UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?
On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.
The cases of two clubs::
Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )
and
FC Irtysh (Kazakhstan)
are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because
- The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
- The cases tell us what might have happened to Rangers FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.
FC Sion (Olympique des Alpes SA)
Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.
Full details can be read at
but this is a summary.
In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.
In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme, carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.
The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.
Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:
“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as
“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”
What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.
Sion had declared
“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.
The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.
Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.
Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.
The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.
Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.
The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.
- FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
- To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
- To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
- FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.
This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.
“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”
The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:
Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.
Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.
This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement
“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “ where he also added
“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”
This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.
In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.
The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.
The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.
Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March
It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.
The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)
The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:
- FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
- To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “
The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC, FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then
- Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
- At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
- The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.
Karma eh!
Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors
“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;
Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?
This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.
Ally, You have been in a bad mood for days now. I noticed. Its not like you.
Take care, even if everything you say is true.
Just what we need, another football manager becoming a gardener.
Jimbo:
I would be much happier if Rodgers/Celtic would complain as readily and publicly about important things such as
the slow progress of the investigation into whether they were bilked by RFC(IL) and the SFA out of several millions of pounds,
and the fundamental rottenness at the heart of Scottish Football which allows a club to advertise itself falsely as being another quite different club in order to claim the ‘honours’ and ‘titles’ of that other club, but be excused liability for that other club’s debts!
The sheer rank rotten hypocrisy of the SFA has branded those involved with an indelible stain of shame, that will stick to them until death.
JUSTBECAUSEYOUREPARANOID
MAY 7, 2018 at 12:18
==========================================
Please let’s not start arguing about specific games and specific decisions.
There are more than enough sites to do that.
JIMBOMAY 7, 2018 at 12:04
Ally, You have been in a bad mood for days now. I noticed. Its not like you. Take care, even if everything you say is true.
_________
Grrr! Who says I’m in a bad mood?
‘See you, Jimbo! I’ll give you bad mood!’ Says Allyjambo, pointing a rolled up newspaper, he found on the train because he’s too mean to buy one, at Jimbo.
HOMUNCULUSMAY 7, 2018 at 12:21
JUSTBECAUSEYOUREPARANOIDMAY 7, 2018 at 12:18==========================================
Please let’s not start arguing about specific games and specific decisions.
There are more than enough sites to do that.
____________
Totally agree with you, Homunculus and apologise for entering into such an argument. In my defence I’ll say that I was answering a direct question, and I respect Jimbo and felt he deserved an answer.
I’ll now use what you say as an excuse not to address something I wish hadn’t happened?
ALLYJAMBO
MAY 7, 2018 at 12:39
=========================================
For what it’s worth I think Hearts were absolutely right setting the pitch up in a way that they felt would give them the best chance of a result.
I would expect Celtic to do exactly the same, for every game we play in.
https://twitter.com/ClydeSSB/status/993456691915173889
Dave King says Rangers aim to raise around £6 million from a share issue next month.
However no new investors –
“At this stage there is nothing external other than existing shareholders and existing investors. We are not talking to anyone new or anyone not there already”
Homunculus
£6m?
A drop in the ocean according to this excellent analysis by The Battered Bunnet of the financial gap SG has to bridge.
https://someoldhat.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/steven-gerrard-expect-the-unorthodox/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
All the £6m will do is to meets the funding needs for the club over the next couple of years at most. Gerrard and McAllister won’t come cheap either.
Raman Bhardwaj @STVRaman
King was asked why he hadn’t made offers to shareholders to buy shares – which he is legally obliged to do but failed to meet deadline – said he has asked for extension. Has to open account in UK. ‘’Proof of funds are there’’ King claims
So after all the weekend hype all we get is a Press briefing where King announces a possible Rights Issue next month to raise just £6m & no new external investment.
Beggars the question,who is putting up the £6m?.Will it be £6m in cash or are some loans being converted?.Converted loans mean less debt but no extra cash.
With King committed to up to £11m to satisfy TOP & the CoS I don’t think he’ll personally be involved much so who else?.
With a stated,if somewhat optimistic shortfall of £3.2m forecast for next year added to around £4m payable to Close Finance then £6m,although helpful,doesn’t even cover next seasons losses,and that doesn’t include any extra expenditure incurred due to the Gerrard experiment.
