To Comply or not to Comply ?

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

  1. The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
  2. 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

http://tiny.cc/y6sxsy

 

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.

  1. 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.
  2. FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
  3. 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).
  4. To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
  5. 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:

 

  1.  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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

  1. Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
  2. At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
  3. 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.

This entry was posted in Blogs, Featured by Auldheid. Bookmark the permalink.
Auldheid

About Auldheid

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

7,185 thoughts on “To Comply or not to Comply ?


  1. Ronnie’s last season   won 26 draw 8 lost 4 goals for 93 against 31 difference 62 points 86 

    Brendan this season  won 24 draw 10 lost 4 goals for 73 against 25 difference 48 points 82 

    League wise very similar.


  2. So, it seems the SFA did nothing wrong and charges are being brought against Rangers (essential to maintain the same club narrative). 

    Paging Auldheid


  3. I know that the devil will be in the detail of the compliance officer’s report but I forgot to say in my post above a massive congratulations to Auldheid and everybody connected to Res 12.

    Creating any crack in the SFA/Rangers dam is no small feat. 


  4. Surely they can’t charge a new club with old club business


  5. Resolution 12 was never about Rangers, it was about SFA Governance. The SFA are attempting to throw the dead club under a bus and ‘move on’.
    Ogivie, Bryson, Longmuir, Peat, Broadfoot, Smith(s) Murray et al need dragged to court for fraud.


  6. SHUG
    MAY 15, 2018 at 16:12
    Ibrox noise again are these guys for real?
    ===============================

    Hadn’t seen that site before.
    And yes, they must be smoking something over there;

    “…Steven Gerrard has tabled a £4M bid for Fenerbahce’s Martin Skrtel…”

    As far as I can tell, Gerrard is not as yet an employee of TRFC.
    So, how can he table a bid on behalf of TRFC?
    …unless…he must be using his own money, as a personal purchase for TRFC?
    And King has told Gerrard to get a receipt – to be reimbursed when he starts?

    Level42 is not even trying these days.  14


  7. An interesting step from the SFA today in bringing two charges against Rangers, my initial takes are:

    – The SFA are confirming that they view Rangers as the same club as the one founded in 1872 (they may well have confirmed this as their view before but I don’t remember them doing so).
    – The 2nd charge actually carries the potential of serious consequences including termination of licence or a large fine.
    – UEFA have a 5 year limit on sanctions so the outcome does not look likely to be a ban from European competition. 
    I would guess that sanctions against the club itself will be toward the less dramatic end of the scale as they will rightly or wrongly use the mitigation of “it was all Craig Whyte who you’ve already slated as a villain and he’s long gone now”.  I’d suggest there is a strong chance Alaistair Johnston will not receive F&P status now though and I’m not sure he can have many arguments, given King had fiduciary responsibility also he could well face sanctions too.


  8. BILLYDUG

    MAY 15, 2018 at 15:46

    The Scottish FA compliance officer has served the club with a notice of complaint.

    https://stv.tv/amp/1415110-rangers-charged-by-sfa-over-2011-12-uefa-licence-issue/?__twitter_impression=true
    —————————————

    https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/

    I’m sorry, but the charges put to TRFC don’t seem to be answerable by them.

    The charges should have been against named individuals who allegedly committed rule breaches in 2010/11 whilst acting for RFC2012(IL), some of whom are still employed in the Scottish/European game & sit on governance committees & boards. 

    Looks like a classic SFA fudge to me…


  9. The RIFC/TRFC response:

    ‘Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:45

    by Rangers Football Club

    THE Rangers Football Club (“the Club”) was informed today by the Scottish FA  (“SFA”) that, after an eight-and-a-half month investigation, the SFA will not be proceeding with a Notice of Complaint in respect of the submission made by the Club to the SFA at the end of March 2011 with regard to the issue of the Club’s UEFA licence for the following Season.

    The Club is unsurprised that it has now finally been accepted by the SFA that the accusations made against the Club were groundless. The Club questions whether the time, cost and expense of this investigation was justified and was a good use of the SFA’s limited resources.

    Disappointingly, and presumably rather than accept that the investigation was a waste of all parties’ time and resources, the Club has been served with a new revised Notice of Complaint relating to the monitoring period subsequent to the grant of the UEFA licence. This new Notice of Complaint neglects to properly capture the provisions of prior agreements made between the Club and the SFA.

    The Club will fiercely resist this reconstructed Notice of Complaint. Unfortunately, monies that should be available to Scottish youth and grassroots football will be diverted into another rehearsal of seven-year-old debates on the rights and wrongs of events that the SFA should have prevented at a time when doing so would have served a useful purpose.

