The Offline Game

ByBig Pink

The Offline Game

The scandal in which Scottish football has become embroiled is neither equivocal nor complicated. It happened. It is easily seen to have happened. It is certainly not a degree course in nuclear physics. Why then, are simple facts ignored day after day, week after week, by not just the so called purveyors of truth in the media, but the body of the SFA itself, the clubs?

Five years or so ago, systematic cheating by a club involved in Scottish football was uncovered as a consequence of the club slipping into liquidation. This is easily established as fact.

It soon became clear that the authorities had been aware of the situation for as long as it had been going on, but instead of applying their own rules, which would have saved that club from it’s ultimate demise, they chose to enable it and cover it up. Also, backed up by documentary evidence.

As a consequence of the slide towards liquidation, the authorities went into cover-up overdrive to protect their own position. Inquiries based on rhetorical “you’ll have had your tea!” questions were set up to arrive at predetermined conclusions. The post-truth era in Scottish football had begun in earnest.

The claims of corruption which subsequently emerged were dismissed out of hand by the authorities and the press; first by accusations that it was only Paranoid Celtic fans looking to put the boot into Rangers who were behind the claims, then, when it became clear that it was not only Celtic fans who were angered by the way the integrity of the sport had been shattered, the “mad Celtic fans” epithet was amended to “mad online conspiracy theorists”.

The tactic was clear. NEVER address the issue. Attack the messengers. Ridicule them, mock them, demonise them. Despite that, the message of SFM and others was gaining traction and dangerously for the authorities, becoming difficult to ignore.

Last Autumn SFM was approached in confidence by senior figures in two print media outlets. The request was for us to provide them with the facts we had in bullet points – to make it easier for them to reach their audience, an audience they claimed was not sophisticated enough to absorb the detail and minutiae of the story.

The role of journalists is to do exactly that of course. They had access to the same documentary evidence we had (we know this because we gave it to them), but they wanted us to do their job for them? Leaving aside the scant regard I have for football journalists in this country, I don’t believe they are incapable of carrying out that simple task – but we humoured them anyway and provided them with the “SFA Corruption for Dummies” guide that they asked for.

But what were they really up to?

Remembering the RTC thread where he pointed out that genuine whistle-blowers in this saga were reluctant to come forward because of trust issues – they feared any contact with the MSM would result in their details being provided to those they were exposing – we proceeded with some caution. Amusingly, the same three questions was asked at each meeting; “You must know who Rangers Tax Case is?”, “any idea who John James is?” and, “what team do you support?”. (FYI, my answers were, “No”, “No”, and “Celtic” respectively).

Interestingly, for people who needed clarification by bullet-point, they were well enough versed in the minutiae to attempt to argue the flat-earth case and try to sell us the “it has been established legally that <insert something that hasn’t been established legally here>”

Our only conjecture was that they were trying to convince us we were wrong,  or ascertain how firm a grasp we actually had on the facts to better see who and what they were dealing with, or (most probably) they were reacting aimlessly to online pressure and not really following any plan at all. Perhaps they were seeking to reassure themselves that it was just Celtic fans who were angry – although I fail to see how Celtic or their fans have less credibility when asking legitimate questions about the running of the game just because Rangers were involved.

Subsequently, despite the platitudes of “print and social media should work together” and the like, and despite being furnished with the aforementioned bullet points, no further contact was made with SFM other than a couple of childish comments about SFM on Twitter.

Facts might be facts to us all, but in the case of the print media, they can be ignored on the basis that mad internet bampots are not a credible source, although metaphysical hypotheses are clearly thought to be a far more sensible line of inquiry!

However, facts ARE indeed facts, and in the hands of real journalists like Alec Thomson and those in The Offshore Game (TOG), they are given the credence they merit. Since TOG published the report on the SFA (see below), the facts have emerged from not just the so-called internet bampots. Those facts have survived the scrutiny of several reputable journalists involved in TOG – and their legal advisers.

Accusations more blunt and unequivocal than we have ever made have been published. The genie is most definitely out of the bottle, but the prodigious MSM Twitterati, so meticulous in their investigations into the occupation of Craig Whyte’s female companions, appear to have run out of batteries on their keyboards. “No answer” is the loud reply, since TOG cannot be ridiculed quite so easily without exposing themselves to the same scrutiny they have failed to apply to the SFA.

If I can be as unequivocal about this as possible. Senior journalists in at least two MSM print outlets KNOW there has been a cover up, and that systematic cheating took place. They knew that before the TOG report, long before it, but still they did nothing. Even now they do nothing. They are now playing a reactionary role – as counterpoint to the accessible online truth –  involved in actively concealing that truth from the offline public. An Offline Game if you like.

Of course we are not surprised by that, and as the falling-off-a-cliff circulation figures show, fewer and fewer people are playing their game. Even those who still purchase newspapers believe little of what they read.

The clubs are a different matter. Fans of every single club in this country – and that includes TRFC – will benefit from an inquiry into the handling of this matter. In the light of the TOG report, there is no excuse for the clubs to ignore calls for an inquiry to be set up. In fact by doing so, they are actively embracing corruption.

As we have said time and time again, this is no longer about Rangers. It is about institutionalised mal-governance at Hampden. By assisting the cover-up, the clubs are ensuring that the same corrupt practices are in place, ready to go again when necessary. Those practices which saw journalists and SFA officials cede editorial control (both statements backed up by documentary evidence) of their output to one club, and allow damaging conflicts of interest to circumvent rules.

The Offshore Game has thrown a media spotlight onto a cover-up. The MSM have attempted to bury it in the offline domain, but corruption, however well established,is not unbeatable. We can beat it if we work together – and here is how.

Season ticket renewals are dropping through letterboxes as I write this. If we do nothing other than protest, the clubs will do – just like Stewart Regan says he will – NOTHING!

There is only one way to establish the Independent Inquiry that is demanded in the wake of TOG report. Ask your club if they will vote for an Independent Inquiry to be set up.

If they agree, there is no problem. They are doing the right thing and will be deserving of our support.

Otherwise, send their renewal forms back to them unsigned.

It really is that simple.

 

 

http://www.theoffshoregame.net/475-2/

 

 

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,833 Comments so far

TheLawManPosted on6:40 am - May 12, 2016


In response to Auldheid first post

 The thing is that in the Malaga case they declared overdues payable  to other clubs and tax authority at 30 June and by that they said we HAVE tax overdues payable.  UEFA saw the declaration and said overdues payable? That’s a breach under Indicator 4 and asked an independent auditor firm to investigate Malaga.  So in June 2011 without a pot to piss in and 8 months before going into Administration Rangers tell UEFA we have overdues payable send in your auditors please? Aye right.

 
UEFA do not audit every set of “overdues payable”  Only the Investigatory Chamber of the UEFA Club Financial control Body could tell you why they chose Malaga to do a further audit, however to be clear, the very existence of Article 62(3) which enforces a further disclosure on the 30th September for any club with overdue payables as at 30th June is proof in itself that UEFA accepts clubs will have a licence with a state of “overdue payables” at 30th June. If the default position was “you have overdue payables and therefore are not eligible for a licence” why would there be a further article forcing the club to disclose their position at a later date?

 Now what did happen is that in September 2011 the SFA notified RFC:  First the good news – we have had verbal confirmation from UEFA that they are satisfied with the submission in respect of Overdue Payables as at 30 June. This means that Rangers do not have to provide updated information on Overdue Payables as at 30 September, and also do not have to provide updated Future Financial Information.

 
This is incorrect.  No matter how satisfied UEFA are with the 30th June notice, there is a requirement under Article 62(3) for a further disclosure on the 30th September.  Rangers were required to do so. .

 Now what was it about the 30 June submission that stopped UEFA doing what they did with Malaga? Was it the fact RFC were out of Europe by the time UEFA had a good look and didn’t want to dig further? It is answers to questions like that which Res12 was hoping to get but specifically what WAS said at 30 June?

 
Or was it the fact that they did audit the club and found the information persuasive enough.  Or was it the fact that the size of the overdue payable was small fry in comparison to other clubs (See Malaga 9.42m EUR the following year) and therefore they didn’t meet the Investigatory Chambers threshold for further auditing?

 Now The Olverman to CW e mail said more than waiting scheduling of payments (but I’ll come back to that) but what it did say could not have been we HAVE an overdue payable and are talking to HMRC about scheduling payments.

 
The wording in this instance is being used to paint a picture that simply doesn’t exist.  The only important question is “Was the overdue payable disclosed?”  There are no “statuses” beyond that on the disclosure.  Its either OVERDUE and disclosable, or NOT OVERDUE and not disclosable. Once disclosed, an explanation is required and the opportunity for the Investigatory Chamber to investigate exists.

 
Now in the Malaga case UEFA applied sanctions because Malaga had overdues payable as UEFA define them because by 30th June none of the criteria to excuse tax owed being treated as an overdue payable under Annex VIII applied. Not any of the four but the one that justified UEFA taking sanction action over Malaga was the second of four b) it has concluded an agreement which has been accepted in writing by the creditor to extend the deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline (note: the fact that a creditor may not have requested payment of an amount does not constitute an extension of the deadline);
Under Article 66 The licensee must prove that as at 30 June of the year in which the UEFA club competitions commence it has no overdue payables (as specified in Annex VIII) towards its employees and/or social/tax authorities (as defined in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 50) that arose prior to 30 June.
There was no written deadline extension agreement at 30 June between Malaga and the Spanish Tax authority and no written agreement to extend the deadline between RFC and HMRC.

 
This is all 100% TRUE.

 What could have been argued as an extension two weeks into July might have stood up if HMRC did not withdraw it on 21st July on hearing RFC had bought Lee Wallace with money owed to HMRC. This started the collection proceedings leading to SO’s calling on 10th August. So if none of the exemptions apply RFC could only have misrepresented the truth for the obvious benefits doing so brought them. CL money/No audits.

