D'Artagnan

Its concluded Rab - they stated they could find no evidence the leaks came from HMRC. Which begs the question of how LNS arrived at his conclusion.

Ive actually felt all along bud this was in fact the bigger story.

It’s good to see that HMRC’s latest failing - being unable to furnish costs of their continual and apparently relentless pursuit of Rangers over EBT’s - has galvanised the Rangers support into a long overdue unified sense of purpose. After a period of unhelpful adjectives and metaphors, which military men would aptly describe as “blue on blue”, we are at long last reminding ourselves where the real enemies of our club are, and it’s certainly not from within. It is not surprising that HMRC’s latest hypocritical incompetency, and I use that term deliberately in view of the fact we are talking about an investigative government agency who hold both private individuals and companies accountable for failing to keep meticulous financial records, has given rise amongst some of our fans to suggestions of a grandiose conspiracy. I don’t subscribe to such a conspiracy theory, and those who read this blog regularly will know that as far as I’m concerned “Evidence is king”. There appears to be little or no evidence available at this time to suggest any high level conspiracy, instead I will in the course of this article offer you an alternative evidence based theory to explain why HMRC’s pursuit of our club has all the characteristics of a witch hunt. Before dismissing such a conspiracy theory completely however it is worthwhile pointing out that the South African Tax Authorities have recently discovered what has been described as a rogue unit working within their organisation. Furthermore much closer to home, the families of the Hillsborough victims had to suffer considerable ridicule for suggesting that the Police were involved in some kind of conspiratorial cover up over events that tragic day. Several years later the 160 odd altered Police Statements and deliberate, false and malicious briefing of the press by the Police, are now a matter of public record and the subject of an ongoing enquiry. Therefore despite the absence of evidence of conspiracy perhaps the best course available to us is to at least keep an open mind whilst concentrating on the evidence which is available to us. Discounting such a conspiracy theory does not however also discount the ruthless nature of this enquiry, nor the attempts by HMRC to deliberately mislead the Rangers support during the course of it. It would come as no surprise to any of us if, in the near future evidence was uncovered which demonstrates HMRC have acted in both an unscrupulous, unprofessional and unedifying manner throughout the course of this enquiry. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100014676/2000-tax-dodgers-confess-but-should-hmrc-have-paid-for-stolen-information/ Some will note the particular irony of HMRC paying for stolen evidence, given the fact a considerable amount of evidence in the Rangers Tax Tribunal, ended up in the possession of BBC Scotland journalists and proved to be the catalyst to “The men who sold the jerseys” documentary. However the Redknapp case was not the only one which had brought the professionalism and competency of HMRC under a very public spotlight, leaving it’s investigators with red faces and questions being asked. https://www.accountancylive.com/cassidy-hmrc-should-eat-humble-pie-over-montpelier-case I doubt there is a Rangers fan out there who doesn’t feel a sense of the tunnel vision Mr Cassidy alludes to during the Montpelier case. It appears history may well be repeating itself as HMRC continue to pursue Rangers despite a number of failed appeals chaired by some of the most qualified tax experts in the country. These spectacular high profile failings and questions of competency, integrity and professionalism served to bring HMRC very much under an intense spotlight, most notably by the public accounts committee. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/28/hmrc-chiefs-mps-lost-tax http://economia.icaew.com/news/november-2014/pac-slams-hmrcs-anti-tax-avoidance-strategy So we have a government investigative agency, with a spectacular series of high profile failures, even despite indulging in some fairly unscrupulous means of obtaining evidence which in itself calls into question the very integrity of the organisation itself, under considerable pressure to re-dress their very public humiliation in a series of failed prosecutions. It certainly puts into some kind of perspective the relentless and ruthless nature of HMRC’s pursuit of Rangers. Quite simply after so many failings they simply had to get a result. But if HMRC were in a bit of a hole prior to and during the investigation, rather than stop digging as the age old saying goes, they appear to have taken the equivalent of a JCB to the situation. Apologies for the following paragraph in advance, as it deals mainly in conjecture rather than facts, but it is worth mentioning all the same. Despite HMRC’s claim to be unable to furnish the cost of the Rangers Tax Case, rumours abound of figures at or around the £10 million mark. Furthermore it is common knowledge that Sir David Murray attempted to settle with HMRC over EBT’s offering anything between 10-12 million pounds. Even taking the lower settlement figure HMRC are now looking not only at £10 million lost revenue, but also perhaps £10 million costs for pursuing a case against a company from whom they will be unable to recoup anything even if they were to eventually be successful in a forthcoming appeal. One wonders what the Public Accounts Committee will make of all this. Moving on from public accounts to public accountability and the HMRC JCB appears to have been working in overdrive to dig a bigger hole for themselves. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415 Perhaps HMRC would care to explain to Rangers shareholders, and any other interested parties for that matter, why they allowed Craig Whyte, who they were already pursuing for a sum of £3.7 million and whom they had threatened with bankruptcy as a result of failed tax returns, to take control of an organisation and run it into the ground by failing to make PAYE payments for nearly 9 months. If you cannot hear the alarm bells by now, then you either are deaf or have your fingers, quite firmly, in your ears. HMRC’s JCB next wrong turn was in the form of a generic reply via correspondence. As thousands of Rangers supporters and shareholders wrote to complain about confidential tax documents and other paperwork appearing in the public domain, HMRC responded by asserting it did not comment or respond to speculation about alleged breaches of confidentiality. “Speculation”? “Alleged”? The subject of those complaints were The Rangers Tax Case Blog and the BBC Documentary “The men who sold the jerseys” both of which went onto win national awards, with the latter being broadcast on national television. Journalist Tom English described the Rangers Tax Case Blog as follows: “If you wanted to know the latest news on their tax travails, rangerstaxcase was a place you went because, unlike newspapers or radio stations, rangerstaxcase was connected to the heart of the FTT and everybody knew it. It had documents and detail that were beyond dispute. When illustrating one point it was making it would summon up information that could only have come from somebody within, or very close to, the tribunal” (The Scotsman 25.11.2012) Why have HMRC deliberately prevaricated and failed to respond to this clear breach of confidential information. How can they justify describing a national television broadcast and an award winning blog, whose plaudits and awards are based around the revealing of confidential information, as mere “speculation”? As others outside the Rangers community have since commented both these outlets of confidential information presented it such a way as to infer the guilt of Rangers FC. Was the same unscrupulous culture within HMRC which saw them buy stolen property in the Redknapp case alive and kicking also in the Rangers Tax Case – a kind of win at all costs mentality? Whilst the source and nature of those confidential leaks has been subject to many theories and discussions, confirmation about one of the sources was provided courtesy of Lord Nimmo Smith, in his SPL Independent Commission Report. "Meanwhile, BBC Scotland came, by unknown means, into possession of what they described as “dozens of secret emails, letters and documents”, which we understand were the productions before the Tax Tribunal. These formed the basis of a programme entitled “Rangers – The Men Who Sold the Jerseys”, which was broadcast on 23 May 2012. BBC Scotland also published copious material on its website. The published material included a table containing the names of Rangers players, coaches and staff who were beneficiaries of the MGMRT, and how much they received through that trust.” (Section 98) Perhaps not so much a case of “Who sold the jerseys” but more of a case of Who sold the evidence? That is of course the evidence, or as Lord Nimmo Smith terms “productions”, which was seized by HMRC during the course of their investigation into Rangers and which was presented before the Tax Tribunal. The question is why the removal of this evidence and its subsequent use in the BBC Scotland documentary aforementioned, was not the subject of a Police enquiry until after the verdict of the tax tribunal, when complaints by both Sir David Murray and myself saw the launching of a criminal enquiry. It raises serious questions about the safe handling and storing of productions, as well as duties and responsibilities of investigative agencies with regard to the loss or theft of productions. In particular it raises questions about how and why Lord Nimmo Smith was able to arrive at such a conclusions with regard to the source of the material which BBC Scotland subsequently came into possession of. http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/1996757/cameron-promises-transparent-government It’s time for you to deliver Mr Cameron and the Rangers support will not rest until you do. We want a full government enquiry into this whole process and we will not rest until we get it. We will play to win – and win at all costs.

