The Ernie B Thread

435
4390

A special place for the posts of Ernest and those wishing to engage.

435 COMMENTS


  1. AuldheidNovember 29, 2017 at 16:29
    ‘…Ernest BeckerSave your time. I’ll be scrolling by. I’ve learned that engaging with idiots is a waste of time.’
    ____________
    You’re far too kind, Auldheid.

    What the blog is dealing with are clever men who know that what they say is untrue and who have not the excuse of simply being stupid.

    There are two broad categories of persons who have a vested interest in propagating the Big Lie: RIFCplc/TRFC Ltd, and persons in office in  the SFA.

    The new club may(still) be paying some superannuated hacks (of the  trashy discreditable type who can lie as easily as their  pay-master),and who can use the same kind of specious, circular arguments [ there used to be one such hack on a football phone-in programme on BBC Radio Scotland] that were a trade-mark of King’s ‘defences’ in all his litigation.

    But I kind of suspect that the need for TRFC Ltd to assert that it is the very same entity as RFC(IL) is a little less urgent than the need that the SFA has to have us all accept that they at no stage lied in the  manufacturing of the ‘same club’ Big Lie.

    The SFA unquestionably, and ,misinformed UEFA  about RFC’s tax situation, in order to get them a UEFA competitions licence to which they were not entitled.

    I would not now put it past them to desire to silence this blog, and those of us who keep reminding folk of the appalling abandonment of any kind of sporting principle that the 5-way Agreement represented.

    The mere passage of time cannot change the fact that our Governance body created a living lie, and now has to keep propagating that lie, in the way that liars have to do.

    Previous trolls have in the main probably been supporters of the old club, trying ( as we all might have done) to defend their  club and emotionally too upset to reason properly.

    The current trolls ( yes, I think there is more than one-you can tell by the way they express themselves) are clearly familiar with the SFA articles and the SPL articles in the kind of way that someone working and using (or misusing)those sources would have.

    I do believe, therefore, that some employees of the SFA might be doing a wee bit of paid overtime to try to nullify the strong effect this blog has on its readership.

    These would not, course, be the ordinary everyday workers,who would very properly tell their boss that trolling on a blog was not any part of their official duties.

    (Could it be that our SFA CEO…….. ?)

    But,of course, the trolls are ( what the bad guys can never see until the last reel of the film!) on a loser.

    And why is that?

    Why, because the truth is the truth!

    And they,although they know the truth, do not act in the cause of truth.

    (as an aside, TRFC Ltd is a (ach, feck, what is it , 5 years old?) football club.

    It is not, cannot possibly be, entitled to  the sporting honours etc won legitimately by the club created in 1872, let alone those won by cheating over a protracted period of time.

    View Comment

  2. Can I get some views from you good folks on Phil Mac and JJ.

    They are both very entertaining but i am not sure they are suitable candidates to replace Regan and Doncaster,maybe i am being a little unfair.

    View Comment

  3. I do believe, therefore, that some employees of the SFA might be doing a wee bit of paid overtime to try to nullify the strong effect this blog has on its readership.

    I think the SFA colluded or bent rules to save RFC in the best interests of Scottish football, I think the SFA were incompetent in their handling of the membership transfer and i think they turned a blind eye to RFC tax debt to enable a UEFA license.
    I also think OF influence in both SFA and SPL decision making has always been and will always be,not saying it is right just how it is.
    The decision by the SPL shareholders to snub the SFA and RFC was obviously not in the commercial interests of the SPL and are guilty of a dereliction of duty as shareholders.
    I do not think there was a corrupt conspiracy, i think saving RFC was justified and within the rules,i think it should have been more transparent with the 5 way agreement if only to quash conspiracy rumours.
    As for UEFA, the reason they did not take the SFA to task over Article 12 was because nobody associated with the liquidated company was involved in the new company and did not benefit from debt shedding.Their sanctions are there to prevent same owners benefiting from shedding debt. through Phoenix companies.

    Anyway how did Aberdeen FC get on? as i predicted i hope.

    P.S. Can CFC get any more dodgy penalties to maintain their invincible record ??

    View Comment

  4. Once again .EB do you believe that the EBTs used by rangers 1872 were loans or wages for players A simple yes or no will suffice .

