Three Shakes … and a Twist


New blog up? …

Comment on Three Shakes … and a Twist by TheBlackKnight TBK.

new blog up?

TheBlackKnight TBK Also Commented

Three Shakes … and a Twist
do we have any intrepid Court ‘reporters’ in Edinburgh tomorrow? JC?

Three Shakes … and a Twist
torrejohnbhoy, I meant it in the kindest sense. The*Rangers (2012) are not a European side. They do not qualify for a Euro license status as they are a newclub and do not have 3 years audited accounts.

Otherwise, had the report said:

“Sky Sports News ‏@SkySportsNews

Find out which new lower league side is considering a bid to buy Wayne Rooney. Coming up on #SSN”


Three Shakes … and a Twist
torrejohnbhoy: Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 12:46

the key giveaway is …… “European” 😉

Recent Comments by TheBlackKnight TBK

The Offline Game
Comments from Regan are unsurprising:

“My understanding is that the requisitioners have accepted that they have no issues with the granting of the licence to Rangers in 2011 . ”

Have they? Perhaps someone would like to update me and other shareholders on that. I personally, disagree entirely with that statement!

“Our position on that is that we have complied with UEFA requirements in the period immediately following March 2011 and clearly if there is still an issue with the requisitioners then that’s for them to take up with UEFA.

Why? This is a Scottish Football issue. Why is it left to a group of shareholders, of one particular Club, to pursue something we know is amiss? Is it telling that even your communiques still refer to “immediately following March 2011” and not June / July / August or September 2011? Again a group of shareholders are left to ask questions and no doubt will continue to receive threats for doing so.

“We’ve said if they do that then we’ll fully cooperate and comply with any requests for information from UEFA and we’ve provided details at UEFA for the requisitioners to make contact.

Hope it isn’t Campbell (I may have forgotten or perhaps I don’t know how to use the shredder m’lord) Ogilvie!!

“So we believe that the matter has been communicated to those involved and they will deal with it as they see fit.”

………………….Said Pontius Pilot! 

The Offline Game
It is noteworthy that my Club, like the SFA, still remain silent on this issue, whilst individuals are hounded and threatened by an ignorant mob of bigots that align themselves with the *Rangers support.

The Offline Game
sad that it has had to come to having to put a newspaper ad in a foreign newspaper, as the powers that be and journalists in Scotland refuse to bring to the attention of the wider public……..


The premier business paper where Uefa is headquartered in Nyon, Tribune de Geneve, today ran an advert, paid for by public subscription, questioning the governance of Scottish football.
The advert asked readers to reference The Offshore Game report: Doing SFA for Fair Play and explained some of the issues governance, accountability and oversight in Scottish football.  It reads:
“A report by The Offshore Game (TOG), an arm of The Tax Justice Network (TJN), has highlighted examples of poor SFA governance in respect of:
• A Commission established in 2012 by the Scottish Premier League to investigate the use of employee benefit trusts to reduce the tax paid to HMRC by an SFA member club where the SFA provided key testimony which is now being questioned.
• The processing of a UEFA Licence in 2011 by The SFA when Court Officers called to collect overdue tax from a member club between Champions League and Europa League qualifying games. Proving there were no overdue and unpaid taxes was a condition of granting then retaining a licence to compete in both UEFA competitions. The tax concerned was never paid!
• The SFA have neither commented on the TJN report nor attempted to address the issues it raises. The TJN has called for an independent review of the SFA to make it more accountable.
• A group of shareholders of Celtic PLC acting in terms of Resolution 12 of the Celtic PLC AGM of 2013, have been pressing the SFA for over two years for a satisfactory explanation of their administration of the UEFA licensing process in 2011. In the absence of any meaningful reply they have now taken up the case with the UEFA Club Financial Control Body.
The TOG report highlights the financial cost over a decade to the British Taxpayer in Millions of pounds. The cost to Scottish football in terms of the loss of trust placed in the SFA to govern the Scottish game with integrity is incalculable.
Football fans everywhere are invited to read this important report into the game in Scotland.”
Our game suffers from a perceived lack of oversight, accountability and governance; fundamental requirements in modern sport which have been painfully lacking across world football for decades.  Uefa now have an opportunity to measure where Scottish football, and their own processes, are on these metrics.