AllyjamboMay 7, 2018 at 12:39
You cut your grass accordingly to suit your needs not the needs of others, short pitch long pitch the choice is yours as long as its compliant then let the games commence. I am sure everyone looked at your reply and thought nothing of it.
Moreloss for 11 mill would have saved the price of hiring a hall and a suit for the day.
From an STV article
https://stv.tv/sport/football/1414365-dave-king-share-issue-to-provide-rangers-with-6m/
EASYJAMBO
MAY 7, 2018 at 13:12
============================
I don’t believe him.
I know that folks can be described as half full and half empty but is seems some of the Ibrox clientele only ever look at one half of a balance sheet.
General annual running costs for Ibrox & Murray Park – £10m to £14m, Last known cost of 1st team squad £10m (probably more now)
Pay back the Close Bros pay day loan – £3m plus interest
Stevie G and McAllister’s wages along with any new signings and their wage bills.
£24m gone in the blink of an eye.
EASYJAMBOMAY 7, 2018 at 13:12
0
0 Rate This
From an STV articlehttps://stv.tv/sport/football/1414365-dave-king-share-issue-to-provide-rangers-with-6m
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
EJ, I think it would be appropriate to point out that any share issue, no matter how pie in the sky, has nothing to do with the TEAM either, but is related to the PLC…. For the team to get hands on it, means racking up additional debt to the PLC.
Reading what was said, this money will come from existing shareholders / creditors and not new people.
It is basically no different to the existing situation. It’s just that with pre-emption being dis-applied they can take the shares straight away, rather than providing loans to be converted later.
https://stv.tv/amp/1414365-dave-king-share-issue-to-provide-rangers-with-6m/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__twitter_impression=true
Asked how much fresh cash will be made available as a result, King said: “We haven’t decided, but at the moment I am thinking about £6m new cash in the balance converted to loans.”
Homunculus May 7, 2018 at 13:17
EASYJAMBO MAY 7, 2018 at 13:12
============================
I don’t believe him.
============================
Oddly enough neither do I.
I’m not clear from what King said whether or not there will be some DFE conversion as part of the share offer.
The STV article says “I am thinking about £6m new cash in the balance converted to loans.” I don’t know if that’s a mistype about £6m new cash in the balance converted to “shares”, rather than loans.
EASYJAMBOMAY 7, 2018 at 13:12
Ah, got it, it’s all someone else’s fault. I’d never have guessed. And as ever, his puffery is published without a hint of irony or incredulity! (unless there’s more that EJ hasn’t copied over, but I doubt there is)
Apparently the £6 million figure is a smokescreen to as selling clubs would inflate prices f they knew the full extent of secured funding . And Stevie G has a Jackie Mac -type clause in his contract wrt player sales . Or so I’m told (mind you, the same person was waxing lyrical about the incoming £50million + just last week).
Allyjambo/Iceman,
Looks like was A) Vague promises of investment, bluster, deflection and blame
So there were no crates of cash flown in from the Golden Triangle then?
How surprising. Not.
£6 million will be raised via a share issue. Some time in the future. After the GASL has made his offer. Whenever that is scheduled to happen. The company is unlisted, has no NOMAD and King can’t even get his own share offer document prepared.
NOAL did not come up with the investment which was promised in the financial accounts. The auditors signed off on a going concern because that promise was made. Close financed the season shortfall.
The Directors are wanting their money back. Allegedly.
The facts are:
There are no sugar daddies with tens of millions at hand to make donations to the sevco benevolent society.
There will be no share issue.
There will be no “investment” in the “club”.
There is very little road left to kick the can down.
mortuo homine ambulat
Some dangerous language employed by King, defining ‘holding company as RIFC’ and the ‘football club’.
Part of the comedy of this old club fantasy is that – uniquely when talking about Rangers – everyone has to slow down when talking about these issues for fear of using the incorrect terminology.
AJ
I agree with Homunculus. Hearts have every right to do what they want with their pitch within the rules. If they saw the preparation of the pitch as a means of squeezing some advantage, I can’t see the problem with that.
I think Rodgers – and I am only guessing here – is still pissed off at Leven for the remarks about Brown, and just likes to have a wee dig. He knows he would do the same at Celtic park if he though that leaving the weeds would help Celtic beat Barca
For what it is worth, my ‘sources’ from last week still insist that King will be off presently, and some serious investment on the way.
