I have a wee post re the possibility of an appeal against the Nimmo Smith decision ready for tomorrow morning, but I thought I would pop in to add a short (yes – it will be short) post in response to some comments today.
Adam has been fighting the corner for his team, looking to correct those who, in his view, are misrepresenting the decision of Lord Nimmo Smith.
Sadly I think he may be falling into the same error he is identifying in others.
The following are quotes from Adam tonight:-
Yes, so the Board decided the letters did not require to be disclosed because in their opinion, they were loans. Lord Nimmo Smith has confirmed in writing that he believes the decision making process was done in an honest manner, however he disagreed with the conclusion they reached.
In other words, in his opinion, they never cheated, they simply got it wrong.
That is exactly what his report says.
That’s the facts!
And
We know Celtic fans will never believe it was an honest mistake, but the fact of the matter is that Lord Nimmo Smith’s judgement was that it was an honest mistake.
And
An unconscious and honest breaking of the rules is not cheating. That’s what LNS found. That’s what he ruled.
————————————————————-
I am sorry Adam, but there is a difference between there being no evidence of dishonesty on one hand, as the Commission found, and “unconscious and honest rule breaking” to which you refer.
I note that you are adopting the mantra of “it was all an innocent administrative mistake”.
But, as the Commission decided, the decision not to disclose the details was “deliberate”.
Something can be wrong without being dishonest. As I mentioned in an earlier post, dishonesty could have involved forgery or alteration of documents. It could have involved telling lies to the football authorities. Instead Rangers was guilty of a “sin of omission” but one entered into wide eyed, with no thought as to the consequences of its decision.
The Commission did NOT say that this was an “honest mistake” lasting over 11 years. It was a result of “deliberate non-disclosure” over 11 years.
Lord Nimmo Smith was not asked to decide if Rangers “cheated”. There is a good reason why criminal prosecutions and disciplinary matters like this do not ask if the accused “cheated”. Instead they detail an allegation and test whether, in fact and law, the charge is made out to the required standard.
In this case Rangers were found, over an 11 year period, to have broken the rules about disclosure of information to their regulatory body.
The Commission did NOT say that it was satisfied that the “decision making process was done in an honest manner”.
The Commission did NOT say “that it was an honest mistake”.
The Commission did NOT say “they never cheated, they simply got it wrong.”
The Commission did NOT find that it was “an unconscious and honest breaking of the rules”.
The Commission was NOT asked to decide if Rangers “cheated”.
What About Advice?
There was no evidence produced that Rangers had taken any accountancy, legal or football authority advice that the details should be disclosed. Ignorance of the law is no defence although it can mitigate a penalty.
However wilful ignorance will not be mitigation.
How many issues of finance, law and corporate governance did Rangers seek advice on in this 11 year period? Maybe none. Maybe the Board, consisting as it did of many eminent business people, did not need any advice, being entirely confident in its combined wisdom.
On the other hand one feature of good businessmen is that they get advice, although they may decide not to follow it. Informed decision-making is generally a good thing.
Now, I am NOT suggesting that Rangers did take advice at any time regarding this issue. If they had, and it had been to the effect that there was no need to disclose the details of the EBT scheme, then this would have been shouted from the rooftops as part of its defence.
It might not have been a defence to the charges, but it would have been very useful mitigation – after all, if one acts on the advice of experts, the culpability is greatly reduced.
However, if advice had been taken that the details ought to be disclosed, then clearly it would have been of no assistance to Rangers to disclose this to the Commission.
There would have been no way of forcing Rangers or its advisers to disclose if advice had been given and what the nature of it was.
And I am very conscious that, in the words of the saying, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
What the Commission said at paragraph 107 is noteworthy:-
There is no evidence that the Board of Directors of Oldco took any steps to obtain proper external legal or accountancy advice to the Board as to the risks inherent in agreeing to pay players through the EBT arrangements without disclosure to the football authorities.
That statement does NOT say that no advice was taken, but that there was no evidence that it had. Remember too the the Commission decided there was no evidence to it of what advantage the non-disclosure would have given, which is different from saying that there was none.
Adam’s thesis (and I know many more than him are plugging this line) would have it that this was a simple lapse of paperwork which lasted for ELEVEN YEARS.
In addition, it lasted for around three years after HMRC levied tax assessments on Rangers. Maybe at that point someone might have thought “Hang on – shouldn’t we check if we should be telling the SFA and SPL about this?”
I leave with the full quote from the Commission. Adam earlier said that Lord Nimmo Smith decided that there was “no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate”.
I think the full quote gives a better reflection of what the Commission found:-
“The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed.”
Sorry Adam, but the FACTS are not as you report them.
Posted by Paul McConville
Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville 
Paul
We need to keep pointing out the truth regarding the findings
Already they are trying to pass off the “genuine mistakes” and “admin errors” as the facts
They must not be allowed to re-write the report to suit their own agenda
Have a good night Adam. You’re wee team did cheat, and that’s a fact the EBT was an incentive to attract players you could never have got because of Tax that would have to be payed by these players. Keep up M8.
The nail takes another heavy blow to the head.
@Martin
Mr Mc C hits another bullseye. 180 !!!!!
as usual adam, funny was just about to reply in this fashion on the other blog
a whole noight of posting shoite, as simon and garfunkel sang still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, your next post adam should be an explanation of the difference between sporting advantage and unfair sporting advantage and your explan of why lns felt the need to include the unfair word.
