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.
I see the DR is obediently following Level42 orders, with following clickbait headlines;
“Rangers target Steven Gerrard profiled as Liverpool legend emerges as frontrunner”
&
“Steven Gerrard to Rangers pros and cons as Liverpool icon lined up by Ibrox chiefs”
I guess that King’s visit to Anfield was simply to add some ‘meat’ to this particular squirrel.
And IIRC, Gerrard has been ‘available’ throughout the TRFC-preferred appointments of Warburton, Pedro, Murty.
Come Monday, Gerrard’s name will vanish from the SMSM, as quick as a squirrel disappearing up a tree!
Standard SMSM p!sh.
From BBC;
“Wembley: Football Association offered £800m to sell national football stadium”
Someone tell them that Hampden is currently available.
It can probably be had for about £8M – with change – and with the ‘Hampden Roar’ thrown in for free…
.
“Are the football authorities here and worldwide happy to allow certain clubs to do that, thereby corrupting their competitions due to the advantages gained by a club not having to worry about what they can afford? Is the business world (and you know that a football club IS a business these days, despite your romantic notions) happy to allow companies to shit on customers and other businesses? Are Governments happy to allow clubs/businesses to stiff them for taxes? Are you REALLY happy to set that type of precedent just so that football fans can be happy?”
As sad a reflection on the world as it is, through dodgy tax schemes, bribary, FIFA, the process of ‘liquidating’ bad parts of a business to start again, Donald Trump’s business ventures, Starbucks, Apple and all the other dodgy dealings that go. Somehow I don’t believe the footballing or business world will bat an eyelid on a how a club in a very small counrty on the planet behaved or was treated. If you really think that this is debated in the upper echelons of UEFA or in the square mile far less further afield then I would politely suggest it is you who is not in the real world. The subject is not even debated outwith football blogs.
DBD, so that makes it okay and we should all just go along with it then?!
What’s your point?
DARKBEFOREDAWNAPRIL 26, 2018 at 15:26
“If you really think that this is debated in the upper echelons of UEFA or in the square mile far less further afield then I would politely suggest it is you who is not in the real world. The subject is not even debated outwith football blogs.”
————————————————————————————–
I think you will find the debate in the CO’s office real enough DBD. That will of course involve intercourse between he and UEFA. The fact that the issues have been stymied and stifled by the SMSM, is an irrelevance.
SCOTTC
APRIL 26, 2018 at 12:52
As I recall, full membership was bestowed when the SPFL was formed. By default, all members of the SPL and SFL of whatever status, became FULL members of the SPFL and thus the SFA
———————————————————–
Thank you for clarification.
That indicates that their membership history is:
Conditional (v. Brechin).
Associate (remainder of season 2012/13).
Full (from season 2013/14).
Why would a club with a ‘continuous’ history require three different types of membership in two seasons? A glitch in the Brysonian Matrix?
No more OC/NC from me!
SLIMJIM, I have a similar average for the Ibrox average that season, in fact the figure is two more than the one you supply at 25146. Celtic’s crowd average was only slightly more again, at 25335.
In my recall, Celtic weren’t considered likely champions, even going into their final fixture, The league had been won by Hearts, in appeared, four games from the season’s end, with a resounding victory at Tannadice. Dundee United only trailed in three points behind Hearts and Celtic thereafter, losing points in Clydebank and again at home to St Mirren. Hearts lost out to Dundee in the final game, and also dropped a point at home v Aberdeen two weeks previously. Potentially, that lost them the league.
Celtic went on a run of eight wins in a row to close out the championship, in a season where they lost three times in the league to Dundee United.
As an aside, Hearts started the campaign with only two wins out of the first nine games, only hitting form in October.
Sorry to go off topic, back to attendances: the source for my figures is ‘The Roar of the Crowd’ by David Ross (Argyll Publishing).
NickApril 26, 2018 at 13:55″……the world would be a very dull place if we all thought the same way”
Nick i am sure if we could come together and rid society of corporate corruption, greed and if we could put the shoulder to the wheel and remove the barriers placed in peoples lifes like homelessness the refusal of justice or rights dependant on your finacial sytem, you would probably agree your statement would revert to the world could in fact be an illuminating and wonderful place if maybe we all thought the same way.
I am sure you will agree that corruption and greed when exposed has to have a punishment and it probably took a lot of years, hardship, injustice and debate for society to come to a decision that the punishment for the dishonest business practices and the suffering it brings to innocent victims whos trust was abused is death and to prevent the use and hardship caused if it simply could continue.
You see Nick Charles green decieved you and when it came to the fore and he was on the recieving end the truth materialised for greed has no boundaries,
“Alan Dewar QC, representing Charles Green at the Inner House of the Court of Session, has stated that ” The Rangers football club does not exist, it is an idea in people’s minds, a myth of continuity. No-one knows what the Rangers football club is, but it has no legal personality.” Mr Dewar adds that ” you can only be the”
I think you have share the sympton as laid out by the QC.
