John Clark Meets “The SFA”

By

Jimbo 4.57 Something on these lines? http://celticunderground.net/sfa-reform-one-down-three-to-go/ …

Comment on John Clark Meets “The SFA” by Auldheid.

Jimbo 4.57

Something on these lines?

http://celticunderground.net/sfa-reform-one-down-three-to-go/

Auldheid Also Commented

John Clark Meets “The SFA”
Reiver
Don’t get disheartened. The only thing keeping a lid on matters is the full extent of what has happened and continues to happen is not realised by the wider public because msm refused to touch what is now evidence in the indictments.
That provides temporary shelter until the trials are over as does waiting for a decision on whether leave to appeal the latest decision on BTC ebts is granted. If it is then it’s more wait and see. If it isn’t hold on to your seat belt. You are by no means alone in seeking reform of the SFA. 
Just keep focus on the issue and try and open up as many communication channels as you can. Call a meeting of Hibees  to form a pressure group in readiness for ST renewal time. By then we  can make ST purchase conditional on SFA reconstruction with supporters having an input and with some credible oversight in place. 


John Clark Meets “The SFA”
Whoever from Ibrox applies for permission to play in Europe next season, assuming the SC provides a means of entry, it will not be the same legal entity that last applied in 2011 and was granted a licence. You can take that to the bank because if it was they would have no ratified accounts to supply and would have millions in tax overdue to HMRC, so would not be entertained.
The last time a legal entity applied it would have to have called itself MIH in order for a new application by TRFC or TRIFC  to be entertained, this time as being the holding company who took over the liquidated RFC.
So who applied last time? MIH or RFC? What do you think?
I think anyone reading Article 12 of UEFA FFP would find in it a determination to protect the sporting integrity of UEFA competitions, a determination our SFA do not share for the domestic game, apparently on the Broadfoot gamble that supporters don’t care enough about sporting integrity to stop watching a sporting game that depends on it.

A much longer version taken from CQN covers the matter.

Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant

1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible

for a football team participating in national and international competitions which

either:

a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated

league (hereinafter: registered member); or

b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football

company).

2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at

the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any

alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example,

changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings

between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on

sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a

competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.

It would seem pretty clear from the foregoing that as the current legal entity playing as The Rangers Football Club cannot play in UEFA competition for three years. (See announcement at  http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-06-12/rangers-forced-into-liquidation/ by Duff and Phelps)  that UEFA must have judged that the alteration in legal form reported to them by the SFA , would be to the detriment of the integrity of UEFA’s competitions and so that alteration was deemed to be an interruption of membership of the entity undergoing liquidation.

The question that arises in terms of what type of legal entity is undergoing liquidation is

Were RFC considered a legal entity under a) or b) of Article 12 above?

Now whilst Sir David Murray owned Rangers and MIH all supporters would argue that there was never in the public consciousness the notion that MIH owned and operated Rangers under a contractual relationship between both.

Supporters of all clubs, including their own, believed that before liquidation Rangers were a standalone club under a) of Article 12.

If there are documents that support b) why have they not surfaced? That is not to say they are not now a different kind of legal entity under b) following the purchase of their assets and the clear division that has been set between Rangers International Football Club and The Rangers Football club, but did this club/company arrangement exist as defined at b) before 2012?

The SFA could provide the answer by revealing what they told UEFA in either June 2012 when a CVA was rejected or October 2012 when Administration was formerly ended.

The SFA are governed by ANNEX I: Exceptions policy.Para 1(d) refers

A. Principle

1. The UEFA administration may, in accordance with Article 4, grant exceptions on

the following matters:

a) Non-applicability of a minimum requirement concerning the decision-making

bodies or process defined in Article 7 due to national law or any other

reason;

b) Non-applicability of a minimum requirement concerning the core process

defined in Article 9 due to national law or any other reason;

c) Non-applicability of a minimum assessment procedure defined in Article 10

due to national law or any other reason;

d) Non-applicability of the three-year rule defined in Article 12(2) in case of

change of legal form or company structure of the licence applicant on a case by-

case basis;

e) Non-applicability of a certain criterion defined in part II, chapter 3 due to

national law or any other reason;

f) Extension of the introduction period for the implementation of a criterion or a

category of criterion defined in part II, chapter 3.

2. Exceptions related to items a), b), c), e) and f) are granted to a UEFA member

association and apply to all clubs which are registered with the UEFA member

association and which submit a licensing application to enter the UEFA club

competitions. Exceptions related to item d) are granted to the individual club that

applies for a licence.

3. An exception is granted for a period of one season. Under specific

circumstances this period may be extended and the UEFA member association

may be placed on an improvement plan.

4. A renewal of the exception is possible upon a new request.

Under 1(d) above The SFA could have applied for exemption from Article 12 but as a 3 year exile was deemed necessary the SFA either did not make a case or had a case rejected. It is unlikely even the SFA would have made a case, especially if they had to do so in October 2012 when Administration ended and TRFC were playing in the bottom tier of Scottish football!

B. The process (paras 4 and 5 refer).

1. The UEFA administration acts as the first instance decision-making body on

exception requests.

2. An exception request must be in writing, clear and well founded.

3. Exceptions related to items defined under A(1)(a, b, c, e and f) must be

submitted by the UEFA member association to the UEFA administration by the

deadline communicated by the latter.

4. Exceptions related to the item defined under A(1)(d) can be submitted at any

time. A licensor notified of the reorganisation or restructuring of an affiliated club

(e.g. change of legal form, merger of clubs, split of club, liquidation or

bankruptcy) is responsible for notifying the UEFA administration accordingly as

soon as it becomes aware of it.

5. The UEFA administration uses the necessary discretion to grant any exception

within the limits of these regulations.

6. The status and situation of football within the territory of the UEFA member

association will be taken into account when granting an exception. This

encompasses, for example:

a) size of the territory, population, geography, economic background;

b) size of the UEFA member association (number of clubs, number of registered

players and teams, size and quality of the administration of the association,

etc.);

c) the level of football (professional, semi-professional or amateur clubs);

d) status of football as a sport within the territory and its market potential

(average attendance, TV market, sponsorship, revenue potential, etc.);

e) UEFA coefficient (association and its clubs) and FIFA ranking;

f) stadium ownership situation (club, city/community, etc.) within the

association;

g) support (financial and other) from the national, regional and local authorities,

including the national sports ministry.

7. The decision will be communicated to the UEFA member association. The

decision must be in writing and state the reasoning. The UEFA member

association must then communicate it to all licence applicants concerned.

8. Appeals can be lodged against decisions made by the UEFA administration or, if

applicable, the UEFA Executive Committee in writing before the Court of

Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in accordance with the relevant provisions laid down

in the UEFA Statutes.

It would be informative to actually know what the SFA reported to UEFA.  Did the SFA seek to make an exception or was the liquidation seen by UEFA as nothing more than an attempt by a club to shed its debt and carry on as before to the detriment to the integrity of UEFA’s competitions? 

How much did the SFA and SPL’s failed attempt to parachute the new legal entity that was “The Rangers FC” into the top tier of the SPL, an attempt thwarted by supporters of all other clubs in Scotland, influence what the SFA told UEFA about Rangers liquidation?

Why are the SFA not treating the issue as UEFA have done to protect the integrity of domestic competition?

Why no equivalent of Article 12 of UEFA FPP in SFA Articles to deter the type of skulduggery that has not only damaged healthy recovery at Ibrox but has also created the perception of – at worst – corrupt governance or – at best – not fit for purpose governance.

Finally, and going back to the two types of legal entity that UEFA recognise as legitimate applicants for a UEFA licence:

When Rangers applied for a UEFA licence from say 2009 to 2011, did they do so as an applicant under Article 12 legal entity a) or legal entity b)?

– See more at: http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/asa-the-different-entity-uefa-rules/#sthash.lZYiPx2b.dpuf


John Clark Meets “The SFA”
buddy_holly 10th February 2016 at 12:00 am #

(All assumes the eligible clubs have accounts and are eligible)… that one for you auldheid

I posted on this today on JJs site when he was suggesting SC was a route into Europe for TRFC.
Because they are not in the top tier they  will not have been  assessed against the UEFA licence level that applies to Premiership clubs.
To allow for clubs from lower tiers to qualify on Sporting merit there is special provision in UEFA Rules for an exceptional case to be made by the National Association to allow participation. (Article 15 from memory)
Naturally everyone thinks this will be a given, but UEFA  have the final say and will take a bit of convincing that a club for whom the SFA currently only award an Entry Level licence under National Club licensing are  not at risk of failing during the UEFA tournament.
UEFA should by then have a copy of the SFA’s role in the 2011 UEFA Licence shenanigans and will be well appraised of the trustworthiness of the case the SFA might make.
That assumes of course TRFC are able to supply a set of accounts ratified at an AGM with no going concern notes to make UEFA ask for future financial forecasts to satisfy themselves that TRFC are a financially viable club.
I’m not saying entrance would not be granted but it is anything but a given if the scenario painted ever actually arises…..
  


Recent Comments by Auldheid

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
UP THE HOOPS
The allegations on CQN that Bobby Madden has a gambling problem surely require his  removal from the the firing line until the allegators are proved wrong.
No snap decisions, just a leisurely swim until there is no question as to his motivations. 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Dons/Hibees/Jambos and any other club wanting a UEFA spot.
Flogging players who have put TRFC near top of league is an admission those players unaffordable.
The solution is to make a licence for TRFC conditional on a realistic sustainable business plan. SFA are not doing their licencing job. Never have in fact.
So what questions are your club Directors asking the SFA?
Why not get them to ask UEFA if they are happy with the way SFA process licence applications from Ibrox. Seems UEFA not happy.
Proper club licencing can level the playing field a bit but it also protects all clubs from charlatans selling jam tomorrow.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Allyjambo 21.41

Matthew Lindsay: Time for Dave King to depart Rangers – but who could take over at the Ibrox club?

Rangers need to be run by individuals whose integrity is beyond doubt.
=============================
Do such individuals steeped in blue exist?

