Celtic’s Questions to Answer

325
40522

There are a number of quite separate elements in the allegations of corruption which have been made against our Football Governance bodies and some of our clubs.

There is the allegation that RFC of 1872 lied to the Licensing Committee of the SFA about their tax indebtedness as at 31 March 2011;

there is the allegation that the Licensing Committee either colluded in that lie or, through carelessness and incompetence, simply accepted what RFC of 1872 told them , and passed that on to UEFA without any check as to its truthfulness and accuracy. The result of that was that RFC of 1872 was awarded a UEFA Competitions Licence to which, under the strict rules, they were not entitled.

The SFA has thus far refused to open up an independent investigation into all that was involved in the application made for that licence.

That refusal raised and continues to raise suspicions that the SFA has something to hide. [RFC of 1872 is in Liquidation, and TRFC are quite a different legal entity so are not involved and can legitimately say ‘nothing to do with us, Squire!’.. except, of course that some of the personnel involved in TRFC were also involved with RFC of 1872…at the material time.

As a football matter, until there is a full, independent investigation into the Licence matter, then the SFA is under a cloud of suspicion, and so are the then members of the Licensing Committee.

And as a football matter, the resistance by Celtic FC to the request that they insist on a full independent investigation being carried out within the football context is indicative of an unwillingness , rather than an inability, to do so. And that puts Celtic FC under suspicion of underhand complicity in a dirty football cheating arrangement.

And since no other club has raised any hue and cry about dirty work at the footballing crossroads [and the late Turnbull Hutton must have been sickened at their supine rolling-over], they all are under suspicion of consenting to dirty deeds destructive of the very essence of what their businesses are predicated upon being done in their name.

Taking the matter out of the football context and into the world of corporate business, there is the allegation that the Sports Governance body may knowingly and with deliberation colluded in fraud to obtain money by falsely representing to UEFA on behalf of a member club (RFC of 1872) that that club was entitled to a Licence to participate in a competition the mere participation in which would guarantee a financial gain for that club of £xM, with the possibility of £x+M more if the club achieved any kind of sporting success in the competition.

The consequence of any such alleged false representation was that the properly entitled club was denied such a Licence, and therefore was, in effect, cheated out of at least £xM.

Since that properly entitled club is a PLC, the Board of that club are required, required, by law to protect the interests of its shareholders.

It is not for the Board of Celtic plc to decide that the loss, in circumstances where there are prima facie grounds for suspecting that there may have been fraud and deceit [or even incompetence] involving some millions of pounds, should not be investigated.

It is not for the Celtic Board to try to kick a shareholders’ requisitioned resolution at an AGM into touch indefinitely without explanation, debate, and a vote.

It is failure by the Celtic Board to give adequate and justified and sufficient reasons as to why they have not insisted on such investigation that arouses suspicion in the mind of shareholders ,to whom they are accountable, that they too have something to hide.

This whole UEFA licence matter cannot be dismissed and corrected and put right until full investigation of the allegations is made, resulting in a proper assessment as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations.

The other allegation of corruption , namely that a huge lie was manufactured to try to have a brand new club regarded as being one and the same as the RFC of 1872 , and as being entitled to the sporting achievements of that failed club which currently exists as a liquidated football club, can be fixed almost overnight!

All the SFA has to do is renounce that part of a very dubious, highly secretive (and possibly illegal in itself) binding agreement under which it exceeded its legitimate Governance powers by awarding sporting honours and entitlements to a club that had not existed long enough to earn any one of them on the sports field.!

In doing so the SFA Board made a farcical mockery of the very idea of sporting competition and of their role as guardians of the Sport.

Let the SFA state publicly and with suitable apology that they gravely erred in so doing, and that the record books of the SFA (and the SPFL in consequence) will show that the Liquidated RFC ceased to be able to add to their impressive list of such honours and titles on the day they died as a football club.

Doing that will not, of course, save anyone from possible criminal investigation in relation to the Res 12 matter if that matter has to be referred to Police Scotland, but it would enable some kind of return to sane and proper and honest sports governance.

I will add one other remark. I have been posting for seven years or thereabouts about the cheating RFC of SDM and CW, and of the (what I believe to have been ) underlying dishonesty of the RIFC IPO prospectus and the blindness of the SMSM.

I would be some kind of hypocritical liar if I were to attempt to excuse or turn a blind eye to the possibility that the Celtic Board have questions to answer.

I think they do have questions to answer, but have shown a marked reluctance to do so.

And, as both a shareholder and supporter, I object to that.

325 COMMENTS


  1. Oh well, popcorn put away for another Friday night.

    The Sun has an eye catching headline today;

     

    "EXCLUSIVE

    SPEAKING OUT Rangers break their silence over EBT claims as they vow to ‘consider best course of action’ 

    Phil Martin 16 Nov 2019…

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

    This 'EXCLUSIVE' is based on input from an unnamed "Ibrox spokesperson".

    And yet, curiously, there is still absolutely nothing at all on the 'Rangers FC' website about this HMRC firestorm. indecision

     

    But instead of seeking out an unnamed Ibrox spokesperson, The Sun – or any SMSM rag for that matter – could have produced a similar 'EXCLUSIVE' of similar value – based on a variation of equally relevant sources;

     

    "Charles Green breaks his silence over EBT claims as he vows to 'consider best course of action."

    OR

    "Gordon [“I know nothing about anything”] Smith breaks his silence over EBT claims as he vows to 'consider best course of action'.

