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

AllyjamboPosted on3:33 pm - Jul 10, 2015


The thing that amazed me about the Bryson defence was that it went totally unchallenged by the ‘prosecution’. In any normal tribunal, some documentary evidence would be required, particularly when that evidence is, itself, damning of the body that is providing the evidence. But the ‘evidence’ was just accepted. Not only was it accepted as being the normal practice, without question, but it was accepted without examining whether or not any examples (assuming they existed) involved deliberate mis-registration, repeated on an industrial scale, to enable the clubs involved to keep details of players contracts secret, or even something just close to being so serious! It’s one thing taking such a lax attitude over minor mistakes or carelessness, it’s another altogether when it’s deliberate and wilful flaunting of the rules.

What’s more, Bryson wasn’t saying that it was proper to deal with unnoticed mis-registrations in this manner, just that he, and other employees of the SFA, treated it in, what was at best, a very lazy, or cavalier, manner.

Indeed, if what Bryson claimed was normal practice was anything more official than ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it’, why the need for the LNS enquiry, at all? Surely (if it was correct procedure), Bryson and the whole of the SFA knew from the outset that there was no case to answer!

As to any justification of the decision based on the complexities of applying 3-0 reversals of results; there was never any indication that this would be used to rectify the position, with title stripping alone being the most likely method of providing justice. This may have left some people still feeling cheated of legitimate titles for their own club, but what we ended up with was the worst possible scenario. The cheating was compounded and possibly even legitimised in the eyes of the unscrupulous!

If we take the Bryson excuse further, and ask what would have happened had those charged with ensuring the legitimacy of contracts and their registration had done their job properly, then surely, if discovered during, say, the season with the highest level of EBTs in use, then RFC would have had massive tax bills to meet, which might not only have led to them not being able to use EBTs for future signings, reducing their chances of winning more titles, but it might well have led to them going into administration many years before they did?

The players would have been queuing up to demand new contracts to ensure the ‘tax paid’ element of their salary remained the same, and as for UEFA, especially if the discovery was made before RFC exited Europe…

Just as well for Rangers that the SFA aren’t very good at their job, coz I’m sure they wouldn’t have turned a blind eye if they’d had cause for suspicion, or anything like that!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on3:37 pm - Jul 10, 2015


burghGer says:
Member: (31 comments)

July 10, 2015 at 3:12 pm

If anyone’s interested in a neutral summary of the EBT tribunal saga, from a legal professional’s point of view, I stumbled across this…

http://www.pkfcooperparry.com/news/tax/rangers-case-%E2%80%93-upper-tribunal-decision#comment
=========================
Thanks for the link. It is a perfectly fair and easily readable account of the Tribunals decisions.

I do recall reading Lord Doherty’s repeated terminology of the majority being entitled or it being reasonable for them to have decided as they did.

However, it’s my personal view that had the roles been reversed, with the majority sharing Dr Poon’s decision, and the appeal to the UTTT being made by Murray Group, then I suspect Lord Doherty would have made the same findings of “entitled” or “reasonable” for the majority despite the actual decision being the opposite way round.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:43 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Apologies if this has been covered before, but now that King is getting criticised in the DR Hotline for not splashing the cash, it made we wonder again about his financing plans.

When he supposedly bought the RIFC stake, it was initially announced it was via “New Oasis Investments Ltd”, which was wholly owned by King’s ‘family trust’.
This was later corrected via a Stock Exchange statement to “New Oasis Asset Limited”.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12223247.html

However, I can’t find this company on Duedil.
Does anyone know where it was incorporated ?
[I searched various permutations of company name, and David C King. and DK and Google doesn’t help.]

Also, King has typically been vague about his plans: he has given big ideas to the SMSM :slamb: like ‘overinvestment’, GBP30M/20M etc needed, matching investments and so on.

But when he ‘bought’ the shares it was also reported that they had been bought via his family trust. Why did he provide that level of detail ? If he had just said he bought the shares himself, then the SMSM would have accepted that as they still believed he had massive wealth.

And in my very limited knowledge of Trusts, if King funded his family trust, and for that trust to be operated correctly and to be tax efficient – then King cannot benefit from the Trust, and he cannot manage/direct the outflow of trust fund monies either.
King doesn’t like payng tax, so I presume this family trust is operated correctly.
[And unlike the Rangers EBT. 😉 ]

And why would King publicly indicate that his family’s funds would be used to pour into the black hole of a loss-making business ? I doubt a responsible trustee would be keen to ‘invest’ trust monies in such a risky business either.

Strange.

[This may have been discussed in the distant past here, but I can’t remember, so appreciate any inputs.]

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on3:50 pm - Jul 10, 2015


It is a mistake to conflate registration with eligibility.

Of course, if a player is not registered he cannot be eligible:

SECTION D: PLAYERS

Registration and Eligibility

D1.1 Subject to these Rules, to be eligible to Play for a Club a Player must first be Registered either as a Professional Player or as an Amateur Player.

…but, a player can be registered and still not be eligible to play. For example:

D1.15 A Player must be aged 16 years or more to be eligible to play for a Club in League Matches and Reserve League matches.

…or

D1.24 Unless the Board shall, in order to ensure the integrity of the competition, exceptionally determine otherwise, and on such conditions and for such Official Match or Matches as the Board may specify, a Player who becomes Registered to a Club on or after 1st April in any Season shall not be eligible to Play in an Official Match for that Club until the commencement of the succeeding Season.

…or

D1.13 A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Serviceor other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as thecase may be, extended.

Production of the complete contracts of service was a condition of Registration. This is true.

But, since Rule D1.1 already states that Registration is a condition of eligibility, there is no reason to mention eligibility in Rule D1.13 – unless it stood as a separate element. Actually, Rule D1.13 acknowledges “Bryson’s Law” (that the player’s registration cannot be retrospectively removed/annulled) by explicitly saying that delivery of the complete contracts of service was also a condition of eligibility to play in official matches.

Bryson, as far as I am aware made no comment on the player’s eligibility to play in the SPL, simply that their player registrations could only be made void from the moment the irregularities (I paraphrase) came to light.

Bryson only spoke from the perspective of the SFA registration procedures. He had no standing in relation to the SPL’s rules on eligibility. It was for the rules of the competition to determine eligibility.

LNS chose (in error, one assumes) to conflate registration with eligibility. Effectively to say, the player registrations stand, therefore the players remain eligible.

This was simply not the case.

View Comment

y4rmyPosted on4:01 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Apologies if this has been covered before, but now that King is getting criticised in the DR Hotline for not splashing the cash, it made we wonder again about his financing plans.