You dont need to MB - there is plenty of evidence to suggest there has been serious, perhaps even gross negligence by this investigative body during the course of their enquiry into our club. I hopefully manage to run a blog later today which attempts to provide some insight into this latest denial from them of information

At least I can now boast I managed to get myself banned from at least one Rangers forum. ;-))

Well Ive signed it Zap without feeling the need to commit to a boycott. I doubt very much you will be sued if you sign it and still go to games. ;-)) I dont think it does any harm, particularly in the absence of any other vehicle or platform, to sign it and thus demonstrate at the very least, you have zero confidence in the current board.

I dont disagree with that bud - the problem I have that model is "longevity" At some point even an owner who has been visionary, honest with the support and puts the best interests of the club first is going to move on, sell or depart this mortal coil. Unless he is building a dynasty then we are thrown onto that ownership merry go round once again.

And the alternative model manifested by SDM, Whyte & Green have served the club well ?

I think 26th of foot is being extremely polite given the circumstances and the individual in question.

Perhaps the fact that he was an impeccable potential investor was enough to put the board off MB

Yep I was awae of that ASL, but the point I was making was about the culture within our club regarding youngsters rather than a criticism of our failure to spot potential talent. I used Urquhart as an additional example to Telfer because he left despite having no clear alternative - alarming

It was to become the stuff of legend, the type of story normally reserved for a Roy of the Rovers comic book sketch. Ranger’s manager Willie Waddell was to take the ultimate gamble, replacing his injured and iconic inspirational captain, John Greig, with a raw 16 year old youngster who had made his professional debut only weeks earlier against Cowdenbeath. It was a particularly brave decision given the setting was the 1970 Scottish League Cup Final and Rangers opponents were arch rivals, Celtic. 90 minutes later the manager’s decision was to be completely vindicated as the 16 year old Derek Johnstone scored the only goal of the game, sending the light blue legions amongst the 106,000 crowd into rapture and thus heralding the end of a 4 year trophy drought. Who would argue that fortune does indeed favour the brave? Today’s Rangers fans yearn for that kind of bravery amongst our current management. The highly publicised departure of young starlet Charlie Telfer and his criticism of the lack of opportunity for youngsters at Ibrox should set alarm bells ringing. Sour grapes or valid criticism? Well despite League One being done and dusted early doors, Telfer only featured once, coming on as a substitute in the 4-0 defeat of Stenhousemuir. Was completing a season undefeated in a lower league really more important than the continual development of our youngsters? Alarmingly, the Telfer story is not an isolated one. Last year, centre half Stuart Urquhart, a captain of the Scotland Under 17 side, having held his own at Dumbarton whilst on loan (2 divisions above Rangers at the time) chose to depart the club despite not having any clear destination. His subsequent snapping up by Steven Pressley at Coventry City, himself a product of the Rangers youth system, adds a touch of irony to a fast developing farce. That orchestra of irony reached a crescendo this week with the departure of Lewis Macleod, one of our few “blooded youngsters,” in order to keep our club afloat. Those of us at Ibrox yesterday, watching the toiling of Lee McCulloch, were left to wonder if a nurtured and blooded Gasparotto, may well have spared some of the raised blood pressure caused by the inadequacy of our failing captain. The same could be said of Sinnamon as an alternative to Foster or McKay instead of Smith. In an age of “gardening leave” it’s clear our club is in dire need of a bold, green fingered horticulturist with a proven aptitude for the development of young seedlings.

Im sure as they examine the state of the playing squad and the finances required to sort it their last thought will be re-instating Ally

But as if that wasn't enough .."Rangers are a new club" Haggerty dropped this clanger... Happy New Year !!

It is a legitimate question BH. But one thing is for sure - having people within the boardroom who are going to work for the benefit of RFC, rather than their own self survival or on behalf of others with a vested interest, is going to increase the likliehood of us being able to operate free from that hand to mouth existence you refer to.

Let me re-phrase this for you Bill.. Kingsnorth appears to have the same issues as Maher, Wallace, Nash etc etc etc before him - and that is that there are people at the club making decisions which are not for the benefit of Rangers FC. And you dont have to be a wet fish to work that out....

Have a look at the DR story about him "brokering" the deal between the Park consortium and our club, Then ask yourself why .... (1) A non PLC Director appears to be calling the shots at our club ? (2) If you were clearly calling those shots outwith your alleged remit - would you be stupid enough to give an interview to a national newspaper confirming same ?

