Rangers FC Thread

Important for the upcoming sham SPL trial stick this up ur ***


69. From the Witness Statements, the formulation regarding bonus payments via the
trust was that rather than paying a bonus in some cases, a contribution was made
instead to the remuneration trust. This appeared to be the subtle course of distinction
10 in the circumstances of the arrangement that the counsel acting for the Appellants was
trying to steer the witnesses. This fine distinction, however, was not easily
maintained and under cross-examination, the responses from the employees all
seemed to suggest that there was a ‘choice’ between the payroll and the trust
mechanism, and there was ‘consent’ from the employee to go down the trust route. It
15 would also appear that the figure of bonus was then made clear after the route was
chosen; and that if the trust route was not chosen, the bonus would have been paid via
payroll, though whether it would have been grossed up or not was not clear.
 
So the Hmrc have decided we don't owe the hundreds of millions of pounds certain parties claimed we dodged and the ebts we used, of which we were accused as cheats for doing so, were administered properly and were therefore legal?
 
Rangers tax case: Tribunal rules £46.2m bill 'substantially reduced' | Rangers | Sport | STV

In full: Murray International Holdings' response to Rangers tax case | Rangers | Sport | STV

While MIH has at all times respected the privacy of the Tax Tribunal proceedings, a substantial quantity of confidential information relating to the case has become available for public consumption stimulating considerable discussion and often ill-informed debate. This has been wholly inappropriate and outwith the fundamental principles of natural justice.

"We therefore formally request that the relevant authorities investigate how these sensitive details have been released so widely. We have instructed our lawyers to retrospectively review online and printed publications relating to the case to identify whether legal redress is either appropriate or necessary."
 
da2cd1ae610e6e4c1d898a7552b7bbf8_XL.jpg


Rangers have won a significant victory in their tax battle with HMRC with a tax tribunal ruling that payments made to some Rangers players through trusts were loans.

The three-person First Tier Tax Tribunal could not reach a unanimous decision on the club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts between 2001 and 2010.

It found most of the trusts were "valid" and loans are "recoverable" by the trust, although it conceded some advances to players were taxable and any bill is likely to be "substantially reduced" from the initial £46.2m assessment.

HMRC said it was disappointed and was considering an appeal.

It said: "We are disappointed that we have lost this stage of the court process and we are considering an appeal. The decision was not unanimnous and the diligence of HMRC investigators was acknowledged by the whole tribunal. HMRC is committed to tackling avoidance and it is right that we challenge the type of avoidance seen in this case."

A statement from the tribunal said: "This was a lengthy appeal, heard over 29 days and set down over an extended period. There was extensive reference to documentary productions and relevant case-law.

"At a late stage in its deliberations it became clear that the Tribunal would be unable to issue a unanimous decision. It is conscious of and regrets the consequent delay.

"The majority view reflects the argument that the controversial monies received by the employees were not paid to them as their absolute entitlement. The legal effect of the trust/loan structure is sufficient to preclude this. Thus the payments are loans, not earnings, and so are recoverable from the employee or his estate.

"The dissenting opinion adopts the approach set down by the decision of the House of Lords in Ramsay in 1981. By giving regard to the intentions of the parties entering the arrangements, and in the absence of commercial reality for the loan structure, the monies received by the employees via the trust constitute earnings for income tax purposes.

"At the request of Parties the Tribunal agreed to anonymise the published form of the decision."

Neil Patey, Ernst & Young, said: "By a majority of two to one, the tribunal has decided that the EBTs were loans and not taxable as remuneration so there is no additional tax to pay. Rangers have won the case."

A spokesperson for Sir David Murray, owner of the club through the period in question, said: “We are satisfied that the Tax Tribunal has now published its widely awaited decision and note the contents thereof.

"We are pleased with the judgement which leaves minimal tax liability and overwhelmingly supports the views collectively and consistently held by our advisers, legal counsel and MIH itself.

"This has been an exceptionally long, difficult and expensive process involving not just the Tax Tribunal but also significant efforts to resolve the matter with senior HMRC officials on a commercially sensible basis for all parties. We will therefore review the detailed content of the decision with our advisers and legal counsel to ascertain what action, if any, is now required by MIH.

"While MIH has at all times respected the privacy of the Tax Tribunal proceedings, a substantial quantity of confidential information relating to the case has become available for public consumption stimulating considerable discussion and often ill-informed debate. This has been wholly inappropriate and outwith the fundamental principles of natural justice.