When he supposedly bought the RIFC stake, it was initially announced it was via “New Oasis Investments Ltd”, which was wholly owned by King’s ‘family trust’.
This was later corrected via a Stock Exchange statement to “New Oasis Asset Limited”.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12223247.html

However, I can’t find this company on Duedil.
Does anyone know where it was incorporated ?
[I searched various permutations of company name, and David C King. and DK and Google doesn’t help.]

Also, King has typically been vague about his plans: he has given big ideas to the SMSM :slamb: like ‘overinvestment’, GBP30M/20M etc needed, matching investments and so on.

But when he ‘bought’ the shares it was also reported that they had been bought via his family trust. Why did he provide that level of detail ? If he had just said he bought the shares himself, then the SMSM would have accepted that as they still believed he had massive wealth.

And in my very limited knowledge of Trusts, if King funded his family trust, and for that trust to be operated correctly and to be tax efficient – then King cannot benefit from the Trust, and he cannot manage/direct the outflow of trust fund monies either.
King doesn’t like payng tax, so I presume this family trust is operated correctly.
[And unlike the Rangers EBT. ? ]

And why would King publicly indicate that his family’s funds would be used to pour into the black hole of a loss-making business ? I doubt a responsible trustee would be keen to ‘invest’ trust monies in such a risky business either.

Strange.

[This may have been discussed in the distant past here, but I can’t remember, so appreciate any inputs.]

The redoubtable John James has maintained that Park lent King the money to buy his shares hence the odd company switch. Why Park would do such a thing I can’t begin to imagine, so take with a shovel of salt.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:14 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Apropos John James:

john james @sitonfence: The RSL under attack from those not willing to accept the truth about King. Bill & others threatened. No Apology!

More threats and intimidation.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:53 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Ally Jambo

This jumps out at me. Why indeed?

Indeed, if what Bryson claimed was normal practice was anything more official than ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it’, why the need for the LNS enquiry, at all? Surely (if it was correct procedure), Bryson and the whole of the SFA knew from the outset that there was no case to answer!

Based on your comments and Catofthousands earlier it would seem that what really took place since 2000 is a scandal of such abnormal degree that the only way to deal with it has been to convince us that what took place was normal.

In 2012 Scottish football walked through the looking glass.

View Comment

CanuckBhoyPosted on5:00 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Yes, changing results ex post facto when the “establishment club” is found to have been cheating on an industrial scale is completely unprecedented.

http://www.legaseriea.it/en/serie-a-tim/classifica-estesa/classifica?p_p_id=BDC_classifica_estesa_WAR_LegaCalcioBDC&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_BDC_classifica_estesa_WAR_LegaCalcioBDC_javax.portlet.action=cambiaStagione

View Comment

SmugasPosted on5:10 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Late to the party as always but i see multiple comments in reply to burghgers original submission re LNS.

Firstly the facts. RFC’s proven deliberate non disclosure of the side letters completely negates the ‘they were in the accounts’ arguement. Their choice, no-one else’s.

Secondly, he asks us to carry forward 2 propositions. Firstly if you’re going to choose the rules that apply to you then ‘go large’ in which case the hassle to fix somehow reduces the liability.

Secondly, sorry folks it’s OC/NC again. Why is it wrong for a club to welch on its debts and continue? To stop another (or it again using BG’s reasoning) doing the same thing again of course!

This leads me once again (proudly wearing my Diddy hat) to highlight the common misconception that usually accompanies BG’s viewpoint; that RFC would have won the titles anyway it’s just that somehow using the financially steroided approach they did allowed them to win them ‘with style.’

Apologies up front Burghger if you feel I’ve misrepresented you at all.

One final point BTW. I never felt it was worth the hassle of reallocating titles or, even worse, individual results. Doesn’t mean the titles couldn’t have been stripped though IF THE EVIDENCE MERITED IT.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on5:11 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Could anyone tell me the difference between “under the counter” payments to players by clubs, and EBT payments made via undeclared side letters
If my memory serves me correctly, everything, including the kitchen, sink has been thrown at players & clubs who indulged in this practice

View Comment

Kilgore TroutPosted on5:31 pm - Jul 10, 2015


canpsiejoe

The club(s) involved.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on5:34 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Barcabhoy,

Sorry, old topic. I just logged in on my phone and the page that came up was your post detailing how Celtic are bigger than Rangers. It was factual and efficient, but you missed the fact that Rangers are just bigger than Celtic. Rangers have got 7 letters, while Celtic only have 6. And if you make it “The Rangers” as many on here do then wow…that gap becomes a chasm.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on5:36 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Kilgore Trout says:
July 10, 2015 at 5:31 pm

Nail, Head, Hit

View Comment

AmFearLiathMòrPosted on6:08 pm - Jul 10, 2015


TheClumpany says:
Member: (110 comments)

July 10, 2015 at 5:55 pm

To be honest, I’m not that bothered – I’m just happy that Barry has suddenly remembered that he’s manager of us. I make that a few times in the last few weeks we’ve merited a mention, so I don’t know whether someone at the club has finally had a word along the lines ‘Bazza mate, it’s pure embarrassing and that when you talk consistently and at length about another team in the press despite being our manager’.

I’m guessing he responded ‘Er…. aye…. I’ll have a word wi’ Jingle Jangle, and get him to gie us a wee mention’.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on7:52 pm - Jul 10, 2015


John Clark says:
Member: (981 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 2:14 am

“I had the greatest respect for Preston as an absolutely dead-down-the line football analyst and knowledgeable, objective commentator who respected himself and his personal integrity.”
—————————————
I’d agree with you. He has always come across as objective and free of agenda setting. That is why his remark concerning Warburton jumped out so obtusely. It was as if someone had just handed him a prompt card mid comment.

The general point being made was valid and there was an argument for St. Johnstone being a bit less conservative in the circumstances. That I could sympathise with such a view implies that any football manager would be able to assimilate the point. You could have chosen almost any football manager in the world to make that point but Preston chose not only to cite Warburton as his lone example but then began to elaborate on his managerial prowess.

I wouldn’t wish you to form a negative opinion on a fellow human being based on second hand information. However I could not listen to the post match summary, read DP’s remark concerning ‘on message’ mantra and not draw attention to Preston’s very unusual choice of metaphor.

If someone with an objective profile like Preston can be recruited into a pre-formed agenda then it begs the question as to how well organised such campaigns must be.