 
However this is NOT TRUE. It is fair to say that this point i believe is at the heart of most of the confusion.  I attempted to set out what is a very simple process above in my first post to Barcabhoy. In both cases of Malaga and RFC, if a written agreement with the Tax Authority existed then neither club would have needed to disclose an overdue payable, however in both cases, there was no written agreement.  In Malaga’s case, they chose to NOT disclose the additional overdue payable.  In Rangers case, they chose TO disclose the overdue payable. This is where sliding doors principle starts when looking at the 2 clubs in a similar position.  By disclosing the amount overdue, Rangers complied with Article 66(4) and were now subject to further audit from Investigatory Body as well as a further disclosure under Article 62(3) By NOT disclosing the ADDITIONAL amount overdue, Malaga were in CLEAR breach of Article 66(4) and after the audit from Investigatory Body, they were found guilty of non disclosure and therefore issued with a ban.

 Now what if, I’m just saying, what if the submission had said “status postponed,(awaiting scheduling of payments)” that clearly was not the case unless a written agreement was in place by 30 June to extend the deadline of mid June (30 days after 20 May). That would have been a postponement UEFA recognise.

 
It may have been a postponement UEFA recognise but if that was the case, there would have been NO DISCLOSURE as per the rules in Annex VIII.  Clubs either DISCLOSE an overdue payable or DON’T DISCLOSE an overdue payable.  There is not an OPTION to DISCLOSE a postponed overdue payable.  That would be contained in the description of a disclosure.

 Oh (Colombo like) that tax bill of 20th May? Was it promptly reported to SFA and did SFA report it to UEFA by say 25th May saying “the bills arrived so we have something to monitor here?” Just asking because its a question the SFA have refused to answer since last July even though both licensee and licensor have a duty under the rules to report a significant change since the licence was granted.

 
Obviously its difficult to tell if it was “promptly reported” to the SFA however, given that the bill was disclosed on the 30th June and the Investigatory Body approved it through 1 method or another, a £2.8m bill is not seen as a “significant change”  UEFA knew there was a NIL return on 31st March.  They knew there was an overdue payable of £2.8m on the 30th June.  They had the power to audit that information as they did with Malaga.  Neither you nor I can confirm if they did so.
 

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on6:48 am - May 12, 2016


AULDHEID========================

 Why they were sanctioned is irrelevant to the RFC case, its what  led to the audits that is relevant as I’ve explained.

 

What led to their audit was their original disclosure under Article 66(4) of 9.42m EUR of overdue payables.  This then placed them in a position where it was more likely than not that the Investigatory Body of UEFA responsible for auditing all the returns would ask for more complete information.In Malagas case, this is exactly what happened and what was found, was not what was disclosed.

The only relevance to the RFC case is that in Malagas case, they failed to disclose an oustanding bill which had not met the requirement of Annex VIII and in Rangers case, they actually did disclose the outstanding bill under the rules set out in Annex VIII.

One team complied.  The other didnt.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on6:51 am - May 12, 2016


Could someone be kind enough to tell me how to spearate paragraphs in the original post without having to go into the edit function and doing so.  My longish posts are appearing as one long continious one which is obviously hard to read.

The carriage return should be sufficient. Perhaps your browser is inputing CR differently?
You could try to do two carriage returns per para, or simply add a ‘<br />’ at the end of a paragraph.
Tris

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on6:58 am - May 12, 2016


 
AULDHEIDMAY 12, 2016 at 01:05 
TheLawManMay 11, 2016 at 22:43 3 1 i Rate This HIRSUTEPURSUIT, im sorry but my point is not incorrect.  The reason Malaga were found in breach of regulations was that they failed to disclose an “overdue payable” as described in Annex VIII.Their argument in court was around Spanish law and i have no interest in that or how that played out.  At the end of the day, had they put that amount on their disclosure then they would have fulfilled their obligations under Article 66 Para 4.++++++++++++++++++++++From CAS Decision. June 2013
In accordance with the provisions in Articles 65 and 66 of the UEFA Club Licensing andFinancial Fair Play Regulations, edition 2012, in force at the time of the facts discussed in theseproceedings (hereinafter the “CL&FFPR” or the “Regulations”), Málaga submitted to the RFEFits financial declaration stating that as of 30 June 2012 it hadoverdue payables of EUR3,845,000 towards other football clubs and of EUR 5,575,000 towards social and/or taxauthorities. Thus, the overall amount of overdue payables declared by Málaga in its financialstatement was EUR 9,420,000. Accordingly, this financial statement by Málaga was forwardedby the RFEF to the UEFA on 16 July 2012.2.3 On 3 August 2012, upon examination of the documentation submitted to it, the InvestigatoryChamber of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (hereinafter the “Investigatory Chamber”)found that Málaga was in breach of the indicator 4 as defined in Article 62, par. 3, of theCL&FFPR and decided to request an independent auditing firm (the “AF”) to carry out acompliance audit” for the verification of the accuracy of the declarations submitted by Málaga

I am unclear as to the question or point here.  Again i reiterate that Malaga disclosed 9.42m of overdue payables as at 30th June but the FAILED to disclose a further 8.45m of overdue payables.

They played in Europe that season, having disclosed the 9.42m that was OVERDUE.  When it was found that they failed to disclose and additional amount, they were in clear breach of the rules and banned for a season.

I find this very straightforward and unequivocally clear. 

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on7:25 am - May 12, 2016


HIRSUITPURSUIT

 The rules state that a national association that is considering removing a club’s licence must inform UEFA immediately. And so, following Malaga’s declaration of overdue payables, UEFA got involved and started their own investigation.

 
Nowhere on the CAS document does it mention anything about the RFEF (Spanish FA) considering removing the clubs licence.  The RFEF received the appropriate disclosure under Article 66(4) and sent them to UEFA as is the norm along with the relevant financial statements.  It was during the audit process carried out by the Investigatory Chamber of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body that further details were asked for which in turn uncovered the undisclosed overdue payable.

 

 To be clear. UEFA only became involved when the Spanish footballing authorities were considering withdrawing Malaga’s licence because Malaga initially declared some of its debts as overdue payables in it’s June return. Had they not done so, it is possible (or very likely?) that UEFA would not have got involved.

 
This is wildly incorrect.  Here is the relevant section of the CAS document you refer to which clearly defines that the only thing the RFEF did was send the required disclosure and financial statements as it would do for every club in that position.

 
2.2 In accordance with the provisions in Articles 65 and 66 of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, edition 2012, in force at the time of the facts discussed in these proceedings (hereinafter the “CL&FFPR” or the “Regulations”), Málaga submitted to the RFEF its financial declaration stating that as of 30 June 2012 it had overdue payables of EUR 3,845,000 towards other football clubs and of EUR 5,575,000 towards social and/or tax authorities. Thus, the overall amount of overdue payables declared by Málaga in its financial statement was EUR 9,420,000. Accordingly, this financial statement by Málaga was forwarded by the RFEF to the UEFA on 16 July 2012.
2.3 On 3 August 2012, upon examination of the documentation submitted to it, the Investigatory Chamber of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (hereinafter the “Investigatory Chamber”) found that Málaga was in breach of the indicator 4 as defined in Article 62, par. 3, of the CL&FFPR and decided to request an independent auditing firm (the “AF”) to carry out a compliance audit” for the verification of the accuracy of the declarations submitted by Málaga.

 

Further questions from poster:

 
Malaga later clarified their view that the tax debts were all subject to a deferral request and so claimed these were not actually overdue payables. By that time, the genie was out the bottle.
At the CAS UEFA said that no written agreement was in place for part of the tax debt as at 30th June and for a different amount at 30th September.

 
Both of the above are correct
 

 
As far as I can tell Malaga were not “sanctioned” for undisclosed debt. The UEFA audit simply re-classified deferred debt as overdue payable. Malaga were attempting to go the other way with its CAS appeal. Ultimately there was no issue with “undisclosed” debt – only what and when it should be considered to be overdue payable:

 
 
By reclassifying it as “overdue payable” this created a non disclosure breach.  One naturally leads to the other.

 Lawman, I think, believes that Rangers had declared the WTC as overdue payable in its 30th June 2011 update. He believes that the SFA had the authority to simply waive it through.

 
The SFA would have done EXACTLY as the RFEF did.  Collect the appropriate disclosure and the financial statements and send them to UEFA as part of a very normal process that every club in Europe goes through every year.  UEFA then decide if auditing or not.

 As “proof” that this is possible, there is an assertion that the Spanish FA approved Malaga’s licence retention in similar circumstances.

 
By sending it to UEFA, this is the approval.  If they were not happy with it or not willing to approve the licence, it would have been revoked prior to submitting to UEFA.

 The letter confirms (if I am reading it correctly) is that the WTC liability was formally disclosed to the SFA as “overdue payable” on 31st December 2011. If the SFA had not been informed by 30th June that the WTC was overdue they could not (officially) have chosen to disregard it at that time.

 
It wasn’t disclosed “ON” 31st December, it was STILL overdue “AT” 31st December.  There is a clear distinction in the letter.

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on8:07 am - May 12, 2016


As a layman rather than a lawman, it strikes me that much effort is being put into avoiding the blindingly obvious in the posts above. Rules, regulations and laws are there for a purpose, and often it doesn’t take a genius, or even a lawman, to figure out what they are.

There is a clear desire by UEFA to exclude from its competitions those clubs who have outstanding social taxes . This is not rocket science. Similarly, the law of the land regarding liquidation is designed to ensure that those who dump multi-million pounds of debt cannot simply do so and expect to carry on as before. Simples.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on8:31 am - May 12, 2016


I like bit of detailed analysis as much as the next pedant but the 2011 Euro License situation is like one of those inconsiderate  parkers trying to get off with a ticket for taking a disabled persons space on a technicality regarding the use of wrong wording on the sign or the bay markings being not quite right.
They know they are in the wrong and have carried out an anti-social act but hide behind the technicalities of the law to try and squirm out of their  position because deep down they care not a jot for others and believe they somehow had a right to take that space in the first place.

