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.
6th May 2017 Rangers trial: Sir David Murray was aware of Craig Whyte ticket deal and was ‘comfortable’ with it
LM2 , if I may be so bold as to call you that ,
where did CW lie about his directorship ban ? In newspapers or other media ? In a court of law ?
What lies about tax ? Again , in the media or in a court ?
Lies about investment he was putting into the club, not business ? IIRC ( meant to signify “if I recall correctly ” but you probably guessed that) , he agreed to take cognisance of the tax bill .
The next bit confuses me , and although I will watch flashing lights without asking their meaning, I cant see any confusing statements on the Companies House – please send links and at least allude to what spooked you .
How do you know that CW didnt have the money in the bank to complete the sale agreement . You must have some access to all his bank accounts , and I think you could make a few bob in collusion with SMSM in letting us know .
This bit
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.
I’m assuming that you didn’t agree with the Courts decision ? And the next step is ?
A lot of successful and honoured businessmen have had bankruptcies and insolvencies across their histories (SDM ?). He was at the wheel when train/car /plane club crashed and ended as rubble , that’s all .
John Clark May 16, 2018 at 22:10
======================
I managed to attend from around 12:30 this afternoon.
Heriot Currie, representing David Whitehouse, was droning on in the midst of going through a raft of authorities of why the Lord Advocate should not be given immunity.
He was followed by Douglas Fairlie, representing Paul Clark. He echoed Mr Currie’s immunity arguments, but spent some time arguing the point that for every wrongdoing, there should be a remedy. He considered that a remedy for a section 5 was insufficient on its own as it only covers the short periods of unlawful detention (following his two arrests), then argued that a common law offence was more appropriate as it covered the whole period of detention, bail and on indictment. (apparently Gerry Moynihan had accepted the Section 5 argument earlier).
He moved onto Paul Clark’s timeline of arrests, indictments and the dropping of charges. In the process, he ripped into the behaviour of the Advocate Depute (including the press release that was issued on the day that the last of the charges against Clark and Whitehouse were dropped). His main thrust was that there never was an evidential reason for his detention and that the the crown office had abused their powers throughout.
Mr Fairlie estimated that he will need a further 45 minutes tomorrow to complete his submission on Section 8. Mr Moynihan will then have the opportunity to respond, before Mr Currie and Ms Maguire debate the position re Police Scotland. The hearing will resume at 10am.
I took from today’s discussion that Mr Currie was looking for a decision on the Lord Advocate’s “immunity” question, because if that is granted then the rest of the arguments would be pointless. Mr Fairlie on the other hand was looking to go to a “proof before answer” with all matters, including immunity, still on the table. I got the feeling that Mr Fairlie wanted the actions of the Lord Advocate and his subordinates to be open to discussion before a decision was made on his immunity.
The charges brought in relation to the compliance officer report are a complete joke. We all know, because it was stated in a court of law that Rangers were owing tax indubitably and beyond dispute in Nov 2010. We all know that messrs. Dickson and Johnston falsified this in their March 2011 licence submission. Neither Rangers nor the individuals involved have been charged with this offence. We all suspect that the SFA were fully cognisant of this situation and worked with Rangers to deceive UEFA and obtain a licence fraudulently. Given that the self same SFA had known that Rangers were falsifying income statements on player registrations since 2003, it is crystal clear that the SFA is a criminally corrupt entity, and that this latest charade merely serves to confirm that that culture of fraud and deception and denial of due process remains intact to the present day.
Great posts today everyone. I’m still catching up with my reading!
AllyJambo
I think you are right, it was the Rangers who introduced the discussion of different dates with regard to monitoring/disclosure periods – have they been tipped off in advance and are getting their retaliation in first? Have they jumped the gun though. A bit like the careless accused who gives away a detail about the crime that was never previously disclosed?
CLUSTER ONEMAY 16, 2018 at 18:21 “Notice how they never say the name of this company.To do so they would then know that the company in liquidation was rangers.”
I spotted this too, ClusterOne – seeing this story side by side with the SFA charge story on the BBC website was classic juxtaposition. On one hand, “it’s us who are being accused and we strenuously object to this unwarranted attack by those who would seek to do us harm.” While on the other, “Certainly nothing to do with us – it was that previously unnamed entity.”
I think it was Aulheid that once reminded us that one lie inevitably leads to another but the truth will always out! I just never imagined it would take quite this long!
Hello there…………….
easyJamboMay 16, 2018 at 22:51
‘…I got the feeling that Mr Fairlie wanted the actions of the Lord Advocate and his subordinates to be open to discussion before a decision was made on his immunity.’
_________________
Thanks for that , eJ.
In my previous ‘report’ I omitted(unintentionally) to mention the reason that I had been given prior to the commencement of proceedings (by two who should know) for the amended ‘pleadings’.
The Pursuers, I was told, had discovered that the Police had not passed on to the then accused’s defence counsel information that they (the police) had obtained from the Charlotte Fakes emails etc that clearly ( according to my informants) showed that there was no connection between CW and the administrators.
The Police ( as a number of recent English cases show) have a duty to provide any ‘evidence’ or information that might be of help to an accused , as well as the evidence that might show their guilt.
So, Mr Fairlie may be suggesting that even the Lord Advocate’s immunity does not stretch to him being immune if he, or his delegated agents, have themselves been in breach of the law, or did not act according to the book.
Echoes of ‘Mr Advocate-Depute, how many times have I asked you..’!
Unless I die tonight ( always a possibility for auld men) I will be in court tomorrow
PADDY MALARKEYMAY 16, 2018 at 22:48
You can find the details here.
https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/93212354-sfa-rangers-note-of-reasons.pdf
When challenged on rumours of non payment of tax, he lied to press. His previous ban was also for non payment of taxes.
Craig Whyte didnt have a single penny of his own money in the club.
Lovely. Did he pay it ? In fact, did he pay any tax. At all ??
The documents were removed from Companies House as they were part of the court case. If you look at the filing history and look for the MG05S then you will see you are still unable to view that record. You may not know my history but I was one of the witnesses for the prosecution and gave a signed witness statement in relation to the above documents.
You see, i and a few of my colleagues who had sponsored the club for years were wise to Mr Whyte and in the background, we had been hounding him, his lawyers, his accountants and a few others in relation to his position, his investment and in particular, this MG05s which in our professional and considered opinion, was an attempt to cover up the truth of the involvement of Ticketus.
During the investigation emails from myself and colleagues were found and 2 of us were interviewed and asked to become witnesses as the documents were removed from Companies House.
Quite why the prosecution chose to play Walter Smith and Ally McCoist over hard physical evidence of “mortgaged charges” with complicated wording, one will never know.
It was a matter of record at the court case. He did not meet a single penny of the personal investment commitments and he used a loan from Ticketus to pay off Lloyds Bank.
Here was my some of my views at the end of it just for you. I wrote this immediately after the case ended. (
As a Crown Witness, I wasn’t allowed to attend any of the proceedings until both parties had rested their case, or until I had been called, if required. Contrary to the nonsense John James was spouting last week, the final witness wasn’t Donald Muir. The final witness appeared as requested however rather than giving evidence in court, the evidence became the final agreed undisputed point in proceedings saving any wasted court time.
Although not able to attend court, I followed the case through Twitter paying particular attention to James Doleman and Andrew Black. For all his sins, having been at court for the summaries(after being discharged), Doleman actually gives a pretty decent account of what goes on.
