Analysis of the Bain Papers


After 17 months of ignoring the abundant evidence that much was wrong at Rangers FC, the mainstream media appear to have been roused from their slumbers by this weekend’s revelations within the Bain Papers.  Reaction has varied from claims of surprise to defiant finger-pointing.  (According to one especially corpulent hack, Rangers’ problems are all just a product of meddlesome bloggers.  He has to say that, doesn’t he?  With over 25 years of obsequious subservience on the lap of Sir David Murray, he cannot now turn on him.  Rangers problems are a direct function of the failure of journalists at Scotland’s leading publications to do their jobs).

The reaction to the Bain Papers is finally proportionate to their significance.  Without fear of exaggeration, this is the most important story in the history of Scottish football.  It is good that the media has finally been shocked into saying something.

Journalistic  investigation of the scandals within Rangers over the last decade has amounted to nothing more than telephoning Rangers’ PR firm for a comment.  Obviously, it will  take them some time to catch up.  In their analysis of the Bain Papers, these neophytes have made several errors in analysis and I thought that it would be a good idea to help clarify a few of the most important points.

  • Securitization of Ticket Sales
    The media reported that the Bain Papers made reference to Rangers having started the process of selling off four year’s worth of future season ticket sales in return for cash now. What these reports have missed is that Bain’s information on Rangers stopped being accurate as of 23 May 2011. The Bain Papers are themselves just snapshots in time and do not necessarily reflect the current state of affairs. As regular readers of this blog will already be aware, Rangers FC did indeed file paperwork related to the mortgaging of four years of season ticket revenues. However, this filing (an MG05s) was botched and actually released all of Rangers’ assets except the season tickets! The MG05s was later withdrawn and, to date, has not been replaced. This means that either the transaction was not completed or the finance company has given a loan without any security. Lending to Rangers without security is very unlikely, so in the absence of any more recent evidence, I believe that this securitization of season ticket revenues has not taken place. (Rangers might have found it easier to keep up with its bills if it had).
  • Assignment of Rangers’ Debt
    Given the number of new readers to this blog, it is worth repeating my questions over the terms of Whyte’s purchase of Rangers’ debt. Had Whyte paid Lloyds in-full for the debt, there would be no doubt that Whyte would have also received £18 million of priority protection (and the probable right to appoint a receiver for his own benefit). However, I have received credible information that questions whether most (or any) of the debt has been paid for. If Whyte has only signed a promissory note and not actually fulfilled his end of the transaction, the benefits of the security interest would remain with Lloyds. Whyte would have no say in events should Rangers become insolvent under these conditions. Until Whyte or Lloyds make an unequivocal statement on who holds the floating-charge on Rangers’ assets, we will not know for certain who will determine Rangers’ future.
  • Amount of Tax Bills
    The amount of the tax bills reported to be in the Bain Papers is slightly in error. The £14 million interest and penalties is actually just penalty. Interest is included with the £35 million assessments. A trivial point, but worth recording in the interest of accuracy.

Perhaps the most significant comment that can be made is over the timeline for a Rangers insolvency event. Despite all of the fevered speculation, all I can say is that I do not know if or when this will happen. Football clubs are odd businesses. They start their financial years in the summer with large cash-piles from season ticket sales and will see their funds gradually deplete until they start selling tickets for the following season in March or April of the following year. In between, the club must ensure that it is able to pay wages and other bills from the cash-pile, matchday receipts (food, a small number of ticket sales, etc.) and TV money. In Rangers first season in three years without significant European cash, there was always going to be a question on whether the club could remain solvent through to spring. The “wee tax case” has taken an additional £2.8m that would be badly needed. Without a line of credit at a bank to tide Rangers over, the risks are real and significant.

