The Offline Game

By

HirsuitePursuit,   Thanks for your response. On your comments:   March 2011 I note your position …

Comment on The Offline Game by DuplesisII.

HirsuitePursuit,
 
Thanks for your response.
On your comments:
 
March 2011
I note your position is that – properly interpreted – the FFP rules are such that there was an overdue payment re the WTC as at 30th March 2011.
I don’t agree with that, but I do understand your argument. We probably can’t take this point much further, but what I would say is that, if your interpretation is correct, then a licence should not have been granted under Article 50.
Do you agree in return that – if my interpretation is correct – the licence would have been properly granted as at 30th March?
 
June 2011
I’m not sure you’ve really answered my query. What I really want to know is whether you agree with my interpretation of articles 65 and 66.
Can you also confirm what you understand the point of the provisions under 65(8) and 66(6) requiring follow up on 30 September to be?
If you’ll come back on that, and can let me know why you say SFA would have had to withdraw the licence had the WTC been disclosed as overdue (and in particular under what rule or rules), I can then try to get my head round your argument and respond.
 
What was disclosed as at June 2011
You’ve given a lengthy response, but (and hopefully without me sounding cheeky) as I understand what you’re saying is that – like me- you don’t actually know what if anything was disclosed as at June 2011. Is that fair?
If that summary is correct, then what follows is probably moot and this part can’t be taken much further, but for the record:
I don’t agree with you re what can be inferred about what was disclosed. You suggest that – as there was apparently said by the SFA that there was good news in that the September follow up requirements were unnecessary –  that must mean the March 2011 disclosure showed no overdue payments.
I don’t follow that – if the March 2011 disclosure showed no overdue payments, then there would not have been a requirement under 66(6) for a September 2011 follow up in the first place. Are you saying that there was an extraordinary requirement for further information by September 2011 under 62(4) even though the general rule under 66(6) didn’t require it? If so why would that have been, and what’s the evidence for it?
I don’t really understand how UEFA can have said what they supposedly said to SFA, whatever was (or was not) disclosed at June 2011, to be honest.
I would also say that – if I understand what you’re saying correctly – I think your interpretation of the letter of 1st February 2012 is a bit of “a jump.” You seem to be inferring that the interim declaration referred to in the letter must be the first time the WTC was disclosed to the SFA, and therefore it wasn’t disclosed as at 30th June 2011. If that is what you’re inferring, then I don’t agree that the letter bears that interpretation.
Whatever happened re licensing year 2011-2012, RFC had an obligation to declare any outstanding unpaid tax as at 31 December 2011 under article 50 for 2012-2013 licensing. That seems to me to be all that the letter is recording has happened, and I see nothing in the letter to allow an inference that this was the first time the WTC was mentioned.

DuplesisII Also Commented

The Offline Game
Smugas,
I think whoever said that about Leeds must be mis-reading the filing at companies house.
There is about £300k in the bank – the price paid to the administrators for the club’s assets was about £1.8m, and there have been disbursements of £1.6m, and interest accruing.
The unsecured creditors in the Leeds case were a bit over £11m, and the purchase price was about £1.8m. There was a further undertaking to pay another £5m if Leeds were promoted to the Premier League within a certain period of time (5 years I think.)
One would imagine that most of the disbursements were for running the liquidation, so the unsecured creditors will get next to nothing.


The Offline Game
Auldheid @19:15

Thanks for your response.
It looks like we’re pretty much in agreement on the interpretation of the rules, and it really comes down to what if anything was declared at June 2011 (which neither of us know.)
I note your comments on the Article 67 declaration, and given what you say, won’t get in to that!


The Offline Game
Nawlite,

just to quickly come back on the September date issue, what UEFA said in their “Press pack” on the FFP regulations was:

Enhanced overdue payables on transfers and employee payments (Art.65 & 66)
In addition to the 31 December club licensing assessment performed before the licence is granted,
each licensee must prove that, as at 30 June of the year in which the UEFA club competitions
commence, it has no overdue payables towards other clubs, employees and social/tax authorities. For
clubs which do not meet this requirement a further assessment after the summer transfer window (as
at 30 September) is performed.

so it seems the idea is to allow clubs concerned to use the transfer window to sort out the problem.


Recent Comments by DuplesisII

.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
Expenses awarded against Ashley and in favour of SFA and King in the “fit and proper” judicial review case :

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=a77617a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers

Any proof that the pics of Warburton taking training were from yesterday?. Not saying they weren’t but there must be hundreds,maybe thousands of pics from last season kicking around.Any pics of him arriving,leaving,posing with the new guys from Accrington Stanley(who he’s supposedly signed),Clint Hill,even a wee pose with his No2.A wee word with the press would have been expected,even if it was the usual cliches ones come to expect.

Barring photo shop, yes. Clint Hill is in one of the pictures with him. As I mentioned above, SNS Group also posted pictures of him arriving yesterday.


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
Not sure about Level 5, but the pictures of him conducting the training are now on Rangers’ website…

http://rangers.co.uk/news/galleries/gallery-pre-season-training/

As I say, I’ve found the situation following the Cup Final to be strange, but for the moment at least he certainly appears to be back at work.


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
Warburton’s silence has been a bit weird, but he certainly was at Auchenhowie for pre-season training yesterday.
It’s also certainly true that he completed his UEFApro course last week, as his family also posted a picture of him receiving his certificate towards the end of the week.

Here are a couple of SNS group pictures of Warburton arriving at Auchenhowie yesterday:
http://www.snspix.com/180616-murray-park-glasgow-rangers-manager-mark-warburton/print/12215580.html
http://www.snspix.com/180616-murray-park-glasgow-rangers-manager-mark-warburton/print/12215582.html


.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
Meantime, Ashley lost his judicial review (re the fine)

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=ff7f16a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7


About the author