The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Escobar PHM]

Here's how I remember it;

 

Even the FTT which ruled in favour of the murray group, still classified the payments to the player's trusts as remuneration for their services as footballers - it then ruled that the payments were loans which could technically be recalled, therefore not taxable.

 

Wether they were, or were not, taxable loans/payments, was beyond the scope of LNS.  But LNS ruled on the the basis that payments to the Trusts were payments that should have been declared to the SFA/SPL.  

 

It's my understanding that HMRC winning on appeal that the loans should have been taxable doesn't change the basis upon which LNS ruled, he already considered the payments to the trusts as payments to players that SHOULD have been declared.

Yep, when you cut through the legalise we saw yesterday, this is precisely the position the SPFL are taking on it. I find it very difficult to find an 'ah but' type loophole in what they said either. LNS was not asked to declare whether EBT's were legal or taxable, that's the responsibility of HMRC and the supreme court. Even then, using EBT's, (illegal or taxable or otherwise)was not contrary to any football regulations and the football authorities at that point had no rules governing the requirement on clubs to keep their tax affairs above board and in order (they do now obviously)

Edited July 27, 2017 by Escobar PHM

[Romanov Stole My Pension]

Truly dreadful statement from the SPFL full of half truths, distractions and deflections.

 

Nobody is particularly interested in the legal standing of all of this. Legally Rangers were found liable to tax on a large percentage of their employee remunerations over quite a few years (> 10). Also legally speaking Rangers collapsed into insolvency with a short period of administration followed by the ongoing liquidation process. That's about the start and end of the legal perspective.

 

What is needed is a correction to the sporting record taking into consideration the information deliberately and willfully withheld from the Sporting authorities. Either RFC gained an unfair sporting advantage via their failed and flawed use of a tax avoidance scheme or they didn't. Nobody needs to take any further statements as the controlling shareholder at the time (Murray) and at least one of the managers (McLeish) has said the whole object of the exercise was to attract players to Ibrox who couldn't be afforded if they simply offered them an equivalent gross package subject to PAYE.

 

So what the likes of Doncaster and Regan need to explain is why, in their views, the improper and ultimately unlawful operation of a remuneration scheme designed to attract players that wouldn't have signed on at Ibrox if they'd been paid conventionally, lawfully and correctly via PAYE did not afford an unfair sporting advantage to RFC.

 

Expect masses of deflection and distraction over the next few days as these two desperately try to avoid addressing this question.

Good post and good summary.

 

The whitewash is shocking.

[Alex MacDonald]

Have you told the club this?

Yes, via letter addressed to Ann Budge, and email to the club.

[ZeroHour]

I agree with the above, but he also used the  FTTT's finding that Rangers use of EBTs  was "lawful" to justify his decision that there had been no sporting advantage, i.e. EBTs could lawfully be used by other clubs.

 

 

Again, the "sporting advantage" line in the LNS report related SOLELY to the non-disclosure to the SFA/SPL of payments, and not the use of the EBT's themselves.  If he was ruling on wether or not a football club using a tax-avoidance system to pay wages, then i doubt he would have used such a line, but he wasn't - because a football club's tax dealings were beyond the scope of what LNS was asked to rule on.  So essentially he ruled that hiding the amount of money (paid into the players trusts from the SPL) did not equate to a "sporting advantage" on the field.  From that angle, I understand the ruling - just to use a quick analogy, if a club chairman tempts a player to come to a club by buying him a luxury yacht after he starts knocking in the goals, which is NOT disclosed to the FA... it's not the disclosure (or non-disclosure) of such a 'bonus' that would be advantageous or not - it would be the means by which the club could afford to offer such an incentive - and wether that fell foul of the rules/FFP.

 

I think this is the point that is often missed, LNS ruled specifically on the "player registration" issue, and non-disclosure of payments/wages... he did NOT rule on wether the use of the EBT scheme itself was in breach of the rules or not.  (Well, at least that's my understanding on it).

[269miles]

I agree with the above, but he also used the  FTTT's finding that Rangers use of EBTs  was "lawful" to justify his decision that there had been no sporting advantage, i.e. EBTs could lawfully be used by other clubs.

But EBTs are lawful, LNS had no need to comment but he did so PDQ so that the SFA could get their required ruling in and shut down debate (they hoped). Rangers knew what they were doing and it's taken 5 years of appeals to get to this point. But they all knew, the side letters, everything. 