Have you read the full commission. I think it uses the word “unfair” only once whereas throught the rest of the report it says that Rangers never received “ANY” competitive advantage.
Instead of having digs, can you not be mature enough to debate it properly. Do you have an issue with people not sharing the same opinion as you ?
Rangers FC did not gain any UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE from the contraventions of
the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor
did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible
to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be
imposed upon Rangers FC;
its para 6 of the most important part of the doc THE DECISION, i see i used the word sporting rather than competitive. debate away, i rephrase, what is the difference between ‘unfair competitive advantage’ and ‘competitive advantage ? and why do you think lns has chosen or had to insert UNFAIR in his decision?
Sorry, you are quoting from “THE SUMMARY”
In the body of “THE ACTUAL DECISION” on Page 31, para 105
“we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive
advantage.”
then on Page 31, para 106
“We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect.”
“we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage”
Does anyone find the use of the word ‘unable’ in the above quote from the LNS report unusual? Why was it not written, we reached the conclusion that this did not lead to a competitive advantage ?
The construction of the sentence leaves a question mark hanging over whether or not an advantage was attained, as the judges were simply unable to identify an advantage. It would appear they may be identifying their own limitations in accessing what a competitive advantage would be and/or how it would be manifested. It is certainly not meant to be a definitive statement refuting the possibility that no advantage was attained. Given these limitation they have proceeded as if there was no advantage. That, too me at least, would represent a possible grounds for an appeal.
@loadofmalarky
Yes I do,and came to the same conclusion as you.
adam
How many times does the commission have to use the word ‘unfair’ ?
For someone to have a valid point, in all references to the question in hand. The commission found “no competitive advantage” fair or unfair. It says so in the decision.
They were unable to determine if an advantage existed and proceeded on the assumption that one didn’t. As least that is how I read it.
@loadofmalarkey
Me too,but Adam doesn’t let facts or the ACTUAL wording of
the judgement get in the way of his denial.
Paul has explained it succinctly.
GUILTY as charged on ALL counts……ffs ( I only ever use this
under extreme provocation ) Reading for information and understanding in the Sevco family is SO much worse than I realised.
I think the ‘question in hand ‘, or in this case, the word in hand, would be ‘Deliberate’, as in ‘Deliberate non-disclosure’.
Nice spin though, but oh so quintessentially sevconian in its desperation
“Something can be wrong without being dishonest” Of course it can. But one is cheating and the other is not cheating.
I will reiterate what Lord Nimmo Smith said:
“While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed”
Dealing with each part of that sentence, the first thing to note is that the commission did not find anything that warranted an accusation of dishonesty by anyone involved. If they had, then that would b cheating. FACT.
Moving to this word “deliberate” then people really need to read the whole sentence to gain the full context. LNS has not accused the Board of a “deliberate cover up”, he has accused the Board of reaching the wrong conclusion as to if the side letters needed disclosed or not. There is a world of difference.
If i know something is wrong, but choose not to tell, then im dishonest or a “cheat”
If i believe im right, but choose not to tell, then im human and open to making an error.
There is absolutely no getting away from the fact that is how LNS saw it. That’s what he has wrote in his final paper. He has found nothing to suggest any form of dishonesty.
That doesn’t excuse the breach of the rules. But it is not “CHEATING”
“When I was on the board, I knew all about them. I just didn’t know the details of them. They became accepted. The revenue were seriously challenging them at that point when I was a director.
“All the directors heard about them but didn’t take them seriously because they didn’t appear in the books. People didn’t want to know about them. There was a lot of that (EBTs) going on at the time (I was there).
‘You knew it was cheating but some of them not only hoped but believed it was above board. It was just something that crept up. It was considered important but not crucial. The fans didn’t give a damn one way or another.
The words of the Hugh Adams.
Yes of course.
Hugh Adam.
But such evidence is unhelpful to the Zombies case and is dismissed by them as the ramblings of a bitter old man.
Facts don’t matter.
The truth is inconvenient.
Lying Zombie bstrds.
“There was no double contract. There was categorically no dual contracts.” The words of Mr David Murray.
I’m sorry Adam but if you deliberately breach the rules then that is cheating. Football is a cheats’ game, though, so such behaviour is not out of place. In fact, I’d say cheating is not only accepted in football, it is actually ingrained.
I had a chat with a friend of mine recently, a former 1970s Scottish football star. He was bemoaning the “cheating” at Rangers.
I pointed out to him that he was a “cheat” although this was vehemently denied. He said he was an honest, blood and guts striker who had never dived in his life.
I asked him if he had ever stolen five yards at a throw in or if he always checked with the ref or linesman to see where he should position himself. He admitted he had quite often stolen a few yards.
I asked him if he had ever stolen a few yards at a free-kick when the ref’s back was turned. He admitted this too.
I asked if he had ever claimed for a throw in or a corner kick if he was unsure who the ball had actually came off of last. He again owned up.
I asked him if he had ever tugged a jersey or deliberately shoved an opponent out of the way. Yup.
I then, quite rightly, called him a “cheating b******”.
He saw the funny side but even honest pros cheat never mind those who can turn it into a fine art.
As I said at the beginning, it’s a cheats’ game. To make out that Rangers haven’t been caught cheating doesn’t become you given your logical approach to things.
The argument is surely over whether it was minor or major cheating and whether it created a sporting advantage.
LNS said Rangers’ deliberate rule-breaking didn’t provide a discernible competitive advantage.