    OR

    "Mr. Blobby breaks his silence over EBT claims as he vows to 'consider best course of action'.

    etc…

    smiley

    View Comment

  2. Rangers Tax Case

    Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!

    14/11/2019

    It seemed all was settled in the long running Rangers Tax Case saga. Yet after the Scottish press’ latest embarrassment, we can look forward to months and years of continued arguing over my favourite subject.

    The Supreme Court ruled on 5th July 2017 that Rangers’ efforts to “pay for players we could not otherwise afford” had failed. Their disguised remuneration scheme was so badly implemented the court had no hesitation in dismissing this wheeze. When you are trying to pull a disguised remuneration scam, a key component is that the payments are actually disguised. Detailed notes and side-letters explaining what is going on should not fall into the hands of investigators.  Just like with Al Capone, suspicions that a criminal network was operating out of Ibrox led to evidence of deliberate and concealed non-payment of tax being uncovered.

    It should have been all over with the Supreme Court decision. Rangers had been liquidated. A new club had been formed to take its place. Most of Scottish football, including the press, had agreed to pretend that nothing had happened. This same rogues gallery locked arms to block any meaningful punishment for the years of blatant cheating. Incriminated by their knowledge and involvement in Rangers’ various violations of the rules, there cannot be an investigation into the events surrounding the last years of that club’s existence.

    Such has been the determination to sweep over the past and pretend that nothing traumatic happened, today’s The Times gets tax story wrong tale really took me by surprise.

    On one level (or maybe a 5th level?) you have to stand back and admire the artfulness of the spin-doctoring behind this story. Twitter and Rangers’ fansites are ablaze with fantasies: the old club is coming out of liquidation; HMRC made a mistake; or that Rangers have somehow been victims of this process. With Magnus Llewellin’s Scottish version of The Times playing the role of duped conduit or willing participant in a lie, the way this story has been crafted is worthy of a round of applause. In these days of Brexit and Trump propaganda, we see it quite often.  Yet this “Rangers died for nothing” narrative stands out. Devoid of factual references or checkable sources, it is a golden example of the power of the press to inflame and deflect on command.

     

    What really happened?

    As laid out in the @rangerstaxcase twitter feed last night, HMRC have decided that it is not worth to keep fighting for two side-show elements of the Big Tax Case. The first part was the “net or gross?” question.  There was no dispute that Rangers paid about £49m to players through the EBT scheme. However, was that amount net of tax? i.e. the real taxable wage was about £100m and the tax owed would be about £48m.  Or was that the gross wage? i.e. the taxable wages were £49m and the tax due only about £24m. HMRC had submitted assessments to Rangers over the years on the basis that the amounts were “net”.  However, this was always going to be a contentious issue. My post of 11th November 2011 predicted that HMRC would be forced to back down on this point and to accept the lower number. It is always nice to be proven correct in the course of time.

    11-Nov-2011

    As none of the courts or tribunals that had looked at the Big Tax Case had ever decided on “Net v Gross”, Rangers’ liquidators argued that the issue remained unresolved. For HMRC to pursue the argument that they were entitled to the higher numbers, they would have had to have initiated a new FTT case. With only a tiny amount of money at stake for HMRC (they will only get a very small percentage regardless of the amount owed), they dropped the claim for the higher amount.  No “shock! horror! error!” involved here.  It was simply not worth HMRC’s time to pursue the higher amounts as there isn’t enough cash in the kitty to pay for more than a few percent of what is due anyway.

    Similarly with the penalty amount.  On 10th June of 2019, Rangers’ liquidators, BDO, confirmed that HMRC had been asking for a penalty amount of 65% of the amount of tax underpaid (excluding interest). This too required a new FTT case to confirm as HMRC had agreed to a Rangers’ request back in 2010 to separate the tribunals for underpayment and penalty.  BDO correctly pointed out that the penalty amounts had not been confirmed by any legal process.  HMRC would have to relitigate the whole issue again if they wanted to score a point on Rangers’ fraudulent conduct. However, with no prospect of yielding a worthwhile increase in payment for their efforts, HMRC agreed to drop the claim for penalties.

    This was all simply a cost-benefit expediency. There was nothing behind the decisions to drop the claims for net-of-tax payments or the penalties that indicated that HMRC was admitting to any error.  Yet that is how this event has been masterfully spun by the usual Ibrox lackeys in the press.

    If RFC 2012 plc had survived and was a going-concern with assets and revenues to be claimed, HMRC would not have given up the claim on the penalties. (Possibly not on the gross v net either- but it is quite likely they would have lost this point). BDO list the revised HMRC tax claim as being £68.3m now.  There was not- and is not- a chance in hell that Rangers could have found the funds to avoid administration. This “sensational” story is creating a false narrative from nothing. Old original Rangers is not coming out of liquidation!

    The story of Rangers’ descent into collapse is characterised by fans amassing around polar extremes. There is little rational discussion.  Almost to a man, Rangers fans have shown no interest is learning what was being done in their name. If a Celtic supporter said it, it must be disputed and scorned. Similarly, most Celtic fans have enjoyed this adventure for the many months and years of unrivalled entertainment. In many corners of the Scottish football interwebs there is little concern for accuracy in any story.

    Therefore, I write this blog mainly for the record. The facts as currently stated by BDO are here if you want them. I doubt reality will cause many who follow the tribulations of the Ibrox clubs to sway their view much at all.  There are flame wars to fight.  In the press, there are agendas to push and newspapers to sell.