 

The statement wants us to believe that there is no action that can be taken because i) it's already been dealt with (conveniently, before the final legal decision was made on Rangers tax abuse and criminal behaviour) and ii) they had no powers to act then on tax abuse issues (do they now ?).

 

Actually there is plenty to hang Rangers on - they lied about the side letters for years, they obstructed justice - if that doesn't warrant bringing disrepute charges I don't know what does. And what is always forgotten and never discussed - this wasn't uncovered because Rangers came clean. They would still have been running this scam for years afterwards were it not for an unrelated police raid on Ibrox. 

 

And to top it all , if Rangers did nothing wrong in using EBTs (from a footballing perspective) why did the authorities require all clubs to make written guarantees on this front. 

 

Disrepute charges can and should be brought- it should have happened years ago. The only guy who got punished was the guy who actually tries to save Rangers. 

[Footballfirst]

Again, the "sporting advantage" line in the LNS report related SOLELY to the non-disclosure to the SFA/SPL of payments, and not the use of the EBT's themselves.  If he was ruling on wether or not a football club using a tax-avoidance system to pay wages, then i doubt he would have used such a line, but he wasn't - because a football club's tax dealings were beyond the scope of what LNS was asked to rule on.  So essentially he ruled that hiding the amount of money (paid into the players trusts from the SPL) did not equate to a "sporting advantage" on the field.  From that angle, I understand the ruling - just to use a quick analogy, if a club chairman tempts a player to come to a club by buying him a luxury yacht after he starts knocking in the goals, which is NOT disclosed to the FA... it's not the disclosure (or non-disclosure) of such a 'bonus' that would be advantageous or not - it would be the means by which the club could afford to offer such an incentive - and wether that fell foul of the rules/FFP.

 

I think this is the point that is often missed, LNS ruled specifically on the "player registration" issue, and non-disclosure of payments/wages... he did NOT rule on wether the use of the EBT scheme itself was in breach of the rules or not.  (Well, at least that's my understanding on it).

You are correct about the yacht as long as it was lawfully acquired.

 

Players could be paid in bags of sugar if they wished, as long as they are disclosed.

 

But I'll repeat LNS' own words  at para 104 - "Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs ? within the law ? so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme." ................ "Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful".

 

It's pretty safe to assume from the above that the Commission would either have proceeded in a different way had they been deemed "unlawful" by the FTTT, or that he would not have proceeded at all.

 

He goes on to say:

"Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam?s evidence that Oldco?s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so".

 

Basically he has confirmed that the non disclosure in itself didn't lead to sporting advantage, but to then add a comment about EBT use by other members suggests to me that he considered that such schemes were lawfully available to other clubs, so no advantage was obtained. 

 

It could still be argued that the non disclosure did afford a competitive advantage as most laymen's interpretation of the SPL's rules would lead you to conclude that those players should not have been eligible to play, rather than be deemed to be "imperfectly registered", but eligible, as described elsewhere by Sandy Bryson.  I've yet to locate anything in the SFA's or SPL's rules about "imperfect" registrations.  

[Escobar PHM]

But EBTs are lawful, LNS had no need to comment but he did so PDQ so that the SFA could get their required ruling in and shut down debate (they hoped). Rangers knew what they were doing and it's taken 5 years of appeals to get to this point. But they all knew, the side letters, everything. 

 

The statement wants us to believe that there is no action that can be taken because i) it's already been dealt with (conveniently, before the final legal decision was made on Rangers tax abuse and criminal behaviour) and ii) they had no powers to act then on tax abuse issues (do they now ?).

 

Actually there is plenty to hang Rangers on - they lied about the side letters for years, they obstructed justice - if that doesn't warrant bringing disrepute charges I don't know what does. And what is always forgotten and never discussed - this wasn't uncovered because Rangers came clean. They would still have been running this scam for years afterwards were it not for an unrelated police raid on Ibrox. 

 

And to top it all , if Rangers did nothing wrong in using EBTs (from a footballing perspective) why did the authorities require all clubs to make written guarantees on this front. 

 

Disrepute charges can and should be brought- it should have happened years ago. The only guy who got punished was the guy who actually tries to save Rangers.

Sorry but folk are going to have to accept that their position is rock solid legally. They have ensured it would be so. Its an utter travesty morally and it bins sporting integrity entirely but legally there is nothing more IMO (and the opinion of counsel) that can be done. All the boxes have been ticked, all the holes sealed. Shocking but unfortunately true.

[jambali]

The issue of "sporting advantage" should not apply. The real issue is cheating.

