Read in-- Justify our punishment; Embargo & 160k.

[Ricky_ 893]

I personally find the SFA's need to further punish the club for entering admin due to non-payment of tax bizarre.

Lets clear something up, due to the mis-management of Whyte (putting it lightly), he couldn't afford to pay PAYE, NI & VAT. So instead used the monies as cashflow. This seems to e the SFA's issue here, a crime only outdone by match-fixing in terms of how serious a breach they deem it.

Are we the first to go into admin due to being served by a HMRC petition over money owed??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/portsmouth/7207269/Portsmouth-QandA-what-will-happen-to-the-Premier-League-club.html

How much does Portsmouth owe the tax man?

HMRC claim the total outstanding is £12.1million: £7.4million VAT, and £4.7million in unpaid PAYE and NI that has accrued in the past two months.

Portsmouth. When they went into admin the first time, they were hit with a winding up order from HMRC, who claimed they were owed £12m in non payment of VAT PAYE & NI.

But it doesnt end there with Pompey as wee all know. They are in administration for a 2nd time. The following is from wikipedia on Portsmouth FC's page;

On 24 January 2012, Portsmouth were issued with a winding up petition by HMRC for over £1.6 million in unpaid taxes, which was heard on 20 February.

...Players are due £3.5m in wages and bonuses for the last two seasons, while £2.3m is owed to Revenue and Customs

I think it's fair to argue that owing your players & staff money in unpaid wages is a worse crime that not paying tax (although i understand this is debatable, but imo, the players/staff are protected by the unions of the football bodies, they have families to provide for, so imo, non-payment of players should be a greater crime... oh wait, only match-fixing is greater).

Punshments: Pre-Administration the premier league placed a temporary transfer embargo on Pompey due to the unpaid wages of players and undpaid fees to other clubs. The Premier league paid the other clubs using pompeys TV revenue due to them, and subsequently lifted the temporary transfer embargo. Once Portsmouth did enter administration, they recieved a 9-point dedcution. They received no further sanctions regarding the non-payment of PAYE, VAT & NI, or for the non-payment of staff. Infactt he authorities helped Pompey by giving them an advance on payments due.

Upon enetering Admin for the 2nd time this year, Pompey received the standard 10 point penalty. They received no further punishment for the non-payment of tax or non-payment of wages.

Moving on from Pompey, Leeds Utd...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_United_Football_Club_Limited

It was revealed that a large amount of Leeds' debt was owed to many ex-players whom left up to three years prior to the club entering administration, £18 million of the £35m was however owed to three companies,[12] and £6 million owed to HMRC

Once again, we have a football club that goes into administration owing debts to HMRC aswell as money owed to playing staff in unpaid wages & bonuses.

Punishment: Leeds recieved no further punishment beyond the 10pt penalty for going into administration. They received no further punishment despite the non-payment of tax to the tune of £6m, or for the non-payment of playing staff. HMRC did however block a CVA and Leeds newco'd. They did recive further punishment for the Newco, they were allowed to remain in the league they were in (no relegation or starting from the bottom) but did recieve a 15 point penalty. (no embargos, no relegation, no fines).

Dundee

In September 2010 Dundee was again on the brink of going into administration due to a £365,000 unpaid tax bill. During negotiations with HM Revenue & Customs, the club's offer to pay £100,000 immediately was rejected.[11] On the 14 September it was announced that the club would be going into administration.[12] As punishment for entering administration the Scottish Football League docked Dundee 25 points

Punishment: Dundee originally went into administration in 2003, and escaped the 10pt deduction. However in 2010 Dundee entered admin for a 2nd time and were hammered with a 25 point deduction. Similar punishment to Leeds for newco-ing. A heavy points deduction, but no fines (which would defy logic) and no registration embargo, which allowed Dundee to sign players, and went on to then set a record of about 20 odd wins in a row.

Gretna

Gretna in the SPL

During the 2007–08 season, Gretna had to play all their home games at Motherwell's home ground of Fir Park because Raydale Park did not meet SPL standards. Their first game in the SPL was against Falkirk which ended in a 4–0 defeat for Gretna.

On 18 February 2008 it was revealed that Gretna staff, including players, had not received their wages on time

The club went into administration on 12 March 2008 after Mileson's withdrawal of support. Under SPL regulations, this resulted in an automatic ten point deduction, meaning they had a total of only six points from 28 games on the date of entering administration.[20] The SPL agreed to pay the players' salaries until the end of the 2007–08 season, ensuring that the club were able to complete its fixtures in the SPL.

