Sunday, May 29, 2022

The Ernie B Thread

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

Guest Blogger
Guest Bloggers are drawn from SFM members and beyond. The opinions in Guest Blogs are not necessarily shared or endorsed by SFM. If you would like to submit a guest blog to SFM, let us know.

Related Articles

435 COMMENTS


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

    AULDHEID,

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

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


  6. Here is another question.

    If RFC had not hid any side letters but still lost the BTC and went bust, is that cheating too?


  7. ERNEST BECKERDECEMBER 1, 2017 at 12:38

    In footballing terms – no.

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

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

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

    I’ll set you a question.

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

    The side letters just failed the litmus test.


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

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


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

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


  13. SMUGAS,

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

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

    Title stripping is based on player ineligibility, nothing else.

    Have you changed your mind?


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

    What did the side letters say?


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


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


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

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

    But you are entitled to change your mind,understandable.

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


  18. ALLYJAMBO,

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


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

    Maybe because i left school decades ago.


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

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

    Do you know what was in the side letters?


  21. Loans don’t materialise out of thin air in anyone’s language either. 

    Not suggesting they do, still does not make them earnings does it now?

    Not changed my mind nor my question, do you know what was in the side letters,yes or no will suffice.


  22.  Unfortunately now and again someone joins the site who is bent on distorting every opinion and fact presented. I’m sorry to say that Ernest b., in my opinion, falls into that category.  

    That is the beauty of free speech,it is all about all inclusive opinions.


  23. No.  But the lack of any funds to make a loan would kind of make it immaterial wouldn’t it?  
    =======================================

    The players received their loans,so no lack of funds.


  24.  now declared illegal

    SC ruled the loans to be earnings,non compliant of tax laws, owing tax.

    Nothing illegal.


  25. re side letters I’ve actually forgotten so yes and no!  Was it a contractual obligation to pay relative to services rendered, what any language would call ‘earnings’ or was it an offer to pay tax should the scam fall through.  I forget which. Sorry.

    =====================================
    Do you know if the amounts declared to the SPL included the loans or not?


  26. WOODSTEIN,

    Thanks for that info.

    So RFC declared earnings but hid loans from the football authorities, not good,rule breach,close to cheating imo.

    However had RFC shown the loan side letters would the SPL have declared the extra amounts as earnings, the answer is no,they are not tax experts,only the players earnings would have been registered.
    This leaves us with the thorny issue of retrospective action,and it is a tricky one.
    If RFC had declared the loans side letters and the SPL accepted them as loans not earnings,what happens years later if the courts decide they are earnings? I suggest nothing, it would be unfair to retrospectively sanction a club for fielding ineligible players based on a complex tax ruling years and years later.
    This being the case i fail to see how not declaring side letters changes anything,apart from that there is no rule that enables retrospective ineligibility anyway and i can understand why.

    My conclusion is this, if one takes a holistic view of the intentions,actions and events and ignores the logical category differences then one should apply the same holistic approach to consequences.
    It is either start from lowest tier,3 year Europe ban and loss of 40 million or back in SPL and go for title stripping,either way the club is not dead.
    Fin


