Confidence Trick


Those with an interest in the outcome of Rangers’ appeal against HMRC’s assessments in the ‘Big’ Tax Case might be justified in feeling a little confused.  When the story first broke in April 2010, Alastair Johnston gave this statement to the media: Tax issues are never clear-cut but all I can say is we have taken a lot of legal advice on the issue.  I do not think it should be a material concern for us in the longer term but we can’t say for sure yet what might happen.”

Between breaths of fire and vitriol directed at former Rangers directors after Mark Daly’s recent BBC Scotland documentary, Craig Whyte said: “At this point the club’s advice from tax advisors has been that the club has a good chance of succeeding in the tribunal but it would be wholly irresponsible not to consider the potential consequences for the club should the decision be made against us”.

Yet an array of tax professionals say that if Rangers provided its players with side contracts assuring them that loans taken from an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) would not have to be repaid, then the club’s chances of succeeding in appealing the assessments in their possession would be very slim.

Opinions- it is (famously) all about opinions.  One opinion probably matters more than most.  It is that of Andrew Thornhill QC, Rangers’ Counsel in the EBT case.  He seems to be a little less bullish than Johnston and Whyte.  In correspondence with their legal expert, Rangers received more nuanced advice.  The following is an excerpt from internal Rangers communications prepared to inform Whyte about a range of matters:

No one would expect a lawyer to tell his client that a favourable outcome is guaranteed. Even this blog has always gone to pains to point out that there is no such thing as certainty in court cases. (Although Rangers may be destined to prove the old saw “the only sure things in life are death and taxes” correct on both counts). However, I would have expected more uplifting advice to have been communicated internally to justify the optimistic pronouncements from Ibrox.

This advice is tantamount to saying “there is definitely a possibility of winning the case”. I would agree! It is logically equivalent to “there is a non-zero probability of winning our case”.

Of course, the case is a bit more complicated than just Rangers versus HMRC.  As we have covered previously, the case involving the Murray Group Management Limited Remuneration Trust goes beyond just Rangers: it deals with several current and former subsidiaries of Murray International Holdings Ltd.  Each subsidiary is legally responsible for paying its own employment taxes and each will be held individually liable for any negative outcome from the case. Yet not all of the subsidiaries will have been guilty of the same scam as Rangers.

Those who have been reading all of the posts and replies on this blog (a monumental task these days) will understand that any cash that Sir David Murray withdrew from the trust might well be deemed to be a legal loan.  As Chairman, majority shareholder, and in effective control of MIH through most of the years in question, he would have had little reason to write himself a side letter saying that he did not need to repay any loans.  If this is what he has done, then he will likely have been within the operating limits established in the Dextra case.  So anyone seeking to provide ambiguous advice to a prospective buyer of Rangers FC might well point to grounds for optimism on aspects of the case involving the Murray Group Management Limited Remuneration Trust.  (I look forward to comment on this point from our unpaid team of legal experts!)  Yet, those familiar with the case cannot conceive of a possible defence in Rangers’ case. (Assuming that the club did indeed provide side-letters to players).

Is Thornhill speaking only to the Rangers case?  Was a sunny-side-up opinion procured to help smooth the sale of the club?  Did Whyte decide to make his move on the basis of a seemingly optimistic legal opinion that in fact says nothing at all?  Whyte’s purchase of Rangers seems to defy all logic and business experience.  We have to include the possibility that he has been legally duped.  Of course, the contract that sold Rangers to Whyte includes a gagging order preventing Whyte from commenting negatively on the previous owners.  So we are unlikely to learn if Whyte is experiencing any buyer’s remorse.