    It seems that Scottish Football is, once again, being directed by individuals intent on harming the Scottish game, Rangers Football Club and its supporters by pursuing a course that has no sensible purpose or reasonable prospect of success.’

    https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/notice-of-complaint/

    It’s interesting that the SFA has altered the parameters of the CO’s remit (did they advise anyone except the CO & RIFC/TRFC?) & issued a Notice of Complaint based on the revision.

    Was the original investigation too hot to handle? Did it throw up something unexpected? I don’t suppose we’ll ever know.


  10. One line sticks out in the Rangers statement.

    ” This new Notice of Complaint neglects to properly capture the provisions of prior agreements made between the Club and the SFA.

    That is a reference to the discredited 5-way agreement that gave assurances that no retrospective disciplinary action would be taken for certain matters.


  11. So in summary, the Compliance Officer has concluded from his investigation that Rangers did NOT have an overdue payable as at 31st March 2011 in strict accordance with UEFA regulations Annex Viii and therefore the licence was granted correctly by the SFA.

    The overdue payable became so on the 19th June 2011 and was then subject to the monitoring period rules and this is what will be investigated.

    The 30th June monitoring period does not affect participation in European Football that season so Rangers participation in Europe that season was fine.  If there was a breach at 30th June 2011, then any sanctions would apply to season 2012-13 by which time, Rangers licence had been refused in April 2012, not withstanding the change of legal structure at the Club.


  12. May I first say thank you to all the people responsible for making the so called governing body of our game realise that Scottish football supporters have a voice and that we will be as vigilant as we can be from today regards the running of our game .

    No more will the peepil in Hampden have a free hand to corrupt the game we love .

    That said I believe that it has not taken 8 months to come to where they are today ,I think they got there quite a while ago ,IMO it has taken them longer trying to figure out a way to appear to be doing the right thing whilst hoping it all goes away .

    IMO everything has been agreed with all parties as to the final outcome as they knew the res 12 guys were not going to let it lie .

    I predict sevco 2012 will take a fine for the dead club (as it bolsters the BIG LIE ) 
    AJ will be refused fit and proper status (the fact that his status is still pending should be investigated
    in itself) and will leave with a handshake .
    DK will be off before the fine is handed down .
    We will never see the receipt to prove a fine was ever paid .

    My scepticism aside ,the PEOPLE running our game from now on better get things sorted and get some sort of honest governance in place or there will be more resolutions coming down the pike .   


  13. TheLawMan2 May 15, 2018 at 17:49
    So in summary, the Compliance Officer has concluded from his investigation that Rangers did NOT have an overdue payable as at 31st March 2011 in strict accordance with UEFA regulations Annex Viii and therefore the licence was granted correctly by the SFA.
    ==================================
    I know that Rangers has effectively implied the above, but I see no reference to it in what the SFA has said, at least that I can find.

    https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/

    Edit: I had every confidence in the SFA, that they would not seek to charge themselves in connection with this matter. And so it has been demonstrated today.


  14. THELAWMAN2MAY 15, 2018 at 17:49…. ‘not withstanding the change of legal structure at the Club.’
    The club was sent for liquidation, Steerpike, you have really jumped the shark now.


  15. NickMay 15, 2018 at 16:37
    An interesting step from the SFA today in bringing two charges against Rangers, my initial takes are:– The SFA are confirming that they view Rangers as the same club as the one founded in 1872 (they may well have confirmed this as their view before but I don’t remember them doing so).– The 2nd charge actually carries the potential of serious consequences including termination of licence or a large fine.– UEFA have a 5 year limit on sanctions so the outcome does not look likely to be a ban from European competition. I would guess that sanctions against the club itself will be toward the less dramatic end of the scale as they will rightly or wrongly use the mitigation of “it was all Craig Whyte who you’ve already slated as a villain and he’s long gone now”. I’d suggest there is a strong chance Alaistair Johnston will not receive F&P status now though and I’m not sure he can have many arguments, given King had fiduciary responsibility also he could well face sanctions too.
    ___________________

    With acknowledgement to PMGB, Article 10 of UEFA’s Disciplinary Regulations is interesting and paragraph 2, might make the idea of a statute of limitations saving TRFC from UEFA action a bit redundant. It will, I suppose, depend on how UEFA view deliberately misrepresenting tax owed, and whether or not they consider it to fall under ‘corruption’. Considering they might feel the misrepresentation allowed them entry into competitions, and so matches, they should not have entered, match-fixing might also enter their thoughts. Paragraph 3 might also come into play if it is held that the SFA acted in a way that meant investigation was deliberately delayed (depending on what is meant by ‘procedural acts’)

    Article 10 Statute of limitations

    1 There is a statute of limitations on prosecution, which is time-barred after: a. one year for offences committed on the field of play or in its immediate vicinity; b. ten years for doping offences; c. five years for all other offences.

