Over the past couple of years, we have built a healthy, vibrant and influential community which recognises the need to counter the corporate propaganda spouted by the mainstream media on behalf of the football authorities.
The media have, not entirely but in the main, been hostage to the patronage of those in charge of the club/media links, and to the narrow demographic of their readership. Despite a continuing rejection of the media’s position by that readership (in terms of year on year slump in sales) there is an obstinate refusal to see what is by now inevitable – the death of the print media. The lamb metaphor in fact ironically moving to the slaughter.
The football authorities in Scotland, once the country that gave the world the beautiful game, are rigid with fear that their own world will fall apart – because they are wedded to the idea that only one football match actually matters. To that end they will do whatever it takes to ensure that it continues. They have long since dispensed with the notion that football is an interdependent industry, and incredibly, even those who are not participants in that match follow like sheep towards the abattoir.
The argument is no longer that one club cheated and got away with it. The debate that we need to have is one about what is paramount in the eyes of the clubs and the media . Is it the inegrity of sporting endeavour, or box-office?
For out part, independent sites like this have accelerated the print media’s demise, and there have been temporary successes in persuading the clubs to uphold the spirit of sport. However our role has up to now been to cast a spotlight on the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and downright lies that routinely pass for news. News that is imagined up by PR agencies and dutifully copied by the lazy pretend-journalists who betray no thought whatsoever during the process.
Despite our successes, it really is not enough. We have the means at our disposal to do more, but do more we need to change ourselves, because the authorities sure as hell aren’t gonna.
We need to provide meaningful insight into the game that removes the Old Firm prism from the light path. We need to provide news that has covered all of the angles. We need to entertain, inform and energise fans of sport and all clubs.
We need to do that from a wholly independent perspective. None of this refusing to tell the truth about club allegiances. There is no reason why intelligent men and women can’t be objective in spite of their own allegiances (although the corollary absolutely holds true). Our experience of the MSM in this country is that the lack of arms-length principles in the media has corrupted it to such an extent that they barely recognise truth and objectivity. We need to be firm on those arms-length principles.
In order to do that we have put together a plan (with enough room to manoeuvre if required) as follows;
We will rebrand and re-launch as the Independent Sports Monitor. We have acquired the domains isMonitor.co.uk and IndependentSportsMonitor.co.uk, and those will be the main urls after the re-launch, hopefully later in the summer.
The change in name reflects the reality of our current debate which is not always confined to Scotland or football. It will also give us the option in future of applying the success of our model to other sports and jurisdictions through partner sites and blogs. This should also help in our efforts to raise funds in the future. However any expansion outwith the domain of Scottish football is some time away, and will depend on the success we have with the core model.
Our mission statement will be;
- ISM will seek to build a community of sports fans whose overarching aim is the integrity of competition in the sport.
- ISM will, without favour, seek to find objective truths on the conduct and administration of sport. We will avoid building relationships with individuals or organisations which would bring us into conflict with that.
- ISM will provide a platform for the views of ALL fans, and guarantee that those views will be heard in a mutually respectful environment.
- ISM will also endeavour to inform and entertain members on a wide range of topics related to our shared love of sport.
- ISM will seek to represent the views of sports fans to sporting authorities and hold the authorities to account.
We have estimated our (modest) costs to expand our role as per recent discussions. The expanded role will take the form of a new Internet Radio Channel where we hope to provide 24/7 content by the end of the year. It will also see a greater news role where we will engage directly with clubs and authorities to seek answers to our questions directly. And we will seek to contact the best fan sites across Scotland with a view to showcasing their content.
We have identified individuals who we want to work (initially on a part time basis) towards our objectives, we have identified premises where we want to conduct our business, and we hope to move into those premises during this summer.
To finance these plans there are a couple of stages;
- Initially (as soon as possible) we need to pay accommodation and hosting costs for the first year. To do so, we hope to appeal to the community itself. Our aim is to raise around £5000 by the end of August.
- There are salary costs (around £15,000) attached to our first year plan, but these have been underwritten by Big Pink, and equipment costs (est. £3000). These will be reimbursed if the advertising campaign we recently started bears any fruit (we will not know about that for a few months).
- It will not be too discouraging if we make losses in the first couple of years, so if necessary we will seek crowd-funding to finance our plans if the resources of the community itself prove inadequate to smooth a path to break-even point.
Our first year may be a perilous hand-to-mouth existence, but I am certain the journey will be an exciting and enjoyable one. We will also need to search our community resources for contacts at clubs; players, officials, ex-players, local journalists etc. Please get in touch if you have any in at your club.
We also hope to tap into the expertise of our community for advice, comment and analysis of developments, and we will be looking for any aspiring presenters, journalists, sound and video editors, graphic designers (and lots of others) to help us find our feet. Any offers of assistance would be gratefully accepted.
