Comment on LNS – A Summary by Auldheid.
This is an absolute must read by BRTH on Scottish football and why it wanders into the wilderness.
Auldheid Also Commented
LNS – A Summary
RPMcMurphy 17th December 2015 at 11:14 pm #
Well nearly 🙂 but I’m less bothered with the past than I am securing a safe future for the game.
If TRFC supporters think liquidation does not mean the end of RFC then not recognising the voiding of titles is a minor mental hurdle for them.
However if the SPFL were to say officially that those titles were won unfairly and are part of the history of RFC and not TRFC which starts from 2012 and leave it at that, does that in the absence of actually voiding those titles make a mark more telling than voiding them?
Damaged goods from a time TRFC cannot be proud to hold on to if it is to have a future in Scottish football?
I think that if what we all believe to be so is recognised officially, then titles should be voided, but if not voiding is being used as a defence against a full investigation into the SFA then marking them as damaged goods would do me as long as governance reform was the main aim.
LNS – A Summary
johnnymanc 17th December 2015 at 10:42 pm
In the narrative BRTH sets out the actual mechanism is not known, but throughout the whole saga one thing stands out a mile – keeping information that might damage their case out of sight was key.
It can be identified with the first ebt and side letter to De Boer not registered in 2000 and subsequently in 2012 when it was kept from SPL lawyers.
In 2005 when HMRC asked about side letters for De Boer and Flo their existence was denied (by that time there would have been another 20 to 30 ebt cases with side letters.)
In 2011 the arrival of the tax bill was kept quiet, which facilitated the retention of the UEFA Licence and in 2012 the HMRC letters of 2011 and attachments were kept from SPL lawyers.
Unless there is evidence of a metanoia we have to wonder how such a mindset can be accommodated in our game.
To be clear I don’t want them excluded but I want evidence of a metanoia before any steps are taken to restructure the leagues .
Such evidence would be admission:
They did try to gain sporting advantage for 12 years,
They breached UEFA FFP rules in 2011
and tried to cover up their behaviour since 2012,
They realise the titles are worthless as a consequence and give them up,
They accept no TRFC official in any position of influence at SFA or SPFL Boards or Committees for 5 years
They sign up to a domestic version of Financial Fair Play that can be easily monitored.
Removal of any TRFC officials involved in any of the foregoing since 2000.
Heads would need to metaphorically roll at the SFA and SPFL too and an investigation mounted to facilitate reform but that is beyond TRFC’s control but not the clubs.
If those conditions are met it would be churlish not to move on.
If they are not it would be suicide for the game if restructuring were pushed through.
LNS – A Summary
John Clark 1.03
You set out the conditions necessary to begin a process of moving on but how much better would the chances of that be if those responsible for the crimes against Scottish football were to meet with each other rather than Chairman of other clubs to meet the conditions you set out?
An awakening moment, the first of 12 Steps towards recovery, for real recovery can only come internally before the benefits manifest themselves externally.
It’s not Club Chairmen DK and his fellow Directors need to meet its the RST, The Sons of Struth and their ilk to confirm what the rest of Scottish football believes to be so.
A self surrender of titles an acceptance that RFC and the traditions and thinking that killed them no longer work in modern day football and that any future the club of their allegiance has depends on an absolute rethink of who they are and their place in modern society.
The 12 Steps are difficult enough but made even more so when the basis on which they stand is surrender, but with encouragement who knows what miracles can happen?
Recent Comments by Auldheid
To Comply or not to Comply ?
I should have said “almost” identical.
They key difference is Giannina put the whole case to the Greek FA who granted a licence with reservations they made to UEFA triggering the CFCB action.
RFC did not present the full case to SFA and misrepresented the status of the liability throughout 2011 and into 2012.
They also kept evidence of the true status from SFA in May that would have stopped UEFA being notified that a licence had been granted.
Regan tried to get around this by stating SFA duties stopped at 31 March. He is on record as he is on saying the liability was disputed.
The agreed terms argument is one the TJN do not share with you. An unlawful scheme was used to save paying tax that should have been paid under PAYE. They argue PAYE terms apply and the money was owed from 2000.
All that happened was result of RFC keeping side letters from authority for years then arguing what was a clear cut case from Oct 2011 delaying collection proceedings.