That may be the case but the club still deliberately broke the rules.
And just like my honest-pro pal they were cheating, even if they didn’t see it as such at the time themselves.
There is a clear and distinct difference and i will use 3 examples as to why.
1) If you are a forward and the ball is played through to you and you are just offside but DONT KNOW IT, then if the officials allow you to continue and it results in you scoring the winning goal, then despite “breaking the rules” you have not cheated.
2) If you are on a night out in town and you meet 2 girls, one of which you know to be married and the other you are not aware that she is married but she tells you she is not, then taking the married one home amounts to cheating, taking the other one home does not.
3) In 1989, Roy Aitken kicked the ball out the park, then quickly picked it up,took a throw in which led to the winning goal in a Cup Final and denied Rangers a treble. If he knew it was him that kicked it out then Celtic cheated to win that trophy. If he didnt know it was him, then they didnt.
Rangers have been charged with “deliberately” not disclosing the contracts, as in they could have done so but didnt think they needed to. We can go round and round and round on this but if Rangers did not feel they were breaking the rules by not disclosing them, then it DOES NOT amount to cheating. Just like the striker who is marginally offside but doesnt know it. Or the captain who kicked the ball out the park but didnt know it.
Adam, In your defence, you say Rangers never believed they were cheating the footballing authorities. Although no definitive evidence is put forward as to why they withheld the info, a fair assumption would be that they thought it was Hector they were cheating! ?. It wasnae me robbed the bank, a wiz away screwin hooses!
@barcabuster
If there’s nothing to hide,why hide it ? Simple as that.
Let’s ask SDM that one.
I think its time to let the past be the past just like the team that was once called rangers
Let them rest in pease#
Let’s see…No, I don’t think so.
@Alan Price
Hell no !
It’s all getting a bit pathetic. Like a little spoilt brat who’s just been gubbed at ludo. Again! Again! Again! Fttt. Thud! Best out of a 3! Lns. Thud! Best out a 5! And so it goes on…..
liquidation thud stars walked away via tube thud tribute starts in div 3 not 1 thud sally dident walk away thud lol greens going to turn out woe than whyte thud lol
you on the bostik matey?
@mick
cheated the country, struggling businesses and CHARITIES,lest
we forget,of tens of millions of pounds THUD.
“Adam’s thesis (and I know many more than him are plugging this line) would have it that this was a simple lapse of paperwork which lasted for ELEVEN YEARS.”
That’s not my thesis at all. Deliberate misrepresentation.
Misrepresentation my erchie. The wording is clear as day – “While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed” What the donald do you think ‘deliberate nondisclosure’ meant – a mistake?
Now away and troll elsewhere. You really are pathetic.
“in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed” “
They certainly decided that the sideletters need not be disclosed.
But why?
Those who have nothing to hide would never have made such a decision.
Martin Bain’s email asking for an EBT “loan” contained a request that the email be shredded immediately after reading.
An insight into the real reason for withholding knowledge of the side letters.
See a lawyer.
I find that it is best to go back to source rather than relying on Adams quotations. His references sometimes have erroneous statistics or are highly selective.
@Den
Adam and misrepresentation and selective memory,surely not
Den……:-)
Adam:
Why did RFC(IL) feel the need to hand out side letters ?
Why did they feel the need to hide them ?
I can only hypothesise as clearly i wasnt in the Rangers Boardroom at the time. EBT’s were a legal form of tax avoidance but they had to be used in the correct manner otherwise HMRC could have a claim against them. Murray Group set up EBT in the Murray Group then due to the success of them and also the fact there was no challenge on them from auditors or HMRC, they introduced them at Rangers as well.
From the off, the mantra would be that these were completely NON contractual and that they were loans and for that reason, they did not need to be disclosed to the footballing authorities.
If they truly wanted to hide them out of sight, there would have been a better cover up in the accounts IMHO.
Did the Board know they were walking a HMRC tightrope ? I believe so yes.
Do i believe they were worried about HMRC catching up with them ? I believe so yes.
Do i believe they thought they were breaking the SPL rules ? No i dont.
Ive sat on many a board and had these schemes put in front of me by tax experts. To this very day, ive never been part of a Board that approved them and I think I would have resigned any exec position had they done so. Thats just me. Thats my opinion.
My thesis though to be clear is that a decision way back was taken that these didnt need disclosed and that was that. It has for all intents and purposes never came up again until this all kicked off. That is completely different from the accusation that this was a “lapse of paperwork that lasted for ELEVEN YEARS” which suggests a deliberate cover up year after year.
ess itch one tea adam read what you have just written ‘ i’ve sat on many a board’—– ‘ if they truly wanted to hide them out of sight,there would have been a better cover up in the accounts IMHO.’
you sit on boards and have knowledge of better cover ups in accounts.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ding dong hector calling.
How you get from there to there i will never know.
Adam,
So when HMRC sent a number of tax demands regarding the EBT scheme, from 2008 onwards, and for millions upon millions of pounds, nobody in the Boardroom thought, even for a second – “maybe we might have this wrong?”
And I appreciate it might be an angels on the head of a pin argument, but are you suggesting seriously that the matter was considered once, and no matter what else happened over the next 11 years, no one at Ibrox gave another thought to whether or not these should be disclosed, even although the relevant SPL rules changed twice during the period? Surely that is more culpable than if, on only one occasion, there had been non-disclosure?