"We therefore formally request that the relevant authorities investigate how these sensitive details have been released so widely. We have instructed our lawyers to retrospectively review online and printed publications relating to the case to identify whether legal redress is either appropriate or necessary."

Rangers had been found by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to have breached tax rules through their use of employee benefit trusts (EBTs) to pay players and directors between 2001 and 2010.

The Ibrox club, then under the ownership of Sir David Murray, contested this, which resulted in the case being heard at the tribunal in Edinburgh.

Hearings in the tax case concluded in January, but its findings were not reached by the time the Ibrox club plunged into administration on February 14 this year.
 
Last edited:
major questions to be asked
heads have got to roll
and the rangers will carry on forever :D
 
The Copland Road Organization


You, journo, no more from you
by Shane Nicholson | CRO Executive Editor

What a day. As has been said all along, the 140 years of unbroken history and unmatched success that is Rangers Football Club will carry on unscathed, even if those at the helm of the headlines still refuse to take heed.

Today brought the long awaited vindication of thousands of Rangers supporters screaming out for someone with a notebook to listen, those in the journalistic upper class of Scottish society, and those who have injected themselves into it uninvited.

Today their pens carry no weight, as their word has been bought and sold repeatedly by liars and discredited professionals of all walks of life.

For you, the journalists who sold tickets for this kangaroo court via your hateful and uninspired brand of “journalism”, shame on you.

You, Britney, your duplicity knows no bounds. You got on Clyde today and pleaded no contest to charges you had pinned Rangers as guilty on the advice of the one with 3-10 names and the failed lawyer's “award winning” blog. You mocked anyone who dare point out to you that they could in fact be wrong; in fact, there was every chance that they were. You peddle vindictive lies about how our support has become more dangerous as a result of the actions taken against our club. You pretend to be one of us when it suits you. **** off.

You, Gravy Boat, today you tried to bury an “apology” in regards to your accusing our glorious away support of singing a tune that’s not found its way into the song book for many years. You spewed forth some of the most venomous bile I’ve ever seen from someone who’s paid to entertain and inform the general public. If you worked in the States you would have lost your job long ago. **** off.

You, Tomo, are lucky that you’re spending the day in Gaza or Syria or wherever the **** it is you claim to be. For if it was the case that you had readily available access to a keyboard and a reliable internet connection there is no doubt you would be stumbling all over the pile of bullshit you have gradually built via your “reporting” over the past months. You sympathize with terrorists, value your sources above human life, and have almost single-handedly rekindled a nasty and unnecessary element of Scottish football. You are dangerous, with no regard for what your dishonest and immoral take on something only loosely resembling classical journalism has done. **** off.

You, the dozen or so other journos I’ve had many conversations with via email in the past months, you who ignored and shrugged off when I tried to point out repeatedly that there was a bigger story at play here, that you could make your career meaningful if you were willing to ask basic follow up questions, that you had sitting in your lap the biggest story of your life but instead you chose to continue peddling the lies and misinformation of anonymous bloggers, **** off.

You all bought into the hype stirred up by social media. You wanted to believe it could be true so bad your ignorance and disregard for fact became comical. Even today, you couldn’t possibly wrap your head around it that your web of lies was crashing down. You spent nine months building up some form of intellectual equity on a subject you knew little about, and relied on people hiding behind avatars for your information and insight into it.

You delighted at the thought of dozens of people at Ibrox losing their jobs. You trolled employees and fans of the club with your “Newco Rangers” headlines. You are complicit in this low-ball attempt at the social engineering of a country. If there were any justice, you would all be fired tomorrow.

Sadly, you all cashed checks on the back of this, as did your editors. Some of you even won awards for regurgitating the lies and innuendo. You are supposed to be objective observers of the world around you, and watch dogs for the public without your access and sources and reliable information. You became puppets of a dangerous underclass in Scottish football and society, all the while decrying good Rangers supporters protecting the integrity and history of their club as being nothing more than common criminals.

You should be out of a job, your bosses, too. You are not journalists; you are con-artists. You work in a world where your word is your livelihood, and you have given that up. And for what? What’s your grand reward at the end of the rainbow? We are still alive, stronger than ever, and we’re not going to stop coming after you until the day comes that you can do no harm to any set of football supporters ever again, not that any single one of you would ever say such things about any supporters but those who back Rangers.

