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.
King is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Shame on those in the Scottish media who are facilitating it for him.
BIGBOAB1916
MAY 29, 2018 at 18:18
…
You would have thought by now someone would have removed Pedro and the rest. Who is in control of this shambles, how can you believe someone has put a statement on their site but does not have the experience to modify the team photo.
======================
Oh no!
Has ‘Wee Stevie in IT’ been resigned as well?
I think we should be told.
Now. Who do we think will get the blame when TRFC are refused a licence to compete in European football this term?….Not too difficult a question as the guilty parties have been outed early by the SFSM and garnished with robust staunch statements from the Govan/South Africa areas.
But still……a totally independent inquiry into the SFA/SPFL is what most of us are looking for. DK obviously only wants some parts investigated. Doesn’t EVERY SFA/SPFL board member or non exec. director have an allegiance/connection to some club or other. Is that not the basis of their election to these positions in the first place?
Every time king comes out with a statement i think Bucks Fizz “Making Your Mind Up”.One day DK does not want the football authorities to waste money on investigations the next he does.
And yet not one of the SMSM will call him out.
Even the SFA should put a stop to it he is not fit and proper to be on the board of TRFC but continually makes statements on their behalf.
When are the SFA/SPFL going to charge him with bringing the game into disrepute?
Tomorrow’s news today, courtesy of any SMSM feed*:
“Rangers chief Dave King has called for Ian Maxwell, the CEO of the SFA, to be suspended & a full investigation carried out into his links with Partick Thistle, St. Mirren, St. Johnstone, Ross County & Queen’s Park.
‘It’s plain as the nose on your face that Maxwell has several conflicts of interest.’ said King, who also questioned the sanity of those who appointed Maxwell.”
*Not really, but stranger things have happened.
Does Dave King want this conflict examined?
“Let us consider some other high-profile figures – like Mr Ogilvie. He remains president of the Scottish FA, despite that “heavily conflicted” comment from his chief exec. In 2008 a Companies House report showed Mr Ogilvie held 3,505 Rangers shares whilst in senior management at Hearts. That year he became chief executive at Hearts and suddenly transferred his 3,505 Rangers shares to his wife Karolina, who already held 400 – thus giving her 3,905 shares.”
Alex Thomson, C4 July 2012
The Dave king statement.
I take it there are no new players worth millions heading to ibrox this week. Got to get something out there to stop the bears asking who are we signing.
I have worked out Dave King’s plan, it is genius in it’s simplicity.
Read follow follow, establish what they want, do it. Or at least give the strong impression you are doing it.
It also means they will be right behind you when they can’t ignore what you have done to their club any more.
Maybe Peter Lawell & Ms. Budge don’t want to rake over the coals.
*Lawwell
It would appear it may have been the state aid mentalist who started this latest hare (or should it be bear) running.
There is a link on follow follow, so my latest may not be that far off the mark.
https://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2018/05/27/murdoch-maclennan-spfl-chairman-has-a-conflict-of-interest-being-chairman-of-inm-plc-irish-media-company-controlled-by-celtic-shareholders-dermot-desmond-denis-obrien/
It beats me why the SFA/SPFL are running scared of this buffoon .
He does nothing at all to enhance our game ,in fact I would go as far as to say he is doing his damndest to cause it harm.
IMO he is now actively encouraging the extreme elements of the sevco fan base to believe they are being victimised by a possibly corrupt SFA/SPFL .
After all that has been done to the shame of our game to facilitate the BIG LIE and help peepil like king keep a team in blue with their crests and false (and tainted) honours playing out of Ibrokes and in europe .
So what thanks do they get in return ,NONE ,all they get is statements (RANTS) like this week from a convicted criminal and it seems a shadow director of a member club ,who is openly breaking rules and rubbing their noses in it .
So ,the question I would like to ask the new man in the sixth floor .
WHAT IS IT EXACTLY THAT YOU ARE SO SCARED OF ?
Should Celtic keep a ‘dignified silence’ over the latest clap trap from Davey King?
What about the other Scottish clubs who were stitched up by every resemblance of a Rangers at Ibrox.
Silence. As expected.
At least Celtic had a half hearted attempt at asking questions.
If it were me I would come out with all guns blazing. Ask all the questions of the crooks past & present who sat in Hampden.
imagine TRFC having the audacity to ask questions of anybody in the SFA & SPFL. They have been their best friends for an eternity.
Good God, look at EBTs, Euro licences, LNS, player registrations. Keeping illegal titles.
They (He) have a cheek. They should sit at the back of the class and be quiet. Be humble. You are not the people. I have another word for it. And unwashed doesn’t cover it.
Perhaps he is trying to drive out the remnants of the RIFC board. I for one would not want to associate myself with such ranting lunacy, assuming of course that this latest rant is from him not supported by the others. Or he is trying to make sure that he is driven out by the rest of the board.
