I’m very pleased the SPL have charged Hearts over the failure to pay players on time, the action shows a much needed appetite to tackle financial laxity in the game. A battle for the hearts and minds of Scottish football lies ahead where the integrity of our competitions will be up for grabs. Should Rangers lose their HMRC tribunal, which is due to conclude today, how the SPL reacts will forever establish if we have an open, free and fair league, or if we are cowed by a club we would all rather live without – irrespective of the cost.
We should applaud Neil Doncaster as his league colleagues for their determination not to be diverted from their course by Hearts in the face of some absolutely atrocious misrepresentation of the facts emanating from media sources close to Romanov.
The weeks ahead will require all parties to adhere rigorously to the spirit of Financial Fair Play, membership rules and precedent.
Click here to view the new issue of CQN Magazine online for free. You can support the online edition by making a discretionary donation here.
273 Comments- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- »
“Glasgow City Council have given their blessing for Rangers and Celtic to explore the option of safe-standing areas.” Shurely shome mishtake.
Blessing for Rangers? The dark side will love that.
HH and Happy Wednesday all.
nearly!!
An SPL with no Rangers or Hearts, would be a terrible thing.
Yip.
am i in starting 11 boss???
tictalker talking tic
I’ve got fivepence! What can
you get for fivepence?
Push has come to shove….
Either SPL is an open,transparent competition…
Or it isn’t…simples as that my friends.
I know there was discussion here yesterday about who was really backing Whyte in the cash stakes, not sure if it has been mentioned since but hearing that McColl from Weirs / Clyde Pumps is in the frame.
Anyone else hearing that?
Top 50?
Paul67
DITTO,except am no applauding anybody from the SFA.
@bobbycfc –
Weirs andPumps,
Ibroke’s a dump,
time will tell,
when they wake in hell.
Bit harsh, but you know.
Have to be a few wee plays on Weirs and Pumps shurely.
Excuse my ignorance but why will the tax authorities bot reveal the outcome or findings of the Rangers tax case tomorrow?
hail hail
.
JellyLegs..
Scored 2 Goals from Open Play last Week..He had Scored 7 for the Season so Far..
So if he was Worth 10 Million with 7 Goals..
He is Now worth 13,666,666 Million..
Simples..
Victor Wanayama However has Scored 3 from Open play as a Defender..
Therefore is Worth..67 Million..
Summa
PS..One of the Above Quotes is in Kenyan Dollars the Other is True
The Future is now in the hands of three honest men !
Not reveal not bot reveal! I’m an erchie!
or the SPl,except us of course.
Did you get cramp in yer tongue with is so firmly planted in yer cheek there Paul?
I will be stunned if there is even a smidgen of even handedness where Rangers are concerned.
There is a cracking thread on the Huddleboard over the wee tax case timeline and the SFA’s complicity in ensuring Rangers got a license to compete in UEFA tournaments………….it really IS the smoking gun.
Reagan is away with Ogilve today, wonder how the conversation is going?
That D*ily R*cord article is a disgrace. How do they know Southampton want to triple Hooper’s wages? As it stands, the club have no right to speak to our £35m-rated player, but it’s nice of the R*cord to act as the middle man.
Quelle surprise!
Aipple @ 12.17
Long term you might be right but my immediate reaction is that I would be quite happy to see Rangers disappear. Hearts is another matter. Some of their fans are as bad as the worst of their Govan cousins but the majority are simply Hearts fans with no side issues. Likewise, as far as I know, the Hearts Club never operated a sectarian signing policy nor does it ban items such as Egg Benedict and green straws. So, if I am correct in my assumptions, Hearts are a completely different matter and I would rather they remained in the SPL. Indeed, if the Hun are absent from there, Hearts would fill the vacancy as our biggest rivals.
JJ
greenjedi says:
18 January, 2012 at 12:20
ernie lynch says:
18 January, 2012 at 12:07
greenjedi says:
18 January, 2012 at 12:04
That’s not analogous.
share
…………..
How?
One team (well one member of that team) admitted cheating to give them an advantage. The governing body upon discovering cheating took place, stripped them of their title and medals and awarded them to those teams that lost out.