We mustn’t lose sight of why we are doing this. It is because we love our sport, because we want to be able to continue to call it that, and because the disconnect we find in Scottish football, that of the conflicting interests of the fans and the money men, will never be addressed as long as the fans are hopelessly split.
The ultimate goal is to allow sport – not our individual clubs – to triumph over the greed and corporate troglodyte-ism of those people who run it. I am confident that we as a community desperately want to be able to make a difference. That is why I am confident we can achieve our aim of becoming a significant player in the game.
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/125601638461/swimming-against-the-current-footballs-fight
On football’s misguided battle against illegal streaming
timomouse says:
There are some relevant points in there about offering a package from source that hasn’t been wrapped up in annual bloated subscriptions that come with useless guff.
If you look at NFL Gamepass and Watch AFL those are models that will put each and every game you want in HD when you want or are able to watch it with a lot more content. During the seasons you would struggle to watch every game, show and documentary. Never mind the historical stuff. I don’t think the costs are unreasonable either yet people still complain that it costs money.
Re the article above, saying that you “like” to do something and therefore “have to be illegal” is a stretch of logic on a Brysonesque level.
Nice to see Stuart Cosgrove with his TSFM mug on the Sportscene at 40 programme! 🙂
theredpill says:
Member: (31 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Apologies if posted , note the amount of titles
Can you class winning two new lower divisions in scottish football as a Title?
OT
UEFA Rankings, as of 31/07/2015
http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/index.html
Grim Reading for Scottish Clubs!
futbol says:
Member: (47 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 9:10 pm
Re NFL Gamepass, there is an issue with buying and using that in the UK, namely, any NFL game which is shown on sky sports gets blacked out on gamepass and that includes all of the playoff games. Which means it’s not a substitute for sky sports, unfortunately, as I had looked at getting it instead of sky sports.
So that sort of restriction, to me, is going to make potential customers look elsewhere for live streams and other content.
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1136 comments)
Basically, all that the BBC will miss is the PR mince, and they can read that in the Record, word for word.
——————————————–
Not so sure about that AJ. Two BBC reporters immediately spring to mind who will, in my view, continue to be heavily influenced by the PR guff which will still be available to them. I still expect Rangers to get the same level of sycophantic coverage on BBC they have always had.
Morning all.
Thought you may like to see some old clips of a very special footballer.sings a wee bit as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RFECzUMNZM&feature=youtu.be
Cluster One says:
Member: (250 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 10:46 pm
theredpill says:
Member: (31 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Apologies if posted , note the amount of titles
Can you class winning two new lower divisions in scottish football as a Title?
====
This must be from Sky archives? reckon its 12 months old. The Rangers lost 7 games and conceded 39 goals in championship last season and wheens more in play off! 😉
Cluster One says:
Member: (250 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 10:46 pm
What Rangers have won are two divisional titles, in a league made up of three divisions.
It clearly makes sense that the league title was won by the team which won the top division in that league. That was not Rangers on either occasion, they won the third division, then second division of the SFL.
Bearing in mind that, at that time, the league they were playing in was not even the top league in Scottish football, that was the SPL.
To say they have won two titles is accurate, however very misleading. They have won two divisional titles in the lower tier of Scottish senior football.
upthehoops says:
Member: (810 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 8:40 am
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1136 comments)
Basically, all that the BBC will miss is the PR mince, and they can read that in the Record, word for word.
——————————————–
Not so sure about that AJ. Two BBC reporters immediately spring to mind who will, in my view, continue to be heavily influenced by the PR guff which will still be available to them. I still expect Rangers to get the same level of sycophantic coverage on BBC they have always had.
____________________
Oh I know they will, I was just writing from the point of view of the BBC being sincere about the ban, though never thinking they would be. In fact, my point was that they could/should take the PR guff that will be loyally published in the DR and, rather than do likewise, do a proper critique of what is said, in a similar way to what we do here.
I have no doubt, however, that the BBC will treat TRFC with all due deference, and continue with their unquestioning churnalism of all the mince the Govan club issue.
MercDoc says:
Member: (69 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 1:40 am
OT
UEFA Rankings, as of 31/07/2015
http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/index.html
Grim Reading for Scottish Clubs!
5 Votes
========================
Presumably the point awarded to clubs still in Europe this year have not been added. ie Celtic and Aberdeen still have no points on the board this year despite playing some games.
While ST J and ICT have modest updates in line with being knocked out in the previous round.
And the small scores awarded in seasons a clubs has not played in Europe are a default score based on national ranking? (ie where a club not in Europe that year was awarded 0.550 or 0.100) – which leads me to ask why starting point is so low this year (0.100) ?
Anyone noticed if Sky have issued a grovelling apology yet for daring to be truthful and accurate with TRFC’s onscreen honours list yesterday?