I came across a video piece by prospective Democratic Party Presidential nominee Bernie Sanders that addresses how such agenda’s are played out in the political sphere. Might there be a ‘message of the day’ strategy being transmitted from the 5th floor of an office building in Glasgow City Centre?

https://youtu.be/U8tlxwqtliY

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on8:26 pm - Jul 10, 2015


burghGer says:
Member: (31 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 10:59 am

“Going back through years and years of football records scrubbing out sporting contest after sporting contest, “3-0 defeat. 3-0 defeat. 3-0 defeat. 3-0 defeat…”. Insanity.”
——————————–
Your point has validity ( though I suspect the comments I have yet to read might be less sympathetic). However you need to ask what kind of message this transmits. Basically it suggests that if your going to tell a lie make it a whopper.

“The Bryson interpretation is the only sensible interpretation in my opinion.”

I hope you’ve got a tin hat or a large saucepan available to fend off the ‘incoming’ in response to that assertion.

If the equitable sanction (that which would have been applied to other clubs for a similar infringement) could not be applied because the consequences of doing so would have been nigh on catastrophic then the Head of Registration, having already absconded from his principles, might have suggested some mechanism to introduce proportionality (a punishment that fitted the ‘crime’). Simply stepping away from the issue and advising that ‘nothing really happened’ was not expert submission. A small child might have reached a similar conclusion in a moment of panic.

If, as you suggest quite feasibly, it was discovered that a player had been in some way remunerated beyond the stipulations in his registered contract, then surely some attempt should be made to discourage future potential perpetrators. There was the opportunity here to set a sensible precedent but that opportunity was foregone. Instead the precedent that has been set might be one that the most unscrupulous club owners (I’m not specifically referring to TRFC) might take advantage of.

I’m not sure if a three nil defeat would have been ascribed to Rangers(IL) in every case where mis-registered (ineligible) players were fielded. The examples of subsequent rulings I have is not so numerous to be able to reproduce the punishment tariff. However the Head of Registration and his colleagues must have been in possession of a tariff list. Any competent administrator would insist on such basic information being reproduceable.

View Comment

high beeswaxPosted on8:43 pm - Jul 10, 2015


the trouble for burghger et al re elligibility of ebt players is that some clown stuck the word MUST in the rules and regs surrounding player elligibility in respect of ALL contractual arrangements for players…..

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:09 pm - Jul 10, 2015


high beeswax says:
Member: (21 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 8:43 pm

Some time ago there was talk on here of the original charge against RFC being something along the lines of ‘playing ineligible players’ under the SPL rules, and that the original time period had included the DOS period. The talk was that, by the time the LNS tribunal was commissioned, the charge had been changed to one of (deliberate?) mis-registration, and the dates changed to exclude the DOS period. There was no public announcement of these changes, so no questions were asked, and no explanation given.

Again from memory, it was discussed how the original charge fell in line with the SPL rules that contain specific mention of ineligibility and left no room for manoeuvre, because, as you say, they include the word ‘MUST’.

I, personally, cannot provide proof of this, nor vouch for the veracity of those claims, but, should there exist proof of this, wouldn’t it form an excellent subject should some organisation fancy commissioning another advert, or, indeed, form a ‘must hear’ topic for an SFM podcast?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:44 pm - Jul 10, 2015


I’ll play devils advocate slightly and say that given ‘biscuit’s’ agent duties he has and ably demonstrates a knowledge of lower league English players far beyond those of his contemptibles (I meant contemporaries but liked spellcheck’s version better) on the show. There are still huge odds (and again he’s no stranger to betting odds either) against him using warburton as his example but I’ll go with it for now.

Let’s just say it’s the sfm equivalent of ‘we’ve got our eye on you’ for now.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on9:54 pm - Jul 10, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:
Member: (97 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 3:50 pm

“Actually, Rule D1.13 acknowledges “Bryson’s Law” (that the player’s registration cannot be retrospectively removed/annulled) by explicitly saying that delivery of the complete contracts of service was also a condition of eligibility to play in official matches.
——————————
Thanks for your input HP. I know that I personally often comment based on blog hearsay and require cautious reading of the rules by others (a characteristic you have shown adeptness in) to inform my knowledge.

However whilst acknowledging your previous efficacy in monitoring the rule book, I found difficulty in alighting upon the implication you inferred. Perhaps the D13 extract you posted was not complete?

I suspect you might feel impatient at having to spell out in detail the subtleties in such texts that are so manifest to yourself. However any elaboration on this point might be useful to steer the blog clear of the damaging rocks of ignorance that ring the land of the misguided.

Of course you go on to point out that despite the Bryson opinion, the SPL had the opportunity ultimately to determine the facts concerning eligibility.

I would not wish to perpetuate a mantra that however justified, was flawed in its construction.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:08 pm - Jul 10, 2015


JC has done an excellent work on the court case. Is there any idea when we will hear of a result,as i can’t remember how long after each case we had to wait

View Comment

burghGerPosted on10:12 pm - Jul 10, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:
Member: (97 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 3:50 pm

I think your point is well made – there is distinction there between being registered, and being eligible to play.

The rule was, in short, “X documents [relating to remuneration] must be submitted for a player to be eligible”.

Now Lord NS’s opinion was, upon consideration of both sides of the argument, that the side letters should have been included in that X documents category.

But up until that point, no such determination had been made, on the contrary the club believed – a mistaken belief in hindsight – that they should not have been included.

So how could players have been ineligible to play in matches that took place PRIOR to the decision determining said breach of eligibilty having been made? Not possible.

That is where my earlier point comes in that these publicly known arrangements should have been examined, and determined upon, at the time. Nobody would have thought what amounted to £47 million of trust payments were made on the basis of a nod and a wink. Lord Nimmo Smith should’ve been in there in 2001 demanding side lettters and ruling upon their status regarding the rules.

It goes without saying that Rangers directors at the time were guilty of not checking the validity of their arrangements at the time. As I said earlier, Murray’s regime was reckless and arrogant in how they pursued this tax scheme. Guilty as charged on that count, but, i stand by my position, not on the count of fielding ineligible players.

View Comment

DuplesisIIPosted on10:27 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Hirsute Pursuit,

Read your post of 3:50pm today with interest, and was intrigued enough to read the Nimmo Smith/Stewart QC/ Flint QC decision again.

I think one difficulty is that it was never in fact argued by the SPL that D1.13 provided for registration and eligibility as distinct concepts. The SPL’s position was that one was derived from the other in that provision. They argued that the correct interpretation was that D1.13 should be read as meaning a failure to lodge a necessary document breached a condition of registration, and that breach rendered that player ineligible (ab initio.)