King had announced his presser to ‘discuss a few matters’. Curiously, he only volunteered info on one issue. Cup and lip?
Tris
If you were to take what he said at face value then it looks like thy are selling all of the shares agreed at the AGM, in addition to using the pre-emptive rights dis-application.
So a bit over 100m shares or so @25p each brings in a notional figure of say £26m. The people who are owed money get £20m worth of shares in exchange, the rest are cash sales, but to existing shareholders / investors.
That clears the debt and brings in the extra £6m, presumably club 1872 get to buy some, but everyone else has their holding diluted.
That is plausible, but it means that the lenders aren’t getting their money back and someone is coming up with another £6m.
Realistically, it’s just as likely he is kicking the can down the road for another month, whilst people buy season tickets.
https://twitter.com/JBLuvsCeltic/status/993498077892722694?s=20
EasyJambo
See this business about the long grass at Tynecastle?
Can you or John Clark nip into Tynecastle and see if the SFA Compliance Officer’s investigation conclusions into the 2011 UEFA Licence are anywhere on the pitch in the long grass?
If you are on the shy line where Naismith “tackled: Brown, can you check if any of Brown’s tackle is in the same grass? ?
EASYJAMBO
MAY 7, 2018 at 13:05
…
Raman Bhardwaj @STVRamanKing was asked why he hadn’t made offers to shareholders to buy shares – which he is legally obliged to do but failed to meet deadline – said he has asked for extension. Has to open account in UK. ‘’Proof of funds are there’’ King claims
=================================
[My highlighting above.]
I have not followed the TOP to the nth detail, but the above – if correct – raises a simple question, IMO.
Would King be able to open a UK bank account ?
[Assuming it’s a personal account bring referred to ?]
It’s getting increasingly more difficult to open a bank account these days, and banks are legally obligated to check their new customer’s background, [KYC].
This is to – in the main – support Anti Money Laundering legislation.
[For example: I worked for a UK offshore bank in a previous life, and it was such a pain in the @rse to open a joint account with my wife – that I couldn’t. She didn’t have utility bills in her name, nor pay slips as she didn’t work. My own bank / employer couldn’t apply judgement to bypass the KYC regulations – even for a member of staff.]
But as I’m not sure of the detail wrt King’s TOP dealings: can anyone confirm the following ?
Has the TOP created a personal liability for King, and requiring a personal UK bank account / personal source of funding ?
And with a ‘Cold Shoulder’ hanging over him, why would any bank even consider him as a potential customer ?
From the BBC website :
“And King said: “Two weeks ago the Takeover Panel said they were unhappy with the funds being held in South Africa and they would like them to be relocated to the UK to be held in a UK bank account in sterling.
“I said that would require an extension of the offer because I can’t get the money into the UK, open a bank account and get the various KYC (know your customer) things you have to do with the banks to make the deadline, and they didn’t grant the extension. So that is where we are now.”
It sounds like a really nice cosy chat was held between the various parties over tea and cakes. The TOP clearly at fault though. That must be true, eh? I mean DCK said it in front of the SMSM…..
I really hope the TOP folks are monitoring this. DCK is taking the complete p*ss.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
AULDHEID
MAY 7, 2018 at 15:56
…
If you are on the shy line where Naismith “tackled: Brown, can you check if any of Brown’s tackle is in the same grass?
===========================
Bit harsh there Auldheid, Naisy was only going for the ball[s]…
AULDHEIDMAY 7, 2018 at 15:56…”If you are on the shy line where Naismith “tackled: Brown, can you check if any of Brown’s tackle is in the same grass”
Whilst you’s are there can you see if you’s can find things that King and the SFA have kicked into the long grass.
Having last night predicted an announcement of mega investors, I can only say how embarrassed I am
to have got it so wrong, but I did base my assumptions on making sense of the Gerrard appointment and the departure of the two directors. As always, common sense does not belong in the TRFC saga.
Now it would appear that King is anticipating a share issue that (using common sense and the known knowns of RIFC/TRFC’s debt) will raise (nominally if we take the DfE into account) somewhere in excess of £25m. A hefty sum for a business that, at the height of it’s imaginary investor return potential, only managed to raise £22m.
I suspect King will pitch the issue at around 25p per share to give some veneer to the notion that the offer of 20p he has to make is well below the true value. Some will be fooled.