However, the reports of unpaid suppliers do not automatically mean that a crisis is days away. This could be part of the bureaucratic malaise that has fallen over the club since the takeover or it could be part of a stringent cash management plan to see the club through to the next transfer window in January. The key point being that there is no information to support a projection on how immediate a cash crisis is at Rangers. Rangers might have a problem tomorrow or next week, but my money is on the club surviving until a result is obtained in the First Tier Tribunal for the ‘big tax case’.

Assuming that Rangers lose the ‘big tax case’, Whyte will have the option to file for insolvency or he can appeal to the Upper Tribunal to buy more time. HMRC for its part would have the legal right to demand payment as soon as they they get a positive result in the First Tier Tribunal. By custom, HMRC do not generally enforce payment while an appeal is active if it would cause insolvency. However, if they feel that a delay in enforcing payment is just creating an opportunity for the alienation of assets, they might be more inclined towards flexing their legal muscles. Given these caveats and conditions, it is possible that Rangers could delay the hangman’s noose until this time next year.

In summary, I am delighted that this case has broken open. While Rangers’ supporters might not be in any mood to thank anyone for helping shed light on this situation, it is good for their club (if not its current and previous owners) that this information is in the public domain. It is especially good for our national game as a whole that we discuss the problems of the last decade openly. Rangers supporters need to ask themselves why they have meekly stood by while the future of their club has been imperiled and whether their “friends” in the media have done them an injustice by becoming complicit in the cover-up of this story.

About rangerstaxcase
I have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications are for one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

2,405 Responses to Analysis of the Bain Papers

  1. Paul Mac says:

    johnobhoyo…

    As an opinion…you are entitled to have one…

    However your opinion is entirely wrong..

    The blame…if we can call it blame…I prefer responsibility…is with the players and to a lesser degree the manager..

    The board are responsible for the running of the club..in terms of its fiscal health and operational efficiency..

  2. Paul Mac says:

    Elliptical hoop…

    Boxing clever?

    There are bigger fish to fry for HMRC..

    If you allow Tax avoidance/evasion to have a preferable outcome…then you open the flood gates for every company in the land to think…”if we avoid/evade now..we can pay it back at a preferable time scale in the future if we get caught”

    Not on buddy!

  3. theaccountant says:

    I had so much hoped that we had grasped the difference between perfectly legal avoidance and criminal evasion, it appears board members are still struggling to understand the difference.

  4. The Mighty Quinn says:

    Don’t waste my time “Accountant”

  5. spanglebhoy says:

    Is there a definite ruling on avoidance, I have read that the UK Tax authorities, say while not illegal it is unwelcome, rather fudged opinion from them I think.

  6. Barcabhoy says:

    Directors of any business have a duty to the shareholders to minimise tax. That means investigating all options that are legal. Some options may be deemed to carry too big a risk, or are judged not viable because of the level of fees being charged by advisors.

    Rangers have done nothing illegal here. Even if they lose the case, the most you can accuse them of is poor judgement. The fact that Murray and Lloyds were happy to see the problem become someone else’s suggests very strongly they now believe their judgement was flawed.

    Whyte’s recent public statements , which are becoming more bizarre, by the day, suggests he privately believes the appeal will not be successful.

    The very strong probability that Whyte is not an individual of Ultra High Nett worth, is not relevant to what will happen at the end of the appeal process. Whoever provided Whyte with the funds to pay Lloyds, now has a decision to make. Do they want to provide additional funds to cover the shortfall caused by the European and CIS cup exits, or are they prepared to let all of the original working capital be burned.

    Burn the Capital before January and you place yourself in a position of risking someone else controlling the timing of an insolvency event. Should there be sufficient working capital to see you through until January, then selling assets becomes an option to get to seasons end.

    To benefit from winning the SPL this season, and the financial benefit of the CL is not guaranteed, my understanding is Rangers would have to be in and out of administration before June 2012. They would also have to overcome a 10 point penalty, although that looks more possible than it did a month ago.

    Put yourself in the shoes of Whyte and his funders. What is the Utopic position.

