Is it time for the Sin Bin?

A guest blog by former Celtic & Scotland defender, Jim Craig

 

What time is this to come back?”

Dolores McCann (her Mother had been a great fan of foreign films) stood in that classic pose of the wounded woman – up to her full height and chin forward – as she glared at her husband who had just come in the front door. Before he could say a word, she gave him another volley;

 “you left the house at half-past-two for a three o’clock kick-off, it only takes you 20 minutes to get to the ground, a match lasts only one-and-a-half hours plus ten minutes for the break and you’ve just walked back in the door at half-past-seven! So where the hell were you?”.

Wayne McCann (his father liked Westerns) tried to calm her down.

“Dolores, you don’t know what it’s like at football matches nowadays ; it has changed out of all recognition; a match goes on for much longer”.

“In what way?” Dolores asked.

“Well, for a start, the players and even the managers can complain about any decision that is given against them. If that happens, the referee then goes and has a word with firstly, the two assistant referees, then the fourth official and gets their comments before he reflects on the situation. If he is still in any doubt that he made the wrong decision then he can ask the guy upstairs sitting in front of a television screen what he thinks. And, of course, all through this, the managers and players of both teams can chip in with their comments. That all adds a fair bit of time to the match”.

“Aye…but turning up at half-past-seven is still a bit over the top…is it no’?”

“Well, no’ really……you see, nowadays you are not allowed to have a drawn game, so if the match is level at the full-time whistle, there is extra time, which takes a minimum of half-an-hour”.

“The time is still no’ matching up!”

“Aye, mibbe so, if that was the end of the match. But if the match is still level at the end of extra-time, then it goes to a penalty shoot-out. I told you…you are not allowed a drawn game”.

“ A penalty shoot-out disnae take long”.

“That might have been the case at one time but because so many keepers were being accused of moving before the ball was kicked, nowadays they are strapped in to a harness which anchors them in the middle of the goal. They can only move when the foot of the guy who is taking the penalty actually touches the ball. So, after each kick, the keeper has to be put back into the harness and it all starts again. And, of course, you get the complaints from the managers and players that the harness wasnae working properly or that the officials who put the harness on didnae put it on right. That all adds up to the time factor”.

“Did you go to the pub?”

“As God is my judge, Dolores, after the match finished, I came straight here”.

“Who won anyway?”

“That’s a difficult question… there was so much noise and kerfuffle both on the pitch and in the stands, nobody was quite sure what the final score was. And the guy who usually does the announcing had gone home. Somebody said that he had a date. Anyway, if you let me turn on the radio, I’ll hear the score there. And Dolores?”

“Yes”

Wayne walked over to the drinks cabinet and took out a couple of glasses. “I don’t suppose you would fancy a wee drink”


We will leave the smooth-talking Wayne to his attempts to mollify Dolores and reflect on the situation. What you have just read is probably the ultimate scenario for those who wish to tamper with the current rules of football. Do I think that the game needs radical changes like that? No but I do think that some change is necessary and in one specific circumstance.

Now, I was a professional footballer for 9 years and in all that time, I can put my hand on my heart and state with complete conviction that I never pulled any other player’s jersey. Did I try to half him in two with a tackle, yes! But no jersey-pulling. And, of course, I was penalised for the challenge.

Today, though, I feel that there is a lot of body-checking and jersey-pulling going on in every match. Very often the referee lets it go and then you get the ridiculous scenario at a corner kick when all those waiting for the ball to come in are pulling and pushing, with the referee watching it and ignoring it. It is a foul, ref!

When the referee decides that an offence has been committed, then the player will be spoken to first. If he does it again, he will be given a yellow-card. The problem is, though, that the offence might possibly have affected the play in the match, whereas the yellow card does not affect the player’s participation.

If the player is daft enough to do it again, then of course he gets another yellow and will be off. Most, however, are sensible and keep the head, so they go unpunished as far as the current match is concerned. What we have to find is a punishment that affects the match in which the transgression occurred. Which means that we have to consider the sin bin.

This works very well in rugby and gives the referee a means to punish an offence a little more harshly – yet more efficiently – than a yellow card but without having to go for the ultimate, drastic – and for many unpalatable  – option of the red card. I hope it comes in soon.

2,363 thoughts on “Is it time for the Sin Bin?


  1. I’m really, really hoping the following was Predictive Text, cos tea splattered over my breakfast whilst reading…
    “ALLYJAMBO:
    I think I can say, without fear of contraception, that had this been Celtic, or any other club, then all the pertinent questions would be getting asked, and would have been getting asked for a long time.”

    It’s a thought, though….  
    That, if the contraception was removed, the questions might penetrate and ultimately be fruitful.


  2. upthehoopsMarch 27, 2018 at 18:23
    It will also mean many fans like myself who attend matches may not be able to go due to work commitments. A19:45 kick off in midweek is an absolute rush for me as it is. 17:55 is a non-starter and it may not always be possible to get time off. However, when did the authorities and TV companies ever care about fans who go to games! Do the clubs really care? I think it’s a question worth asking given they basically allow TV companies to treat attending
    fans with the same disdain as something they picked up on their shoe. 

    It has always been thus – you only have to think of The Hearts/Caley Thistle clash a few seasons back.  I think it was a Scottish cup match. 12.15 kick off on a sunday in January.  The earliest public transport wouldn’t have got the Inverness fans to Edinburgh until after kick off, nevermind the fact that, if they drove themselves, they were expected to hurtle down one of the most dangerous roads in Scotland at the height of winter to get there for the early kick off.  It never even crossed the minds of the SFA schedulers that this might result in a depleted crowd.


  3. fishnishMarch 28, 2018 at 11:05 
    I’m really, really hoping the following was Predictive Text, cos tea splattered over my breakfast whilst reading…“ALLYJAMBO:I think I can say, without fear of contraception, that had this been Celtic, or any other club, then all the pertinent questions would be getting asked, and would have been getting asked for a long time.”It’s a thought, though…. That, if the contraception was removed, the questions might penetrate and ultimately be fruitful.
    _________________________________

    I’m afraid it was a deliberate ‘HildaBakerism’, Fishnish, with no purpose other than to raise an eyebrow or two14 though I suppose it could be said that it should have been employed by Charles Green (contraception, that is, not a ‘HildaBakerism’21) when he decided to ‘take advantage of’ Scottish football, preventing the birth of that new football club!


  4. Ann Budge took part in a Q&A session with the Hearts message board Jambos Kickback a couple of weeks ago.  The answers to the questions have just been published.  One of the questions and answers is relevant to recent tweets by Auldheid, Barcabhoy and Rangers Tax-Case on the Licensing situation:

    Q35. Will Hearts seek assurances from the SFA that Rangers meet FFP criteria for a UEFA Licence for season 2018/19, given that the company has publicly reported substantial losses in each of its five years existence and requires further funding of £7.2m over the next two seasons as identified in their last accounts? I would add that Hearts as a member club of the SFA, in conjunction with all other clubs, has a duty to uphold the rules and integrity of the game. In Rangers case, and as a result of their financial record over a number of years, I don’t think that it is enough to accept self-certification by the club.
     
    AB: All I can say is that at Hearts, we have to jump through a lot of hoops to ensure we comply with FFP (Financial Fair Play) rules. We must assume that UEFA does the same with all other clubs and it’s UEFA who decide if a team can play in Europe or not. It’s not a question of whether a club is in debt. It’s a case of, is that club in a position to pay the debt back. We have to complete enormous amounts of paperwork to UEFA, the SFA, the SPFL. When we took over in 2014, we had to attend a lot of meetings to prove we could run a financially viable football club. There is no reason to think Rangers are being treated any differently from any other team in that respect.


  5. easyJamboMarch 28, 2018 at 13:50
    Ann Budge took part in a Q&A session with the Hearts message board Jambos Kickback a couple of weeks ago.  The answers to the questions have just been published.  One of the questions and answers is relevant to recent tweets by Auldheid, Barcabhoy and Rangers Tax-Case on the Licensing situation:
    Q35. Will Hearts seek assurances from the SFA that Rangers meet FFP criteria for a UEFA Licence for season 2018/19, given that the company has publicly reported substantial losses in each of its five years existence and requires further funding of £7.2m over the next two seasons as identified in their last accounts? I would add that Hearts as a member club of the SFA, in conjunction with all other clubs, has a duty to uphold the rules and integrity of the game. In Rangers case, and as a result of their financial record over a number of years, I don’t think that it is enough to accept self-certification by the club.   AB: All I can say is that at Hearts, we have to jump through a lot of hoops to ensure we comply with FFP (Financial Fair Play) rules. We must assume that UEFA does the same with all other clubs and it’s UEFA who decide if a team can play in Europe or not. It’s not a question of whether a club is in debt. It’s a case of, is that club in a position to pay the debt back. We have to complete enormous amounts of paperwork to UEFA, the SFA, the SPFL. When we took over in 2014, we had to attend a lot of meetings to prove we could run a financially viable football club. There is no reason to think Rangers are being treated any differently from any other team in that respect.
    …………………………………………………………
    I have highlighted the last sentence.
    I have, often, and on here, seen Ann Budge referred to as a shrewd, intelligent businesswoman. If she is, how can she utter that statement with any honesty; given that there is every reason to think that New Rangers might be treated differently?