I can see the threads on the sweary site lionising King for defending the Peepil against the Romanish conspiracy to steal their club and country from them. If he is forced out (and he should be ) he becomes a martyred hero.
That kind of crude narrative is too daft to be genuine but the self parodying cycle of increasing nuttiness needs madder and madder things to happen if it is to garner credibility in the eyes of its constituency.
This feels like a time of tension before the levee breaks or Blackadder and Baldrick finally reach the end and climb over the top.
DANNYFERGUSMAY 29, 2018 at 00:49
Yes Dannfergus -Plagued by them for the last couple of days on my iphone .Really annoying .
Only takes a king statement (and i must admit it is a good one)
to see things move on from the EBT Players and HMRC.
Hope his next statement is “Yes! i have a bank account in the UK”
HomunculusMay 29, 2018 at 15:05
‘..I simply meant with this particular discussion JC, not wanting to go over the same stuff repeatedly.’
_____________
Well, I am mightily relieved and glad you’re staying on!
JOHN CLARK
MAY 29, 2018 at 20:59
===============================
Cheers, mate. I appreciate the sentiment.
get a room you two
Some people must think “Any chance of you shutting the feck up Dave.”
HomunculusMay 29, 2018 at 19:35
Homunculus, that’s exactly what I thought when I read it! People on here and other blogs talk about him playing to the gallery, but I’m starting to think he checks what the madder sites are saying and does it!!
JUSTTHEFACTSMAY 29, 2018 at 18:04There are more questions than answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdEuHLKDstU
HOMUNCULUSMAY 29, 2018 at 19:56
And how I laughed when Ecoboy handed him his ass on a platter, Silver service and all.
I’ve seen a couple of posters make reference to pop ups on SFM when using iPhones. I’ve had the same issue when using my iPhone. Is this a subtle DOS attack on the site because I didn’t think I was important enough to merit such a thing. By the way has anybody seen SJ or the Lawman about the place? Strangely quiet on that front. Maybe Mr Kings statement has been the final straw?
Nice Martin featured on your photo Artesian.
The annoying ad redirects on the phone are a problem with the advertising agency we use. They are investigating the cause. None of the ads are unauthorised, just the way they are interacting with the browsers.
Hopefully will be fixed tomorrow
I’m getting roasted all the time with these cookies acceptance pages. Not just when you log on. Every time you change a page or update. It’s not just here it’s everywhere. Total bollocks, how often do they need to be told you accept cookies?
EX LUDO
D41 – great to look at , even better to play ??
Lie with a dog, get fleas.
The SFA are finding that when you don’t abide by your ownrules and regs – which in the case of “fit and proper” are there for a damned good reason! – those rules are lessened in the eyes of all. And in the case of those of a shameless nature that believes most rules don’t apply to them, well you give them carte blanche to run riot… imagine if Romanov when at Hearts went running around shooting his mouth off with these type of theories? Well you don’t need to – he was getting busted all the time!
If King REALLY wants an enquiry I suggest the SFA gives him one: starting with EBTs especially those EBT beneficiaries at Hampden and looking into possible collusion in the SFA to ensure access to European money when not eligible, as well as a backdated history for Sevco.
The SFA should also redefine club/company status as a means to ensure no one else does the old “swicheroo” and even demand changes to any SFA member who currently has a structure incompatible with such a ruling. I would suggest a bit of urgency on that one as there’s one problem club I feel may have their eye on such a thing. Again.
After years of the denizens of this website demanding an independent inquiry into the governance of Scottish football we now have a situation where Rangers are demanding an independent inquiry into Scottish football.
The regular posters on this website who have argued so passionately and vociferously for exactly what Dave King has just suggested now appear to have completely about-turned and are furious at someone challenging the status quo and demanding transparency.
A cynic would suggest this highlights that contrary to protests some are driven by a dislike of one particular club rather than a genuine desire for better governance in our game.
I’m not a cynic of course so I’ll merely remark that it’s a funny old world and enjoy the mental gymnastics…
NICKMAY 30, 2018 at 08:45
Errrr…… Are you reading a different blog? We all want an inquiry, just confused as to why someone we believe won’t benefit from it wants one.
Nick, I get it. You’re being ironic. Good luck with trying to steer the direction of the blog today.
Looking for a wee bit of assistance here
What is it that’s going on over Murdoch MacLennan? I didn’t even know he was chairman of the SPFL and I don’t remember seeing his name before, but suddenly he’s in the spotlight somewhat.
I gather he has some sort of business relationship with Dermott Desmond, but I am unsure exactly why that would be seen as a ‘crime’ in Scottish football and preclude him from chairing either of our governing bodies. So when I saw the ‘charge’ being made against him by Honest Injun Dave King, I expected to become more informed.
Sadly not. He used words like ‘non-disclosure’ and ‘conflict of interest’, but even ignoring the hypocrisy of anyone who ever had anything to do with RFC during the Murray years using these words, he doesn’t give any details of what it is he claims MacLennan has done wrong, or what the ‘conflict of interest’ is and/or what it was he was to disclose, and to whom his disclosure was ‘non’.
