History, Neighbours and Made Up News – The Scottish Football Monitor

History, Neighbours and Made Up News

Or, a story of how and why Mr Lawwell consigned resolution 12 to the deepest grass;
by Finloch


“It’s about history and being neighbours”, young Elisabeth said to her mum.

And it has to be done for tomorrow, Elisabeth said.

“I’m supposed to ask in an in-person interview about what life was like where an older neighbour grew up and what was life like when the neighbour was my age.

It’s not my fault that we’re new here and haven’t spoken to our old, next door neighbour yet and don’t even know his name.

“I’ve an idea her mother said, why don’t you make it up.

Pretend you’re asking him questions and then write down the answers you think he’d give”.

“It’s supposed to be true”, Elisabeth said. “It’s for News”.

“They’ll never know”, her mother said. “Just make it up.

The real news is always made up anyway”.

 

publicLibraryI was lucky enough to catch Ali Smith at the Edinburgh Book Festival.

I was part of a very diverse audience and unusually for this kind of event nobody in the sold-out Charlotte Square tent had a Scooby about what she was going to share with us.

Most would have been expecting a reading or two from her recent short story collection, Public Library, about the cynical, thoughtless and almost silent and unpublicised demise of Libraries up and down our land.

Our libraries.

Our land.

Ali is always value for money though and was amazing, reading from her as yet unpublished “Autumn” book, the first she said of a four-book series.

As I listened to her, I was also thinking and juggling around at the back of my mind about what I was going to write for this blog, having been asked for my thoughts, as a non-involved, non-Celtic supporter, on how I see the Resolution 12 situation.

 

Well Ali’s words stung like a bee and proved quite inspirational. The wisdom and clarity in her new books is highly relevant to all of us who care about Scottish Football and Resolution 12 including Mr Lawwell, Mr Doncaster, Mr Regan, Mr Petrie and us too – the real stakeholders.

 

Ali also shared with us a Bernard Maclaverty insight from when he once visited a school as part of (I think) a Scottish creative writing initiative and in the course of his talk asked some youngsters,

“What is fiction” ?

Someone put their hand up and said “Please Sir, it’s made up truth”.

 

Near the end Ali also got to talking about post Brexit Britain and used the chaos to ask the bigger question.

“Why do we never seem to have real debates about anything and why in any “debate” we might see or read that there never seems to be room for to-ing and fro-ing on points because everyone seems to have already made their minds up and just wants to maintain their status quos, achieve their own personal agendas or to steamroller us all to their point of view”.

 

“People in power seem to be genuinely scared of honest debates”, she said.

She asked how without more real discussions and insightful and open minded debates can any of us (and the debaters themselves too) learn because without that we will just get more of what we’ve had.

And that’s not good enough.

 

So thanks Ali I’m going to combine these three things from your hour along with two personal career experiences and review Mr Lawwell and his company’s reaction to the bona fide Resolution 12 raised by some of his shareholders a few years ago.

(My career experiences were as the head of a small, and treated as unimportant, company that was part of a worldwide group of companies run (badly) out of the US; and my time as head of a trade association that had two very dominant and troublesome members).

 

My Five Insights to review Resolution 12 are.

  1. Some people think  “made up news is fine” and feed us all with it all the time.
  2. Don’t expect real discussions or debates about anything in your club. No two way dialogues, except from those about money once a year.
  3. “Made up Truths” become gospel not to be challenged.
  4. The people running the club know they are smarter and more important than any of their minority or remote stakeholders.
  5. All decisions that really matter in football or indeed in any business are pre-agreed and never discussed in the open.

So now to what I think of Resolution 12.

My starting point is to say this. It is wrong to see or to discuss Mr Lawwell and Resolution 12 as being about the awarding of a license – or the boardroom processes since The Requisitioners first raised it.

Sadly, I’d suggest Requisition 12 was history before it was even raised.

In the late Murray days at Ibrox and in the early Whyte ownership period there had been rumours, and I’m certain deep and meaningful business discussions between the heads of the SFA and SPL and their key committee members.

You can be sure that the SFA, SPL, Celtic and others were all watching the post Murray Rangers situation closely, and the new regime at Ibrox and related financial stuff would have been the talk of the exclusive football steamies.

Despite what some Celtic fans believe, the reality has always been that while Rangers may have dominated (just) all things SFA and SPL, nothing was ever done without the knowledge of and input from the green side of the Old Firm business model.

Sadly, I’d suggest Requisition 12 was history before it was even raised.

Scotland’s unique, idiosyncratic, religio-political old firm business model was not just about driving the individual Glasgow teams to their leviathan duopoly in Scottish football. We all knew (because we were told so) that it was also the commercial bedrock of the business that is Scottish Football.

And yes, for a while David Murray thought his club was bigger than the Old Firm, but he and his ego had moved on when all this stuff happened.

Put simply, Regan who was quite new, was convinced at the time – and still is absolutely certain – that the SFA and Scottish Football needed a dominant Celtic and Rangers, and he also personally needed and needs the support of their CEO’s.

Doncaster too was convinced that the SPL needed Celtic and Rangers arch rivalry with all it entails, delivering TV monies and maximizing his bonuses. He too also personally required and requires the support of the Old Firm CEO’s.

Lawwell the astute numbers man, under a constant watchful eye from Dublin, needed Rangers to ensure his business plan did not develop un-fillable black holes.

And yes, for a while David Murray thought his club was bigger than the Old Firm, but he and his ego had moved on when all this stuff happened.

Importantly, Peter was also one of a small influential football group who effectively controlled the actions of Regan and Doncaster. Nothing strategic would ever have been done by either of them without his involvement and input. That doesn’t mean he necessarily knew all the detail about  Craig’s UEFA license shenanigans but he’d have had his suspicions.

And you know something, – at a squeeze I think he and Desmond might have thought keeping a Rangers team alive (for its future dependable revenue streams) was maybe even worth one season’s lost Champions League status.

There is no doubt in my mind that in 2011 Peter and the Celtic Board were worried but supportive of and committed to keeping the Rangers company alive.

Looking back I don’t know when Lawwell and Desmond actually discovered de facto that Rangers should not have been awarded the license.

Was it before it was awarded?

Was it after by which time it was too late anyway?

Those would be two good questions to ask them.

I’d suggest that by the time they knew for sure it was too late, but I could be wrong.

Anyway history shows that pretty quickly after McCoist failed in Europe, Lawwell committed his club to the complex and complicated secret Five-Way Agreement and all it entailed.

Celtic were senior signed-up members of the attempt to help protect and leverage the future blue revenue streams into the SPL then the SPL 2 then the bottom level.

It was all about the blue pound.

It was all about the blue pound into the future.

It was all about the blue pound into the future being central in the business model at Celtic that needed (then and now) a blue pound generating Rangers.