     

    View Comment

  3. In relation to my email last night to the Clerk to the Treasury Committee, it was suggested to me (in a private message from a reader of the blog) that I should have sent a copy to the FCA.

    I have now done so.

     

    View Comment

  4. I don’t know about anyone else but I can’t wait for the intellectual discourse on Sportsound this afternoon as The Rangers Tax Case is unpacked and explained to the eager listener. Well it’s not like there’s any real football on today🤭

    View Comment

  5. theredpill 16th November 2019 at 11:16

     

    The redpill,

    So would HMRC’s legal stance be described as, “Ye canna tak the breaks aff a Hielan’  man”?

     

     

    Rate This

    View Comment

  6. I have to laugh when I read and hear media people saying people will argue about the Rangers tax case for years to come. There is no argument. The highest court in the UK found in HMRC's favour. Rangers lost. There is no further appeal. What is there to argue about?

    The only problem we currently have is that people in the employ of the Times Newspaper have twisted the narrative of a story for their own ends. So much so that it forced HMRC to go public on the matter when as a rule they never comment. I imagine the senior management of the Times will not take kindly to such an inaccurate article attracting the attention of HMRC in this way. What utter fools those behind this nonsense look today. 

    View Comment

  7. I just want to know what The Times Scotland was promised, [or threatened with?], for carrying the HMRC nonsense story?

    The Editor must have guessed that there would be huge interest in the story.

    And if only to cover his @rse he would have his in-house business experts validate Traynor's PR p!sh… you would think?

    I suppose in the past, an Editor would have immediately fallen on his sword for bringing his paper – and all of his colleagues – into disrepute?

    View Comment

  8. Cluster One 16th November 2019 at 14:07

    '..And just by accident i found this yesterday.'

    ++++++++++++++

    Was that from the BBBC, Cluster One?

    Oh the days of Truth:

    " He has since formed a new club, now playing in the Scottish Football League Third Division'"

     

    View Comment

  9. Regarding my last post. I am aware that there were proper football matches taking place today in Scotland. I was referring to the inconsequential match in Nicosia. 

    View Comment

  10.  

    Sometimes the obvious things can be easily missed.

    It's just occurred to me that time is running out for the ebt recipients who haven't yet agreed a repayment plan with HMRC.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmrc-issue-briefing-disguised-remuneration-charge-on-loans/hmrc-issue-briefing-disguised-remuneration-charge-on-loans

    Where a scheme user was not an employee, or their employer was offshore or no longer exists, the individual user will need to pay any outstanding loan charge liability or agree a payment plan by 31 January 2020. All individuals who have outstanding disguised remuneration loan balances, and have not reached a settlement, must provide information on their loans to HMRC by 30 September 2019. They will also need to file a tax return for the year 2018 to 2019 by 31 January 2020.

    There must be a few ex-players around right now who are relieved that the Ibrox Club indemnified them against such circumstances.

    They will, of course, be currently in discussion with the Club.

    They and their advisors will have noted the numerous proclamations over the past seven years and feel so lucky that the Club was able to survive liquidation in 2012…

    …oh wait!?

    View Comment

  11. HirsutePursuit 16th November 2019 at 20:18
    ……………..The next year will be an interesting one when we look down the ibrox way. January we have the Mike Ashley retail case February i believe the Close Brothers loans are due.March is the Memorial walls case and if i remember correctly there is something about the ebt recipients for April , but i can’t remember what.
    ………………

    View Comment

  12. HirsutePursuit 16th November 2019 at 20:18

    '…time is running out for the ebt recipients who haven't yet agreed a repayment plan with HMRC.'

    +++++++++++++++

    I wonder how many such there are? Are those now resident overseas home and dry, without paying?

    Is there a grim determination among them not to admit publicly to agreeing a repayment plan because that would mean acknowledging either being as thick and dense  as three short planks or as having been happily ready to cheat the taxman? 

     

    View Comment

  13. JC

    Torre Andre Flo's side letter (I don't think it's possible to post it here) under the old DOS scheme – the Wee Tax Case – specifically says the Club provides indemnity.

    Since TRFC claims to be the Club which provided the indemnity, will he – and the other players with the same side letters – have approached TRFC to pay those outstanding tax amounts?

    If not, why not?

    The big story here is not HMRC picking over the dry bones of the old Rangers, it will be how many of the old players will soon be being held to account for underpaid PAYE.

    For those that believe in the continuity myth, those bills should be picked up by TRFC.

    Of course, if you think that HMRC are incompetent/corrupt/biased then the question of who should pay is buried under the wails and moans of the angry mob.

     

    View Comment

  14. Cluster OneCluster One 16th November 2019 at 21:56 HirsutePursuit 16th November 2019 at 21:42 JC Torre Andre Flo’s side letter (I don’t think it’s possible to post it here) …………………… https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1195822650846777345/photo/1

    ————–

    'The Club'. Nothing but 'The Club' was mentioned in that contract/side letter. Not 'the Company', not 'the Business', just 'The Club'. Clearly David Murray, and everyone else involved with the 'Club' believed (knew) that 'The Club' was an incorporated entity, and nothing else; or else they must have been fraudulently misleading every employee who accepted those contracts/side letters.

    If 'The Club' was not a corporate body, then a greater crime was committed in its name than has previously been acknowledged. But, of course, no such crime was committed, for 'The Club' was one and the same as the limited company, the body corporate!

