Tax Deal “Rumour”: What was the point?


Scotland’s sports journalists have surpassed themselves recently.  Even by their own fathomless standards for getting it wrong, the release of the summary minutes of the Rangers Supporters Assembly (RSA) meeting with Craig Whyte could not have done more illustrate the scale of the credibility problem facing the mainstream sports media in this country.

Mark Guidi’s regular slot on Radio Clyde’s Superscoreboard has given him a platform to embarrass himself repeatedly.  On 27 December, Mr. Guidi told us that there was “a groundswell that the tax case will be sorted out before the case resumes”.  Just this week, he used this pulpit to tell us all that HMRC will be happy to accept a greatly reduced figure (£5-6 million) from Rangers.  According to Guidi, HMRC has only won 5% of similar cases. (This is not only wrong, it does not even make any sense.  Rangers’ case is quite unique in several ways). His colleagues have made many similar misstatements.

When a caller (Terry) informed him that these stories were nonsense (citing this blog as his source), Guidi denied any knowledge of our existence let alone having ever read our content.  However, the caller was correct.  Guidi was talking nonsense.  Of course, there is no need to take my word for it. Who better than Craig Whyte and the RSA to clear up the confusion: “No scope for negotiating a settlement with HMRC due to the criticism they have had from MPs and the Media about some high-profile ‘deals’“. If someone can see fit to forward a link to our site to Guidi, it might be a good place for him to start doing research before he makes things worse.

Guidi and several other Scottish sport journalists have been pumping up the hopes of Rangers fans with these tales of a deal being imminent for several weeks. The question is: why?  We know already that Rangers’ PR firm, Media House (ran by Jack Irvine), have been spreading the optimisic ‘deal about to be done’ story around every newsroom in the country.  That does not answer the question as to why a journalist would believe any PR-rep’s stories about Rangers.  If they told me that Ibrox was in the G51 postcode, I would have to walk there and look- such has been the trail of lies and disinformation since Whyte’s name was first linked with the club. Were they promised upcoming transfer exclusives? Perhaps.  More to the point, why did Media House hype this story only to be contradicted by Whyte himself within a matter of weeks?  I hope that Jack is working cheaply because this looks like it was a complete waste of time and money.  Sources within Ibrox have described the daily operations since the takeover as ‘shambolic’.  It certainly seems that way from the outside.

Mr. Whyte also confirmed HMRC’s powers to demand payment if/when the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) finds against them.  We have made this point several times (including the previous blog entry): should the assessments of tax liability in Rangers’ possession be confirmed, the bill becomes due and payable immediately.  Even if Rangers appeal the findings, HMRC has the right to demand payment without further delay.  (If Rangers won their appeal, they would be entitled to full repayment plus interest, but that is academic as they would have already become insolvent).

If an appeal is seen to be reasonable i.e. where it is obvious that there is some ambiguity in the law or that the employer drifted over the line into illegality rather than raced across it, the taxman will not usually press for payment when doing so would cause insolvency. However, where the appeal is vexatious (i.e. no real chance of winning it- just being done as a heel-dragging exercise), then HMRC would be justified in taking a tougher line.

It may not help their case that Rangers have launched an appeal for the £2.8 million that was taken (most of it forcibly- after a court order) for the Discounted Options Scheme (“The Wee Case”).  After months of correspondence over The Wee Case where the admission of liability was clear, if Rangers’ appeal is viewed as being without a reasonable legal basis, HMRC might take a more dim view of an appeal relating to The Big Case.

Craig Whyte has made clear, in his own words and in the takeover contract documents, that he believes that his position in the event of insolvency is protected through the £18 million debt owed to him by Rangers and the floating charge over the club’s assets.  It is very obvious that Rangers FC have no intention of paying anything close to the full amount of tax, interest, and penalties that have been assessed.  The implicit threat is “we will go under and HMRC will get nothing” .

If this case was only about immediate revenue collection then HMRC should offer Rangers a deal.  However, it would lay down a marker for every business owner, inside and outside of football, that one can engage in a shockingly blatant tax scam and have little to fear.  If Rangers can negotiate a pennies on the pound deal now, it signals to every under-pressure company director that corners can be cut.  Even if rumbled, the worst he or she would have to deal with would be repaying 10-20%- and even that would be a decade later.  Sounds like a pretty tempting deal!  HMRC’s credibility, and a just outcome for this case, require that life is not made easy for those whose plans rely upon ducking their social and financial responsibilities.