    Win the appeal and you have Rangers for £18 million. Given that this a long shot, what would be the target you would hope to achieve in a worst case scenario.

    Prepack administration is where I keep coming back to. It was what i suggested in my first post on this blog, and still remains the obvious target for Whyte and his funders

    I understand all of the arguments about needing HMRC for a CVA, SPL and SFA rules.

    Remember there were also rules that prevented Lloyds buying HBOS. However the politicians deemed we were in a crisis and ignored the rules and forced a deal through.

    Don’t underestimate the politicians role in the eventual outcome. No politician could countenance a Scottish Football landscape without Rangers. The social consequences are unimainable

    Pressure will be applied, rules will be bent, amended or ignored.

  7. theaccountant says:

    For those who have failed to grasp the point, The Revenue will have to prove evasion, which in itself carries its own penalties, including gaol time.

    Avoidance as we have said is perfectly legal.

    54. “There is a distinction between tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal, and tax evasion, which is not. Lord Tomlin’s comment that “Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching thereto is less than it otherwise would be” has been cited frequently in defence of legal tax avoidance. In a complex system, people will use provisions in the tax system which allow for tax planning, and it is unreasonable to expect them or their advisers not to do so.”

    If The Revenue fail to prove that which in truth would be evasion as opposed to avoidance, the case will fail, I believe it has already failed.

    http://tinyurl.com/Avoidance-is-perfectly-legal

  8. Hugh McEwan says:

    theaccountant says:
    29/09/2011 at 1:40 pm
    For those who have failed to grasp the point, The Revenue will have to prove evasion, which in itself carries its own penalties, including gaol time.

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

    No. they won’t, as usual you are talking nonsense.

    They will have to prove that their is an unpaid tax liability. No more than that.

  9. theaccountant says:

    The one talking nonsense is you, there is no liability if legal avoidance is the case.

    The Revenue will have to prove deliberate evasion of any liability that is claimed to exist, that would be criminal evasion and is in no way shape or form avoidance.

    They have not up until this date convinced the Tribunal panel that RFC have evaded anything, I do not believe that The Revenue will be able to do so, it is a Tribunal I believe The Revenue will lose.

  10. thetaxmancometh says:

    Nice derail attempt accountant

  11. Hugh McEwan says:

    theaccountant says:
    29/09/2011 at 2:01 pm
    The one talking nonsense is you, there is no liability if legal avoidance is the case.

    The Revenue will have to prove deliberate evasion of any liability that is claimed to exist, that would be criminal evasion and is in no way shape or form avoidance.

    They have not up until this date convinced the Tribunal panel that RFC have evaded anything, I do not believe that The Revenue will be able to do so, it is a Tribunal I believe The Revenue will lose.
    =========================================

    Your ignorance is actually quite staggering

    Tax evasion is a criminal offence and is dealt with through criminal proceedings and not by the issue of an assesment. That’s all HMRC have done issued an assessment. It is Rangers who have taken the matter to a tribunal.

    If it was tax evasion HMRC would have arrested and charged people and we would be discussing a criminal court case just now.

    This is no more complex than

    1. HMRC think Rangers should have paid tax
    2. They have assessed that tax
    3. Rangers disagree
    4. Rangers have asked a tribunal to decide
    5. The tribunal will make a ruling on it.

    HMRC do not have to prove avoidance, evasion or anything else. They simply have to prove that tax was due and it wasn’t paid.

  12. spanglebhoy says:

    This is one crazy board anyone with a different point of view to the gang, is derailing. Thanx for the link The Accountant, I see the avoidance thing is legal and the evasion thing is not.

  13. spanglebhoy says:

    HMRC do not have to prove avoidance, evasion or anything else. They simply have to prove that tax was due and it wasn’t paid.
    So if rangers didn’t pay the tax did they forget about it, evade it or avoid it, as I recall rangers claim no tax is due as everything was perfectly legal and above board. If rangers are claiming no tax is due, what exactly are the tax dudes charging them with and what sort of non-payment, as I read it it can only be evasion. 12/10 years is a long time to have forgotten about something as important, unless of course it was hidden from the tax dudes, which is also evasion isn’t it.