So, the press announcement, announced for today, didn’t tell anyone anything new, but did keep the speculation of good times ahead going over the weekend. I wonder if there were record sales of Season Tickets during the period as a result of that feelgood factor.
Anyway, after the gloom I felt last night, it’s nice to know that the circus isn’t about to leave town anytime soon
Wondering what advice the faces of Match of the Day Gary (reported £2m a year) Lineker and Alan (reported £450k a year) Shearer will be giving to Stevie G on how best to spend tclose to what they make in a couple of seasons for sitting on their erkies spouting shite.
Off topic,
I got my grass cut this morning. £10. If any of the jambos are in house I can supply the phone number.
Why does King have to open a bank account?.
Surely a client account with his Lawyer/Financial Adviser would suffice.
TORREJOHNBHOY
MAY 7, 2018 at 16:33
Why does King have to open a bank account?.Surely a client account with his Lawyer/Financial Adviser would suffice.
================================
If that was acceptable, his lawyer / accountant would still be required to conduct their own KYC / source of funds proof.
Might not be an issue for King, but he does have ‘previous’ and RSA capital restrictions imposed.
I might be barking up the wrong tree here, but if King’s name is supposedly mud in the City, why would anyone [i.e. honest] want to associate with him ?
TORREJOHNBHOY
MAY 7, 2018 at 16:33
===============================
I would argue it would be exactly what the Panel and DoS wanted.
A lawyers’ escrow account. It proves the funds are there, means the money is available if anyone wants to sell, and returns the funds to him if it is not needed.
I did say earlier I didn’t believe him though.
StevieBCMay 7, 2018 at 16:06
EASYJAMBOMAY 7, 2018 at 13:05…Raman Bhardwaj @STVRamanKing was asked why he hadn’t made offers to shareholders to buy shares – which he is legally obliged to do but failed to meet deadline – said he has asked for extension. Has to open account in UK. ‘’Proof of funds are there’’ King claims=================================[My highlighting above.]I have not followed the TOP to the nth detail, but the above – if correct – raises a simple question, IMO.Would King be able to open a UK bank account ?[Assuming it’s a personal account bring referred to ?]It’s getting increasingly more difficult to open a bank account these days, and banks are legally obligated to check their new customer’s background, [KYC].This is to – in the main – support Anti Money Laundering legislation.[For example: I worked for a UK offshore bank in a previous life, and it was such a pain in the @rse to open a joint account with my wife – that I couldn’t. She didn’t have utility bills in her name, nor pay slips as she didn’t work. My own bank / employer couldn’t apply judgement to bypass the KYC regulations – even for a member of staff.]But as I’m not sure of the detail wrt King’s TOP dealings: can anyone confirm the following ?Has the TOP created a personal liability for King, and requiring a personal UK bank account / personal source of funding ?And with a ‘Cold Shoulder’ hanging over him, why would any bank even consider him as a potential customer ?
_____________________
The first thing to consider is that it makes perfect sense for the TOP to insist that the funds be lodged in a UK bank, for they have to be 100% certain that these funds will be immediately available to settle all acceptances of the offer, and not be held up by SA exchange control. And King knows this.
The second thing to consider is that the Money Laundering Regulations were put in place to prevent people, exactly like Dave King, from transferring funds from one jurisdiction to another without stringent examination of their origin and final destination. Having been found guilty of tax fraud, Dave King will be a person of special interest when it comes to potential money laundering scams.
I do not imagine for one moment that any difficulties being put in the way of King’s compliance will be giving him sleepless nights.
STEVIEBC
MAY 7, 2018 at 16:06
But as I’m not sure of the detail wrt King’s TOP dealings: can anyone confirm the following ?
Has the TOP created a personal liability for King, and requiring a personal UK bank account / personal source of funding ?
And with a ‘Cold Shoulder’ hanging over him, why would any bank even consider him as a potential customer ?
———————————————-
Your post raises a couple of points:
1. The finding was against him, personally. Perhaps DCK was unable to make an offer as an individual simply because no UK bank will take him as a customer*, hence the use of the Laird Trust vehicle?
(*The Group Chairman of RIFC & he cannae get a bank account, Whit a riddy that wid be!)
2. Why does the bank account have to be in his or Laird’s name? He has UK advisers & lawyers who deal with clients’ funds via client accounts; surely one of them can provide a suitable arms-length escrow service?