This blog has been accused of wishing malice on Rangers FC.  This is not true.  I am not one who seeks the extinction of Rangers in the style of Third Lanark.  What I seek is a fair outcome- nothing more and nothing less. ‘Fair’ in this case would be any resolution that sees Rangers carry a millstone of sufficient weight, and for an appropriate duration, that counter-balances the benefits accrued from their use of the EBT scam.  Since its implementation in 2000, Rangers have won the Scottish Premier League five times.  The present day value of the £24 million in tax that was saved along the way is about £36 million. Without the benefit of this £36 million, Rangers’ would have have gone bankrupt years ago or would have been forced into draconian budget cuts. They got to stay at the roulette table eleven years after their own money had ran out.  Only the most blind or willfully ignorant could fail to see the issue of financial doping in tainting the Scottish championship during this time.  If Rangers succeed in ducking any meaningful financial restitution by exploiting kinks in bankruptcy law, then it will fall to the Scottish footballing authorities (SFA/SPL) to ensure that justice is done.  A 10-point penalty will be automatic if an insolvency process overlaps with any active football season, but a “newco” club must not be given a free entry into the Scottish Premier League to take the place of Rangers.  Scottish football administrators must find the balance between penalising Rangers so heavily that a new club carrying Rangers’ legacy never gets off the ground versus incurring the problems of ‘moral hazard’ by failing to extract a punishment.  If football becomes like the banking industry, where wrong-doing and excessive risk taking carries no penalty, we will just continue to get more of it.

The task of finding the right balance will not be easy, but I would suggest that a formula based on Rangers (2012) FC starting each new season for a number of years with a points deficit would be along the right lines.

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.

3,553 Responses to Tax Deal “Rumour”: What was the point?

  1. droid says:

    @StewartRegan Mr Regan how does your statement fit with this article on rfc’s liabilities on 31-03-2011? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/12932160.stm

    @droid_1 statement says they did not know where liabilities sat. New owner was in same position and bills were challenged.

    @StewartRegan thx , liability was rfc’s alone all tax assessments evidence this. Mr Whyte agreed 2 meet cost of weebill in takeover contract

    Has Mr Regan’s account been hacked ❓

  2. Ian Ferguson says:

    rangerstaxcase says:

    17/01/2012 at 6:50 pm

    Ian Ferguson

    While 99.x% of an annual report is historical and will not be affected by future events, the directors’ and auditor’s statements on the business as a going concern require then to prepare forward looking reports. These are not published, but are used to sign off on the accounts as a package.

    Not sure how else to say it.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    RTC I know this.

    I have asked what can happen between DEC ’11 & JAN ’12 To change the accounts from being unsigned to acceptable?

    I have discounted the FTT as it will not be promulgated, I have also discounted Whyte wanting to fold the business as he could have done so already.

    If he doesn’t sign off the accounts & call an AGM then a deaf man would hear the alarm bells ring.

    He is in the process of asking ST holders to pay up early, a big leap of faith for the faithless unless something gives them hope.

    A further renaging of audit sign off & a further postponement of the AGM should make even FF type guys keep their money in their pockets, so what is his angle?

  3. Colm Buddy Clancy says:

    lifted directly from clyde 1 ssb Mon 16th listening on my iphone typed on laptop appr 10 mins in

    Mark from Bristol was the caller

    daryll “the players Mark emm,a lot of the players involved had 2 contracts emm,that’s what I’ve said and that’s true and the letter that I’m referring to is that the players involved in EBT’s have got written correspondance saying that they wouldn’t be held liable for any future payments.so that’s absolutely correct or else the taxman would be pursuring the individual players”

    2 contracts……loud and clear

    Only started 2 listen to SSB as a podcast,Keevins reminds me of a gardening “expert” that used to be on Irish radio a few yrs ago….gave no answers and was vague as feck!!!!

    “You and your pals on the internet”…..Yes Hugh……your numbers up………

  4. Paulie Walnuts says:

    RE Bain and the BBC report,

    I stress I have no up to date inside info. What I do know is:

    1.Rangers originally had a line of defence which said that the stand Bain took (for he was the leader and driving force of the independent committee) against Whyte amounted to a breach of the implied terms of his contract of employment thus entitling RFC to dismiss summarily without notice. I know its pish, but that’s what we’re dealing with.
    2. In response Bain said, correctly, that there were very clear duties to the 26000 minority shareholders, and what the independent committee did they did on the basis of impeccable professional advice and from entirely proper motives. In other words they thought there was every chance Whyte would send the company down and leave the minority shareholders whistling and they were duty bound to express that concern.
    3. That being so, Bain sought to demonstrate that not only was the concern raised in good faith, but also that it was objectively justified. Since the concern was that Whyte has no money of his own and no means of funding the club save what it generates itself it was legitimate to seek documentary evidence of the funding position and also the season ticket arrangements (bearing in mind that the old board had set up a scheme to hold the ST money in trust) . So Nick Ellis moved the judge to grant an order for production of the relevant documents.
    4. It was clear that the judge would grant that order. That would open up the prospect of CW being examined under oath by Nick Ellis before a commissioner and being asked about the whereabouts of the paper trail.
    5. In order to avoid that situation Rangers then abandoned the line of defence which had prompted it.