    I accept the judgement of the SC just like i accept the judgements of LNS,they are both independent of bias.

    View Comment

  5. The posters on here are generally too polite to malign others, 

    AULDHEID called me an idiot, this is not too polite.

    I am hurting inside but i hide it well.

    View Comment

  6. ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 01:43 2 4 Rate This
    Once again .EB do you believe that the EBTs used by rangers 1872 were loans or wages for players A simple yes or no will suffice .
    I accept the judgement of the SC just like i accept the judgements of LNS,they are both independent of bias.
    ===============================================================
    EB ,That is not the question I asked you .
    So again do YOU believe that the EBTs used by ragers 1872 were loans or wages for players A simple yes or no will suffice .

    View Comment

  7. Ernest Becker
    November 30, 2017 at 01:36

     I think the SFA were incompetent in their handling of the membership transfer
    =======================================

    If it’s the same club why was the membership transfer required.

    View Comment

  8. Ernest Becker
    November 30, 2017 at 01:36 
    P.S. Can CFC get any more dodgy penalties to maintain their invincible record ??

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

    Presumably you were at the game to have seen the incident, what actually happened.

    View Comment

  9. Presumably you were at the game to have seen the incident, what actually happened.

    The spirit of Jimmy Sanderson lives on in us all.
    Bums on seats.

    View Comment

  10. So again do YOU believe that the EBTs used by rangers 1872 were loans or wages for players A simple yes or no will suffice .

    I was too polite to point out on the first 2 occasions you posted this but you seem determined.
    A simple yes or no answer to a multiple choice question would be ambiguous and would not answer your question.
    I gave you my answer.

    View Comment

  11. Referees are human beings,human brains are extremely susceptible to illusion because our vision is a calculated guess,our eyes are not cameras,add in the influence of noise and gesture and you have a recipe for inconsistency.
    Why we resist technology for important decisions is beyond me,it is not a slight on referees to admit they are human just like us.

    View Comment

  12.  I genuinely believe the issue is with impartiality and I have done for years. At best it may sometimes be an unconscious swaying of a decision by the influence of a big crowd at worst it is quite open favouritism and I’ve seen so much of it over the years.

    =======================================
    Impartiality and favouritism would display a pattern,no such pattern exists,referees are all inclusive in their mistakes.

    View Comment

  13. Fantastic AGM,well done DK and the Board,and as i predicted there indeed was an unexpected surprise.

    It appears even if some non-supporter investors were offered cash by DK or his trusts they would decline it,the decision by the Takeover Panel will effectively be a waste of time.
    Ergo he has to take their long term investment position and share value into consideration before converting loans into shares.
    A negative suspicious person would see this as a convenient excuse for DK not to invest any more than has been published which is nowhere near the 30 or 50 million he had promised the fans.
    Onward and upward.

    View Comment

  14. To Ernest Becker
    Ernie you have been sussed M8 there is a tweet doing the rounds and it is describing who you are. i will not disclose as you will discover it yourself if you have not already seen it. Goodbye it was fun I am sure whilst it lasted.
    Go figure. 

    View Comment

  15. Ernest BeckerNovember 30, 2017 at 14:21

    It appears even if some non-supporter investors were offered cash by DK or his trusts they would decline it,the decision by the Takeover Panel will effectively be a waste of time.

    Apologies Ernest I haven’t had a chance to go over the AGM stuff.  What is that sentence based on?  Dave’s view that they would turn it down or some kind of submission from those who should have received an offer to confirm that?

    Ergo he has to take their long term investment position and share value into consideration before converting loans into shares.

    Yes, but hang on.  He has to make the offer first I thought.  Then once they decide not to accept (their decision, not Dave’s) Dave then has to take the ‘Remainers’ into consideration given their decision to ‘hang on in there’ as investment types versus (DR headlines only) the supporter types?  Is this not cart before a procedural horse? 

    A negative suspicious person would see this as a convenient excuse for DK not to invest any more than has been published which is nowhere near the 30 or 50 million he had promised the fans.

    A negative suspicious person would firstly think he’d led a concert party and taken over 30% of a company without the wherewithal to offer for the rest but was then using his >30% power to run the company regardless of whether it was to the detriment/benefit of other shareholders or not.  Is that not what the 30% rule is there to confront?

