pollymac

Yep, you're far better to nick like a millionty billion apples, 'cos then you get a cushy number at Club Fed

It was discussed on there last year. The guy that does the rtc blog clearly has/had an inside line of sorts at Ibroke; not sure if he'd have the same with Celtic. Would be veery interested to see who benefited from both Rangers and Celtic's EBTs.

Just checked the results and if this is true, then Celtic would have to forfeit the 37 points gained from the 14 SPL games he played in(W:12, D:1, L:1), assuming a 3-0 reverse is granted for each, thus dropping below both Hibs and Aberdeen, which is curious as those are the two teams they actually did drop points to during that time.

Indeed, although given the amount stated, it's entirely possible that the EBT was used for non-playing staff. Although 'the grapevine' suggests that much of Juninho's wage was paid thus.

They certainly used EBTs. In 2004/05, Celtic paid £765,000 into an EBT fund.

They did. In 2004/05, there's an entry in their accounts stating that £765k or something was paid into EBTs. Brian Quinn put the kybosh on it though, questioning their legality (they are legal if implemented correctly) at present and in the future, i.e. retrospective changes in the law. HMRC, as I stated earlier, instigated an investigation into all SPL (and also EPL, Championship as well as a few other besides) football clubs into their tax policies two years ago, which is where this comes from. I understand some clubs, including Celtic and at least one other SPL club, paid off the tax as they fell due. Arsenal have paid the largest amount back to date c£10m in 2005.

Now that, I wholeheartedly agree with. And it most certainly would be a PR disaster for the SFA if that were to happen.

No, they backed down because they were wrong. edit to clarify: in the sense that the rules were either ambiguous (at best) or pointed to exactly what Paul McBride stated: that Neil Lennon's ban should commence 14 days from the date of the offence. I understand they've since been changed.

Block Whyte? From what? Directorship? The SFA & SPL have no jurisdiction and certainly no powers to block Whyte from owning Renegers. It's also worth pointing out that Whyte is little more than a bit player in the basket case that is Renegers FC and it's further worth pointing out that Whyte possibly only now fails the 'fit and proper test', such as it is, because he was a director during the build-up to administration and not due to any other issue that some might want him to fail on, i.e. 'being...bankrupt...within five years...etc'. The real embarrassment and PR disaster is still David Murray and the various cronies that kept schtum throughout the years. The SFA were indeed powerless to prevent what occurred on the basis that there was a wilful desire among a number of individuals to pull the wool over their (the SFAs) eyes. The SFA had no legal powers to do what eventually took HMRC 10 to 15 years to get around to doing, despite them having said legal powers. Where the SFA have failed, and have failed numerous other times, is that their articles of association really don't bear up to any close legal scrutiny. This is more a throwback to the amateur era of cronyism and the utter reliance on honesty and integrity that long pre-dates the multi-million pound era and the issue Scottish Football is currently facing because of it: modernisation. Hardly a PR disaster on their part to be allegedly conned by a Knight of the Realm.

Haha, top find.

It's not a PR disaster for the SFA; more for the previous owners of the club, i.e. those who decided spending £150m or thereabouts more than they earned over a 12 period was a good idea. The SPL have rules regarding the non-relegation of a team upon liquidation of another, the SFL admit one new club - disarray avoided - job's a good un. People lose their jobs every day and on a much greater scale than is likely at Ibrox. The only disaster(s) in this sorry story are those being faced by employees utterly reliant on their wage from Rangers. This will number in the 'tens' of people, which as stated, is a very small number in the grand scale of things. Imagine the number of jobs that could be created from around £4m per year unpaid taxes, or from £9m if you prefer.

List of not fit nor proper persons based on the SFA rules (please bear in mind there is very little defence any of the following can offer regards the direction they steered Rangers over the last 5 years): Craig Whyte Dave King Andrew Ellis Gary Withey Phil Betts John Greig John McClelland Martin Bain Donald McIntyre Alastair Johnston Paul Murray !!!!!!!!! Donald Muir Michael McGill James Wilson Sir David Murray edit: to reference Paul McConville

Actually, just thinking about that, it possibly absolves Peat, in that Airdrie are no longer a 'club in membership of any National Association'. Which is probably even worse.

Another gem from the SFA 'fit and proper person test'... This actually covers the following people: Rangers directors dating to Feb 15th 2007 (inc John Greig, Paul Murray, etc) Livingston directors from 4th Feb 1999 to 3rd February 2004. Livingston directors from 25th July 2004 to 24th July 2009. Airdrie directors for the five years preceding administration and liquidation (including George Peat) Dundee directors etc Of course, the SFA rules do have the caveat... Which gives them a convenient get out clause, much along the lines of "aye, but they're no that bad" (google 'George Peat Chris Honor', or recall him running a club into the ground, then give him the Presidency of the SFA cos he's no that bad).