 

If a golfer lifts his ball, marks it and then puts it back closer to the hole, he is cheating. Even if he then misses the putt and thus gains no "sporting advantage"

 

An athlete who takes drugs is cheating. Even if he then fails to win any races and thus gains no "sporting advantage"

 

Sports should be free to deal with cheating in the strongest possible terms without the interference of lawyers

[269miles]

You are correct about the yacht as long as it was lawfully acquired.

 

Players could be paid in bags of sugar if they wished, as long as they are disclosed.

 

But I'll repeat LNS' own words  at para 104 - "Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs ? within the law ? so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme." ................ "Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful".

 

 

 

  

Deidco did not act "within the law", as we now know. LNS acknowledges that there is an appeal but he doesn't say that his opinion will be unaltered should the appeal reverse the FTT decision. So he prejudged the outcome of the Scottish legal system to arrive at a decision that gets Deidco et al off the hook. 

 

Can anyone clarify - why would LNS go to the trouble of saying the above - it's common sense. Of course it's permissible to organise their tax affairs accordingly. But now we're being told that , actually, there is feck all the SPFL could or would do whether Deidco organised their tax affairs within the law or not because they are quite clearly saying "there's nothing we can do about tax cheating then". 

 

And finally  from me on this, the SFA knew in 2009 that Deidco was being investigated by HMRC because they were officially requested by HMRC to supply details of players contracts. But we are asked to believe that in 2012 it was a big surprise on the part of  SFA/SPFL when Deico went titz up. 

 

Bring on the judicial review. 

[269miles]

Sorry but folk are going to have to accept that their position is rock solid legally. They have ensured it would be so. Its an utter travesty morally and it bins sporting integrity entirely but legally there is nothing more IMO (and the opinion of counsel) that can be done. All the boxes have been ticked, all the holes sealed. Shocking but unfortunately true.

They can bring disrepute charges against everyone involved . They did it to Whyte for much less. 

 

I accept they will never do so.

 

A final , rhetorical thought - under what legal basis did they try to admit a brand new club to the 2nd tier of  Scottish football ? 

Edited July 27, 2017 by 269miles

[I P Knightley]

All very level-headed stuff, ZeroHour, and I can see why the SPFL goons are ushering us along with a "nothing to see" message. However... can you check my understanding below?

Again, the "sporting advantage" line in the LNS report related SOLELY to the non-disclosure to the SFA/SPL of payments, and not the use of the EBT's themselves. (1) If he was ruling on wether or not a football club using a tax-avoidance system to pay wages, then i doubt he would have used such a line, but he wasn't - because a football club's tax dealings were beyond the scope of what LNS was asked to rule on.  So essentially he ruled that hiding the amount of money (paid into the players trusts from the SPL) did not equate to a "sporting advantage" on the field.  

 

From that angle, I understand the ruling - just to use a quick analogy, if a club chairman tempts a player to come to a club by buying him a luxury yacht after he starts knocking in the goals, which is NOT disclosed to the FA... it's not the disclosure (or non-disclosure) of such a 'bonus' that would be advantageous or not - it would be the means by which the club could afford to offer such an incentive - and wether that fell foul of the rules/FFP. (2)

 

I think this is the point that is often missed, LNS ruled specifically on the "player registration" issue, and non-disclosure of payments/wages... he did NOT rule on wether the use of the EBT scheme itself was in breach of the rules or not.  (Well, at least that's my understanding on it). (3)

(1) He's agreed that there were payments EBTs. He's found that they were not disclosed when they should have been (as they constituted contractual earnings). Then he's said that there was no sporting advantage through that. Why TF did he think they were being paid and not disclosed if it wasn't to make the Hun team stronger and have an advantage over everyone else? That conclusion stinks.

 

(2) The rules insist(ed) that details of all contractual remuneration (whether it's salary, a beneficial loan, a yacht or an all-you-can-eat buffet at the Star of India) has to be submitted to the SFA/League. Failure to comply with those rules means the player is not properly registered. Clubs like East Stirlingshire and Dunfermline (iirc) have been punted out of cup competitions for failing to properly register a single player; not by foul or nefarious means but by missing a signature on one page. 

The precedent is there. Improper registration sees you out of the competition. 

Rangers had scores of players incorrectly registered (knowingly - by them withholding documents) in all competitions they participated in over the 10 or so seasons.

Why is LNS's verdict not turning a blind eye or sweeping things under the carpet?

