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.
TincksMay 8, 2018 at 13:07
“Essentially Celtic only need to drop six more points than this season – perhaps a good run in Europe combined with a few injuries causes a prioritisation of Europe over the domestic. SG,…..”
Aberdeen dropped 18 points to celtic and sevco and might finish second. Celtics problem was draws at home, next seasons squad will be stronger, BR has had his worst season out of the two and this will drive him to exercise that ghost he knows now the demands of Europe and all competitions domestically. There will not be another this season.
Just read the q and a again and it’s like the Forrest Gump of govan
Re the talk of King raising the share issue again as compliance with UEFA licensing is required. Are the SFA simply going to say to UEFA they are having a share issue and a debt for equity swap so it’s fine? This has been getting spoken about for a couple of years now and has still not happened. Is collusion happening in front of our eyes? I think it’s a fair question to ask.
Interesting Tweets from Richard Wilson:
Welcome back SJ
Billy Boyce … at 19.41
Has Stevie G just been duped by the glib and shameless one?
SHUG MAY 8 19.46
.
Thank you Shug.
Lot of fake tweets doing the rounds someone in the media feeding squirells.
@PmacgioIIabhain: Hearing Close Brothers have called in their loan facility with Sevco with immediate effect. Said to be very unhappy with King’s takeover panel issues. Penny for Mr Gerrard’s thoughts…
Sorry lads Phil just on Twitter saying this isn’t him,please ignore/delete
For some reason, Tony,I’m not seeing that on Phil’s site and I don’t think it is a tweet from Phil.
One of the things that has been troubling me about King’s statement and the lack of scrutiny there of was contained in the following snippet taken from the BBC ‘reportage’.
“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.“
Surely King could do better than that!
Surely even the hand picks at the presser could have interrogated this statement ever so slightly!
Do you mean you don’t have a UK Bank Account?
You mean you are a director of a UK company and you don’t have a UK bank account?
How long/how hard have you been trying to set up said bank account or have you not really bothered with this tiresome procedure?
Is there perhaps s problem with the various KYC (know your customer) procedures?
Are there any legal impediments to you moving ‘your’ money out of SA?
Is it just that you have no real desire or intention to fulfil this obligation?
i know – I am an optimist rather than a realist!
Tony, I see you have corrected your earlier post – sorry I was obviously in mid reply when your correction came in.
It makes you wonder about fake news though. I think Phil is mostly on the money with his reporting of this ever-changing saga. If someone is out there falsely attributing stories to Phil in a bid to discredit him – I wonder what the motivation might be.
Unless I have read the situation wrong Close have plenty of security over their loan to RIFC PLC.
If they are like every other “wonga” type lender then they would be more than happy with the PLC defaulting, it would mean they could call in the security and take the assets.
Oh and “overdraft”, my 4r53.
Guys since the statement from King was made and the truth came out a lot of tweets are been designed like the Charlotte fake epside to deflect from the shambles. there is no collapsing of cards Celtic are the ace of clubs and deserve to be and they will progress and concentrate and focus to move forward and words like topple will do nothing to stop what is coming.
EASYJAMBOMAY 7, 2018 at 21:48
Ian Fraser, who wrote extensively about the demise of HBOS and the travails of RBS, has commented on King’s latest plans.
————————
I think what is interesting is that not just Ian Fraser but his namesake Douglas at the BBC is starting to take an interest now as well, in the business aspect of DK’s long and winding ramble. Douglas Fraser was pretty scathing today about the Scotsman’s supine acceptance of his every word and lack of scrutiny.
Seems to me we are coming to the crunch now in terms of corporate governance, and something is going to have to give between now and the end of June.
If there’s no mandatory offer – and I am convinced King does not intend to part with a penny – King will have to be “resigned” in the same manner he adapted with his last 3 managers. AJ will see to that, but on the basis that King won’t then forgive his element of the RIFC debt (in the same way Park & co allegedly refused a similar invitation last weekend from King), then an admin event is almost inevitable “to protect the, ahem, football club”.
If the TOP were to allow the share issue at 27.5p, whether or not it was fully subscribed, that would allow King subsequently to argue the 20p offer he was required to make was derisory (“an insult to real Rangers men” ??) and he would probably succeed, pace the Easdales & co.
Between that and the football side – European licence et al – an interesting end to an interesting season!
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/05/09/just-another-day-at-crisis-fc/
According to DCK’s Q&A, he has had to provide proof of funds to the SFA/UEFA in an attempt to satisfy FFP and gain a Euro license. (Would it satisfy them that said proof of funds was in South Africa?)…It is obviously not in UK territories because…..Errrrrr He can’t get a bank account.
It is known that proof of funds in South Africa does not satisfy TOP requirements
None the less, there are two proof of funds guarantees required. One for TOP, and one for the SFA.
It is also known that DCK has received a wee windfall, but not enough to satisfy both requirements. It is probably just about enough to cover the £11m TOP demand, and all but wipes it out.
Aside from that wee windfall, he has had his lawyer testify on his behalf he is potless. Ergo, he cannot satisfy both requirements.
Now we hear there are some Euro license difficulties. Has the same guarantee had a double showing?
I wouldn’t put it past Mr Mendacious.
He would be expecting some change from the £11m TOP require. Possibly even enough to satisfy the SFA…………Ach who would ever know eh.