I think today’s statement is a holding exercise. He can’t (or doesn’t want to) take the TOP money out of SA. Also, I still can’t fathom how there can be a rights issue whilst the TOP compliance is outstanding.
Can kicked for a couple of months. TOP/TAB’s fault & not DCK’s. No money for ‘ra warchest’, but Stevie G’ll no need it!
Edit: I see others have made similar posts whilst I was chewing my words. Apologies.
King shouldn’t need a personal UK account. All that would be required would be an escrow or client account held by a lawyer.
Yes, money laundering processes would have to be gone through, but they should take no time at all, as King can easily demonstrate that the funds were received legitimately as a special dividend from Micromega, a company listed on the JSE.
Today confirms my bafflement at the proposed new managerial appointment .One might think ‘what’s the scouser doing?(Tom)’. Is it possible that a cut of season ticket sales above a certain level is a promised bonus allied to… you can back out anytime up ’til June and still keep the bonus? Stevie gets his face noticed and all over the media as the likely next big thing in managerial circles and Dave gets his ticket boost. Todays non event confirms that Stevie G is either an idiot or there is more board upheaval to come and currently I am not sure which is truer.
“Then about two weeks ago, the takeover panel approached me again to say they were unhappy with the funds being in South Africa and would like them relocated to the UK to be held in sterling.“I was happy to do that, but would have to open a bank account in the UK which I agreed to do.“That, though, requires an extension of the period as I can’t get through the various processes in time to meet the deadline.“They didn’t grant the extension.
————-
If they did not grant the extension then his time has ran out has it not?
Re the Tynecastle pitch. It was obviously a marketing arrangement to ensure that Hearts can maximise sales of of “long grass” as opposed to “short grass”. The pitch is being dug up (and sold) after Wednesday night’s game.
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/6668
To late to edit…see you EASYJAMBO
And if the takeover panel did not grant him an extension, what are the takeover panel doing now?
I made the comment to someone last night that if there was no investor on the horizon then this hoopla was just an artifice to make his tardiness on the TOP offer look as if it was a reasonable thing to do. A big fat squirrel.
The DCK proposal also seems to be aimed at dissuading the gullible from taking up his own offer whenever it materialises.
I also wondered if Gerrard had been offered a sweetheart deal/share options? That would be portrayed as potentially mutually beneficial should Gerrard somehow actually manage to create a successful team despite all of the obstacles in his way and his own lack of experience.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
AULDHEIDMAY 7, 2018 at 15:56
17
0 Rate This
EasyJamboSee this business about the long grass at Tynecastle? Can you or John Clark nip into Tynecastle and see if the SFA Compliance Officer’s investigation conclusions into the 2011 UEFA Licence are anywhere on the pitch in the long grass?If you are on the shy line where Naismith “tackled: Brown, can you check if any of Brown’s tackle is in the same grass?
Careful Auldheid or you’ll have Homunculus on your case.
HOMUNCULUSMAY 7, 2018 at 12:21
13
3 Rate This
JUSTBECAUSEYOUREPARANOIDMAY 7, 2018 at 12:18==========================================
Please let’s not start arguing about specific games and specific decisions.
There are more than enough sites to do that.
Apparently it’s fine for Allyjambo to defend Levein’s decision to leave the grass as long as possible, but I’m not allowed to criticise him for instructing his team to go out and kick lumps of of the opposition.
There are too many sensitive souls on this site. What happened to asking the questions others refused to do?
Homunculus
You mention £20 million worth of shares to be exchanged for loans. The £20million is coupon value. My guess is that there will not be very many investors prepared to pay 25p each for them in an open market transaction. If they were worth half of that I would be surprised.
The mendacious one says that it has not been decided over this possible £26 mill ion or is it £6million and is that gross or net of costs. Funnily enough I would happily accept that he has not decided which pauchle to choose out of his ever diminishing stock.
The verbiage about the TOP is not worth dissecting it is clearly a set of words pulled from a bag in a random order with as much intelligibility as a babbling near two year old attempting his first sentences and I have been hearing a lot of the latter recently.
JUSTBECAUSEYOUREPARANOID
MAY 7, 2018 at 17:14
Apparently it’s fine for Allyjambo to defend Levein’s decision to leave the grass as long as possible, but I’m not allowed to criticise him for instructing his team to go out and kick lumps of of the opposition.