  6. Rangers and the SFA are beginning to remind me of those two charactersin the Alfred Hitchcock movie Rope. They are sitting upon a dead man’s chestand they know it. Regan’s decision to allow an investigation into the awarding of the licencewas done in haste and panic and I don’t think the criminals so it coming.It was a curveball.
    Of course in the movie we have an honest hero in the form of Jimmy Stewart’s professor.Sadly it seems unlikely that the compliance officer of the SFA has any intention ofpushing our two neer-do wells off the chest so as to see the damning evidence inside.Thing is the stench in the form of delay is starting to become noticeable.So how much longer can the Scottish press hold off from asking the question we all want asked.”Why is this investigation taking so long?”


  7. joes11 March 28, 2018 at 14:02
    I have, often, and on here, seen Ann Budge referred to as a shrewd, intelligent businesswoman. If she is, how can she utter that statement with any honesty; given that there is every reason to think that New Rangers might be treated differently?
    ===============================
    You may also take a view on her next answer:

    Q36. What have you personally contributed to since being elected to the SPFL board?  

    AB: I’ve pushed for greater transparency.  I’ve listened and I think I’ve helped improve communications.  I’m told I offer a fresh perspective on things. I’m still seen as more of a business person than a football person, which is fair.  People are very interested in the fact that we are heading towards being a fan-owned club and I get a lot of questions on that subject.


  8. I was scrolling through the UEFA FFP Regulations , as you do ,and a couple of things interested me .
    Article 8 – Catalogue of sanctionsTo guarantee an appropriate assessment process, the UEFA member associationmust:a) set up a catalogue of sanctions for the club licensing system for the nonrespectof the criteria referred to in Article 16(2) which may include a caution,a fine, the obligation to submit evidence or fulfil certain conditions by a certaindeadline, etc. It falls to the competent national bodies to fix these sanctionsagainst the licence applicants/licensees;12b) refer to the national disciplinary regulations in respect of violations of thelicensing regulations (e.g. submission of falsified documents, non-respect ofdeadlines, sanctions against individuals, etc.).
    Does this leave it to the SFA to police the system and also decide what sanctions are applied to any miscreants ?

    Article 18 – Youth teams1 The licence applicant must at least have the following youth teams within its legalentity, another legal entity included in the reporting perimeter or a club affiliated toits legal entity:a) At least two youth teams within the age range of 15 to 21;b) At least one youth team within the age range of 10 to 14;c) At least one under-10 team.2 Each youth team, except of the under-10s, must take part in official competitionsor programmes played at national, regional or local level and recognised by the

    Is this maybe the reason for the recent friendly match , ensuring the money is there to keep the youth set up functioning ?


  9. easyJamboMarch 28, 2018 at 13:50 
    Ann Budge took part in a Q&A session with the Hearts message board Jambos Kickback a couple of weeks ago. The answers to the questions have just been published. One of the questions and answers is relevant to recent tweets by Auldheid, Barcabhoy and Rangers Tax-Case on the Licensing situation:Q35. Will Hearts seek assurances from the SFA that Rangers meet FFP criteria for a UEFA Licence for season 2018/19, given that the company has publicly reported substantial losses in each of its five years existence and requires further funding of £7.2m over the next two seasons as identified in their last accounts? I would add that Hearts as a member club of the SFA, in conjunction with all other clubs, has a duty to uphold the rules and integrity of the game. In Rangers case, and as a result of their financial record over a number of years, I don’t think that it is enough to accept self-certification by the club. AB: All I can say is that at Hearts, we have to jump through a lot of hoops to ensure we comply with FFP (Financial Fair Play) rules. We must assume that UEFA does the same with all other clubs and it’s UEFA who decide if a team can play in Europe or not. It’s not a question of whether a club is in debt. It’s a case of, is that club in a position to pay the debt back. We have to complete enormous amounts of paperwork to UEFA, the SFA, the SPFL. When we took over in 2014, we had to attend a lot of meetings to prove we could run a financially viable football club. There is no reason to think Rangers are being treated any differently from any other team in that respect.
    _________________

    And with that response, any notion that women in football will lead to the ending of the old boy network, flies swiftly out of the window! I have to admit, I never thought Ann Budge, or any other woman in football, would lead to change. A successful businesswoman is just the same as a successful businessman, in such matters. All that matters to them is their, and their business’s, success. A woman is no more likely to stand up for sporting integrity than a man is, and is no more going to rock the boat either – unless they see benefit to themselves or their club.

    She’s still done great things for Hearts, but isn’t in it to change the world (or Scottish football)!


  10. An unusual furore has broken out on social media today.  James Dornan MSP who was one of the most vehemently opposed to the Fans Against Criminalisation campaign posted what he claimed was an email he’d been sent threatening a “Attack a fenian” day.  Pretty vile content was included on the email so I won’t post a screenshot but it called on people to attack those of catholic origin on the 1st of May.
    Bizarrely though it now appears that Mr Dornan was not emailed this and actually took it from the twitter feed of an online troll at the windup, the MSP’s deceit has fallen apart as he forgot to crop the photo and the original troll’s foreign network provider was still visible.
    Now as an isolated incident it’s arguably quite comical to see a politician getting caught up in something so farcical and reminiscent of “In the Thick of It.  A more serious context is that this man is leading the campaign to impose new laws on working class football fans and it was he who fought hardest against Jeanette Findlay and others who worked so hard to have OBFA repealed.
    Ultimately my point is this.  Regardless of your view on sectarianism in our game can we really trust our elected representatives to address it fairly and properly when they appear to be acting in such an immature and irresponsible manner over such a sensitive issue?


  11. easyJamboMarch 28, 2018 at 13:50

    Anne Budge is not telling any actual untruths, diplomat as she is.
    I have a high regard, from an outsider’s point of view, of her general abilities and her desire to do right.

    It is the case that UEFA decide if a team can play in Europe, but the licensing function is delegated to national associations (unless I’m way behind news of significant developments!) so she was maybe being a little disingenuous with  “and it’s UEFA who decide if a team can play in Europe or not” 

    The CO, we are told, is supposed to be looking into how RFC (IL) was given the ok by the SFA’s licensing board a number of years ago. 

    Given that there hasn’t been a cheep from him after  seven or eight months of supposed investigation, it’s quite reasonable  that people should harbour suspicions about that licensing board’s present integrity in dealing with a different club which may be finding difficulty in meeting all the criteria for grant of a licence.

    And it is perfectly likely that she will not be privy to what any schemers may be scheming to do in relation to TRFC Ltd.


  12. JOES11MARCH 28, 2018 at 14:02

    JOHN CLARKMARCH 28, 2018 at 15:29

    As I have pointed out on numerous occasions Aberdeen were carrying £15m of debt up to November 2014.
    That is a higher percentage of debt in relation to their turnover than the ‘internal debt’ circulating around Ibrox at present.

    Yet despite this Aberdeen were allowed to play (without any questions being asked by the SMSM or internet bampots whatsoever)  in the Europa League in 2014/2015 with the application process presumably being started back in early 2014.

    As there are, as yet, no social taxes unpaid by T’Rangers then Ms Budge is wholly correct in implying that unless there is any evidence to the contrary that it must be assumed T’Rangers are being treated the same as everyone else with regards to the existing rules and any application process for Euro competition.

    We need to be careful not to make the mistake of confusing the oldco gaining a euro licence while social taxes were unpaid in contravention of the licencing process and the newco’s current difficult financial position.

    Yes there may be mistrust (and concern over the length of time the CO’s report is taking) from the paying customer but that doesn’t necessarily mean the old ways are continuing to date.

    I still wouldn’t  trust King and Dickson to run down the road for a pint of milk but all folks are asking for is the rules to be applied without fear or favour.

    Despite the anticipation that the shit is going to hit the fan at some point, there is no evidence currently to suggest T’Rangers are being treated differently from any other club that is having to stretch their finances, relying on loan deals and beholding to directors and fans willing to stump up to keep the lights on. As I keep saying they are just like most Scottish clubs when it comes to walking a financial tightrope.

    If the SPFL want to introduce their own stricter FFP rules then so be it but with regard to what is in place at present  there doesn’t seem to be anything T’Rangers are falling foul of.


  13. WOTTPI

    I tend to agree with you that the level of internal debt is relatively sustainable especially in the context that the shareholders have intimated their intention to convert it to shares.  The interesting point which I’m not so sure about is their annual losses over the last few years, I believe (possibly wrongly) that UEFA cap how much a club is allowed to lose?  Not sure if they fall within that limit or not.


  14. DBD
    What did I think of the last two Scotland matches?

    Nothing. I watched neither and won’t be watching any future Scotland matches until EBT cheat McLeish is removed and those who put him there are gone from the SFA.