Assuming the screen-grab was genuine, of course 😉
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1138 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 9:33 am
upthehoops says:
Member: (810 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 8:40 am
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1136 comments)
Basically, all that the BBC will miss is the PR mince, and they can read that in the Record, word for word.
——————————————–
Not so sure about that AJ. Two BBC reporters immediately spring to mind who will, in my view, continue to be heavily influenced by the PR guff which will still be available to them. I still expect Rangers to get the same level of sycophantic coverage on BBC they have always had.
____________________
Oh I know they will, I was just writing from the point of view of the BBC being sincere about the ban, though never thinking they would be. In fact, my point was that they could/should take the PR guff that will be loyally published in the DR and, rather than do likewise, do a proper critique of what is said, in a similar way to what we do here.
I have no doubt, however, that the BBC will treat TRFC with all due deference, and continue with their unquestioning churnalism of all the mince the Govan club issue.
5 Votes
===================================
There is no chance the BBC will reduce TRFC coverage. They’d be paying half their sports journalists to simply sit on their ar*e as about 50% are capable of covering nothing else.
They don’t need their journalists to go to Ibrox anyway so thats really a symbolic banning as much as anything else.
They can and will continue to have PR mince served up on a 3 times a day basis.
Regarding the UEFA rankings, the relatively level playing field amongst the Scottish Clubs below Celtic has the effect of weakening the ranking for all of them.
If a “diddy” club could qualify 5 years running then it has a fair chance to increase its ranking and therefore start to avoid the early qualifying rounds and possibly be seeded in later qualifying rounds which all goes to strengthen the opportunity to score points.
I think the scoring system used is inherently unfair, just as the structure of the competitions is also unfair.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33667209
SCOTTISH LEAGUE CUP FIRST ROUND
Venue: Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow Date: Sunday, 2 August Kick-off: 15:00 BST
Coverage: Updates on BBC Radio Scotland & BBC Sport website
==========================
So really no change whatsoever to the coverage, including live updates on Web and Radio.
Given the previous bans, the threats to employees for stating certain facts, and now this new ban of a BBC journalist. You really do have to wonder what TRFC or their fans would need to do before the BBC would remove them from their lofty pedestal and show even a fraction less deference than they are consistently afforded.. and all at the taxpayers expense of course.
Elsie GarciaElsie Garcia on August 1, 2015 at 10:37 pm
Nice to see Stuart Cosgrove with his TSFM mug on the Sportscene at 40 programme! 🙂
Great to see Cosgrove pointing out that Scottish fitba needs a strong Arbroath!
Surely there’s a market for these TSFM mugs with the old broken crest logo on them? I’d love to have one myself and a few for gifts to spread the word.
Potential fundraising product?
Re the BBC banning nonsense.
Surely the BBC should just publicly ask what it was they reported that TRFC find so awful.
Then they can either apologise for their misdeed if they are in the wrong, or refute the allegation and provide evidence to support their position.
This f*rting about tit for tat piffle is just childish. C’mon ! Get your cards on the table.
Corrupt official says:
Member: (110 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 11:57 am
The BBC broke the 11th Commandment
Thou shalt not report that Rangers fans have been arrested for singing vile songs
Still on about barring the unwelcome ones from stadia, sorry if already said. Maybe the way to handle it without actual bans would be to charge for the seat according to the truth content of what’s written in the previous period.
For example, only one lie, 1/2 truth or “journalistic” speculation, at sole discretion of Club, seat in press box per game £750, take it or leave it. Further porkies, cost of seat incremental, proceeds to charity.
The lying writers’ rags pay for their indiscretions, or opt out of attendance. (As things are who wants them there anyway?) The choice would be theirs. And think of the benefits for charities.
jimbo says:
Member: (50 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 12:03 pm
Can’t wait till the criminal case gets underway. I suspect lots of interesting stuff will come out. Hopefully there are no restrictions from the court on what can be reported.
Homunculus says:
Member: (180 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 12:15 pm
The press will be all over this story, why would they not be.
——————————————————-
Can anyone decipher this ?
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-notices/contempt-of-court-orders
Scottish Courts and tribunals
Orders and Directions made under Section 4(2) and or Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981
Court Orders postponing publication of reports of proceedings (in terms of Section 4(2)) and court directions prohibiting the publication of a name or matter in connection with the proceedings (in terms of section 11) apply in the following cases:
HMA v Craig Thomas Whyte, Gary Martyn Withey, David John Whitehouse, Paul John Clark, David Henry Grier, Sheriff Court, Glasgow, 24 July 2015
castaway says:
Member: (89 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 12:39 pm
However eloquent the defence, banning journos, however annoying they might be is wrong. Clubs have other ways to make their displeasure clear, often banning isn’t really about the journos, and more about appeasing sections of the fan base.