    All of that I am pretty certain of. What follows is to some degree speculation, but it is I hope informed speculation. The hearing today was a routine procedural hearing primarily concerned with making detailed arrangements for the proof which is scheduled to take place in the summer. So things like timetables for lodging of documents, witness statements/affidavits etc. were being discussed and fixed. It is normal at such hearings for the judge to ask whether either side seeks any order for recovery of doucments. My guess is that Bain’s team, knowing as they do that Rangers are very anxious not to have thuis stuff get out, saw an opportunity to apply some pressure, and stitched together some argument whereby they might still be entitled to recovery of the relevant documents. That is a shot to nothiing in tactical terms. They are there in court anyway. It adds little to the hearing. If they get the order they have considerable additional leverage and the prospect of forcing a settlement as the price of not making the information public. If they don’t get it they are no worse off. In short Ellis chanced his arm, but the judge wasn’t prepared to grant the order, and seeing which way the wind was blowing Ellis dropped it rather than insist on it and see it refused.

  5. SR says:

    “The capital city is Vienna, they have a couple of football teams ( boo rapid ). The most evil man in history was born there”

    – Hans Krankl ??????

  6. OnandOnandOnand says:

    TheBlackKnight says:

    17/01/2012 at 11:36 pm

    TBK, I was referring to the Bain papers on here, when an early copy of the Court writ was posted

  7. John You're Immortal says:

    TheBlackKnight says:
    17/01/2012 at 11:02 pm
    Thanks Duggie, no I recall reading it but didn’t pick up on the significance.

    I can see where the two sides of the coin sit in relation to the story. A) MB drops request B) Rangers forced to drop counter claim.

    The interesting part is amidst all this posturing and rumoured ‘animosity’, why not just go for it anyway? Nothing to lose by asking for the info, which it is keenly put by Paulie that the Court would grant such a request. If insolvency follows without this info being made public will MB get his money? Is this his insurance policy
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    On reading this and Paulie’s earlier post, then I’d have to agree that it appears to be a clever gambit by MB (Captain Tanfastic lol). I’d say the insurance policy would be his memoirs TBK, a nice fall-back position to have. The request for this information and today’s subsequent climbdown is very clever (unless we’re overthinking this) and a nice out of court settlement will see MB sign an appropriate confidentiality clause.

  8. OnandOnandOnand says:

    TheBlackKnight says:

    17/01/2012 at 11:36 pm

    I am talking 99% crap. The Bain papers made reference to mortgaging of 4 years worth of season tickets, see RTC’s posting of 12th September 2011

  9. Having no knowledge of law I can only speculate. Murray sat in room with Whyte and said, “tig your het!” (Ill square you up in Monaco in a few years.)

  10. droid says:

    Chris Barrie says:
    17/01/2012 at 11:18 pm

    intepid was a deliberation, as a license payer I expect fair and balanced reporting on matters of national interest not a less then warm approach to some and not others

    I will be rasing a complaint and hope other license payers do too

  11. oisin71 says:

    Has anyone mentioned yet that Fergus McCann may be the MBB backer?

    RTC, does this qualify for most illustrious and outrageous rumour?? 😀

    Thought I’d leave you all with that one. Night!

  12. timtim says:

    cheers Paulie
    all makes sense now
    the ff brigade are lappin it up as a great victory of course

  13. MVFC says:

    Agree with previous post that a lot of ‘exciting’ news is coming out of Ibrox media machine to mask or reduce column inches dedicated to the RTC, Bain case, divorce, ( sure I’ve missed one other). However, I get the impression that Whyte is now playing hardball and beginning to take preemptive strikes rather than counter strikes , i.e. is there any association in the change to auditing/financialreporting period for RFC and Bain droppinghis disclosure request. Also any association in the SFA move to control Mad Vlad as potentially the other likely chair, outside of Celtic, to oppose a Rangers mark II being accepted back in the top tier ( for the good of the game of course) the

  14. Private Land says:

    oisin71 says:

    18/01/2012 at 12:12 am

    Has anyone mentioned yet that Fergus McCann may be the MBB backer?