You know, it’s almost as if King doesn’t actually know himself what the undisclosed ‘conflict of interest’ might be, it’s just that he’s got a gallery to play to, and any number of deflections to find.
I suppose that, while our intrepid reporters are chasing their tails trying to get their heads around a connection between a governing body’s chairman and Celtic’s leading shareholder, they don’t have much time to put together a proper journalistic piece asking how things are going over the TOP/CoS order that might actually produce something informative.
Still, if anyone can update me on what it is this Mr MacLennan has done wrong, or is said by King’s (and Traynor’s) friends in the media to have done wrong, I’d be grateful.
Nick
If DK means a full enquiry covering SDM’s tenure onwards that would be very welcome.
If he means an enquiry into the leanings of Board members since 2000 that too would be welcome.
If he means an enquiry into two current SFA Board members it does beg the question why limit it and what evidence exist they have abused their positions?
Conflict of interests have to arise in a system of self governance. The SFA Licencing Commitee rules for example recognise this and where a conflict exists the committee member excuses himself.
That can be handy where the resulting non disclosure has a positive effect on decisions the Committee take.
It’s not about investigating individuals. It’s about investigating processes to ensure the rules cover areas where a conflict might occur and provide adequate guidance to preserve the integrity of both the process and the individual.
NickMay 30, 2018 at 08:45
After years of the denizens of this website demanding an independent inquiry into the governance of Scottish football we now have a situation where Rangers are demanding an independent inquiry into Scottish football. The regular posters on this website who have argued so passionately and vociferously for exactly what Dave King has just suggested now appear to have completely about-turned and are furious at someone challenging the status quo and demanding transparency.A cynic would suggest this highlights that contrary to protests some are driven by a dislike of one particular club rather than a genuine desire for better governance in our game.I’m not a cynic of course so I’ll merely remark that it’s a funny old world and enjoy the mental gymnastics…
_____________________
Can you tell us where exactly this ‘club statement’, from someone not officially a ‘club’ spokesman, demands an independent inquiry into Scottish football? As far as I can see, King only wants any sort of inquiry into one person’s appointment, well two because there was another statement just the other day, and is in no way advocating any sort of inquiry that will look at the real corruption in our game.
There can be no doubt that a call for an investigation into King’s own behaviour would be far more fitting than anything surrounding Murdoch MacLennan, and that any fully independent inquiry into all aspects of football governance since 1998 would throw up so much more than King, or anyone connected to the Ibrox clubs, would ever want us all to know.
King is just rabble rousing. You know it, I know it, we all know it.
AULDHEIDMAY 30, 2018 at 09:26
I think one thing is now abundantly clear. Celtic and the rest of the clubs in Scottish football are either satisfied or apathetic with the administration of the game in this country.
Rangers are calling for transparency and reform.
I’m not sure how we got here but if the sort of change that the majority of those on this website claim to want is ever to happen it looks like we’re now reliant on everyone’s favourite pantomime villain to make it happen.
For the love of the wee man wake up N and smell the coffee what you seem to suggest is not what king wants.King wants everyone looking over there so you don’t notice him dipping your pocket over here.He should learn to shut up as all he is doing is making sevco look like what they are a total waste of space.1st statement about something said 10yrs or so ago which is deemed to be offensive but the dead club cheating the taxman and screwing every other club is fine. 2nd statement he makes out that this is just coming to light when in fact every club board/chairmen were informed in January about this so what someone works for a company that someone from another club has shares in big deal happens all the time.These are all designed to take the mind of the fact that they have missed out on the biggies that SG wants as well as that they have no cash.
NickMay 30, 2018 at 08:45
‘..The regular posters on this website who have argued so passionately and vociferously for exactly what Dave King has just suggested now appear to have completely about-turned and are furious at someone challenging the status quo and demanding transparency.’
____________________
No.
We are amused at the idea that such a businessman stained to the nth degree with untruth and deceit can be so unbalanced as to demand an enquiry into the blameless , publicly disclosed ,upfront actions of another.
I seriously suggest that the possibility of having to fork out millions or face a serious contempt of court charge AND cold-shouldering by TOP has perhaps tipped him over the edge.
Even those chancers chained to him as fellow-directors on what must be one of the most dysfunctional Boards in western Europe must be desperate to be shot of him!
And that you should think there is any equivalence between King’s call for an ‘enquiry’ and our insistent and consistent call for every aspect of the dealings between the SFA and both the Liquidated ‘Rangers’ and TRFC LTD/RIFC plc shows an appalling narrowness of understanding of what we are about: which is no less than establishing the truth about whether and to what extent there was collusion between RFC(IL) and former officers of the SFA in the matter of the UEFA some seasons ago, and between the SFA and SevcoScotland et alii in the matter the ‘continuity’ myth.
King’s call is irrational, being entirely without grounds.