Rangers were at it with both the HRMC and the footballing authorities.
This was no honest mistake or simple incompetence, such as the recent Dundee Utd registration issue.
This was deceit and sharp practice, pure and simple. In the whole WTC & BTC issue they never once went to Tax or Footballing authorities for guidance because they knew they were on a shoogly peg. Key documents were denied and withheld from the authorities. SDM started it and Whyte just continued on the same path.

Like the BTC we can into all the legal semantics but at the end of the day the common sense approach (taken by Dr Poon and the 3 CoS judges) tells the world that Rangers were trying to ensure they got a Euro Licence in dubious circumstances and that the SFA appear to have had the lightest of touches. 

I for one couldn’t care what the legal and technical issues are. In my book they were cheating at the expense of all their fellow clubs, they deserved far more than the (still?) unpaid £250,000 fine and both the SFA and SPFL still have a lot of explaining to do.

View Comment

jimboPosted on8:40 am - May 12, 2016


Well so much for my post two days ago saying it’s been quiet on here recently!  It’s taken me an hour to read back. 21

Welcome The Lawman.  Good to read intelligent debate.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:07 am - May 12, 2016


HighlanderMay 12, 2016 at 08:07
You must have got in while I was drafting.
Nice to see someone waking up on the same side of the bed this morning!!!

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on9:15 am - May 12, 2016


I wonder if Ali Coote is the person who is going to break the dam on this. A hitherto little-known 17 year old DUFC player, seemingly ineligible to play against Partick Thistle at the weekend, the he played for all of 20 minutes or so and has landed his club with a fine & points deduction “off the radar” in comparison to recent punishments.
If Stephen Thompson chooses to dispute the severity of the sanction, and uses precedent to argue his case, it may be that Sandy Bryson is finally called to account for his actions, and perhaps others – Regan, McKinley the legal eagle etc.
The SFA may be thanking their lucky stars the 3 point deduction has not been material in deciding whether or DUFC is relegated but something tells me there may be a sting in the tail for some least expecting it.
In other (non) news, Rangers continue to fail the UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations and so will not be eligible to compete in any European competition next season should they qualify, and unless there is an equity injection of c. £35Million within the next 6 weeks, they will fail the regulations in relation to season 2017/18 also.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on9:24 am - May 12, 2016


HIGHLANDER

 
As a layman rather than a lawman, it strikes me that much effort is being put into avoiding the blindingly obvious in the posts above. Rules, regulations and laws are there for a purpose, and often it doesn’t take a genius, or even a lawman, to figure out what they are.
There is a clear desire by UEFA to exclude from its competitions those clubs who have outstanding social taxes . This is not rocket science. Similarly, the law of the land regarding liquidation is designed to ensure that those who dump multi-million pounds of debt cannot simply do so and expect to carry on as before. Simples.

 

I’m sorry but I cannot understand this thinking. Rules are rules and if there is a desire to achieve a certain goal by making up rules then those rules should be explicit. 

It is simply not good enough to say, “ok you stuck to our rules but we don’t like it so you are wrong and you are banned”

Taking your example further, there is a clear desire for UEFA to only have a certain group of elite teams competing in the latter stages of the Champions League so they set out rules to try and achieve that. When a European “diddy” team manage to get to the last 16 in despite of, but by following the rules set out, should we simply turn round and say ” but the rules were designed to exclude these wee clubs so let’s disqualify them and let Barca back in again?

We are really stepping into new territory by stretching this to “desired outcome” if we reach a point where the rules have actually been followed in my humble opinion.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:04 am - May 12, 2016


It’s good to see this discussion over ‘Resolution 12’, carried out in such a respectful manner and with each debater providing studied reasoning for the points they make. Sadly, some of the lengthy reasoning is beyond my ability to follow, and though that may be entirely my fault, I have lost the will to live trying to follow much of the rather convoluted reasoning.

What I have been able to garner, from Lawman’s reasoning, is that his theory is based, in part at least, on the assumption that all would be well because Rangers were out of Europe by 30 September. Now, unless it is specifically stated within the rules that it is OK to have outstanding payables (declared or undeclared) by that date provided you have lost, I see it as an extreme leap of reasoning to assume UEFA will see this in the same light. I find it extremely unlikely that UEFA, having been informed by 30 June (if they were) that a member club has these overdue payments, would not insist that the member association, as a matter of course, confirms that they have been settled, or a documented settlement plan is in place, by that date. 

There also seems, within the reasoning of those who see no substance to Resolution 12, that all due process was complied with by both Rangers and the SFA. I have not seen anything to suggest that this is a safe presumption, and even if it was, it leaves the SFA’s silence on the matter ever more puzzling (but only puzzling if the correct proceedures were followed). For they should have been in a position to end the debate from the outset, but particularly now that they are being accused of being unfit for purpose by a rather reputable organisation and not just the supporters they regularly treat with the upmost contempt.

I realise that the stock response will include the usual excuses for not responding to supporters claims, like the excuses used by various boards at Ibrox that helped keep supporters onside while the club was being ‘mismanaged’ by the, then, current messiah. However, even if we accept such excuses for the SFA not coming out publicly to defend itself by providing this documentary evidence, there can be no excuse for them not providing it to their member clubs, even if not asked for. Quite clearly Celtic have not seen this documented evidence, otherwise they would have, at the very least, informed the Resolution 12 guys that they are completely satisfied that the correct proceedures were carried out, and have seen that evidence. Auldheid, I’m sure, could confirm if I am correct that no such assurance has been given.

One thing the Malaga case shows is that there is no Sandy Bryson at UEFA headquarters and no acceptance that (in this case) a license, once issued, is treated as valid regardless of whether or not the rules surrounding it’s issue were complied with and so cannot be retrospectively declared invalid. 

View Comment

ReiverPosted on10:14 am - May 12, 2016


As others have suggested, we are at risk of getting bogged down with details.

Lawman, your point that RFC only had to declare the overdue bill may or may not be correct but stage one must be that we see proof of that declaration. So much has surrounded this whole affair that serious doubt is placed upon the SFA involvement. As the regulatory body they must APPEAR to be above reproach.
We have before us secret five way agreements that, if the leaks are to be believed, change depending which league the new club is allowed to enter. That tells us that the “punishment” for intentional breach of SFA rules is not fixed but variable depending on what one club is prepared to accept. And yet for East Stirling, Dunfermline, Spartans and , just this week, Dundee United there is no negotiation.
We have emails going between the SFA and Ibrox asking for approval of SFA statements to the press.
We have proof that Campbell Ogilvie, as head of the SFA, blatantly lied to the LNS inquiry about his involvement in the DOS/EBS schemes. This inquiry was supposed to be an independent investigation into whether the systematic rule breaking led to an advantage being gained by RFC and yet the SFA’s own officer is prepared to mislead the panel.
This in turn leads to a question needing answered why the period to be covered by LNS suddenly changes to, coincidentally, a period that excludes DOS review. 
We have reports of meetings between SFA officials and RFC board members in city restaurants. The timing of these in relation to RFC’s financial troubles become suspicious when the previous points are already raising doubts over the governance of our sport.
We have the approval from the SFA being given to Dave King and Paul Murray to serve on the new club’s board when they had been on the board of the club when it went into liquidation. This breaches the SFA’s own rules. The disregard of 41 tax convictions and the contempt of court sentence adds to the doubts over the propriety of the SFA’s handling of issues despite them being able to escape judicial review through semantics.
The suspicions raised in the minds of independent supporters has reached such a level that we now have being dragged into the equation issues like – how can one team end up having eight consecutive home cup ties coinciding with a time frame where they are in desperate need of money. The actions of referees are even being called into question such is the level of suspicion and doubt surrounding our game.
No matter how much we argue the fine detail of specific points in the rules no affect will be perceived in the overall picture we are presented with, we have sunk too far into the mire. The picture we view can believably be interpreted as one where the subject matter is that of corruption, distortion and duplicity. We need a blank canvass.

The SFA are prepared to brazen it out behind a wall of silence, and do so while the sport they are responsible for running loses integrity, money and fans.

Our only hope is to break down the wall from the outside. Arguments may disprove our assertion the the 2011 licensing issue was wrong but it does not matter. What matters is that we need an issue to force external attention to be placed upon the SFA and as such the issue is the best at our disposal.
I would hope that the majority of the supporters at Ibrox share our desire to have a sport that EVERY fan can have faith and pride in.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:18 am - May 12, 2016


Damn good post, there, Reiver04

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:25 am - May 12, 2016


TheLawManMay 12, 2016 at 09:24

(Maybe late to the party given Reivers post but here is what I was drafting  while he was posting)

‘Rules are rules’ but as evidenced by all the above posts interpretations can vary.

The duty of those responsible for managing and applying the rules is to provide clear and concise reasoning to the decisions taken and be able to fully justify those decisions when challenged.

Our footballing authorities have a track record of being wholly unable to explain themselves to the paying customer on a whole range of matters.

The situation impacts on fans of ALL clubs because how the SFA & SPFL interpret and apply their rules is as clear as mud.

There were no rules that allowed Rangers (IL) to reform as T’Rangers to join the ranks of the Scottish professional leagues in the manner which they did. Precedents from Gretna, Airdrie/Clydebank and Third Lanark show that.

There were no rules that allowed a team that finished second in the top league to find themselves not in Europe, not entering cup competitions in latter rounds and playing in the bottom tier.

The SPL lawyers argued in their own tribunal about when the club ‘ceased to exist’.

However the football authorities sought a ‘desired outcome’ similar to your scenario re Barcelona getting back in to Europe at the expense of a diddy club.

Despite having rules in place, they made up some new ones on the hoof.

Is it any wonder people query how the rules were interpreted and applied with regard to Rangers’ Euro Licence application?