  14. The Mighty Quinn says:

    I am aghast at this load of balls you are talking “accountant” (and your ilk).

    Stop being a waste of time.

  15. The Mighty Quinn says:

    “Accountant” It would be in everyone’s best interests if you were banned. It isn’t even amusing anymore. At first it was funny to poke fun at someone so deliberately misguided. Then it was fun to watch posters be baited by your trolling. Now it’s just got dull, boring, predictable and wasteful.

    If you have nothing better to do with your time than troll messageboards and blogs then I might suggest you take up a new hobby. Knitting or hillwalking or self abuse or something.

    Anything other than making a fool of yourself.

    I’m ashamed of you.

    I think we’re all ashamed of you.

    It must be embarrassing for you.

    Please don’t post again.

    Show us some manners and keep your thoughts to yourself as the big boys don’t want to play with you anymore.

  16. Mark Dickson says:

    A morality tale.

    When ‘Celtic’ didn’t pay their taxes HMRC didn’t give them the option of time to pay or repayment plans especially as their previous payment record had not been good or reliable. HMRC were granted a winding up order and within a few months and failed rescure attempts ‘Celtic’ were finally disbanded.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_conf/8123914.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_conf/8559656.stm

    (the amounts owed are vastly different but the principles are exactly the same)

  17. tomtom says:

    The Accountant recently visited his doctor and told him his prick had turned orange. The doctor did some tests but nothing could be found that was causing the problem. The doctor asked the Accountant what he did for a living. “I don’t work” was the reply. So what do you do all day to keep busy asked the doctor. “Watch porn and eat cheesy wotsits”

    Just about sums him up.

  18. Duggie73 says:

    this will be obvious to those that know, it isn’t to those that don’t.
    once a receiver is in place, would an HMRC demand for payment by a certain date introduce a time pressure factor over when the sales of assets would have to be completed?
    is the timing of the transfer window something which could play a factor in how much of the debt held against the floating charge will be cleared?

  19. Johnobhoyo says:

    Could the Accountant be right?

    If RFC have not been paying taxes they should have been paying then that’s tax evasion and must lead to criminal proceedings.

    If they have exploited a perfectly legal loop hole which was open at the time then surely they have nothing to answer.

    Maybe some on here are afraid that the rumours of RFCs demise have been slightly exaggerated?

  20. Mark Dickson says:

    You could see why some might argue that Rangers unpaid taxes are so large that (if found due by the FTT & appeals) then for the good of the tax-payer HMRC will be required to compromise and reach an agreement or settlement.

    However you could also argue that Farsley Celtic’s unpaid tax-bill was so small (£200K) as to be almost insignificant to the tax collection and that HMRC would be more minded to agreeing a repayment plan.

    But they didn’t – whether the tax bill is very large (£50M) or very small (£200K) the principle remains exaxctly the same. Businesses & in particular football clubs with tax arrears and a poor record of payment will not and should not be rewarded or assisted in the delayed repayment of long overdue taxes. In both instances the message is clear and simple and a warning to all football clubs. Repay your taxes, pay your taxes or else we will take the necessary steps to recover the money and/or kill your business or football club.

  21. Duggie73 says:

    Aaarggh….I promise I will try to get better at posting all in a oney, sorry.
    Is it possible for HMRC to discover for themselves with certainty whether and when the Lloyds debt was taken over by Wavetower, due to HMG part owning Lloyds?

  22. spanglebhoy says:

    The big boys have arrived.

  23. Johnobhoyo says:

    So here’s the rub.

    A letter drops through your door from Hector who says – you owe me £xm. Obviously you aren’t chuffed about it, so what can you do if you feel you have been hard done by?

