Rangers Statement

[TRVMP]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in the Morton board or the Other Football board, but because I don't want to talk about Rangers (I make absolutely no comment on the tax case or idea of title stripping, unfair advantage etc. in this thread) but rather about the possible outcomes for Morton I'm putting it here.

 

Rangers released this statement yesterday:

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-5/

 

Here is the relevant part for other clubs, Morton included:

"Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs...

 

"... Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs.

 

"For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football."

 

 

The obvious reading of that is that in the view of Dave King (and, from what I've seen, the view of most Rangers fans), anyone who takes a side against Rangers in any upcoming drama over history, legacy etc. is acting both against Scottish football and against their own club's interests.

 

Leaving aside one's own view on the Rangers situation, does anyone actually agree with this? It doesn't make any sense to me. If someone believed that Rangers had an unfair advantage and that there's scope for further investigation, does that necessarily hurt Scottish football? Is it not equally plausible that not looking into it would damage the game by throwing its competition into question? It's also far from clear how the fiduciary responsibility plays into this. We can't turn back time to see what would be the most profitable move.

 

Even if one didn't accept the above, one would have to ask how King, Rangers etc. are qualified to judge who acted against a different club's interest. I believe in Scotland one can only have a stake in one club. In the US, in order to mount a legal challenge you need to have 'standing' to do so (I don't know what it's called in Scotland.) For example, if someone fly-tips on another person's property across town, I couldn't sue the tipper, because the property affected is nothing to do with me. Similarly, it seems to me unbelievable that King or Rangers could try to pull up someone for damaging another club's fiduciary standing, simply because it's nothing to do with them. That seems a case for the stakeholders of the club in question.

 

Basically - and I can't stress enough that I don't want to turn this into a "what Rangers did" thread - I think the threat is a load of hot air and it shouldn't affect how Morton or any other club proceeds from here with whatever they want to do. DDF acted honorably during the last Rangers saga and I would expect the same this time, and this statement should not change that at all.

[shagster]

Plastic English and plastic Paddies both now playing the vhictim card. Fuck them both.

[dunning1874]

The best course of action for Morton, and indeed every other club, is to ignore this. Official statements released by Rangers have been increasingly paranoid since the EBT verdict even by Dave King's usual standards, I think it's as much aimed at appeasing their fans as any kind of warning shot to other clubs, so we should pay no attention to it.

[TaunTon]

I imagine most of the bluster and fury is King trying to demonstrate to the Rangers faithful that he's a genuine defender of the faith.

 

I seriously doubt that anyone would waste their time and money banging the drum about titles long gone except loonies of the MJ ilk from the other half of the darkside.

 

Laughable though that a convicted tax fraudster should lecture others on how they should behave and the lack of benefits deriving from tax fraud.

[HamCam]

I always smile when this dodgy businessman attempts to take the moral high ground. As dunning1874 points out the charlatan is merely pandering to the growlers in the support. That said I do not see anything useful coming out of revisiting this tedious affair. Better to live with the hypocrisy of a new club wanting another club's trophies without accepting its baggage.

[GiGi]

Panic rife at The Rangers. Without trophies, what are they? 

 

King's statement can be simplified in that he thinks clubs should be more worried about how much money they can make from Rangers as opposed to concerning themselves with their disgracing our game, fairness or accountability.

 

A valiant attempt a smokescreen but to quote my favourite internet personality, "thanks for playing anyway, champ". 

[capitanus]

Plastic English and plastic Paddies both now playing the vhictim card. **** them both.

 

Why do people like this even bother posting?

 

Nothing to contribute, but doesn't like the old firm, but he's too braindead to articulate why he doesn't like them.

 

Fail.

[capitanus]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in the Morton board or the Other Football board, but because I don't want to talk about Rangers (I make absolutely no comment on the tax case or idea of title stripping, unfair advantage etc. in this thread) but rather about the possible outcomes for Morton I'm putting it here.

 

Rangers released this statement yesterday:

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-5/

 

Here is the relevant part for other clubs, Morton included:

 

 

 

The obvious reading of that is that in the view of Dave King (and, from what I've seen, the view of most Rangers fans), anyone who takes a side against Rangers in any upcoming drama over history, legacy etc. is acting both against Scottish football and against their own club's interests.

 

Leaving aside one's own view on the Rangers situation, does anyone actually agree with this? It doesn't make any sense to me. If someone believed that Rangers had an unfair advantage and that there's scope for further investigation, does that necessarily hurt Scottish football? Is it not equally plausible that not looking into it would damage the game by throwing its competition into question? It's also far from clear how the fiduciary responsibility plays into this. We can't turn back time to see what would be the most profitable move.

 

Even if one didn't accept the above, one would have to ask how King, Rangers etc. are qualified to judge who acted against a different club's interest. I believe in Scotland one can only have a stake in one club. In the US, in order to mount a legal challenge you need to have 'standing' to do so (I don't know what it's called in Scotland.) For example, if someone fly-tips on another person's property across town, I couldn't sue the tipper, because the property affected is nothing to do with me. Similarly, it seems to me unbelievable that King or Rangers could try to pull up someone for damaging another club's fiduciary standing, simply because it's nothing to do with them. That seems a case for the stakeholders of the club in question.

 

Basically - and I can't stress enough that I don't want to turn this into a "what Rangers did" thread - I think the threat is a load of hot air and it shouldn't affect how Morton or any other club proceeds from here with whatever they want to do. DDF acted honorably during the last Rangers saga and I would expect the same this time, and this statement should not change that at all.