 

(3) Better memories than mine will be clearer on this but if he did, why did he specifically mention EBTs in his report, including the statement that using them was, at the time, understood to be legal? 

I've written before that the legality or otherwise of EBTs is a distraction in discussions about the administration of our game. It's an issue for HMRC which, thankfully, sent Rangers into liquidation. 

 

Take away a lot of the distractions and it boils down to a simple case. They cheated and the SFA/SPL/SPFL are letting them get away with it. As someone wrote above, Whyte was not the culprit; the real culprits should be punished. The wins & trophies should be scratched (as per Lance Armstrong) and this new club can be allowed to compete as a new club - without the five poxy stars on their badge.

 

 

Edit - trust FF to have the exact quotes at his fingertips. Well done, sir!

Edited July 27, 2017 by I P Knightley

[Escobar PHM]

A final , rhetorical thought - under what legal basis did they try to admit a brand new club to the 2nd tier of  Scottish football ?

There wasnt a precedent and it wasn't covered in the rules. It was a 'extraordinary case' and the member clubs in the SFL welcomed it and voted for it.

 

Stuff like that will no doubt be covered in the governance review although I wouldn't hold my breath on any shit hitting anyones fan at the end of it.

[N Lincs Jambo]

Why would anyone stop watching their own club over what is a non Hearts issue? Strip them of titles or not, it won't stop me nor anyone I know following Hearts .

 

Is it really a non Hearts issue? Hearts, like many other clubs in this period overstretched ourselves financially trying to compete with the arse cheeks. We now know that Rangers managed to overspend by deliberately, cynically cheating not just the taxman but every single other club it played over that period and also the fans of every single other club who attended a game in competitions which were rigged in favour of one team. This is the case whether the SPL/SFA were aware of it or not.

 

I would say it most definitely is a Hearts issue and an issue for the fans of every other team in Scotland. FWIW I honestly don't know if it would stop me following Hearts but knowing that we participate in competitions run by organisations which are falling over themselves to prevent the proper sanctions being applied would make me think twice about whether it is worth it.

[Footballfirst]

There wasnt a precedent and it wasn't covered in the rules. It was a 'extraordinary case' and the member clubs in the SFL welcomed it and voted for it.

 

Stuff like that will no doubt be covered in the governance review although I wouldn't hold my breath on any shit hitting anyones fan at the end of it.

The thing is that five years on there is still nothing in the rules of the SPFL that specifically deals with liquidated clubs, other than the general insolvency events provisions.

 

There remains no mechanism for clubs to do a Sevco shuffle, other than "Board discretion"

Edited July 27, 2017 by Footballfirst

[Billybuffjaw]

Is it really a non Hearts issue? Hearts, like many other clubs in this period overstretched ourselves financially trying to compete with the arse cheeks. We now know that Rangers managed to overspend by deliberately, cynically cheating not just the taxman but every single other club it played over that period and also the fans of every single other club who attended a game in competitions which were rigged in favour of one team. This is the case whether the SPL/SFA were aware of it or not.

 

I would say it most definitely is a Hearts issue and an issue for the fans of every other team in Scotland. FWIW I honestly don't know if it would stop me following Hearts but knowing that we participate in competitions run by organisations which are falling over themselves to prevent the proper sanctions being applied would make me think twice about whether it is worth it.

It's just something I'm not passionate about I'm afraid and am more interested in what is happening at Hearts rather than things that have happened decades ago. The only club that'll benefit from stripping one ugly sister from titles is the other, I couldn't care less about it, to be honest.

[ZeroHour]

You are correct about the yacht as long as it was lawfully acquired.

 

Players could be paid in bags of sugar if they wished, as long as they are disclosed.

 

 

2 analogies that sum up the 2 seperate issues.

 

If the yacht was NOT lawfully acquired (the club owner nicked it) then would using a len yacht to tempt a player to a club then equate to a breach of sporting rules? I don't think the scope of foitballs rules go/went that far. If they did, it would mean any club funded by illegal means would be breaking FA rules. It should be the case, ofcourse, and perhaps what FFP is supposed to do.

 

The bags of sugar analogy is the second issue. Paid in sugar, stamps, or dodgy EBT loans, "as long as they are disclosed" - my understanding is LNS already ruled Rangers in breach of non-disclosure rules, but the non-disclosure wasn't enough to void player-registrations. (If they did then the result would surely by 0-3 defeats for 10 years). Interestingly, Celtic also breached this rule as the Juninho ebt was not disclosed either. I asked earlier if any more was ever made public about English clubs using the ebt scheme... i very much suspect they wouldn't be disclosed either.