    For example, suppose RFC do have a case against HMRC here. Short of taking it to a FTT what more could they have done except pay a bill they feel is unjustified? Are there any other lines of appeal to help against someone who feelds they are being hit with an unfair tax bill?

  24. tom says:

    From the current issue………………………
    “PLANET FOOTBALL
    Rangers

    Judgement in the crucial tax case involving an employee benefit trust (EBT) extensively used by players and officials is unlikely to go in the Glasgow club’s favour, according to tax experts in that field.

    The fault, it seems, was not so much the scheme itself as its execution – which is key to making EBTs work. It appears that pressure from players and their agents to obtain money now when EBTs rely on independent trustees making discretionary and non-contractual but tax- and repayment-free loans later could have doomed the Rangers scheme before the first tier tax tribunal.

    The tribunal’s decision is likely to be delayed by the fact that 20-30 player beneficiaries and their advisers will need to be consulted, even if, as expected, their names are anonymised in the public tribunal finding.

    EBTs became very popular with football clubs from the late Nineties. Payments to EBTs, unlike salaries, saved the club the employers’ NI contribution of 12.8 percent, while the players avoided not only NI but also income tax. Loans are tax-free.

    Arsenal was one avid consumer for its players. But the club settled with HMRC rather than fight the case after it emerged that there was a trust for each player, so the money was always going directly to the player rather than from the club to a master trust which then made supposedly discretionary loans via sub-trusts established for each player and their family – which was the right way to go.

    The problem with the Rangers scheme is that it appears as if the EBT was merely inserted between club and player in an attempt to disguise what was in effect a contractual payment to the player and his agent. If so, then that is a disguised remuneration and the scheme will be at the risk of failing.

    Rangers paid almost £48m into its EBT between 2001 and 2010; the PAYE and NI liability could exceed £20m. But then there are interest and penalties to be added that could at least double that figure.

    Rangers continues to insist that it will prevail – but it said the same about the smaller discounted option tax avoidance scheme it used between 1999 and 2003. After fund manager Aberdeen Asset Management lost its appeal on that scheme before the first tier tribunal last year, Rangers has now provided for tax of £1.9m and interest of a further £900,000, but no penalties.

    Both these tax bills would now appear to be down to Rangers’ new owner Craig Whyte – a man of financial mystery whose billionaire status was queried here in Eye 1286. That is unless he has an indemnity from vendor Sir David Murray – which would have been the norm in any takeover for £1 plus assuming the Lloyds bank debt. Only the extremely ill-advised would have taken on the large and unknown potential EBT tax liability. The discounted option scheme result/liability was known at the time of the takeover in June.”

  25. The Taxman Cometh says:

    HMRC contend that as the payments made were of a contractual nature and were wages then TAX and NI should have been paid on them, RFC have taken a contrary stance – problem is that RFC will have a hard time convincing the FTT that the payments were not contractual especially considering the side “letters” they themselves supplied

  26. Johnobhoyo says:

    So that’s tax evasion then – criminal proceedings should be forthcoming.

    As I said, in the scenaio (however unlikely some may view it) that RFC have acted within the rules at the time, what other avenues are open to them?

  27. Mark Dickson says:

    Rangers clearly paid a much smaller percentage of taxation in relation to their total wages bill each year compared to the average business or football club. Clearly the disproportionate amount and the large sums of money involved are what put them on the taxman’s radar.

    The question isn’t have Rangers been hit with an unfair bill, they have knowingly underpaid tax & national insurance to the beneficiaries of the trust …. the whole arguments rests on whether these payments are contractual and therefore subject to taxation plus any interest and/or penalties for delaying the tax payment. That is for the tribunal to rule upon – Rangers haven’t been treated unfairly by the authorities they have simply been investigated and challenged by the tax authorites over a scheme that is highly contentious at best and that Rangers may or may not have knowingly exploited and abused but the Tribunal (& any appeals) will decide that.

