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.
THELAWMAN2 MAY 16, 2018 at 09:59
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
======================
The Licence application for 2012/13 would be based on the status as at 31/03/12. I’m sure you are well aware that the club went into administration on 14/02/12, some 6 weeks earlier.
Fine, if you want to play semantics with the technicalities of applying specific rule breaches then go ahead, but I’ll disengage from the discussion. The club was insolvent which involved multiple rule breaches, many of which could be used to deny a licence.
While I respect The Lawman2’s arguments regarding when the tax bill may have crystalised we are back in the territory of the FTTT where those inclined to precise legal argument on a limited range of points are failing to see (or be willing to acknowledge) the bigger picture, as per Dr Hedi Poon.
As discussed a while back clubs playing out of Ibrox have a terrible record with regard to the behaviour in the boardroom (sectarian signing policy, lack of regard for Health & Safety, the use of dodgy Tax scheme, appointing convicted tax dodgers as ‘the club’ chairman).
Yesterdays statement is just another example of an organisation whose inability to adhere to the rules of the sport and apply decent and honest corporate governance is there for all to see. As opposed to welcoming the chance to seek the truth, they come out fighting and childishly protesting ‘It wasne us Guv, a big boy did it and ran away’.
In amongst those who have sat in the Blue Room have been a number of real chancers. Yet by some miracle we are to believe Craig Whyte (Bad) did not represent ‘the club’ while the Bears are happy to accept ‘the club’s’ nine in a row titles and other trophies won under David Murray, bankrolled via his Metals business, BoS and tax dodged(Good).
Added to that is the argument for the existence of some metaphysical form that sits above the corporate law.
And now we have the ‘lets draw a line under it’ brigade but without really wanting to find out the facts or the truth as to what went on or who was to blame.
Present the above bag of frogs while on a psychiatrist’s couch and you would be in therapy for years.
The fact remains that clubs playing out of Ibrox have and seem to continue to be outwith the step of everyone else in the Scottish game regarding what it takes to participate in an open and honest manner and, dare I say it, with sporting integrity.
Is it all their talk of ‘Tradition’ and ‘No Surrender’ that renders them unable to enter into the 21st century
Frankly they are a shambles and it is hard to see what it is exactly they offer today’s modern game.
I for one can only hope that the upcoming hearings are held in an open and transparent manner so we can ‘move on’ but with the full facts laid bare for all to see.
I suspect Whyte will take a beating but that Regan will also get drawn into things. From Ibrox then the one constant in the tax case matter is Andrew Dickson and I can’t see how he can be allowed to continue to sit on governing body panels as he is either up to his eyes in it or incompetent. I see him as begin a potential sacrificial lamb.
All that said I wouldn’t be surprised if the conclusion is the usual fudge that ends up providing more new questions as opposed to the answers the majority of Scottish Football seeks.
THELAWMAN2
MAY 15, 2018 at 20:43
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.
————————————————
The SFA has switched its focus to the monitoring period. The question is ‘Why?’. I’d suggest that something has come up that, after the granting of the licence, would have affected the issuance of said document had it been known at the time.
We’re actually back to the Brysonian theorem where the Euro licence may have been ‘imperfectly issued, but perfectly valid’, until other events negated that position.
Bryce CurdyMay 16, 2018 at 08:27 (Edit
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.
==============
I would not be so sure of the accuracy. Regan is on record of saying granting ended 31st March and monitoring was down to UEFA.
Traverso reply indicated a logical lacuna if this was what UEFA intended.
This year the list of clubs granted a licence can be to UEFA at 31st May at the latest.
In 2011 it was by 26th May 2011. So how can UEFA monitor any licence applicant if they do not know who have been recipients of a licence. There is also other statements in the Traverso reply that strongly challenge Regan’s understanding.
So if anything turned up of significance until UEFA notified it is up to RFC to notify SFA and they to notify UEFA immediately.
What did or did not turn up, depending on whether RFC followed the rules before 26th May, would question the veracity of statement in RFC Interim Accs that was drawn from Grant Thornton.
It does not help the case for innocence when under CW Rangers were prepared to state they did not receive a significant document which is why they failed to act on it when it was pointed out they had already admitted its arrival to HMRC month before. The devil is in the detail but there are questions to be answered regarding the period before UEFA could possibly start monitoring. The SFA know what they are.
” Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones” D Rumsfeld Feb 12 2002.
wottpiMay 16, 2018 at 10:34 (Edit)
Absolutely spot on. Its almost a clash of cultures. A Phd in itself.
JINGSO.JIMSIEMAY 16, 2018 at 11:05
The SFA has switched its focus to the monitoring period. The question is ‘Why?’. I’d suggest that something has come up that, after the granting of the licence, would have affected the issuance of said document had it been known at the time.
We’re actually back to the Brysonian theorem where the Euro licence may have been ‘imperfectly issued, but perfectly valid’, until other events negated that position.
____________________________________________________________________
No there hasnt im afraid. Any issues in the monitoring period related to the overdue payable as at 30th June 2011 would be looked at to decide the following years entry. It would not affect the license for season 2011/12.
Many disciplines have their own argots jargons and so on where perhaps otherwise normal words have technical meanings. This can be useful for shorthand but also used to exclude the layman. For instance the word secular has at least three totally different meanings depending on which discipline is using it.
I have come to the belief that TRFC has such an argot.
Dignity is a good word but only in its normal uses, the TRFC meaning must be totally different from that.
Dignified Silence is often used by TRFC supporters regarding their PR method agin Silence must have a different meaning there.
We need a wee lexicon of TRFCese translated for the non initiate.
Their whole approach of never engaging in a reasonable way with anything but only ever reacting with aggresive ill will is tedious in the extreme. It is also a sign of stress and the kind of thing to be expected from a hormonal fourteen year old.
Their ship is rudderless and in a perfect storm of their own making.
Might I caution against the new coinage “whtyewash” that forgets who the real villains of the piece are and some of them are still there.
Hope this works. What Regan said on Sportsound before 2013 Celtic AGM.
You did not answer either of my questions!!!
Do you agree that your interpretation was wrong? Do you agree that if included as an enduring act then it cannot be an exempt act? Yes or no please.