  15. easyJamboMarch 28, 2018 at 13:50
    11
    1 i
    Rate This
    Ann Budge took part in a Q&A session with the Hearts message board Jambos Kickback a couple of weeks ago.  The answers to the questions have just been published.  One of the questions and answers is relevant to recent tweets by Auldheid, Barcabhoy and Rangers Tax-Case on the Licensing situation:
    Q35. Will Hearts seek assurances from the SFA that Rangers meet FFP criteria for a UEFA Licence for season 2018/19, given that the company has publicly reported substantial losses in each of its five years existence and requires further funding of £7.2m over the next two seasons as identified in their last accounts? I would add that Hearts as a member club of the SFA, in conjunction with all other clubs, has a duty to uphold the rules and integrity of the game. In Rangers case, and as a result of their financial record over a number of years, I don’t think that it is enough to accept self-certification by the club.   AB: All I can say is that at Hearts, we have to jump through a lot of hoops to ensure we comply with FFP (Financial Fair Play) rules. We must assume that UEFA does the same with all other clubs and it’s UEFA who decide if a team can play in Europe or not. It’s not a question of whether a club is in debt. It’s a case of, is that club in a position to pay the debt back. We have to complete enormous amounts of paperwork to UEFA, the SFA, the SPFL. When we took over in 2014, we had to attend a lot of meetings to prove we could run a financially viable football club. There is no reason to think Rangers are being treated any differently from any other team in that respect.
    ======================
    I’ll throw a few things in the mix.
    1. Whilst I know Articles 50 and 66 and others relating to overdue tax inside out I’ve never probed the break even and debt to equity rules. Too bloody busy getting my head round the tax stuff. Consequently I’m loth to suggest TRFC are in breach if the do not announce such a debt to equity move or escape censure if they do announce one with the same “lets see if we can get away with it ” intent they did in 2011. ie a stalling tactic.
    2. There is a rumour that when UEFA investigated the last licence application from TRFC in 2017 they were not at all happy with the way the SFA viewed the accounts that supported it and let SFA know. However as TRFC failed to Progres UEFA did not pursue TRFC. As I recall there was a debate on here around an article by Grant Russell on that very matter. (Might be worth resurrecting. My view was UEFA would want the latest, even if Interims (as they accepted in 2011) but Grant suggested the annuals, even if over 9(?) months old would do.  )
    Whilst it is a rumour I would not be surprised if UEFA don’t know what went on in 2011, possibly nearer the time and certainly since, as they have had to answer questions relating to RFC demise and must be as “sniffy” about the SFA and TRFC honesty as the rest of us are.
    Anne Budge does not appear to understand it is the SFA who grant a licence and UEFA don’t know that until end of May or on what basis. UEFA start to take an interest from 30 June when monitoring submissions are made under Article 66 and again in Sept.
    My point yesterday about supporters seeking assurances of SFA integrity before renewing an ST is still as valid if not more so given Anne Budges position.
    The question to her before renewing would be how do we know the SFA Licencing process is trustworthy until The Compliance Officer Investigation tells us that it is and why.  
    Interestingly a Killie supporter on Twitter started asking questions about the Licensing Process so the awareness of its importance is growing. (ironically it would have been Killie who got a UEFA place in 2011 had RFC been refused)
    If ever a process should be more transparent it is Club Licensing but it is shrouded in confidentiality.
    Making it as transparent as possible without divulging individual players wages should be what the supporters of all clubs should be demanding, because proper transparent licensing will produce fair play or make unfair play harder to hide.


  16. WOTTPI
    It was my understanding that TRFC will fall foul of the licensing rules because of the losses incurred in succeeding years – this is rather different from the level of internal debt Aberdeen were working with – so your comment is rather strange.
    TRFC have lost more than allowed over the 3 year period and look like doing the same yet again – if the accounts ever surface – so I’m pretty sure they should be disqualified this time.  I’m also pretty sure they won’t be !


  17. NICK

    MARCH 28, 2018 at 16:13

    JIMMY BONES

    MARCH 28, 2018 at 17:49

    Losses posted  in the RIFC accounts to 30 June each year is as follows:
    2017 – £6.7m
    2016 – £3.3m
    2015 – £7.7m
    Three Year total £17.7 m 

    My understanding is that the allowable three years loss total used by Uefa is €30m or around £26.5m
    T’Rangers total three years losses, as above,  appears to be well below that figure.
    By the looks of it they would have had to have lost over £17m by the end of this financial year (to add to the £6.7m & £3.3m) to even fall foul of any further monitoring before the start of any Europa League participation in 2018/19.

    Of course is it the RIFC accounts or TRFC accounts that matter?

    Either way I think folks are clutching at straws be it ‘internal debt’ or cumulative three years losses.

    As long as they get the required paperwork in on time I can’t see anything obvious that would stop T’rangers getting a Euro licence for next season should they qualify.


  18. WOTTPIMARCH 28, 2018 at 18:34

    =========================

    If it’s as straightforward as you suggest why did King have to make the quasi-equity claim in the last accounts to justify compliance with FPP?  Without the loans losses would have easily broken the figures you quote. I will allow other far more knowledgeable people than me to challenge your assertion they easily qualify for a licence as it stands. If they did, I am sure it would have been blasted over every newspaper in the land to shove it right up the haters. 


  19. WOTTPI

    Just had a quick scan of the FFP rules there and it appears your summation is accurate. Extra allowances seem to be made for expenditure on stadium and other infrastructure as well so they probably have a bit of leeway even if losses increased.
    I do think clubs should be allowed to make a loss when it’s funded by their own shareholders especially if they are in a period of rebuilding after insolvency or asset stripping owners. It does concern me thought that the allowable loss is the same for say Barcelona as it is for Rangers.  Would make more sense for the max allowed to be proportional to turnover in my opinion. 


  20. Re the Compliance Officer Investigation 
    This investigation began in Sep 2017. It is almost 7 months now and we have not heard a thing.
    Now if i was the compliance officer a Mr Tony McGlennan i would now be worrying about how people see me.
    Are they thinking i’m not very good at my job as it has taking me 7 months to come to a conclusion when i have all the documents in front of me.
    Are people now thinking the reason the investigation is taking so long is that i am trying to hide something.
    Are people now looking at my integraty as a compliance officer,as i have taken so long to come to a conclusion?
    If i was the compliance officer i would want it known to the public by now that the investigation is almost complete or not.
    If i was the compliance officer i would be starting to question myself and my ability as a compliance officer as to why after 7 months i have not come to a conclusion.


  21. WOTTPI, are those loss figures AFTER receipt of the Directors’ loans? If so, you need to add back the Directors’ loans for each year to show the actual loss. The Directors’ loans can only be ignored once they have been converted to equity, hence the urgency to get the share issue done. 


  22. CLUSTER ONEMARCH 28, 2018 at 19:13

    =======================

    Someone very close to Resolution 12 believes the C.O report is written and sitting in the inbox of the new CEO for when they are appointed.  This is most likely an accurate statement as the Res 12 people have had / do have contact with the SFA. 


  23. @ CLUSTER ONE 1913:

    Mr. McGlennan really has been handed a poisoned chalice with this enquiry.

    I suspect that the CO has long concluded his practical/technical investigation. The difficulty is in writing a report that pleases the SFA (and SPFL) hierarchy & does not displease TRFC & their current officers who were in similar posts with RFC & with similar SFA/SPL responsibilities in 2011.

    I expect that the complete report will never be in the public domain for spurious confidentiality reasons. A redacted version may be leaked via the SFA’s favourite sooks in the media. It’ll be like the  Five Way Agreement all over again.

    I also expect that this will be Mr. McGlennan’s last hurrah as Compliance Officer. He’ll either resign or be Warburtoned after he reports.

    In other words, expect a dog’s dinner…


  24. UPTHEHOOPSMARCH 28, 2018 at 19:35
    If i was the compliance officer and i heard that someone believes the report is written and sitting in the inbox of the new CEO for when they are appointed. 
    I Would be making it known that such is the case and my part in the investigation has concluded and the eyes of the football world can remove there glare from me.


  25. JINGSO.JIMSIEMARCH 28, 2018 at 19:42
    I suspect that the CO has long concluded his practical/technical investigation. The difficulty is in writing a report that pleases the SFA (and SPFL) hierarchy & does not displease TRFC & their current officers who were in similar posts with RFC & with similar SFA/SPL responsibilities in 2011.
    I also expect that this will be Mr. McGlennan’s last hurrah as Compliance Officer. He’ll either resign or be Warburtoned after he reports.
    In other words, expect a dog’s dinner…
    ———————-
    I expected he would have resigned by now, if not only for the fact in finding the difficulty  in writing a report that pleases the SFA (and SPFL) hierarchy & does not displease TRFC & their current officers who were in similar posts with RFC & with similar SFA/SPL responsibilities in 2011.But more also the fact that it has taken me 7 months to conclude my findings.
    Now that would be a dogs dinner


  26. FFP Article 61
    1 The acceptable deviation is the maximum aggregate break-even deficit possiblefor a club to be deemed in compliance with the break-even requirement as definedin Article 63.2 The acceptable deviation is EUR 5 million. However, it can exceed this level up toEUR 30 million if such excess is entirely covered by contributions from equityparticipants and/or related parties. A lower amount may be decided in due courseby the UEFA Executive Committee.3 Contributions from equity participants and/or related parties (as specified inAnnex X E) are taken into consideration when determining the acceptabledeviation if they have occurred and been recognised:a) in the audited financial statements for one of the reporting periods T, T-1 orT-2; orb) in the accounting records up until the deadline for submission of the breakeveninformation for the reporting period T.The onus is on the licensee to demonstrate the substance of the transaction,which must have been completed in all respects and without any conditionattached. An intention or commitment from owners to make a contribution is notsufficient for such a contribution to be taken into consideration.4If contributions from equity participants and/or related parties occurring until thedeadline for submission of the break-even information for the reporting period Tare recognised in a club’s reporting period T+1 and have been taken intoconsideration to determine the acceptable deviation in respect of the monitoringperiod (T-2, T-1 and T) assessed in the licence season commencing in that samecalendar year, then for later monitoring periods the contributions will beconsidered as having been recognised in reporting period T.5 For a monitoring period containing a reporting period of greater than or less than12 months, the acceptable deviation will be adjusted up or down according to thelength of the monitoring period.