    2 Match-fixing, bribery and corruption are not subject to a statute of limitations.

    3 The statute of limitations set out above is interrupted by all procedural acts, starting afresh with each interruption.  


  16. AllyJambo

    I suppose, depend on how UEFA view deliberately misrepresenting tax owed, and whether or not they consider it to fall under ‘corruption’. Considering they might feel the misrepresentation allowed them entry into competitions, and so matches, they should not have entered, 

    _______________________________________________________________-

    Even IF the club is found guilty of misrepresentation at 30th June, no matches have been played as a result of it.  


  17. Sanctions for the second rule breach range from a £1,000 fine up to “£5,000,000 and/or ejection from the Scottish Cup and/or exclusion from the Scottish Cup and/or any player registration restrictions and/or suspension and/or termination of membership and/or any sanction or disposal not expressly provided above”.
    A response from Rangers is due by May 22, with a principal hearing date set for June 26.
    ————-
    Oh Dear.


  18. JINGSO.JIMSIE
    MAY 15, 2018 at 17:05


    by Rangers Football Club

    …The Club questions whether the time, cost and expense of this investigation was justified and was a good use of the SFA’s limited resources.

    The Club will fiercely resist…

    …monies that should be available to Scottish youth and grassroots football will be diverted…

    …Scottish Football is, once again…intent on harming the Scottish game, Rangers Football Club and its supporters…

    https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/notice-of-complaint/
    ======================================

    A truly classic TRFC statement;

    – ridiculing an investigation into their own behaviour
    [i.e. the dodgiest club EVER]

    – dramatic and inappropriate language

    – thinly veiled threat

    – the victim card!

    ‘Absolutely’ standard p!sh to rile the bears, and deflect from the truth.


  19. Lawman at 18.10. There can’t be many straws left in your box now. The European spot should have gone to another club.


  20. EASYJAMBOMAY 15, 2018 at 17:24
    One line sticks out in the Rangers statement.
        ” This new Notice of Complaint neglects to properly capture the provisions of prior agreements made between the Club and the SFA.”
        ——————————————————————————————————-
       Here is another line EJ.
          “another rehearsal of seven-year-old debates on the rights and wrongs of events that the SFA should have prevented at a time when doing so would have served a useful purpose.
    —————————————————————————————————
        The only way the SFA could have prevented anything……. was if they knew ! ….I wonder what Jabba is trying to say, in his usual fat sluggish way?
       


  21. If the charges brought by the SFA are confirmation by the ruling body that TRFC and Rangers2012(IL) are being recognised as the same entity then does this leave that entity open to a damages claim from,initially, Celtic shareholders for the deliberate and corrupt diversion of ECL revenues?


  22. Auldheid@Auldheid Replying to @STVSport
    I’d check the rules on the time bar. Fraudulent statements made at granting and monitoring stages. UEFA don’t have time bar on corruption.


  23. EX LUDOMAY 15, 2018 at 18:39
    Lawman at 18.10. There can’t be many straws left in your box now. The European spot should have gone to another club.

    _________________________________________________________

    I appreciate this is how many feel about it and i actually understand the reason but the Compliance Officer has found the licence was correctly applied for on 31st March 2011 and that there was no overdue payable.  This means according to him and the rules, Rangers played correctly in the competition.

    GUNNERBMAY 15, 2018 at 18:42
    If the charges brought by the SFA are confirmation by the ruling body that TRFC and Rangers2012(IL) are being recognised as the same entity then does this leave that entity open to a damages claim from,initially, Celtic shareholders for the deliberate and corrupt diversion of ECL revenues?

    __________________________________________________________________

    Gunner, there was no diversion.  The decision today says the licence was granted correctly.


  24. A response from Rangers is due by May 22, with a principal hearing date set for June 26.
    ————–
    And if they get a fine but refuse to pay? is this another overdue payable?


  25. CLUSTER ONEMAY 15, 2018 at 18:46
    And if they get a fine but refuse to pay? is this another overdue payable?

    _____________________________________________________

    There cant be a fine.  The 5 way agreement assures that nothing can come of it.


  26. THELAWMAN2MAY 15, 2018 at 18:51
    There cant be a fine.  The 5 way agreement assures that nothing can come of it.
    ———–
    Does the 5 way not say that the newco will pay all oldco football debts?
    they paid the LNS fine did they not.


  27. THELAWMAN2MAY 15, 2018 at 18:51
    ——–
    And because the ibrox club has a secret 5 way agreement with the SFA it can’t be punished?
    Why then does every club not get their own 5 way agreement?


  28. Barcabhoy@Barcabhoy1 Replying to @AMcKellar89
    Rangers statement is shameful , if not in the least surprising They want the 5 way agreement to absolve them of any conduct prior to 2012 This was large scale cheating and fraud and they want a free pass , despite King and Johnston being involved


  29. StevieBCMay 15, 2018 at 18:28
    ‘..A truly classic TRFC statement’
    __________________________
    Beaten by a classic, impartial BBC Scotland ‘balanced ‘ agenda!