Regarding my second point you seem to now be saying that there is no evidence that the CO has stated that the licence was correctly issued and the RF C were in complete compliance as at 31st March 2011. Is this correct?
That is not what you wrote in reply to easyJamboMay 15, 2018 at 17:58 this why I ask.
As for your reply in that fraud is a” grey area” well, words fail me. Given the evidence that was stated under oath in court, by numerous employees involved with compliance and the running of RFC at the time, please explain why this could possibly be a grey area as I can only see fraudulent activity as pure black.
Again TiA.
The Lawman
March aside, what was reported to UEFA in June and September was not an overdue payable (when even by your timetable ignoring PAYE terms there was). What UEFA were told was a reason why the liability was NOT an overdue payable.
The reasons given misrepresented the status of the liability in a manner very very similar to the reason given for granting ie potential or postponed and under discussion/disputed.
There is a whole trail of evidence of dishonesty, particularly from deliberate non disclosure starting from April 2005.
Let just leave it to the SFA JPDT to work through the evidence.
All Res12 asked was that this be done, not to accuse Rangers who by 2013 were on a new journey up the divisions, but establish if the SFA acted properly during the granting and monitoring period.
I regret it has necessarily come back to establishing Rangers part, it would have been so much healthier for us all had honesty broke out in 2012 when the 5 Way was struck.
Auldheid, i have agreed there was an overdue payable as at June 30th. From documents leaked on the Offshore report which dont seem to be available anymore then it appeared that Rangers had raised that overdue payable on the June submission and then subsequently on the September submission.
I have to stress that for the submission on the 30th June, the existence of an overdue payable was not a Compliance issue. It would not have prevented Rangers playing in Europe that season and there was no reason at all, not to disclose it. The 30th June submission is simply an update with no consequence other than to then monitor how that plays out.
If we were dealing with anyone other than Craig Whyte at this point, then i would take the evidence from TOG report coupled with the idea that there was no need to not disclose it and assume everything was above board.
But it was Craig Whyte so………………………………………
SASKYA
No i dont agree my interpretation is wrong. I personally dont feel this falls into the Enduring category however i accept the opinion that it might. I suspect the devil will be in the detail on it however i suspect with any non conformance, the outcome or potential outcome is looked at and for that reason, thats why i dont expect it to fall in that category.
Bampotnation on Twitter suggesting UEFA have put pressure on the SFA to get the situation with TRFC sorted out or sanctions against all Scottish clubs will follow.
Does anyone know if there is in traction in this?
Ex Ludo
May 16, 2018 at 12:54
=======================================
No idea, however is there any precedent for such a move.
Innocent parties being punished for the failures of the governing body or of one individual member.
It seems unlikely to me, however I stand to be corrected.
As at 31st March 2011 Rangers had, and knew they had, an overdue payable to HMRC. This was established (or confirmed to those more aware), under oath, at the Whyte trial. It is also possible to view it as being overdue for years before that date, as HMRC had started to investigate the dishonest use of DOS in 2005, and Rangers had given dishonest answers to their questions and had continued to hide the relevant documentation. Morally they do not have a leg to stand on.
If Rangers applied for a European License (or any kind of license) as at 31st March 2011 and failed to make it clear they had this overdue payable to HMRC, they acted fraudulently, and all that remains to be answered is – did the SFA collude with the club to aid them in this deceit, or were they just incompetent in their readiness to believe this particular club in a crisis?
As far as I am concerned (and that might not matter to some), all that matters is to establish whether or not Rangers(IL) acted fraudulently and whether or not they were aided and abetted, either deliberately or through incompetence, by the SFA. If it is established that they did, then it should be recorded as such and acknowledged by football, and any board members of the club, and also those of the SFA, involved in this deception should be prosecuted. The current Ibrox club carries no responsibility for this act, though one or two of the board members may well do, and the club should not incur any fine or other penalty, at which point, all reference, actual or implied, to them being the same club as the cheating one, should be dropped and all records amended accordingly.
If fraud took place, a criminal act, then all the 5 Way Agreements in the world are meaningless, as are any UEFA statute of limitations, and that should be exercising the minds of all involved and their excuse makers and truth avoiders!
Is this the SFA throwing Rangers under a bus to protect themselves? They effectively have a very good position to attack from.
1. Accept whatever punishment we give you (most likely cash fine) if you are the same club.
2. Or will there be a way it can fudged to state “we know you deliberately mislead us and UEFA, however since it was done by CW who is no longer with the club, and the FWA stops us going after anything CW did so we’ll give you a slap on the wrist, case closed”?
Either way it seems the SFA can completely absolve themselves of any wrongdoing.
UEFA is an unknown but (in only my opinion) I think they will refrain from getting involved and let the SFA deal as they see fit.
I can’t personally see a way in which the SFA can come out of this badly now
In The good, The bad, and The ugly, a fatal duel took place to claim ownership of the grave contents. In Scotland it is a reversal, and nobody wants ownership of the grave contents.
That is a measure of how rancid the decomposing contents are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXldafIl5DQ&t=17s
UEFA /FIFA threatened the Swiss FA with all sorts of possible sanctions if they didn’t sort out the situation at Sion.
(From a poster on CQN, don’t know the background)
HomunculusMay 16, 2018 at 13:11
Ex LudoMay 16, 2018 at 12:54=======================================No idea, however is there any precedent for such a move.Innocent parties being punished for the failures of the governing body or of one individual member.It seems unlikely to me, however I stand to be corrected.
__________________-
I think there is, Homunculus. The sad events at the Hysel Stadium led to all English clubs being banned from UEFA competitions, and not just the club (Liverpool) whose fans were held responsible for the tragedy.
I suspect, though, if there is any truth in this, then UEFA are most likely trying to force the SFA’s hand and to act properly and promptly in sorting out something they must (if this is true) be viewing as rather serious and with justification for their suspicions. I think it unlikely that they will seek to punish the clubs most disadvantaged by any wrongdoing of the past, or currently underway. On the other hand, if they, after making some sort of order, decide that the SFA (Scottish Football) is not putting it’s house in order, they may well take that ultimate step. When you think about it, the solution, and prevention of any sanctions, is simple. Just act honestly with the best interests of the game at heart.