We all know now that compromise was somehow reached ahead of the Brechin cup tie in the summer of 2012.

Many – in fact most of –  Scottish football fans were glad that football had once again broken out, having become fed up with all the politics, and were glad to return to talking about players and stuff.

Football gossip is after all more comfortable than finding out we’d all been cheated for years.

Not all fans were ready to “Move-on” however.

Some, like many of us on this site and others like it wanted to dig deeper and examine just what happened and who did what.

Some wanted Celtic as the most wronged club to do and say more about Sporting Integrity.

Some wanted to rub their old rivals into the dirt.

Some wanted a full and frank review because they believed that without Sporting Integrity we would make the same mistakes in the future.

I’d be one of these fans.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Celtic shareholders who pieced together the jigsaw that led to Resolution 12, correctly identified that their club were illegally denied a place in the Champions League and denied substantial revenues.

Fair play to them.

If  I was a Celtic shareholder I personally would have wanted to know why my board had not pursued these significant revenues that were due to my company.

It was and is a big deal.

No it was and is a huge deal.

It remains an open sore and everyone involved seems to have ducked any blame.

I applaud those Requisitioner Shareholders for how they have gone about the process, and I have a huge respect for everything they have done on behalf of Celtic and fans of all Scottish clubs.

However in my opinion it was always doomed to failure because of the simple fact that their own club, having been an integral part of the whole murky “Armageddon” process, had already moved on into the new world they had helped to forge, and did not and could not look back.

So Resolution 12 was treated politely but cleverly by the club in the finest traditions of Sir Humphrey.

They did not want to fight their shareholders corner then and I’d suggest still don’t – and wont.

 

So going back to my five points earlier.

 

  1. Mr Lawwell et al did not want to establish the real truth, which they already knew. Hey had already signed up to what had been reported, moved the club on and spent his personal bonuses along the way no doubt.
  2. Mr Lawwell et al did not want a real debate because he and his small team had already done what they believed at the time to be right for the club they were paid to manage.
    Nothing more to say.
    And yes he could mumble agreement that Sporting Integrity is important when cornered but between us chaps it wouldn’t ever have filled the yawning gaps in the stands at Celtic Park without a Rangers counterbalance.
  3. Rangers are now back and the Old Firm is once again dominating Scottish Football.
    The truth at Celtic Park is we need each other and season book sales and TV revenues are up proving my point all along.
  4. We tolerate the intellectual end of our support, just, but they are hard work and you’d think they own the club.
    We even quite enjoy some of their stuff sometimes as long as its not too political but  we have a business to run and quite frankly sometimes they just don’t get it. They should realise the SFA and the SPFL are there to do a job for us and we keep them on a short enough leash.
  5. We will always be grateful to Fergus for what he did. We benefited at the time from the fan’s money and now run a very successful shareholder liaison programme. Once a year we have an AGM and try to manage the reality of running a business while having to hear from people who would prefer us to regress to what we were in the 1880s. Shareholders are fine but this club is a business and must be run as such.

 

My Five Insights sum up the position and stance of the Celtic Board.

I don’t know what will happen to Resolution 12.

The club never wanted it because they are a business and see the world differently from the group of fans who see themselves as the Celtic soul.

I applaud these Celtic fans.

Celtic does not deserve you.

Finloch

Finloch

Finloch has been a member of SFM since it's inception. A Hearts fan, he also penned the blog, Look Back to Look Forward

1,353 Comments
  1. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    A bit OT but i did mention a couple of day’s ago that the number of ex-players and managers of an ibrox club,or should i say a number of EBT Beneficiaries have been giving interviews to newspapers and some have even been on TV as sports pundits these last few weeks.Todays EBT beneficiary is Michael Mols £260,000 EBT,side letter yes.
    Gives an interview in today’s papers. now i have no problem with ex-players or managers getting some work after their careers have finished.But an EBT beneficiary who was speaking at the launch of the rangers charity foundations initiative with unicef to support the uk childrens emergency fund.
    Anyway he (Michael Mols )believes that it takes on extra significance this week amid the Sam Allerdyce controversy.
    he goes onto say “then you realise how good we have it and that we need to help others.If you see the footage about the manager.It’s all about greed.
    Do these EBT beneficiaries have no shame?

    View Comment
  2. upthehoops


    It’s statement time again. I guess they need to give fans something to get angry about rather than bad results on the park and poor corporate governance of the club off it.

    http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-67/#.V-1Uq0BMqAI.twitter

    View Comment
  3. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    UPTHEHOOPS
    SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 at 19:27
    It’s statement time again. I guess they need to give fans something to get angry about rather than bad results on the park and poor corporate governance of the club off it.
    http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-67/#.V-1Uq0BMqAI.twitter
    ===========================

    Don’t think the SFA have handled the Cup Final fallout well at all – quelle surprise – but the clubs should do their lobbying in private.

    A rambling, emotional, and rabble rousing statement from TRFC – and nicely finished off with a veiled threat;

    “…It should be understood Rangers will not tolerate any of their employees being attacked with impunity.”

    Who writes this mince ?!  09

    View Comment
  4. Hoopy 7


    Another disgusting statement from Sevco.
    Full of hubris and denial as usual not to mention the threat at the end.
    They are right to be concerned about good governance because should the SFA ever wake up and apply good governance they, Sevco, will be put back where they belong- at the bottom of a dung heap.
    They continually bite the hand that fed them instead of being grateful for the bad governance which allowed them to pretend to be resurrected from the dead.
    Rangers Football Club Ltd died in 2012 and a furhter insight into that is given on the JJ site today.
    The Rangers Football Club Ltd ( formerly known as Sevco) were formed in 2012 and four years later they are not fit for purpose.
    A message to the SFA and SPFL:-
    When The Rangers Football Club suffer an insolvency event before Christmas let them die.
    Hampden has been trashed.
    Celtic Park Has been trashed
    Pittodrie has been trashed.

    Ask any of those clubs how much damage has been caused in the last four years compared to the last 6 months.
    Enough is enough

    View Comment
  5. shug

    shug


    Scottish gov working on implementing strict liability policy see phil mac.

    View Comment
  6. John Clark


    Just to say that, having emailed “The Scotsman”, I got a reply today , with Matt Butler’s professional email address.
    I have just sent him an email with the text of the email I posted  on here yesterday.
    I prefaced the email with a word or two about the distrust I (and others) have in the SMSM and the Football governance people in Scotland in the matter of ‘the saga’ and the ‘myth’, and an explanation about the difficulty in obtaining his email while the Allardyce affair was raising interesting  questions of ‘integrity’ in football.