    View Comment

  16. SmugasNovember 30, 2017 at 16:20

    Ernest BeckerNovember 30, 2017 at 14:21It appears even if some non-supporter investors were offered cash by DK or his trusts they would decline it,the decision by the Takeover Panel will effectively be a waste of time.
    _____________________

    Strange one that from EB, indeed, Smugas. I was under the impression, that to comply with the TOP order, King had to offer all investors cash, and while it may be true that not all non-TRFC supporters would necessarily accept the offer, it’s hard to imagine those who have been disenfranchised by King would not accept much more money than they are ever likely to be offered again. 

    Of course, King’s initial problem, if he was honourable enough to consider complying, is that it doesn’t matter how many actually accept the offer, he still has to have a rather large amount of cash (enough to personally underwrite the offer) in place before the offer is made.

    View Comment

  17. BIGBOAB1916
    NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 16:10
    To Ernest Becker
    Ernie you have been sussed M8 there is a tweet doing the rounds and it is describing who you are. i will not disclose as you will discover it yourself

    Based on my forensic analysis of Ernest Becker’s 978,643 posts here on SFM during the past fortnight, I can’t decide between Jim Traynor, Elmer Fudd, The Donald, or a short plank.

    View Comment

  18. ERNEST BECKERNOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 12:11 3 17 Rate This
    So again do YOU believe that the EBTs used by rangers 1872 were loans or wages for players A simple yes or no will suffice .

    I was too polite to point out on the first 2 occasions you posted this but you seem determined.A simple yes or no answer to a multiple choice question would be ambiguous and would not answer your question.I gave you my answer.
    ==============================================================
    EB no need to be polite ,I’m not really a sensitive soul.
    I do not know how to put the question any simpler   
    It really is very straight forward .
    Do you (no one else ) believe that the EBT loans given to ragers players were loans or remuneration for playing for ragers fc .( ie kicking a football about a park ).
    And I am sorry but you haven’t answered my question 

    View Comment

  19. Ernest BeckerNovember 30, 2017 at 12:44 
    “Referees are human beings,human brains are extremely susceptible to illusion

    Well it certainly seems yours is, if you believe the new club is the same as the dead club!

    View Comment

  20. And I am sorry but you haven’t answered my question 

    You are mistaken,the SC ruled the payments were taxable as wages,i clearly stated i accept their judgement, i believe in evidence and the evidence is they were wages.
    I have also clearly stated owing tax on wages is not defined in the Articles or Rules as cheating,

    View Comment

  21. Ernest BeckerDecember 1, 2017 at 00:16 (Edit) 
    And I am sorry but you haven’t answered my question 
    You are mistaken,the SC ruled the payments were taxable as wages,i clearly stated i accept their judgement, i believe in evidence and the evidence is they were wages. I have also clearly stated owing tax on wages is not defined in the Articles or Rules as cheating,
    ======================
    Would telling HMRC that no side letters existed that proved irregular DOS ebts were being used to pay wages, be classified as cheating/fraud when those letters later turned up? HMRC thought so.
    The QC advising RFC on coughing for £2.8m for the irregular DOS ebts must have thought HMRC had a case when HMRC used that lie to pursue payment out of normal time limit on grounds of fraudulent or negligent behaviour.
    Fill yer boots.
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9N1NEeWZKWHRhRG8/view?usp=sharing
    You will not find cheating defined in SFA Articles for the simple reason no one imagined it would happen and certainly not on the scale that it did.
    The whole regulation system was founded on trust and RFC have kicked the foundations away and there is no sign that steps have been taken to restore it, like recognising who was responsible and removing them from positions where they can do it again.

    View Comment

  22. If anything it defeats the argument. If “RFC” was sold to Sevco (Scotland) Ltd and it was the same club then … why did the membership have to be transferred. It was the same club, just with a new owner it would already have been a member. 

    Here is a clue,why do the SFA have article 14,could it be something to do with a club changing from one owner/operator to another?

    View Comment

  23. Would telling HMRC that no side letters existed that proved irregular DOS ebts were being used to pay wages, be classified as cheating/fraud when those letters later turned up? HMRC thought so.

    HMRC did not claim fraud and hiding side letters was close to cheating,this is not even close to tax evasion nor fielding ineligible players.