Perhaps the argument you make would have been a stronger one for them, but it doesn’t seem to be how they understood their own rules. (I don’t know if Mr McKenzie drafted these, but if he did perhaps this is an example of the old rule of thumb that the last person who should be asked to interpret a document is the person who drafted it…)

LNS and the others perhaps could have come up with your interpretation themselves, but it’s probably unfair to criticise them for not adopting an interpretation which was never argued by “the prosecution.”

It’s probably also worth noting that if there was ambiguity in the interpretation of D1.13 on this issue, the panel would likely have been bound to construe it in the most favourable way for Rangers under the contra proferentem principle.

The other thing I would note is that D1.13 and D1.11 of course only apply from 23rd May 2005 onwards, and so your argument wouldn’t apply to the panel’s determination of issues 1 and 2(a) to (d)

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:30 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Sorry BG but as discussed earlier the rules were quite explicit. All renumeration to be declared or words to that effect. Why do you think the decision was taken not to disclose? For me, it was deliberate obfuscation to imply the publicly declared EBTs were not going to the players.

I’ll save you the bother of pointing that indeed the EBTs weren’t going to the players by replying that the loans most definitely were, and without the initial remuneration the loans simply cannot exist.

I don’t believe that driving at 100mph on a deserted motorway is illegal since it is obviously perfectly safe but do you think my penalty when caught will be to learn with benefit of hindsight not to do it again? Will it f…

LNS should have been in in 2001 to clarify (I think I’m picking your point up correctly here)?

Nope. Because in the real world clubs take responsibility for their actions.

View Comment

burghGerPosted on10:42 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Smugas,

My point would be – in relation to your analogy – that driving 100mph is speeding only because a law exists stating anything >70mph is speeding.

But the football rules made no direct mention of a scheme that Rangers directors were of the belief was not covered by them. Prior to LNS, that question was unanswered. Unaddressed. That is where the guilt and culpability lies – on both sides – in my opinion. The authorities, and to no lesser extent Rangers, should have scrutinised this scheme and the failure to do so was a dereliction of duty in each case.

The 100mph thing is law breaking as its explicitly covered by the law. But the fact remains that players were not ineligible for X matches because EBT payments/arrangements had not – at the time of X matches taking place – been deemed as triggering ineligibility.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:59 pm - Jul 10, 2015


burghGer on July 10, 2015 at 10:12 pm

HirsutePursuit says:
Member: (97 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 3:50 pm

I think your point is well made – there is distinction there between being registered, and being eligible to play.

The rule was, in short, “X documents [relating to remuneration] must be submitted for a player to be eligible”.

Now Lord NS’s opinion was, upon consideration of both sides of the argument, that the side letters should have been included in that X documents category.

But up until that point, no such determination had been made, on the contrary the club believed – a mistaken belief in hindsight – that they should not have been included.
=======

Aye like they also believed that when asked about the side letters for Flo and De Boer when asked if they existed by HMRC, that their existence should not have been admitted in the response to HMRC.

That lie is what caused the admission of liability in the wee tax case. That failure to disclose WHEN SECIFICALLY ASKED is a clear indication of intent not just to not include side letters but lie about their existence.

Those side letters related to ebts every bit as much as the ebts of BTC fame,the only difference being the illegality of the earlier ebts was know at the time LNS was being commissioned, so LNS just deemed them legal!

It is why that like the war in Fawley Towers, no one wants to mention the wtc.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on11:05 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Except that all payments for playing football had to be registered with th SFA the side letters were not making the players ineligible. The line in the accounts is not relevant. Remember by not submitting the side letters Rangers were implying that these letters did not exist. Also EBT payments went to some folk not registered as players further undermining the argument that it was declared in the accounts. This wrong is wholly independent of the tax positions on the EBTs. The whole thing undermines not only the integrity of Rangers but also the SFA. In these days of computers and databases registering 0-3 scores should not be difficult and that is what should have been done.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on11:09 pm - Jul 10, 2015


I think Burghger has some difficulty understanding the terms MUST and ALL in relation to the rules that all payments to players must be notified, i.e. there are no circumstances in which some payments don’t need to be notified i.e. the rule also applies to the RFC as well. Sorry, to be clear, this rule applied to all clubs, no get out of jail free card or discretion this time.
Why is this so difficult to get across?
As others have said, i too believe that the sheer scale of the wrongdoing scared the booboo jeebies out of those in charge of Scottish footie and they thought a way out had to be found.

View Comment

justshateredPosted on11:10 pm - Jul 10, 2015


The point is well made regarding the ‘Bryson’ interpretation.

If the SFA knew that this was the principle that would be followed then why was the commission ever convened in the first place.

Indeed as the body to which an appeal would have been made then ultimately this commission was a complete sham and waste of money.

The SFA knew that even if the result was not to their liking then the appeal would have been successful.

The more information that comes to light then the more the LNS commission looks exactly what it was; a show commission with an already pre-determined outcome, one way or another, which attempted to legitimise the illegitimate while at the same time allowing no room for an appeal.

Like most commissions they are set strict parameters and they have to work within them; so the damning DOS issues were excluded, Bryson was brought in to give his extra ordinary interpretation and yet he would have most likely sat on the appeal tribunal if the ‘correct result’ was not achieved in the first instance.

Sham, sham, sham from start to finish.
No shame, no embarrassment, no ………. what is that word ……. oh yes ‘Dignity’.

They have woven a fiction to protect themselves because their incompetence is glaring and damning in equal measure and yet they blunder on pretending to be in control of a situation that is now rapidly unravelling before our eyes.

They still have not closed these loop holes which, to anyone looking in, is an embarrassment to our whole sport.
I’ve never heard a quartet attempt to play instruments, while wearing water wings, after the ship sank beneath them but I think that is what is about to transpire.

View Comment

castawayPosted on11:19 pm - Jul 10, 2015


Burghger July 10 @ 3.12pm says:

“If anybody’s interested…”
========================

These are just my non-legal, non-accounting (but knowing right from wrong) thoughts on the main points as I see them, of the Cooper Parry piece commended by burghger:

1) …the majority of the FTT considered that the contributions to the EBT became ‘loans and nothing more’.
Later
The UT agreed with the FTT that the employees had ‘a loan and nothing more’.

Do you really believe that story? Do you know anybody who would accept a loan instead of salary?

2) Overall, HMRC considered that the majority of the FTT ‘had gone seriously wrong’ and the more compelling Judgement was that of the dissenting minority, Doctor Poon.

Have you read Dr. Poon?

3) Although the FTT had not considered every piece of evidence presented to them, there was no obligation on them to do so. Instead, they had considered sufficient evidence to support their decision.