Now if TOP were to contact the SFA, and they were to compare notes so to speak….Would they find the notes to be very similar?…Or perhaps that he does have a UK bank account……Just a thought.
It’s not that I don’t trust him, but they do like a wee switcheroo in Sevconia.
Re the DK address to the nation (or a few hand picked media poodles ).
At least it explains why DK has not been jetting in a lot but mostly arrives under (the wealth off) the radar .
This is a man who really should only speak as a last resort .
Just a couple of thoughts of mine and I could be very wrong
When SG was paraded I was convinced that DK would be packing his overnight bag and canceling his milk and papers .
It now looks like he fancies sticking around a bit longer and is looking to launch a whip round .
It was interesting to note that DK said to James Blair ,we will just go ahead with the rights issue ,is this the James Blair who is the sole director of club 1872.
It seems that Paul Murray turned up to the restaurant where DK and JB were having a meal on Saturday night ,Oh to be a fly on the wall to hear what was said there ,especially when DK admitted that he was surprised with PM resignation and had not spoken to him about it .
With DK refusing external investment (stop laughing at the back ) that just leaves a select few to contribute to the kitty .
He couldn’t be ,,,,,could he
Can someone please confirm if fully audited accounts are required for TOP offer?
This could be the reason King is stalling as it would scupper the Euro spot completely as their friends at the SFA wouldn’t be able to ignore the evidence when in full view.
I would say ‘no’, Gerry, because the Top offer is made by the individual rather than the club. An individual shareholder would not be able to force the company into the expense of fully audited accounts.
SLIMSHADY61
MAY 8, 2018 at 23:44
If the TOP were to allow the share issue at 27.5p, whether or not it was fully subscribed, that would allow King subsequently to argue the 20p offer he was required to make was derisory (“an insult to real Rangers men” ??) and he would probably succeed, pace the Easdales & co. ——————————————————
I don’t see how the TOP can affect the price of any new RIFC share issue. That’s the business of RIFC & their advisors. Each investor would have to consider whether the shares offered were a ‘good’ price or not.
What they (the TOP) appear to have is the legal right to approve or disapprove said share issue whilst DCK is in non-compliance. DCK has been instructed to offer 20p (his purchase price when he exceeded the threshold, I believe) per share for currently-held shares. He will try to show that price of 20p is not good value to minimise the numbers of shares that will be offered to him. Hence the unveiling of Gerrard & the subsequent misfire of the Q&A.
Billy BoyceMay 8, 2018 at 19:41
Attachment
Interesting Tweets from Richard Wilson:
________________
I think these tweets are from Celtic supporting blogger, Richard Wilson (timomouse), in fact they are, who used to post on here, and not the Richard Wilson from the BBC. I’m not doubting what timomouse says, just pointing out that it is not from an SMSM source, which seems to be the impression that someone has elsewhere.
GERRYBHOY67MAY 9, 2018 at 07:00Gerry, Rangers have fully audited accounts to 30th June 2017. This is exactly the same as Celtic have. Neither team audit their interim December results.
I’ve read Richard Wilson’s tweets.
If I was a well paid journalist it is the kind of possible story I’d be enquiring about.
Either to report it as a genuine and unfolding story or if it is wrong to report that Rangers only need to finish in the top three to get into Europe because they have been approved by UEFA.
But so far and counting like Brenda’s clock used to, we have silence.
I think the BBC well-paid journalists are hiding behind their BBC Glasgow mandated policy best encapsulated by the three wise monkeys.
When it comes to their favoured blue club (and its fans)
See, Hear and Speak no evil.
GERRYBHOY67 MAY 9 07.00
Maybe i’m picking you up wrong here (apologies if so), but are you saying Rangers don’t have fully audited accounts?. The next set of audited accounts aren’t due until 31/12/18 at the latest. They are usually released a month or two before this date.
SLIMJIM MAY 9, 2018 at 10:27
SJ – You have been happy to argue in support of your views re the OC/NC discusions. I’d be interested in your views, as a Rangers fan, regarding King, his statements, and the topics covered in the Q&A.
slimjimMay 9, 2018 at 10:27
My reading of Gerrybhoys post was that he was alluding to the most recent figures released by RIFC, and used in the UEFA application, which were not audited and so no up to date audited figures have been released. He is then asking if the TOP offer would lead to audited accounts being published, which might then show the figures given to UEFA in a rather bad light.
As it is, I think it has been established that full, audited accounts will not be required for any offer, though I expect an honest, accurate statement regarding the financial state of the company (RIFC) and it’s subsidiaries will be required.
Allyjambo 9th May 0918
I think these tweets are from Celtic supporting blogger, Richard Wilson (timomouse), in fact they are, who used to post on here, and not the Richard Wilson from the BBC. I’m not doubting what timomouse says, just pointing out that it is not from an SMSM source, which seems to be the impression that someone has elsewhere.
———————————————————–
Thanks for pointing that out – I must pay more attention in future. It seems JJ has fallen for the same ruse. He reproduces my ‘Richard Wilson’ tweets in his blog this morning assuming they originate from the Pacific Quay stenographer.
Slim Jim!
I’m struggling to believe that you are presenting your club as a normal, functional business.
