jerfeelgood

true and i've been accused of that in other posts, but i did say at the top this was a devils advocate piece... meant to represent the other side of the issue for the purpose of reasoned debate.... as i've said in other posts, i'm trying to be dispassionate and independent in an attempt to raise debate on the issues.... copied from my first ever post: I know i'm new here. and this is quite a long post. I've tried to analyse the situation as impartially as possible. I am an independent rugby fan who is simply intrigued by the ins and outs of everything that is going on at the moment in the SFA and its implications for football in the wider sense. I would like to become involved in the debate. Please don't flame me into the ground for this reason. Please feel free to pick apart my analyses. Jer

and in typical corporate governance this is done nowadays via e-mail, with all relevant parties cc'd in to cover your ass.. thence evidence of corporate mismanagement....

So having a think about concept of CVA.... from creditors point of view.... I'm the small creditors oft forgotten about: I operate a small buisiness run on a tight budget (pieman, service vendor, dundee united, contractor etc...). Rangers owe me money, to vote for a CVA gives me a tiny return on monies owed which may potentially see my company going under with cashflow issue as banks are not extending credit to small business in the current economic climate. this cashflow shortage forces my company into negative credit with my creditor, destroying my access to credit, potential downsizing etc etc etc... i'm owed £120k by rangers they're offering £8k, my companies going down the swanny... do I accept this pittance? If I do can I ever trade with this company again? will I have a company? do I have a job??? you've sunk my company!!!!! Don't underestimate how fine a financial line the small debtors in this issue walk in their day to day operations.... see dundee united re scots cup issue.... Ticketus: Rangers have been a fairly good source of income for many years, so have all my other football contracts... Rangers are facing takeover... okay... potential new owner comes to me with plan to take rangers forward but needs funding for purchase.... explain that we're not a venture capitalist firm... potential owners offers personal guarantees, 3 yrs tickets, current board members advocating in favour of deal... Smells a wee bit fishy but seems above board... think i'll run with it... they've always held up their end in the past... new board in, start sacking the familiar faces over at rangers.... suddenly i've no inside man anymore... now people are raising a stink of propriety of takeover deal... whoops what have i been pulled into here... they're not paying their taxes????????? am i now involved with hmrc in some dispute???? how did this happen???? how do I get out of this???? they want a CVA??? they're offering me how much???? hold on a second. let me think about this rationally. how many other football related contracts do I have? what kinda precedent will accepting a couple mill on a £27 million debt set for other contracts? I can't really afford the £27mill writedown but be sure i can't set a precedent of writing off the debt? Is the precedent of refusing the CVA a worthwhile hedge against the couple of mill i might lose? does accepting the CVA mean that I acknowledge the debt as rangers, and does this prevent me from chasing Craig Whyte for the money as the debt has been adjudicated??? I'm never doing this again. NewCo want a deal on tickets??? not likely... Don't underestimate the sporting franchises that have to take a hit off this cva as they will still be intrinsic to the sport going forward... HMRC: I've never accepted that sporting EBT's were legitimate. I've invested a decade and countless public funds in tackling this issue with many clubs up and down the UK... i'm happy to let the investigation tip along at it's own pace. i'm the HMRC, I'll get there eventually... Right so, small tax case gone in my favour, better send out the bill.... They're not paying? we'll send it out again.... still no cheque? better push them... we'll send out this months invoice for PAYE and NIC while we're at it... they're not paying that either... hold on a minute here... you cannae be doing that... they want to talk about a time to pay plan... but they're not paying their PAYE or NIC... how can we talk about time to pay plan when they won't pay their other bills... they've gone into administration???? balls! what do we do now.... quick get our administrator in! balls they've beaten us to the punch and stuck in D&P not one of the big four we like to use but we'll have to live with them and try and recoup something here... Surely they'll slash overheads? play on? surely they'll try and get the admins through this as quick as possible rather than run up colossal admin bills??? they've agreed to slash player incomes.... okay.... they seem to be having a bit of a nightmare with selling their business... wait a minute there's somebody interested... whoops they've chased him away... ah here's another one... and another one.... they'll get there eventually... we're the HMRC... we're patient... Okay they've a CVA together... they're offering me pence in the pound... fair enough we've gone this way before, not that we like it... what's important to us.... rationalisation of expenditure, revenue positive business plan... ability to pay taxes going forward as i'm the creditor that keeps coming back... so show me a business model that show's sensible accounting practice, a conservative budget that's not dependent on european money as that should be a bonus for competition slots earned and not inbuilt into operating capital... show me a business plan that means I'm not going to be chasing them for PAYE and NIC next season... as i said earlier... opposition thoughts for discussion.... have at. jer