As rare as a dodo nesting on an iceberg in Carlisle Bay, Barbados.
” No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” Albert Einstein 
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_130982


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
I got my electronic copy of Not The View delivered yesterday.
Browsing through I thought I recognised The Christmas Tale offering and was pleased to read it as I had forgotten it was a tale I told at Christmas in 2012 (on CQN I think).
I think it worth repeating as a reminder of why SFM exists – because we love football and we love Scottish football and we aren’t done yet.
A CHRISTMAS TALE
See me?
 
See me?
 
Ah jist luv fitbaw.
 
Its funny cos I was never that interested until about age eleven when a good pal, who was destined never to see his 21st birthday after a car crash in Rome encouraged me to try it. John was there to become a priest but got fast tracked by the Big Man who knows a good guy when he sees wan.
 
John encouraged me to give it a go in Suffolk St.  We played “croassies in” with the metal pull down blinds that formed the gates to the interior of the Barras as goals. Plastic baws, Fridos then Wembleys, arrived about then and many a red hot poker made the game a bogey in a failed attempt at repairing a burst baw.
 
(I blame the whelk shells; they were aw ower the place from the Oyster Bar in the Gallowgate (where I was entrapped in the cellar two weekends in a row cleaning whelks and mussels) and the ravenous appetite of the Glasgow punter for shellfish.
 
I played fitbaw morning, noon and night and saw Glasgow Green pitches UPGRADED from black ash/clinker to red blaze. We thought we were Wullie Fernie playing on that stuff and there was a case for playing with 10 baws as teams were filled with tanner baw players (goalies were just last man standing) for whom the object of the game was to beat everybody else in the opposition before scoring or it wisnae a goal.
 
I remember wan night  at the Glasgow Green waiting to play for St Alphonsus v Our Lady of Fatima  when I saw Tony Green, who was a Mungo boy and went on to play for Newcastle and Scotland before injury ended his career too early, waiting, sannies under his arm, to get a game with any team who were a man short. I think the OLOF manager mugged wan of his boys as Tony appeared for them and turned a virtuoso performance against us to give OLOF a 3-2 victory.
 
I started work and went to London for a year to work in the old Post Office Savings Bank. In my first week Jock (a Jock) approached and asked if I played. He never mentioned the sport, he didnae hiv tae, we wur already communicating at the spiritual level only fitbaw lovers can reach (the kind of thing that electrifies CP on CL nights.)
 
I get directions fur a game oan the Saturday at Acton Town and turn up, new Puma boots, paid by my transfer grant, under my arm (nae sannies fur me) On entering the park ahm puzzled, there wiz GRASS everywhere, nae clinker or red blaze in sight.  “Must be roon the back of the dressing rooms “ I remember thinking.
 
Anyhoo I gets changed runs roon the back to see — MAIR grass as far as the eye can see. So I troop back tae the dressing rooms to get directions to the ash pitches. When I explain what ah wiz used to playin oan they aw jist looked at me like my village wiz searching fur their idiot.
 
Well I get sorted out and line up. The baw, I remember, wiz a size 5 orange wan, but no wan o they bricks wi laces. The first pass to me wiz high and ah chests the ball doon and whirls roon afore I get studded from the back as wiz the custom oan the narrow pitches of Glasgow Green. To ma amazement the nearest opponent to me is about 4 yards away. As I look into his eyes I smile and turn to Jock at the sidelines and shout.
 
“Yer gonnae need anither baw” as I meander off in pursuit of the only goal that counted for a tanner baw man. I think I managed 7 before netting and I’ll take that. It wiz oan unfamiliar grass after all.
 
 Postscript “Aye very guid Auldheid” yer thinking (if you have stayed with me so far.)
“Nice reminiscing and it is Christmas Eve, so thanks fur the memories. “
 
But there’s mer tae this tale fur
 
See me?
 
See me?
 
I jist luv fitbaw.
 
Its ma game, its  OOR game and when I see the mess those responsible for looking after its welfare have made of it ah want to do something.
 
I hope ahm not alone.
 
Dec 2012


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
That Dave King is allowed any influence in Scottiish football is a dereliction of the duty of the SFA to protect our game from criminality.

Dave King should be called to account by the other clubs via the SFA to provide evidence he can do what he has promised, which is bank roll TRFC.

At the very least the clubs should be preparing for another insolvency event at Ibrox and deciding the conditions they will set for TRFC to continue taking part in Scottish football on the same basis as every other club, who act with the utmost good faith to fellow members.

The clubs via the SFA have the powers under Club Licensing to do so, powers that the SFA Comp Off can only conclude the SFA have failed to utilise. Powers that UEFA must have recognised by now as a result of Res12 letter of May 2016 and UEFA Licence submission this year, are not being used fully by the SFA.  

It was self preservation that underpinned the 5 Way Agreement . The dangers of that agreement – destroying integrity, undermining trust, ignoring deceit – become more and more manifest and should alert other clubs to the necessity to exercise their collective responsibility to each other and so to our game that they govern via the SFA on our behalf, using Club Licensing powers.

When a particular course of action designed to preserve self is not working it is human nature to try another course.

Not renewing STs come April/May unless positive trust restoring actions are taken by our clubs collectively, is one way of changing minds about what is self preserving.


About the author