As the quote above also points out, the resumption of the case is near at hand.  Next week will see the closing stages of the case begin.  The window for speculation is fast closing and real answers to the mysteries of this case will start coming thick and fast.  The 8-12 week period from the conclusion of the case is realistic.  The stuff about “a period to discuss the affordability of any settlement” is not.  There is no stage in the formal process after the tribunal to negotiate.  The bill for the underpayment & interest (about £36m) will have crystallised and would be legally enforceable.  Rangers can appeal (through the MHL subsidiary of MIH) to the Upper Tribunal.  HMRC do not normally enforce payment if it will result in insolvency while an appeal is underway.  However, there has been a hardening of hearts recently, and in cases where it is felt that the appeals process is being abused to delay the inevitable, they will be more likely to enforce their legal right to demand payment shortly after the First Tier Tribunal (Tax).  HMRC can elect to do a deal at any time of their choosing.  However, a pennies on the pound settlement in the wake of recent publicity seems unlikely.  Public punishment of a Draconian nature might do more to fill the public treasury than any smattering of repayment which Rangers could muster.

The question remains whether Whyte can keep Rangers solvent long enough to divert blame for the disaster that is almost certainly about to befall Rangers.  A post-Big Tax Case fall will be so transparently the work of the previous management and owner that Whyte will not need to comment.  Falling earlier will leave Whyte with a lot of responsibility for Rangers’ problems, and he will not be able to openly throw any mud in the direction of the real culprit: Sir David Murray.

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 for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

1,193 Responses to Confidence Trick

  1. OnceABhoy says:

    Duggie73

    I asked Adam a reasonable question and received an honest and civil answer. Now if he has already stated an opinion I do not know. Some of us don’t have the time on our hands to follow every single post so please keep this in mind when making such requests. There are many points repeated by posters as far as I can see. If you wish to defend Adam ( I don’t see that he needs it as he is more than capable) please do not shroud your accusation, name and shame those you believe to be tiresome.

  2. Tommy says:

    dessie / TheAccountant / Sam / Jonobhoyo says:
    08/11/2011 at 7:37 pm

    Q. Doesn’t cheating have to be a deliberate act?
    A. Correct
    Q.if it was deliberate on rangers part wouldn’t that be evasion?
    A.Correct

    Q (next question ….?)Then why has there not been a criminal trial?

    A. This aspect has been discussed a great length in several very recent RTC blogs and valid explanations have been given regarding the policy of HMRC, a tax collecting department. I suggest you take the time to apprise yourself on the subject by reading what has already been said. That way we will be spared from your irritating trolling.

  3. Private Land says:

    duggie73 says:

    08/11/2011 at 7:54 pm
    __________________________________________________

    I agree duggie. Although I think Adam is big & ugly enough to look after himself, I think there is some downright ignorance and bad manners fired in his direction.
    Adam, as proved by recent discussions with RTC, has shed much light on these matters – and been a major contributor to our collective knowledge bank (factual and anecdotal).

  4. duggie73 says:

    forget it

  5. Private Land says:

    Private Land says:

    08/11/2011 at 8:01 pm
    _________________________

    Apologies for the rogue apostrophe Par 2 Line 1 😦

  6. gunnerb says:

    Brenda says:
    08/11/2011 at 7:17 pm

    No argument from me on the cheating score Brenda, but Adam fights his corner in a logical and honorable manner.I am sure we would all try to do the same for our own, even if deep down we were embarrassed by the whole affair.

  7. Adam says:

    duggie73 on 08/11/2011 at 7:36 pm said:
    It’s getting a bit tiresome having posters continually asking Adam to state his position on subjects when he’s answered the question two or three times before.
    Why post on here if you aren’t going to read what gets posted?
    —————

    Thanks duggie. Was just about to type that out for gwared

  8. Shug says:

    Of course, if Rangers are let back into the SPL as a newco, the shout from opposing fans at every game will be “who are ya? who are ya?”

    Arguments about where past titles would’ve, should’ve, could’ve gone are meaningless. Essentially, Rangers may well have done worse than their actual performance in those years, but, then again, they might not have done. We can never know and that is the point. The futility of counterfactual arguments is staggering. Let it go.

  9. Mark says:

    Adam says:
    08/11/2011 at 5:54 pm

    Criminal act ? I reckon we should let the court decide that. Eh ?

