Dear Mr Bankier

559
91415

Readers may be aware that the group Fans Without Scarves have written to Celtic urging them to seek a review of Scottish football (See here)
On the back of that laudible effort, I have been persuaded to publish a letter I sent to that same board over a week ago (on 8 November)
At the time of publication, I have received no acknowledgment.  Some organisations are like that, of course. (I put it down to the inferior quality of the social upbringing of their boards rather than concern for their postage bill)

The following is the text of that communication;

Mr I Bankier,
Chairman,
Celtic Football Club plc
Celtic Park, Glasgow G40 3RE

08/11/2018

Dear Mr Bankier,

“Resolution 12”

You will, of course, recall as clearly as I that, at the Celtic plc AGM in 2013, the Resolution bearing number 12 on the agenda was not formally debated and voted upon, but was adjourned indefinitely.

I understand that over the intervening years (!) a number of conversations and discussions have taken place between the Board and the immediate proposers of Resolution 12 (among whom, I should perhaps say, I was not numbered in 2013 and am not now numbered).

As an eventual outcome of those discussions and conversations, as again you will recall, Celtic plc in September 2017, shortly before that year’s AGM, entrusted to the Scottish Football Association [SFA] the task of undertaking a thorough investigation into the circumstances under which the Union of European Football Associations [UEFA] granted a UEFA-competitions licence to the then Rangers Football Club in 2011.

Unfathomably, it was not until May of this year that the Compliance Officer of the SFA referred the matter to the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal [JPDT]

In that same month of May 2018, evidence emerged that appeared to cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the award of the UEFA licence to Rangers Football Club in 2011.

In late June 2018, and following careful consideration of that evidence, the legal representative of what is known as the ‘Res.12 Group’ informed both the SFA and Celtic plc of these doubts, passing to those bodies copies of the evidence which gave rise to those doubts.

In July 2018, The Rangers Football Club Ltd challenged the reference to the JPDT, arguing that the appropriate authority to which any such reference ought to have been made is the Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS]

This challenge has apparently and inexplicably frozen all action by the JPDT.

To my eye, as a small shareholder, it appears that the Board of Celtic plc have been and continue to be at the very least dilatory and lukewarm if not yet totally remiss in looking after the interests of their shareholders.

It is now November: the reference by Celtic plc to the SFA was made over one year ago. Even by reference to the civil Courts let alone to the internal disciplinary body of a not very large sports governance body such as the SFA, that is an unconscionably long time for a reference not to have been acted upon. I now feel obliged to ask the following questions:

  1. Have the Celtic Board pressed the SFA to say what action they have taken vis-vis the challengemade to the legal powers of the JPDT to investigate the circumstances surrounding the award of the licence ?
  2. If they have not done so, would they care to give their reasons why not?
  3. If the response from the SFA was that the matter of the jurisdiction of the JPDT has been referred elsewhere (to UEFA or to the CAS), are the Celtic Board content with that response and prepared to take such subsequent monitoring action as may be necessary?
  4. If the SFA have not referred the question of jurisdiction elsewhere, have the Celtic Board ascertained at what stage the JPDT’s investigation is at, or even whether it has yet begun?
  5. If the Board have been told that the JPDT has stalled, perhaps indefinitely, what does the Celtic Board propose doing to ensure that the investigation that they were assured would be undertaken will indeed be undertaken by the JPDT as a matter of priority, with a timetable for completion?
  6. Does the Celtic Board actually trust the SFA/JPDT to investigate thoroughly, honestly and deliver true judgement? Is it not time that a vote was taken to pass ‘Res 12’, based on what is now known by Celtic plc, and the matter formally referred by Celtic plc to UEFA to investigate as thoroughly as was done in the recently reported cases of the Albanian, Serbian and Kazakhstan national associations?

The Celtic Board must keep in mind their obligations to shareholders. This would be especially so where there may be grounds for suspecting chicanery on the part of others, in consequence of which Celtic plc might have been denied an actual, defined sum of money and the opportunity potentially to compete for much more in ‘prize’ money.

In such circumstances it would not be at all for the Board on its own authority simply to ignore the possibility of chicanery and dismiss the matter.

There are sufficient grounds for me to believe that the award of a UEFA licence to the then Rangers Football Club in 2011 may have been made in the knowledge that that club was absolutely not entitled to that award.