Today we won, like we always have, 140 years and counting. If you’re not used to it by now then you never will be. But if you want one fact to take into your next column or investigative exclusive or hate-filled tweet to a football fan let it be this: Rangers then, Rangers now, Rangers forever.

Now fook off.
 
Murray: Rangers collapse should not have happened | Herald Scotland

The collapse of Rangers should never have happened,
former owner Sir David Murray has claimed.

Breaking his silence over the tax tribunal ruling which cleared the oldco Rangers of making £47.6 million of illegal payments to employees, Sir David told The Herald: "Nobody has won, there is no point in me waving a big flag and saying we have won – Rangers has been destroyed."

The former chairman, who sold Rangers to Craig Whyte for £1 in May last year, said the handling of the case by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) had not only killed Rangers but had raised serious questions about the publicity surrounding the case.

"There is going to be a lot of litigation now because the leakage on this is frightening," Sir David said, adding that his Murray International Holdings (MIH) group had copies of emails which demonstrated the leaking of confidential details.

MIH has instructed its lawyers to review reports of the case in printed media and on the internet. It said: "While MIH has at all times respected the privacy of the tax tribunal proceedings, a substantial quantity of confidential information relating to the case has become available for public consumption, stimulating considerable discussion and often ill-informed debate. This has been wholly inappropriate and outwith the fundamental principles of natural justice."

Sir David was alleged to have been the biggest beneficiary of the Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) set up by Rangers. He received £6.3m of tax-free income over nine years, an award-winning BBC Scotland documentary claimed.

Sir David said: "What I find amazing is we were guilty until proven innocent. This is the only case in history where awards were given to TV programmes when there hasn't even been a result. But I need to stand back at the moment, this is not a time for triumphalism because nobody has won, the taxpayer hasn't won and Rangers hasn't won. This should never have happened."

Sir David confirmed MIH had offered HMRC an out-of-court settlement two years ago worth more than £10m. He said: "The amount of time, effort and fees could be seven to eight million quid on top of that. Clearly if that had happened we would not have ended up with Craig Whyte.

"The biggest question is why the Revenue knew in August 2011 that Craig Whyte wasn't paying national insurance and tax but didn't put him down – this has so many ramifications for business."

The EBTs were awarded to players as a top-up to their salaries but the HMRC tribunal ruled the payments did not break tax law as they were made in the form of a loan.

Speculation has been mounting that HMRC could now pursue individual players and club figures for payback. Mark Houston, a partner at Johnston Carmichael Chartered Accountants and Business Advisers in Edinburgh, said HMRC would have no remit to do so – unless it successfully appealed the tribunal decision.

Mr Houston said: "The tribunal has ruled that Rangers is not liable for tax on the payments made under EBT on the basis that the payments were loans and not earnings. That effectively closes the door on HMRC being able to go after players."

BDO, the liquidators of Rangers oldco, which is officially known as RFC 2012 Plc, could have the power to pursue the unpaid loans given it was club cash that financed the trust. A spokesman said: "The Joint Interim Liquidators are reviewing the tribunal's decision closely so as to determine the impact on the liquidation of RFC 2012 Plc".

Charles Green, Rangers chief executive , said the tribunal decision undermined the validity of the SPL's own independent commission into the use of EBTs. It will go ahead early next year with a number of EBT issues over and above those heard by the HMRC tribunal to be examined. If the commission finds the club broke SPL rules on staff payments, Rangers could be stripped of a number of SPL and Scottish Cup titles.

Mark Dingwall, spokesman for Rangers Supporters' Trust, said: "The biggest thing is it [the HMRC ruling] blows the SPL's attempts to strip titles from Rangers out of the water. The SPL tribunal should be disbanded immediately."

HMRC said it was considering its next course of action.

Meanwhile, Hearts accused the HMRC and other individuals or groups of hampering the club's battle for survival as the club's share issue reached £600,000 in under a month, one-third of the way to its £1.79m target.
 
Sporting Integrity: Scottish Football's Shame
Rangers Football Club and its fans have been vilified since the moment the club went into administration. Cries of tax evasion, demands for contrition for all the years of cheating were the buzz around Scotland’s football followers.

The RST have watched in disgust and released many statements asking for fairness and common sense as hysteria gripped the nation. Indeed, the Rangers Family worldwide asked the same but were continually ignored as the likes of the BBC, underclass journalists and faceless bloggers pushed their agenda in a direction which can only be perceived as bigoted.