What I couldn’t say until now is what I thought of the case, through Twitter initially. Baring in mind, this is through the eyes of Twitter exchanges which cannot give all the context, but I thought the AD was incredibly poor. Im obviously not qualified in Law, but I understand DF made a number of objections yet the AD made none. Witness after witness, Findlay attacked the football team, the manager, the transfers, the previous Directors, the Tax cases etc etc etc. Absolutely NONE of which had any relevance in the case whatsoever. Why no objection ? It mattered not a single JOT as to how the previous Directors were rubbish at their job and that they were dysfunctional. They were not on trial. Craig Whyte was. Why was there no objections raised ?
I was completely underwhelmed by the selection of witnesses. Quite why Walter Smith and Ally McCoist were asked to appear is just beyond me. Grandstanding ?? Havent a clue.
Prior to the summaries, I was of the opinion that Findlay was winning. Even if the vast majority of HIS stuff was rhetoric and nonsense which had zero relevance, he is a showman. He gets jurys on his side with his quips. That was also very evident in the summaries which i was able to attend.
The AD summary was as dry as a bone. Zero connection with the jury. Stammering in places. Just not a good delivery in my opinion. There were a few nuggets in there though. There was an email from Whyte where he clearly asked for all references to Ticketus to be removed from the Business Plan which was going to be shared with Murray. There was no mistaking from this email that Ticketus was not to be shown anywhere. If Whyte and the rest genuinely believed Murray already knew about it, then why the request to remove them? There was also the disclosure around the season tickets which may have not been as obvious otherwise. It wasn’t Wavetower who entered into the agreement with Ticketus around Season Tickets, it was Rangers. So Whyte signed the Share Purchase Agreement stating he had the funds to pay the debt owed to LLoyds on the 6th May. Ticketus then paid Rangers FC for 3/4 years season tickets on the 9th May then “Whyte of Rangers” agreed to loan “Whyte of Wavetower” the £18m that then paid the debt to Lloyds. Just incredible. Smoking gun. Its blatant.
But why did the AD stop there.? Why didn’t he point out that Ticketus paid Rangers FC that money on the Monday. He could have put to the Jury that the easiest thing to do at that point would be for Rangers to pay Lloyds the money directly. Why was it that Rangers FC had to loan the money to Wavetower, who then used the money to pay the debt. Why take a convoluted path ? Why am I asking this ? Why wasn’t the AD asking this ?
Findlays summary was a masterclass in playing with a jury. He had them laughing and sniggering and nodding their heads. Excellent delivery. But it was boak inducing.
On Monday morning, he started off by reflecting on the events of Saturday night in London. He stood in front of the jury saying that sometimes when we see these atrocities from these guilty people, it puts things into perspective. We probably could have all just wrapped it up then. I mean poor Craig, he aint no terrorist, is he? Playing with minds ? Disgusting.
Yet again, throughout his delivery he pummelled the old Rangers Board. Laughed at them. Said Alastair Johnstone gave Bain an illegal contract. Said Paul Murrays bid was illegal. Left them all without a name. He talked of the Share Purchase Agreement and in particular the “intention” of investing in the squad as “window dressing” by Murray. I didn’t miss the Irony of his own Window Dressing where he was using a lot of completely irrelevant information to tar others in an attempt to take the focus away from his client. That’s his job of course. I get that. I was actually sitting feeling sorry for some of the Jury members.
During his summary, he raised that it wasn’t Whyte that tried to hide the agreement, despite the email shown by the crown to the contrary, that it was actually Ticketus. He clearly had forgotten that on the stand, the Ticketus representative Mr Bryan continually stated they were seeking reassurance from Whytes team that David Murray knew about their involvement. The court was then shown an email from Whyte to the witness stating the Ticketus deal was “pretty much” what he has discussed with David Murray.
Findlay then tackled the Financial Assistance argument and I admit to being astounded. He claimed, and Lady Stacy later confirmed the same, that it would not be Financial Assistance, IF, the money borrowed was to the benefit of the Company. “THE BENEFIT OF RANGERS” essentially.
As confirmation of this, he stated that by paying of the Lloyds debt, Craig Whyte saved Rangers £1m per year. The £1m per year was the annual repayment on a 20 year Term loan of £20m of which £18m remained outstanding. This was a clear benefit to Rangers and therefore the Financial Assistance charge should be thrown out. Again, Lady Stacy reconfirmed this in her summary. If the club benefited then, it wouldn’t be Financial Assistance.
She was spot on. Findlay on the other hand ? How can this be allowed in a Court of Law ?
Craig Whyte sold 100,339 of our Season Tickets to Ticketus to get his hands on that money. On what planet, can that ever equal “saving us £1m per year” How can selling 100,339 season tickets up front possibly “benefit the Company” ? Selling those season tickets, which led to a £26m debt, helped force us into administration ? Why didn’t the AD deal with this ? Why didn’t he cut this off at the pass? AGAIN, why am I asking this and not him ?
Another justification behind the Ticketus money was the personal guarantee that Craig Whyte gave against the money which should have been taken as him using his own money or guarantee. And here was me thinking his client was previously getting Legal Aid and his personal guarantee to Ticketus was already trashed in a different court case. Im assuming now he has been found not guilty that he will be paying Ticketus their £26m back. Aye.
He then went on to say that the money Whyte had promised from Jerome Pension Fund and from Merchant Capital was sitting in the bank ready to be used by the club when we needed it. Wait ? What ? Did we not need it in February 2012 ? Why wasn’t it used then ?
Findlay finshed his performance by reminding the jury that these courts have had Serial murderers sitting in the dock and that their duty in this was the same as the duty of people convicting a serial murderer before quipping that Craig Whyte was really only a pantomime villain.
That was it. The game was over. I knew at that point, it would take the jury less than a few hours. Everything would be dropped. The AD was horrendous. DF shouted “squirrel” the whole way through. He was the best talent on the stage. The poor jury were left with no decision to make.
Whyte had no money from the off. He lied to Ticketus. He lied to SFA. He lied to the fans. He lied to the press. He lied to HMRC. He was disqualified as a director. He has been disqualified again as a director. He had his home repossessed. He didnt pay a penny of tax from the club. He was arrested whilst fleeing abroad. He claimed Legal Aid. For feck sake.
An absolute shambles from start to finish. 29 page indictments. Thousands of boxes of evidence. Tens of thousands of documents. And the AD plays Ally McCoist and Walter Smith. Bravo chappy.
A comment I posted late last night appears to have disappeared from the blog.
I would really appreciate a reason, so that I can either modify my tone or simply decide that my pov is not welcome here.
I will check back in the morning to see if I get an explanation.
Yet another reason why I would gladly welcome the FINAL demise of an Ibrox club.
6 years ago we where talking about Sporting Integrity.
Not about money.
If there is no Ibrox club…then we shouldn’t be concerned about a drop in income for Scottish football. We will find our level.
But, IMO, TRFC is a cancer on Scottish football.
From personal experience, I don’t use that term lightly.
If there was no Ibrox club, I would feel obligated to contribute more to the Scottish game. I would be happy to do so…And I suspect many others would feel the same.
So, if you ignore the money…what does TRFC actually bring to the Scottish game…And even Scottish culture?
It’s daylight. I hope we get another beautiful day like yesterday.