    There are100′s of thousands of “criminal acts” every week in Scotland, and we sit next to thousands of them every week at football matches. S

    Adam dear boy, YOU may sit next to them week in week out I certainly do not

  10. curious onlooker says:

    Shuggie
    If Rangers go on and retain the SPL this season despite a 10 point penalty I think there may be a song or ten ready to answer !!

  11. Hugh McEwan says:

    I don’t know if this is true, someone may be able to confirm

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

    In response to today’s Celtic Internet rumours, a spokesman for the Club said: “The story is absolute nonsense and it’s disappointing that the Celtic supporters have been misled in this way.”

    On the Official Facebook page.

  12. curious onlooker says:

    Hugh
    Predictable response.

    I´d put my money on informal discussions having taken place.

  13. Mark says:

    That should also stand for Celtic who also used an EBT at one point, as well as any other team who have done so.

    Adam that is p1sh and you know it, Brian Quinn saw the use of the EBT to pay wages to Juninho, 1 player, and told Celtic to stop it which they did, very soon after inititation, that is a poor attempt son….

  14. Thomas McCartney says:

    I don’t want to be one of those who tell others what they should or shouldn’t be allowed to feel about supporting Celtic but my opinion is simple, “Faithful through and through”. I believe if Celtic were to agree to anything, it may be due to the fact they would be seen as the only club trying to pull the plug and that could bring more trouble than previously seen.

    I also don’t want to be one of those who jump on the moral bandwagon when in reality, I would want my club to survive and do whatever possible to keep the history. In saying that, I feel that punishment should always fit the crime. 10 points is not fitting and the system should protect the other clubs who try to work within the rules. If the system is changed to suit just one club, with the endorsement of the other clubs then I say the solution might be obvious.

    We could stop going to away games completely. Revenue gained from Celtic away support is greater than received from Rangers, why agree to any change if the end result would cause those clubs to lose more. The Celtic support could then spend that extra money watching Celtic youth teams or some other club activities where the revenue goes direct to our club. Like watching the away game at Celtic Park in the lounges with quality big screens, reasonable prices for alcohol and food and kids areas. The numbers stack up and the outlay is minimal so both fans and club would gain.

    We could then shift the focus away from being Haters of RFC to being simply Lovers of CFC.

  15. Hugh McEwan says:

    curious onlooker says:
    08/11/2011 at 8:33 pm

    Hugh
    Predictable response.

    I´d put my money on informal discussions having taken place.

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

    It would seem that CQN also released a story that no such decision had been made by Celtic. Again I cannot confirm that.

    I would put my money on someone contacting Paul Brennan and giving him the info.

  16. Adam says:

    OnceABhoy on 08/11/2011 at 8:03 pm said:
    Duggie73

    I asked Adam a reasonable question and received an honest and civil answer. Now if he has already stated an opinion I do not know. Some of us don’t have the time on our hands to follow every single post so please keep this in mind when making such requests. There are many points repeated by posters as far as I can see. If you wish to defend Adam ( I don’t see that he needs it as he is more than capable) please do not shroud your accusation, name and shame those you believe to be tiresome.
    ——————-
    Mate, I don’t think duggie was aiming his post At you. You asked a civil question and responded in kind to my reply.

    I reckon he was aiming it at the people who come across as being rude and angry who are trying to illicit a similar response. Unsuccessfully may I add.

    Duggie, I hope I haven’t misinterpreted you here and thanks again.

  17. Mark says:

    all good as long as they know right?

  18. tomtom says:

    Mark says:
    08/11/2011 at 8:33 pm
    That should also stand for Celtic who also used an EBT at one point, as well as any other team who have done so.

    Adam that is p1sh and you know it, Brian Quinn saw the use of the EBT to pay wages to Juninho, 1 player, and told Celtic to stop it which they did, very soon after inititation, that is a poor attempt son….
    —————————————–

    Celtic, at their own behest, repaid the money that was deemed to have been avoided. If Rangers wish to repay the money then that should solve the problem and we can all continue with our lives.

  19. Hugh McEwan says:

    tomtom says:
    08/11/2011 at 8:50 pm

    ————————————

    HMRC would be only to happy to accept the back tax, interest and penalty.