If newco can’t be held responsible why would sfa charge them?
Whilst two charges have been levelled against TRFC/TRIFC has anyone actually seen sight of the Compliance Officer’s report? The thought occurs that this might cover substantially more ground than the matters for which TRFC/TRIFC have been asked to answer.
The key issue for me has always been about whether or not The SFA colluded in the granting of the licence. There’s only really three options in this respect:
1. All was above board and nobody did anything wrong
2. Ranger’s had issues with an outstanding tax liability and misled the SFA
3. Ranger’s had issues with a tax liability – fessed up to the SFA and were helped over the line in obtaining the licence.
Without wanting to set off the OC/NC debate it really is a farce to see TRFC/TRFC given charges – Charles Green brought some of the assets not the business/club with all its attendant assets and liabilities.
All I’ve ever wanted to see is an honest and credible account of what transpired at the time. An account that doesn’t treat people who only want to enjoy an honest game as if they zip up down the back of their heads.
Allyjambo
May 16, 2018 at 13:28
============================
Of course, I hadn’t thought of that.
The Lawman.
Under your interpretation UEFA are ok with a club telling it lies that differ from the basis on which the licence was granted?
RFC did not admit they had an overdue payable. They said they had a liability that wasn’t an overdue payable because it’s status as a liability was being challenged with HMRC. That is one of the 4 conditions that stop a tax liability being an overdue payable applied. It didn’t.
The issue here is honesty not when sanctions would be applied for dishonesty and under CW honesty was a stranger in a strange land but he only picked up the hand he was dealt.
Under CW Rangers failed to disclose information that questioned the granting in plenty of time for SFA at very least act like the Greek FA and ask CFCB if granting was in order.
I appreciate it is a technicality that diverts from the big picture posted earlier about serial non disclosure, but if SFA were informed of the change and kept quiet then the subsequent waves will wash away LNS.
If on the other hand SFA came from Barcelona and know nothing, then RFC are guilty of not disclosing information that had it been, would have caused LNS to look at honesty (as current charges do ) and not at a ten year administrative error we are asked to accept by LNS is an honest mistake.
I quite understand the desperation at play to stay the consequences of an unsustainable spending policy and folk did what the did for what seemed to them to be right.
However in doing so they totally ignored the requirement to show good faith to fellow clubs and I honestly think your efforts at justification would better serve your club if they were channeled towards a conciliatory path rather than trying to make a wrong right through Brysonesque interpretation of the rules.
You have nothing to fear from the truth. That fear has kept Rangers in hell for seven years. It’s time to change tack.
DBF. Are SFA throwing Rangers under a bus? I hope the process underway does not have that motivation, but I would not dismiss it.
They might be OK up to a point in 2011/12 but from 2013 they became the problem. Regan, Broadfoot and McKinlay’s departure have a reason. David Conn should be asking DB if he spun him a line in 2016 as should STV’s Grant Russell.
All this didn’t happen because some Celtic shareholders asked a question. It happened because too many at Ibrox and Hampden lay in the same bed and screwed each other.
It cannot be allowed to pass nor can there be a repeat.
Anybody seen this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-44126217
I beg your pardon, the FC Sion case I mentioned earlier was covered in Auldheid’s opening article of this thread.
The Uefa threats to the Swiss FA mentioned by the poster on CQN is not covered however. So none the wiser on that count.
Re: alleged corruption / fraud / collusion perpetrated by BOTH RFC and the SFA.
IMO, the weakest link which could blow open the whole can[s] of worms is…
:drum roll:
Stewart Regan!
Just need a Columbo type detective to doorstep Regan, insinuate charges against him for his time as CEO of the SFA, and he will roll over, IMO.
And being the sneaky character he is, I’m quite sure Regan has saved ALL relevant evidence – just in case to save his @ss.
A criminal investigation puts the CO charges on hold.
If a conviction[s] is forthcoming, then the CO charges are a given ?
I know, watched too many TV detective programmes.
I’ll get a doughnut… 😉
STEVIEBCMAY 16, 2018 at 15:07
Re: alleged corruption / fraud / collusion perpetrated by BOTH RFC and the SFA.
IMO, the weakest link which could blow open the whole can[s] of worms is…
:drum roll:
Stewart Regan!
————————————————————————————————–
Actually the Traverso letter absolves Sevco of any responsibility for Rangers (I.L.) crimes.
I’m sure if it was taken up with UEFA, the SFA would be happy to explain to UEFA where they have got it all wrong, and why Sevco now carry the shame…….And the titles.
Seems the Hummel kit, isn’t coming out until 2019, AFTER the Christmas rush. With all these new signings, thats a lot of initials to be scraped off the old ones.
Apparently its all the fault of a big Bhoy who ran away.
https://twitter.com/RangersFCSLO/status/996708493741654017
EX LUDOMAY 16, 2018 at 12:54
10
0 Rate This
Bampotnation on Twitter suggesting UEFA have put pressure on the SFA to get the situation with TRFC sorted out or sanctions against all Scottish clubs will follow.Does anyone know if there is in traction in this?
No idea but I would be delighted if it was true – surely that would force the clubs to finally get their acts into gear and say enough’s enough.
Of all the rotten, cheap dirty deeds attributable to ‘Rangers’, and there are many, their treatment of the lad who was abused by an RFC coach is the dirtiest, most offensive and self-serving of all.
He approached RIFC plc to complain etc, and was told to go see the Liquidators!
(BBC News, radio Scotland at 4.00 pm)
BORDERSDONMAY 16, 2018 at 14:17
It has been posted and discussed on a few places elsewhere but not sure how we should handle it on here. Maybe one for the Mods?
I will only point out, as have others, this must be the lowest of the low in terms of the pic and mix choice of claiming the history of the oldco.
The likes of Sir Walter and Souness are Ibrox legends to be forever linked with the metaphysical club but despite being invited into the club to wear the self same badge and colours with pride, the alleged victim of one of the most horrible crimes is reportedly told to GTF and call BDO.
