The following post comes about as a result of the research and work put in by Auldheid.
He has drafted the submission to FIFA detailed below after closely looking at their rules, and taking on board the points contained in the Glasnost “Golden Rule” blog. TSFM has attached the blog’s name to the report since the overwhelming – but not unanimous – view of our readership is that the SFA and the SPL have again gotten themselves into an almighty and embarrassingly amateur fankle over this issue.
We believe that tens of thousands of football fans will be lost to the game if the outcome of the LNS enquiry is not perceived to be commensurate with the scope and extent of the rule breaking that LNS found had taken place. In view of this, we believe that we have to do what we can to explore all possibilities for justice for those who love the game so much and yet are utterly disillusioned by recent events.
LNS is not being questioned here. He has found that RFC were guilty as charged by the SPL.
What is being questioned is the SFA’s crucial – and seemingly conflicted – role in the LNS enquiry, as is the effectiveness of LNS’s recommended sanction as either a deterrent or an upholder of sporting integrity.
It came to our notice last week that FIFA have created a web site at
https://www.bkms-system.net/bkwebanon/report/clientInfo?cin=6fifa61&language=eng
that tells us that FIFA have implemented a regulatory framework which is intended to ensure that all statutory rules, rules of conduct and internal guidelines of FIFA are respected and complied with.
In support of that regulatory framework FIFA have set up the above site as a reporting mechanism by means of which inappropriate behaviour and infringements of the pertinent regulations may be reported.
FIFA say that their jurisdiction encompasses misconduct that (1) relates to match manipulation; (2) occurs in or affects more than one confederation, so that it cannot adequately be addressed by a single confederation; or (3) would ordinarily be addressed by a confederation or association, but, under the particular facts at issue, has not been or is unlikely to be dealt with appropriately at that level.
Discussions arising from the previous blog on TSFM, “Gilt Edged Justice”, which was published after Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) ruled on the registration of Rangers players who had contractual side letters that were not disclosed to the SFA as part of their registration, suggest that there may be possible unfortunate consequences for football arising from the evidence presented by the SFA to the LNS enquiry that informed its findings on registration and consequent eligibility. There is also a question of the propriety of the SFA providing evidence on an issue which could have had a negative impact on them had it been found that they had failed to carrying out their registration duties with due rigour over a period of ten years when the existence of EBTs was known to officials within the SFA.
On the basis that the LNS findings require that registration rules be clarified by FIFA and rewritten globally if necessary to remove any ambiguity and under clause 3 above, this appears to be an issue that the FIFA should examine and that the SFA cannot address.
The following report has therefore been submitted by TSFM on behalf of its readers to FIFA drawing on the content and debate following the “Gilt Edged Justice” blog in respect of the possible footballing consequences of the LNS enquiry.
The hope is that by speaking for so many supporters, FIFA will give the TSFM submission some weight, but individuals are free of course to make their own points in their own way. We await acknowledgement of the submission.
The report Submitted to FIFA is as follows;
This report was prepared on behalf of the 10,000-strong readership of The Scottish Football Monitor at http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/
It is our belief that FIFA general rules of conduct were breached by the SFA and their employees in both creating and then advising The Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) enquiry into the non disclosure of full payment information to the Scottish Football Association (SFA) by Rangers F.C during a period of player registration over 10 years from 2000.We believe that although the issue has been addressed by the SFA the particular facts at issue suggest that it has not been dealt with appropriately and we therefore ask FIFA to investigate. The facts at issue are that the process and advice given failed to uphold sporting integrity, and that a conflict of interest was at play.
We believe the advice provided and the enquiry set up, where SFA both advised and is the appellant body, breaches not only the integrity the registration rules were intended to uphold, but also totally undermines the integrity of the SFA in breach of General Conduct rules 1, 2 and 4. (See below.)
1. Firstly we believe that the advice supplied to LNS that an incorrectly registered player was eligible to play as long as the registration was accepted by the SFA however unwittingly, undermines the intent of the SPL/SFA rules on player registration and so undermines the integrity of football in three ways.
• It incentivises clubs to apply for a player to be registered even if they know that the conditions of registration are not satisfied, in the hope that the application will somehow ‘slip through the net’ and be granted anyway (in which case it will be valid until revoked).
• A club which discovers that it has made an error in its application is incentivized to say nothing and to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ – because it would be in a better position by not confessing its mistake.
• And most importantly, it incentivises fraud. By deliberately concealing relevant information, a club can ensure that a player who does not satisfy the registration conditions is treated as being eligible – and therefore allowed to play – for as long as a period as possible (potentially his entire spell with the club). Then, if the club is no longer around when the deception is finally discovered, imposing meaningful sanctions may be impossible.
2. Secondly we believe the process followed was inappropriate due to a Conflict of Interest. Had the LNS enquiry not ruled on the basis of advice supplied by The SFA, they and those persons advising the LNS enquiry, could have been subjected to censure and the SFA to potential compensation claims had LNS found that the players were indeed ineligible to play and results then been annulled as was SFA practice when an ineligible player played.
3. Finally we contend that a law should not be applied according to its literal meaning if to do so would lead to an absurdity or a manifest injustice or in this case loss of football integrity.
See http://glasnostandapairofstrikers.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/gilt-edged-justice/4. We therefore ask FIFA to investigate both the process used and advice given to Lord Nimmo Smith to satisfy themselves that FIFA’s intentions with regard to upholding the integrity of football under FIFA rules have not been seriously damaged by the LNS findings and also to reassure Scottish football supporters that the integrity of our game has not been sacrificed by the very authority in whose care it has been placed to promote the short term cause of commercialism to the games long term detriment.
General Rules of Conduct (These are taken from the FIFA web site itself and can be found as part of completing the submission process)
1. Persons bound by this Code are expected to be aware of the importance of their duties and concomitant obligations and responsibilities.
2. Persons bound by this Code are obliged to respect all applicable laws and regulations as well as FIFA’s regulatory framework to the extent applicable to them.
3. N/A
4. Persons bound by this Code may not abuse their position in any way, especially to take advantage of their position for private aims or gains.