When discussing the OC/NC arguments previously I have always held a softer view on this subject than the hardline Newco / Sameco supporters. My head tells me that it is legally and technically a new club, but I get the “walks like a duck” argument that it is the same club. Certainly most of my mates consider Rangers to be the old Rangers, if nothing else because of the same old, same old, bigotry, sense of entitlement and financial imprudence of their fans and officials.
If it was Celtic that had been liquidated and resurrected, I’m sure the “Lawman”, and other Rangers leaning internet bampots, would still be going over the minutiae, but arguing that Celtic was a new club and Celtic leaning bampots would be claiming it was the same club. It has become a circular argument of claim and counter claim that has become tiresome to all but the dedicated keyboard warriors (I count myself as a warrior on certain subjects)
In that respect, I think that it was about the only thing that Stewart Regan got right, when he was asked if it was a new club. He answered that it was for the supporters to decide in their own minds.
My problem with what happened was the way that the SFA and SPL managed the process. They didn’t have any rules to handle a liquidated club, together with the desire of someone who wanted to keep the failed club alive. What did they do? Make it up as you go along, of course. A fudge was the result, for that is all the 5WA is.
Why not come out and say that they wanted “A Rangers” to continue, but admit that the rules didn’t exist to facilitate it. Make the argument for it, and be open about the status of the club and what they were going to do to resolve the problem. But no, we have secret meetings in smoke-free rooms and a secret agreement.
Other footballing jurisdictions have the wherewithal to have the means of preserving “brands” or “trading styles” effectively as franchise operations, such as the EFL’s “golden share” or the Italian FA’s “sporting continuity” provisions.
What irks me now, is that the SFA/SPFL have not learned anything from the experience. What new rules would now be applied to cope with a similar circumstance? None that I’m aware of. If it happens again, then it will be back to the same “Board discretion” and the same old make it up as you go along solution.
PADDYMALARKEY APRIL 26 15.00
Thanks for that. I see some of the figures are rounded up to the nearest thousand though.
Interesting to note that Rangers had the largest average attendance for seasons 83/84 & 84/85, the 6th & 7th seasons with no league title, sometimes fighting for 3rd or 4th position. Backs up what i said earlier that the attendances remained reasonably high considering the lack of success.
EJ, I can’t disagree with much of what you say, but the part where you quote SR “In that respect, I think that it was about the only thing that Stewart Regan got right, when he was asked if it was a new club. He answered that it was for the supporters to decide in their own minds.” I can’t go along with.
It would be okay if he left it at that, but for the official SFA website to then continue to show the new club with the old club’s historic titles shows the way the SFA want it to be interpreted and I can’t live with that.
If Regan had said that we accept that Rangers fans will treat TRFC as the same club.It’s an emotional game & we understand their feelings,and that’s OK but to be clear,legally & technically,within the law of the land & SFA/SPL regulations,they can only be a new club,then most would have been happy,He didn’t.He deliberately muddied the waters.
As for the SFA/SPL not having rules to deal with a liquidated club,what rules do you need.Business goes bust,end off.
New business applies to take its place.Easy,if you want it to be so.
THELAWMAN2APRIL 26, 2018 at 05:11
3
26 Rate This
CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 25, 2018 at 22:12
The conditional membership was issued for 1 game as the SFA were in the process of transferring the membership to the “new owner and operator of Rangers Football Club” but the legalities of the 5WA had not been completed. As soon as they were completed, the FULL MEMBERSHIP was transferred. It was NOT a new membership nor a conditional one.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I think you are confusing the SFA membership with an SPL share?
SFA memberships can only be held by clubs, so quite obviously could not be transferred to a new owner or operator. The same club would never have needed anything to be transferred…..
easyJamboApril 25, 2018 at 22:52
On 4th April, John Bennett, on behalf of the “Independent Directors”, issued a letter to all shareholders of RIFC which included the following text:
“The Offer Announcement is expected to be followed by an offer document (the “Offer Document”) by no later than 26th April 2018, which will also be sent to all shareholders.”
https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2018/04/Letter-to-shareholders-4-April-18.4918441364_1.pdf
Developing story.
=====================
Developing indeed.Business closed for the day & still no sign,publically at least,of any offer document.escrow account etc from Mr King or his chosen advisors(seems they’ve got a wee bit of history also).
Will the “Independent Directors” now be considering their position?.
Will Close be thinking of calling in their loan?.
Will TOP apply sanctions whilst heading to the CoS with a request for Mr King to be held in contempt?.
Still developing story!.
easyJamboApril 26, 2018 at 16:36″…..in that respect, I think that it was about the only thing that Stewart Regan got right, when he was asked if it was a new club. He answered that it was for the supporters to decide in their own minds.”