    Would this section affect TRFC/TRFC ?
    An intention or commitment from owners to make a contribution is notsufficient for such a contribution to be taken into consideration.


  27.     I can see the scene,  The SFA, , huddled in a smoke filled cellar, joined by Rangers FC(and now Sevco directors),  SPL, officials,(and now SPFL officials),  all having a wee bun-fight, about what will, and what won’t be released, in the report, amid what they will spill the beans about if it is, return-threats……..While being rudely interrupted by the lawyers of some ex-SFA officers, on their clients behalf.    A great big, “His fault, your fault, No my effin’ fault”, battle-zone    I suppose Minty will have the final say on who gets the rap,  ….What?…..Somebody else?….Who?
        Who will decide who is taking the rap, for the rap that must be took.


  28. upthehoopsMarch 28, 2018 at 19:00
    See 
    paddy malarkeyMarch 28, 2018 at 20:23
    I have no doubt T’Rangers may be sailing close to the wind but as getting into Europe is a key aim they will be doing everything to ensure they can gain a licence without having Uefa breathing down their necks, asking to see underneath the carpets and scuppering a chance to Progres further than this season. 

    Stewart Robertson doesn’t strike me as a mug. Andrew Dickson will know the score re the ins and outs of meeting the requirements as well as anyone. King knows how to push things to the limit all the time.

    T’Rangers can’t hide the fact they have financial difficulties in having the need for additional monies to that they take in,  so the best way to deal with it is to deal with the matter face on and try to talk up the issue as not being a biggie in the accounts so that they are seen by Uefa and others to have things under control.

    Hard to believe but honesty and transparency in the accounts  may actually help them in this matter, albeit we know King has told about four different stories over the last few months!!

    As Paddy implies, whether what they say is good enough for Uefa to satisfy their requirement and processes, only time will tell but my guess is that T’Rangers will get a licence if they qualify for Europe next season as they will probably have done enough to get the application through.

    Indeed there will probably be clubs in worse financial turmoil that get licences.


  29. Not seen it mentioned anywhere so relying on folk with more knowledge than me on this one. Could part of the delay in complience officers findings be the fact UEFA are also implicated in this? Knowing they are not exactly the most honourable of governing body, might it be they are not exactly squeeky clean in the licensing situation? Whether it’s possible or not I don’t know, but could there have been a scenario whereby someone at the SFA had a friendly word in the ear of UEFA who then gave them assurances that they would look the other way?


  30. DarkbeforedawnMarch 29, 2018 at 08:33 
    Not seen it mentioned anywhere so relying on folk with more knowledge than me on this one. Could part of the delay in complience officers findings be the fact UEFA are also implicated in this? Knowing they are not exactly the most honourable of governing body, might it be they are not exactly squeeky clean in the licensing situation? Whether it’s possible or not I don’t know, but could there have been a scenario whereby someone at the SFA had a friendly word in the ear of UEFA who then gave them assurances that they would look the other way?
    _____________________

    I don’t have any more knowledge on the matter than yourself, but I’d imagine the licensing system, that leaves it in the hands of the various FAs to decide if a license should be granted, is partly there to prevent UEFA being implicated in any ‘mistakes’ of this nature. However dishonest the guardians of our game might be at UEFA level, I very much doubt they’d get involved in something that could be uncovered, quite easily in countries that have a press not in the pocket of the fraudulent club, without a fairly substantial amount of cash stuffed into a brown envelope. While I’m sure people of Regan’s ilk, and others at Hampden, would happily turn a blind eye to any wrongdoings at Ibrox, I very much doubt they’d be prepared to risk their liberty by bribing UEFA officials for any club’s sake, even Rangers.


  31. wottpiMarch 28, 2018 at 22:52
    ‘…Stewart Robertson doesn’t strike me as a mug. Andrew Dickson will know the score re the ins and outs of meeting the requirements as well as anyone. King knows how to push things to the limit all the time.’
    __________________
    Leaving aside the ‘self-accusation’ by the less than Royal arch-cheat, no one has ever accused the RFC(IL) board in SDM’s time, or in CW’s time, or the SevcoScotland/TRFC Ltd/RIFC plc boards in more recent times of being ‘mugs’. 

    They have no such excuse :they all knew the truth but made no account of it. Cynically and with intent.

    And one way or another, the Truth will come and bite them in the bum, or, better still, in their personal wallets, and heap ignominy upon them.


  32. wottpiMarch 28, 2018 at 22:52

    Indeed there will probably be clubs in worse financial turmoil that get licences.
    ____________________

    Even if that is the case, how many of them, do you think, are either, a club already on UEFA’s radar for fraudulently receiving a license previously, or are a club pretending to be a club that has already done so? Repeat offenders, or even pretend repeat offenders, must surely expect greater scrutiny than those who have never been uncovered before, especially when those who facilitated their offending (the SFA) are still the conduit through which they might well offend again!

    I am, of course, basing this on the premise that UEFA do, at least, give a flying Falkirk about their own FFP Regulations, but if UEFA do want to give the impression that they are in the process of cleaning out their stinking stables, what better place to start than with a tax dodging, fraudulent license receiving club that is dead, and one that is pretending to be the same club as that dead one?


  33. I didn’t know anything about the Compliance man so looked up Tony McGlennan on the SFA web page.
    “Tony joins from the criminal law firm, Penmans, with whom he has been a Partner since 1998, having joined the company in 1996. He is a solicitor advocate who has conducted criminal litigation at all levels of the court structure, including the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.
    Tony has a keen interest in football, having played at amateur level for a number of years. He is currently a volunteer coach to young footballers and holds coaching certificates in the Scottish FA’s youth coaching pathway.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    So reading between the puffery it looks to me that the man in post is not likely to be a lightweight and will have had a lot of experience of dealing with both innocent and guilty clients.

    He will have learned like others of his type of solicitor on his very first day never to ask if his client did the deed.

    No his job would have been to get his clients off any charges made or at worst to ameliorate the charges.

    That doesn’t signify if he is a good or a bad guy – its just the business he was in.

    I also am encouraged about the fact that he as an ex amateur footballer then became a volunteer coach and took some of the coaching badges.

    That makes him sound like a man who likes to put something back.

    I like that because most of us are on this site because we all want to put something back too.

    So why would a man who has been used to the cut and thrust of the courts take so long to come to grips with a fairly simple little task?

    That leads me to ask that it depends on the brief he had been given from Mr Regan (because this is a board-level investigation).

    Here are a couple of options.

    “Tony, welcome aboard. Please deal with this and make sure there is no damage to the SFA as an organisation or to any of the current or past board members. Frame will get you started and use him as your main contact. Yes there are issues but in football there are always issues and we have enough to do to deal with what we need to do to keep moving. We need to get this off the agenda and with no damage to us or ours. At worst maybe a slap on the hand for protocol and an “honest mistake” and “good of the game” outcome”.

    “Tony, Welcome aboard. Please have a look at the complaints being made by the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders. It needs clearing up because if we don’t have a full and honest review it will just come back. Any kind of cover up will not work and will just lead to future grief and even more fan alienation. You have full access to all files and all people”.

    So basically a choice between Tony conducting a whitewash or a real investigation.

    And here is the confusion.

    Whatever Mr Tony has been asked to do it will potentially implicate people past and present at the SFA.

    Office holders and also the people who simply work in the building and follow the orders from above.

    The most threatened might be the likes of Mr Petrie who we all think has aspirations to keep climbing the SFA greasy pole to be the next Grand Fromage.

    But this is not just about Petrie it really involves everyone who has been involved not only in the deed back in 2011 but also before that and since.

    So if I was Tony.
    I might be new in the job but I’m experienced enough to get by.

    I would want get the real story.

    I would make sure the Chief Executive and the Board knew what the story was and what the options were to move forward.

    I would make it their problem about how to deal with the options going forward because I had done my job whatever the original brief was.

    Its politics.
    Its political.
    And its happening at an organisation where there is no current CEO and where the last CEO was asked to leave after a split vote, allegedly, with the Chairmen of Cove Rangers and Hibs losing their man.

    Deep down Tony, the SFA Board and the club chairmen know that the only way out of this mess is to be honest because The Resolution 12 guys are well briefed, funded and strategically and tactically adept.

    But being honest will cause serious damage the reputations of the past President, the current President and the aspirations of the next President.(And lots of other camp followers too)

    And there might be financial repercussions and the whole thing could become an unholy mess!

    If he hasn’t already Tony will find out three things.

    1 The facts show his clients have been guilty all along.

    2 Ameliorating the charges in a typical SFA whitewash will not be enough to stop future rounds of fact based Resolution 12 actions.(This is important because it is not Celtic who are seeing honesty but Celtic SHAREHOLDERS. They have put pressure on their club as custodians with all the fiduciary requirements that board membership brings).
    And they already know that there is guilt.
    3 His position is untenable because complicity abounds and his employers want to revert to age old carpet sweeping habits.