11 Years?
Airdrieonians FC liquidation to come to end.
http://www.acadvertiser.co.uk/lanarkshire-news/local-news/monklands-news/2013/01/24/airdrieonians-fc-liquidation-to-come-to-end-65864-32654571/
liveinhop says: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 17:10
Hargreave Hale Limited had 4,949,000 shares (8.58%) – just under 1% less than the Tetley tit – in December, and was the biggest shareholder after Green. But now he has none? :ponder:
I suppose the obvious questions are; to whom, and why have I not read about it in the local rags? 🙂
===========================
Have you got a source for that info? I would have expected that such a disposal would have had to have been disclosed to the market.
tomtomaswell says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 13:29
7
0
Rate This
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 13:14
3 0 Rate This
tomtomaswell says: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 10:32
———————————————————————-
This was all documented some time ago on RTC. The parent company of Wavetower/TRFCG is Liberty Capital LTD, not PLC.
The RiskDisk info is incorrect as was Duedil.com in identifying the parent as the PLC version of Liberty Capital.
That is where the original “billionaire” or “wealth of the radar” claims about Whyte came from. Liberty Capital PLC was part of a property group which owned amongst other sites, the Braehead Shopping Centre.
————————————–
Thanks for this
————————————–
Thought I’d check up on the credit co I use re this and indeed they are showing the correct parent
Company Name Local Number Safe Number Date of Accounts Status
LIBERTY CAPITAL LIMITED 16781 BM90019148 – Active
Looking at the dying subsidiary I was taken with the date of registration of the floating charge. Am I right that the form for this appeared then just as quickly dissappeared?
Mortgage Type: FLOATING CHARGE
Date Charge Created: 24/02/99
Date Charge Registered: 28/10/11
Date Charge Satisfied: –
Status: OUTSTANDING
Person(s) Entitled: THE GOVERNOR AND COMPANY OF THE BANK OF SCOTLAND
Amount Secured:
Details: THE WHOLE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY
myohmy1 says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 06:34
Incredibleadamspark
To say “with the exception of Celtic fans who would rather support Ireland” is wrong.Although most Celtic fans have an emotional allegiance to Ireland in some form or another the majority would I guess support Scotland.
___________________________________________________________________________
jockybhoy says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 10:20
Incredibleadamspark: can you just clarify what you meant when you posted “with the exception of Celtic fans who would rather support Ireland than Scotland…”? My assumption is that you meant with the exception of some Celtic fans who would rather… as clearly not all Celtic fans are supporters of Ireland over Scotland. Why would fans of Celtic who are, for instance, Irish, not support Ireland? Would you expect Korean fans Man United or Russian fans of Chelsea to support England? That makes no sense.
___________________________________________________________________________
I’ve no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of Celtic fans support Scotland and I don’t think my wording cast any doubt on that. I didn’t put ‘some’ before Celtic fans but nor did I write ‘all Celtic fans’ because I didn’t think that distinction was required. I never put those words before The Rangers fans either, something that doesn’t seem to bother you as much, so should I assume that you think all The Rangers fans support England? Of course I don’t assume that.
I thought It was fairly obvious what I meant but this is another example of any perceived criticism of Celtic or their fans on here being over analysed with explanations then asked for.
mickleen says: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 17:59
———————————–
I’m not sure what info you are looking for.
The document lodged (form 466) on 28/10/2011 was the confirmation of Close Leasing’s first ranking security ahead of the old floating charge that had been transferred from BoS to TRFCG as part of the Whyte purchase in May 2011.
It is my understanding that this charge (Close Leasing’s) was transferred to The Rangers Football Club Ltd (ex Sevco) and covers catering facilities and has a value of around £1.5M
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 17:55
——————————————————————————————————————————–
I’m breaking my self imposed exile to say that the source is “Super Hans” The post quoted is a reply looking for clarification and/or confirmation of that. Superhans has not yet supported his statement with any evidence and liveinhope’s at 17:10 is merely NDF’s questioning of that.
If folk insist on posting without a source, at least give the context. Thanks.
Easyjambo
Tis probably that my credit checker is only marginally more accurate that TT’s.It’s showing 4 outstanding charges on Oldco, the one above and:
Mortgage Type: ASSIGNATION IN SECURITY
Date Charge Created: 09/08/11
Date Charge Registered: 27/08/11
Date Charge Satisfied: –
Status: OUTSTANDING
Person(s) Entitled: CLOSE LEASING LIMITED
Amount Secured: ALL SUMS DUE OR TO BECOME DUE
Details: ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE RIGHTS AND INTEREST IN THE ASSIGNED AGREEMENT PLEASE SEEFORM.
Mortgage Type: STANDARD SECURITY
Date Charge Created: 01/05/06
Date Charge Registered: 05/05/06
Date Charge Satisfied: –
Status: OUTSTANDING
Person(s) Entitled: PREMIER PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED
Amount Secured: ALL SUMS DUE OR TO BECOME DUE
Details: SUBJECTS REGISTERED IN THE LAND REGISTER UNDER TITLE NUMBER GLA68492
Mortgage Type: STANDARD SECURITY
Date Charge Created: 11/01/02
Date Charge Registered: 18/01/02
Date Charge Satisfied: –
Status: OUTSTANDING
Person(s) Entitled: THE SCOTTISH SPORTS COUNCIL
Amount Secured: ALL SUMS DUE OR TO BECOME DUE
Details: AREA OF GROUND IN THE PARISH OF NEW KILPATRICK AND COUNTY OF DUMBARTON EXTENDING TO 37 ACRES
adamspark
i noticed your post
i thought you were fishing
mickleen says: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 18:33
———————————-
As I said, I’m almost certain that the Close Leasing charge has been transferred to the Newco (the prospectus mentions a lease for catering facilities valued at £1.5M covered with a standard security, although it doesn’t mention Close by name). The sums involved are also close to those that were recorded by D&P in their early creditors reports for Close Leasing.
The Premier Property one will have been superseded by the outright purchase of the Albion car park.
The Scottish Sports Council charge on Murray Park again was transferred to the Newco.