This was exactly the kind of unreality which preceded Rangers’ liquidation. Dave King’s interview was utterly bizarre, in every single way. Granted, I am biased as I actively want the new Rangers to die (which IMO would constitute natural justice for all the tax dodging of the old club) – the supporters of the new club are the same people who cheered for Rangers, and they certainly deserve to suffer more, as this would be commensurate with the unethical lies and cheating which the old club engaged in. That support must be forced to finally acknowledge reality.
Surely even you don’t believe that everything is alright with the club you support. I think they are heading for administration/liquidation very soon indeed.
I need to try and be clear in my head about RIFC plc’s proposed share issue.
As I understand it, this is an issue of new shares to existing shareholders in proportion to their present holdings, not a general public issue.
And perhaps not even to all existing shareholders [ not sure I fully understand whether the point of seeking the ‘disapplication of pre-exemption rights’ means the board can pick and choose those to whom additional shares can be offered?].
So, there wouldn’t be any need for NOMADs and public statements of audited accounts and what-not.
A simple, standard form telling existing shareholders that they have been provisionally allotted x number of shares in proportion to their current holdings. If they want them, pay up. If they want to renounce them, do so, and they can flog their rights to someone else. And if they don’t respond at all, they lose.
So, it’s private and doesn’t involve the TOP.
The TOP’s concern is only that any shareholder who wants to sell his/her present holding should get 20p per share, from King personally.
King might be gambling on being able to set the issue price at, say, 2p or 3p below what they might deem to be the ‘market’ price.Since the latest estimated price shown on the JP Jenkins website is 27.5p, he might think that existing shareholders will decide to hold on to their shares rather than sell,and thus greatly reduce the need for him to shell out.
And King will delay action on making an offer until he knows what discounted price per share he can strike(and be allowed to strike) in the proposed rights issue.
But, since this is the first time the TOP has encountered such a vexatious company director, and the first time they have involved the Courts in a Rule 9 mandatory offer, there does not seem to be any clear guidance on whether any power exists to prevent RIFC plc making a rights issue.
As a philosophical, general observation, the exaggerated regard for the ‘market’ which puts the ‘preservation’ of capital enterprise above putting crooks and swindlers in jail , and the fact that our legislators and ( by definition) our business regulators share that exaggerated regard make the business world a great place for conmen, sharks, spivs and a whole genus of dirty bast..ts whose aim in life is to rip people off. Discuss.
John ClarkMay 9, 2018 at 12:46
But, since this is the first time the TOP has encountered such a vexatious company director, and the first time they have involved the Courts in a Rule 9 mandatory offer, there does not seem to be any clear guidance on whether any power exists to prevent RIFC plc making a rights issue.
_________________________
I think, John, if we accept the ‘Restrictions on Dealings’ posted on twitter as being genuine, then, while the TOP ruling doesn’t stop a rights issue going ahead, it does prevent King and the rest of the concert party from participating in it and taking the opportunity to do their planned/promised debt for equity swap; which will/may in turn make the issue less attractive (ha) and reduce the potential uptake.
This, along with the, as yet unknown, effects of the cold shoulder, might make finding an underwriter difficult, and I’m not sure they could go ahead without one. I wonder, too, how honest any rights issue blurb might be, as I am sure it would be promoted to the supporters as raising a warchest, while, in reality, be used to clear some debt and as working capital.
JOHN CLARK MAY 9, 2018 at 12:46
——————————————
King has already given the strongest indication that the new shares will be priced at 20p.
The issue is being made on a 1 for 1 basis, meaning that 81.5m new shares are available (doubling the total number of shares in the company). He goes on to say that the issue will raise a little over £16m. 81.5m times 20p equals just over £16m.
GERRYBHOY67MAY 9, 2018 at 07:00
13
0 Rate This
Can someone please confirm if fully audited accounts are required for TOP offer?
I don’t know about audited accounts for TOP offer, but I believe that SFA/UEFA require that accounts be submitted for Euro competition.
http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/Interim%20Results%202017%20FINAL.pdf
The link above is to Celtic’s interim results for the 6 months to 31 December 2017. These accounts are unaudited, but do contain an Independent Review Report prepared by BDO, Celtic’s Auditors.
The accounts contain a full P&L and Balance Sheet with accompanying notes. I expect that this would be the minimum requirement to satisfy UEFA’s requirements.
Ranger’s used to file similar interim accounts when they were listed on the AIM exchange, but since Dave King and his co-investors gained control of the Ibrox boardroom, the AIM listing was lost and the only interim accounts presented publicly have been a half-page P&L with no Balance Sheet. I simply can’t believe that that would satisfy SFA/UEFA requirements. If a more detailed set of interim accounts has been prepared for SFA/UEFA review, why would they not be available to the shareholders of RIFC, the Plc, on the Rangers web site?
I put up a notice as below on the blog to advise mischevious going ons whilst Davie was on the road again and appears some like JJ was blinded by the light.
bigboab1916May 8, 2018 at 21:52Lot of fake tweets doing the rounds someone in the media feeding squirells.
Billy BoyceMay 9, 2018 at 11:48
Thanks for pointing that out – I must pay more attention in future. It seems JJ has fallen for the same ruse. He reproduces my ‘Richard Wilson’ tweets in his blog this morning assuming they originate from the Pacific Quay stenographer.