  28. theaccountant says:

    Despite the commonly peddled myth, there are no side letters or emails in the possession of The Revenue, there are emoluments and dispensations notices and agreements.

    The aforesaid emoluments and dispensations notices and agreements do little to assist The Revenue’s presentation, they in fact weaken it greatly.

    The Revenue have got this one very badly wrong, it has been known to happen.

  29. Mark Dickson says:

    theaccountant says:
    29/09/2011 at 4:25 pm

    Can you explain then why Sir David Murray sold the majority share of RFC for only £1 if the tax case against Rangers is ‘very badly wrong’ ?

  30. theaccountant says:

    I believe he also, SDM that is, sold the debt for that figure, anything else on why he sold I wouldn’t know.

    But you as well as SDM should be aware, that if The Revenue were to prove non compliance/evasion, SDM’s £1 sale ticket will not buy him immunity, far from it.

  31. Captain Bob says:

    From Private Eye

    Judgement in the crucial tax case involving an employee benefit trust (EBT) extensively used by players and officials is unlikely to go in the Glasgow club’s favour, according to tax experts in that field.

    The fault, it seems, was not so much the scheme itself as its execution – which is key to making EBTs work. It appears that pressure from players and their agents to obtain money now when EBTs rely on independent trustees making discretionary and non-contractual but tax- and repayment-free loans later could have doomed the Rangers scheme before the first tier tax tribunal.

    The tribunal’s decision is likely to be delayed by the fact that 20-30 player beneficiaries and their advisers will need to be consulted, even if, as expected, their names are anonymised in the public tribunal finding.

    EBTs became very popular with football clubs from the late Nineties. Payments to EBTs, unlike salaries, saved the club the employers’ NI contribution of 12.8 percent, while the players avoided not only NI but also income tax. Loans are tax-free.

    Arsenal was one avid consumer for its players. But the club settled with HMRC rather than fight the case after it emerged that there was a trust for each player, so the money was always going directly to the player rather than from the club to a master trust which then made supposedly discretionary loans via sub-trusts established for each player and their family – which was the right way to go.

    The problem with the Rangers scheme is that it appears as if the EBT was merely inserted between club and player in an attempt to disguise what was in effect a contractual payment to the player and his agent. If so, then that is a disguised remuneration and the scheme will be at the risk of failing.

    Rangers paid almost £48m into its EBT between 2001 and 2010; the PAYE and NI liability could exceed £20m. But then there are interest and penalties to be added that could at least double that figure.

    Rangers continues to insist that it will prevail – but it said the same about the smaller discounted option tax avoidance scheme it used between 1999 and 2003. After fund manager Aberdeen Asset Management lost its appeal on that scheme before the first tier tribunal last year, Rangers has now provided for tax of £1.9m and interest of a further £900,000, but no penalties.

    Both these tax bills would now appear to be down to Rangers’ new owner Craig Whyte – a man of financial mystery whose billionaire status was queried here in Eye 1286. That is unless he has an indemnity from vendor Sir David Murray – which would have been the norm in any takeover for £1 plus assuming the Lloyds bank debt. Only the extremely ill-advised would have taken on the large and unknown potential EBT tax liability. The discounted option scheme result/liability was known at the time of the takeover in June.”

    Have to admit that I am worried.

  32. OnceABhoy says:

    WHEN the tribunal finally finds in favour of HMRC what are the chances of criminal proceedings being instigated against the directors responsible?

  33. Lord Wobbly says:

    I don’t think we need the personal attacks on ‘the accountant’ folks. As far as I can see, he/she has only posted on topic, which is all that is asked, isn’t it? The fact that his/her position appears to be in direct opposition to most others (RTC included) is neither here nor there. The fact that he/she is spectacularly wrong surely only warrants a response to put over a different point of view. We don’t need to stoop to the level that we so abhor in other blogs.