  27. Ernest BeckerDecember 1, 2017 at 22:55 (Edit) 
    SMUGAS, 
    LNS is an expert in logic that is why he stated the concealment of side letters in of themselves did not give a sporting advantage,he based this on the premise both DOS and EBT were not illegal,understandable since RFC were not being charged with fraud or tax evasion.Where some get confused is LNS used the word ” unlawful” which they assume refers to Tax Law,this is another category mistake.
    ===============
    His premise that both DOS and EBTS were not irregular (the word LNS did use) was wrong at the time LNS considered the matter. An FTT had found the DOS ebts illegal/irregular in October 2010. LNS treated both as continuous as in one followed the other but one (the DOS) had been judged illegal/irregular in an FTT that outranks LNS, a hired hand of the SPL,  in terms of authority.
    As I think I may have mentioned  the HMRC documentation that  would have informed LNS of such illegality was not provided by RFC administrators when requested by the SPL in 2012. That same documentation also demonstrated dishonesty, but had to be kept from the SPL lawyers investigating the use of all ebts since July 1999 because the De Boer side letter and documentation relating to it could not have been provided, otherwise the LNS Commission range would have started from 30 August 2000, the date of the earliest side letter.
    I like the mixed metaphors of elephants and fish but the wee tax case is all the evidence needed of what is know as “previous” as well as cover up.
    A judgement based on error cannot be sound, nor can the implications based on that judgement.
    RFC found a way to pay players more than their rivals clubs could use and stay within the law. To do what they did RFC had to conceal part of the contract with players from HMRC and the SFA/SPL.
    In doing so they broke registration rules designed to deter/stop under the counter payments to players.
    This in effect diverted money that should have gone to the public purse into players pockets – theft actually.
    The motivation, as SDM stated was to give RFC a competitive advantage in the player wage market and it matters nought whether the players hired were better than their rivals.
    What matters is that the rivals could not honestly use the same method. THAT is were the cheating occurred and where LNS got it fundamentally wrong. His justification for no sporting advantage was that all clubs could have used ebts as RFC had.
    ” Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law– so as to minimise its tax liabilities.”
    Other clubs couldn’t arrange their tax affairs as RFC had without breaking the law. 
    Sporting advantage or not, although the perceived wisdom is that the higher the wage the better the player, clearly demonstrated by the difference in quality between Celtic and their rivals, with the difference that no football rules were or are being broken by Celtic and no theft was involved, is not the issue, cheating their rivals is and in using ebts in a way that their rivals could not lawfully use , RFC did cheat them.
    No question, using LNS own logic – based on restricted information to be fair to him.
    Should the points have been deducted?
    Possibly not if the failure to register side letters was an honest but deliberate mistake and  that all ebts were legal and only registration rules were broken.
    However  there was dishonesty LNS was unaware of (cynics might disagree, I couldn’t possibly comment) and some of the ebts LNS treated as regular were not.
    Now had all the evidence been supplied (and from what Doncaster and McKenzie said after the SC ruled, the question of dishonesty was never part of the LNS Commission) the Commission would have been in new territory as LNS himself recognised.
    ” There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.”
    Nothing makes a player registration more fundamentally defective than lying to authorities actively or passively, and the same individuals who lied to HMRC are the ones who kept the same information they withheld from HMRC from the SFA. LNS did not know that.
    Quite what SFA Article RFC would have been charged with is unclear but somewhere in the version of Article 5 of SFA Articles of the period from 2000 that sets out responsibilities of members of the SFA lies the answer.
    The current version states at Article 5.1 (f)
    5.1 All members shall:-
    (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.
    Maybe in 2000 the idea that any club would require this to be in the rules was unthinkable but it is hardly a reason not to treat what RFC did from then as a fundamental defect.
    Back then bringing the game into disrepute would probably be in the rules, but in the disrepute charges that were brought against RFC in 2012 they were never charged with doing anything wrong or dishonest prior to CW’s takeover, and he wasn’t charged with non payment  of the wee tax bill red herring that had its genesis in August 2000 when RFC under SDM acted disreputably to Scottish football…. 


  28. Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 01:21
    ‘…This being the case i fail to see how not declaring side letters changes anything,apart from that there is no rule that enables retrospective ineligibility anyway and i can understand why.’
    ________
    You fail to see  lot of things.

    A certain lawyer had the most peculiar views on rules about ‘eligibility’ as he gave ‘evidence’ to the magical , circular, LNS enquiry.

    You appear to have the same peculiar views.

    You are attempting to defend the most outrageous act of sports cheating ever committed in Scottish Football, and to defend a  most blatantly corrupt Football governance body in its corruption in facilitating  that cheating.

    You are, frankly, quite wrong in defending liars and cheats. And actually quite useless in  the attempt, to boot.

    Because the most sophisticated, specious argumentation on behalf of falsehood simply cannot overcome the simple truth:

    SDM cheated,

    CW killed the club,

    SevcoScotland are not Rangers 1872,

    and the SFA are a seriously compromised ‘Governance’ body.

    Respect yourself as a person.

    Do not sell yourself to a lie.


  29. Fan of Football.
    There is only one man who saddled the old club with unpayable debts (forget the old £18m nonsense ) and it was not CW.

    CW has to bear some responsibility,SDM got the club into dire straits no argument but nobody forced CW to buy RFC and a normal buyer of a debt ridden company usually puts more than £1 in to turn the business round.
    A high risk investor would have bought the business for 18 million,sold some high earners and ran it like Lloyds had been running it but with more spending cuts,the BTC took another 5 years to resolve which is plenty time to turn RFC into a sustainable and viable business,not dependant on CL income to make a profit. Basically do a Celtic and have an equal chance at CL revenue,Europa at worst.
    HMRC would have accepted a payment plan over years because they got what they wanted.