Assuming, as he indicates, that there would be debt for equity swaps, King could not take part at anything greater than 20p. If he were to, the TOP would then have the ability to increase the required offer price of the mandatory offer.
I firmly believe that he wants the others to convert to equity but will claim that he is unable to and so he will be the only one remaning with actual loans to cash in, whilst the others will have shovelled more cold, hard cash into the gaping maw of TRFC, with little prospect of anything to show for it/
So with TRFC unable to gain Europa League entry and therefore access to the riches that bears. Are they now trading whilst technically insolvent. I’m no lawyer but isn’t that illegal?
There are appears to be no further prospect of loans and that wouldn’t help the Europa entry position anyway.
The rights issue won’t happen as those who may have made loans are barred from taking it up and no mug is going to invest £6M into a bust company at any price. Certainly not the fans; one because they’re no mugs and two because they never do.
We are approaching the end of the road and the pace is picking up.
ALLYJAMBOMAY 9, 2018 at 10:49
My reading of Gerrybhoys post was that he was alluding to the most recent figures released by RIFC, and used in the UEFA application, which were not audited and so no up to date audited figures have been released.
____________________________________________________________
Appreciate this was aimed at SJ Ally, but the up to date audited figures have been released. They were released on time in December 2017. There is no further requirement for anything to be audited until 31st December 2018 when the accounts to 30th June 2018 are due.
Both sets of accounts are used in the UEFA application. There must be Fully audited accounts to June 30th 2017 and also Interim accounts (which are not required to be audited) to 31st December 2017.
Rangers and Celtic have followed the exact same pattern for years and neither of them produce audited interims to 31st December.
Regarding rights issues.
In normal companies rights to buy shares in a rights issue are bought and sold. If the true market value is substantially greater than the issue price say 27.5p against 20p a market might develop on the rights for example 3 pence per share. In that case even without taking up the rights to buy shares an investor will get some cash by selling those rights. Often the shares are priced to be attractive to investors to maximise take up given that the rights issue is likely to reduce share price depending on circumstances
The key phrase is “in normal companies” and the RIFC TRFC combine is like something found in the former soviet empire which operated without the kind of discipline open markets provide.
The night the Berlin wall came down there was a circus on DDR TV, a ticker came across the bottom of the screen saying that the wall was to be opened, at the same time one of the performers exclaimed “Oh Scheisse!” Were I any kind of RRM my reaction to Field Marshall King’s meanderings would have been similarly scatological.
bigboab1916May 9, 2018 at 13:47
Attachment
I put up a notice as below on the blog to advise mischevious going ons whilst Davie was on the road again and appears some like JJ was blinded by the light.
bigboab1916May 8, 2018 at 21:52Lot of fake tweets doing the rounds someone in the media feeding squirells.
Billy BoyceMay 9, 2018 at 11:48 Thanks for pointing that out – I must pay more attention in future. It seems JJ has fallen for the same ruse. He reproduces my ‘Richard Wilson’ tweets in his blog this morning assuming they originate from the Pacific Quay stenographer.
_______________________-
I think it’s important to point out that Richard Wilson (timomouse) is a genuine account and not making fake tweets. He is a Celtic supporting blogger (not sure if he continues to blog) and has been around since the saga began. While I am of the opinion that he has no more knowledge about what’s going on in King’s plans/mind than the rest of us, he is putting together his thoughts on what he has read and posting them for anyone to read, without the intention to mislead.
It is true, though, that a number of fake messages have been posted, for whatever reason, and it is wise for us all to take heed of your warning.
If the new shares are to be assigned on a one-to-one basis , and the concert party are locked out , doesn’t that mean that only 66% of 81 million new shares can be issued ? That would be about 55 million at 20p or £11 million ? And DCK would then have to offer to buy 136 million at a cost of roughly £27 million ? Be gentle , I use my fingers to count and have difficulty beyond 12 .
AllyjamboMay 9, 2018 at 14:08think it’s important to point out that Richard Wilson (timomouse) is a genuine account and not making fake tweets.
Yep was merely stating there was a lot tweets doing the rounds re arrests and other nonesense and they were been attached to various accounts and carried around for free. Your spot on to remind if i misworded anything. Cheers mate.
Bogs DolloxMay 9, 2018 at 13:56
So with TRFC unable to gain Europa League entry and therefore access to the riches that bears. Are they now trading whilst technically insolvent. I’m no lawyer but isn’t that illegal? There are appears to be no further prospect of loans and that wouldn’t help the Europa entry position anyway. The rights issue won’t happen as those who may have made loans are barred from taking it up and no mug is going to invest £6M into a bust company at any price. Certainly not the fans; one because they’re no mugs and two because they never do. We are approaching the end of the road and the pace is picking up.
______________________-
Much as they don’t deserve to gain a Europa place, I don’t think we can assume that they won’t get one, not yet, anyway – and not if the SFA can do their bit for them, regardless of who is heading the show. I think that until we have an announcement to the effect, we should start such statements with the word ‘if’
It may well be that they are trading while insolvent, but I doubt the 3bears would allow themselves to be caught in such a position and would have baled out along with Murray and Scott. There is, I would imagine, a fair amount of money in the coffers from ST sales, so they probably aren’t insolvent…yet, but that money’s got a long way to go, and if it’s keeping TRFC alive just now, they’ll be lucky to see the start of next season, certainly without some Euro income (from two or three qualifiers)!