    At the risk of once again having to repeat myself i believe RFC brought the game into dispute,i do not condone their actions.

    View Comment

  24. You will not find cheating defined in SFA Articles for the simple reason no one imagined it would happen and certainly not on the scale that it did.

    Not quite true,cheating is defined as an unfair sporting advantage,clubs who become insolvent gain a sporting advantage over solvent clubs, ergo insolvency is cheating and point deductions attempt to redress any advantage gained.

    View Comment

  25. Ernest BeckerDecember 1, 2017 at 00:59 (Edit) 
    Would telling HMRC that no side letters existed that proved irregular DOS ebts were being used to pay wages, be classified as cheating/fraud when those letters later turned up? HMRC thought so.
    HMRC did not claim fraud and hiding side letters was close to cheating,this is not even close to tax evasion nor fielding ineligible players.
    At the risk of once again having to repeat myself i believe RFC brought the game into dispute,i do not condone their actions.
    ============
    You never read the documents then? RFC lied to HMRC when specifically asked about side letters for De Boer and Flo. Although only asked about them because HMRC at the time in 2005 had still to prove DOS ebts were an irregular means of paying wages and were only sniffing around the big tax case ebts that RFC switched to in 2002/03, subsequently found by Supreme Court to be irregularly used, the folk responsible for player contracts and files asked about the two side letters, had another 29 side letters on file relating to the BTC ebts either for then current players or past players.
    RFC knew that if they revealed the existence of those side letters they were on to a hiding to nothing, so they hid their existence.
    LNS said “there was no question of dishonesty individual or corporate”. He was only able to say so because HMRC documents that Duff and Phelps were asked to provide LNS were not provided to the then SPL.
    There is one more dated 20th May 2011 that should have been provided to SFA by RFC under club licencing rules but either wasn’t or the SFA sat on it and did not pass to SPFL lawyer.
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9OEhxaXdrNXFXNDA/view?usp=sharing
    In there you will find
    “The arguments about deliberate or FRAUDULENT behaviour in the case of Flo apply equally to De Boer.”
    It seems we are back in same club territory in that regardless of the weight of evidence presented your mind is locked as if admission of an alternative evidence based narrative of guilt would cause heads to explode Worzel Gummidge style.
    The good news is painful as admission of guilt might be, the relief such a cathartic admission would provide would stop the never ending pain that constant denial brings. 

    View Comment

  26. AULDHEID,

    Stop using words like fraudulent, HMRC never charged RFC with fraud and the outcome of concealing side letters in both DOS and EBT cases was they owed tax,owing tax is not dishonest nor is it unlawful(illegal).
    You continually conflate a failed tax avoidance scheme due to irregular side letters with cheating and dishonesty,i do not go as far as this,i think their intentions and their actions close to cheating brought the game into disrepute.
    I find ad hominems tedious,try and avoid them please,a debate rests on the weight of evidence and reason not name calling.

    View Comment

  27. Ernest Becker December 1, 2017 at 01:55
    AULDHEID,
    Stop using words like fraudulent, HMRC never charged RFC with fraud and the outcome of concealing side letters in both DOS and EBT cases was they owed tax,owing tax is not dishonest nor is it unlawful(illegal).
    You continually conflate a failed tax avoidance scheme due to irregular side letters with cheating and dishonesty,i do not go as far as this,i think their intentions and their actions close to cheating brought the game into disrepute.
    ===========================
    I take it that you are unfamiliar with the commonly accepted definition of fraud in Scotland.
    A false pretence, dishonestly made, to achieve a practical result.

    A false pretence – there are no side letters
    Dishonestly made – you know that side letters existed
    A practical result – HMRC will be unable to fully investigate the tax scheme

    That is fraud every day of the week.
    =======================
    It was that failure to disclose information, when requested, that allowed HMRC to extend the statutory time limits for their investigations and assessments, and also to apply heavy penalties to the club. 