  20. Slimshady says:

    Adam says:
    08/11/2011 at 6:20 pm
    Jean/Brenda you are aware that 9 in a row ended years before the EBT started. Aren’t you both.
    ——
    Adam

    Rangers have been using tax schemes for years. I saw most of their stat accounts during the 90s and there was clear evidence of it in the notes to those accounts. Of course it was going on then, when they could afford the likes of Gascoigne and Laudrup.

    How on earth do you think they afforded Gascoigne? He was the Wayne Rooney of his day, but could you see Wayne signing for the Gers today? In fact he could probably buy them with next week’s wages.

    Quite simply, in those days it was hit and miss with HMRC as to whether you got investigated or not. Their resources in those days were meagre, their internal communication was poor, there was no need to disclose tax schemes as there is nowadays, and frankly inspectors were not particularly well trained in those days to spot such schemes.

    It was only towards the end of the 90s that the Revenue started reversing a trend of the previous 20 years and recruiting in technical experts from professional firms.

    When Murray knew Smith wanted out, the spending slowed but then it ramped up again big time when Dick shuffled into town.

    I think what is needed once this all gets sorted is a truth and reconciliation commission, otherwise the integrity of Scottish football may never recover.

  21. Hugh McEwan says:

    Off Topic

    Adam, you are a hero on Follow Follow.

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

    The poster called ‘Adam’ on the Rangers Tax case Blog- Outstanding.
    I don’t know if he posts on here but he is doing an outstanding job in fighting Rangers corner against a tide of negative stories about our plight.

    He is obviously well versed in financial matters, seems to know what is going on behind the scenes at Ibrox and is managing to silence a few of their more rabid posters through well chosen arguments and financial facts.

    His answer to the nutters who are claiming we should hand back the titles because the EBT’s gave us a big financial advantage.

    ———————————————————-

    You must be proud as punch.

  22. Private Land says:
    08/11/2011 at 8:01 pm
    ——————————————————————–
    I hope I can help re the Judicial Review point – it’s the least I can do after BRTH’s excellent post!

    “Judicial Review” exists primarily to ensure that those entrusted with powers to determine the patrimonial, civil or other material rights of persons exercise these powers in a lawful and reasonable manner.

    In Scotland, unlike in England, there is no necessity for the decision to be one made by a public, or quasi public body.

    The arguments in a case as outlined by BRTH would relate first of all to whoever was eligible to pursue such a review, and secondly the precise characterisation of the particular SPL and/or SFA decision.

    A person directly affected could seek to pursue such an action, which takes place in the Court of Session in Edinburgh. Who is “directly affected”? Most obviously a team which would be relegated by a newco being admitted straight into the SPL or a team denied promotion by that happening would be “affected”. However, whilst BRTH rightly points out complications which might arise from financial considerations being offered to the affected teams, there is nothing to stop a company being offered financial recompense for giving up legal entitlements. Therefore, an affected team in the above example could be “rewarded” with a payment from, presumably, the newco, to compensate them for lost income. So the “affected” teams could be “bought off”.

    Even if this did not happen, the court would be reluctant to interfere in what was seen purely as a contractual issue, this being the second leg I have identified above. If a company comprising 11 members agrees by 10-1 to admit a new twelfth member, then that could be seen as a purely contractual matter. If so, the court would decline to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

    If it was seen as a regulatory decision (and this perhaps falls more into the SFA ambit rather than the SPL) there is more likelihood of a decision being seen as subject to review.

    However, even in that circumstance, would a court interfere? As BRTH mentioned, amongst the grounds for Judicial Review are unreasonableness – making a decision that no reasonable body could come to; or ignoring relevant considerations or taking into account irrelevant considerations.

    Could it be said that a decision to fast-track a newco was so unreasonable that no reasonable regulator would make it? I doubt it. It might not be fair – but unfairness is not a ground for judicial review!