Had a nice time yesterday afternoon with my Jambo pal, Andy. Had been to the Beatson with his lovely wife. Andy is not well. EJ & AJ don’t know or care if you are religious but thoughts or prayers for him please.
Steviebc,
I wish things could have worked out better in 2012. A new Rangers. I mean a new Rangers.
Without the baggage.
Think of 20k fans like Slimjim, Lawman, DBD & Ryan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu6–WBPBHo
STEVIEBCMAY 17, 2018 at 02:42
IMO, thats a horrible comment to make and thats also personal experience and as stated before, you cant have 2 ways. Either its a new club without the Tax baggage or its the same club who you can hate.
That was the exact point many fans made loud and clear to their Chairmen when considering their votes on Rangers staying in the SPL. “keep them and we will walk”, “ditch them and we will give more”
Few years on, Celtic has lost 12,000 off their average crowd and Dundee United are now on the verge of folding after passing Rangers on their way up to SPFL.
None of you may like it……..and i could go on any Rangers site and many would be saying the exact same as you, only the opposite way around………but outwith Celtic and Rangers social media and the Scottish bubble, the rest of the UK and the footballing world only peak their interest when its about the challenge, history and relationship between the 2 of them.
To be honest Lawman, I don’t think our tap tier being shut was anything to do with The Rangers.
More to do with the way we were playing on RD’s second term.
If Brendan Rodgers does not get his finger out for next season he might find himself in the same situation.
BUT, it has nothing to do with your club. We played 60 games. How many against you?
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/05/16/making-the-klan-strictly-liable-in-scotland/
Craig Whyte sold 100,339 of our Season Tickets to Ticketus to get his hands on that money.
—————
Before he took over the club.I wonder if i could sell a clubs ST when i have nothing to do with the club.
That has always puzzled me that.
LM2 I do believe that you stated this is what I WROTE at the time and you say it was during the CW trail
It wasn’t Wavetower who entered into the agreement with Ticketus around Season Tickets, it was Rangers. So Whyte signed the Share Purchase Agreement stating he had the funds to pay the debt owed to LLoyds on the 6th May. Ticketus then paid Rangers FC for 3/4 years season tickets on the 9th May then “Whyte of Rangers” agreed to loan “Whyte of Wavetower” the £18m that then paid the debt to Lloyds. Just incredible. Smoking gun. Its blatant.
But why did the AD stop there.? Why didn’t he point out that Ticketus paid Rangers FC that money on the Monday. He could have put to the Jury that the easiest thing to do at that point would be for Rangers to pay Lloyds the money directly. Why was it that Rangers FC had to loan the money to Wavetower, who then used the money to pay the debt. Why take a convoluted path ? Why am I asking this ? Why wasn’t the AD asking this ?
=========================================
oh dear ,you seem to have a firm grasp of the company Wavetower and it’s role on CWs takeover and the only other entity you mention is Rangers FC ,in fact you say that Rangers FC did the deal with ticketus .Why then have you clogged up this blog with OC/NC posts .
I am always wary of certain bloggers appearing every now and again that seem to hog the blog on certain issues ,I believe that they do so when there are more important things going on .
You do nothing to alter that belief
You also state you were a witness in rangers 1872s defence and have inner dealings with the club ,that leads me to believe you have all the more reason to cover up any lies told by the club and to try to mitigate any focus on those lies .
Cluster One. What he did was agree to the sale of the season tickets. The sale purchase agreement then went through on the 6th May and the £18m was to be paid that day and should have came from an account set up by Wavetower which had been used to satisfy the sellers.
This payment was stalled over the weekend until as the new owner of the club, a loan from Ticketus could be arranged and transferred through 2 parties so it could then be paid to Lloyds to complete the SPA some 4 or 5 days late.
All of this was revealed in court.
Off to Court in a minute or two, but I have to mention Halliday, the great ‘Scotsman’ same club propagandist, who has added a wee phrase to the denier’s mantra.
This is from yesterday’s edition:
” Rangers were placed in administration by Whyte, leading to liquidation and the sale of its business, assets and Scottish FA membership to a consortium headed by Charles Green”
This deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking that all that had happened was that RFC plc changed hands in the way that ,say, Hearts did, or that Dundee United may do, is so crassly insulting to the intelligence as to be insulting.
Halliday will not be invited to join the ICIJ any time soon!
Perhaps when the ‘Scotsman’ folds, he’ll find a job with a State-owned newspaperin a totalitarian state.
I think he’d be quite at home, with the other journalistic deniers.
The Elephant in the room has alsways been the Continuity Myth which up until very recently the SFA,MSM and The Rangers International Fc have been sticking to mercilessly in order to cement this deluded (and colluded)concept that Rangers somehow survived Liquidation.
I don’t want to deviate from anything discussed in this thread but could someone of a Legal mindset please explain what their take is on this Legal stance by the GOVERNMENT.
Paying particular notice to the section marked “Incorporation as a Limited Company”
link here:
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/A_Guide_to_Starting_a_Sports_Club_tcm21-149209.pdf
Thanks in advance.
STEVIEBCMAY 17, 2018 at 02:42
So, if you ignore the money…what does TRFC actually bring to the Scottish game…And even Scottish culture?
—————————————————————————————
I see you are following my theme of ‘What have Rangers ever done for us’
When it comes to money generated for the game as a whole the reality is that the majority of the Blue Pound stays within Ibrox.
For a long time now they have contributed nothing in terms of assisting the Scottish co-efficient in Europe or the share of any Euro cash to the member clubs in the way Celtic’s European runs have produced payments to fellow clubs.
Yes occasionally they may have splashed out on a player from a fellow Scottish Club but those days are generally over and when they were doing it in recent decades it wasn’t even with their own money, is was with BoS borrowings and saved tax from the EBTs.
Lets not forget that those who run the club have been quick to snatch the blue pound back when required and to the detriment of others.
Murray (albeit with his MIM hat on) was more than willing to help seal Airdrie’s fate under the mantra of ‘business is business’
Green was happy to exploit the situation when Hearts were in the mire to reduce their fee for Lee Wallace.
As reported by Phil Mac they recently may even have been trying to work a fast on with Hamilton on the Docherty transfer.
The club is currently doing very little in terms of having younger players on loan to fellow Scottish clubs and those not making the grade at Ibrox are not of a great standard, so the knock of effect to others who may be looking for decent players is limited.
When it comes to the fans many a Bear is more than happy to boycott other Scottish clubs at the drop of a hat.
The fallacy of the blue pound from travelling support has been done to death in that basically teams outwith the Premiership may get an occasional cup tie. Those in the Premiership only get a max of two visits a season and Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts could fill their stadiums without the Bears being present.
A small increase in drawing fans to their home town club as opposed to taking buses to Ibrox every second week would make up for the occasional home visit from Rangers fans (which of course comes with extra security and policing costs).
Hell when it comes to philanthropy, the club can’t even organise a charity match without skimming money of the top.
The best that can be said on the money front is that Celtic v Rangers may indeed be the big ticket item when negotiating TV deals. But lets not forget its not that long ago that there wasn’t an equitable split in the revenue with the Glasgow Two happy to take the loins share.
Add to that the constant desire in the background to move to England for more money and thus effectively saying ‘to hell with the rest of Scottish Football’ and you can also add the money argument to the question :-
‘What exactly is it that the club from Ibrox offers the modern Scottish game?’.