And your post is, frankly, balderdash.
If we had true transparency in Scottish football King would not be involved in our game. Old Rangers would be accepted as in liquidation and the new club would be accepted as a new club. The old Rangers would be openly condemned in football for cheating across the whole of Europe for 13 years. Instead we gave GLIB and his club licence to spout shite. They are Scotland’s shame. Only in Scotland can this not be acknowledged.
JOHN CLARKMAY 30, 2018 at 10:04
John forget your dislike of the source for a minute. Read the comments below and tell me if you disagree with a single word of it? I would have been delighted if Hibs, Aberdeen, Hearts or Celtic had said the same, I suspect you would have been too.
“Transparency will be key to recovering the confidence of key stakeholders in Scottish football and this cannot be achieved if the SFA and/or the SPFL conduct internal investigations.”
“The SPFL and SFA must now appoint independent investigators. Scottish football is an important national asset and must have levels of probity and governance that are beyond reproach and that are transparently so.”
NickMay 30, 2018 at 09:41
AULDHEIDMAY 30, 2018 at 09:26I think one thing is now abundantly clear. Celtic and the rest of the clubs in Scottish football are either satisfied or apathetic with the administration of the game in this country.Rangers are calling for transparency and reform.I’m not sure how we got here but if the sort of change that the majority of those on this website claim to want is ever to happen it looks like we’re now reliant on everyone’s favourite pantomime villain to make it happen.
___________________
Once again I must ask you to point out where King says in his latest statement that he/TRFC is calling for ‘transparency and reform’. He wants certain people investigated and transparency shown in those individual cases, and no doubt anywhere else that might suit him in the future. How about transparency on his role at TRFC, and what he promised the SFA when they accepted that his role, at RIFC, didn’t breach their own ‘fit and proper’ rules?
It is clear to all but the most ardent bears that King is only playing to the gallery in his two latest statements, and is not interested, at all, in cleaning up the games governing bodies, for there is no benefit to him to do so. His current club only exists in the SPFL because of a secret agreement. Now, if he was to call for that to be made transparent, maybe then there’s be some justification for your support of him here.
ALLYJAMBOMAY 30, 2018 at 10:22
Here’s the part you’re looking for. Stresses the importance of transparency and that the SFA/SPFL need to reform the way they conduct internal investigations (doesn’t go far enough in terms of reform but at least it’s a start).
“Transparency will be key to recovering the confidence of key stakeholders in Scottish football and this cannot be achieved if the SFA and/or the SPFL conduct internal investigations.”
The point I’m making is that most on SFM seem to want change in the way our game is governed, so do Rangers. I doubt the two visions for how that change would ultimately look are the same but there definitely appear to be parallels.
Meanwhile the rest of the clubs, the SFA and the SPFL seem comfortable with the status quo.
NickMay 30, 2018 at 08:45
“furious at someone challenging the status quo and demanding transparency”
_______________________________________________________________
The status quo and lack of transparency are clearly unacceptable to any reasonable person.
However as this statement is aimed at the governance of Scottish Football as a whole, posters have a legitimate right to:-
1. challenge the hypocricy of the person putting out statements (we don’t need to repeat how he treated the RSA courts and the TOP for evidence),
2. examine his motives when there is so much already going on that a CEO might have hands full,
3. question the role of his publicist compared with the Board of Directors.
REDETINMAY 30, 2018 at 10:27
Don’t disagree with any of that. My point is that regardless of his motivations King is now agitating for the sort of transparency that many of us have wanted for a long time.
Fans and clubs joining with him to shape that reform in the best possible way would be a much better option than shouting him down and accepting the status quo like some on here along with the SPFL (and I assume it’s other member clubs) seem content to do.
NickMay 30, 2018 at 10:22
JOHN CLARKMAY 30, 2018 at 10:04John forget your dislike of the source for a minute. Read the comments below and tell me if you disagree with a single word of it? I would have been delighted if Hibs, Aberdeen, Hearts or Celtic had said the same, I suspect you would have been too.“Transparency will be key to recovering the confidence of key stakeholders in Scottish football and this cannot be achieved if the SFA and/or the SPFL conduct internal investigations.”“The SPFL and SFA must now appoint independent investigators. Scottish football is an important national asset and must have levels of probity and governance that are beyond reproach and that are transparently so.”
________________________
That was said with no more sincerity, or intention to see what he calls for applied, than there was when the likes of Regan and Doncaster said similar. It is empty rhetoric, again only for the benefit of bears in the gallery. Only someone within the gallery could possibly fail to see that.
The Ibrox statements that would follow, should the SFA call his bluff and announce that full transparency will be implemented along with an inquiry into every possible case of conflict of interest reaching back over the past twenty years, would be a delight to behold.
Nick May 30, 2018 at 10:25
The point I’m making is that most on SFM seem to want change in the way our game is governed, so do Rangers. I doubt the two visions for how that change would ultimately look are the same but there definitely appear to be parallels.
