Well done!


On first reading of The Sun on Sunday’s article today about Rangers’ player contracts, I wanted to take my customary swipe at the traditional media. On reflection, congratulations are in order.

I am no fan of the Murdoch press, but let us acknowledge a job well done. This story is a quantum leap forward from what has passed as “traditional” reporting in Scotland in recent years. While the Daily Record still seems content to rely upon agenda driven scraps from the table of the Rangers old-guard- the same people who got the club in this mess- The Sun appears to have put in an honest day’s work.

This would have required some genuine investigation and they confirmed their interpretation by consulting with no less than three experts. While sports reporters have vacillated between claiming that tax issues are too complicated to discuss and then spouting comically inaccurate nonsense, The Sun has found a solution that might yet start a revolution: they asked for comments from people who understand the subject! Rather incredibly, I even agree with the article’s general findings. (You could have read much the same here in March of last year, but The Sun has published evidence). It was the absence of reports like this one, about the most important story in Scottish football history, that inspired this blog. So ‘better late than never’ and a sincere chapeau!

The timing of this story is also good. Much of the discussion recently has focused on the issue of whether Rangers’ players had letters saying that loans from the EBT did not need to be repaid. While interesting, and sure to become a topic for discussion once the First Tier Tribunal returns with its findings, it is a bit of a red herring.

The central issue in this case is whether the money received by Rangers’ employees from the EBT were “emoluments”. Cutting through the legalese, this basically means that the key question to be determined at the FTT is: did Rangers’ employees receive wages through the EBT that were not properly taxed? Obviously, evidence that the loans were not real loans would blow any pretence that EBT use was legitimate out of the water. If there was also direct evidence that Rangers’ staff were receiving payments that were promised in an employment contract, then it would be very difficult to make an argument that these payments are not emoluments.

Yet, make an argument that they are not wages is what Andrew Thornhill QC has been very well paid to do. In some uncharacteristically well informed posts on the Follow Follow messageboard, I noticed the appearance of the “substance over form” argument as a way of trying to explain away any damaging documentation. Without getting steeped in a comprehensive legal and accounting discussion, “substance over form” is a concept that tries to look through complicated legal contrivances in financial transactions and look only at the meat of the issue: where were we are the start and at the end. It seeks to just “look-through” any special purpose entities or legal trickery designed to complicate matters. How is this relevant? The poster on Follow Follow, is trying to make the point: it does not matter if Rangers have created this blizzard of paperwork all but admitting that they have perpetrated a scam, the “reality” is that the players currently still owe the trust. Therefore, the withdrawals from the EBTs are not emoluments. 

This argument has a certain superficial charm. However, the issue with “substance over form” is that it is not for Mr Thornhill QC (or Rangers) to determine what the start and end points of the transaction are. Such a line of reasoning would be effectively asking the tribunal to start and stop at mid-points in the process and to ignore the real substance- that Rangers’ employees received payments from their employer that were not taxed.

So I would agree with the Follow Follow poster. The form of how they were paid (through a trust)  should be ignored, especially if there is a mountain of documentary evidence supporting the notion that the substance is that employees’ wages were not taxed. (If there is a lot more evidence like that presented by The Sun, then Rangers’ case would look to be very weak indeed). Of course, if I was a skilled lawyer and one of my instructions was to slow down proceedings to delay an outcome, I would need to find an argument of some sort. An argument that allows me to ask the tribunal to go through the all of the evidence meticulously would be very useful indeed.

Looking to the future, Rangers’ fans need to take a realistic and dry-eyed look at the sort of people who will be running their club in whatever form it takes. The signs are not good that the lessons of the past have been learned.

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.

2,390 Responses to Well done!

  1. Vagabond says:

    Re. Onx3’s question relating to the possibility of the administration process not being completed due to a possible lack of funds.

    Would the appointment of a receiver constitute a second “insolvency event” or would this simply be a continuation of the current admin process?

  2. JoeMc says:

    Hugh McEwan on 01/03/2012 at 11:30 pm said:
    Just thinking, with hearts owed more than any other football club in Scotland – can they just hold that money in satisfaction of a pre admin debt or is this a no no once the admin draws that line in the sand?

  3. Chazz says:

    If they are down to their last £10,000 then get money from the Hearts game, how will this appease the creditors? I don’t see any prospective buyer taking on these debts but I also don’t see them taking a CVA. Also if Hearts are owed money from Rangers, will Hearts pay for the tickets?