    View Comment

  15. In my in-box yesterday was the statement by the CAS about Man City's appeal (on 24 May) against the Investigatory Chamber of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body's decision of 15 May to refer City's alleged non-compliance to the Adjudicatory Chamber  with a recommendation that a sanction be imposed on the club.

    UEFA asked the CAS panel to rule first on jurisdiction and admissibility. CAS determined the appeal was inadmissible, because under the Rules an appeal may only be filed if the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available to it prior to the appeal. 

    In City's case, the reference by the Investigatory Chamber to the Adjudicatory Chamber is not final because the Adjudicatory chamber is competent to take any of the decisions listed in Article 27 (of the Club Financial Control Body's Procedural Rules) that are described as being 'final'.

    In other words, City went off at half-cock in lodging an appeal to the higher level before their case has been 'finally' determined by the lower level. Like appealing to the Court of Session before a Sheriff Court has actually sent you Barlinnie!

    I mention this because it indicates to me that the legal advisors of   Man City  either cannot be first rate lawyers or  that the club  chooses not to pay for first rate bods. 

    That is surprising.

    And it makes me wonder where our clubs ( and football governance bodies) actually are even now ( never mind ten or eleven years ago) when it comes to appreciating that they are operating in a highly legally complex field, where the conduct of business by nods and winks and private soirees between club directors and governance personnel with comforting verbal assurances that 'that'll be all right , Wullie, big Boab 'll fix it up' is no longer as safe as it might once have been.

    What legal advice allowed the nonsense of the 5-Way Agreement? What legal advice was sought and given about what to convey to the SFA/UEFA  about RFC of 1872 tax indebtedness vis-à-vis satisfying all the criteria required for the award of a UEFA competitions licence?

    (Or, come to think of it, what legal advice was it that allowed an IPO prospectus 'summary' to imply that the football club that was to be the main business of RIFC plc was RFC of 1872 and not some brand new club newly granted membership of the SFA?)

     

     

    View Comment

  16. The Club* refers to the Rangers football club PLC which is the Company (yes I Know) who are currently being liquidated . The fact it was printed on Company notepaper will allow them to claim it was the Company who indemnified them. Any lawyer acting for the players should try and use the club* aspect to hold RIFC to account but I doubt they would be successful . It was the club that was the company and not the club that was the club and incorporation doesn't neccessarily mean that the club is the company or vice versa unless it suits our purpose for it to be so . All clear ? 

    View Comment

  17. HirsutePursuit 16th November 2019 at 21:42

    '…the question of who should pay is buried under the wails and moans of the angry mob.'

    ++++++++++++++++

    And, sadly, not in the Memorial Wall , a project contracted for ; a project that  was 'shelved' [  a journo word for 'breach of contract'].

    Definitely not one of TRFC's finest decisions, but perhaps they recognise that the tragic deaths of supporters of the Rangers of my grandfather's days is really nothing to do with them, since they were not responsible in any way for the safety of fans at Ibrox stadium , in the way that they are not responsible for the mountain of debt incurred by RFC of 1872.

    View Comment

  18. theredpill 16th November 2019 at 11:1

    'Rangers Tax Case

    Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!'

    ++++++++++++++

    Afore I go to my kip, I must say, as I have said often enough before, that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to RTC-the-person.

    When I think , with embarrassment, of how naïve and simple-minded I was in 2011, swallowing as true the guff that the SMSM reported ( 'it's in the papers. It must be true') about Murray's millions, and the MBMB , in a way that I would never have swallowed anything in the papers about politics or any other aspect of life, I realise what a tremendous service the RTC blog did.

    There can scarcely be a one of us who has not by now realised the extent to which Scottish Football and the SMSM have  played us for suckers-and continue to play us for suckers.

    I again honour the man.

    View Comment

  19. Headline from the DR;

    "Rod Petrie promises to address the Hampden bugbear that annoys every supporter

    …"

    ========

    Why is the SFA President – Rod Petrie – speaking to the media?

     

    Surely this operational matter should be publicly addressed by the £300K p.a. CEO – Ian Maxwell?

    View Comment

  20. Actually, if you read the above DR Rod Petrie article in full…

     

    you will quickly surmise that the guy is delusional.

    Not exaggerating: delusional.

     

    Read it for yourself.

    View Comment

  21. Rangers to create memorial garden that will pay tribute to 66 fans who lost their lives at Ibrox
    Glasgow City Council have approved the plans which will also give families the chance to choose Ibrox as the final resting place for the ashes of their loved ones.16 MAR 2018.
    ………..
    Rangers being sued £1.1m after ditching Ibrox Disaster memorial wall plans.31 MAY 2019
    ……………
    If this project was never a goer what was it used to deflect from? You get to the stage now if any kind of good news comes out of ibrox it is a deflection of some very bad news on the way.Or some kind of ploy to get the fans on board. March 16, 2018.
    Was it to sell more season tickets? Was it to get more members to join club 72? Was it just another PR stunt that went wrong?
    …..
    The official page gives another good news story around about the same time.(Two good news stories)
    A host of Rangers greats are returning to Ibrox to take part in a star studded legends match on Saturday 24 March 2018 (kick off 3pm).

    View Comment

  22. steviebc 17  november 2019

    .Rod Petrie …''.we have to look at the creativity of the people on the SFA board"

    ++++++++

    Brilliantly creative in the lies and cheating department, Petrie: bogus licences, 5-way agreement resurrection powers…..

