Acouple of weeks ago we revisited the OCNC debate. This is a useful exercise to turn to periodically, for I have noticed how, with the passage of time, new aspects have become clear as new information emerges, or some ridiculous claim is made and then debunked.
In those circumstances, we are given the opportunity to reassess what we already know using the new known knowns, or finding significance in something previously overlooked, but now shed in a new light.
Or put another way, the Beauty of Hindsight!
In introducing his notion that both ‘sides’ are merely putting their opinion, SFM contributor MarkC recently brought me to see that one side must be correct and factual, while the other will merely be left expressing an opinion. In the same way that one side must be right, because TRFC is either a new club, or it’s not, one argument must be the one that is factually correct and leaving the other as just opinion (at best). Once a factual argument is put forward, it can only be countered with fact, for anything else is just opinion.
Armed with facts, there would be no need to prove that TRFC is a new club, for first it would be necessary for those who claim ‘same club’ to show, using documentary evidence and facts, that ‘Rangers Football Club’ isn’t currently in liquidation.
So, factual evidence; what facts do we have?
Well, it is a fact that Rangers Football Club availed itself of the advantages of incorporation in 1899, and it’s a fact that Rangers Football Club Plc entered the terminal state of liquidation in 2012.
It is also a fact that at no time since this incorporation took place has anyone been aware of any other Rangers Football Club ensconced within Ibrox, no one has written or spoken about it; or not, at least, until a snake oil salesman used it to push his off the shelf company as ‘The Rangers Football Club Limited’.
What’s more, no other failed incorporated football club has ever availed itself of this new notion of the ‘eternal club’. The SFA was apparently unaware of it either, for they never offered up the salvation of its use to the likes of Airdrieonians, or Gretna, or dear old Third Lanark.
In fact it seems to have miraculously appeared only as a result of the failed CVA attempt of Rangers FC Plc, and the words of one of the spivs who surrounded Ibrox at that time (and for some time before, and after).
The only ‘fact’ put forward to support the ‘same club’ argument is that the SPL say, in their rules, that they are the same club. But the rules don’t actually make them the ‘same club’, for it’s not the SPL’s place to say what is and isn’t a club, and they only explain how they would treat the situation under their rules, and as Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit (see appendices I, II and III) brought to our attention, the football authorities had reasons to introduce this to their rules that had nothing to do with establishing a separate club that lives on eternally.
It does, though, as Easyjambo’s post describes, show a willingness by football’s governors to change the rules to support their desired outcome.
As Hirsutepursuit (Appendix II) points out, the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005. So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?
And that brings me to look again at what Lord Nimmo Smith said of how the SPL rules view the continuation of a ‘Rangers’ (see appendix IV for reference). In short, a lot of words that confuse rather than clarify, and give no legal basis, or justification, for what he, or the SPL rules, say. Basically, the rules say ‘Rangers’ continues as the same club because the SPL rules say it does.
Then, in January 2015, Doncaster said this in an interview with the BBC:
“In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time.
“The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.”
What Doncaster seems to be saying here is that TRFC are RFC because LNS said so.
Which is strange because it was the SPL’s own rules, and nothing else, that LNS based his findings on, and to have lent weight to the ‘same club’ argument, LNS would have had to have used some independent reasoning, or examples in law, to back this up. Instead we are left with the following:
- (i) the SPL, through an interpretation of their rules, told LNS that they looked on TRFC as the ‘same club’,
- (ii) so LNS said the SPL looked on TRFC as RFC,
- (iii) and then Doncaster said it’s the same club because LNS said so,
It’s a bit like me telling Big Pink (who is an acknowledged expert in the field of colours) that SFM treat black as white, BP tells the world that SFM treat black as white, and a couple of years down the road I announce that black is white, because Big Pink said so!
SOMETHING IMPORTANT I THINK WE’VE OVERLOOKED
Now here’s a fact for us all to consider. At some point Rangers FC ceased to be a member of the SPL. With the help of Neil Doncaster, Sevco (Scotland) Ltd tried to gain entry to the SPL and to participate as The Rangers FC. They failed.
Whatever entity was trying to gain entry into Scottish football, it was at that time not a member of the SPL, and so never had been under the jurisdiction of the SPL.
Therefore whatever the SPL rules or Doncaster said, or what conclusion LNS reached over the matter when it was based solely on what the SPL rules said, it madeno difference to the new club, since the SPL or Doncaster had no locus in the matter. Sevco were in limbo, and everything then depended on Sevco, as The Rangers FC, getting entry into the SFL.
Now, the ‘same club’ argument’s only factual ‘evidence’ is the SPL’s rules, and if they hadn’t included the recent amendment highlighted in Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit’s posts, then there would be no ‘factual’ evidence, at all, however flimsy it might be.
So let’s take a look at what the SFL’s Constitution and Rules say on the matter, and I will quote the relevant parts!
Here’s what it says on a liquidated club joining the league:
“ …”
And here’s what it says, in full, about how it would treat a liquidated member club:
“ …”
In fact, there is absolutely no mention of liquidated clubs in the SFL’s Constitution and Rules, because the notion that a club could live on after liquidation is just that, a notion invented by a spiv!
And because liquidation means the end of a football club, there is absolutely no reason for rules covering such an eventuality to be considered within the rules of football.
And as I said earlier:
‘…the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005.
So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?’
What is now obvious is that there was nothing in the rules of Scottish football that gives succour to the notion that TRFC is one and the same football club as RFC.
When the SPL clubs voted against Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, from entering the SPL, they made the SPL rules on the ‘same club’ matter irrelevant.
When Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, entered the SFL, they were, according to the SFL’s own rules, a new club, for there is nothing in the rules that says otherwise, or can be interpreted as saying so!
Of course, by the time Doncaster made his nonsense statement, the SFL had been disbanded, and it’s clubs were now part of the SPFL, with rules tailored to suit those who bought into the ‘same club’ notion. Handy, huh?
WAS IT ALL ABOUT ARMAGEDDON?
We all laughed at the time it was spewed forth, but perhaps Armageddon was a real possibility, but not in the way we were encouraged to believe. We know that RFC owed a significant amount of money (football debts) to clubs outside of Scotland, and so outside of the SFA’s influence. We also know, with some certainty, that the SFA turned a blind eye to, or were incompetent in policing, some of RFC’s wrongdoings (the EBTs and European Licence) and the last thing the SFA, and SPL, would want would be non-Scottish clubs kicking up the inevitable stink and getting UEFA/FIFA involved, and investigating the SFA. So how to prevent it?
Plan D (plans A through to C had been used up trying to save RFC)
Create a scenario where TRFC must pay these debts, is the answer! How to do that? Well there’s that rule in the SPL Rule book! Right! but we must ensure Rangers stay in the SPL! Easy, we’ll frighten the other clubs into voting them into the SPL, and so TRFC will have to pay ‘Rangers’ football debts… Oops, the vote went against us! OK, we can stall the other leagues for a year, let’s get them into the Championship, promotion’s a certainty… Oops, we did it again… Let’s create a new set up, all under the (effective) SPL umbrella, with rules to suit, before anyone notices!
Could it be that all that help wasn’t so much because, or not only because, it was ‘Rangers’, but because of what no Rangers, to pay the non-Scottish football debt, might mean for the SFA and SPL, and so for the whole of Scottish football? Was that the real Armageddon?
Footnote
While putting this blog piece together I found it very difficult to write whenever I had to include the ‘what do you call it’ newly discovered ‘club’ thingy.