PS They have probably spent more monies on QC’s in the last few years than they have on footballing matters that benefit the rest of Scottish football
WOTTPIMAY 17, 2018 at 09:08
When it comes to money generated for the game as a whole the reality is that the majority of the Blue Pound stays within Ibrox.
______________________________________________________________________________
According to an independent report 157,662 away support this season, the highest of any club in Britain.
Thats nearly £4m on tickets alone before programmes, food and drink etc.
There are some teams in the lower leagues who said the visits would secure their future for years on the back of the income generated when Rangers visited.
PS – Exactly the same with Celtic away support as well. 2 of the Top 3 in Britain.
WOTTPI
MAY 17, 2018 at 09:08
As a Celtic fan I used to dream of a move to the EPL, with all the money and big names. Thanks to this blog, and posts like this one by WOTTPI, I have come to realise the arrogance and disregard of that dream: disregard of the teams we have been competing against for over a century. I’ve developed a dilemma because of this, in that I love Scottish football, so I want the other teams to be better funded; but that would mean Celtic didn’t win so much, and we all love winning.
THELAWMAN2MAY 17, 2018 at 00:59
———————————————————–
So, to summarize, Craig Whyte won a contentious decision in a court of law despite being a bad bad man.
Perhaps your utter disgust at such a surprising outcome might encourage you to have some sympathy for those of us who have had to put up with dozens and dozens of baffling decisions arrived at by officialdom in an array of court cases and inquiries involving iterations of Rangers in recent years, often of the magnitude which subsequently brought the words ‘Brysonesque’ and Brysonism’ into the English language.
Barely a week goes by without some kind of charge being laid at the door of the current Ibrox incumbents, charges which individually, never mind cumulatively, would have seen any other club/company/etheral entity unceremoniously launched out of Scottish football for bringing the game into dispute.
Jim Traynor’s latest linguistic diatribe via the official Rangers* statement would have any other club hauled over the coals, but you can bet your bottom dollar the SFA will remain mute and impotent.
On the subject of Traynor’s brain-fart of a statement, I notice the current club playing out of Ibrox are once again trying to compartmentalise every little detail so that, for example, they can apportion blame for certain actions on the previous company (not club, no siree!), as they’re doing with the recent SFA charges. Name me just one other club in the entire history of football who hide behind a contrived club/company distinction/separation and morph between the two to suit.
Isn’t it remarkable that they apportion all the bad stuff (charges, tax and other debts dumped) to the old company, but they’re not inclined to apportion the good stuff such as titles, trophies and kudos in the same way? I wonder if the end of their much-heralded world record has any bearing on this warped way of thinking?
At various points recently, it’s been suggested Andrew James Dickson will take the token rap for the notice of complaint issued over the 2011 UEFA licence.
Dickson has been involved with every set of directors who have had their feet under the Ibrox table, pre and post liquidation. He’s been a major collaborator with the SFA throughout that time and was even voted on to the bloated SFA Congress last season.
Only an opinion, but given Dickson will have undisclosed knowledge of who, in the governing body, helped with the cover up, I’d think there is little chance he will emerge from the situation as a loser.
He’s a key part of the whole Rangers liquidation/continuation story, and he has been proffered protection throughout by all the warring Ibrox factions. There is a reason for this.
An application is made by Rangers on or before March 31st 2011. That application , in writing , states that there are NO OVERDUE TAX PAYABLES
Two Directors of Rangers stated under oath in a Scottish Court, that starting in November 2010 Rangers accepted that they had a liability to HMRC for the Discount Option Scheme.
These Directors were Donald McIntyre and Mike McGill . In February 2011 a QC told Rangers there was no case for a succesful appeal, and McGill confirmed under oath that HMRC produced letters in March 2011 which made an appeal impossible
The other Directors of Rangers at the time Rangers submitted a knowingly false application were : Alastair Johnston, John Greig, Dave King , Paul Murray , John McLelland and Donald Muir
Yet Rangers stated in writing to the SFA that their were no overdue payables and further confirmed there was an active appeal in place .
This was a lie . It was a lie perpetrated to enable Rangers the opportunity to access £20 Million of Champions League group revenues
There are people determined to throw a lot of noise around to deflect from the fundamental facts . Mostly paid Rangers PR operatives, fans who can’t handle what their club had become in those years, and also some in the SMSM who have no interest in questioning anything coming out of Ibrox
Rangers lied and continued to lie . A pattern of behaviour that was in place for at least a decade when denying to HMRC and the SFA that there were side letters in relation to EBT payments. It’s not surprising they lied about their Tax position, it’s not surprising they continue to lie today
King and Johnston are still on the RIFC board, Paul Murray has just left the board and also the board of TRFC. There is a history of lies and cheating by individuals at Rangers . There is also a history of denial and threats when confronted about this .
However the facts are clear, there is no doubt , none whatsoever . The only question is what happens now . King and Alastair Johnston should be told immediately they must resign. A ban by the SFA preventing Rangers from a Uefa licence for at least one year is the minimum that should happen .
However Rangers and their surrogates will demand no action is taken. Kings money is needed, despite the fact he’s a convicted criminal and a UEFA ban would damage the prospects of a revival under Gerrard.
Just conveniently ignore the damage done to those clubs who played by the rules, who didn’t cheat or lie.
Rangers reaction and the reaction of many in the support to proof , under oath, of lying and cheating is to threaten and blame others.
Thats the thing with Rangers in the last 6 years. It’s always someone else’s fault . There is zero looking inwards . They are “ victims ‘ in their mind, which given their behaviours is quite a feat of mental contrortion
BARCABHOYMAY 17, 2018 at 10:39
The acceptance of an amount due is not an overdue payable as described in Annex VIII no matter how many times you say it im afraid.
Right now i owe the Electricity company for the Electricity i have used in the last 17 days but my bill is not overdue. Until i receive the final bill and it says i must pay by 30th June, then there is no Overdue payable.
You can argue the morality of how it came about and the delays in getting to the right number etc etc but what cannot be argued is that HMRC issued the final determination on the 20th May 2011 and the terms of payment were that it had to be paid by 19th June 2011.
No Director in court admitted under oath or anything that the club had an Overdue Payable in the definition of UEFA regulations.
Lawman
you are completely wrong. The rules of the SFA and SPFL both include acting in good faith towards fellow member clubs
no matter how many times you deny it, when Rangers told the SFA there was an active appeal against the tax bill that was a lie. It broke the duty of good faith rule and it fundamentally mislead the SFA over the true position of the tax overdue payables
it doesn’t matter how many times you try and deflect from that or parse your way around it . Rangers lied and cheated to get a Uefa licence
THELAWMAN2MAY 17, 2018 at 09:27
I’m not denying that ticket sales from the Bears away fans help some clubs.
Hell, Hearts were more than happy to use the Murrayfield game to increase the crowd that day.
The benefits and the effects on individual clubs are, however, overstated.
The journey through the leagues was of course an exceptional event.
Unlike T’Rangers currently telling everyone that they are relying on the bonus of Euro cash, the clubs in the lower divisions are used to running a tight ship with the money they expect to take in. ‘The journey’ was merely an unexpected once in a life time bonus (minus the security costs and the inconvenience of having to repairing plastic pitches from flair burns) Those clubs would have continued on their own merry way with or without the blue pound.