    View Comment

  28. Ernest BeckerDecember 1, 2017 at 01:55 (Edit) 
    AULDHEID,
    Stop using words like fraudulent, HMRC never charged RFC with fraud and the outcome of concealing side letters in both DOS and EBT cases was they owed tax,owing tax is not dishonest nor is it unlawful(illegal). You continually conflate a failed tax avoidance scheme due to irregular side letters with cheating and dishonesty,i do not go as far as this,i think their intentions and their actions close to cheating brought the game into disrepute. I find ad hominems tedious,try and avoid them please,a debate rests on the weight of evidence and reason not name calling.
    ==========
    I find the unwillingness to accept facts tedious. I try very hard not to use words I cannot back up.
    I accept that in not knowing enough you do not see dishonesty, but when evidence of such is presented (and you have not seen  half of the skulduggery at play) it is tedious responding to your ill informed thinking.

    View Comment

  29. So November became December and Spoutpish is confused because he has still not been awarded the Order Of The Boot.
    This is new territory as he’s never been tholed this long before.
    Plan ZZZZZ: Dictionary and Thesaurus.
    I’ll save time.
    Fraudulent; adjective; see Ernest Becker.

    View Comment

  30. ERNEST BECKERDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 00:16 1 4 Rate This
    And I am sorry but you haven’t answered my question 
    You are mistaken,the SC ruled the payments were taxable as wages,i clearly stated i accept their judgement, i believe in evidence and the evidence is they were wages.I have also clearly stated owing tax on wages is not defined in the Articles or Rules as cheating,
    ===========================================================
    Thanks for your reply .
    Sorry you had to dissect the question so much to make your reply ,but I find that particular question a good one to ask any sevco 2012 fan when talking about what went on back then .

    I have found that if they say loans ,then there is clearly no point in in continuing with the discussion .
    If on the other hand they say ,of course not they were wages to the players ,then we have somethings we can  discuss .

    You my friend did NOT answer my question as I asked what, YOU thought the EBT payments were ,
    Why would you need the SC to tell you they were players wages ,I think we both know what the intentions were from the get go .

    I do love the way you use all these rules from the SFA/SPL joke books ,sorry rule books,to back up your arguments but pull the magic discretion clause from the hat when needed .

    As the discretion  clause trumps all then there really are NO rules are there .
    Just what the peepil running our game decide what is best and for whom and with such honest and trustworthy pillars of the community in charge ,what could possibly go wrong .

    You may not have answered my question directly but in the end you told me all I had to know .
    have a good fantasy ,bye 

    View Comment

  31. Ernest Becker
    December 1, 2017 at 00:46
    =============================

    It doesn’t matter how you try to twist it, you are only re-inforcing the argument.

    The SFA have member clubs. If that member club was sold from one owner to another then it would still be the same club. It would still be a member club and there would be no need for a transfer of membership. I know that football clubs have been bought and sold before, how often do we see a transfer of their membership. We don’t there is no need to, it’s the same club.

    Through their actions the SFA have made it clear, the only reasonable explanation based on evidence (I believe you like evidence) is that it is a different club. Rangers (the club) is in liquidation (still alive) and no longer could be a member club of the SFA. Their membership was transferred to another club, which is now allowed to play football in Scotland.

    View Comment

  32. Why would you need the SC to tell you they were players wages ,I think we both know what the intentions were from the get go .

    The reason is pretty basic,belief and knowledge are not the same,you may believe a person is guilty on the evidence but you cannot know they are guilty until after a trial.I believe people are innocent until proven guilty, it is a universal human right.
    We both knew their intention was to avoid tax,you believed they were wages and i withheld my belief until i knew.

    View Comment

  33. It doesn’t matter how you try to twist it, you are only reinforcing the argument.

    Not twisting anything of the sort, you are claiming a change of company does not require a membership transfer and yet there is a rule for transferring a membership if a change of company occurs?
    This suggests when a club changes owner the membership is not automatically transferred, it requires SFA permission and approval or there would be no need for Article 14.

    View Comment

  34. What makes the RFC case different is the deliberate concealment of documents that should have been registered with the SFA, an act which played its part in the demise of RFC.

    AULDHEID,

    I have already rebutted this claim,why a company goes bust is irrelevant unless criminality is involved,you continue to conflate reasons for insolvency with insolvency.
    Your argument is a moral one not a rules based one,you think an attempt to avoid tax is an attempt to cheat,ergo when the tax avoidance fails the conclusion is they cheated.
    Wrong conclusion,when the tax avoidance fails RFC owe tax and it was insolvency that created the unfair sporting advantage.