    In the shape of a short account, sympathetically worded to minimise the rottenness lying at its heart, of the charges brought against a club in a matter that might have involved conspiracy to commit a crime, followed immediately by a serious discussion on the hugely more important and damaging to Scottish football incident – of an overjoyed manager behaving like a school-kid, celebrating a draw!

    Just what are those people like?
    What kind of ill-motivated broadcasters are they who cannot discriminate between really, really serious rottenness at the heart of football, and an ordinary everyday disciplinary offence by an individual? (They may possibly be able to discriminate in other spheres)

    As for the those who were in a position at the critical time to call in the police and get some people charged with conspiracy to defraud and with abuse of office and possibly false accounting-what are we to make of them?

    They are  more guilty than the likes of fly-by-night chancers whom they protected and the chancers they still protect and on whose account they made whores of themelves and continue to protect while like the whited sepulchres they are, they trot  out words such as ‘integrity’.

    May their individual personal places and fortunes in football take a seriously  bad turn, and may they reap the just punishment and shame due for their personal dishonour and their betrayal of Truth.


  30. Cluster OneMay 15, 2018 at 18:57
    THELAWMAN2MAY 15, 2018 at 18:51——–And because the ibrox club has a secret 5 way agreement with the SFA it can’t be punished? Why then does every club not get their own 5 way agreement?
    ________________________

    Wouldn’t it be nice, if one day, someone explained exactly why there was a need for a 5 Way Agreement in the first place, before they start using it as some sort of defence for historical wrongdoings? This ‘we can’t be punished because we have an agreement’ reasoning is so disgusting, in itself, that those that use it are showing just how disgusting their club was, and how devoid of an honest defence of their club they continue to be.


  31. Has the structure of Scottish Football governance not changed since the 5 way Agreement was made? Is the 5 still valid. More than one of the 5 way groups do not exist anymore!


  32. THELAWMAN2MAY 15, 2018 at 18:51
    There cant be a fine.  The 5 way agreement assures that nothing can come of it.
    ———————
    And prior to the 5 way agreement did this same club not agree to ….
    Read.
    BILLYDUGMAY 15, 2018 at 16:32
    BILLYDUGMAY 15, 2018 at 16:33


  33. ALLYJAMBOMAY 15, 2018 at 19:09
    Wouldn’t it be nice, if one day, someone explained exactly why there was a need for a 5 Way Agreement in the first place, before they start using it as some sort of defence for historical wrongdoings? This ‘we can’t be punished because we have an agreement’ reasoning is so disgusting, in itself, that those that use it are showing just how disgusting their club was, and how devoid of an honest defence of their club they continue to be.
    —————
    An honest person would hold their hands up.And offer an apology. You won’t get that from the mindset down ibrox way i’m affraid


  34. Allyjambo

    This ‘we can’t be punished because we have an agreement’ reasoning is so disgusting
    ______________________________________________________________________

    Ally, this isnt an attempt to reason as i know that would be futile.  Its just stating what the situation appears to be, assuming of course the document in the public eye is the right one.What happened in 2012 made me physically sick.  There has to be a line though.  Either it doesnt matter anymore as i support a different club, or it does matter and im happy to admit its a stain on our clubs history.


  35. THELAWMAN2MAY 15, 2018 at 19:26

    .. im ‘happy’ to admit its a stain on our clubs history.
    ———————————————————-
    regretfully accept might be more appropriate.
    With your regard to no liability attaching itself to the current iteration…we shall see.


  36. I thought it was the SFA that was in the wrong, passing the buck to Rangers. It’s a despicable and spiritless act! Personally, I think this has nothing to do with the new Rangers. Maybe the SFA are chancing their arm?


  37. MERCDOCMAY 15, 2018 at 19:40
    0
    0 Rate This
    I thought it was the SFA that was in the wrong, passing the buck to Rangers. It’s a despicable and spiritless act! Personally, I think this has nothing to do with the new Rangers. Maybe the SFA are chancing their arm?
    ———–
    a principal hearing date set for June 26.
    That shall be time to open the popcorn


  38.    The charges are against Rangers FC….”The member”…..Therefore the charges are against the holder of said membership…..Would that be correct?