  34. easyJambo says:

    I’ve done another bit of digging into the SFA’s Club Licensing rules. I found some potential hurdles for a Newco to overcome.

    3 Licence Applicant and Licence

    3.1 Definition of Licence Applicant

    3.1.1 The Licence Applicant is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity and member of the Scottish Football Association. This membership must have been in place at the start of the licence season for a minimum period of three years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.

    3.3 Licence
    3.3.1 Licence Awards for Scottish Premier League Clubs (SPL)
    A Licence cannot be transferred from one legal entity to another.

    3.3.1.2 Meeting the domestic requirements
    A Licence may be awarded unconditionally or on a qualified basis. An unconditional licence is granted to clubs that meet the SPL criteria in full. A qualified licence award is granted to clubs that fail to meet all aspects of the criteria but meet the minimum mandatory requirements. A qualified award may be accompanied by timescales for clubs to address variances.

    My reading is that a newco will not be awarded an unconditional licence until the club has been a member of the SFA for a minimum of three years.

    Licences are not transferable, therefore RFC 2012 would have to apply for a licence on its own behalf rather than have RFC’s or any other club’s licence transferred to it.

    I’m unsure of the implications of only having a qualified licence with regard to participation in UEFA competitions – i.e. could this affect RFC 2012’s participation in European competitions for up to three years?

  35. Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

    glad you ahd the time to dig through that EasyJambo – good man

    so, how would we explain Airdrie Utd – they bought Clydebank, closed them, moved them, rebadged them – purely to get back into the league

    so exceptions can, have AND WILL be made

    from the Airdrieonions wiki

    Airdrie United’s initial bid for league status was rejected in favour of the application by Gretna, who were then playing in the English Northern Premier League.

    In desperation Ballantyne opted to buy control of Clydebank, another Scottish football club experiencing extreme financial hardship and, with SFL approval, the club’s name was changed to Airdrie United, the team relocated to Airdrie and the strip was altered to the famous diamond style of Airdrieonians. Airdrie United are predominantly viewed as a continuation of Airdrieonians, with the majority of the same supporters attending Airdrie United matches

    (on the subject or Airdire, I always thought Sir Minty got an easy ride for killing an old scottish club, all for a few grand. so much for being a great figure in scottish football, Rangers will be the second club he’s helped put to the sword)

  36. easyJambo says:

    NTHM – My understanding was that the Clydebank club and it’s Licence was bought by new owners and was then renamed as rebadged as Aidrie Utd. i.e. Clydebank hadn’t gone under. It was Airdrieonians that went under.

    In the case of Rangers it would be RFC that would go under. Therefore someone could buy a solvent club (say, St Mirren) then rename and rebadge them as RFC 2012, but a newly formed RFC 2012 couldn’t buy or transfer St Mirren’s registration.

    Subtle difference but an important one.

  37. Paulie Walnuts says:

    There’s also a difference as between SFL and SPL. The rules Easy Jambo has posted are the current SPL ones, which look to be a good bit tighter than the SFL equivalents were when the Airdrie/Clydebank thing happened.

  38. Hugh McEwan says:

    Johnobhoyo says:
    29/09/2011 at 3:59 pm

    Could the Accountant be right?

    If RFC have not been paying taxes they should have been paying then that’s tax evasion and must lead to criminal proceedings.

    If they have exploited a perfectly legal loop hole which was open at the time then surely they have nothing to answer.

    Maybe some on here are afraid that the rumours of RFCs demise have been slightly exaggerated?
    ====================================================

    Simply not paying the tax you are supposed to is not tax evasion. No matter how many times people say it.

    They did not exploit “a perfectly legal loop hole”, that’s just words that people have put together which don;t really mean anything, but it sounds good so people keep saying it.

    It really is a simple test. Did they pay the right amount of tax at the right time. If not they get a bill for the difference. This tribunal is simply answering two questions.