If he had been asked if all the other clubs are the same clubs he would have replied yes and how could they not be. The answer given is simple he dodged the question as to give a yes or no would have put his intelligence in doubt, these guys are operating within legal constarints were every word is scrutinised, when these guys give a simple answer without a murmur or pause it is usually the truth when it is deflected with pauses emms and coughs you can bet all is not right at Mill.
torrejohnbhoy April 26, 2018 at 17:18
Developing indeed.Business closed for the day & still no sign,publically at least,of any offer document.escrow account etc from Mr King or his chosen advisors(seems they’ve got a wee bit of history also).
Will the “Independent Directors” now be considering their position?.
Will Close be thinking of calling in their loan?.
Will TOP apply sanctions whilst heading to the CoS with a request for Mr King to be held in contempt?.
Still developing story!.
============================
What we don’t know is the subject of the “unstarred motions” to the CoS in the last couple of weeks. It may be that King has sought an extension to the period before the offer document is published.
easyJamboApril 26, 2018 at 17:23
torrejohnbhoy April 26, 2018 at 17:18 Developing indeed.Business closed for the day & still no sign,publically at least,of any offer document.escrow account etc from Mr King or his chosen advisors(seems they’ve got a wee bit of history also). Will the “Independent Directors” now be considering their position?. Will Close be thinking of calling in their loan?. Will TOP apply sanctions whilst heading to the CoS with a request for Mr King to be held in contempt?. Still developing story!. ============================ What we don’t know is the subject of the “unstarred motions” to the CoS in the last couple of weeks. It may be that King has sought an extension to the period before the offer document is published.
=====================
You may well be correct & everything may well be above aboard.A simple message on the TRFC website explaining the situation would remove all doubt.Not just for the likes of Close,etc but also for the fans.Not much to ask,surely.
easyJamboApril 26, 2018 at 17:23
‘..It may be that King has sought an extension to the period ‘
____________
That’s a possibility, I suppose, and there may be all kinds of other reasons.
I don’t know, and I haven’t yet been able to ascertain, whether this mandatory offfer is required to be as publicly notified as a general issue of shares.
However, one would think that shareholders would have been told and that news of that telling would have been put on the ‘RFC Investor ‘ page, since the Independent directors’ letter was put on there.
Where’s Jumbo ? I thought he might have been on to remind us that Jimmy McGrory was born on this day in 1904 . only 7 caps ,though ?
Next week’s court proceedings
TO BE ALLOCATED
Tuesday 1st May 2018
Procedure Roll (4 days)
A184/16 The Rangers Football Club Ltd v Charles Green &c
Anderson Strathern LLP – Kennedys Scotland – Brodies LLP – Balfour + Manson LLP – Heggie Alexander – Ian Anderson Solicitor
This is the club taking action against the former directors for agreeing dodgy deals. Ashley was included originally, but was dropped following the settlement with SD last summer.
JC – I’m afraid I’m not free during the month of May, so you will be on your own. The Whitehouse v Police Scotland case should also be up the following week.
Once again,not legally minded but I’d have thought TOP would have wanted to be allowed to object to any extension request,if they so wished.After all,they’ve been chasing after King for quite a while now & may wish this brought to a head,sooner rather than later.
torrejohnbhoyApril 26, 2018 at 17:30
easyJamboApril 26, 2018 at 17:23torrejohnbhoy April 26, 2018 at 17:18 Developing indeed.Business closed for the day & still no sign,publically at least,of any offer document.escrow account etc from Mr King or his chosen advisors(seems they’ve got a wee bit of history also). Will the “Independent Directors” now be considering their position?. Will Close be thinking of calling in their loan?. Will TOP apply sanctions whilst heading to the CoS with a request for Mr King to be held in contempt?. Still developing story!. ============================ What we don’t know is the subject of the “unstarred motions” to the CoS in the last couple of weeks. It may be that King has sought an extension to the period before the offer document is published.=====================You may well be correct & everything may well be above aboard.A simple message on the TRFC website explaining the situation would remove all doubt.Not just for the likes of Close,etc but also for the fans.Not much to ask,surely.
_________________
Was about to say something similar.
Whether or not the Independent Directors are duty bound to issue an update, you would think it would be the respectable thing to do for the benefit of all shareholders – to the extent that it seems disrespectable not to.
Perhaps this is why they went to so much effort to point out that it was an advertisement, and so not a legally binding document, allowing them to treat the shareholders with this disrespect while not breaking the law/rules.
On the other hand, I would have imagined any variation to the date, authorised by the CoS, would have been agreed on the understanding that the shareholders would be notified timeously.
easyJamboApril 26, 2018 at 17:44
‘..Next week’s court proceedings…’
_______________
Good stuff. I’m beginning to have ‘withdrawal symptoms!
I doubt if I’ll get permission Mrs C to attend more than a couple of days, though,and i’ll have American visitors the following week so I hope the Whitehouse stuff is later.
On Regan and SFA lack of clarity on the status of TRFC/RIFC the SFA had the perfect opportunity to clarify on receipt of a copy of the Traverso letter.
STV published what was duplicate of the Traverso para bar inclusion of the word “new”.