Not only do we love to do names, we have become adept as a support at pigeon holing people. “****”, “Fan ****”, “ “Pro board” “Anti board” “The enemy within”, not forgetting the latest addition from the AGM - “Rats” - there seems little room for manoeuvre for those confused bears who wander around in a kind of no man’s land not knowing how to take the latest serving of propaganda from one of the various groups. In fact some would have you believe you are the “enemy within” if you dare to occupy that no man’s land, or more accurately, don’t agree with their viewpoint. I’ve never been a fan of emotional, descriptive terms to stir up feelings – they are a very poor substitute for cold hard facts. Ally’s shambolic departure was the perfect case in point. Some felt it necessary to leap to his defence as some kind of weapon against the board, whilst others indulged in less than complimentary negative emotional language. The sum total was to exacerbate an already extremely messy situation. I understand some even planned to sing “Super Ally” at the AGM in an effort to shame the board – you know at that point to wave goodbye to rational thought and reasoned thinking. A quick glance at our financial accounts, or the state of our club overall would tell you that we don’t need to sing songs glorifying a manager who has failed comprehensively to shame this board, the state of our club and the way they have “governed” is an indictment in itself. The masochist in me delights at mentioning our on field problems, only because they serve to remind us we are a football club and not a soap saga, though it’s hard sometimes to differentiate in this day and age. But for a support already disillusioned with off field events the added component of a failing team only compounds the problem. It not only rips into but comprehensively invades the world of the supporter who cares not a jot for boardroom politics and falling attendances along with absent season ticket holders bear testimony to that. It is a dangerous concoction and one any normal board would do well to take cognisance of. Of course some of us have seen it all before. It took David Holmes and a considerable amount of cash as well as revolutionary thinking to remedy the situation. Whether there is such an “out of the box” thinker or the necessary cash today is open to debate. What is not open to debate is the debilitating effect of the omnishambles both on and off the park and sadly, I see little or no evidence to suggest that it is being addressed. So as you sow, so shall you reap. Rangers is not a business, nor merely a football club it is way of life for so many of us. It’s not just about success on the park, it’s about the way the club conducts and carries itself, it’s about the standards it sets and seeks to uphold. We don’t wax lyrical about the “Rangers Way” for nothing. I’ve mentioned Harry Reid previously, an Aberdeen supporter who contributed to the book Born Under a Union Flag. Harry contributes much of the eroding of our standards and identity to the Murray years. “A club’s identity, or, to be more highfalutin, its soul, is a particularly precious thing. Forfeit it and you lose everything. If a club becomes the plaything of over-ambitious folk who have no understanding of it, there is serious trouble ahead. If it becomes the plaything of people who have no knowledge of its traditions and its values, then the trouble can be noxious.” I’d respectfully suggest we are now at security state “noxious” to use Harry’s words. If I had a pound for every Rangers fan who has said to me our club bears little semblance to that which they grew up with well we wouldn’t need a lottery winner to have a Rangers man in charge. I even know of one dyed in the wool bear on Gersnet forums who even muted starting up all over again, such are the levels of disillusionment. I’m reminded though of a chapter from Mary Pyper’s book “Writing to save the World”. She speaks of people displaced from the corridors of power, disempowered from the decision making processes, watching forlornly as, in some cases, their country’s become a mere shadow of what they once were. But rather than surrender or acquiesce to the unacceptable standards being foisted upon them, she directs the reader to those who have struggled to keep the social and moral conscience of their nation alive and in doing so ensure that the flame to which so many aspire to is never extinguished. It is up to us, the Rangers support to do this. We have to carry that mantle, because quite simply there is no-one else fit for purpose at this moment in time. The standards and values we cherish so dearly should be applied to one and all consistently, without fear, without favour and without malice, these are the standards we were raised with and safeguarding them together, I dare anyone to try and take them away. The greatest threat to that flame being extinguished is not from the SFA, the media, or any number of Rangers haters, the clear and present danger comes from ourselves and our inability to apply those standards we value so much, towards one another. “There is more power in unity than division” (Emanuel Cleaver)

I think you'd have to reapprise that Frankie - cant see them going for King's given their reasons for its initial rejection (evidence of funding/named investors etc) unless King adjusts it to ensure the reasons for the board's initial refusal are fulfilled. Furthermore I cant see shareholders accepting the subsequent dilution of shares even if the board were to propose it, can you ? (Then again given the way this board conduct themselves anything is possible - but it seems untenable they would accept an offer whch they had rejected having detailed the reasons for such rejection) Which of course leaves Kennedy's proposal - perhaps in the interests of the club and the fan base this may well be the most productive offer. PS as per our discussion on twitter - the rejection of Ashley's proposal by the SFA came as no suprise, I said a few weeks ago he was going to have to choose between the black or the blue.

When the mechanism/paltform for shareholders getting answers lets you down time after time after time, then its really no surprise Zappa that there is a lack of discussion.

It is a bit ambiguous but i think he means he took a 40 % cut rather than the 45% he has "decided" upon

I wonder if in the same spirit, they will be moved to award the prize monies, previously withheld.

The problem with that SB is that if there is no subsequent "spilling of beans" are we left to conclude Ally's silence has been bought at a price ? And if that comes to fruition how does that sit in terms of Frankie's earlier obeservations re double standards ?

I dont think there can be any doubt about DB - it is crystal clear his man on the board is calling the shots at our cub, hardly any big surprise given the abject impotence of the current incumbents What is also clear is that Ashley is going to have to make a choice very soon which bed to lie in - the SFA are only adhering to the regulations laid down by the "mother" organisation - UEFA - and no matter how mega rich Ashley is there is no way around that. I wont gain any favours for this, but my own feeling is that if it comes down to a choice he will opt for Rangers over Newcastle for a variety of reasons.

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12183967.html Who in the name of hell thought up this idea ? Put in your notice and receive a significant increase in salary ?