The administration of such charges is generally poor, therefore I wouldn’t expect that D&P and BDO would see it as a priority.
I know that Hearts, for example, have finally closed off 9 similar charges from years previous in the last couple of months.
Just wondering why the delayed report of sale of 100K shares at 0.72 hasn’t affected the highs and lows on the LSE site.
Is this a reason for not releasing info about a low-price relatively high volume sale – so it doesn’t show up in the rolling daily high/low/graph stats?
mickleen says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 17:59
tomtomaswell says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 13:29
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 13:14
3 0 Rate This
tomtomaswell says: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 10:32
Does this help?
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 18:59
—————————————————————————————————————————–
scapaflow14 saysFriday, February 22, 2013 at 13:14
We are all speculating, no one on here really knows with absolute certainty whats going on with Rangers.
,,,,,,
Well here`s some absolute certainty from Companies House
1 RIFC have NOT lodged an SH01 as mentioned in some previous posts. Even if they had this would not mean that shares were paid for by an exchange of cash on the day
2 Whyte`s Liberty Corporate hold a floating charge over RFCG who in turn hold the £27.5m floating charge over RFC
3 RFCG were due to be struck off on 17 July 2012 for not filing accounts. The strike off was opposed on 4 Aug 2012 and remains opposed
3 Liberty Corporate were due to be struck off on 25 Sept 2012 for not filing accounts The strike off was opposed on 12 Dec 2012 and remained opposed until it was withdrawn on 16 Feb 2013. As a dormant compnay Liberty Corporate`s only asset is the floating charge over RFCG which whenit is liquidated becomes a floating charge over RFC
4 RFC never filed any accounts for the financial years ending July2011 ( Whyte) and July 2012 (Duff&Phelps)
5 On 25 May 2012 RFC in Administration complied with its legal obligation to register at CH the “discharge in whole or in part” of 3 securities thus legally clearing or partly clearing debts owed by RFC)None of these securities applied to RFC debts owed to Close Leasing, RFCG(Whyte) or the Scottish Sports Council
6 On 6 July 2012 TRFC registered the SSC security debt which was previously a debt of RFC. Since RFC were in Administration until Dec 2012 and did not register the SSC security transfer to TRFC this means that RFC were not legally obliged to register the transfer of a security
Suggesting
RFC could have transferred the Close Leasing FC security and the RFCG FC security to another company without having to register the transfer at CH
The FIFA Submission which we made on behalf of the blog, has been – not surprisingly – dismissed out of hand without any explanation. The reply was as follows;
Sadly, no reasons are given for this summary dismissal, although from the additional information, one may infer that there was no evidence to support our view.
I believe the answer to the current bog post is a resounding “Probably Not!”
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 17:55
liveinhop says: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 17:10
Hargreave Hale Limited had 4,949,000 shares (8.58%) – just under 1% less than the Tetley tit – in December, and was the biggest shareholder after Green. But now he has none? :ponder:
I suppose the obvious questions are; to whom, and why have I not read about it in the local rags? 🙂
===========================
Have you got a source for that info? I would have expected that such a disposal would have had to have been disclosed to the market.
============================
I too would like to know where the info comes from. But it should remembered that Hargreave Hale Limited is not a shareholder but is responsible for notifying AIM that the 5% shareholding level has been passed in respect of the 5,022000 shares held by discretionary clients of Hargreave Hale Limited,
4,700,000 of these shares are held for unit trusts operated by Marlborough Fund Managers Ltd, for whom Hargreave Hale Ltd manages the investments on a discretionary basis. The remaining balance is held on behalf of other discretionary clients.
I would guess that unless the percentage drops below 5% then there would be no notification requirements and it may be that you only need to notify above 5% but not when it falls below the 5% figure.
Again I would guess that if Hargreave Hale Limited no longer manages the investments then it wouldn’t need to make any declarations but if any new manager had over 5% they would need to declare their interest.
Borussia. The HMRC situation a couple of years ago with Falkirk was merely a shot across the bows and was paid in full in good time. As for our squads average age being 23. You must factor in the fact that we have Darren Dods, who at 137 bumps up the average a fair bit on his own:-)
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 18:59
1 0 Rate This
mickleen says: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 18:33
———————————-
As I said, I’m almost certain that the Close Leasing charge has been transferred to the Newco (the prospectus mentions a lease for catering facilities valued at £1.5M covered with a standard security, although it doesn’t mention Close by name). The sums involved are also close to those that were recorded by D&P in their early creditors reports for Close Leasing.
The Premier Property one will have been superseded by the outright purchase of the Albion car park.
The Scottish Sports Council charge on Murray Park again was transferred to the Newco.
The administration of such charges is generally poor, therefore I wouldn’t expect that D&P and BDO would see it as a priority.
I know that Hearts, for example, have finally closed off 9 similar charges from years previous in the last couple of months.
________________
why did they not just leave the close leasings charge behind with the rest of the creditors ?
Andy says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 19:54
why did they not just leave the close leasings charge behind with the rest of the creditors ?
————————————————————————
From memory because under the lease terms the property didn’t belong to Rangers so if they refused to take the lease on then all of the equipment would have been removed which could have reduced income and cost capital up-front to get a deal from another company and that might not have been easy to achieve.
Big Pink.
I think it important to say the submission to FIFA was actually studied by their ethics committee, and they have acknowledged this. They cannot now claim ignorance of the situation,and their lack of interest will have consequences down the road in some other case. God forbid another Sion saga reoccurring! Indeed Sion may feel very hard done by when one considers FIFA’s myopic treatment of the Servco case, which, if examined even casually, would indicate much more reckless behaviour than Sion were ever guilty of. So, well done to all for bringing this case to FIFA’s attention.
Pink Big….”so well done” is that the wee monkey riding a pig ? (backwards is best )
schottie59 says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 23:05 (Edit)
__________________________________________
??
Dunfermline’s situation has brought the club/company question into sharper focus. If DAFC reform in some way after administration, the new entity will not own any assets. If they wish to continue playing at East End Park they will, presumably, have to pay rent to the “owners”, i.e. Mr G. Masterton.