That is what UEFA rules try to stop. Clubs using variances in national tax systems to excuse non payment. The liability was accepted before 31st March and should have been paid before 31st May for it not to be an overdue payable.
It wasn’t with a similar line used as in Interim Accs to explain why.
The Giannina case shows how matters should have been handled by SFA had the proper facts been out to them in March 2011.
My statement on ejection was made in the belief at the time that had UEFA been aware of the true situation they would have ejected RFC for gaining a licence by deception. That is in their power.
No club has been ejected because strong enough reason to do so has never emerged before a competition started.
Your case is based on rules applying if the trust on which they are founded is kept.
When that trust was broken the rules don’t apply.
That is the relevance to the Giannina case and why SFA are investigating and so they should to avoid any repetition.
To repeat Giannina did NOT misrepresent the true status of their liability and Greek FA did not grant without question.
That did not apply in 2011 to RFC.
Why do you think Johnson has not yet been deemed fit and proper by SFA? To a layman it looks like fraud.
To Comply or not to Comply ?
paddy malarkeyApril 24, 2018 at 01:44 (Edit)
I’ve had the privilege of meeting Mr Maxwell once (doubt he’ll remember ) and he is a very civil and controlled person . I am told by a mate who is in the craft that oor Ian is a fellow craft member , and that is one of the reasons he was appointed . Apparently there are a lot of historical secrets that the SFA would like to remain secret and don’t wish non-masons to see . If only they were more transparent, eh ?
Alternatively Petrie did not want Maxwell appointed because he was likely to open doors Petrie wanted to stay shut when it came to a vote at SFA Board level.
The test will come in the handling of the SFA Compliance Officer report.
To Comply or not to Comply ?
I think that Auldheid’s acceptance of the May date for the “bill” was more to do with the lack of any documentary evidence, than a genuine belief that HMRC had not sought payment before 31 March.
We always thought what was said in RFC accounts of 1st April 2011 was “dodgy” right from the off because the date the liability was accepted was known and indeed was put to SFA in July 2015, but it was the findings of the Giannina FC case in the summer of 2016 that produced something solid to argue with.
” 39 UEFA points out that it is not disputed that the Appellant owed EUR 1,290,000 to the social/tax authorities as a result from contractual and legal obligations towards employees that had arisen before 31 December 2012, and that this amount had not been paid by 31 March 2013.
It is also not disputed that as of 31 March 2013, no written agreement existed with the Greek Tax Authorities in order to extend the deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline.
UEFA also underlines that the application made by the Appellant has been accepted on 28 May 2013, i.e. almost two months after the expiry of the deadline, and that CAS jurisprudence has “consistently recognised that deadlines for this kind of procedure are fundamental for the smooth running of competitions and must be applied consistently”.
The mere existence of overdue payables is sufficient to declare the Appellant ineligible to the UEFA 2013/2014 Europa League.
74. The Panel notes that it is not disputed that, as of 31 March 2013, the Appellant owed EUR 1,290,000 to the social/tax authorities as a result from contractual and legal obligations towards employees that had arisen before 31 December 2012.
RFC ceased to dispute it owed HMRC on 21 March 2011 having accepted the liability on QC advice given on 3 March.
That is not the impression given by their statements nor by SFA after Sherriff Officers called in August 2011 that started questions being asked.
To Comply or not to Comply ?
TheLawMan2April 23, 2018 at 23:33 (Edit)
What was said in RFC Interim Accs is what the SFA would have acted on.
Indeed in his e mail of 7th December 2011 Regan confirms this.
Here is what was said from today’s blog
This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.
“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”
The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:
Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.
This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement
“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “
where he also added
“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”
The question here that I would be asking if I were Celtic’s largest shareholder is
Were Grant Thornton culpable in telling RFC that was the position because there is gold to be made there
Did RFC’s Finance Officer tell GT the position? Less gold in suing a club who are undergoing liquidation.
Your other point about the clock ticking from the date of the bill arriving is irrelevant in light of the Giannina case referenced in the Sion case.
The reasons for that are given in the CAS judgement on Ginnina FC and repeated in the Sion case. I see little point you arguing UEFA, CAS and TJN got it wrong but carry on.