    RTC, does this qualify for most illustrious and outrageous rumour??

    Thought I’d leave you all with that one. Night!
    _______________________________________________________________

    Now that you mention it – wasn’t David Low on here the other day? 😉

  15. droid says:

    May the scales of civil justice be truely balanced on this day of days

    “Our words must be judged by our deeds; and in striving for a lofty ideal we must use practical methods; and if we cannot attain all at one leap, we must advance towards it step by step, reasonably content so long as we do actually make some progress in the right direction.”

    Roosevelt 1910

  16. sannabhoy says:

    RTC ,

    a wee invite to you in fb . You would be our guest . anyone else – tough , you pay !

    The Kano Foundation
    The Kano Foundation End of season fundraising dance will be held in the Kerrydale Suite at Celtic Park on sat 28th April. Tickets will be priced at £25 per head this will include a 3 course meal. Entertainment will be from Britiains no1 Michael Buble tribute act and a disco to finish off the night. We will be holding our usual raffle (prize donations welcome) and for the first time we have a fantastic auction prize. We hope to have a few special guests as well. look out for details of how you can purchase tickets on line. We hope you will join us for what will be a great evening.

    If you’re interested , please email eos@thekanofoundation.com

    Sanna

  17. duggie73 says:

    Ian Ferguson
    Were there to be a massive influx of cash from player sales, the auditors might well feel there was no longer a going concern issue and sign off.
    No, it’s not likely to happen, yes CW is just stalling, no, there’s no huge gain to his credibility by doing so, he’s not wildly successful in everything he does.
    Add it to the minor misdemeanour list, and let’s move on. Please?

  18. Tommy says:

    A trialist (madrid51) on Follow Follow has been giving comfort and joy to the bears with his inside knowledge of the FTT(T) hearing. Here is one of his posts:

    “I may have been unclear earlier, Thornhill has proferred no defence per se, he doesn’t have to his contention is that NIL tax is due as the scheme was operated perfectly legally, that has been his stance from day one. HMRC by return are in the position of having to disprove Thornhill’s “defence”, which they failed and failed miserably to do so.

    Thornhill is in our corner by dint of the fact that our payment scheme and the instruments used are part and parcel of the wider MIH scheme, The Murray Group Management Limited Remuneration Trust. You don’t hear anyone saying that MIH and by direct association LBG are in for a serious hit.

    A bit off topic but nevertheless related, the Rangers tax case hate site constantly claims knowledge and documentation of criminal acts by our club in this matter. As far as I am aware it is a criminal offence not to report a crime of which you have knowledge of or evidence of. I would like to see the club report the site in question and its proprietor to the relevant authorities so that any actions necessary can be taken against both site and owner. The site in question is nothing more than a Rangers hate filled site populated by bigots of the worst order, the sort that the bunnet to give hime his due pointed out where masquerading as football supporters.”

  19. duggie73 says:

    Tommy
    That has a strange and twisted beauty to it.
    So readers of FF are then guilty of a criminal offence for not reporting posters on here for not reporting a criminal offence.
    And now we’re guilty of a criminal offence for not reporting the readers of FF.

    “He said Jehovah, he said Jehovah….OOOOFFT….What was that for?”

  20. hitch22 says:

    “He said Jehovah, he said Jehovah….OOOOFFT….What was that for?”

    very good,,, 😉

  21. corsica says:

    Can’t sleep and now I know why…when will the extradition papers arrive?

  22. Chris D says:

    Has anyone ever stated what the Ragers have done IS a crime?
    There’s been discussion on Tax Avoidance v Tax Evasion but I don’t recall anybody claiming outright, they broke the law.

  23. corsica says:

    Chris D says:

    18/01/2012 at 1:32 am

    Has anyone ever stated what the Ragers have done IS a crime?
    There’s been discussion on Tax Avoidance v Tax Evasion but I don’t recall anybody claiming outright, they broke the law.
    *********************
    Do some research and read the blog and posts! Particularly recommend TBK on Tuesday evening as well as his/her rather good list of misdemeanours which you will find on the About section (top right of page).

    That’s it, I’m going back to bed.

  24. Noname says:

    Colm Buddy Clancy on 17/01/2012 at 11:46 pm said:
    lifted directly from clyde 1 ssb Mon 16th listening on my iphone typed on laptop appr 10 mins in

    Mark from Bristol was the caller

    daryll “the players Mark emm,a lot of the players involved had 2 contracts emm,that’s what I’ve said and that’s true and the letter that I’m referring to is that the players involved in EBT’s have got written correspondance saying that they wouldn’t be held liable for any future payments.so that’s absolutely correct or else the taxman would be pursuring the individual players”

    2 contracts……loud and clear

    ————————————-

    Thanks for this. Yes I agree, at the start he said “2 contracts”. Then he went off and described something else. It was a but like saying “yes there was a tiger… It is big and grey and has an enormous trunk”.