You have seen the list in the Commission’s report of the players who had side letters. And some of them, I suspect, got contract renewals or alterations so might have had more than one during their time there. And in all of that time nobody at all even gave a thought to whether they should be disclosed?
The FACT is that, on every single occasion over the 11 year period when there was a side letter given to a player, there was a deliberate decision not to disclose this to the SFA/SPL.
Paragraph 108 says, in part:-
Given the seriousness, extent and duration of the non-disclosure, we have concluded that nothing less than a substantial financial penalty on Oldco will suffice. Although we are well aware that, as Oldco is in liquidation with an apparently massive deficiency for creditors (even leaving aside a possible reversal of the Tax Tribunal decision on appeal), in practice any fine is likely to be substantially irrecoverable and to the extent that it is recovered the cost will be borne by the creditors of Oldco, we nevertheless think it essential to mark the seriousness of the contraventions with a large financial penalty.
Seriousness – extent – duration – nothing less than a substantial financial penalty – seriousness of the contraventions.
None of those remarks are indicative to me of the Commission, whose findings you have said you fully accept, treating the “mistake” in the manner you describe.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not arguing that the findings should be any different. What I am remarking on is the efforts, clearly seen in the media as well as on blogs and message boards, to misrepresent the decision.
That might be an “honest mistake” on the part of some, or indeed a “deliberate” misrepresentation – either way there are a great many people, both pro and con the verdict, who seem to have read an entirely different document from the one the Commission actually produced.
Paul
“so when HMRC sent a number of tax demands regarding the EBT scheme, from 2008 onwards, and for millions upon millions of pounds, nobody in the Boardroom thought, even for a second – “maybe we might have this wrong?”
Absolutely. Im not sure where i have indicated differently, but it is my opinion that it would only be the HMRC issue. Of course it needs to be remembered that even after those demands, they still made further payments into the scheme, so whilst the risk was greater than what it was back at the start, the people(or more likely person) at the very top still accepted the risk and carried on regardless. Rightly or wrongly.
adam check when mih stopped their ebt scheme
adam
Were the ebts fully disclosed , even to the auditors? Weren’t they [ the auditors] like the Spl given a lump sum, with no details?
I would be very very surprised indeed if the auditors didnt have or see every detail of them. Year on year, they had to test the numbers.
The auditors would be entitled to see payments into the scheme but it is very possible that they wouldn’t see the side letters as these seem to have been carefully not to disclose these.
Mr Red denied their existence to HMRC even with enforcement notices in play.
Andrew Woods,
In my opinion the side letters were required because footballers were being asked to accept an alternative to salary. And their agents would want to ensure that they get their cut.
Instead of Rangers payroll paying the money into your account after deducting taxes etc. You were asked to apply for a loan to some outfit in Jersey.
Most of us would say that the payroll option was preferable and when it was explained that your loan would never actually be recoverable and no tax would be due you would ask “can I have that in writing”. Hence secret side letter.
They came about because the players and/ or their agent and representatives wanted guarantees of payments and future liabilities or lack of them.
Adam makes a good point about being sceptical of tax schemes. They make business more complex, save tax but can cost a fortune in advisers and administration.
Murray Group will still be paying the administration of this dead scheme and know that the unravelling it will be costly
I found it amusing that Dr Poon went through the numbers and pointed out instances where Rangers appeared to be overcharged by Trident. An accountant through and through.
@ adam 11.01pm
as a famous football commentator would say- soooooooooooooooooooo
good I posted it twice.
Rangers FC did not gain any UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE from the contraventions of
the SPL Rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor
did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible
to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be
imposed upon Rangers FC;
its para 6 of the most important part of the doc THE DECISION, i see i used the word sporting rather than competitive. debate away, i rephrase, what is the difference between ‘unfair competitive advantage’ and ‘competitive advantage ? and why do you think lns has chosen or had to insert UNFAIR in his decision?
Ive answered above. You were reading the Summary. It does not mention unfair in the actual decision.
To be fair to Adam, he is only sticking up for his team, and the LNS verdict, and sentence is being peddled as a result for Rangers. In a sense, it has been…for the time being.
The actions of Rangers, and now by Sevco, have angered an entire nation. Despite Stewart Regan’s request to “move along” it will not happen!
This is the man who admits breaking SFA rules to “keep Rangers in the game”, for the good of the game. When did tax evasion, improperly registered players, obstruction, missing documentation, lies, and bringing the game into disrepute on so many levels become “good for the game”.
As a regulatory body, why was the Sandy Bryson evidence not brought forward sooner. Is it the case that Rangers never found a legitimate loophol in the laws, and exploited it legitimately, or did the SFA find the loophole, and present it to Rangers?
The same Sandy Bryson who was involved in the Cadette registration fiasco!
There are too many slugs, under too many stones in this sorry affair, to just “move on”. There are too many unanswered questions to just move on, there are too many people in this country who never came up the Clyde in a banana boat, to just move on!
Only when our national and league bodies can be trusted, will there be moving on. With the present Shylocks in power, that means never!
It will not be the actions of Rangers which kills our game, but the actions of these so called custodians. These so called custodians have so little, nay no trust, from the footballing public, and it is easy to see why it is common belief, the evidence presented to LNS, guaranteed the “desired” outcome.
A stitch up! Not by LNS, but by our governing bodies, who have broken every rule, in their own rule books.
The good people of Scotland, regardless of the colours nailed to their mast, are disgusted by this. We will not move on, just because these rule breakers say so.