    Tony will have to choose whether to take the monthly salary or go back to his old employment where at least he was dealing with honest criminals.


  34. John ClarkMarch 29, 2018 at 09:15 
    wottpiMarch 28, 2018 at 22:52‘…Stewart Robertson doesn’t strike me as a mug. Andrew Dickson will know the score re the ins and outs of meeting the requirements as well as anyone. King knows how to push things to the limit all the time.’__________________Leaving aside the ‘self-accusation’ by the less than Royal arch-cheat, no one has ever accused the RFC(IL) board in SDM’s time, or in CW’s time, or the SevcoScotland/TRFC Ltd/RIFC plc boards in more recent times of being ‘mugs’. They have no such excuse :they all knew the truth but made no account of it. Cynically and with intent.And one way or another, the Truth will come and bite them in the bum, or, better still, in their personal wallets, and heap ignominy upon them.
    ____________________________

    Couldn’t agree more, John, and one of the problems for those kind of non-mugs is that they all think they are so much smarter than everyone else, and that they get away with it, mostly, because they are so smart, when, in fact, they get away with it because they inhabit a world full of people just like them.


  35. Finloch I have to say that I rarely post on here but am an avid reader.  That is one of the best posts I’ve seen in a long time and summed up the situation to a tee.


  36. FinlochMarch 29, 2018 at 09:48
    “If he hasn’t already Tony will find out three things.1 The facts show his clients have been guilty all along.2 Ameliorating the charges in a typical SFA whitewash will not be enough to stop future rounds of fact based Resolution 12 actions.(This is important because it is not Celtic who are seeing honesty but Celtic SHAREHOLDERS. They have put pressure on their club as custodians with all the fiduciary requirements that board membership brings).”
    _______
    Excellent disquisition  ,Finloch, of the problems facing the CO.

    The bit I’ve extracted above is of prime personal consideration for him.

    In his investigation he is not acting as the SFA’s lawyer with legal privilege, but as the CO under the independent Judicial Panel Protocol.

    If he uncovers as part of his investigations evidence of collusion between anyone in the SFA and RIF(IL) in the matter of illicitly sliding to RFC(IL) a substantial sum of money that properly belonged to the shareholders of another commercial entity, he would surely be duty bound to inform the police, who would then be duty bound to mount their own investigation into a potential conspiracy to defraud by abuse of office.

    Poisoned chalice isn’t in it!


  37. DarkbeforedawnMarch 29, 2018 at 08:33
    Not seen it mentioned anywhere so relying on folk with more knowledge than me on this one. Could part of the delay in complience officers findings be the fact UEFA are also implicated in this? Knowing they are not exactly the most honourable of governing body, might it be they are not exactly squeeky clean in the licensing situation? Whether it’s possible or not I don’t know, but could there have been a scenario whereby someone at the SFA had a friendly word in the ear of UEFA who then gave them assurances that they would look the other way?
    =====================
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz8RjPAD2Jk


  38. ALLYJAMBOMARCH 29, 2018 at 09:49
    Couldn’t agree more, John, and one of the problems for those kind of non-mugs is that they all think they are so much smarter than everyone else, and that they get away with it, mostly, because they are so smart, when, in fact, they get away with it because they inhabit a world full of people just like them.
    ———————————————————————————————————-
    AJ totally agree which is why you get the likes of Trump and Boris getting into positions they are clearly unqualified for.

    However, turning back to the licensing issues my fear is once again there is yet another clamber on here for a catastrophic event that will see T’Rangers doomed following a simple statement of fact based on her view of things as how Ann Budge sees the Euro licence process working and her experience with Hearts. Along with her expectation that the same rules be applied without fear or favour.

    While we all accept there are always unknowns in the Ibrox saga, this blog, and RTC before it, prides itself with trying to ask questions and then dealing with the facts and information laid out before us as opposed to relying on back of the taxi talk and wild rumours and assumptions.

    I have, perhaps somewhat simply, put forward what I believe to be the state of play re T’Rangers finances and why there doesn’t seem to be anything, IMHO, on the horizon that would stop them getting to play in Europe.

    Given Phil Mac’s Blue Room mole I am sure that if there were any concerns over the issue, beans would have been spilled to the Irish west coast blogger by now.  

    I may be wrong of course and new twists may yet occur given the possible Cold Shoulder etc but I am  just putting out a note of caution that folk don’t get carried away with themselves on this issue.

    If the rules are applied rigorously and without fear or favour and T’Rangers are eligible for a Euro licence then I am afraid we just have to suck that one up.


  39. wottpiMarch 29, 2018 at 11:40

    Based on the reality that no national football association would want to send a club with a big following to the wall and so will interpret the rules to suit, or will turn a blind eye if situation desperate, then you are probably right.
    If an improperly registered player can be deemed eligible to play, then what rule is not open to re interpretation?
    What is needed is a form of domestic FFP that is transparent and aligns with the topography of Scottish football.
    By that I mean a lower discretionary limit than the UEFA £30 million (or approval to exceed beforehand if for infrastructure or player development reason , but definitely NOT to pay inflated player wages) 
    Domestic FFP  would also reduce speculation by limiting debt limits to the income derived from spend on players to say 3 years of EL rather than CL money when budgeting. The latter killed Rangers.
    I’ve already suggested a few years back how domestic club licensing might work in Scotland in an article for Celtic Underground.
    The Licensing Service
    This needs to be more transparent. As it stands it is likely to approve Rangers licensing application that enables them to play in next season’s UEFA competitions. This, despite question marks over Ranger’s ownership; the intent of that ownership; (an intent that has still to be conveyed to the other small shareholders in Rangers), not to mention (Scottish media style) a potential crippling tax bill.
     
    Not only is it likely to approve a license this year in spite of the above, its role in not preventing Rangers getting into the situation they now find themselves in has surely to be investigated and changes made to prevent Rangers, or any Scottish club, endangering themselves and their fellow clubs in the future. In short the Licensing Service that is supposed to protect the financial well being of Scottish clubs has failed and that failure has undermined the integrity of our game.
     
    The process the SFA use is governed by UEFA and the new UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules that stipulate amongst other things what is to be treated as allowable income and allowable debt come into force for the new season. The problem with the FFP rules is that they are designed to stop rich owners putting money into clubs and thus help restrict player wages, the high cost of which is why so many clubs are carrying so much debt.
     
    Whilst an indirect wage cap will indirectly help Celtic (and Rangers) by making us more wage competitive with our neighbour’s in the Championship and lower EPL, neither ourselves nor Rangers are particularly high wage payers nor do we get income Abramovic style from our major shareholder.
     
    However what Celtic have had to compete with in the last decade is our main rivals Rangers first indulging in a questionable method of paying player wages (EBT’s) and then borrowing beyond their means to repay. This has all but destroyed the integrity of our game, something that can be inferred from the Scotsman article where it says,
     
    ‘which last season led the SFA’s legal and moral authority to be undermined by constant challenges.’
     
    It is therefore clear to any observer that the processes that have allowed Rangers to damage themselves and with it the game that the SFA is supposed to protect must be tailored to reflect the reality of the SPL not the EPL.
     
    In Scotland, unlike England where 4 clubs can qualify, the risk of failing to get CL money means the loser can be condemned to be the perpetual bridesmaid or not getting a wedding invite at all, forcing them into taking risks/gambles that can seriously damage the well being of each club, if not end it. So, the licensing processes in Scotland have to be tighter to take more of an account of a clubs debt and to confirm that all players at all clubs are contracted on a basis that complies with standard tax law principles. (a tick against “ Are your players wages subject to PAYE should suffice)
     
    A way of balancing debt with income and expenditure would be a triangulation profile for all clubs. A triangulation profile would have income (A) in one corner, players wages (B) in another and debt (C) in the third. The triangle has to be equilateral and kept in balance and the figures from the accounts supplied to the SFA by clubs have to feed each of the balance points.
    It gets more complicated in that what is counted as income has to be defined because some has to be allocated to non football costs,but as these need to be met they have to be included in the formula to set (A). What can be allowed as income will be defined by the UEFA FFP rules but is generally gate money, TV income, merchandising and UEFA money.
    Players wages including PAYE and NI should be easy to arrive at and the debt level would have to bear some relationship to the income and wages.
    So say for arguments sake (and the multiplier would have to be argued) the debt allowed was 3 times the difference between income and wages (like they used to do in my young days when mortgages bore some relationship to income) then everyone would know if a club was overborrowing if (C) > (A)-(B)*3
    A simple spreadsheet drawing on the figures from the accounts with a pie chart to present the picture could be published for each club without divulging the figures beneath and any club not meeting the result of the formula would have their licence to play in UEFA competitions refused as well as it triggering an SFA audit of their accounts.
    There is for Scottish Clubs (usually Celtic and Rangers) however an additional issue of what is allowable income for triangulation purposes because of the “skew” affect of Champions League money and the fact that it cannot be depended upon.
    Because of the consequences of the proposed profiliing, a club borrowing would have to take a risk that they were always going to have that money as guaranteed income as its loss would risk a refusal of a UEFA license or an audit under the proposed profiling rules.
    So what any sensible club would do is not to include money that could not be depended upon in the income, and if they get a windfall (like CL money) that is used it to avoid or to reduce debt levels, not to keep using  debt to try and ensure they get the money that enables them to stay in debt, as Rangers have done.
    In fact any sensible measure of governance in Scotland with only two realistic competitors for CL money should insist on the CL money being excluded from the debt affordability calculation by removing it from the allowable income. (since Euro Cup money is more dependable and a lot less this could be included as allowable but not CL money)
    The principle of limiting debt to what you can afford is one which our banks abandoned to everyone’s cost and is a principle that needs to be restored everywhere never mind being introduced to football. The triangulation profile is a simple representation of that principle and a more detailed one looking at what is and is not admissable as income and what the debt multiplyer might be in the context of Scottish football is required. Any club who wishes to operate as if CL money is guaranteed and is allowable for financial profiling purposes could only do so if they have good reasons to believe that this is the case. Those reasons should be supplied and made public.
    Whatever approach is adopted Scottish football needs a more relevant process and the SFA should be saying something about the lack of transparency in the Licensing process and what they intend to do to address it.