==============================
Nick – It’s clear to me from the statements made recently by Rangers, and the response on Rangers message boards, that the only reforms that Rangers are interested in is the removal of anyone of influence in the governance of the game who has the remotest connection with Celtic.
Yes. It is as simple as that. I would anticipate that the next logical step would be for Rangers to nominate some “Rangers minded” individuals to fill any vacant positions.
However, I suspect that Rangers (and King) had no expectation of forcing the resignations of the two individuals, but was merely posturing to the gallery that if things don’t go as well as they hope, then the reason must be that Rangers are the victim of a conspiracy of Celtic minded people at the top of our game.
Perhaps you missed the bit where Gary Hughes voted against an SFA inquiry into the handling and fallout from the Supreme Court’s EBT judgement.
The reality is that most football allegiances are developed long before the individuals became involved in the governance of the game. If that was an real issue then I think we would struggle to find any Scottish born administrators who had no allegiances to any club.
If you want to investigate those with conflicts of interest then I’m certainly up for that, but why not start with EBT holder, Campbell Ogilvie’s role as president of the SFA and his (lack of) evidence to the LNS inquiry, or Andrew Dickson on the SFA’s Licensing committee passing judgement of Rangers Licence application in 2011.
NICKMAY 30, 2018 at 10:22
JOHN CLARKMAY 30, 2018 at 10:04
John forget your dislike of the source for a minute. Read the comments below and tell me if you disagree with a single word of it? I would have been delighted if Hibs, Aberdeen, Hearts or Celtic had said the same, I suspect you would have been too.
“Transparency will be key to recovering the confidence of key stakeholders in Scottish football and this cannot be achieved if the SFA and/or the SPFL conduct internal investigations.”“The SPFL and SFA must now appoint independent investigators. Scottish football is an important national asset and must have levels of probity and governance that are beyond reproach and that are transparently so.”
——————————————————————————————————-
It really only works if the accuser then says
Context is everything and like all the previous howling at the moon type stuff from the Ibrox state aiders, Juninho’s EBTs and similar, this is nothing other than sheer whataboutery (and not very good ones at that) without having the courage to look at ones own self in the mirror and face up to reality.
@Nick
“Transparency will be key to recovering the confidence of key stakeholders in Scottish football and this cannot be achieved if the SFA and/or the SPFL conduct internal investigations.”
May I suggest we start at the beginning of the current issues then?
5 Way Agreement will do just nicelythanks Mr SFA.
Though may I kindly suggest we have Legal Entity who is Independent of the Scottish Football and has no vested interest in it carry this out?
Call me old fashioned but I trust no one who keeps such an important piece of Documentation a secret from it’s customer base.
I think Dave is saying that the Nimmo Smith investigation was a flawed internal enquiry , and the results should be set aside , in the light of the gerrymandering of the evidence put before it . Dave is a bastion of honesty and transparency . Be like Dave .
I had to smile at something I read this morning about the next potential mis-selling scandal:
Rangers Players!
Were you mis-sold an EBT?
Are you now being hounded by Hector?
Call William & Orange on 0141 1690 2012 now for help.
© a poster on Jambos Kickback.
NickMay 30, 2018 at 10:25
ALLYJAMBOMAY 30, 2018 at 10:22Here’s the part you’re looking for. Stresses the importance of transparency and that the SFA/SPFL need to reform the way they conduct internal investigations (doesn’t go far enough in terms of reform but at least it’s a start). “Transparency will be key to recovering the confidence of key stakeholders in Scottish football and this cannot be achieved if the SFA and/or the SPFL conduct internal investigations.”The point I’m making is that most on SFM seem to want change in the way our game is governed, so do Rangers. I doubt the two visions for how that change would ultimately look are the same but there definitely appear to be parallels.Meanwhile the rest of the clubs, the SFA and the SPFL seem comfortable with the status quo.
______________________
No more than empty rhetoric, and, of course, true to form, you do not answer the question asked. I asked you to point out where King calls for ‘transparency and reform’. He doesn’t. He only calls for transparency where it suits his, and TRFC’s, agenda.
King has it within his power to bring about the disclosure of the greatest lack of transparency of football governance any of us are aware of, the secret 5 Way Agreement. Do you think he includes this in his call for transparency? Do you believe Scottish football would be better served, and stakeholders’ confidence recovered, by revealing the full contents of that most contentious agreement, or by an inquiry into the MacLennan appointment? Somehow I think Mr MacLennan is more likely to survive the transparency of his appointment than TRFC is to the revelation of what’s held within the 5 Way Agreement!
Nick
As a wordsmith of sorts, I’m sure it won’t have passed your notice that that if you mix up all the letters from Murdoch MacLennan and SPFL you get ‘Monster Red Squirrel’.
NickMay 30, 2018 at 10:22
‘..Read the comments below and tell me if you disagree with a single word of it? ‘
_________________________
Of course no one would disagree with that statement in itself!
