Jump to content

 

 

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'documentary'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Main Forums
    • Rangers Chat
    • General Football Chat
    • Bluenose Lounge
    • Forum Support and Feedback

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Location


Interests


Occupation


Favourite Rangers Player


Twitter


Facebook


Skype

  1. Taken from FF. http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-accounts-committee/hmrc-standard-report-201314-part-1/oral/11443.html Q50 Austin Mitchell: What is the main problem? Will you ever be able to require these multinationals to pay tax here on the profits they generate here? What is stopping you? Lin Homer: International law. Jim Harra: We have discussed in the Committee before that there is an international framework of laws. There is an OECD project in which the UK is a leading participant. Q51 Chair: Are you working on that? Jim Harra: Yes, the BEPS project. There are 15 action points in that project, the first seven of which are due to report in September this year to the G20, and the remainder in 2015. In there are policy changes aimed at ensuring that profits are allocated to the place where they are earned, and also that there is greater transparency between multinationals and tax authorities about where they operate and where their profits are. Chair: Okay. I will come back to some of these issues; I did warn you before you came to the Committee. I am going to Anne and Guto, and then I will come back on some of the issues arising out of what Austin said. Q52 Mrs McGuire: Could I have some information on one of the high-profile areas of tax avoidance, which is employee benefit trusts? I note that you have had a reasonably good year in terms of pulling back some significant sums. My understanding is that there was a 160% increase in the amount of money that you have managed to pull back. What criteria did you use for settlement opportunities? I understand that the aim of HMRC is to reach a settlement rather than go for an expensive court case. Where are the opportunities for those settlements? Jim Harra: We have published the settlement opportunities that are available to employers who have engaged in employee benefit trust avoidance. A significant number have stepped forward and settled on that basis. I can certainly send you a link to the detailed explanation of that. It gives a settlement opportunity that is within the law, but which is more attractive to the employer than the worst-case scenario if they go into litigation with us and lose. So a number of them have concluded that the best thing to do is to settle on that basis. It brings in an amount of tax that ultimately could be what they are liable for. It saves us a lot of resource, which we can then deploy on those who are fighting us and enables them to move on. There are a significant number of variants of employee benefit trust avoidance. One issue for us is that if we were to try and litigate—unlike marketed avoidance schemes, where you usually have a large number of followers of schemes with exactly the same pretty much in each one—these companies are pretty bespoke, so I think the settlement opportunity is the most effective way of resolving the bulk of these cases. Q53 Mrs McGuire: Can I ask what the current legal status is of employee benefit trusts? Can I turn to a piece of documentation or a link that will give me secure information? Can I be confident that an EBT is in compliance with HMRC rules? Or are they all up for grabs? Jim Harra: Employee benefit trusts are entirely legal. There can be good non-tax reasons why an employer would wish to set one up, but we did see a significant drive a few years ago. One of the key reasons for setting them up was to avoid pay-as-you-earn and national insurance obligations. We have published information about what is and is not acceptable from a tax point of view, and what we will challenge from a tax point of view, as well as the settlement opportunity that is available to companies if they choose to avail themselves of it. Q54 Mrs McGuire: You’ve lost a pretty high-profile case in Scotland recently. It is in the public domain, so I am not putting out there what has not been in every Scottish newspaper and probably every football newspaper. One of the criticisms from Sir David Murray—or, if not him, certainly his spokesperson—was that you had various opportunities to settle with Rangers football club, but you decided to push to the upper-tier tribunal, which you lost. I know there are four or five outstanding issues to do with a referral back. If you do not want to speak about that particular case, can you tell me what the criteria would have been for not going for a settlement in cases such as that? I am not entirely convinced of all the financial arguments on this point, but the ramifications that have been suggested are that you may, by your action, have put the club into serious financial jeopardy. Jim Harra: First of all, if I can correct that misapprehension, which has been— Q55 Mrs McGuire: That’s fine. This is your opportunity. Jim Harra: It has been in the media. This dispute on employee benefit trusts was not the reason why Rangers went into liquidation. It was for non-payment of their standard pay-as-you-earn and VAT obligations. Q56 Mrs McGuire: That’s why I caveated my question. Jim Harra: In terms of when we decide to litigate, we have a published litigation and settlements strategy that states we will settle only for what we believe we are due under the law. If we believe that we have a greater than evens chance of getting more by litigating than what we can get by settling, generally speaking that is what we will do: we will litigate. We are proud of the success record that we have in litigation. In avoidance cases, we win about 80% of all the cases that we litigate, but that does mean we are not successful in 20% of them. We are disappointed by the upper-tier tribunal decision in the Rangers case. It is still something that can be the subject of appeal, so I cannot go into too much detail about the litigation itself, but, as I said, we have a very good track record and we may not have reached the end of the line on this one. Q57 Mrs McGuire: Given, though, that it is in the public domain that Murray International Holdings wanted to have a settlement, was there any opportunity at all, from your point of view, for some consensus to settle on this case? Or, as some would allege—certainly some supporters of Rangers football club—were you out to take a high profile business to court when you could have actually reached a