There are too many sensitive souls on this site. What happened to asking the questions others refused to do?
==========================================
I also defend Levein’s decision to leave the grass as long as possible. If we didn’t do everything we could within the rules to get an advantage I would be really annoyed with the management team. Should we set up the pitch to suit Barca, as it will make for a better game of football.
How on Earth do you know that Craig Levein gave such an instruction “… to go out and kick lumps of of the opposition.” That’s a pretty serious allegation.
Re sensitive soul’s, I have simply never seen this site as one for discussing individual games, or decisions. It ultimately serves no purpose here. As a Celtic supporter I can ask why was the Hearts goal disallowed, there was no infringement that I could see. Why was the first Celtic goal allowed, it was clearly off side.
Oh and the answer to both is simple. The referee made a mistake and his assistants didn’t correct him.
King has consistently, through delaying tactics, avoided the courts. He has delayed matters in the tax courts. He has continuously delayed the criminal trial. SARS challenges Mr King and Ben Nevis to have their tax appeals enrolled and heard immediately.
King faces a variety of very serious criminal charges. If convicted he could be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of no less than 15 years. This is the reason for his constant filibustering. The 322 charges include fraud, money laundering, racketeering and tax evasion for period 1990 to 2001 (and for non-rendition of tax returns for 2002 – 2005). It is alleged that over an extended period of time King defrauded SARS in relation to his tax affairs.
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/documents/sars-responds-to-dave-king
————
You can kind of a see how he is having problems opening a bank account
BFBPUZZLED
MAY 7, 2018 at 17:20
======================================
There is no market though, as you will be aware they were de-listed by AIM.
I believe that this will effectively be private transactions and the seller / buyer will agree a price to suit both of them. That was surely what the dis-application of pre-emption was about. Sell to whoever you want at whatever price you want. Bearing in mind you will want to take whatever funds club 1872 has.
25p is a nice price to use (along with the shares agreed at the AGM), it fits the narrative of paying off the £20m with £6m left over.
SARS will act decisively in the face of fraud and any other tactics by taxpayers to undermine the tax base.
Today David Cunningham King launched an unprecedented attack on SARS at a media briefing. SARS will not respond to each allegation individually. The content of documents issued to the media today is, in SARS’s view, fabricated, false or a gross distortion of fact to mislead the media, and by extension, the public. Mr King is clearly desperate in the face of numerous investigations that he and his companies are facing.
Mr King has never showed respect for the law and our country. His refusal to pay tax is evidence of that. It must be clear that Mr King is not the victim that he purports to be but he is the person who lied in his tax returns, who failed to pay tax and attempted to dissipate assets while under investigation by SARS.
—————–
a gross distortion of fact to mislead the media,
and by extension, the public.(Or today’s gullibles)
Mr King is clearly desperate
It must be clear that Mr King is not the victim that he purports to be
———–
So much still rings true today.
The way I read today’s events at Ibrox is this.
1. TOP are closing in on DK, and he has nowhere left to run except SA. He cannot and will not deliver on the share offer.
2. The club need six million to stave off insolvency and, to date, no-one is putting it up, hence they hope for someone somewhere to put it up as part of a proposed share issue. This is probably a game of brinkmanship for one of more of the present investors to put up more cash as a loan, possibly through fear of consequences of not putting it up. How this is even possible whilst the TOP issue remains unresolved has not been revealed.
3. The Gerrard gamble has failed. King had hoped signing up Gerrard, as a last spectacular roll of the dice, would leverage in some external investment, hence the maelstrom of external investor squirrels from Liverpool, to Fenway, to China, to David Murray, which have all proven to be baseless. Thus far, no investor has materialised.
The underlying financial shambles remains essentially unchanged. In fact, the Gerrard signing must simply have brought the inevitable insolvency a few steps closer.
I am still expecting a summer insolvency. Today’s nonsense from King only makes it more likely.
Scott Brown needs protection.
From the BBC report:
“And King says he will increase his personal investment in the club.
“I have to do that, I have already done that, in advance of next season,” he said. “Because we continue to run at a deficit, deliberately, we have to satisfy the licensing authorities, the SFA, Uefa, that you have sufficient funds to fund your deficit.
“So we have had to give cash guarantees in advance of next season. So whether we raised money in a rights issue or not, we are in for the money, I am in for the money, I am underpinning the cash. The club is fully funded for next season.””
So, TRFC are running at a deficit ‘deliberately’, so it has nothing to do with not having enough money! And all they have to do is satisfy the SFA and UEFA that they have sufficient funds to satisfy the debt to be FFP compliant (I presume that’s what he’s talking about).
Today’s presser doesn’t seem to have been an announcement of any developments at Ibrox, more of a comfort statement for the bears in respect of the lack of developments in the TOP situation and funding for Gerrard and the club in general. It’s almost as though they had a message to put out, but didn’t want to make it obvious what the message was that they had to get out.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44030906
Homunculus
The picture you paint is a variation on the willing buyer willing seller fiction used in many compensation cases. The buyer here has already paid for the shares and is engaging in a non arms length transaction with the seller (given his current and future connection to that seller)
It reminds me of the prices and values of Chinese watches in a particular example I recently encountered the manufacturer offered the item at £1800 patently ridiculous the item is offered on a river named internet place at vast saving at £999 yet I was able legitimately to buy one for under £5 and sell it for good profit what was the value I have no idea somewhere between £5and £1800 I would guess
Valuatin without a market is a version of necromancy- if the buyer (as he has prepaid) is happy that the coupon value is right for him in this case I am unable to understand that-one more thing to add to the growing list of imponderables.
There might be some strange tax minimising angle but I believe that was where it all went wrong
BFBPUZZLED
MAY 7, 2018 at 17:59
======================================
In this instance surely the buyer is in effect also the seller. Assuming the PLC board are selling shares in the PLC to themselves and their associates who they convinced to put their money in previously.
The real trick will be getting the actual cash, who other than club 1872 will be willing to put more of that in.
Did not think this was a forum for chat about individual games. But OK.
Hearts Celtic game yesterday was poorly reffed. Naismith should have been sent off, and booked and possibly sent off, or at least booked in three separate incidents in the first half. There was nothing wrong with the Hearts disallowed goal. The Hearts goal came from a blatant foul on Brown in the middle of the park. Boyata was offside when Celtic equalised. Celtic were denied a clear penalty with a foul not given on Dembele in the second half. There were probably several other rotten decisions in the game which I failed to spot, in both directions. All of these decisions were honest but rank rotten. This was no different to lots of games played this season.
Hearts can set up their pitch any way they like to gain an advantage. Hearts and Motherwell are overly physical as football sides, and I genuinely reckon that as both sides have generally pretty good quality playing squads, the free kicks, bookings and suspensions each team suffer probably make their tactics counter productive. Neither has performed as well in the league as their talent would suggest they should.
My understanding was that the disapplication of pre-emption rights was to allow DCK and his faction to get round the basic principle of a rights issue that all existing shareholders must be allowed to retain their existing level of equity in the clumpany.
This would allow, for example, an outside party to be offered new shares or a fans organisation to be given the opportunity to buy gazillions at a silly price.
Scottish Football sorely needs a proper assessment of the RIFC/TRFC situation by real financial journalists and the SFA/SPL. There has to be one media outlet willing to speak out? Otherwise they are all as complicit this time as they were when another club operating out of Ibrox was liquidated.
redlichtieMay 7, 2018 at 18:30
My understanding was that the disapplication of pre-emption rights was to allow DCK and his faction to get round the basic principle of a rights issue that all existing shareholders must be allowed to retain their existing level of equity in the clumpany.
This would allow, for example, an outside party to be offered new shares or a fans organisation to be given the opportunity to buy gazillions at a silly price.
Scottish Football sorely needs a proper assessment of the RIFC/TRFC situation by real financial journalists and the SFA/SPL. There has to be one media outlet willing to speak out? Otherwise they are all as complicit this time as they were when another club operating out of Ibrox was liquidated.
————————————————————————————————————————— Well here’s a recognised financial journalist trying to get his head around todays news:
DouglasFraserVerified account @BBCDouglasF 21m21 minutes ago
Replying to @melspence2I’d be happy to explain if I could understand, from the interview, what he’s up to. Converting debt to equity, a new share issue and at the same time offering to buy out shareholders using money he can’t get out of S Africa: does not compute.
I am now looking forward to the first new ibrox signing of the summer.And the resulting SMSM frenzie
Any one of a number of players from Liverpools under 18s squad.
you heard it here first
I believe someone asked Ladbrokes for odds today on Gerrard still being Rangers Manager at the start of the season. Ladbrokes would not take the bet.