  4. resinlabdog says:

    Have we exhausted the possibility that it was a huge stitch up between GEF and Ticketless, and that Ticketless now have the floating charge (handed over by MBB with a handshake), will pay the MBB a bung – I mean management fee – probably via an EBT in the BVI (ironic laughs and back slaps all round)- screw the taxman 3 times (I am sure this is not the kind of scheme envisaged when VCTs were awarded their preferential tax status) and are now moving to the liquidation (bye bye hector) and cash out phase, with GEF getting the flak but a nice EBT for himself, and Ticketus getting a nice fluid equity in a newco in exchange for assignation of the fixed assets?

  5. resinlabdog says:

    Oor Wullie says:
    02/03/2012 at 12:33 am

    … well if they don’t like it, there’s nothing to stop them walking away “-)

  6. DelegateZero says:

    SLAM DUNK

    Rangers stand accused of failing to properly register players after a former director revealed secretive payments had been consistently excluded from contracts lodged with the SFA.
    The embattled Ibrox club are awaiting the outcome of the First Tier Tax Tribunal which will determine the legality or otherwise of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs).
    Regardless of whether Rangers are hit with an additional bill of £49million from the so-called ‘big tax case’, it appears such payments were kept ‘off the books’ – in direct contravention of SFA registration rules.

    Former Ibrox director Hugh Adam, who had a 30-year association with the club until 2002, has told Sportsmail that the club’s directors were aware of the arrangement – one he believes could have started as early as the mid-1990s.
    ‘They weren’t included in the contracts. They definitely weren’t. That was the whole point of them,’ he said. ‘If they’d been included in the contracts, they would have had to have paid tax on them.
    ‘I don’t think a lot of the other directors knew an awful lot about it. David Murray kept everything to himself.
    ‘The directors just wanted to sit in the directors’ box. That’s all. When I was on the board, I knew all about them.
    ‘I just didn’t know the details of them. They became accepted. ‘The revenue were seriously challenging them at that point when I was a director.

    ‘People never really asked serious questions about them. “It’s perfectly legal” was what they thought.
    ‘It wasn’t happening in Britain, so had nothing to do with Britain. All the directors heard about them but didn’t take them seriously because they didn’t appear in the books.’
    Adam’s revelation suggests a clear breach of the SFA rulebook – and is a potential embarrassment to current SFA president Campbell Ogilvie, who had a 27-year association with Rangers, many of them spent as secretary.
    The SFA rule on registration states: ‘All payments made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement.
    ‘No payment for his playing activities may be made to the player through a third party.’
    Adam, the man who funded the redevelopment of Ibrox through Rangers pools, believes payments into discretionary trusts may have gone on well before the turn of the millennium.
    It’s understood the ‘big tax case’ relates to EBT payments from 2000 until 2009 but, when questioned if he heard of similar payments in the mid- 1990s, Adam confirmed: ‘Without having any specialist knowledge, I’m pretty sure.

    ‘People didn’t want to know about them. There was a lot of that (EBTs) going on at the time (I was there).
    ‘You knew it was cheating but some of them not only hoped but believed it was above board. ‘It’s this thing that when something happens it has to have a beginning and an end, but that wasn’t the case with the overseas things.
    ‘It was just something that crept up. It was considered important but not crucial. The fans didn’t give a damn one way or another. You could argue that they knew about it but didn’t think it was important.
    ‘Maybe they never thought it was as much as it really was. And maybe it wasn’t. I don’t know if you remember radio stations from ships.
    ‘I don’t think they were making a fortune but they weren’t costing a lot of money, so no one bothered.
    ‘When I was asked for my opinion on the way the club had been run, I said it was quite obvious how it had got into trouble.’They were doing things they shouldn’t have been doing.
    ‘They (EBTs) were always regarded in my time as a bit of a joke. They were getting away with it but nobody really thought they’d get away wi th i t forever. ‘
    It would be an offshore trust – almost like a boat. You could dodge your taxes that way. It wasn’t something that you picked up the paper and read about. It was one at a time then grew on a gradual basis.
    ‘The players were very naive. Few of them were the Brain of Britain, of course. If they get the money, they don’t give a damn where it’s coming from.’

    from Daily Mail

  7. Slimshady says:

    On when CW intended to fold the tent, I suspect he always thought January was the time to do it – around when the tax case was to be decided, after the decent European run would have come to an end and at a time when he could have maxxed out the £9M Jelavic sale.