I find the ‘big C/little c’ method of describing it to be a nonsense, and at best a poor effort to create whatever it was they (whoever they are) wanted to create.
Even Lord Nimmo Smith, a much more learned man than I, failed to come up with a word, phrase or expression to adequately describe it. In short, a club with a capital ‘C’ is exactly the same as a club with a small ‘c’ – and only a fool could imagine it creates a difference!
Is a game of Football somehow different from a game of football?
But, of course, what can you call something that you can’t see, you can’t feel, can’t hear, can’t smell, something that has never been heard of or spoken of before?
Clearly, LNS could find nothing within the millions of words previously written within the myriad of cases dealt with under Scots Law, UK Law and EU Law, and clubs and associations, both corporate and incorporate, will have been the subject of a fair number of legal cases in the past for him to draw on, yet there was no answer to this conundrum to be found there.
And if Lord Nimmo Smith was unable to draw on his legal knowledge or research, he was merely expressing a layman’s opinion on how the SPL viewed a ‘????????’ club!
In such circumstances, his opinion is no more valid than any other reasonable person’s might be!
Acknowledgements
Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit for the posts I have used in the appendices and my thanks in particular to EJ for kindly providing me with some documents I was unable to find on the internet by myself.
I’d also like to acknowledge the part MarkC played in bringing the debate back to SFM’s attention, it can’t be easy, constantly arguing against the accepted wisdom in any debate, but it always seems to bring out the best in us and something new.
APPENDIX I: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:02
EASTWOODMARCH 1, 2017 at 08:366 Votes …
Deviously, both the SPL (around 10 years ago coinciding with Rangers (In Liquidation) entering very choppy waters) and the SFA more recently, changed their rules to adopt this distinct “Club” (capital ‘C’) type definition, distinguishing it from the “owner and operator” company. It could have been said at the time to be a licence for unscrupulous, badly run “Clubs” to dump debts and shaft creditors, and so it proved with Sevco’s exploitation of these rules.
In 2005 the SPL changed its articles to create the definition of Club (with a capital C) – which actually INCLUDES the ‘owner and operator’. Whether the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED depends on the context of the article in which it is used and to WHICH Club (with a capital C) it is referring.
The SFA did not add the ‘owner and operator’ tag until 2013.
It is interesting because the original SPL articles referred to the clubs (with a lower case c) as its members. Its members each held shares in the SPL. The clubs were listed by their full company names – rather than their trading names.
The Club (with a capital C) definition came about because the SPL were trying to launch SPL2 and one of the clubs (with a lower case c) that could have been included was Brechin.
Brechin is not a company, so could not as a club (with a lower case c) become a member/shareholder in the SPL. To cover this eventuality, a form of words was created that would allow the club (with a lower case c) to play in the SPL even if the share was not actually held by the club (with a lower case c).
If a club (with a lower case c) has not been incorporated, the club (with a lower case c) cannot own anything. In such cases, the assets are held by its members (usually a committee member or members). Since the original articles defined the member/shareholder as a club (with a lower case c), it would have resulted in the committee member who took ownership of the SPL share being defined as the club (with a lower case c).
The reference to ‘undertaking of a football club’ in the definition of Club (with a capital C) meant that it could refer to both an incorporated body and an unincorporated body of persons.
So the context of when the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED from the definition of a Club (with a capital C) is only when that owner and operator is not a club (with a lower case c).
What is even more interesting is that three non-corporate clubs (with a lower case c) have each been listed as members/shareholders of the current SPFL – even though none have the legal personality to own anything.
…which is strange.
APPENDIX II: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:32
I should add that LNS found The Rangers Football Club PLC (the owner and operator) guilty of offences that predate the creation, in 2005, of the definition of Clubs (with a capital C).
Even if you accept that Rangers FC (the Club with a capital C) can be separated from The Rangers Football Club PLC/RFC 2012 (the owner and operator) – which, to be clear, I do not – that distinction only came about in 2005.
So if there is guilt prior to 2005, that guilt lay with the club (with a lower case c).
LNS didn’t seem to spot the distinction.
…which is even stranger.
APPENDIX III: EASYJAMBO
March 2, 2017 at 08:01
My recollection of the change in the SPL and SFA rules on “Owner and Operator” was implemented in early 2006, as the SFA wished to sanction Vladimir Romanov for his comments, but couldn’t do so because he held no official post at the club (small “c”).
It was Vlad’s son Roman who was Hearts chairman at the time, although Vlad was the major shareholder. So feel free to blame Vlad for the change in the rules.
Hearts were fined £10,000 by the SFA for Vlad’s comments about referees in October 2006. The DR article below, suggests that the SFA rule change came into effect in May that year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart
APPENDIX IV
(46) It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule 11 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club.
Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.
While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.
So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator.
While there can be no Question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions Which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the list of preliminary issues.
It seems increasingly likely that Hearts are going to end up fifth in the premiership.
If that transpires would the Hearts support expect their board to take any action with regards Rangers getting a placed in Europe.
It strikes me that Hearts have achieved their position whilst living within their means, whereas Rangers will have borrowed something in the region of £3m to achieve theirs.
That seems to run contrary to the concept of financial fair play.
HomunculusMay 7, 2017 at 16:44
It seems increasingly likely that Hearts are going to end up fifth in the premiership.
If that transpires would the Hearts support expect their board to take any action with regards Rangers getting a placed in Europe.
It strikes me that Hearts have achieved their position whilst living within their means, whereas Rangers will have borrowed something in the region of £3m to achieve theirs.
That seems to run contrary to the concept of financial fair play.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I agree with you that the it does seem to run contrary to the concept of financial fair play.
From time to time, I have noted posters here referring to Ann Budge positively, as the kind of person who could bring a new attitude to our governing bodies. I have yet to see any evidence that she is such a person. If Hearts do end up in 5th position, her response (or lack of it) to the perceived financial unfairness of another club getting a European place at her club’s expense, whilst spending way beyond its means to do so, will give us a fair indication as to whether or not she does bring a new attitude.
HOMUNCULUSMAY 7, 2017 at 16:44
It seems increasingly likely that Hearts are going to end up fifth in the premiership.
If that transpires would the Hearts support expect their board to take any action with regards Rangers getting a placed in Europe.
It strikes me that Hearts have achieved their position whilst living within their means, whereas Rangers will have borrowed something in the region of £3m to achieve theirs.
That seems to run contrary to the concept of financial fair play.
================================
Just had a look at this article again, which was published on the STV website some time ago
https://stv.tv/sport/football/1374309-explained-will-rangers-need-approval-to-play-in-europe/
What is not clear from the article is whether the SFA have to tell UEFA that Rangers have been granted a licence, but that UEFA will now need to monitor them under the break even requirement. Or can the SFA simply say everything is fine, no need to monitor.
Also, should Rangers get knocked out in the qualifying rounds, having earned precious little, what chance is there of them breaking even if their current strategy continues. So is it is a case of just kicking the can down the road and incurring a ban in season 2018/2019.
For me the main concern is how much can the SFA do without involving UEFA. I’d be amazed if Hearts are not asking questions about this privately.
Anyone heard anything from the SFA yet and the action they are going to take on the incidents of last weeks fan troubles?
What ever happened to the fast track arrangement,or is that just for players?
UPTHEHOOPS
MAY 7, 2017 at 17:54
=======================================
It seems likely that they will lose something in the region of £3m this year. That is based on good season ticket sales and two good cup runs, with a lot of home games (I know the gates are shared but it’s a big stadium). So they have to do the same just to maintain that level of losses.