But to be also fair, i have often criticised my team, the haters amongst our support, the owners, the bloggers, the club forums and even the manager.
Nobody remembers any of them. They get passed over without comment to get to the next post that everybody disagrees on.
am not 1 for agreeing with adam but he was the only bear on here to genuinly wish celtic well in euro game with juvie
although when it comes to sevco he weres blinkers to any critisim and cant see passed the msm headlines
(Edited)
Agreed barca. i do contend lns had a choice though, and to my view he admits it with the concession that there could be exceptional circs where registrations could be revoked but he states this is not one of them. the biggest sporting scandal in sporting history in this country is not an exception sorry not having it. wholeheartedly agree with your post but going that bit further if i may.
Arb, I feel LNS was fully aware of the true extent of chicanery. But as a judge is conditioned to discount what is not presented before him. I believe the facts presented where weighted, leaving little room for manoeuvre without being contradictory. He was given the evidence to establish guilt on the charges brought before him. He was given no other evidence relating to sporting advantage. I do not think he considers his decision definitive, and has left “openings” to be explored/ challenged, at a later date when/if circumstances change .
definately agreed b
Two words… SOCIAL UNREST
@adam 11.42
so good I’ve posted it twice
ess itch one tea adam read what you have just written ‘ i’ve sat on many a board’—– ‘ if they truly wanted to hide them out of sight,there would have been a better cover up in the accounts IMHO.’
you sit on boards and have knowledge of better cover ups in accounts.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ding dong hector calling.
Yes i have sat on boards and no i have no knowledge of better cover ups. You are really getting desperate now having made an erchie of yourself of reading a summary instead of the actual decision.
Adam,
The summary is part of the decision, isn’t it?
Its a summary. The fact remains that if you read the main body of the decision it does not refer to unfair at all. I think arb is getting his knickers in a twist over a non issue.
LNS and his 2 learned friends have said that “no competitive advantage was gained”
Or am i wrong ?
You will concede though Adam, that if the UTTT decision, goes against, or any other evidence comes to light, that wee word, in the summary, could prove to be a very important wee word. A deliberate, calculated insertion, by LNS.
correct barca….. i was trying to get adam to that point by himself as i am fed up with his half posts on here….. some crazy guy inside was running around saying he will change eventually…..
i do respect his right to support his team though, but the whole thing is now so ugly that if it was my team in this horrendous position i would i think be coming to the position of asking the board to pull back, no i would hope i would have done it some time ago.
The UTTT doesn’t consider any new evidence.HMRCFC just keep asking different judges, until they get friendly ones.
@ adam
I was watching my 5 secured title dvd’s and everytime i watch, i still think Arteta is gonna miss that penalty.
Well done Adam,an outstanding solo effort in fighting your corner.
You have ensured that this little Garden of Eden has a Rangers brand of apple still growing.
Paul didn’t make those little green apples,that are bitter and crablike,and it sure is fun watching them fall from the tree.
I recommend a different brand of compost to remove the sour taste.
I sense a frantic effort to ensure that the LNS verdict isn’t portrayed as a victory for Rangers,and of course it isn’t,but as a fan,i’m delighted that the desired objective for many wasn’t achieved.
Not only did you have Paul putting up a post to naysay your contention,but you actually had him taking the floor of the Senate twice to attempt to win the day.
Adam,you are now referred to as Kali,for your outstanding resistance in the face of multiple attacks.
I salute you.
cam how could u miss the indefatigability bit.
It is late,,,i was tired!
cam
As I stated previously, titles mean nothing to me [or my team – although a wee cup wouldn’t have been refused ] If lns had fined the ‘club’ [ he said it was a continuing entity ] £250k then I would, in conjunction with many other non celtic fans, have thought it was, well, maybe not quite right, but hey ho, let’s just get on with it. There would have been , for sure a ‘dust-up’, to put it mildly, over who exactly would pay THAT fine !
A lot has been made of lns jurisdictional ruling re. rangers continuing club etc. Where lns has ‘bottled’ it has not been in title stripping imo but in refusing to administer a sanction to the ‘continuing club’. Why fine only the one part of the ‘holy trinity’ [then, now, forever] that is rangers that can’t pay?£ 250K Would have gone some way in ‘drawing a line in the sand’ – not justice for diddy fans – but we could have moved on.
That is the reason why non celtic fans are imo upset at this decision .
adam as a layman can you give some insight to what you done on the board a brief description not names numbers or facts just min. amount of info were you a ceo or member accounts or human resourse just a liitle insight
Pretty much the lot. CEO. Non exec. Exec(various designated Director roles). COO.
Ive dodged a Chairmanship so far..
very impressive adam
@mick
God mick,you must not be able to move in casa Adam for all those
drawers full of t shirts 🙂
adam drop it ffs.
thats my point why does the ”unfair” word appear, it may be crucial down the line.
thank goodness for the clarification on your knowledge of accounting cover ups after your second reading of the postings.
He wrote:-
“What does ‘financial fair play’ really mean? UEFA’s explanation, in 2010, was that the concept would require clubs to balance their books over the medium term, not spend more than they earn, and operate within their financial means.
This is all seen as important for one key reason: because any club that is spending more on players than they can afford, is automatically gaining a sporting advantage over every other club it competes with. Whether the precise system of measurement used by UEFA is perfect is a moot point. But the logic behind the principle however is, I think, broadly sound. And it is this same principle that explains the position of the SPL.