  39. Lawman 
    It is not about YOUR CLUBS it’s about the peepil running our game 


  40. CLUSTER ONEMAY 15, 2018 at 19:45
    You got it in one 


  41. MERCDOCMAY 15, 2018 at 19:40
    1
    0 Rate This
    I thought it was the SFA that was in the wrong, passing the buck to Rangers. It’s a despicable and spiritless act! Personally, I think this has nothing to do with the new Rangers. Maybe the SFA are chancing their arm?
    got it in one 

    Sorry delete reply above to CO 
    THANKS 


  42. I think these charges will destroy that club. There are going to be so many ramifications of this that it will make your head spin. I think the hysterical response from Ibrox tells you all you need to know.
    People are perhaps overlooking what an enormous step this is towards an eventual ethical resolution to all of this; not perhaps the deepest fact (an open and final statement from the SFA stating that Rangers no longer exist), but that corruption is completely proven and titles will be stripped.
    These particular charges are really just the start of the process. 


  43. James Doleman
    @jamesdoleman
    McGill, HMRC produced “letters” in March which made appeal over small tax case impossible #WhyteTrial10:16 am · 9 May 2017


  44. James Doleman
    @jamesdoleman
    McGill says the case had only recently went from a potential liability and had not “crystallised” until recently Dated 17 March 20112:43 pm · 9 May 2017


  45. THELAWMAN2
    MAY 15, 2018 at 17:49
    Similar to the statement from the club: it seems as though you are just repeating a mantra that nothing is happening, whereas the truth is that the club is being charged. 


  46. James Doleman
    @jamesdoleman
    Findlay notes meeting with counsel was 24 Feb 2011, “Why on earth did it take so long” Horne says he is not entirely sure 1/22:51 pm · 25 May 2017
    James Doleman
    @jamesdoleman
    Findlay: took from Nov 2010 to 24 Feb 2011 to meet a QC to be told “Pay up or reach a settlement?”2:52 pm · 25 May 2017


  47. Radio Clyde News
    @RadioClydeNews
    Charles Green tells Clyde News: “We bought those titles and we’re keeping them”. More in the sportsdesk at 8.308:06 am · 11 Sep 2012


  48. REALSHOCKSMAY 15, 2018 at 20:16

    All im stating is that for a long long while i have stated that the tax owed was not an overdue payable until June 19th.  I have been told all along i was wrong and when the CO started to look at the case again, my statements from way back were retweeted.Today, Rangers were told that the licence was issued correctly and that they had no overdue payables as at 31st March.  This means the right club played in Europe that season purely based on UEFA regulation and rules which essentially has been the main butt of the argument and debate.

    If Whyte has lied about an overdue payable on a document where it was 100% ok to have an overdue payable then i probably wouldnt be surprised given that mans form.  To be clear though, if he didnt lie, then bill or no bill, Rangers would have played in Europe in 2011/12.  

    Any fall out from that process would be actioned in season 2012/13


  49. THELAWMAN 2MAY 15, 2018 at 19:26
    Either it doesnt matter anymore as i support a different club, or it does matter and im happy to admit its a stain on our clubs history

    The reality is that you support an entirely new club, formed in 2012, which is merely being treated as if it was a profoundly dead club to suit a nefarious agenda agreed to by five unscrupulous and commercially motivated parties by way of the Five Way Agreement.

    Until the details of that stitch-up become freely available, as they surely will in time, your new club will wrongly be held responsible for the actions of the deceased club as per the terms the new club’s founder, Charles Green, signed up to.

    For what it’s worth, I predict that what we are witnessing by virtue of today’s official announcement and subsequent derisory response is merely the prelude to the cursory slap on the wrist that will virtually exonerate any form of Rangers from any degree of guilt and meaningful punishment, as was always the case. Such is the way of Scottish football.     


  50. If nothing else, today’s development, perhaps  goes some way to explaining why 2 directors recently walked away.


  51. Barcabhoy
    @Barcabhoy1·1m
    Rangers Directors admitted under oath in a court of Law that they lied to get a Uefa licence Everything else is just noise Lied, cheated , charged


  52. The Club will fiercely resist this reconstructed Notice of Complaint. Unfortunately, monies that should be available to Scottish youth and grassroots football will be diverted into another rehearsal of seven-year-old debates on the rights and wrongs of events that the SFA should have prevented at a time when doing so would have served a useful purpose. 
     “Useful purpose” in that sentence means saved Rangers. “Should have prevented” means not conspired. This is gonna be beautiful.


  53. MISTERLIGHTBULBJOKEMAY 15, 2018 at 20:58
    0
    0 Rate This
    The Club will fiercely resist this reconstructed Notice of Complaint.
    —————-
    We want the full complaint from the start and no half measures.
    I think that is what they are saying.14


  54. HIGHLANDERMAY 15, 2018 at 20:49
    ‘For what it’s worth, I predict that what we are witnessing by virtue of today’s official announcement and subsequent derisory response is merely the prelude to the cursory slap on the wrist that will virtually exonerate any form of Rangers from any degree of guilt and meaningful punishment, as was always the case. Such is the way of Scottish football.’

    I was going to say something similar but I think you just said the thoughts of the majority on here.

    But you say it with so much more finesse. Brilliant!