HM Revenue and Customs was owed nearly £600,000 in total, and it was their threat to wind up the company that precipitated Gretna's move into administration.

SPL side Gretna were plunged into admin and threatened to be wound up by HMRC over 600k outstanding debt. They also couldnt afford to pay wages which resulted in players being made redundant.

Punishment: standard 10 point deduction. And money given to them from the SFA to help pay wages.

OK enough examples for now, if any of you have research you'd like to add, feel free.

My conclusion....

firstly, i think its fair to say that the punishments for financial mismanagement are very inconsistant.

I thought we were the first to recieve an embargo for going into admin... well technically we are. But Pompey did get with a temporary embargo until debt to other English 'member' clubs had been paid, and they got their house in order in terms of paying the staff they did have - which i feel was fair. The embargo then lifted.

What doesn't sit right with me however is why the SPL feel in our case, a further punishment is needed for the non-payment of tax?

Nearly every club mentioned above were issued with wind-up orders from HMRC. But whats worse, is many of those clubs not only owed huge sums of VAT, PAYE & NI, but they owed money to playing staff. So why is it in the case of Gretna, the SFA didn't deem them to be bringin the game into disrepute with the non-payment of tax & wages, and making players fucking redundant? Instead... they fucking gave them money. Yet see fit to whack us with the maximum fine & impose an embargo, which sevres no purpose than to hinder our progression as a club.

[Polo 1,433]

A lot of hard work went into that and some very good points have been raised

It's clear for all to see that they're making this up as they go along. Where is the "sporting integrity" in that?

[Ricky_ 893]

A lot of hard work went into that and some very good points have been raised

It's clear for all to see that they're making this up as they go along. Where is the "sporting integrity" in that?

indeed, it was a couple of hours research & reading online. I just felt it should be appropriate that all Rangers fans & anyone with any interest in Scottish Football (even the guests that come on here...) should be given a factual comparison to other clubs in a similar situation.

i could have ommited certain details such as Pompeys temporary embargo because it wasn't a punishment for going into admin, it was a punishment given to them before anyone knew they'd be into admin because they couldnt afford payments to other clubs for transfer fees, and weren't paying wages to current players, and was subsequently lifted was this was put right. This situation is more comparable to Hearts than ourselves at this point.

compared to other teams who have entered admin for the first time, our punishments are unprecedented, and extremely harsh by comparison. The attitude from the authorities towards teams in first-time admin hassimply ben the 10point deduction, and thats that. The SFA in our case have simply made the rules up as they go along in our case.

[sprotson11 147]

I personally find the SFA's need to further punish the club for entering admin due to non-payment of tax bizarre.

Lets clear something up, due to the mis-management of Whyte (putting it lightly), he couldn't afford to pay PAYE, NI & VAT. So instead used the monies as cashflow. This seems to e the SFA's issue here, a crime only outdone by match-fixing in terms of how serious a breach they deem it.

Are we the first to go into admin due to being served by a HMRC petition over money owed??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/portsmouth/7207269/Portsmouth-QandA-what-will-happen-to-the-Premier-League-club.html

Portsmouth. When they went into admin the first time, they were hit with a winding up order from HMRC, who claimed they were owed £12m in non payment of VAT PAYE & NI.

But it doesnt end there with Pompey as wee all know. They are in administration for a 2nd time. The following is from wikipedia on Portsmouth FC's page;

I think it's fair to argue that owing your players & staff money in unpaid wages is a worse crime that not paying tax (although i understand this is debatable, but imo, the players/staff are protected by the unions of the football bodies, they have families to provide for, so imo, non-payment of players should be a greater crime... oh wait, only match-fixing is greater).

Punshments: Pre-Administration the premier league placed a temporary transfer embargo on Pompey due to the unpaid wages of players and undpaid fees to other clubs. The Premier league paid the other clubs using pompeys TV revenue due to them, and subsequently lifted the temporary transfer embargo. Once Portsmouth did enter administration, they recieved a 9-point dedcution. They received no further sanctions regarding the non-payment of PAYE, VAT & NI, or for the non-payment of staff. Infactt he authorities helped Pompey by giving them an advance on payments due.

Upon enetering Admin for the 2nd time this year, Pompey received the standard 10 point penalty. They received no further punishment for the non-payment of tax or non-payment of wages.

Moving on from Pompey, Leeds Utd...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_United_Football_Club_Limited

Once again, we have a football club that goes into administration owing debts to HMRC aswell as money owed to playing staff in unpaid wages & bonuses.