settlement? Jim Harra: I can’t discuss what discussions we had in that particular case. It certainly is the case that where we receive a settlement offer from large businesses, whether the case workers are minded to accept or reject them, they come to the tax assurance commissioner and two other commissioners to make the decision. That has been the case since 2012, and that would include major EBT cases. It is certainly the case that we reject settlement offers where we believe that the better value for the Exchequer is to proceed with litigation, but we do that in accordance with published criteria. Q58 Mrs McGuire: So you are rejecting the allegation that this was a high-profile case that you could have settled in a different way? Jim Harra: Yes. We certainly don’t decide to take people on because they are high-profile; we use objective criteria for deciding whether to litigate. Sir Amyas Morse: Just for clarity—forgive me, because this is due to my faulty memory, I am sure—you did have exemplary criteria in individual tax avoidance, didn’t you? So if you had an individual who was in a prominent position, that would affect your approach to investigating tax avoidance, or your policy in terms of settlement, or what you would look for in terms of penalties and disclosure. Or is that not a factor at all? Exemplary issues are not a factor for you—is that what you are saying? Jim Harra: I think when it comes to litigating a technical tax issue, that is not a factor for us. There are certainly some people from whom we expect higher standards of behaviour than others, and therefore we can take a tougher line. For example, if an accountant in the tax profession does something, we may decide to penalise them more or to take a criminal approach, whereas if it was a plumber, say, we might have taken a slightly different approach. Lin Homer: Just to be very clear to both of you, no, we do not take cases with a view to the headlines, if that is the suggestion. Indeed, I think quite a lot of our debates with you about taxpayer confidentiality are partly because we believe it is very important that we apply our principles consistently and fairly. That is why it is so important that the published guidelines are applied. Also, it is why we think the tax assurance commissioner role has been a big part of trying to ensure that consistency over the last period, and of course Edward has just published his second report. Q59 Mrs McGuire: Could I ask one final, more general question on EBTs? Reading the professional press, there appears to be a view that some companies involved in promoting EBTs are beginning to feel that it is about time to bite back at HMRC, and collectively they are looking at whether or not they challenge your interpretation of EBTs, as opposed to waiting for you guys to come for them. Obviously, you will be aware of that, given that you will scan the professional press, a bit like ourselves, but do you think that that is a realistic option for some of those companies and firms? Jim Harra: They are perfectly entitled to challenge us; we are no more in the driving seat on litigation than the taxpayer is. At any point a taxpayer can say, “I’ve had enough of talking to you about this, HMRC. I believe you are wrong, and if you don’t concede, I’m taking this to tribunal,” and they are perfectly within their rights to do that. I have to say that to date the trend on EBTs has been to come to us and to settle.
  2. 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.
  3. After our site review of Rangers: The Blue Bear Rises earlier this month, SDMC Productions have now been in touch to say the DVD will now be released early next week. This means we now have our final competition of 2014 for a full DVD copy of the documentary. The film follows Davey Fishey (65) and Geordie (81) - both lifelong fans of their beloved club and both committed to following their team who clawing their way back year on year to their rightful place in the top Scottish league. The Blue Bear Rises is a moving tale told from very emotional fans giving us a full season (2013/2014) insight into the dedication, passion and love still felt by many in Scotland and around the world - a club that can still attract tens of thousands of fans to every game. To be in with a chance of winning the DVD, please email us with the name of Rangers' home stadium at by midnight on Sunday 21st December. Please note the site administrator's decision is final. For more information on the DVD and a full review please click here. Glasgow Rangers FC - The Blue Bear Rises (SDMC Productions) £14 - Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Glasgow-Rangers-FC-Blue-Rises/dp/B00O7QL29G
  4. A few of our members and subscribers over the last year or so will remember that an English production company were aiming to put together a feature-length documentary into the experiences of the fans over the last few years coupled with help from various supporters, players and RSCs. I'm pleased to say that after around nine month's work, these efforts are about to be published by way of a 90minute cinema film (and DVD release) over the next month or so. SDMC Productions kindly gave me an opportunity to put together a short review of an early edit of the documentary ahead of the final release which now follows. At the outset I think it's important to note that the budget for this film was partially crowd-funded and, thus, quite small so I certainly didn't expect a Hollywood standard production. As such, if the viewer can tune their expectations to that level then they'll get more out of the experience. With that in mind, it's fair to say I enjoyed some aspects of the film whilst being slightly disappointed in others. Basically, the documentary follows and interviews a number of fans in their Rangers supporting rituals and experiences - some related to events since 2011/12, some of a more general nature. While it can be said that a few of the interviews are perhaps somewhat repetitive and occasionally bland, the viewer can't fail to feel the love these fans have for their club. As much as every Rangers fan supports/views the club in a different way, I could definitely feel an affinity in which the passion these guys follow follow. That passion is certainly aided by some of the (apparently expensive) archive footage contained in the video. Whether it's the goals from our Cup Winners' Cup win in Barcelona '72 or Lee McCulloch grabbing another winner against lower league opposition, I'll never tire of cheering them in. That glimpse of our continuing history should evoke pride in all of us. In addition to the footage, interviews with Dave Smith and