Now why was that not corrected by Broadfoot at the SFA. He would have the Traverso copy.
STV Grant insist his version came from UEFA Media a week or so after the Traverso letter arrived.
What is it about the word “new” that required it’s removal?
” a new club/ company”
As in new club TRFC / company RIFC.
That word new is difficult to misinterpret.
Paddy, my friend, I think I mentioned a few times on here, when the blog gets into first gear, I take a back seat. I try to fill in when things are quiet. I will talk about my great uncle Jimmy McGrory at some time.
God bless wee Alfie.
SCOTTCAPRIL 26, 2018 at 12:52
8
0 Rate This
JINGSO.JIMSIEAPRIL 26, 2018 at 11:162. My recollection (and it may be faulty & I’m happy to be corrected if it is) is that TRFC went from their one-off ‘conditional’ membership to the then-extant ‘associate’ membership for new (to the SFA) clubs: a status that had existed within the SFA for decades. Strangely, that stepping-stone of ‘associate’ membership was written out of the SFA rulebook shortly after TRFC became such a member & they were awarded a default ‘full’ membership.As I recall, full membership was bestowed when the SPFL was formed. By default, all members of the SPL and SFL of whatever status, became FULL members of the SPFL and thus the SFA
——————-
That was my recollection also.
As I recall, full membership was bestowed when the SPFL was formed. By default, all members of the SPL and SFL of whatever status, became FULL members of the SPFL and thus the SFA
———–
something from Auldheid on the subject from back in the day…see pic
And details on https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/mather-on-spfl/
Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:39by Rangers Football Club
RANGERS will be back at the top table with full membership and voting rights in the Scottish Professional Football League.
The formation of the SPFL was confirmed late last night following agreement between the SPL and SFL.
———-
So over a year before they were granted full membership.
DBD
In respect to the RFF having paid off all creditors of the old club bar ticketus and HMRC
I think someone has been pulling your leg there ,or you must have misheard them
some guff in the SMSM prattled on about fans money paying creditors but if ,as you are asserting their money paid EVERYONE bar those two then that must have been some fighting fund .
EASYJAMBOAPRIL 26, 2018 at 16:36
What irks me now, is that the SFA/SPFL have not learned anything from the experience. What new rules would now be applied to cope with a similar circumstance? None that I’m aware of. If it happens again, then it will be back to the same “Board discretion” and the same old make it up as you go along solution.
————-
I may be wrong but was there not something if it happens again A CLUB can stay in the league they were in if they are reformed
CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 26, 2018 at 18:43
I do believe you are correct
Think the peepil don’t ever want it to be in the hands of the clubs (or should that be supporters )
so WHEN it happens again it will go to a committee ,set up by ,yes you guessed it the corruptors
THELAWMAN2APRIL 26, 2018 at 05:11 The conditional membership was issued for 1 game as the SFA were in the process of transferring the membership to the “new owner and operator of Rangers Football Club” but the legalities of the 5WA had not been completed. As soon as they were completed, the FULL MEMBERSHIP was transferred. It was NOT a new membership nor a conditional one.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….normanbatesmumfc April 26, 2018 at 17:02
I think you are confusing the SFA membership with an SPL share?
SFA memberships can only be held by clubs, so quite obviously could not be transferred to a new owner or operator. The same club would never have needed anything to be transferred…..
……………………………………………………………………
KABOOOOOOM!!
Thank you Norman.
Nail. On. Head.
No need to fuss further over how many angels were dancing on that particular pinhead.
Why would one want titles won using underhanded chicanery?
I recall much grumbling about what Marseille did, to “win” their European Title, from the Rangers support and how they were cheated out of things.
Yet the same support hold onto the dead club’s records including their ill gotten gains as if they are shining prizes proving them to be the most successful Club in the world. I could say that claim is risible pish but won’t limiting my comment to calling it undignified.
EASYJAMBO
APRIL 26, 2018 at 16:36
In that respect, I think that it was about the only thing that Stewart Regan got right, when he was asked if it was a new club. He answered that it was for the supporters to decide in their own minds.
————————————————–
Stewart Regan was the CEO of the SFA.
He was asked a ‘business’ question & cunningly offered a ‘football’ answer. It was nothing more than a cop-out, happily grasped by the SMSM & quickly propagated.
(Sorry, I had written that I was out of this discussion. I’ve just had a Michael Corleone moment. Apologies.)
No angels can dance on pinheads, medieval theologians were never in any doubt about that. Their metaphysics was very much more developed and subtle than those of the SFA and they fully comprehended the principle of non contradiction.
A small example would be that if two things exist at the same time they are not the same thing. If two things were the same thing then a five way agreement would be a four way agreement. I have heard of a 5 way agreement but not a 4 way agreement that is perhaps because two different things are no the same thing.
bfbpuzzledApril 26, 2018 at 19:28
—————————————-
Impressed? I am, TSFM discusses Quantum Physics.