    In addition, if the party going to court was a football team, then they would run foul of UEFA and FIFA, who insist that football stay out of the domestic courts – as we are seeing with the Sion appeal just now.

    Could a fan, or more likely a shareholder, of an “affected “team challenge the decision? Whilst the court is not overly strict in the definition of affected parties, I think they would need to see some legal involvement to entitle a claim to come from a private individual. A shareholder might complain that the effect on his team was to de-value his shares, and thus “affect” him. However, that might be seen more as an issue for the particular team, and the court could determine that the remedy in fact lay against the team’s own directors if it was alleged that their agreement or connivance was to the detriment of the shareholder.

    As the window for dealing with such a case would be very narrow, even if a case would ultimately fail, an application to judicially review a decision of the SFA to fast-track a newco licence might result in delays that could cause problems for the implementation of such a decision, especially if coupled with an application for interdict to stop the decision being implemented pending a review.

    So, to answer the questions – anyone could try to pursue a review. Most likely a shareholder of an affected team would have the locus to pursue the case. A full blown review could cost many thousands of pounds, especially if unsuccessful. In addition, there could be a risk that an applicant who caused the delay of a season, or who prevented a newco going straight to the SPL by the court action which ultimately failed, could themselves be liable in damages to the newco.

    As with many of the potential legal issues, this is a complex area. I have a recollection of the Rugby League Super League a few years ago changing the rules about promotion, and “buying off” the affected team. I suspect a similar outcome here, if a newco gets fast-tracked. There is a lot more to judicial review but I won’t inflict it on RTC’s readers!

  23. tomtom says:

    Hugh McEwan says:
    08/11/2011 at 8:52 pm
    tomtom says:
    08/11/2011 at 8:50 pm

    ————————————

    HMRC would be only to happy to accept the back tax, interest and penalty

    ——————————————————

    Strangely enough so would I. The fact that I know this would liquidate Rangers may have some bearing in my feelings (which I must admit have hardened considerably since this blog began, mainly due to the facts that are emerging)

  24. Mark says:

    no offence Adam but one were in the sex offenders wing and all the “guests” looked up to you, would you be proud? (and no not as an employee)

  25. Jonnybhoy says:

    Adam? An Hero?

  26. Adam says:

    abrahamtoast says:
    08/11/2011 at 7:43 pm
    Duggie,

    We need to keep pulling Adam up, because, although he is usually quite sensible and measured, occasionally he does get things badly wrong. As long as he re-states things which other posters believe to be wrong, those other posters have a right to challenge him.
    ____________________________________________________________________

    I would be interested in knowing what i have got factually badly wrong.

  27. OnceABhoy says:

    Cheers Adam…….still think he’d be better naming……as the above possibly proves. 8-0

  28. Adam says:

    Mark says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:01 pm
    no offence Adam but one were in the sex offenders wing and all the “guests” looked up to you, would you be proud? (and no not as an employee)
    ______________________________________________________

    No offence taken. I havent got the first clue what you are talking about.

  29. Brenda says:

    Adam get to your bed 🙂 lolololol

  30. OnceABhoy says:

    Ignore the 8-0 emoticon gone wrong 8-o

  31. Adam says:

    Hugh – I have managed to avoid these type of sites. Not my cup of tea, hence why i tend to get on my hobby horse when people come on here with their “rabid nonsense”

    I guess that may have put me from hero to zero in some people eyes 🙂

  32. As the comments come thick and fast, it’s easy to lose track of whose point one is responding to!

    But a couple of thoughts, briefly.

    As was said above, the footballing issue is NOT the tax issue. It is that of Rangers potentially not being able to pay the bills. If, for example, the £161 million lottery winners decided to buy Rangers and pay off the full tax debt of, say £50 million, then there would be no administration, no liquidation, no 10 point penalty and as long as paid off at the correct time in the calendar, no loss of the European licence.

    This point, I think, makes it clear why Rangers are not, if they survive, going to be stripped of any titles (this is apart from issues about what right any newco would have to the former titiles). Morally there might be an issue, but the SPL/SFA’s articles of association don’t incorporate “morals”.