Reminds me of the old Dave Allen sketch where the judge dawns the black cap and intones to the defendant that he will be taken to a place of execution…..
at which the clerk of the court leaps up and whispers to the judge that the guy is only there on a parking offence. Whereupon his m’ludship goes on “…and hanged by the neck until dead, and fined £2 for parking on a double yellow.”

4) FTT were entitled not to find that the trustees were ‘mere ciphers’.

Could any sensible person really believe that?

Summing up by Cooper Parry
“The decision emphasises that EBT and loan structures should not be ignored (unless a sham) and, as a result, their legal consequences differentiates the arrangements from cases of outright payment.”

In other words, why pay tax on earnings?

Only my normal tax payer’s opinion. Guaranteed free from all legalistic babelism.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:31 am - Jul 11, 2015


It is possibly a little bit OT in that it is not immediately related to football, but can I just say that on “Desert Island Discs” this morning, Freddy Flintoff , the cricketer, who was also quite into Chess, was illustrating how ‘competitive’ he was in any kind of games or sport.

He told how, during a chess competition, he noticed that his opponent was running out of time but hadn’t realised it, and how he (Flintoff) then positively began to behave as if it was his move, instead of alerting his opponent. His opponent ran out of time and Flintoff won the game.

The impression I got was that Flintoff , even today as a much older man,still thought he was entitled to that win, and was without any kind of shame at the way he had won. For him ‘winning’ was everything. He had not the moral capacity to see that ‘winning’ by deceit is meaningless and hollow in any ordinary understanding of the meaning of sport. And, where financial reward may be involved, it is tantamount to theft.

And I wondered whether a certain knight of the realm might have been listening to the same programme, saying ‘Well done, Flintoff. You’re my kind of ‘sportsman’.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on12:42 am - Jul 11, 2015


BurghGer,

I actually think there have been some valid points in your comments. An example would be years ago when I was at school, I created a website making fun of several teacher and pupils (light hearted I must add rather than mean). The website was discovered by the head teacher who very politely invited me into his office and asked me to remove it, as he couldn’t discipline me as I had broken no school rules or laws in existence at the time.

The above is an example of the argument you have made which I agree with. However, I would question why you are bringing up all of these old arguments. You’ve been over why you maintain the same club perspective and said its your view, which obviously you’re entitled to, but then carried on the argument.

I don’t recall saying your name posting here before so I believe you are new, in which case, welcome! I should inform you though that these arguments have been done to death here and now that you’ve expressed your views, I’d suggest caution in proceeding with old club / new club, title stripping debates etc. The reason being that other posters will view you as distracting the ongoing discussion with old arguments and many will view you as a troll.

As a Rangers fan on here I have long been a lonely presence. Every time I’ve seen a new person appear who declares they are a Rangers fan they inevitably turn out to be some kind of wind up merchant and it just makes people think of Rangers fans as dicks in general. I’ve seen enough in your posts to suggest you may be genuine, so please contribute to the ongoing debate of the day and add value by providing our fairly unique views here rather than going over events which have been so long discussed that viewpoints are well established. You’ve made your views known on these events now which is good, but as arguments draw on they get distracting.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:27 am - Jul 11, 2015


RyanGosling says:
Member: (173 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 12:42 am
‘…As a Rangers fan on here I have long been a lonely presence’
__________
But, speaking for myself, not an unwelcome or disrespected presence.

View Comment

DonegaltimPosted on1:31 am - Jul 11, 2015


This has been done to death but will continue to be so until……..

our authorities raise their hands in submission and admit that they were willing to bend, twist and break the rules in order to accommodate the bloo pound.

The Armageddon was a pile of garbage thought up by a desperate cabal surmising Sky and other broadcasters and sponsors would ditch Scottish football if there wasn’t a “rangers.”

Desperate men do desperate things and in their moment of desperation, rode roughshod over any sense of decency, fairness and dignity. For the humble football supporter to then have to accept this farce is tantamount to jollying up and watching WWE. (Wrestling for the unanointed)

As long as my *rse points to the ground and my voice can be heard, I will scream from the rooftops, my opinion for those charged with bringing the Scottish game into disrepute. They are not fit to be sent to the corner shop for a loaf, never mind being honoured to sit at the top table making decisions on our game.

Through pressure from all angles, we must never forget or forgive what those morons have tried to contrive, be it for money or funny allegiances to a certain organisation. They will go down in history as inept, scared individuals who for one reason or another, couldn’t implement the laws and rules of our game and have tainted it beyond hope.

The football supporter has been dragged through the mire unnecessarily and we are not out of the woods yet but a cleansing of our game has begun. It has a way to go and will level itself in time but god forbid, we will have seen off the likes of Regan, Doncaster and Longmuir from our pin striped committees and replaced them with honourable men and women.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:35 am - Jul 11, 2015


RyanGosling says:
Member: (173 comments)

July 10, 2015 at 5:34 pm

Barcabhoy,

Sorry, old topic. I just logged in on my phone and the page that came up was your post detailing how Celtic are bigger than Rangers. It was factual and efficient, but you missed the fact that Rangers are just bigger than Celtic. Rangers have got 7 letters, while Celtic only have 6. And if you make it “The Rangers” as many on here do then wow…that gap becomes a chasm.

I always knew that my team, Partick Thistle ,(count them son) were a big team but the I saw the glory that is Inverness Caledonian Thistle (although a bit contrived) and realised our station in life .So what’s the biggest team in British football, then ?

View Comment

castawayPosted on1:47 am - Jul 11, 2015


paddy malarkeysays:
Member: (53 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 1:35 am
———————–
My guess would be Bournemouth..

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on1:49 am - Jul 11, 2015


Paddy malarkey,

Inverness Caledonian Thistle are a true gauntlet to anyone claiming to be the biggest club in Scotland. But what about if you include things like Dunfermline Football And Athletic Club? Ground rules must be established.

Barcabhoy, given our history I feel it is important to point out that lest you think I am belittling your earlier post, I am not. All of your points were valid and if I’d wanted to argue with them I’d have done so at the time.

P.S. I ‘m pretty sure you wouldn’t have thought that, as you’re clearly a guy with his head screwed on.

P.P.S. I saw something in a recent comnversation you had with one of the recent trolls which reminded me of an argument we had around a year ago regarding the gravity of Mr Murray’s actions. This guy was clearly trying to bait people and a few of our more knowledgeable posters took the time to set him straight. The thing is, I saw exactly what he was doing and I saw how you would have thought that was what I was doing previously, and in retrospect I think I was trying to make a different point which was lost in the heat of the moment. So a year down the line, I would just like to acknowledge that I understand why you responded to my comments the way you did, and accept that the situation would not have occurred if I had expressed my thoughts in a more clear fashion.