We all want a better media, but intimidation, whatever form it takes, is not the answer. If its OK for Celtic to ban a Keevins, or Rangers to ban the BBC, then its OK for RBS to ban an Ian Fraser.
scapaflow says:
Member: (1356 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 12:38 pm
“Thou shalt not report that Rangers fans have been arrested for singing vile songs”
———————————————————
That is kinda my point. They should be challenged on the matter in hand, and not reciprocating like for like.
A simple statement from the BBC, along the lines of, “We reported factual content, and are disappointed that TRFC have banned our reporter because they would rather we didn’t” ought to be enough.
Tin hat on here. I think that clubs DO have a right to ban certain journalists . Not if they are reporting uncomfortable FACTS but certainly if they are printing LIES about you and deliberately trying to tarnish the name of a club out of nothing else but malice. Liars should not be tolerated.
roddybhoy says:
Member: (24 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 1:49 pm
One man’s facts are another’s lies. Its a two cheeks of the same ass argument
Edit
That said, Journalism’s refusal to clean up its act, gives a lie to Journalism being a “profession”.
Edit o the edit
My last word on this topic.
Often banning journos is the club saying “Look fans we banned this guy you hate, now ignore our employees role in the Rangers shenanigans of the last few years, OK?” 🙂
rougvielovesthejungle says:
Member: (59 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 11:31 am
Elsie GarciaElsie Garcia on August 1, 2015 at 10:37 pm
Nice to see Stuart Cosgrove with his TSFM mug on the Sportscene at 40 programme! 🙂
Great to see Cosgrove pointing out that Scottish fitba needs a strong Arbroath!
Surely there’s a market for these TSFM mugs with the old broken crest logo on them? I’d love to have one myself and a few for gifts to spread the word.
Potential fundraising product?
———————–
Absolutely
I would certainly buy a TSFM/Scotland needs a strong Arbroath mug. A t-shirt might also be a good seller.
i know what you are saying scapa , but when it is obvious that lies are being told ( celtic xmas night out springs to mind) I would ban them . There are many times when the reportage of my club makes me mad but if they are only offering an opinion then thats tough s@@t for me. I would never want them banned for that . They have to realise that they carry a great deal of responsibility in what they print. No other business/ industry would be allowed the lee way that some of the so called “journalists” get away with, indeed expect . It is really a crying shame what has become of journalism
woodstein says:
Member: (134 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 12:43 pm
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-notices/contempt-of-court-orders
Scottish Courts and tribunals
Orders and Directions made under Section 4(2) and or Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981
Court Orders postponing publication of reports of proceedings (in terms of Section 4(2)) and court directions prohibiting the publication of a name or matter in connection with the proceedings (in terms of section 11) apply in the following cases:
HMA v Craig Thomas Whyte, Gary Martyn Withey, David John Whitehouse, Paul John Clark, David Henry Grier, Sheriff Court, Glasgow, 24 July 2015
”””””””””””””””””’
Well spotted!
It reads to me as if the trial of those named went ahead on 24 July, but with reporting restrictions in place, unless 24 July is the date the contempt of court order was issued? I cannot access the Court list for the day in question.
Perhaps someone can clarify whether the public can attend such hearings, even though they clearly can’t report what took place? Surely a trial in open court is fundamental in our justice system.
Now, I can see the need for reporting restrictions in cases involving children, but a financial case? Civil disorder problems?
neepheid says:
Member: (706 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 2:22 pm
We have to be sure these guys get a fair trial, with an untainted verdict. Given the interest around the case, the imposition of reporting restrictions is not only unsurprising, but sensible.
neepheid says:
Member: (706 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 2:22 pm
Your first paragraph
“It reads to me….day in question.”
————————————————-
Exactly what I thought, also, “Surely a trial in open court is fundamental in our justice system.”
Like you I came to the conclusion that the date [24 July 2015] must be the date that the contempt of court order was issued.
If it was the date of the trial then what happened to “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done” ❓
scapaflow says:
Member: (1358 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 2:45 pm
neepheid says:
Member: (706 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 2:22 pm
We have to be sure these guys get a fair trial, with an untainted verdict. Given the interest around the case, the imposition of reporting restrictions is not only unsurprising, but sensible.
—————————
Absolutely
I take it the date is that on which the “gagging order” was granted. Look at the dates on the other ones.
Members of the press should note that among the items to be published (here) will be Orders made by courts imposing restrictions on the reporting of court proceedings.
“In any such proceedings the court may, where it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other proceedings pending or imminent, order that the publication of any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings, be postponed for such period as the court thinks necessary for that purpose.”
scapaflow says:
Member: (1358 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 2:45 pm
neepheid says:
Member: (706 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 2:22 pm
We have to be sure these guys get a fair trial, with an untainted verdict. Given the interest around the case, the imposition of reporting restrictions is not only unsurprising, but sensible.