The Offline Game
So…………. an Audit on the SFA was carried out sometime between 2009 and 2011 according to Investigatory Chamber (CFCB) COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2011–13From June 2011 the UEFA Investigatory Chamber reviewed 237 clubs that played in 2011-2013 UEFA Club Competitions. 
*Rangers were required to submit, via the SFA, corresponding payable declarations & specific information.

“3.3 Club monitoring process: monitoring of overdue payables during the season
Although the future role of the Investigatory Chamber will focus heavily on the assessment of the “break-even requirement”, the new task of the Investigatory Chamber as from June 2011 has been to monitor the enhanced overdue payables requirement which represents the first step in the introduction of the financial fair play rules. As a result, overdue payables towards football clubs, employees and/or social/tax authorities were monitored throughout the UEFA club competitions.”

It certainly appears that *Rangers were never audited or monitored during this period. This, despite indicators that they failed the criteria. (indicator 4. Art 62 and indicator 4. Art 66. 6.)

It makes the SFAs comments in December 2011 even more bizarre that they refer to the 31 March 2011 Deadline and not the June or September 2011 Deadline(s). I remind you the SFA stated:

“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.”

MCRs letter and the financial forecast contained within shows projected payment from UEFA & SPL of £5.34m on June 17th and a negative balance at August 2011. It notes a working capital requirement in excess of its current facilities. “The Club’s only means of funding this requirement is on the basis that it receives sufficient financial support from its shareholders.”

“The Investigatory Chamber reminds licensors that the assessment of going concern is of paramount importance before granting a licence to a club. In fact, the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations clearly state that if risk indicators are breached, “the licensor must assess the club’s ability to continue as a going concern until at least the end of the licence season (i.e. the licence must be refused if, based on the financial information that the licensor has assessed, in the licensor’s judgement, the licence applicant may not be able to continue as a going concern until at least the end of the licence season)”.
“If the club faces severe cash flow issues (i.e. the projected cash flow position at the end of the licence season is negative) which are not mitigated with appropriate financial commitments, the licence must be refused. “

It make very interesting reading and hopes to put to bed certain ‘claims of certainty’ by some. Surely this alone warrants an investigation into the SFA and its procedures (and personnel) around this time?

it’s all in here………

Click to access 2042558_DOWNLOAD.pdf

The Offline Game

3.3.3 Monitoring of overdue payables – guidance from the Investigatory Chamber
Further to the review of overdue payables declarations by the clubs since June 2011, the Investigatory Chamber would remind clubs that:

At its own discretion and/or based on complaints received, the Investigatory Chamber can ask a compliance audit to be performed on the declarations submitted by the clubs.

Should the information submitted by a club be considered as incorrect or misleading, due to overdue amounts being incorrectly disclosed as “deferred” or “in dispute” and/ or being concealed by a club, the case will be automatically referred to the Adjudicatory Chamber for appropriate measures to be taken.

In fact, five out of eleven compliance audits performed during the 2011/12 and 2012/13 seasons were referred to the competent body due to incorrect or misleading information. The Investigatory Chamber expects full transparency as well as true and accurate declarations from clubs.

Therefore, the submission of false or inaccurate information by a club is considered by the Investigatory Chamber as unacceptable behaviour for which harsh sanctions will systematically be imposed.

The Investigatory Chamber noticed in several cases that the interpretation of a “deferred” overdue payable was inconsistent.

In particular, it wishes to emphasise that for an overdue payable to be considered as validly “deferred” in accordance with Annex VIII of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, the debtor must propose a deferral agreement which must be accepted in writing by the creditor before the applicable deadline (i.e. 30 June or 30 September for the monitoring process)

About the author