    Three things conspired to throw these plans array:-
    McCoist’s spectacular inability to compete in Europe against 2 sets of minnows
    the strange delay in the tribunal (did Murray engineer this to flush CW out?)
    the spotlight shone on the fakeover by RTC (and, for the avoidance of doubt, by none of the MSM)

    As a final point, isn’t it funny how the estimated date on which the money is due to run out is almost exactly 8 weeks since D&D’s appointment – the day they are due to make their proposal on RFC.

    Funny that.

    54 to 0

  8. Parson St. Bhoy says:

    DelegateZero says:
    02/03/2012 at 12:51 am

    SLAM DUNK

    Regardless of whether Rangers are hit with an additional bill of £49million from the so-called ‘big tax case’, it appears such payments were kept ‘off the books’ – in direct contravention of SFA registration rules.

    Former Ibrox director Hugh Adam, who had a 30-year association with the club until 2002, has told Sportsmail that the club’s directors were aware of the arrangement – one he believes could have started as early as the mid-1990s.

    Adam’s revelation suggests a clear breach of the SFA rulebook – and is a potential embarrassment to current SFA president Campbell Ogilvie, who had a 27-year association with Rangers, many of them spent as secretary.

    “””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

    Ok RTC’s 1st X1 and subs. Game on. Go get him. Unleash the dogs of war. The fox has broken cover. Tally ho.

  9. stunney says:

    GERS TOTALLY PHUKT

    A new twist in Rangers controversy: Club accused of misleading SFA on secret deals

    Rangers stand accused of failing to properly register players after a former director revealed secretive payments had been consistently excluded from contracts lodged with the SFA.
    The embattled Ibrox club are awaiting the outcome of the First Tier Tax Tribunal which will determine the legality or otherwise of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs).
    Regardless of whether Rangers are hit with an additional bill of £49million from the so-called ‘big tax case’, it appears such payments were kept ‘off the books’ – in direct contravention of SFA registration rules.

    Former Ibrox director Hugh Adam, who had a 30-year association with the club until 2002, has told Sportsmail that the club’s directors were aware of the arrangement – one he believes could have started as early as the mid-1990s.
    ‘They weren’t included in the contracts. They definitely weren’t. That was the whole point of them,’ he said. ‘If they’d been included in the contracts, they would have had to have paid tax on them.
    ‘I don’t think a lot of the other directors knew an awful lot about it. David Murray kept everything to himself.
    ‘The directors just wanted to sit in the directors’ box. That’s all. When I was on the board, I knew all about them.
    ‘I just didn’t know the details of them. They became accepted. ‘The revenue were seriously challenging them at that point when I was a director.

    ‘People never really asked serious questions about them. “It’s perfectly legal” was what they thought.
    ‘It wasn’t happening in Britain, so had nothing to do with Britain. All the directors heard about them but didn’t take them seriously because they didn’t appear in the books.’
    Adam’s revelation suggests a clear breach of the SFA rulebook – and is a potential embarrassment to current SFA president Campbell Ogilvie, who had a 27-year association with Rangers, many of them spent as secretary.
    The SFA rule on registration states: ‘All payments made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement.
    ‘No payment for his playing activities may be made to the player through a third party.’
    Adam, the man who funded the redevelopment of Ibrox through Rangers pools, believes payments into discretionary trusts may have gone on well before the turn of the millennium.
    It’s understood the ‘big tax case’ relates to EBT payments from 2000 until 2009 but, when questioned if he heard of similar payments in the mid- 1990s, Adam confirmed: ‘Without having any specialist knowledge, I’m pretty sure.

    ‘People didn’t want to know about them. There was a lot of that (EBTs) going on at the time (I was there).
    ‘You knew it was cheating but some of them not only hoped but believed it was above board. ‘It’s this thing that when something happens it has to have a beginning and an end, but that wasn’t the case with the overseas things.
    ‘It was just something that crept up. It was considered important but not crucial. The fans didn’t give a damn one way or another. You could argue that they knew about it but didn’t think it was important.
    ‘Maybe they never thought it was as much as it really was. And maybe it wasn’t. I don’t know if you remember radio stations from ships.
    ‘I don’t think they were making a fortune but they weren’t costing a lot of money, so no one bothered.
    ‘When I was asked for my opinion on the way the club had been run, I said it was quite obvious how it had got into trouble.’They were doing things they shouldn’t have been doing.
    ‘They (EBTs) were always regarded in my time as a bit of a joke. They were getting away with it but nobody really thought they’d get away wi th i t forever. ‘
    It would be an offshore trust – almost like a boat. You could dodge your taxes that way. It wasn’t something that you picked up the paper and read about. It was one at a time then grew on a gradual basis.
    ‘The players were very naive. Few of them were the Brain of Britain, of course. If they get the money, they don’t give a damn where it’s coming from.’
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2109018/Rangers-a

  10. stunney says:

    Beaten to it. Ach, I was in a http://youtu.be/Jx7EEQQNfDU too.