It’s the bare-faced hypocrisy of the man making that statement that is the reason for our mirthful incredulity!
How silly we all are; of course, what King actually means in his call for transparency is that he wants everything the SFA and SPFL do to be carried out with complete transparency, including things like the granting of UEFA Licenses. Not only would transparency make a conflict of interest less of a factor, it would also discourage clubs from making false claims about, say, purpose of loans, as they’d risk the possibility that some member of the public might raise issue with said claim, and cause a bit of bother for a club that carries a lot of debt.
PS I’m not suggesting any club has an issue with their Euro License or too much debt, but we never know what might happen in the future, or has happened in the past! Or do we?
“Transparency will be key to recovering the confidence of key stakeholders in Scottish football and this cannot be achieved if the SFA and/or the SPFL conduct internal investigations.”
……………………………………………………………….
Every time I read this I can’t help thinking ‘be careful what you wish for’.
Dave King and both his clubs have more to lose if this was to come about.
Not forgetting all the culprits at Hampden. For that reason I doubt we will get very far on this.
Something approaching truth and justice will only ever happen when they are brought kicking and screaming to it like Res.12 or in a court of law – Craig Whyte trial. The Supreme Court.
Kings statements are nothing other than crude attempts to put pressure on the SFA because they are under investigation. Level 5 have been very busy these last few weeks and the new angle they have adopted of now accusing SFM of being against an enquiry into the SFA is mind bottling.
I would personally like a full investigation into everything that the SFA and SPFL have touched in the last ten years. Celtic fans believe the game is run for the benefit of Rangers, and that dodgy backroom dealings and secret handshakes have ensured the game is corrupt for the light blues. Rangers fans believe the SFA and SPFL are infiltrated with PL’s place holders and run for the benefit of Celtic. I’m sure the truth lies somewhere between (i.e. everything that the SPFL and SFA have ever done is for their benefit and their benefit only!). The 5WA was a necessary document to deal with football creditors and any rule breaking that had gone before, but I don’t believe it was drawn up to benefit Rangers (again I’m sure it was drawn up to benefit the SPFL and the SFA). I would welcome an investigation once and for all and hopefully finally be able to move forward.
But a question to those who claim they only wish a genuinely independant investigation – should this happen and the result not go the way you would like (ie OC/NC, or no stripping of trophies), would you be happy to move on? Or is it the ‘punishment’ and not the investigation and transparancy that you are looking for?
Stewart Robertson knew.
Dave do you not speak to each other, he is your managing director and was advised last January.
SPFL have told you to go forth and multiply, you must do a bit better at this oh I forgot Level 5, oh dear.
DarkbeforedawnMay 30, 2018 at 12:41
I would personally like a full investigation into everything that the SFA and SPFL have touched in the last ten years. Celtic fans believe the game is run for the benefit of Rangers, and that dodgy backroom dealings and secret handshakes have ensured the game is corrupt for the light blues. Rangers fans believe the SFA and SPFL are infiltrated with PL’s place holders and run for the benefit of Celtic. I’m sure the truth lies somewhere between (i.e. everything that the SPFL and SFA have ever done is for their benefit and their benefit only!). The 5WA was a necessary document to deal with football creditors and any rule breaking that had gone before, but I don’t believe it was drawn up to benefit Rangers (again I’m sure it was drawn up to benefit the SPFL and the SFA). I would welcome an investigation once and for all and hopefully finally be able to move forward.
But a question to those who claim they only wish a genuinely independant investigation – should this happen and the result not go the way you would like (ie OC/NC, or no stripping of trophies), would you be happy to move on? Or is it the ‘punishment’ and not the investigation and transparancy that you are looking for?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All I’m looking for is a proper independent enquiry with very wide terms of reference and hopefully that will result in justice being done.
OC/NC doesn’t come into it for me because it is a moribund debate. The trophies should be stripped because a different team/club or whatever won them not TRFC.
The old liquidation Rangers should have them stripped because they cheated Scottish football to win them. Its not a punishment as such merely some actions to accord with reality.
DBD, I think I’m correct in saying that Auldheid takes the view that the main issue is the governance of the game. To admit what was done wrong in the past and to make sure it can’t happen again. The ramifications for TRFC is almost a side issue. I kind of go along with this view.
In my heart of hearts I think it is a new club. The titles won by Rangers should not be attributed to them. If that happened I would care less about title stripping even although I think it would be deserved.
Don’t know if that answers your question.
Also if I harbour a desire for punishment, it would be aimed at all the officials involved rather than at a club. That would mostly involve people on the SFA, SPFL at the time. Rangers paid big time for their role in it all. If only they would stop blaming everyone bar themselves for going into liquidation and having to start in the bottom tier.
Finally, David Murray should be stripped of his title. He started it all.
Let me word this better so it makes sense!
In my heart of hearts I think it is a new club. The titles won by ‘Old’ Rangers should not be attributed to the new club. If that happened I would care less about title stripping even although I think it would be deserved.