A wee reminder of how it was reported at the time (before the invention of the holding company fandango) and the list of creditors .
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/revealed-the-276-victims-owed-cash-1118614
Ah, the five way agreement!
Did any of them sit at the table that night and honestly think ‘Yes this is the answer to all our troubles!’
This will be accepted by all and sundry.
I would love to hear an honest opinion of even just one of them now. Without using the terminology of the best for Scottish football.
Six years later it obviously wasn’t.
paddy malarkey April 26, 2018 at 20:03
A wee reminder of how it was reported at the time (before the invention of the holding company fandango) and the list of creditors .
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/revealed-the-276-victims-owed-cash-1118614
==================================
276 creditors. You’d better add the 6,050 debenture holders who were designated as unsecured creditors, and were due to get their £7.736m back in 2026.
PADDY MALARKEYAPRIL 26, 2018 at 20:03
Thanks for that handy wee link .
Looks like the RFF paid out over £90m
And why would ragers debenture holders be on that list as they paid the football club to sit on a particular seat at Ibrokes .I am thinking as Ibrokes is still there and the seat they paid the debenture for is still there ,what could it be that is not there for them to be on that list
hmmmmmmmmmm ,I wonder
EASYJAMBOAPRIL 26, 2018 at 20:20
Ah the old debenture holders ,was it not these luvly peepil who footed the bill for the club deck .
The knight of the realm and OPM ,don’t ya just luv im
Just think. They could have put that moeny towards buying the club and been in a much better position.
Re the Debenture holders ……. from the accounts
The debentures rank pari passu with respect to voting and repayment, are unsecured and no interest is payable. The debentures are repayable under the following conditions:
i. at the discretion of the Company on or after 16 December 2026, being the 35th anniversary of the completion of the Club Deck in the Bill Struth Main Stand, or
ii. if an order is made or an effective resolution is passed for the winding up of the Company, or
iii. if an administrator or receiver is appointed to the undertaking of the Company or any of its property or assets, or
iv. if the Company ceases on a permanent basis to carry on its business at the Stadium.
Looks like ii, iii, and iv all applied.
PADDY MALARKEYAPRIL 26, 2018 at 20:03
9
0 Rate This
A wee reminder of how it was reported at the time (before the invention of the holding company fandango) and the list of creditors .
—————-
The Debt trail.April 6,2012
Bottom right is of interest.
SCOTTCAPRIL 26, 2018 at 20:41
That and the £90m from the RFF would have made a great case to be preferred bidder
Latest from PMG
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/04/26/why-sevco-want-the-money-trail-to-be-kept-under-wraps/
bfbpuzzledApril 26, 2018 at 19:28
“…….If two things were the same thing then a five way agreement would be a four way agreement. …”
________________________
Yes, indeed.
The circumstance of the RFC (as represented by the Administrators)and Sevco/TRFC Ltdd both being at the same meeting as separate entities with each having a vote for as long as it took before they became one and the same must make that meeting the most profoundly dishonest gathering of liars that ever gathered since the days of the mastanic Hell Fire Club (not the Edinburgh one, but the one on Montpelier Hill in the Dublin Mountains).
The sheer absurdity of the concept is such as to suggest a level of schizophrenia in the minds of desperate men ( not to make light of people who suffer from that illness, of course)
“It is a priority that we commence next season with the best appointment we can make and that we move forward rapidly”Dave king statement from about 2 weeks ago.
————
After 7 months is Steven Gerrard the Liverpool youth the best appointment they can come up with?
Can’t see it happening myself.Just king at liverpool and someone has put two and two together and come up with level5
easyJamboApril 26, 2018 at 20:20″276 creditors. You’d better add the 6,050 debenture holders who were designated as unsecured creditors, and were due to get their £7.736m back in 2026.”
So glad that the fighting fund paid the face painter to paint shiny smilie faces on the rest of the creditors
or the place would be very glum.
BORUSSIABEEFBURG APRIL 26 15.14
http://www.londonhearts.com/scores/a1980/rangers1981.htm
Found this site a while back, may interest you.
Recall that season well. Hearts went on a fantastic run only to fall in the final weeks. Aberdeen game was live on STV iirc. Was at Ibrox for final game v Motherwell when we heard “Kidd” had scored at Dens but didn’t know if it was Albert or Walter. Sadly it was the former.
Cluster OneApril 26, 2018 at 22:10
‘..is Steven Gerrard the Liverpool youth the best appointment they can come up with?’
_________________
To be scrupulously fair ( again!) Gerrard is a big name in ‘football’, and (unverified)word is that he attended the most recent Celtic/TRFC Ltd game, and King was at the Liverpool game.
Not to do the Fat Controller any favours, put them together and you get not just a useful squirrel but a useful red squirrel.
Season ticket sales must be the highest item on the agenda for the TRFC Ltd and RIFC plc boards.