Dave McPherson show just what the club means to former players as well. My edit didn't have the interviews with Gordon Smith and Alex Rae but I'm sure the final version will emphasise that player/fan relationship. Unfortunately, where the producers missed a trick was perhaps not concentrating a little bit more on not only where the club is now but why. In that sense, some of the fan interviews only very lightly touched on the events of 2-3 years ago and I feel a more in-depth examination of Rangers troubles may have been appreciated. However, on our forum, the film director did say they weren't overly interested in an exposé of what happened but I do believe more should have been made of why we are where we are now. Similarly, while the untimely death of Sandy Jardine and the Ibrox Disaster of 1971 are understandably juxtaposed later in the film, this felt rather clumsy. Taking these comments on board, while I certainly enjoyed parts of the documentary, for some, the content may be seen as superficial or overly sentimental. However, that's not necessarily a major criticism as supporting Rangers nowadays - be it the daily financial or legal analysis - can be a complicated and stressful process so perhaps a more simple study will provide a welcome antidote to the constant headache many bears have nowadays. All things considered SDMC have clearly worked hard to independently produce something our fans will appreciate and I thank them and all involved for their efforts. You can judge for yourselves when the DVD is released and you can pre-order this below on Amazon. Furthermore, we'll have an opportunity on this site to win a copy of the full-length release next month. Glasgow Rangers FC - The Blue Bear Rises (SDMC Productions) £14 - Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Glasgow-Rangers-FC-Blue-Rises/dp/B00O7QL29G
  5. There was an interesting footnote to the Daily Record’s coverage of Ed Miliband’s attack on Mike Ashley over the latter’s penchant for zero hour contracts; commenting on the recent flurry of Police activity regarding the acquisition of Rangers by Craig Whyte, it read : “The warrant was issued on the day four men – David Grier, Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, who worked for Rangers administrators Duff & Phelps, and Gary Withey, who represented Whyte – were all detained by police in England acting on behalf of Police Scotland. They are due to appear in court tomorrow. Police Scotland, who are leading a joint operation with HMRC, said “inquires are ongoing” in to the whereabouts of Whyte.” What makes that footnote particularly interesting is that Police Scotland’s Specialist Economic Crime Unit are once again working jointly with HMRC. Some will remember that until recently the former were investigating the latter with regard to leaks of confidential information in the Rangers Tax Case although “they found no evidence that the leaks came from within HMRC”. Perhaps it’s unavoidable given the scope of the enquiry and the limitations on resources but does it not strike anyone else as peculiar that we now have a former suspect at the forefront of an investigation into our club? An agency which itself has been open to considerable criticism over their handling of the whole sorry mess, with serious questions being asked about their professional competency. We don’t need to do “conspiracy theories” when it comes to HMRC – the facts themselves suggest that there are considerable grounds for a government enquiry into their handling of the matter. The latest criminal developments only serve to add fuel to an already highly flammable topic. This after all is the same government agency whom:- 1. As per Keith Jackson’s Daily record expose` allowed Craig Whyte, a man they were already pursuing for tax related matters to the tune of £4 million, to assume control of a company and then fail to contribute PAYE for a period of 9 months and as a consequence forced the company into administration. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415 2. Treated complaints from Rangers shareholders regarding breaches of confidentiality in the Rangers Tax Case as “speculation about alleged breaches of confidentiality” whilst the platforms for the foregoing breaches, The Rangers Tax Case Blog and the BBC Scotland documentary – “The Men Who Sold The Jerseys” were picking up various awards courtesy of the confidential information they had broadcast. 3. Despite the investigation aforementioned by Police Scotland, have failed to explain how evidence in the Rangers Tax case, of which they were custodians, ended up in the hands of BBC Scotland. The remarks and summation by Lord Nimmo Smith in his SPL Commission Report have not been forgotten by the Rangers support, nor will the matter be allowed to rest until a sufficient explanation is provided as to how or who was responsible for such leaks. The Rangers support will welcome the latest flexing of the long arm of the law, not only from the sense of seeing some modicum of justice, but also a means of providing answers, long overdue answers to some of the questions this particularly dark period has caused. I doubt all will welcome such developments. The latest actions by the law enforcement agencies confirm what many of us have suspected for a considerable time – that our club has been used as the vehicle for a fairly elaborate and complex fraudulent scheme and in every sense is itself the victim of the perpetrators. It will be interesting to see whether there is a determination within our club to seek recompense, financial or otherwise, in respect of those who sought to punish the crime’s victim. The tale which will unfold if only half the story however. The decision making process at HMRC and their conduct into the investigation of our club is the untold story. The latter is a story which needs to be told and only a full public enquiry will suffice.
  6. I speculated that this was worth a thread on its own. Apologies if not, admin....merge it with Whyte Arrest warrant. However, it is a different revelation (though it may be connected, of course): "In a further development, The Daily Telegraph understands that while Wallace and Nash were still in their posts, documents related to the 2012 share issue were passed to the Serious Fraud Office for investigation. The SFO had no comment to make." It is tagged on here; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11231964/Former-Rangers-owner-Craig-Whyte-issued-with-arrest-warrant-as-four-others-are-detained-by-police.html
  7. I'm watching this again (for a fourth time) and I am still learning from it. A brilliant piece of work. anyone else watched this?