Where the 20th May letter does have significant relevance is RFC’s failure to notify the SFA immediately of such days before the SFA submitted the list of clubs granted a licence attend of May.
So too would be documentation showing RFC were prepared to argue it hadn’t been received (even when they knew it had)
That letter made it abundantly clear HMRC had been pursuing payment from 2010 and why and collection was only delayed until after CW took over as he had promised to pay it (but didn’t).
The ripples of that non disclosure, repeated by Duff and Phelps in 2012 in response to SPL lawyers request for paperwork relating to ebts with side letters, is something that the SFA will be keen to stop becoming waves.
To Comply or not to Comply ?
slimjimApril 23, 2018 at 21:02
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqgsr4 Not sure if this is allowed but would be interested in Auldheids response.
I’m well aware of JasBoyd’s arguments but he lost track of a change of direction in June/July 2016 when he prematurely pronounced Res12 dead. It clearly isn’t.
On the “agreed terms” point and as the Tax Justice Network put it in support of their case (the guys who ARE experts in tax matters) the DOS ebts were payments that should have been made under PAYE terms, so the ” overdueness” started after August 2000 for De Boer and Nov 2000 for Flo a few months after PAYE deducted should have been passed to HMRC. I’m not sure how long HMRC give companies to pass PAYE tax on but the agreed terms are measured in months, not years.
Mr Boyd’s point about what went on in Feb/March 2011 was always seen as “dodgy justification” at the time and since. (see Easy Jambo’s comments) but is irrelevant sophistry in terms of when UEFA would judge a bill as having become due
That was settled in the earlier Giannina FC case ( referenced in the Sion report) that went to CAS after Giannina appealed against UEFA sanctions for having tax overdue payables in circumstances very identical to RFC’s.
CAS supported the UEFA line that once the club accepted they owed the tax authorities for tax due before 31 December then it was overdue if the conditions for exemption by 31st March were not met.
The 4 conditions for exemption from being an overdue payable
a) bill paid, b) written agreement to postpone collection in place at 31st March c) liability is under appeal d) the claim made is a frivolous one
were not met unless the Compliance Officer comes up with something on the lines of an unpublished document under b) that was already covered in a previous SFM blog Who is Conning Whom?
If such a document exists and if Mr Boyd’s rationale applies then why did the SFA deem it necessary to investigate last September and why has it taken 7 months if the answers as he sets them out were already available to the SFA?.
Its not just at the granting in April 2011 but also non disclosure in May 2011 that breaches another FFP rule that RFC are or should be under investigation for and the SFA also have questions to answer on what they told UEFA in September 2011 when discussing a misleading submission that was made in June 2011. Their part in advising RFC on a September submission, the content of which is highly questionable, also needs looked at.
The misleading submission re the status of the wee tax bill continued to be made into the 2012 licensing cycle although by Feb 2012 the SFA dealt with the issue as they should have in 2011 and a licence was not granted because RFC failed to produce audited accounts for 2011/12 and HMRC made it clear there was no appeal against the wee tax liability, only the penalty, which was dismissed in Feb 2012.
(As an aside it was RFC who were ineligible for a licence for 2012/13 only and it was TRFC the new club/company who had to wait 3 years to be eligible because their SFA Membership as far as UEFA are concerned only began in August 2012 – Art12 of UEFA FFP.)
Where Mr Boyd did have it right initially was that any sanctions that would have applied would not have been made until 2012 season, something that was understood, but it was felt that because of the evidence of the clear nature of the deception at June 2011 , had UEFA been made aware of it before the 2011/12 games began, ejection would have happened and Celtic taken RFC’s place, giving shareholders locus to present a Resolution to the AGM.
The decision in the Sion and Irtysh cases show how seriously UEFA take a club obtaining a licence when it should not have, even when UEFA accept a one off misrepresentation by Sion and a lenient Kazakhstan FA in another.
What might a sanction have been if UEFA decided the misleading was serial and deliberate, supported by the motive for being so? – dependency on UEFA money for survival.
Mr Boyd is not arguing with me, the case has been run past different lawyers, including the SFA’s own counsel, with info Mr Boyd is not privy to, and he can take matters up with the SFA Compliance Officer if he desires.