Punishment: Leeds recieved no further punishment beyond the 10pt penalty for going into administration. They received no further punishment despite the non-payment of tax to the tune of £6m, or for the non-payment of playing staff. HMRC did however block a CVA and Leeds newco'd. They did recive further punishment for the Newco, they were allowed to remain in the league they were in (no relegation or starting from the bottom) but did recieve a 15 point penalty. (no embargos, no relegation, no fines).

Dundee

Punishment: Dundee originally went into administration in 2003, and escaped the 10pt deduction. However in 2010 Dundee entered admin for a 2nd time and were hammered with a 25 point deduction. Similar punishment to Leeds for newco-ing. A heavy points deduction, but no fines (which would defy logic) and no registration embargo, which allowed Dundee to sign players, and went on to then set a record of about 20 odd wins in a row.

Gretna

SPL side Gretna were plunged into admin and threatened to be wound up by HMRC over 600k outstanding debt. They also couldnt afford to pay wages which resulted in players being made redundant.

Punishment: standard 10 point deduction. And money given to them from the SFA to help pay wages.

OK enough examples for now, if any of you have research you'd like to add, feel free.

My conclusion....

firstly, i think its fair to say that the punishments for financial mismanagement are very inconsistant.

I thought we were the first to recieve an embargo for going into admin... well technically we are. But Pompey did get with a temporary embargo until debt to other English 'member' clubs had been paid, and they got their house in order in terms of paying the staff they did have - which i feel was fair. The embargo then lifted.

What doesn't sit right with me however is why the SPL feel in our case, a further punishment is needed for the non-payment of tax?

Nearly every club mentioned above were issued with wind-up orders from HMRC. But whats worse, is many of those clubs not only owed huge sums of VAT, PAYE & NI, but they owed money to playing staff. So why is it in the case of Gretna, the SFA didn't deem them to be bringin the game into disrepute with the non-payment of tax & wages, and making players fucking redundant? Instead... they fucking gave them money. Yet see fit to whack us with the maximum fine & impose an embargo, which sevres no purpose than to hinder our progression as a club.

Fantastic post, I was thinking of doing some research myself but you have saved me the trouble

[rossDas 1,071]

It has been stage-managed opportunism from start to finish, and they have attempted to conjure the spectre of deliberate wrongdoing on the part of the club in order to justify harming the recovery of Rangers FC.

[thiepvalwood 33]

Great post OP. may I copy elsewhere?

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Are we suggesting this is a sectarian attack on our club.........omg that would never be the case .........the people involved are all honourable people with only Sporting Integrity as their agenda.

Surely everyone can see this.............Sporting Integrity............now when did this first rear it's non- sectarian head.

[Ricky_ 893]

Great post OP. may I copy elsewhere?

please do, spread it around as much as possible - it's important that we all have an understanding of the punishment and how our treatment compares to others.

im sickened by a few fellow bears who have hit out with shit like "we should take our punishment". We did, we got our 10 points deducted. Thats the said punishment, for our crime.

[delamonty 992]

Great work Ricky... Respect

I'd have to think that Mr. Keen (and his team) knew all about this? If so, how did we still lose the appeal?

[thiepvalwood 33]

please do, spread it around as much as possible - it's important that we all have an understanding of the punishment and how our treatment compares to others.

im sickened by a few fellow bears who have hit out with shit like "we should take our punishment". We did, we got our 10 points deducted. Thats the said punishment, for our crime.

Have put on vb.

[Rangers Lady 2,380]

Great work Ricky... Respect

I'd have to think that Mr. Keen (and his team) knew all about this? If so, how did we still lose the appeal?

Judge outranks a QC, thats all it takes at the SFA

[True_blue_82 3]

I noted that you mentioned Hearts. Although they haven't went into liquidation, I find the SFA's stance funny. Hearts have to date had 2 different winding up orders submitted to the Court of Season by HMRC for non-payment of PAYE, VAT & NI, the latest being the 7th February 2012. On both occasions the sum was 500k. These were both paid before court acted. Add to that the non-payment of players and staffs wage in a timely manner on 4 different occasions. To me that is 6 different disrepute charges, but still the SFA doesnt act.

[3Proddie1690 132]

Well done Ricky for an excellent post, when you lay it like that it makes the case for boycott even stronger... It should now be clear to everyone that there is an anti-Rangers agenda at work here, i reckon they've been waiting years for the oppertunity to present itself and now they've started putting the boot in they can't stop... Their loving this, make no mistake these people are vermin, fucking bottom feeders the lot of them.

[Blue Army Faction 28]

Great post, if only some of our so called journalists did half the work you did.