The problem for the supporters of ALL clubs is that we have two bodies that appear, in some aspects of the running of the professional game, not fit for purpose.

The challenge is not for us to spend hours debating if an ‘i’ has been dotted or a ‘t’ has been crossed but for those in charge to operate in the open and transparent manner that they keep proclaiming, to apply the rules that they do have without fear or favour and offer full explanations when required.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on10:27 am - May 12, 2016


Reiver, im sorry, but you will completley loss me when we get to the point of believing that ex Celtic players, managers, Scottish Internationalists and Scottish managers complicitly pick out hot and cold balls from a transparent pot to hand Rangers a home tie.  That is the part where I will step away from any debate as it is simply ridiculous and does no-one any favour when trying to seriously debate a topic.
I came on here to principally continue the discussion around the UEFA licence and to answer some criticisms directed on my post on Rangers Media.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on10:46 am - May 12, 2016


WOTTPI – The precedents you set out are nothing like the precedent of Rangers as no-one bought the assets of any of these clubs during the administration/liquidation process from the administrators.Third Lanark simply died and there was no attempt to get back into the league.Airdrie United were formed, not from the administration process but as a complete separate entity and their attempt to get into the league went to a vote but Gretna were preferred.Gretna were actually relegated to the 3rd division, some similarities there, but again, their club and assets were not bought during the administration/liquidation process.  Another Gretna was formed, again completely separate to the process and did not attempt to get back into the top league.The closest precedent in all of this is that of Leeds United whose administration and subsequent entry “into liquidation” is an exact replica of Rangers.  In their situation, the FA decuted them points and allowed them to carry on.  I appreciate that each FA has different rules, which in the SFA case, did not cover the Rangers situation explicitly, but the end result was:

a)  Far more serious than that of our English counterparts.

b)  Not comparable to any other incident in Scottish Football.

In relation to the SFA and SPFL not being fit to run Scottish Football, then you will get no arguments from me on that.  None whatsoever.  Perhaps not surprisingly though, where you will get an argument is that somehow the whole organisation is geared up to help one club and one club alone.  That is simply preposterous in my view and the many, many Celtic officials who have been sitting at the top table for tens of years would back my assertion on that.  

View Comment

TBKPosted on10:49 am - May 12, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 09:24

Hello Lawman, out of interest, your arguments seem seasonable but appear to ignore some salient points. Can you point to where the prerequisites of Nr. 2 lit. b of Annex VIII was satisfied by *Rangers FC submission?
many thanks in advance

View Comment

steph1895Posted on10:54 am - May 12, 2016


I have liked the Lawman’s take on the licencing issue at the heart of the Resolution 12 initiative.
We can see from one side of the coin that Resolution 12 has credence and from the other, that it doens’t hold muster.
I’m a simple footie fan of 53 years and what strikes me now is the apparent lack of identity with football I grew up with and enjoyed, to what utterly bewilders me now.
At the heart of the matter with regards to Rangers FC (IL) was the commercial reality that a huge football club could go out of business if European income was not available to them.
I you liken this to Peter Scudamore’s comment, either innocently or deliberate, he postulated that Manchester United not being in the Champions League had a detrimental effect on their share price and the “brand” of the EPL, in the eyes of his investors.
Think about that for a moment…………the Chairman of the EPL is advocating that a commerical reality would affect his “Brand” to such an extent that investors may not take too kindly that one of their biggest selling points, would not be showcased in the biggest tournament in the world.
You could read into that quite a lot, but I will leave that alone for now.
With my business head on; I can see the SFA and the SPFL (formerly SPL) dilemma, which you can understand up to a point, but ultimately you have to be able to be transparent in how you deliver that message.
This has been cake and arse for the last 4 years.
What is OBVIOUS and APPARENT Rangers FC (IL) used two forms of tax evasion schemes that gave them a huge sporting advantage over their rivals, which to this day has not been dealt with or even paid.
I believe the result of an even greater fine over and above £250K would have destroyed the fledgeling new club, which was strarting life in the lower tiers of professional football.
It warranted a far greater punishment in my humble opinion.
Something that is very close to my heart is the punishment meted out to West Ham Utd for the “Carlos Tevez” affair.
Peter Scudamore fined West Ham Utd for breaches of the 3rd partry ownership rule and hit them with a fine of £5 Million.
I expected the fine + a points deduction, which would surely of relegated West Ham Utd at the expense of Sheffield United.
Peter Scudamore was lambasted for only fining the club because the rules were in place for such occurences, but “chose” not to.
It has been intimated that he only fined them because he believed that West Ham Utd would get relegated anyway, due to the situation they were in – bottom at Christmas.
He never thought West Ham Utd would win 7 of the 9 remaining games to clinch safety (Tevez scoring at Manchester Utd), with Sheffield Utd getting relegated after drawing with Wigan on the last day.
The irony was that Wigan would have been relegated if they had lost to Sheffield Utd.
It was rumoured it cost West Ham Utd a further £20 Million in an out of court settlement to the players and staff of Sheffield Utd, who lost bonuses and wages from dropping down to the Championship.
You could argue that Peter Scudamore also thought that West Ham Utd were a better “fit witht he brand” in the EPL than Sheffield Utd, who would have stayed up because they played by the rules.
A thought on the “overdue payable” which has got everyone hot under the collar. Is this STILL AN OVERDUE PAYABLE??
The reason why I ask is that The Rangers FC COULD qualify for Europe through winning the Scottish Cup.
If we dispel reality for a moment and state they are the same “club” is this tax bill still outstanding??
Sorry for the longwindedness, I had to get that off my chest – back to work……………..

View Comment

ReiverPosted on10:56 am - May 12, 2016


Lawman

You do not read what I write fully enough.

I have not said that the cup draws were fixed. What I say is that there has been such a level of distrust built up by the authorities handling of issues over the last decade that people are ready to believe that eight consecutive home ties are suspicious. Likewise my comment regarding referees decisions.

We need to rid the game of these suspicions but the SFA and SPFL are not prepared to cooperate so it is up to us to force them.

View Comment

TBKPosted on11:01 am - May 12, 2016


ALLYJAMBOMAY 12, 2016 at 10:04
AllyJambo, perhaps the real issue is that these were ‘tax debts’ from 2000-2003. Now who in their right mind would want that to come out to UEFA’s licensing committee……..?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on11:01 am - May 12, 2016


The problem with the UEFA licence debate is that none of us know what the then regime at Ibrox actually reported to the SFA on or around 30 June (if anything). We have a note dated 30 June 2011 from Ken Olverman to Craig Whyte suggesting that the unpaid £2.4m should be reported as “postponed”.

The 2.8m EBT proposed settlement also requires to be disclosed but is shown as a status of postponed (awaiting scheduling of payments).

The man in charge at Ibrox at that point was Craig Whyte. What Olverman did next is unknown, but would have been determined by Craig Whyte. So what was actually reported (if anything) to the SFA on 30 June is speculation at this stage.
Let’s assume that Olverman did actually report to the SFA that there was £2.4m unpaid, but it was postponed, awaiting  scheduling of payments.
I posted yesterday about the postponement of liabilities due under Regulation 80 determinations. There are simply no postponement provisions. That £2.4m was due, payable, unpaid and collectable on 30 June- no ifs, buts or maybes.
Olverman had earlier written what was in effect a plea for leniency to HMRC, suggesting that the outstanding sum be paid by instalments. That plea had not been accepted by HMRC at 30 June, and never was accepted by HMRC.
So, at 30 June, there was no postponement, yet Olverman proposed reporting the tax as “postponed” to the SFA. As I have said already, we don’t know what Whyte authorised Olverman to report to the SFA. However, if he acted as he suggested he should to Craig Whyte, and reported the tax as postponed, then he materially misled the licensor (the SFA).
When the SFA became aware of that fact, which would have been clear at the latest when Sheriff’s Officers called at Ibrox to enforce the Revenue’s debt, then the SFA should surely have acted at that point, both by informing UEFA of the position, and by disciplining the member club who had misled them. Why the SFA apparently did not act is another can of worms altogether
The proposition on the Bears Den seemed to be that it didn’t matter how much you owed, just as long as you honestly reported it. I doubt that, but I haven’t yet ploughed through the UEFA regs and the report of the Malaga case. But even if that amazing contention is correct, then we are left with the situation that based on what we know, the status of the £2.4m was not honestly reported to the SFA. And wasn’t dishonest reporting allegedly why Malaga lost their licence?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:13 am - May 12, 2016


REIVERMAY 12, 2016 at 10:56 
Lawman
You do not read what I write fully enough.
_____________

And yours was a relatively simple, and well constructed post, so simple that I even got your point, exactly. I have to admit, that when someone can misconstrue such a simple statement as you made, I have to wonder at their ability to understand the minutiae of UEFA’s FFP regulations.

View Comment

TBKPosted on11:18 am - May 12, 2016


HIRSUTEPURSUITMAY 11, 2016 at 23:18
Hi HP, interested to note if you have the later correspondences from SFA?

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on11:19 am - May 12, 2016


TBK4

 

Hello Lawman, out of interest, your arguments seem seasonable but appear to ignore some salient points. Can you point to where the prerequisites of Nr. 2 lit. b of Annex VIII was satisfied by *Rangers FC submission?many thanks in advance

TBK, I have not ignored that point at all, far from it.  On the 30th June 2011, Rangers could not satisfy Annex VIII 2 (b) and therefore they had to disclose the “overdue payable”  

If we could satisfy that, then there would have been NO requirement to disclose anything.  I have repeated this on a number of posts above. 

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on11:24 am - May 12, 2016


REIVER

 
Lawman
You do not read what I write fully enough.
I have not said that the cup draws were fixed. What I say is that there has been such a level of distrust built up by the authorities handling of issues over the last decade that people are ready to believe that eight consecutive home ties are suspicious. Likewise my comment regarding referees decisions.
We need to rid the game of these suspicions but the SFA and SPFL are not prepared to cooperate so it is up to us to force them.