    I may be mistaken but I am not entirely convinced DK would know what a second contract would look like given his history of comments so far.

    We will all find out soon enough.

    My main concern is the MSM just accepting the fact that Newco will waltz back into the SPL. That is for another day. Good night one and all.

  25. Chris D says:

    Aye cos it’s so easy to keep on top of a blog piece that has 3000 posts, specially with a full-time job and other interests.
    Not all of us who read it, for various reasons I’m sure, have time to look at every little detail.
    So maybe be a bit more respectful to the lurkers and casual posters with something constructive, rather than “Do some research and read the blog and posts!”

  26. StevieBC says:

    Tommy says: 18/01/2012 at 1:04 am
    A trialist (madrid51) on Follow Follow…

    “…the Rangers tax case site…is nothing more than a Rangers hate filled site populated by bigots of the worst order…”
    ======================================================
    On the hand, I think it is genuinely quite sad, and disturbing, that someone could write the above about this blog.
    Biased, gloating, intrusive, critical, mocking etc. – yes, absolutely guilty as charged.
    But ‘hate’ and ‘bigots’?
    I would be disappointed if that was the general view of RFC fans about the RTC blog, but maybe I had a sheltered upbringing?!

    On the other hand, such an emotional response must validate our own impression that RTC is producing an extremely valuable blog which is touching a few raw nerves across the Scottish football community.

    Keep up the good work RTC, you’ll get your reward…in heaven! 😉

  27. Auldheid says:

    droid says:

    17/01/2012 at 10:54 pm

    The SFA defense is not that Rangers did not owe HMRC for the small bill at 1st April but that the small bill fell outside the defintion of an overdue payable at the time the license was granted (mid April to Mid May 2011).

    To not be an overdue payable Annex VIII of UEFA FFP 2010 says the wee bill had to be

    a) paid in full (it wasn’t)

    b) had to be covered by an agreement IN WRITING ACCEPTED by HMRC to extend the deadline. (It appears not because SO’s were called in to enforce payment in August.

    c) verbatim – “it (Rangers) has brought a legal claim which has been deemed admissible by the
    competent authority under national law or has opened proceedings with the
    national or international football authorities or relevant arbitration tribunal
    contesting liability in relation to the overdue payables; however, if the
    decision-making bodies (licensor and/or Club Financial Control Panel)
    consider that such claim has been brought or such proceedings have been
    opened for the sole purpose of avoiding the applicable deadlines set out in
    these regulations (i.e. in order to buy time), the relevant amount will still be
    considered as an overdue payable; ”

    (not sure who the competent authority is or who the national or international authorities would be – SFA and UEFA presumably – but the SFA could have decided this was an effort to buy time at the time of looking at the issue – probably mid April to mid May, BUT why were SOs involved in August if a legal claim deemed admissable had in fact been made by Rangers sometime after 1st April and before 10th August?

    d) “it (Rangers) has contested a claim which has been brought or proceedings which have
    been opened against it by a creditor in respect of overdue payables and is
    able to demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant decision making
    bodies (licensor and/or Club Financial Control Panel) that the claim
    which has been brought or the proceedings which have been opened are
    manifestly unfounded.

    (How did Rangers demonstrate to the SFA from Mid April to Mid May that HMRC’s claim was manifestly unfounded and how did they do so after 30 June under Article 66? (see below). And as ever if a claim was being contested or an appeal had been made why did HMRC call in SOs in August – did the paperwork exist but was simply overlooked by HMRC?

    Rangers had to prove to the SFA the criteria above applied. When did they do that, for to pass the license test any appeal/claim had to be between mid April and mid May? Yet again, if HMRC had a received a claim, or an appeal why did the SOs call in August?

    The SFA line falls down mainly because of the SOs visit in August because for their “not an overdue payable” line to stand, the SFA must have been provided with evidence the payment was being contested /appealed and HMRC must have overlooked any appeal papers the SFA had in order.to have sent out SOs. The latter is is possible and a wee statement from HMRC with Rangers approval would clear the air and reputations.

    However there is more.