To turn a blind eye, to allow clubs to continually fail to make prompt payments as they fall due, would be to allow those clubs to gain an unfair sporting advantage over all those other clubs that pay their players, the taxman and other clubs on time.”
Any club spending what it cannot afford is automatically gaining a sporting advantage.
jim
Couldn’t agree more. Hearts should be thrown unceremoniously out of the league cup final! The cup and £25M awarded to saints.
well said jim it was the worst case of financial doping ever seen in sport and they were found guilty of hidding it
So far 5 qualified lawyers and judges disagree with you…..but im sure you are right. 🙂
Mick,hold yer nose get, a sugar lump,open wide and take yer medicine,ya sullen big wean. 😉
In my view there has been a failure of justice. I dont want it to be so, but I think it is.
There have been a few comments around how many posters in the blogosphere seem to have got it wrong again. This would include me, and I am not feart to admit it – but in my defence this is the first visibility Ive had of the Notice of Commission and the Issues.
I am of the opinion that all charges should be found not guilty, technically.
But that doesn’t quite serve justice.
Paul,
I have mailed you
no they dont adam they just cant be bothered with the mob reaction but not to worry as the new team will head the same way some day soon
Margaret McGill says:
Isnt it amazing that if the SFA wanted to know if Article 12.3 was being violated by any club in Scotland all they had to do was ask their own President 🙂
Adam
You are The Black Knight, we are King Arthur.
gie in.
Tis but a scratch,,,,we’ve ad worse.
Regarding the following quote, “The directors of Oldco must bear a heavy responsibility for this. While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate, we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate, in the sense that a decision was taken that the sideletters need not be or should not be disclosed”
Adam said: Dealing with each part of that sentence, the first thing to note is that the commission did not find anything that warranted an accusation of dishonesty by anyone involved. If they had, then that would b cheating. FACT.
I probably disagree with that interpretation. “There is no question of dishonesty” could mean “perish the thought, I find you all to be upstanding characters and can find nothing to incriminate you despite forensic searching”, or it could mean “I am not judging your character that’s not why I’m here”. I note that the quote looks much prettier in Adam’s edited version(s).
Adam also said: Moving to this word “deliberate” then people really need to read the whole sentence to gain the full context. LNS has not accused the Board of a “deliberate cover up”, he has accused the Board of reaching the wrong conclusion as to if the side letters needed disclosed or not. There is a world of difference.
Indeed, LNS has not accused the Board of a deliberate cover up. These are Adam’s words. Nor, however, has he accused them of reaching a wrong conclusion I’m afraid. These too are Adam’s words. What he has stated is that the Board was guilty of “deliberate non-disclosure”, and that the rules of disclosure were broken. No more, no less.
It isn’t difficult to take words and paragraphs from this report (or any report) and to ply them to suit ones own agenda. That holds true both for Adam and those with an opposing argument.
I prefer to run with my gut feeling when it comes to Rangers. Every morning I wake, I instinctively know that Rangers have benefited from an unfair sporting advantage, regardless of the legal games being played by great legal minds. And not just since 2001, but for a hundred years before that. It’s an inevitable extension and consequence of the political oppression of Irish Catholics in Scotland that existed over that time.
I hope Adam won’t mind the analogy when i say there were good Nazi’s too! He’s running with the wrong gang and there’s nothing much he can do about it but attempt to defend his Club, justify his position and satisfy his conscience.
Just caught up with Thurdays Scotland Tonight prog.
I notice that Chris Graham was happy to walk into Dodge with Speirsy,Thommo and Tom English ready to shepherd him into the O.K corral.
I wonder if Paul got a shout to holster up,or did he miss the 3.10 to Pacific Quay?
@adam
With regard to the extensive debate as to the legal findings of LNS; hasn’t a major factor been over looked in all of the debate?
First and foremost the subject matter is in concern of sport;
If that the relevant governing body have reason to believe that individuals have breached the spirit of the sport; there is absolutely no need have a judge or tribunal to intervene.
———————————————————————-
In an entirely separate matter; in September 2011;
SFA President Campbell Ogilive fired off a letter to UEFA chief Michel Platini to demand an extended ban for Czech cheat Jan Rezek.
An SFA spokesman said: “The President has written to Mr Platini to point out that the fair play ethos is at the very heart of the game and this is a policy UEFA have championed in recent times.”
“I think it’s worth making sure that people are aware of what’s happened. There is a respect campaign and fair play is quite high up on FIFA’s thoughts. There is enough evidence to suggest that there was a breach of those rules.”
Rezek dived to win his country a penalty in Saturday’s 2-2 draw with Scotland at Hampden and the SFA believe it would be wrong to let the matter lie.
———————————————————————-
The above instance would highlight of the value placed upon sporting integrity within of the governance of the sport.
I would be glad if it that it could be explained to me as to why the SFA/SPL felt it necessary to set up the LNS commission in the first place?
I would assume that beyond the LNS report; ultimately; the final say in all matters of sporting integrity would lie with the relevant sports authority.
Contrary to drawing a line in the sand; wouldn’t it be sporting to hear an utterance from the craven professors of doom, in office at Hampden, which could perhaps provide a modicum of integrity?
Totally off topic, but as it was a previous post—-.
As I have previously mentioned I am hauf n’ hauf in the religious hereditary stakes, although now of the ‘dawkins’ persuasion. [ only in scotland would I have to write that].