  8. "The Rangers Standard has received documentary evidence which appears to prove the links between Charles Green, Imran Ahmad and Rafat Rizvi and reveals the extent to which Rizvi was involved in the purchase of Rangers. The documents show the three men arguing over payments due to be made from the club and detail which shareholders Rizvi introduced. There are also claims from Rizvi that Green and Ahmad are holding shares for him and requesting that these be transferred to another entity." http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/329-rizvi-lawyers-ready-to-tuck-into-the-rfc-carcass-all-over-again
  9. Rangers fans group Sons of Struth threaten boycott of Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct shops Ashley has been targeted after purchasing the naming rights to Ibrox for £1. The threat of a boycott of Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct retail group along with the business interests of other Rangers directors has been made by dissident fans’ group, the Sons of Struth, following a ballot of supporters. The group, named after Rangers’ longest serving manager, Bill Struth, staged a demonstration behind the directors’ box at Ibrox during the team’s recent meeting with Inverness in the Scottish Communities League Cup, but have now raised the possibility of direct action against McGills Buses, a transport group owned by the Rangers football board chairman, Sandy Easdale, and his brother James, who serves on the plc board. Ashley has been targeted because Sandy Easdale recently revealed that the naming rights to Ibrox had been sold to the Newcastle United owner for £1. Easdale himself has been the subject of condemnation from the Rangers support - whose boycott of season tickets has reduced the club’s income from that source by half - because he has been seen in the company of Rafat Rizvi, who was sentenced to 15 years in absentia when convicted of fraud in an Indonesian court. Rizvi, a UK citizen, is the subject of an Interpol international arrest warrant but cannot be extradited because the UK has no treaty with Indonesia. He was pictured recently in Glasgow along with Easdale and Malyasian businessman, Datuk Faizoull Bin Ahmad, who was named as a potential investor in the troubled club, although he subsequently denied any intent to take a stake or any knowledge of Rizvi. The Sons of Struth issued a statement detailing the results of their poll, which did not specify how many fans’ opinions had been sampled, although it is thought that they have around 3000 members. The statement read: "Due to recent events, such as Sandy Easdale's meeting with convicted fraudster Rafat Rizvi, his broken promises of having investors lined up and the selling of our stadium’s naming rights to Mike Ashley for £1.00, Sons of Struth have received an increased level of calls for tougher action against the board, Sports Direct and, Easdale-owned McGills Buses. “Recent polling of our members resulted in 99.35% calling for the removal of Sandy Easdale as a Rangers director and 97.19% wishing Mike Ashley to cancel his 7 year contract for the naming rights to Ibrox, 92.87% want to boycott McGills buses and 87.47% want to boycott Sports Direct in attempt to achieve the removal of Sandy Easdale and cancellation of Mike Ashley's naming rights agreement. “89.64% of those polled want to see some sort of boycott at matches with an aim of removing Sandy Easdale. The general feeling amongst our members is that he lies to fans and shows no respect to his position through his close association with Jack Irvine and his meeting with a man on Interpol's most wanted list. His words and actions are disrespectful to the position he holds as a director of Rangers Football Club. “Our firm belief is that Sandy Easdale is an obstacle to future outside investment and, despite his recent outlandish claims that the fans' actions may put the club's future in danger, we firmly believe that after 100,000 season ticket sales in three seasons the blame for the clubs perilous financial position lies squarely in the boardroom. “The club operate a "football board" which is viewed in the eyes of the fans as nothing more than a vehicle to allow Sandy Easdale a directorship as he may not be eligible for a seat on the PLC board. Does this "football board" have any other purpose? “We shall release our intentions for further protests and boycott action in the very near future and in the meantime would encourage the board to immediately remove Sandy Easdale if they wish to avoid this. “Sandy Easdale has been heard in the past to claim that if the Rangers support do not want him at Ibrox he would leave. We would ask him to take the hint and go before his association with our club causes more damage. “Sons of Struth also call on Mike Ashley to cancel his naming rights contract before the 11th of October. If he still retains the naming rights after this point we will instigate an immediate series of actions aimed at his Sports Direct stores. “We would ask all Rangers supporters in the meantime to use discretion when deciding to give either Sports Direct or McGills Buses their custom. We will hold a public meeting of Rangers fans in October at at a venue to be announced." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11131196/Rangers-fans-group-Sons-of-Struth-threaten-boycott-of-Mike-Ashleys-Sports-Direct-shops.html
  10. Some info for any that wished to do this for their continued wilfull slaughter of hundreds of innocents. Bar codes start with.............. '7 29'
  11. Regarding Mike Ashley, the question of dual club ownership and the rumoured '10% rule', for anyone interested in reading the exact rules in the current 2014/15 SFA Handbook (Articles of Association/rules & regulations) just have a quick read of Article number 13. titled "Dual interests in clubs" which starts on page 90 of the Handbook PDF document. http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2014-15/Handbook%202014-15..pdf
  12. (Tom English – The Scotsman 25.11.2012) (Tom English - Twitter 21.08.2014) Its good to know that Tom English has found some sort of journalistic morality of late, however it may present a conflict of interests with his new employer, BBC Scotland. Or does the morality of source over story only apply in certain circumstances ? After all, Tom is now working for an employer who were happy to utilise not just stolen property, but stolen evidence from the Rangers Tax Tribunal, if Lord Nimmo Smith's conclusions are correct. But in his new found morality Tom has excluded himself from the knowledge that Vanguard Bears appear to have successfully cultivated a mole, perhaps within the SFA itself, as previous revelations, including documentary evidence, suggest. And could this latest expose, while perhaps lacking in documentary evidence, be a clear signpost to of a course of unedifying, unprofessional and negligent conduct involving our footballs higher echelons of administration ? Especially when viewed in the context of previous disclosed e-mails and agreements. Nope of course not – nothing to see here – move along please. But should we really be surprised ? After all there seems little excitement in journalistic circles that those in charge of Scottish Football were prepared to find Rangers guilty prior to trial as well as inflict draconian type punishments on a club which had yet to be found guilty. Morality ? Perhaps some of those journalists, and there have been many of late, who remind us of the impoverished state of our game via their daily columns, care to consider if perhaps they have a role to play. After all if the head of our game is more worried about being on time for a dinner date rather than what was probably one of the most critical meetings in the history of our game, is there not something fundamentally wrong ? What is particularly alarming in this whole episode are those gleefully re tweeting Tom English's original tweet. It does not matter that journalists will ignore story over source, it does not matter that it contains allegations of incompetence, of lack of prioritisation, of utter disdain for the game of football in Scotland (ironically affecting their own clubs) – so long as Rangers or Rangers fans get it in the neck - then that makes it okay. But let's not be too harsh on Stewart Regan – I’m told there is a certain restaurant in Leeds which does a succulent lamb to die for. It looks like football in Scotland will be the sacrificial lamb.