    Article 66 – No overdue payables towards employees and/or social/tax
    authorities – Enhanced requires that

    “The licensee must prove that as at 30 June of the year in which the UEFA club
    competitions commence it has no overdue payables (as specified in Annex VIII)
    towards its employees and/or social/tax authorities (as defined in paragraphs 2
    and 3 of Article 50) that arose prior to 30 June.”

    This is after the SFA would have approved the license and puts the onus on Rangers to prove all was well, but as we all know the bill remained unpaid at 30 June because its non payment required the SOs to call on 10 August. Therefore did Rangers follow Article 66 that says

    ” By the deadline and in the form communicated by the UEFA administration, the
    licensee must prepare and submit a declaration confirming the absence or
    existence of overdue payables towards employees and social/tax authorities.”

    and if they did, what did it say?

    ” The declaration must be approved by management and this must be evidenced
    by way of a brief statement and signature on behalf of the executive body of the
    licensee.”.

    The overall difficulty here is not did the liability pre date 1st April, but how did it escape being classified as an overdue payable under the rules?

    Under Article 50 there had to be something in writing in the form of an appeal as proof to justify the liability not being classified as an overdue payable and that had to be in the SFA;s hands before 31st May with another statement under Article 66 after the 30 June, and the only way these could exist but for HMRC not to send out the SOs would be that HMRC were unaware of any claim/appeal against the bill before 10 Aug..

    However given that news of an appeal only broke late November not long before the arrested sums were due to be released, it seems unlikely the claim/appeal documentation existed before the 10th August and HMRC had nothing to overlook and the liability should have been classified as an overdue payable and a license should have been refused for failing Article 50 and not complying with Article 66.

  28. StevieBC says:

    Auldheid says: 18/01/2012 at 2:30 am
    droid says:
    17/01/2012 at 10:54 pm

    The SFA defense is not that Rangers did not owe HMRC for the small bill at 1st April but that the small bill fell outside the defintion of an overdue payable at the time the license was granted (mid April to Mid May 2011)…
    ================================
    A comprehensive Comment !

    Certainly clarification is required if Regan is serious about transparency at the SFA.

    However, I have not been impressed with his glib Twitter comments on this issue so far – where he simply dismissed the matter out of hand.

    If he is not careful he will paint himself into a corner.

    IMO, the Rangers application for their Euro licence – for the umpteenth consecutive season – was simply dropped on the desk of an SFA blazer, who then opened his ink pad, rolled his rubber stamp over it and then thumped it down on the application form. Job done!

    If Regan wants to change the perception of the SFA he has to be open and honest when he is asked tough questions by the most important people – the customers.

  29. duggie73 says:

    Still can’t shake the impression that the SFA is pretty much a bowling club committee and just didn’t look at any of the issues under tweetcussion.
    Regan deserves a bit of slack for not hiding in a bunker, no?

  30. A bad day for the laptop loyal says:

    It seems that the SFA have finally had a response from Rangers regarding clarification about Whyte’s disqualification. Whether that response is satisfactory or not remains to be seen, but it is an incredibly long time to wait, considering the documentary in question was broadcast months ago.

    From the Scotsman online…

    “SFA in talks over Rangers owner Craig Whyte

    Published on Wednesday 18 January 2012 03:52
    DISCUSSIONS are still on-going between Rangers and the Scottish Football Association after the governing body expressed concern about revelations regarding the Ibrox club’s owner, Craig Whyte.
    A BBC Scotland documentary said Whyte had been disqualified from being a company director between 2000 and 2007. The Ibrox club confirmed this in a statement to the Plus stock exchange in November, after which the SFA asked for clarification from the club.
    “We have had a response from the club,” said Stewart Regan, the SFA chief executive, yesterday. “Those exchanges and that discussion or consultation is still on-going. So I am not able to comment on where we are with that.”

  31. A bad day for the laptop loyal says:

    The Scotsman article says that following the statement to the Plus Market, the SFA requested clarification from Rangers. That is true, but according to Regan on sportround – the initial request followed the actual documentary and a follow up request was made after the announcement to stock exchange.

  32. Torquemada says:

    Auldheid says:

    18/01/2012 at 2:30 am
    __________________

    I was just about to write exactly that! lol!

    Well done, Auldheid. If this matter ever comes before an independent tribunal, Mr Regan may find that his glib, nothing-to-see-here responses to legitimate questions don’t butter any parsnips.

    The fact that Regan seems to be more open and approachable than his predecessors is of value only if his responses are honest and not meant to divert and deflect. He should not be putting himself in the firing line for things that may have been in train before he was even comfortable in his seat.