    His business plan was reckless because he had nothing to lose.


  30. Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 01:21 (Edit) WOODSTEIN,
    Thanks for that info.
    So RFC declared earnings but hid loans from the football authorities, not good,rule breach,close to cheating imo.
    However had RFC shown the loan side letters would the SPL have declared the extra amounts as earnings, the answer is no,they are not tax experts,only the players earnings would have been registered.
    ==================
    Correct the SPL are not tax experts, but HMRC are and HMRC called at Hampden in 2009 to look at player contracts and ascertain if there were side letters.
    Someone with HMRC experience can confirm, but I imagine that HMRC would not just turn up at Hampden without some justification being provided, and the idea that the SFA/SPL had they been told that these payments were loans would not have contacted HMRC for advice is too far a stretch even for an organisation as incompetent as the SFA, unless they did suspect irregularity but didn’t want to know.
    All it would have taken was RFC seeking confirmation from SFA/SPL that they were correct not to include the loans as earnings and RFC would have been in the clear if SFA said no problem, so why didn’t they ask? Why did RFC not wave an SFA waiver in front of the FTT and LNS but for the same reason they lied about side letters to HMRC?
    1. Possibly losing the advantage over other clubs irregular use of ebts gave them.
    2. Having to cough up the back tax owed.
    The problem with your points based on rules and Articles is that they depend on trust and honesty to be of themselves a reliable indication of conformity. The minute you lie to stay within the rules is the minute the rules and the defence based on them mean SFA. 
    I have no problem with RFC being treated as the same club in football terms (they just aren’t legally)  if the trophies and titles won during the period of ebt use were surrendered.
    I think any decent Rangers man acquainted of all the facts would not want to be associated with them either. More than that it would send out a signal to the supporters of other clubs that the club now playing in the SPFL recognised right from wrong and so could be relied on to act honestly in future. As it stands, and you contribute to it, your club are not trusted nor are the SFA for enabling the present situation to be created.
    There is a saying “if you love something let it go” letting go the idea Rangers acted properly towards fellow clubs and their supporters since 2000 and accepting the consequences would be loving your club. Trust me.


  31. John clark
    Your post below was so on the money ,i thought it deserved to be reposted

    For someone to even attempt to defend the issue of side letters to players ,really does beggar belief 

     DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 01:54 10 0 Rate This
    Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 01:21‘…This being the case i fail to see how not declaring side letters changes anything,apart from that there is no rule that enables retrospective ineligibility anyway and i can understand why.

    ’________You fail to see  lot of things.
    A certain lawyer had the most peculiar views on rules about ‘eligibility’ as he gave ‘evidence’ to the magical , circular, LNS enquiry.
    You appear to have the same peculiar views.

    You are attempting to defend the most outrageous act of sports cheating ever committed in Scottish Football, and to defend a  most blatantly corrupt Football governance body in its corruption in facilitating  that cheating.
    You are, frankly, quite wrong in defending liars and cheats. And actually quite useless in  the attempt, to boot.
    Because the most sophisticated, specious argumentation on behalf of falsehood simply cannot overcome the simple truth:

    SDM cheated,

    CW killed the club,

    SevcoScotland are not Rangers 1872,
    and the SFA are a seriously compromised ‘Governance’ body.

    Respect yourself as a person.
    Do not sell yourself to a lie.


  32. Ernest BeckerDecember 1, 2017 at 23:40 
    ALLYJAMBO,EB, are you telling us that you do not know that a player’s full remuneration must be included in his contract and registered correctly for the player to be eligible to play in the, then, SPLI know this,now back to my question what was in the side letters?
    ___________________________________

    If you knew this, why are you asking such stupid questions about them, and again, if you don’t know what was in the side letters, where have you been these last six years, they’ve been discussed an infinite number of times throughout the internet over that six years. though, admittedly, not to any depth by the SMSM?

    To be honest, anyone who has been paying attention, but still finds it necessary to ask these questions, is either at the wind up thinking he is some super squirrel, or is extremely thick! You choose which one it is!