As I asked earlier, if they cannot deal with an issue of this type with any degree of compassion, understanding and human decency, what is it the club from Govan actually offer the modern Scottish game.
I can’t wait for Statement O’clock to hear how they defend their side of the story!
Auldheid, there is nobody on here who hates Craig Whyte more than I. I have no faith he done the right thing on anything, never mind this. My comments are not Bryson esque at all and im not trying to justify anything Whyte did or didnt do.
If i could possibly try and look at the process and also the potential reasons for non disclosure on 30th June by Craig Whyte (I still dont know if thats the case. You seem pretty certain. I would happy look at any documents you have that proves no disclosure was made)
On the 30th June, the only information that was needed to be given was:
a) Name of the creditor
b) Balance overdue as at 30 June, including the due date for each overdue element.
c) A brief explanatory comment and signed off by management
That is the only requirement on any club and if those 3 details are given then job done and they move onto 30th September monitoring. There is absolutely no reason for non disclosure here as:1) There is no consequence to the licence for that season.
2) It is a simple template with simple information.
I am aware that UEFA will audit a percentage of the submissions however this is not to remove any licenses and this was confirmed in the UEFA letter to the SFA which you have a copy of.
To make sure everyone is clear on this, the existence of an overdue payable as at 30 June does not mean the club loses its licence for that season. As at 30th June 2011, 42 clubs who were fine at 31st March 2011 reported an Overdue payable on 30th June. None of these reports resulted in any disqualification from European competition that season as it wasnt a route open to this process.
So that then leads to the question as to why Whyte didnt submit it (again assuming he didnt). Given that the disclosure would not have led to any sanctions as evidenced, then it couldnt have been to gain a sporting advantage. That wasnt possible.
So was it just his general weasel like attitude that he thought it wasnt important or did he genuinely believe that due to his perceived negotiations with HMRC that he believed he didnt need to disclose it.
In both of the above instances, i agree its not acceptable and it then follows that there should be a charge. I dont believe on any front it was fraudulent as to be fraudulent there really needs to be something to be gained from the act in my opinion.
AULDHEIDMAY 16, 2018 at 11:34I would not be so sure of the accuracy. Regan is on record of saying granting ended 31st March and monitoring was down to UEFA.Traverso reply indicated a logical lacuna if this was what UEFA intended.This year the list of clubs granted a licence can be to UEFA at 31st May at the latest.In 2011 it was by 26th May 2011. So how can UEFA monitor any licence applicant if they do not know who have been recipients of a licence. There is also other statements in the Traverso reply that strongly challenge Regan’s understanding.So if anything turned up of significance until UEFA notified it is up to RFC to notify SFA and they to notify UEFA immediately.What did or did not turn up, depending on whether RFC followed the rules before 26th May, would question the veracity of statement in RFC Interim Accs that was drawn from Grant Thornton. It does not help the case for innocence when under CW Rangers were prepared to state they did not receive a significant document which is why they failed to act on it when it was pointed out they had already admitted its arrival to HMRC month before. The devil is in the detail but there are questions to be answered regarding the period before UEFA could possibly start monitoring. The SFA know what they are.” Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones” D Rumsfeld Feb 12 2002.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Crossed wires I think, and my fault. When I said accurate I didn’t mean to imply for a second that I believe any licensing transgressions were limited to the monitoring period and that everything was tickety boo on March 31st. But it wouldn’t surprise me if this is exactly how the SFA will try and fudge things and that Sevco have been given a nod and a wink.
JOHN CLARKMAY 16, 2018 at 16:18
I would imagine that the RFC(IL) coach would have a contract of employment – this can be used to determine who his employer was and that would be the old club .
THELAWMAN2MAY 16, 2018 at 17:01
“That is the only requirement on any club and if those 3 details are given then job done ”
Do you know that this was the position or is it supposition/wishful thinking . Not everybody thinks the same way as you do .
How about supposing that Whitey did in fact submit the information and the application was amended – just as plausible . What then ? All as hypothetical as anything else I’ve seen . I have no problem with Craig Whyte – he was possibly what was needed at Ibrox at the time and , having been cleared of wrongdoing in a court of law , is one of the few honest brokers at Ibrox in recent years .
Lawman is definitely invoking the Bryson/LNS principle of nothing before a damning date and “if we had known about the WTC, we wouldn’t have issued the licence”.
In the case of Adcock v Archibald Lord Clyde stated “It is not necessary to prove an actual gain by the accused, or an actual loss on the part of the person alleged to have been defrauded. Any definite practical result achieved by the fraud is enough”. Lord Hunter said “The essence of the offence consists in inducing the person who is defrauded either to take some action he or she would not otherwise have taken, or to do some act he or she would not otherwise have done, or to become the medium of some unlawful Act”.
Lord Clyde would seem to disagree with you Lawman.
PADDY MALARKEYMAY 16, 2018 at 17:47
Paddy, yes i do know that is the position. It is clearly set out in the guidelines for that year which i have read back to front
Not sure. If the accusation is that the SFA did that then i think most definitely there would have been no new charges brought against Rangers yesterday.
Anyone who has watched the various documentaries on the OJ Simpson case will know that the jury only had one option and that was to find OJ not guilty. The prosecution had a nightmare and the defence tied them in knots.
If you seriously believe Whyte was an honest broker then unfortunately i have to say, you need your head seen to Paddy. If on the other hand you are having a wee dig then, i will let you off. 🙂
ALLYJAMBOMAY 16, 2018 at 13:16
32
0 Rate This
As at 31st March 2011 Rangers had, and knew they had, an overdue payable to HMRC. This was established (or confirmed to those more aware), under oath, at the Whyte trial. It is also possible to view it as being overdue for years before that date, as HMRC had started to investigate the dishonest use of DOS in 2005, and Rangers had given dishonest answers to their questions and had continued to hide the relevant documentation. Morally they do not have a leg to stand on.
—————
Obstructive liars.
ALLYJAMBOMAY 16, 2018 at 13:16
As at 31st March 2011 Rangers had, and knew they had, an overdue payable to HMRC. This was established (or confirmed to those more aware), under oath, at the Whyte trial.