The SFA run by Stewart Regan, whom we have called for him to resign on two occasions no less, has made our governing body into a worldwide laughing stock:

• blackmailed Charles Green and his consortium into accepting the unlawful transfer embargo

• In a meeting with The Rangers Fans Working Group, Stewart Regan walked out after being asked what the SFA were doing for one of their oldest members

• To this day the SFA are still holding onto Steven Davis’ transfer fee from Southampton for no apparent reason

• Stewart Regan threatened Scottish Football with Armageddon if Rangers were demoted to SFL 3

• Stewart Regan intimating ‘social unrest’ within Scottish Society if Rangers were demoted to SFL 3

• Using social media in what can only be described as unprofessional with child-like tweets, conversing with fans except those of the blue kind


Compare and contrast with Portsmouth’s time in administration and the help they received from the English FA and the agenda is quite clear – hurt Rangers as much as possible.

The SPL, run by the greedy and the blind saw blood and wasted no time in swinging all they can at the club. The SPL’s actions, to paraphrase Charles Green, are to treat Rangers as newco when it suits, then revert back to the oldco (PLC) when it suits:

• Demote the club due to the corporate shell being liquidated but attempt to bully the SFL into placing Rangers in division one so the Rangers pound comes their way
• Agree to use last season’s prize money to pay off football debts then backtrack and deny it ever happened even though the letter confirming the agreement was in the public domain

• Postpone SPL meetings on what the SPL should do if Rangers’ holding company is liquidated. After all the postponements agree the decision will be made by the SPL board if and when such an event occurs

• Invite another Trust to discuss Rangers but ignore the RST’s request. Celtic Trust invite to meet Neil Doncaster: http://www.celtictrust.net/index.php...article&id=368

• Set up a kangaroo court in an attempt to steal Rangers’ well-earned titles on the basis the club was guilty of tax evasion. SPL might have had a crystal ball to predict the future but the FTTT result proves the SPL does not.

Who can forget the media’s contribution to the last 12 months? Like a dog on heat many of Scotland’s press pack latched onto anything negative and passed it off as fact or showed signs of victory. The manner in the way some journalists went about their work is truly staggering.

Reflecting back to when the unlawful transfer embargo was overturned in court the disappointment ebbed through Scottish Football like a death in the family. It appears those old wounds have been reopened after Rangers being cleared of the fantasy £100m tax bill.

Surprise and disappointment emanates from the press right now. Why? That’s what you get when you hinge your bets on faceless bloggers, bigoted bloggers and underclass journalism.

It’s hard to see how Scottish Football can ever recover. As things stand, under the current leadership, our national game cannot and will not until those responsible are removed.

Sporting integrity in Scotland has a strange feel to it. Embarrassing, appalling with biased, unfit for purpose signs shamefully adorning the entrances to many organisations.

http://www.rangerssupporterstrust.co.uk/item/sporting-integrity-scottish-footballs-shame.html
 