Hearts, Aberdeen and Hibs all have had great travelling support, especially this season, but I don’t see them asking for awards or kudos for simply supporting their teams and the game in general.
If others clubs benefit from their attendance at away grounds that it is all to the good and given with pleasure and comaraderie (well maybe not so much when Jambos are filling the Hobbos coffers!).
However , the attitude from Ibrox is that we should all be on bended knee thanking the Bears for seeing the rest of us as being worthy of a visit from such a generous and magnanimous entity.
When the SFA asked Rangers if they had any overdue tax payables . They didn’t simply answer no .
They stated we have one which is overdue but it’s under appeal .
They said this knowing that an appeal was impossible . There were no grounds for an appeal . McGill and McIntyre said so under oath.
Rangers had a duty of good faith to be honest with their application . They weren’t , they lied . It’s a matter of public record, and no matter how often Lawman tries to distract or deflect , that doesn’t change
Lied Cheated Charged
TheLawMan2May 17, 2018 at 10:50″You can argue the morality of how it came about and the delays in getting to the right number etc etc but what cannot be argued is that HMRC issued the final determination on the 20th May 2011 and the terms of payment were that it had to be paid by 19th June 2011.”
And if you were correct in this who owed the bill was it the club or the company as a lot of people who join up with Sevco seem to go through a drilling before facing the gullibillies.
Letter dated 26 November 2010, McIntyre confirmed Rangers accepted liability as there was a “side letter”
McIntyre says side letter was presented to him at a meeting with HMRC. Left with “no choice but to accept liabilityMcIntyre asked if any payment made to HMRC, says there was not, a decision made by the Murray Group
When a £500,000 interest charge is made on a tax bill it is beyond debate that is it overdue.
Despite not declaring the payments to de Boer and Flo to the football authorities and operating an illegal tax scam no sanctions, fines or result reversals were ever implemented by the SFA or SPl.
Barca, im afraid im not wrong. I have had 2 FAs and The head of legal of ECA confirm my understanding. “Overdue payables” is set out in black and white in Annex VIII of the UEFA regulations and i can assure you, just owing the money without it being overdue does not pass the test.
Think of it this way, PAYE and VAT etc is always paid in arrears so every club owes the tax man on the 31st March every year. Every club knows they are in debt to HMRC on the 31st March. The amount they owe, however, is not an “OVERDUE PAYABLE”
Lawman
The tax is due from the date on the invoice. It is overdue 30 days after that date.
Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong, regardless of who you claim has told you otherwise.
Rangers lied in their application when they stated they had an active appeal. You have ignored that in 3 responses. The application was flawed because it contained a fundamental lie
or did the head of legal at the ECA tell you it was ok to lie in an application
Big Boab ,
Absolutely correct.
Barcabhoy
Correct. I havent claimed to the contrary. The invoice date was 20th May 2011. It became overdue on the 19th June 2011.
Wait……are you talking about the 30th June submission made by Whyte or the 31st March application made by the previous incumbent ?
HIGHLANDER MAY 17, 2018 at 10:38
================
I agree wholeheartedly.
It’s galling to see the newco claims of ownership of the “good” bits while the “bad” bits are a problem for the oldco.
When you reflect on some of this week’s news, you can see how the actions and achievements of some former employees (e.g. players) of the oldco are readily accepted and lauded by the newco, while the unsavoury actions of other former employees are disowned as the oldco’s problem.
Regards yeaterdays news
The club Rangers 2012 that was liquidated was Rangers Football club 1872 PLC, the only difference is it changed its name. For the guy who has the claim in to be told he has to go find the liquidated company/club and take it up with them, then what will have to be argued is the liquidated 1872 PLC had to be incorporated, to claim against same club, if he finds such a document then he has a case against the newco/sameclub, if such a document does not exist then he has no recourse to what happened as he is suing the wrong company/club this club he did not play for and this company did not have him in their employment
Seems to me that Lawman2 is putting up an argument that suggests, ‘it’s alright as long as Rangers get away with it’, rather than making a case for his club to be judged as ‘not guilty’ of any wrongdoing. Wrongdoing that lasted for some ten years, or more, longer than Whyte’s non-payment of tax and NI.
Allyjambo, im quite happy to be judged on what was wrong and what was right as long as that is the case. Im not happy to be judged on people opinions of rules and what happened and some stances of “just because”
Seems to me this whole mess comes down to the basics?
Did Rangers FC survive Liquidation?
The answer to that is a resounding no because no business survives Liquidation.
If you read the link I provided above it is fairly straightforward regarding a Club becoming a Limited Company.
I quote
Incorporation as a Limited Company:Forming or CONVERTING your sports CLUB to a Limited Company enables your club to become established as a LEGAL ENTITY in its own right, separate from the individual members. There are two forms of Limited Company:1. Companies with an issued share capital, where ownership and control lies with the shareholders. This form is generally inappropriate for sports clubs.2. Companies limited by guarantee, where the members of the company each guarantee to pay a nominal sum (usually up to £5 each) in the event of the company being unable to meet its obligations. This form is usually used for sports clubs wishing to incorporate as a company.There are several advantages to this structure. Because THE CLUB IS A DISTINCT LEGAL ENTITY…”
Rangers Football Club Incorporated on the 29th of May 1899
This now leads me/us to the next issue…Why are the SFA contacting an entirely new entity about a past entities transgressions?
Could it be they are concerned about being implicated in the biggest con in Scottish Footballs history?
Thats the question King and his merry band of brothers should be asking.
It would be nice if the resident Lawmen could clarify whether my interpretation of the Governments Guidlines are either flawed or wrong?
Again my thanks in advance.
TheLawMan2May 17, 2018 at 13:58
Allyjambo, im quite happy to be judged on what was wrong and what was right as long as that is the case. Im not happy to be judged on people opinions of rules and what happened and some stances of “just because”
_______________
Sorry, haven’t got a clue what you mean in this post. Unless you are ‘Rangers’ I wasn’t suggesting you be judged by anyone.
I think its obvious that i meant the club.
TheLawMan2May 17, 2018 at 14:36
I think its obvious that i meant the club.
_________________
It’s not even obvious who you’re replying to. Just another post filling up space on the blog.
How, when and on whose authority were trophies and titles sold, transferred or otherwise passed to the newco (Sevco Scotland)?
Did SFA or the then SPL have a say. Were these trophies and titles treated as “assets”?
Was there any precedent eg Airdrieonians, Third Lanark, Gretna?
Take yer time Legal Eagles…
Here’s the link again incase you missed it:
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/A_Guide_to_Starting_a_Sports_Club_tcm21-149209.pdf
Allyjambo, im quite happy to be judged on what was wrong and what was right as long as that is the case. Im not happy to be judged on people opinions of rules and what happened and some stances of “just because”
In which case stop insulting our intelligence that Whyte taking on a personal obligation for £24m and using the tendered funds it generated to repay Rangers secured debt was a trivial insignificance that bore no advantage on the soon to be “in administration” club status.
If I could borrow and paraphrase Barca; cheated, caught, lied, cheated some more, caught again despite the authorities proven connivance, lied, liquidated, blamed everyone else.
The end
TheLawMan2May 17, 2018 at 14:53
ALLYJAMBOMAY 17, 2018 at 14:35
Sorry, haven’t got a clue what you mean in this post. Unless you are ‘Rangers’ I wasn’t suggesting you be judged by anyone. THELAWMAN2MAY 17, 2018 at 14:36 (1 minute later)
I think its obvious that i meant the club. ALLYJAMBOMAY 17, 2018 at 14:45
It’s not even obvious who you’re replying to. Just another post filling up space on the blog.