A drowning man will take a swipe at anything, in the hope of grabbing something that floats.
Darkbeforedawn
May 30, 2018 at 12:41
I would personally like a full investigation into everything that the SFA and SPFL have touched in the last ten years. Celtic fans believe the game is run for the benefit of Rangers, and that dodgy backroom dealings and secret handshakes have ensured the game is corrupt for the light blues. Rangers fans believe the SFA and SPFL are infiltrated with PL’s place holders and run for the benefit of Celtic. I’m sure the truth lies somewhere between (i.e. everything that the SPFL and SFA have ever done is for their benefit and their benefit only!). The 5WA was a necessary document to deal with football creditors and any rule breaking that had gone before, but I don’t believe it was drawn up to benefit Rangers (again I’m sure it was drawn up to benefit the SPFL and the SFA). I would welcome an investigation once and for all and hopefully finally be able to move forward.But a question to those who claim they only wish a genuinely independant investigation – should this happen and the result not go the way you would like (ie OC/NC, or no stripping of trophies), would you be happy to move on? Or is it the ‘punishment’ and not the investigation and transparancy that you are looking for?
____________________
If, in the course of such an independent investigation, it was discovered that Rangers didn’t use illegal tax avoidance schemes, didn’t deliberately mis-register players, didn’t go into administration – where they failed to get a CVA – (or any other dodgy stuff I’ve missed out), then, yes, I’d be happy to ‘move on’. If, on the other hand, the aforementioned things did happen, then, no, I would not be happy to ‘move on’. Can you think of any reason why I should be? Can you think of any reason why any football club should not face the natural consequences of their actions?
Natural consequences of a football club’s actions:
Buy best players available = win lots of trophies.
Discovered cheating taxman and mis-registering players to facilitate buying best players = lose lots of trophies.
Spend lots of money you don’t have = administration.
Fail to get a CVA while in administration = liquidation.
Consequences of liquidation = there are none, for there’s nothing left to suffer any.
Not so natural consequences of a football club’s actions:
Have the right people in place in football’s governance and the MSM = get an easy ride.
DARKBEFOREDAWNMAY 30, 2018 at 12:41
I thought the purpose of the investigation is to find the facts and present recommendations . The report presented to the SFA/SPFL and the clubs decide the way forward . What’s the fear of punishment if you’ve done nowt wrong and the established facts show this ?
I think we should remember that King is like Humpty Dumpty -words mean what he chooses them to mean.
He arrived in a blaze of worship promising that the days of concealing stuff were over and there was to be new dawn of transparency. That new dawn has never arrived. Transparency for him is different to the normal definition.
He demands an enquiry into the transparency of things which seem to be pretty clear and conflicts of interest where, if there is the possibility of the appearance of such, the putative enquirer recuses himself. He complains about non disclosure, what does he mean.
There was no transparency about King being declared fit and proper and only a court case revealed the position. It would be interesting to know the process leading to his present position re the holding company and not the football club.
Similarly the position regarding Alistair Johnstone is not known.
The BBC are happy not to differentiate between TRFC and RIFC allowing KIng to portray himself as Chairman of Rangers. He is not and might have given undertakings to not act as a shadow director club. THat should be made known to the BBC by the SFA and to the rest of us via their website or other media.
I have a suggestion to King which might help, tell us the full position on all of the above and other known unknowns like failure to get a Nomad. There is no commercial confidentiality involved merely jiggery pokery to which King seems addicted.
The above is not whitabootery but points to a standard which dignity and doing what you said you would do demand.
We are ignorant only about different things some would have us ignorant about everything.
JOHN CLARK
MAY 30, 2018 at 10:04
…
And your post is, frankly, balderdash.
==============================
Calm down! Calm down JC!
With inflammatory language like that it could be the naughty step for you.
But the latest, ridiculous statement from King only proves again that;
– TRFC can freely issue statements without any comeback from the authorities.
– Neither the SFA nor SPFL will publicly chastise this malignant club.
– The SMSM will obediently copy/paste any TRFC statement without comment.
IMO, apart from the death of Rangers, nothing much has changed with the incompetent / corrupt governance and the shockingly dire reporting of Scottish football…since 2012.
So do we have any ideas about what is about to hit the fan down £brox way.
Here are a few possibilities courtesy of Celtic Star.
1. The Takeover Panel?
2. The Court Of Session?
3. Directors calling in their loans?
4. Directors resigning – Park, Surrender, No?
5. Stevie Ge55ard having second thoughts?
6. The SFA’s Compliance Officer and Resolution 12?
7. The coming season’s UEFA License?
8. Season Ticket sales?
9. Auditors walking away?
10. Safety Certificate for Ibrokes?
11. The Hummel deal?
12. Cash draining away?
13. The mythical share issues?
14. Close Brothers?
15. EBT recipients claiming money from the ‘club’?
16. Mike Ashley & Sports Direct ?
17. Jimmy the bus driver demanding a pay rise because he’s gonna have to work with the Scouser?
So many issues?