  55. Auldheid
    @Auldheid
    Replying to @STVSportI’d check the rules on the time bar. Fraudulent statements made at granting and monitoring stages. UEFA don’t have time bar on corruption.3:48 pm · 15 May 2018
    Andy Coyle
    @STV_Andy
    Replying to @Auldheid and @STVSportThe charges are in relation to breaching licensing regulations. UEFA have already said that would be time-barred.9:11 pm · 15 May 2018


  56. MISTERLIGHTBULBJOKE
    MAY 15, 2018 at 20:58
     5 0 Rate This

    The Club will fiercely resist this reconstructed Notice of Complaint. Unfortunately, monies that should be available to Scottish youth and grassroots football will be diverted into another rehearsal of seven-year-old debates on the rights and wrongs of events that the SFA should have prevented at a time when doing so would have served a useful purpose. 
     “Useful purpose” in that sentence means saved Rangers. “Should have prevented” means not conspired. This is gonna be beautiful.

    It sounds better than my wildest dreams. Unless this statement is the result of further collusion, and the apparent disagreement a mirage, it seems like Rangers 2 and the SFA are embroiled in a full on conflict. Sounds like a a not so well veiled threat from the Ibrox lot towards the SFA: “you do us for cheating and we will disclose your corruption that allowed us to cheat.” 
    Ah, what a tangled web… 


  57. The SFA have had enough time to frame the charges in a manner that keeps themselves out of it. Judging by the LNS inquiry they will also have a way out for Rangers. 
    Of course there was a lot of crossover between Rangers and SFA so individuals cannot be charged for wrongdoing. 
    I wonder if charges could be laid against Sevco for their response. The last paragraph directly questions the integrity of the governing body.
    Let’s see the previous agreements between the club and the SFA. 


  58. The bits of the “draft” 5-way agreement that appear to allow Sevco to be sanctioned for RFC acts or omissions.

    “CW Exempt Acts” means all acts and omissions of or undertaken under instruction from or with the actual knowledge of Craig Whyte during the period of his tenure as Chairman of RFC, the sanctions for which are enforceable against RFC and not against CW as an individual and which are not CW Enduring Acts;

    “CW Enduring Acts” means all acts and omissions of or undertaken under instruction from or with the actual knowledge of Craig Whyte during the period of his tenure as Chairman of RFC, the sanctions for which are enforceable against RFC and not against CW as an individual where such acts or omissions relate to or are in any way connected with, directly or indirectly, corruption, fraud, bribery, match-fixing, unauthorised or undisclosed payments to players or Match Officials, or any matter similar in its reprehensible nature to any of the foregoing which acts or omissions are of at least equal gravity to those found to have been committed by or engaged in by RFC in the JP Determination;

    2.2 The SFA, Sevco and RFC hereby agree that on Completion Sevco shall, other than with respect to the CW Exempt Acts, become liable and responsible for the purpose of imposition of sanctions by the SFA for any and all acts and/or omissions of RFC and/or Rangers FC, including the matters detailed in clause 2.4 and clause 2.5 and the CW Enduring Acts, which predated Completion and which caused, resulted in, contributed or led to a breach of or failure to fulfil any provision or provisions of the SFA Legislation by RFC and/or Rangers FC as if, for that purpose, such acts and/or omissions had occurred at a time when Sevco was a full member of the SFA and Rangers FC had been owned and operated by Sevco and Sevco had been a full member of the SFA.


  59. Easyjambo – My reading of that is that Rangers are not liable for CW Exempt Acts which would include the submission at the monitoring period.


  60. easyJamboMay 15, 2018 at 17:58
    TheLawMan2 May 15, 2018 at 17:49 So in summary, the Compliance Officer has concluded from his investigation that Rangers did NOT have an overdue payable as at 31st March 2011 in strict accordance with UEFA regulations Annex Viii and therefore the licence was granted correctly by the SFA. ================================== I know that Rangers has effectively implied the above, but I see no reference to it in what the SFA has said, at least that I can find.
    https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/
    Edit: I had every confidence in the SFA, that they would not seek to charge themselves in connection with this matter. And so it has been demonstrated today.
    ====================
    EJ
    When I read the Rangers statement I thought  some form of secret agreement had been reached on the scope of the charges “Rangers” would face.
    The evidence in RFC Interims and what Regan said in his e mail of 7th December regarding the basis on which the licence was granted by the Licensing Committee in March/April 2011,which should be in  LC minutes ,does ask questions regarding the veracity of what RFC told the SFA to obtain the licence. If what SFA were told had no bearing on the granting then fair enough, but we should hear why. Enough of secrecy.
    However the charges I later read both refer to dishonesty and don’t mention in realtion to what or when.