  13. Dear Mr Fitzpatrick, SUBJECT : RANGERS TAX CASE I refer to my previous correspondence to you regarding this matter and the various concerns I raised with you. I appreciate to date there has still been no conclusion to the ongoing Police Investigation into the criminal Breaches of Confidentiality which so characterised this HMRC investigation. Since we last exchanged correspondence the only significant development has been the dismissal by Lord Doherty at the Upper Tier Tribunal, of HMRC's appeal against the decision of the First Tier Tax Tribunal. It is as yet unknown whether HMRC intend to escalate this matter and launch a further appeal, despite the previous decisions of the First and Upper Tier Tribunals. However it is the conduct of HMRC during the course of this investigation which is a source of considerable anger and ongoing concern. As I previously informed you, many Rangers supporters and shareholders wrote to both HMRC and Government Minister's with ministerial responsibility regarding breaches of confidentiality regarding the Rangers Tax Case, only to receive responses from both HMRC and the HMRC Ministerial Correspondence Unit that they would not comment on “alleged breaches of confidential information”. The source of such “alleged breaches” was an award winning web blog – The Rangers Tax Case Blog- which ran for numerous months and regularly published confidential information which it sought to interpret courtesy of it's anonymous operator. BBC Scotland also produced an award winning documentary “The Men Who Sold The Jersey's” which was a consequence of numerous items of confidential information they had received, by as yet, unknown means. BBC Scotland also published on their website numerous items of confidential information pertaining to the Rangers Tax Case. An independent commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith subsequently concluded as follows : 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. It also listed the names of people where the BBC had seen evidence that they received side-letters. This event appears to have been the trigger for more activity in response to the SPL’s request. [section 98] Not only does Lord Nimmo Smith highlight the impact of these breaches of confidentiality and their subsequent exposure, but as can be seen, he suggests that the material passed to BBC Scotland was in actual fact evidence before the Tax Tribunal. Whilst it is dangerous to make any presumptions, I do not think it is unreasonable to presume that evidence removed from an evidential storage area, can only have been appropriated by theft. Furthermore as the Police Enquiry into the breaches of confidentiality only commenced after the conclusion of the First Tax Tribunal, following a complaint by Sir David Murray, it would suggest that this appropriation of evidence had up till that point gone unreported.. Whilst there are considerable parts of the jigsaw missing, based on the information which is available I would highlight the following areas of concern to you :- HMRC having seized evidence, in order to progress an investigation, totally ignored repeated concerns and complaints pertaining to breaches of confidentially. To suggest that documentaries produced by BBC Scotland and broadcast on national television equate to “alleged breaches of confidentiality” is simply unacceptable. One is left to speculate if they even bothered to cross reference the evidence they had seized and catalogued with the information which that was being released into the public domain. I would respectfully suggest to you if they have failed to do so – that would be tantamount to gross negligence. There is a considerable feeling amongst many shareholders that having highlighted breaches of confidentiality on numerous occasions, the response of HMRC was both dismissive and misleading, and displayed a complete abdication of their legal responsibility. Lord Nimmo Smith's conclusion that the material passed and subsequently used by BBC Scotland was evidence before the Tax Tribunal raises serious questions about the safe handling and storage of productions by HMRC. If the security of these productions was violated, on how many occasions did this happen ? How was this possible and what steps did HMRC take to report this apparent criminality ? Did they in fact report this appropriation of evidence and what was their legal responsibility to do so ? I’m sure you will appreciate the above concerns are only the tip of the iceberg and there are numerous other areas of concern as well as questions shareholders and supporters have. HMRC's failure to deal with previous complaints has resulted in an erosion of confidence in this organisation's ability to respond to concerns. The apparent, and further possible failings within a government investigative body should be a concern to everyone, even those outside the Rangers community. The concerns I have highlighted are particularly grave and warrant considerable in depth investigation and clarification, not only for the Rangers community, but to ensure all persons dealing with HMRC in the future can so with confidence. I would therefore ask you to raise these concerns amongst your peers within the Scottish Parliament, and for consideration to be given to a full government enquiry in order that these concerns can be investigated fully.
