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

Here we go again
Cluster One
Hirsute Pursuit

Thanks for the clarification.

I can see how the Brechin reason and Romanov reason got conflated back then so we can drop Romanov from the underlying issue to look at which is:

What was the argument in support of the change in SPL rules introducing owner and operator and if it was solely to deal with a potential problem in respect of Brechin having no “owner” of a share, how did that rule change in 2005 transform Rangers from being an incorporated single Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) earning its revenue from football to a Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) that overnight owned a club earning the same income from the same source?

In terms of conforming with UEFA FFP before 2012 was it Rangers FC PLC that applied for a UEFA Licence or Rangers FC as a stand alone club or was it Rangers PLC whom Rangers Football Club had a written contract with to be their operators? The application template suggests it was Rangers Football Club only.

Post 2012 if its not the current club (Rangers FC Ltd) applying for a UEFA licence but the football Company (Rangers International Football Club PLC) they have a written contract with and the football company’s (RIFC) main source of revenue is from the club activities, then how can a Company go bust unless the club ceases to be able to provide that revenue?

Now had UEFA seen the 5 Way Agreement there would be the satisfaction of knowing they were OK with it.

As it stands UEFA did what their rules told them to do, Waited 3 years to allow the club that had undergone a terminal change in its legal structure to satisfy UEFA requirements in respect of historical membership of the SFA before being eligible to apply to play in UEFA competitions in circumstances that were not to the detriment of the integrity of those competitions.

After 3 years, whichever club ie legal entity that applied for a UEFA Licence, it was not the Rangers Football Club (PLC) that last applied in 2012 (which was rejected because they had no audited accounts and the wee tax bill of 2011 was admitted , unlike March 2011 when described as a potential liability, as a payable that as the world and its wean knew in 2012 was outstanding.)

Here we go again
HirsutePursuit 13th March 2021 At 21:31
3 0 Rate This


On the subject of a franchise…

At the very least the possibility that the 5 Way Agreement has turned Scottish Football into a franchise should be explored by UEFA just in case.

On McDonalds I remember reading McDonalds Behind The Arches many years ago and one of the fascinating things to come out is that their wealth was not based on burgers but on the land and buildings owned . Kind of fits your point to your family member.

Here we go again

On exclusions zones because supporters might turn up for invented reasons I think recognition of “knuckleheadessness ” as an all pervading human condition is necessary.


I think it is an American term.

I quite like it, kind of onomatopoeic quality to it. Not so much sounds like but looks like.

Anyhoo it is a denial of reality that the support of Celtic and “Rangers” do not have their share of knuckleheads and they recognise each other.

The knuckle in the head stops the consequences of the emotions reaching the brain.

It’s a condition that most grow out of but it’s also one that we grow into before we grow out of it. A human condition.

So best not deny it and deal with it free from judgment of which support has the most knuckleheads or which kind of knucklehead is worse than the other.

Just say that anyone turning up at CP will be taken as evidence of knuckleheadedness to become huckleheads into a police van.

Set a perimeter around the ground and any one approaching without valid reason to do so will be huckled.

HuckleberryTim or HuckleberryHun.

Here we go again
Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 18:45
0 0 Rate This

Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 16:15

It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.


Absolutely agree with that. Financial Fair Play in Scotland post 2012 would have been a good move, although the new Rangers would have suffered more than anyone because of it in my view.

And there you have it. Canny have rules that hinder Rangers business model .

If the 5 Way created a franchise like McDonalds but selling hateburgers then sectarianism is only the sauce that goes on the otherwise tasteless moneyburger to make it tasty.

Here we go again
Hirsute Pursuit

Thanks for your response useful as ever.

If the intent was to create a franchise is that not questionable of itself?

If it wasnt then SPFL misused it.

Either way the SPL appear het, it’s just from when?

About the author