____________________
May I start by apologising for filling up the blog with repetitive posts on nothing of importance to the topic. If not interested, please read no further.
LM2
You posted that in a way that suggests that the top post was the first in the series and that I had also omitted to make it clear who I was referring to, which might well lead the casual reader to wonder what on earth it is all about. Now that I can take it that your post of 14.45 was to me, I can ask you in what way was it obvious that you meant the club?
But first, my original post, with the only mention of ‘judged’ in bold, clearly referring to ‘the club’, is shown below. Then your response to that post, where I have highlighted in bold where you mention ‘judged’. Then my reply telling you I haven’t a clue what you mean, unless you are Rangers. This because my first post spoke of judging your club, but your reply spoke of judging you , hence my next reply saying ‘unless you are Rangers’. You then tell me that the words ‘I’m quite happy…’ and I’m not happy…’ make it obvious that you meant Rangers. Can you explain?
As usual, of course, your original response did not tackle the thrust of the original post.
AllyjamboMay 17, 2018 at 13:42
Seems to me that Lawman2 is putting up an argument that suggests, ‘it’s alright as long as Rangers get away with it’, rather than making a case for his club to be judged as ‘not guilty’ of any wrongdoing. Wrongdoing that lasted for some ten years, or more, longer than Whyte’s non-payment of tax and NI.
TheLawMan2May 17, 2018 at 13:58
Allyjambo, im quite happy to be judged on what was wrong and what was right as long as that is the case. Im not happy to be judged on people opinions of rules and what happened and some stances of “just because”
AllyjamboMay 17, 2018 at 14:35
TheLawMan2May 17, 2018 at 13:58 Allyjambo, im quite happy to be judged on what was wrong and what was right as long as that is the case. Im not happy to be judged on people opinions of rules and what happened and some stances of “just because”_______________
Sorry, haven’t got a clue what you mean in this post. Unless you are ‘Rangers’ I wasn’t suggesting you be judged by anyone.
JustTheFactsMay 17, 2018 at 15:00
Take yer time Legal Eagles…
Here’s the link again incase you missed it:https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/A_Guide_to_Starting_a_Sports_Club_tcm21-149209.pdf
______________________
Sorry, JTF, but that can’t be right. There’s no mention of what happens to ‘the club’ at the moment of incorporation; you know, that bit that detaches itself from the now limited club but is never seen, heard of, or referred to until the incorporated club fails to get a CVA to enable it to exit administration, when it becomes more of the club than the club that has existed, without question, as the only club for over a hundred years!
I realise that there isn’t actually a word, or phrase, or explanation, to describe this separation of club from club – not in law, nor everyday use, not even in fairy stories (not even in the year 2012 did someone come up with such a word or phrase or even try to explain it) – but there must surely be some mistake…somewhere!
SMUGASMAY 17, 2018 at 15:46
In which case stop insulting our intelligence that Whyte taking on a personal obligation for £24m and using the tendered funds it generated to repay Rangers secured debt was a trivial insignificance that bore no advantage on the soon to be “in administration” club status.
_____________________________________________________________
Im not sure i understand that and really not sure thats my opinion. Can you explain please Smugas.
borussiabeefburgMay 17, 2018 at 10:38
At various points recently, it’s been suggested Andrew James Dickson will take the token rap for the notice of complaint issued over the 2011 UEFA licence.
Dickson has been involved with every set of directors who have had their feet under the Ibrox table, pre and post liquidation. He’s been a major collaborator with the SFA throughout that time and was even voted on to the bloated SFA Congress last season.
Only an opinion, but given Dickson will have undisclosed knowledge of who, in the governing body, helped with the cover up, I’d think there is little chance he will emerge from the situation as a loser.
He’s a key part of the whole Rangers liquidation/continuation story, and he has been proffered protection throughout by all the warring Ibrox factions. There is a reason for this.
——————————————————————————————————
BB
This point has been mentioned several times in the past, but it has never been fully explained – at least I have not seen such an explanation. Can you say more?
What level of wizardry is Mr Dickson capable of that he manages to stay on the right side of so many factions all through this interminable debacle? We are surely talking about some serious Jedi-Master capabilities to have managed to come through all this with barely a mention, other than the slightly cryptic references on here that appear from time to time?
FWIW, I see the latest developments in much the same light as Iceman described earlier. The SFA were up to their eyeballs (actually, over their heads) trying to provide Rangers with unfair sporting advantage in order to keep them afloat and maintain their status as the Establishment team. This was the only social order they had the wit to imagine and the founding premise for all of their business plans.
The idea that the SFA and other bodies did not know that Rangers were in big trouble on tax is simply not credible.
The extraordinary lengths that they subsequently went to to cover up their tracks and to deflect attention away from this issue was not ignorance or naivety – it was guilt and desperation to avoid being held accountable for their actions.
In what significant way has this organisation changed between now and then?
Has there been some sort of overwhelming Road to Damascus seeing of the light?
Are we witnessing a new dawning of fair play and transparency from the office block at Hampden Park?
Yeah right.
It is odds on a further attempt to bury the real story in the long grass. Maybe they are hoping that some of the chancers that have been hanging around the marble stairs at Ibrox can be sacrificed and won’t spill the beans on what they know? RRM don’t do spilt beans dontcha know.
Maybe they hope that hanging out a couple of spivs or dodgy former directors will satisfy us all?
Who knows, they might even have it in for dodgy Dave King and some of the other miscreants currently wearing brogues and blazers? God only knows he is taking them for a complete ride and probably taking the current iteration off a cliff in the process. Would almost make sense to bump him off in order to save The Rangers.
But really, when it comes down to it, you have to think it is most likely just another attempt to maintain the stranglehold that the SFA has on the game, to avoid having their complete corruption exposed to the clear light of day, and to allow them to keep their snouts firmly in the trough.
Time will tell I suppose.
From what I can gather, the Res12 guys have never been interested in targeting Rangers. Their focus has only ever been on the corruption that eats the heart out of the administration of our game. This is the only game in town for those of us who want to see a level playing field.
Sure, I can get my kicks wallowing in the schadenfreude of seeing any form of Rangers careening from disaster to disaster. I would be lying if I said otherwise.
But what I really want is a level playing field that means we will never again be exposed to the cheating that has so very nearly destroyed professional football as a meaningful sport in this country.
Keep the focus firmly on the SFA and the other football authorities. Who knew about the dodgy tax situation and when? Who knowingly signed off on the European license despite the clear breach of rules? Yes the Rangers directors told porkies and breached good faith. But who at the SFA knew that but decided to go along with it?
Sine die anyone who was involved.
Happy to. (Apologies not sure what happened to earlier formatting!!!)
You appear to acknowledge, in fact positively highlight, Whytes weekend misadventures in May 2011 most of which was discussed on here by july2012 when the three monkeys were still deciding who was doing what. More importantly your post today that I quoted at best down plays and in all honesty completely ignores that repaying a significant 3rd party debt and more importantly returning a heritable security/ floating charge “in house” prior to administration was of obvious benefit, particularly if Clubs are now to be considered immortal (although to be honest we both know that last bit was a later add-on).