Agricultural football.
Naismith – naiskill. COWARD!!!!
https://twitter.com/BBCDouglasF/status/993540775072993280?s=20
Douglas Fraser
@BBCDouglasF
Replying to @melspence2I’d be happy to explain if I could understand, from the interview, what he’s up to. Converting debt to equity, a new share issue and at the same time offering to buy out shareholders using money he can’t get out of S Africa: does not compute.
Maybe a daft question but if found guilty of contempt of court due to failure to comply with the TOP requirements would Dave King be considered suitable to be chairman of a top level Football club in Scotland?
DouglasFraserVerified account @BBCDouglasF 21m21 minutes agoReplying to @melspence2I’d be happy to explain if I could understand, from the interview, what he’s up to. Converting debt to equity, a new share issue and at the same time offering to buy out shareholders using money he can’t get out of S Africa: does not compute.
There is more information in the BBC article, in particular about running the club at a deficit and the UEFA licensing issue
If I could speculate for a moment. I suspect Rangers have been told that they must be able to fund £6m deficit before the end of June in order to comply with UEFA monitoring requirements.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44030906
I know football is full of cliches but there is a new one in town being repeated ad nauseum at present.
“If Steven Gerrard calls you , you will take the call”
Which is probably correct and all very well but when he asks any hi-calibre player will you come to Ibrox and play for relative peanuts we all know what the answer will be.
WOTTPIMAY 7, 2018 at 19:20
“If Steven Gerrard calls you , you will take the call”…Out of respect.Then decline any offer respectfully.
God i sound like Mark Warburton
EASYJAMBOMAY 7, 2018 at 19:15
There is more information in the BBC article, in particular about running the club at a deficit and the UEFA licensing issue
If I could speculate for a moment. I suspect Rangers have been told that they must be able to fund £6m deficit before the end of June in order to comply with UEFA monitoring requirements.
================================
Can they have this new share issue without T.O.P permission? (as long as King is non-compliant).
WOTTPI
MAY 7, 2018 at 19:20
=======================================
That may be true just now, who knows.
However when he takes up his new job I suspect there may be a few “Tell him I’m not in” replies.
EJ, I think you could be right with your thinking here, but surely just giving cash guarantees doesn’t get them off the hook with regard to FFP? I accept it could get them off the hook with the SFA re needing to prove they can get through the season, but FFP requires them to limit their losses which are funded through loans – just saying they have funds doesn’t do that. FFP can only be met if the loans can be converted to equity and the TOP is putting the kybosh on that.
If our interpretation of what he’s saying is right, I don’t think his ‘cash guarantees’ cut it for FFP. Glad to be corrected.
upthehoops May 7, 2018 at 19:40
Can they have this new share issue without T.O.P permission? (as long as King is non-compliant).
===========================
I would love to be able to answer your and Cluster One’s questions on this, but I’m not qualified to say yea or nay. I can only speculate along with you about what will happen next.
I think JC found out from one of his emails to the TOP, that the share issue could proceed, but that King would still be required to make an offer for the existing shares not currently owned by the Concert Party.
So, if I was to speculate, I can see the share issue proceeding (before the end of June), while King drags out compliance with TOP for as long as he can get away with it.
nawlite May 7, 2018 at 19:44
EJ, I think you could be right with your thinking here, but surely just giving cash guarantees doesn’t get them off the hook with regard to FFP? I accept it could get them off the hook with the SFA re needing to prove they can get through the season, but FFP requires them to limit their losses which are funded through loans – just saying they have funds doesn’t do that. FFP can only be met if the loans can be converted to equity and the TOP is putting the kybosh on that. If our interpretation of what he’s saying is right, I don’t think his ‘cash guarantees’ cut it for FFP. Glad to be corrected.
==============================
Auldheid is probably the guy with the best knowledge of the licensing requirements and processes.
Based on what he has said previously, I suspect that Rangers have been placed on a list of clubs being monitored by UEFA’s financial compliance unit. They would be given financial targets to meet possibly as soon as June, to satisfy UEFA’s monitoring periods. Such a target could be to raise £6m to fund a particular deficit, maybe along with a reduction in their loan exposure.
Previous UEFA precedents suggest that they won’t accept personal promises of funding (jam) tomorrow, but will want to see evidence of the cash being raised.