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on2:21 am - Jul 11, 2015


Just back from my holiday, and finding that John Clark and EasyJambo have once again provided not just transcripts of this week’s court proceedings, but an invaluable insight into the machinations of the court and the mood of the main protagonists. We are in their debt.

Also some healthy debate on OC/NC and the bizarre “Bryson Doctrine”, the author of which will now be forever the poster boy for “yes we do actually think you button up at the back!”

I know that repeated argument is something we try to avoid for fear of overstating the bleedin’ obvious, but from time to time, it is refreshing to remind ourselves just why we exist at all – and that the people who run our clubs are not nearly as engaged with the need for sporting integrity as we are.

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on2:22 am - Jul 11, 2015


Ryan G

Almost sure that Supercaleygoballistic …….. would be top of any league 🙂

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:27 am - Jul 11, 2015


I think you would have to drop “Football Club” entirely from all entrants, and I’m also reticent to include “Athletic”. Totally draw the line at Academicals . Bournemouth is way too subtle for me .

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on2:57 am - Jul 11, 2015


Have to say…
Was listening to Neil Lennon on r4 this morning on the way to work.
What a well spoken erudite and collected individual he is. England welcomed and suits him.
That is something that all north of the border may wish to reflect upon.
I am not a Celtic fan.
But I consider the loss of that gentleman to be to the detriment of Scottish football. And that is no loss to him. The opposite is true. How sad is that?
I once attended a caley game against Celtic where a 10 year old behind me started to sing “one man went to kill went to kill Neil Lennon”.
A stop to that was put.
Ever since I viewed the press treatment of Neil in a new light.
I have concluded that the man’s patience is as boundless as our nations shame at his treatment hereabouts. And I cannot yet understand why this is not self evident to all.

View Comment

CanuckBhoyPosted on3:53 am - Jul 11, 2015


DuplesisII says:
Member: (1 comments)
July 10, 2015 at 10:27 pm

LNS and the others perhaps could have come up with your interpretation themselves, but it’s probably unfair to criticise them for not adopting an interpretation which was never argued by “the prosecution.”

It’s probably also worth noting that if there was ambiguity in the interpretation of D1.13 on this issue, the panel would likely have been bound to construe it in the most favourable way for Rangers under the contra proferentem principle.

Excellent post (and I enthusiastically thumbs-up it)!

But it’s also worth pointing out that the principle of contra proferentem would only apply where there is “true ambiguity” (or some other such language). You can’t just read ambiguity into a statutue (or contract, among other things) because it’s advantageous.

Registration and eligibility are fairly distinct concepts. As HP has already pointed out, it is very easy to present a scenario where a player is registered, but nonetheless not eligible to play in a particular competition or individual match. Contra proferentem is a principle, but so is the principle that drafters specifically use different words in different place to mean different things, and that they should not be read as synonymous when there is a more natural, contextually appropriate interpretation.

View Comment

roddybhoyPosted on9:09 am - Jul 11, 2015


not been on for a bit and just catching up…..”just shattered at 11.10 last night…..” a show commision with an already pre-determined outcome ” I think you are spot on there , nail on head !! One thing around the time of talk of stripping Rangers of titles always stuck in my mind . When asked about it Ally McCoist said ” Oh we wont be accepting that ” or words to that effect, but it was the way he said it that struck me. He was so confident , arrogant actually and had a wee sly grin. I 100% believe he already knew that his friends in the SFA would sort it for the “gers” .

View Comment

castawayPosted on9:24 am - Jul 11, 2015


paddy malarkey says:
Member: (54 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 2:27 am

Bournemouth is too subtle for me.
=============

Sorry Paddy, I got tired typing. Bournemouth’s full name is Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic, unless it’s been changed.

If you knock off Athletic it’s still pretty long. But then you’d need to knock off Wanderers, United, Rovers, and even Thistle!

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on9:31 am - Jul 11, 2015


Tris, I do hope these guarantees aren’t from a Glaswegian gentleman with a South African twang to his accent!

I feel I should mention that when I (eventually 😳 ) set up payment to SFM and disclosed this to the Treasurer (Mrs FA) – always best to be up front about all payments, her concern was expressed by asking “Who are these people?” 😆 Laughing wasn’t the correct response.

Edit to add that, in the “biggest club” debate, Clyde hold a ‘unique’ place (alongside our record for holding the Scottish Cup for the most consecutive years).

View Comment

theredpillPosted on10:12 am - Jul 11, 2015


Anyone else think Federer was toooo good yesterday you would think he was on some stimulant or something not that I believe he t ok anything just saying ?

View Comment

motor redPosted on10:50 am - Jul 11, 2015


theredpill says:
Member: (29 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 10:12 am

in an interview, federer said that it was probably his best grandslam game to date.

still, who would have thought 10 years ago that scotland would have a double grandslam winner ,not me. andy, without a shadow of doubt is one of scotlands all time greats .

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:00 am - Jul 11, 2015


theredpilltheredpill says:
Member: (29 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 10:12 am

Anyone else think Federer was toooo good yesterday you would think he was on some stimulant or something not that I believe he t ok anything just saying ?
——

Don’t think so. He has been very consistent for a long time. No suspicious performace shifts over the years Yesterday he played probably at his very peak. Unlucky for Andy. Lots of factors in Fed’s win, imo. Change of raquet & coach a few years ago. Yesterday the emphasis was on shorter points via net play, fewer long rallies, bigger hitting. His serve was almost faultless, and add to that hitting the lines with many of his serves it’s amazing the scoreline was so close. Even Fed was surprised by his own performance.

Think Murray maybe could have tried more variation, he played in a way that suited Fed’s game. When he won the tournament and OL gold he used his backhand down the line much more aggressively and mixed things up a bit more. Seemed a bit predictable yesterday with constant crosscourt backhands. They don’t phase Fed too much since he has better reach with a one-hander.

Personally, I think Fed may have peaked too soon and will have difficulty repeating that performance against ND tomorrow. A close match no doubt but I can see Djokovic edging it on stamina.

View Comment

The_Pie_ManPosted on11:01 am - Jul 11, 2015


On the Biggest Team. it pains me to say so as a Hammer but surely Tottenham Hotspur would be in with a chance. or West Bromwich Albion

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:03 am - Jul 11, 2015


roddybhoy says:
Member: (20 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 9:09 am

In any adversarial legal, or quasi legal, proceedings, the desired result will always prevail when both sides have the same goal. It is clear from the statements, actions and inactions of both the SFA and SPL (SPFL) in matters outside of the LNS enquiry, that the desired end result has always been to facilitate ‘Rangers’ and their support. Along the way lip service has been paid to create an aura of ‘due process’ with some, often circumvented, consequence meted out for the breaking of rules, but the end result has always had a minimal effect on the incumbent club at Ibrox.