     

     

    View Comment

  23. Glib and Shameless Premier League  Update

    1- Dave King

    2- Prince Andrew

    3- Boris Johnson

    4- Donald Trump

    5- David Murray

    6- Bill Clinton

    7- OJ Simpson

    8- Jim Traynor

    9- Tony Blair

    10- Richard Nixon

    An absolute car crash of an interview last night with more than a few fibs thrown in but what was even more appalling is the BBC aiding and abetting this establishment figure in an attempt to wriggle out of a criminal situation. When will our media do the job we pay them for ? 

    View Comment

  24. TT, you've omitted the devil incarnate: Hilary Clinton.

    Must be close for top spot?

     

    Andrew should get on the blower to our very own PR guru Traynor.  Well, nobody in the SMSM has ever been allowed to discuss King's dodgy past – including his 42 criminal convictions.  

    View Comment

  25. Timtim 16th November 2019 at 22:33 The Club* refers to the Rangers football club PLC which is the Company (yes I Know) who are currently being liquidated . The fact it was printed on Company notepaper will allow them to claim it was the Company who indemnified them. Any lawyer acting for the players should try and use the club* aspect to hold RIFC to account but I doubt they would be successful . It was the club that was the company and not the club that was the club and incorporation doesn't neccessarily mean that the club is the company or vice versa unless it suits our purpose for it to be so . All clear ?

    ———

    While I agree with what you are saying here, and actually thought along the same lines (of the excuses the excuse makers would make) while writing my post on the subject, there remains the fact that had there been the slightest inkling within either the directors' or players' minds that 'the Club' was not one and the same as the company then the side letter/contract was totally worthless and, had the directors been aware of this, a fraudulent act had occurred.

    Adding to that I should refer to something I wrote on the OC/NC debate some time ago, and that is that prior to 2012, millions of words had been written about Rangers FC, and not once, and there can be no doubt that this is true, did any of these words refer to a separation of club and company, nor mention some separate entity living in the hearts and minds of Rangers, or any football club's, supporters. And here we have, in an official document, created and executed by officials of Rangers Football Club that clearly (for it would be an act of fraud for it to be otherwise) ties the limited, incorporated club to…well, itself!

    I'd love to challenge any Rangers apologist or Same Club claimant to provide any document more decisive than that side letter/contract in the OC/NC debate. I'd even open that challenge up to any of the millions of words written by all and sundry about Rangers FC that just might hint, even slightly, to the existence of two Rangers entities prior to the club failing to achieve a CVA in 2012.

    In the 7 years since that failed CVA, and in all the words written about it since, absolutely not one contract, or official document, or even a quote from a book, media article or overheard conversation, supporting the existence of a club separate from the incorporated club has come to light. That's over 100 years of silence over something that miraculously turned up one day without even an attempted explanation.

    PS sorry to reopen the OC/NC debate, but it's never really gone away, for truth must always be supported in the face of lies and dishonesty, and never more so than today in this lying and dishonest Britain.

    View Comment

  26. Timtim 17th November 2019 at 13:51

    the signature is of Douglas Odam  the finance Director"..

    +++++++++++++++

    That sent me on an enjoyable trawl through Companies House and sundry other interesting bits and pieces more or less loosely related to "Rangers"

    Not the least interesting item ( in a general knowledge kind of way) is that Murray International Holdings which was dissolved following liquidation on 29 January 2016 was restored [under section 1029 of the Companies Act 2006] to the register by Lord Doherty on 21st February 2017 on the petition of one Samantha Thomson 

    link 2OhBbSqE%2FhZq03gVTz51nTGw%3D%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=84a44313391c8658ce9f2a3d49aea030b5f4834ffacf4999942b93126b88ec92

    [ CH entry  " 21 Mar 2017Order of court – dissolution void"]

    It was dissolved again on 27 March 2018.

    Of interest in understanding how the arch-cheat dumped Rangers of 1872 in the proverbial while looking after himself it's worth having a look ( if you haven't already done so previously- (it was new to me) have a read at

    https://www.insider.co.uk/news/revealed-how-murray-international-holdings-10575967

    It makes my broadly socialist head birl to visualise all the (no-doubt perfectly legal ) multiplication of companies  and interlinked deals and swops. 

     

     

    View Comment

  27. Allyjambo 17th November 2019 at 15:25!..

    '…I'd even open that challenge up to any of the millions of words written by all and sundry about Rangers FC that just might hint, even slightly, to the existence of two Rangers entities prior to the club failing to achieve a CVA in 2012'

    +++++++++++

    Ah but.but..but, Aj, we had the omniscient, omnipotent (but now defunct itself) BBC Trust  AND the Advertising Standards Agency ( like they would know!) telling the BBC and the rest of us that there was a dead club and a continuing entity that was not to be referred to as a new club"-silly, deceitful oul' s. ds and s.desses that they were!

    You are absolutely right : the Big Lie simply must be defeated and the truth proclaimed .

     

    View Comment

  28. The last few days have fairly revived the  site and the posts are coming in thick and fast. The Times article again brings up the issue of who is more guilty in the RTC, the old RFC and it’s directors, the very many media outlets or the SFA who have preformed philosophical gymnastics in perpetuating a bare faced lie. As I stated at the start of this post the renewed interest in the RTC is welcome but I’m betting now that the Times is hugely regretting printing that article.

    View Comment

  29. 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. 