  11. HirsutePursuit says:

    Just thinking out loud here.

    Under certain circumstances, one of the options available to an administrator is the sale of assets. However, if they do so, the revenue from such sales would have to be assigned to the company’s creditors in the prescribed order.

    Ignoring the administrators’ own charges for a moment, the first in line would be the holder of the floating charge – which, I think technically, would still be Wavetower/Group/CW – again ignoring whatever hold Ticketus may have over Wavetower/Group/CW.

    In theory for example, D&P could sell the real estate – and as long as the amount received is recognised as achieving fair value, Wavetower/Group/CW could do nothing to prevent the sale. The question of actually recognising the floating charge (and therefore the distribution of funds) then becomes a matter for argument at a later date. The main point is that the administrators, can, if they wish separate the property from the football operation.

    What is interesting, is that if the Ticketus deal was done over the head of RFC – directly with Wavetower/Group/CW – then such a sale of real estate would not in itself carry an obligation to honour the Ticketus STs: that obligation would remain with Wavetower/Group/CW and arguably, by proxy, with what is left of RFC.

    Again, we may be thinking that the Blue Knights and others are talking to the administrators about buying RFC as a going concern – but are they? Why would they? Much more likely that they just want the keys to the Big Hoose.

    The question on the fair value might be key here. It is extremely convenient that D&P report that they have had several expressions of interest. So, whoever buys the assets are by definition the highest bidder and the others “bidders” have effectively confirmed that they (D&P) have got the best available price.

    Perhaps due diligence will confirm that all of those expressing interest have sufficient funds available to make a realistic offer.
    Not that I’m cynical in any way:)

    In principle, new owners could lease Ibrox/MP back to RFC. If the BTC goes their way, RFC might (somehow:) ) find a way to trade out of their difficulties.

    But, if not, (and much more likely) RFC & Wavetower/Group (but not CW) go under and Ibrox is available to the new owner’s Newco or donor club – without Ticketus claims to future STs and HMRC debt to service.

    If that new owner turns out to be another CW company – unrelated to Wavetower/Group – would anyone be really surprised?

    There is a general assumption that liquidation is the step after administration – but the process could effectively start now.

  12. Max B Gold says:

    The problem of ‘moral hazard’ persists – in that Newco will emerge debt free into an SPL (or div1) despite having been cheating on tax – guilty of financial doping – for a great many years.
    There must be additional sanction. SFL3 entry would be at least that, and the SPL has the power to demand this by not consenting to the transfer of any licence.

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

    Dumping them into Div 3 creates yet another moral hazard. With their huge resources they will walk the 3 Divisions in successive years and deny other law abiding clubs promotion.

    They will get back into the SPL with a Newcofor money reasons but they need to carry a points penalty of say -15 for a minimum of three years

  13. resinlabdog says:

    Max B Gold says:
    02/03/2012 at 1:09 am

    I see where ya coming from.
    But their ‘huge resources’ have not been enough to pay fellow SPL clubs, HMRC, and now – even their own players.
    Either the SFL league clubs would benefit from visiting fans, the Rangers(IA) faithful would get the joy of old fashioned stands (…RFC2012 vs Elgin City… ) Every week would be like a cup game for someone!
    Or the fans wouldn’t show, and the ‘huge resources’ would vanish with them.

    On advantage of SFL3 is that either Rangers are emasculated, or the lower divisions get a share of the spoils of war, or a bit of both.

  14. paulmac says:

    So it would appear the players have told Duff and Duffer…to take a flying fu….

  15. VITAL Signs says:

    Calderon @ 1/3/12 11.24 p.m.

    MBB may be many things but I think we can safely ditch the “life-long Rangers fan” tag. He apparently couldn’t name a single Rangers player from the period he said he was on the terraces. I don’t think four-in-a-row was of the least interest to him, not from the footballing merit side anyway.

    Also, even when Rangers were 12 points clear, there was already a groundswell of opinion in knowledgeable circles that Rangers’ financial crisis was going to explode before the end of the season. If there were those who suspected that outside Ibrox, it’s a fair punt to suggest that there was at least one gentleman inside Ibrox who thought the same. Remember AJ’s remarks about MBB having seemingly no interest in the cash flow position?