LNS, too, reached a soft guilty verdict, matched by a soft penalty, and was more intent in finding mitigation for the desired result than ensuring justice prevailed. The lack of challenge to Bryson, and the avoidance of the SPL’s own rules in eligibility, can only be explained by the desire of both sides to reach the same verdict. It might also point to the reason why an adversarial process was chosen, to enable the learned legal minds on the ‘bench’ to avoid asking awkward questions, they might otherwise have felt necessary to ask to avoid looking rather stupid amongst their piers!

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:30 am - Jul 11, 2015


By the way, a bit of quick tennis trivia for discouraged Murray fans.

* Worth noting Andy is currently World nr 2 in the 2015 race to the O2 (Fed is 4th)

* Andy’s 2015 Grand Slam record is superior to Fed with a final and two semis. Fed has a 3rd round, quarter final and final.

* Fed 2015 W/L is 46-6 Andy’s is 46-7 (yesterday’s match giving Fed the edge by 1)

* Andy has 3 tournament wins Fed 4

So all in all much, much closer than yesterday’s freaky/alien performance from Fed would suggest. Fact is Wimbledon is Federer’s best chance of adding to his collection of Slams. In reality, Andy still has a great chance on any surface. So, discouraged? Don’t be :mrgreen:

PS Funny stuff again Clumps, read it earlier. I liked the Warb quote about training getting the pre-match meal timing right 🙂

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:39 am - Jul 11, 2015


I saw some debate on here yesterday regarding comments made by Alan Preston on Radio Scotland on Thursday. Apparently they were along the lines of how Mark Warburton would have used tactics which would have won St Johnstone their European tie. This was mentioned in the pub last night, and I add not by a Celtic supporter. No-one could think of any logical explanation for Preston making the comment. Surely there is no logical explanation. While freedom of speech should be paramount on the BBC it comes with a responsibility. In my view Preston should be embarrassed, or the BBC should tell him not to embarrass them. Such comments do nothing to dispel the views of us who believe the media have a deliberate policy of promoting Rangers in a positive light. Tommy Wright is the most successful manager in St Johnstone’s history and deserves better.

None of this is Mark Warburton’s faults of course, and I’m sure he would agree fawning admiration should be earned, not simply handed down because he is manager of Rangers.

View Comment

Head HunterPosted on11:40 am - Jul 11, 2015


Phoenix from the flames: How do you resurrect a football club?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33470801

None of these teams seems to have any difficulty with accepting that their original club died.The language is unambiguous and their is an acceptance of basic business logic. Of course the fans continue to believe in a link between the old and the new and treat it as the same -as is their right. I’ve not seen anyone suggest otherwise on here.

…and how is it that the BBC can can write with such clarity in this piece and yet constantly twist itself in knots when writing about our own Phoenix organisation?

View Comment

TincksPosted on11:46 am - Jul 11, 2015


Excellent contributions on LNS – good to be reminded about the scale and shamefacedness of that farce.

IMHO The off season is showing up the importance of the Compliance Officer to this blog :irony:

We have a an emoticon for SMSM :slamb: and Old Big Hands :mrgreen:

Can I make a couple of suggestions so that we are ready new season and the return of the CO:

View Comment

TincksPosted on11:47 am - Jul 11, 2015


or maybe – I just love that fact this one has five stars

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on12:08 pm - Jul 11, 2015


To my mind, only one question needs to be answered, and it’s quite simple
If the EBT payments made to player’s sub-trusts were not wages or remuneration, then just what on earth were they

View Comment

Highland_BhoyPosted on12:11 pm - Jul 11, 2015


I once attended a caley game against Celtic where a 10 year old behind me started to sing “one man went to kill went to kill Neil Lennon”.
———————————————————————-
“Its a hard life a hard life wherever you go, but if you poison the minds of your Children, then a hard life is all they will know” (Nancy Giffith)

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on12:42 pm - Jul 11, 2015


campsiejoe says:
Member: (28 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 12:08 pm

They were contractually agreed payments, Joe. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

There has been a lot of legal shenanigans with regards whether the players received repayable loans or not, and as such whether tax was due. However all of that is just failing to see the point.

The players received contractually agreed payments, who they were paid to and how they were paid is irrelevant. The payments were never appropriate to an EBT, which was never intended for the purpose Rangers used it, tax avoidance.

Remember tax management is using a legitimate scheme in order to minimise the tax you pay (for example an ISA). Tax avoidance is manipulating a scheme and using it in a way or for a purpose it was never intended. That is what Rangers did.

This is where the Ramsay Principle comes in, looking at what happened in total, not just at parts in isolation.

View Comment

roddybhoyPosted on12:52 pm - Jul 11, 2015


Allyjambo says:
Member: (1076 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 11:03 am

I fully agree with what your saying only you say it way much better than me lol

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:53 pm - Jul 11, 2015


Trisidium says:
Moderator: (236 comments)
July 14, 2015 at 2:37 am
‘..Just getting a bit nervous that the appetite for change isn’t as avaricious as we had hoped .’
_________
Speaking for myself, of course, I felt that the ‘prospectus’ was perhaps a little too ambitious- a bit intimidating, in fact.
I’m very keen that SFM gets to the point of being a legal entity of some kind with a registered address and at least a rudimentary democratic constitution, with office bearers authorised to speak on behalf of the membership. Once that is done, progress ( democratically) towards broadening might be steadily made.
I get the feeling that perhaps quite a lot of posters might be

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:54 pm - Jul 11, 2015


sorry! ‘might be relaxed about that kind of approach’.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on12:58 pm - Jul 11, 2015


Homunculus says:
July 11, 2015 at 12:42 pm

Exactly
Payments weren’t made out of the goodness of someone’s heart
Payments were made for a service rendered, i.e. playing football, and therefore should be subject to tax
They can argue about semantics till the cows come home, but that will never disguise the truth

View Comment

burghGerPosted on1:40 pm - Jul 11, 2015


castaway says:
Member: (79 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 9:24 am

Sorry Paddy, I got tired typing. Bournemouth’s full name is Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic, unless it’s been changed.
_______________
Great call for Bournemouth, re the longest name!