    View Comment
  7. Prohibby

    Prohibby


    Congratulations to Team Scotland Scottish Sports Awards on their timing and good judgement: 
    Hibs skipper David Gray’s last-minute Scottish Cup winner has been named the sporting moment of the year at the Team Scotland Scottish Sports Award
    Read more at: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/david-gray-s-scottish-cup-winner-named-moment-of-the-year-1-4243460
    Given the nauseating, hypocritical humbug The Rangers have come out with in their latest statement (thank Upthehoops for that) its good to see that a great sporting moment (at least in this sad Hibs fan’s life) has not been lost amidst the indignant, sanctimonious and cant whingeing from the reincarnates and their mouthpieces in the Scottish press.  

    View Comment
  8. upthehoops


    I note some tweets from Grant Russell of STV claiming ‘influential friends’ of Rangers are lobbying for strict liability. Reading between the lines it seems to be politicians he is referring to. Leaving aside the argument for strict liability itself, which has been well aired on here, this all seems a bit murky. At face value Rangers as a club would lose heavily if strict liability is brought in, so what is being proposed that apparently makes them so keen to have it? What a pity politicians were not so keen for them to pay their tax and other debts, as politicians actually should be. 

    View Comment
  9. parttimearab


    UPTHEHOOPS
    SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 at 05:09
    ==========================
    Wrt Ranger’s reported desire to see strict liability brought in.

    The cynic would suppose that they know the other clubs are dead set against it so it makes them look good while they know it’s never gonnae happen…

    Even if it turns out that Phil is correct and the Scottish government will insist they’d still look better than the others and if it’s inevitable they’ve nothing to loose.

    TBH I’m struggling to understand how it could be tacked onto ground licencing without local authorities rather than the SFA becoming responsible for enforcement and sanctions which I truly doubt they’d want involved in.

    Finally you’d hope they’d simply decided it was time to put a cork in the choir’s gob for their own benefit and that of football and Scottish society as a whole – well a man can dream, can’t he 09

    View Comment
  10. John Clark


    upthehoopsSeptember 30, 2016 at 05:09
    ‘..I note some tweets from Grant Russell of STV claiming ‘influential friends’ of Rangers are lobbying for strict liability.’
    ___________
    I am a political ingenue.
    But not twenty minutes ago I heard an MSP on Radio Scotland, who is proposing that the Scottish Parliament should insist on ‘strict liability’ say most undiplomatically that the trouble at the Cup Final was caused by one team! I wonder is he one of ‘the (influential) people, working to a particular brief?

    View Comment
  11. John Clark


    And I’ve just read that Scott Brown covered more ground thn any other player during the Man City match.
    Can I betray my woeful ignorance of these things and ask: how do they measure this? It surely can’t be that the players wear a wee- whit-d’ye ca’ it?pedometer?- roon their ankles?19

    View Comment
  12. Corrupt official

    Corrupt official


    JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 30, 2016 at 09:54
    And I’ve just read that Scott Brown covered more ground thn any other player during the Man City match.Can I betray my woeful ignorance of these things and ask: how do they measure this? It surely can’t be that the players wear a wee- whit-d’ye ca’ it?pedometer?- roon their ankles?
        ——————————————————————————————————————————-
       John, the players wear monitors under their tops, a bra type garment, which monitors heart-rate, respiration, etc. I imagine there may be some sort of gizmo on that. 

    View Comment
  13. bfbpuzzled


    The wee monitors -these are the boxes seen between the shoulder blades also include a GPS sensor. The laptops which Rugby coaches use track these to work out the best time for substitutions – speed distance energy used and so on are all tracked in real time. 
    It is all a far cry from the juniors in the black and white days

    View Comment
  14. Auldheid


    Strict Liability is going to need Strict Liability Police (SLP) to police it fairly.
    Who is that going to be? It cannot be the SFA, they have lost all semblance of trust across the supporter spectrum, including those from Govan.
    So will an independent body be required to police (and who polices them?) and as it seems to be the Scottish Government who are demanding this, will they fund an independent overseer? An independent overseer needs funding independent of football.
     If one is set up can its role be widened to make the SFA itself more accountable?
     These are the issues that need addressed first, then clear criteria for what needs the SLP intervention.
     What are the chances of it being done properly or will we end up with another dog’s breakfast OBA, perceived as a playing field leveller?

    View Comment
  15. Hoopy 7


    Without wishing to diminish what Hibs fans did, the common denominator for all of the trouble which has ensued, Hampden, Parkhead, Pittodrie and the weekly rendering of banned songs, is down to one club and its supporters.
    The Rangers Football Club Limited(formerly Known as Sevco Limited) is at the heart of everything that is unsavoury about the game.
    The SFA and SPFL were warned but did not listen and the rest of the decent football fans, and I include those decent “Rangers” fans, are now suffering.
    Regan and Doncaster are completely inept and I cannot understand why they are still in position.
    You reap what you sow.
    It is not going to get better any time soon and the best we can hope for is an insolvency event.
    Frankenstein was meant to be a story don’t let it become a reality the next time, when they’re dead they’re dead!

    View Comment
  16. bfbpuzzled


    No one likes us we don’t care is what they say but what they mean is we don’t like anybody we don’t care. They claim that they are dehumanised but act outwith the bounds of civil behaviour. 
    The continuing hubristic arrogant inflammatory and plain stupid statements from TRFC are a new element which confirm the behaviours of the lunatic element – that behaviour from TRFC itself should not require strict liability for it to be be dealt with both by the game’s authorities and the civil ones – conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace?
    if reports are to be believed there is a financial maelstrom visiting itself on TRFC and perhaps these are the thrashings of a dying dinosaur an extinction level event might be imminent. For me such would be welcomed in the hope of a place being found for the less demented elements in the people who are perhaps a united of Manchester type operation being founded.

    View Comment
  17. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    Latetst screaming headline extracted from DR today;

    “Rangers must avoid Partick Thistle defeat or it will be their worst start in 27 years”
    BY GRAEME YOUNG
    ===============

    Now, that sort of negative headline would simply not have appeared anywhere in the SMSM just a few short weeks ago.

    So have the churnalists suddenly woken up and become more objective about TRFC ?

    Or has Level42 changed the theme of their copy/paste content – in order to heap more pressure on Warburton ?

    Despite his respect for everyone, [well except for refs], Warburton is not stupid.
    He must know he is being lined up as the convenient fall guy as the wheels start to fall off the TRFC bogey.
    King is not going to take the rap for anything.

    As with Barton, I am starting to have a wee bit of sympathy for Warbs.  Is that bad ?  14

    View Comment
  18. Smugas


    Hoopy 7
    Without wishing to diminish what Hibs fans did, the common denominator for all of the trouble which has ensued, Hampden, Parkhead, Pittodrie and the weekly rendering of banned songs, is down to one club and its supporters. The Rangers Football Club Limited(formerly Known as Sevco Limited) is at the heart of everything that is unsavoury about the game. The SFA and SPFL were warned but did not listen and the rest of the decent football fans, and I include those decent “Rangers” fans, are now suffering. Regan and Doncaster are completely inept and I cannot understand why they are still in position. You reap what you sow. It is not going to get better any time soon and the best we can hope for is an insolvency event. Frankenstein was meant to be a story don’t let it become a reality the next time, when they’re dead they’re dead

    l
    There is one very slight mitigant for sevco’s apparent involvement in many of the disputed incidents you mention.  I can only speak for the pittodrie incident it being the only one that I attended.  It is not entirely sevco’s fault that they are at the heart of the problems, more that the problems have been stoked by the fact that sevco have been at the heart of them.  Does that make sense?  The responsibility for that situation is not sevco’s, and therefore sevco’s indignation at it is a little more understandable.  Try telling a five year old who, in the last hour, you’ve let eat five biscuits in a pack of six but they can’t have the last one.  The reaction of the five year old, and the more excitable elements of the sevco support are both equally and horrifically predictable. The responsibility for that lies at the feet of the SFA/SPL/SPFL and indeed the clubs themselves.  They apparently wanted it this way, Doncaster’s box office appeal of the packed grounds that we’ve all been missing apparently.  But those packed grounds are unfortunately but again predictably partially inhabited by those who cannot handle the occasion – and that is occurring on both sides incidentally.

    So, partial mitigation and I stress the word partial.  

    View Comment
  19. roddybhoy


    serious question .What do the SFA actually do ? It appears to me and probably most fans that The head of the SFA,  Regan gets paid a huge salary but is too cowardly to actually make any decisions at all ,he merely passes the buck to some kind of “independent” jury/panel and hides in his bunker. Surely they could get someone , pay them £25k per annum and they could do that too and save a shit load of money ?? And….Why do our clubs sit idly by and allow this to continue ? Surely a vote of no confidence in our games “custodians” is long overdue

    View Comment
  20. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    Looks like DJ is on message: extracted from his ‘ESJ’ column today, with my highlighting;

    “…The fans have stuck by the manager and the team through bad runs before and they have enjoyed most of the football that has been on show in the last couple of years. But that goodwill only lasts so long and they need victories now.

    Rangers can’t be languishing in seventh place in the table. You would rather be winning games than playing well and not winning at this moment in time.

    I do think it is a must win on Saturday, not just for Mark and the players, but for the supporters as well. They need to see signs that the team can go on and move up the table…”
    ===========================

    Stating the bleedin’ obvious, and with another veiled threat thrown in for good measure.

    View Comment
  21. blu


    Roddy, the SFA isn’t some ethereal being, it is the clubs. Ask them if they’re happy. Staff are staff, nothing more, nothing less.

    View Comment
  22. AmFearLiathMòr

    AmFearLiathMòr


     

     
                          roddybhoySeptember 30, 2016 at 15:51
    serious question .What do the SFA actually do ? It appears to me and probably most fans that The head of the SFA,  Regan gets paid a huge salary but is too cowardly to actually make any decisions at all ,he merely passes the buck to some kind of “independent” jury/panel and hides in his bunker. Surely they could get someone , pay them £25k per annum and they could do that too and save a shit load of money ?? And….Why do our clubs sit idly by and allow this to continue ? Surely a vote of no confidence in our games “custodians” is long overdue

     

    Roddy, I think you might be labouring under a misapprehension here.  The vote of no confidence would in the clubs themselves, because, lest we forget, they are the SFA.  The clubs aren’t some tiny, tossed about sailboat at the mercy of the stormy seas of the SFA, THEY ARE the sea.  If things haven’t changed, it’s because the clubs are clearly quite happy with what’s been done in their name so far.  However much we may wish it wasn’t thus, Celtic, Aberdeen, Dundee United, Hibs (to mention the apparent ‘Haters’ – oh, and Alloa,obviously), as well as every other club that makes up the organisation could have, at any time, raised an objection.

    The truth was, they were scared stiff of losing the blue pound.  They were utterly convinced that this was the only way they could keep going.  Even after 4 years without it, cutting to live within their means and actually seeing their crowds increase during that time, they still can’t quite bring themselves to admit that not only can they live without, but they thrive without it, and that’s the saddest part of this whole episode.

    View Comment
  23. Hoopy 7


    Media lamb munchers at it again
    The worst start in 27years. Eh No!
    They’ve only been around for 4 years!
    As for the SFA and SPFL what they could do is grow a pair and impose the rules for once.
    Where is Sevco’s business plan?
    Do they have the funds to see out the season and what proof can they give of this?
    If they cannot. suspend them, forego the blue pound and bring back the peace we have had for the past 4 years.
    Everyone and their granny told the SFA and SPFL what would happen and it is coming home to roost.
    Stop the rot now.

    View Comment
  24. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 30, 2016 at 09:38       28 Votes 
    upthehoopsSeptember 30, 2016 at 05:09‘..I note some tweets from Grant Russell of STV claiming ‘influential friends’ of Rangers are lobbying for strict liability.’___________I am a political ingenue.But not twenty minutes ago I heard an MSP on Radio Scotland, who is proposing that the Scottish Parliament should insist on ‘strict liability’ say most undiplomatically that the trouble at the Cup Final was caused by oneteam! I wonder is he one of ‘the (influential) people, working to a particula
    —————————-
    Total stab in the dark here,this may be true or not true ‘influential friends’ of Rangers are lobbying for strict liability.’
    The ibrox club may or may not have to rent Hampden if the things we read that the ibrox roofs need fixed. would these influential friends’ of Rangers  be lobbying for strict liability because the ibrox club may or may not need to rent hampden and the SFA would rather strict liability was in place before the ibrox club and the fan’s song book take place right on the SFA’s doorstep. I mean the SFA would have no where to turn or hide if the banned song book was sung every second week on the home of scottish football

    View Comment
  25. Madbhoy24941


    StevieBC
    September 30, 2016 at 17:28
    Looks like DJ is on message: extracted from his ‘ESJ’ column today, with my highlighting;
    “…The fans have stuck by the manager and the team through bad runs before and they have enjoyed most of the football that has been on show in the last couple of years. But that goodwill only lasts so long and they need victories now.
    I do think it is a must win on Saturday, not just for Mark
    ————————————————-
    Ironically, this comes only days after the same man told everyone on air that Chris Sutton was ridiculous to state that Mark Warburton must win the next two games or his jacket is on a shoogly peg. It’s hard to defend the guy sometimes, as likeable as he might be….

    View Comment
  26. TheClumpany


    Good Evening.
    Haven’t highlighted a blog in quite some time, but you may be interested in my latest, which is about the outcome of the Scottish Football Supporters Survey 2016 and issues of governance.
    https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2016/09/30/the-scottish-football-supporters-survey-2016/
    Keep up the good work!