Oor Kenny on tonight’s Sportsound could hardly hold back his excitement, and, I think, was distinctly cast down when English ( to be scrupulously fair to him as well) enumerated several reasons why Gerrard would NOT actually be good for TRFC Ltd ( other than for the moment his being on the ‘short list’ to boost ST sales).
Gerrard is not short of a few bob ( wealth estimated at around £50M?) and is honest enough to recognise that his efforts with Wimbledon Dons were less than impressive.
English pointed out that even Warburton and Caixinha ( spelling?) were more experienced than Gerrard.
Oor Kenny reminded him that Sourness had done well, transiting from player to manager. Mmmmm. I think I might have done just as well!
Kite flying by a really, really desperate RIFC plc chairman.
Who, for all we know, may be in even deeper trouble with the TOP and their Lordships of the court of Session.
Gerrard may, of course, be prepared to come to Ibrox, as a training and educational experience. He could not come in any great expectation of actual achievement in one season, and he must know that whoever is appointed will simply not be given either the time or the money to achieve the impossible, as demanded by the (current) Chairman of RIFC plc ( who, of course, is not running the football club in any way!)
( You know, I’m near enough minded to apply for the PR job at Ibrox! I could not possibly do worse damage than the current incumbent. More than that, I believe that you or I or any God’s number of readers and users of this blog could do much better!)
In a mood of wearisome tediousness, I have posted this email to the TOP.
“To:Support Group
27 Apr at 00:08
Dear Support Group,
As I and , I believe, a good few thousand others, understand matters there was supposed to be made public today, according to a statement made on 4th April by the Independent Directors of RIFC plc , the details of a mandatory offer by Laird propriatary (SA) to buy at 20p per share the shares of RIFC plc not already owned by the concert party headed up by Dave Cunningham King, chairman of RIFC plc.
Shareholders were told that details of the offer would be in their hands no later than today, 26th April 2018.
The ‘investor’ page of the Rangers Football Club Ltd (not, curiously, Rangers International Football club plc) appears not to have a statement intimating just what the offer is.
As I press this key, it is 00.02, Friday, 27th.
What has happened?
Have shareholders been advised of the ‘offer’?
Has the ‘date by which’ been changed?
Have we been advised that there is a delay, and that the offer will be made at some future date?
It appears not.
Just what, I pray, is happening?
Yours sincerely,
JC”
( and the Support Group know my real name as well)
A busy week and apologies to Lawman2 for kindly replying to my question a couple of days back in relation to oldco/newcomers matters.
I get the thrust of his view on the SPL share and how T’Rangers ended up in the bottom tier and the early rounds of the cup.
I hope we can agree this was all above board and merely a consequence of Rangers going into administration / liquidation.
However looking back at how things were viewed at the time I find the BBC article in the link below interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18413384
Of course IIdon’t know how much of the content perhaps came from inside Hampden but the article is very clear that a new club would need to apply for membership of the SFA. Therefore no continuity.
The article predicts with, accuracy, the SPL share issue and the plan B of the SFL
It points out that Airdrie’s history ended when they were liquidated despite coming back in a different guise.
However most interestingly the article suggests that both the SFA and the SPL would be keen to pass on the sins of the Father to its Zombie son, not because they believe the club to have continuity and immortal qualities but to put down a marker to stop any future bunch of cowboys from thinking they could get away with dumping football related debt and starting up all over again without any consequences.
Looking at things from that slant I now view the Five Way Agreement as perhaps being more positive than I did before albeit the lack of openness and transparency has allowed the continuity myth to develop..
Good morning,
Can any of you learned Gents, … not forgetting MS Brodie, tell me why it’s taking so long for the liquidation of rfc (the 1872 ones) to go through?
This is the latest report on the 5th Dec ’17, https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/rfc-2012-plc, with the next one due in June 2018. ….. Anybody???
Btw, as we all know this is the 27th of April, ….
Ah wunder how D.K’s doin’.
WOTTPIAPRIL 27, 2018 at 00:19 What happens to the club’s history?
The Rangers Football Club PLC is a public limited company registered in Scotland (company number: SC004276) and was incorporated on 27 May, 1899. When the current company is officially liquidated, all of its corporate business history will come to an end.
When this happened to Airdrieonians in 2002, all of the trophies, titles and records associated with the club were discontinued and a new club, Airdrie United FC, took over. Airdrieonians’ official history ended in 2002, then Airdrie United’s took over.
The answer lies principally in the eye of the beholder. Some supporters will view the new Rangers as the same Rangers, while others will feel the old Rangers no longer exist.
SHUGAPRIL 26, 2018 at 21:33
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/04/26/why-sevco-want-the-money-trail-to-be-kept-under-wraps/
If phil’s info is correct does that really mean that lowly Hamilton Accies (who have just lost a great deal of money from fraud) have effectively allowed one of their best players to go to sevco 2012 and paid them £75,000 for the privilege .
I don’t know what wages the boy Docherty will be on at sevco 2012 but would think £75,000 would probably cover it ,so have sevco 2012 been playing a player they otherwise couldn’t afford and his wages been covered by another spfl club .