Bin the cheat slurs | The Sun |Sport|Scotland Div 3

ALLY McCOIST has held his hands up and admitted to CHEATING.
They were vital, high-stakes games and the Rangers boss gave in to temptation to bend rules and gain an advantage.
He’s not proud of his actions and has to live with it all on his conscience for the rest of his life.
But while McCoist admits his snakes and ladders tactics can be underhand — the Ibrox boss insists NOBODY can ever call him a cheat when it comes to football.
A lot has riled the Gers gaffer as his club’s reputation has been dragged through the mud over the last year.
Yet it all pales in comparison to his fury at Rangers being accused of cheating their way to titles during the EBT years.
He reckons this week’s Big Tax Case outcome will shut up the critics who labelled Gers guilty before the verdict was even released.
And while the SPL probe into alleged dual contracts will still go ahead in January, McCoist is utterly convinced that Gers will cleared of any wrongdoing.
He said: “The worst thing you can call a sportsman is a cheat.
“It’s one of the worst things you can call anyone, to be fair. To question your integrity like that is APPALLING.
“Don’t get me wrong, I like to win a game of snakes and ladders when I’m playing with the boys in the house.
“I’ll maybe move the counters around, but that’s taking it to a different level!
“Arguably the biggest sports story in modern history came out recently in Lance Armstrong.
“When you get called a cheat, you lose your dignity, you lose face, you lose EVERYTHING.
“The club can hold its head high. We have never, in my opinion, cheated.
“At the very worst we may have made mistakes, but there’s no defence for cheating.
“You can understand people making honest mistakes, and if it’s proven somewhere down the line that we’ve done that, then it’s different from someone knowingly cheating.”
The fallout from the Big Tax Case is just beginning and could be lengthy, with court action looking inevitable.
McCoist’s biggest concern is that confidential aspects of the dispute with HMRC were leaked into the public domain.
He said: “HMRC shouldn’t be above the law. Nobody is above the law. Some of the leaks I know really angered David Murray.
“You can be angry with one or two things that come out, but if there is a continued trail of information being leaked, you can point the finger and say it potentially is malicious.
“It ain’t a mistake. I’m not accusing anybody, but it might be one or two people with an agenda.
“Questions have to be asked about where these leaks came from and why did they come?
“One of the other questions I would like answered is why it took so long for the decision to be made?
“There might be a reasonable explanation, but it didn’t help at all. If we’d had clarity earlier, it would have certainly helped the oldco.”
McCoist is determined Rangers move forward and try to put their troubled times behind them.
But he can’t fully focus on football with league reconstruction on the agenda.
McCoist is well-placed to comment on the SPL and SFL plans — as he has been on both side in recent years. He is familiar with the self-interest of top-flight clubs, but has the utmost respect for lower-league teams who have welcomed Gers with open arms.
He said: “I CAN understand a degree of self-interest — it’s always been the case.
“I looked at the SPL’s proposals, the SFL’s as well, and I think they’re both up for debate.
“We must now get round the table and have dialogue. We’d be naive to think there won’t be self-preservation.
“But there’s also an acceptance from the vast majority within Scottish football that we have to change, and attempt to change for the better of the game itself.
“At the top end it’s blatantly obvious we have a problem. Scotland haven’t qualified for a major tournament since 1998.
“Would I expect to be invited into a bigger SPL set-up? Yes, I’d hope to be invited.
“Equally if the SFL want to invite some of the clubs from the SPL, that would be a good thing as well. There has to be dialogue.
“Only planning for two leagues is a bit blinkered of the SPL, and given our current situation I can understand Elgin, Montrose or Berwick Rangers’ point of view. You have to see that.
“We’ve genuinely attempted to embrace the SFL and lower regions of Scottish football, and I’m delighted we’ve been successfully doing that.
“Obviously from my point of view we have to get out of the division, but I want to do it the right way.”
Today’s scheduled league match with Elgin was called off because the home side sold too many tickets.
But despite the farce, Coisty is still looking forward to facing Ross Jack’s side in the Scottish Cup fourth round at Ibrox next weekend.
He said: “I’m really up for this game and really looking forward to it. Elgin played really well at Ibrox and although it finished 5-1, they knocked the ball about well.
“Ross’ team score goals. They are the second top scorers in the league by a considerable way and they do get the ball in the box.
“This will be a proper Cup tie. Ross and his boys will be right up for it — but the league’s the priority. A Cup run would be great mind you.”
 
Detail on Celtic's failed (and presumably immoral?) VAT scheme from 1997
it seems our east end chums are no strangers to our friends at HMRC ....and in the 1990s ran a VAT scheme that was ultimately shown to be against tax law. Some might call that tax evasion?




EDN/96/6) No. 14,762.

Decision given 28 February 1997.

The issue was whether the sale of season books, which entitled purchasers to entry to football matches, were a prepayment for such entry or whether they were merely a voucher which granted the right to be admitted.
The police would not permit cash to be paid at the turnstiles. Thus tickets to watch matches had to be purchased in advance. The appellant (Celtic) ran a scheme whereby persons wishing to watch home games could acquire a season book. There was a standard book which offered entry to all home games and contained special match applications for use when applying for tickets for away matches. Four other season books were offered with different rights pertaining to entry to the ground. Each page in each book was marked "voucher" and the vouchers were invalid for any matches other than those specified. Resale of the books or the individual vouchers was prohibited and the appellant reserved the right to refuse admission on just cause.