 

What I find wrong about the whole situation was the SPL member clubs washing their hands of Rangers, and dumping the problem at the doorstep of the SFL.

 

With the SPL ceasing to exist since the inception of the SPFL, could the SPFL declare titles won under a different league administration body (The SPL) as invalid?

[TRVMP]

I assume there's some kind of agreement about title continuity between the two, but in fairness the SPL followed its own rules under the auspices of the SFA. The SFL was under no obligation to let the tribute act in but chose to do so without an election. It's almost certain that Sevco would have won an election anyway but the fact that one was not held was down to the SFL.

[TRVMP]

The best course of action for Morton, and indeed every other club, is to ignore this. Official statements released by Rangers have been increasingly paranoid since the EBT verdict even by Dave King's usual standards, I think it's as much aimed at appeasing their fans as any kind of warning shot to other clubs, so we should pay no attention to it.

 

That's broadly my take on it too. I certainly don't mean that Morton should respond to it. (Celtic already have, which is odd - yes, it's always nice to troll the tribute act, but you need to pick your battles.) But inasmuch as King actually meant it, I just don't think it applies at all. The duty of the Morton board is to the company and (by extension) its shareholders, classes into which King does not fit. He has no standing, neither legal nor moral, to expect any club other than his own to answer to him.

[Ed de Ball]

Basically he is saying that if clubs seek to strip Rangers of their titles etc retrospectively they had better make sure their own tax affairs are in order. He knows that Rangers are not the only Scottish club to have used tax avoidance schemes.

[9 Strathblane Crescent]

Loads of bluster and enough vagueness to satisfy the knuckle draggers in his support. I fear he's been taking lesson from Ernie, or whatever his real name is. Harry I think..

[TRVMP]

Basically he is saying that if clubs seek to strip Rangers of their titles etc retrospectively they had better make sure their own tax affairs are in order. He knows that Rangers are not the only Scottish club to have used tax avoidance schemes.

 

That's not how I read it. If you re-read the first paragraph that I quoted he seems to imply - to me, at least - that the fiduciary duties in question are to do with Rangers' 'removal' from the SPL (a curious way of phrasing 'liquidation') and not with anything internal.

 

Are you saying another club has used EBTs and side letters? If so, which?

[Ed de Ball]

That's not how I read it. If you re-read the first paragraph that I quoted he seems to imply - to me, at least - that the fiduciary duties in question are to do with Rangers' 'removal' from the SPL (a curious way of phrasing 'liquidation') and not with anything internal.

 

Are you saying another club has used EBTs and side letters? If so, which?

I think in his first para he simply means the other clubs need Rangers to boost their income so that it is in the interests of those clubs shareholders etc that nothing is said or done that might harm the new Rangers regime. So shut up!

 

Yes other Scottish clubs have used tax avoidance schemes, not just remuneration trusts but also offshore image right scams. As yet the names of the clubs are not a matter of public record. If anyone at those clubs is heard to speak against the new regime presumably Dave will try and get the SPL to act against them. HMRC will though know who they are and will be litigating unless they settle out of court so it is probably a bit of an empty threat.

[TRVMP]

I think in his first para he simply means the other clubs need Rangers to boost their income so that it is in the interests of those clubs shareholders etc that nothing is said or done that might harm the new Rangers regime. So shut up!

 

Yes other Scottish clubs have used tax avoidance schemes, not just remuneration trusts but also offshore image right scams. As yet the names of the clubs are not a matter of public record. If anyone at those clubs is heard to speak against the new regime presumably Dave will try and get the SPL to act against them. HMRC will though know who they are and will be litigating unless they settle out of court so it is probably a bit of an empty threat.

Both of these points seem sensible enough. I guess other Scottish clubs party to tax avoidance schemes have been watching Arsenal's case with interest and it's exactly as you describe - Hector pulls you over, you work out a deal, and the authorities need not get involved.

[Ed de Ball]

Wiith the Murray decision there is the very real prospect that Hector will be pursuing the former Rangers players, managers etc for the tax liability, particularly at higher rates, that should have been declared on their individual SA returns. Also interest and penalties. Could still be a lot of grief to come.

[shagster]

Getting called braindead by a plastic paddy glory hunter. Wow. Pick 1 team and support them.

Why should I have to explain to you the reasons for not liking the Old Firm .

Just like you I am entitled to my opinion. Why do people like you post on a Morton forum if you are not a supporter.

Go and cream yourself over any celtic website and keep your unhelpful comments to yourself

[capitanus]

Getting called braindead by a plastic paddy glory hunter. Wow. Pick 1 team and support them.

Why should I have to explain to you the reasons for not liking the Old Firm .

Just like you I am entitled to my opinion. Why do people like you post on a Morton forum if you are not a supporter.

Go and cream yourself over any celtic website and keep your unhelpful comments to yourself

And I suppose your comments were helpful?

[TRVMP]

Wiith the Murray decision there is the very real prospect that Hector will be pursuing the former Rangers players, managers etc for the tax liability, particularly at higher rates, that should have been declared on their individual SA returns. Also interest and penalties. Could still be a lot of grief to come.

All fair enough and I don't know enough about it to question it. I just wonder where it will leave clubs like Morton. The answer, it seems, is exactly where we were before the statement

[EanieMeany]

King was banging on about how people want to hurt "Rangers" now as they couldn't do it on the pitch at the time. No wonder, you absolute fuckin whopper. The number of contradictions and delusions in their position is mind-boggling.

 

Schrödinger's club.