fair points all... then the issue becomes at what point does holding your hands in the air and saying "not my problem" become corporate dereliction of duty... at what point as an employee as head of accounts are you entitled to notify the entire board if you feel that accounts are being mismanaged.... random thought... people bandy about between "must have known" and "beyond reasonable doubt" to argue that the case is unproven... The SFA can demand documents but have no right to manually retrieve them, unlike HMRC as an agent of government who can get warrants and come through the door and pull out all your books and raid your e-mail banks... Therefore the "reasonable doubt" statute of criminal law is unattainable in this circumstance... this is a situation where the SFA demand documents... nothing's forthcoming and they have to make a decision based on the available evidence.... now i'm not aware of what documents and evidence the SFA had access to, or what they asked for, so I can't attest to how they reached their decision.... just speculating...

and the point I was trying trying to make was that if payments were being witheld at group level this would have been evident up and down the line fairly quickly as creditors pursued payment... therefore the argument that only craig whyte was aware of the financial hole he was digging is facile... thence the SFA others 'must have known' statement as rationalisation for disrepute charge....

scratch that... posted above...

I refuse to believe major players evaded paying millions in tax I want to address the revelation in Wednesday night's BBC Panorama programme that I was one of the people to receive money at Rangers through an employee benefit trust (EBT). I feel that I have to defend myself and fight my corner because I have not done anything wrong. I have paid every bit of tax throughout my professional career, at every club, including Rangers. The full story is that David Murray came to me and asked if I would receive a payment that was due to me, after tax, through the EBT trust. And I said that I would. It was money that was owing to me when I had six months left on my contract and I moved to Dundee United. After the tax was deducted, that money was put in the trust fund. This was a single payment made when I was leaving the club. I did not receive any payments through the trust fund at any other point of my Rangers career. I don't know what other EBTs there were while I was at the club, and we never discussed them as players, although I refuse to believe that major players evaded millions of pounds in tax. There was certainly no benefit to me from being paid this money through the trust fund. It was simply what I was due, the tax was deducted, and the club simply asked that they pay it to me through the fund. I had no issue with that and, of course, EBTs were legal at the time. It was Rangers who asked me to use the fund. As a player, you're aware of all sorts of different schemes for putting your money into. It's not that players are dodging tax, it's just that there are different avenues open to them to pay lower tax rates. There are schemes such as film partnerships that you could pay money into as an individual and so not pay higher tax rates. Image rights seem to be a more recent one that is popular in England. There is nothing illegal in it, and the EBTs were the same. I want to stress that mine was simply a one-off payment, after tax, when I left the club, not some sort of remuneration scheme. I never heard anything about side letters when I was at the club, not one person ever mentioned anything like that. I've been in Spain golfing, so I've not yet seen the BBC programme, but I was shocked to hear that 87 players and staff were involved in the EBT scheme at Ibrox – but it should also be remembered that the trusts were not illegal. People do have to understand that this wasn't players or staff trying to do something that would harm Rangers. And I do feel that it wasn't telling the full truth for the programme to bracket all the players and staff together if the EBTs were different for each of them. All I can say is that in no way did I avoid paying tax, in no way was I paid wages or anything through an EBT over the course of my contract, and in no way was I aware of any side letters. It amazes me that John Yorkston has the gall to talk about Rangers not paying their bills. He's a hypocrite, and he should start making sure that his club pay their bills instead. Jim McIntyre served a writ on Dunfermline on Thursday because he has still yet to receive his settlement after being sacked by the club last season. The issue is with the court now, because Dunfermline said they cannot pay it in one instalment. Yet John Yorkston is in the press all the time talking about other clubs. He should be looking after the financial affairs of his own club. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/i-refuse-to-believe-major-players-evaded-paying-millions-in-tax.17704904

are you implying that somebody was bouncing cheques? if the taxman turns up at your door he doesn't get staright into the boardroom he goes looking for somebody in accounts first... at which point the entire corporation knows about rubber cheques and then.... see above.... edit: ... and the implication that someone would cut a cheque without first checking the current cash account to ensure that said cheque doesn't bounce, where evidence of refused payments/cancelled cheques would be plain as day. a staff person does not send a cheque up the line that might conceivably bounce. sureley somebody in accounts had to have a ready knowledge of current cashflow in order to manage their department....