    Scottish football will not penalise Rangers for any misdeeds found to have occurred as regards tax in the past. The sin in football’s eyes is getting away without paying one’s dues.

    As far as the comments have been made about Mr Whyte not being a “fit and proper person” to be a director, the only arguable ground, at least at face value, is that of having been disqualified as a company director in the last five years. However that means that the decision to disqualify tookm place in that five years, not that he was serving his ban during it.

    If he is a director of Rangers when it has an Insolvency Event, as the decision about him being a newco director would be at the SPL/SFA’s discretion, I am sure he would argue that he was a victim of the former regime’s tax issues for which he cannot be held responsible. If the regulatory body agrees to that, then he can be a director, and there would be no locus (ref the Judicial Review discussion above) for anyone to challenge that.

  33. Hugh McEwan says:

    Adam says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:12 pm

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

    I’ll damn you for your own words, Adam. No worries there, I would expect no less in return.

    Not for those of your sycophants though.

    That would be cruel and unusual.

  34. longtimelurker says:

    Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
    08/11/2011 at 7:50 pm
    Chaps,

    someone recently posted the profit/loss figures for Rangers PLC for each of the last 15 years or so.

    Can someone point me to those figures please?

    Thankyou

    BRTH

    Stunney otherwise known as the godfather of this blog (the man who was writing about this stuff nearly fifteen years ago and probably the only Celtic supporter doing so at the time) and Celtic legend posted those figures late on Sat or early on Sunday morning.

    When I read them I was shocked.

    From memory,

    total losses £177million

    total profit £23million

    Roughly a £14.5 million loss for each of those 15 years.

  35. Davythelotion says:

    Hugh McEwan said:
    Adam you’re a hero on FF
    ————————————–
    as big a compliment for RTC as it is for Adam, good to see FF readers are also studying this blog.

  36. Migsley says:

    I think a point has been missed here. I work with quite a few rangers fans who would rather see years of debt or huge points deductions/relegation to lower leagues than have their history whitewashed and become a new club.

  37. Hugh McEwan says:

    Migsley says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:21 pm

    I think a point has been missed here. I work with quite a few rangers fans who would rather see years of debt or huge points deductions/relegation to lower leagues than have their history whitewashed and become a new club.

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

    It won’t be down to them though.

    It will be Craig Whyte and his people who will decide.

  38. cautious dave says:

    Private Land @ 7:51pm

    Good post and I agree with your sentiments particularly the kite flying part.

    The point I’d like to make which I’ve yet to see is that despite the failures of the Celtic board over the last few years, it is wrong and unfair to land this issue at their doorstep. They did not cheat and they should not be faced with what could potentially be a lose-lose decision financially.

    In addition to the financial aspect you will undoubtedly have the MSM’s usual inflammatory take on events. They will no doubt blame Celtic on any demise of Scottish football, whether real or perceived. You cannot forget or ignore the criminal antics of certain people when faced with the prospect of losing a championship to Neil Lennon. Imagine the consequences to directors, officials or anyone linked with Celtic (including supporters), if the blame of newco RFC being refused admission, was laid at the door of CFC – and before anyone tells me that there is no place for this type of discussion on THIS blog, I will pre-empt this by saying it was real and it did happen! Could it happen again? Most definately!

    There is no way that any decision to be made re newco’s admission should be placed on any particular club. As someone earlier pointed out it would be like the victim having to sit on the jury of the accused. The SFA should be made to take control of the situation and punish Rangers accordingly.

  39. StevieBC says:

    [Apologies if this has been asked before, but can’t keep up with the Comments!]

    The FTT reconvened on Monday, so does RTC know who has appeared, has any info been leaked ? How is it going…?

    Does this only involve lawyers representing RFC, or are RFC employees/directors [past & present] also questioned at the FTT?

  40. abrahamtoast says:

    Adam @ 9:04

    This is why people continually have a go at you for pretty much the same things over and over again. You are being rather disingenuous here – you know perfectly well what you have got wrong and I made that pretty clear in a couple of posts earlier.