With needing to bring a few players in, little in the way of assets to sell, a good run in Europe is absolutely essential to break even far less operate at a profit. Bearing in mind the opportunity cost of not playing in the early stages of the CIS Cup.
HOMUNCULUSMAY 7, 2017 at 19:14
It seems likely that they will lose something in the region of £3m this year. That is based on good season ticket sales and two good cup runs, with a lot of home games (I know the gates are shared but it’s a big stadium). So they have to do the same just to maintain that level of losses.
With needing to bring a few players in, little in the way of assets to sell, a good run in Europe is absolutely essential to break even far less operate at a profit. Bearing in mind the opportunity cost of not playing in the early stages of the CIS Cup.
==============================
Grant Russell of STV is having various Twitter exchanges tonight about this. He seems utterly convinced the SFA are within their rights to issue the licence, but crucially points out it now means the break even monitoring period has begun. As you point out much is required just to lose no more than the £3M they have lost this year. Their team is clearly not good enough but most of the players have at least two years to run on their contracts. There is the Ashley court case to come, and possibly one with the former management team as well. Both could cost them millions if they lose. It’s impossible to see how they can break even without a substantial share issue.
upthehoopsMay 7, 2017 at 17:54
‘…What is not clear from the article is whether the SFA have to tell UEFA that Rangers have been granted a licence, but that UEFA will now need to monitor them under the break even requirement. Or can the SFA simply say everything is fine, no need to monitor..
_________
From the FFP regs themselves, Articles 54,55, and 56, it seems to me that
while the licensee (the club) is required to notify the licensor ( eg the SFA) about any subsequent events that constitute a significant change ( in what had previously been submitted( ART 56),
and the licensor has to inform the UEFA Club Financial Control people of any event occurring after the licensing decision that constitutes a significant change.(Art 55),
Art 54, which describes the key steps in the entire monitoring process lists only these keys steps:
UEFA Club Monitoring Chapter 1: Rights, duties and responsibilities of parties involved :Responsibilities of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body”Monitoring process
1 The monitoring process starts on submission by the licensor of the list of licensing decisions to the UEFA administration and ends at the end of the licence season.
2 It consists of the following minimum key steps:
a) issuing of the monitoring documentation to the licensor and licensee; b) return of the required completed monitoring documentation by the licensee to the licensor; c) assessment and confirmation of the completeness of each licensee’s documents by the licensor; d) submission of the validated documentation by the licensor to the UEFA administration; e) assessment of the documentation by the UEFA ClubFinancial Control Body; f) if appropriate, request for additional information by the UEFA administration or UEFA Club Financial Control Body; g) decision by the UEFA Club Financial Control Bodyas specified in the relevant provisions of the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body…”
There’s nothing there that says expressly that there is any ‘key step’ which requires The Control Body itself to specifically ask the licensor whether there has been any subsequent change in the information on which the grant of a licence was based .
That would seem to me to
a) allow for a dodgy club NOT to inform its national association that its financial or other relevant circumstance had changed after the grant of licence (not that any club in Scotland would dream of lying to the SFA)
b) to allow a dodgy national association ,which knows that such an event has occurred, not to report it up the line, as it were.
My basic point in making this observation is that it’s a weird monitoring system that relies on those being monitored to tell the truth!
There must surely be some kind of system of unannounced, random audit inspection teams with powers to visit any club/national association and access the books etc?
If there is not,then any monitoring system is there to be given the two fingers.
Maybe the point is covered somewhere in the 104 pages of bumph that this link will call up
http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/26/28/41/2262841_DOWNLOAD.pdf
I’m sorry to have landed you with that physically hard to read big chunk of text in my previous post.
With only 5 mins ‘editing’time, I was toiling, and failing, to get the spacing and lay-out more reader-friendly. ( And I felt I had to cite the ‘key steps’ in the ‘monitoring process’ in full, to show the one that I think is missing!)
I might have got away with merely briefly saying that the FFP ‘monitoring’ is little more than ‘self-certification’ by the various levels, with no hint of any surprise audits by UEFA to check whether there were any lying bas….s trying to work a flanker!
Of course, God forbid that any professional football club in Scotland would ever dream of trying to work any kind of financial flanker on its fellow clubs.
Quite OT, but I went into the Glasgow Herald online a few minutes ago, got a wee read at the little news headlines for a minute or two before the wee quiz came up, about what age I was, income level, children in household etc etc.
Fair enough.
But see when the options given in respect of the question about’ what country I live in’ do not include ‘Scotland’ but instead only the ‘United Kingdom’, that’s when I suggest to the editor of the Herald what he might painfully( I would wish) do with a rolled-up copy of his paper!
I may be a citizen of the political entity known as the UK, but as a matter of pragmatic, historical and geographical fact, I live in a country long known as Scotland.
Still on the Euro licence debate. From what I can see all Rangers had to do was tell the SFA they had a plan to reduce their debt. Do UEFA allow European income to be part of that plan? Also, I still can’t find any evidence that UEFA will now automatically monitor compliance with break even. There still seems to be an element of self certification and a requirement for the SFA to report non-compliance. Would they ever do that, or will they always accept Rangers word that everything is fine, like they appear to have done this time?
Over to you to ask in the strongest terms Mrs Budge. You don’t have to make a public song and dance about it, but you owe it to your fans.
UPTHEHOOPSMAY 8, 2017 at 07:21 Rate This
Still on the Euro licence debate….
,………………………….
My understanding is that the Licensor (SFA) only requires the licensee applicant (club) to show evidence that it is likely to survive through the coming season. Either through the most recent audited accounts (if within the past six months) or through interim accounts that have been approved by an auditor.
If the auditor has expressed a going concern warning, I believe that additional financial projections must be produced explaining how the club expects to survive for the next year.
As long as the license applicant (club) has provided the correct documentation, the Licensor (SFA) has no reason to refuse the license.
The Financial Fair Play element is not, as I understand it, a condition for the issuance of a Euro Club Licence, but is a matter for consideration through the monitoring period. UEFA undertake the monitoring process – which begins on the day the Licensor (SFA) submits its list of ‘approved’ clubs.
If there are red flags on the license, such as going concern issues, UEFA can (and probably would) investigate the financial matters on receipt. If it is not satisfied that the projections would bring the club into line with respect of FFP, it can take a range of measures – from asking for assurances to revocation of the recently issued licence.
This is what I believe to be the case.
HirsutePursuitMay 8, 2017 at 08:06
“…..The Financial Fair Play element is not, as I understand it, a condition for the issuance of a Euro Club Licence, but is a matter for consideration through the monitoring period.”
___________________
HP, not necessarily disagreeing with you , but it seems to me that the “UEFA Club Licensing and Finanacial Fair Regulations (2015 edition)” are (deliberately?) very badly drafted and less than clear.
In the “definition of terms” we have:
‘Club licensing criteria’ ……….. ‘ Requirements, divided into five categories (sporting, infrastructure, personnel and administrative, legal and financial), to be fulfilled by a licence applicant for it to be granted a licence.’
The requirements of in all five of the categories have to be met ‘ by a licence applicant for it to be granted a licence’
One would normally take it for granted that meeting the requirements was a pre-condition of being granted a licence. That is, at the time of application a club MUST already meet all the criteria.And the monitoring process would be there to ensure that no licence ws granted unless the applicant met all the relevant criteria.
But what UEFA seem to mean by ‘monitoring’ is merely ensuring the timeous presentation of documents (unchecked at that stage by the Control body) by the due date, and if the documents are all there , a licence will be granted!
