Alastair Johnston Statement

[chilledbear 16]

In light of the recent statement issued by the SPL citing the terms of reference of the Commission appointed to explore the activities of Rangers Football Club, let me, at the outset, emphasize that I am not concerned about the impartiality of the learned gentlemen who will adjudicate on this matter.

 

I am, however, more wary as to the directives that have been provided to them by the SPL which in itself is constituted by competitors of the Club who have a vested interest in the outcome of the proceedings.

 

By convening a Commission composed of eminent members of the legal profession, it is no surprise that formalities are being expounded upon which would make the eyes of the average Rangers stakeholder glaze over. The ponderous tone alternating the focus between “Oldco” and “Newco” are, in my opinion, a distraction from what really matters.

 

“Rangers” are “Rangers” notwithstanding the legal nuances caused by the application of various bankruptcy laws. The heritage and records of the Club rest with the institution that is “Rangers,” and no amount of self-serving diatribe to the contrary, no matter how relentlessly pursued, can rewrite history.

 

However, I still remain bothered by the fact that the focus and isolation of Rangers and its adoption of EBT’s conveniently avoids exposing and evaluating a much broader principle embraced by the SPL rules and regulations. If the fundamental issue is a deficiency in furnishing information about overall player compensation, the Commission’s mandate should allow it to investigate and extract testimony under oath as to the utilization by all clubs of the concept of multi-contracts separating wages for playing football from other services. Compensation in a variety of forms whereby players participate financially in the license of their image rights to the club should especially be investigated as “image rights” come in a variety of guises. For example, a player can be given proceeds from the sale of the club top featuring his name, often under a separate negotiation with the kit supplier, or be provided with a car by a sponsor for appearing in an advertisement. Anyone with any knowledge of the process would testify to the fact that agents representing a foreign player joining a club in the UK will usually introduce the possibility of this segregation which is designed to mitigate the income tax liability of his client. The dilemma in these circumstances replicates that of the adoption of EBT’s. If the club files notification of this arrangement to the SPL, then it strongly suggests that it directly relates to signing with the club in order to play football for its team, thereby nullifying to a greater extent the theory behind an “image rights” contract designed to avoid standard taxes. If it doesn’t supply this information to the authorities, it finds itself in the predicament that has befallen Rangers because of its use of EBT’s. The principle is the same.

 

I also remain apprehensive that the guidance with respect to the penalties that could be applied on Rangers will be imposed on the Commission by vested interests in the SPL. Transparency here is fundamental. Justice must be served, but the punishment must fit the crime. Use of EBT schemes were broadly adopted by a variety of businesses during the era prior to them being specifically outlawed by designated legislation introduced only a couple of years ago. Also, as has been widely reported, Rangers made absolutely no attempt to disguise or deny their adoption, and they were fully disclosed in the annual reports and independently certified financial statements. What is galling, however, is the fact that it was not unusual for representatives of Rangers to openly discuss activation of EBT’s with their opposite numbers at other clubs during the era under investigation. I suspect that the Commission will not pursue this avenue of investigation, but it would be interesting whether or not “selective amnesia” would be exhibited by those Executives/Directors called to testify under oath about their ongoing familiarity with the Rangers scheme. It is ironic to reflect on the fact that the longer they maintained strategic silence on these conversations, the more extensive the number of titles that could be stripped if and when the opportunity arose subsequently to neutralize the successes that were earned by Rangers on the pitch.

 

At the end of the day, whatever misdemeanor could be validly charged to Rangers, surely it was a breach of procedure, not “cheating” or financial doping. The eminent members of the Commission must ask themselves – what were the real, not fabricated, consequences of Rangers not registering the information on EBT’s directly with the SPL. On the contrary, what actions would have been taken by the SPL at the time if all the detail of the EBTS, the total of which was reported annually in public accounts, had been submitted in a timely form. I genuinely suspect that the compliance officer would have reviewed the documents, ticked the important boxes that dealt with the players status and then routinely filed them for posterity. The Commission hearing this case must consider the real impact of any default. A verdict that Rangers essentially did not in fact adhere to stipulated procedures, does not warrant capital punishment.