In my opinion, the granting of a UEFA licence to the then Rangers FC in 2011 is not merely a ‘sporting’ matter, but one which might conceivably, in the absence of acceptable responses from the SFA/JPDT, require reference to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

The failure to date of Celtic plc to insist that the SFA take urgent action to fulfil the commitment they made that a thorough, independent investigation would be undertaken urges me to make such reference on my own initiative as a citizen who suspects that a crime may have been committed.

However, before taking such a step, I think I will await your replies to the questions above if you would be good enough to provide such.

Yours sincerely,

name and address

559 COMMENTS


  1. I see in an explanation to a parliament select committee yesterday that Mike Ashley (discussing his recent HoF purchase explaining why cash negative stores couldn’t sustain the high street as is) exclaimed “who could keep 59 stores open and pay for it?  Only God himself.”

     

    Why does he have to bring Dave King into everything!  Mans obsessed.

    View Comment

  2. Following on from Barcabhoy 3rd December 2018 at 23:17 

    We are back in the situation of many hoping for a catastrophic event that will end the new club.

    However, it will not be one event that does it but, as Barcabhoy implies, a series of events coming together over time that just makes the business model financially unsustainable.

    It has been said many times before that nobody knows what King’s plan is or if he has some form of ulterior motive.

    We know how the SA courts viewed the man, we know he likes to kick cans down the road and seems to like a costly day (or many) in court.

    However, at the end of the day he has channelled some millions into the new club and somehow convinced others to do the same.

    Maybe he genuinely is happy to put some of his cash into the club but clearly only on his terms. After all he didn’t gain his millions from splashing cash willy-nilly.

     

    The problem for T’Rangers fans, is that while they currently sit top of the league, are still in Europe and have the Scottish Cup to come, the recent accounts show things aren’t getting any better behind the scenes.

     

    I know in posts with Easyjambo, he thought things might improve with increased revenue and this season euro income from gates and prize money may help towards sustainability. However, every time you think a sustainable operation may be achievable there appears to be additional outgoings that just increase the losses year on year.

    The recent statements following the AGM appear to show no change in the business model of living on borrowed cash and time.

    Like the oldco, like the sugar daddy model run by Gretna and like the long term debt being carried by Hearts under Robertson and then Vlad, if serious attention isn’t taken to turning things round we all know how it ends up. It really is just a matter of time.

     

    While clearly there are some budget buys and loan players as opposed to instead of big money signings down Govan way,  King’s rhetoric and hubris doesn’t seem to be different from that of the oldco and we know that even when they were ‘at the top’ they still buggered it up.

    View Comment

  3. Billydug 4th December 2018 at 14:36

    So they were . From Wikipedia .

     

     

    For the 1878−2002 club, see Airdrieonians F.C. (1878).

    Airdrieonians

    Airdrieonians FC logo.pngFull nameAirdrieonians Football ClubNickname(s)The DiamondsFounded2002; 16 years ago (As Airdrie United FC)GroundExcelsior Stadium,
    Airdrie, North LanarkshireCapacity10,101[1]ChairmanBobby WatsonManagerIan MurrayLeagueScottish League One2017–18Scottish League One, 7th of 10WebsiteClub website

    Home colours

    Away colours

    Airdrieonians Football Club are a Scottish semi-professional football team based in Airdrie who are members of the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) and play in the SPFL Scottish League One. They were formed in 2002 as Airdrie United Football Club following the liquidation of the original club. The club's official name was changed in 2013 with the approval of the SFAto the traditional name of Airdrieonians. As with the earlier team of the same name, this is often colloquially shortened to simply "Airdrie".

    View Comment

  4. From a personal viewpoint, I believe the reactions to King's comments on criminality and money laundering have been taken a bit out of context.

    King was being taken through the RIFC shareholder list by his QC, who noted that there were a few marked with a status of "restricted" He explained that the RIFC Board had taken decisions for two different groups and reasons.

    Firstly the frozen shares held by BPH, Margarita, Norne Ansalt and Putney. That was due to the non disclosure of the beneficial owners of these shares, and a belief that there may be links to money laundering. The restriction was renewed at every RIFC Board Meeting.