Edited July 27, 2017 by ZeroHour

[jambovambo]

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/07/26/convenient-nonsense-is-still-nonsense/

[ZeroHour]

All very level-headed stuff, ZeroHour, and I can see why the SPFL goons are ushering us along with a "nothing to see" message. However... can you check my understanding below? (1) He's agreed that there were payments EBTs. He's found that they were not disclosed when they should have been (as they constituted contractual earnings). Then he's said that there was no sporting advantage through that. Why TF did he think they were being paid and not disclosed if it wasn't to make the Hun team stronger and have an advantage over everyone else? That conclusion stinks.

 

(2) The rules insist(ed) that details of all contractual remuneration (whether it's salary, a beneficial loan, a yacht or an all-you-can-eat buffet at the Star of India) has to be submitted to the SFA/League. Failure to comply with those rules means the player is not properly registered. Clubs like East Stirlingshire and Dunfermline (iirc) have been punted out of cup competitions for failing to properly register a single player; not by foul or nefarious means but by missing a signature on one page. 

The precedent is there. Improper registration sees you out of the competition. 

Rangers had scores of players incorrectly registered (knowingly - by them withholding documents) in all competitions they participated in over the 10 or so seasons.

Why is LNS's verdict not turning a blind eye or sweeping things under the carpet?

 

(3) Better memories than mine will be clearer on this but if he did, why did he specifically mention EBTs in his report, including the statement that using them was, at the time, understood to be legal? 

I've written before that the legality or otherwise of EBTs is a distraction in discussions about the administration of our game. It's an issue for HMRC which, thankfully, sent Rangers into liquidation. 

 

Take away a lot of the distractions and it boils down to a simple case. They cheated and the SFA/SPL/SPFL are letting them get away with it. As someone wrote above, Whyte was not the culprit; the real culprits should be punished. The wins & trophies should be scratched (as per Lance Armstrong) and this new club can be allowed to compete as a new club - without the five poxy stars on their badge.

 

 

Edit - trust FF to have the exact quotes at his fingertips. Well done, sir!

 

 

 

 

" (1) He's agreed that there were payments EBTs. He's found that they were not disclosed when they should have been (as they constituted contractual earnings). Then he's said that there was no sporting advantage through that. Why TF did he think they were being paid and not disclosed if it wasn't to make the Hun team stronger and have an advantage over everyone else? "

 

What it boils down to for LNS, is this:  does paying a player a sum of money but not telling Regan & Doncaster about it, constitute a "sporting advantage"?  That ALONE does not.  Murray himself stated on the stand, in a court of law, that the scheme gave him the opportunity to sign players that might not have signed.  The trouble is, LNS couldn't rule on the use of the EBT scheme, it was irrelevant, he was focused SOLELY on non-disclosure of payments, when you consider that the scope of LNS rulign did not include the actual EBT scheme as was limited solely to non-disclosure of payment, It would be comparable to say... a club paying players bonuses for scoring goals, or keeping cleansheets, then forgetting to tell the FA.  That wouldn't be a sporting advantage.

 

 

(2) The rules insist(ed) that details of all contractual remuneration (whether it's salary, a beneficial loan, a yacht or an all-you-can-eat buffet at the Star of India) has to be submitted to the SFA/League. Failure to comply with those rules means the player is not properly registered.

 

 

I have read, and downloaded the LNS verdict in full, and to be honest, this is the part i do not understand.  He ruled that the non-disclosure of payments DID NOT void the registration of those players.  His reasons as to why he reached that conclusion seemed to come off the back of testimony given by Rod McKenzie.  The PDF document is available to download if anyone wants to make sense of why non-disclose payments did not breach the registration.  I know that there have been cases of improperly registered players before, but are those examples comparable in the sense that registrations were voided by paying players non-disclosed payments?  It's hard to imagine under what other circumstance a club would pay a player MORE money than they declared to an FA.  Much of the trouble with this case is much of it is unprecedented.  Again, this is why I'm eager to see what comes of it in England.

 

 

"the legality or otherwise of EBTs is a distraction in discussions about the administration of our game."