  33. Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 00:52 
    re side letters I’ve actually forgotten so yes and no! Was it a contractual obligation to pay relative to services rendered, what any language would call ‘earnings’ or was it an offer to pay tax should the scam fall through. I forget which. Sorry.
    =====================================Do you know if the amounts declared to the SPL included the loans or not?
    _________________________-

    Again, you are showing yourself up as a man who knows absolutely nothing about the subject he has been spouting about for the last three or four weeks. Everybody who has paid the tiniest bit of attention to this saga and how Rangers operated their EBTs knows the answer to that one. No, they did not declare the ‘loans’ to the SPL, or the SFA. They deliberately withheld all such information, and as has been proven in court, calling a payment a loan doesn’t make it a loan. But if you needed a Supreme Court decision to appraise you of that fact, you must be extremely thick, for it is so obvious to all but the dimmest, that just because you call a payment a loan, doesn’t make it a loan, much in the same way that calling a football club ‘Rangers’ doesn’t make them the Rangers that died in 2012.


  34. ERNEST BECKER
    DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 01:21 
    However had RFC shown the loan side letters would the SPL have declared the extra amounts as earnings, the answer is no,they are not tax experts,only the players earnings would have been registered.

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

    As I understand it the “side letters” related to the money being paid into the trust, they were not “loan side letters” they related to contractual bonuses.

    Are you suggesting that the football authorities need only be told about basic salaries and are not interested in bonuses. I would imagine a fair proportion of a football player’s income comes from performance bonuses.

    In fact you only have to look at the EBT amounts to see that. 


  35. Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 01:21 
    WOODSTEIN,Thanks for that info.So RFC declared earnings but hid loans from the football authorities, not good,rule breach,close to cheating imo.However had RFC shown the loan side letters would the SPL have declared the extra amounts as earnings, the answer is no,they are not tax experts,only the players earnings would have been registered.This leaves us with the thorny issue of retrospective action,and it is a tricky one.If RFC had declared the loans side letters and the SPL accepted them as loans not earnings,what happens years later if the courts decide they are earnings? I suggest nothing, it would be unfair to retrospectively sanction a club for fielding ineligible players based on a complex tax ruling years and years later.This being the case i fail to see how not declaring side letters changes anything,apart from that there is no rule that enables retrospective ineligibility anyway and i can understand why.My conclusion is this, if one takes a holistic view of the intentions,actions and events and ignores the logical category differences then one should apply the same holistic approach to consequences.It is either start from lowest tier,3 year Europe ban and loss of 40 million or back in SPL and go for title stripping,either way the club is not dead.Fin
    _____________________

    Are you sure you didn’t learn your case pleading ‘expertise’ from the Nuremberg Trials?

    Former Feldwebel Ernst Becker said in his defence, ‘Until we lost the war in 1945, we all believed that it was OK to murder millions of Jews. So, if one takes a holistic view of our intentions, actions and events and ignores the logical character differences between genocide and murder, then one should apply the same holistic approach to the consequences that we Huns now find ourselves facing! We lost the war and it would be so very unfair of you to take action that might prevent us from enjoying all the trophies we picked up while stamping our jackboots all over Europe!’ 

    PS, ‘holistic view/approach’, now who was it introduced that phrase to the lexicon of Scottish football? Wasn’t it a man not noted for his honesty and ability to string a sentence together without telling a lie?


  36.  But if you needed a Supreme Court decision to appraise you of that fact, you must be extremely thick, for it is so obvious to all but the dimmest, that just because you call a payment a loan, doesn’t make it a loan

    I am confused,maybe you can help me out here,can you explain to me why such an obvious distinction did not fall at the first hurdle,why did the First Tier Tax Tribunal rule EBTs to be loans not earnings?


  37. ERNEST BECKER
    DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 13:13 

    I am confused,maybe you can help me out here,can you explain to me why such an obvious distinction did not fall at the first hurdle,why did the First Tier Tax Tribunal rule EBTs to be loans not earnings?
    =================================

    That’s an easy one. There were two lawyers and an accountant.

    The two lawyers got it wrong.


  38. Who is conning whom? Ernest Becker. Beware,this  man has a black belt in obfuscation!
    There’s a lot of ignorance out there.


  39. The two lawyers got it wrong.

    This is hardly evidence of an obvious easy distinction is it now,even with side letters.

    No wonder there is no retrospective ineligibility,these titles would be going back and forward like the proverbial yo-yo.
    I think cheating should be obvious and easy to prove,and anyone with a functioning brain can see this was not an easy or obvious case.