There was one other one that never made the Kerrydale list but is being talked about this morning after this tweet…
best one yet “What are the Sheriff Officers doing Tam…..what ARE the Sheriff Officers DOING?!!!!!.”
StevieBC
re “nothing much has changed.”
Paul at CQN opines that the squirrelathon might be to do with Sevco getting knocked back by UEFA next month. The more I think about it, that decision will tell us all if indeed ‘nothing much has changed.’ If, as has been mooted, their application did go into UEFA with a ‘side note’, that in itself would indicate change is in the air (even although it is a bit ‘hiding behind UEFA’s peeny.’) The compliance investigation is also a step in the right direction.
If the maligned Murdoch MacLennan and Gary Hughes – and indeed new guy Ian Maxwell – have had anything to do with these matters being dealt with, they should be applauded – regardless of which teams they support.
Forgive me, and I know other will have said this but Dave King has not called for an independent enquiry into Scottish football he has called for an independent enquiry into two specific things.
His lates proclamation as “chairman” starts
“THE Club notes with concern the latest disclosure through the media regarding a business relationship which the Chairman of the SPFL has with leading shareholders of a fellow SPFL club.”
and goes on
“Unfortunately for Scottish football, this incident immediately follows a similar call by myself for an independent non-executive director of the SFA to be suspended under similar circumstances”.
It is clear that he is talking about these specific issues and nothing else. I really don’t see how this can be perceived as Dave King championing openness and transparency across Scottish football.
Can I also ask the question, where does “…the latest disclosure through the media…” come from. As far as I am aware the matter was dealt with in January. Whilst that could arguably be the latest disclosure re the situation it is hardly what one could describe as recent. Was it even being discussed in the media recently, before King brought the subject up. I’m not saying it wasn’t I just didn’t see it.
One more thing, he says “…suspended under similar circumstances…”. What are these “similar circumstances”. In one incident a supporter made a comment (about 12 years ago) which whilst mild by football standards could be considered insulting. In the other a prominent figure in media circles declared being involved in a company whose two main shareholders were also shareholders in Celtic. This has apparently been dealt with in the appropriate manner.
What are the “similar circumstances” exactly. Other than the word “Celtic”.
This, along with his other recent stuff is rabble rousing, possibly allied to wagon circling.
I see PMGB is suggesting that a rather litigious Irish Billionaire, Denis O’Brien, might well be coming after TRFC or King, or maybe both. I suspect it has something to do with the claims about Mr MacLennan and that Mr O’Brien is his current, or previous (I genuinely don’t know what relationship MacLennan has, or had, with Dermott Desmond, or who this Mr O’Brien might be), employer.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/05/30/ranting-in-the-joburg-bunker/
Just when you think Ibrox related court cases might be coming to and end; John and Easy, you’d better hold onto your pencils and legal pads for a few more months, at least
HomunculusMay 30, 2018 at 16:23
Well put, Homunculus, and yet at least one ‘non-TRFC’ supporter on here sees it entirely differently, in fact he sees it as a sign that that well known criminal is acting more honourably than every other ‘chairman’ of an SPFL member club who doesn’t take every opportunity to impugn the impartiality of SFA and/or SPFL officials for supporting a club other than his own.
NickMay 30, 2018 at 09:41 (Edit)
AULDHEIDMAY 30, 2018 at 09:26
I think one thing is now abundantly clear. Celtic and the rest of the clubs in Scottish football are either satisfied or apathetic with the administration of the game in this country.
Rangers are calling for transparency and reform.
I’m not sure how we got here but if the sort of change that the majority of those on this website claim to want is ever to happen it looks like we’re now reliant on everyone’s favourite pantomime villain to make it happen.
==================
if you read the public correspondence from last September it is a lot less than abundantly clear. 42 clubs asked for a review of the SFA handling of ebts but SFA refused.
http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/SFA_Correspondence.pdf
However Regan makes an interesting suggestion in his letter of 18th August about SPFL approaching LNS.
Perhaps they are waiting to see what emerges from the JPDT in June first?
I see that King has now responded to the SPFL’s response.
I’m afraid I can’t post the image from my phone (very easily).
See tweet from @andynewportpa
EJ 16.56
I take it this is it.
https://twitter.com/RangersObserver/status/1001850166842941440/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.rangersmedia.co.uk%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcore%26module%3Dsystem%26controller%3Dembed%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Frangersobserver%2Fstatus%2F1001850166842941440%3Fs%3D21
Easy Jambo
Incredible. He is calling the integrity of the SPFL Board and an SPFL official into question with no valid basis for doing so.
All the SPFL Board have to do is ask Mr King for evidence where the SPFL Chairman is guilty of misconduct.
https://twitter.com/AndyNewportPA/status/1001849590407204866
You would think he was goading to have TRFC/RIFC suspended from the league.