    The second restriction applied to Beaufort Nominees Limited (BNL), who had effectively been put into administration by the FBI on suspicion of criminal activity. When King mentioned that those shares were restricted for criminal reasons, it was not down to RIFC's decision, it was the FBI.

    The administrators (PWC) subsequently put restrictions on trading in the shares they held on behalf of their clients, pending further investigations.  You have to remember that BNL's primary function is to act as a nominee share and asset holder for multiple clients. They seldom have investments of their own.  In their latest statement, PWC advised that 85% of the investments previously held by BNL had been returned to the individual clients, or to another nominee company.

    I don't know if the RIFC shares held by BNL are part of the 85% or the 15% that remain restricted. It may be that the FBI has identified specific shareholdings held by BNL that are suspect and there is a possibility that they would fall into the same category as the frozen shares above.

    King believed that he wouldn't have to buy any of those restricted shares and could thus exclude them from any offer.  Lady Wolffe quickly knocked back that notion saying that he would have to make the offer to all shareholders, and that it would be the "third party" that held the cash who would be handing over the cash, so such a decision would not be King's.

    I don't know what would happen if the third party chose not to pay out.

    Edit: I can’t recall precisely what was said about the size of the BNL shareholding, although I think it was stated to be either 8% or alternatively 8M shares. Either way, it is a significant block, for which Sandy Easdale held a proxy for voting purposes. I’m sure I heard King intimate that their shares hadn’t been voted at the last AGM (for the first time ever).

    View Comment

  5. EasyJambo

     

    Thank you for the explanation. I think that's consistent with my comments on organised crime shareholders 

     

    King is a convicted criminal. It's not surprising other criminals were also attracted to becoming Rangers shareholders 

     

    The reality is that lending institutions don't go through a shareholders register before making underwriting decisions. They do receive Intel from financial bodies and if they have flagged up concerns over ownership , that would factor in lending decisions 

     

    However the fundamentals at Rangers are so bad that they wouldn't even look at Shareholders before Red flagging any application 

     

    Personal guarantees from credible stakeholders would be the only way that a loan of any substance would be approved on normal terms 

     

    If a loan was sought for say £1M and security was offered that was genuinely worth far more , a lender of last resort might take a punt on penal terms , but security of that nature is limited, does not include the Stadium, and is a real desperate measure 

    View Comment

  6. easyJambo 4th December 2018 at 18:18
    ………………..
    On thinking about this share offering by king, will there be a prospectus?
    If so that will cost a few quid, and when would it have to be put out? i don’t believe he has time for one.
    Or in this strange case, does he need one?
    A prospectus would shine a light in a dark corner, then who knows who would want to sell.

    View Comment

  7. Barcabhoy 4th December 2018 at 00:47

    Homunculus

     

    I’d wager BP , Coca Cola, Apple and Microsoft are shares owned by the Russian Mafia.

    The key isn’t whether a company has criminal shareholders but whether those shareholders have influence or can make decisions. 

    Rangers have 10,000 plus shareholders. Having 4 who control less than 10% wouldn’t automatically result in an underwriter refusing credit . 

    Especially when those shares were purchased when Rangers were a listed plc 

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

    Wager what you want, the point is the the Chairman of the PLC, and largest shareholder, has said that he and the board suspect specific shareholders of being involved in organised crime. It follows that if they used the funds to buy shares in the PLC (during a share issue as opposed to private trades) then the PLC is at least partly funded by the proceeds of crime.

    Any bank, or institution knowing this and then still doing business, for example providing loans, is leaving themselves open to accusations of money laundering. Particularly if there is any possibility of a future dividend, share purchase, or anything else which leads to these people receiving money from the PLC. Their criminal property will have been converted to what at first appear to be legitimate funds. 

    The point is not whether they exist, the point is that Dave King has said that they do, in Court, under oath. He has provided the PLC, and by extension anyone they do business with it the requisite knowledge (or suspicion) with regards these people. Bearing in mind that money laundering offences are based on " … know or suspects …" rather the person having to have specific knowledge. 

    You can find the interpretations of "criminal conduct", "criminal property, " etc here

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/section/340

    As I said earlier Dave King has potentially thrown the PLC under a bus to serve his own purposes.

    View Comment

  8. easyJambo 

    4th December 2018 at 18:18

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

    Just a couple of points, forgive me if I get them wrong.