  40. SMUGAS,
    The two lawyers went with the failed lawyers original hypothesis that they were loans which they were.

    Interesting,these two lawyers must be as dim and extremely thick as me to make such an obvious error.


  41. ERNEST BECKER
    DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 13:47 

    The two lawyers got it wrong.
    =======================================

    This is hardly evidence of an obvious easy distinction is it now,even with side letters.

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

    Loads of people saw it, including as Smugas explained, Dr Poon.

    HMRC certainly saw it when they assessed that the tax was due. Before the two lawyers made their  mistake.

    RTC saw it and pretty much everyone who responded to his blog understood it.


  42. ERNEST BECKER
    DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 13:53 

    Interesting,these two lawyers must be as dim and extremely thick as me to make such an obvious error.
    ================================

    Whatever the reason, they got it wrong. As did you. 

    Fortunately the Court of Session and the Supreme Court didn’t make the same mistake. Now hundreds of millions in avoided tax will have to be repaid. 

    At least something good came out of Rangers’ stealing. 


  43. Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 13:13 
    But if you needed a Supreme Court decision to appraise you of that fact, you must be extremely thick, for it is so obvious to all but the dimmest, that just because you call a payment a loan, doesn’t make it a loan
    I am confused,maybe you can help me out here,can you explain to me why such an obvious distinction did not fall at the first hurdle,why did the First Tier Tax Tribunal rule EBTs to be loans not earnings?
    _____________________

    Either because two out of the three judges were Masons, or, they, themselves, are in favour of tax-dodges, or, they knew what was required for the greater good of the country, and that was to set in motion a test case that would go all the way to the Supreme Court, where the obvious result would ensure that the country would recoup many millions in previously unpaid taxes, from a lot more people than benefited from the dodge at Ibrox.

    Regardless, however, of whatever it was that made their lordships reach such an unfathomable decision, the EBT payments were never, ever loans, they were just structured in such a way as to appear to be loans.

    Going into the world of your fantasy, if they were loans, why do you think it was necessary for Rangers to issue these side letters to indemnify the beneficiaries against future income tax, while at the same time promising the payments would be made? You seem so certain that they were loans you must have a very good explanation for these side letters to a ‘loan’. Can you give examples of other instances of side letters accompanying loans? Can you explain why it is that, despite having to ask so much about the circumstances surrounding Rangers’ use of EBTs, you seem to consider yourself qualified to state, quite categorically, that they were, in fact, genuine loans?


  44. RTC saw it and pretty much everyone who responded to his blog understood it.

    Indeed,maybe in the interest of fairness all future deliberations should be made by football fans,it is obvious objective legally trained minds are dim and extremely thick.

    What concerns me about this scenario is football fans cannot even agree what is a penalty.


  45. Either because two out of the three judges were Masons, or, they, themselves, are in favour of tax-dodges, or, they knew what was required for the greater good of the country,

    Is this a transcript of HMRC’s appeal to the SC?

    The sooner we get football fans in to replace all lawyers the better.


  46. ERNEST BECKER
    DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 14:14 
    What concerns me about this scenario is football fans cannot even agree what is a penalty.
    ==============================

    It’s surely more concerning that lawyers can’t agree what is a payments and what is a loan.

    Unsurprisingly a highly trained accountancy expert understood tax matters better than lawyers did.


  47. ERNEST BECKER
    DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 14:19 

    Is this a transcript of HMRC’s appeal to the SC?
    ==============================

    HMRC didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court


  48. You seem so certain that they were loans you must have a very good explanation for these side letters

    You seem to be confusing me for a straw man,if you read back you will see nothing but uncertainty,withholding belief and complexity.
    On the other hand i am being faced by certain football fans who think this was an obvious case and Masonic lawyers are dim and extremely thick.


  49. ERNEST BECKER
    DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 14:28 
    … lawyers are dim and extremely thick.
    ============================

    You are the only person saying that, trying to twist the argument away from the simple truth.

    They go it wrong.


  50. You are the only person saying that, trying to twist the argument away from the simple truth.

    I believe my argument is the truth in this case was not simple.