  14. Last evening, watching BBC Scotland's piece on Rangers trials with HMRC, I wondered why Angela Haggerty was chosen to counter Craig Houston. The current on going gripe is with HMRC, where is their representative? How about one of any number of the usual suspects(a lot of them regular contributors to BBC Scotland) who rushed to put the boot into the club? Even a Mark Daly who won a prestigious award for his BBC Scotland documentary, 'the man who sold the jerseys'? BBC Scotland utilise considerable energy in maintaining their policy of, 'careful hate'. Cosgrove keeps up the ridicule, Spence pushes the envelope regularly, and the News Department never misses an opportunity to demonise and marginalise(who can forget the bouncing ball on perceived sectarian lyrics)? Careful Hate just wouldn't cut it, the momentum had been building among the Rangers support, harbouring a legitimate sense of injustice. Quelling such fires requires venomous hate. Angela has a long history of being supportive of Irish republicanism, including providing necessary mitigation on the awkward area of armed struggle. Angela has been all over the Rangers situation, like a rash. Lucrative too for Angela, as Editor of Phil McFournames collection of essays, entitled 'Downfall'. Angela would have been paid a fee for lat evening's appearance too. Now, Angela is a well practised contributor to social media and she is 'Friends' with lots, if not all the regular detractors of Rangers. I suspect a few BBC Scotland Producers liked the cut of Angela's jib yesterday : "the revenge frenzy being whipped up by the Scottish tabloids is shameful. They know what the Rangers culture is capable of" and, "Rangers are a social club for people still clinging on to a white British protestant identity that revolves around fancy dress". You can see the attractiveness of misrepresentation, the HMRC thing has become inconvenient; get Angela on to spit a bit of venom on to the frenzy. Remember, the tabloids are shameful, BBC Scotland is unfailingly moral.
  15. Nah not buying this. Planes don't go missing No wreckage found No distress calls from the pilot 2 passengers alive and well but had passports stolen. Vietnam say it crashed in sea / Malaysia deny it. Bizarre stuff
  16. The First Annual Gersnet Dinner will be held at Malaga Tapas, 213-215 Saint Andrews Road, Glasgow G41 1PD on 26 April 2014 at 3.00pm for 3.15pm till 7.00pm. NOTE NEW TIMES DUE TO EARLY KICK OFF V STRANRAER http://www.malagatapas.co.uk/ The restaurant is currently ranked in the top 20 in Glasgow on Tripadvisor http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g186534-d1087980-Reviews-Malaga_Tapas-Glasgow_Scotland.html MENU FOR THE FIRST ANNUAL GERSNET DINNER (THE BEARS PICNIC) Primer Plato (First Course) Selección del chef de varias tapas, por ejemplo (Chefs Selection of Various Tapas e.g.): Pescados (Fish) – Pescado en Adobe ( Spanish Marinated Fish in a combination of paprika and spices) Fritura de Pescado (Fried Mixture of Fish & Seafood; king prawns, squid & white fish, served with garlic mayonnaise) Carnes (Meats) - Albondigas en tomate (meatballs cooked in a rich tomato sauce) Pinchos Morunos (Authentic Spanish Skewers of Sizzling Pork, marinated with cumin, garlic & red wine) Verduras (Vegetables) – Pisto Manchego (Mixture of roasted vegetables: peppers, potatoes, eggplants and onions mingled with tomato sauce) Bravas con salsa Picante (Malaga Tapas own take on the quintessential Spanish patatas bravas) 3 tapas per person Segundo Plato (Second Course) Paellas: Marisco (seafood), Valenciana (mix of chicken & seafood), Montana (chicken and dry-cured chorizo); Verduras (vegetarian) (the selection on the night will depend on numbers) Postres (Deserts) por ejemplo (e.g.): Crema Catalana (Spanish version of crème brulee fired at the table!) Copa Malaguena (Ice cream, honey coated peanuts, raisins and topped with Pacharin liquor) NB: The above are examples from Malaga Tapas’ current menu (see web site); as the owners import a high percentage of the ingredients from Spain, the actual dishes available on the night may vary from the above. £18.00 por persona (per person). All those wishing to attend please post in this thread. I am proposing to collect a deposit of £9/10 per head and in order to avoid any possible suggestion of impropriety, I intend opening a bank account with two signatories, specifically for that purpose. Frankie has approved the opening of a Gersnet Dinner account with me and Andy Steel as signatories. I'll PM the details to all those who sign up when I get it organised.
  17. "HMRC don't respond to speculation about alleged breaches of confidentiality". How many thousands of us have received this, or a similarly worded response from HMRC ? Or for those of us who have pressed MP's for an answer the appropriately named Ministerial Correspondence Unit of HMRC ? Some of you older Bears will remember how the producers of the American TV soap Dallas, wrote off the events of a whole series by suggesting one of the characters had merely dreamt it all. That's fine - perhaps I will awaken tomorrow morning to find the Rangers Tax Case Blog never existed or "The Men Who Sold The Jersey's" BBC Scotland documentary was just a nightmare. But of course they aren't just figments of a bad dream, they are every bit as real as the leaked confidential information which gave the foregoing blog and documentary a modicum of credibility. There is no "speculation" about it, nor is it an "alleged breach of confidentiality". Those of you who have read Follow We Will, by The Rangers Standard, will be well aware of the considerable injustices foisted upon our club and will be familiar with the damaging press articles written at the time of our fall. These happened, not simply because a charlatan had managed to gain effective control of our club and run it into the ground; it was because those dispensing injustice or penning scathing articles were doing so because they had bought into the lie that Rangers had indulged in “years of cheating”. That erroneous supposition was as a consequence of not just leaks and breaches of confidentiality, but the further subsequent manipulation of that obtained information. I remain convinced to this day that the SPL vote not to re-admit Rangers into the SPL was based on a presumption of guilt over EBT’s rather than anything else. “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” (Tom English – The Scotsman 25.11.2012) I had originally written to HMRC as part of an ongoing process of elimination; expecting them to assert that they had cross referenced the documents and evidence they had seized and undoubtedly catalogued, and were satisfied that the leaked confidential information appearing in the public domain had not come from themselves. Their response, as per the opening paragraph, not only astonished me, it also suggested to me something was clearly not right. However after numerous exchanges of correspondence it became clear neither HMRC, nor government ministers at the Treasury with ministerial responsibility for HMRC, were going to deviate from the clearly well rehearsed, but nonetheless erroneous "speculation" and "alleged" generic reply. At this point it’s is perhaps worthy of a short re-cap. Confidential information regarding Rangers tax dealings was appearing almost daily on a web blog and had already been subject of a documentary produced by our national broadcaster. The revelations by both the foregoing was to earn them awards in their respective fields. Whilst all this was happening the Investigative Agency