Here’s the problem: this is a can of worms. If contagion was limited to Sir David Murray and other Murray Group executives, there may be more “appetite” to analyse what went wrong and what to do about it.
Rangers were a rogue football team, operating a tax scheme out with the law, failing to disclose appropriate documentation to HMRC, the SPL and SFA. Legal responsibility for the club’s actions lies with all directors, not just the majority owner. They have collective responsibility to ensure business is conducted appropriately. David King, Paul Murray, Alistair Johnston and former SFA president Campbell Ogilvie, were all Rangers directors during the EBT and DOS years.
The SPFL (formerly SPL) are also implicated. They set terms of reference for what became the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission, then amended those terms to only include matters which were, at that time, regarded as legal, explicitly excluding matters already confirmed as illegal.
They then failed to present evidence to Nimmo Smith of the five matters Rangers admitted guilt on during the First Tier Tribunal process, preferring only to present matters that were in dispute, but (temporarily) found in Rangers favour.
Having done this, they instructed their lawyer not to ask for an opportunity to appeal if the pending HMRC appeal was upheld. Instead, closing the book on a procedural appeal.
The SFA executives side just along the corridor from their SPFL counterparts. Yesterday they issued a remarkable statement:
“Specifically, Senior Counsel was asked to anticipate whether a determination in favour of HMRC, as announced today, could imply that there had been a breach of the Scottish FA’s Disciplinary Rules as they applied at the time of the EBT payments.
The clear opinion of Senior Counsel is that there is a very limited chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any complaint regarding this matter”.
I refer you to SFA Disciplinary Rule 71, Article 94.1:
“No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, match official, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.”
They are asking you to believe that Senior Counsel told them no Rangers official brought the game into disrepute as a consequence of this matter. A matter which has left over £100m debt and hundreds of creditors unpaid, saw 55 players incorrectly registered, and one of the largest clubs in the country liquidated – the consequences of which will be permanent, no matter your view on Newco/same club.
All for an issue which Rangers directors gave evidence in court that the EBT scheme was undertaken to allow them to sign players they would otherwise be unable to pay. Ensuring an illegal sporting advantage.
Possible SFA sanctions for this include fines of up to £1m and/or expulsion from the game.
Sorry, but this is not a tenable position. The game was massively brought into disrepute; to issue a statement claiming otherwise just adds the stench of cover up to an already dreadful state. And bringing the game into disrepute is just scratching the surface, without going into consequences of the club’s actions on competitions.
I question the scope and remit given to Counsel, which was clearly limited in order to make it possible to deliver this statement. Who issued that scope and why it blinded Counsel to the clear matter of disrepute is another question to answer.
Executives at Hampden will have scoured news coverage this morning in the hope that this this will blow over. Scottish newspaper, TV and radio coverage is irrelevant. Instead, they should be looking to establish a recovery position for our game. This is not finished.
Those implicated by the contagion – the “heavily conflicted” do not get to decide that no action is to be taken; Scotland is not yet a Banana Republic.
620 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 17
- »
Not that I would do such a thing but it only lets you vote once
Am I right?
Not keen on posting these days but will say I have met the SFA, SPFL and Celtic on this. I have also spoken to a very senior legal person in Scotland.
Doncaster told me, over a two hour debate, in his boardroom that regardless of Supreme Court he would do nothing.
Regan and Doncaster are in position merely to see this through.
A judicial review can be organised and we could make them pay. That was my plan.
Maybe someone else on here can do this now.
Those hoping for politicians to sort out Scottish football are in for a long wait.
Politicians by nature are self serving preservationists.
To be seen to impact the huns negatively and aid Timmy dominance as a side effect is political suicide in the best wee bigoted country in the world.
Treble Winning Captain
I may have missed it, but I dont recall you posting that previously. Pretty damning stuff!
Can I ask (feel free to answer / not aswer as you feel appropriate) …
when was the meeting when ND said he would do nothing?
who was present at that meeting?