The appellant (Celtic) contended that each page was a "voucher" on which there was a face value printed . The actual supply made by the appellant to the individuals was the right to sit in a seat and watch a football match. The money paid to purchase a season book conferred a right on the individual to receive the services stated with the result that VAT became payable when the voucher was surrendered for entry to the ground. The vouchers were not tickets: tickets were transferable, could be sold and resold and there was no certainty of their availability. Further, if a match was abandoned after 45 minutes a ticketholder was not entitled to a refund, whereas the voucher holder could use vouchers in the book to watch the game when it was rescheduled. For these reasons the book did not attract a VAT charge when purchased, but only when the individual pages were used.

The commissioners argued that: (1) VAT was due at the time of and (2) the books were not vouchers. As there was a specific contract for a supply, albeit conditional, the payment made was "for" that supply and the necessary requirements of VAT to fall due had been met. The supply equated with the sale of tickets sold by Richmond Theatre in C & E Commrs v Richmond Theatre Management Ltd where the court held that the question was "did the supplier receive consideration in respect of the future of supply of services when it received the payment". On the basis of the terms and conditions of the sale of the books of vouchers, the purchaser had fully discharged his liability to pay the consideration and there was no further step for him to take. All he was left to do was to attend the match and present the book where "the appropriate match voucher … for admission to the stadium must only be removed by the turnstile operator or as directed at the relevant match". In substance and form the book represented a single ticket for all matches referred to in exactly the same way as the theatre tickets in Richmond allowed entry to the performance stated thereon.

Held, dismissing Celtic’s appeal:

The reality of what happened was that a supporter prepaid his ticket and that specific supply, although provided later, was paid for at an earlier stage and accordingly VAT was due on the payment when made. Printing "voucher" on the ticket did not alter the essence of what had been purchased which was a specific right to attend the match in question. It could not seriously be suggested that VAT would only be payable if the supporter actually went to the match. If that argument was correct, it would mean that payments received depended on attendances and that in effect the club would receive a gift of money from the purchaser if he stayed away.

The following cases were referred to in the decision:
Apple and Pear Development Council v C & E Commrs (Case 102/86) [1988] ECR 1443; (1988)
Argos Distributors Ltd v C & E Commrs
C & E Commrs v Granton Marketing Ltd
C & E Commrs v Richmond Theatre Management Ltd
Conoco Ltd (MAN/94/307) No. 13,025;
Elida Gibbs v C & E Commrs (
Nigel Mansell Sports Co Ltd (1991) VATTR 491;


Opinion of the Tribunal

I note that despite the agreed facts about the removal of vouchers from the season ticket book that while the general conditions at the beginning indicate that the appropriate match voucher must only be removed by a turnstile operator or as directed by a steward at the relevant match, each voucher bears on its reverse the words "bearer is solely responsible for removing only the required voucher and handing it to the turnstile operator". There may be no difficulty in this divergence in that in either circumstance it is plainly envisaged that a ticket will only be removed from the present book at the sight of the turnstile operator who will require to see the book itself. He may refuse admittance for any of the specified reasons. No absolute right to obtain entry has been purchased; and the book or voucher may be forfeited.
I considered the whole matter and came to the view that the respondents were correct in the submission that what has happened and does happen in this case is that the supporter prepays his ticket and that the specific supply although provided later is paid for at an earlier stage and that VAT is due on the payment when made. That view is in accordance with logic and common sense. Printing "voucher" on the ticket does not alter its essence. What has been purchased is specific – the right to attend the match in question. To hold otherwise would be to open up a lacuna in the collection of VAT. That matter was abhorrent to the Court of Appeal in Granton. The nearest analogy is that of a theatre ticket where a payment is made for the opportunity to attend a performance. I accept and follow the reasoning of Dyson J in Richmond. Here also the payment made by the supporter is in respect of the supply and nothing else. The situation does not differ from the supporter who buys his ticket before any individual match, as he must. In such circumstances I do not see how it can seriously be suggested that VAT would only be payable if the supporter actually went to the match. If the argument of the appellants (Celtic) were correct VAT would only be due if the purchaser of the ticket chose to attend the performance. That would mean that payments received were dependent upon attendance and that in effect the football club would be the recipients of a gift of money from the purchaser if he stayed away. That does not seem to me to be a sensible result.

Accordingly in my opinion the appeal fails.
(Appeal dismissed)
 
Should their Rangers coverage be BBC Scotland

By G.A.Ponsonby

Last week it emerged that the Conservative peer ‘outed’ by the BBC in a now notorious broadcast of Newsnight was seeking legal redress.