  33. jonny says:

    Auldheid
    The SFA line does not stack up for me ,IMO you may have spooked them regards the small tax bill ,hence the very belated and seemingly pointless appeal against it only a matter of weeks ago .
    Keep up the good fight

  34. Mark Dickson says:

    From the SPL Handbook 2011-2012

    Relationship between Clubs and the League
    A3.1 In all matters and transactions relating to the League and Company each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the Company with the utmost good faith.
    =======================================================================

    Tax shenanigans, accounts shenanigans, uefa licensing shenanigans, failure to disclose C.Whyte’s disqualifications, openly stating a desire to leave the SPL, Goodwillie transfer shenanigans ……….. apart from all that anybody got any other examples of how this particular can of worms might be applied in the direction of Ibrox?

    No doubt the mainstream media will be focusing on Rangers utmost good faith – yeah?

  35. The Mighty Quinn says:

    grand finale?

  36. jonny says:

    Tommy says:
    18/01/2012 at 1:04 am
    The site in question is nothing more than a Rangers hate filled site populated by bigots of the worst order, the sort that the bunnet to give hime his due pointed out where masquerading as football supporters.”

    =======================================================
    Sorry can you just confirm that this guy posted these words about this blog on the FOLLOW FOLLOW website .
    forgive me but if so ,he does not strike me as an intellectual ,I would guess this guy has the IQ of an onion .

  37. WH says:

    MIH v HMRC

    11/10 To close today.

    8/11 To be continued at a later date.

  38. rab says:

    Happy birthday craigy.

    Many happy ( tax ) returns.

  39. Hugh McEwan says:

    Paulie Walnuts says:
    17/01/2012 at 11:48 pm

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

    Thanks, that all makes sense.

  40. JD says:

    Jonny Says
    I feel insulted by that comment,I’m an onion

  41. Barney says:

    On Vlad, just a thought. It could well be possible that delayed the wages payment by 1 day deliberately in order to set a collision course with the SPL.

  42. Lord Wobbly says:

    I see that our old friend KJ has Misha Sher wanting to exploit the world-wide Celtic fan base. Interesting that they think the OF is a brand and that it theirs to market.

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/01/18/new-rangers-director-misha-sher-plans-to-take-old-firm-derby-on-a-money-spinning-world-tour-86908-23705130/

  43. Lord Wobbly says:

    rab says:
    18/01/2012 at 8:15 am
    Happy birthday craigy.
    Many happy ( tax ) returns.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Ah but that is but one of many birthdays amongst multiple Craigs. That font of all knowledge, Wiki, has it as 23 May 1971.

  44. Justinian says:

    Mark Dickson says:
    18/01/2012 at 7:10 am

    Tax shenanigans, accounts shenanigans, uefa licensing shenanigans, failure to disclose C.Whyte’s disqualifications, openly stating a desire to leave the SPL, Goodwillie transfer shenanigans ……….. apart from all that anybody got any other examples of how this particular can of worms might be applied in the direction of Ibrox?
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Take care, Mark, that efforts such as this do not act as bait, hook Charley Oscar and net him back on land 🙂

    In almost his then final scribble he applied a description of “delusional paranoid” to this correspondent. 🙂

    That was almost always his response (and sadly that of many other) when boxed into a corner and poked with the gentle stick.

  45. Whullie says:

    There seems to be much wailing about the potential loss of TV money. The MSM seem to be using this as a major part of their argument that RFC should be saved if the FTT goes against them. As I understand it, the deal is £80m over a four year period structured around a guarantee that there are 4 Glasgow derbies per season. That is £20m per season. How is this money divvied up? If it is simply split between 12 SPL teams then that works out at less than £1.7m per team. That would be the maximum any club stands to lose??? I can’t imagine smaller clubs could afford to do without this money but am pretty sure Celtic can. What I am asking is;

    1. How exactly is this money broken down?

    2. Is there any likelihood of a deal from Sky without the inclusion of RFC?

    3. What is the likely cash windfall to clubs from any revised deal?

    4. Would smaller clubs benefit financially in any other way,e.g. attendances rising because they have a better chance in cups, for European places etc

    My gist is simple. Celtic could probably afford to lose this money. Just how badly would it affect other clubs. There seems to be huge importance applied to TV money. Just how important is it?

  46. col says:

    RTC at 9.07am,
    as stated last week I can guarantee you it won’t.

  47. Whullie says:

    Whullie says:
    18/01/2012 at 11:47 am

    Apologies. I am playing catch up as regards the comments. I posted this with 4 pages of comments yet to read. I subsequently found the answer to question 1. However, I would still welcome opinions on the other 3 questions.