    Was it not Beaufort Securities who were placed into administration.

    Did Beaufort Nominees not sell a load of shares to one of the fan groups. 

    View Comment

  9. Mibbees King's disclosure in court could also be viewed as an advert to any dodgy person who wishes to 'invest' some of their cash through RIFC/TRFC?

    I know, but anything is possible at Ibrox.

    I still think that whilst RIFC/TRFC are posting significant losses 'at the front door', someone or some people are carting off cash, or cleaning cash, through the back door.

    Allegedly.

    Speculation aside, the only certainty, IMO, is that King will most certainly NOT be transferring £19M to the UK.

    [Well, certainly not his own money that is.]

     

    View Comment

  10. Homunculus 

    That’s not the way lending institutions operate. They aren’t sensitive to local chitter chatter, in most cases they aren’t aware of it . The authorities only take action if organised crime is affecting or controlling the activities of the business. The business’ themselves have obligations not to facilitate money laundering if they suspect their shares are held by organised crime groups 

     

    You are ignoring reality if you think this isn’t widespread. The attached report details the extent of infiltration of business by organised crime

     

    http://www.transcrime.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Project-ARIEL_Final-report.pdf

    In the UK 5% of all business’ infiltrated by organised crime were plc’s

    In parts of Scotland greater than 14% of all business’ have been infiltrated by organised crime. I’d attach images to back this up if I knew how to 

    View Comment

  11. Barcabhoy 

    4th December 2018 at 23:29

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

    The chairman of a PLC giving evidence under oath in the highest civil Court in Scotland is not "…local chitter chatter…" I don't really know where you are coming from with that one. 

    "The authorities only take action if organised crime is affecting or controlling the activities of the business."  … which particular "authorities" are you talking about because that makes no sense to me whatsoever. 

    "You are ignoring reality if you think this isn’t widespread." totally misses the point.

    It's not about how widespread it is, its about how often the Chairman of a PLC says it. I would venture that is very much the exception. 

    King has done it in open Court, that is a total game changer, for everyone involved. They now "know or suspect" that people are using the PLC to launder criminal property. I am surprised that you dismiss this so readily.  

     

    View Comment

  12. Homunculus

    I don’t know what background you have in underwriting . I have long experience of working with financial institutions, including underwriting my own clients when providing financial agreements dor them 

    I’m telling you for an absolute fact that lending institutions DO NOT underwrite based on the background of minor shareholders who have no control or influence

     

    Easy Jambo explained the circumstances of the suspected organised crime shareholders . They are not controlling shareholders and don’t have influence. They don’t tell Douglas Park or the Morgan Stanley partner what to do 

     

    Kicking Rangers just because it’s Rangers isn’t credible , especially when the real reason that Rangers are not creditworthy is much more significant . King stating it in open court has to be put into the context of why the question was asked and  the explanation provided

     

    The law may be interested in what happens to the proceeds of any shares sold , but that is an entirely different matter .  A business with 4 non controlling, non influential shareholders who potentially are organised criminals out of a shareholder base of 12,000 isn’t setting any alarms off . 

    Kings’s cold shouldering if he doesn’t comply , or if he gets found guilty of contempt , those are matters that have significant implications for Rangers   

    View Comment

  13. I note that Barcabhoy and Homunculus are locking horns over Organised Crimegate.

    The matter may be resolved, up to a point, if the restricted shareholders, who may or may not be crims, sell to Mr King.

    That way the Authorities would only have to deal with one crim, with the bonus that they know who he is, they know where he lives and all relevant information about him is easily found in the many glowing reports about him in South African court decisions.

    My reading of GASH's evidence was he was saying that because RIFC had decided to shut down the voting rights etc. of a number of shareholders they didn't feature in any calculation because either the Offer to Buy wouldn't be made to them or an acceptance by them would be rejected.

    I think Lady Wolffe shot this bit of wishful thinking down by pointing out this would be beyond GASH's control.