To be fair, I was only commenting on that.  People can say what they like, the suspicions will never disappear from the game.  Celtic fans think everyone is against them much to Rangers fans hilarity.  Rangers fans think everyone is against them much to Celtic fans hilarity.  The Press, the SFA, the SPFL, the police, Radio Clyde, Peter Lawwell.

Its amazing and will never change no matter what is proven right or wrong.  The next conspiracy will simply start up.

It truly is Groundhog Day in my opinion.

PS.  For the record, and i know this is true of Celtic fans in my circle of friends, there are some of us who think all the parnaoia is absolute nonsense and the simple fact of the matter is that the governing bodies are useless and flap from pillar to post picking their noses, day by day.  Nothing more and nothing less. 

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on11:27 am - May 12, 2016


ALLYJAMBO_____________

  I have to admit, that when someone can misconstrue such a simple statement as you made, I have to wonder at their ability to understand the minutiae of UEFA’s FFP regulations.

Yeah, lets round on the new boy for having a different outlook on things and discredit him due to 1 comment from 20 posts. 09 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:31 am - May 12, 2016


TBKMAY 12, 2016 at 11:01 
ALLYJAMBOMAY 12, 2016 at 10:04AllyJambo, perhaps the real issue is that these were ‘tax debts’ from 2000-2003. Now who in their right mind would want that to come out to UEFA’s licensing committee……..?
___________
 Now that is something I’ve been thinking about, too, TBK, but didn’t want to expand the over-complicated debate further. But now you’ve raised it…16

If Malaga can get penalised with a ban for what was, possibly, nothing more than a misunderstanding, imagine what UEFA might have had to say about a club that had used an illegal tax avoidance scheme to sign players, who played in European competition, and now couldn’t pay the now overdue tax and penalties. I can imagine that that alone would be incentive enough for a club to withhold details of overdue tax payables, as the risk of opening a gigantic can of worms was far greater than any non-disclosure when they had the incredibly compliant SFA to turn that handy blind eye!

View Comment

TBKPosted on11:31 am - May 12, 2016


NEEPHEIDMAY 12, 2016 at 11:01

Neepheid, I think it was quite the opposite. Olverman was advising it should be changed to overdue (disclosed)
“The 2.8m EBT proposed settlement also requires to be disclosed but is shown as a status of postponed (awaiting scheduling of payments). ” Note the use of “proposed settlement”. 

View Comment

TBKPosted on11:32 am - May 12, 2016


ALLYJAMBOMAY 12, 2016 at 11:31
….. or a gigantic can of worms… 

View Comment

ReiverPosted on11:42 am - May 12, 2016


Lawman

It is often said that a person has lost a debate the minute the use Hitler to prove their point.

On here, and most other serious football forums, “you’re a Celtic supporter” gets substituted for “Hitler”. John Clark received that put down when he raised his issues at the meeting at Hampden. “Are you going to Parkhead tonight” was the response to his concerns.

Sorry to buck the trend though Lawman but I am no Celtic supporter. In fact I believe that they too are responsible for much in our game. The difference is the regulatory bodies show no signs of being complicit in their instance, despite the position of Mr Lawwell in their midst.

I would suggest that you return to your logical arguments where you succeeded in us taking you seriously. Leave the put downs that you feel will succeed in shutting us up it does nothing for your credibility.

View Comment

TBKPosted on11:45 am - May 12, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 11:19

many thanks for the response Lawman, as you are apparently aware Annex VIII notes the following:

“Annex VIII: Notion of ‘overdue payables’ 1 are not settled according to the agreed terms. 2 For the purpose of the licensing system an overdue payable at 31 December is not considered as overdue if the licence applicant is able to prove by the following 31 March that:
a)  it has fully settled; i.e. paid in full, the overdue payables, unless otherwise individually agreed with the creditor; or b)  it has concluded a written agreement with the creditor to extend the deadline of the payment of these payables overdue (note: if the creditor has not requested payment of an overdue amount, this is not considered as an extension of the deadline for payment); or c)  legal claims have been launched and deemed admissible by the competent authority according to national legislation, or proceedings have been opened with the statutory national or international football authorities or relevant arbitration tribunal, with regard to these overdue payables. If the decision- making bodies consider that proceedings may have been opened by the licence applicant with the sole purpose of bringing overdue balances into the disputed category (as a way of creating a situation as described above and buying time), the licensor may request additional evidence in order to be satisfied that it is not an obviously unfounded dispute.”

I’m still not sure what you point is? It is alleged it was disclosed as an “overdue payable”, yet there is no information or correspondence to suggest that it was. 

In December 2011 The SFA write:
“It is noted from the report submitted to the Licensing Committee by Rangers FC’s advisors Grant Thornton UK LLP, dated 30th March 2011, that: “All the recorded payroll taxes at 31 December 2010 have, according to the accounting records of the Club since that date been paid in full by 31 March 2011, with the exception of the continuing discussion between the Club and HM Revenue and Customs in relation to a potential liability of £2.8m associated with contributions between 1999 and 2003 into a discounted option scheme. These amounts have been provided for in full within the interim financial statements.Since the potential liability was under discussion by Rangers FC and HM Revenue & Customs as at 31st March 2011, it could not be considered an overdue payable as defined by Article 50.
We are satisfied that the evidence from all parties complied with Article 50 and, on that basis, a licence was awarded for season 2011-12.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on11:51 am - May 12, 2016


NEEPHEID

 The problem with the UEFA licence debate is that none of us know what the then regime at Ibrox actually reported to the SFA on or around 30 June (if anything). We have a note dated 30 June 2011 from Ken Olverman to Craig Whyte suggesting that the unpaid £2.4m should be reported as “postponed”.

 
Just to be crystal clear, there is only 2 options on the completion of the required documents:

NIL Return – When you have no overdue payables as described in Annex VIII

Overdue – When you have an overdue payable as described in Annex VIII

You are either overdue or not and ticking a box with postponed is NOT an option. 

  The proposition on the Bears Den seemed to be that it didn’t matter how much you owed, just as long as you honestly reported it. I doubt that, but I haven’t yet ploughed through the UEFA regs and the report of the Malaga case. But even if that amazing contention is correct, then we are left with the situation that based on what we know, the status of the £2.4m was not honestly reported to the SFA. And wasn’t dishonest reporting allegedly why Malaga lost their licence?

 
This is incorrect.  The proposition from the Bears Den, well me really, is that the club disclosed the amount overdue on the 30th June and therefore complied with the regulations set out in Article 66 paragraph 4.  In doing so, the situation is then out of the clubs hands.  The SFA then forwarded the disclosure to UEFA and UEFA Investigatory Body review it and decide if they need further information in relation to when it will be paid.

Auldheid has confirmed that UEFA have verbally confirmed that they were fine with the overdue payables disclosed on the 30th June.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on11:55 am - May 12, 2016


Reiver, apologies if you took that personally as it wasnt aimed at you per se though I appreciate i was replying to you.  What i said still stands though that in the grand scheme of things, it will always be the case.  And to extend that to the team you support then, specifically when it comes to referees, you think exactly as the fans of Rangers and Celtic.

Having said that, I came on here not to get bogged down in the usual banality and will stick to the points from now on, assuming the same courtesy is provided in return.

View Comment

TBKPosted on11:56 am - May 12, 2016


just as an aside, and NOT a squirrel!

Has anyone looked at Article 48 of UEFA Club Licensing? I suppose this could also relate to previous licensing years for competition in Europe.

“7. The licence applicant shall submit to the auditor and/or the licensor the necessary documentary evidence showing the amount payable (if any), as at 31 December of the year preceding the season to be licensed, to the competent social/tax authorities in respect of contractual and legal obligations with its employees.”

Are the DoS & EBT side letters not “contractual obligations” HMRC should have been made aware of? 

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on12:00 pm - May 12, 2016


TBK – that refers to 31st March 2011 when as rightly stated, no disclosure was required.
The required disclosure as aknowledged in Ken Olvermars email was for the follow up requirement on 30th June 2011 which is not reference in the statement above.

View Comment

ReiverPosted on12:01 pm - May 12, 2016


Lawman

If you would like to engage seriously how about you give us your position on the following.

Rangers deliberately lied to the authorities about the existence of side letters despite having been directly asked about their existence.

SDM ignored advice from his own people regarding the suitability of Craig Whyte as a purchaser.

Campbell Ogilvie blatantly lied to the LNS inquiry about his knowledge of EBTs. The “independent” enquiry’s conclusion were based on that. Should it be reconvened knowing what we know now?

Are Stewart Regan’s dinner parties at the Hotel du Vin with members of one teams board the sort of practice you would see as acceptable?

Do the fit and proper rules for board members cover ALL clubs or all except one?

Should the financial collapse of a club be ignored and social responsibility be abandoned to help its recovery?

These are just a subset of the issues that have affected ALL clubs over the last few years and your opinions would be of value.

Please don’t go to the fall back position that we have seen so much of in our attempts to put things right. You have already slipped into the insults and the suggestions that, because counter arguments have been raised to your points, that we are now picking on the new boy. We are not “Rangers haters” on this site but we will not accept arguments blindly. You must expect that we join in the debate on the points you raise.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on12:08 pm - May 12, 2016


TBKMay 12, 2016 at 11:31  
NEEPHEIDMAY 12, 2016 at 11:01
Neepheid, I think it was quite the opposite. Olverman was advising it should be changed to overdue (disclosed) “The 2.8m EBT proposed settlement also requires to be disclosed but is shown as a status of postponed (awaiting scheduling of payments). ” Note the use of “proposed settlement”. 
==================
What proposed settlement? The Regulation 80 Determinations were issued following an attempt to negotiate a settlement. When RFC did not accept HMRC’s proposals, that was the end of negotiation, and HMRC went down the formal route. Once those determinations were final and conclusive, there was nothing to negotiate. The “proposed settlement” is simply a fiction.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on12:14 pm - May 12, 2016


Dundee United fined and docked points for breach of player registration regulations.