  51. Moderators
    Could you please delete Ernest Becker from the blog as soon as possible.  His contributions are perverse & dishonest & the blog has become unreadable for the daily browser.
    Thanks


  52. Cluster OneDecember 2, 2017 at 21:52 
    ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 2, 2017 at 21:23I have to admit, though, that no matter how tiresome I find EB, I am in the Auldheid camp and enjoy the re-awakening of the OC/NC and EBT debates, and I do feel it important that anyone new to this site, not only gets the opportunity to read, perhaps for the first time, our thoughts on the matter, but isn’t left feeling that by our failure to respond, someone like EB has won the argument.————-And after some four weeks and asking ok convince me it’s still the same club.I have not been convinced it is,and anyone new looking in who thought for a moment oh wait maybe EB has something here will walk away saying good try but must try harder
    __________________

    My point, though, is that had no one responded, or if after a few attempts we’d given him the stage to say what he wanted, some people might have thought he had a point that we were unable to counter.

    I have to admit, though, that I would have supported the mods if they’d decided to chuck him after a week of nonsensical posts and refusal to answer questions requesting clarification on what it was he was trying to say, let alone have us believe. 

    The thing is, I don’t believe the trolls come on here to influence us, rather they hope to have something to crow about over on the TRFC supporter sites to continue to blindside the bears. No problem for me if they succeed. I’ll be very surprised if there’s no posts on those sites saying something like, ‘that Ernest Becker isn’t half running rings round SFM’. They come over here, read his posts while ignoring the responses, and bingo, the RIFC AGM was a roaring success and ‘We Are The People’. You have to remember that thousands of the bears will see the guy who asked King about his school as some sort of hero!


  53. Murty has done more than enough to convince me he is worth a punt until season end and it is the cheapest option.
    Rangers overspending is planned and not unexpected,there is a world of difference between the two.
    Directors have agreed to fund the losses incurred by increasing player wages from 6 to 10 million as promised 
    Retail will kick in next year and the big ticket item is Europa income.
    CFC is a selling club,and come January i believe some of their diamonds will depart,BR will be gone in the summer,in effect the more successful CFC become the more likely it is players and manager will depart.
    It may take a few years but CFC are constrained by domestic revenue and the commercial gap between the two clubs will shrink to a competitive level.
    RFC is now a stalking horse this season and it will be interesting to see if CFC can handle a pressurised run in for the first time in 5 years,especially without some of their talent.
    If Scottish football has to be rugged because it has little skill then don’t blame your kids and grand kids from supporting teams who can actually play football,no wonder refs are under constant pressure our game is glorified Junior football thuggery.
    p.s. Ryan Jack is brainless.


  54. Ernest BeckerDecember 3, 2017 at 23:14
    ————-
    Wow, 11 definitive , clearly written  statements, Ernest( whichever of the dual personality you are tonight):

    With two of which I agree (“Murty..is worth a punt for the job”) and (“Ryan Jack is brainless”).

    The others are no more than pious ( or, perhaps in your case, impious) aspirations!

    Whereas my statement (not being a  PR conman masquerading as a ‘genuine’ poster) that TRFC Ltd is Not Rangers FC 1872 is a statement of absolute truth and reality.

    This blog is not focused on ordinary  inter-club rivalry, but on an insistence that cheating in sport by any club is to be condemned, that lying by any club in order to cheat its way to ‘sporting’ success is not to be tolerated, and that a Football governance body that assists a particular club so to lie is an abomination.

    RFC(IL) cheated big-time. They lied about their tax debt. They lied about what they were paying their players.

    And were aided and abetted by the SFA all the way through.

    Personally, I have no interest in the fortunes ( or lack of fortune) of the new club, TRFC Ltd.


  55. This blog is not focused on ordinary  inter-club rivalry,

    Strange,i must have imagined the endless stream of posts on Rangers financial state,Rangers replacement manager and Rangers Chairman.
    Thought i would mention another club to provide some balance to proceedings.
    Your objection is overruled.


  56. Ernest BeckerDecember 4, 2017 at 02:07
    ‘..This blog is not focused on ordinary  inter-club rivalry’
    ________________
    You talkin’ to me?
    I’ve asked you before to identify which posters or posts  you are referring to when you come back with a smart-ass reply.
    The watch that is being assiduously kept on the affairs of the new club are, as far as I am concerned, not a reflection of any interest in that club, but to make sure that there is no more chicanery on the part of the SFA to further aid that struggling club (which of course is living a lie, and is on that account alone deserving of nothing but scorn as a cuckoo in the nest of Scottish football)
    As I have said more than once:acknowledge that TRFC Ltd is NOT RFC(IL), acknowledge that it has no claim on the sporting history of RFC(IL), and acknowledge that RFC(IL) itself was not entitled to many of the honours and titles that it ‘won’ by cheating: and acknowledge tht some of the Board of TRFC Ltd are no more honest sportsmen than were the Board members of RFC(IL) before it was sold to Whyte,as well as after it was sold.
    ‘fess up that TRFC Ltd is a living mockery of sport and sporting integrity.
    And there might be a chance of rehabilitation, once the bad guys are out of both the club and the SFA.