IIRC is there not someone in both these clubs connected .
what could possibly go wrong
PORTBHOYAPRIL 27, 2018 at 07:08
1
0 Rate This
Good morning, Can any of you learned Gents, … not forgetting MS Brodie, tell me why it’s taking so long for the liquidation of rfc (the 1872 ones) to go through?
—————
BDO…As previously advised, this is a complex liquidation containing a number of key areas ofinvestigation, each of which may have a significant impact on the ultimate outcome for creditors.However, due to the highly sensitive nature of certain aspects of these investigations, we considerthat it is not appropriate to provide full details in respect of our investigations to date in thiscircular. In particular, we are not in a position to comment in detail upon the events leading up tothe administration and the conduct of the former Joint Administrators (although you will note thatthis report does contain certain updates in this regard).
This would require seven other SPL clubs to vote in favour of transferring the oldco’s share to the newco, since Rangers will have a vote.
Oh dear how can the same club vote to transfer their spl share to themselves and why would they need to .
Those pesky wee details just keep getting in the way of my fantasy .
oh well
Six things S.J. should have a look at,
1), THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB SC004276 – Incorporated on 27 May 1899 – been in Liquidation since 2012.
2), THE RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC SC437060 – Incorporated on 16 November 2012.
3), THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED Company number SC425159 Incorporated on 29 May 2012.
4), Previous company name: …… SE\/CO SCOTLAND LIMITED 29 May 2012 – 31 Jul 2012.
5), GLASGOW RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED 07821463 ……. Dissolved on 9 June 2015.
6), RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB 2012 LIMITED SC418862 …… Dissolved on 25 October 2013.
PORTBHOY
APRIL 27, 2018 at 08:06
Portbhoy, the deluded will counter your argument by saying those are companies in your list, not clubs.
What they’ve never been able to counter is the fact that their now deceased football club was also a company in precisely the same way as Gretna FC and Third Lanark were before they also died the death of liquidation.
The only difference is that our football authorities and the Rangers support wrongly believe that Rangers Football Club is too important to have died. Their wailing and gnashing of teeth does not alter the incontrovertible fact that Rangers Football Club is defunct.
Could someone tell me why the Airdrieonians Football Club’s owner/operator company changes it’s name to the exact same and time as the Club?
FAN OF FOOTBALLAPRIL 27, 2018 at 07:15
“If phil’s info is correct does that really mean that lowly Hamilton Accies (who have just lost a great deal of money from fraud) have effectively allowed one of their best players to go to sevco 2012 and paid them £75,000 for the privilege .”
————————————————————————————-
As you point out FoF, Hamilton were on a financial sticky wicket. From what Phil says, it would appear Hamilton approached Sevco for payment, and a negotiated settlement reached, but perhaps that was upon the request for an earlier settlement, than that which was previously agreed.
I have no knowledge either way.
PORTBHOYAPRIL 27, 2018 at 08:06
)
“Six things S.J. should have a look at,”
——————————————————————————–
Six things we should all have a look at Port. ….(and for you Jimbo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rTHQ4g56Es
Cheers CO thoroughly enjoyed that. Searched for the lyrics but couldn’t find them. Funnily enough got two sites with the guitar chords for the song. but no words.
Moving back to football, and I cannot believe that the board are seriously considering another gamble of an appointment of a manager in Steven Gerrard! To replace an experienced under 20’s coach with an inexperienced under 18’s coach beggers belief. Do they honestly believe this will shift season tickets? Perhaps had we been signing the Steven Gerrard the player of a few years ago then yes. But as is so often the case, a great player does not make a great manager. I personally wanted a steady pair of hands. It didn’t (and shouldn’t) have to be a box office signing or a big name. Just someone who can be trusted to get the best out the team and work with little or no budget.
Are the board so removed that this is seen as a great ‘squirrel’ (to quote Mr McG) and detract from the negativity at the moment and give a feel good factor before the Old Firm game? On what planet is an inexperienced gamble of a manager, and a 36 year old goal keeper going to sell season tickets? A cursory glance at Rangers forums will show that the fans are not happy with this. I have no issue’s with Gerrard the man, and was a huge admiror of Gerrard the player so I base my view purely on the football perspective. Is he seen as a ‘celebrity’ signing? Haven’t we learned our lesson from box office signings of late (Barton, Kranjar). We have squandered so much money of late to finish 3rd place against teams on a fraction of the budget. What is wrong with a Tony Pullis type signing who can bring in some bosmans and work with the players and youths at the club. A hugely misjudged move (yet again) by a clueless board.
JIMBOAPRIL 27, 2018 at 11:21
Cheers CO thoroughly enjoyed that. Searched for the lyrics but couldn’t find them. Funnily enough got two sites with the guitar chords for the song. but no words.
———————————————————————————–
Ditto Jimbo. I still have a couple of gaps after a few listens, but I get the essence, and improvised
The Wembley stadium scenario is a very interesting one. My first thought was “that’s terrible selling off their crown jewels to overseas vultures” but on closer look I can see why they would take that route.