I keep asking myself... who in the day to day running was cutting the cheques at rangers? In a corporation you have a finance department. invoices come in via the mail. opened by a secretary of accounts somewhere, processed by a secretary somewhere, a cheque is cut, payment is authorised somewhere (a finance director normally under supervision of the board) by signature and the secretary sends the payment out with receipt. presumably this secretary is a back office staff person (i.e. not board member). This would apply to vendor invoices, wages, hmrc bills, etc etc.... now craig whyte sacked the existing director of finance when he arrived, and as far as i can determine never appointed another (a finance director is pretty essential)... unusual in any corporate structure... did he then take personal control of day to day financial decisions or did he grant somebody else the authority to perform these duties? the duties of the other two board members seem murky.... but I doubt he did away with his accounts and finance departments altogether as i doubt he was going to be on hand to perform the menial back office duties (opening mail, processing invoices etc....). So while it may be true that another director had no direct knowledge of financial matters at a boardroom level... somebody within the corporate structure had to have known that cheques weren't being signed and dispatched... I would imagine this would generate queries within the corporation at the staff level with cover your ass e-mails cc'd to all and sundry as to why this or that cheque wasn't authorised (every staff member does this out of self preservation). The interruption to the normal framework of payments would have been hugely evident within the corporate structure itself.... the alternative defense that it was craig whyte doing all the dirty implies that he was opening mail every day, processing invoices (arduous mind numbing work), cutting cheques, and dispatching them personally. as this would be the work of entire departments in a corporate structure. I just can't see it. This is where the application of 'must have known' by the SFA comes in. It would appear from this weeks statements that the SFA feel that Rangers/D&P have been witholding documentation in the dual contracts investigation. Could this also be true of the previous investigation? If the SFA got a hold of vendor invoices, and HMRC invoices that had been issued but not paid, in my mind this would imply that the entire finance structure within the club would be aware of these non-payments and.... Now I had a quick read of certain sections of the SFA rules last night, and particularly paid the attention to section 11 regarding the application of sanctions. My laymans interpretation of said rules would be that on presentation of an offense for consideration the empowered panel must determine if (i) an offense was committed, (ii) the severity of the defense, (iii) based upon the severity of the defense, determine the appropriate sanction. The guidelines imply that an offense shall be broken into four levels of severity, and that with each level of offense will be attached an indicator of what level of appropriate sanction shall be applied as a maximum for that level of offense. The sanction applicable is at the discretion of the empowered panel. Rule 66 implies that for an egregious breach of that rule the most severe sanction available is expulsion. The SFA panel said that they gave serious consideration to applying this sanction, which in turn implies that they were considering the level of offense to be in the most severe category. Fearing a colossal backlash, they instead applied the highest level of fine (fines being for the lowest level of offense under rule 66), with a secondary punishment in the form of a transfer embargo (one might argue that Rangers were unlikely at that point to have funds available for the signing of new players anyway). Their prohibition was only on the registration of new players over the age of 18. They specified that you could retain your existing panel if funding allowed. They specified that you could sell players to generate cash. As rangers retain a large and competitive squad of players at this stage, this meant that if a CVA was agreed, or a NewCo voted into SPL that you could still be competitive in terms of the SPL. This was an effort to stop Rangers outlaying money on new squad (their most expensive outlay) in an effort to get them to make payments on some of their standard debts (vendors, utilities, HMRC etc. who are the screaming creditors in this mess). One would have to argue that no breach of Rule 66 occurred, or that the level of severity of that breach was not of the most severe category, or that a fine and transfer embargo constitute a greater punishment than expulsion from the SPL/SFA. my .02p and interpretation on SFA adjudication... Jer

what i am trying to say is that there is surely a negotiated middle ground. that the more people stamp their feet and pull to the extremes on both sides, the harder it becomes for the people in the middle to find where that is. edit: all or nothing gambits and ultimatums only result in polarising the issue...