Why?

Yup. In late 2009, Lloyds Banking Group placed a man on the Rangers board. Around that time, HMRC decided (on the back of an 'almost' unlinked investigation) decided to investigate all SPL clubs tax, erm, 'policies'. Within a couple of months, HMRC landed a somewhat large bill at the foot of the marble staircase on Edmiston Drive. Both of these facts were publicly known, indeed the manager at the time would lament that 'the bank was in charge'. Yet, at no time did the SFA decide to ask "Haud on, the bank are in charge and you've received a tax bill of £36m for dodgy payments to players, what are you doing?" Instead, they buried their head in the sand using the 'members trust' argument to deflect flak regarding their governance or lack thereof. Stewart Regan has largely admitted that this is, in fact, exactly the same tack used regarding the 'fit and proper persons test', i.e. that there is no test, instead the SFA are wholly reliant on using the trust of the member club. Essentially, what they are hoping for is a bit of honest introspection from prospective directors who may or may not be as crooked as a 5-bob note. The rules regarding the 'fit and proper person test' are as shambolic as much else regards the governance of our game, most especially the 'bankrupt in the last 5 years' section, which are so ambiguous as to be almost utterly worthless and certainly so in the case of Craig Whyte, who despite being bankrupt during the last 5 years, was not declared bankrupt during that time (see Neill Lennon concurrent/consecutive suspension also). SFA? Fit for purpose?

I'm convinced.

I don't think so. I recall that Aberdeen, Celtic and Rangers wanted to sign up to an extension of the Sky TV deal, instead of pushing through the Setanta deal 4 or 5 years ago as eventually happened. Talk about a big 'told you so' a couple of years later.

You're gonna need a bigger boat.

It's not always youth players though. I think the deal, generally, is that players are 'signed' for the duration and can only be transferred during the transfer windows. From Celtic, the likes of Darren O'Dea, Morten Rasmussen, Efrain Juarez, Paddy McCourt etc, i.e. a decent number of internationals, would have been in the B team. At the risk of sound a bit condescending (or rather: a pompous arse) - a team with those types of players with a glass ceiling of say two or three levels below the first team would enhance the league they play in. It'd certainly be a 'curiosity' for many fans. I'd go for a ceiling of 3 below the first team and then open the league pyramid right up, so that even teams playing on a public park tomorrow morning had a very direct route to the SPL. The whole mindset of protectionism is what prevents this though: fans don't want their teams marginalised by essentially a bigger and better (cast-offs?) team, and equally don't want competition from those currently standing on the outside looking in - comfortable stagnation is much the preferred existence.

I'm not sure any of that's the case any more. One of my friends is a coach (2003s I think) and they play two 'games' of 7 aside with absolutely no, or indeed very little, emphasis on winning. Training is structured around tight pass/move/receive/control. His oldest plays for Dundee Utd at 2001s level and they train much the same, although I think this year the young lad has indeed moved onto a more competitive level. A recent discussion regarding this had us wonder at the intelligence, or lack thereof, back in the day when we played u11's (as they were) within a tabled league on 'the small pitch'* with full size goals. By the time we played u14s we were on a full-size 110x65yd pitch - approx. the same as three or four SFL pitches. *The small pitch had full size penalty area, 'D', centre circle and a good 15 yards betwixt, i.e the pitch was around 90yds long. To put it into context: Cha du Ri can run a full SPL pitch length in about 13 seconds; we could probably run the small pitch in marginally over half a minute. And lets not mention the full size goals - not that it mattered, as most couldn't loft a sodden size 5 above 3 feet anyway. Progress though, progress - those days are thankfully long gone.

The whole Paul Murray thing is a big wtf? as far as I'm concerned. What exactly are the 'fit and proper' rules? And do they pass a non-exec director who utterly failed in three of the four key areas of Corporate Governance as set out by the Higgs Report (and also came up somewhat short on the fourth) when last involved in Scottish Football?

To be fair to him, you did bring it into the discussion when you decided that Old Firm fans loyalties are based on which side of the sectarian divide they are from/in/whatever. He merely responded to, in fact refuted, his interpretation (which is a fair one) of your insinuation. That you continue to go down this road reflects poorly on you, not him.

Not too sure about that - you should have a look at the Swiss pyramid structure. Some teams the size of Arbroath and Ayr, heck, even some like St Johnstone would have B teams within and it appears to work quite well.