==================================
I agree that these guys deserve a fair trial, but surely the best way to achieve that is in an open court, before a jury, with everyone aware of what is going on, thanks to a free press. This matter concerns money, a football club, and mature adults. If a trial concerning such matters has to be subject to reporting restrictions in Scotland, 2015, then we are in a very bad place indeed.
If a fair and open trial is threatened by public disorder from some mob of knuckledraggers whipped up by sinister manipulators in the shadows, then my view is that the police force that I pay handsomely for should be the first port of call to deal firmly and effectively with anyone threatening the rights of others to a fair trial, and long, long before moving to secret trials. Just my opinion, of course.
neepheid says:
Member: (707 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 3:38 pm
I doubt the issue is knuckle daggers taking to the streets. Its more about Jurors being influenced by what they read in the press and social media. If you’re on a jury, the only evidence on which you can base your judgement, is the evidence led in court.
Otherwise, the justice system devolves into “I’m a celebrity get me out of here”
Serious question for the Dons fans here. What do the 2 stars on your shirt celebrate. The UEFA Cup I guess is one. What’s the other one for?
scapaflow says:
Member: (1359 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 3:50 pm
neepheid says:
Member: (707 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 3:38 pm
I doubt the issue is knuckle daggers taking to the streets. Its more about Jurors being influenced by what they read in the press and social media. If you’re on a jury, the only evidence on which you can base your judgement, is the evidence led in court.
Otherwise, the justice system devolves into “I’m a celebrity get me out of here”
======================
But surely that applies to every trial? Every juror is warned at the start of the trial not to take any account of anything in the public domain. Some jurors just don’t listen, of course, and some have been prosecuted recently for “researching” the case they are involved in.
That’s no good argument for a closed justice system, in my opinion. If I was on trial (hopefully as an innocent man, of course!) then I would want it held in the open and fully reported. To me, that is a fundamental protection against wrongful prosecution, or even persecution by the State.
I honestly can’t see how this case is in any way different from many other high profile cases which have proceeded in public in the usual way with no reporting restrictions, unless it is the good old “fabric of society” claptrap, or just a simple unwillingness to enforce public order.
neepheid says:
Member: (708 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 4:09 pm
I take the point,but, I don’t think its as simple as that. I would guess 80 -90% of trials get little or no coverage. The high profile trials on the other hand
In this age of PR, I can easily imagine those with money & power, subverting justice by buying media influence, for example.
Reporting restrictions protect both the accused and the Crown in high profile cases. Its one of those “worst possible solution, except for all the others”, situations.
Re Dons 2 stars – Cup Winners Cup and UEFA Super Cup I assume.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
scapaflow says:
Member: (1359 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 12:45 pm
If its OK for Celtic to ban a Keevins, or Rangers to ban the BBC, then its OK for RBS to ban an Ian Fraser.
===================
I don’t remember Ian Fraser telling any whoppers about RBS or anybody else.
castaway says:
Member: (90 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 4:20 pm
fairly sure RBS, HBOS etc would love to ban him, if banning journalists became acceptable!
Bugger, got me to comment
redlichtie says:
Member: (272 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 4:17 pm
Re Dons 2 stars – Cup Winners Cup and UEFA Super Cup I assume.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
———————
Correct answer ?
Sorry if posted already
(spotted this on PMG’s site)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/30/extra_beneficiary_trusts_hmrc_crackdown/
jimlarkin says:
Member: (327 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 4:40 pm
That is very misleading.
The notion that HMRC have just closed a ” window of opportunity for tax-efficient folk” or a “loophole” as some would have you believe is simply untrue.
The misuse of a legitimate scheme in order to avoid paying your proper amount of tax has never been allowable. Creating false transactions simply to make it look as if the scheme is appropriate does not change the basic facts.
“What is proving particularly brutal now is the fact that some of the affected people using similar schemes to the one I was in have been hit with an Advance Payment Notice. An APN is where HMRC have decided that you owe them money. They even send you a nicely worded letter, like this one posted online by its recipient.”
Boo Hoo, you stole the tax and you knew you were doing it when you set up the charade. Just pay it back and stop moaning about it.
scapaflow says:
Member: (1361 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 4:23 pm
castaway says:
Member: (90 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 4:20 pm
fairly sure RBS, HBOS etc would love to ban him, if banning journalists became acceptable!
========================
Putting porkies and half truths in writing is not journalism.
Homunculus says:
Member: (182 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 4:57 pm
Spot on
castaway says:
Member: (92 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 5:01 pm
Eye of the beholder. The only way I way be sure that Ian Fraser, or John Pilger get to print their copy, is by accepting that Keevins gets to print his. That said, I repeat, Journalism has the same responsibility to deal with its members as every other profession. That Journalists refuse to take responsibility, while claiming to be a profession, plays into the hands of those who like banning journalists.
jimlarkin says:
Member: (327 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 4:40 pm
An Interesting piece although I would doubt that HMRC can take money from your bank account without your prior knowledge .