    Simple litmus test, if RFC had paid the tax owed would you have grounds for title stripping based solely on the hiding of side letters?

    View Comment

  35. ERNEST BECKERDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 12:38

    In footballing terms – no.

    The cheating, in terms of football, is related to the fact that they failed to disclose the full financial details of the players contracts as required by the footballing authorities. Therefore (despite the bizarre Bryson interpretation and the LNS ruling) the general view amongst non T’Rangers fans is that the players involved were incorrectly registered.

    No-one in their right mind thinks this was some kind misinterpretation of the tax laws or an admin error.

    This was deception on a large scale and wholly designed to keep both the footballing authorities and Hector in the dark because it was known that the side letters were the silver bullet in terms of making the whole thing goes tits up.

    I’ll set you a question.

    If Rangers and SDM had been open and honest with all the authorities and operated their EBT scheme as such schemes were intended to have been run, (a la the recent revelations about some of the Mrs Brown’s Boys team – i.e. a legal tax avoidance loan type deal with no side letters or contractual element) would we even be discussing any of this today?
     

    View Comment

  36. Ernest BeckerDecember 1, 2017 at 12:11 (Edit)
    It doesn’t matter how you try to twist it, you are only reinforcing the argument.
    Not twisting anything of the sort, you are claiming a change of company does not require a membership transfer and yet there is a rule for transferring a membership if a change of company occurs? This suggests when a club changes owner the membership is not automatically transferred, it requires SFA permission and approval or there would be no need for Article 14.
    ============================
    Lets look at Article 14.
    First The Heading
    14. Prohibition on Transfer of Membership
    This suggests that only the SFA can transfer the Membership from one member to another. Its saying an SFA Membership belongs to the SFA and they will be the ultimate authority on what happens to the membership of any club. In this case RFC.

    14.1 It is not permissible for a member to transfer directly or indirectly its membership of the Scottish FA to another member – this was not the circumstances as Sevco were clearly not another member or to any other entity –  so RFC couldn’t transfer the SFA Membership of RFC to anyone – , and any such transfer or attempt to effect such a transfer is prohibited, save as otherwise provided in this Article 14. – except at SFA discretion –
    Any member desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction – this was not the case as Sevco were not part of the RFC (or MIH) administration NOR was an internal solvent reconstruction involved, liquidation screams insolvency   – must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. – So RFC could not have applied for permission to effect the transfer of their membership, but of course they didn’t. SEVCO applied for transfer as part of the 5 Way Agreement which then made the application –
    Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board, which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.
    The SFA Board saw fit because one of the conditions for obtaining the SFA Membership,which the SFA jealously guarded as their own as is clear from the foregoing, was an agreement by Charles Green iin the 5 Way Agreement that Sevco would pay all the following football creditors
    1. The RFC Scottish Football Creditors
    2 The RFC European Football Creditors as if the relevant contractual terms had always been between Sevco and each of the RFC European Football Creditors and as as if Sevco had always been so liable.
    The amounts due to football creditors is not known from the 5 Way but Sevco also agreed to pay the Judicial Panel fines and costs arising viz;
     Sevco will make payment to the SFA of the aggregate of (i) the fine of £10,000 imposed on RFC for the breach of Rule 2 of the JP Protocol; (ii) the fine of £50,000 imposed on RFC for the breach of Rule 14 of the JP Protocol; (iii) the fine of £100,000 imposed on RFC for the breach of Rule 66 of the JP Protocol; and (iv) the fine of £5,000 imposed on RFC for breach of Rule 73 of the JP Protocol, and shall pay the costs incurred by the SFA in relation to the Judicial Review in the sum of £31,063.40; the total sum to be paid to the SFA pursuant to this Clause 2.5.3 will be £196,063.40.
    This suggests that “discretion” was based on the SFA and football creditors not bearing the costs arising from the liquidation of RFC and Sevco agreeing to meet them and Article `14 allowed the SFA to decide the conditions under which they would allow Sevco’s application to have the SFA Membership of RFC transferred to Sevco.
    Thus Homunculus is correct the mechanics of the 5 Way show that RFC held an SFA membership, Sevco applied for it and SFA agreed to move it from RFC to Sevco on payment of the money owed to football. That transfer of membership does not make RFC and Sevco the same, its not like the transfer of a player from one club to another and it is why UEFA do not recognise that membership transfer as conferring continuous membership of the SFA and why Sevco had to:
     acknowledge that under UEFA Regulations, Sevco/Rangers FC is currently ineligible to participate in UEFA Competitions. Subject to their qualification on sporting merit and any dispensation granted by UEFA following representations by Sevco/Rangers FC, the SFA shall nominate Sevco/ Rangers FC for participation in applicable UEFA competitions when they become eligible to so participate. and so recognise that whilst Full SFA membership gave them voting rights that Associate Members did not have, it did not mean SFA Membership conferred either RFC or Sevco with immortality.
     