So a bent club, it would seem, can bang off its neatly bundled fiction sheets in the knowledge that there will be no check by the Control body until after they have (they hope) made some dosh by playing in a UEFA competition, and take their chances on the possibility of ‘retrospective monitoring’ showing that they ought never to have been granted a licence!
JC, this might be a complete squirrel. Not by you, I should add.
I think that FFP is not relevant for the granting of a club licence. I don’t have the articles in front of me but I believe the financial information required by the Licensor is more about simply giving comfort that a club will see out a season.
If i am correct, it is UEFA alone who investigate and take a view on FFP infractions.
If Hearts feel that it has been disadvantaged by adherence to FFP rules whilst another club gained an unfair advantage, it might feel that it should raise the matter with the investigation section at UEFA.
Tom English tweeting today that he doesn’t want to be included in any discussion whether TRFC should be granted a Euro licence for next season. Apparently he has zero time for bigots and bores.
Ex LudoMay 8, 2017 at 12:16
‘… Apparently he has zero time for bigots and bores.’
___________
Many of us,of course,have no time for temporisers with the truth who masquerade as sports’journalists’ happy to accept without question the absurdity that a sporting club that was Liquidated is somehow still participating in a sport,and who confuse an insistence on truth with ‘bigotry’
We should be thankful that such as English operate only in the field of so-called ‘sport’, and not in the field of ‘serious’ journalism!
I reckon that UEFA have bigger fish to fry than the condition of a five-year old club from a footballing backwater(nowadays). As for FFP , a lot of the supposed “big” clubs on the continent have considerable financial insecurities and are generally given an easy time of it ((but allowed under the rules). My concern is that competing in the Europa league will kill TRFC and impact negatively (again) on the rest of Scottish football clubs ,who are trying to operate in a legitimate and sustainable fashion . But then again, they would probably die (again) without European competition ,based on the way they choose to run their club.
PS I think their fans’ celebrations yesterday are testament to how far we have progressed under Archie and Shaggy .
So if, as has been suggested here, UEFA do not actually monitor licence approvals, but simply take the word of the SFA, is there any merit in members of the public contacting them to ask them to look specifically at TRFC*’s financial situation? Will UEFA take action if one, or ten, or 100 people contact them? Thanks to this forum, I think I could quote sufficiently detailed figures re the loans etc to convince them that TRFC* might not meet the criteria and therefore they should have a look, but would they ‘waste their time’ if ONLY members of the public highlight it?
I know we’d all like Anne Budge to do it, but there’s no guarantee she will, so is it worth me/us doing it, do you think?
nawlite May 8, 2017 at 13:28
I know we’d all like Anne Budge to do it, but there’s no guarantee she will, so is it worth me/us doing it, do you think?
===================
I’ve already done so, but via another director. I’ve had a holding response and the offer of a one to one chat (I declined), thus far, but I’ll post anything that I can once I get it.
All I’m looking for is the that the club has requested clarification from the SFA re how their decision was made, and that the club is happy with the response (plus the usual “if not, why not?”). I’m not looking for confidential information to be disclosed.
I wonder how much will be due to NewGers players in terms of bonuses for qualifying for Europe? If they do fall at an early hurdle in the Europa League then that may leave them further out of pocket, given costs incurred and low prize money…
EX LUDO
MAY 8, 2017 at 12:16
Tom English tweeting today that he doesn’t want to be included in any discussion whether TRFC should be granted a Euro licence for next season. Apparently he has zero time for bigots and bores.
=================================================
Can’t say I’m surprised.
The other day Spiers was getting some positive comments for his denouncing of the TRFC songbook.
I used to think Spiers was a decent journo, but that was pre-2011.
Both English and Spiers are considered to be above the standards of the likes of Keef and Chris Jack of the ET.
Occasionally, they will write something that is accurate and get recognition, wrt TRFC / SFA.
But shortly afterwards they write something which they know – or should know – is inaccurate but helpful for TRFC / SFA.
IMO, I fully expect Spiers to shortly come out with some mince about some football fans being ‘too sensitive’, or that all Scottish football fans should just let TRFC play Euro games in peace, and let’s all just ‘move on’.
And from RTC days: the only thing the SMSM seems to have learned, IMO, is that there are many more footy punters who are much more knowledgeable and aware – and can immediately see straight through the impoverished SMSM output, [or non-output / ‘looking the other way’].
Spoke too soon: as yet further proof…
Kris Boyd, [or rather his ghost writer,’sports journalist’], has reached the bottom of the barrel with this from The Scottish Sun;
“BRING HIM BACK Rangers fans blame Sir David Murray but he could be the man to fix things says Kris Boyd
…
the way I see it, the man thousands of them blame for causing all the problems could just be the man to make them go away.
…
And whatever you think about Murray, his actions always spoke louder than his words.
…
There will be people who insist he made big mistakes at Ibrox when he was in charge, that he’s to blame for a lot of the issues now.
But for me there are far bigger culprits than him.
…
It’s financial backing the club needs.
Dare I say it, it’s a chairman willing to spend a tenner for every fiver Celtic take out of their pocket.”
=====================================
Just absolute p!sh to create a bit of controversy for those TRFC fans who are uninformed about Minty’s real past at Ibrox.
EASYJAMBOMAY 8, 2017 at 13:57 nawlite May 8, 2017 at 13:28
While I appreciate folks may want Ms Budge to make a stand on the Euro Licence issue, given the problems Hearts have on the park I think she has other more important issues to deal with.
A cursory enquiry may be made, as suggested, but I doubt much will come of it.
I know it has taken time to get their but it was interesting to note that Aberdeen only had 18 players down in the programme yesterday (and all playing for the jersey) as opposed to Hearts squad of 26 of assorted wage thieves.
It is not only the stadium that needs to be rebuilt at Tynecastle.
At present Euro football down Gorgie way next season is probably a distraction. 🙁
In their last two matches fans of TRFC have twice entered the field of play. On the first occasion an attempt was made to attack the captain of the visiting opposition.
What do the rules say about this – can clubs face sanction? What if any statement has been made by the footballing authorities regarding these incidents?
Building bridges.
http://www.scotzine.com/2017/05/the-empty-rangers-table-at-the-pfa-scotland-awards-as-celtic-clear-up/
DR / Darren Cooney article today about Euro qualifiers.
No questions whatsoever about TRFC’s legitimacy to participating in Europe.
But following quote is interesting;
“Rangers will be give a national co-efficient of 3.785.”
wottpi May 8, 2017 at 16:24
EASYJAMBOMAY 8, 2017 at 13:57 nawlite May 8, 2017 at 13:28
While I appreciate folks may want Ms Budge to make a stand on the Euro Licence issue, given the problems Hearts have on the park I think she has other more important issues to deal with.
A cursory enquiry may be made, as suggested, but I doubt much will come of it.
======================
I understand where you are coming from, particularly with regard to Hearts on field woes. However, if we have learned anything over the last six or seven years, it’s if you don’t challenge those in control or in authority, then nothing will change.
Hearts are at a crossroads while it progresses into fan ownership (not fan managed) and FOH only last week published its proposals for governance when that transition happens. The proposals talk about FOH “values” of fairness and integrity. I’d suggest that if the Foundation, and the club it will own, fail exercise those values then they will have failed their membership and supporters. Those members have handed over £5.5m to the club via the FOH, in addition to their STs, merchandise purchases etc., since Ann Budge assumed ownership (3 years ago, tomorrow). I think those members and supporters deserve a little more than silence from the club on this matter. It costs nothing to ask the question.
Great post Easyjambo. And thanks for mentioning the difference between fan ownership and fan management. As you say there is no harm in asking questions but I suspect it will be done quietly. Regardless, you have a good season ahead. Cathro comes good after a rocky start, new main stand, new pitch. I can’t wait to see the first home game. Although if it’s against Celtic…….well you know my feelings about that!
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
MAY 8, 2017 at 17:19
Building bridges.
http://www.scotzine.com/2017/05/the-empty-rangers-table-at-the-pfa-scotland-awards-as-celtic-clear-up/
=============================
That was another PR own goal from TRFC.
[Nothing on their website – at above time – to explain the ‘snub’.]
You think they at least could have sent some of their young squad members – to meet fellow pro’s and be inspired to win their own awards?
Tell me again why Scottish football ‘needs Rangers’, when the Ibrox club obviously doesn’t give a monkey’s about what anybody else thinks about them?
EX LUDO
MAY 8, 2017 at 12:16
Tom English tweeting today that he doesn’t want to be included in any discussion whether TRFC should be granted a Euro licence for next season. Apparently he has zero time for bigots and bores.
==============================================
That’s a bit passive aggressive. A sporting journalist whose wages are paid by the people who read him or listen to him, stating that anyone wanting to discuss a specific subject are either a bigot or a bore.
Who decides on the acceptable agenda then Tom … you.
Why do you think your outlets, particularly the written medium, are dying. Let me tell you, it’s because that’s not how it works anymore. You don’t decide what to write and just expect everyone else to take it for granted.
There has been a fundamental change, live with it or find a new career. Given that particular gem can I suggest apologist.
Some lovely reports about Scott Sinclair’s reaction to winning last nights POTYA. NEVER GIVE UP being the central point of his speech. I had a lump in my throat reading it. Doesn’t matter who he plays for it was inspirational for young players of any team. A year ago he was down in the dumps. But a year later – player of the year. What a difference a year makes. So happy for him.
STEVIEBCMAY 8, 2017 at 18:53
No !
I’m not sure if with the publicity, sponsorship, etc, they are contractually obliged to provide a presence but at the very least they are falling down on sportsmanship, and presenting the game in a positive light, and in doing so making themselves look childish and…well, nasty.
Would they have snubbed the awards if they sniffed a potential season ticket boosting award?..We will never know.
As you say there would have been no harm in providing some form of presence, even if the first team were on lock-down
I suspect there is more to it than that, and it is more to do with them flexing muscles they don’t have, over some political maneuverings in the back-ground.
Maybe they were told not to invade the stage or start singing…
Or maybe they feared a damn good goading.
Was big Jozo there?
As at above time, nothing on the SFA website about pitch invasion at Maryhill.
Nothing about the incidents at Ibrox last week either.
So, to add to the list of:
“Things to come back to bite the SFA on the @rse”
No SFA penalty for fans’ offensive songs or racist actions.
No SFA penalty for fans invading the pitch.
No SFA penalty for a fan accosting a player – and during play.
No SFA penalty for a club seeking recourse at the Court of Session.
[That’s all I can think of just now, but sure there are probably others.]
STEVIEBC
MAY 8, 2017 at 19:40
===================================
Does your last one relate to the major shareholder of the PLC (and chairman) being found to have headed a concert party when taking control of the club.
Losing his appeal and still refusing to take the action as ordered within 30 days. Simply not doing it.
That then being referred to the Court of Session, the supreme civil court in Scotland, for him to be ordered to take that action.
Surely at least some of that brings the game into disrepute, or are you referring to something else.
HOMUNCULUS
MAY 8, 2017 at 19:48
STEVIEBCMAY 8, 2017 at 19:40
===================================
Does your last one relate to the major shareholder of the PLC (and chairman) being found to have headed a concert party when taking control of the club…
============================
H I was referring to the time TRFC, [or was it RFC ?], went to the CofS to appeal their transfer ban, imposed by the SFA.
It was as a result of the club’s actions being deemed ‘just short of match-fixing’ in severity for side-letters / incomplete registration of players, IIRC.
STEVIEBC
MAY 8, 2017 at 19:56
===========================
Gotcha, my apologies, you could probably add that in as well then.
That would possibly mean also adding in the NOMAD resigning and the PLC being de-listed from the stock exchange. Did the major shareholder and chairman not say he had a NOMAD lined up.
Though if you did that you might have to think about the auditor resigning as well. Though if I remember correctly what was because of abuse / threats from the support.
What about the management team leaving / being sacked and a potential employment tribunal. You should probably wait to see what happens with that one.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/16447/production/_95970219_mediaitem95970218.jpg
Can’t think what I found so thought provoking about Banksy’s latest work of street art, and what has to happen in Scottish fitba.
Full story http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/39845346
HOMUNCULUSMAY 8, 2017 at 20:08 6 Votes
STEVIEBCMAY 8, 2017 at 19:56===========================
Gotcha, my apologies, you could probably add that in as well then.
That would possibly mean also adding in the NOMAD resigning and the PLC being de-listed from the stock exchange. Did the major shareholder and chairman not say he had a NOMAD lined up.
Though if you did that you might have to think about the auditor resigning as well. Though if I remember correctly what was because of abuse / threats from the support.
What about the management team leaving / being sacked and a potential employment tribunal. You should probably wait to see what happens with that one.
—————–
what about the lies “I’m deeply honoured to become the club’s chairman”
Here’s the challenge when it comes to sanctioning clubs for fan behaviour.
1 Minor Incidents can be hugely exagerrated through social media and press coverage.
Take the recent statement by Club 1872 blaming celebrating Celtic fans for Celtic players being attacked, racially abused and having dangerous objects thrown at them. Now even allowing for the fact that the statement was made by the Moron’s moron Craig Houston, it received disproportionate coverage in the msm, virtually none of it ridiculing the shameful nature of the statement.
In the same statement Houston claimed damage to Ibrox stadium in a pathetic attempt to equate half a dozen broken seats with the £80k of wanton vandalism deliberatley carried out by Rangers supporters at Celtic Park
Now anyone with a more than a single brain cell can see through Houston’s lies and bitterness, however his claims were published in the MSM and as far as i’m aware have not been ridiculed by journalists in the papers that published them. They therefore become unchallenged outside of social media, and down the line gain a currency of “fact” amongst those who don’t know better
2 Serious incidents can be downplayed by press coverage
Graham Spiers aside not many in the MSM are prepared to report on the large scale singing and chanting which breaks the law in this country. As another example take the Scottish Cup Final of last season. If you only got your news from the MSM , then you would believe all 11 Rangers players were attacked on the pitch . We know that’s a lie, and at most it appears a single player was the victim of a single attempted assault.
However the media have largely ignored the actions of a large number of Rangers fans who went onto the pitch intent on committing violence. Those who didn’t ignore it, enthusiastically bought in to Jim Traynor’s fabrication of a valiant band who were only intent in defending their players.
There may be other incidents involving fans of other clubs which could be used to illustrate the points above. The issue though is we can’t allow the MSM to determine what is and isn’t a serious incident. Most journalists , i think, wouldn’t deliberately mislead, but there are clearly enough who would based on their track record
TWM 16 Now available:
This week, John talks to Foundation of Hearts Chairman Stuart Wallace about his memories of the old Hearts Main Stand, and his hopes for the new one as the stadium rejuvenation takes shape.
There’s also talk about the real disgrace behind the allocation of tickets controversy for the cup final, and a round up as The Championship, and Leagues 1 & 2 come to conclusion.
James Doleman also returns to give us his thoughts on the second week of the Craig Whyte trial, and we look to Dundee again – United this time – to discover the career and achievements of the great Dennis Gillespie.
Corrupt officialMay 8, 2017 at 17:19
‘Building bridges. http://www.scotzine.com/2017/05/the-empty-rangers-table-at-the-pfa-scotland-awards-as-celtic-clear-up‘
________________________
Anent the non-attendance at the awards ceremony of even a token TRFC representive ,I am reminded of the observation made by RTC( whom God preserve) in his blog of 6th April 2011 entitled ” Rangers knew about other tax bill”. (see https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/rangers-the-other-tax-cases/
RTC observes of the then RFC (now ‘In Liquidation’) ‘ a picture seems to be emerging of a dysfunctional organisation that rarely misses an opportunity to do the wrong thing’
I reckon that the identical observation can justly be made of the struggling TRFCRIFC organisation.
Re TWM 16 – great podcast & thanks for the mention of Dennis Gillespie’s career – he was a favourite player of mine when I first started supporting United in the early 60’s – very underrated , sweet timer of the ball with an eye for goal . He was an integral part of Jerry Kerr’s teams including integrating with the Scandinavian invasion of messrs Dossing,Persson,Berg,Wing & Seamann – some team then !
Always remember my father recounting the tale of going to Dennis’ house to discuss a promotion/sponsorship deal (my father worked for VG foodstores – United’s first team sponsor) – he found Dennis an amiable & laid back character but his wife was much more commercially switched on – in the days before agents , she asked the question all good agents should ask “What’s in it for Dennis ?” .
I’m looking for a bit of assistance on the matter of which accounts annual or interim TRFC have to submit to the SFA to have a UEFA licence granted.
Common sense told me that UEFA would always want the latest financial position and I thought that was the purpose of Article 48 that is if annual accounts were dated interims were required but football and common sense rarely see eye to eye. Rangers statutory account year ends 30th June. Accs for Licensing Purposes have to be with SFA by 31st March and deadline for submission to UEFA by SFA is end of May. (In 2011 list submitted 26th May)
I asked STV Grant for his interpretation of the Regulations because apart from common sense it was Interim Accs that were used by SFA in 2011 to justify granting a licence, so why not now?
Here is my question to Grant:
Auldheid @Auldheid 35m35 minutes ago More Replying to @STVGrant @SirNotTomFarmer and 5 others
Have you checked Art48 requiring Interim Accs? It was Interims used in 2011. Can you swap around to meet needs to be licensed?
Grants reply (which seems to be supported by Article 48 but for my peace of mind I’d like the views of others )
Grant Russell Verified account @STVGrant 34m34 minutes ago More Replying to @Auldheid @SirNotTomFarmer and 5 others
Regulations state interims only required if your accounting year ends six months after the licence submission.
Auldheid @Auldheid 31m31 minutes ago More Replying to @STVGrant @SirNotTomFarmer and 5 others
Cheers. I had trouble interpreting becos not sure when licence cycle began. Common sense suggested UEFA would want latest position not oldest.
If Grant is correct then what is the rationale behind Art 48?
Article 48 states:
Article 48 – Financial statements for the interim period
1 If the statutory closing date of the licence applicant is more than six months before
the deadline for submission of the list of licensing decisions to UEFA, then
28
additional financial statements covering the interim period must be prepared and
submitted.
2 The interim period starts the day immediately after the statutory closing date and
ends on a date within the six months preceding the deadline for submission of the
list of licensing decisions to UEFA.
3 Interim financial statements must be reviewed or audited by an independent
auditor as defined in Annex V.
4 The interim financial statements must consist of:
a) a balance sheet as of the end of the interim period and a comparative balance
sheet as of the end of the immediately preceding full financial year;
b) a profit and loss account for the interim period, with comparative profit and loss
accounts for the comparable interim period of the immediately preceding
financial year;
c) a cash flow statement for the interim period, with a comparative statement for
the comparable interim period of the immediately preceding financial year;
d) specific explanatory notes.
5 If the licence applicant did not have to prepare interim financial statements for the
comparable interim period of the immediately preceding financial year,
comparative figures may refer to the figures from the financial statements of the
immediately preceding full financial year.
6 The interim financial statements must meet the minimum disclosure requirements
as set out in Annex VI. Additional line items or notes must be included if their
omission would make the interim financial statements misleading.
7 The interim financial statements must follow the same accounting policies as
those followed for the preparation of the annual financial statements, except for
accounting policy changes made after the date of the most recent full annual
financial statements that are to be reflected in the next annual financial statements
– in which case details must be disclosed in the interim financial statements.
8 If the minimum requirements for the content and accounting as set out in
paragraphs 6 and 7 above are not met in the interim financial statements, then the
licence applicant must prepare supplementary information in order to meet the
minimum information requirements that must be assessed by an independent
auditor as defined in Annex V.
I did not want my previous too cluttered so here is Art 47 of UEFA FFP to give full context.
Article 47 – Annual financial statements
1 Annual financial statements in respect of the statutory closing date prior to the
deadline for submission of the application to the licensor and prior to the deadline
for submission of the list of licensing decisions to UEFA must be prepared and
submitted.
2 Annual financial statements must be audited by an independent auditor as defined
in Annex V.
3 The annual financial statements must consist of:
a) a balance sheet;
b) a profit and loss account;
c) a cash flow statement;
d) notes, comprising a summary of significant accounting policies and other
explanatory notes; and
e) a financial review by management.
4 The annual financial statements must meet the minimum disclosure requirements
as set out in Annex VI and the accounting principles as set out in Annex VII.
Comparative figures in respect of the prior statutory closing date must be provided.
5 If the minimum requirements for the content and accounting as set out in
paragraph 4 above are not met in the annual financial statements, then the licence
applicant must prepare supplementary information in order to meet the minimum
information requirements that must be assessed by an independent auditor as
defined in Annex V.
Auldheid – My interpretation of how Article 48 should be read with regard to Rangers is as follows:
Rangers year end date of 30 June 2016, and audited accounts to that date, are are outside the six months allowed before the Licence submission date of 31 March 2017.
Interim reports, consisting of a Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss account and a Cashflow Statement need to be produced, with reference to the corresponding period in the previous financial year, together with explanatory notes.
The interim period starts on 1 July 2016 and must end within six months of the submission deadline of 31 March 2017.
The interim reports have to be at least reviewed by an auditor (if not fully audited).
The “interim report” to 31 December 2016 produced on 23 March which consisted of a shortened Profit and Loss account, would therefore appear not to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Licensor, i.e. the SFA should have sought additional information from the club before granting a licence.
I say this with apologies to bean counters, wherever they hail from. I fully appreciate it is overly simplistic.
The Rangers interim results exist to serve on purpose, plausible misdirection. Put simply, the last audited accounts show a substantial loss, compared to the turnover which generated that loss. The interim figures imply that the business was breaking even, though a quick look at them shows that it isn’t real.
The important point is that the final results will show another loss. That’s just the way it works, unless there is significant net income from player trading in January which is reflected in the second part of the financial year. Celtic showed a profit at the half year, they will show a profit at the end of the year, it will be less. Rangers claimed to be in profit at the half year (in “Unaudited Trading Results”). They will show a loss at the years end.
This is taken from that report
The same will happen this year, the end of year results will not be as good as the half year and will result in a further loss.