On another point regarding EBT’s . It may have been said before but what I find strange about the current HMRC v RFC big tax case is that it does not appear to have been led by any of the HMRC QC’s that the ultimate test has been failed ……in so much as that the EBT’s were administered as loans that could always be repaid , but when the company in its darkest hour and in much need for funds , it did not call in the said repayable loans ! Surely an Indication that these were indeed not loans but additional taxable earnings ! I may be wrong and I’m sure our trusted court reporters JC and co will put me right if this has been led by the pursuers .
scapaflow says:
Member: (1363 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 5:20 pm
The only way I way be sure that Ian Fraser, or John Pilger get to print their copy, is by accepting that Keevins gets to print his.
======================
I don’t think anybody is stopping Keevins printing his rubbish. They’re simply making sure he doesn’t do it in their house abusing their hospitality.
two swallows don’t make a summer, but, Rangers played well again today.
Castaway
We are diametrically opposed on this one. Aint nothing for it but to agree to disagree
Does anyone know if APNS have been delivered to the EBT recipients who used to play for Rangers (IL)? I think I read somewhere early this year that they had completed the assessments but don’t know if they followed through.
Edit to say : I realise that this is probably no longer in the public domain since tax affairs are private especially since the Rangers (IL) lawyer admitted at the first tier tribunal (FTT) that the side letters were in fact contracts. He actually used the word contractual.
Eddiegoldtop,
HMRC were granted additional powers in the budget last year to take money from your account provided you owe more than £1k and would be left with £5k in your account, after having contacted you requesting payment. They can also take money if they believe you have been using illegal tax avoidance methods.
https://www.crunch.co.uk/blog/small-business-advice/2014/05/15/hmrcs-scary-new-powers-can-really-raid-bank-account/
With regards to your other point I believe Rangers paid funds into trusts, and the loans were made from the trusts to individuals, so there would be no chance for Rangers to request repayment.
Eddiegoldtop says:
Member: (12 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 5:23 pm
‘… the company in its darkest hour and in much need for funds , it did not call in the said repayable loans !…’
______
I think, perhaps, the money paid into the principal Trust was no longer in the control of the club( which is why in one case at lest there was letter to one person guaranteeing that if he did not get the loan he applied for, the club would make up for that directly.
That corroborates the view that the club knew the whole process was a mockery.
woodstein says:
Member: (136 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 12:43 pm
“Orders and Directions made under Section 4(2) and or Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981”
——————————
I’m thinking this is a notice advising of restrictions that apply in reporting of cases. I’d imagine that to infringe a court ruling concerning a reporting restriction would result in a contempt of court action being taken.
Hopefully the case itself is not yet underway. I’m not sure that the public would be excluded from such a hearing. Many high profile and controversial cases have been open to public scrutiny and indeed this is a fundamental tenet of the legal system.
I received a rather stern lecture from Ecobhoy via PM which sought to counter my enthusiasm for remarking on such criminal cases whilst they were ongoing. I think I may have suggested that an accused’s demeanour might be referred to in such a circumstances. He left me in no doubt that the level of comment that it would be safe and wise to make on such proceedings would be close to zero. Perhaps a remark about the weather or the quality of coffee on offer in the canteen. Absolutely no mention of the content of the case, even the look on someone’s face, can be commented upon until after a verdict is brought in.
He showed much insight into court machination during this typical lecture and suggested there might/would be two committal hearings. I’d imagine these would be about setting the framework for the case and getting the lawyers to agree on how they were going to progress their work. Perhaps reporting restrictions were part of such a committal hearing.
I don’t think this means you can’t turn up and have a look and listen. However you can’t comment on a syllable or gesture of the proceedings until a verdict is brought in.
Perhaps there is an attempt to keep the case quiet since it is quite a risk for the court to have individuals with internet access sitting in court. The whole case could be ruined by one out of place comment. For the legal system to be able to operate effectively, the public must act responsibly.
Unlike HMRC proceedings in Edinburgh this case might indeed attract the casual passer by. I can see the courts point if they wanted to de facto restrict public attendance by having reporting restrictions on the case and thus rendering it anonymous to the public eye. The public however have every right to ferret out such information and attend such cases should they so wish.
If we publish details of the hearing on here it might create unwanted publicity for the court. However I think there are probably a number of posters and lurkers who could glean a lot from proceedings and act in the public’s best interest by providing some post verdict analysis.
Not sure if case details might be PM’d to the moderators and then PM’d to interested parties. Ecobhoys advice was to keep on the right side of the court officials. If we respected the no publicity request and limited attendance at court to a few individuals then this might be seen as being respectful to the court’s wishes and therefore underline our credentials as being good citizens.