    View Comment

  37. Ernest BeckerDecember 1, 2017 at 12:27 (Edit) 
    What makes the RFC case different is the deliberate concealment of documents that should have been registered with the SFA, an act which played its part in the demise of RFC.
    AULDHEID,
    I have already rebutted this claim,why a company goes bust is irrelevant unless criminality is involved,you continue to conflate reasons for insolvency with insolvency.
     Your argument is a moral one not a rules based one,you think an attempt to avoid tax is an attempt to cheat,ergo when the tax avoidance fails the conclusion is they cheated. Wrong conclusion,when the tax avoidance fails RFC owe tax and it was insolvency that created the unfair sporting advantage.
    Simple litmus test, if RFC had paid the tax owed would you have grounds for title stripping based solely on the hiding of side letters?
    ===============
    No my argument is that by deliberate deceit RFC were able to continue to use an irregular method to pay player that ultimately led to their demise and deliberately broke SFA/SPL registration rules in order to retain that ability from 2005 when HMRC first asked if RFC held side letters for two players which they denied whilst having them plus another 29 they also held. Think of irregular ebts as under the counter payments in brown envelopes, one of the reasons the registration rules are as specific as they are. 
    Had RFC coughed in 2005 there would have been no big tax case which hung over them from 2010 and stopped any reputable buyer coming forward,  which is why I said it played a part and not the cause of.
    What makes it a football matter (possibly involving criminality) is it was Andrew Dickson, whose written testimony to LNS taken by SPL lawyer Rod McKenzie, who pleaded the case that LNS accepted that whilst Dickson/RFC had made an error in not providing the SFA/SPL   with side letters or even asking them if RFC/he should (a great administrator in the steps of Campbell Ogilvie) there was no dishonesty involved.
    This was the conclusion of LNS when he said 
    “The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed. No steps were taken to check, even on a hypothetical basis, the validity of that assumption with the SPL or the SFA. The evidence of Mr Odam (cited at paragraph [43] above) clearly indicates a view amongst the management of Oldco that it might have been detrimental to the desired tax treatment of the payments being made by Oldco to have disclosed the existence of the side-letters to the football authorities.”
    Compare that with HMRC’s view that RFC had acted fraudulently and the basis on which HMRC held that belief, which was the failure of McMillan (MIH’s corporate tax adviser whom the FTT found an incredible witness) and Dickson the individual who was in charge from 2004 of the personnel files and contracts that used side letter (whom the FTT found hard to believe on questioning him on the matter) and it is clear one or both told HMRC porkies when asked about side letters they denied existed.
    This active deliberate denial is a clear act of dishonesty rendering the passive idea that the SFA need not be consulted or informed of side letters incredible  and untrustworthy which more than suggests that the concealment from the SFA was as deliberate AND dishonest as it was from HMRC, given the involvement of the same individuals and undermines the basis of the LNS Decision.
    Further LNS could not have made his absolving statement re dishonesty had he been provided with the relevant documentation you were referred to and that failure should be of itself  a matter for investigation because whilst Duff and Phelps were asked to provide such material, the SFA should also have had some of it if RFC had followed the UEFA FFP licencing rules, a matter that the SFA Compliance Officer should be looking into since it became clear RFC made a statement to the SFA in 2011 to be granted a UEFA licence that differs significantly from witness testimony at the CW trial.
    Further the SFA themselves never asked RFC if side letters were held after an HMRC visit in 2009 to check player contracts held by the SFA.
    Thus proof of dishonesty in terms of football registration rules exist, which would have made the LNS Decision untenable in respect of the para extract and why that is not being investigated only adds to the belief cheating occurred in the footballing sense and LNS was nothing more than an attempt by the SFA at damage limitation.
    If it were not, the SFA would  not be adverse to an investigation into what really happened from 2000 to 2016 taking place, but it is near Christmas and you know what they say about turkeys.

    View Comment

  38. SMUGAS,
    Simple litmus test, if RFC had paid the tax owed would you have grounds for title stripping based solely on the hiding of side letters?

    Not in my opinion.  There is a clear flouting of the games laws though which would merit consideration of the due penalty per the rules in place at the time

    Excellent, now could you explain to me how paying the tax makes the players eligible and not paying the tax makes them ineligible?

    The side letters just failed the litmus test.

    View Comment

  39. ERNEST BECKERDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 21:29
    SMUGAS,Not in my opinion.  There is a clear flouting of the games laws though which would merit consideration of the due penalty per the rules in place at the time
    Excellent, now could you explain to me how paying the tax makes the players eligible and not paying the tax makes them ineligible?
    _________

    If you’d been paying attention for the past six years you wouldn’t have to ask that question.

    View Comment

  40. SMUGAS,
    So we have established the fact hiding siding letters in of themselves did not make players ineligible ,it was irregular but not cheating,certainly not serious enough to strip titles retrospectively.
    It is a ” category-mistake ”  to agree with the above but then disagree because the tax was not paid and/or the company becomes insolvent,if players are eligible despite concealment then introducing another category does not change this,basic logic 101.
    Not paying tax does not make players ineligible,the correct category for this breach is unfair advantage,and there are sanctions for insolvency which are relevant to this category.

    LNS is an expert in logic that is why he stated the concealment of side letters in of themselves did not give a sporting advantage,he based this on the premise both DOS and EBT were not illegal,understandable since RFC were not being charged with fraud or tax evasion.Where some get confused is LNS used the word ” unlawful” which they assume refers to Tax Law,this is another category mistake.

    View Comment

  41. SMUGAS,

    Simple litmus test, if RFC had paid the tax owed would you have grounds for title stripping based solely on the hiding of side letters?
    Not in my opinion.  There is a clear flouting of the games laws though which would merit consideration of the due penalty per the rules in place at the time

    What? But you said no title stripping for hiding side letters ?

    Title stripping is based on player ineligibility, nothing else.

    Have you changed your mind?

    View Comment

  42. Rangers told them about the players’ contracts but failed to mention the “side letters” which were also in relation to contractual payments.

    What did the side letters say?

    View Comment

  43. Ernest Becker, …. AKA,  Nial Walker,  Steerpike, and i’m sure a few other aliases,
    How come you cannot grasp the fact that your posts on this site (or any other site) are up for out and out ridicule. 

    View Comment

  44. The whole LNS -DOS elephant in the room is a complete red herring,as i have demonstrated the category he was commenting on was player eligibility and the resulting unfair sporting advantage.
    It matters not a jot whether the side letters relate to a completed or uncompleted compliance tax case,neither were illegal and LNS did not make the same category mistake as others less learned than his good self.
    The side letters were not cash in a brown envelope.

    View Comment

  45. SMUGAS,
    1/. You mean hiding them from HMRC?  No.  Hiding them from SFA?  Very very verboten.

    I would hardly be asking a question on title stripping based on letters to HMRC would i now?

    But you are entitled to change your mind,understandable.

    So if RFC won the tax case you would still strip titles ?

    View Comment

  46. ALLYJAMBO,

    EB, are you telling us that you do not know that a player’s full remuneration must be included in his contract and registered correctly for the player to be eligible to play in the, then, SPL
    I know this,now back to my question what was in the side letters?

    View Comment

  47. PORTBHOY,
    How come you cannot grasp the fact that your posts on this site (or any other site) are up for out and out ridicule. 

    Maybe because i left school decades ago.

    View Comment

  48. To answer your point if Rangers had won the BTC they still wouldn’t have declared all of the players earnings to the SFA and so would have been subject to the results forfeit mentioned previously.  

    Strange position since loans are not considered earnings in anyone’s language.

    Do you know what was in the side letters?

    View Comment

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