  40. wottpiMarch 29, 2018 at 11:40

    I am on-board with you, WOTTPI, here (I usually am), and agree that much of what many anticipate will not come to pass in a spectacular car-crash for TRFC* (see my previous posts on the anticipated fallout from King’s, (as yet) apparent, failure to comply with the TOP ruling), but just as we are warning of the dangers of speculating over what might happen that is bad for TRFC, there is a danger that we do the same when judging UEFA’s reaction to TRFC’s license award by the SFA.

    I am not saying UEFA will be vigilant when dealing with TRFC’s, or any club’s, FFP compliance and the granting of a Euro License, but they should be more wary now they know there was some shenanigans emanating from the same boardroom via the same FA in 2011. They might/must be aware that there is an SFA investigation/review into the granting of that license, and, in light of recent corruption at UEFA, might just be looking for some club, in some football backwater, to show they can be the governors that they are meant to be. There might actually be some extremely honest people at UEFA, not all will be corrupt or compliant.

    So, I would say that I am 50/50 that UEFA will show due vigilance over TRFC’s Euro License award (for they will only be involved if it is awarded) while, due to the fact that the 2011 Rangers’ license is now under review/investigation, I rate the possibility of the SFA’s vigilance at 75/25, but, sadly, that’s favouring a ‘right of passage’ to the application.

    *There may well be a car-crash, at some point, but it won’t necessarily directly follow one of the events we are watching, such as the TOP issue, or the UEFA License application.


  41. wottpiMarch 29, 2018 at 11:40
    ‘..If the rules are applied rigorously and without fear or favour and T’Rangers are eligible for a Euro licence then I am afraid we just have to suck that one up.’
    ___________________
    __________________
    Well, on the narrow front of the granting of a licence this year, then of course, if the New club genuinely meets the criteria without illicit fudge, deceit, improper manipulation of accounts and what not, then fair enough.

    Personally, I would also want UEFA, ,who treated TRFC Ltd as a new club having to wait 3 years before even being able to apply for a UEFA competitions licence, to follow  through by ensure that TRFC Ltd was not in any way accredited with the sporting record of RFC(IL) for any purpose whatsoever.


  42. AULDHEIDMARCH 29, 2018 at 12:23

    As I said in an earlier post until we have our own FFP we are stuck with things as they are.

    I’d personally go for some form of domestic FFP as you propose and a strict liability/zero tolerance policy at the same time to re-brand our game.

    While it is only one result, much talk this week has been about how good the Scotland Team looks for the future given the age of some of the players who turned out over the last two games.

    Henry, McKenna, Fraser, Paterson, McGinn, Armstong, McLean, Robertson, Forrest, Christie, McGregor, Douglas all got their grounding in Scotland.

    Yes some have benefited from playing elsewhere, or in the Celtic players case from CL competition, however it shows domestic player development is indeed possible.

    To the above adds the likes of Soutar and McGeoch and others coming through and it perhaps shows that since the bubble burst our clubs can develop home grown talent.

    Cut out the nonsense of some terraces, force teams to be run in a sustainable manner with the focus being to as much of their own talent as possible with the game being run in an open and transparent manner.

    It really is that simple.


  43. Is there a practical reason why clubs are not pushing the TRFC Licence question?
    In recent years, the record of Scottish clubs in the Europa League qualifiers has been dismal.
    This is in spite of being drawn to supposedly inferior clubs from far flung corners of Europe and parts of Asia.
    To compete in these competitions, clubs have to begin their season earlier than normal, with increasing costs.
    They then have to factor in travel and accommodation costs for away legs. These costs are seldom covered by the home tie revenue.
    It costs the same to travel for a club with a 60k home gate, as it does for one with a 5-10k crowd.
         I think it was St.Johnstone who said that they couldn’t afford to qualify for Europe as a first  round knockout produced a financial loss.
    Therefore, perhaps some clubs would rather not win a EL place, thereby being happy to have another club get the opportunity, even if it meant that a particular club didn’t meet the criteria.


  44. Don’t want to get back onto the topic of the quality of referees in the SPFL, but…

    World Cup 2018: No British referee chosen for tournament

    There will be no British referee at the World Cup this summer for the first time since 1938.
    Fifa has chosen 36 officials for the tournament in Russia but none from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

    There are also no British officials among the 63 assistant referees selected, while video assistant referees (VAR) will be chosen from the pool of officials at the tournament…”
    http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43110905
    =====================================

    [OK, so possibly/probably some political game playing involved here as well?]

    More embarrassing for the EPL I would have thought: the bestest, richest league on the planet.  09

    But it could also be viewed as a vote of no confidence in the quality of Scottish refs?

    Many Bampots have long accepted that our national team is crap: our officials are now near the bottom of the FIFA ‘rankings’ as well ?

    And would the SFA have any comment on this exclusion from the World’s premier footy event ?

    Probably not.  


  45. I think most of us are in the dark as to the true threat of insolvency at Ibrox.
    The UEFA licencing issue 2018, looks pretty arcane to me. Barcabhoy on  Twitter gave some Interesting figures and a possible accounting scam of redesignating loans from RIFC to Capital contributions to TRFC, as a means of avoiding proper scrutiny of the accounts, which he thought improper as a means of avoiding FFP  rules. It seems inevitable that some dodge or fudge will be found to give the club a licence, deserved or otherwise. 
    The 2011 licence issue review appears much thornier. It appears to be drinking up the desk of whoever the new incumbent CEO turns out to be. It probably explains the recent board machinations, in which Petrie and McCrae  are seeking to have the whole thing binned. If, as seems likely Maxwell does take over, then it seems likely the CO review will see the light of day. What effects it may have could actually be quite damming for past, present and potential future office holders at the SFA, and for present members of the Ibrox board. That may, in fact, be the start of a wider change in the culture at the SFA,  which may make life trickier for the Ibrox club, and it’s possible successors.
    The TOP issue with King, is, I think, the second most pressing issue at Ibrox, and potentially the most damaging. In the short to medium term King has to go if any stable club can be sustained at Ibrox. The unknown here is how he is removed, and the knock on consequences of that removal. The Close Brothers’ loan suggests that the finance taps have been turned off. This may be temporary and part of a power struggle between King and the Three bears, and that money may well be forthcoming after King’s  judgement day, to remove him and sustain the business going forward. This would involve  at least 15 million, and if the three bears are deemed to be a concert party with the new owners of King’s shares, considerably more. I am  unsure of  this level of funding is available. If not, then an insolvency event of some kind is inevitable in the not too distant future. 
    I suspect the most pressing issue at Ibrox,  however, given the Close brother’s loan, the reports of  arrestments of assets, and recent pronouncements via Club 1872, is one of cash flow. Most businesses which close , do so when the money runs out, and often do so suddenly and dramatically. It genuinely would not surprise me were the club simply to stop trading one day out of the blue, as all sources of cash dried up. 


  46. THOMTHETHIMMARCH 29, 2018 at 15:39

    First of all there needs to be grounds for believing something untoward about T’Rangers’ application.

    Yes we bampots can have a stab at what we believe are the regulations and how they are (should be) interpreted but that is not to say we are automatically right, albeit we could well be.

    But yes, secondly, for the SPFL the matter of Euro licences isn’t on the radar for all but an handful of clubs.

    In the current league positions – Celtic, Aberdeen, T’Rangers, Hibs and Hearts are annually all geared up and looking for Euro football based on their ambitions and finances/income opportunities to cope with it.

    The likes of St Johnstone , Killie and Motherwell no doubt welcome Euro football but as you say it probably comes at a cost give the smaller income streams and fan bases of these clubs.

    The reminder of the Premiership and the teams in the top of the Championship will also welcome the occasional tilt at Europe if ever in lofty league positions but again it may cost them financially to participate. That being said taking a hit is most probably worth it in terms of the experience it brings to a club and its fans.

    But if you think about it…. 
    Celtic aren’t bothered about T’Rangers as they have their CL spot.
    Aberdeen will most likely bag their own Europa spot on their own merit.
    By the looks of it Hearts are out of the running this season.
    That then leaves Hibs and possibly Killie as being potential victims if jiggery-pokery is at play re T’Rangers Euro licence application.

    While you would like to think the game as a whole may wish to seek the highest standards of corporate governance, it could end up being a bun fight between two or three clubs.