AllyjamboMay 17, 2018 at 13:42Seems to me that Lawman2 is putting up an argument that suggests, ‘it’s alright as long as Rangers get away with it’, rather than making a case for his club to be judged as ‘not guilty’ of any wrongdoing. Wrongdoing that lasted for some ten years, or more, longer than Whyte’s non-payment of tax and NI.
TheLawMan2May 17, 2018 at 13:58Allyjambo, im quite happy “for us” to be judged on what was wrong and what was right as long as that is the case. Im not happy “for us” to be judged on people opinions of rules and what happened and some stances of “just because”
I have adjusted my statement above in the hope that it now makes sense that i wasnt looking to be personally judged.
Barcabhoy
The Lawman avoids debate on the fraudulent basis on which the licence was granted because there is no way you can say describing a liability as potentional and subject to discussions is a true statement of what took place. So licennce granted on a lie.
Bogs Dollox last week told us how the Determination process differed from the norm in that it was a collection process based on non payment of tax by an unlawful means that should have been collected as normal at the time under PAYE or whatever lawful attachment applied. That is from 2001 and you cannot get much more overdue than that.
The Tax Justice Network had already supported this view regarding “overdueness” after they issued their report and they ARE.experts.
When HMRC informed Rangers they owed tax in 2010 as admitted in court, they meant tax already way overdue. The process thereafter including delays by RFC was on determining and agreeing the liability including quantum until 21st March .2011 when it automatically became overdue from 2001.
The only way the licence should have been approved then by 31 March was by payment. There was no written agreement to suspend collection although HMRC quite understandably verbally gave time for payment to be made after CW took over on 6th May
They started collection proceedings on the overdue payable whose true status was concealed from the SFA when granting on 5th May, leading to 20th May “invoice” being issued.
Under UEFA FFP that invoice indicating the true nature of the status of the liability had to be provided to SFA immediately on receipt, but to do so would have allowed them to see their basis for granting was unsound and either change their position or make CW pay the bill. HMRC had been very patient in trying to meet their duty to the taxpayer to collect.
This all happened before SFA notified UEFA of clubs granted a licence on 26 May and it could be argued RFC under SDM lied to get the licence and under CW kept the lie from SFA discovery. in order for UEFA to be notified they had a licence.
Regarding the monitoring period from 26 May onwards variations on the original status of the liability were used by CW in June and September to avoid the truth emerging and that is where the JDPT should be looking at too.
On the monitoring: JJ today published an interesting exchange between SFA and UEFA of Sep 2011 about the June submission from RFC , the consequences of which led to it being accepted and RFC not being asked, just 5 months before Rangers entered administration, to produce future financial forecasts that would have alerted SFA and UEFA officially just how bad RFC’s financial position was. The JDPT should be establishing what took place during that conversation that allowed the June submission to be accepted.
Again in a nod to JJ – questions need answered about the tone and advice in the SFA e mail to Rangers of 19 Sept. The JPDT will have to probe for any failure there that allowed dishonesty to remain uncovered.
Finally..CAS made it clear in Giannina case that when the liability of back tax before 31 Dec was admitted as owed it became overdue.
This makes sense otherwise clubs can tip toe through the various tax collection.process in Europe to avoid paying tax that should have been paid under.the lawful terms that have been determined to have applied.
This leads to why are UEFA so draconian on paying tax owed from previous years being a requirement to get a license?. It’s not just out of concern for the taxpayer although that is a proper concern.
It’s that if a club has been using taxpayers money to meet their player wage bill then any club doing that will have a wage advantage over competitors paying tax on wages leading to sporting advantage which is clearly against the principles and aims of Financial Fair play.
PS
Just when that 20th May 2011 letter did or didn’t surface should also be a concern of the JPDT but enough for now.
SMUGASMAY 17, 2018 at 16:46
You appear to acknowledge, in fact positively highlight, Whytes weekend misadventures in May 2011 most of which was discussed on here by july2012 when the three monkeys were still deciding who was doing what. More importantly your post today that I quoted at best down plays and in all honesty completely ignores that repaying a significant 3rd party debt and more importantly returning a heritable security/ floating charge “in house” prior to administration was of obvious benefit, particularly if Clubs are now to be considered immortal (although to be honest we both know that last bit was a later add-on).
_________________________________________________________________________
To be fair i was asked my opinion on Whyte and about the lies i said he told. The situation you talk above wasnt part of the question Paddy put to me so not sure how i down played or ignored it to be honest.
OMG I am weary!! Cheaters never win.
JustTheFacts
May 17, 2018 at 13:59
You are correct, a single legal entity, not two, no amoeba proteus cell division, just one single company.
Below, is the request for Incorporation .
“We the several persons whose names and addresses are subscribed, are desireous of being formed into a Company in pursuance of this Memeorandum of Association,and we respectively agree to take the number of shares in the capital of the Company set opposite to our respective names.”
27th May ‘99
I am assuming that DM and CW were convinced that the HMRC bill (WTC) was to be paid .
Otherwise why would SDM try to omit it from the data room (allegedly) and on finding out about it CW change the price to buy the club from Murray to £1.
There was no mention of the BTC bill being of any significance to either DM or CW ,to lead CW to reduce the price paid to even 1p .
Strange that a 5yr old bill of £!.8m exc(penalties ) would bother both of them so much, yet a very possible liability of tens of millions would not even raise an eyebrow .
It would probably have raised an eyebrow though if ….
One had to be paid to gain access to CL money and there was no intention of EVER paying the other one
TheLawMan2May 17, 2018 at 16:48
AllyjamboMay 17, 2018 at 13:42Seems to me that Lawman2 is putting up an argument that suggests, ‘it’s alright as long as Rangers get away with it’, rather than making a case for his club to be judged as ‘not guilty’ of any wrongdoing. Wrongdoing that lasted for some ten years, or more, longer than Whyte’s non-payment of tax and NI.
TheLawMan2May 17, 2018 at 13:58Allyjambo, im quite happy “for us” to be judged on what was wrong and what was right as long as that is the case. Im not happy “for us” to be judged on people opinions of rules and what happened and some stances of “just because”
I have adjusted my statement above in the hope that it now makes sense that i wasnt looking to be personally judged.
______________-
Thank you for correcting your mistake. I take it, then, that you now acknowledge how your two later posts made it look like you were talking about yourself as Rangers, and that it would have been better to have revisited your post before replying in a confusing way, and also that your meaning was definitely not obvious.
Hopefully avoiding the accusation of an ad hominem attack, can I ask how many Lawmen are contributing to the blog? By my reckoning the Lawman has been on the go all night and all day. I salute his indefatigability.
Barca mentioned it earlier, I wasn’t aware of the “good faith” thing before. Well I was aware of the concept, but not in the context of football.
From the BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44129307
Rangers have been charged by the Scottish FA on two counts concerning the granting of a Uefa license to the club between 2010 and 2012.
The first charge relates to compliance with SFA, Uefa and Fifa regulations and the second relates to upholding integrity and good faith.
….
Rangers said they were disputing a tax bill (disputes are allowed) that came to be known as ‘the wee tax case’ but court testimony during the trial of the club’s former owner, Craig Whyte, contradicted this notion.
The SFA have been taking Queen’s Counsel advice for months and the June hearing will most likely be chaired by a sitting law lord.
In detailing the charges, the SFA say member clubs and their officials and players “shall 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”.