So perhaps if trial dates are uncovered they could be posted to the mods and the mods then put out a blank notice asking for applicants for date information and thus control can be kept on attendees. Purely in the interests that justice be done and be seen to be done.
Any thoughts?
Eddiegoldtop says:
Member: (12 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 5:23 pm
“……in so much as that the EBT’s were administered as loans that could always be repaid , but when the company in its darkest hour and in much need for funds , it did not call in the said repayable loans !”
—————————-
As has been mentioned by Ryan Gosling and John Clark(e), the trust mechanism appears to have provided some king of firewall that insulated Rangers/MGMRT from any resulting contagion in the tax avoidance scheme. Not sure if HMRC might even challenge this mechanism in due course but my limited comprehension confirms Ryan and JC’s assertion.
I think I picked up a further nuance to the system that confirms its existence as twistier than an extremely twisty thing. Those with better knowledge will correct me, which is the primary motive for my stab in the dark.
Payments from the trust were in fact realised upon the death of the recipient. I think it was some kind of endowment. The loan was made on the basis of this inevitable pay-out. So the loans didn’t come direct from the trust??? The trust promised a payment upon death. The loan was in effect secured on this future payment.
Twisty, twisty, twisty.
My recollection of the devil in EBTs is as follows….
1. The EBt recipient has a loan which is repayable.
2. The loan may well gain interest at a nominal rate, compounding through time.
3. On death the outstanding loan plus interest is repayable, thus it is counted against the estate of the deceased reducing the EBT recipient estate and thus reducing any Inheritance Tax liable.
This is one of the main reasons why HMRC will keep chasing, they lose Income tax/PAYE at salary time and then later lose again at death.
Thus the quote “‘In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”
should now be reduced to..
“‘In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death”
Hope this helps…
Buddy
For example david murray we are led to believe has a £6 million GBP EBT.
Thus on his death, assuming there is approximately £6 million GBP plus interest nominally deducted from his estate, reducing his inheritance tax.
Then i am sure afterward the EBT trust waive the reclamation leaving the money in the estate.
Obviously i am not an accountant, but as said very twisty.
Tax cheats then, Tax cheats now, Tax cheats forever.
Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.
Buddy
Has there been a falling out between the BBC and ‘The Rangers’?
It is just that I tuned into the last twenty minutes of the Dundee United Aberdeen game and all the chat and interviews afterwards and ‘The Rangers’ were not mentioned once.
Their score was not even mentioned in the round up as the show closed.
Confused ……………………….. it’s like an episode of Soap from the late 1980’s!!
It is almost as if they are treating the minor rounds of a cup competition as …………………. well minor.
As I posted earlier I think the important part is this.
“In any such proceedings the court may, where it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other proceedings pending or imminent, order that [b] the publication of any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings, be postponed for such period as the court thinks necessary for that purpose [/b] .”
I don’t think the point is to keep things secret. It is to prevent reporting on it whilst there is a genuine concern that such reporting may prejudice the ongoing proceedings and lead to an unfair trial.
I think it is fair to say that there will be more press interest, and more interest from the public in this case than there would normally be for something similar.
Another observation from the Sportscene at 40 show and fair play once again to Mr Cosgrove;
In the intro we see the excellent TSFM mug and then the camera pans round to Mr Cosgrove and his first line includes this belter – ” the GLIB theory that everything was better in the past”
I’d like to think this wasn’t wasted on any Sevco fans tuning in, including their South African wine drinking chairman.
Tonight Dave I think I’ll have a cheeky wee South African Shiraz and I’ll enjoy it without other people’s money!
Castofthousands says:
Member: (272 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 6:48 pm
Any comments
————————–
Ecobhoy’s stern lectures were legendary. 😀
“Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done”
This actally cuts both ways, and its origin is from here.
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/rex_v_sussex_justices,_ex_parte_mccarthy
After leaving school, I was still studying, and one of the many subjects, was Motor Insurance Law and Claims, that is where I read the precedent in the above.
So we do need to be careful and I would agree with your last paragraph.
Sorry to hear of the death of Sammy Cox. A great career with Queens Park, Third Lanark, Dundee and Rangers. A player from my old man’s era rather than mine. There can’t be many of these old stalwarts left
Just wanted to say how much i enjoyed watching Hearts-St Johnstone game today on BT sport.. really good game and a good result for Hearts although I did think that Gordon should have been given a Red Card instead of just a Yellow, IMHO any foul by a Goalie outside the Box should be an automatic red card… just one Query for the Jambo’s though.. who the F**K is Scott Brown 😳
Homunculus says:
Member: (183 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 8:09 pm
‘..I don’t think the point is to keep things secret. It is to prevent reporting on it whilst there is a genuine concern that such reporting may prejudice the ongoing proceedings and lead to an unfair trial.’
__________
Personally, and in the abstract, I’d be more worried that crooks might get off if their defence could suggest that ‘a fair trial’ wasn’t possible because of injudicious press reports and speculation, rather than worried about ‘a fair trial!’
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some might be prepared to run the risk of being charged with contempt of court in order to try deliberately to get a trial abandoned.
Or am I carrying cynicism too far?
justshatered says:
Member: (142 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 8:04 pm
‘..It is just that I tuned into the last twenty minutes of the Dundee United Aberdeen game and all the chat and interviews afterwards and ‘The Rangers’ were not mentioned once..’
________
Yes, Richard read out the BBC’s response to the banning of BBC sportswriters from Ibrox, which was to the effect that the BBC will not send any reps to Ibrox or to TRFC press conferences, but would continue to report results of games.
And,sadly, I heard Wullie Miller remark ( while talking about Aberdeen’s undoubted potential challenge to Celtic) that having ‘Rangers’ and Hibs back in the top would add to the competition.
John Clark says:
Member: (1039 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 9:38 pm
That’s the point.
The danger is that reporting would influence the trial, either way.
The jury should base it’s decision on the evidence presented to it.
From the opening titles of Spotscene it seems none the less the BBC are showing the Peterhead game highlights, very magnanimous.
Calling those who report on sports in this country journalists is as accurate as calling ‘Where Eagles Dare’ a docudrama.
How long does a BBC ban last for?
In July 2011, the Beeb were banned .
then another ban came in October 2011
then another in Sunday 12 February 2012
then another ban came in September 2012.
and yet another ban came in may 2013.
And another Aug 2015.
I may have missed some more bans. Does the ibrox club set a time limit on a BBC ban? As there have been many over the last couple of years
Never mind overspending,overbanning looks like the in thing down ibrox way
Cluster One says:
Member: (251 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Apologies if posted , note the amount of titles
Can you class winning two new lower divisions in scottish football as a Title?
==================================================================
I’ll have you know we diddy teams consider our (as was) winning of the lower divisions we may have been in as titles. We don’t get many trophies so we treasure these and don’t like to see them denigrated. 😛
😀
Coineanachantaighe, Couldn’t agree more my friend. Enjoy your titles no matter which division.
Btw, what does your moniker mean if you don’t mind me asking?
Broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
Member: (23 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 10:45 pm
Happy to concede that I’d much rather go to dinner with Mary Ure than Hugh Keevins
ianagain says:
Member: (641 comments)
August 2, 2015 at 10:42 pm
From the opening titles of Spotscene it seems none the less the BBC are showing the Peterhead game highlights, very magnanimous.
==============
If that’s true, it’s sad that the once proud and decent BBC seems to have joined the ranks of the grovellers. I wonder why.
Who did they lift the coverage from?
I think we are getting a bit knee-jerk with the “banning” thing. Nobody is being “banned” at all – although journalists love the picture it paints with them at the epicentre of a giant victim earthquake.
What Rangers have done (as Celtic have in the case of Hugh Keevins) is to refuse to issue them with press credentials for access to press conferences and player interviews. If they want to go to the grounds, these guys are entitled to go through the turnstiles like the rest of us.
There is no threat to press freedoms inherent in not cooperating with journalists. Said journalists just have a harder job getting the their story. Likewise, unless there is a contractual obligation integral to a media deal for example, clubs have no obligation to hold press conferences, and players have no obligation to give interviews.
If RBS didn’t like something that Ian Fraser said about them, the public interest would be better served if they refuse him access to RBS press facilities than if they got his subsequent story pulled by going over his head.
What Rangers have done appears to me to be stupid and counter-productive. They obviously take the view, as Celtic do over the Keevins issue, that the reporting is inaccurate and untrue.
In either case, most of don’t know for sure whether that is the case or not, but neither Rangers nor Celtic have prevented the journalists’ version of the truth being published.
It is in fact the largest member of the squirrel family to have scurried across our view in several months.
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (331 comments)
August 3, 2015 at 12:22 am
Ian would just print it on his website, after it had been “Legaled”
I agree that when clubs do this, it is (almost) invariably a “squirrel”
However, the symbolism is important, and no-one has given me an argument that makes it Ok
So agree to disagree with you and all
Big Pink on “banning the press”
August 3, 2015 at 12:22 am
What Rangers have done appears to me to be stupid and counter-productive. They obviously take the view, as Celtic do over the Keevins issue, that the reporting is inaccurate and untrue.
=====================
Am I right in interpreting that as meaning that what both Celtic and Rangers have done, Celtic in suspending Keevins’ freebies, Rangers in banning BBC cameras and personnel, is equivalent in stupidity and counter-productivity?
That’s me done. Tomorrow is here.