    1, Is there any tax unpaid

    2, If so how much.

    No question of proving or disproving avoidance. No question of proving or disproving evasion.

    Is there unpaid tax. The rest is just stuff and nonsense.

  39. meridian says:

    “I have got four offices in the City, I have venture capital funds, I have asset management companies, I have stock-broking businesses, I have businesses in France, in Holland, I have got thousands of employees, but I don’t see why I should make every aspect of that public.

    “I’ve got everything from financial services to ticketing to cinema services, asset management, construction, I have got investments in all these sectors. I operate like a venture capital partnership so at any one time there’s 20-25 companies in the portfolio.

    “I operate a family company in the city too that manages the family investments. We do all sorts of deals, public to private, commodity trading, Forex, a wide variety, but we try and keep it low key.”

  40. Guinnessjohn says:

    Hi fholks , as I`ve preambled any posts I put up here , I`m no expert on these matters . I do
    however , notice trends . One which sticks out more than most is that when ‘the accountant’
    is active , the sh1t has hit the fan or is about to .

    Couple this with the latest press release guising as an interview from the Theatre of The Absurd
    and , one must wonder , is there something amiss ? Is it worth keeping a close eye on the Edinburgh courts tomorrow ?

    Whadya think , Paulie ?

  41. theaccountant says:

    I can assure the resident experts that The Revenue have already laid a criminal charge at the door of RFC. I wonder if our resident experts are aware of what it is, it should be patently obvious.

  42. Guinnessjohn says:

    theaccountant says:
    29/09/2011 at 8:49 p

    Bang on cue , dude .

    Whatever you`re being paid for this thankless task , it isn`t enough .

  43. theaccountant says:

    I notice you couldn’t answer the question, favouring a rather vacuous comment instead.

  44. Hugh McEwan says:

    theaccountant says:
    29/09/2011 at 8:49 pm

    I can assure the resident experts that The Revenue have already laid a criminal charge at the door of RFC. I wonder if our resident experts are aware of what it is, it should be patently obvious.

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

    If “laid a criminal charge at the door of RFC” actually meant anything that would be marginally more interesting. As it is it’s just more drivel.

  45. Lord Wobbly says:

    theaccountant says:
    29/09/2011 at 8:49 pm
    I can assure the resident experts that The Revenue have already
    laid a criminal charge at the door of RFC. I wonder if our resident experts are aware of what it is, it should be patently obvious.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Cheating (no question mark required)

  46. TheBlackKnight says:

    theaccountant says:
    29/09/2011 at 8:49 pm
    “I can assure the resident experts that The Revenue have already laid a criminal charge at the door of RFC. I wonder if our resident experts are aware of what it is, it should be patently obvious.”

    Which part of the CIF process is being observed from your window?

  47. theaccountant says:

    I am not in the least surprised that an expert such as yourself, whose vocabulary appears to consist of one word drivel, is unaware that it is a criminal offence to withhold payment of NI contributions within the subscribed time-scale.

    I bid you a good evening and suggest you hone up on your legislation.

  48. Guinnessjohn says:

    theaccountant says:
    29/09/2011 at 9:05 pm

    A ) I was unaware of any question aimed in my direction ( I`m no expert , remember .)
    B ) If you`re unhappy with your rate of pay , perhaps your controllers would take a different view if your content had a touch more substance .

    By the way , you just made my night with the reference to vacuous comments .
    You obviously don`t do irony .

  49. Barney says:

    BBCAlLamont Alasdair Lamont
    #Rangers and Martin Bain won’t be back in court tomorrow as planned as agreement was reached re documents requested by Bain’s lawyer …

  50. TheBlackKnight says:

    theaccountant says:
    29/09/2011 at 9:19 pm
    “it is a criminal offence to withhold payment of NI contributions within the subscribed time-scale.”

    When did Rangers allegedly do this?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 23,484 other followers

%d bloggers like this: