Comment on JPP: Perverting Justice? by Auldheid.

    I came across this article today when trying to explain the genesis of the points deduction for going into administration.

    The author makes a case for removing the rule now because it is not the deterrent it was intended at the time and HMRC now keep a closer eye on clubs defaulting on PAYE.


    However it got me thinking.

    We all know by now that the wee tax case calculation of tax owed was based on PAYE terms on the basis that the ebts used were designed to underpay HMRC what they were owed in 2000/2001/2002. 

    So if non payment of PAYE is deemed to have offered clubs an unfair advantage to such an extent that it was recognised in 2003 a ten points deduction was merited to offset that sporting advantage, then  why was that principle not taken into account by Lord Nimmo Smith nor indeed the SFA/SPFL in his commissioning?

    Now I'm not sure when the SFA/SPFL introduced the points deduction for administration rule but when they did they must surely have recognised the underlying principle because they applied the rule in 2012 when RFC entered administration and deducted them 10 points for doing so and of course non payment of PAYE was one of the reasons administration became necessary.

    I appreciate that at the time LNS ruled that the early DOS ebts were wrongly treated as continuous with the BTC ebts and in any case preceded for the most part the date the points deduction rule was introduced, but after the Supreme Court ruled that RFC owed tax on the BTC ebts, as long as the tax owed was based on the same PAYE principles as a tax on wages  then why was a ten points deduction not applied to each of the seasons the rule was in place in Scotland? 

    It is the logical outcome of applying the principle that introduced the points deduction rule in the first place.

    Now if someone can be bothered to establish when the rule was introduced in Scotland and apply a ten points deduction to RFC we might get an idea of the cost to other clubs through those years in terms of prize money lost due to lower league placing.

    We might then get a greater appreciation of why the SFA/SPFL do not want to go there, who would pay compensation to whom?

    Ach its international week. Nothing else happening. Go on go on. 

    Auldheid Also Commented

    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    John Clark

    UpThe Hoops


    Res 12 has been mentioned every year from the top table at the AGM since 2014.

    Typically it was 'the matter was at some stage of investigation so wait" either with SFA in 2014/15, then when that failed to get satisfactory answers ,UEFA in 2016 which again raised more questions than answers, but provided enough information in terms of dates licence granted and UEFA informed of clubs granted to continue pursuit after a hiatus waiting for the Craig Whtye trial to come out with what the evidence already suggested and (for LNS) the Supreme Court decision.

    The testimony at the CW trial in summer of 2017 led to the Compliance Officer investigation that took seven months to lay charges in May for a Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal to scrutinise, but TRFC claimed in July the matter was one for CAS.

    That was after fresh evidence was presented to the previous Compliance Officer in June this year which in effect made investigation unnecessary as it basically provided a narrative covering the whole of 2011 from March to September, which was what Res12 was looking to achieve.

    As the podcast says, Res12 was prompted by the question " How come Sherriff Officers turned up on 10 August 2011 if there was no overdue payable at end March? 4 months seemed a short time to go from not owing HMRC anything to HMRC taking final measures to collect.

    Thus previous statements at the AGM were joint ones with shareholder's rrepresentatives because information was still being sought and at last year's AGM, although unhappy at further delay, it was difficult to argue with Celtic's stance of waiting for the Compliance Officer process to establish what took place. No one expected it to take 7 months.

    That stance in view of how the SFA Judicial Process has ran into the ground is going to be difficult to justify, particularly since no further formal investigation is needed.

    As long as no one has come up with a Bryson type interpretation of the rules that explains how the licence was granted in accordance with them, then difficult questions need to be answered by the SFA to satisfy Celtic shareholders to prevent the further action of taking the issue outside football law as it was never designed to deal with dishonesty at the level that occurred from 2000. 

    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    There is a podcast up on E Tims at 

    Talkin Bout a Resolution – Special Podcast

    that discusses where matters stand  on the JPDT investigation into the granting and retention of the UEFA licence to Rangers in 2011.

    I read some welcome comments regarding the culpability of SDM on this blog and the SFA having dumped all the blame on Craig Whyte are still at it in the JPDT. You do wonder what hold Murray has over Scottish football.

    The following is from the comments section on E Tims to help understand the discussion.

    The UEFA licence was only granted because of false proof offered to the UEFA Licensing Committee at end March 2011 by Grant Thornton, RFC auditors.

    By then the liability had become a payable as RFC asked the bank for permission to pay following accepting the liability on 21st March..

    The payable did not meet the 4 criteria that would prevented it being overdue so was an overdue payable.

    During May 2011 from 5th to the 20th, three3  HMRC letters that confirmed it was a payable and not a potential liability was not provided to SFA as required by the rules.

    That allowed SFA to inform UEFA of clubs granted a licence on 26th May.

    The false narrative that failed to describe  the liability as a payable at end of March continued in the June and September monitoring points.

    SDM regime started the falsehood. CW regime continued it.

    The behaviour meets the description of fraud. In particular the proof offered at end of March.

    This is the dilemma that Celtic, the SFA and UEFA now face and why the can has been kicked down the road from the day Sherriff Officers turned up at Ibrox.

    As events have shown football karma did what the SFA didn’t and took away the UEFA income Rangers had relied in since 2008 when they spent money owed to taxpayers on players that then won 3 titles. Had Karma not intervened in the shape of McCoist in 2011 no one would have been any the wiser.

    HMRC would have been paid the £2.8m. Rangers would have paid the PAYE and VAT they stopped paying in Sept 2011 that eventually caused insolvency, all from CL participation.

    The desperation to keep a version of Rangers in the game has manifested itself since 2012, so why would Rangers not risk fraud in 2011 and how desperate would the SFA be to deny them the chance of survival?

    Chancers one and all.

    The only questions are:

    Where does blame start?

    Where does it end?

    How many Scottish journalists wages depend on not investigating and reporting what took place?


    p style=”margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px”>How do we know it will not happen again with a club who hold the rules in contempt and an SFA who allow them to?

    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    wottpi 10th October 2018 at 09:58  Edit This






    Rate This



    StevieBC 10th October 2018 at 00:34  


    As I posted a few days back it is also the ideal time for Budge to join the party along with Milne and Lawwell.

    The leaders of three of our biggest clubs actually taking a lead in asking difficult questions would be a breath of fresh air.

    Strength in numbers and all that. 



    The CSA wading into Milne in their latest post.

    When they say fear of retribution is a factor impeding sporting justice then those intimidating should be named by the clubs.

    Its not just Milne who needs to grow a set, it is all other clubs. Enough lies


    Given that the CSA and Celtic have a respectful relationship perhaps Joe O Rourke's article  is a reflection of Celtic's frustration.

    Recent Comments by Auldheid

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    For an in depth expose of the "RFC were victims of HMRC" myth I recommend


    Lots of detail but informative and balanced as are the other articles by the same author on his web site.

    Parts One, Two and Three already up. Part Four on its way.

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    The Times article set loose this thought.

    "selling key players would have been one option open to the Ibrox management to meet the liability”

    The idea being that had the bill been smaller RFC could have settled the BTC making them more attractive to potential buyers.

    Well the core bill (£24m) was possibly manageable and had payment been made instead of player trading at £28.2m*  in August 2008 with the individual determinations of tax owed already on the desk at Ibrox from Feb to April 2008  then the blockage to sell would have been removed.

    Arguably it would have made Rangers a more attractive financial proposition with no debt and an affordable lower player wage bill to build a sustainable  future on.

    However the decision was taken by Sir David Murray  and Walter Smith  to try and trade their way out of trouble by guaranteeing access to the CL groups as title winners and the player trading money was spent instead  on players who won 3iar

    That dependency on CL money for survival started to end with the unforeseen bank crash in Oct 2008 when Lloyds took over from Halifax but finally  ended in Malmo and Maribor in 2011.

    * This angle with others  is covered by Phil Mac Giolla Bhain  at

    A thundering squirrel

    but it is just one part of a truthful narrative avoided by Scottish Main Stream Media because it exposes  the "victim" narrative for what it is – Fake News.

    The cause of Rangers downfall was SDM/WS who placed the insatiable appetite of their support ( who never gave a thought to where the money was coming from)  to be top dog in Scottish Football above the well being of not just Rangers FC, but as time is showing, of the well being  of the other Scottish football clubs.



    In Whose Interests
    It's all so obvious now looking back  so why is a sham being allowed to continue to stigmatise Scottish football?

    Whose interests is it really in to sustain  a myth at the expense of whatever future Scottish has?




    In Whose Interests
    Cluster One 4th November 2019 at 18:50 


    Auldheid 4th November 2019 at 16:56
    I hope when this is concluded the Res 12 guys get back every penny spent.



    It is a thought……

    In Whose Interests

    The Res12 Archive has been updated to cover Celtic’s response to the most recent Resolution to bring Res12 of 2013 AGM to a conclusion. If you are not a shareholder it explains what was proposed & why and what Celtic actually oppose. All at 25th October date.