    You are simply attempting to trip others up while appearing the be the reasonable fase of RFC.

    Whilst often you make good points, and put in a spirited defence of your position, at other times you are nothing but a troll.

  41. Hugh McEwan says:

    StevieBC says:
    08/11/2011 at 9:28 pm

    [Apologies if this has been asked before, but can’t keep up with the Comments!]

    The FTT reconvened on Monday, so does RTC know who has appeared, has any info been leaked ? How is it going…?

    Does this only involve lawyers representing RFC, or are RFC employees/directors [past & present] also questioned at the FTT?

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

    I can’t speak for RFC obviously however with regard the tribunal. Witnesses can be called to give evidence under oath. They can be asked to speak to documents, what they mean etc.

    Think of it like an informal Court case, where the witnesses get to sit down and there isn’t a jury. In addition the panel are more likely to ask their own questions where a Judge in court wouldn’t, lawyers will correct me here, but in Court the judge is there to run things and to rule on matters of law and procedure, not fact. In a tribunal it will be the panel who will make the decision, they are more likely to clarify matters for themselves.

    The main thing is, people are required to give evidence under oath. The next is that the decision is given on a balance of probabilities, not reasonable doubt.

    The rules on hearsay are much more relaxed as well. I think I’m taking this too far now.

  42. easyJambo says:

    Paul McConville says: at 9:15 pm

    As far as the comments have been made about Mr Whyte not being a “fit and proper person” to be a director, the only arguable ground, at least at face value, is that of having been disqualified as a company director in the last five years. However that means that the decision to disqualify took place in that five years, not that he was serving his ban during it.

    Paul – if that is the legal interpretation of the SFA’s articles “he has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Company Directors’ Disqualification Act 1986 within the previous five years;”, then the law is an ass, and I can see where Joe Public has issues with lawyers.

    Taking that interpretation at face value, then someone who was guilty of serious offences in 2005 and was banned from being a director for 15 years, would pass the SFA’s fit and proper persons test today (albeit he would legally not be permitted to be a director in any event).

    It is clear to me that on 6th May 2006 (5 years prior to the takeover), Craig Whyte was disqualified from being a director, therefore should not have passed the fit and proper person test. I can only assume that he concealed that fact when he sought clearance from the SFA, or that the SFA chose to ignore their own rules. Either possibility is perfectly plausible.

  43. Fritz Agrandoldteam says:

    Cautious Dave,

    The awning chasm, between what the SFA should do, and what the SFA actually do, is why Scottish football is where it is today.

    If a Celtic team, led by Neil Lennon eventually wins the league, should we just hand over the trophy to ibrokes to avoid trouble? It wasn’t just Celtic that suffered for the ragers cheating and SFA compliance/corruption. The jury, (all the other teams) would be 100% victims.

  44. Gwared says:

    Adam said,
    I would be interested in knowing what i have got factually badly wrong.

    What part of you actually died? factually wrong
    “I won’t be posting on here again” factually wrong

    That being said I apologise for my wee tantrum today, it was more about my rage over Celtic being complicit in keeping Rangers afloat, as this blog has grown my angst against them has also and as you are one of their few defender’s you become a target. Furthermore you are a prolific poster who neither gives quarter or requests it.

  45. longtimelurker says:

    Shameless repost for BHRT

    stunney says:
    06/11/2011 at 7:54 am
    Some readers may be interested in the following post, dated December 2009.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    I’ve posted these figures before, but after today’s statement by Johnston it seems apposite to do so again…

    Don’t know if it’s already been mentioned, but I noticed the line in today’s accounts [of RFC] that says:

    2009 2008

    Operating (loss)/profit (17,325) 641

    That means that on their ordinary operations they made a loss of 17.325m on turnover of 39.7m quid, as compared to a profit of 641k on turnover of 64.5m last year.

    Can I just say something?

    WOOOOOOF!

    Nae effing wonder Lloyd’s is running the shambolic disaster that is the Duke of Murrkymoonbeams’ legacy to the legions of cretinous dignified reptiles who’ll have to clean up the wreckage.