Should they appeal?

What should be their defence?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:16 pm - May 12, 2016


DUPLESISIIMAY 12, 2016 at 06:12 1 0  Rate This 
HirsuitePursuit and AuldheidWith reference to your posts which follow my post of 23:36 yesterday, to save time, can I suggest I set out my understanding of the position, and you can confirm which parts of it you agree and disagree with? We can then set aside the bits we agree on, and do a proper analysis of the articles and the Malaga case (and other CAS case law) on the parts we do not?(I should say TLM might have a completely different understanding of things, so any errors I make are my own, and not his.)
1. March 2011.
My take is that the WTC was not an overdue payable as at this date, because the determination was not made until 20th May 2011.I think from Auldheid’s post of 12/5/16 at 00:46, that is also his position, and RES 12 proceeds on the basis that the WTC was not overdue on March 2011.
(a) Am I right about that?(b) If so, is it agreed for present purposes that the granting of the licence as at March 2011 was not inappropriate on the basis of the WTC?
2. June 2011My take is that Articles 65 and 66 require the disclosure of overdue payables as at 30th June, but:
(a) Having an overdue payable does not automatically result in the licence being invalidated/revoked etc,but(b) Results in UEFA potentially auditing the club,and(c) In any event results in the additional requirement to demonstrate that there are no overdue payables as at 30th September 2011.
3. What was declared as at June 2011
My take on this is that – bluntly – I don’t know what, if anything, was declared to UEFA by/re RFC as at June 2011
(a) Do either of you?(b) If so are you able to tell us?
Auldheid, on this point, your post of 12/5/16 at 00:22 infers in the 3rd paragraph that it is unlikely that RFC in would have declared there were overdue payables as at June 2011, but at the 5th paragraph says that in September 2011 the SFA confirmed to RFC that UEFA were satisfied with the submission on overdue payments as at 30th June.
I’m having difficulty in reconciling the 2 statements, so I’m particularly interested in your response on this.
=====================================
March 2011
On balance I think that UEFA would probably consider the WTC to overdue payable at this time.

Although the final assessment wasn’t made until spring 2011, the club had been offered a settlement opportunity in November (I think) of 2010 following the AAM decision. Of course, the club chose not to take that opportunity; but neither did it dispute (in terms that UEFA would recognise as valid) the basis of the debt.

The Malaga case shows that UEFA do not apply a prescriptive method in assessing the relevant date for overdue payables with regard to national law:

The question, however, is whether the CL&FFPR define the term “overdue” in respect of the debt at stake here (debt towards tax authorities). Doubts in this respect arise from the wording ofNr. 1 of Annex VIII of the Regulations. According to such provision, “”[p]ayables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms.”” At first glance, thus, it may appear that the definition of “overdue” is only aimed at contractual obligations because only in relation to the latter there can be “agreed terms”. However, if one takes Annex VIII of the Regulations in its entirety, it becomes evident that this provision not only deals with contractual debts, but with all kinds of obligation including statutory debts. Thus, it follows from the Regulations that the term “overdue” is a defined term that must be interpreted autonomously, i.e. without reference to a national law.
9.7 To conclude, therefore, the Panel finds that recourse to a national law in the context of the CL&FFPR is legitimate only (i) if necessary for the application of the CL&FFPR and (ii) where recourse to national laws does not undermine the very purpose of the CL&FFPR. Neither prerequisite is fulfilled in the case at hand and, thus, only the CL&FFPR are applicable to the question whether or not the outstanding payables were overdue”.

I suppose it depends on how UEFA choose to consider the deliberate non-disclosure of side letters – leading to the underpayment of tax.
 

Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms.

If UEFA take the view that “the agreed terms” means tax should have been paid in the normal way in the relevant years (as I think they would), it follows that the tax was overdue payable from those years.

The fact that RFC’s deceit was not discovered until many years later does not remove the fact that the tax should have been paid, in the normal course of events, in the years it was accrued.

June 2011
In the Malaga case, there was a real dispute (and appeal) over the role of national law and therefore about whether or not the debts were indeed overdue payables. This prevented an immediate removal of Malaga’s licence. Not so with Rangers.

As the minimum conditions were not met, it seems obvious that the SFA (as the licensor) would have had no option but to rescind RFC’s licence. Of course, there could have been an appeal and UEFA/CAS could have got involved; but it would be difficult to see on what grounds an appeal could have been made.

If the minimum conditions were not met; but the licensor simply chose not to rescind RFC’s licence, that throws up a whole new set of questions.

Disclosed or Not
Everything I’ve heard from Stuart Regan in relation to Resolution 12 is around the idea that RFC “were in discussion” with HMRC over the WTC. Thus, it appears to be his (and the SFA’s) position that the debt was not considered as overdue payable at the relevant dates.

Of course, there is perhaps a difference between what some people in the SFA “knew” and what was put in the submission form. If this is true those people, “in the know”, would be delighted that UEFA had accepted the submission on RFC’s overdue payables (i.e. that there were none) as at 30th June – because no further submission would be required on 30th September.

Had RFC admitted to overdue payables on 30th June it would have automatically triggered a requirement for a follow up submission on 30th September. It seems highly unlikely that UEFA would recognise the existence of overdue payables; but then not follow up (as per its regulations) on the next reporting date. This makes no sense at all.

It seems much more likely that the SFA have forwarded RFC’s June submission with zero OPs. With no questions raised by UEFA, the “good news” was that there would be no further worries over the 2011/12 licence.

The SFA letter on 1st February 2012 refers to “overdue tax disclosed at 31st December”. 31st December 2011 is the first date (after 30th June 2011) that RFC would have had cause to file a submission that formally discloses the historic debt.

View Comment

TBKPosted on12:17 pm - May 12, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 12:00

Is it odd? that a statement issued by the SFA in December 2011, as you note, “refers to 31st March 2011 when as rightly stated, no disclosure was required.” when the license was issued in June 2011 because:
“Since the potential liability was under discussion by Rangers FC and HM Revenue & Customs as at 31st March 2011, it could not be considered an overdue payable as defined by Article 50.We are satisfied that the evidence from all parties complied with Article 50 and, on that basis, a licence was awarded for season 2011-12. ”

View Comment

TBKPosted on12:30 pm - May 12, 2016


NEEPHEIDMAY 12, 2016 at 12:08

I dont disagree, I was merely pointing out it appears Olverman was asking for the note to be changed to overdue and be disclosed, not have “postponed” on the form.

View Comment

TBKPosted on12:31 pm - May 12, 2016


REIVERMAY 12, 2016 at 12:01
very well said sir! Chapeau!

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on12:31 pm - May 12, 2016


The Rebuttal May 12, 2016 JohnJames

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on12:33 pm - May 12, 2016


Reiver, firstly, i have not insulted anyone and as above, i have apologised if you felt it was aimed at you, but even in the case it was, it was certainly no insult.  As for me reacting to counter arguments on my points being raised, please note the comment made by Easyjambo attacking my credibility was not in any way related to a counter argument against Res 12 and the licence issue which is why I joined the forum.

And on that note, to the rest of your post, as posted elsewhere, the Campbell Ogilivie/LNS issue is a legal minefield and not one i have looked at yet, though i plan to do so in the coming weeks when work quietens down.  I am no expert on it and therefore rather than fluff my way through answers, I think its better that i make myself more familiar with it in the first hand in order that the debate can be of similar standard as this issue.

View Comment

GabbyPosted on12:44 pm - May 12, 2016


The odds of getting 8 consecutive home games drawn is 256/1.  Given Leicster won the EPL at 5000/1 the odds arent totally bad.
However these odds only apply if the balls are the same temperature. 😉 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:49 pm - May 12, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 11:27
ALLYJAMBO_____________
  I have to admit, that when someone can misconstrue such a simple statement as you made, I have to wonder at their ability to understand the minutiae of UEFA’s FFP regulations.Yeah, lets round on the new boy for having a different outlook on things and discredit him due to 1 comment from 20 posts.  
____________

Not ’rounding’ on you at all, Lawman, though you seem to think that as ‘the new boy’ you should be allowed to escape criticism of your criticism of another’s post.

You have written at great length in a manner that suggests you have an ability to understand the UEFA regulations far better than the rest of us, and that everyone else who has spent years chasing the matters surrounding Resolution 12 hasn’t understood, or has misinterpreted, the rules to suit their own agenda.

I don’t have the understanding of the rules to argue the points you make, and have no wish to give myself a headache trying, and so have to accept that some of what you say may be correct. I leave that side of things to others better equipped to anylise your interpretation and comment with their counter arguments. 

What I can do, though, is spot contradictions to your apparent knowledgeable status in your response to other posters, as with Reiver, where you replied with the totally wrong assertion that he was claiming that cup draws are carried out to provide TRFC with home draws. He then corrected you, again in a very simple and straight forward way, but you responded in a way that suggested you had got his original meaning and had responded accordingly. Well, if you had (got his original meaning) your original reply did not suggest this at all and was quite disparaging of him. 

The upshot of this, as far as I’m concerned, is, that if you, either, can’t understand Reiver’s very simple post, or having understood it, can’t make your meaning clear in your response, then it is equally likely that, in something as complex as the Resolution 12 issue, your grasp of the matter, and written interpretation, might be similarly unsound.

I also note that you preferred to engage with an off topic part of Reiver’s original post, ignoring the more serious points he made regarding your own points in the argument you are making.

I also also note that you quickly take  me up on what you see as ’rounding on you’ but fail to respond to my earlier post that questions part of your theory and how the SFA silence might square with it, assuming they have all the documentary evidence that would be required to make your assertions sound.