    View Comment
  27. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    THECLUMPANY
    SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 at 19:16 
    https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2016/09/30/the-scottish-football-supporters-survey-2016/
    ======================
    “…
    And we are told that the respondents’ three priorities for the SFA are as follows
    1. Promoting Scottish football;
    2. Increasing grassroots participation…”
    ======================

    It took a survey of 14,000 respondents to identify these top 2 priorities ?

    If these have not been the top 2 priorities since the SFA was created…then what have the blazers been doing all this time ?!

    With the obvious conflict of interests arising from this SDS survey being “in partnership with the Scottish FA and supported by the SPFL”, one would have to take any interpretation of the results with a big pinch of salt.

    And not least because the carefully selected questions posed in the survey omitted important areas, such as ;

    Do you think the SFA is “Respected and Trusted to Lead” ?  15

    View Comment
  28. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    And we are told that the respondents’ three priorities for the SFA are as follows1. Promoting Scottish football;2. Increasing grassroots participation…”
    3. Collecting all un-paid fines and the money used to promote Scottish football and also used to increase grassroots participation

    View Comment
  29. wottpi


    Heard Stephen Craigan on the radio this morning talking about strict liability but at the same time trotting out the mantra about the poor state of the game in this country.
    Celtic held their own with Man City this week and three of the four goals at Fir Park tonight would have graced any of the world’s top leagues.
    We really have to stop having such a downer on ourselves.
    The English media will still get excited over games like Watford v Stoke ( no offence) as if it were a world cup final.
    Our media really needs to start talking our game up a bit as opposed to waiting on Sevco to ride to the rescue.

    View Comment
  30. John Clark


    I think I may have mentioned that I had written to Companies House about the ambiguous way that the myth-propagators at Ibrox try to blur the distinction between RIFC and TRFC by using the word ‘Rangers’ as if there was only one entity, with the implication that there was really only one board.
    I got a reply on 15th September . 
    CH acknowledged that there seemed to be ‘irregularities’ and said they would write. Now, I know that these things can take time, but, looking at the ‘Rangers’ site yesterday, I decided to write again with a screenshot of the site attached.
    “Your email response of 15th September is acknowledged with thanks.
    I note that CH were to write to RIFC/TRFC to make alterations to the way they described themselves.
    Just out of interest, I took the following screenshot yesterday, and note that the club logo is identical to the logo of the liquidated Rangers FC ( is that permitted?) and that there is still no mention of the word ‘Limited’ in the name used.It may be that it takes longer than a couple of weeks for required changes to be discussed and implemented, so I am not being at all critical of CH!
    Just keeping an interested eye on what I consider to be a bunch of fly-men trying to propagate a myth!
    Thank you,John C
    [ The screenshot referred to went with the email, of course. It’s the screen you get when you key in
    http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-60/             ]

    View Comment
  31. John Clark


    And here we have it: “The Scotsman” at its stupid worst.

    What kind of cretin in any kind of ‘responsible’ position in society would see ,in the dismissal of a national  team manager in the kind of circumstances that brought about Allardyce’s dismissal , not the the terrible blight that is affecting the Sport of Football, but only an opportunity for ‘Scotland’ to beat a weakened English team?

    And as for Caldwell, what can one say?

    “The set-up was part of a 10-month investigation carried out by the Daily Telegraph with the aim of exposing corruption in the English game.

    Caldwell, though, wasn’t fussed when asked for his opinion on the night of Allardyce’s departure. He said: “I’m Scottish, so I don’t really care, and I hope it gives us a better chance of qualifying.”

    We can’t argue with that.”

    (Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/caldwell-with-thoroughly-scottish-response-to-allardyce-saga-1-4245212)

    “The Scotsman” here seems to be happy to think that corruption in football is acceptable, if it means that your own wee team wins!

    I now begin to see why it is that that paper goes along with the Big Lie! It it is as unprincipled in its heart as any tabloid, or BBC Sportsound, or our Football governance people.

    View Comment
  32. Homunculus

    Homunculus


    The obfuscation with regard the names has been very important since the club was formed.

    Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland are two entirely separate entities, however if you call them both Sevco it could be either.

    Sevco made a deal to buy the assets or Rangers, then Sevco bought those assets. That’s true if you realise Sevco 5088 made a deal to buy the assets of Rangers, then Sevco Scotland bought those assets. That is an extremely important issue. If the deal was with 5088 then what allowed the administrator to sell them to an entirely different entity, rather than going to auction if that deal had fallen through. 

    Rangers FC Ltd and Rangers International FC PLC are different entities but one is a football team and one is a holding company which owns it’s shares. Call them both simply Rangers then you can say things like Dave King is Chairman of Rangers. That gives a certain impression, a totally incorrect one. Rangers has no debt, which one. Rangers owns it’s own assets, which one etc etc.

    It really does allow a certain picture to be painted and the SMSM are quite happy to go along with that picture. 

    View Comment
  33. Corrupt official

    Corrupt official


    TRFC suporters bus crashed and overturned on A76….I hope it is not too serious. 

    View Comment
  34. John Clark


    HomunculusOctober 1, 2016 at 13:32
    ‘…The obfuscation with regard the names has been very important since the club was formed.’
    ___________
    Yes, Homunculus: a brand new football club without a place in any professional league or national association would not have got far with an IPO!
    Obfuscation and probably a whole lot of dirty work to try to claim the heritage of RFC(IL) were of the essence of the plan.
    A plan  wonderfully helped and fostered by a Football Goverance  body and its craven capitulation to a scheming chancer, and a subsequent succession of scheming chancers.
    May they live to regret their actions, and ultimately descend unhonoured and unmourned to the grave.

    View Comment
  35. shug

    shug


    CORRUPT OFFICIALOCTOBER 1, 2016 at 16:28

    TRFC suporters bus crashed and overturned on A76….I hope it is not too serious.

    1 dead 3 seriously hurt 18 taken to hospital.

    View Comment
  36. Corrupt official

    Corrupt official


    SHUGOCTOBER 1, 2016 at 18:35
           Sad day for fitba fans Shug with 7 of the casualties under 20.  My thoughts are on  full and speedy recoveries, and for the families involved.  

    View Comment
  37. John Clark


    From BBC online,reporting the bus tragedy:
    “David Weir offered his sympathies to the victims of the crash.
    He said: “Obviously there are things more important than football. Our thoughts are with the people involved, the families involved, and I’m sure the club will be very supportive in regards to anything they can do to help the situation.”
    I agree with David Weir.
    We can all get passionate about football: but in the face of death, football takes a very, very secondary place.
    I  grieve with the family of the poor chap who died, and understand the shock and anxiety of the relatives of the seriously injured, and the pain and suffering of the other injured people and their families.

    View Comment
  38. Big Pink


    StevieBC,
    Great minds and all that.