 

 

As a fan of the NFL, I agree entirely.  In the NFL, sponsorships, ticketing and TV deals are organised by the Association and split evenly among members, there are also wages caps and so on, giving the actual clubs very little scope to do much in a corporate sense, and they focus entirely on their sporting performance.  The Rangers case is really just a drop in the ocean when you consider how football is run across the board, it's the absolute wild-west of corporate malfeasance.  Last week I think I read that a bank which Dermott Desmond is the largest shareholder of involved in a major money-laundering scam... how can we be sure that Brendan Rodgers wasn't paid for by laundered money?  It won't be the first time that gangster DD has put his hand in his own pocket to bring someone to CFC. Man City is essentially a club funded by money stolen out of the ground of the Middle East by theocrats, while the suburban population lives in squalor.  Rangers for a decade essentially boosted their entire payroll by a couple of million a season at the expense of the tax payer, a practice which we know for a fact was used by Celtic, Middlesborough, Arsenal & Chelsea (but could be far more widely used than we currently know).  There are series accusations of state-aid against Celtic who have benefitted greatly from Glasgow City Council flogging them land (voted on by CFC season ticket holders) - but that probably pales in comparison to the proxy war the Catalan and Spanish Governments are having with Real Madrid and Barcelona.  A game created by the working class and raped to the high heavens by spivs, it's very much turned me off, I don't watch a great deal of football any more.

[Don Dan]

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/07/26/convenient-nonsense-is-still-nonsense/

 

 

What ever peoples thoughts are on Phil he's certainly got a away with words and a turn of phrase. 

 

the EBT Years.

EBT FC.

 

His highlighting of the trophies and titles being "sold" should remind everyone that they weren't won by, in his parlance EBT FC, they were bought (in more ways than one).

We should phone Barcelona and ask if we can buy one the EU cup trophies they won and promptly sew a star above our crest.

[Riccarton3]

It was a bit better when Jim Spence was there, but these days it's little more than a mutual back slapping club for all things West Coast.

 

T

They can't help themselves. With swathes of scope to be impartial, they find the most un-neutral image of Doncaster they can and post it up. Amateurs/fans with typewriters. Comical, actually, that they are banned from Ibrox - a more sycophantic group you'd be hard to find. Edited July 27, 2017 by Riccarton3

[jambovambo]

Jolyon Maugham not in possession of all the facts here, I think.

 

https://waitingfortax.com/2017/07/27/a-short-note-on-tax-law-for-rangers-and-celtic-fans/amp/

[Ray Gin]

Why would anyone stop watching their own club over what is a non Hearts issue? Strip them of titles or not, it won't stop me nor anyone I know following Hearts .

It is very much a Hearts issue. We suffered at the hands of the cheats.

[Ray Gin]

This was a huge opportunity for the SPFL to correct countless wrongs, and win back some respect for our game in Scotland.

But no, they've blown it, and they'll lose 1000's of supporters who've followed their team for decades as a result, including me.

Our game is obscenely Glasgow-centric, with both governing bodies and the MSM doing everything they can to distract, confuse and cover-up their own corruption. We've never had a level playing field, there's a separate rule book for 2 clubs in Glasgow, and I can't accept that. I love my club, I'll continue to donate via FOH, but as long as Rangers go unpunished for blatant cheating, I've watched my last game.

Must admit I'm not far off returning my season ticket and demanding a refund.

 

The game is rigged. Shamelessly rigged. Why am I putting money towards this farce?

[sac]

Think a banner or something should be created which reads the same no matter which stadium they visit making it quite clear that Sevco cheated & that the GFA were complicit and can be displayed by each club when Newco come visiting, so that they, & the rest of the sporting world should never be allowed to forget that "They Cheated"

[jambovambo]

Fourteen Asterisks.

 

Simple banner.

[PeterintheRain]

I am with you . The frenzy around EBT is I think misguided . They were not illegal at the time . There was doubt as to whether tax should be paid not resolved until a Supreme Court decision later . Those agitating for action should of concentrate on the back letters and their non disclosure when registering players - a clear breach - and why SFA evidence to LNS was that this was "imperfect " - a clear lie/fudge.

 

Concentrating on EBT is like being charged today for speeding at 30 mph in 2001 in what is now 20 mph zone .

 

  Paying people through an EBT to avoid having to pay tax was always illegal.  There is no retrospective punishment here. Just the application of the law as it stood at the time.   Any claims otherwise are just obfuscation and can be ignored as the ranting of demented Sevconites (See G Taylor of Grangemouth as an example)

[PeterintheRain]

" (1) He's agreed that there were payments EBTs. He's found that they were not disclosed when they should have been (as they constituted contractual earnings). Then he's said that there was no sporting advantage through that. Why TF did he think they were being paid and not disclosed if it wasn't to make the Hun team stronger and have an advantage over everyone else? "

 

What it boils down to for LNS, is this:  does paying a player a sum of money but not telling Regan & Doncaster about it, constitute a "sporting advantage"?  That ALONE does not. 