That said, however, my apologies that I made you feel I was rounding you. You are most welcome here, not least because a counter argument to any debate is undoubtedly beneficial in any forum. 

View Comment

TBKPosted on12:55 pm - May 12, 2016


ALLYJAMBOMAY 12, 2016 at 12:49
all the hallmarks of the well employed “SDT” we have observed for years on RTC and TSFM………..

*Squirrel Deflection Technique 😉

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:57 pm - May 12, 2016


TheLawManMay 12, 2016 at 10:46
Not really wanting to go over the oldco/newco debate
However if one was looking for rules on how to deal with a ‘basket of assets’ (remembering that Jim Traynor was allegedly told he couldn’t buy things like the old Airdireonians badge from the administrators/liquidators) why bother just looking at Leeds and the FA.
The Italians could have been looked upon as best practice.
Art.52, Norme organizzative interne della
Paragraphs 3 of the article:-  a new company from the same city could be admitted to the same division to replace a bankrupted football club, if the company had acquired the bankrupted company as well as willing to take the liabilities to pay sports related debt, as well as taxes.

Once again in terms of openness and transparency the footballing authorities cannot explain their decisions the Rangers fans, let alone anyone else.

We are all left scrambling in the dark for answers and understating of what went on and how the 5 way agreement came into being along with all the inconsistencies re membership etc, etc.

The reality of the situation was that the SPL were trying to place the ‘basket of assets’ straight into the top division with no regard for the non payment of social taxes that arises from liquidation.

When that failed the SFL were threatened but stood firm to the extent they only saw disadvantages befalling their members, many of whom were working hard and honestly to run a tight and sustainable ship.

The footballing authorities wanted the best of both worlds in terms of keeping Rangers alive and therefore everything points to  Rangers/T’Rangers being treated in the manner they were because of who they were.

If they had come out openly and said we are doing it because it is Rangers then I still would have thought it unfair but at least I would have respected their honesty.

As for jibes re Celtic personnel holding positions of power within the footballing authorities, you will have no argument from this Jambo and I have had many thumbs down on here for suggesting there are some at Parkhead who are more than happy that the ‘Old Firm’ are back and sorry that it ever had to go away.

The view of many outside the second city of the empire is that the GFA is there for the benefit of two clubs and the rest of us are just plucky cannon fodder and can’t understand why some, such as Petrie, Milne and the likes, go along with it.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:01 pm - May 12, 2016


TheLawManMay 12, 2016 at 11:51

LawMan, Thistle fan here . Welcome to the Premiership .
Is there a paper trail to support your proposition, or is it wishful thinking And since the overdue social taxes cover more than one season, how many suspect licence applications are we to consider ?

View Comment

TBKPosted on1:05 pm - May 12, 2016


here’s another question, and definitely NOT a squirrel……
Was there an audit carried out by The SFA in 2010?
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PolicyandObjectives-2010/2011/Policy%20Statement201011.pdf

View Comment

Johnbud78Posted on1:30 pm - May 12, 2016


Not posted in quite a while & rarely do however just wanted to say well done to TLM On presenting his case so well & engaging in the debate! Don’t agree he has been disrespectful to anyone but he wasn’t talking to me so just my view on reading through this interesting debate. TBK makes some very valid points on the license issues & although I have spent time going over the relevant articles I have to say that my initial reading was that OP’s disclosed or not meant no entry or at least further investigation? As TLM is so adamant that this is not the case I have will, reluctantly as their tedious, go back & reread them! Although  do agree with TBK last post that the SFA statement regarding this issue is completely at odds with TLM’s assertion! 
Reiver, your post about why we distrust the SFA was superb & sums up everything over the last 4 years for me! 

TLM please continue to post & debate, I am a Celtic fan through & through but really feel this site would benefit from more Rangers fans like yourself engaging on here! 1 last thing, you’ve agreed SFA isn’t fit for purpose, do you accept the rest of TOG report & only disagree with their view on the license issue? Thanks in advance ??
Well done BP & Tris on all the great work so far! Love this site & will start a month sub in the next couple of days! 
HH 

View Comment

Happy ChappyPosted on1:32 pm - May 12, 2016


I read this blog with great interest but without making a contribution, as there are far more qualified voices to do so.
I’d just like to ask a simple question though if I may, followed by an observation
TheLawman, Auldheid & others.
I know Auldheid’s answer to this so really my initial question is directed to The Lawman.
Are you happy with the way our game is run in Scotland?
*Your answer to this will help me understand your motivation in trying to debunk Resolution 12*
Reading all of your opinions on the merits of resolution 12 has been thought provoking but I really can’t help but wonder, what’s the point?
As far as I’m aware Resolution 12 is not designed to harm Rangers but to expose corrupt governance?

I guess I am a bottom line kind of a guy & the bottom line for me, is we should all want to see changes at the top of Scottish Football. Most fans peercieve The SFA, SPFL & SFL before them as being corrupt. While Rangers fans are angry with the SFA for passing Craig Whyte & Charles Green as Fit & Proper.
So is The Lawman right or is Auldheid right on Resolution 12…..WHO CARES!
The ultimate goal must be to expose the very people who we all hope to remove. Surely all fans of all clubs can get behind that?
I suggest we all (incl Rangers fans) embrace Resolution 12 & The Offshore Games call for an Independent Inquiry. As these are the two vehicles that all fans can use collectively to pressure our clubs & media into acting to help force the change we all crave.

View Comment

DuplesisIIPosted on1:37 pm - May 12, 2016


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.

View Comment

Gerry AtrickPosted on1:38 pm - May 12, 2016


Having a defence council for the constantly under siege Ibrox club was the only element missing in my daily visits to SFM.
The Lawman is a very worthy defender of the often indefensible. 
I hope he remains with us & is given the respect he is due, & is earning so creatively.

View Comment

shugPosted on1:39 pm - May 12, 2016


As my old mam used to say trying to justify cheating and lying makes a person as bad as those that did the deed.Oldco cheated and stole from everyone from the inception of their original dos scheme and maybe it went back further than that. As a hibs fan I had to stop reading as all the BS was making me sick.

View Comment

sickofitallPosted on1:39 pm - May 12, 2016


Maybe now is the time to get some funding together and place an advert in one the national newspapers highlighting the bullet points from the report.More than willing to contribute to this

View Comment

nawlitePosted on1:48 pm - May 12, 2016


I think it’s a bit unfair of us to be asking Lawman to comment on anything other than the 2011 Licence/Res12/TOG article. He has stated that he came here purely to debate that issue after his ‘rebuttal’ article published on the Bears’ Den was discussed here. We’ve been crying out for intelligent, reasoned debate with Ibrox fans for ages and now we have it on a particular issue, there is little point trying to raise those other issues which we know will be divisive. We have to accept that Lawman’s views on LNS, same club etc will be different to ours and, perhaps, once we get the less-divisive Licensing issue out the way, we can debate those other issues from our respective viewpoints (hopefully still in a respectful manner).
I’ve already said I don’t have the intimate knowledge of the Licensing issue that Auldheid, BRTH, HP etc have, but I’m trying to follow the debate. The simple thing that I can’t see the logic in is the idea of 30 June not being a decisive date, but 30 September being the important one.
Given that FFP is aimed, in part, at preventing clubs gaining an advantage by avoiding payment of tax, it seems logical that UEFA would want to avoid allowing a club with outstanding taxes into their tournament. It is logical that refusing such a club entry would be done before the competition starts. Lawman and Duplessis suggest that disclosure is enough at 30 June with UEFA allowing correction before 30 September. I’m not sure how to interpret the rules, but it seems to me that the risk to UEFA’s competition is too great if 30 September is indeed the critical date.
Ignore Rangers in this – consider instead Club A which has outstanding taxes at 30 June. UEFA allows them entry to their competition, hoping that Club A will clear the debt by 30 September. At 30 September, Club A has won through a few rounds of the competition and is scheduled to play Club B in October. Also, at 30 September Club A still has the same outstanding taxes or more. UEFA has to remove them from their competition, but what do they do? Does Club B get a bye to the next round? Does Club C, who lost to Club A in the previous round, play Club B instead? Could Club D who lost to Club A in an earlier round, have a claim that after a ‘bad night’ against Club A, they would still have beaten Club C?
Surely, it is too risky for UEFA to allow 30 September to be the critical date. I cannot see that they would allow the potential for their competition to be compromised.
If 30 September is indeed the critical date, I cannot see UEFA’s logic in it.

View Comment

DuplesisIIPosted on2:01 pm - May 12, 2016


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.

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on2:05 pm - May 12, 2016


Looks like Roberto Martinez has been sacked by Everton.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on2:07 pm - May 12, 2016


Thanks Duplessis. I can’t see the logic in that at all, given the possible scenario I outlined.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on2:11 pm - May 12, 2016


I have  been following the  “Overdue Payables”  discussion, and  one thing struck me, what is the definition of an overdue payable?
It seems to be football debt (other clubs), emloyees, or tax debts, what about loans in default?  Is it all of these.?
Had look at, UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations  Edition 2012.  Alas no definition.
Anyone here able to enlighten me?  01

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on2:14 pm - May 12, 2016


TBK

 r question, and definitely NOT a squirrel……Was there an audit carried out by The SFA in 2010?http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PolicyandObjectives-2010/2011/Policy%20Statement201011.pdf

I am unsure of the squirrel reference but the FFP rules were approved in 2010 and my understanding is that the first assessment season was 2011/12 so this was the very first time anything was submitted.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on2:22 pm - May 12, 2016


JOHNBUD78 – Thanks for the kind words.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on2:29 pm - May 12, 2016


HAPPY CHAPPY

 Are you happy with the way our game is run in Scotland?

 
I have already answered this in a previous post HC.  The SFA and SPFL re hopeless in my estimation. 

 As far as I’m aware Resolution 12 is not designed to harm Rangers but to expose corrupt governance?

Im not sure i agree with that to be honest.  I believe if it was Aberdeen, it would have never rasied its head and certainly wouldnt be getting chased as vigorously as it is now.  For the record though, if it was Celtic, i believe there would be similar vigor from our side.
 

 

I guess I am a bottom line kind of a guy & the bottom line for me, is we should all want to see changes at the top of Scottish Football. Most fans peercieve The SFA, SPFL & SFL before them as being corrup 

This is where we differ.  Corrupt?  Not in my opinion.  Completely incompetent.  Absolutely.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on2:40 pm - May 12, 2016


WOODSTEIN

 I have  been following the  “Overdue Payables”  discussion, and  one thing struck me, what is the definition of an overdue payable?It seems to be football debt (other clubs), emloyees, or tax debts, what about loans in default?  Is it all of these.?Had look at, UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations  Edition 2012.  Alas no definition.Anyone here able to enlighten me?

Woodstein, Annex VII covers waht an overdue payable is and Article 49 and 50 cover as you state Football debt, employees and tax.

I think loans in default is in the Break Even section which would appear in Annex X though less certain on this. 

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on2:41 pm - May 12, 2016


Thanks NAWLITE for the words above.

View Comment

TBKPosted on2:47 pm - May 12, 2016


another interesting point to note, is that the letter posted by HP (thank you sir!) from the SFA dated 1st February 2012 (just 2weeks from the Old Club going into Administration)

In that letter it states:
There are no financial statements available, and more importantly, the overdue tax disclosed at 31 December 2011 needs to be settled by 31 March unless subject to a genuine legal dispute or an agreement has been reached with HMRC to defer payment.

The SFA helpfully note “The same will apply to the case currently subject to Tribunal“. (THE BIG TAX CASE)

The SFA also note that *Rangers have submitted  “discussions are ongoing with HMRC on a payment schedule in respect of PAYE/NIC arising up to 31 December 2011” . To which the SFA request “written agreement will need to be in place by 31 March”

So, as we know, the WTC amount was still overdue and *unpaid* (AND MORE IMPORTANTLY TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SFA) AND not party to any Tribunal Proceedings as of 1st February 2012. Despite being accepted as a Tax Liability by *Rangers in April 2011.

This again is at odds with Mr Regans assertion in December 2011 that: ” Since the potential liability was under discussion by Rangers FC and HM Revenue & Customs as at 31st March 2011, it could not be considered an overdue payable as defined by Article 50.
We are satisfied that the evidence from all parties complied with Article 50 and, on that basis, a licence was awarded for season 2011-12.

 
 
 *unpaid* and never has been paid!

View Comment

TBKPosted on2:52 pm - May 12, 2016


TBKMAY 12, 2016 at 12:17THELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 12:00
Is it odd? that a statement issued by the SFA in December 2011, as younote, “refers to 31st March 2011 when as rightly stated, no disclosure was required.” when the license was issued in June 2011 because:“Since the potential liability was under discussion by Rangers FC and HM Revenue & Customs as at 31st March 2011, it could not be considered an overdue payable as defined by Article 50.We are satisfied that the evidence from all parties complied with Article 50 and, on that basis, a licence was awarded for season 2011-12. ”
THELAWMAN I note you haven’t responded to the above, yet responded to later posts.…….Any thoughts?

PS. The SFA concluded its audit in 2010/2011 AS ITS IN THE 2011 ANNUAL REPORT.

View Comment

Happy ChappyPosted on2:55 pm - May 12, 2016


Lawman
You say “Incompotent” I say corrupt, neither are acceptable. I am sure we can agree on this?

Perhaps you’re right in what you say in regards to if this was Aberdeen but we are where we are & no matter the club/s involved we should all be fighting for the same thing here.

So I go back to my original point – Arguing over who’s right & who’s wrong on Resolution 12 is a colossal waste of time. Whether it ultimately proves Rangers were given a licence in 2011 falsely or not makes little difference as we sit here today. For this reason I see your dissection as being counter productive & at the end of the day rather pointless.

In my humble opinion you should be looking at Res 12 as an opportunity for change & not as something to beat your club over the head with. As I say I’m a bottom line guy & I think it would serve everyone best if we all kept our eyes on the prize. Which is to expose an “Incompetent” or corrupt organisation.

As a side note, I sincerely wish the many decent Rangers fans better times & trustworthy custodians. Sadly  on the latter I think this may be some time off.

View Comment

TBKPosted on2:59 pm - May 12, 2016


WOODSTEINMAY 12, 2016 at 14:11

“…..9.3 The term “overdue payables” within the meaning of the CL&FFPR is defined in Annex VIII ofthe Regulations, which reads as follows:“1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid accordingto the agreed terms.2. Payables are not considered as overdue, within the meaning ofthese regulations [i.e. the CL&FFPR] if the licenseapplicant/licensee (i.e. the debtor club) is able to prove by 31March (in respect of Articles 49 and 50) and by 30 June and 30September (in respect of Articles 65 and 66) respectively that:a) it has paid the relevant amount in full; orb) it has concluded an agreement which has been accepted inwriting by the creditor to extend the deadline for payment beyondthe applicable deadline (note: the fact that a creditor may not haverequested payment of an amount does not constitute an extension ofthe deadline); orc) it has brought a legal claim which has been deemed admissibleby the competent authority under national law or has openedproceedings with the national or international football authoritiesor relevant arbitration tribunal contesting liability in relation tothe overdue payables; however, if the decision-making bodies(licensor and/or UEFA Club Financial Control Body) consider thatsuch claim has been brought or such proceedings have beenopened for the sole purpose of avoiding the applicable deadlinesset out in these regulations (i.e. in order to buy time), the relevantamount will still be considered as an overdue payable; ord) it has contested to the competent authority under national law,the national or international football authorities or the relevant arbitration tribunal, a claim which has been brought orproceedings which have been opened against it by a creditor inrespect of overdue payables and is able to demonstrate to thereasonable satisfaction of the relevant decision-making bodies(licensor and/or UEFA Club Financial Control Body) that it hasestablished reasons for contesting the claim or proceedings whichhave been opened; however, if the decision-making bodies(licensor and/or UEFA Club Financial Control Body) consider thereasons for contesting the claim or proceedings which have beenopened as manifestly unfounded the amount will still be consideredas an overdue payable”…….

hope that helps.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on3:18 pm - May 12, 2016


Lawman, I see in the comments following your article on the Bears Den, a poster notices you’re posting here and says “I see you’re posting on TSFM – be interesting to see if they give you a fair hearing! ”
I realise that post was made yesterday soon after you started debating, but I think it would be useful if you now felt able to say that this was for the most part a decent place to engage.
Mods, not sure if you’d agree given we may then attract some more attritional TRFC fans thereby increasing your moderation responsibilities, but if we’re serious about engaging with ALL fans ‘approval’ from Lawman might encourage other reasonable fans to come onboard? 

BP, Tris any thoughts?

The more the merrier nawlite. I remain hopeful 🙂
Tris

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on3:18 pm - May 12, 2016


TBK

 TBKMAY 12, 2016 at 12:17THELAWMANMAY 12, 2016 at 12:00Is it odd? that a statement issued by the SFA in December 2011, as younote, “refers to 31st March 2011 when as rightly stated, no disclosure was required.” when the license was issued in June 2011 because:“Since the potential liability was under discussion by Rangers FC and HM Revenue & Customs as at 31st March 2011, it could not be considered an overdue payable as defined by Article 50.We are satisfied that the evidence from all parties complied with Article 50 and, on that basis, a licence was awarded for season 2011-12. ”THELAWMAN I note you haven’t responded to the above, yet responded to later posts.…….Any thoughts?

TBK, i am looking at this in between a lot of work and there are probably loads i havent responded to as there are lots of posts to go through and without appearing to criticise the site, its not the most friendliest on my browser for whatever reason so im finding it really difficult to navigate.

The answer to the question though is simply that I dont know.  Im not sure how anyone would know.  I can guess that back in 2011 when the issue first raised its head that the original focus was on the issue of the licence which was 31st March, baring in mind that the 30th June is an audit check to the original licence.

The above is only an opinion/guess though and in no way an attempt to provide a definitive response.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on3:23 pm - May 12, 2016


NAWLITE – The proof will be in the pudding.  Its early doors and im sure if it remains cordial and if I manage to either change some opinions or at least soften them to see something they didnt previously then im sure people will make up their own mind.

As for endorsements then its not my thing.  People will be unhappy that im even attempting to post on here and they are entitled to their opinion.  Others will realise its important to voice my stance.  Bottom line though, I am my own person.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:24 pm - May 12, 2016


HIGHLANDERMAY 12, 2016 at 08:07…
There is a clear desire by UEFA to exclude from its competitions those clubs who have outstanding social taxes .
===================
Only managed to skim last couple of days posts, so apologies if referred to already.

I presume the rule about outstanding social taxes has been in force for several / many years ?
Viewed from another angle…
The whole professional football industry – e.g. including transfer dealings / agents fees / managers favouring specific agents / EBT’s etc. – has always been regarded as being a ‘bit shady’, as – perhaps – an unfair generalisation.

There is ever more cash swirling around football: involving TV companies, sponsors, oligarchs, massive players’ salaries, etc.

But there is not a great deal of governmental oversight, [well, as far as I am aware anyway].
This I believe is where the governing bodies – the national FA / UEFA / FIFA – are supposed to add value, by being mostly self-regulating and providing appropriate and adequate oversight of member clubs. [In theory ?]

However, if some of their clubs are frequently dodging paying social taxes, then one would reasonably assume that at some point the relevant national government would have no option but to step in and take a much closer look at football clubs – and maybe impose tough, new external regulations ? 

Enforcing prompt payment of social taxes by clubs might not be motivated by any Corporate Social Responsibility ideals – but it could be more of a self-preserving necessity for the governing bodies – which our own, inept SFA seems to have neglected.  

 

View Comment

Comments are closed.