This is, of course, one of 101 different scenarios for the Charles Green/Rangers endgame.
Pink big…..sorry …was in a Karl moment ….which over the last 14 months or so I guess is where we all are …amazing
For those interested here is the ethics committee…
Chairman
Michael GARCIA USA (Investigatory Chamber)
Member Investigatory Chamber
Les MURRAY Australia
Robert TORRES Guam
Jorge Ivan PALACIO Colombia
Noel LE GRAET France
Ahmed YAHYA Mauritania
Ronald JONES Barbados
ogmagaonghusa says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 23:37
5 0 Rate This
Dunfermline’s situation has brought the club/company question into sharper focus. If DAFC reform in some way after administration, the new entity will not own any assets. If they wish to continue playing at East End Park they will, presumably, have to pay rent to the “owners”, i.e. Mr G. Masterton.
___________________________________________________________
To be honest, that’s not really much different from the scenario at the moment.
Dunfermline don’t own any assets at the moment, it’s the holding company.
If they get through administration it’ll still be Masterton in charge with no debt.
Only if they’re liquidated will Dunfermline need to reform.
But then in Scottish football we all know no club can be liquidated, you buy their history for a quid and reform as the same club.
Masterton just gets a front man to do that.
By magic, same club with history intact, same owner and debt free.
Wait, isn’t administration just the same as liquidation in the Scotland……..
What a web we weave and in amongst that, they have a £12m loan kicking about somewhere
…now, I do not normally do this but was altered by this link on another forum….listen to Fraser Wishart squirm as Davie gives them some facts….the response…..nothing….quelle surprise
This nonsense about the same club, history is really getting beyond a joke….needs to be called out for the sham it is at every opportunity..
Anyway, courtesy of alanmac over on thehuddleboard.co.uk:
http://youtu.be/3K7AHnjgb_c
well in Davie!
smartbhoy, I accept your points.
I commented because this particular “business” template has been more openly exposed than usual over the past few weeks, with the news about Coventry City and DAFC harmonising (in my nut at least) with the gurgling sound of TRFC going down t’plug’ole.
Also, smartbhoy, I was intrigued by a couple of things you said:
1. “Masterton just gets a front man to do that.”
Was that a reference to someone at Dunfermline or some other club (or both)?
2. “…they have a £12 million pound loan kicking about somewhere.”
Does that refer to the company which owns the assets of “DAFC”? If so, might that sum have been owed (at one point) to BofS? Is this some of the money which was taken off balance sheet to make the figures look a bit more perky?
Big Pink/Auldheid
I wasn’t so despondent on the reply from FIFA, in fact I thought it was quite positive, they way I read it was esp this comment ” Please note that the Chairman is open to revisiting his decision upon review of any additional material that you believe substantiates your allegations, including your belief that the alleged conduct violated the FIFA Code of Ethics.” if nothing else it may have caused an embarrassing phone call to UEFA or the SFA. On another topic – I am sad to see the plight of DAFC, a local rival who on occasion I may have indulged in some unwholesome banter with 🙂 , but nonetheless a club with a proud history. Masterton has a lot to answer for (bank and club ruined) . With the recent run of TRFC, HMFC,DAFC it shows to me that the SFA/SPL/SFL should have a local financial fair play policy at all levels of senior football to minimise this recklessness in the future.
ah – my mastery of wordpress markup let me down, it deleted the some words between “was and “esp this” what I meant to say was : the way I read it was “ok we hear what you say but we need some firm evidence put before us”
peterjung1 says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 00:27
10 0 Rate This
…now, I do not normally do this but was altered by this link on another forum….listen to Fraser Wishart squirm as Davie gives them some facts….the response…..nothing….quelle surprise
————
Davie is a consistently good caller, and fair do’s to Clyde for having him as a ‘regular’.
The five-way ‘extremely confidential agreement’ is a very convenient smokescreen.
Danish Pastry says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 05:42
2 0 Rate This
peterjung1 says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 00:27
10 0 Rate This
…now, I do not normally do this but was altered by this link on another forum….listen to Fraser Wishart squirm as Davie gives them some facts….the response…..nothing….quelle surprise
————
Davie is a consistently good caller, and fair do’s to Clyde for having him as a ‘regular’.
The five-way ‘extremely confidential agreement’ is a very convenient smokescreen.
=========
wouldn’t wishart’s own defence of the players who walked away be that they are two separate clubs, hence the statements from the players at the time would shirley have been on advice from their union
he’s a disgrace
As
a) DAFC enters Administration,
we are unavoidably caught up in a ‘compare & contrast’ exercise with
b) RFC’s version of ‘Administration’.
I wonder how many of the ‘copy-pasters’ in the MSM will be able to point out to their readers, listeners and viewers, even one of the differences between a) & b).
Let’s give them a head start – DAFC(IA) will make many/all players and other employees redundant immediately.
Another one – Duff & Phelps will NOT be the Administrators.
Go on lads – show us how clever you are, let’s see whose first to get to three.
Ps. You can all stop when you get to fifty!
Pps. Billy, you’re exempt.
I should imagine that FIFA want facts, not hearsay.
Not that I’m saying the evidence presented was without foundation, but they probably require to build a “prima facie” case (heard that before somewhere, and look where that got us!) before deploying resources.
They’ll want names, times, places. They won’t want to hear about agreements that are unknown and have been denied, for example.
So whatever was submitted would have to be looked at very objectively. You’d have to decide whether there was actually enough hard, rather than soft or circumstantial, evidence to investigate further. Comparing one situation to another would only be accepted as precedent if the circumstances were close to identical.
Facts would have to be unassailable, and alternative readings of Rules would have to be considered (as we’ve seen, interpretation is everything).
In the meantime, I personally think that the whole TRFC situation up til now is done and dusted. No authority wants to dig up rotten bones, and no authority is going to change anything that’s happened. Truly, the ship has sailed. Pirate Captain Green has performed a skin of the teeth escape act, but still has to negotiate some stormy waters before he can claim the loot.
Just saying. 🙂
Senior says:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 22:38
Big Pink.