    There are good reasons based on documents and UEFA rules to question any agreement reached between Rangers and SFA that granting was in order but that should be for the JPDT to decide based on the documentation and rules not twixt The Compliance Officer and Rangers in secret.
    That aside I’ll copy BRTH’s post on CQN over now.
    —————————
    BRTH
    Ok it was very late on in the afternoon when I heard about the proceedings issued by the SFA and once i had the phone was busy very quickly with Auldheid and the Sharholders solicitor on for a discussion as to what it all means.

    As with all things legal, a set of charges is only a set of charges and it should be remembered that no finding of guilt has as yet been made in relation to these charges. Accordingly, any talk about the appropriate sanction and the consequences of a finding of guilt is very much premature.

    Furthermore we do not yet know how the disciplinary committee is going to be constituted. Will it be chaired and staffed from the usual panel of potential members, or will the SFA have the presence of mind to commission a specialist chairman such as a retired law lord sitting with qualified wing men?

    Who knows but this part of the process could be very important.

    Then we come to the charges. In relation to these, ignore any statement coming from Rangers at the minute. Any diatribe which starts with an alleged allegation as to what they are NOT charged with is a pretty strange one – mind you they have a strange PR department.

    So, looking at the charges they officially read as follows per the SFA website:

    Notice of Complaint | Rangers FC

    Tuesday 15 May 2018

    Alleged Party in Breach: Rangers FC

    Date: 15 May 2018

    Articles of Association and Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached:

    Charge One

    Article 5(2) of Scottish FA Articles of Association 2010-11

    5. All members shall:-

    (2) be subject to and shall comply with the Articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board or by a Standing Committee, committee or sub-committee thereof, or by FIFA or UEFA or by the Court of Arbitration for Sport;

    Article 5.1 (a)(2) of Scottish FA Articles of Association 2010-11

    Each member shall procure that its officials and its players:-

    Observe, submit to and comply with the Articles and the statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by (a) the Board or by any Standing Committee, committee sub-committee thereof, or (b) by FIFA or (c) by UEFA or (d) by the Court of Arbitration for Sport;

    Charge Two

    Disciplinary Rule 1 (Scottish FA Judicial Panel Protocol 2011-12)

    Disciplinary Rule 2 (Scottish FA Judicial Panel Protocol 2011-12)

    Rule 1

    All members shall:-

    (a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play;

    (b) be subject to and comply with the articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel Protocol, a committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;

    (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.

    Rule 2

    Each member shall procure that its officials, its team officials and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.

    Principal hearing date: Tuesday 26 June 2018

    Response date: Tuesday 22 May 2018

    I have read an awful lot of comment since this was posted but can anyone point to anything in the charges which specifies the dates between which these two sets of rules were allegedly breached and in what way?

    I see no such detail.

    What I do see is that one charge relates to the rules, regulations and customs of the SFA, UEFA, FIFA and the rulings of the CAS – all of which any football club and their board are deemed to know and must observe.

    The second charge relates very specifically to the expected behaviour and conduct of a Scottish Football club in its dealings with every other football club and the various committees of the SFA.

    Yet still no detail of the alleged breached and we can only presume that this detail has been provided to Rangers.

    However, when considering these two different but similar allegations of rule breaches, I can’t help but thinking is this an enquiry (of the kind that the SPFL and Celtic asked for) but under a different name and a different guise?

    The rules allegedly broken are in very wide compass and could include anything.

    If you look at the second charge and consider the possible defences of time bar, or the SFA’s failure or inability to take proper action because of a missed date or some other technicality which is used to escape punishment for behaviour that is clearly reprehensible, does it not automatically follow that before any judge can determine that there was a time bar or any such matter like that, he or she must have enquired and heard evidence about the procedures followed, the steps taken or not taken and whether such steps were justified or worthy of criticism in the first place before declaring that further action is time barred?

    A successful defence of time bar due to SFA or even UEFA inaction is likely to do nothing other than spark further enquiry.

    The focus of Res 12 was not about RFC but about proper SFA Governance and a mere Whitewash, or should that be Whytewash, will not halt the calls and the need for change in governance and compliance.

    We have a new broom at the top of the SFA and that new broom should bring a new culture. Hopefully it will be a move away from secrecy and opportunism and be a move towards far greater transparency, legal and procedural consistency, and a departure from the culture of fear that exists which dictates that you can never admit to making a mistake.

    All organisations make mistakes – it is covering them up that makes for huge mistakes.

    Over the course of several years now, I have said on many occasions that all good things come to those who wait. Waiting and doing nothing sometimes is very difficult because everything within you wants to get out and shove and shout but sometimes that is just the wrong thing to do.

    This is a marathon and not a sprint. It has always required being dogged, being tactical and to be honest not giving a tuppeny F*** about who you potentially annoy or get on the wrong side of.

    The SFA have at long last called an enquiry. It is up to them if they want to conduct it properly or if they want to fudge the issues.

    What they should remember is that football fans are not stupid, daft or exist merely to swallow any old rubbish. They are too dedicated to the game, too determined to see fair play win out, and too well connected in terms of resources and professional expertise to be palmed off with either no proper enquiry into perfectly reasonable questions or manipulated and shallow responses to clear business wrongdoing.

    Any number of issues could will arise from these charges and, irrespective of the outcome, I doubt a whytewash will see the end of the affair.

    Let’ s see what happens next.

    Whatever happens it will be in the close season and the PR releases should make for interesting spin.


  61. I think we can see where this will end up.
    Sevco’s claim that the charge relates purely to the monitoring period has yet to be confirmed but reasonable to assume it is broadly accurate.
    This will allow the authorities and Sevco to claim that Rangers’ CL participation in 11-12 would not have been affected and that as they did not participate in 12-13, Celtic, Kilmarnock and no other club has lost out financially.  Rangers will be found guilty but the punishment will be a slap on the wrist, probably a five figure fine.


  62. A quick glance at online headlines today suggests the MSM are already circling the wagons around Rangers response to the SFA charges, rather than concentrating on the charges themselves. The response in my view was utterly appalling in its tone but Rangers know with the media we have they can get away with it. 

    In my view the charges are a means to an end for the SFA. This issue was never going to go away but the damage caused by the fallout had to be limited in terms of the SFA protecting themselves, and also people still involved with Rangers. At face value they appear to be doing both those things. I see it suggested that a Law Lord may be appointed to oversee the hearing. What chance a £200-300k fine for Rangers that they argue about for five years before paying, and the SFA get to close the book on it? I also see it suggested by a prominent Celtic blogger who is close to the club board that the report was completed at Christmas, so why the delay?  New Chief Executive or not the SFA fraternity is going to be hard to break down.  


  63. THELAWMAN2MAY 15, 2018 at 22:30
    Perhaps you could read again and explain your reasoning as my understanding of the excert is that “CW exempt acts ” clearly states that anything included in the “enduring acts” cannot be included as exempt. 
    Fraud is clearly written as an “enduring act”. 
    Can you please  direct me to the written report where the CO has stated that “Rangers'” we’re in full compliance as of 31st March 2011 as I cannot find that fact anywhere. I must have missed it. Thanks in advance.


  64. Saskya – The “fraud” angle is perhaps the only thing which may make it a grey area but what fraud was being carried out ?

    IF Whyte didnt disclose it properly, there was no gain or outcome that benefited the club.  The monitoring period of 30th June makes no difference to a clubs participation in Europe that season.  Add to that the letter from the SFA to Rangers which states UEFA are aware of the situation as at 30th September then i cant see how a fraud was committed.

    As for the full details of what was sent to the club, then you will need to ask the Compliance Officer if it will be made public.  My understanding from my contact at the Club is that we wont be releasing the finer detail of it.


  65. THELAWMAN2 MAY 15, 2018 at 22:30
    Easyjambo – My reading of that is that Rangers are not liable for CW Exempt Acts which would include the submission at the monitoring period.
    ======================
    My reading would be that the club could be sanctioned for CW Enduring Acts of corruption or fraud resulting in breaches of SFA rules.

    The Whyte trial told us that fraud is “a false premise, dishonestly made, to achieve a practical result.
    False premise – we have no overdue payables as at dd/mm/yy.
    Dishonestly made – we know that statement is untrue
    Practical result – No interference with the club’s participation in UEFA competitions.

    You seem pleased that there is to be no further investigation into the award of a licence based on the March 2011 submission. However, you seem to be willing to let any allegations of dishonesty thereafter pass without censure, on the basis that Rangers was denied a licence the following season.

    May I remind you that the denial of a licence for 2012/13 was the result of the club being insolvent, and nothing to do with what was submitted after the licence award in 2011.

    If it was my club I would be embarrassed and angry should what is alleged prove to be true and would have no complaint if significant sanctions were imposed.

    The passage of time since the offences should not be a consideration either, given that the issue was raised with the SFA several years ago.

    I do expect a Whytewash to be the end result, but that, in my view, would be another abdication of responsibility by the football authorities.

    I will be interested to see the make up of the panel that hears the case and who will be called as witnesses, Craig Whyte, Alastair Johnston, Andrew Dickson, HMRC?


  66. EASYJAMBOMAY 16, 2018 at 09:39

    May I remind you that the denial of a licence for 2012/13 was the result of the club being insolvent, and nothing to do with what was submitted after the licence award in 2011.

    _____________________________________________________

    Im afraid thats not true.  The SFA refused the licence in April 2012 due to:

    1)  No annual audited accounts

    2)  Overdue payables to HMRC

Comments are closed.