If you need to borrow a load of money just to pay bills as they fall due then you are running at a loss.
EASYJAMBOMAY 9, 2017 at 11:01 10 Votes
Auldheid – My interpretation of how Article 48 should be read with regard to Rangers is as follows:
Rangers year end date of 30 June 2016, and audited accounts to that date, are are outside the six months allowed before the Licence submission date of 31 March 2017.
Interim reports, consisting of a Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss account and a Cashflow Statement need to be produced, with reference to the corresponding period in the previous financial year, together with explanatory notes.
The interim period starts on 1 July 2016 and must end within six months of the submission deadline of 31 March 2017.
The interim reports have to be at least reviewed by an auditor (if not fully audited).
The “interim report” to 31 December 2016 produced on 23 March which consisted of a shortened Profit and Loss account, would therefore appear not to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Licensor, i.e. the SFA should have sought additional information from the club before granting a licence.
,……………………………
This was originally my view, except I’ve come to think the reference to statutory closing date may not actually refer to the end of the financial year.
It probably refers to the date by which the accounts must be signed off and submitted.
For TRFC the closing date for submission of its accounts is, I think, the end of December – so inside the 6 month period for Club Licensing submissions.
It would have been easy for Grant to explain this in his answer, if indeed is correct. The fact that he did not suggests that he’s messing with peoples’ heads.
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes agoMoreMcGill email “We need to ensure the purchaser doesnt get any surprises..I think we need to front up on the small tax case”
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 2m2 minutes agoMoreMcGill says the case had only recently went from a potential liability and had not “crystallised” until recently Dated 17 March 2011
HOMUNCULUS
MAY 9, 2017 at 11:05 …
The Rangers interim results exist to serve on purpose, plausible misdirection…
==========================
Absolutely, H !
My initial thought was that the ‘interims’ were back of a fag packet stuff: start with a minimal ‘profit figure’…then work backwards and plug in the difference into ‘Revenue’.
I don’t know what is actually submitted to the SFA, but as vague and unsubstantiated as that brief column of numbers was – maybe the SFA is willing to accept that alone [?].
The other point that was never clear; who actually signed off these ‘interims’ ?
There was speculation that it was cobbled together by King, with the assistance of a ‘young staff member’.
If so, did King actually sign them off for submission to the SFA ?
Did the Finance & Admin Director, [Andrew Dickson], even know about this in advance ?
Did nobody put their name to these numbers – not least an auditor ?
And with all the negative financial information – and multiplying court cases – wrt RIFC / TRFC in recent years, you would expect that a football governing body would actually impose a more rigorous standard of financial reporting from the Ibrox club – at least in the short-term. [I know.]
I’m on the fence with this one: if TRFC do play in Europe I’m sure there will be unintended consequences for TRFC and the SFA – somewhere along the line.
But the risk then, IMO, is that all senior Scottish football clubs could be adversely affected because of one club’s behaviour.
StevieBC
I’m of the same opinion.
TRFC (unless they’ve shown the SFA different accounts), shouldn’t meet the criteria – incomplete & unaudited.
Also happy to see TRFC spend cash going to far off places (as did The Dons this season) with little hope of getting to the real profitable stages.
Also agree there is a risk to the other clubs if the SFA are sanctioned at a later date for not doing their job, however its “hell mend them” time if these clubs dont raise the issue now, so I sincerely hope Aberdeen, Celtic, St Johnstone /Hearts have this on their radar.
HP
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.
Interesting day of evidence from McGill in court to-day .
On the matter of King & the COS – he was served notice of enforcement from the TAP on 13 April anyone any idea what timescale he would be given to carry out their request of an offer to the other shareholders ? It its 28 days then it would be due to make an offer this week – if not , cold shouldering proceedure implements I presume .
TANGOED @ 14:54
Yes those tweets jumped out at me too.
Yet another liar caught out at this trial, this time Regan and his ‘not crystallised’ nonsense.
Two weeks before the deadline for a European licence, the debt certainly had and it’s now been admitted in a court of law.
Yep, that’s a good one re the chrystalisation date. Auldheid, is that being stated in court of use to you and the requisitioners?
SERGIO BISCUITS
MAY 9, 2017 at 17:05
TANGOED @ 14:54
Yes those tweets jumped out at me too.Yet another liar caught out at this trial, this time Regan and his ‘not crystallised’ nonsense.Two weeks before the deadline for a European licence, the debt certainly had and it’s now been admitted in a court of law.
================================
Mibbees Regan has started digging a tunnel with a spoon – to eventually disappear from the Hampden bunker ?
It’s rather credible evidence – from a criminal court of law, under oath – with which any proper journalist would be chomping at the bit to doorstep the SFA.
You would think ?
Latest initiative launched by the SFA.
“One National Plan for non-professional football in Scotland 2017 – 2020”
and includes following excerpt from the introduction:
[my highlighting]
“Football for Social Change
is a concept embraced by the Scottish FA. Our sport has a massive influence uponthe nation and this will be harnessed more than ever
to positively impact on many of the Scottish Government priorities
around areas such as health and wellbeing, community cohesion, education and citizenship.
Vibrant, well-run clubs are already showing how they can contribute to our society
and that they can make a real difference to the lives of their members and the communities in which they live.”
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/footballdevelopment/OneNationalPlan/SFA%20One%20National%20Plan%20A4%20WEB1.pdf
=============================================
Who the hell does the SFA think it is ?!
Influencing government priorities / taxpayers’ cash, when they have proven to be incompetent and corrupt when trying to run a mere football association ?
“Vibrant, well-run clubs” are only required in the non-professional game, according to the SFA ?!
And with the ‘crystallization’ date being confirmed in court, why should anyone trust the SFA – at any level of the game ?
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.
Stevie BC
….”My initial thought was that the ‘interims’ were back of a fag packet stuff: start with a minimal ‘profit figure’…then work backwards and plug in the difference into ‘Revenue’….” Shhhhh….now everyone knows how we beancounters work…”There was speculation that it was cobbled together by King, with the assistance of a ‘young staff member’….”…possibly another newly/recently qualified CA…searching for his career path to glory (not!)…
EBC,
Good to hear from you 🙂
just had a listen to TWM Episode 15 (i know i’m one behind).
Anyway on listening it answered one of my questions i asked about a week or so ago. So just to say if you ask a question and you don’t get a Typed reply or an answer. You may find the answer on TWM
Just listened to TWM16 very enjoyable.
Just been going through James Doleman’s and David Henderson’s tweets from todays court proceedings. Always good to have multiple sources to confirm what has been happening, especially with the 140 character limit of Twitter.
Unsurprisingly, the two accounts are largely similar, however, to us bampots, there is an interesting difference in reportage at one point:
James Doleman (3 consecutive tweets)
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 12h12 hours agoMore
McGill email “We need to ensure the purchaser doesnt get any surprises..I think we need to front up on the small tax case”
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 12h12 hours agoMoreReplying to @jamesdoleman
McGill says the case had only recently went from a potential liability and had not “crystallised” until recently Dated 17 March 2011
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 12h12 hours agoMore
Findlay “Murray was anxious that when club sold nothing bad would happen that would reflect badly” McGill “Yes”
David Henderson (5 consecutive tweets)
David Henderson @DJSHenderson 12h12 hours agoMoreEmail Mike Mcgill to advisors and colleagues. “I think we need to ensure that the purchaser does not get any surprises that are within….
David Henderson @DJSHenderson 12h12 hours agoMore…..our knowledge…..I think we require to front up on the small tax case…my fear is this will come up in discussions with the CEO/
David Henderson @DJSHenderson 12h12 hours agoMoreCEO/football manager/working capital session We’re your advisors disinclined to front up? Mike Mcgill- no there had been developments
David Henderson @DJSHenderson 12h12 hours agoMore….and we needed to front up on tax case
David Henderson @DJSHenderson 12h12 hours agoMoreDF – jury’s heard re image, PR, legacy. Murray wanted to ensure that Murray wanted to sell in a way which did not reflect badly on Murray
So JD’s
“went from a potential liability and had not “crystallised” until recently Dated 17 March 2011″
becomes DH’s
“there had been developments”.
As always, the devil is in the detail.
SFA exercising their muscle on small fry re betting on games, while maintaining the fiction of the Big Lie!
(radio scotland news this morning).
Off to Glasgow High Court now.
So a couple of witnesses have now stated under oath in a court that the ‘wee tax case’ was accepted before March 31 2011, which is the date the SFA have stated it had not crystallized. There will be more witnesses to come of course, and it would be wise to wait until the trial is over, but right now there must be many within the Scottish game who so far wish this case had never got near a court. Playing the paranoid card to try and end the debate looks rather silly right now.
Grant Russell of STV now claiming on Twitter the loans Rangers have had can’t be counted as losses. I’m lost on that one. Without those loans they would not have been able to pay their bills, and faced insolvency.
JOHN CLARKMAY 10, 2017 at 06:44
Looking forward to anything you can report back on later JC,have a good day
Unbelievable!!!
“Over the weekend it was revealed that agent Mino Raiola was paid £41,390,000 for his role in the transfer of Paul Pogba from Juventus to Manchester United.
Transfer fees and agent commissions are set to soar again this summer as the second year of the new television deal kicks in with Sunderland picking up £100m for a miserable season finishing at the bottom of the Premier League”
“Celtic will collect about £3m from the SPFL for winning the title, that is made up of money from all broadcasting and commercial deals.”
(Video Celts)
It’s an ill divided world.
Tis the way of the football world these days Jimbo. Crazy money for lets face it. having a pretty meaningless talent, while those that do genuine good for society scrape by on a pittance. That said, its not that different from Celtic versus the rest of Scottish football (ignoring the obvious thorn), or lets say Montrose versus Aberdeen. It’s all a matter of scale.
I’d also add that I believe there is only one club in Scotland that would get itself inveigled with such a lunatic financial deal, even if the cash was available I doubt Mr Desmond, or Mr Milne or members of any club board would ever countenance such a ridiculous amount of money being spent on one player (or one agent whichever way you want to look at it)!
From BBC website;
Wes Foderingham acknowledged the hurt “one idiot” caused Scott Sinclair but says the fan, who admitted making racial gestures at the Celtic player, did not represent the Rangers support.
Last week, Paul Kenny was granted bail and banned from attending games after admitting racially abusing Sinclair.
“It was disappointing,” said Gers goalkeeper Foderingham, an ambassador for equality group Kick It Out.
“No-one wants to see that in football, especially at a club I represent.”
Commenting on the incident, the 26-year-old Englishman said it was “difficult when one idiot comes and starts to behave like that”.
“The club has dealt with it accordingly,” he said.
“The Rangers fans have been fantastic. All season and since I joined the club, they have been superb.
So Mr Foderingham, are we to assume you believe racism only applies to black players?
While your “fantastic fans” in their tens of thousands have, on numerous occasions, chanted racist and bigoted bile against the Irish race and Catholic religion, you do not feel the need to speak out against it. However when “one idiot” makes racial gestures against a black player, however disgusting, you pop your head above the parapet.
Very selective for “an ambassador for equality group Kick It Out”.
What would happen if someone at Celtic called their team off the park when the song book is in full flow particularly when songs or other offensive actions being sung or acted out by Mr Fotheringham’s “one idiot”* in the crowd would be deemed offensive if the words black, jewish, muslim, homosexual, transgender etc. were inserted instead of the normal targets?
This reality of Scotland in 2017 is not just staring the Politicians, The BBC, The Stenographers, The SFA and the decent Rangers fans in the face.
The fact that the Blue Club seems to be allowed to continue to belt out its bile is a real insight into our wee fishbowl of a country.
It was never acceptable and there are no excuses for allowing it to continue.
* And all his/her 90-minute B-ted pals.
FINLOCHMAY 10, 2017 at 12:42
As I have said many times before I do not believe it should be up to the opposing team, player or manager to take action against the bigots doing the offending.
If the words or actions are clearly seen or heard by officials of the clubs whose supporters are doing the offending, then their action of withdrawing their own team from the field of play would send a clear message to the bigots that it just isn’t acceptable.
A few goes at that with possible points deductions for failing to fulfill the fixture could resolve the issue in a matter of weeks.
Seems like the only option for the SFA to try and get ahead of the damning revelations in court, is for Regan to quietly ‘do walking away’. [And probably with an over generous pay-off for his co-operation, and permanent silence.]
Then the SFA can try and spin it that it ‘was all Regan’s fault’, but he has gone now…so let’s all move on!
The longer Regan stays, the more it appears / is confirmed that the SFA organisation itself is corrupt – and not just any specific individual[s].
Probably the same applies to the SPFL and Doncaster.
IMO, the court revelations will at least reinforce the expectation that not many Scottish football fans are moving on anywhere – until the SFA answers for all of its lies to the paying customers in recent years.
“Respected and Trusted to Lead” ? 🙁
UPTHEHOOPS
MAY 10, 2017 at 07:07
==========================================
Semantics.
The loans aren’t losses. Indeed, however they are proof that the business is unable to pay it’s bills.
They demonstrate that the business is running at a loss.
Why else would they need to borrow the money. It’s certainly not for major capital projects to improve the business, it’s to pay the electricity bill and the face painter.
There’s no secret, revelation or exclusive here. It’s in the accounts, the Chairman of the PLC has said it. The business is still running at a loss. Depending on European income it could easily be running at a loss next year again.
Re to-day’s evidence @ Whyte’s trial – Withey confirming my previous thoughts on him & that’s before Findlay has had a go at him . Interesting to read JC’s take on it .
FINLOCH
MAY 10, 2017 at 12:42
What would happen if someone at Celtic called their team off the park when the song book is in full flow particularly when songs or other offensive actions being sung or acted out by Mr Fotheringham’s “one idiot”* in the crowd would be deemed offensive if the words black, jewish, muslim, homosexual, transgender etc. were inserted instead of the normal targets?…
===========================
Initially, I think it would be ‘tit for tat’, with various teams walking off several times in the first few meetings.
But then the fans themselves, IMO, would quickly become fed up with the interruptions – and would fairly quickly be conditioned to behave and drop the dodgy songs and behaviour.
Otherwise, why would you waste your money on watching disjointed, frustratingly elongated [or even abandoned ?] matches ?
When teams in foreign leagues start to routinely walk off the park when players are subjected to racist attacks, then IMO, it’s a given that Scottish football would then be compelled to deal with unacceptable fans’ behaviour once and for all.
[I remember the Scottish govt. campaign launched about 10+ years ago, [?] with anti-racism TV adverts calling for Scottish people to respect residents from other nations / cultures. First time I saw one, my immediate reaction was; “What about the nonsense in the West of Scotland then ? Does that not count?” IIRC, the govt got pelters for that faux pas, but the TRFC nonsense seems to have been exacerbated since 2012.]
Homunculus
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.