[Right_To_Censor 1,951]

what about motherwell, they brought in a player they couldn't afford and yet still played for them

as i said its 1 rule for us and another set of rules for them

[James_WATP 2]

Excellent post.

Will be sending it round many bears to present awareness.

[Ricky_ 893]

I noted that you mentioned Hearts. Although they haven't went into liquidation, I find the SFA's stance funny. Hearts have to date had 2 different winding up orders submitted to the Court of Season by HMRC for non-payment of PAYE, VAT & NI, the latest being the 7th February 2012. On both occasions the sum was 500k. These were both paid before court acted. Add to that the non-payment of players and staffs wage in a timely manner on 4 different occasions. To me that is 6 different disrepute charges, but still the SFA doesnt act.

i mentioend hearst because i think they offer a reasonable comparison to Portsmouth before they went into administration.

Hearst caused a bit of controversy over the signing of James Beattie if i remembered correctly.

the point was, why were they allowed to sign another high-profile player (by hearts standards) put another first team player on the wage bill, presumably a player of enough quality to command a wage at the higher end of hearts wage bill (you have to assume Beattie would be on similar to that of Black, Skacel etc...) When Hearts wer ebeing served with winding up orders from HMRC and not playing their players. Heres a little known fact... Ian Black, a professional football player with perhaps the biggest, or 2nd biggest Scottish team (outside the OF) was having to pick up work as a painter & decorater due to the non-payment of wages by Hearts.

source: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/3997336/Wages-row-takes-gloss-off-for-Black.html

So if you compare Pompey to hearts. Both were making headlines in the media for non-payment of players & other staff. Im not certain about Hearts but Pompey were also guilty of not making due payments to other English clubs due to them for transfers. For this reason the EPL placed a temporary embargo to prevent Pompey taking on any new players. Once wages were paid & the outstanding debt paid to other members clubs, it was lifted.

Why have the SFA not taken ANY action (as far as i am aware?) against Hearts for non-payment to staff?

[nelsonRFC82 305]

I would ask if anyone (football club or business in general) has ever gone in to administration and not owed money to the tax authorities? Surely by definition, if you suffer an insolvency event you have run out of money to pay your bills, and more often than not this will include HMRC.

Basically we have been punished for going in to administration, and then punished again because of the reasons we went in to administration.

[Ricky_ 893]

I would ask if anyone (football club or business in general) has ever gone in to administration and not owed money to the tax authorities? Surely by definition, if you suffer an insolvency event you have run out of money to pay your bills, and more often than not this will include HMRC.

Basically we have been punished for going in to administration, and then punished again because of the reasons we went in to administration.

I tried to find out when searching online if any club had gone into admin without owing the taxman. It seems to me that going into admin & owing the tax man goes hand-in-hand. IIt seems logical to me that HMRC is the last debt you would pay. You need to pay utility bills, or you get cut off. You need to pay the police & security or games dont go ahead. You need to pay players & staff, then finally, the taxman.

Basically we have been punished for going in to administration, and then punished again because of the reasons we went in to administration.

exactly my point. Which other club has recieved an additional punishment for "reasons for going into admin" as you put it, on top of the initial punishment for administration. HMRC have put Pompey into admin for nonpayment of PAYE VAT & NI... TWICE! HMRC have put Leeds Utd into administration. These clubs weren't hammered with additional punishments because the authorities felt the outstanding debt to the taxman was bringing the game into disrepute & crime only outdone by match-fixing.

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,123]

Plain too see it's not punishment, it's revenge pure and simple.

Any unbiased court in the land would have to come to this conclusion, only our enemies would say it's the next worse thing to match fixing.Plenty in business and society don't pay or aviod their taxes, are they almost as bad as rapists/phedos/murderers?

The only thing that Rangers FC are guilty of is having over ambitious/incompetant owners.

Whyte should come out and say exactly who agreed to his decission not to pay (i'll bet only 2 or 3 of his pals) it would be the first decent thing he's done.

Rangers FC is an institution and the powers that be SPL/SFA, the only ones who could have prevented this are just as guilty for not asking the proper questions.

[Ricky_ 893]

only our enemies would say it's the next worse thing to match fixing.

it's hard to argue with this. They have even told us they considered throwing us out completely.

On what basis? We aren't the first club to fall into administration due to the non-payment fo tax, and we won't be the last.

other than sheer scale of debt, how are we different from Gretna, whom they went to the lengths of paying salaries for?

Should it matter to footballing authories if we have debt to the taxman on the scale of Pompey (12m), Leeds (6m), Gretna (300k) or Atletico Madrid (134m) ?