AllyJ,
Timomouse posted this on CQN earlier, interesting article about SPFL TV Rights. Not sure who the author is though.
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/173729563501/infinity-war-does-steven-gerrards-box-office
SHADYSLIM: If the TOP were to allow the share issue at 27.5p, whether or not it was fully subscribed, that would allow King subsequently to argue the 20p offer he was required to make was derisory (“an insult to real Rangers men” ??) and he would probably succeed, pace the Easdales & co.
As was posted by BFBPuzzled that are some obvious issues with this issue.
Firstly this price of 27.5p is based on “recent” trading – this is based on supply and demand and there is in fact little demand because shares in football clubs change has relatively infrequently, making this price artificially high.
Whenever there is a rights issue, there is a flood of new shares onto the market and that most likely lowers the shareprice through a rebalancing of supply and demand. Now if the rights issue was something like raising money to exploit a new oilfield, or guarantee new revenue streams, you might expect the shareprice to hold or rise in the medium term, but even then not initially; as for a rights issue to raise working capital to simply stay afloat, well that would certainly lead to a drop in shareprice, this is why rights issues are usually offered at a discount. The last rights (!) issue was a 21.6% discount to what was an active share price at the time.
“The open offer for up to 19,864,918 new Rangers shares was launched on 29 August 2014, at a price of 20p per Rangers share, a price which involved a discount to the 25.5p per share middle market closing price on 28 August 2014.” Source: RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC & MR DAVID CUNNINGHAM KING RULING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE (Takeover Panel)
If you don’t wish to participate in a rights issue, the share price will still fall and your investment (sic) will have been devalued regardless. Final option, if it is available, is to sell your rights to someone else who wouldn’t usually be eligible or to the underwriter. Problem here is that there will not be an underwriter, as that would usually be an investment bank or similar and no-one in The City will deal with King.
Anyway, my point was: no-one should buy at 27p, as the shareprice will certainly drop and I think, given all those other issues it could well drop below King’s mandatory 20p offer… I can’t help but think this is a squirrel of monty pythoneseque proportion…
Final thought: wasn’t the launch shareprice 70p? What investors are going to dilute their losses even further whilst paying for the privilege?
The licensing and UEFA FFP rules seem to cause a lot of confusion as every year so much misinformation goes around about them. I’m sure for this very reason I read up on them a couple of months ago but having read a lot of chatter about them recently I refreshed my memory. (link below for saddos like me)
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/club-licensing/
For those with less time I’d summarise it as thus:
– I don’t see any area at all in the rules which would block any of the Scottish clubs from receiving a licence.
– I do think Rangers would have to provide some supplementary info in the form of projections for the next year and investment/lending plans or assurances.
– It’s easier in some ways for Scottish clubs to achieve the “break even” rules because the leeway would actually be a huge amount of their turnover, even Rangers appear comfortably within the limits set.
These are complex issues and there do seem to be varying opinions so if (as is often the case) I’m wrong in these interpretations I’d be interested if anyone could point me to what I’ve missed.
My overwhelming feeling whenever I read the FFP rules is that they don’t necessarily achieve what they set out to achieve and can be easily circumvented in various ways.
EASYJAMBO MAY 9 10.45
1 Should be nowhere near the club.
2 Contradictory nonsense as per usual.
3 0% chance of SDM returning was the highlight for me.
ALLYJAMBO MAY 9 10.49
The abridged version of the interim accounts were for the shareholders. A more comprehensive set of accounts were sent to the SFA on 28/03 complete with the auditors review.
REALSHOCKS MAY 9 12.27
What did i say that is untrue?.
jimboMay 9, 2018 at 14:55
AllyJ,Timomouse posted this on CQN earlier, interesting article about SPFL TV Rights. Not sure who the author is though.http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/173729563501/infinity-war-does-steven-gerrards-box-office
___________________-
Interesting, Jimbo.
I, for one, would certainly entertain the idea of either a subscription channel covering the SPFL (coz I’m stuck in England) or pay per view coverage.
As with the writer of the piece, I am at a loss as to why anyone might think Gerrard, even as a player, never mind a manager, would make the SPFL more interesting. He might create interest in TRFC, but that wouldn’t last past his first, unsuccessful, season.
If only 66% of the rights offer shares can be taken up because the concert party are prevented from doing so, then that’s the shares owned by Easdale, Julian Wolhardt, Beaufort Securities etc. and Club 1872. Of that lot only Club 1872 would consider buying more shares I would think. This would cost c£1.75M if they have that money, which would be the total cash raised.
Would such a low take up and an evident lack of interest from all other eligible shareholders allow King to then say the mandatory offer for the TOP would be a waste of time as no-one is interested in shares at 20p?
SLIMJIMMAY 9, 2018 at 15:56
EASYJAMBO MAY The abridged version of the interim accounts were for the shareholders. A more comprehensive set of accounts were sent to the SFA on 28/03 complete with the auditors review.
Would these be the accounts sent to UEFA to support the Europa licence application. If so, if I was the guy checking that all the conditions were met I would be extremely concerned to read that the company is only a going concern because Euro revenue has been figured into that status.
slimjimMay 9, 2018 at 15:56
3 0% chance of SDM returning was the highlight for me.
—————–
It did occur to me that since everything else he says is open to question, SDM is probably mounting his white charger as I type.
From a more innocent time (Guardian “Knowledge” yesterday ).
CAUGHT BY THE FUZZ
“Is it true that Albania once barred Celtic defender Danny McGrain from entering the country because he had a beard?” wonders Andrew Oxley.
Very nearly, is the answer, as communist Albania frowned at all facial hair under its leader Enver Hoxha, who had made beards illegal before Celtic were due to travel for their 1979 European Cup first-round first leg tie against Partizan Tirana. The owner of a fine-follicled face-hugger himself, McGrain was understandably anxious before the trip, recalling that “there was a lot in the press about beards being banned there.”
As it transpired, no one told McGrain to shave it off and he went on to play in a 1-0 defeat. “I would have done it if they had asked, but I had actually seen a few people with them,” added the Celtic legend, whose side subsequently ran out 4-1 winners in the return game. “It was a little intimidating too because when we went outside there were only men in the streets and no women to be seen, but there was no bother at all.”
The Fiver: the Guardian’s take on the world of football
Read moreRight-back McGrain went on to win 62 caps for Scotland, before moving into management at Arbroath, where his fancy chin-warmer came to prominence again. “I’ll never forget how the fans took to Danny McGrain and his beard,” recalled then-chairman John Christison of the so-called ‘Danny McGrain’s Bearded Army’. “It was crazy – but brilliant. They would all wear their own beards and we had 700 T-shirts printed up. They sold out in three days.”
So to sum up DCK (mibbes aye mibbes no ans so on), please TOP Let me not make the offer because I have engineered all kinds of smoke and mirrors to make some folk believe rather are worth more than 20p and they are desperate to pay that higher figure. What is the TOP version of “Aye right”
slimjimMay 9, 2018 at 15:56
EASYJAMBO MAY 9 10.45 1 Should be nowhere near the club. 2 Contradictory nonsense as per usual. 3 0% chance of SDM returning was the highlight for me. ALLYJAMBO MAY 9 10.49 The abridged version of the interim accounts were for the shareholders. A more comprehensive set of accounts were sent to the SFA on 28/03 complete with the auditors review. REALSHOCKS MAY 9 12.27 What did i say that is untrue?.
_____________________-
A rather contemptible way to treat the shareholders, don’t you think? And still unaudited accounts supplied to the SFA/UEFA, and though audited accounts might not be required under normal circumstances, don’t you think UEFA might prefer them in the case of a club with a going concern statement in their previous, audited, accounts? Do you know if the more comprehensive accounts carried an auditors’ statement of any kind?
Can you think of a good, and honest, reason why, having produced more comprehensive interim accounts, they would deny the shareholders sight of them?
Do you think the recent words of Dave King, on the need for a share issue, his dismissive words on the TOP ruling, etc at Monday’s presser, will have soothed any concerns that UEFA might have held over TRFC’s License Application? Or do you think his words might have made them sit up and take notice of a club that seems to think it’s OK to have a deliberate policy of ever increasing debt?
I am not saying that UEFA do have concerns, or that TRFC do not comply, but there must be serious doubts over a club with such a history of ever increasing debt, and current difficulties (all be it involving only one director/chairman of the holding company, but he did supply the comfort that allowed the auditors to sign off the last full accounts) involving a UK regulatory body and the Court of Session.
You can, of course, take comfort from the fact that UEFA do not consider TRFC to be the same Ibrox club that went bust in 2012, for they would almost certainly be taking a dimmer view of the financial situation there than whatever view they take now!
The rather above should read “they are” maybe the verbal stylings of the mendacious one are infectious-be afraid
The Football Life is Richard’s own blog, Jimbo, so I would imagine he wrote it himself. Some really good articles on it.
On the subject of audited accounts being submitted etc. It is surely standard practice to submit the most recent audited accounts (to June) to comply with the ‘audited’ part of the requirement and the more recent 6 monthly set to give an indication of the current situation.
If UEFA or the SFA were to insist on a further audit then Rangers (or whichever team it was requested of) would surely be able to insist that that body paid the audit fees. Additionally, it takes five or six months to do the audited accounts to June. It would be neither fair nor practicable to insist on a second set.
IMO
Bogs DolloxMay 9, 2018 at 16:14
‘….if I was the guy checking that all the conditions were met I would be extremely concerned to read that the company is only a going concern because Euro revenue has been figured into that status.’
________________
Yes, and I would be too!
From the published accounts
“…Further funding amounting to £3.2 million is forecast during the 2018/19 season. However,the final amount is dependent on future football performance and European football participation amongst other factors..”
Since those accounts were published, of course, the Close ‘Wonga-type’ loan facility was set up, and sundry folk no doubt pledged to come with the readies when necessary up to July 2019.
But I understand that the FPP people do not accept mere promises of loans as counting for any kind of actual readies! They need assurances that a club will be able to stay solvent, whether or not it has an opportunity of participating on sporting merit in European football.
ALLYJAMBO MAY 9 16.44
The interim’s did contain the Auditors review as required by the SFA.