Bournemouth are an interesting one.
They were incorporated in 1914, with the club becoming (wait for it, bit of a mouthful…)
“Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic Football Club Company Limited” (!) (http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00137401)

That football club died (RIP) in 1997, & a business and assets transfer to a new club formed:
“Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic Community Football Club Limited”
(http://companycheck.co.uk/company/03333372)

A longer club name by 3 characters! 🙂

A second death occurred in 2007 (RIP again), but another business/assets transfer spawned a zombie to replace the previous zombie (excuse the popular contemporary slang 🙂 ) and the current football club was born as:
“AFC Bournemouth Limited”
(http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06632170)

On reflection, it seems the “longest name” prize might have been a bit of curse! Long live Bournemouth the Third regardless.

View Comment

JarmoPosted on1:41 pm - Jul 11, 2015


A contender for biggest club, but wait, no, they’re just a company not a club:
The Dundee United Football Company Limited!

View Comment

scottcPosted on2:10 pm - Jul 11, 2015


Assuming my collection of football club company names is all correct, I believe the ‘biggest’ club in Scotland is

THE EAST STIRLINGSHIRE FOOTBALL AND ATHLETIC CLUB LIMITED

followed closely by

STENHOUSEMUIR FOOTBALL CLUB COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on2:40 pm - Jul 11, 2015


Not been on here for a while, but some sterling work being undertaken.

When I’ve nothing to say, I’ll say nothing, but feel I should comment on ‘Biscuits’ Preston and the wee bit of criticism he’s had here.

He was playing a trick, having a joke, when he made out Warburton would have succeeded in the Perth tie. It was his personal parody of fellow commentators, one in particular.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on3:47 pm - Jul 11, 2015


borussiabeefburg says:
Member: (44 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 2:40 pm
Not been on here for a while, but some sterling work being undertaken.

When I’ve nothing to say, I’ll say nothing, but feel I should comment on ‘Biscuits’ Preston and the wee bit of criticism he’s had here.

He was playing a trick, having a joke, when he made out Warburton would have succeeded in the Perth tie. It was his personal parody of fellow commentators, one in particular.
==================================

Was that clarified or is it just your personal take on it?

View Comment

high beeswaxPosted on5:42 pm - Jul 11, 2015


just got onto ‘ prestongate’…… lookig at the evidence, an erotic word for old steerpike’, it appears AP is spot on….

Warburton is undefeated in european football . ‘i think’…. so keep takin the preston, biscuit

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on6:51 pm - Jul 11, 2015


borussiabeefburg says:
Member: (44 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 2:40 pm

“He was playing a trick, having a joke, when he made out Warburton would have succeeded in the Perth tie. It was his personal parody of fellow commentators, one in particular.”
——————————-
His tone of delivery was dead pan and illicited no response from fellow panelists (not that I would have heard it as my radio was off immediately following the comment). It would explain why the remark seemed so far out of context.

I was tuning in and out of the commentary so will have missed any jousting or sparring between pundits that would have given rise to Alan Preston’s remark.

Silly me. I must apologise to Mr Preston for taking his remark completely out of context and to the blog for showing my own prejudice. Paranoid?! Me?!

Thanks Borrussia.

View Comment

high beeswaxPosted on8:28 pm - Jul 11, 2015


had the 15 year old who has won junior wimbledon been a rangers player with an ebt should she have been classed as an inelligible player in scottish football terms on two counts ?

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on8:49 pm - Jul 11, 2015


high beeswax says:
Member: (23 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 8:28 pm

had the 15 year old who has won junior wimbledon been a rangers player with an ebt should she have been classed as an inelligible player in scottish football terms on two counts ?
_________________________________________

I’ve lost the plot 🙄 ❓

View Comment

Sergio BiscuitsPosted on9:48 pm - Jul 11, 2015


burghGer,
We had another follower of Sevco who had a similar fascination with insolvencies involving English clubs; Bryce I think he called himself.
Unfortunately he forgot that the rules of the Scottish and English leagues, are totally different. Sometimes a bit of research can be a big help when trying to either prove, or disprove any point you’re trying to make.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:57 pm - Jul 11, 2015


burghGer says:
Member: (35 comments)
July 11, 2015 at 9:19 pm

Such examples are dissimilar from business/asset sales to new companies, that include their football membership, as occurred with Coventry City & Portsmouth as the most recent examples.
===========================

I know nothing about Coventry, but I lived in Portsmouth for 6 years, and was a regular at Fratton Park, so I have followed their (mis)fortunes over the years.

Are you saying that Portsmouth were liquidated? So far as I am aware that is not the case, but no doubt you will correct me. Here’s a link which might assist your endeavours-

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/10/portsmouth-future-fratton-park-ownership

“Amid celebratory scenes in the high court from the fans who will now become its owners, Portsmouth Football Club has been saved from liquidation after an 11th hour deal between its administrators and the former owner of the club.”

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:04 pm - Jul 11, 2015


In discussing the LNS Commission Decision and the fundamental questions surrounding it, I detected a little bit of blurring of the blog memory, which given the issues involved, the amount of words written and the complexity of the subject matter is not surprising.

So I’ve created an archive off blog where those who wish to refresh their memories or want to look first time into the subject as ebts/HMRC and Oldco are topical (or even those who have difficulty sleeping and want a soporific read) can do so at their leisure. Its at

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9aVdQMDVJdml2dzg/view?usp=sharing

I’ve checked out the links contained within but if any don’t work or mis-refer let me know on blog.

Whilst the Stew seems to have settled in the pot, there are plans to give it a stir.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:31 pm - Jul 11, 2015


neepheid says:
Member: (677 comments)

July 11, 2015 at 9:57 pm

What happened at Coventry is probably the nearest parallel to RFC in that a CVA was rejected which meant liquidation. See

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23548760

However the difference is Coventry were allowed to keep their share in the ,string> Football league unlike RFC who were not. The SFA Full Membership was transferred but as we all know the SPL clubs did not agree to transfer of RFC’s SPL share.

This is where the real difference comes in. What led to Coventry’s demise was not ten years of breaking registration rules or tax dodging on an industrial scale or borrowing way beyond their means, all of which were perceived by the supporters of the SPL clubs as a form of cheating.

It was not that RFC went bust that is the key factor, it is how they went bust and how that “how” disadvantaged other clubs who adhered to the football rules and were financially prudent or were able to negotiate a CVA with creditors.

AS someone posted earlier, no matter how football authority tries to dress up events at RFC, the perception amongst most non RFC supporters is they cheated. That is not one Coventry nor the Football League had to face when the latter allowed the league share to be transferred.

View Comment

Comments are closed.