[Ricky_ 893]

Another example;

Crystal Palace FC

a club that went into administration twice, the first time was in 1999 and didnt receive any punishment.

in 2009, Palace were hit with a transfer embargo, not for going into administration, but for the non-payment of Sign-on Fees & Bonuses to players: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1204379/SPORTSMAIL-EXCLUSIVE-Football-League-ban-Crystal-Palace-signing-players.html

The embargo lasted only 1 month, Palace paid the outstanding monies owed to playing staff, and had the embargo lifted 1 month later in October, meaning they could sign players in January: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/football/embargo-lifted-on-crystal-palace-after-alan-lee-fee-is-paid-6773103.html

In late January 2010 however, once again HMRC issued them with a winding up order placing them into adminstration with debts of 30m. (couldnt find out how much of that was actually owed to HMRC & other creditors.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/26/crystal-palace-placed-in-administration

Yet another club who's punishment for going into administration, non-payment of tax & non-payment of players resulted in....... you guessed.... 10 points.

[The_Blue_Flash 390]

I don't know why they dont just admit the real reasons.

1. THEY FUCKING HATE US !!!

2. WE ARE NOT CELTIC, WHO THEY WOULD BE FALLING OVER THEMSELVES TO HELP WERE THE SITUATION REVERSED

3. THEY WANT US TO DIE, US TO GIVE UP, US TO WAVE THE WHITE FLAG, SO THE MORE SANCTIONS, FINES, ETC THE BETTER

4. THEY REALLY HATE US.

[gwader 3]

Ricky any chance you give us your thoughts - not just on what the punishments ARE (which you've researched in great detail) but WHY they are the way they are?

cheers

[JCDBigBear 10,810]

Ricky, a very good comparison article indeed however I fear that the SFA will argue that the fate of English clubs has no bearing to the SFA rules. The sanctions meted out to the other Scottish clubs is really the only comparison we could realistically hope to influence them with on any second appeal. Of course we could point out that a neighbouring FA has taken a different stance but the SFA would probably throw that out as irrelevant to them.

The Scottish clubs which have been in administration in recent times, Dundee (twice), Livingston (twice) Gretna, Motherwell all owed significant amounts to various parties including HMRC. What we require to know is exactly why our scenario merits much more severe sanctions. The player signing embargo is an unprecedented penalty and is not even one of the listed SFA sanctions. I would have thought that the two clubs which went into administration on more than one occasion would be the more likely to be given the more severe punishment.

As has been pointed out, Hearts have been issued with winding up notices on at least two occasions by HMRC for non-payment of taxes. Hearts have also been late at paying their playing staff on numerous occasions. I note there has been no SFA interference regarding these issues.

Where the Rangers case materially differs from all the aforementioned Scottish clubs administration instances is that Craig Whyte and Gary Withey deliberately took RFC to its knees. Whyte obtained ownership by lies and deception. Both he and Withey may find themselves on criminal charges. Both may end up with custodial sentences. Significant sums of money are unaccounted for in the accounts. Our plight is not due to some carelessness or a bit of minor mismanagement, it is due solely to premeditated manoeuvres by these two people. I find it difficult to understand how the SFA could hold an enquiry and mete out such severe sanctions until the truth is known and any legal action is completed. Their premature verdict could possibly be seen to jeopardise a criminal case.

Under any normal circumstances, the deliberate actions of Whyte and Withey would normally be seen as a reason to justify showing RFC some leniency. Of course there is little of the SFAs workings which could be described as "normal".

Both the original panel and the appeal panel were chaired by two men whose impartiality could be questioned due to previous and relatively recent involvement with Celtic-minded people. As for the other four members of these two panels, we know very little as to where their allegiances lie. We are all aware that when it comes down to the Old Firm clubs, every football person in Scotland has a preference for one side or the other.

Another point which I consider significant is the strange and unparalleled comment made by the first panel and echoed by the second, that our behaviour was second only to match-fixing or some such offence. I am unaware that the SFA has a list which identifies the severity of offences in such regard. There is also the other remarkable comment which notes that the severity of our punishment will dissuade others. Yet again, I am unaware of any such SFA rule which allows for a member club to be dealt with solely to dissuade others. My understanding is that punishment guidelines are set out beforehand for all member clubs to be aware of the relevant punishment on any default. In the Rangers FC case, it appears that the SFA think it acceptable to alter their rules mid-case simply to use us as a deterrent for other clubs in future. We can only wonder what will happen to us, purely as a deterrent to others, should we find ourselves before another judicial panel in future. It is clear that Rangers FC cannot consider any current list of SFA sanctions are likely to be applied to us without adding that "little bit extra" to dissuade others.