    If no one else is interested then those in the Killie and Hibs boardroom may ask ‘is it worth the hassle’. 🙁 

     


  47. ThomTheThimMarch 29, 2018 at 15:39 
    Is there a practical reason why clubs are not pushing the TRFC Licence question?In recent years, the record of Scottish clubs in the Europa League qualifiers has been dismal.This is in spite of being drawn to supposedly inferior clubs from far flung corners of Europe and parts of Asia.To compete in these competitions, clubs have to begin their season earlier than normal, with increasing costs.They then have to factor in travel and accommodation costs for away legs. These costs are seldom covered by the home tie revenue.It costs the same to travel for a club with a 60k home gate, as it does for one with a 5-10k crowd. I think it was St.Johnstone who said that they couldn’t afford to qualify for Europe as a first round knockout produced a financial loss.Therefore, perhaps some clubs would rather not win a EL place, thereby being happy to have another club get the opportunity, even if it meant that a particular club didn’t meet the criteria.
    ________________________-

    This is similar to a theory I wrote of when Hearts didn’t protest when the SFA granted TRFC a Euro licence last season. While not excusing Hearts, and it made me angry that they didn’t protest, I could see the business reason why they might not actually want to qualify in TRFC’s stead.

    They’d had a disastrous last 2 or 3 months of the season, hardly winning a game under Ian Cathro, who they were about to sack and had to replace. The previous season they’d had to hurriedly sign a number of players in time for their first European match who weren’t exactly a success, and, no doubt, the club didn’t want a repeat of that, and their current squad was extremely unlikely to make any progress, whatsoever. 

    Then there was the redevelopment of the main stand, leaving them with a choice of playing in front of reduced crowds at Tynecastle, or forking out for Murrayfield where unfashionable opposition would hardly attract enough of a crowd to cover the costs. 

    Hearts ‘progress’ in the League Cup showed just how humiliating a jaunt in Europe might have proved to be, only more expensive.

    Then you have to factor in the fallout for any club ousting TRFC from that Euro spot they are so desperate for. In sport, no competitor relishes qualifying by default, at the expense of another, no matter what the circumstances, and they never look good if they are the cause (though the cause is usually the other’s own fault) of that other’s expulsion, even if they are morally, and, in this case, sportingly, correct. But that is nothing compared to the orchestrated assault on their reputation a Scottish club would undoubtedly face should they deny TRFC a Euro place. And there’s a lot of hatred out there for any club brave enough to do the right thing and protest should TRFC obtain a Euro Licence while failing to meet FFP Regulations!

    In an honest sport, of course, no club would ever face the quandary of ‘do we protest’, for it is the well paid suits at Hampden whose duty it is to ensure financial cheating is never successful. 

    Again, I’m not excusing Hearts for their inaction, or any other club faced with a similar dilemma, rather lending my theory to Thom’s own of why other clubs might not push the TRFC licence question.

    It’s really a question of diminishing returns! A question every good business person should ask themselves whenever a major decision is required. Or put another way, is it (Euro qualification) worth the hassle? 


  48. wottpiMarch 29, 2018 at 16:17

    Honest, WOTTPI, I’d posted my post before I’d read your last sentence 15


  49. StevieBCMarch 29, 2018 at 16:03
    ‘..But it could also be viewed as a vote of no confidence in the quality of Scottish refs?’
    _______________
    I would say ‘broadly’ political, StevieBC in so far as the UK as a whole is (I think) becoming less important in the world’s eyes generally. We now hear our own (UK)government claiming credit from time to time for ‘punching above our weight)
    And I am still somewhat surprised that the football world hasn’t yet insisted on the International Football Association Board membership being changed !


  50. Re sevco 2012 Euro licence 
    Could it be they will qualify for a licence this season as IIRC the euro monitoring period is over 3 yrs 
    and as a NEW club who have only been involved in Europe for the first time last season ,would have till next season to bring their losses under the permitted level .

    They are of course a NEW CLUB as the old club (IL) have over £20m in unpaid PAYE and the WTC £2.8m still outstanding .

    I am so looking forward to the MSM explaining that little doozy if the CO can,t find the whitewash and brushes   


  51. ALLYJAMBO
    MARCH 29, 2018 at 16:45
    WOTTPIMARCH 29, 2018 at 16:17
    Thanks gents for adding some meat to the bones of my hypothesis.
    Integrity doesn’t feature highly in sport nowadays, if it ever did.
    I can fully understand a pragmatic approach to Europe from some clubs.
    However, the ramifications on the historical licence issue could be far reaching….stretching to continental Europe and beyond.
    When you consider the penalty Legia Warsaw paid for fielding a sub, two minutes from time, in a game that was one, because said player was ineligible, then the fallout of eleven years of ineligible playersis the ultimate sporting Appalling Vista.


  52. FoF, I’m not sure they could. UEFA have given Rangers the points from previous seasons oldco competing in Champions League and Europa League, plus a point for the cup win. So they can’t be seen to consider sporting achievements transferable but financial problems separate (yes I know the SFA did but that’s a different story). 


  53. I for one do not wish that sevco 2012 are refused a Euro licence to enhance the chances of their demise .
    I just expect that they get one if they qualify for one ,on and off the park .The same as every other member club .

    Sevco 2012 collapsing does no one in scottish football any good ,they command crowds of 40,000 + and thousands at away grounds .

    IMO the path they have taken at boardroom level is lamentable and they really missed a chance to put in foundations at the new club to build a modern football club that the real football fanbase at Ibrokes could be proud of and investors would have been attracted to .

    How much closer could the football success that the supporters crave so much be ,if the new club had cleansed itself of the old clubs cheating years and the bigotry that only holds the new club back in modern society .

    When the old club died the plan seems to have been ,push the siege mentality angle at all costs .
    Understandable I suppose but has it been worth it  .That line was just more lies to supporters who have been fed lies for nearly 20yrs and has of course led them to where they are today .

    it has led to ever diminishing investment and a fanbase who demand a return to the so called glory years where they were cheating their way to trophies .

    IMO ,refusing to recognise the wrong doing of the previous clubs custodians and clinging to (dis)honours won by deceit ,will haunt any new version of a club playing at Ibrokes for years to come  

     


  54. fan of footballMarch 29, 2018 at 19:26 
    I for one do not wish that sevco 2012 are refused a Euro licence to enhance the chances of their demise .I just expect that they get one if they qualify for one ,on and off the park .The same as every other member club .
    ______________________

    I don’t think anyone here is suggesting they shouldn’t get that licence if they qualify on both fronts, we just want to know, with certainty, that they have not been allowed to get away with failing to meet UEFA’s FFP Regulations. They were sailing very close to that last season, to the extent that even their friends at the SFA said they were being monitored (no word on how that went). Their European exploits at the start of this season, though, could well have led them into much greater debt than would have been the case had they been refused that licence, by signing players they expected to perform on the bigger stage, but who failed spectacularly. With a much worse starting position, financially, than last season, a similar failure, after spending to provide a team that might do well in the competition, could well see them reaching the tipping point to insolvency, assuming the more urgent matter of King’s TOP non-compliance doesn’t see them tipping sooner.


  55. ALLYJAMBOMARCH 29, 2018 at 19:47

    They were sailing very close to that last season, to the extent that even their friends at the SFA said they were being monitored (no word on how that went). Their European exploits at the start of this season, though, could well have led them into much greater debt than would have been the case had they been refused that licence, by signing players they expected to perform on the bigger stage, but who failed spectacularly. With a much worse starting position, financially, than last season, a similar failure, after spending to provide a team that might do well in the competition, could well see them reaching the tipping point to insolvency, assuming the more urgent matter of King’s TOP non-compliance doesn’t see them tipping sooner.

    —————————————

    Last season the SFA felt moved to get information into the media that Rangers would be issued a licence, but would enter a break even monitoring period. Since then their debt levels have risen, and notably the SFA have not put any stories into the media.  I find it amazing that anyone on here could remotely countenance that they actually qualify as per the rules, but I do take the point that the SFA may be very willing to sit there and have King explain to them why they DO qualify, and to get on with approving the licence without asking any questions.  

    On another note we are now in the Easter holiday period. How will King manage to announce his share prospectus?


  56. If I am confident of one thing in Scottish football just now it is that Rangers will be granted a licence to play in Europe next season.

    The rules, financial fair play, and anything else will be irrelevant.

    We will just have to wait and see if the team which loses out, if such exists, tries to do anything about it. 


  57. HOMUNCULUSMARCH 29, 2018 at 21:03

    If I am confident of one thing in Scottish football just now it is that Rangers will be granted a licence to play in Europe next season.

    ===============================

    One way or another everyone seems to agree on that.


  58. HOMUNCULUSMARCH 29, 2018 at 21:03

    We will just have to wait and see if the team which loses out, if such exists, tries to do anything about it.
    ___________
    Both domestic and European perhaps. 


