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.
OK I am in serious fundraising mode as I am £1300 off my target of £5k for Malawi so …..
If you wnat to read about why I am going out to Malawi with the Celtic Charity Foundation and maybe make a donation then please do so here: https://mydonate.bt.com/fundraisers/jamesmcginley3
………………………………………………Please help him / them if you can. He is a genuine honest person.
JIMBO 04.45
As an aside Jimbo, back in 1986 i worked alongside the founder of Mary’s Meals, Magnus McFarlane- Barrow and two of his brothers, Fergus & Seamus. He was a forklift driver back then who enjoyed a beer or two after work. No interest in football at all though i’m afraid iirc.
Excerpt from Stewart Regan Q&A September 2017
≠====================================
Q: Are there ramifications for Rangers newco if oldco found guilty of a breach with regards the UEFA license?
S.R: The range of sanctions could – I stress could – be linked with how the five-way agreement comes into play in the future. ( Record Sport understands part of the five way agreement was for Rangers newco to accept liability for issues arising under the jurisdiction of oldco as part of the transfer of SFA membership).
Has SG been seen in Ibrox or Murray park yet?
Tweet
=======
STV Sport
@STVSport
Rangers are close to signing Goldson for a fee in the region of £3m
Newsflash
==========
According to a report in the Daily Record Murty was back at his desk at Murray Park on Tuesday.
__________________________
The banter years continue
Tweet
_______
Con Friel
@Friel19_
Hearing that Rangers season tickets released yesterday for the Broomloan did not include Celtic tickets in them.7:42 am · 6 Jun 2018
So, GM is back at his desk but still no SG. Strange state of affairs methinks. Perhaps the soon to be spent fee for Conor Goldson is the monies that could have seen GM paid off. Nice to see the season ticket money being spent though. Perhaps an intrepid Scottish reporter could ask a few questions?
A question for our Bears minded posters.
Connor Goldman – today’s reported ‘on the brink of completion’ £3.5m transfer to Ibrox.
Value for money for a player with a dicky ticker who has played 8 first team games in the last two seasons or just Level 5 Morelos to China type pish to make it look like the club has more money than it has?
Is it £3?
Re all the recent SFA/SPFL influence nonsense how about agreeing we have a moratorium on anyone from or with previous connections to the big Glasgow Two holding any position of influence, (boards, panels and the likes) for the next five to ten years.
Let the rest of the Scottish Professional game act as ‘honest brokers’ until people can behave themselves.
My guess is Celtic would progress in the same manner as at present without any representation.
T’Rangers, well they will continue to stew in their own juice and just find someone else to blame for their state of affairs.
The latest on JJs site is interesting.and pretty damning.
https://johnjamessite.com/
It suggests the Non Compliance complaints are neither groundless nor ridiculous
That is a matter that the JPDT should rule on unless of course there has been a behind closed door agreement not to compare court testimony with actual events.
Either way the JPDT should be making the decision, after all it was court testimony that created the need for a JPD Tribunal. It would astonishing if we didn’t learn what did take place from 2010 to 2012 in full.
It would also be reassuring if someone from UEFA were called as a witness to aid reach the correct conclusion.
That after all was what Res12 originally asked for. Nothing more, nothing less but in doing so has made the SFA accountable.
Rangers(IL)/Sevco have a history of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
The LNS enquiry found them guilty as charged but because no titles were to be stripped, it was claimed as a resounding victory.
The OSCR enquiry found them guilty of numerous breaches of the rules (including COI) but because no punishment was meted out, they claimed innocence.
The FTTT found in their favour 2-1, but they completely ignored a seventy page devastating report by Lady Poon, later upheld by the highest court in the land.
The announcement of a compliance enquiry was actually hailed as a great victory. That the enquiry is even to take place is merely an attack by haters on Scottish football itself, apparently.
A very tragic side to all of this is that four of the most outspoken voices for truth are now dead – Paul McBride, Paul McConville, Turnbull Hutton and Corsica1968. All of them were threatened and were targets of vicious hate campaigns. RTC has also been effectively silenced.
We’ve had the BBC sack journalists who exposed the truth, another BBC journalist forced to make a grovelling apology over the Morelos lie, the Herald sacking at least two journalists, over twenty other journalists threatened, book shops attacked and having to remove a certain book from public view, bombs sent to MSPs, and the rest.
Great club? Proud history? I must have missed those bits. If the SFA is about to be front loaded again with RRM you can count me out. I’ve paid enough money over the years for the upkeep of a club I don’t even support.
Slimjim, I knew there was a goodness in you. You know the saying you can tell a person by the company they keep?
You should have been a Celt. You’re a lovely man. Not you’re average bear. (Only kidding every Bear I have known are good dudes)
AULDHEIDJUNE 6, 2018 at 10:29
The latest on JJs site is interesting.and pretty damning.
https://johnjamessite.com/
It suggests the Non Compliance complaints are neither groundless nor ridiculous
That is a matter that the JPDT should rule on unless of course there has been a behind closed door agreement not to compare court testimony with actual events.
Either way the JPDT should be making the decision, after all it was court testimony that created the need for a JPD Tribunal. It would astonishing if we didn’t learn what did take place from 2010 to 2012 in full.
It would also be reassuring if someone from UEFA were called as a witness to aid reach the correct conclusion.