The ‘good’ cardinal has admitted his transgressions re ‘inappropriate conduct’ and asked for forgiveness. Ok. What are we asked to forgive though? His alleged homosexual tendencies? Or his hypocrisy? That this individual pronounced and vilified homosexuals and gay marriages and was seen as a beacon of ‘ normal’ human relationships ,was himself gay?
Come on Paul, the guy was a total charlatan, deceiving himself others and his flock,including yourself.
This is not an attack on catholics, but certainly an attack on hypocrits.
The Catholic church is in tatters,the Catholic faith if applied by truly good people, can repair the damage.
The Vatican’s power,and the politics within it are the only obstacle.
Total hypocrite & abuser of his godly position, without doubt.
His “bigot of the year” trophy has a new companion in the shape of his “hypocrite of the year” award.
Ha ha! Just read Ally’s post above when scrolling up the way and thought ‘Ally McCoist’ was a headline with comment below – then saw it was related to Budweiser’s post above!
Lol! Easy mistake to make, SairFecht!
I’d like to know whoever gave me a TD on the above post could possibly argue that Cardinal O’Brien isn’t a bigot or hypocrite? Explain? ..Or are the TD’s simply a dislike of the truth?
i see the accounts for ‘RIFC FC’ are out. all is now clear why they got in ahead of spartans. A 7 month trading loss of 7million is a much more healthier financial situation than spartans could ever produce to satisfy completing the end of the football season
Sorry Adam but I find it difficult to comprehend that a board of directors comprised of experienced business people and administrators, and who must avail themselves of the full knowledge of every article and regulation of the association they are part of, can over a period of eleven years not have noticed the inconsistency between the practice and the rules. Possibly my view has been coloured by the findings of the FTTT that there was a deliberate culture of attempting to withhold information from the investigation – a malpractice that also seems to have been followed up on by D&P representing the former company. I’m in agreement that a line should now be drawn under the findings of the LNS inquiry – but not at the cost of the essential truth – LNS decided that no competitive advantage was gained due to players not being improperly registered and former company was fined £250k for breaking the rules on four counts – but here and elsewhere to pedal the line that Rangers were simply guilty of a clerical or administrative error – is to entirely distort the essential truth of the findings.
If the SFA and SPL administrators dont even know their own rules, why are you so confident others would ?
@adam
Seriously?
Can you explain in what context the SFA and SPL administrators don’t know their own rules? I’d need to know this in order to reply.
There are numerous examples over the years of them not understanding their own rules. Neil Lennons suspension is just one example.
So to the original point – that a board of directors could inadvertently overlook the regulations over an eleven year period – can be explained away by random examples of the governing body’s misapplication of the rules over a period of years – you have cited one example but have not explained how it contravened the application of regulations or the governing body’s understanding of them. I fear what we are doing here is only deflecting the issue away from the central point. Or are we saying that that the issue of Neil Lennon’s suspension somehow justifies the Rangers board’s contravention of regulations on four counts? I cannot honestly see how the two matters are in any way connected.
Neil Lennons suspension. Rangers transfer embargo which was deemed unlawful in court. Confusion over registration rules in this case. Im surprised that anyone would stick up for the SFA. They are useless.
And yes……you could debate or argue that exact same point about the Rangers Board as well based on what happened.
on LNS’s verdict and subsequent (hmm hmm) punishment, i recommend all should read the following blog post on whether TRFC cheated.
maybe Adam, LNS and a few others live near a power station of Mobile mast.
I expect time will tell on this as per usual. The next time some club/team/person makes an administrative error (honestly or dishonestly, no matter) in matters of registration, contracts etc will they be fined? Will the fine be £500 per game (£250,000 divided by 10 seasons divide by 50 roughly)? That’s the new precedent. We’ll see.
What would happen if if it was,e.g., a Dundee United player’s registration in a run of the mill cup game against a fourth tier team?
Question , Did SMD consider that disclosure was something he considered the authorities did not need to know? If so was this considered based on legal advice or on his own thought process.Did he know when submitting his books the monies attached to the documents did not contain the full truth about how the club was functioning and that buried within the documents secret payments were been made.Lets be honest they were secret payments which would never had seen the light of the day until the whistle was blown. How can this be deemed by RFC to be clerical errors, it is deliberate and dishonest and is cheating. The SFA etc are spineless and how dare RFC create a vacuum of hate towards Peter Lawell and Celtic in general with garbage about cabals etc.
SDM cheat,Old Co cheats,SFA cheats, Ogilvie cheat,the list is endless. Integrity is paying back to others what was rightfully taken from them. Creditors work hard to make a living, cheats make a living harder to make.
So somebody correct me if I am wrong please :-
1.) Rangers appeal to the FTTT on the use of the EBTs is upheld by a majority of 2 to 1 but the decision made by the independant experts is wrong,
2.) LNS is appointed to investigate alleged breaches of the SPL Rules and finds that no unfair advantage has been gained and provides a verdict to which a punishment has been attached. Again the decision made by the independant experts is wrong.
3.) The SPL, the SFA, the Justiciary are corrupt and institutionally biased against Irish Catholics and have been for over 100 years.
Have I missed anything?
What will be the considered opinion of the masses when the UTTT finds that the FTTT decision should be upheld as there is no point of law on which to overturn it.
Will these independant experts also be wrong?
Clarkeng
Wasn’t it you who had a long running debate with ecojon, where it was your opinion that the ‘leave to appeal’ would be refused because there was ‘no point if law’ to base said appeal.
Apologies in advance if it was somebody else.
@Bud
No it was me who had the debate with ecojon but your slightly mistaken on the point I made.
Just to clarify – I said if they did appeal then it would have to be on a point of law and that on the basis of what I had read I could not see how Ms Poon offered anything in that direction in support of this – you may recall the dissenting opinion was being given more credibility on here than the majority verdict.
The other point I made continually was at that time that there had been no announcement that they had actually sought permission to appeal and hence all supposed “verdicts” were no more than premature ejaculation.
At the time I was correct although some would now obviously claim I had got it wrong given the hindsight that the appeal has been given permission to proceed.
Hey ho!!
Bring it on.
Clarkeng
Thanks for clarifying that.
There didn’t appear to be any clarification in the official statement on what the appeal was based on. Given that you think it must be on a point of law, have you any thoughts on which point[s] it might be?
@Bud
No I dont and as there will be no new evidence led it makes it all the more interesting.
You would have to assume that somewhere in the findings that the case law referred to by the majority was not appropriate but the difficulty I have is that I have not seen anything Ms Poon has written which says that.
I dont say it is impossible but I find it hard to contemplate that the two experts who found for Rangers could be wrong given the details provided by them which explained how they had arrived at their conclusion whilst as I have said previously I did not find Ms Poons arguments to be so well explained particularly in relation to said case law.
She seemed to me to focus too heavily on the perceived failings of MIH officials without explaining under which context in legal terms that rendered the case to be found in rejecting the appeal.
Clarkeng
Thanks again.Perhaps whoever allowed the appeal felt that differing interpretations of case law should be clarified by the upper tribunal. We shall have to wait and see.
@clarkeng
How can they possibly be wrong?
It’s all a misunderstanding don’t you know?
Let’s get the kiddies buckets and spades out; we’re drawing lines in the sand.
You may recall the auld ‘sonny pon’ doon Glesga Green? (a children’s sand pit and pond). A bygone era of simple pleasures; when fitba was a sport.
@Ray
Many a skint erse I got playing at the Green.
It wisnae a place to be slide tackling.
I have been asking myself that very question.
How can you all be so wrong and think only the worst?
Ah well lines in the sand it is.
Remember dont be crossin ma line or ah will huv tae be crossin yours!
@Bud
There would appear to be three possible options available to the UTTT.
They can uphold the appeal, they can reject the appeal or they can send it back to the FTTT to reconsider.
Maybe Ray can give us odds on each.
Clarkeng
You stated your points as facts, when in fact they represent peoples opinions.
This affair has attracted a lot of comment and opinion.
Do you believe that there is any merit in discussing the implications of the FTTT or the SPLIC. You seem to imply that us numpties should not question the reports, their decisions or sanctions.
@Den
Apologies have only just seen this.
Discussing the implications is one thing and if that is all that is happening well obviously people are entitled to their opinion.
I have no objection to people expressing their opinion.
Similarly I have no objection to people questioning things.
However and herein lies the main issue in my own view – we select in society people who are considered worthy by way of education or because they have been elected to make laws on our behalf and when things go wrong we ask them to adjudicate.
Clearly not everyone is going to agree with the decision handed down and there are appeal systems in place to deal with this.
The general consensus on here is that any such adjudication by the people we as a society appoint which does not agree with the mindset on here is at best flawed but most likely corrupt and based on religious bigotry.
If the learned members of society are completely ridiculed on the basis that the decisions they come to which fall within the laws passed by our society are considered corrupt how do you deal with the dissenting minority.
Or more pertinently why does the dissenting minority feel in a country which prides itself on human rights that the justiciary and their decisions are not to be trusted.
Has this been a teaching of their religion, has it been suggested because of their political beliefs or is it just paranoia?
Enlighten me.
I cannot for the life of me fathom how some of the suggestions on here arise except that it must be in the warped mindset of the masses who falsely claim they are oppressed.
But surely that phobia does not exist in 2013.
From what I have read, Nimmo Smith et al have effectively returned a not proven verdict which if I’m not mistaken means we think you did it but cannae prove it, ya bas!!?
Now comes an honest question. Could every SPL fan of the clubs that were in the SPL during Rangers’ (IL) tenure of honest mistakes bring a civil action against the former club for doing them out of hard-earned cash? I say this because I am sure thousands of fans have followed their team only to find out the game was “rigged” or at the very least the dice were loaded in the former Ibrox club’s favour, allegedly.
Can I offer an objective view and a link to full result which clearly stated ” no sporting advantage was sought ” but let’s not cloud over the facts just to believe what a disgraced lawyer who requires supervision to practice who uses copy and paste segments to distort what was actually written.
He also does not mention Nimmo Smiths thoughts on why the S.P.L. commission was set up stating ( 98 ) the illegal documents published by the BBC on there website was the trigger for the S.P.L. excuse my paraphrase . Says a lot for the S.P.L.
So according to our disgraced lawyer when the commission stated
[105] It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive
advantage in that respect.
So 3 top Q.C.s say they sought no competitive advantage yet our disgrace layer intimates otherwise WHY ? bias or hatred take you’re pick
Here is link to full judgement which the Celtic and S.P.L. lawyer and Prosecutor Mr McKenzie was also forced to accept the proper interpretation of the S.P.L.rules , Read it all and form you’re own opinion and just don’t blindly accept a disgraced lawyer who requires supervision cut and paste and clearly biased view.
Click to access Commission%20Decision%2028%2002%202013.pdf