  59. ALLYJAMBOMARCH 29, 2018 at 16:45
    ThomTheThimMarch 29, 2018 at 15:39 Is there a practical reason why clubs are not pushing the TRFC Licence question?In recent years, the record of Scottish clubs in the Europa League qualifiers has been dismal.This is in spite of being drawn to supposedly inferior clubs from far flung corners of Europe and parts of Asia.To compete in these competitions, clubs have to begin their season earlier than normal, with increasing costs.They then have to factor in travel and accommodation costs for away legs. These costs are seldom covered by the home tie revenue
    —-
    This is similar to a theory I wrote of when Hearts didn’t protest when the SFA granted TRFC a Euro licence last season. While not excusing Hearts, and it made me angry that they didn’t protest, I could see the business reason why they might not actually want to qualify in TRFC’s stead.
    They’d had a disastrous last 2 or 3 months of the season, hardly winning a game under Ian Cathro, who they were about to sack and had to replace. The previous season they’d had to hurriedly sign a number of players in time for their first European match who weren’t exactly a success, and, no doubt, the club didn’t want a repeat of that, and their current squad was extremely unlikely to make any progress, whatsoever. 
    Then there was the redevelopment of the main stand, leaving them with a choice of playing in front of reduced crowds at Tynecastle,
    It’s really a question of diminishing returns! A question every good business person should ask themselves whenever a major decision is required. Or put another way, is it (Euro qualification) worth the hassle? 
    ————————-
    The ibrox club believe it will be worth the hassle as it is the answer to all their problems.You just have to read any articles on them or listen to any of the bull emenating from anything related to ibrox. european football is the holy grail,a back where we belong a past reminder of all the old european glory nights at ibrox.

    In recent years, the record of Scottish clubs in the Europa League qualifiers has been dismal.
    Yet the ibrox club believe they can conquere europe this time.
    To compete in these competitions, clubs have to begin their season earlier than normal,
    Yet the ibrox fans believe that having no new manager as yet and players out of contract and loan players going back to their own clubs That they will haveto get a new manager who will have to hurriedly sign a number of players in time for their first European match is perfect preparation for the early rounds of Europa League qualifiers.
    Then there was the redevelopment of the main stand,
    The ibrox club have been given permission to fix the roofs this season.Will the ibrox club begin this when the season has ended but i doubt if they do it will be complete for any early rounds of europe. that will leave them  with a choice of playing in front of reduced crowds.
    It’s really a question of diminishing returns! A question every good business person should ask themselves whenever a major decision is required. Or put another way, is it (Euro qualification) worth the hassle? 
    Down ibrox way i believe they think it is and is the solution to all their problems, but i just can’t see them going any further than they did last season which will lead to a whole set of new problems.
    sorry for the long post


  60. Of course instead of Celtic minded bloggers tonight pontificating and  taking pot shots at Ann Budge, for merely telling how it is from Hearts point of view, they could simply focus on asking the SFA for an open and transparent explanation of why T’Rangers are or are not eligible for a Euro licence should they qualify.
    Arguing amongst ourselves and pointing fingers in the wrong direction is not going to help resolve the matter.
    Can we not just have a campaign to have SFA decisions to be clearly explained to the paying customer?


  61. WOTTPIMARCH 29, 2018 at 22:51

    ===========

    I’m sure Mrs Budge knows fine well the influence the SFA can have on licence applications, but she avoided that like the plague in the answer I read. She has been magnificent for your club, but the notion she would be a breath of fresh air in terms of governance bolted long ago.  Likewise with Ms Dempster across the other side of Edinburgh. 

    The fact remains that Celtic are the only club to publicly question how the SFA govern the game. Yet clubs like Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen are massive clubs in Scottish terms. Why are they so scared to speak out? They all have very intelligent people on board. 


  62. wottpi, calm down.

    Your aspirations are the same of most on here.  The expectations can sometimes be high.  But always remember JC’s  point of view.  The truth will out. Eventually.

    it is good that you offer caution,   but you , or me, don’t know where the tripping point will come from.


  63. Easy Jambo

    If I remember right there was some discussion this time last year fuelled by a Grant Russell STV article about what accounts were required by TRFC to support an application for a UEFA Licence.
    There seems to be some light on the issue in this current Twitter discussion.
    https://twitter.com/JBLuvsCeltic/status/979484897487159296
    that supports what I thought was required last time under Article 48 of UEFA FFP.
    It seems Interims are required and must be audited or reviewed by an auditor as specified in Annex V which suggests a degree of rigor is intended but not necessarily applied. The dangers of that do leave auditors open to risk if they are misinformed by a club of the true state of play.

    ANNEX V: Determination of the auditor and auditor’s assessment procedures
    A. Principle
    1. The auditor must be independent in compliance with the International Federation
    of Accountants (IFAC) Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (see Articles
    47 and 48).
    2. The auditor must be a member of one of the relevant IFAC member bodies. If
    there is no member of the IFAC within a licence applicant’s territory, the licence
    applicant is required to use an independent auditor who is permitted by national
    law to carry out audit work.
    B. Assessment procedures
    1. The auditor must audit the annual financial statements. The auditor’s report must:
    a) include a statement confirming that the audit was conducted in accordance
    with the International Standards on Auditing or relevant national auditing
    standards or practices where these comply with, as a minimum, the
    requirements of the International Standards on Auditing; and
    b) be submitted to the licensor together with the annual financial statements to
    form a basis for his licensing decision.
    2. The auditor must, as a minimum, review the interim financial statements. The
    auditor’s report must:
    a) include a statement confirming that the review was conducted in accordance
    with either the International Standard on Review Engagements (ISRE) 2410,
    ‘Review of Interim Financial Information Performed by the Independent Auditor
    of the Entity’, or relevant national standards or practices for such reviews
    where these comply with, as a minimum, the requirements of ISRE 2410; and
    b) be submitted to the licensor together with the interim financial statements to
    form a basis for his licensing decision.
    3. The auditor must assess supplementary information, if any. The auditor’s report
    of factual findings must:
    a) include a statement confirming that the assessment was conducted by way of
    agreed-upon procedures according to the International Standard on Related
    Services (ISRS) 4400 or relevant national standards or practices where these
    comply with, as a minimum, the requirements of ISRS 4400; and
    b) be submitted to the licensor together with the supplementary information to
    form a basis for his licensing decision.
    4. Financial information other than that defined in paragraphs 1 to 3 above may be
    assessed by an auditor. In this case, the auditor’s report must:
    a) include a statement confirming that the assessment was conducted either:
    i) by way of agreed-upon procedures according to the International Standard
    on Related Services (ISRS) 4400 or relevant national standards or
    practices where these comply with, as a minimum, the requirements of
    ISRS 4400; or
    ii) for the assessment of future financial information (if applicable), according
    to the International Standards for Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3400 or
    relevant national standards or practices where these comply with, as a
    minimum, the requirements of ISAE 3400; and
    b) be submitted to the licensor together with the relevant documentation to form
    a basis for his licensing decision.


  64. The new Celtic Away Strip is like the Cheese & Onion away strip when we were based in Hampdump. I have much to say about that season  but I wont.  Love you all.

    EJ, It was Ian Maxwell I think


  65. wottpiMarch 29, 2018 at 22:51
    Can we not just have a campaign to have SFA decisions to be clearly explained to the paying customer?
    =====================

    You mean like this? Simple to do and Budge’s response suggested a lack of understanding of who grants the licence as well as underestimating the feelings of all the supporters wanting a level playing field and the SFA Comp Officer should be in a position by now to give such assurance, so a phone call to SFA would get an answer.

    AuldheidMarch 27, 2018 at 10:49
    With Season Ticket renewal looming clubs will depend on supporter loyalty to purchase.
    That more than understandable loyalty makes a boycott unlikely to have an affect,  but loyalty is a two edged sword.
    There continues to be a high level of mistrust in the SFA and the time taken by the Compliance Officer to complete his work does nothing to reassure purchasers they are paying to watch a game that is fairly governed.
    Rather than boycott why not ask your club before you purchase what assurance they can give you the game you will be paying good money to watch is totally dependent on fairness on and off the park. 
    Ask before you buy. It should not take long for our SPL clubs to provide an answer of reassurance.
    https://twitter.com/Auldheid/status/978565480897236993?s=19 


  66. UPTHEHOOPSMARCH 29, 2018 at 23:26
    Ann Budge was on the SPFL board who asked the SFA to co-operate with a review of the Rangers Tax Case.
    In recent interviews she has stated she sees the relationship between SFA and SPFL as being poor. By implication I don’t think she is overly happy with the SFA.
    IRC despite the Res 12 issue being raised years ago by their shateholdetrs Celtic  (and I do commend them for doing so)  only went ‘ public’ after the SPFL boards request for a review.
    I don’t see what else Budge and Lawwell can do in relation to calling out the SFA for failures in the past.
    If there are currently concerns in relation to T’Rangers Euro licence application for next season then ideally all those who had concerns last time should be raising similar questions again.
    I have a feeling Budge and Lawwell are very much on the same page.
    My fear is that if there is something to be concerned about at present neither are going speak up and one will be as bad as the other. 


  67. What you are basically saying is that Lawwell and Budge are business people over and above being Club people?


  68. wottpiMarch 30, 2018 at 00:31
    The point here is not criticise the bosses of any clubs in asking that question for assurance.
    The point is to let the clubs tell the SFA that their refusal to have a full enquiry into their handling of Rangers use of EBTs and the length of time it is taking the Compliance Officer to conclude, has raised a legitimate concern of supporters, hopefully across all clubs, that could delay much needed income.
    It boils down to if the SPFL have concerns over the SFA, how can their member clubs ask supporters to pay good money to watch a game whose governance the CLUBS don’t trust?
    Pressure mate, pressure on the SFA ,not our clubs but through our clubs, the only means supporters have for making the SFA accountable.
    The clubs individually do not need to make a statement, but the SFA sure as hell have to and perhaps revisit their position.

Comments are closed.