out of curiosity (so i don't have to go trolling through other threads) where do you stand on griers, clark whitewhouse et al. "must have known" is the same rope that bbc are trying to hang griers/D&P with....

i'm not advocating for anybody here man. as i stated earlier i'm an independent here to discuss the issues.... as a person living in scotland i've been force fed this issue for three months now and as it seems to be all anybodies talking about i thought I might try to get in on the debate. I agree with you that the application of the rules seems to be a bit whimsical at the SFA, and that the current trend is against rangers... but the argument here is that the rules are being applied too strictly yet the other half seem to be screaming that they're not being applied strictly enough... the SFA are now up against the wall trying not to have their liver eaten by one side or the other...

as in non payment of paye/nic gave up the fine fit and proper persons craig whyte gave up his ban disrepute over tansfer non payments gave up the embargo ................. it's a basic tenet of law that if you are charged with multiple offences you receive seperate and relevant sanctions....

i thought the fine was for a seperate charge?

withdrawing this post

from a corporate sense do international creditors enjoy different protections to domestic creditors. who adjudicates an international debt? an interesting fine point in player transfers.... if football debts are outside the CVA, whats the breakdown on rangers current debts? do these debts still exist post CVA? do they carry to a newco? anybody know?

So with professional rugby... in europe there are three top flight leagues, french super 14, english premier and Rabo pro12 (ireland, scotland, wales, italy). these are the leagues governed by their respective football unions. European rugby has two major competitions, amlin challenge (europa league) and Heieken cup (champions league) both governed by the ERB (UEFA). Now qualification for various competitions is adjudicated by the controlling body of their respective competitions as it is in football. I love my team. My team has a large fanbase. I do not believe that the size of my clubs fanbase should decide which competition I should be allowed access to. If my club performs well, and adheres to the rules of the competiotion, I am a happy man. that's my rugby. If a club, or indivuald within a club break the rules or bring the game into disrepute they are sanctioned by the relevent adjudicating body under supervision from appropriate international body... read this short article to see how rugby is adjudicated on the international club scene... http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodgate I am sure there were harlequins fans who were devestated by the issue, but the issue remained and was adjudicated within the auspices of the governing bodies.... but I digress....

So.... on uefa and transfer debts.... I believe that Rangers currently owe monies as part of existing transfer deals (correct me if i'm wrong) and that these debts are being nudged into the CVA???? If Rangers write off transfer debts does this not jeopardise the entire transfer market. should this not receive the highest sanctions by international bodies as it jeopardises the entire system. If Rangers are allowed to write off these debts who picks up the tab? because the other international clubs that are owed transfer fees will surely not condone a competition with a team that screwed them financially and would be entirely within their right to take issue with it. I'm certain that somewhere in the UEFA rules there will be a VERY STRICT rule in place to protect the clubs who are selling the players.... If these debts are written off (i.e. no funds to pay for existing transfers) surely the commensurate response must be a transfer embargo, or a cash up front transfer limitation to ensure the integrity of the transfer system in the international sense. As this is an international issue, it would be UEFA who would be the enforcing body... if anybody knows the precedent on this (leeds, motherwell etc....) and whether previous clubs that have gone CVA/Newco route and had transfer debts could they please mention them... again correct me if i'm wrong. Cheers Jer

apologies, probably my fault there? can a mod split this debate off to a seperate thread? under the title "legal case and uefa implications" please? sorry about hijacking your post... Jer

Okay, i'm not arguing the level of support. I will argue that does this does not and should not guarantee you access to international competition. If the level of support was the yardstick for entry then it WOULDN'T BE A SPORT. If you are arguing for a competition with no entry standard??? or an entry system based on support size???? i'm not sure what you're arguing in favour of... How many of the major clubs are railing against the current set up? how many are so dissatisfied that you think they might walk away from UEFA??? the beauty of the current system is that any club or team no matter what their size can access the european structures... okay it's tougher in England where the big brands dominate the slots. In scotland where european slots are traditionally dominated by the old firm, but take ireland where there is no big soccer brand in terms of a club, european minnows and tributary to the English FA yet one of my favourite moments this season is the look on Harry Redknapps face when Shamrock Rovers went 1 up in white hart lane.... reminded me of the san marino goal against england in the world cup 94 qualifiers for sheer sporting comedy... even the minnows have their day... Next, to sustain an alternative european soccer structure would require collossal startup capital to entice the big brand teams, would require herculean negotiaiting to establish it for the purposes of sponsorship, tv rights etc etc.... the writing and re writing of a code of conduct, a set of rules applicable under law, all of the issues you seem to be railing against.... in the current and foreseeable economic future thats a pipe dream.... It's not about support. it's about business. and making money. and operating profitably. Are we really the ones to be sticking our heads out on that issue? Jer