    He certainly wasn’t idle from May to January as he was busy doing several deals involving various aspects of RFC assets and income flow. So, no, I don’t think FIAR was a distraction for The Motherwell Man of Mystery.

  16. paulmac says:

    stunney says:
    02/03/2012 at 1:03 am

    GERS TOTALLY PHUKT

    A new twist in Rangers controversy: Club accused of misleading SFA on secret deals.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    And the hits just keep on coming….

    When did Paul Murray join the old board?

  17. resinlabdog says:

    stunney says:
    02/03/2012 at 1:03 am

    “…did you give the order for a code red?”

  18. VITAL Signs says:

    stunney 2/3/12 @ 1.03a.m.

    Wow! Even as we speak the SFA must be seriously considering picking up the phone to ask Hugh Adam “aye, but do you have any proof?”

  19. Parson St. Bhoy says:

    DEFCON 2 or 1 RTC ?

  20. stunney says:

    Vital, I’m not sure proof is needed. RFC as a brand may as well die given such admissions on the record. And the BTC is probably going to deliver the coup de grace.

  21. Tecumseh says:

    Oh what a tangled web we weave . . .when first we practice to deceive . . .

    Caught by the short, curly, orange hairs . . . .

    Cut the baws aff . . .it’ll take their mind of fraud for five minutes.

  22. Nas Na Ri Bhoy says:

    That’s unreal we were just talking about Hugh Adam tonight in work, about his forecast for the future under Minty and how he was one of a few to stand up and be counted………

    Something I don’t get is how much money they claim to have left, I can’t see the GEF leaving millions in the bank for the duff bros to work with, that’s not his way.

    Reading tonight they need 10.5mil to end of season but are short 4.5mil…….sorry not buying that for a minute. That would mean the GEF leaving nearly 8 mil in the bank……..nae chance.

    IMHO I think all that was left When the duff bros arrived was the first instalment of jellylegs fee or all of it, max 4 mil.plus change Subtract last months wages, tax, paye/ni, police costs and other outlays for the games and not An awful lot left. Add in the cash from the choir practice game plus hearts this weekend still amounts to small change…….( maybe enough for duff bros fees)

    I still have a scene in my mind though that after jellylegs was sold as the FPLG ran into ibrokes to demand a striker be bought, he nears the cave of the GEF to hear glass smashing and screams of sell sell sell… Thinking he is about to loose more players he protests. Only to be told by the GEF that norwich have rejected his massive bid of 188k for holt so now he is going to get sandazza on the phone……..FPLG leaves the cave and calls sandazza and says don’t take the call this is the end were fooked……..and the rest is history as the say…..although rumour has it that the director of football made FPLG a cuppa before polishing the floors and heading home from his shift……..

    Sorry went off topic in the last para there, but I really believe there was only washers left in the bank for the duff bros……..and the end is fast approaching.

  23. Max B Gold says:

    “Mr Hugh Adams comments on alledged wrong doing at Rangers are just that – allegations! Well there have been alligators before him and I say you can’t just go around making them without some kind of proof. I just don’t know where he is going with this.”

    The above is for Shug Keevins to use on SSB tomorrow night when I phone in to ask where it leaves the SFA now.

  24. bhoyant says:

    http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4166311/Death-by-1000-cuts.html

    Tell me I am not going mad but when you open the link above and float your cursor over the club badges look at what Rangers are called………………………….RANGERS UNITED!!!!!!!!!

    Motherwell are MOTHERWELL CITY????????

    Someone else please try it and confirm.

  25. Hoosier says:

    Same here bhoyant.

    Also – Hamilton are in place of the Pars.

  26. Auldheid says:

    nowoldandgrumpy says:

    02/03/2012 at 12:18 am

    And there’s now less than a month for Rangers to get out of administration if it’s to qualify for European competition next season, without which cash flow will get tighter still and the club will become less attractive to top players.

    Article written by Douglas Fraser
    Douglas Fraser
    Business and economy editor, Scotland
    ————————————————————-
    The suggestion that being in administration is a reason of itself to refuse a UEFA licence is not quite the case. Being in the position that has caused administration by the club being poorly administered is.

    There are a number of articles in the latest SFA Licensing Rules published by the SFA on 28th December surrounding unaudited accounts OR unaudited interim accounts OR audited accounts/audited interim accounts but with a qualification from the auditors re Rangers being a “going concern” that will be more difficult to hurdle than the unpaid tax issue.

    Here is how I see the hurdles lining up (posted before but for new readers)

    Rangers could be refused a licence on any of the grounds under the following articles.

