THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight


The Tweet by Alex Thomson about titles not being stripped …

Comment on THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight by Auldheid.

The Tweet by Alex Thomson about titles not being stripped prompted a post on KDS that ended.
LNS was a report commissioned the SFA, not legally binding, but the outcome was based only on the evidence provided, so they got the report they wanted. They’ve got a bit smarter since Farry.
This elicited my response below that addresses the evidence not provided and why.
Whilst that is true, what Rangers were asked to provide SPL lawyers with was all documentation relating to ebts since 1998 when SPL began that had side letters.
Not all that documentation was provided by Duff and Phelps including the De Boer side letter of 30 Aug 2000 and the HMRC letters provided in court last week setting out the HMRC case as well was the irregular nature of the DOS ebts.
What is unclear is why that documentation was not provided by Duff and Phelps because they were aware of its contents and used them in 2012 in pursuit of the £2.8m set aside under the SPA before LNS ended in 2013.
The point is that there is a case that vital information was deliberately kept from the SPL lawyer much as the fact that wtc liability had crystalised before the 31st March was deliberately avoided by Grant Thornton auditors/ RFC Chairman A Johnson and later by SFA CEO S Regan when questions started being asked after Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox in 2011.
Deceit has clearly played it’s part in achieving the LNS result it has and no decision based on deliberately misleading the regulatory authority can be allowed to stand.
When it was pointed out to SPL lawyers in 2014 by SFM that information had been witheld no attempt was made by the SPL to establish if it was deliberate. The argument was it didn’t matter.
Time has proven for that not to be the case so not only should LNS be set aside, the circumstances under which requested information was not provided should be part of a new enquiry.
SPL lawyers said that the exclusion of the De Boer letter of 30 Aug 2000 made no difference but that stance no longer stands scrutiny. The failure to supply it and the associated HMRC correspondence describing the irregular nature of the De Boer ebt materially affected the decision reached by LNS, so to say LNS and it’s conclusion is final tramples all over natural justice.
When you add SDM’S testimony to the FTT about the motivation for using ebts it is risible to think LNS Decision should stand on both a truthful and natural justice basis.
In simple terms Doncaster was lied to, knowingly or unknowingly, and much as he and the SPL would wish it all to go away, they cannot use deceit to perpetuate deceit.

Auldheid Also Commented

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
UEFA define what can be used as legitimate income in submitted accounts.
Not an area I’ve checked but can a series of loans be treated as legitimate football income?
On the earlier matter of what accounts have to be provided and responses I think UEFA will be looking for Interims and they will have to meet criteria for acceptability.
Problem is we don’t know what is being submitted, but I’d not be surprised if UEFA have concerns about undermining FFP principles if they allow income from future UEFA money to be included and might just say accounts submitted do not meet fair presentation requirements. 

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
Naw lite
Everything emerging so far supports what Res12 shareholders were told privately before the AGM and Celtic after it with added info.
It was kept private because the charge CW faces were likely to bring out what they have in public and it makes sense to continue to let that happen.

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
The accounts which SFA use to determine suitability of applicant for a licence have to be with SFA by 31st March.
My experience of reading appeals to CAS  is that they tend to uphold the intent of UEFA FFP over the interpretations clubs give them in appeals.
That means setting solid dates that apply to all clubs in all national associations. Cuts out wriggle room.
So if it is known RFC accounting year ends 30 June that is the date UEFA will use and not one that floats according to process in different countries.
Going back to my point of intent, how does it serve FFP to use accounts that by end of May will be 11 months out of date?
I mean everything in the garden could be presented as rosy based on a year ago but surely UEFA don’t want a club going belly up during their competition and only the most up to date return addresses that concern?
I’d like certainty on this but if Easy Jambo and Homunculus are correct then UEFA would be looking for accounts that satisfy Art 48 and I don’t see what was produced in March doing that.
Btw there are other requirements in the Annexes that might present UEFA with problems on fair presentation.
If I were the SFA I’d ask UEFA to confirm when submitting the list that the SFA have interpreted what UEFA will accept as correct. That gives UEFA the time to investigate before games begin.

Recent Comments by Auldheid

Who Is Conning Whom?
The business model of TRFC reminds me of the movie Von Ryans Express.

The train carrying escaping POWS grinds to a halt when some of the rails just ahead have been twisted by a bomb blast.

The clever solution is to lift the rails BEHIND the train and replace the twisted ones in front  with the rails from behind in order to cross the gap and journey on. A neat trick.

The TRFC model differs because the rails behind the rain have been warped by the journey and only the rails ahead are useable.

So the TRFC Express crawls along sending the occupant ahead of the track to fetch the rails about half a season’ length ahead in order to fix the gap just ahead caused by the first time this particular solution was tried.

You can see where this model train is going – nowhere fast, but it will chunter along hoping to find spare rails along the way in UEFA sidings, fuelled by “soft” loans that rivals have no access to. As long as the gap in front does not get too big to bridge, it should work like a model train set going around in circles.
At least it is no longer the tax payer who is fuelling the engine.

Who Is Conning Whom?
For those interested in the SFA Compliance Officer investigation and the hurdles it presents the SFA and why it is taking a while have a look at:

Anderlecht and Hibs will keep adrenaline flowing

Who Is Conning Whom?
upthehoopsDecember 4, 2017 at 18:36 (Edit) In my opinion it is becoming really concerning the number of BBC Journalists who are acting in the way English has here. In some ways it almost appears to be that a type of war has been declared by the public broadcaster.  On one side you have them and a club who will not even speak to them. On the other side you have everyone else who simply wants the truth to be at least acknowledged, instead of suppressed.
Tom does not appear to have accepted the subsequent invitation…
SFM‏ @TheSFMonitor 10h10 hours ago More
SFM Retweeted Tom English
and as we know, the MSM always act when they are provided with information.

Tom English @BBCTomEnglish 10h10 hours agoMore
Some comedy Celtic bloggers dont count, sorry
Auldheid @Auldheid
 Replying to @BBCTomEnglish @TheSFMonitor
Would you like to meet a couple Tom? Should be a laugh. Nothing to fear from two retired Internet comedians. Give us your side of the story.

Who Is Conning Whom?
Easy Jambo 19.20 & 22.34
You devil you. 🙂
I think had that been the line it would have been tried by now.
I hope it is.
Leerdamer or two legged horse springs to mind. 🙂
Full of holes and won’t stand up. 🙂

Who Is Conning Whom?
Res12 did not ask to look at the granting of the UEFA licence, it asked to look at the process as a whole during 2011 (and there is an irony as to  why which suggests karma was watching).
Res12 is still on Celtic PLC’s AGM agenda so Celtic will have a problem with shareholders  if based on the evidence supplied they allow SFA to stick to RFC action only.
If it were billiards it would be a snooker.

About the author