 

   It gave them the sporting advantage of not losing every game 3 nil as per the rules of the SFA, SPL, SPFL, EUFA, FIFA and anybody else who could be bothered writing them down. 

 

     LNS was, is and always will be a sad tory bigot. Unfit for being a judge and undoubtedly a member of a society less secret than  they'd like it to be. His judgement in this case has no more legal standing than some Union Jack Fleg waving bigot with FTP tattoos ranting in the Louden tavern.

 

   I could pay him to give me a ruling on whether or not I should make macaroni cheese for tea.

 

   Should he decide in the affirmative and I then go on to order some Chinese then what exact offence have I committed against Scots law?

Edited July 27, 2017 by PeterintheRain

[alwaysthereinspirit]

No real Scottish club football fan can want anything other than the total stripping of all trophys won over the period the cheating occurred.

Unless of course you're a supporter of one of the two teams that have called Ibrox home.

[sac]

Fourteen Asterisks.

Simple banner.

Good, but need to include the GFA as well

[Niemi]

This was a huge opportunity for the SPFL to correct countless wrongs, and win back some respect for our game in Scotland.

But no, they've blown it, and they'll lose 1000's of supporters who've followed their team for decades as a result, including me.

Our game is obscenely Glasgow-centric, with both governing bodies and the MSM doing everything they can to distract, confuse and cover-up their own corruption. We've never had a level playing field, there's a separate rule book for 2 clubs in Glasgow, and I can't accept that. I love my club, I'll continue to donate via FOH, but as long as Rangers go unpunished for blatant cheating, I've watched my last game.

I'm calling bullshit Alex

[jambovambo]

Good, but need to include the GFA as well

G**** F ****** A****

 

Imagine every team's supporters with that.

Edited July 27, 2017 by jambovambo

[hawaii]

Who instructed LNS as to what the scope of the enquiry was?

Who decided what the scope was?

Was Bryson questioned about his answers on player registrations, or was he just believed?

 

It doesn't really matter anyway as

 

Even if their were rules that the SPFL could use, the application of SPFL rules appears to be at the whim of the board. They might decide to punish clubs for something and let another club off with the same offence. You are really dim if you feel club owners will punish their mates. They won't even introduce strict liability cos that would cost them and their mates money.

 

The SFA should be all over this. Let's not forget how quickly they can introduce rules when it suits them to do so.

 

However, I really feel that the real reason for all the advice from QC's by both bodies is down to the 5 way agreement. Even if the SFA and SPFL had the cojones to want to punish Sevco, I reckon this agreement stops that happening. Well done Doncaster & Reagan on signing that bit of paper.

[Footballfirst]

Club1872 throwing the toys out the pram once again.

 

http://club1872.co.uk/news/ipso-and-bbc-complaints/

[alwaysthereinspirit]

Club1872 throwing the toys out the pram once again.

 

http://club1872.co.uk/news/ipso-and-bbc-complaints/

Wow. No shame whatsoever. Imagine. They're looking for some sort of clarification for their fan base. What's the meaning of irony/ironic again? They have a nerve. Unfriggin'believable.

[Ricardo Shillyshally]

Wow. No shame whatsoever. Imagine. They're looking for some sort of clarification for their fan base. What's the meaning of irony/ironic again? They have a nerve. Unfriggin'believable.

This arrogance and sense of entitlement is the main reason I hate them.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Boo Khaki

[buzzbomb1958]

This arrogance and sense of entitlement is the main reason I hate them.

They have been nice enough to leave their email address just let the arrogant pricks know what you think

Edited July 27, 2017 by buzzbomb1958

[Jambo-Fox]

Corrupt Scottish Football passes on an opportunity to eradicate corruption!

 

I wonder why .............

[ZeroHour]

Who instructed LNS as to what the scope of the enquiry was?

 

 

I'd imagine it would have dictated by the (inadequate) rulebook.

[Riccarton3]

I'd imagine it would have dictated by the (inadequate) rulebook.

The football authorities never had the stomach to impose sporting sanctions which were available. Anyone looking at the 250k fine knew from the outset how inadequate a sanction that was given the scale of imperfect registrations. In fact, it is laughable. Even that fine was paid from Rangers prize money rather than when it was given. Notice was even given for the transfer embargo which really negated any meaningful impact.