_______________________________________________________________________
This is wrong. Pedantic or not. “Overdue payables” in this context is a very defined subject and that was not discussed at the trial and nothing was said at the Whyte trial on the issue that wasnt already in the public domain.
The Directors knew there was a liability to HMRC. That was accepted.
BORDERSDONMAY 16, 2018 at 14:17
7
0 Rate This
Anybody seen this?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-44126217
——————-
They said that when the abuse took place Rangers were owned by a different company which was now in liquidation.
———–
Notice how they never say the name of this company.To do so they would then know that the company in liquidation was rangers.
Can anybody help?
I’m a bit confused (not unusual for me) about the charges the SFA have levelled regarding the Rangers (IL) European License application/granting. The copies of the charges I’ve seen online have not been specific about dates etc, nor have they mentioned monitoring periods, so I am at a bit of a loss as to how there seems to be a discussion going on around the monitoring period and the date 30th June 2011, ignoring the blatant lie (as evidenced in the Whyte trial) in the original application. Can anyone clarify?
Now my understanding of any monitoring period must surely assume an honest and reasonably accurate original application was made containing true figures and honest supporting statements as at 31st March 2011, and that any dishonesty in the original application is not mitigated by the fact that the lie was not picked up during said monitoring period. Basically, a lie on 31st March doesn’t become not a lie just because it isn’t picked up, or nothing happens to expose that lie, during the monitoring period.
Now I am of the opinion that the SFA will continue to do their damnedest to protect, not only themselves, but Rangers too, and so might move the goalposts, a la LNS, to produce a less serious outcome, by avoiding that all important date, while trying to make it look like they are dealing properly with the problem.
Until, though, we see the official SFA charge sheet, I feel any argument ignoring the facts around the 31st March 2011 date is pretty pointless, unless, that is, there has been something from the SFA that I have missed that makes it clear that we are dealing only with the monitoring and reporting to 30th June 2011 or any other date that would benefit RFC(IL)’s defence.
My apologies for a nonsense post if the SFA have issued a more detailed charge sheet indicating that the charges just relate to the monitoring period to the 30th June!
CORRUPT OFFICIALMAY 16, 2018 at 15:53
8
0 Rate This
Seems the Hummel kit, isn’t coming out until 2019, AFTER the Christmas rush. With all these new signings, thats a lot of initials to be scraped off the old ones. Apparently its all the fault of a big Bhoy who ran away.
https://twitter.com/RangersFCSLO/status/996708493741654017
———————-
This from last year…see pic
CORRUPT OFFICIAL MAY 16 15.53
Can you show me where it says that please?
Unless i’m missing something it clearly says “launch will be fully normalised from 2019”.i.e. We will return to launching the kits before the season starts, as was the norm, beginning from the 2019/20 season
At no point does it say no kit until “AFTER the Christmas rush”. New kit for this season expected out in August.
TheLawMan2May 16, 2018 at 18:19
ALLYJAMBOMAY 16, 2018 at 13:16As at 31st March 2011 Rangers had, and knew they had, an overdue payable to HMRC. This was established (or confirmed to those more aware), under oath, at the Whyte trial. _______________________________________________________________________This is wrong. Pedantic or not. “Overdue payables” in this context is a very defined subject and that was not discussed at the trial and nothing was said at the Whyte trial on the issue that wasnt already in the public domain.The Directors knew there was a liability to HMRC. That was accepted.
_____________
My understanding was that the evidence given at Whyte’s trial was that the debt had ‘crystalized’ prior to the reporting date, and that the board knew this to be the case. The debt, by 2011, was over a decade overdue and only stayed overdue so long because of the lies Rangers told HMRC, however, since mid-March 2011 Rangers had a demand for payment for which no time had been granted to pay by HMRC, and no discussions for time to pay were ongoing. I doubt very much that UEFA would be in the least bit interested in the semantics of ‘overdue payables’ if they had been made aware of the circumstances surrounding the WTC!
ALLYJAMBOMAY 16, 2018 at 18:28
I’m puffed oot after reading that post.
JOHN CLARKMAY 16, 2018 at 16:18
22
1 Rate This
Of all the rotten, cheap dirty deeds attributable to ‘Rangers’, and there are many, their treatment of the lad who was abused by an RFC coach is the dirtiest, most offensive and self-serving of all.He approached RIFC plc to complain etc, and was told to go see the Liquidators!(BBC News, radio Scotland at 4.00 pm)
—————–
Wonder if any of the EBT beneficiaries with side letters will get the same treatment.
“as to be fraudulent there really needs to be something to be gained from the act in my opinion.”
High Court reaffirms classic fraud definition in Scots law
27 June 2017
Adcock v Archibald 1925
Adcock stated that fraud did not require the person defrauded to have suffered some pecuniary loss; it was enough that a false pretence had been made dishonestly in order to bring about some definite practical result, and that result had been achieved
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1023464.aspx
Ex Ludo
May 16, 2018 at 17:57
You beat me to it.
THELAWMAN2MAY 16, 2018 at 17:58
*Paddy, yes i do know that is the position. It is clearly set out in the guidelines for that year which i have read back to front
Give yourself a wee gold star for reading them back to front but do you know the conditions were complied with ? That’ll be “yes I do or no I don’t”.
*Not sure. If the accusation is that the SFA did that then i think most definitely there would have been no new charges brought against Rangers yesterday
I’ve not accused anybody of anything . You do know what hypothetical means ?
*Anyone who has watched the various documentaries on the OJ Simpson case will know that the jury only had one option and that was to find OJ not guilty. The prosecution had a nightmare and the defence tied them in knots.
I don’t have a television and have no interest in OJ Simpson , or Homer Simpson ,for that matter .
*If you seriously believe Whyte was an honest broker then unfortunately i have to say, you need your head seen to Paddy. If on the other hand you are having a wee dig then, i will let you off.
You’ll let me off ?
I believe that CW was as honest as he had to be dealing with the businessmen he was dealing with . More honest than SDM and CG . But that’s just my opinion . Whats yours ?