That after all was what Res12 originally asked for. Nothing more, nothing less but in doing so has made the SFA accountable.
_____________
JJ has brought those various testimonies together quite well, and seeing them laid out, one after another, fairly highlights how bang to rights Rangers(IL) are. It is hard to imagine that even the SFA can find a way to exhonorate RFC, and all that remains to be seen us how they deal with the consequences of further cheating by Rangers.
Will they conclude that Rangers were guilty, but as the club is being liquidated that no further action would be appropriate? Or will they deem TRFC liable under the 3 Way Agreement, and fine them, or chicken out and leave it to UEFA to deal with any penalties.
I suspect, though, that, in order to maintain the big lie, while not crippling TRFC with a fine they cannot afford, a nominal fine will be levied to be taken from season’s end prize money.
There will, of course, be other matters to be considered, such as the involvement of the three RFC directors currently in office at RIFC/TRFC. Can they possibly be allowed to remain if RFC, and consequently it’s board, is found to have committed a fraud against Scottish football and UEFA? On this area of the case, it is difficult to see how the findings could possibly not be passed to the police for their consideration, too.
There is, of course, another aspect to the case, for it was not only UEFA that was affected but a number of individual clubs, too, as has often been highlighted here and elsewhere, but not, of course, by the SMSM.
I expect, though, that in the end a compromise will be reached, with a small fine borne by TRFC, thus leaving the lie unaffected. Unless, of course, UEFA do take an active part, even if only advisory, and, to avoid possible sanctions, the myth has to be acknowledged as a myth.
There is another thing, though, that will have to be considered in the ‘same club’ scenario. If RFC is found guilty, and TRFC are also held to be UEFA non-compliant, would this latest flaunting of the rules be seen as a second offence, and lead to stiffer UEFA sanctions?
While Mr King fires off salvoes in all directions to try to bring down the house on everyone’s heads, are the takeover panel STILL trying to get their ducks in a row with regard to enforcing any action against him? The much-vaunted ‘cold shoulder’ seems to be so far just the tut-tutting of city chaps towards a seasoned chancer, nothing but a feeble bluster. What’s the saying? Never bulls*t a bullsh*tter.
I posed a question on here a while back about Rod Petrie. I remember him from the tv programme about the state of Scottish football, aired when Rangers became Rangers(IL). He was the only one on the panel who spoke up loudly for fair play etc.. I asked at what point since then did Petrie sell his soul.
Looks like JJ has answered that one. Petrie chaired the meetings which gave Sevco their licence for Europe.
Its all making sense now.
(I know there is an ongoing slagging match with JJ but, that aside, his piece today is a belter.)
Anyone see the Hootsmon’s article about Walter Smith suing his former financial advisers for £320k of the £600k they apparently agreed to pay him…
Smith claims to have only received £280,000. He says the company which Mr Caisley and Mr Alexander was part of went into liquidation and was unable to pay the remaining amount. Mr Smith’s legal team want the court to rule that the two men should pay their client the remaining sum of money.
Oh the irony.
Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-icon-walter-smith-suing-businessman-for-320-000-1-4749805
HelpumootJune 6, 2018 at 10:42
‘….We’ve had the BBC sack journalists who exposed the truth, another BBC journalist forced to make a grovelling apology over the Morelos lie, …’
____________________
And we mustn’t forget that we had
a First Minister writing to HMRC on behalf of the cheating club,
and a couple of MSPs in constituencies far away from Govan also mouthing off about protecting the cheating club,
and the present Administration telling us that although public money is given to the SFA, the question of whether there are questions to be asked about that body’s ‘integrity’ is a matter for that body!
And, of course, we now have the Takeover Panel apparently willing to make an a.se of itself by letting King defy both them and the Courts!
John Clark
June 6, 2018 at 12:30
=================================
I have to say that’s the bit I find strange. It’s one thing just ignoring the Takeover Panel it’s surely another ignoring a Court order.
If as we were led to believe the Court of Session ordered King to make the offer by a certain date and he hasn’t complied I would have expected something to be done about it.
I see JJ is doing what he does best over on his site. A powerful laying bare of some basic and condemning testimony. No wonder we are awash with squirrels.
If only he would stick to stuff like this and leave out the petty bickering and conspiraloon stuff I could even see myself making a donation.
If, as we believe, the 5WA puts TRFC in the dock for football crimes committed by its predecessor club it will be such sweet irony to see the legal contortions put in place to preserve “continuation” come back to bite them on the erse. I suppose King could litigate and argue the oldco is nothing to do with the Newco but there are of course difficulties with that!
Or will they remember they indemnified TRFC via a side letter (irony alert) for zero damages beyond the pre agreed LNS figure in the same way that TRFC indemnified them.
On another note IF Uefa were to consider TRFC as RFC as some appear determined to have us believe does the penalty for non disclosure picked up around late August September 2011 per Charlotte’s email chain not carry a non participation clause for “next year or the next applicable year on entry” or words to that effect? Im sure the September 11 trawl picked up, (was it 23?), certainly several offenders not all of whom qualified the following year but were subsequently barred at their next legitimate point of entry?
Just saying
Ballyargus:
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.
That’s a great comment.
I appreciate LM2, Nick etc. should be allowed opinion but their arguments are evermore circular; an obvious attempt to derail the true nature of the blog which is, in the main, to bring to an end corruption within our game.
In my opinion.
Bogs Dollox June 6, 2018 at 13:16
—————————————
It’s certainly JJ’s best piece for a while.
It’s always good when someone takes bits of information from different sources and pieces them together to form a rational narrative on a current topic (the Notice of Complaint).
So to be clear. At this point the only confirmed signee to the “Gerrard Revolution” is Graham Murty?
CROWNSTBHOYJUNE 6, 2018 at 13:55
I think we all find the circular arguments they put up rather tedious, but they do give us cause to revisit things, and, quite often, result in the joining up of some dots we’ve overlooked before. Added to that, when they do produce some sort of ‘evidence’ it more than anything tends to show the paucity of their arguments, and even, as recently, their evidence shows just how wrong they are.
For example, as evidence of the SFA supposedly stating that TRFC were RFC, a document was put up that not only didn’t say anything of the sort, it actually called Sevco the owner of Rangers. Obviously, to be ‘owned’ a football club has to be a limited company, not a club or association. To be owned a football club has to be an incorporated entity, not an idea.
Just struck me, unlike Rangers, a football club that became a limited company, Sevco was a limited company that became a football club. Chicken, egg! Egg, chicken!
HomunculusJune 6, 2018 at 12:45
‘…It’s one thing just ignoring the Takeover Panel it’s surely another ignoring a Court order.’
____________________
I think that in civil contempt cases, the person who asked the Court to make an order has to be the one to go back and tell the Court that the order has not been complied with.
A few weeks ago there was an entry in the Rolls of Court indicating that the TOP was seeking a motion. I thought that might be them intending to tell the Court that King hadn’t complied so jail the b.gger!
In the event I couldn’t find out what the motion was about.
But given that King is not in the pokey (disappointingly so, as far as I’m concerned!) the TOP maybe has started bargaining with King, trying to reach some undeserved ‘arrangement’ .
That’s why I indict them as idiots for not steaming right in and going the distance to nail him.
But of course, the ToP are ‘city’ men themselves, most reluctant to take on what they see as one of their own, always seeking deals that accommodate, perhaps in the knowledge that when they themselves are directors of companies they might end up in situations like King’s!
There will be plenty of chancers in the ‘city’ ready to ‘do a King’!
AULDHEID
JUNE 6, 2018 at 10:29
The latest on JJs site is interesting.and pretty damning.
https://johnjamessite.com/
…
==========================
Agreed, the JJ latest is decent.
And, if this is indeed the reason for King’s current ‘random fire’ approach to destabilising what we have left of any semblance of Scottish football governance,
…would the last throw of the TRFC dice involve your long-held hope of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission for Scottish football?
i.e. TRFC can finally come clean about all its dodgy dealings over the years – and in the safe knowledge that by doing so, they are absolving themselves of any current and future complaints / liabilities within Scottish football?
And then, we can all move on…etc.
StevieBCJune 6, 2018 at 15:13 (Edit)
0
0 i
Rate This
AULDHEID JUNE 6, 2018 at 10:29 The latest on JJs site is interesting.and pretty damning.https://johnjamessite.com/…==========================
Agreed, the JJ latest is decent.
And, if this is indeed the reason for King’s current ‘random fire’ approach to destabilising what we have left of any semblance of Scottish football governance,
…would the last throw of the TRFC dice involve your long-held hope of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission for Scottish football?
i.e. TRFC can finally come clean about all its dodgy dealings over the years – and in the safe knowledge that by doing so, they are absolving themselves of any current and future complaints / liabilities within Scottish football?
And then, we can all move on…etc.
==================
Amen to that.
JOHN CLARKJUNE 6, 2018 at 14:58
Hi John,Perhaps it’s time for one of your splendid emails to the TOP asking what their intentions are.
A conflict of interest, you say?
“Zdravko Mamic, Croatian football’s Mr Big, given jail term
…Zdravko Mamic was not just chief executive of Dinamo Zagreb, Croatia’s biggest club, he was also vice-president of the Croatian Football Federation (HNS)…
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44381167
=============
[And it doesn’t look great for Luka Modric either: one of my favourite players.
]
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 6, 2018 at 11:30
Hard to imagine?
Given that they sat in a secret conclave with Oldco and Newco and dreamed up a Law bending (both physical and legal) Agreement to facilitate the biggest lie in Football anything is surely plausible when it comes to dealing with the SFA?
They can deem what they want in regards TRIFC being accountable but it won’t stand up in any court of the Land given that Legally the two Entities are not and never have been the same.
If this comes to pass then the game is well and truly Donal Ducked.Though I suspect that is what is on the agenda and why it has taken so long for them to reach a decision on any wrong doing regards compliance and TRIFCs Licensing issues.
My feeling on this is that the 3 mentioned are in possession of or have access to this non Legally binding document and are perhaps sitting on it knowing fine well the SFA are hamstrung because of it.
Of course these other Clubs were left (quite conveniently) out of the loop when the 5 Way bodge was signed.
I think what we have here is a Mexican stand off.Quite ironic when you consider where Craig Whyte was found hiding after taking the cancun for Mintys mess.
We shall have to wait and see.
Though Legally and this is the real crux to all this they aren’t and could not ever have been the same Club.
Which is why the Agreement was made in private and why the SFA want it nowhere near a Court of Law.
Where of course it will be laughed out as the absurdity that it is.
JJ latest still misses the technicality in the UEFA rules and Regulations 2010 version, Annex VIII (1) which clearly states :
1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms.
Those agreed terms were issued on the 20th May 2011 and not a day before it. With all the information on this case out in the internet, perhaps someone can provide a document that was issued prior to this one explicitly stating the agreed terms.
I suspect, given the findings of the Panel that there is no case to answer to in relation to the issuance of the licence, they were also unable to find a letter from HMRC confirming agreed payment terms prior to 31st March 2011. They spent 8 months trying and found nothing.
:weesighingemoji:
TheLawMan2June 6, 2018 at 15:53
JJ latest still misses the technicality in the UEFA rules and Regulations 2010 version, Annex VIII (1) which clearly states :1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms.Those agreed terms were issued on the 20th May 2011 and not a day before it. With all the information on this case out in the internet, perhaps someone can provide a document that was issued prior to this one explicitly stating the agreed terms. I suspect, given the findings of the Panel that there is no case to answer to in relation to the issuance of the licence, they were also unable to find a letter from HMRC confirming agreed payment terms prior to 31st March 2011. They spent 8 months trying and found nothing.
___________________________
That seems to me very much like a desired result brought about by wishful thinking, and, in true Jimbo style, I give you:
https://youtu.be/2CZbBl8121E
TheLawMan2
June 6, 2018 at 15:53
=================================
I’m pretty certain this if HMRC issued a bill, assessment, call it what you will it would also have stated when the amount had to be paid by.
I don’t imagine there would have been much in the way of “agreed terms” more “You have 30 days in which to settle this outstanding amount” or some such.
If there was a dispute then it is reasonable to infer that the latest date it should have been paid by is 30 days after the amount was no longer in dispute. So as soon as Rangers said “Fair dos, we are no longer arguing, we owe the money”.
This is speaking as someone who has not researched this stuff like a lot of people on here and can’t quote when these things took place … or didn’t.
Unbelievable, or what? Time Hearts (and everyone else fined for bringing the game into disrepute, or similar) were demanding a refund for all Vlad’s fines if this is how they treat the rantings of a convicted criminal!
Rangers: New SFA chief Ian Maxwell to hold talks with Ibrox club but defends independence New Scottish FA chief executive Ian Maxwell will speak to Rangers chairman Dave King to address any concerns he has about its dealings with the club. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44383920?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sportsound&ns_linkname=scotland&ns_source=twitter
Lawman:
JJ latest still misses the technicality in the UEFA rules and Regulations 2010 version, Annex VIII (1) which clearly states :1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms.
Don’t read that as “only considered” just considered.
Homunculus, despite lots of letters making it onto the internet from various sources, the only letter I have seen disclosed with specific payment terms was the one on the 20th May 2011.
I know there are a lot of pedants on here so please feel free to highlight the error in this one from Chris McLaughlin
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44383920
“Something is rotten in the state of…” Insert your own words.
Anybody seen Gary McAllister…?
STEVIEBCJUNE 6, 2018 at 16:58
0
0 Rate This
Anybody seen Gary McAllister…?
————-
Would murty take the post again?
TheLawMan2 June 6, 2018 at 16:27
Homunculus, despite lots of letters making it onto the internet from various sources, the only letter I have seen disclosed with specific payment terms was the one on the 20th May 2011.
================================
Still banging the same drum about “agreed terms”
There is enough evidence out there to suggest that a “bill” was issued prior to 20 May 2011, whether that came from Letters from HMRC from 26 November 2010 onwards, Donald McIntyre and Mike McGill under oath or Alastair Johnston in his interviews on 1 April 2011.
HMRC’s “bill” issued on 20 May 2011 was a “collection” process for unpaid tax (Regulation 80 determinations for PAYE and Section 8 decisions for NICs) and not a standard assessment (bill). “Collection” processes are normally invoked when the taxpayer can’t pay or won’t pay.
From HMRC’s internal manual
Are you really telling me that if a taxpayer ignores bills and fails to come to “agreed terms” with HMRC, then it is OK to carry on regardless as if there is no bill?
The letter from HMRC on 20 May 2011 was most definitely NOT “agreed terms”. It was a final demand, a red letter bill, enforcement action, or whatever description you wish to use.
Rangers never came to any arrangement with HMRC to facilitate the issue of an “agreed terms” bill.
Easyjambo, if it existed then it should be easy enough to provide a copy. Every other document has found its way onto the internet, yet the 1 document that would prove beyond a certain amount of doubt is missing. Its apparent thats the way the panel guy sees it as well.
Taxman is coming for you.
That time when some old ibrox directors welcomed investigations
(Highlight in red)
this time.
sometimes when you read over this old stuff.makes your hair curl
Grant Russell
Timeline of Rangers’ wee tax case/uefa licence 2011/12
https://www.sutori.com/story/timeline-of-rangers-wee-tax-case-uefa-licence-2011-12
On the one hand
Evidence under oath in a Court of Law
from multiple executives , all saying the same thing , all of whom were directly involved and with direct knowledge of when the bill was payable
on the other hand
show me a copy of a 7 year old document , because unless you can i say we are off the hook
I wouldn’t use Petrocelli for your next username
BILLYDUGJUNE 6, 2018 at 17:52
Thanks for that Billydug.
Very interesting letter of OFFER on 5th May that i have never saw before setting out the terms of payment following ACCEPTANCE of the offer.
Crystal clear to me.
TheLawMan2 June 6, 2018 at 17:30
Easyjambo, if it existed then it should be easy enough to provide a copy. Every other document has found its way onto the internet, yet the 1 document that would prove beyond a certain amount of doubt is missing. Its apparent thats the way the panel guy sees it as well.
—————————————–
There’s a quite simple way of doing that. Ask HMRC to participate in the JP process.
You have not questioned the rationale behind the issuance of Regulation 80 determinations and have chosen to defend a position based on a premise if there is no document (made) available to the JP then they can’t judge Rangers guilty of mis-respresenting the status of the tax liability, whatever oral or other evidence is available.
By the lack of “1 document” as you put it, then can I point you once again in the direction of Judge Southwood when he said “We saw Mr. [Dave King] testify in chief and in cross-examination for four days and are unanimous in finding that he is a mendacious witness whose evidence should not be accepted on any issue unless it is supported by documents or other objective evidence.”
He went on to add: “Where the evidence relates to the intention of the witness it is extremely difficult to obtain evidence to the contrary unless the witness himself provides such evidence. In tax cases it has long been established that the court is not bound to accept the ipse dixit of the taxpayer.”
I recall when Hearts had their own tax issue with HMRC, prior to administration, all I was interested in was finding out what had gone on, and I readily accepted that the club was in the wrong and should face the consequences of that.
The contrast between Hearts and Rangers fans in that regard is stark. With Hearts it was to accept reality and the consequences. With Rangers it’s always “deflect and deny” or is it “deny and deflect” even when courts, commissions, tribunals, or other bodies rule against the club.
EASYJAMBOJUNE 6, 2018 at 18:12
There’s a quite simple way of doing that. Ask HMRC to participate in the JP process.
HMRC letter on the 5th May makes it pretty clear. There was no request for payment made until the 20th May when HMRC got fed up waiting on Rangers replying. Quite rightly so of course.
Doesnt change a thing around the “overdue payable” Annex Viii as at 31st March though.
James Doleman
@jamesdoleman
Court being shown a letter from HMRC to Murray group from 2010. In it HMRC say the consider tax due on the RFC “discount option scheme”10:39 am · 25 Apr 2017
Amazing, isn’t it, how Rangers could be off the hook because we, here, can’t provide a copy of the final demand for payment of tax everyone knows was due over ten years before the dates under review. Yet, after the testimony of a number of witnesses, under oath, that makes it clear that Rangers had accepted liability before the date in question, one would expect it would be up to Rangers to provide the documents to prove their innocence, which, if they ever existed, will be readily available to them – assuming they didn’t enter the famous shredder by mistake.
If it is in any way concieveable that the internet Bampots could get their hands on, and publish, a final demand, then it must be undeniable that any document that supports any defence for Rangers would have found it’s way into the public domain years ago.
HELAWMAN2JUNE 6, 2018 at 18:05
Very interesting letter of OFFER on 5th May that i have never saw before setting out the terms of payment following ACCEPTANCE of the offer.
Crystal clear to me.
Very interesting Government Guidlines on Club Incorporation that I seen…
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/A_Guide_to_Starting_a_Sports_Club_tcm21-149209.pdf
Is it as crystal clear to you as it is to me?
No need to elaborate a simple yes or no will suffice.
Easy Jambo
The Lawman
The Tax Justice Network covered this in the Doing SFA For Fair Play report. Now you would think professionals who investigate global tax issues would have a good idea of how the tax system works. They said
“In the letter of May 5th HMRC say that they will start formal enforcement proceedings against the club if they do not receive an agreement to pay the bill by May 16. Then in a letter dated May 20th, HMRC issued a formal determination of the tax to be paid under regulation 80 of the PAYE regulations. The letter notifying Rangers of the determination cites two previous letters issued on 28 February and 16 May, which clearly indicates that no agreement had been reached. Correspondence from HMRC to Rangers on this issue is included in Annex VII.
Normally, under PAYE, an employer calculates the tax due, withholds it from an employees pay and pays it to HMRC shortly after the tax year. If HMRC dispute the amount this can be adjusted at a later date.
Regulation 80 permits HMRC to determine for themselves the amount of tax which is due from an employer. Regulation 80 determinations are issued in cases where no agreement has been reached with the employer over how much tax is owed. It is an important stage in proceeding to enforcement because it establishes the liability which can later be recovered through compulsion if necessary.
Employers can appeal a determination and have thirty days to do so. Otherwise the determination becomes final. Rangers did not appeal.”
So normal rules that most of us poor PAYE folk understand do not apply.
The agreed terms that apply were those for the unpaid PAYE and that dated from 31st Dec 2000 not 20 May 2011.
Thus from the moment RFC agreed the liability on 21st March 2011, overdue tax now payable existed as tax authorities see it. (ten bloody years overdue).
The only ways it could have stopped being an overdue payable under UEFA FFP were:
1. on an appeal or:
2. a written agreement signed by HMRC to delay payment or:
3. actual payment was made (there is one more based on demand being frivilous that does not apply)
Any one of these had to be in place at 31st March.