    View Comment

  30. John Clark 17th November 2019 at 15:53 

    Allyjambo 17th November 2019 at 15:25!.. '

     "the Big Lie simply must be defeated and the truth proclaimed"

    —————————-

        Of all the squirrels regularly released through-out this blatantly plugged lie, this is the largest deflection whopper of them all. 

         Anger amongst their fans as sure as night follows day, would be the emotion that arose when the shock and disbelief abated…..They have a unique way of demanding answers, and to be fair, every right to ask, WTF happened to their club, and who effin' did it. 

        That was all averted by giving the thumbs up to anyone who wanted to set up a kiddy-on club…

    And I mean anyone……..Without that kiddy-on club to hide behind, they were sunk. 

       Wee Craigie, and Charlie Chuckles, and Duff & Phelps, and Mick Ashley, and Imran, and Stockbridge, and Octopus et al weren't even on the scene when their club was done in.

        The fans of Rangers(I.L.), would be asking a whole different set of questions, of a whole different set of suspects. 

        It would appear that having "#Gaunfurra55", to shout at Timmy, is more important to some, than unmasking those really responsible for slaying their club……Because you can't have both !

        Considering that without doubt, every bluenose on the planet, watched their club fold like Tommy Cooper, "Live", on the telly, youtube, newsreels, SMSM, phones, etc……….As deflections go,  it's a cracker !

        

        

        

    View Comment

  31. Allyjambo 17th November 2019 at 15:25
    and that is that prior to 2012, millions of words had been written about Rangers FC, and not once, and there can be no doubt that this is true, did any of these words refer to a separation of club and company, nor mention some separate entity living in the hearts and minds of Rangers, or any football club’s, supporters.
    ………………..
    I wonder if they still have this.
    https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1196120816381022210/photo/1

    View Comment

  32. Cluster One 17th November 2019 at 17:42

    '..I wonder if they still have this.'

    +++++++++++++++++

    Ha, ha, Cluster One, you can fairly dig out the material!  Your archive material must be worth a small fortune.

    View Comment

  33. John Clark 17th November 2019 at 19:46
    I once told someone i had a big shed. One day i may even get time to get it all in order, but events keep adding to it;-)

    View Comment

  34. An awful lot of people on social media saying the current Rangers are behind on their taxes. Right now it might just be people putting two and two together and coming up with five. I guess that's what happens when a ridiculous story appears like the one in the Times last week. 

    On a general note, if any football club is behind on tax how long would HMRC wait before taking action? 

    View Comment

  35. Oh! JC 

    since you are about, i have been reading with interest in your quest for trying to get a responce.
    ………..
    John Clark 15th November 2019 at 23:12
    Right! Not having received any reply from either of the two email addresses of the FCA, I have sent this email to the Clerk of the Treasury Committee.
    ….
    Briefly, on 25 June I wrote to the CEO of the FCA suggesting that the FCA may have been in breach of its statutory duty in the matter of the authorisation of the Prospectus for an Initial Public Offer of a particular company.
    …………..
    That got me thinking (I know, i know)
    I have had a look but could only find this.
    https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/sevco-the-elephant-in-the-room/
    Realizing the significance of what he was telling Lord Doherty, Brown continued: “I realize that Rangers being the same club is a matter of life and death to some, but it wouldn’t be a proper legal case without the elephant in the room getting mentioned.The team are paid by Sevco, play at a ground owned by Sevco, trained by a manager who is employed by Sevco, fans buy tickets from Sevco. Rangers was a basket of assets that could be sold, but these were not indivisible.The players went one way and the ground another, where is the “club” then?”
    ………
    You may be better placed to find the court transcripts better than me.
    But to get to my point, and i don’t know if it will help you or not?
    In trying to sell the prospectus to investors Mr Green is telling them it is the same club, but in another court case his lawyer is stating the players are paid by sevco etc.etc.

    View Comment

  36. Regards

    HMRC pursuing football clubs

     

    Hearts had four winding up orders raised by HMRC between December 2011 and November 2012.

     

    Therefore there is no excuse for any delays in going after any football club who may be behind in its PAYE  and associated tax payments – if that is the case.

    View Comment

  37. wottpi 17th November 2019 at 21:20

    Hearts had four winding up orders raised by HMRC between December 2011 and November 2012.

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

    Yet Rangers under Craig Whyte stopped paying tax in October 2011 and HMRC never once issued a WUO. In fact, HMRC only sprung into action when Whyte himself made a move towards Administration. 

    In terms of Rangers currently being behind on tax I would be very surprised, but who knows. Also, there is simply no way that nonsense in the Times last week was for nothing.

    View Comment

  38. https://jpjenkins.com/companies/rangers-international-football-club-plc

    Rangers International Football Club PLC

    Company Overview

    Rangers International Football Club PLC, the holding company of The Rangers Football Club Limited, which is based in Glasgow, Scotland. The Rangers Football Club, formed in 1872, is one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972.

    Reading this I would be inclined to think if I purchased shares they would be shares in a club established in 1872, surely this is misleading the public, as I am most definetly sure you cannot be a holding company for a deceased club and a deceased club that had within it's staff a director of the above named holding company.

    Is this not false advertising and an invitation to treat based on a false premise? Thoughts as i may be wrong.

     

     

    View Comment

  39. It's hard to believe that RIFC would be a delinquent tax payer, but who knows?

    As we saw with Craig Whyte, desperate times can result in desperate measures.

     

    I'm thinking that yes, there could be a significant overdue payment – but payable to any one of a myriad of exasperated suppliers.