The Lord McAlpine saga sadly overshadowed the allegations of sex abuse at a North Wales care home and the BBC’s reputation as a trusted news source took a hammering.

The week also brought a verdict on oldco Glasgow Rangers use of controversial EBTs in order to pay players and staff. Over a ten year period the Ibrox club saved millions in tax liabilities by adopting the controversial payment system that saw loans administered through a trust.

A specially convened tribunal comprising three judges ruled by two to one that the EBT system as implemented by the old Rangers management whilst under the stewardship of Sir David Murray, did not contravene tax rules. The ruling caused shock and surprise, nowhere more than BBC Scotland where announcers reported the verdict in a series of bulletins that ensured it occupied the top of the news agenda.

Everyone it seems had believed that the club was guilty and a high profile documentary by BBC Scotland had helped fuel an atmosphere that saw speculation take over as journalistic patience gave way to unethical second guessing of the worst order.

Ironically, the BBC Scotland documentary ‘Rangers - The Men Who Sold The Jerseys’, with its melodramatic and suggestive presentation style, won an award just days before the tribunal verdict was announced that brought sobriety back to the proceedings.

If the tribunal is to believed, and as yet we have to acknowledge that an appeal is not out of the question, then the men singled out by the documentary appear not to have sold the jerseys at all; indeed there are now calls for an investigation into how personal and confidential information came to be broadcast by BBC Scotland.

Following Oldco Rangers' vindication over the HMRC 'big tax case', there has been a resurgence of anger among Rangers supporters at the role BBC Scotland played in the downfall of the Scottish club.

During the period when the club was bought by Craig Whyte for £1, until the formation of the Newco, and throughout the subsequent negotiations which led to Newco Rangers starting the season in Division 3, BBC Scotland has had something of a fixation on the club, way beyond the financial difficulties it was experiencing.

BBC Scotland’s head of News and Current Affairs, John Boothman speaking in May this year described the exposing by BBC Scotland of former Rangers owner Craig Whyte as having been banned for seven years as a director, as: “one of the journalistic triumphs of the year in Scotland”.

Now interesting as Mr Whyte’s past was, describing this as one of the journalistic triumphs of the year is surely stretching its importance. However it might just serve to explain the tabloidesque approach by BBC Scotland to the Rangers situation.

Barely a day went by without a news story focussing on the club's problems, and documentaries were commissioned which were highly critical of the club.

So bad was coverage that in October 2011, Rangers FC withdrew "all co-operation" with the BBC over what it said were "repeated difficulties" with the broadcaster that season.

The Ibrox club said several instances of reporting on Rangers from the BBC had been "neither accurate or fair". It also claimed that the BBC Scotland documentary, Rangers, the Inside Story, was a "prejudiced muckraking exercise".

In a statement, Rangers management wrote: "The club believes that the BBC has on a number of occasions now demonstrated a pre-determined negative attitude towards Rangers and its fans and its journalism has fallen well short of acceptable standards.

"The decision to end co-operation with the BBC has been taken very reluctantly but the club feels it has been left with no other option."

In response, a BBC Scotland statement said: "Rangers FC has made a number of assertions in relation to our journalistic standards, including a claim of underlying bias against the club. We completely refute this allegation in the strongest terms".

There are now claims from fans groups that the BBC ignored calls from organisations for fairness in reporting of the issue and there are now calls from fans for the broadcaster to apologise.

Also in the firing line is BBC Scotland’s flagship news programme Reporting Scotland which claimed last week that the old Rangers had been cleared of “tax evasion”. In fact Rangers had never been charged with evading tax, which is a criminal offence, but rather tax avoidance which is legal.

Rangers former owner, Sir David Murray is seeking a correction and an apology from BBC Scotland over the news item.

In July 2011 BBC Scotland were forced to issue an apology to Rangers manager Ally McCoist after video footage broadcast by Reporting Scotland was manipulated in a manner that appeared to show McCoist smiling flippantly when questioned about bigotry.

Other demands for an apology followed an episode of Sportscene that appeared to show McCoist falling to his death in a scene reminiscent of the Mad Men TV series.

But it is the BBC Scotland documentary that is now the focus of attention. There can be little doubt that ‘Rangers - The Men Who Sold The Jerseys’ spawned a considerable amount of copy that followed the ‘cheat’ line implied by the programme.