Rangers,like many clubs provide shareholders with an abridged version of the interim’s.There is no requirement to do any different
The fully audited accounts that Rangers released last year were imo the most transparent set of accounts i have seen.
No idea what, if anything UEFA made of DK’s recent comments.
NICKMAY 9, 2018 at 15:38
These are complex issues and there do seem to be varying opinions so if (as is often the case) I’m wrong in these interpretations I’d be interested if anyone could point me to what I’ve missed.
—————
I am sure i have read before a couple of scottish clubs in recent years have been knocked back. just can’t remember which club’s and don’t want to speculate.
I believe i read such and such a club applied but were refused. Happy to be corrected.
ALLYJAMBOMAY 9, 2018 at 16:44
To treat the shareholders, don’t you think? And still unaudited accounts supplied to the SFA/UEFA, and though audited accounts might not be required under normal circumstances, don’t you think UEFA might prefer them in the case of a club with a going concern statement in their previous, audited, accounts? Do you know if the more comprehensive accounts carried an auditors’ statement of any kind?
_____________________________________________Ally, as per previous post which may not have been seen due to moderation, Audited Accounts to 30th June 2017 are a requirement so these have been submitted to the SFA. In addition, interim accounts to 31st December were also submitted meeting the standard required by the SFA.
The accounts submitted by Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and Motherwell are all the same. 1 set of audited full accounts and 1 set of interim results.
It is only Rangers and Celtic who put anything on their website and they do so without any legal requirement. I dont think you would find the interims for any other club but would be happy to see them if anyone can find them
slimjimMay 9, 2018 at 17:46
ALLYJAMBO MAY 9 16.44 The interim’s did contain the Auditors review as required by the SFA. Rangers,like many clubs provide shareholders with an abridged version of the interim’s.There is no requirement to do any different The fully audited accounts that Rangers released last year were imo the most transparent set of accounts i have seen. No idea what, if anything UEFA made of DK’s recent comments.
_______________
I never suggested there was a requirement to provide any more than an abridged version, but why not, when more comprehensive accounts have been produced, issue them to the shareholders, especially if there is an auditor’s statement, surely they have as much right to see that statement as do the SFA and UEFA? I wonder if anyone else on here, Easyjambo, perhaps, is aware that more comprehensive accounts, including an auditors’ review, were provided to the SFA and UEFA, as I’m not able to recall such information being reported.
Dave King, in his ramblings, made reference to the SFA/UEFA looking for assurances from TRFC, do you think he was lying (more than possible, he just doesn’t seem capable of not lying), or do you think it indicates that those suggesting TRFC’s UEFA compliance is not a given?
Jim, without descending into a puerile contest of calling one another liars, or making old assertions about people talking “nonsense”, I will repeat my implication that you are acting as though the club you support is a normal, functional company. That is your belief, no?
If it is, I would advise you to consider the TOP and CoS pronouncements before reading Mr King’s interview again. This is a highly distressed business with a chairman (?) who is a pariah making wild and inflammatory comments about legal and financial institutions. King also mentioned that all he did was “try to save the club”. Everyone on here is stating the obvious, but in the spirit of 2012 you prefer to ignore the unpalatable truth. Your club looks like it is heading for administration.
Allyjambo
May 9, 2018 at 18:35
Dave King, in his ramblings, made reference to the SFA/UEFA looking for assurances from TRFC, do you think he was lying (more than possible, he just doesn’t seem capable of not lying)
An absolute cracker of a comment
I read the following over on Jamboskickback, and though it’s probably been posted here previously, I thought that, in light of King’s rather ill advised put down of the TOP, it would be a good idea to see what some legal eagle from Harvard, USA, had to say on King’s snoot cocking
There is nothing in it that gives foresight to what steps the panel might take against King, but it does show how lawyers, and the law, view people who seem to think the law, and it’s representatives, is something to be ridiculed! I wonder what they’d make of Kings latest belittling of the TOP!
On reading this, I couldn’t but think back to what I read of King’s dealings with, and lack of respect for, both SARS and the SA High Court.
What this Harvard legal eagle had to say:
“Co-operation v (Testing) Panel Powers: In the majority of cases, the Panel relies on its codified exhortation to parties to co-operate with the Panel to facilitate the fulfilment of its regulatory duties. The Panel does however in addition, have statutory powers to require documents and information to be produced within a reasonable period. Parties are however advised to be open and co-operative in their dealings with the Panel—this will most likely result in a speedier resolution of the case and will be a relevant factor for consideration in connection with disciplinary rulings of the Panel. The Code states that the Panel expects any persons dealing with it do so in an open and co-operative way, to provide prompt co-operation and assistance and to take reasonable care not to provide incorrect, incomplete or misleading information (section 9(a) of the Introduction to the Code). Both the Hearings Committee and the Appeal Board noted the lack of co-operation by King in his dealings with the Executive in the course of their investigation. Whilst it took some time for the Executive formal ruling to be delivered, the Hearings Committee noted that “self-induced delay should not afford a basis for avoiding an obligation to make a Rule 9 offer” and were not inclined to impose a different remedy in this case for breach of Rule 9.”
ALLYJAMBO MAY 9 18.35
Do you believe that every club applying for a UEFA licence should provide the same level of detail to their shareholders?
I believe that the assurances being sought were regarding the future funding plans.