  57. John Clark commented on Who Is Conning Whom?.
    Ernest BeckerDecember 4, 2017 at 02:07‘..This blog is not focused on ordinary  inter-club rivalry’________________You talkin’ to me?I’ve asked you before to identify which posters or posts  you are referring to when you come back with a smart-ass reply.

    Think that clearly means you’re not sitting on the fence JC 20…and bloody well said too 04


  58. As I have said more than once:acknowledge that TRFC Ltd is NOT RFC(IL), acknowledge that it has no claim on the sporting history of RFC(IL), and acknowledge that RFC(IL) itself was not entitled to many of the honours and titles that it ‘won’ by cheating: and acknowledge tht some of the Board of TRFC Ltd are no more honest sportsmen than were the Board members of RFC(IL) before it was sold to Whyte,as well as after it was sold.

    I have given this a great deal of thought and looked deep into my soul,here is my problem:

    The verb ” to acknowledge ” means ” to accept the existence of truth “.
    The noun ” truth ” means ” in accordance with fact or reality”.
    Reality in Scottish football is determined by the SFA,they are the custodian of the facts and calling them corrupt does not alter this truth.
    So despite my best intentions i cannot comply with your requests but i still hope we can be friends.



  59. dear Ernest BeckerDecember 5, 2017
    You were shite on Random they are saying and you are shite on here they seem to be saying. Seems other sites are having their say on you and are calling you out. Would the real slim shady please stand.please stand up..please stand up.

    SFM normally shut Steerpike down after a couple of days but they seem to have accepted him in his latest guise. They know who he is – that arrogant, condescending style is unmistakable – but they’re tolerating him nonetheless. He has even started posting in a second identity to support his own arguments!  I’ve never understood why he bothers as he convinces no-one but he’s certainly dedicated – does he have nothing else to do? It’s all very bizarre. He wouldn’t get away with it on JJ’s site – well, not unless he paid of course.

    they could of course be wrong ( been nice) but they have you down as a roaster anyway ah well, i did say last time you’re number was up.


  60. The reason for the delay in approaching Aberdeen to speak to their manager has now been revealed as an altruistic act of true sportsmanship by Dave King(pbuh).
    DK waited until after the double header knowing these fixtures would be compromised by an early approach and protracted negotiation,he obviously considered an associate club’s position and decided winning at all costs was less important than fellowship.
    Aberdeen have declined and some are jumping to the wrong conclusion,if RFC are short of cash now then they were short 5 weeks ago, ergo a cash shortage does not explain the delay nor Aberdeen’s refusal.
    It appears even when DK sacrifices the interests of RFC for the interests of Scottish football his actions are distorted and twisted by some. 
    Derek will be in charge of RFC by the weekend,managing Rangers is a dream job for any ambitious Scottish manager.


  61.  the collapse of the second strongest team in Scottish football in not just one, but TWO, matches against at best a very, very, very mediocre team, of which to be manager is a lifetime ambition of the current manager of that second strongest team.

    Aberdeen has been creaking since they sold some key players,they were the second strongest team in previous seasons but getting humped at home by Motherwell showed they were not the force of old.
    Rangers has taken time to gel with an influx of new players but now seem to be getting their act together, just in time to tackle a fragile Celtic team ring rusty of any real competition.
    The weakness of a one horse race is CFC are not used to handling any real pressure,the title run is going to be nothing but pressure because Rangers are not going away anytime soon.


  62. ‘Ernest BeckerDecember 6, 2017 at 00:38’
    ‘..Derek will be in charge of RFC by the weekend,managing Rangers is a dream job for any ambitious Scottish manager’
    _____________
    Managing the club that ‘Walter’ managed might indeed be a dream job, for some.
    But managing a 5-year old club called Trfc Ltd , illegitimately procreated by the fornication of the SFA with CG is hardly the same thing.
    (Dear God, that I should waste even a second of my time responding to the serpent of untruth!)