    A 47
    Audited Accounts and

    A 47
    Audited Accounts and Minimum Disclosures (If they have no audited accounts of any description ready by 8th April)

    A 48
    Reviewed Interim Financial Statements (the ones at A47 are the unaudited accounts currently overdue. The ones at A48 are those that will be required (audited) for licensing purposes in the coming round and so are dependent on getting the current full set audited and themselves (the interims) being audited by 8th April.

    A 50
    No Payables Overdue Towards Employees and Social/ Tax Authorities.
    This is the one that covers unpaid tax. The wee tax bill core appears to have been paid so no problems for next licensing round on that one, however we now know that VAT and NI due monthly has not been paid since May and has been bankrolling the payroll. HMRC has threatened winding up on this new “medium” tax bill and unless it is settled before 31 March the original wee tax bill is likely to be replaced by a medium sized unpaid brother in licence refusal terms..

    The big EBT bill might not crystallise until after the 31 March when the FTT gives its ruling, so it is likely to be viewed as exempt from being treated as unpaid tax under Article 50 and so will not be a reason of itself to refuse a licence..

    If it crystallises before 31 March but Rangers appeal, the SFA still have the discretion under the A50 rules to ignore the appeal if they think it is only a procrastination device and is vexatious. This gives them leverage to get answers from Rangers on other questions.

    If it crystallises before 31 March and is unpaid on 1st April then the Art 50 hurdle needs to be negotiated.

    HOWEVER
    A 51 Written Representations Prior to the Licensing Decision
    requires that written representation be provided of information to the Licensing Committee on any events or conditions of major economic importance that have occurred and that may have an adverse impact on the licence applicant’s financial position since the balance sheet date of the preceding audited annual financial statements or reviewed interim financial statements (if applicable )

    AND

    A 52 Future Financial Information
    Refers to information in respect of the financial performance and position of the club in the reporting periods ending in the years following commencement of the UEFA club competitions, i.e in this case up to the end of season 2012/13.

    The last two are to protect UEFA from a club going belly up in the middle of a CL or EL tournament next season and the UEFA by now are very much aware of Rangers situation and what a risk they represent.

    If the term “going concern” appears in either full or Interim Accounts this is a RECOGNISED AND FORMAL Indicator defined by UEFA that means Article 52 has to be observed. (The term actually gets 14 mentions in the UEFA FFP rules that the latest SFA rules incorporate.)

    I do not fancy Rangers chances of getting a licence for any UEFA competition in the circumstances they find themselves. I’m not even sure the have the administrative dexterity/experience to even supply or adhere to the rules which the SFA will have to apply with rigour to satisfy UEFA.

    That degree of rigour on the part of the licensor or licensee has never been the case before.

  27. MDCCCLXXXVIII says:

    Sorry if posted already. Hugh Adam (remember him) sounds the death knell for Rangers FC (in Administration)…..

    “Rangers stand accused of failing to properly register players after a former director revealed secretive payments had been consistently excluded from contracts lodged with the SFA.
    The embattled Ibrox club are awaiting the outcome of the First Tier Tax Tribunal which will determine the legality or otherwise of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs).
    Regardless of whether Rangers are hit with an additional bill of £49million from the so-called ‘big tax case’, it appears such payments were kept ‘off the books’ – in direct contravention of SFA registration rules.

    Former Ibrox director Hugh Adam, who had a 30-year association with the club until 2002, has told Sportsmail that the club’s directors were aware of the arrangement – one he believes could have started as early as the mid-1990s.
    ‘They weren’t included in the contracts. They definitely weren’t. That was the whole point of them,’ he said. ‘If they’d been included in the contracts, they would have had to have paid tax on them.
    ‘I don’t think a lot of the other directors knew an awful lot about it. David Murray kept everything to himself.
    ‘The directors just wanted to sit in the directors’ box. That’s all. When I was on the board, I knew all about them.
    ‘I just didn’t know the details of them. They became accepted. ‘The revenue were seriously challenging them at that point when I was a director.

    ‘People never really asked serious questions about them. “It’s perfectly legal” was what they thought.
    ‘It wasn’t happening in Britain, so had nothing to do with Britain. All the directors heard about them but didn’t take them seriously because they didn’t appear in the books.’
    Adam’s revelation suggests a clear breach of the SFA rulebook – and is a potential embarrassment to current SFA president Campbell Ogilvie, who had a 27-year association with Rangers, many of them spent as secretary.
    The SFA rule on registration states: ‘All payments made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement.
    ‘No payment for his playing activities may be made to the player through a third party.’
    Adam, the man who funded the redevelopment of Ibrox through Rangers pools, believes payments into discretionary trusts may have gone on well before the turn of the millennium.
    It’s understood the ‘big tax case’ relates to EBT payments from 2000 until 2009 but, when questioned if he heard of similar payments in the mid- 1990s, Adam confirmed: ‘Without having any specialist knowledge, I’m pretty sure.