    Mibbees a supplier had/has threatened to apply for a Winding Up Petition because RIFC is so overdue with its vendor payments?

    View Comment

  40. Cluster One 17th November 2019 at 20:31

    '..That got me thinking (I know, i know)
    I have had a look but could only find this.'

    You may be better placed to find the court transcripts better than me.

    ++++++++++

    Thank you, Cluster One. The relevant reference is to

    Green v Rangers International Football Club Plc [2017] ScotCS CSOH_90 (22 June 2017)

    This was the judgment in the Green claim (in 2015) to have his trial expenses paid, that was not published until 2017 because at the time of the original hearing the criminal trial was still not concluded.

    I think it was reading that judgment that must have made me , a long time afterwards, think about looking at the IPO prospectus: at the time, I have to say , I scarcely was able to grasp the arguments about whether Green was or was not the CEO of RIFC plc or only the CEO of SevcoScotland /TRFC Ltd  ( and note how Sevco 5088 is mentioned with no indication of why it  is replaced by SevcoScotland!)

    If nothing else that judgment is a comfort to me in that it is clear that other minds were thinking that the IPO Prospectus may have been misleading to potential investors, and not the feverish  fantasy of some Australian-tanned, sculpted-bodied but geriatric arthritic 'Rangers hating' practitioner of natation.

    The link to the judgment is:

    https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/scot/cases/ScotCS/2017/%5B2017%5DCSOH90.html&query=(charles)+AND+(alexander)+AND+(green)

     

     

    View Comment

  41. bigboab @ 22.15

    The Rangers Football Club, formed in 1872, is……. not was (past tense) so without doubt they are saying that the club formed in 1872 is the club that the holding company run. 

    On the tax issue , it did occur to me that the reason they were attacking HMRC was because they had a current issue with taxation which considering their history would be the last people you would want to avoid paying then I reminded myself who the Chairman was and how it is almost in his DNA to try and avoid paying taxes. If there is an issue and HMRC now come knocking then the victim card is already half way down his sleeve. 

    View Comment

  42. bigboab1916 17th November 2019 at 22:15 

    '…Reading this I would be inclined to think if I purchased shares they would be shares in a club established in 1872, surely this is misleading the public, ..'

    ++++++++++++

    Precisely. 

    And the fact that a query four and a half months ago from a member of the public on the point  has not been replied to kind of suggests, to me at least, that the FCA might have a wee problem.

    If they saw, and see, nothing wrong in their authorisation of the IPO all they have to do is say so, and explain how so to simple minds. 

    Just as the SFA, if they think the award of a UEFA licence to Whyte's 'Rangers' was legitimate, could simply produce the evidence and shut us all up.

    Neither the SFA nor the FCA has taken that course.

    There might be some excuse for the numpties in office as members of the governance bodies of a sport( non-statutory, private companies) 

    There can be no excuses for a body which, charged under statute to ensure that potential investors are not misled by false information given in an IPO prospectus, nevertheless authorises the publication of an untrue and misleading prospectus!

    I speculate that just as the SFA has a problem, so does the FCA.

    Ultimately all due to SDM!

     

     

     

     

    View Comment

  43. Ex Ludo, why would Gary McAllister think of leaving Ibrox when he is within – potentially – touching distance of a league title – nevermind a LC medal?  indecision

     

     

    As an aside – and not that I'm on a commission with RT, honest comrade – but I watched a very interesting programme on RT called 'Renegade' – probably still on YouTube.

    Anyway on the current episode, it's the host with an ex-UK MSM journalist who is now independent, and a current UK University professor in journalism.  Debate was about lack of trust in MSM, etc.

     

    Couple of SFM relevant points I picked up;

    The journalist openly admitted that in the MSM she routinely copied/pasted several press releases daily for a variety of reasons, with lack of time and resources being top reasons. 

    But it's the first time I've heard the term 'copy/paste' being openly quoted about UK journalism.

     

    The professor mentioned that UK MSM is "massively over represented" by a narrow demographic with a private school and Oxbridge background – and there is a propensity for groupthink.

     

    As we know, it's not just the footy journos letting us down in the MSM.

    View Comment

  44. "Rangers Tax-Case‏ @rangerstaxcase 1h1 hour ago

    You would laugh if I told you the name of the insolvency practitioners who were originally advising Ellis and Whyte before Whyte took the cheaper option of Duff and Phelps."

    ++++++++++++++++
    Ellis was an insolvency practitioner with Grant Thornton?

    View Comment

  45. bigboab1916 17th November 2019 at 22:15

     I think the statement is drafted in a way that could mislead if the reader didn't pay attention . I see this bit as being true

    The Rangers Football Club, formed in 1872, is one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972.

    I also see this bit as being true

    Rangers International Football Club PLC, the holding company of The Rangers Football Club Limited, which is based in Glasgow, Scotland.

    However , I can see that we're talking about two distinct entities , The Rangers Football Club and The Rangers Football Club Limited . Designed to mislead , imo .

    View Comment

  46. paddy malarkey 18th November 2019 at 13:53

    '..Designed to mislead , imo.

    ++++++
    Again, precisely.

    The sheer brass-necked gall of it takes your breath away.

    The FCA definitely has a question to answer.

    A  question, I'm beginning to think, they are so far unable to answer because they don't how to deal with the consequences.