Was a Celtic rep present? If so, who?
If not, has that information been communicated to Celtic? If so, to whom , when and how?
While we are at it, how is the investigation of their fans behaviour at the home game against Irvine Meadow, (no disrespect) going on?
TREBLE WINNING CAPTAINS
Sad to hear you don’t feel like posting on here any more mate:((
Did Donkey boy say WHY he wasn’t going to do anything and does he really think he can get away with doing nothing in your opinion??
HH
Anyone here got access to THE TIMES and able to copy over their article on The Rangers and Tax Case judgment ?
TWC
Judicial review is a last resort. Celtic have asked for a review and we await a response. Neil Doncaster doesn’t want any further action and will likely attempt to obstruct at every opportunity. Is he the be all and end all? I don’t think so. Didn’t he want to parachute Newco straight into the SPL?
There is an SPFL Board in place and they will have to decide. If there is such a time when Celtic say they will be taking no further action then a JR may be an option but until then it’s not. The SPFL need to deal with this, asking fans to put their hand in their pocket is not the way forward. We expect proper Governance as a minimum, we shouldn’t have to pay extra for it.
A question for those who followed the Craig Whyte case testimony …
Was the 5-way agreement refereed to, discussed or produced in evidence ?
TWC
Also, Paul’s leader today says ‘the heavily conflicted will not decide what happens next’ yet your post seems to contradict that entirely.
Sorry …
Was the 5-way agreement referred to, discussed or produced in evidence ?
Has anyone ever archived a signed copy of said document?
All this malady so some deluded bigots could pretend they were supreme beings (or at least superior to catholics/taigs/tarriers/fenians).If it wasn’t so serious it’d be hilarious.
Just a thought on title stripping or adding an asterisk.
Stripping titles isn’t really the point is it?
For each misdeed there should be a consequence.
Improperly registered player, 3-0 loss.
Each game that Rangers played in with an irregularly registered player should be shown in the record as a 3-0 defeat, leagues and other trophies adjusted and let the cards fall where they will.
Consequences.
Them’s the rules are they not?
Ask yourself one question.
If this was Celtic what would the media and the SFA/SPFL be saying?
Saintt Stivs
This one?
Rangers lose dispute over tax avoidance scheme
British football is braced for a wide-ranging crackdown on tax avoidance, including investigations into potential abuse of the “image rights” loophole, after HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) won its long-running case against Rangers at the Supreme Court yesterday.
After a long-running appeal process, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in HMRC’s favour over Rangers’ use of employee benefit trusts (EBTs), whereby more than £47 million was paid to players, managers and directors in tax-free loans, via trust funds in Jersey, between 2001 and 2010. The offences were committed by a previous regime and at a previous company, since Rangers were liquidated and reformed in 2012, but yesterday’s judgement represents another low in the Scottish club’s inglorious recent history.
Responding to the verdict, HMRC warned of “wide-ranging implications for other avoidance cases”, which are understood to include several clubs in England as well as Scotland. This comes at a time when HMRC has embarked on a specific “football compliance project” that will see its technical experts sent to all Premier League, Championship and Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) clubs to investigate and assess their tax arrangements, with regard to image rights as well as EBTs.
Rangers were far from the only leading club to take advantage of EBTs – which, though legal, were felt to have been abused by companies and individuals in all industries prior to a tightening of tax regulations in 2010. At least half a dozen Premier League clubs, past and present, are known to have reached settlements with HMRC, in some cases paying millions of pounds, after “coming clean” over various irregularities in their tax arrangements, but others could yet face investigation.
Andy Wood, a tax consultant who was recently involved in reaching a six-figure settlement between HMRC and a Premier League club official, warned that the conclusion of the Rangers case could have “dramatic” consequences both for football and for the wider business world.