    ‘People didn’t want to know about them. There was a lot of that (EBTs) going on at the time (I was there).
    ‘You knew it was cheating but some of them not only hoped but believed it was above board. ‘It’s this thing that when something happens it has to have a beginning and an end, but that wasn’t the case with the overseas things.
    ‘It was just something that crept up. It was considered important but not crucial. The fans didn’t give a damn one way or another. You could argue that they knew about it but didn’t think it was important.
    ‘Maybe they never thought it was as much as it really was. And maybe it wasn’t. I don’t know if you remember radio stations from ships.
    ‘I don’t think they were making a fortune but they weren’t costing a lot of money, so no one bothered.
    ‘When I was asked for my opinion on the way the club had been run, I said it was quite obvious how it had got into trouble.’They were doing things they shouldn’t have been doing.
    ‘They (EBTs) were always regarded in my time as a bit of a joke. They were getting away with it but nobody really thought they’d get away wi th i t forever. ‘
    It would be an offshore trust – almost like a boat. You could dodge your taxes that way. It wasn’t something that you picked up the paper and read about. It was one at a time then grew on a gradual basis.
    ‘The players were very naive. Few of them were the Brain of Britain, of course. If they get the money, they don’t give a damn where it’s coming from.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2109018/Rangers-accused-misleading-SFA-secret-deals.html?ITO=1490

  28. MDCCCLXXXVIII says:

    bhoyant says:
    02/03/2012 at 3:16 am
    0 0 Rate This
    http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4166311/Death-by-1000-cuts.html

    Tell me I am not going mad but when you open the link above and float your cursor over the club badges look at what Rangers are called………………………….RANGERS UNITED!!!!!!!!!

    Motherwell are MOTHERWELL CITY????????

    Someone else please try it and confirm.

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

    That is strange.

  29. Torquemada says:

    Dirty, cheating, rancid bastards. Cheats and liars from cradle to grave.

    Their apologists in the MSM have been left with nowhere to go after Hugh Adam’s revelations. Title-stripping is now no longer just an option, it has become a necessity if the game in Scotland is to survive. I’m not sure it can. The only question left is how far back the SFA will be obliged to go in culling their purloined trophies.

    What a shocking price our game will have to pay. And all because of a twisted and warped ideology of Protestant supremacy. They were the people, indeed. Disgusting!

    How hollow do the cries of ”paranoia” ring now.

  30. MDCCCLXXXVIII says:

    only 5 hours late with the Hugh Adam thing. Sorry, my re-load missed a full page of comments…and I thought it was a slow night.

  31. Canuck Bhoy says:

    Re: Hugh Adams and the Daily Mail: HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!

    Why did I waste 4 hours catching up when this was waiting at the end?

    GAME OVER?

  32. Bill says:

    Max B Gold says:
    02/03/2012 at 2:13 am

    The timing of this statement/admission of sorts is rather odd. Why come out with this confession now while RFC (IA) is on it’s deathbed? Just when you thought there couldn’t be any more nails put in the coffin (except those curiously held in reserve by RTC).

    Is he implying the titles Mr Hately et al won in the 90’s might now be considered as “tainted” because both the players and RFC (IA) operated in direct contravention of SFA registration rules?

  33. Bill says:

    (sorry correct spelling is Hateley)

  34. stunney says:

    Somehow, this scene seems appropriate at the present time:

  35. patna joe says:

    think with revalations in Dailly Mail re Hugh Adam if BTC is favourable for “Institution” then I’m sure HMRC would defo appeal if this info was not presented at original tribunal if HMRC win BTC then dont think would do any deals now. Also is the deeper cuts across the buisness requested by sally to accommadate the playing staff so much for were all in it together. It realy is becoming tawdry and unpleasant administrators just lining pockets till end think they should pull the plug now and just end the suffering.

  36. k3lly says:

    So an insider blows the full-time whistle: two decades of cheating, they knew it was cheating, but they all thought it a bit of a joke.

    As someone who shelled out quite a bit of cash following my team over those twenty years, I don’t think it’s a “bit of a joke”. I think it’s sickening.

    And they got away with it because the SFA was (and still is) stuffed with the “right people” who can stifle any and all discussion or questions.