true and true, Bernie ecclestone and formula 1, samaranch and the IOC, etc etc, yet these bodies adapt and go on.... mostly because they are the only ones willing to have a go at organising the international ends of their sports. it ain't beautiful but it works..... mostly p.s. and obviously make fields of cash while they're at it....

True this, but as it stands...... If Rangers push UEFA toward a better and fairer model for european competition, fair play and good on ya. however see my previous post re bosman....

Look what happened to Bosman while he took his case, banished to french lower non professional leagues and the island of La reunion. I'd be surprised if liege weren't pressured to boot him by UEFA or jeopardise their license, banned from uefa recognised competition etc.... OK the eventual ruling might have changed football, but it didn't help bosman. he ended up a raging alcoholic....

As I understand it (and I could be wrong!). The normal next step for appeal is the CAS. As the SFA/SPL don't recognise the autority of the CAS, they are the ultimate authority in scotland for football related matters. FIFA prohibit the integration of sporting and local judicial law for the single purpose that to do so would mean that there could never be an international competition of ANY kind as each match would be beholden to every local law in every country of the world. Can you imagine a world cup being held up because of a court case in angola to decide who qualifies from an african group stage qualifier? Thence the reason why FIFA impose strict penalties on any national football association who allow themselves to become involved in local jurisprudence. To act in any other way would compromise any concept of international competition. There is simply no other way it could function. FIFA's rules are there because they have to be able to organise transnational competiotions. UEFA may be SLIGHTLY different in their approach but remember that UEFA also allow competition entries from countries outwith the EU (Turkey, Israel etc) and thence the fudginess of whether EU law applies. So remembering that Rangers have to apply for a local license (SFA/SPL) to compete nationally, and a UEFA license for International competiotion (thence the march 31st deadline etc). This involves signing onto the rules of the competition. SFA have to apply for a license from FIFA on behalf of the International team. Which also involves adhering to FIFA's rules. Neither of these organisations are compelled to grant applications to their competitions. So where does that leave us. FIFA/UEFA won't step in until it sees the SFA/SPL being incapable of administering the sport in Scotland. IF Rangers take their legal case forward and win, (as I understand it) The SFA may have to recognise the result of that case in a legal sense, but are NOT compelled to grant Rangers a License to play domestic football as Rangers are trying to operate outwith the rules of the competition to which they are a signatory. In order to preserve the integrity of scottish football as a whole (from jumpers and goalosts sunday leaguers up to the SPL) the SFA would be placed in a situation where they risk every player in the country being sanctioned by FIFA and UEFA, or withdraw Rangers License. Now what would happen if they don't withdraw Rangers license. We may argue that scottish football would not survive the loss of 40% of its fanbase. The SFA would have to argue that the entire national game cannot survive FIFA and UEFA sanction (no champions league money, no international money, zero prestige and being shunned by every other club/country who are still happy to adhere to UEFA/FIFA rules, Zero access to external transfer markets etc etc). I believe that the SFA would have to act in the only conceivable way (under pressure of the fact that while Rangers may enjoy 40% of the domestic fanbase, they only account for what 2% (random number off the top of my head to illustrate point) of domestically registered players) to protect the vast majority of its players and clubs, no matter what financial haircut it might involve... So I try to remember that UEFA and FIFA have to be able to operate transnationally and independently, have to have a strictly enforced set of rules, and have the right to refuse access to their competitions. I know i'm new here. and this is quite a long post. I've tried to analyse the situation as impartially as possible. I am an independent rugby fan who is simply intrigued by the ins and outs of everything that is going on at the moment in the SFA and its implications for football in the wider sense. I would like to become involved in the debate. Please don't flame me into the ground for this reason. Please feel free to pick apart my analyses. Jer

it would appear the bbc operate on GMT, not DST (GMT +1). so it's still 2340 in their world.....