 

http://t.co/HomJFqoa

Edited September 24, 2012 by chilledbear

[forlanssister 3,114]

He likes throwing the odd hand grenade does Mr Johnston.

 

If anyone knows the in's and out's of "image rights" and such like it'll be him.

[Guest sarry]

Good statement, this whole situation gathers momentum every day, when will be allowed to move on ?

 

Our support has been 100% & Ally has been first class, if he had walked the place would have fell like a pack of cards.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

brilliant stuff from aj imho.

 

nails celtc in a couple of places.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

He likes throwing the odd hand grenade does Mr Johnston.

 

If anyone knows the in's and out's of "image rights" and such like it'll be him.

 

we all know which club won a treble with an Asian player who had an image rights contract.

[Blue Moon 1,389]

Very strong statement from Alistair Johnston. Well done sir.

[Zappa 0]

I'll be watching with interest to see if Pacific Quay cherry-pick AJ's statement or publish the full thing.....

[der Berliner 3,882]

As I said before, as long as no-one challenges the tribunal head-on and directly, they can do as they please.

[foggy dewhurst 0]

interesting when he talks about image rights i was talking to a supporter of the other side and he was telling me that they shelled out a small fortune in image rights to players under the bunnet man i dont know just how legal these payments are but according to my friend they where payed off shore .

 

anyway enjoy the golf aj wish i could be there .

[Zappa 0]

As I suspected they would and suggested in the post above, the BBC editors at Pacific Quay have completely twisted the Alistair Johnston statement by cherry picking it and completely leaving out the parts of AJ's statement which raise questions about image rights.....

 

 

Rangers punishment 'must fit crime' - former chairman

 

Former chairman Alastair Johnston believes Rangers are being vilified for what he calls a "breach of procedure" over past player payments.

 

A tribunal set-up by the Scottish Premier League is investigating claims of alleged dual contracts at Ibrox.

 

Two weeks' ago, Johnston described the probe as "a kangaroo court".

 

And Johnston insists the Glasgow club's prior use of employee benefit trusts cannot be considered "cheating or financial doping".

 

The independent tribunal, headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, is investigating the period 2000-2011 and will convene in November.

 

BBC Scotland has seen evidence, which was submitted to the courts, suggesting that 53 Rangers players and staff had side-letters giving undertakings to fund their sub-trusts with cash.

 

Scottish FA and SPL rules state that all payments made to players in respect of their earnings from football must be declared by their club.

 

In a lengthy statement, Johnston repeated many of his earlier misgivings about the investigation but added that he was "not concerned about the impartiality of the learned gentlemen who will adjudicate on this matter".

 

Rather, Johnston is worried by the "directives that have been provided to them by the SPL which in itself is constituted by competitors of the club who have a vested interest in the outcome of the proceedings".

 

If found guilty of rule-breaking, one possible sanction is the stripping of league titles won during the period under investigation.

 

"Justice must be served, but the punishment must fit the crime," implored Johnston.

 

"Use of EBT schemes were broadly adopted by a variety of businesses during the era prior to them being specifically outlawed by designated legislation introduced only a couple of years ago.

 

"Also, as has been widely reported, Rangers made absolutely no attempt to disguise or deny their adoption."

 

Johnston also asserts that the use of EBTs was "openly discussed" with those running rival SPL clubs.

 

On this, he adds: "I suspect that the commission will not pursue this avenue of investigation, but it would be interesting whether or not 'selective amnesia' would be exhibited by those executives/directors called to testify under oath about their ongoing familiarity with the Rangers scheme.

 

"It is ironic to reflect on the fact that the longer they maintained strategic silence on these conversations, the more extensive the number of titles that could be stripped if and when the opportunity arose subsequently to neutralise the successes that were earned by Rangers on the pitch."

 

The EBT scheme run by former Rangers owner Sir David Murray is the subject of a separate tax investigation by HMRC, which is due to release its conclusions next month.

 

Meanwhile, the SFA is expected to issue a statement shortly regarding Rangers' alleged use of dual contracts.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19708535

Edited September 25, 2012 by Zappa