    It isn’t a “bit of a joke”. It’s a criminal conspiracy and I hope you lying b*******s suffer for it.

  37. Long Time Lurker says:

    Article on the front page of the Daily Telegraph – Danny Alexander Chief Secetary to the Treasury will tell the Scottish Liberal Democrat conference that those who dodge taxes are ‘cheats.’

    Article makes clear he does not care about the plight of Rangers FC (IA).

    Is this a signal or ‘intellegence chatter’ that the end is in sight and that the outcome for Rangers FC (IA) is far from good?

    As Chief Secretary to the Treasury Mr Alexander must get high level briefings from HMRC. Has he been briefed recently on the BTC and seen evidence demonstrating Rangers FC (IA) have knowingly missused EBTs?

    One would imagine that he would not make such a damming and public statement without being fully aware of the facts.

    Interesting…

  38. 100bjd says:

    I spent all morning in an acquisition meeting in Manchester and decided to have some lunch at San Carlo in town to end a busy week. I joined some friends and recognised other business acquaintances dotted around the restaurant. As the subject of conversation was a bit boring I asked my friendsif they were following the Rangers saga. We are from Manchester and we remember what their supporters did to our city was the general reply.
    Loads of City/United conversation started and we were joined by a man who runs a well known business in town. His business has a turnover of circa £20m and like many others is struggling a little bit. He joined in the Rangers conversation with a showstopper! “I am not following this Rangers business although I am not surprised by it.” I ask him why he is not surprised when he has not been following the story. He looks at me with a bit of puzzlement and says MCR are involved. He then recounted a story where Lloyds bank foisted MCR into his business who then created a report that the business should be received. He was furious with MCR as he felt they were trying to sell off assets simply to pay back a bank debt which his company was adequately servicing. Duff and Phelps then took over MCR and a new person came in and wrote a favourable report. His last words before leaving were “It was not just me, there were a number of Manchester businesses in the same boat………………..I would have thought you would know that!……No I did not……………This is a completely true account of a sensible conversation between serious people who could not care less about Rangers although it does enforce my posts about Craigy Boys inside track who were undoubtedly MCR. As in the story above, however, the Duff and Phelps takeover seemed to have an effect in the same way as David Grier was not allowed to run the admin which was probably Craigys plan in the first place.

    All very interesting and independent I might see if Ian Fraser is interested

  39. 100bjd says:

    Magic Circle says:
    01/03/2012 at 8:01 pm
    43 3 i

    Rate This
    VITAL Signs says:
    01/03/2012 at 7:51 pm

    Thank you sir (or madam). I do indeed have the hide of a rhino and, while I generally try to avoid personal insults, I do believe (a) if you can’t take it don’t dish it out and (b) sticking your head above the parapet attracts snipers. Sadly, I am not welcome by the bunnet brigade but this is a great blog and, time permitting, I’m not leaving.
    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    Good, do not leave as you are worth listening to and as this drama unfolds you will certainly have more input. It is now clear that the Administrators are going after the sale and purchase agreement so next weeks judgement is going to be a vital litmus test. My usual refrain of follow the secured creditor will still be in vogue although I still find it very hard to comprehend how you can create a CVA scenario, assuming you can achieve the 75% creditor backing, in a situation where most of your revenue is going to Ticketus. I do not believe the club is sustainable in this context so I am going to be interested in the solution.

    The only viable solution for a CVA is for an interested party to make a decent offer for the club which is accepted by the creditors, and after purchasing the club, provide in their war chest an amount of money to be paid to Ticketus for their asset. I would imagine there is a lot of horse trading behind the scenes although the administrators cannot prefer creditors and must divide up the revenue as the law dictates.

    Still liquidation for me with the administrators spending more time on asset title and class and less time on the people (no pun intended) for whom they now have a legal responsibility. Why would they get themselves into this poor position unless they know the end game.

  40. lurchingfrompillartopost says:

    please excuse my ignorance but i was just reading rtc posts from end march 2011 (soon be 1st birthday!) re interim accounts being required for 31st march – back then it was to keep plus market happy as well as for spl for uefa licence.

    so there’s the late set of annual accounts overdue since 31 december 2011 (for period ending june 2011) that still need signed off – does that mean agm? or does being in administration absolve from that? (the agm that is)

    but due to start and end dates of rfc plc financial year, isn’t it a set of interim accounts that’s actually required, as per the ones that were just about on time last year? obviously these are meaningless without the audited set of annual accounts…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 23,478 other followers

%d bloggers like this: