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.
CORRUPT OFFICIALJUNE 5, 2018 at 16:19
The Scottish Fitba Association entered into a secret agreement with one/two member clubs. And there are people on here talking about disclosure of a “possible” conflict of interest, when this monstrosity has been created to facilitate the interests of one club, above the interests of other clubs. Gie’s peace. !
_______________________________________________________________________
The other clubs had to agree to the 5WA. The SPL couldnt sign it without the support of the member clubs. So they have clearly agreed to it, having considered their interests as per their own rules.
Same with The Scottish Football League. Members had to agree to it.
Lawman, you readily acknowledge that McLennan has done nothing you are aware of to make you think he is biased toward CFC and claim that none of the other club affiliates mentioned have ever done so either. With that in mind, it seems you would rather have people who are going to be ‘obviously’ biased toward their team in preference to someone who does not have obvious biases. Is that right?
NAWLITEJUNE 5, 2018 at 16:25
Lawman, you readily acknowledge that McLennan has done nothing you are aware of to make you think he is biased toward CFC and claim that none of the other club affiliates mentioned have ever done so either. With that in mind, it seems you would rather have people who are going to be ‘obviously’ biased toward their team in preference to someone who does not have obvious biases. Is that right?
__________________________________________________________________________
No thats not right. Not right at all. Thats a few people trying to put words in my mouth.
When there is a known conflict of interest, there is a methodology that can prevent them influencing it. So for example, if Hearts did something wrong in the league and lets say the SPFL were considering sanctions then im confident and sure that Anne Budge would be removed from making a decision because of her obvious COI.
If however, hypothetically, Ian Maxwell was a Non Exec Chairman of Parks Motor Group and he was asked to consider an issue in relation to Rangers and Douglas Park, then there is a clear and undeniable “potential conflict of interest”. The “potential conflict” does not of course mean he would do anything sinister, but in my opinion, the existence of it, should be known to all parties.
THELAWMAN2JUNE 5, 2018 at 16:08 Look at me copying and pasting .
Unless a data subject has provided explicit consent to data processing for one or more purposes, personal data may not be processed unless there is at least one legal basis to do so. They include:[13]
For the legitimate interests of a data controller or a third party, unless these interests are overridden by the Charter of Fundamental Rights (especially in the case of children).To perform a task in the public interest or in official authority.To comply with a data controller’s legal obligations.To fulfill contractual obligations with a data subject.To perform tasks at the request of a data subject who is in the process of entering into a contract with a data controller.To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another person.
So you make the contractual obligation full disclosure . No compulsion to apply for a post .
PADDY MALARKEYJUNE 5, 2018 at 16:39
THELAWMAN2JUNE 5, 2018 at 16:08 Look at me copying and pasting .Unless a data subject has provided explicit consent to data processing for one or more purposes, personal data may not be processed unless there is at least one legal basis to do so. They include:[13]For the legitimate interests of a data controller or a third party, unless these interests are overridden by the Charter of Fundamental Rights (especially in the case of children).To perform a task in the public interest or in official authority.To comply with a data controller’s legal obligations.To fulfill contractual obligations with a data subject.To perform tasks at the request of a data subject who is in the process of entering into a contract with a data controller.To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another person.
So you make the contractual obligation full disclosure . No compulsion to apply for a post .
_________________________________________________________________________
I believe you are looking at data processing and mixing that up with data types. What the above states is that you do not need explicit consent from an individual to process data under the above circumstances.
So as an example, if im entering into a contractual employment contract then i dont need to consent for the company to process my data such as address, date of birth, NI number etc. They are allowed to process that information without my consent verbally or in writing.
What the above does NOT consent though is that to enter into a contract, a company can keep a register of my political beliefs, my sexual orientation, my religious or philosophical beliefs, my race. These are all specifically named in GDPR as data prohibited from processing.
Think of it this way. Do you believe the above point you raised means that a company can hold a register which tells them if im gay or not ? Is that data you believe can be processed under your statement above ?
Im pretty sure it cant.
No Holding Company!!
===================
Mark Kleinman
@MarkKleinmanSky
Exclusive: Aston Villa Football Club suspends CEO Keith Wyness less than a fortnight after Championship play-off final defeat and amid suggestions that HMRC has served a winding-up order against Villa, one of England’s oldest professional football clubs, for missing tax payment.
A nice wee read from The Guardian .
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/mar/13/scottish-football-brilliance-celtic-psg-rangers-scotland
THELAWMAN2JUNE 5, 2018 at 16:25
“The other clubs had to agree to the 5WA. The SPL couldnt sign it without the support of the member clubs. So they have clearly agreed to it, having considered their interests as per their own rules.
Same with The Scottish Football League. Members had to agree to it.”
—————————————————————————————————-
Are you saying that the secret 5-way agreement is not a secret, and all SPL & SFL clubs were/are fully cognisant with its contents?.
Lawman
you forget explicit consent for special purposes information.
There should be a Godwin’s law equivalent for the west of Scotland – as soon as the Knights of St Columba are mentioned the argument is lost because it is category error whitabootery. Category error because it is not a secret society unlike some others which are. Similarly I do not believe that there is a system of secret signs to identify members to each other unlike some others. The membership of the KSC is minuscule.
I am not now and never have been a member of KSC or any such organisation. The only secret signs I know have been picked up from folk who did not recognise my affiliations from a variety of clear indications and used them to me. There is a bit of it in The Idiot when the prince joins the masons also.
THELAWMAN2JUNE 5, 2018 at 16:50
Naw, I’m looking at this –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
And I’m off back out into the sun
CORRUPT OFFICIALJUNE 5, 2018 at 17:19
Are you saying that the secret 5-way agreement is not a secret, and all SPL & SFL clubs were/are fully cognisant with its contents?.
______________________________________________________________________________
Im saying that in order for the SPL to have signed that agreement then the member clubs, who are the SPL, would need to have agreed to it. So YES, Celtic, Aberdeen, Dundee United etc etc all knew what they were voting on when they agreed in favour of the 5WA.
THELAWMAN2JUNE 5, 2018 at 15:03
I would have answered this post in full (have no need just read the responses from numerous site contributors and it’s more or less been covered)but as of yet you have refrained from commenting on this Goverment Guideline
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/A_Guide_to_Starting_a_Sports_Club_tcm21-149209.pdf
on Club Incorporation which as I suspect you are fully aware makes a complete mockery of the Clandestine Agreement signed in 2012 which more or less has led to 40 odd thousand gullibilles buying into a fantasy upheld and supported by said Document.
As has been stated previously I take my information from a Legally bound source.
Not 5 Tossers sat in a secret enclave discussing the best way to hoodwink Scottish Football.
Justinfacts, I have agreed in kind not to discuss NC/OC hence me not answering it.
Convenient given it tares up the entire argument/non debate.
Rangers died deal with it.
This McLennan thing is getting tiresome and is just the latest squirrel to be launched from the Ibrox Bunker.
If the SPL (as was) was happy to sign the crappy 5 Way agreement and this is accepted by folks like the Lawman2 as being the collective will of the league body and democracy in action, albeit in the face of an obvious convoluted fix to benefit one particular ethereal entity, then can we not all just accept that all bar one of the SPFL members are more than happy with the McLennan appointment on the basis that there is feck all for anyone to be be bothered about in this instance, so that we can say ‘nothing to see here’ and ‘Move on’.
Folks can’t have it both ways. Either everything is OK in the world of Scottish Football, or it is not and if not then you have to look at the overall culture of the organisation and who has benefited from any supposed Conflicts of Interest or ‘assistance’ from those in power, both past and present.
I make no judgement about either but for everyone else in Scottish Football two clubs from Glasgow stand out by a country mile as the ones who hold all the aces in terms of trophies won etc.
Therefore any investigation would need to focus on those two first to establish if any obvious advantage had been gained from an abuse of power or conflicted individuals before going anywhere near others.
The real questions are of course, why is one member club so bothered about this and had it been, say, Peterhead had raised the issue would it have even been covered to the extent of DCK’s kite flying.
Lets not forget when Turnbull Hutton called both the SFA and SPFL corrupt when real concerning Shenannigans were going on, it all went pretty quite within a very short space of time.
Whatever happened to warbo and weirs resignation.
TheLawMan2
June 5, 2018 at 16:08
On GDPR, the following are deemed to be prohibited for holding a register of information:
racial or ethnic origin;
political opinions;
religious or philosophical beliefs;
trade union membership;
===============================================
Sorry, are you suggesting that a trade union cannot hold a register of it’s members.
Or a Church it’s parishioners.
Or a masonic lodge it’s members.
I don’t think that’s right, surely it’s done as a matter of course so they can send ouy flyers, collect dues etc. These organisations would be impossible to operate without some form of record I would have thought.
On who all know the details of the 5 Way Agreement. Well Turnbull Hutton certainly gave the impression he was in the dark over everything that was going on to gerrymander a ‘Rangers’ into Scottish football, and then there’s the fact that 41 people, at least, have kept the secret for some six years now. I’d suggest that if 41 people have to know a secret that doesn’t benefit them, then it’s not a good idea to hatch the secret in the first place, because there’s no way that all 41 are going to stay sober enough never to spill the beans! Then, of course, how on earth do you get 41 people to agree to keep the secret in the first place?
TheLawMan2
June 5, 2018 at 17:21
Im saying that in order for the SPL to have signed that agreement then the member clubs, who are the SPL, would need to have agreed to it. So YES, Celtic, Aberdeen, Dundee United etc etc all knew what they were voting on when they agreed in favour of the 5WA
=========================================
Sorry but I need to start with the same … are you suggesting …
that every decision made by the SPL went to a full vote of all of it’s members and that the board running it was simply there to collate those votes.
That is akin to sayin the board of a PLC puts every decision to its shareholder. The clubs were the SPL in that they all held a share but they employed people to run it for them.
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 5, 2018 at 16:13
Always remember, without the 5 Way Agreement, TRFC would not be in the SPFL today.
——————-
Classic
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 5, 2018 at 17:53
Sorry, are you suggesting that a trade union cannot hold a register of it’s members.
Or a Church it’s parishioners.
Or a masonic lodge it’s members.
I don’t think that’s right, surely it’s done as a matter of course so they can send ouy flyers, collect dues etc. These organisations would be impossible to operate without some form of record I would have thought.
___________________________________________________________________________
A church is allowed to hold a register of its parishoners and has a special application under the religious not-for-profit bodies section however like others they cannot hold the specific data listed above.
A church holding a list of its members is, im sure you agree, quite a bit different from a place of working holding a register of religious beliefs of everyone, or sexual orientation.
For info also, a gay nightclub can process data on registered members based on them opting in or out. It is not however allowed to hold data which confirms the sexual orientation of its list/register.
“Im saying that in order for the SPL to have signed that agreement then the member clubs, who are the SPL, would need to have agreed to it. So YES, Celtic, Aberdeen, Dundee United etc etc all knew what they were voting on when they agreed in favour of the 5WA”
———————————————————————————————————
I don’t recall that the 5-WA was ever voted upon. …. Perhaps you are referring to the vote when the SFL agreed that Sevco Scotland, trading as TRFC could join the league system, AFTER failing to gain approval from the SPL?.
Clearly if you are conflating the two, the SPL did not have a mandate to sign.
Can you confirm that the clubs voted to accept the 5-way agreement?
I’m one of those people who, despite recognising the need for GDPR, I am not too up on it’s nuances (maybe I should be), but my understanding of it is that it’s to stop organisations sharing information they have about me with other organisations without my specific authority. Or, at least, it’s something along those lines. It doesn’t stop me from giving an honest answer to the question; ‘Are you a member of any secret societies such as a Masonic Lodge?’
Again, I may be wrong, but it doesn’t stop an organisation from asking the question, either, though ‘prefer not to say’ might have to be an acceptable answer.
Of course, the question has to be asked, ‘why would anyone object to being asked if they are a member of a Masonic Lodge?’ regardless of what GDPR might say!
And what about the days before GDPR and data protection? Did members of the governing bodies have to recuse themselves from any debate involving any club with strong links to the Masonic Order? I think not. I’m pretty certain that not asking the question has nothing to do with GDPR!
Although company law might not recognise it, I am absolutely certain that membership of the Masonic Order holds greater potential for a conflict of interest in the boardroom of Scottish football governors than any tentative links to an employer’s shareholders could ever possibly hold.
TheLawMan2June 5, 2018 at 16:39
NAWLITEJUNE 5, 2018 at 16:25Lawman, you readily acknowledge that McLennan has done nothing you are aware of to make you think he is biased toward CFC and claim that none of the other club affiliates mentioned have ever done so either. With that in mind, it seems you would rather have people who are going to be ‘obviously’ biased toward their team in preference to someone who does not have obvious biases. Is that right?__________________________________________________________________________No thats not right. Not right at all. Thats a few people trying to put words in my mouth.When there is a known conflict of interest, there is a methodology that can prevent them influencing it. So for example, if Hearts did something wrong in the league and lets say the SPFL were considering sanctions then im confident and sure that Anne Budge would be removed from making a decision because of her obvious COI.If however, hypothetically, Ian Maxwell was a Non Exec Chairman of Parks Motor Group and he was asked to consider an issue in relation to Rangers and Douglas Park, then there is a clear and undeniable “potential conflict of interest”. The “potential conflict” does not of course mean he would do anything sinister, but in my opinion, the existence of it, should be known to all parties.
==============================================================
Apologies, I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth, rather trying to clarify what it was you objected to re McLennan. My take now is that you believe those whose allegiances are known DON’T need to disclose while those whose allegiances aren’t known should proactively disclose. Is that right?
How far do you take that, though, to make it effective? You (or rather Dave King who started all this) suspect that McLennan may (be coerced to) make decisions that favour Celtic. I hope you agree that’s effectively the reason for King calling McLennan out in the Press. The key word is ‘suspect’ given that nothing McLennan has yet done has been in favour of Celtic. As you know, suspicions are rife in Scottish football – Who is your second team?; have you sided with XXXX club on this issue so you can get a favour returned on another issue (E.g. Petrie looking for presidency); is he a moderniser or siding with the blazers; are you doing that because you’re friends with Mr Xxxxx?
I think that sort of suspicious speculation is equally as valid as King’s/your suspicions about McLennan. By that I mean none of it can be valid/proven? Should all that be disclosed? Spiers’ piece on McLennan where he judges it right that McLennan should disclose because who knows what he’s capable of while discounting any possible wrongdoing by Ogilvie/Smith because he knows them and they’re nice guys makes the point that we are all just going on rumour, suspicions, speculation and feelings here, none of which are enough imo to force anyone to make disclosures.
If we can force enough transparency so that we can see how decisions are made and by whom, then we can wait for some sign of wrongdoing before we accuse people without evidence which to my mind is what is happening here.
PMGB latest
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/06/05/tough-questions-and-a-difficult-day/
“Rangers shall also be asking the SFA to review whether Mr Hughes was party to any discussions regarding the ridiculous Notice of Complaint brought against the Club.
———————–
So that is what all the shouting is really about.king must be very worried about something to create all these squirrels.
Given DKs concerns that the JPD process might have been “got at” by Hughes surely the best way to assure everyone it will play with a straight bat is to have a representative from UEFA who knows both the rules and their purpose involved?
Who better to judge if charges are groundless or ridiculous?
Res12 accused no one of anything, it just asked for a fair investigation by UEFA and if the answer is licence granted in line with UEFA rules and intent then that is the end of the matter?
Wits the problem?
THELAWMAN2JUNE 5, 2018 at 18:05
===============================
So your stated position is that a Church can hold a register of it’s member but not what religion they are.
A Trade Union can hold a list of it’s member, but not that they are a member of a Trade Union.
You might want to look at the provisions with regards consent.
NAWLITEJUNE 5, 2018 at 18:43
Apology accepted. Thanks.
Technically, no its not right. Im not talking in any shape or form about “allegiances”. Im talking about “potential conflicts of interest” Thats a world away from “allegiances”. I dont believe someone should be ruled out of a job, just because its known they supported Rangers or Celtic or Hearts.
I certainly dont suspect that. I would have taken back my apology acceptance but will let you off because you changed “you” to “Dave King”
The reason King is calling him out in the press is because he is grandstanding. It should have been dealt with privately then publicly once resolved in my opinion.
Havent a clue what that means.
Look its really, really simple in this case mate. We have an Independent Director appointed to a Board with a key role in governing Scottish Premier Football League. It has been discovered that he also is a Non Executive Chairman, which is an EXTREMELY important role in a company whose 2 majority shareholders with 45% are major shareholders in Celtic Football Club.
Mr McLennan could be a Rangers supporter. He could be a man of religion. He could be Santa Claus and incapable of telling a lie. He could have been picked by the SPFL as independent because he only supports The Harlequins Rugby team. I have no care about what team he supported as a boy or what “affiliation” he has.
By holding the Chairman position in a Company whose 45% majority shareholders are also majority shareholders in an SPFL club, then there is without the slightest shadow of doubt, a “potential conflict of interest”
I would love you guys to remove the teams from this. Forget its Dave King/Rangers and forget its Desmond/Celtic and just look at the above scenario. Its actually impossible to arise at any other conclusion than it being a “potential conflict of interest”
Potential conflicts of interest exist everywhere. As long as there known, then the existence of them is not the issue. The existence of a potential conflict doesnt mean that person will act on it.
I have had a lot of offline dialogue with Spiers, but that above is nonsense in my opinion, though to be fair i havent read it so can only take your word on it which i hope you respect…..and thats not me saying i dont believe you either.
Im most certainly not accusing anyone of anything, but if the overwhelming view of this Board is that there is no “potential conflict of interest” in the McLennan case and therefore no need for disclosure, then im genuinely disappointed and im 100% with Nick and i think maybe Ryan Gosling(may have been Darkbeforedawn) from a few pages back who rightly pointed out the main stated purpose of on here was to actually look to seek that proper governance.
Seeking that governance has to look forward also. Not always back.
The following text is taken from the alleged first draft of the 5WA.
“EBT Payments and Arrangements” means payments made by RFC into an Employee Benefit Trust for the benefit of players employed by RFC and playing for Rangers FC in the Scottish Premier League, the Scottish Cup and the League Cup during the period from 2000 until 2011 inclusive and the arrangements relating to such payments between RFC and those players were not included in the written contracts of employment of those players and which were not notified prior to such payments being made and at the time when such arrangements were entered into to either the SFA or to the SPL;
“EBT Sanctions” means (i) the withdrawal from Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of Champion Club (as defined in the SPL Rules) of the Scottish Premier League for each and all of Seasons 2002/03, 2004/05, 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11; (ii) the withdrawal from Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of winner of the Scottish Cup for each and all of Seasons 2001/02, 2002/03, 2007/08 and 2008/09; (iii) the registration by the SPL of the transfer of the RFC Share to *FC and not to Sevco; and (iv) the provisions of clause 2.4.2 of this Agreement
Note that 2.4.2. referred to the renunciation of any claim for fees or other sums due to RFC from the SPL.
Now all this is going on during June/July 2012, months before LNS was commissioned, far less reported. The SFA and SPL clearly held the view, even at that early stage, that the failure to include the EBT Payments and Arrangements in player contracts submitted to the SFA & SPL should result in sanctions of the loss of League titles and Scottish Cups. No inquiry was needed, it was clear the registration failures merited such sanctions. All that was required was the agreement of the five signatories to the 5WA.
Whoever negotiated on behalf of RFC/Sevco, whether through the power of argument or by the threat of there being no team called “Rangers” in the SPF/SFL the following season, should be lauded by all Rangers fans. Not only did the SFA and SPL sh*t themselves, they backed off so far that the subsequent LNS commission became an impotent masquerade of jurisprudence.
In my view the 5WA will therefore mark the low point of football governance in Scotland. There have been other low points, but none gets close to the 5WA.
SHUG
JUNE 5, 2018 at 18:53
PMGB latest
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/06/05/tough-questions-and-a-difficult-day/
======================
Will Robertson come under intense pressure from King to try and – somehow – ‘fudge’ the numbers?
Unlike King, Roberston does have a professional qualification to protect.
Resignation on the way…?
Popcorn on standby, again.
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 5, 2018 at 19:12
So your stated position is that a Church can hold a register of it’s member but not what religion they are.
A Trade Union can hold a list of it’s member, but not that they are a member of a Trade Union.
You might want to look at the provisions with regards consent.
____________________________________________________________________
My stated position, having read the guidelines inside and out over the past 2.5 months, and i do accept its a considered opinion, is that an employer cannot hold a register of someones sexual orientation, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership details or race/ethnicity and that this in turn would rule out the SPFL or Asda or McDonalds holding a register with details of every employees membership of the Masonic Lodge or the Knights of St Columbas.
This is from the Institute of Directors
https://www.iod.com/services/information-and-advice/resources-and-factsheets/details/What-is-the-role-of-the-NonExecutive-Director
What is the role of the Non-Executive Director?
Essentially the non-executive director’s (NED) role is to provide a creative contribution to the board by providing independent oversight and constructive challenge to the executive directors.
The 1992 Cadbury Report initiated a debate about the main functions and responsibilities of non-executive directors. Today, it is widely accepted that non-executive directors have an important contribution to make to the proper running of companies and, therefore, more widely to the economy at large. As the Cadbury Report said, they “should bring an independent judgement to bear on issues of strategy, performance and resources including key appointments and standards of conduct”.
==================================================
The bits in bold are from the article, they are not mine.
I know those attacking the decision continually ignore this but it is the most important point. He is not an employee and it is his role to be independent.
The next bit they ignore is that it is a PLC. If a shareholder wants to do anything then it is open for the other shareholders to see, and if they are listed pretty much the World to see. Please bear in mind that whilst RIFC PLC is a PLC it is not listed, that makes a huge difference with regards transparency.
Every so often we get someone on here at odds with everybody else. At first the exchanges are good and sometimes interesting and some of the filed stuff being brought out reminds us of why we love this site. As time goes by it becomes tedious and I find myself speeding past these contributors.
I’m afraid i have reached, indeed past, this point with Lawman2. My enjoyment of the site is greatly diminished I’m sad to say. Maybe Jimbo could give us a wee cheery tune to lighten the day.
THELAWMAN2JUNE 5, 2018 at 19:22
____________________________________________________________________
My stated position, having read the guidelines inside and out over the past 2.5 months, and i do accept its a considered opinion, is that an employer cannot hold a register of someones sexual orientation, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership details or race/ethnicity.
=====================================================
That’s not what I asked.
Let’s make it really simple and see how you spin this one.
Can a Trade Union keep a list of its member, in your first go you seemed to be saying that no-one could.
Or would a proper purpose, with appropriate consent, and sufficient controls put in place to protect the data allow them to do so.
Is king trying to kick the Notice of Complaint brought against the Club. down the road a little?
If he can’t find anything on anyone else.What will his next move be on kicking the can down the road? Or has time finally run out for king?
THELAWMAN2
JUNE 5, 2018 at 19:32
Phils latest. Not true.
=================================================
Simple question, how do you know that with such absolute certainty.
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 5, 2018 at 19:41
Can a Trade Union keep a list of its member, in your first go you seemed to be saying that no-one could.
Or would a proper purpose, with appropriate consent, and sufficient controls put in place to protect the data allow them to do so.
______________________________________________________________________________
Yes they can and no i didnt. A Trade Union keeping a list of its members is different from a company keeping a register of what Trade unions people belong to. Its really quite simple to be honest.
As an employer, I cannot have a file that lists my staff and which trade unions they belong to. I cant hold a list of their political beliefs either.
As a Trade Union organisation, I CAN have a file of all my members, their dates of birth, addresses and other personal information. I cant however have a list of their sexual orientation or their political beliefes.
AuldheidJune 5, 2018 at 19:06
Given DKs concerns that the JPD process might have been “got at” by Hughes surely the best way to assure everyone it will play with a straight bat is to have a representative from UEFA who knows both the rules and their purpose involved?Who better to judge if charges are groundless or ridiculous?Res12 accused no one of anything, it just asked for a fair investigation by UEFA and if the answer is licence granted in line with UEFA rules and intent then that is the end of the matter?Wits the problem?
_______________
I think it’s most notable that in none of his ranting statements has King said that his old club are innocent of any wrongdoing over the license application.
He’s not saying anything like, though his old club will be cleared of any wrongdoing, he feels it’s all a waste of money.
He’s not saying that he will welcome the opportunity to put to bed, once and for all, that Rangers did nothing wrong.
He’s just saying that everyone else is wrong for going ahead with the enquiry/it’s a conspiracy, and it’s just a waste of money.
It’s almost as though it’s never dawned on him that Rangers might not have done anything wrong!
HomunculusJune 5, 2018 at 19:34……………………………(NED) role is to provide a………
Just seen the bold and automatically though of barry ferguson!!
THELAWMAN2JUNE 5, 2018 at 20:01
Yes they can and no i didnt.
================================================
This is exactly what you said.
Pretty straightforward, the data cannot be held in relation to those matters.
It can, it depends on the purpose, consent if required etc. The Union has a proper purpose, other bodies may or may not.
The test would be whether the relevant body asking the question had a proper purpose, what consent it need etc.
I’ll leave this now, the point has already been made about it clogging up the forum.
One for the court guy’s
Oldco v Duff & Phelps was to be heard on 18 April but was moved to first half of June.
Any news on this yet?
THELAWMAN2JUNE 5, 2018 at 19:56
================================
So you can’t say it with absolute certainly, just your opinion.
That’s what I thought.
LOL, I love condescension, it’s sweet.
Cluster One June 5, 2018 at 20:23
One for the court guy’s Oldco v Duff & Phelps was to be heard on 18 April but was moved to first half of June. Any news on this yet?
==========================
I’m afraid that we are as reliant on the Court Rolls as everybody else.
Meanwhile in other news (from the Torygraph)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/06/05/aston-villa-plunged-financial-crisis-42m-tax-bill-leads-threat/
Aston Villa plunged into financial crisis as £4.2m tax bill leads to threat of administration
HomunculusJune 5, 2018 at 20:28
Well that was good made my day Sir
Homonculus – it was genuine. Also, anyone who can rile up John James as much as you do jumps to the top of my fav list. Again genuine.
TheLawMan2June 5, 2018 at 19:22
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 5, 2018 at 19:12So your stated position is that a Church can hold a register of it’s member but not what religion they are.A Trade Union can hold a list of it’s member, but not that they are a member of a Trade Union.You might want to look at the provisions with regards consent.____________________________________________________________________My stated position, having read the guidelines inside and out over the past 2.5 months, and i do accept its a considered opinion, is that an employer cannot hold a register of someones sexual orientation, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership details or race/ethnicity and that this in turn would rule out the SPFL or Asda or McDonalds holding a register with details of every employees membership of the Masonic Lodge or the Knights of St Columbas.
_______________________
Can you tell us how that would stop anyone telling, say, the SFA/SPFL that they were, say, a member of the Masonic Lodge? You know, as an honourable person might do. I mean, you and Mr King seem to have expected Mr MacLennan to have volunteered information as to something he has no control over, ie the make up of the shareholders of a company he is employed by, while you seem to accept the voluntary action of joining a club or society as something not to be revealed.
I have to admit, I find it odd that membership of a society or club, or lodge, all voluntary actions (the joining) could be classed alongside sexual orientation, religion, etc, or even trade union membership, as being confidential in terms of employment.
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/sport/football-news/rangers-seek-answers-over-sfa-notice-of-complaint/
In a statement given to Press Association Sport, a club spokesperson said: Rangers notes that Gary Hughes will not be standing again for the Scottish FA’s Board. Hopefully this decision augurs well for the Scottish FA under the stewardship of its new chief executive officer.
“However, Rangers will be seeking a review of the SFA’s procedures for such appointments because it is vitally important that those who do stand for election to independent posts in particular are indeed truly independent.
“Rangers shall also be asking the SFA to review whether Mr Hughes was party to any discussions regarding the ridiculous notice of complaint brought against the club.
“Furthermore, Rangers must be assured that no actions taken by Mr Hughes during the period of his appointment could have impacted negatively on our club.”
It seems to be Lawman’ position that I am not allowed to tell an organisation about my philosophical beliefs and offer other data related to other special purposes even if I judge that I would like that to be known to it
Data Protection is designed to avoid organisations using data without proper consent (to reduce it to the barest bones) and not to hamper a data subject in their own use of their data.
Homunculus – being the subject of condescension can be a useful thing, along the lines of the old adage “it can be useful to be useless” My late father in law was a master of that art to the point where I was unsure whether he was really practicing it.
EASYJAMBOJUNE 5, 2018 at 20:32
———-
Could come back as The Aston Villa
Or
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/06/05/aston-villa-plunged-financial-crisis-42m-tax-bill-leads-threat/
just a holding company that will plunge into financial-crisis.
Will see how this turns out.
You know what would be really good? If the SFA were deliberately doing ‘SFA’ for now because the evidence that they have in the Complaint thingy is a total slam-dunk.
Let the GASL run his mouth and cast aspersions on the whole of Scottish football and then hammer them when they are found guilty with a proper punishment and publish all the evidence to show that it was a bunch of lying RRM wot did it.
Then hammer him with a disrepute charge – I was going to say kick him out of Scottish football, but it’s going to be much more fun watching him squirm when all his chickens come home to roost – and they’re coming!
As I stated earlier, when the games governing bodies, representing 42 clubs, have a secret agreement involving themselves, Duff & Phelps(on behalf of Rangers I.L.) and Sevco Scotland, to the exclusion of all other clubs, the possibility of conflict of all sorts of interests exists.
It is a parcel o rogues.
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 5, 2018 at 20:49
It wouldnt stop telling anyone telling anybody else anything. The statement was about keeping a register of all people who were members of the Masonic. Now i have no attachment to the lodge and to fair i have limited knowledge of it, but i do know that central to its ethos is a belied in God, any God. I think, without knowing for certain, thats why it would be caught with religious or prophetic beliefs and rule it out of the things you can keep a register on.
Thats just a ridiculous statement to be honest. Mr MacLennan taking a role as Chairman of a Company, especially in the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the Previous chairman which is subject to a live law suit, knew exactly who the shareholders are. Any suggestion otherwise is just nonsense.
Nope. Wrong again. I said conflict can be assumed, but probably still subject to a disclosure of sorts.
The way GDPR looks at it is if the information could potentially put you at a higher risk if revealed which is why religious beliefs are included. Masonic lodges have a foundation in religion though they are not a religion in itself.
There is also a duty of relevance also of holding data of course.
EASYJAMBOJUNE 5, 2018 at 20:29
———–
Thanks for reply
And thanks to everyone else who has replied to my posts over the last week or so.Just not had time to thank you all.
TheLawMan2June 5, 2018 at 20:01
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 5, 2018 at 19:41Can a Trade Union keep a list of its member, in your first go you seemed to be saying that no-one could. Or would a proper purpose, with appropriate consent, and sufficient controls put in place to protect the data allow them to do so. ______________________________________________________________________________Yes they can and no i didnt. A Trade Union keeping a list of its members is different from a company keeping a register of what Trade unions people belong to. Its really quite simple to be honest.As an employer, I cannot have a file that lists my staff and which trade unions they belong to. I cant hold a list of their political beliefs either.As a Trade Union organisation, I CAN have a file of all my members, their dates of birth, addresses and other personal information. I cant however have a list of their sexual orientation or their political beliefes.
_________________
Do you think, though, that it would be alright if, having been told by a board member that he is a member of a Masonic Lodge, the rest of the board remember it and expect him to recuse himself from any involvement where a conflict of interest might exist? Do you think it’s beyond comprehension that a member of a Masonic Lodge would be so honourable as to do such a thing?
Isn’t the Data Protection Act concerned only with recorded information, and not information gathered in the course of conversation and never noted down? Do you think conflict of interest only exists when it’s potential is formally recorded in written or digital form?
To be clear, can you confirm that it is specifically prohibited for an employer to record an employee’s membership of organisations such as the Masonic Order, and can you copy and paste the section of the act to confirm this. I am sure that, after 2.5 months of research, you will have it immediately to hand.
BFBPUZZLEDJUNE 5, 2018 at 21:00
It seems to be Lawman’ position that I am not allowed to tell an organisation about my philosophical beliefs and offer other data related to other special purposes even if I judge that I would like that to be known to it
________________________________________________________________________
Again, puting words in my mouth here.
People are free to tell organisations whatever they wish. Spill your guts. That is completely cool.
Go and tell your work that you are a Black bi-sexual masonic muslim who is a TUC member all you want.
They cant not hear what you tell them.
Its just well, they cant keep it on a register. Thats not allowed. Again. Its simple.
I’m going on to my forum to share a wonderful lady. Vera Lynn.
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 5, 2018 at 20:22
I’ll leave this now, the point has already been made about it clogging up the forum.
__________________________________________-
Agreed and me too.
THELAWMAN2
JUNE 5, 2018 at 20:46
Homonculus – it was genuine. Also, anyone who can rile up John James as much as you do jumps to the top of my fav list. Again genuine.
===================================
And yet you can’t even spell the username correctly, one assumes that it is underlined in red every time you do it. Unless you use a browser sans speelchecker of course.
Sorry but I’m afraid I find it difficult to take what a lot of you say as being genuine. Particularly when you do the off topic tangential conversations. It’s difficult not to come to the conclusion you are deliberately de-railing the blog.
It amuses me if I’m honest but I have to be mindful that it annoys some other users and let it go. I have been warned about it in the past by the people who run the blog.
eJ, I notice reference is made in the draft 5WA to both RFC and Rangers FC, something I’ve noticed a few times in statements from the football authorities, but only in recent years.
I suspect this was a deliberate ploy by the signatories to infer that one was what we are led to believe is the immortal metaphysical club, while the other was the owner/operator/company.
Are you aware of a distinction being made between the two at any point prior to the 5WA, or can we safely assume this was the very moment that a separate club and company concoction was introduced in order to tie in with the same club myth they’d just invented?
BFBPUZZLED
JUNE 5, 2018 at 21:00
=======================================
My employer holds all sorts of information about me, because I agreed to let them. There are other things they don’t know, because I declined to give them that data.
I was satisfied with the purpose they gave me for holding the former and not for the latter, made informed decision and gave consent for some and not for others. Well to be honest I filled in some of the boxes and not others.
They hold data which apparently they can’t, even with my consent. Well so I have been told today.
TheLawMan2June 5, 2018 at 21:15
“Can you tell us how that would stop anyone telling, say, the SFA/SPFL that they were, say, a member of the Masonic Lodge? You know, as an honourable person might do.”
It wouldnt stop telling anyone telling anybody else anything. The statement was about keeping a register of all people who were members of the Masonic. Now i have no attachment to the lodge and to fair i have limited knowledge of it, but i do know that central to its ethos is a belied in God, any God. I think, without knowing for certain, thats why it would be caught with religious or prophetic beliefs and rule it out of the things you can keep a register on.
___________________________-
So it’s all speculation! Despite 2.5 months of reading the guidelines, you clearly found nothing to support your assertion that having God in it’s proclaimed raison d’etre gives it the same standing as an actual religion. Did you find a section that stated that such organisations with an ethos, of any sort, qualify to be treated the same as a religion?
_______________
“I mean, you and Mr King seem to have expected Mr MacLennan to have volunteered information as to something he has no control over, ie the make up of the shareholders of a company he is employed by,”
Thats just a ridiculous statement to be honest. Mr MacLennan taking a role as Chairman of a Company, especially in the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the Previous chairman which is subject to a live law suit, knew exactly who the shareholders are. Any suggestion otherwise is just nonsense.
______________________
No more ridiculous than you taking part of a paragraph and answering it out of context. I was not saying Mr MacLennan would not know who these major shareholders might be, I was comparing the suggestion that Mr MacLennan should volunteer information about something he has no control over, while members of the Masonic Order appear not to be expected to volunteer the same information over something they do have control over.
I am personally all for full disclosure of all matters that might affect a board members conduct, but not just for those enshrined in laws relating to companies, but also to shine a light on all possible situations where people might act for the benefit of one club not formally covered by company laws, rules and regulations. This was not what King was calling for, he was taking one example in isolation and using it to his advantage. I am also of the opinion that the MacLennan situation would hold less of a potential conflict of interest scenario than the membership of a Masonic Lodge by a member, particularly one not representing a specific club.
The Equality Act 2010 introduced a Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) requiring public bodies to take a proactive and organised approach to tackling institutional discrimination, which covers the various protected characteristics.
If Public Sector Employers cannot capture race, age, religion, gender and sexual orientation on job applications how do they monitor equality and diversity?
Highlander June 5, 2018 at 21:47
eJ, I notice reference is made in the draft 5WA to both RFC and Rangers FC, something I’ve noticed a few times in statements from the football authorities, but only in recent years.
I suspect this was a deliberate ploy by the signatories to infer that one was what we are led to believe is the immortal metaphysical club, while the other was the owner/operator/company.
Are you aware of a distinction being made between the two at any point prior to the 5WA, or can we safely assume this was the very moment that a separate club and company concoction was introduced in order to tie in with the same club myth they’d just invented?
==============================
It was certainly the first time I’ve seen the SFA be party to such a separation, but the SPL changed its articles in 2005, creating a separation of the “owner and operator” and the football club which had previously been viewed as one and the same.
I believe that the separation was created for the purpose of being able to sanction “owners” who didn’t hold an official position at a club, e.g. Vladimir Romanov.
I have had previous discussions on that subject with “Hirstute Pursuit”, who holds a different view in that it was required to accommodate clubs that remained unincorporated associations.
Either way, the change was not designed to deal with situations such as that concocted by the 5WA, and subsequently used by TRFC to claim the good bits and reject the bad bits of the Oldco’s history.
easyJamboJune 5, 2018 at 20:51However, Rangers will be seeking a review of the SFA’s procedures for such appointments because it is vitally important that those who do stand for election to independent posts in particular are indeed truly independent.
Good that rules these dudues out.
Board
RIFC’s board is comprised of:
Chairman
David
King
Non
executive Director
John Bennett
Non
executive Director
Alastair Johnston
Non
executive Director
Graeme Park
Non
executive Director
Douglas Park
Non
executive Director
Paul Murray
Non
executive Director
Barry Scot
Full L5 tonight folks. I can’t agree with the naysayers on the discourse though. I think it’s been excellent, with minimal moderation for the occasional intemperate outburst
.
There’s definitely something in the works, and I don’t think we are too far away from finding out what it is – overrun as are with squirrels.
I also heard today that Steven Gerrard was in Ibiza yesterday and chatting to some holidaying Rangers fans. That much is 100% true unless he has a doppleganger with a scouse accent.
I thought he was on a course?
He is alleged to have told them (third hand accounts and therefore high fantasy alert), that the reduction in seats at Ibrox for Celtic fans is ‘just to get up their nose’.
If true, it seems he has bought the farm from King. Would certainly explain a lot. A big if though.
See, there Paddy goes again! Show Off Show off. We are struggling here in N Lanarkshire with 21%
paddy malarkeyJune 5, 2018 at 17:21
“And I’m off back out into the sun ”
Bet your having a wee drink too. Typibal Jagger. You wouldn’t get tim supporters doing that nonscence.
Did I miss anything ? Here I am ,sitting thinking I’ve won the lottery but I haven’t the numbers to prove it . But , in my opinion, I’m a millionaire (until reality strikes). Just my opinion .
Jimbo ,mucker ! Currently 22c at 1 am . Just had my first beer of the day . Not saying what else I’ve had , though ! I was even in a church today, to look at the nice photies . And to get out of the sun !!
Ballyargus 19.39
Im with you pal . recently Ive been coming on and just scrolling past these posts then signing off again. Every now and again we get a lawman type on here . They basically just try and be smart arses and try and deflect the blog from what its all about. Im not saying we shouldnt engage with anyone with a different opinion but its a bit like arguing the sky aint ever blue and the grass aint green . The site ends up going round in circles and I have a picture in my mind of a Sandy Bryson type of guyat his keyboard trying to be “smart” and pissing himself laughing at everyone engaging with him when he knows himself he is kidding himself on. I think the blog is way too tolerant of these people , they are just trying to undermine the blog . Dont engage when its obvious they are on to disrupt. Maybe one of the better and more knowledgable writers should put up a mission statement with the known facts and what the blog is trying to achieve and any lawmen type that come on and try it on then just point him in the direction of the SFM statement, just a thought
easyJamboJune 5, 2018 at 19:18
‘…..In my view the 5WA will therefore mark the low point of football governance in Scotland. There have been other low points, but none gets close to the 5WA…’
____________________
I,after a rubbish day trying to put lining paper on a wall half of which is at an angle of some 30 degrees to its bottom half, (in an upstairs bedroom in an ‘A’-framed house), agree!
Such previous ‘low points’ as there have been in the past have been ( with, I think, only one notorious exception ) occasioned by individual officers of the SFA, not by ‘the SFA’ as such.
The 5-Way agreement , by contrast, was a carefully orchestrated, utterly reprehensible abandonment of any notion of sporting integrity by the very body, the collective body, of Football Governance- the primary duty of which is to preserve the Integrity of our game.
It involved those who represented the then SPL and SFL, and the Administrators of RFC(IA) and the SFA who , in agreeing to subscribe to the creation of a lie, committed a Judas-like betrayal of their offices of trust.
The lie being that Rangers Football Club(IA) had been sold to a new owner.
And that Charles Green’s new creation, SevcoScotland (soon to be smartly renamed ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’) was in fact the self-same Rangers of the year 1872!
The sheer absurdity of it all:
that the minds, [blinded by panic/fear/greed/fundamental baseness of character] of those who signed that agreement should have thought that any rational person would swallow that lie!
Well, many of us have not swallowed it.
And we know that truth is on our side.
The people who sign things in secret are the ones who have to worry.
We on this blog have not betrayed our offices. We have not introduced deception into the governance of football.
We have not created the set of circumstances in which someone like Dave King and his apologists can feel emboldened enough to challenge the moral cowards of the SFA who fear to take action against him.
[And what the hell is holding back the TOP?are they also afraid to take King on?]
Unfortunately, we do not have an SMSM that is one whit less dishonest than those who have sold Integrity in Sport for the basest of motives.
Birds of a feather, like calls unto like…..
And Speirs’ piece of nonsense the other day …
What can one say?
Oh so cynical BP!
Stevie G is obviously working a scouting trip around his studies. Sometimes you might have to check out an unusual location to discover a hidden gem. Is Ronaldo not from Madeira?
Also heard Stevie G is next off to Rio to check out the beach players.
Then he’s off to Largs beach to sign a defender younger than Bruno Alves.
Ok, might be making up the Rio trip. 🙂
Well it was another typical day yesterday. I got up had a cup of strong tea (builders tea) and a smoke. Had a look around. There is hoovering needing done, dusting. Decided no. I’m going to pub.
Went on here had a few rants, got things of my chest. Then marched out.
Met some lovely foreigners with a gazebo set up and a barbcue , haven’t a clue what they were talking about, I only know latin and a sprinkiling of French (Francais).
More to follow. Developing story.
So, I went into the pub, got caught up in a million conversations. For instance Lady Ga Ga. I love her. Is it Lady GAAAA GAAAA or Lady GaGa (one word?)
She is a well known Celtic Supporter, bet you didn’t know that!
My mate who owns the pub, his wife works for the Celtic Foundation. She is a saint. We all raise a load of money. Brogan Rogan is off to Malawi in a few days, to help set up 67 kitchens for Mary’s Meals. I’ll away off and see if I can find a link.