Paul67,
No messing around for me, I hope both hearts and rangers go to the wall. Funnily enough I don’t think I’ll be alone with this viewpoint.
fair play and the spl, strangers in the same sentence
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
TheprivatememoirsandconfessionsofAMomoSylla says:
18 January, 2012 at 12:24
Because the findings may not actually be, erm, ‘found’ by tomorrow.
Today is the (hopefully) last day of presenting and arguing the various materials and points regarding the case. It’s now up to the the judges to sit and deliberate the merits of both parties cases.
Essentially, today the ‘jury’ retires to consider their verdict. They, the three judge panel, will take as much time as they like before delivering a verdict.
It’s also worth considering that this case does not take up their entire time, which is why the previous diets had finite schedules.
Paul,
The SFA has said that it considers Hearts’ financial dealings to be seeking to gain an unfair advantage.
Let’s hope that the SPL remembers that,
Jungle Jim @12:28
True enough, good point. I know a few decent Hearts fans, well one actually. Nope, think he passed. Oh well.
I know what you mean though.
HH!
Dirtymac,
from previous thread – Thanks.
hail hail
Off to make my pieces for work. I see peppered turkey and sharp cheddar in my future. Had to bunker down yesterday as a tornado was coming through Louisville, saw 4 seasons in a day. Crazy stuff.
Have a good Wednesday all.
Hope they both go to the wall, the world would be a better place without them.
Aipple
That “debate” was far too civilized. Are you trying to diguise the fact that you are a Hun? o:-)
Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, I have not received that particular accolade on CQN. What`s wrong with me,eh?
JJ
Originally Posted by geo67 on the Huddleboard – I think it needs a wider audience. Respect to Geo67!!!!!!
heres a bit from rtc after i asked the question about the licence
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.
BT- I think McGhee will be on the phone for a couple of loan players.
Hi Paul,
“I’m very pleased the SPL have charged Hearts over the failure to pay players on time, the action shows a much needed appetite to tackle financial laxity in the game.”
Too True
Lets hope this decision shows real intent – No Double Standards.
————————————————————————
bobbycfc @ 12:20,
“I know there was discussion here yesterday about who was really backing Whyte in the cash stakes……”
Interesting
BUT
My monies still on the Sud Afrikan
TheprivatememoirsandconfessionsofAMomoSylla says:
18 January, 2012 at 12:24
‘Excuse my ignorance but why will the tax authorities bot reveal the outcome or findings of the Rangers tax case tomorrow?’
Because the tribunal members have to go away and think about it.
And then commit their thoughts to writing in a way that will stand up to robust scrutiny.
Bear in mind also that they may accept that some payments (probably those to non playing staff) were kosher and the rest weren’t. So it’s a bit more involved than we might think.
They’ll have made up their minds by tomorrow though.
Arthur
(A) a finger of fudge (just enough to give your kid a treat)
(B) a Caramac (small)
(C) a Freddo (regular)
Bawsman says:
18 January, 2012 at 12:40
Not only would the HMRC have had to overlook such a notice of appeal, but also the SOs who made that visit and also the Sheriff/judge/whoever ring-fenced the couple of million in the orcs account.
<sarcasm>I tend to side with the orcs and the SFA on this one as it’s quite obvious and clear to anyone that HMRC, SOs and the Sheriff really wouldn’t have a clue about the legalities surround tax payables.</sarcasm>
Has anyone on twitter asked Regan if Ogilvie can have anything to do with what happens to Rangers if they loose the tax case as he was on the Board when they came up with that bright idea and is compromised as he is up to his neck in it?
ernie lynch says:
18 January, 2012 at 12:44
…Bear in mind also that they may accept that some payments (probably those to non playing staff) were kosher and the rest weren’t. So it’s a bit more involved than we might think…
—
They will have to consider each and every single contract and payment on it’s own merits so as to disallow any appeal based on an incorrect application of tax laws.
Hi fellas.
Been a while since I’ve posted here, life got very busy for a few months.
Glad to be back and look forward to some healthy banter and debates.
Cheers.
J