[Footballfirst]

Matt Leslie's blog is highly critical of Ann Budge in her role as an SPFL Board member in this piece.  I agree with him.

 

http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/where-did-it-go-wrong-ann

[buzzbomb1958]

If you sit with dogs who have fleas you will end up infested

[reaths17]

Matt Leslie's blog is highly critical of Ann Budge in her role as an SPFL Board member in this piece.  I agree with him.

 

http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/where-did-it-go-wrong-ann

i said at the time, that being on any of these committee's was bad news for us and she should have steered clear. to get a vote you need at least 3, where in Scotland do you find a majority that has no attachment to weegie fitba, she would always be the odd one out. there's still time to resign, and there's absolutely no reason for her to carry the can for topping,donkey, regan, Ogilvie, murray and lawell etc, they are responsible not ann. as it is they're all playing musical chairs ducking and diving, distancing themselves from the corruption and she's been manouvered into the flak seat.

 

you cant un- rotten the apple you have to chuck it in the bin, you get inside your just gonna rotten like the fruit.

[davieholt]

Matt Leslie's blog is highly critical of Ann Budge in her role as an SPFL Board member in this piece.  I agree with him.

 

http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/where-did-it-go-wrong-ann

On the face of it I also agree with him. However, the 5 way agreement may have been framed in such a way that the SPFL has little room for maneuver.

 

IMO a judicial review of the actions of the SFA and SPL throughout this saga is required in addition to an re examination of the LNS enquiry. If this means making the 5 way agreement public then good!

[jambovambo]

It's quite extraordinary how little comment there has been in the papers (apart from the ridiculous Q&A in the DR), considering the size of the story here.

 

I really believe it's all about fear of retribution, and intimidation, coupled with a little bit freemasonry.

 

Doncaster and Regan may not want to be in this position but are too scared to do anything.

 

Wasn't there a rumour that one of them (I'm guessing Regan) had applied for a job in English cricket recently and had been kb'd ?

[jambovambo]

"DJ" yesterday :

 

Derek Johnstone: The SPFL have drawn a line under Rangers EBTs and now Scottish football must do the same

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15437942.Derek_Johnstone__The_SPFL_have_drawn_a_line_under_Rangers_EBTs_and_now_Scottish_football_must_do_the_same/?

Edited July 28, 2017 by jambovambo

[The Future's Maroon]

Matt Leslie's blog is highly critical of Ann Budge in her role as an SPFL Board member in this piece.  I agree with him.

 

http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/where-did-it-go-wrong-ann

got to say that's bang on the money for me.

[The Future's Maroon]

"DJ" yesterday :

 

Derek Johnstone: The SPFL have drawn a line under Rangers EBTs and now Scottish football must do the same

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15437942.Derek_Johnstone__The_SPFL_have_drawn_a_line_under_Rangers_EBTs_and_now_Scottish_football_must_do_the_same/?

I almost smashed the iPad off the wall reading that 'piece', if that's what you call it? Edited July 28, 2017 by The Future's Maroon

[reaths17]

"DJ" yesterday :

 

Derek Johnstone: The SPFL have drawn a line under Rangers EBTs and now Scottish football must do the same

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15437942.Derek_Johnstone__The_SPFL_have_drawn_a_line_under_Rangers_EBTs_and_now_Scottish_football_must_do_the_same/?

fatty, they cheated, they got caught, put your hands out like a big boy, don't stand there whimpering like a baby

[Escobar PHM]

Matt Leslie's blog is highly critical of Ann Budge in her role as an SPFL Board member in this piece.  I agree with him.

 

http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/where-did-it-go-wrong-ann

She should not have allowed herself to get into the position of spokeswoman on this subject. Someone who was on the board when this all happened should have had the balls to step forward. Doncaster himself for example.

 

Ann, sorry love, but the big boys have played you here and out manoeuvred you.

 

Apart from which you're now part of the problem and complicit in everything that organisation does both in the past and the future.

[Don Dan]

The SPFL have to admit Rangers deliberately with held information that should have been submitted for proper player registration. They then have to take the appropriate action as has been done in other sports of removing the 14 titles that were illegally won. As much as they try this is not going to go away and the unanswered questions and actions will haunt them till its sorted. I'm beginning to wonder if blue envelopes were passed under the table and any revelation will result in jail time. Why else would supposed honest, trust worthy men choose to ignore the truth.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Dannie Boy