am - Jul 9, 2015


burghGer says:
Member: (23 comments)

July 9, 2015 at 10:01 am

paddy malarkey says:
Member: (48 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 11:38 pm
“Would there be a paper trail if an incorporated company is disincorporated?”
___________________

By “disincorporated”, do you mean – as HMRC do – “when your company changes from a private limited company to a sole trader or partnership owned business”? By this they mean “the company transfers its business to some or all of its shareholders”.

I suppose the “paper trail” would consist of evidence of a transfer of business and assets to certain individuals (in contrast to a transfer to another company).

HMRC source – https://www.gov.uk/corporation-tax-disincorporation-relief

Not really, at least I don’t think so . I mean that the original Rangers was an incorporated company . It became a limited company in 1899 and a public limited company in 2000 . It’s just that I can see no separation of the parts ie the club and the “holding company” and would imagine there would be a legal process to achieve this . Just wondering how this would be achieved and if there would be a paper trail .That’s what I mean by disincorporate , but might be totally wrong . Nothing to do with HMRc, or so I think .

View Comment

EddiegoldtopPosted on11:57 am - Jul 9, 2015


burghGer says

motor red says:
Member: (19 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 10:35 am

Former “custodians” of Rangers were striving to get away with a tax dodge.

7 questions answered by one sentence. Not bad, eh? 🙂

—————————————————————————-

burghGer,
Your sentence absolutely does NOT answer the 7 questions !

I refer you to points 4 , 5 & 6 which your sentence does not cover.

A word of warning to everyone else on here if I may .

burghGer has the very same symptoms as one or two Twitter posters who are in denial of the truth and who often entice many people into long and winding acts of verbal gymnasts in an attempt to twist the truth.

This blog is all about facts and truthfulness .

Keep this in mind before you get sucked into the same verbal gymnasts on here.

My tact is to try and keep it short , sweet and to the factual point.

Have a good day.

View Comment

BroadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on12:19 pm - Jul 9, 2015


Eddiegoldtop says:
July 9, 2015 at 11:57 am
======================================

Well said Eddie.

This is supposed to be the monitor of Scottish Football not the Scottish ‘wrestle with a chimney sweep’ blog.

At a time when the court reports on here demonstrate why this blog is a cut above the rest, it shouldn’t be getting dragged down a cul de sac.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on12:23 pm - Jul 9, 2015


Paddy Malarkey that is the right question to answer. The posthumous metaphysics indulged in by the smsm to define and develop the eternal transferable indeed saleable soul of the Club is on a par with the ludicrous theology of the Da Vinci code. However like the Da Vinci code it has fooled many many company. The sound of Derek Johnstone decrying someone who disbelieved the holding company myth is evidence that the world gas gone mad. How many times have we heard the excuse that ‘We are football writers and no nothing about financial matters’ while at the same time passing comments on that myth?

View Comment

tayredPosted on12:25 pm - Jul 9, 2015


Completely off topic but I noticed Wales are now ranked 10th in the World by FIFA! Now good luck to them and all that, but 10th? Wales?

Shame our 1-0 victory over mighty Qatar didn’t propel us up the charts, we slipped to 29th…

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:35 pm - Jul 9, 2015


burghGer says:
Member: (23 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 10:45 am

Re my first post, the fine detail of the tax case is very complicated and I’ve not delved into the various nuances in great depth. Sorry 🙂 .
_____________

Sorry, but your reply seems to be at odds with your original question, which is quite broad, and not ‘fine detail’ at all:-

‘Excuse asking the apparent obvious, but what is this court hearing seeking to establish?’

Clearly the HMRC, case is to establish tax liability for payments made using EBTs, quite simple and easy to understand, and has been the case for more than 3 years now.

The second post might well not refer to ‘legal or sporting complexities’ but it would be impossible to establish the veracity of any ‘same club’ claim while ignoring these two very important aspects, in fact, the only two aspects that matter. I take it then that your ‘same club’ belief is based solely on your desire to believe rather than anything based on reality.

You seem to have, inadvertantly, confirmed what many of us here consider to be the ‘same club’ advocates main form of reasoning – avoid awkward truths.

Appologies to the blog for raising the OC/NC nonsense, my original intentions were to draw attention to the variance of knowledge in burghGers posts.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on1:05 pm - Jul 9, 2015


burghGerburghGer says:
Member: (23 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 11:06 am
motor red says:
Member: (19 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 10:35 am

Former “custodians” of Rangers were striving to get away with a tax dodge.
////////////////////////////

Sorry but as far as I was aware
SDM owned RFC and so was Craig Whyte after its sale for £1

View Comment

burghGerPosted on1:42 pm - Jul 9, 2015


Allyjambo says:
Member: (1071 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 12:35 pm

I think you’re being a tad unfair.

My question re the BTC that you quote was followed up by other questions, which you left out, which I think clarified what I was referring to. Namely whether possibly fraudlent/law-breaking actions could be pursued in this hearing at the CoS, or if it was purely a tax bill/liability matter.

Glaringly obvious to you, perhaps. But not everyone.

View Comment

CanuckBhoyPosted on1:52 pm - Jul 9, 2015


John Clark says:
Member: (972 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 11:29 pm

a) ‘Dave King [ taking] control of the club’: no, he did not. He took control of the new club founded in 2012 , originally named Sevco 5088 , and having a different legal existence and company number from RFC(IL)

Sorry John, but I’ve seen you make this mistake a couple times.

The Rangers Football Club Limited began life as Sevco Scotland, not Sevco 5088. Sevco 5088 proposed a CVA for (the then) RFC plc, but Sevco Scotland ended up being the company that executed the Asset Purchase Agreement when the CVA was rejected. How, and why, that happened is still something of a mystery, but as the matter may be sub judice I’ll refrain from further comment.

If we’re going to demand accuracy from others, it’s important to be accurate ourselves.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:54 pm - Jul 9, 2015


burghGer says:
Member: (24 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 1:42 pm

Surely, though, you, as a Rangers supporter, have followed the tax proceedings avidly? If you have ignored something as important as that to your club, then how can you consider yourself to have formed a worthwhile opinion on something else that can only be seriously debated with reference to company law and sporting integrity?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:01 pm - Jul 9, 2015


Apologies for engaging with the latest mind messer but this:

13. The votes were decisive, they determined the matter, so to that extent “sevco’s” fate was enforced upon it, contingent upon the outcome of those votes.

Cannot pass without comment.

If I rob a bank or any crime of weight against the society in which I live and get arrested and jailed, was it the polis who enforced my fate?

It is this continual attempt at denying and deflecting from the full extent of RFC’s crime against Scottish football that puzzles everyone with any notion of ethics.

Mind you when football authority and smsm go out of their way to minimise the full extent of that damage, thus encouraging a repeat of the same damaging behaviour, it’s no wonder such thinking as expressed in that sentence is given free rein to develop, like an uncorrected child being rewarded with a lollipop after a tantrum.

Regardless of the final outcome of the BTC, even if RFC are given a clean bill of health, their efforts to cover up their questionable behaviour, aided by authority, will always be part of their sullied history in the eyes of those who can see.

A history btw I would not want to keep.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on2:14 pm - Jul 9, 2015


stifflersmom says:
Member: (34 comments)
July 8, 2015 at 11:45 pm

I see the BBC are reporting that a rare system of 5 Stars have been discovered……..apparently they are a ‘truly exotic star system’ some 250 million light years away, separated by more than the distance of Pluto’s orbit around the sun.

Yep. I’ve seen them somewhere before.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33428506
Night all.
======================================
Strangely enough, the five stars are in the Ursa Major constellation.
You couldn’t make it up.

When I read “The unusual system lies 250 light-years away in the constellation Ursa Major”, I had to check the date at the top just to be on the safe side.
Cue X-Files/Twilight Zone music.

View Comment

bluPosted on2:34 pm - Jul 9, 2015


Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (479 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 2:01 pm
Apologies for engaging with the latest mind messer but this:

Regardless of the final outcome of the BTC, even if RFC are given a clean bill of health, …

Auldheid, I’m with you on the sentiment of your post but it should be clear to anyone that viewed the various tribunal findings that RFC has been found liable, as assessed by HMRC, in a number of the cases considered. It’s no argument to say that innocence is proved because liability hasn’t been proved in the majority of cases.

View Comment

burghGerPosted on2:45 pm - Jul 9, 2015


Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (479 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 2:01 pm

The destination of “sevco”/Rangers (matters not to this issue) in terms of league placing was determined by votes by the other clubs.

If the SPL Clubs voted in a different way, it would’ve been the SPL.
If the SFL Clubs voted in a different way, it would’ve been the second tier.

Those votes proved decisive. Their democratic will was enforced. I don’t see how any of the above could be questioned.

I was careful and deliberate to use the phrase “to that extent ‘sevco’s’ fate was enforced upon it”, for the very reason I was not seeking to shift wider responsibility for the saga away from those responsible – the arrogance/recklessness of Murray/Whyte etc. Perhaps you missed that qualification, as I think it renders your criticism unfair in this instance.

View Comment

Call Me Nae IdeaPosted on2:49 pm - Jul 9, 2015


I must really post more but I don’t have much to add to the high standard of debate and info posted.

Instead this appeared on my Facebook timeline and I thought it was relevant after the new questioners.
It’s just for fun

View Comment

bobcobbPosted on3:03 pm - Jul 9, 2015


You say – “The destination of “sevco”/Rangers (matters not to this issue) in terms of league placing was determined by votes by the other clubs.

“If the SPL Clubs voted in a different way, it would’ve been the SPL.
If the SFL Clubs voted in a different way, it would’ve been the second tier.”

If the football authorities had followed their own rules at the time, no vote would have taken place; Sevco would have had to apply for the vacant football league place in a process open to all aspiring clubs – Spartans, for example, might have fancied a chance at entering senior football.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:07 pm - Jul 9, 2015


Blu

Indeed. A clean bill is impossible.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:20 pm - Jul 9, 2015


tayred says:
Member: (141 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 12:25 pm

Completely off topic but I noticed Wales are now ranked 10th in the World by FIFA! Now good luck to them and all that, but 10th? Wales?

Shame our 1-0 victory over mighty Qatar didn’t propel us up the charts, we slipped to 29th…
=============
And for the Scotland team, if Strachan does the unthinkable and gets us to the Euros next year, there could be another, unwanted, undesirable outcome.

Regan will probably get a bigger annual bonus, and the SMSM :slamb: will portray the current SFA blazers as great administrators for Scottish football, and that Regan must be doing a superb job ‘to get Scotland’ to their first Finals in 18 years !

Regan might be in with the bricks at Hampden thereafter. 😥

View Comment

JoethebookiePosted on3:20 pm - Jul 9, 2015


burghGer says:
Member: (25 comments)
July 9, 2015 at 2:45 pm

BurghGer, ‘Sevco’s’ fate was not forced upon them it was gifted to them.
You are merely reinforcing the victim mentality that has been so apparent from the Ibrox club’s fans.
They were extremely lucky to be ‘forced’ into division 3 at the expense of more deserving others.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:30 pm - Jul 9, 2015


burghGer

I see bobcobb has made the more valid point re the decisions of the SPL and SFL to the extent that had normal procedure been followed the whole tiresome relegation and same club nonsense would not exist.

I’ve had a look at the 5 Way Agreement and what is puzzling is why such an agreement was even necessary and in the form it took.

As a new club Sevco, and treated as such, would have obtained Associate Membership of the SFA and behaved their way over 5 years to Full SFA Membership.

That need to behave might have had the effect of chasing away Charles Green and his spiv cohorts and protected the new club supporters for they would still have supported a new club with connections to the old perhaps playing from Firhill or Love St and made it operate in the sustainable manner that is also to the benefit of RFC supporters. Why was immediate Full SFA Membership even on the table?

I know one driver was to get Green to pay debts owed to football but at what price?

I’m not sure of the sums but would clubs have gone to the wall if they too became creditors of RFC?

One day the story behind the 5 Way will be told in terms of what actually drove the SFA and SPL to agree to something that has removed all semblance of probity from Scottish football.

It was either greed or fear or a mixture of both.

What it certainly was not was ethics.

The results are plain to see.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:36 pm - Jul 9, 2015


Bobcobb

I have wondered why Spartans did not speak up.

Were they not ready to be able to apply or were they persuaded/disuaded from doing so?

View Comment

Comments are closed.