My opinion is that Craig Whyte told lies from day one. He lied about his directorship ban. Lies about paying tax. Lies about the investment he was puting into the business. He mortgaged the season ticket money whilst creating confusing statements on Companies House. He completed the sale without having the money in the bank to complete the sale agreement. He then got the company to get a loan from Ticketus, paid the money from the company to his company and then completed the sale, all of which was stated in court but not drilled home or explained in more detail to the jury.
He has bankruptcies and insolvencies all across his history.
If thats the type of people you treat as honest then would hate to meet the dodgy ones 😉
As an aside, i think im right in saying this forum was founded off the back of the RTC and Paul McConville sites which for years called Whyte for everything and highlighted just how honest he was.
ALLYJAMBOMAY 16, 2018 at 18:38
—————
Alistair Johnston…other liabilities.Feb 15 2012
CW court case.They knew in 2010
Letter 26 Nov 2010 from HMRC to murray group on small tax case. Asks for reply on liability by 31st DEC
Am I confused or something?
What did Lawman2 say that was wrong in 19.33pm. ?
Why all the votes down?
He then got the company to get a loan from Ticketus, paid the money from the company to his company and then completed the sale.
What was the name of this company he used?
SHUG MAY 16 19.59
1 The Rangers Football Club plc.
2 Wavetower.
Craig Whyte an honest broker? Are you having a laugh? This is the guy who deliberately withheld tax payments. The investigation of which, although not this particular instance, is one of the things the predecessor to this site was based on. Honest broker?!
Ok, picture this. Dave King withholds VAT payments on season ticket sales in order to fund hiring Steven Gerrard and a player recruitment spree. Is he an honest broker?!
THELAWMAN2
MAY 16, 2018 at 19:33
========================
I have always admired the Rangers’ supporters ability to treat what Craig Whyte did and what Rangers did as separate things. In spite of the fact that he owned 85% of the club.
No matter how anyone wants to paint it, it was Rangers which didn’t pay Tax, NI and VAT. Which led to administration, which led to liquidation.
That’s just how it works.
The fact that Whyte himself was a rogue and a charlatan is irrelevant.
Lawman
do you think CW just stumbled across the ragers 1872 deal or do you think he was sourced
JIMBO MAY 16 19.58
.
Come on Jimbo, you know why. TLM2 like myself is a Rangers fan and that alone will result in TDs, no matter the content of the post. Unless of course we go along with the general consensus.
Have i missed your reply to the personal attack on you by “our hero in exile” yesterday?.
THELAWMAN2MAY 16, 2018 at 19:33
6
19 Rate This
My opinion is that Craig Whyte told lies from day one. He lied about his directorship ban. Lies about paying tax. Lies about the investment he was puting into the business. He mortgaged the season ticket money whilst creating confusing statements on Companies House. He completed the sale without having the money in the bank to complete the sale agreement. He then got the company to get a loan from Ticketus, paid the money from the company to his company and then completed the sale, all of which was stated in court but not drilled home or explained in more detail to the jury.
He has bankruptcies and insolvencies all across his history.
—————–
Someone should have done some background checks.
Oh! thats right.Nothing spent on Craig Whyte checks.
When asked how much was spent investigating Craig Whyte and his business ahead of the Rangers takeover deal, a key adviser to Sir David Murray admitted it had not been a lot. In referring to the amount spent on due diligence into Craig Whyte, David Horne told the trial: “Not very much at all. I don’t know. Possibly nothing.”
CLUSTER ONE
MAY 16, 2018 at 20:51
===============================
I take it the file on him, provided to the “independent directors” didn’t exist then.
Sometimes you just have sit back in wonder about how a scottish football club can have broken and distorted so many rules in our game and yet are still perceived as being a poor unwitting victim in every single case brought against it .
NO really ,stop and think about how unlucky a football club has to be to be duped and falsely accused of so many things in the one decade .
WTC ……….WE WERE TOLD IT WAS ABOVE BOARD
BTC ……… A PORNOGRAPHER ASSURED US IT WAS KOSHA
THE FAMINE SONG …….JUST A BIT OF BANTER
UEFA LICENSE…………..WE WERE OK FOR THE FIRST CHECK
LIQUIDATION …………..THAT WAS NEVER US
CW ……………..WE WERE DUPED
INELIGIBLE PLAYERS …..WE DID NOT KNOW WE HAD TO DECLARE SIDE LETTERS
HMRC ………………WE NEVER HAD SIDE LETTERS
276 CREDITORS ……SORRY THAT WAS THE OLD CLUB
PLAYERS WALKING AWAY FOR NOTHING ….WE ARE STILL THE SAME CLUB
CG TO SUPPORTERS …..I BOUGHT THE HISTORY
CG TO A JUDGE …..ALL I BOUGHT WAS A BASKET OF ASSETS
DK TO AUDITORS ….NOAL WILL FUND ANY SHORTFALL
DK TO JUDGE ………I AM SKINT
I am sure I have missed more than a few but you get the gist
Any club playing out of Ibrokes is got to be the unluckiest club in WORLD football
Many people on here used to call out his lies and slate him on McConville and RTC site when he was at the helm. Never paid a penny in tax but is seen as “honest” to some and a “hero” to others.
I find that quite astounding.
RyanGoslingMay 16, 2018 at 20:14
Craig Whyte an honest broker? Are you having a laugh? This is the guy who deliberately withheld tax payments. The investigation of which, although not this particular instance, is one of the things the predecessor to this site was based on. Honest broker?! Ok, picture this. Dave King withholds VAT payments on season ticket sales in order to fund hiring Steven Gerrard and a player recruitment spree. Is he an honest broker?!
______________________
Ryan,
Craig Whyte is a putrid turd of a man, a narcissist and greedy chancer who came to Ibrox at the hand of someone of very similar traits, but even more so. He has been replaced at Ibrox by people also of a similar ilk. All of them have caused distress for innocent employees and investors, of various companies they have been involved with, along the way. He is the only one, though, to face criminal charges for what happened at Ibrox, and was found not guilty. He’s still a putrid turd of a man.
Despite that, he may very well have been duped by his predecessor, and by the man who followed him into the Blue Room at Ibrox, and may well be less ‘guilty’ than either of them.
On the other hand, Dave King is a convicted criminal – as well as sharing many of Whyte’s less pleasant characteristics.