    Running a Twitter poll since Friday on how trustworthy people think the SFA are. Still 20 hours to go on the poll. Over 1200 have voted so far, and the results to date are mildly surprising.

    View Comment
  39. Big Pink


    It is heartbreaking to see the devastation brought to a community as a consequence of that Rangers Supporters Bus crash.

    Our sympathy goes to those affected, particularly to the young man who lost his life. Rivalry is a great thing in football, but the whole football family will come together to mourn a loss like this.

    View Comment
  40. John Clark


    Corrupt officialOctober 2, 2016 at 13:44
    __________
    A useful link, Corrupt official. 

    Perhaps the bit which exposes the cloven hoof is that smugly complacent email which shows how much influence the old RFC(IL) had over the SFA, that Regan was prepared to be told what to write- and enjoyed a no doubt handsomely succulent  meal shortly afterwards.

    When I first saw that email (in The Charlotte leaks)  I saw red.

    And even now I am in a cold fury as I re-read it. Most of you will remember that  the email relates to the panic caused when Regan sent a draft of what he proposed to say to UEFA re the licence)

    ” From<AliRussell@rangers.co.uk>Date: 7 December 2011 Subject: RE: PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIALTo: Craig Whyte <ctw@libertycapital.biz>, Andrew Dickson <AndrewDickson@rangers.co.uk>, Fiona Goodall <FionaGoodall@rangers.co.uk>Cc: Craig Whyte <CraigWhyte@rangers.co.uk>, Ramsay@mediahouse.co.uk, StephenKerr@rangers.co.uk, Gary Withey <gary.withey@collyerbristow.com>

    All sorted -Held until further notice and I have agreed we will meet Stewart and Campbell for dinner in the next couple of weeks to discuss bigger issues. I also made it clear we were very unhappy with the approach the SFA took last week! Hopefully we can move forward now..”

    View Comment
  41. The_Steed

    The_Steed


    I see that it’s being reported the Company who own the LED Advertising boards at Hampden are suing Glasgow City Council for £800k to cover the cost of the damage (not sure why they are suing the Council – do they own Hampden?).
    The Council are by all accounts considering their next move, which may be to sue Hibs & Rangers to re-coup the costs.
    I hope they do, purely for the comedy gold that will be Rangers statement on the matter 10

    View Comment
  42. goosygoosy


    Is it too much to ask for just one banner at the next Celtic home  match  expressing sympathy with those affected by the tragic crash of a TRFC Supporters bus en route to Ibrox Sat 1 Oct ?
     

    View Comment
  43. John Clark


    The_SteedOctober 2, 2016 at 21:01
    ‘….I see that it’s being reported the Company who own the LED Advertising boards at Hampden are suing Glasgow City Council for £800k to cover the cost of the damage (not sure why they are suing the Council – do they own Hampden?)…’
    ______
    I think the answer is in here somewhere, The_Steed!

    From the Sunday Post  https://www.sundaypost.com/author/grahammckendry/
    The Football Company Scotland is using the Riotous Assemblies (Scotland) Act 1822 to claim for £800,000 plus VAT from the council.
    It says the victim of “any unlawful, riotous or tumultuous assembly of persons” can claim “full compensation for the loss or injury by summary action against the council”.
    The Football Company Scotland confirmed to The Sunday Post it was seeking damages but provided no further comment.

    View Comment
  44. John Clark


    And further to my post of 21.57, thanks to Project Gutenberg, here is the actual Riot Act  supposedly about to be used v Glasgow City Council
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8142/8142-h/8142-h.htm

    View Comment
  45. John Clark


    (my post above-well, it’s a quiet night- refers)
    And this line, in what looks like section IX ( near the end of the text) might be the one to be used :
    “… and also that all prosecutions for repairing the damages of any church or chapel, or any building for religious worship, or any dwelling-house, barn, stable or out-house, which shall be demolished or pulled down in whole or in part, within Scotland, by any persons unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled, shall and may be recovered by summar action, at the instance of the party aggrieved, his or her heirs or executors, against the county, stewartry, city or borough respectively, where such disorders shall happen,…’
    The question, m’luds, would seem to be whehter LED advertising panels/boards/or whatever can be said to be included in the terms ‘dwelling house, barn, stable or out-house…..’

    View Comment
  46. John Clark


    AS you were! I am mistaken!
     Try this link for the correct Act :  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/3/33/section/10

    It makes more sense!

    View Comment
  47. naegreetin


    Re LED Damage @ Hampden

    I would be amazed if the operators/owners of the LED Advertising Boards did not have insurance cover for such an eventuality as crowd damage of their boards . Interesting they chose not to sue the SFA (the organiser of the event) which would have been (or could be) fascinating to see them (the SFA) squirm under public gaze of their (further) incompetence .

    View Comment
  48. Portbhoy


    Is Craig  Whyte up in court this morning ?

    View Comment
  49. woodstein

    woodstein


     
    Portbhoy
    October 3, 2016 at 09:02
    ——————————————————–
     
    just confirmed-Glasgow High Court, 3rd October. 03 October 2016/current-business/court- Glasgow HC HMA v Craig WHYTE 03-OCT-16 Preliminary Hearing Continued SCS/2015-152941
     
    C/O Court Reporter
    John Clark
    September 27, 2016 at 17:36
     

    View Comment
  50. neepheid

    neepheid


    I see that James Doleman won’t be tweeting from Whyte’s court appearance today, as he is otherwise occupied at the Old Bailey. I hope John Clark and/or Easyjambo will be there? Not that I don’t trust the SMSM to report the case accurately.09
    John James has been confidently forecasting for weeks now that the case against Whyte will either be withdrawn by the prosecution,  or kicked out by the judge today.
    If so, that will be the end of reporting restrictions- in which case, we can expect some fireworks!

    View Comment
  51. Portbhoy


    WOODSTEINOCTOBER 3, 2016 at 09:51       2 Votes 
     PortbhoyOctober 3, 2016 at 09:02——————————————————– just confirmed-Glasgow High Court, 3rd October. 03 October 2016/current-business/court- Glasgow HC HMA v Craig WHYTE 03-OCT-16 Preliminary Hearing Continued SCS/2015-152941 C/O Court ReporterJohn ClarkSeptember 27, 2016 at 17:36

    Thank you,
    I thought JJ, said that in his blog yesterday, but didn’t see it reported in the online papers this morning.
    I wonder if he is acquitted, there may (will) be trouble ahead, once the reporting restrictions are lifted.

    View Comment
  52. woodstein

    woodstein


    neepheid
    October 3, 2016 at 10:10
    “Not that I don’t trust the SMSM to report the case accurately.”
    Portbhoy
    October 3, 2016 at 10:13
    “but didn’t see it reported in the online papers this morning.”
      ——————————————————————–
    Should we run a book on  if/when it is reported?
     