None of the reasons to excuse the liability as an overdue payable happened by then, so an overdue payable as UEFA, as well as tax authorities see it, existed. The overdue clock did not start ticking at 20 May or at any time from 31st March, it started at the end of 2000.
In the case of Giannina FC (a Greek club), tax was owed by end of previous year and UEFA CFCB refused a licence after investigation prompted by the Greek FA.
Giannina went to CAS to appeal the CFCB decision to refuse a licence on grounds that even though Giannina had come to an arrangement with the Greek Tax authorities to pay after 31st March, the fact that Giannina had admitted they owed the tax before 31st March made it an overdue payable as UEFA intended Article 50 to be applied.
This is from the CAS report:
Para 74. The Panel notes that it is not disputed that, as of 31 March 2013, the Appellant owed EUR 1,290,000 to the social/tax authorities as a result from contractual and legal obligations towards employees that had arisen before 31 December 2012.
Presumably there was correspondence between the Greek tax authority and Giannina as a result of which the liability was accepted by Giannina, but CAS make it clear the admission that a liability in respect of tax that was owed, makes it an overdue payable at the point of accepting there was tax owed predating 31st December of the year before the application for a licence.
Thus CAS upheld the intent of UEFA FFP Article 50.
So
1. Tax Justice Experts say an overdue payble existed because the agreed terms for payment come under PAYE which is at the end of the year that tax would have been deducted from employees pay.
2. UEFA CFCB in the Giannina case say an overdue payable existed at 31st March once a club accepts they owe the tax authority even although terms to pay were agreed afterwards.
3. CAS uphold the CFCB judgement when Giannina appealed.
Pretty strong indication that an overdue payable existed for Rangers at 31st March 2011 as UEFA FFP intends.
However UEFA might discern a difference, which is a very good argument that the full details of the position be put to them for guidance or the JPDT request UEFA provide an official from the CFCB to confirm UEFA’s interpretation of events in March/April 2011 and how they see the status of the money owed in UEFA FFP terms when the licence was granted. Ironically had Res12,which simply asked UEFA to investigate, been passed in 2013 this would have cleared matters up by 2014.
However, irrespective of the foregoing technicalities, the latest article on the JJ blog tells us that what was said in court contradicts the description the RFC auditors gave to the status of the liability in the Interim accounts of 1st April 2011, a description repeated and added to in the Chairman’s statement with those accounts, with further information from him on 2nd April that JJ referred to, which does not align with the true timetable of events. It is on the basis of those accountng statements a licence was granted according to Stewart Regan.
Finally from a UEFA perspective lets consider why they insist that all tax owed up to the end of the previous year end is paid in order to obtain a licence.
Apart from the obligation to make sure clubs act as good citizens, the FFP principle is that clubs who field players whose wages are enhanced as a result of not paying proper tax gain a wage advantage over other clubs in terms of player recruitment that translates to competitive/sporting advantage on the park and so by its very nature is unfair.
Who can possibly argue that this is not the case?
Yet Lawman argues it all depends on words on bits of paper?
That was the basis of the case put to the FTT that was initially accepted but overturned by the Supreme Court using the purpose of the law/rules, not a scrupulous interpretation intended to circumvent that very purpose.
Mibbes we can take it here , as Sport and the Arts are devolved matters . https://www.parliament.scot/PublicInformationdocuments/HTSAPP-190712.pdf
English football fans are forcing debate on all seated stadia , are they not ?
Lawman, I’m sure you’re aware of the difference between the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction and that required in civil matters. The former requires proof beyond reasonable doubt while the latter relies on the balance of probabilities.
You seem to be relying on a single piece of evidence which is disputed whilst discounting a whole raft of testimonies and documents all pointing to the same thing.
In the film 12 Angry Men, Lee J Cobbs character comes to rely on a single piece of evidence, the knife alleged to be the murder weapon. Unfortunately the knife is shown to be no such thing.
It is unwise to rely on a single piece of evidence like the film character.
Further to what Resolution 12 to the Celtic AGM 2013 asked is worth posting to remind folk of what is says and why it was raised.
” 12. This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note 1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.
In a nutshell shareholders felt that Sherriff Officers calling at Ibrox in August 2011 to collect the £2.8M tax from “the wee tax case”, suggested that there was tax overdue payable to HMRC and that the UEFA licence granted to Rangers at March 31st was not properly checked to the required standard by the SFA during the full licensing cycle from 31st March through 30th June until 30th September 2011.
Shareholders felt that the failure to comply fully with UEFA FFP 2010 procedures may have robbed Celtic of the opportunity of playing in the Champions League in 2011/12. The Resolution basically asked for the process used by the SFA to be examined by UEFA for probity and compliance with the rules.”
There you have it a request that UEFA (not the SFA ) look into the matter and provide answers that assures Celtic shareholders that the full process was properly followed.
Celtic thought the Resolution uneccesary based on information provided to them by the SFA late in 2011.
By 2013 there was sufficent reason to question what Celtic had been told by the SFA and here we are still waiting for answers that only UEFA can really give because since that AGM the SFA did not provide acceptable answers to the questions put to them after the resolution was adjourned.
Much, if not all of this mess, is down to the SFA under the stewartship of Mr Regan (no typo) and the SFA’s reluctance to approach UEFA themselves when enough information to do so was provided to them by Res12 lawyers in 2015.
One has to wonder why.
TheLawMan2June 6, 2018 at 18:32 (Edit)
EASYJAMBOJUNE 6, 2018 at 18:12
There’s a quite simple way of doing that. Ask HMRC to participate in the JP process.
======================
Good idea but even better get UEFA involved to decide if their rules were met as intended by both SFA and RFC.
Hello
Callum Gallagher on Clyde1 is brilliant , plays all the songs I love and is not a nuisance DJ.
Hail Hail and Woof Woof.
AULDHEIDJUNE 6, 2018 at 19:39
You will not be surprised to know i disagree with this assertion and i believe the letter of the 5th May backs this up. Clearly there was a long battle over tax that was due, however, and i state this again, in order to meet the PRINCIPLE rule 1 of Annex Viii then the amount is only overdue if its not paid under the agreed payment terms. On the 5th May, HMRC were STILL trying to get Rangers to officially accept the offer and their patience ran out on 20th May 2011.
Fully agree on the above/
Fully agree on that being in the report.
1
That correspondence between the Greek Tax Authority and Giannina, do you accept that could be a tax bill for the full amount requesting for it to be paid by 31st December 2012? There is nothing in the paragraph above, nor the case notes that suggest, that a bill had not been provided with payment terms and that is where the key difference lies when looking at Overdue payable.
CAS do not make it clear that the admission of a liability makes it an overdue payable because in that case, every club in the UK would have overdue payables as at 31st December and 31st March each year. Tax is paid in arrears and it therefore stands that at the end of every month, there is a liability in respect of tax. This liability however is NOT an overdue payable and the reason for that, is that the tax bill is issued and paid according to agreed payment terms. It is completely false to state the position that just because you know money is due to the tax man, then it is an overdue payable. That is just not true im afraid.
UEFA will not be anywhere near this again. The SFA said there was no case to answer. Upon hearing evidence from Craig Whyte trial, none of which was new, they took an additional step of looking at it again. The panel guy (name escapes me) took 8 months and still concluded there was no case to answer.
I appreciate you have put a lot of hard work into this over the years so its very close to your heart and dont expect you to change your stance on it, however likewise, i think Rangers have got off with a technicality. One which im actually honest enough to say they possibly or more than likely played the game on it. That doesnt make it clever, big or right, but in the strictest accordance of the rules, Im confident there will never be a change from any body in relation to the issuance of the licence. It was issued correctly using the UEFA regulations at the time.
I do appreciate this is my opinion and that I will be the lone voice on this one and I would like to say that when discussing this issue in the past, i ended up in moderation again for circular arguments. People have said they dont want circular arguments and thats all i would be able to offer due to my very strong views on the technicalities. So on that note, and to save getting sent to the bad fire again, that will be my last views on this for now.
steerpike, aka the lawman 2,
Thank god for that!
AULDHEIDJUNE 6, 2018 at 20:10
Good idea but even better get UEFA involved to decide if their rules were met as intended by both SFA and RFC.
=============================
In my view an LNS type fix will already be planned. A relatively small fine (£200-300k) will be issued and maybe a suspended transfer ban. King will tub thump about the fine for months and threaten legal action but he won’t want the 5WA to see the inside of a court. The fine will most likely be ‘paid’ by the SFA withholding part of a payment. The SFA will then see it as lifting the last barrier to ‘moving on’.
Any views on sevco being awarded a silver uefa licence?
Hello darkness my old friend…
Licence downgraded from gold to silver possibly due to those questions that PMGB alluded to yesterday lol.
shug June 6, 2018 at 20:56
Any views on sevco being awarded a silver uefa licence?
===================================
That’s old news. The SFA announced on 10 May that Rangers had an overall “Silver” rating and had been granted a UEFA Licence. I’m guessing that someone has picked up on the latest update (June?) from the SFA website
They were rated “Silver” for “Legal/Admin/Finance & Codes” and Gold for everything else.
Edit: Just checked – The June update has indeed been published and is identical to May’s update.
That and how seem to have been ignored by lawman. Agreeing how something which must paid is paid follows after acceptance that something must be paid. The that has two stages one internal and the other external the former is what the Counsel told them the external is when HMRC told them that the payment must be made.
A crime is not committed only after sentencing but when the act is done.
Depending on interpretations of rules and regulations which interpretations are demonstrably incorrect or read with a particular outcome in mind rather than what the provision said is not dignified.
There is little doubt that the relevant Rangers entity evaded the truth of what was owed and consequently evaded the consequences of that causing othérs to lose out on places in European football. Again undignified.
As I postulated before it would be poetic if the football debts being passed to SEVCO included the indemnity given to players that the Club would pay if any tax became payable on EBTs Does anyone know what the side letters say on that regard. It would be doubly ironic if ebts brings TRFC down also.
The potential debates on whether or not EBT side letter provisions were football debts would be interesting. Imperfectly football debts would be Brysonian. There would not be much dignity as blue on blue action proceeds.
TheLawMan2 June 6, 2018 at 20:39
i think Rangers have got off with a technicality. One which im actually honest enough to say they possibly or more than likely played the game on it. That doesnt make it clever, big or right, but in the strictest accordance of the rules
=================================
I think that’s the first time I think I’ve seen something from you where you admit that Rangers might “possibly” not have been in the “right”. Maybe the weight of argument is beginning to get through, or that you are tired of it and just want it to go away no matter what.