In short, none of the main players in this continuing ‘Rangers Saga’ could ever be classed as ‘honest brokers’, or even come close to it.
So I, and I’m sure many others, agree with you, Craig Whyte is no more of an ‘honest broker’ than Dave King is, and vice versa – but he, Whyte, is certainly less of a (convicted) criminal.
Slimjim,
Not in a mood to argue with anyone esp. you.
Take care mate.
Pmsl still people blaming Craig Whyte,try David Murray
Im going back to my forum.
TONY
MAY 16, 2018 at 21:03
=====================================
Nah, more people distracting really.
The SFA have been forced to publicly question Rangers.
The club can’t get replica kits out at the same time as everyone else will be doing. Risking loss of income. Income which is desperately needed.
Let’s discuss Craig Whyte.
There is a lot going on to talk about.
I wonder why some of our newer posters are trying to blindsight the rest of us?
Allyjambo just introduced the nail to the head. Applause.
Ryan, This is for you. Its amazballs. Pure Celtic fan too. Sorry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NFV8dHrZYM
CW a hired hitman?.
HOMUNCULUSMAY 16, 2018 at 20:52
5
0 Rate This
CLUSTER ONEMAY 16, 2018 at 20:51===============================
I take it the file on him, provided to the “independent directors” didn’t exist then.
——————-
Funnily enough,i’m just getting to that…May 23 2012
As easyJambo mentioned in his post yesterday, I also attended Court all day yesterday. I wasn’t able to get my report of the proceedings on to the blog late last night because ( and I don’t know the technicalities) when I pressed the button to post it, I had been timed out, and since I had foolishly not saved my script, the whole dam’ lot disappeared into the ether!
Much to my regret , I was not in fact able to get into court today as I had expected to do. I’ve therefore had some time free to re-write my report of Tuesday’s proceedings ,for anyone who might be interested.
Here it is:
“ You will have seen eJ’s Court report [ easyJambo
May 15, 2018 at 14:44 ]
eJ neatly summarises the essence of the business, and I will try to flesh it out. If you haven’t read eJ’s post, you might want to scroll back to it.
_________
Before Lord Malcolm, in Court 12, Parliament House.
Pursuers: David Whitehouse and Paul Clark.
Defendants: 1st, the Chief Constable of Police Scotland, 2nd, the procurator Fiscal/ Crown office. 3rd, the Lord Advocate.
Counsel for Whitehouse, Mr Currie,QC; Counsel for Mr Clark, Mr Fairlie,QC.
Counsel for 1st Defendant, Ms Maguire QC;
” ” 2nd and 3rd Defendants, Mr Moynihan , QC.
Mr Currie QC, opened the proceedings by advising Lord Malcolm that there had been a late amendment to the pleadings. He was concerned that if his learned friends were going to argue about whether the amendment should be received, the question of expenses resulting should be resolved.
Mr Moynihan told the Judge that the amended pleadings were related to what is known as the Charlotte Fakes material. Lord Malcolm asked him to clarify the expression, and Mr Moynihan carefully said
“ Charlotte’ as in ‘Charlotte Square’, my Lord, and Fakes as in F.A.K.E.S ‘”
He went on to say that he would need to investigate the background and the history of the access to that material by Whitehouse, although he thought it just more of what had been around for a long time.
Lord Malcolm remarked “ Received but then ignored for the purpose of speed?”
Mr Moynihan observed that the material included 100,000 emails from Craig Whyte, as well as video-tapes and audio-tapes.
Lord Malcolm asked Counsel whether there would be any objection if ‘we proceed on the basis of these averments being before the Court?’
Subject to what he had said earlier about expenses, Mr Currie had no objections. Mr Moynihan said he would be concentrating on the issue of ‘ Immunity’ , so he had no objection to the amendment being received , provided that , if necessary, he would be able to have the question of relevancy examined if or when it became necessary.
Ms Maguire said that although the amended pleadings concerned the 2nd and 3rd Defendants only, she would like to have the opportunity to confirm the amendment.
Lord Malcolm said he would just allow the ‘Record’ ( edit: note that this is pronounced with the emphasis on the second syllable!) to be amended and indicated that the question of expenses would be looked at as required.
(Look again at eJ’s summary report of Mr Moynihan’s plan )
Mr Moynihan then opened.
He first of all explained to Lord Malcolm that there were two cases before him, two separate actions, but the issues are the same, and the sets of pleadings are virtually the same , so he would deal with them as if they were one, and draw attention to such differences as there were.
For the rest of the day , Mr Moynihan , using a time-line which ran from the day that David Whitehouse first notified the police of the Administrators’ suspicions about Craig Whyte’s acquisition, 25 June 2012
On that date the Crown Office had instructed a criminal investigation .
So from that date, Mr Moynihan would argue,the Lord Advocate was involved in the overall direction and control of the investigation.
The time-line ran thus:
5 November 2011. CW acquires RFC plc
14 February 2012 RFC plc enters Administration, Clark and Whitehouse appointed as
Administrators
20 February 2012 CW meets with the Police
25 June 2012 Whitehouse notifies the Police ( Mr Moynihan checked here that the Judge had
Mr Whitehouse’s ‘record’ to hand)
25 June 2012 Crown Office has instructed a criminal investigation, now a full investigation
into the acquisition following preliminary information from the Administrators
( and here Mr Moynihan tells the Judge that Mr Clark’s ‘record’ is at page 12 of
whatever)
So, said Mr Moynihan, the Crown office was director of investigation. And I
refer your Lordship to Section 12 of the Criminal Procedures (Scotlnd)Act
1995, which deals with the powers of the Lord Advocate.
31 October 2012 RFC plc is put into Liquidation. Whitehouse and Clark vacated office, but were
not discharged
? November 2014 Clark and Whitehouse are detained
17 November 2014 Both appear on First Petition, and are committed , on bail, for further
examination [ the critical issue was Ticketus]
26 August 2015 The Crown applies for extension of time [ granted on 7 September ]
01 September 2015 Whitehouse detained for second time
02 September 2015 Clark detained for second time (on his return from abroad)
Mr Moynihan observed that these detentions were the subject of the claim
under Art 5 of the Human Rights Act)
02 September 2015 The first ‘sale’ of ‘Rangers’ to Mr Green’s Sevco
16 September 2015 First Indictment
16 October 2015 Preliminary hearing of First Indictment
02 December 2015 Second Indictment was heard ( re the aacuisition and onward sale)
03 December 2015 The hearing of the Appeal against the extension of time
05 January 2016 Preliminary hearing, continued to debate in the week of 1st February 2016
before Lord Bannatyne), during which the Lord Advocate dropped 5 of the
seven charges. Two were argued before Lord Bannatyne.
22 February 2016 Lord Bannatyne dismisses the charges.
03 June 2016 No further charges against Clark or Whitehouse
Using this time-line Mr Moynihan was trying to show that every action taken by the Police and the Crown office was in law, the action of the Lord Advocate, carried out by his agents acting on his delegated authority.
For the rest of the day, Mr Moynihan moved on to show that in Scots law, the Lord Advocate is immune from prosecution or claims arising from the exercise of his wholly independent statutory power to decide whether there is evidence to suggest a crime has been committed and to prosecute those charged with that crime.
He cited, and quoted at length, from numerous cases, which , he argued, showed that the law of Scotland has for 400 years cherished the principle that the Lord Advocate should face no possible barrier in exercising his independence freely and without fear of comeback
He informed the Court, however, that the Human Rights Act, in one very , very narrow aspect only ( which does not apply in this case- to do with young children and sexual offences) there is provision for claims against the exercise of the Lord Advocate’s prosecution powers.
Mr Moynihan at 4.14 pm, finished there for the day, and will carry on tomorrow (Wednesday)
Court rose at 4.15
Findlay suggested the Murray team wanted to sell “for right reasons or not” provided Rangers bank debt was cleared. He questioned Horne on how much was spent on “due diligence” on Whyte before the takeover, noting that other bidders were checked by accountants PwC.
Horne initially replied, “Not very much at all”.
Findlay asked: “£20? More? Less?”
The witness: “I don’t know – possibly nothing.”
Findlay: “That was what was spent – nothing?”
_______________________________________________
CRAIG Whyte’s deal to buy Rangers with the help of money from the rights to future season ticket sales was known about in advance by the UK’s takeover regulator.
A fraud trial jury has been shown details of a note in which a representative of the Takeover Panel, the independent body which polices company mergers and buyouts, recognised that there was a deal in place with London-based investment firm Ticketus to raise funds to clear the club’s £18 million debt with Lloyds Banking Group when Whyte took over.
The file note that was dated on March 30, 2011, 37 days before Whyte took over the 85 per cent shareholding of Sir David Murray – sold for £1 with conditions contained in a share purchase agreement.
Murray earlier told the trial he would “categorically not” have handed the club over if that was how a deal was being financed.
Solicitor David Horne – a key adviser to Murray – was asked by Whyte’s QC Donald Findlay if it would surprise him if the Takeover Panel knew of the Ticketus deal.
He replied: “That would surprise me.”
Findlay went on to show Horne the note from a Raymond Phillips at the Takeover Panel which talked about the “current proposal” and said: “Craig Whyte would use future sales of season tickets to replace Lloyds bank funding”.
Findlay suggested that a “whole range of people” knew about the Ticketus deal and that Murray could have found out.
Horne said that it was “not obvious at all” and said: “We had no knowledge”.
Whyte, 46, denies the two charges against him, one of acquiring the club fraudulently in May 2011 and another of “financial assistance” under the Companies Act – which centres on the £18m payment, between Whyte’s Wavetower company and Rangers, using Ticketus to clear the bank debt with Lloyds.
Part of the allegations against Whyte is that he pretended to Murray and others that “funds were available” to make all agreed-to payments.
These are said to also include, the £2.8m “small tax case” liability, the £1.7m health-and-safety liability plus £5m for the playing squad.
Earlier Horne was shown a note which it was suggested showed he knew in November 2010 that Whyte was in contact with Ticketus over a £15 million loan facility. But Horne said that he thought it was just for working capital for the club after takeover.
Findlay suggested the Murray team wanted to sell “for right reasons or not” provided Rangers bank debt was cleared. He questioned Horne on how much was spent on “due diligence” on Whyte before the takeover, noting that other bidders were checked by accountants PwC.
Horne initially replied, “Not very much at all”.
Findlay asked: “£20? More? Less?”
The witness: “I don’t know – possibly nothing.”
Findlay: “That was what was spent – nothing?”
Horne agreed and said they “did searches on the internet”. He added: “We took comfort that he had reputable advisors.
“If anything had been thrown up that suggested any impropriety the deal would not have gone ahead.”
Findlay also asked about an email from one of Murray’s key advisers, Mike McGill, that “let slip” there were other investors.
Asked if that was investigated, Horne said, “no”, and added that Whyte should have made the disclosure.
Prosecutor Alex Prentice QC later went on to ask Horne: “On the face of it, was Murray keen to complete the deal?”
The witness: “Yes.”
Prentice: “Would he have sold no matter what?”
Horne: “No.”
The week began with the jury hearing that Craig Whyte had told a prospective business partner that his firm had £60m of assets. London financier John Newlands said he had seen documents relating to Whyte’s Liberty Capital company.
On Wednesday, David Gillespie, an ex-associate of Craig Whyte, said he was “annoyed” after discovering £1 million had left their company Merchant Turnaround to apparently help fund the Rangers takeover.
And on Thursday, it was claimed the brother of football manager David Moyes was the “duped” middle man in an apparent “con” to try and buy Rangers in 2010. But it turned out the proposal involved a forged bank letter as well as fears one of the duo was a crook.
I was at high court when director’s of RFC all admitted under oath that the WTC was not disputed and no attempt made to come to agreement with HMRC within licence date that we all know about. In fact Mr Findlay in layman’s terms stated that it was all left to CW. To the extent penalties added on made the debt 4 .2 million. He finished by saying so how come so many RRM or those who had the best interest in the club let that happen. We know some people who were there and are still there. Fans of this club deserve all they get. I just can’t get enough .