No one questions that Rangers were in potential big trouble had the tax case gone against them. But it has to be remembered that, at the time of the broadcast, the tribunal had yet to give a judgement.

The BBC is a broadcasting giant in Scotland, and as such has the power to set the narrative and tone of coverage on any issue from sport to current affairs and politics. The documentary, ‘Rangers - The Men Who Sold The Jerseys’ was very heavily trailed prior to broadcast – with the tone clearly suggestive of guilt.

Speaking this weekend, presenter Mark Daly defended the documentary insisting that there was never any apportioning of guilt on Rangers officials who were in control at the time of the EBTs. However that is disingenuous, as there would have been no reason to ‘expose’ payments from the EBT scheme to officials and players otherwise. Besides, the title of the documentary leaves little to the imagination.

BBC Scotland appears to have produced the programme on the assumption of guilt, indeed why commission a special documentary unless you are already certain that the payments or the system used in order to make them, were wrong in some way.

The coverage may not have directly caused the club’s subsequent demise, but there can be little doubt that it created an image of ‘cheats’ that has persisted and grown.

More worryingly though for BBC Scotland, there are now suggestions that information contained in the programme may have been leaked illegally from sources close to HMRC. If true, then a criminal offence may have been committed.

In a statement, Sir David Murray’s Murray International Holdings has asked for an investigation into the leaks and how personal information came to be in the possession of the BBC.

The issue has parallels with another episode that saw confidential material fall into the hands of BBC Scotland.

In 2011, it obtained and broadcast police interview tapes of Gail Sheridan, after she had been cleared of all charges when she stood trial along with her husband Tommy Sheridan. To date, BBC Scotland has refused to disclose how it obtained the video footage.

Release and broadcast of police interview tapes is uncommon, if not unheard of, when no conviction has been brought against the interviewee.

BBC Scotland’s coverage of Mr Sheridan’s trial was criticised for its one sided portrayal, which many people believed was relentlessly anti-Sheridan.

Tommy Sheridan’s solicitor complained to the BBC Trust over its coverage of his trial, alleging selective editing, impartiality and inaccuracy, and the broadcast of the police interview with Gail Sheridan. The trust rejected the complaint.

Writing in the Scottish Review recently, Tommy Sheridan referred to the incident and said of BBC Scotland and it's Chief Ken MacQuarrie:

One wonders how the director of the BBC in Scotland has the authority or credibility to conduct an inquiry into journalistic professionalism and ethics at a UK level when his own ship in Scotland was given the green light to broadcast the 'Rise and Lies of Tommy Sheridan' with illegally obtained police interview tapes and an outrageous level of editing.

The BBC Scotland journalists involved in that programme and the news bulletins on the day it was broadcast misled the public but when these indisputable facts were presented to the BBC Scotland management, including of course Mr MacQuarrie, the whole episode was swept under the carpet and no apology or admission of guilt has been forthcoming.

That was a shocking abuse of the BBC and any independent examination of the programme and associated news bulletins would force any rational person to question the BBC's 'independence', honesty and professionalism. It was an unethical documentary but they seem to have got away with it. Sadly.

Sheridan and Rangers have much to be angry about when it comes to coverage of their respective cases by BBC Scotland.

Given the BBC's current problems caused by the Jimmy Saville affair, as well as the fact that the two year referendum debate is now underway, this may be seen by many as an opportune moment for BBC Scotland to examine its own editorial judgement.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quick question chaps. Watched most of the Elgin game today & the commentator said Ally McCoist only won one Scottish Cup winners medal with Rangers. Wiki says Rangers won 3 Scottish cups while Super Ally was there as a player but he did only win it once, anybody know why he only got 1 winners medal?
Cheers in advance.
HH.
 
Quick question chaps. Watched most of the Elgin game today & the commentator said Ally McCoist only won one Scottish Cup winners medal with Rangers. Wiki says Rangers won 3 Scottish cups while Super Ally was there as a player but he did only win it once, anybody know why he only got 1 winners medal?
Cheers in advance.
HH.

He couldn't have played enough games to qualify for medals, In the 91/92 season hewas kept out of the team by Mark Hateley and Mo Johnston.
He won his Cup medal in the 92/93 season when he scored in the win against Airdrie
Ally broke his leg playing for Scotland against Portugal in the 94/95 season which meant he missed the end of that season and missed much of the 95/96 season with other injuries.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top