Are you also admitting that having “played the game” and it not being “clever, big or right” there is at least a “prima face” case for the matter to be investigated?
If the Notice of Complaint is upheld, either on the original award, or at the monitoring points, what sanction(s) do you believe should be applied?
TheLawMan2June 6, 2018 at 20:39 (Edit)
I know you disgree on what payment terms applied, I think you argued the point with the author of the TJN report.
I’ll take his opinion over yours.
You keep overlooking that this is a Regulation 80 process, not the normal route for collecting tax under PAYE and of course every club or person owes tax at year end but it is not an overdue payable under PAYE terms. There is a process in place for that as as TJN explained for tax collection under the normal route.
Your argument is predicated on the normal method of tax collection. In normal circumstances HMRC do not send in Sherriff Officers to collect 3 months after establishing liability established, they issue an assessment give time to accept or appeal, if appeal made it is considered and if rejected there is more time to pay. Had this been a normal situation Sherriff Officers would not be deployed until all other attempts at collection had been exhausted, that is what raised suspicions.
Since neither of us knows on what basis Giannina accepted they owed back tax tax or if the Greek tax authorities have the equivalent of Regulation 80 neither you nor I will prove to the other what UEFA intend, but all along the line, right up to now getting UEFA’s opinion based on all the facts that the CFCB had the power to establish has been avoided.
Saying they will not touch it is no argument for not asking them to arbitrate now where the possibility of fraud cannot be ruled out without their input.
So lets leave our difference of opinon there as you have spent as much if not more time than I justifying dishonesty on the narrow basis of Annex VIII where the agreed terms as the TJN have explained are subject to the Regulation 80 process, which is written all over HMRC letters in the lead up to and after 31st March.
If it was as simple as you say why was your argument not deployed back in 2011 when Celtic first asked SFA for clarification?
If the SFA Compliance Officer has said no case to answer should his reasons not be shared with the football supporting public, Celtic shareholders will want to know what they are. Do you?
However you seem keen to have HMRC’s view, I would LOVE that to happen.
If the JPDT are to do their job diligently they will need the right expertise in both the tax AND UEFAs regulations. Without them it is a sham and THAT is the last thing that can be allowed to happen.
Finally the licence was not issued on the technicality you use to support your argument, it was according to Regan issued because the status of the liability as presented in RFC accounts was incorrect, the status was never potential with discussions taking place.
And even if your technical point, which only stands up outside Regulation 80 is correct, why wasnt it used from the beginning or is it a recent invention that needs the scrutiny suggested?
The fact is RFC never said ” we have accepted a liability for tax unpaid since 2000 but the bill hasnt arrived yet, so we dont have an overdue payable.”
That is the truth and not telling it is dishonest.
Finally there is another possible breach after 31st March but still during the granting period that did not end then, that would have alerted the SFA of the inaccuracy of the statements in the Interim Accounts and questioned the basis on which the licence be granted.
A non disclosure with quite serious ramifications but lets now wait and see what comes out of the JPDT calling on all the expertise needed to satisfy the Scottish Footballing public that no dishonesty occured.
upthehoopsJune 6, 2018 at 20:56 (Edit)
11
0 i
Rate This
AULDHEIDJUNE 6, 2018 at 20:10
Good idea but even better get UEFA involved to decide if their rules were met as intended by both SFA and RFC.
=============================
In my view an LNS type fix will already be planned. A relatively small fine (£200-300k) will be issued and maybe a suspended transfer ban. King will tub thump about the fine for months and threaten legal action but he won’t want the 5WA to see the inside of a court. The fine will most likely be ‘paid’ by the SFA withholding part of a payment. The SFA will then see it as lifting the last barrier to ‘moving on’.
=================
The issue is simple. Did RFC give the SFA truthful reasons to grant a licence in March 2011? The Court testimony challenges that they did.
If they didnt give truthful reasons and were granted a licence as a result then its fraud. If there reasons were truthful then the SFA need to make it known why they accept them or be complicit in a fraud.
There is no UEFA statute of limitations on that and UEFA advice is necessary to rule out that possibility.
No one really wants to go there, we just need to be assured that the same cannot happen again and those assurances need to be believable and need to come from the people still involved, both at SFA and Rangers.
AULDHEID
JUNE 6, 2018 at 22:18
===============================
Fraud is actually quite an easy one, I’m paraphrasing here but the constituent parts are a victim, a deception and a tangible result. Well they are in Scotland, which is the important thing.
Victim – Club who didn’t get a European place
Deception – Rangers deceiving the SFA about whether social taxes were unpaid.
Tangible Result – Rangers being awarded a European place and earning from that (income from CL and Europa competitions they should not have been it).
The hardest part to prove is always the deception element obviously. However as you say that has pretty much been covered by testimony (presumably supported by productions), given under oath, in a High Court case.
QED old bean, chapeau.
Yes it’s the future that counts.
We all know the what happened in the past. I hope the truth will out at some point. Publicly.
If it doesn’t at least get rid of Petrie, Macrae, Doncaster etc. *Bryson is that rat still hanging around? Sleep easy Bryson. You are hated. Clever with words. But totally without a moral fibre in your being. That is how you will be remembered, for the rest of your godforsaken life.
And move on.