REALSHOCKS MAY 9 18.41
As you say there is no point in going round in circles so all i will say is that when DK gained control he said the club would be funded by “soft loans” from certain shareholders, this is what has happened
Any timescale for Admin?
SLIMJIMMAY 9, 2018 at 19:51
when DK gained control he said the club would be funded by “soft loans” from certain shareholders, this is what has happened
—————
And has continued to happen,but for how long can it continue?
And don’t say until king hears the champions league music
CO MAY 9 20.49
Does the Europa League have it’s own music?.
SLIMJIMMAY 9, 2018 at 20:57
1
4 Rate This
CO MAY 9 20.49Does the Europa League have it’s own music?.
—————
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgHMsoSkptw
Sorry to say but the Europa League music is instantly forgettable and uninspiring.
The CL music on the other hand is based on Handel’s Zadok the Priest. Magnificent music.
Jim, football clubs normally last decades, sometimes even over a century, so there’s no rush to administration. To dismiss the possibility that your club is heading for insolvency – whether this year or further down the line – seems rather cavalier of you, considering what happened to Rangers.
REALSHOCKS MAY 9 21.49
I thought that from the tone of your previous post that administration was imminent.
SLIMJIM
MAY 9, 2018 at 22:06
I think it is imminent: next summer maybe. Unless someone comes in to rationalise expenditure and seriously cut back, you’d have to think Dave King’s model of perpetually losing money will end in insolvency.
TheLawMan2May 9, 2018 at 17:56
ALLYJAMBOMAY 9, 2018 at 16:44
To treat the shareholders, don’t you think? And still unaudited accounts supplied to the SFA/UEFA, and though audited accounts might not be required under normal circumstances, don’t you think UEFA might prefer them in the case of a club with a going concern statement in their previous, audited, accounts? Do you know if the more comprehensive accounts carried an auditors’ statement of any kind? _____________________________________________Ally, as per previous post which may not have been seen due to moderation, Audited Accounts to 30th June 2017 are a requirement so these have been submitted to the SFA. In addition, interim accounts to 31st December were also submitted meeting the standard required by the SFA.
The accounts submitted by Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and Motherwell are all the same. 1 set of audited full accounts and 1 set of interim results.
It is only Rangers and Celtic who put anything on their website and they do so without any legal requirement. I dont think you would find the interims for any other club but would be happy to see them if anyone can find them
_________________
At no time have I suggested that TRFC have not submitted audited accounts for the financial year to 30th June 2017, and I don’t understand how you could possibly think that is what I am saying. As far as I am aware, though, they did supply the SFA and UEFA with unaudited interim accounts, which were quite poor, to say the least, and until SlimJim assured me that these interims were more comprehensive than those published and contained an auditors’ review, I was unaware of that as I haven’t read it anywhere else, and wondered if anyone other than SJ knew about it. Are you able to confirm that TRFC supplied more comprehensive accounts than those that were published, and that they included an auditors’ review?
As you no doubt know, King alluded to TRFC having to give assurances over funding to gain their Euro license, indicating there might be a problem, so it is possible that UEFA are not happy with the accounts provided. I also mentioned that it is possible that UEFA are not happy with a club that continues to make large (in comparison to turnover) losses, and so are monitoring the situation, and this may have been compounded by King’s rather injudicious words (if they are paying attention) over TRFC looking to run at a loss as some kind of master strategy. It’s almost as if he’s holding two fingers up to UEFA’s FFP, or, at least, the spirit of it, as well as the TOP ruling!
Of the clubs you mention submitting unaudited interim accounts, only TRFC had annual accounts that carried a going concern statement. Don’t you think that might be cause for UEFA to look for something more than they require from the other clubs?
slimjimMay 9, 2018 at 19:51
ALLYJAMBO MAY 9 18.35 Do you believe that every club applying for a UEFA licence should provide the same level of detail to their shareholders? I believe that the assurances being sought were regarding the future funding plans. REALSHOCKS MAY 9 18.41 As you say there is no point in going round in circles so all i will say is that when DK gained control he said the club would be funded by “soft loans” from certain shareholders, this is what has happened Any timescale for Admin?
___________________
I believe that shareholders should be kept fully abreast of what’s happening at any company in which they hold shares, and should have access to an auditors’ review, particularly when the interim results follow annual accounts that carried a going concern statement. Are you able to tell us how you know that more comprehensive accounts were submitted, and that an auditors’ review was included? I have no knowledge of it, and no one else has confirmed it either.
As to assurances regarding future funding plans, why do you think UEFA are seeking these? Do you think they would be seeking such assurances if TRFC’s application was fully compliant?
BFBPUZZLEDMAY 9, 2018 at 16:36
So to sum up DCK (mibbes aye mibbes no ans so on), please TOP Let me not make the offer because I have engineered all kinds of smoke and mirrors to make some folk believe rather are worth more than 20p and they are desperate to pay that higher figure. What is the TOP version of “Aye right”
———————————————————————————————————-
How about, “Buy them for 20p, and make a killing selling them on at a profit then”. …..I’m sure Mr share price manipulator would jump at the chance if he thought there was a profit to be had, with the club in it’s current state. ……Hey, he could always “gift” any profits to the club.
DCK is talking utter bollocks. Quelle surprise !