responsible for collecting and securing evidence and information in the Rangers Tax Case was referring to breaches of confidentiality using terminology such as “speculation” and “alleged” Then the unthinkable happened - the experts sitting at the First Tier Tax Tribunal disagreed with Graham "Selective Amnesia" Spiers and all the other "internet and Scottish media tax experts" in declaring Rangers not guilty. This result was to prove the catalyst for the emergence of Professor Peter Watson of legal firm Levy & McRae, who announced on 27.11.2012 that he had written to Crown Office on behalf of Sir David Murray, asking them to launch a criminal investigation into such leaks. The only problem was that we heard nothing more on this, nor in fact was it even confirmed if Crown Office had indeed launched a criminal investigation. Consequently I raised my own criminal complaint in respect of the various breaches of confidentiality, in my capacity as a shareholder of Rangers oldco. In due course I received a letter from Ruaraidh Nicolson, Assistant Chief Constable Strathclyde Police, who confirmed the matter was already subject of an ongoing Police investigation. I presume this is as a consequence of Professor Watson’s complaint although this has never been confirmed – but confirming the investigation was ongoing was my priority not who had made the complaint. At this point I decided to test the water again with HMRC. Only this time I decided to do so with some political clout. Two options were available to me, my MSP or my MP. The latter, Jim McGovern, Scottish Labour, was the only Scottish member of Parliament to sign George Galloway’s Early Day Motion 913 – accusing our club of using insolvency law to avoid paying tax – a subject he and I had a fairly acrimonious exchange of letters with regard to. I therefore opted to engage the services of my local MSP – Joe Fitzpatrick SNP. But before I managed to meet Mr Fitzpatrick an event occurred which was to prove to be a significant “game changer” If words speak to you then the ones I was reviewing on my computer monitor were positively screaming at me. People speak of that "Boom - Headshot" moment, well this was one of them. Furthermore the author, as well as the context left no doubt whatsoever as to the absolute veracity of the narration. I was reading Section 98 of Lord Nimmo Smith's summary of the SPL Independent Commission Enquiry:- “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.” For those who are unfamiliar with legal jargon the word "productions" refer to evidence. It was simple enough to understand - a considerable volume of evidence had been stolen from The Rangers Tax case and passed on to BBC Scotland, and of course perhaps others. This stolen evidence then became the research material and driving force for the documentary "The Men Who Sold The Jerseys". So why is Section 98 of Lord Nimmo Smith’s Report such a significant game changer ? Well it establishes that the material utilised in the BBC Documentary, and published on the BBC Website (and possibly utilised elsewhere) – originated from material seized by, and in the care of HMRC who, as the investigatory agency, were ultimately responsible for these “productions”, irrespective of who had custody, charge or care of these documents at the time of the theft. You will recall in my last article I highlighted how hundreds of Rangers shareholders writing to HMRC to complain about these breaches of confidentiality were subjected to a standard response of “HMRC do not comment on speculation about alleged breaches of confidentiality.” Lord Nimmo Smith’s report completely destroys and usurps that HMRC generic response, and serves to confirm it was neither speculation nor alleged breaches of confidentiality. The consequence of this is that HMRC have some considerable explaining to do to the Rangers supporters who highlighted these breaches of confidentiality, as HMRC’s assertion of it being “speculation and allegation” is not consistent with the facts and circumstances alluded to by Lord Nimmo Smith. Either the security surrounding the evidence was so inept, so poor, that it was compromised on numerous occasions, or in one “grand heist” allowing the perpetrators to not only supply BBC Scotland with stolen evidence, but also other outlets such as The Rangers Tax Case Blog which, almost on a daily basis managed to produce documentation relating to Rangers tax affairs. Are we honestly to believe that HMRC were unaware that such theft (s) of evidence occurred and furthermore due to incompetent management of their evidence they were unaware that “copious material” was being removed and passed on to others ? It is worth remembering at this point that contained in HMRC’s own Charter, under the heading “What you can Expect From Us” is a commitment to “Protect your information and respect your privacy” But this theory is not without considerable problems. It would mean that HMRC totally ignored the material being published by BBC Scotland and The Rangers Tax Case Blog, ignored the concerns of the many hundreds of Rangers shareholders who wrote complaining of the breaches of confidentiality – in short that they adopted a head in the sand mentality to reports of apparent breaches of confidentiality which were being flagged up to them. Investigative Agencies seizing numerous items of documentary evidence, catalogue it for ease of reference – it would have been a simple task for HMRC to check the material appearing on the BBC Scotland and Rangers Tax Case Blog Websites by cross referencing it with their own catalogued evidence in order to establish if a problem existed. Quite simply believing this theory requires us to accept a level of negligence and incompetence by HMRC which would in my opinion, be tantamount to criminal neglect. A further possibility is equally unpalatable however – quite simply that HMRC were aware of the breaches of confidentiality and the theft of evidence, but for reasons best known to themselves, decided to deliberately mislead and misdirect the complaints from Rangers shareholders with their generic “speculation and allegation” rebuttal, perhaps in the hope that it would all blow over and in time interest would wane. During the course of this sojourn I have received confirmation that the ongoing Police enquiry into the Breaches of Confidentiality in the Rangers Tax Case is as a consequence of the complaint raised by Lord Peter Watson on behalf of Sir David Murray. It is significant that this complaint was raised after the conclusion of the first tier tax tribunal. Which begs the question why HMRC had not raised a similar complaint earlier? Is it really acceptable that in the highest profile tax case ever seen in Scotland, the Investigative Agency, HMRC, had the evidence stolen and they failed to report this theft to the Police for investigation – despite it appearing on National Media outlets as well as anonymous web blogs ? I am currently awaiting a response from HMRC to several Freedom of Information Requests served upon them via my solicitor. I am of the opinion that as well as failing to deliver upon their own charter, the subsequent response from them, if provided, will confirm they have also failed to uphold their own operational guidelines with regard to the loss of evidence in the Rangers Tax Case. Given the level of inconsistency, ambiguity and possible misleading of the public, I think it is high time that the investigators themselves were subject to investigation. Let us all push for the Government Enquiry, both our club and our support deserve.
