Ecobhoy 11:20 – there was some speculation that there was – The Scottish Football Monitor

Ecobhoy 11:20 – there was some speculation that there was …

Comment on Podcast Episode 1 by Bryce Curdy.

ecobhoy 11:20 – there was some speculation that there was an elaborate sting in place as a victory in the higher court would carry more clout than at a FTTT level. I always thought that was fanciful but many believed otherwise. And your question about whether the Murray group would appeal an unfavourable decision intrigues me too.

Bryce Curdy Also Commented

Podcast Episode 1
broganrt&h 10:09 am — absolutely fantastic post. Only one question. Why did HMRC make the ultimately crucial concession?

Podcast Episode 1
ecobhoy 8:52 am – interesting comments and I agree with most. You are correct that it is obviously speculative at present and also that are so many other plots and subplots. I personally believe in the event of a decision in favour of HMRC that oldco’s potential right of appeal should not prevent the honours being challenged in the meantime. I would also disagree that the existing item 12 and a challenge following a favourable UTT are mutually exclusive.

I’ll try and find the time to put some flesh on the bones of my own views, and if I was able to float your boat would welcome the forensic skills you have displayed during your work about the land deals.

Podcast Episode 1
In the event of HMRC winning the UTTT, I am absolutely determined that all honours won by the former Ibrox club should be challenged, probably via another ‘Item 12’ at Celtic’s AGM approach.

With that in mind, does anyone know which ( if any) specific SPL and SFA rules would have been broken? Would it come down again to player eligibility, and even if not, what is the risk of a Bryson get-out-clause?

Recent Comments by Bryce Curdy

To Comply or not to Comply ?
The definition of ‘tax avoidance’ seems variable although HMRC’s version appears to be that stated by Homunculus and perhaps that is the only one that matters in this context.

In the USA the definition is much wider and covers any form of legal tax management that reduces tax liability.  The Collins English dictionary seems to define it similarly.

But I’m struggling even harder to get my head round the differences between tax avoidance, unlawful tax avoidance, illegal tax avoidance and tax evasion!

To Comply or not to Comply ?
AULDHEIDMAY 16, 2018 at 11:34I would not be so sure of the accuracy. Regan is on record of saying granting ended 31st March and monitoring was down to UEFA.Traverso reply indicated a logical lacuna if this was what UEFA intended.This year the list of clubs granted a licence can be to UEFA at 31st May at the latest.In 2011 it was by 26th May 2011. So how can UEFA monitor any licence applicant if they do not know who have been recipients of a licence. There is also other statements in the Traverso reply that strongly challenge Regan’s understanding.So if anything turned up of significance until UEFA notified it is up to RFC to notify SFA and they to notify UEFA immediately.What did or did not turn up, depending on whether RFC followed the rules before 26th May, would question the veracity of statement in RFC Interim Accs that was drawn from Grant Thornton. It does not help the case for innocence when under CW Rangers were prepared to state they did not receive a significant document which is why they failed to act on it when it was pointed out they had already admitted its arrival to HMRC month before. The devil is in the detail but there are questions to be answered regarding the period before UEFA could possibly start monitoring. The SFA know what they are.” Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones” D Rumsfeld Feb 12 2002.
Crossed wires I think, and my fault.  When I said accurate I didn’t mean to imply for a second that I believe any licensing transgressions were limited to the monitoring period and that everything was tickety boo on March 31st.  But it wouldn’t surprise me if this is exactly how the SFA will try and fudge things and that Sevco have been given a nod and a wink.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
I think we can see where this will end up.
Sevco’s claim that the charge relates purely to the monitoring period has yet to be confirmed but reasonable to assume it is broadly accurate.
This will allow the authorities and Sevco to claim that Rangers’ CL participation in 11-12 would not have been affected and that as they did not participate in 12-13, Celtic, Kilmarnock and no other club has lost out financially.  Rangers will be found guilty but the punishment will be a slap on the wrist, probably a five figure fine.

Is it time for the Sin Bin?
So Bobby Madden has been selected to referee the Celtic ‘Rangers’ SC SF.  He was selected for the last but one league encounter.  Whether he is a deliberate cheat or merely sees what he wants to see because of his well documented allegiances isn’t the point.  He should be nowhere near this fixture and is yet another example of SFA corruption/incompetence/two fingers to decent fans of Scottish football. Many will suspect this decision (which would not have been allowed in England) is the authorities once again doing everything in their power to help the Ibrox club.  Hard to imagine healthy season ticket sales with an increasingly likely third (or lower) place in the league without the compensation of silverware.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
I’ve not posted on the site for many months having contributed regularly previously. I have thought carefully about the repercussions of next Wednesday’s announcement and suspect many will disagree with what I’m about to state, but here goes:
i would rather see the Supreme Court reverse the CoS decision than for them to uphold it but there to be no consequences, which is what I fear will happen. If the Supreme Court find against HMRC then I will reluctantly accept that Rangers’ use of EBTs was within the letter of the law by the proverbial bawhair. It will of course leave the wee tax case and the five EBT recipients referred to above by Highlander unresolved. For the CoS decision to be upheld but ignored will forever leave a foul taste in my mouth.

SSL Certificates