    I say page 7 bottom left corner 1 column inch, 6th of  October.10

    View Comment
  53. blu


    PORTBHOYOCTOBER 3, 2016 at 10:13   … I wonder if he is acquitted, there may (will) be trouble ahead, once the reporting restrictions are lifted.

    Portbhoy, I sincerely hope I’m wrong but it looks like the COPFS has adopted the SFA approach to presenting charges and none of the seven men indicted in this case will be sent to trial. I think it would be more instructive if the case did go to trial and all the details were heard in public.
    If it doesn’t, who has the incentive the to go public, or publish what they already know? I predict a raging statement from G51 attacking the COPFS for failing the club and its fans. This statement will appear to be from the non-club chairman and will contain not a scintilla of irony in respect of the GSL who operates under the same modus operandi as all of those who’ve had a controlling interest in the club known as Rangers since Lawrence Malborough sold up. 

    View Comment
  54. woodstein

    woodstein


    James Doleman retweeted

    Sky Sports Scotland ‏@ScotlandSky 8m8 minutes ago Sky Sports Scotland Retweeted Sky Sports Scotland
    At the preliminary hearing Lord Bannatyne ordered a further two-day preliminary hearing be set for December 1 & 2.

    01

    View Comment
  55. Portbhoy


    A wee joke, ….hope it’s allowed, …
    CW, … not the only one at court this morning !
    http://www.superlame.com/pictures/mySuperLamePic_1c72d2d7f7cabbaaf50fd6ca1bdabb1a.jpg

    View Comment
  56. easyJambo


    I can confirm that the next Hearing will be held on 1/2 December and that a provisional date of 18 April has been set for a trial, with a planned 12 week duration, equally shared between the prosecution and defence sides.

    Whyte now only faces two amended charges (1 & 3) from the previous indictment.  I haven’t a clue what the details of the charges are though. 

    Reporting restrictions were continued.

    View Comment
  57. Corrupt official

    Corrupt official


    https://twitter.com/ScotlandSky/status/782888190176792576

    “Craig Whyte appeared at the High Court in Glasgow today in relation to the alleged fraudulent acquisition of #Rangers in 2011”
       —————————————————————————————————————————
        Sure;y that would mean a wee trip to the witness box for Minty?…And also open up a can of worms over legal ownership

    View Comment
  58. easyJambo


    I should have added that we are now onto a third Advocate-Depute (prosecutor) although I believe that Messrs Keegan and McVickar remain in the background.  I didn’t catch his name at any point, unfortunately.

    View Comment
  59. John Clark


    easyJamboOctober 3, 2016 at 12:29
    ‘.I should have added that we are now onto a third Advocate-Depute (prosecutor) although I believe that Messrs Keegan and McVickar remain in the background. I didn’t catch his name at any point, unfortunately.’
    ________
    As I whispered to you in Court, Ej, I didn’t catch his name either, or the names of the two others on his side.
    I phoned the COPFS service  20 minutes ago to ask, explaing that I had been in Court but hadn’t heard the Advocate-Depute as he explained his presence to the Court.
    I was very politely told( after the person who answered had sought advice from someone else) that that information could not be given over the phone!
    So I’ve just sent an email to ask if I may be given the information if I put my request in writing.
    Honest to God! This secrecy lark can be carried too far!19

    View Comment
  60. easyJambo


    An odd point I picked up on my way home from Court today. I was listening to Talk Sport where Jim White was hosting the draw for the latest qualifying round of the FA Cup.  As it proceeded the following tie was drawn out.  
    FC United of Manchester or Harrogate Town v FC Halifax Town

    Jim White added “FC Halifax Town was formed in 2008 after “Halifax Town” went into administration then Liquidation”

    He didn’t clarify further if he considered it to be the same “Halifax Town” or not. 07

    For the record, FC Halifax Town started their life in Northern Premier League Division 1 North, three divisions below that of “AFC Halifax Town” when they went into liquidation.

    View Comment
  61. blu


    EASYJAMBOOCTOBER 3, 2016 at 12:29  
    I should have added that we are now onto a third Advocate-Depute (prosecutor) although I believe that Messrs Keegan and McVickar remain in the background.  I didn’t catch his name at any point, unfortunately.

    I hope it isn’t this guy:

    xxxx has appeared on behalf of Rangers FC in a series of cases in 2014 and 2015. He defended them against Imran Ahmad in his action for damages under his contract of service and against a number of motions to arrest on the dependence. He also appeared in 2015 to protect the club\’s interests in an Unfair Prejudice petition raised by shareholders in respect of a possible security over Ibrox stadium.

    View Comment
  62. Hoopy 7


    Probably defrauding Ticketus and being part of organised crime by the sounds of it for CW.
    Meanwhile Phil Mac is hinting that the last 2 quarters returns to HMRC have not been met by Sevco.
    If this is the case surely the beginning of the end.
    It would be a gross dereliction of duty by Hector if this is not stamped on hard.
    Still think they won’t see Christmas but that might just be me being over optimistic.

    View Comment
  63. bordersdon


    Hoopy 7October 3, 2016 at 14:11
    Meanwhile Phil Mac is hinting that the last 2 quarters returns to HMRC have not been met by Sevco.
    If this is the case surely the beginning of the end. It would be a gross dereliction of duty by Hector if this is not stamped on hard.
    ======================================
    IF that is the case (and Phil mac has been wide of the mark many times) I would hope that Hector is camped in the BIG HOOSE now! Two quarters? I assume this is VAT so what about Tax and NI?

    View Comment
  64. neepheid

    neepheid


    Many thanks to John Clark and Easyjambo for attending today’s hearing. What they heard can’t be fully reported yet, for legal reasons, but at least we will have a reliable record once the dam breaks. Well done, lads!

    View Comment
  65. Tincks

    Tincks


    Here is a classic compare and contrast essay question.

    Compare and contrast the treatment of TRFC and Durham County Cricket Club by their respective governing bodies.

    Background.

    Durham CCC has for a number of years overspent and lived beyond its means.  Culminating in hitting the financial wall this summer.  The governing body the England and Wales Cricket Board in wanting to see the Club survive has offered financial assistance by means of advancing the annual support payment given to all clubs several months early.

    As a result DCCC kept a team on the field that they could not afford as opposed to cutting players loose or ceasing to trade.

    Consequently the governing body has met and decided that DCCC received an unfair sporting advantage and have been relegated with Hampshire reprieved. 

    Durham will start next season in Div 2 on -48 points with further penalties in the one day and 20/20  competitions.  A salary cap has been imposed to be reviewed annually until 2020.  In return for their support the governing body want Durham to be managed sustainably and receive no sporting advantage.