    This is all subject to the timetabling laid out being kept to. Stranger things have happened but not many

    View Comment

  14. Not wanting to stir it up by I agree with Barcabhoy when he say that , I quote, "Kicking Rangers just because it’s Rangers isn’t credible , especially when the real reason that Rangers are not creditworthy is much more significant". It is wishful thinking that we in SFM often indulge in to dive in looking for scandal when it comes to TRFC.  HOWEVER (apologies for shouting) the SMSM also dive in looking for scandal on regular basis so I also agree with Homunculus (I think it was him) when he postulated the outcome if some other chairman had said similar. I remember a BBC crew chasing after a Celtic bloke (?) because a company he was associated with was in the Panama papers for example?

     

     

    View Comment

  15. I couldn’t provide the link but the online version of the Scotsman showing TRFC on top of another” league”. The stadium has been filled to 97% so far this season.  Reasons to be cheerful I suppose.

    View Comment

  16. Barcabhoy

    5th December 2018 at 03:27

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

    I do not even really know what underwriting means, so I think that probably gives you an idea what my background is.

    However that is not my point. My point is that the Chairman of a PLC admitting what King has admitted, under oath is a significant event (whether you describe it as "local chitter chatter" or not).

    I would suggets it is also a very rare event and that banks and institutions will factor it into any decision they make, to protect themselves. Bearing in mind main street banks and institution are hardly flocking to provide loans anyway. Do you really think the shareholders and their friends are putting in millions, maybe even tens of millions because they fancy it. 

    My point is not about the influence or otherwise of fairly minor shareholders. It is purely about what King has said. It is significant because of the peculiarities of money laundering offences, which I have gone into before. He has provided knowledge or suspicion that the PLC is partly funded and owned by organised criminals. I genuinely find it astonishing that so many people are playing this down.

    Anyway, I think we are at or fast approaching the circular argument point, so I will leave it.

    View Comment

  17. BREAKING: Rangers charged by UEFA for pitch invasion and the throwing of objects during their Europa League tie with Villarreal Case will be heard on 13th of December.
    ………………..
    Not Breaking.
    The Rangers charged by SFA for pitch invasion and the throwing of objects during their Home game at ibrox against Celtic last season.Case will be heard on ??????

    View Comment

  18. Cluster One 4th December 2018 at 20:29

    easyJambo 4th December 2018 at 18:18
    ………………..
    On thinking about this share offering by king, will there be a prospectus?
    If so that will cost a few quid, and when would it have to be put out? i don’t believe he has time for one.
    Or in this strange case, does he need one?
    A prospectus would shine a light in a dark corner, then who knows who would want to sell.

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

    I'm unsure on the rules. I recall looking them up before the share placing, but found that one wasn't required because of the low number of people involved.  I think the rough guide was that a prospectus was required if the sum involved was > €5m (may have gone up to €8m), and the number of people involved is in excess of 150.

    That said, I doubt very much is we will see a prospectus. It certainly wasn't mentioned by TOP or King's QC.

    View Comment

  19. Homunculus 4th December 2018 at 22:00

    easyJambo 

    4th December 2018 at 18:18

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

    Just a couple of points, forgive me if I get them wrong.

    Was it not Beaufort Securities who were placed into administration.

    Did Beaufort Nominees not sell a load of shares to one of the fan groups. 

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

    I'm aware of the "name" anomaly but I think we are still talking about the same entity. King was supposedly looking at an up to date list of shareholders supplied by their registrar (obtained by James Blair). It wouldn't surprise me to find that the name on the register is different from the trading name.

    I think that Beaufort sold around 310k shares that were bought by Club 1872 in June 2016. (my recollection could be wrong and I may have the wrong transaction)

    http://club1872.co.uk/news/club-1872-share-announcement/

    View Comment

  20. From today's court rolls

    A97/18 Rangers International Football Club Plc v Charles Green – Jones Whyte Law

    It's just an unopposed motion, but will no doubt be a precursor to a hearing in the not too distant future.

    View Comment

  21. easyJambo 5th December 2018 at 18:25

     

    I'm aware of the "name" anomaly but I think we are still talking about the same entity. 

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

    From companies house

    BEAUFORT SECURITIES LIMITED

    Company number 02693942

    Company status

    In Administration

    BEAUFORT NOMINEES LIMITED

    Company number 07220936

    Company status

    Active

    With regards the shares, there was certainly an earlier sale by Beaufort Nominees to the RST.

    http://www.supporters-direct.scot/rangers-supporters-trust-increase-stake-in-club/

    The Rangers Supporters Trust yesterday announced that they had increased their shareholding in the Ibrox club to over 2%, after purchasing 450,000 shares from Beaufort Nominees, previously controlled by Sandy Easdale. Rangers EGM is scheduled for March 6th at Ibrox Stadium.