It seems like they spent circa 800 million building the stadium and will make about the same amount back, some funding came from public money so I assume it’ll find it’s way back to the public purse. Somewhere within there I’m sure a windfall will find it’s way back to the FA as well. Putting aside the fact it was a ludicrous amount to spend on a stadium initially it seems illogical to me that the FA sits on a piece of real estate worth 800 million quid a year in order for it to host a dozen or so football matches per annum.
What I hope will happen (again ever the optimist as I realise the FA are run very much as a commercial venture) is that the proceeds will be used to develop grassroots football. Imagine 1000 free to use 4G pitches built across Britain (the public money should certainly be partially distributed outwith England).
Take away the cost of playing football for the next generation and make it open to all regardless of wealth, I think that could be a spectacular legacy for the FA.
Still nothing in the press about Dave King missing yesterday’s deadline for a share offer.
https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2018/04/Rule-9-%E2%80%93-Further-information-for-shareholders.pdf
Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC) – City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (Code)RIFC notes that the 28 day period following the mandatory cash offer announcement from Laird Investments (Pty) Limited (Laird) on 29 March 2018 has passed without the publication of a Code-compliant offer document. RIFC has been informed by the Takeover Panel that this is a breach of Rule 24.1 of the Code.
RIFC understands that Laird has the funds to make the offer in an Attorney client account and is seeking the necessary South African Government approvals to permit the cash required for the offer to be transferred to the United Kingdom to enable an appropriate third party to provide the cash confirmation required by Rule 24.8 of the Code.
Meantime, the Takeover Panel has asked RIFC to advise shareholders that the Panel will take all appropriate steps to seek to ensure that a Code-compliant offer is made as soon as possible
It’s a long and complicated process, PB.
It took the best part of eleven years to liquidate Airdrieonians
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/airdrieonians-fc-liquidation-come-end-2825991
If he is in the running, then Gerrard would be off his head to take the Ibrox job as it could ensure that it will be his first and only job. It’s a very high profile one, but not one that carries any cache in England. If he fails it will be noticed down south. If he does well, then it won’t be noticed – it’ll be ‘My nan could win that league.’ (to mis-quote OldFirmFacts!). And is he likely to be able to challenge a financially-bulked-up Celtic? I doubt it. There’s no Bank Of Scotland to use as their own credit card now No one cares if he can outfox Aberdeen or Hibs – if he doesn’t finish first then he’s a failure.
If he had a decent managerial record to point to prior to Ibrox, then he could at least fall back on that, but he’s got nothing. He could very well end up being the next John Barnes!
Also, being a Clyde fan, I know a thing or two about high profile appointments of decent footballers by clearly star-struck chairmen, who fail as a manager to emulate their skills as a player. He may well turn out to be a decent manager, but the odds are against it, and if I were on the Ibrox board, it would be Alex Neil that I’d be turning to – Good reputation as a manager in the SPL, and with a proven track record in developing young players. If TRFC are going to compete with Celtic and not kill themselves in the process, then that’s exactly what they need – to reap the benefits of these young players in the short term, and to sell on at a decent price.
Ah, yes. Those pesky South Africa Exchange Control Regulations
and interestingly
… so that will be more fees payable, if Laird get their permission
http://www.money-transfers.co.za/south-africa-exchange-control.php
scottc April 27, 2018 at 12:47
Ah, yes. Those pesky South Africa Exchange Control Regulations
==========================
It’s funny, but weren’t these exchange controls known about when King announced the offer four weeks ago.
I seem to have a recollection that we discussed on SFM that it might be an issue. And that was around the time of Lord Bannatyne’s ruling from December.
Amfearliathmor: I was going to reference John Barnes – another ex-Liverpool, ex-England, highly respected player and sometime-pundit taking their first steps in management. A rookie on a budget (though tbh Barnes did spend money, just not wisely) against an experienced coach with much deeper pockets.
At least Dalglish was (ostensibly) there to counsel Barnes.
As an apparently boyhood Celtic fan Gerrard does fit with the other recent appointees to the NewGers hotseat…
As a current Celtic fan I’m saying loud and clear bring it on soft la’.
RIFC understands that Laird has the funds to make the offer in an Attorney client account and isseeking the necessary South African Government approvals to permit the cash required for the offerto be transferred to the United Kingdom to enable an appropriate third party to provide the cashconfirmation required by Rule 24.8 of the Code.
But DK is RIFC. So he’s saying RIFC understands that Laird ( also DK ) has the funds. Looks like he’s looking for a third party as well. Nice to see transparency getting in on the act
ChristyBhoy, I read that as meaning that the ‘funds available’ statement is acceptable only if an independent 3rd party bank/solicitor in the UK can confirm to TOP that the funds have been lodged in the UK. Obviously, they’re right not to accept the word of RIFC/Laird (both King as you say).