  18. GRAHAM WALLACE insists Rangers are making 'substantial progress off the field' as they gear up for next season's SPFL Championship campaign. The Light Blues this week clinched a shirt sponsorship deal with online casino giants 32Red, who will replace Blackthorn in the summer and become the Gers' partners for the next three seasons. Ally McCoist's side are just one season away from their return to the Scottish top flight and chief executive Wallace said: "We are delighted to announce this deal. It shows we are making substantial progress off the field. "This is a good long-term partnership for Rangers. "We can leverage the strength of the 32Red brand and this deal can help reinvigorate the Rangers brand domestically and internationally. "We are working very hard to re-energise and reposition the club on the international stage. That goes hand in hand with our progression up the leagues and we are planning for next season in the Championship with one eye very firmly on the seasons beyond that. "Having a strong commercial partnership portfolio is very important to the club. "Attracting blue chip brands to be partners allows us to grow our commercial revenue which in turn allows us to reinvest right across the business. We are very pleased with this deal and it is the first, tangible step in our new commercial strategy. "The Championship will be a very competitive division and we are doing all our preparation to make sure that, in the true traditions of Rangers Football Club, we expect to be competitive and we expect to be successful." Wallace is due to complete his 120-day overview of the books at Ibrox on Friday but the club confirmed this week that they will only publish an 'update' on April 25. Wallace said: "We will shortly be publishing the results of the club's business review, as we committed to do, following an in-depth review of all areas of club operations. "This will give fans an insight into understanding the current status of club operations and how we are working to put in place what is needed to build for future success." http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/wallace-happy-with-off-field-progress-at-rangers-159803n.23978036
  19. Hi everyone, Hope you are all well! Thank you for your continued support of the Rangers project so far. We're pleased to say that a new funding campaign is now being started on our Indigogo page to raise funds for the Rangers documentary! It's only open for 2 weeks though, so make sure you get your contributions early to support our project! Link to our Indiegogo page: http://igg.me/p/695323/x/6506085 We've got a short teaser trailer of the documentary now up on Youtube - check out our interviews with David Fisher, Clive Anderson and other Rangers fans and supporters. Filming is going well so far, lots of great footage and interviews with fans and people all passionately involved with Rangers FC to bring you the story of Rangers from the fans' view! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph0UAvTrTaU Thanks again everyone, looking forward to having you onboard with us! Best wishes, Niraj Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Niraj Dave | Researcher SDMC Productions Limited Email: niraj.dave@sdmcproductions.com Office: 0044 (0)161 2362112 Mob: 0044 (0) 7905942209 Web: http://www.sdmcproductions.com Disclaimer: The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the recipient to which addressed. It may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than addressee, nor may it be copied in any way. If received in error, please contact SDMC Productions Ltd @ mail@sdmcproductions.com quoting name of sender and addressee. PLEASE DELETE FROM SYSTEM Please note that neither SDMC Productions nor any Employees or associates accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of SDMC Productions Ltd by means of e-mail communication
  20. Hi everyone. We are SDMC Productions, and we are producing a feature-length documentary charting the extraordinary story of Rangers FC. The project is coming along brilliantly, but we are interested to know what you, the fans, would like to see in the documentary! We'd be interested in your feedback and input, because this is a film made for the fans to tell the Rangers story from the fans perspective! Are there any particular things that you would like to see in the documentary, aside from interviews and goals. Perhaps there is a highlight of the club that sticks out for you- a moment, a player, a season? We’d be interested in all of your suggestions in all aspects of the documentary. Whatever you’d like to see in the documentary, we’d like to hear from you! What do you think of the ups and downs of Rangers FC, and the recent involvement of Dave King? What are your views and opinions on this? Where do you see the club in the future? We are also interested to know if you would go to the cinema to watch this documentary? Would you consider any areas that are too sensitive for us to cover? What features could we include to make it interesting to you? We've got a short teaser trailer of the documentary now up on YouTube - check out our interviews with David Fisher, Clive Anderson and other Rangers fans and supporters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph0UAvTrTaU&noredirect=1 As the fans, we want you to be proud of this project, so we don’t want to leave any stones unturned! Thanks again everyone, looking forward to having you onboard with us! Best wishes, SDMC Productions.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.