The second specifically mentions members’ requirement to “behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith”.
—————————————————————
Every day is a school day.
ALLYJAMBOMAY 17, 2018 at 17:30
Thank you for correcting your mistake. I take it, then, that you now acknowledge how your two later posts made it look like you were talking about yourself as Rangers, and that it would have been better to have revisited your post before replying in a confusing way, and also that your meaning was definitely not obvious.
__________________________________________________________________________
No, i think it was very obvious i was talking about the club or us or the Royal “we”. I still do. I just thought i would clear it up for you as you seemed confused. And I can say this is my last reply to save clogging it up with inane nonsense.
EX LUDOMAY 17, 2018 at 17:32
Thank you Ludo. My first business call this morning was 1pm Hong Kong Time so an early rise for that. Fortunately just finished my last call 10 minutes ago. House to myself for 4 days and keyboard at the ready. Making up for lost time.
Perhaps the simple reason why Whyte was found not guilty was that Murray knew of and was comfortable with Whyte’s Ticketus arrangement, and further that Whyte himself was not made aware of a 6 million pound pre-existing liability with Ticketus run up by Rangers, and that further he was lied to regarding the status of the Wee Tax Case liability and not made fully cognisant of the scale of the Big Tax Case.
Whyte certainly misrepresented his own wealth but in the larger scheme, he was manifestly the victim of fraud when he bought Rangers at the genuinely vastly over-inflated price of £1, rather than the perpetrator.
The whole case stank. The guilty were simply not pursued and in fact were bogusly presented as victims. The entire case was a patent nonsense, and Findlay successfully destroyed it.
Personally I believe that further investigations ought to be undertaken into the conduct of the investigating officers and those who saw fit to prosecute such a manifest non case, whilst ignoring clearly criminally fraudulent actions uncovered in the course of the investigation, by other individuals, to determine whether they were in fact in breach of their statutory responsibilities to prosecute crime when it is uncovered.
It may have been asked before but can I respectfully ask if THELAWMAN2 is the post-liquidation LAWMAN and further ask whether he has the legal qualifications his pen-name might infer? After all we wouldn’t wish to give deference where it isn’t due or assume he has some kind of superiority of legal knowledge that isn’t warranted.
For the purposes of clarity, I call myself Highlander on here because I was born, raised and currently reside in the Highlands. I am not Christopher Lambert and have no connection to the Highlander films.
ICEMAN63MAY 17, 2018 at 17:56
Perhaps the simple reason why Whyte was found not guilty was that Murray knew of and was comfortable with Whyte’s Ticketus arrangement
___________________________________________________________________________
Thats not what was displayed in court. There was an email from Whyte that he asked for all references to Ticketus to be kept out of documentation.
Highlander, i am the original Lawman yeah. I wasnt able to post for a while and i asked admin for a 2nd chance but not before starting a new account as i had lost the other one.
As for the name, it has nothing to do with legal profession im afraid. I was originally TheWeissMan (Vladimir) then he left so became TheAlukoMan (Sone) and then he left so became TheLawMan (Nicky) and the last one has stuck even although Nicky turned out to be rank rotten.
@AllyJambo
It’s almost as if they made it all up in some convoluted clandestine meeting place whilst partaking in some herbal remedies?
That’s goat to be the answer.
Hopefully a qualified law type aficionado can put me straight cause I can only draw one conclusion from the FACTS laid out by the Government
@Woodstein Sometimes the words get confusing so perhaps some pictures may help?
https://imgflip.com/gif/2ah29r
TheLawMan2May 17, 2018 at 17:47
ALLYJAMBOMAY 17, 2018 at 17:30 Thank you for correcting your mistake. I take it, then, that you now acknowledge how your two later posts made it look like you were talking about yourself as Rangers, and that it would have been better to have revisited your post before replying in a confusing way, and also that your meaning was definitely not obvious. __________________________________________________________________________
No, i think it was very obvious i was talking about the club or os or the Royal “we”. I still do. I just thought i would clear it up for you as you seemed confused. And I can say this is my last reply to save clogging it up with inane nonsense.
_________________
I take it this is meant to be a joke? Some things can be taken as understood, like when you speak of ‘Rangers’ we can glean that you are talking about the club currently based at Ibrox, TRFC, but to assume people would think ‘I’m’ would equate to ‘Rangers’ would equate to ‘we’, royal or otherwise, is just absolute bollocks.
There is not one word or phrase that would suggest to anyone that you are talking about ‘Rangers’, there is not one reference to the club, at all. As is often the case, you haven’t even bothered to copy over the post you were referring to, which just might have made it possible to work out what you meant, though not ‘obvious’ by any means.
In many of your posts you go on the defensive, sometime on the attack, telling us about your connections as though that somehow adds gravitas to your posts. That is why I made the post telling you I hadn’t a clue what you meant, as I hadn’t been talking about you.
When I read a post with the word ‘I’m’ in it twice, I presume the writer is talking about himself (or herself), and not about something, or someone, not already, and not subsequently, mentioned in the post.
LM2 is trolling and fishing, tommorow under another rouse a blog will appear with all it has learned and pilfered then cobbled together and at the bottom a begging bowl.
i know someone else who claims to have zillions of sources!!
Thanks for the reply.
I’m sure you’re busy racking your brain to remember the official contrived answer to JustTheFacts excellent points (and tenacity) from earlier, so I’ll leave you to it.
BigBoab, ive been online for years and my history is there to be looked up. Personally i think the begging bowl, fund me, types are bordering on crooks and I would love to have a look at some of their own tax returns.
Highlander, its been indicated that i should refrain from opining on the NC/OC thing and to be fair i agree with that now. There is ZERO i can say on it that will make you see it from my side and there is ZERO you can say that will make me change my views on it. Theres stuff posted today thats been posted for the last 2115 days…….every day….on various forms of Social Media.
Nobody is for changing so best left alone.
THELAWMAN2MAY 17, 2018 at 00:59
The link is to the Determination Disciplinary Tribunal ,where this resides –
Mr Craig Whyte was not in attendance, nor was he represented.
So where did he lie ?
So he allegedly lied to the Press who would never,ever lie to anybody about anything ? Aye, right .
So what if CW didn’t have a penny of his own money in the club ? Neither did SDM and that isn’t regarded negatively ..
I never suggested that he’d paid the wee tax bill. The fact that he didn’t doesn’t make him any worse than SDM , who also didn’t pay it .
Could you just tell us what the documents that were removed from Companies House referred to ?The case is over .
Just because “It was a matter of record at the court case. He did not meet a single penny of the personal investment commitments and he used a loan from Ticketus to pay off Lloyds Bank. ” doesn’t mean that he didn’t have the wherewithal to pay it – he may have chosen not to .
“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.”How do you know this ? You were there as a witness and would have been in the witness room and not in Court .I’m assuming that you didn’t agree with the Courts decision ? And the next step is ?
Are you suggesting that you were following the court case on live Twitter feeds as you waited to give evidence as a witness ? In the witness room ?Dibble might want a word .
As a witness you dont attend the court at all unless you are asked to appear. I was advised prior to the trial i wasnt being called however i had to remain available just in case. Once the evidence had been completed then i was allowed to attend the summaries by the AD and Findlay.The detail behind Ticketus was used in the summary by the AD.
And re the document it was an MG05s. Easyjambo can probably back up what im saying about it.