    Did they make an honest  mistake, by sleeping at the wheel, making assumptions? or worse, (and God forbid that I should become paranoid!) was there a deliberate averting of eyes in pretty much the same way that the SFA , the SMSM and the BBC averted their eyes?

    Does the hold of Ibrox extend as far as the Regulatory body?

    It certainly seemed that the TOP handled King with kid gloves instead of pushing for him to be locked up. Is the FCA up to its knees in the milk of human kindness?

    View Comment

  47. Ex Ludo 18th November 2019 at 18:48

    JohnClark@11.21

    I presume Mr Antonov carried out due diligence into RFC and didn’t like what was uncovered although RFC might have dodged a bullet too.

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

    Here's a selection of tweets from James Doleman during the Whyte trial about a potential sale of the club that fell through.  (I don't know if this was the Antonov proposal)

    Murray says he had a buyer in 06/07 but at the last minute "I pulled out of the deal" as "not in best interests of the club"

    Murray says about potential buyer "I didn't agree with what they were going to do with the club" no other offers of note

    Murray: decision to put club on market taken 06/07. Says had done due diligence on previous potential buyer but pulled out at last minute

    Murray says previous buyer was doing a "property play, building flats on what I considered sacred ground, moving stands"

    View Comment

  48. For what it's worth now, Craig Whyte thought in the Autumn of 2009 that he had bought Rangers, a done deal. Not from the horse's mouth, but from the one standing next to him, in the Autumn of 2009.

    View Comment

  49. Ex Ludo 18th November 2019 at 18:48

    '..I presume Mr Antonov carried out due diligence into RFC and didn’t like what was uncovered although RFC might have dodged a bullet too.'

    ++++++++++++++++++

    You said it! 

    I've just finished reading the judgment in Antonov's appeal in an English court against the  the UK's decision to accede to the extradition request   made by Lithuania

    you'll find it on this link to Baillii    https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1243.html

    After that judgment he skipped bail and got off his mark.

    This is a report in the Baltic Times of  12 March 2019

    Russian court sentences former Latvijas Krajbanka and Snoras co-owner Antonov to 2.5 years in prison

    • 2019-03-12
    • LETA/Interfax/TBT Staff

    Photo: Sanktpeterburg.bezformata.com

    Photo: Sanktpeterburg.bezformata.com

    ST. PETERSBURG – A Russian court on Monday sentenced former Latvijas Krajbanka and Lithuanian bank Snoras' co-owner Vladimir Antonov to two-and-a-half years in prison for defrauding Russian bank Sovetsky.

    The St. Petersburg Vyborgsky District Court convicted Antonov of large-scale fraud.

    The court also ruled that Antonov would have to serve his sentence in a corrective labor colony.

    Antonov pleaded guilty, he was arrested in the courtroom.

    Antonov was arrested in Russia in April 2018. He was charged with misappropriating EUR 2 million from the Sovetsky bank together with several other bank executives.

    According to Lithuanian prosecutor's office, damage caused by suspected criminal activity by Antonov and Raimondas Baranauskas, two former managers and main shareholders of Lithuania's bankrupt bank Snoras, are estimated at around EUR 500 million.

    Lithuanian prosecutors point out that sufficient evidence was collected during the pre-trial investigation to prove the suspects' guilt in committing the crimes.

    Baranauskas and Antonov are likely to be tried in absentia as they are hiding in Russia, which refuses to provide legal assistance to Lithuania.

    The pre-trial investigation into suspected misappropriation of Snoras' assets, fraudulent accounting, document forgery, abuse of office, embezzlement and money laundering was launched in Lithuania back in 2011.

    Snoras' operations were suspended in late 2011.

    Snoras owned more than 60 percent stake in Latvijas Krajbanka, which was ruled insolvent by the Riga Regional Court in December 2011 after it was determined that more than EUR 100 million was missing from Krajbanka."

    They would appear to have better prosecutors furth of Scotland, who can nail these guys good and proper!

    "The court also ruled that Antonov would have to serve his sentence in a corrective labor colony"

    Anybody read Solzhenitsyn's 'One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich'? 

    There are a few folk in Scottish football that deserve a spell in a 'corrective labo(u)r colony.

    In my opinion.And if I could bring it about….devil

     

     

    View Comment

  50. John Clark @23.12

    What is it about Lithuanian banks? Fraud seems de rigeur. Compare and contrast how Dave King was treated by the court in SA as opposed to Mr Antonov in Lithuania. A corrective  labour colony sounds pretty harsh. There’s probably a few of those facilities left over from the Soviet era. That’s quite the deterrence. 

    View Comment

  51. Oh and I do remember reading the Solzhenitsyn books at school. Ivan Denisovich was a fraction of the length of Cancer Ward, which I found quite depressing.

    View Comment

  52. Ex Ludo 18th November 2019 at 23:40

    '..Compare and contrast how Dave King was treated by the court in SA as opposed to Mr Antonov in Lithuania.'

    ++++++++++++++

    I'm not entirely sure , Ex Ludo, but I think Lithuania and the  people like you and me that he damaged have  not yet had the pleasure of sticking it to Antonov, as he stuck it to them!

    It looks as if the Russkis jailed him for offences in or against Russia ( where he had presumably gone  rather than to Lithuania who had asked the UK to extradite him!) when he fled from England.  

    Bad cess to him, and worse to those in Scottish Football who have tried to stitch us all up with their ridiculous lies and deceit. 

     

     

    View Comment

  53. This post got me thinking.

    TimTim

    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.

    View Comment

Comments are closed.