    Yesterday’s news means that the RST are now the 12th largest shareholder at the club and with proxy over additional shareholdings, currently control 3.8% of the voting power going into next months meeting.

     

    View Comment

  22. Homunculus 5th December 2018 at 20:10

    Thanks for doing the research for me.

    I note that they both share the same London address on the Companies House register.

    I have busy on my computer doing other stuff for most of today.

    View Comment

  23. easyJambo 

    5th December 2018 at 20:56

     

    Thanks for doing the research for me.

    I have busy on my computer doing other stuff for most of today.

    ————————————————-

    No problem, as ever a pleasure doing business with you. 

    View Comment

  24. Ex Ludo 6th December 2018 at 17:35

    https://twitter.com/scotsmansport/status/1070679958660505602?s=21

    Quelle surpris !

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

    Excellent example of a simple, copy/paste effort, with absolutely no journalistic input required.

    …and with the "Comments" facility switched off for good measure!

    But, this Scotsman headline needs clarification, [plus a basic grammar correction];

    "Revealed to Scottish journalists: Rangers has [sic] the highest borrowings in Scottish football."

    As the informed Internet Bampots would laugh: 

    "No sh!t, Sherlock!"

     

    The Scotsman's front page splash tomorrow… mibbees;

    "Revealed: Christmas Day is on the 25th of this month!"

    enlightened

    View Comment

  25. Does anyone know the answers to the following in terms of the rules:

    1. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can be wholly or partly owned by a third party?

    2. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can have their wages paid in part or in full by a third party?

    3. Whether a third party can benefit financially from the sale of players playing for a Scottish club?

    Asking for a friend!

    View Comment

  26. upthehoops 6th December 2018 at 20:09

    Does anyone know the answers to the following in terms of the rules:

    1. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can be wholly or partly owned by a third party?

    2. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can have their wages paid in part or in full by a third party?

    3. Whether a third party can benefit financially from the sale of players playing for a Scottish club?

    Asking for a friend!

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

    Without checking the rules:

    1. Don't know

    2. Don't see why there should be any issue as long as the transaction is reflected in the club's accounts

    3. Already happens with sell on clauses. 

    View Comment

  27. Ally and Easy could possibly help here.

     

    i seem to remember when Gordon Durie signed for us (Hearts) there was some talk of him being "owned" by an outside group (possibly involving Gordon Smith).

    View Comment

  28. Higgy's Shoes 6th December 2018 at 20:27

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

    I can't recall much about it, but found this link.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/978794.stm

    When Durie joined Hearts last month, it had been on an innovative deal worked out by his three agents.

    With debt-ridden Premier League club unable to pay his wages and also having doubts about the 34-year-old's fitness, the deal was underwritten by Murdo Mackay, Gordon Smith and John Viola.

    View Comment

  29. upthehoops 6th December 2018 at 20:09

    Does anyone know the answers to the following in terms of the rules:

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

    Hmm, I think I see the problem right there UTH.

    "rules" in Scottish football?

    As we have observed over the years, they can be more like "flexible guidelines" than rigid rules…depending on the club in question.

    So, I suppose 'your friend' needs to provide more context in order to initially determine whether guidelines or rules should be applied.

    View Comment

  30. Thanks for the replies already. I remember a huge row in English football when Carlos Teves (I think) was part owned by a third party when playing for West Ham. Anyway, I will tell my friend to come back with some more hard details…

    View Comment

  31. easyJambo 

    6th December 2018 at 20:39

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

    There's an interesting group.

    Gordon Durie – Bankrupt. Involved in tax avoidance.

    John Viola – Bankrupt. Involved in tax avoidance.

    Gordon Smith – Bankrupt. 

    Murdo MacKay – Is that the one jailed for fraud.

    View Comment

  32. Homunculus 6th December 2018 at 21:21

    easyJambo 

    6th December 2018 at 20:39

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

    There's an interesting group.

    Gordon Durie – Bankrupt. Involved in tax avoidance.

    John Viola – Bankrupt. Involved in tax avoidance.

    Gordon Smith – Bankrupt. 

    Murdo MacKay – Is that the one jailed for fraud.

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

    Therein lies why I have no sympathy for anyone who goes bankrupt as a result of avoiding tax. If they subsequently suffer a mental illness, then I hope that they can make a full recovery, but it doesn't take away the fact that they willingly participated in tax avoidance schemes that didn't work.

    They were all highly paid individuals that no doubt enjoyed a better lifestyle that of the majority of football fans who directly and indirectly subsidised their income. However, they clearly felt that paying a maximum of 40% tax on their income was too much to bear, therefore were all too willing to accept the advice of some financial wizard who thought their scheme was untouchable.

    If those who go bankrupt want someone to blame, then go after the person who sold you the scheme. Then again I suspect that there will be something in the small print that indemnifies the vendor from such restitution.

    View Comment

  33.  

    1. upthehoops 6th December 2018 at 20:0
       

      Does anyone know the answers to the following in terms of the rules:

      1. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can be wholly or partly owned by a third party?

      2. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can have their wages paid in part or in full by a third party?

      3. Whether a third party can benefit financially from the sale of players playing for a Scottish club?

    ——————————————————————————————–

    It's interesting insomuch as a player contracted to a club and wholly owned by that club might be less prone to external influences on his game play and attitude. I accept that agents can still agigtate and speak to 'their' player but this is less binding than ownership per se.I think the EPL are dead against it but how effectively it is policed I dont know.You might try contacting the SFA at registrations@scottishfa.co.uk..I understand they are striving for transparency at every level. 

    View Comment

  34. Does anyone know the answers to the following in terms of the rules:
     

    1. 1. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can be wholly or partly owned by a third party?

      2. Whether players playing for Scottish clubs can have their wages paid in part or in full by a third party?

      3. Whether a third party can benefit financially from the sale of players playing for a Scottish club?

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Would not players who are on loan from their parent club meet the terms of 1&2 above?

     

    View Comment

  35. Homunculus 6th December 2018 at 21:21

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

    I have to say agents underwriting deals does not sit well with me at all. You could have two clubs neck and neck for the title / avoiding the drop who want to sign the same player, but neither can meet his terms. The agents could then simply choose to finance the player towards the club they would rather won the title / avoided the drop. 

    View Comment

  36. Agents are employed by the player, albeit the terms may be onerous, and take a percentage and possibly a retainer.  Third party ownership (a la Tevez) is vastly different.  The third party own the commercial rights of the player.  The signing club lease the player from the third party and also pay his wages, bonuses etc.  Manyoo paid 3-4 million a year apparently.  If the player changes club there is no transfer fee, although there may be early close out rebates, and the new club leases from the third party.  Loads of complications around development fees and all the other intricacies and , of course, exploitation of players, integrity etc.

     

     

    View Comment

  37. Now here in Brisbane ( brought some heavy rain with us!) I bethought myself of the fact that the Ministerial Correspondence Team of HMRC had written (after a reminder) to acknowledge my letter about Rangers living on after Liquidation.

    In that acknowledgement, they said that their aim was to send me a substantive response by 29 November.

    Such response had not been received by 3 December.  And, of course, me now being here in Oz for the next couple of months, if the reply has been posted or will be posted soon, then I won't see it till February.

    Accordingly, I have emailed as follows:

    • To:correspondence-team.mincom@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk

      ‎7‎ ‎Dec at ‎21‎:‎56

      Dear 'signatory of the Ministerial Correspondence Team's letter to which the ref number cited above relates'Emoji

      Thank you for your acknowledgement of receipt  on 8 November 2018 of my earlier letter

      I was hoping that you might have been able to have met your aim of  sending a substantive response by 29 November, and indeed understand that you may well have done.

      Unfortunately, I had to travel furth of the UK very early on 3 December and am required to be away from home for some two months, with no one at home whom I could ask to let me know when the reply comes.

      If you have already sent a reply by snail-mail, could I trouble you to email that reply as an attachment? 

      And, of course, if the reply has not already been sent by Royal Mail, may I ask that it simply be emailed?

      Yours with thanks,

      (me)

       

      •  
      •  
      •  
      •  

     

     

    View Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.