    Full story here if interested

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/03/durham-relegated-financial-struggles

    View Comment
  66. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    BORDERSDONOCTOBER 3, 2016 at 14:52…Hoopy
    7 October 3, 2016 at 14:11Meanwhile Phil Mac is hinting that the last 2 quarters returns to HMRC have not been met by Sevco.If this is the case surely the beginning of the end. It would be a gross dereliction of duty by Hector if this is not stamped on hard.======================================IF that is the case (and Phil mac has been wide of the mark many times) I would hope that Hector is camped in the BIG HOOSE now! Two quarters? I assume this is VAT so what about Tax and NI?
    ==================================================
    Feels like deja vu – all over again.  09

    A typical route to admin./liquidation: stiff all your creditors – but the taxman should only be stiffed last.

    This TRFC story might be true, might be wishful thinking.  

    But if rumours of that nature are doing the rounds, you would think that any TRFC supplier would now be at Ibrox demanding any overdue payments – and to insist on providing any future supplies only on a strictly cash upfront basis ?

    View Comment
  67. Hoopy 7


    Borderperson
    Phil does not specify but it is usual for PAYE and NI to be paid at or about the 19th of each month for the previous months liability. Maybe someone with current experience could clarify.

    Either way if any of this is true it is just unfair, it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach that HMRC would stand by and let this happen again, given that the very people who were on the Board when it happened with the old co Rangers are conducting the orchestra yet again.
    CCK and PM should not be with a million miles of any company directorship.
    Of course King could always produce his warchest and make all the rumours go away.

    View Comment
  68. Tincks

    Tincks


    PMG reporting that the distress flares may shortly be shooting up into the Govan sky.  Whilst exact details and timings may be open to question it seems clear that a pinch point is coming and that a very big rabbit needs produced from a very magic hat pretty damned soon.

    How long can this saga go on?

    View Comment
  69. neepheid

    neepheid


    I simply cannot believe that HMRC would cut TRFC any slack on payments. The same rules that apply to every other taxpayer will apply to them, and who could possibly  complain about that? Oh, wait a minute. Have we  been here before?

    View Comment
  70. wottpi


    Phil Mac has hinted previously that VAT would be due shortly re some of the season ticket money etc.

    Not sure how correct that is depending on how the money comes in but VAT is dealt with quarterly.
    Plus you can default and enter into a surcharge period with penalties  if you default with a reasonable excuse (see below and take your pick). Therefore allowing you to rumble along for a bit without the plug getting pulled.
    Also are we talking about the PLC or the LTD?
    Remember King will be a dab hand at the best / most efficient ‘legitimate way not to pay tax and to keep Hector away from the door for as long as possible.

    Also if we are arguing it is a new club/company then while you would expect a beady eye to be kept on the likes of King and Murray for ‘previous’ with the oldco,  the legal entity is entitled to the same breaks as any other new start up that may be having trouble finding its feet!!!!!

    At the end of the day it is always going to be the cash flow situation that will see this particular enterprise  sink or swim.

    Reasonable excuse6.1 What is meant by reasonable excuse?
    You will not be in default if we, or the independent tribunal, agree that there is a reasonable excuse for failing to submit your VAT Return and/or payment on time.
    There is no legal definition of reasonable excuse but we will look closely at the circumstances that led to the default.
    If the circumstance that led to the default were unforeseen and inescapable and you can show that your conduct was that of a conscientious business person who accepted the need to comply with VAT requirements, then you may have a reasonable excuse.
    6.2 What sort of circumstances might count as reasonable excuse?
    The following guidelines show circumstances where there might be a reasonable excuse for failing to submit your VAT Return and/or payment on time:
    computer breakdown: where the records needed to complete your VAT Return are held on computer and the computer breaks down, either just before or during the preparation of your return. You must have taken reasonable steps to correct the fault
    illness: where the person normally responsible for completing the VAT Return is unable to do so because of illness. You will need to show that there was no one else capable of completing the return. If it is a prolonged illness you will need to show that you have taken reasonable steps to get someone else to do the return

    loss of key personnel: where the person responsible for completing your VAT Return leaves the job at short notice just before the due date and there is no one else to complete the return on time
    unexpected cash crisis: where funds are unavailable to pay your tax due following the sudden reduction or withdrawal of overdraft facilities, sudden non-payment by a normally reliable customer, insolvency of a large customer, fraud, burglary or act of God such as fire
    loss of records: where your records are stolen or destroyed. This excuse applies only to your current tax period. If you have also lost records which relate to a future VAT Return you must tell us immediately. If your records are elsewhere, for example with your accountant, it is your responsibility to get them back (or ask for copies) in time to complete and submit your return

    View Comment
  71. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    The Clumpany ‏@TheClumpany Oct 2Cowering In The Bunker | Please RT if you enjoyed! @theoffshoregame https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2016/10/02/cowering-in-the-bunker/ &hellip;
    ===========================

    It seems obvious that the FA – and SFA – are unable to self-govern and self-regulate the football industry competently.

    Wrt the SFA, it receives millions in public money.

    Either the SFA refuses public funding in future,
    or
    it fully complies with any governments reviews / regulations.

    The government – you would think – is now obligated to step in and impose external, regulatory control ?

    View Comment
  72. Auldheid


    NEEPHEIDOCTOBER 3, 2016 at 16:48 
    I simply cannot believe that HMRC would cut TRFC any slack on payments. The same rules that apply to every other taxpayer will apply to them, and who could possibly  complain about that? Oh, wait a minute. Have we  been here before?

    ========
    I think you will find that contrary to the  “victim of HMRC mentality” that still holds some sway, that HMRC did cut more than a bit of slack in March  2011 for the wtc bill  after liability was first accepted in Feb 2011 then solidified into £2.18m quantum  in March.
    There is no question that they did let collection drift. None.  In football terms the question is did the form of drift meet UEFA FFP rules ie to be in writing and signed by HMRC. If not licence granted in breach of UEFA FFP.
    If it was compliant the next question is did SFA then carry out their granting responsibilities as UEFA intended before notifying UEFA?
    That of course depends on the grounds SFA granted in the first place, which are themselves questionable in light of Regan’s public and not so public utterances since.
    Not to mention the possibility RFC were in breach of FFP from 2005 at least for use of private agreements if the Giannina case presented to CAS is indicative of UEFA thinking.
    It almost makes it understandable why LNS  etc was required to minimise the damage  SDM did to our game  by the ebt trust breaking gamble that he took in 2000.
    The wrong man is in the dock.

    View Comment
  73. bfbpuzzled


    Is having to pay Mr Barton/Sanderos/Krancjar/Hill and so on many many thousands of pounds per week a reasonable excuse for defaulting on VAT or other taxes? And would engineering their removal from payroll be seen to be putting a big hoose in order?

    View Comment

Comments are closed.

SSL Certificates