“It gives HMRC the authority to pursue [other clubs or individuals] for income tax without the need to embark on a further series of legal actions,” Mr Wood, technical director of Enterprise Tax Consultants, said. “I have no doubt that HMRC will feel emboldened by this judgement as it expands its ongoing enquiries into football’s use of image rights payments.”
Image rights have long been used, notably in branches of the entertainment industry, as a legal means of enabling high-profile individuals to have commercial income, for the use of their image, paid into a separate company, often offshore – through which they would pay corporation tax (20 per cent) rather than income tax (45 per cent for top-band earners). It also allows clubs to avoid national insurance contributions on payments made in this manner.
Although image rights are legal, HMRC have concluded that the practice has been abused within football, including through the inflation of sums that might be far beyond an individual’s true commercial value. John Thompson, HMRC’s chief executive, told the Public Accounts Committee in December that offshore image rights payments are “the most significant risk in football” and that investigations were continuing into 43 players, eight agents and 12 clubs over such schemes.
HMRC conducted raids of offices at Newcastle United and West Ham United in April as part of an investigation into what it called “suspected income tax and national insurance fraud”. Business records, financial records, computers and mobile phones were seized, but Newcastle applied for a judicial review against HMRC, claiming that some of the documents were subject to legal privilege. A full judicial review hearing is expected.
The Supreme Court case yesterday related to companies including RFC 2012, which has since been liquidated, and not the “new” Rangers company. The verdict means that RFC 2012’s other creditors will now receive less money from the sums raised by BDO, the liquidator, due to the amount of money now owed to HMRC.
In a statement, HMRC said: “This decision has wide-ranging implications for other avoidance cases and we encourage anyone who has tried to avoid tax on their earnings to now agree with us the tax owed. HMRC will always challenge contrived arrangements that try to deliver tax advantages never intended by parliament.”
EMBRAMIKE SUPPORTING RES 12 on 6TH JULY 2017 3:59 PM
A question for those who followed the Craig Whyte case testimony …
Was the 5-way agreement refereed to, discussed or produced
:::::::::::::
I was there for 80% or so.
To mimic many of the witnesses ……….. I do not recollect it ever being mentioned.
In my time there I
James Doleman is the one to ask about this.
YORKBHOY…
If it was us who were in the huns predicament we’d be the first prisoner from this
https://youtu.be/bVDDYQlmq0w
;))
Doc 4:04
I think you are absolutely right.
The MSM intentionally use the term “title stripping” in a very emotive way to make it appear like a punishment, which – as you say – it isn’t.
Tax man…did you declare all the money you got for wages to us (HMRC) while playing for rangers
Player…. naw
Tax man….why
Player….a lot of it was an EBT
Tax man….did you declare that money and pay the tax on it
Player…no, they said I didn’t need to
Tax man…is that your signature on your tax return form.
Player …. yes
Tax man ……you owe HMRC money
Tax man……NEXT
RFC BOARD MEMBER…
TAX MAN….did you declare all the wages and NI for your playing staff to us (HMRC)
RFC…..no
Tax man….Why?
RFC ……some where paid EBTs
Tax man……did you pay the tax on that money?
RFC….no
Tax man …..is that your signature on that tax wages form
RFC…..yes
Tax man…..you owe HMRC money
SFA…So?
SPFL thinking about it?
Tonydonnelly67..In laymen terms that’s basically the way I see it without all the smoke and mirrors
TREBLE WINNING CAPTAINS on 6TH JULY 2017 3:43 PM
Doncaster told me, over a two hour debate, in his boardroom that regardless of Supreme Court he would do nothing. Regan and Doncaster are in position merely to see this through.
Regan and Doncaster are accountable to the boards who appointed them, the SFA and the SPFL respectively.
In particular Doncaster reports to a board comprising, in addition to SPFL Chairman Ralph Topping and independent non-executive director Karyn McCluskey:
Premiership representatives: Peter Lawwell (Celtic), Ann Budge (Heart of Midlothian) and Ian Maxwell (Partick Thistle)
Championship representatives: Leeann Dempster (Hibernian) and Eric Drysdale (Raith Rovers)
League 1 and League 2 representative: Ken Ferguson (Brechin City)
Somehow think that the board won’t accept a “do nothing” stance especially when board member Peter Lawwell probably instrumental in Celtic’s statement yesterday !
CATHEDRAL VIEW on 6TH JULY 2017 3:07 PM
From the article:
They then failed to present evidence to Nimmo Smith of the five matters Rangers admitted guilt on during the First Tier Tribunal process, preferring only to present matters that were in dispute, but (temporarily) found in Rangers favour.
Do we know the identities of the five rangers admitted guilt on?
I was trying to explain this to someone recently that not only did LNS exclude the DOS arrangement it also ignored some EBT payments that were uncontested as irregular by rangers.
**************
Novo, Prso, Buffel and Rodriguez. Another not yet identified. That’s why they were already guilty before yesterday’s verdict, not forgetting DoS for Moore, De Boer and Flo, of course.
Said it yesterday. Money talks. One day of (in) action – supporters of all clubs, boycott the SPFL opening day fixtures on 5th August.
One day of action. Done right. The whole house of cards collapse.
One day.
Interesting as usual from Phil …
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/07/06/how-sevcos-brexit-strategy-might-have-helped-the-chaps-at-hampden/
Just think of all them 0-3s that should already have been applied since 2012!
Hunderbirds are gone
So we could be heroes, just for one day?
Dallas 1109pm 05 July
Sorry, just catching up. It was Grant Russell, he of the “adjusted” UEFA statement. Definitely one for the watching.
BEATBHOY
The movement needed a slogan, thanks.
Seriously though, think about it, it’s the big corporate day. The launch of the new season, TV coverage, that the sponsors crave.
It is the perfect day to let the SFA/SPFL know it’s over, and the world media would report it.
Football without the fans is nothing… Be a Scottish Football Hero…. Just for one day!
Hunderbirds
The only occasion since their 2012 birth year on which they’ve been stymied was the threat by other supporters not to renew if Sevco were granted a start in the top tier. Even the genuine threat of a boycott has been shown to work, never mind it actually happening.
Oh, and Motherwell did a bit of stymieing on the park, too!
HUNDERBIRDS ARE GONE on 6TH JULY 2017 4:42 PM
Said it yesterday. Money talks. One day of (in) action – supporters of all clubs, boycott the SPFL opening day fixtures on 5th August.
One day of action. Done right. The whole house of cards collapse.
—————————————–
Whilst I agree entirely with your sentiment I cannot see Celtic fans boycotting CP on flag unfurling day – it’s just not going to happen. Anyway better boycotting an away game.
Have heard the media comment many times in the last few days …
“Won’t affect us as it’s new ownership”
This happens to clubs all the time- new owners take over clubs but they remain the same clubs.
The only way it won’t affect you is if you are a NEW CLUB, the original being liquidated.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/mike-ashley-court-case-day-4-2017-7
Not so sure we will get any real support from other clubs’ fans…too many dislike us and I imagine they believe we are looking to benefit ourselves and not scottish football…
TREBLE winning captains on 6th July 2017 3:43 pm
Is there a podcast or recording of that debate?
I’d like to hear it.
POG
Miss one unfurling. Really?
Honest, impartial governance of the sport we all love for decades into the future, against missing one flag unfurling?
Boycotting our own opening home game would secure the high moral ground, that we are…eh… already standing on.
Joking aside. Is the very integrity and soul of the sport not worth one day?
Note Doncasters words
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2847706/Scottish-Championship-Livingstone-deducted-five-points-tax-breaches.html
Has any other SPL club released a statement regarding the Supreme court decision?
Disappointing we still have a lot of people wanting change, as long as it doesn’t effect them!. Some lucky people must have had some very easy lives, silly billies, you must know the saying: no gain without …..?