    Wanna know how brilliant Lord Dodgy of Skintmint has been at taking everybody’s dosh and then ratshafting them at the Zoodome for the last 15 years? Well, I’ve just gone through the figures,and here they are:

    LORD DODGY: THE WONDER YEARS 1995-2009

    2009
    Turnover 39.7m
    Loss for the year – 12.7m

    2008
    Turnover 64.5m
    Profit for the year 7.2m

    2007
    Turnover 41.8m
    Loss for the year -6.253m

    2006
    Turnover 43.483m
    Profit for the year 0.092m

    2005
    Turnover 34.480m
    Profit for the year 12.674m*

    * This figure was arrived at by counting a 15m gain due to ‘negative goodwill release’ from buying back NTL’s previous 15m investment in Rangers media rights for £1. Actual operations for the year produced a loss of 7.813m.

    2004
    Turnover 57.079m
    Loss for the year -5.939m

    2003
    Turnover 49.035m (as restated in 2004 accounts)
    Loss for the year -29.605m

    2002
    Turnover 44.812m
    Loss for the year -35.328m

    2001
    Turnover 47.033m
    Loss for the year -16.897m

    2000
    Turnover 51.695m
    Loss for the year -24.999m

    1999
    Turnover 35.526m
    Loss for the year -24.393m

    1998
    Turnover 32,526m
    Loss for the year – 0.800m

    1997
    Turnover 31,664m
    Loss for the year -20.513m

    1996
    Turnover 30.708m
    Profit for the year 2.256m

    1995
    Turnover 19.833m
    Profit for the year 0.455m

    TOTAL LOSSES 1995-2009 = 177.427m
    TOTAL PROFITS 1995-2009 = 22.677m

    NET LOSS 1995-2009 = 154.750m

    BoS and the Laptop Loyal that faciltated this carrot = Scandalous Masonic disgrace of the highest order.

    GIRFUT

    ———————————————————————————————

    So there we have it!

    And now Lord Dodgy has left RFC with a potentially liquidation-inducing tax liability.

    Still, not to worry, Viscount Whyte will make all negativity disappear faster than you can say arrestment on the dependence.

    Just like that.

  46. Adam says:

    I actually dont know what i got factually wrong Abraham. I may have missed your posts earlier as i was in my phone.

    Can you re-post please.

  47. Private Land says:

    Paul McConville says:

    08/11/2011 at 8:58 pm

    Private Land says:
    08/11/2011 at 8:01 pm
    ——————————————————————–

    Paul,

    Thanks for that very full and clear explanation. Every day is a school day!

    A Patrician leanrning at the feet of an Ambrosian. Big Jim Breen will be birlin’

  48. Private Land says:

    … learning as well 🙂

  49. Adam says:

    PL – thanks for the comments on the previous page.

  50. Slimshady says:

    I am not sure where people get the idea that RFC being relegated to division 3 would be financially bad for Celtic.

    Even with RFC in the SPL, this season is already quite bad financially for Celtic, mainly for football reasons, with some of the lowest crowds since pre-O’Neill days.

    Contrary to popular belief, the relegation of RFC should in my view be financially beneficial to Celtic; I envisage fortnightly parties at Celtic Park, attended by close on 60,000 people, lasting from now until the second weekend in May.

    On top of that, there would be some Europa League money (and maybe even a run to the latter stages), and if the Celts continue to progress and see off a fast-improving Motherwell in a close title race, the prospect of CL football and money next season. (And unlike RFC, we would use the money to bring on our own talent, not meekly hand it over to the bank to pay down debt and so denude Scottish football)

    What’s to be afraid of?

    On the other hand, I foresee a major financial disaster if Celtic support a mere slap on the wrist; there would be huge disillusionment amongst the support, possibly a boycott of matches, a massive drop in attendances for the rest of this season and poor sales of merchandise.

    Just ask yourself one question, if this was 10 years ago and the roles were reversed, what would Murray do?

    Exactly

%d bloggers like this: