Comment on Celtic’s Questions to Answer by Smugas.
Does converting the current shares in RIFC into an equivalent number of TRFC ones affect the various ownership %ages significantly EJ?
Smugas Also Commented
Celtic’s Questions to Answer
This post got me thinking.
Maybe they (the new Company that owns the old club) have dug a hole for themselves here. The new Company in its IPO did declare (or at least intimate) that they were the same club as the 1872 version and as has been said the "club" indemnified the EBT recipients for all tax demands . That leaves them 2 options , pay the tax (won't happen) or declare they are not the same "club" . The problem with option 2 is that they did declare to be in the IPO which misled investors as JC has pointed out by letter to the relevant authorities. Wouldn't it be lovely if they were forced to admit publicly that they were a new club and although they bought all those titles for £1 they cannot add any future trophies won by the new club to them.
As I understand part of the recent HMRC “mistake” was the discussion of gross versus net. So if a player had received £10k per month, had he snaffled £2848 of tax on the 10k (gross) or had he expected to receive the 10k and simply considered the further £4K of tax due wasn’t his problem. Surely the side letter infers it’s the latter. It’s just the received wisdom (chortles) on all matters blue seems to be that HMRCs normal default position of applying it net (the lower of the two figures) was entirely appropriate and it was clearly an unseen hand that thought to do anything else.
So, the side letter they denied existed appears to support a stance that HMRC applied an entirely correct calculation to and that “the mistake“ then fell on HMRC to apply something correctly contrary to the side letter which they were told didn’t exist in the first place.
Celtic’s Questions to Answer
Interesting comment on yesterday’s story from my unconnected high level must know what he’s talking about pure dead clever lad down the pub.
RTC mentioned that a buyer for Rangers even with the minimised BTC still needed to find £65m for the purchase so accurately yet blandly described by Douglas Fraser.
his reply “aye, and that figure still wouldn’t have rid you of King hinging about like a bad smell muttering about his £20m.”
as I said, observant lad.
must go to my tea and crumpets and this mornings Times headline. Apparently there’s a guy works down a chip ship swears he’s Elvis
Celtic’s Questions to Answer
Haven’t commented today until I was able to read the article involved. Wasn’t disappointed. The Times deserves everything that’s coming to it.
Actually thought Douglas Frasers wasn’t the worst stab at it, albeit it had obviously been sterilised (from using controversial terms like “clubs”)
Recent Comments by Smugas
Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
So Celtic had no say whatsoever in the 5 way agreement that set up the continuation twaddle going forwards and their representative (I forget his name, how appropriate) was on holiday the day the LNS findings dealing with the backwards stuff was released and was therefore unable to provide any input.
So there truly is nothing to see here and would we all just mind moving along please.
gunnerb 27th November 2019 at 14:36
For the Celtic board to recommend voting against resolution12 and offer no reasoning other than we tried and the matter has now withered on the uefa footballing vine is disingenuous and shows contempt for the hard work of the minority shareholders in pursuing the matter so doggedly.They appear to be unwilling to recognise the secular argument that a potential fraud may have been committed which damaged the value of shareholdings in Celtic and other related parties by denying an opportunity to increase revenue through access to the CL. I was expecting at least some kind of power point presentation to attempt a justification of their position but no, a straight forward 'b**ger off' was even worse than that! We are now left with a situation where Celtic are willing to accept/support the SFA as it currently operates and surely that is not in the interest of scottish football as a whole.
With Peter Lawwell categorically denying any prior knowledge or involvement in the notorious 5 way agreement it seems clear there is no danger of any 'blowback' on Celtic if/when the resolutioners refer the matter to the police to investigate fraud.I hope they do so.
Therein in bold is your problem gunnerb. They (Celtic) have moved heaven and earth to do nothing to ensure that the interests of what THEY perceive to be "Scottish Football" have been preserved.
Whatever fantasy notion you might have as to its make up is neither here nor there to them as proven by the exaggerated shoulder shrugging today.
In Whose Interests
How are everyone interpreting that Laird announcement. He’s putting up a £5m facility. But it almost reads like he’s covering the entire shortfall whatever that may be. Brave lad…
Whilst not one to single particular offenders out – every club has its bad apples etc etc – I can't help but notice that once again one named player in your article after scoring on Wednesday night makes a point of turning away in celebration and then apparently turning back towards the home support to do the knee slidey jersey tugging thing. Quite sure, in fact I know, he takes dogs abuse in a game but hes the one who just cant resist the 'return fixture' given the opportunity.
But then I assume his club is one of those top heavy ones referred to as "exerting a lot of pressure"
easyJambo 31st October 2019 at 19:23
The SFA (the clubs) and SPFL (the clubs) have repeatedly failed to act on these issues. It will be interesting to see if there is any appetite this time round. I suspect that lip service will again be paid with some watered down protocols implemented as an acknowlegement of FIFA's concerns rather than a determination to eradicate the problems from the Scottish game.
I believe they're still waiting for a response to their email "Why cant we just continue to turn the microphones down" EJ.