  63. Another cracker from C Jack in the Herald,”It is understood that the Gers opted to do the honourable thing and wait until after the Premiership double-header with Aberdeen last week before making an official approach for the Reds boss.” 

    Obviously read my post last night,my sources are impeccable just like Phil’s.


  64. I do not see Dave King as a particularly intelligent man

    He and his fellow lenders would have to be deranged to keep lending money on an “UNSECURED ” basis if the business had serious financial issues,unlike CW they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by being reckless.


  65. Ernest BeckerDecember 6, 2017 at 11:49 
    I do not see Dave King as a particularly intelligent man
    He and his fellow lenders would have to be deranged to keep lending money on an “UNSECURED ” basis if the business had serious financial issues,unlike CW they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by being reckless.
    ————

    Wasn’t what I was referring to when I said I do not see him as a particularly intelligent man, look back at my post and you will see what I used to qualify that statement, ie, his dealings with authorities that aren’t within his thrall. That man seems to have spent so much time conning people he believes everyone, including High Court judges, to be susceptible to his lies. Being very good at lying to and cheating gullible/desperate people does not equate to intelligence. As to what you say as suggesting King is intelligent (I think that’s what you are trying to show) because he’s encouraged a few rich bears to lend the club millions, well, lending money to a football club is seldom done after intelligent research, having more to do with childhood dreams, and is downright stupid when lending millions without security. 

    Here’s something that is well known amongst intelligent people. If you want to turn a large fortune into a small one, buy a football club!

    King’s partners in his consortium look to be trying that one out for size.

    Oh, and a group of businessmen indulging themselves in a loss making venture doesn’t indicate intelligence any more than one person doing it. And I’ll say it again, because you seem to think the opposite, lending money to any loss making business without security is downright stupid! While lending money to same, with security, doesn’t indicate intelligence either.


  66. Has King also signed a ~24m personal guarantee then?

    I have seriously tried to make sense of this but i have to admit defeat.

    Are you asking about the validity of New Oasis Ltd’s undertaking to fund a further 4 million and 3.2 million?
    If so DK seems to have proven to those with everything to lose New Oasis Ltd has the available funds and will part with it,since the security of existing 15.9 million loans depends on this undertaking i suggest if they are happy who are we to cast aspersions.
    “The Board is satisfied that those parties will continue to provide financial support to the Group and have satisfied themselves as to the validity of the undertakings”.



  67. A PLC which has posted trading losses in every year of it’s existence and which has admitted it will be doing the same this year, and next. Which will have to have a £20m share issue just to pay off loans. Which has no proper banking facilities and no line of credit other than it’s own shareholders. In fact it seems all but one shareholder has had enough, and that one is a convicted fraudster, so hardly what one would describe as a certainty to make good on his promises.

    A business analyst in assessing the viability of RFC would chuck the first 4 years accounts in the bin,in the SPL and out the SPL are two different business models,the losses were paid for by unsecured interest free loans soon to be converted into shares.This draws a line under a commercially irrelevant model outside the top tier.
    Losses in the SPL and future losses are part of a growth strategy,investing an extra 4 million in player wages is expected to result in a higher turnover,not pie in the sky given RFC previous turnover when in the SPL and not in Europe was around 35 million.
    I cannot think of any club in Scotland that is getting new credit from banks.
    If other lenders have had enough then they would demand their loans be secured,they haven’t.

    Business is a gamble, RFC is no different but the risks are minimal.


  68. Craig Whyte had nothing to lose?  You mean apart from the personal guarantee he issued to Ticketus that was subsequently used to bankrupt him personally including losing him his house (castle).  You mean apart from that he had nothing to lose.

    I am now finding it impossible to follow your train of thought,is this connected to your previous question or is it a new topic?

    As a matter of interest i think he lost his castle for not paying a mortgage for 2 years,he was a lad.in effect CW had no assets or funds to back up his personal guarantee,so he lost nothing as i have stated.


  69. Just time to edit hopefully as saw your latest post. “SPL Losses and future losses are part of a future growth plan” Really?

    Borrowing for growth is hardly reckless if the borrowing is affordable and the growth target is realistic.
    A business analyst would look at the domestic turnover prior to liquidation for proof it was realistic,break even on a 10 million player budget is realistic.

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

Stay Connected

257FansLike
7,231FollowersFollow

Latest Articles

About SFM

SFM is a community of football fans who want to see the game in Scotland run fairly and in a manner that befits true sporting endeavour