I think it important to say the submission to FIFA was actually studied by their ethics committee, and they have acknowledged this. They cannot now claim ignorance of the situation,and their lack of interest will have consequences down the road in some other case. God forbid another Sion saga reoccurring! Indeed Sion may feel very hard done by when one considers FIFA’s myopic treatment of the Servco case, which, if examined even casually, would indicate much more reckless behaviour than Sion were ever guilty of. So, well done to all for bringing this case to FIFA’s attention.
==============================================================
Would it be worthwhile pointing these developments out to Sion – sometimes things link and produce results in mysterious ways 🙂
I dont want to keep going over old ground here, but just to say on the DAFC situation …
Once the club liquidates, it is the end of it. The club is no longer. The ‘Clubco’/’clubFC’ duality concept is a fallacy.
The concept was thought up inventively because either the SFA wanted to be able to apply some form of punishment to the ‘next’ Rangers after the old one ended, or because the SFA/SPL were looking to sidestep potential sanction from FIFA, UEFA or other euro clubs. It did not exist in any clear or explicit form until the administration of Old Rangers.
The concept is conveniently clung to by many.
Share price down to 72p this morning.How long before panic sets in?.
The institutional investors who bought in at 70p will be watching carefully.
Carl31 (@C4rl31) says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:10
I dont want to keep going over old ground here, but just to say on the DAFC situation …
Once the club liquidates, it is the end of it. The club is no longer. The ‘Clubco’/’clubFC’ duality concept is a fallacy.
The concept was thought up inventively because either the SFA wanted to be able to apply some form of punishment to the ‘next’ Rangers after the old one ended, or because the SFA/SPL were looking to sidestep potential sanction from FIFA, UEFA or other euro clubs. It did not exist in any clear or explicit form until the administration of Old Rangers.
The concept is conveniently clung to by many.
………………………………………………………………….
Have I missed something here, DAFC are NOT yet in liquidation, the route they are seeking is administration is it not?
torrejohnbhoy says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:20
Share price down to 72p this morning.
How long before panic sets in?.
_________________________________________________________________________
Panic ? Is that what follows when Loyalists discover their leader has Irish Catholic roots?
It would be interesting to hear of Mark Wotte’s thoughts on the Scotland malaise.After all he works for an organisation famed for its transparency and open statements.
Strong Scotland? See if we had a strong T’Rangers………..spin,spin,spin
You can just hear their silly minds ticking….pundits and sports journos,jeezo!
torrejohnbhoy says: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:20
Share price down to 72p this morning.How long before panic sets in?.
The institutional investors who bought in at 70p will be watching carefully.
==========================
You will probably see another 6 figure sale appearing in the next day or two, probably at 70p or maybe even less.
manandboy says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:34
0 3 Rate This
torrejohnbhoy says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:20
Share price down to 72p this morning.
How long before panic sets in?.
_________________________________________________________________________
Panic ? Is that what follows when Loyalists discover their leader has Irish Catholic roots?
===================================================================
can you explain that one to me…i don’t understand
[i do knowthat, ironically – wolftone was a protestant]
orrejohnbhoy says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:20
Share price down to 72p this morning.How long before panic sets in?.
The institutional investors who bought in at 70p will be watching carefully
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
tj
An opinion
I doubt whether the term “institutional investor” properly describes the groups who invested in RIFC
In my view the so called “investors” boil down to
– One or more groups fronting for Ticketus, Whyte and Close Leasing who got shares in exchange for wiping debts
– Freebie shares for the Green consortium
– “Celebrity” investors who got freebies in exchange for associating their name with known spivs
– Other groups who have not yet paid for their shares by agreement with RIFC
– Gullible RFC fans who cant tell the difference between investing in RIFC and investing in TRFC
Suggesting the only genuine investors were fans The rest are out to milk TRFC for as much as they can in as short a time as they can
If so
.It is most unlikely that any serious war chest will ever happen
We are unlikely to ever know the whole story as normal practice for Spivs will be to liquidate before accounts need to be published
manandboy says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:34
Panic ? Is that what follows when Loyalists discover their leader has Irish Catholic roots?
__________________________________________________________________________
Oops, apologies, lads – just my occasionally wayward sense of humour, fuelled in this instance by a mild attack of gloom.
goosygoosy says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 11:22
I doubt whether the term “institutional investor” properly describes the groups who invested in RIFC
In my view the so called “investors” boil down to
– One or more groups fronting for Ticketus, Whyte and Close Leasing who got shares in exchange for wiping debts
– Freebie shares for the Green consortium
– “Celebrity” investors who got freebies in exchange for associating their name with known spivs
– Other groups who have not yet paid for their shares by agreement with RIFC
– Gullible RFC fans who cant tell the difference between investing in RIFC and investing in TRFC
Suggesting the only genuine investors were fans
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Goosygoosy, while I agree there are a lot of smoke and mirrors going on what I dont understand is how they could have stated they had a “cash figure” of 21.2million at 31st December if the shares had not been sold and raised the stated amount?
According to the statement bellow these are the figures they declared on their interim report and surely even they wouldn’t be stupid enough to publish blatant lies that could have them in serious bother?.
Financial Highlights
· Revenue of £9.5m
· Operating expenses of £16.6m
· Loss before non-recurring items and finance costs of £7.0m
· Profit before tax £9.5m driven by non-recurring release of negative goodwill of £20.5m
· Investment in football personnel of £1.6m in line with strategy
· Finance leases of £1.9m at 31 December 2012
· Cash of £21.2m as at 31 December 2012
· Undertaking of debts of former Rangers Football Club plc of £2.8m (£251,000 remains to be paid in accordance with the terms agreed)
easyJambo says: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:52
torrejohnbhoy says: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:20
Share price down to 72p this morning.How long before panic sets in?.
The institutional investors who bought in at 70p will be watching carefully.
==========================
You will probably see another 6 figure sale appearing in the next day or two, probably at 70p or maybe even less.
——————————————–
Easy J am I right in thinking that institutional buyers will be shorting, therefore their profit margin begins when the price falls below initial, and increases as the price drops? Would that be your reading? Would this mean that they will be hoovering up the cash invested by ordinary punters? If you were an ordinary punter with shares, having come to the rescue of your club with cash up front, would you now sell to prevent your cash going south?
easyJambo says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:52
torrejohnbhoy says: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:20
Share price down to 72p this morning.How long before panic sets in?.
The institutional investors who bought in at 70p will be watching carefully.
==========================
You will probably see another 6 figure sale appearing in the next day or two, probably at 70p or maybe even less.
=========================================
EJ,
This seems to be an emerging pattern.When you see 3 or 4 “buys” going through within a couple of hours,normally for small amounts(I assume this just sets a price and is a tactic designed to stabilise the price)you normally see a delayed sale from a couple of days before,usually for a six figure amount.
Eventually though,the “institutional investors” will decide to take what they can get and large holdings will appear for sale more often.this will drive the price down even further,if buyers can be found.
It’s human nature.people will panic and break rank,after all,for every million shares,a penny drop costs £10k.
willmacufree says: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 11:40
torrejohnbhoy says: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 11:43
=================
That’s my understanding of what is happening, but I think “goosygoosy” is more familiar with the process
Dunfermline now in Administration
Jamie Borthwick @jamiekborthwick 7m
Lord Hodge granted the interim order to place DAFC in administration. Will hear again on 11th April to decide whether to grant full admin.
spanishcelt says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 11:39
Cash of £21.2m as at 31 December 2012
Is it real?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Where do I start?
To name but 4
1 RIFC borrowed £21.2m for one day.The expensive route to telling the truth
2 RIFC told a barefaced lie…Gurantees RIFC will liquidate before accounts must be produced
3 RIFC interpret “Cash” as “cash and equivalent” Meaning secured notes to be repaid on a fixed date secured against so called “genuine assets”
Often coupled with
4 The statement is “unaudited” …a favourite wheeze of spivs .It means there is no non Spiv respected Auditing Co to give you comfort that the numbers were produced by an expert accountant in accordance with reputable accountancy practice
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The only thing thats real is TRFC performances on the field
The rest is suspect
Goosy
I’m going for options 3 & 4. The option to have the external auditors review the interim results is at the discretion of the company – did RIFC take that option?
Goosy,
EJ has referred me to yourself regarding my questions: am I right in thinking that institutional buyers will be shorting, therefore their profit margin begins when the price falls below initial, and increases as the price drops? Would that be your reading?
Would this mean that they will be hoovering up the cash invested by ordinary punters? If you were an ordinary punter with shares, having come to the rescue of your club with cash up front, would you now sell to prevent your cash going south?
dreddybhoy says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 07:13
Danish Pastry says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 05:42
2 0 Rate This
peterjung1 says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 00:27
10 0 Rate This
…now, I do not normally do this but was altered by this link on another forum….listen to Fraser Wishart squirm as Davie gives them some facts….the response…..nothing….quelle surprise
————
Davie is a consistently good caller, and fair do’s to Clyde for having him as a ‘regular’.
The five-way ‘extremely confidential agreement’ is a very convenient smokescreen.
=========
wouldn’t wishart’s own defence of the players who walked away be that they are two separate clubs, hence the statements from the players at the time would shirley have been on advice from their union
he’s a disgrace
¬¬¬¬
Although I may certainly have been “altered” b y this , of course what I meant was “alerted”….
The reverential tones they adopt regarding this “extremely secret agreement” is “extremely” boak inducing….. does no one dare to ask just why this is being kept confidential? A rather disappointed lack of the “who are ….we demand to know” mentality here one thinks…..
Reference the secret 5 secret way agreement mentioned in SSB by Fraser Wishart did Ally not mention recently after the excitement of the ” your guilty” means “not guilty” party state that the agreement was unsigned and the result justified their stance.
Danish Pastry says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 05:42
peterjung1 says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 00:27
…now, I do not normally do this but was altered by this link on another forum….listen to Fraser Wishart squirm as Davie gives them some facts….the response…..nothing….quelle surprise
————
Davie is a consistently good caller, and fair do’s to Clyde for having him as a ‘regular’.
The five-way ‘extremely confidential agreement’ is a very convenient smokescreen.
…………………………..
Will anyone in the media investigate why…’the five way agreement’…has to be a secret?
Why is Scottish football being organised around a big secret?..
What is there to hide?
Reference the ‘shorting.’
Yes if they’ve entered into a short contract then they will exercise (cash in) if the price moves in their favour ie. downwards. Its not technically “hoovering up” the loyalz cash as such though, it has no impact on the assets of the business, only what someone thought they were worth when ‘they’ invested in them.
willmacufree says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 12:54
Goosy,
EJ has referred me to yourself regarding my questions: am I right in thinking that institutional buyers will be shorting, therefore their profit margin begins when the price falls below initial, and increases as the price drops? Would that be your reading?
Would this mean that they will be hoovering up the cash invested by ordinary punters? If you were an ordinary punter with shares, having come to the rescue of your club with cash up front, would you now sell to prevent your cash going south?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personally, I don’t think there would be sufficient market in these shares for shorting to really be an option to make any sort of real money.
As people are discussing T’Rangers finances can anyone explain where the Deferred Income of around £8m on the Interim Accounts comes from.
10. Deferred Income
As at 31 December2012
in £’000
Income deferred less than one year
8,117
Deferred income comprises season tickets, sponsorship, hospitality and other elements of income which have been received in advance and will be recognised as revenue as the season progresses.
The majority of this years season tickets etc appear to be covered in the Revenue section so how are they getting to this £8m figure.
spanishcelt says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:24
14 0 i
Rate This
Carl31 (@C4rl31) says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:10
I dont want to keep going over old ground here, but just to say on the DAFC situation …
Once the club liquidates, it is the end of it. The club is no longer. The ‘Clubco’/’clubFC’ duality concept is a fallacy.
The concept was thought up inventively because either the SFA wanted to be able to apply some form of punishment to the ‘next’ Rangers after the old one ended, or because the SFA/SPL were looking to sidestep potential sanction from FIFA, UEFA or other euro clubs. It did not exist in any clear or explicit form until the administration of Old Rangers.
The concept is conveniently clung to by many.
………………………………………………………………….
Have I missed something here, DAFC are NOT yet in liquidation, the route they are seeking is administration is it not?
= = = = =
Of course you are correct – apols if my comment gives the impression of jumping the gun. I had typed having read a quote from Jim Leishman … “It was either liquidation, where you’re done and dusted and you’ve nothing [or] what we’ve done,” he explained. “We’re giving it a chance.”
For the record, I hope Dunfy make it out of the other side of administration intact. They have my best wishes.
Breaking news – di Stefano found guilty of fraud and deception.
“SELF-STYLED Italian lawyer Giovanni di Stefano, 57, was convicted today at Southwark Crown Court of tricking people into thinking he was a bona fide legal professional when he was not a qualified lawyer.
During the trial at London’s Southwark Crown Court, the former director of Dundee Football Club told of his links to Robert Mugabe, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and his “friendship” with the daughter of Slobodan Milosevic.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/former-dundee-football-club-director-1788161
Giovanni di Stefano found guilty of fraud at Southwark Crown court,25 counts
Pity he wasn’t found guilty of pretending to be a Director at Dundee FC
‘During the trial at London’s Southwark Crown Court, the former director of Dundee Football Club told of his links to Robert Mugabe, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and his “friendship” with the daughter of Slobodan Milosevic’
…………………………
There has to be a punchline to follow being associated with that list of scoundrels….he is only missing Gaddafi for the full set!
Message to Stuart Cosgrove
My previous dig at sports journos and pundits and their relentless and tiresome Rangerscentric view of the Scottish football universe was in no shape or form directed at your good self.
I am aware that there are good guys out there
Just not very many
Giovanni di Stefano found guilty of fraud at Southwark Crown court,25 counts
Pity he wasn’t found guilty of pretending to be a Director at Dundee FC.
Just as well there’s a fit and proper test of credentials for people wanting to buy and run scottish football clubs now , couldn’t happen today , oh wait
Great article from James Forrest about Charlie and the threat to Scottish Football.
http://t.co/aqUQDokkJ6
spaldingbhoy says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 15:28
“Giovanni di Stefano found guilty of fraud at Southwark Crown court…”
========================================================
Being found guilty of impersonating a lawyer is just tragic.
Now, if he had been found guilty of impersonating a wealthy playboy, minor European royalty, or even a lottery winner – then fair enough. But a lawyer… ? 🙄
[Apologies in advance to any humourless legal types out there. 😉 ]
‘During the trial at London’s Southwark Crown Court, the former director of Dundee Football Club told of his links to Robert Mugabe, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and his “friendship” with the daughter of Slobodan Milosevic’
Stefano however, moved immediately to quash rumours of alleged acquaintances with Sir Dupe of Murray and Gavin Masterton. He said “I’m disgusted to be linked with such low life names as those two. I have instructed myself to sue anything that moves”
Stefano said with regards to my suggested links to Murray and Masterton, “can’t we just agree to draw a line in the sand and move on” *copyright* Regan And Doncaster.
Thanks to smugas: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 14:03 and scottc: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 14:04 for your advice.
I’m not convinced, but I don’t want to go over old stuff on the blog. Better to spend the time and effort trying to bring this whole disaster to media elsewhere. I’ll just say that if I was a punter with shares, having helped to rescue my new club so far by my contribution, I’d be on to my broker to make a sale of my shares right now. I wouldn’t wait. Maybe I’d be wrong.
Scotland needs a strong De Stephano!
valentinesclown says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 15:33
5 0 i
Rate This
Great article from James Forrest about Charlie and the threat to Scottish Football.
http://t.co/aqUQDokkJ6
——————————————————————————————————————-
Good stuff.
The bit that should hit home to anyone thinking of an easy route to success in the EPL is his point that Liverpool haven’t won it in in more than 20 years.
ogmagaonghusa says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 01:31
11 0 Rate This
____________________________________________________
I’m not suggesting Masterton would have a front man if Dunfermline were liqudated, but by the way BoS, Masterton and Murray do their business it wouldn’t surprise me one little bit.
If he did, who would it be? It would need to be someone who people like us would find it very hard to gain evidence to track this person back to Masterton.
Even if they are liquidated, someone can just start them up again and do exactly as they do now, lease the stadium back to the newco who’ve purchased the oldco’s history for £1.00
Regarding the £12m Loan, this is the details of it.
” According to the latest records at Companies House, East End Park Limited – the Masterton company that owns the stadium and leases it to Dunfermline Athletic – has an outstanding bank loan of £12.2 million which is ‘not repayable in annual instalments’ but is repayable in full in March 2043.
East End Park Limited’s parent company is Charlestown Holdings Limited (CHL) – which is wholly owned by Mr Masterton.
CHL’s latest accounts reveal the loan has ‘interest potentially payable at the rate of 2.5 per cent’.”
Masterton will be 6 feet in the ground before the loan has ever to be repaid. I doubt anyone from Bos will ever see their £12.2 million again.
Carl31 (@C4rl31) says:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 10:10
23 2 Rate This
I dont want to keep going over old ground here, but just to say on the DAFC situation …
Once the club liquidates, it is the end of it. The club is no longer. The ‘Clubco’/’clubFC’ duality concept is a fallacy.
The concept was thought up inventively because either the SFA wanted to be able to apply some form of punishment to the ‘next’ Rangers after the old one ended, or because the SFA/SPL were looking to sidestep potential sanction from FIFA, UEFA or other euro clubs. It did not exist in any clear or explicit form until the administration of Old Rangers.
The concept is conveniently clung to by many.
_________________________________________
IF DAFC don’t come out of Administration and are put into liquidation,the Problem that the SFA have now, is they set a precedent with RFC-TRFC/SEVCO or whatever we want to call them.
They’ve dug a big hole for themselves, even though we the Scottish football fans know that once a club is liquidated, it can’t be the same club.
No one in the world had heard of “It was only the company that died pish”…….well until it happened to the establishment club in this twisted little country.
_________________________________________
Regarding the share price of Rangers International- This is my own personal opinion, but I can’t see any of the institutional investors going in for anything more than 35p a share.
Only TRFC fans would have paid 70p a share.
Again this is my personal opinion, but I can’t see anyway the share issue raised anything like close to £20m+ and with my calculations I’d put it more like £14/15m
The Institutional Investors need to or will jump soon before the share price goes down any further.
_______________________________________
Regarding our relevant media poster Mr Cosgrove- Maybe he could use his journalistic savvy and with his inside contacts try and get a hold of this very secretive, confidential but highly spoken about 5 way agreement.
The 5 way agreement is a document that we NEED to get our hands on.
Smartbhoy,The 5 way and info. onCharlotte 18.I think Stuart might find that tricky,despite his endeavours
In a conversation the other day on EU law and challenging the EPL I suggested taxing EPL TV income at source as a way of reducing the wage bill and repaying tax owed toHMRC by football.
A bit far fetched I admit but my attention was drawn to this article on FFP which might be of general interest.
A very interesting piece by Bosman lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont stating that FFP could deemed illegal by European Courts of Justice.
Football’s Anticompetitive Streak
Some of Europe’s biggest clubs are, unsurprisingly, supporting rules that entrench their dominance.
Article
By JEAN-LOUIS DUPONT
Normally, if a trade association introduced rules that raised barriers to entry and entrenched dominant players, antitrust regulators would be up in arms. Yet UEFA—the Union of European Football Associations—seems to enjoy the support, even the encouragement, of the European Commission on new rules that will do just that.
The Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, which come into force in the 2013-14 season, prevent football clubs from spending more than what they earn each year. Clubs that do not comply with this “break-even” principle will face sanctions, including a potential ban on participation in UEFA competitions.
The new rules, which were first proposed in 2009, are supposedly meant to stop clubs’ ballooning financial losses, which according to UEFA have threatened both individual, highly popular clubs and the future of European football as a whole.
All of this sounds reasonable at first. But as an agreement whereby industry participants jointly decide to limit investments, FFP likely constitutes collusion and hence a violation of EU competition law. FFP may also infringe other EU freedoms such as the free movement of workers and services.
This isn’t the view of the European Commission. In a letter dated March 12, 2012, competition chief Joaquin Almunia wrote to UEFA President Michel Platini to say that he welcomed the break-even rule, stating that “this principle is also consistent with the aims and objectives of EU policy in the field of State Aid.”
But the European Court of Justice might see it differently. This wouldn’t be the first case in which sporting rules are struck down by the EU’s highest court. In the 1995 Bosman ruling, the ECJ ruled against restrictions that prevented football players from moving to new clubs after their contracts expired. The Luxembourg-based court also prohibited domestic football leagues and UEFA from placing quotas on the number of non-EU players allowed on teams.
In its Meca-Medina judgment of 2006, the ECJ set an even more important precedent: that sports do not constitute a special case before EU law. The court must apply the same tests to sports as it does to any area of economic activity. I was involved in both of these cases, and I would note that in each instance the governing bodies concerned had initially received the full support of the European Commission.
The relevant test for sporting rules, therefore, is that if they distort competition or other EU freedoms, they must do so no more than is necessary in pursuit of legitimate objectives. That FFP distorts competition and EU freedoms is plain: EU case law has held that football players are the raw materials for football clubs to produce their final product. FFP is a joint agreement between clubs to limit their freedom to hire players by restraining their ability to spend on wages and transfers. This restraint of free competition may at the same time constitute a violation of the free movement of workers.
The next question is whether the objectives of FFP are legitimate and necessary. UEFA has put forth several objectives for FFP, the first of which is preserving the long-term financial stability of European football. This is laudable but unlikely to be considered such a fundamental objective that it justifies restricting competition.
A second objective, to preserve the integrity of the game in UEFA competition, might be looked upon better. But in fact, FFP is more likely to hinder than help in this regard.
European club football is characterized by numerous competitive imbalances: between clubs competing in UEFA competitions, between the domestic leagues of different countries, and between individual clubs in those leagues. Often the key determinant of a club’s financial strength is the size of its domestic market and the commercial realities that apply within it—competing in the English Premier League will always be more lucrative than in its Scottish counterpart. As a result, the leading clubs of smaller countries such as Luxembourg or Ireland will always be at a disadvantage next to the leading clubs of bigger markets.
The break-even rule makes no allowance for the commercial disparities between individual national leagues, which means smaller clubs are hit harder, proportionately, than larger ones. Without the ability to invest in their longer-term success, smaller clubs will stay small. This is clearly anticompetitive.
Even if FFP were sufficiently legitimate and necessary to justify its distortions of EU principles, however, it would still have to clear a final hurdle: proportionality. UEFA would need to convince the EU’s judges in Luxembourg that FFP is the least restrictive means of achieving its aims.
This seems unlikely. Existing UEFA regulations already require clubs to prove before the start of each season that they have no overdue payables to other clubs, to their employees or to tax authorities. With these safeguards already in place, it is hard to see why we need to stop clubs from incurring losses if and when they can safely fund them from the resources at their disposal.
If the ECJ were to declare FFP invalid, the ruling would hold for any FFP-based rules adopted at the national level. EU law also applies to restrictive practices that affect the territory of any single member state.
None of this implies, however, that competition law prevents UEFA from improving football’s financial model. If UEFA is serious about tackling the issue, it should address the root causes of the competitive imbalances among teams. UEFA’s territorial model could be redrawn, for instance, to allow clubs from major cities but small countries to become more competitive. More ambitious revenue-sharing between clubs and/or whole leagues, partly financed by a “luxury tax” on high-spending clubs, would also help.
But such solutions would run against the interests of the clubs with the most political clout. Some of Europe’s biggest clubs are, unsurprisingly, the loudest supporters of rules that entrench their dominance. The time is right for a strong reminder from the EU’s antitrust authorities that football, like any other multibillion-euro industry, must comply with the law.
Mr. Dupont is a European competition lawyer specializing in professional sports.