  48. TheBlackKnight says:

    Whullie on 18/01/2012 at 4:37 pm said:

    Whillie, this has been ‘cobbled together’ by myself and EasyJambo. Apologies in advance as it is a ‘work in progress’. It reflects mainly opinion or possible outcome. It is hoped one of our more erudite posters will shortly be looking at the aspects in detail and with a dispassionate approach.

    Pros and cons (easyJambo/TBK)

    happy to have points added/omitted /challenged but it does seem less cut and dried as some make out.

    The following has based on ‘averaged’ ticket sales at £25 per game. (prices range somewhere between £22 & £28) It is also uncertain if there would be much move in Corporate/ Debenture revenue.

    Against a NewCo direct entry to SPL

    •There are unquantifiable future risks regarding the impact on the TV deal and advertising.
    * best guess ‘worst case’ scenario is to at least half the TV revenue and advertising. However that will be for the future years, not this year.
    It has been mooted that there is NO GUARANTEE that should NewCo get into SPL that the current deal stands. NewCo would not be in the ‘terms of the agreement’ of the original TV deal.

    •Provision in the SPL rules (H5) for the 12th place side to avoid that fate if another member club in that league goes out of business. (so no 12th place)
    •11th place in the SPL earns a club approx £1M (and presumably slightly more with the redistribution of the £900k for the redundant 12th place)
    • reduced income at the gate from visiting support (circa 3000 fans once or twice a season, depending on the split at £25 = £75k (one game) or £150 (two games)
    *So this is offset from the monies gained from climbing 1 place.
    • there is added incentive for those finishing 3rd to 1st. From 4th place, the team finishing third there is an additional £200k, a whopping £1.1M more than 4th place to the team that finishes 2nd and £1.5M more than 4th spot for 1st place.
    * note these figure would increase too with the redistribution of the 12th place money.
    ** all of the above accounts for this years money. Not future years and therefore includes any TV money/ Sponsorship.
    • a European place would be ‘up for grabs’ meaning potential increased revenue for at least 1 team (say conservatively £500k)
    • SFL teams – additional income at the gate from newco RFC visiting support (circa 1500 fans twice a season at £15 = £45k)
    *£15 per head is average figure for SFL adult ticket and there would no doubt be a smaller travelling support of 1500 used for lower leagues – particularly as some grounds only have capacities of 2,000-4,000)

    Pro NewCo direct entry to SPL

    •There are quantifiable amounts regarding the impact on the TV deal and advertising ( TV = £16M per year for 5 years)
    Based on a (massive) 50% reduction (effectively for what many see as 4 Glasgow Derby games out of the scheduled 30 matches) this would equate to £670k drop in income for each team.

    •guaranteed income of visiting fans apx £75K or £150K per season (considerably more for the top 2 or 3 clubs)

    There are very real risks that a significant number of ST holders would not renew.
    The loss of 1,000 fans would equate to a loss of around £25,000 per game or £475K per season.

    This could be a very large figure for any team if a considerable number of supporters decided that they had lost faith in the moral standard of the game.
    Up to 3000 fans stopped attending that would equate to £1.4M
    Up to 5000 fans stopped attending that would equate to £2.4M
    Up to 10,000 fans stopped attending that would equate to £4.75M

    Current distribution of ‘pooled’ wealth in SPL (TV money/Advertising)

    Spl payments

    The SPL ‘pool’ is currently distributed on the basis of 48% (4% per club) shared equally and 52% distributed on league position. The total distribution of a (for example) £20M pool, including the increase from the recent TV deal, would be as follows:

    SPL – 12 team pool £20M

    Pos.    %for position     share of       total
    1 17.00%.     £3,4M
    2 15.00%         £3.0M
    3 9.50%         £1.9M
    4 8.50%         £1.7M
    5 8.00%.        £1.6M
    6 7.50%.        £1.5M
    7 7.00%.        £1.4M
    8 6.50%.       £1.3M
    9 6.00%.        £1.2M
    10 5.50%.       £1.1M
    11 5.00%.       £1.0M
    12 4.50%         £0.9M

  49. droid says:

    Auldheid, a hvndred thousand blessing be upon you and your mighty quill :mrgreen:

  50. Whullie says:

    TheBlackKnight says:
    18/01/2012 at 7:06 pm
    Whullie on 18/01/2012 at 4:37 pm said:

    Thank you both for such a comprehensive response. Ask EJ the next time ‘you are together/.emailing/.phoning/in the pub (delete as necessary ;-)) if he thinks that Vladimir Romanovs’ considered ‘U’ turn could be because he has an inkling of the FTT result. I have asked him the question in RTC’s new post.

%d bloggers like this: