UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?
On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.
The cases of two clubs::
Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )
and
FC Irtysh (Kazakhstan)
are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because
- The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
- The cases tell us what might have happened to Rangers FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.
FC Sion (Olympique des Alpes SA)
Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.
Full details can be read at
but this is a summary.
In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.
In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme, carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.
The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.
Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:
“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as
“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”
What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.
Sion had declared
“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.
The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.
Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.
Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.
The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.
Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.
The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.
- FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
- To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
- To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
- FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.
This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.
“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”
The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:
Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.
Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.
This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement
“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “ where he also added
“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”
This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.
In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.
The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.
The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.
Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March
It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.
The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)
The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:
- FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
- To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “
The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC, FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then
- Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
- At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
- The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.
Karma eh!
Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors
“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;
Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?
This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.
I wish Britain had 40 or 400 of these new F35 fighter jets.
final final word on the terms HMRC apply.
1 I write further to your letter of 20 May 2011 and our subsequent meeting at the Club on 31 May 2011 in order to provide an interim update and proposal in respect of the Club’s PAYE liability for 2000/01 to 2002/03 (as detailed in your letter of 31 May
From RFC to HMRC Courtesy Charlotte Fakeovers.
It is one thing to quote from the UEFA club Licencing Manual. In doing so, it’s probably best to quote ALL of the relevant provisions.
The “agreed terms” for the payment of PAYE and NICs is nothing to do with a request for payment. The “agreed terms” are simply those set out by statute and that apply to every employer in the UK.
That is, the deadline for taxes that should have been collected in the year 2000 was er… …the year 2000.
If it is being argued that those taxes were not overdue because no bill (invoice) had been delivered to the taxpayer, then perhaps someone can explain the very explicit statement in UEFA’s “Notion of ‘overdue payables’” that says:
The payment request on 20th May 2011 included taxes that had been technically overdue payables since the year 2000. Again, the “applicable date” is the date the taxes should have been paid within the routine operation of the PAYE and NICs regimes.
Had Rangers submitted a formal appeal or had been granted an extension in writing prior to the 31st March, the Licence application should have been submitted with those details. And may well have been granted.
Prior to the testimony heard under oath in court, it may have been a (somewhat tenuous) defence to say that Rangers had acted in good faith and had not, on the 31st March, accepted that these already long-time overdue payables were valid.
Prior to that court testimony it was (just about) credible that the club’s acceptance of the overdue payables did not happen until the expiry of the 30 days following the request for payment.
However, even if that claim was true, the application would still have included incorrect information because the overdue payables – no matter what the club claimed it believed at the time – were already ‘live’ on the 31st March. The club’s claim to not recognise the overdue payables on the 31st March could only ever be in mitigation of the bare facts, it could not change the fact that they had made that error.
The club had not met the deadline on the “agreed terms” for PAYE and NICs since the year 2000. As per the very clear UEFA guidance, the request for payment on the 20th May cannot be construed as an extension to those agreed terms.
In my view, if the court testimony is to be taken at face value, this is not a matter for an SFA judicial panel , it is a matter for the police.
Le Guen’s French Revolution comes to a sad end…. Gaurdian.
Ally McCoist won’t fail in his Rangers Revolution… Evening Times.
Mark Warburton’s Rangers Revolution aims for Champions League… Herald.
Pedro Caixinha’s Rangers Revolution… Daily Record. The Sun. Herald.
Graeme Murty’s Revolution of dynamic movement… The Observer.
Gerrard makes secret dash to Glasgow to prepare Rangers Revolution… Scotsman.
You wait over a century for a Revolution then six arrive at the same time….
Auldheid,
“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.”
When HMRC issue a Regulation 80 Determination there is a 30 day period in which to appeal and/or apply for a postponement of the duties.
Once HMRC accept that the grounds of appeal are valid they consider any application for postponement of payment separately and may agree to full or partial postponement or decline any request for postponement either in a letter or on a notice in a Form 64-4 or 64-5.
The relevant procedures are detailed at:
Employer returns: regulation 80 determinations: contents
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/paye-manual/paye54000
Legislation: PAYE Regulations: Determinations of amounts due
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm450060
Employer returns: regulation 80 determinations: making a determination https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/paye-manual/paye54025
Employer returns: regulation 80 determinations: time limits and appeals: regulation 80(5): parts IV and V TMA 1970https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/paye-manual/paye54015
Employer returns: regulation 80 determinations: appealshttps://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/paye-manual/paye54130
Employer returns: regulation 80 determinations: payments on account https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/paye-manual/paye54140 Reviews and appeals for direct taxes: Payment of tax pending the outcome of an appeal: Postponement applications https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/appeals-reviews-and-tribunals-guidance/artg2510 Where the usual HMRC Debt Management action is unsuccessful the debt is referred to Enforcement Office. Details of the enforcement action to recover any debt are at:Enforcement action: contents https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm650000
Distraint: Contentshttps://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm655000
Enforcement action: taking control of goods (TCoG): contents https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm657000
Summary Warrant: Contents https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm670000Summary Warrant: Introduction to Summary Warrant: Contents https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm670010Summary warrant: Preparing for summary warrant action and sending the warrant to court: Contents https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm670210
Summary warrant: Action following summary warrant returned by court: Contents https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm670310
AULDHEIDJUNE 6, 2018 at 22:18
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.
=============================
I don’t disagree, but in my view there is no way on this earth we are going to get fraud charges, or even get them considered. This is Scotland and it is Rangers we are talking about. The Whyte court case left the SFA with no wriggle room in terms of looking into it further, but keeping the nature of the charge and punishment in their own hands leaves them plenty of wriggle room. They can tell us the process is independent as much as they like, but LNS proved how much it can be set up to get the desired outcome. This is closure time for the SFA, and they won’t miss the opportunity.
A bit more timeline information for “The Lawman2” re his insistence that the only “bill” he knows of was the one dated 20 May 2011.
RFC was first issued with a “bill” on 28 September 2007. Rangers chose to appeal, which they did on 26 October 2007.
The RFC appeal was put on hold while the similar Aberdeen Asset Management (AAM) scheme went to a FTTT. AAM had been issued with their “bill” on 16 January 2007, but for reasons unknown to me the FTTT did not hear the case until June /July 2010. The AAM FTTT decision was published on 29 October 2010.
HMRC then proceeded, just four weeks later on 26 November 2010, to present RFC with an offer to settle on the same terms as AAM, or to pursue their own FTTT appeal. As we know they did neither.
What do I take from that? A bill/liability existed on 28 September 2007. When RFC decided to appeal on 26 October 2007 it was within their rights to do so. Putting the appeal on hold until the AAM appeal played out, only stopped the clock. The bill still existed. When HMRC made their offer on 26 November 2010, the clock had restarted. RFC did not appeal, but prevaricated while they sought the opinion of counsel, and came up with a quantum for an actual settlement figure, taking account of the additional interest that had accrued since 2007. What happened on 20 May 2011 was an enforcement procedure for a bill that had been issued three and a half years previously.
Upthehoops @ 07:09:
I’m intrigued as to why you think fraud charges are out of the question.
Assuming that Rangers* will be found to have ‘imperfectly applied’ for a UEFA licence …
My thinking is that, if the SFA itself (acting on behalf of all the other clubs) does not choose to pursue Rangers* and/or its then directors, then the Res 12 shareholders of Celtic FC plc are themselves likely to try to seek redress: because this is no longer merely a sporting matter.
Once a judgement is made known, I don’t think the SFA will be able to keep this ‘in house’ any longer: if the ruling goes against Rangers*, I foresee King & co (eventually) making a challenge through the courts; if the ruling somehow exonerates Rangers*, then I think there’s a good chance the Res 12-ers will also turn to the courts.
A fudge (the careful preparation of which may be one of the reasons the SFA has taken so long to bring this matter to a hearing) anywhere between the above outcomes is likely to lead to serious discontent from all sorts of interested parties – not least the fans of clubs beyond Celtic and Rangers*.
B.T.W. This is no longer ‘Rangers we are talking about’: what we have now is a burst ball that is slowly leaking air.
And the good news keeps on flowing
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16274133.Rangers_clinch_loan_deal_for_Liverpool_midfielder_Ovie_Ejaria/#comments-anchor
Sannyofmessy
I wasn’t referring to Regulation 80 procedures there but what happens in the normal PAYE.cycle but thanks for the extra information.
For anyone with tax expertise in a PAYE situation how long is the average time between a demand for payment and sending in Sherriff Officers assuming taxpayer has made appeals. Is 4 months the norm or too soon?
Same question re Reg80 procedures once liability accepted where discussions are not about disputing but trying to come up with a plan to pay that HMRC will accept?
I only ask because to a lay person 4 months seems pretty quick if the overdue payable clock only kicked off in March.
It was the arrival of Sherriff Officers in early August 2011 that set suspicions there could be an overdue payable before 31st March.
The responses by SFA to questions thereafter never explained the basis on which the licence was granted but the fact that there is to be a JPDT triggered by Court testimony , testimony that had eyebrows raised in legal circles , suggests that what Regan had said in his draft that never saw the light of day after a meeting with CW that Ogilvie attended, was in fact the basis of granting.
All that is needed is an explanation of why that basis was acceptable in light of court testimony.
It’s like drawing teeth.
Interesting that no objection to claims of non compliance during the monitoring period when CW was in charge.
Upthehoops 7.09
The fear of fraud entering the arena would be a basis for TRFC already saying all was in order with the end of March 2011 application for a UEFA licence.
Dunderheid has said the rest.
SFA cannot be perceived to be covering up for fear of the consequences.
Actually maybe they don’t care on the basis more than enough football supporters in Scotland will not care either.
In that sense you could be right.
AuldheidJune 7, 2018 at 09:53
‘…..….All that is needed is an explanation of why that basis was acceptable in light of court testimony…’
______________________
And the fact that no explanation that accords with all the facts has as yet been provided convinces me that there was no justification in truth for the award of the licence: those who provided false information and those who accepted that false information must face investigation into the question of conspiracy to commit fraud.
This is not a simple football matter. The shareholders of a plc are not bothered about football rankings, but about being done out of a good few million quid!
But, of course, if people connected with football administration have to stand trial (and be convicted)[Croatia, anybody?] then Scottish Football administration will benefit.
Jimbo
That comment about fighter jets is very strange even by your own whimsical standards.
I am even more puzzled than usual -which is beyond bemused. I was less puzzled when reading Kafka in German in Berlin late at night after a lot of beer.
You have made me remember what happened when I tasted Geman beer after abstention for 10 years I discovered that I had lost the taste for it, which was unexpected and disappointing and I have not had anything since.
and me a pacifist too…
BFB
Hut ab!
Perhaps someone at the SFA,SPFL,any of the member Clubs,Companies House,HMRC,Government could explain why the following says this (see below in bold) and why none of you (or any of the Media who read these blogs for information and to judge how fans are thinking) have ever dared question not only the validity/existence of the 5 Way Agreement but the fact that up to this day why not one of you has challenged it’s content?
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/A_Guide_to_Starting_a_Sports_Club_tcm21-149209.pdf
Incorporation as a Limited Company
Forming or converting your sports club to a Limited Company enables your club to become established as a legal entity in its own right, separate from the individual members. There are two forms of Limited Company:
1. Companies with an issued share capital, where ownership and control lies with the shareholders. This form is generally inappropriate for sports clubs.
2. Companies limited by guarantee, where the members of the company each guarantee to pay a nominal sum (usually up to £5 each) in the event of the company being unable to meet its obligations. This form is usually used for sports clubs wishing to incorporate as a company.
There are several advantages to this structure. Because the club is a distinct legal entity, it is easier for the club to enter into contractual arrangements e.g. to borrow money, own buildings, or stage very large events. The club itself, rather than the individual members, are responsible for the club’s obligations and debts (unless one of the officers has acted negligently or fraudulently, in which case the individual remains personally liable). And the individual members can only be held responsible for the debts and obligations of the club up to the nominal value of their guarantee.
The regulation and administration of Limited Companies is more onerous, and there are legal penalties for failure to comply. All Companies require various legal instruments such as a Memorandum and Articles of Association, and these must be registered with Companies House. The annual accounts must be presented in a prescribed form for Companies and also lodged with Companies House where they are open for public inspection. All Companies are subject to the provisions of Company Law; they are run by “Directors”, and some club members may potentially be prohibited from becoming a Director because of their previous involvement with other companies or their financial status.
You should consider forming as a Limited Company if one or more of the following apply to your club:
You own a high value of assets in the form of buildings, facilities, or financial reserves. However, some clubs have found a significant capital gains tax may be liable if they own considerable assets.You are engaged in selling significant volumes of goods and services to non-members such as training courses, accreditation, equipment, lettings, books and other materials You are planning to organise a major event where there is a potential risk of significant financial loss (in which case, you might consider establishing the event as a limited company owned by your club)
Now that we have this apparently cleared up by Government approved guidelines-Supported by Company Law and Companies House that :
A Rangers Fc did indeed Incorporate as a Legal Entity
B That Legal Entity did indeed enter into Administration and subsequent Liquidation due to a failed CVA
C That Legal Entity ceased to exist and who’s Liquidation can be traced from Legal Inception to it’s sad demise at Companies House
Why is it the New Entity claiming to be the very Entity that Legally Incorporated and Legally was Liquidated can openly disregard the facts and Regulations(which the previous Entity succumbed to in the end) both in their own words and on their own Website without one single Person,Association or Club or Legal Institute challenging these claims?
Why are the press,Companies House,the Creditors shafted by the previous Entity remaining silent on this very contentious issue?
The Football Authorities,Clubs,Chairmen,Boards and Media wonder why we have little faith in any of them sorting this never ending shambles out?
Seriously grow a set and give us the game we deserve,the transparency we need,the dedication it requires and last but not least the honesty that all of this needs to work.
Or alternatively do us all a favour pack yer bags and let someone else do your jobs that will.
Rangers according to Companies House are no more.
The new Entity at Ibrox should be treated exactly as that and without the baggage of it’s predecessor.
If you cannot/will not do this then I suggest you really should not be in the job that you are.
Incidentally in case you aren’t aware (why wouldn’t you be it’s there to be read) this what the current Entity at Ibrox Claims:
====================================
BUSINESS OVERVIEW
Rangers Football Club is a football club based in Glasgow, Scotland.
The Rangers Football Club, formed in 1872, is one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972.
Playing at the 50,987 seat Ibrox Stadium and benefitting from the world class 37 acre Murray Park training facility, the Club has been a dominant force in Scottish football for decades. This world class stadium, training infrastructure and a loyal and passionate global fanbase provide an excellent foundation for the Rangers Group.
Currently the Club is competing in the SPFL Premiership, having returned to the top flight for the start of season 2016/2017.
==================================
Now how can this be even remotely possible given all the Legally binding implications surrounding The Club that Incorporated on 27th May 1899 and wound up 31st October 2012 ?
To sort Scottish Football out May I suggest you need to address this very ,very strange anomaly that seems to have been created (or at the very least accepted by all of you) and so far seems to be going uncontested AT ANY LEVEL.
It’s making a total mockery of the entire Game in Scotland.
Until it is dealt with don’t expect it to go away.
It won’t.
BFBPUZZLEDJUNE 7, 2018 at 12:32
May I suggest you give Weihenstephaner a try?
Oldest brewery in the World who produce some absolutely stunning brews.
For anyone with tax expertise in a PAYE situation how long is the average time between a demand for payment and sending in Sherriff Officers assuming taxpayer has made appeals. Is 4 months the norm or too soon?
Same question re Reg80 procedures once liability accepted where discussions are not about disputing but trying to come up with a plan to pay that HMRC will accept?I only ask because to a lay person 4 months seems pretty quick if the overdue payable clock only kicked off in March.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To understand the actions of HMRC we need to remember that the Wee Tax case liabilities arose from a chance find by the City of London police of the “side letters” when raiding Ibrokes as part of a wider enquiry into allegations of fraud in England.
The letters were passed to HMRC who up to then had been receiving stiff denials from RFC that they didn’t exist. There were then accusations of fraud by HMRC in the correspondence we have all seen posted on the internet. RFC then admitted they were bang to rights and so began the delaying tactics to agree and pay the quantum of the liability and interest.
The Whyte takeover then became a thing and his tax people asked for a bit of leeway until the acquisition by Whyte was complete and Rangers would sort out payment then. But not much happened post acquisition.
Against this background I believe HMRC were fed up being led up the garden path by the club and went to formal collection procedures as soon as all their ducks were in a row legally.
I’ve dealt with the Inspector who led this case a few times and he is smart, diligent and does not like anyone taking the pee out of HMRC.
It is beyond doubt the payable was overdue before March. There would have been no grounds to lodge a successful appeal against the Determinations given that Rangers had accepted the liability. The Determination is only a legal mechanism to collect PAYE tax that is already due.
Daily fined £80,000 for contempt of court over ‘severely prejudicial’ stories
by David Sharman Published 06 Jun 2018
A daily newspaper has been fined £80,000 after admitting contempt of court over two articles relating to separate criminal proceedings.
According to Scottish Legal News, the Daily Record pleaded guilty to contempt after publishing “severely prejudicial” details in the stories
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2018/news/daily-fined-80000-for-contempt-of-court-over-severely-prejudicial-stories/
oops
AULDHEID JUNE 6, 2018 at 20:10
…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.
I agree, however, with all the recent bluster from King, the UEFA Licence, TOP inaction, Res12 still to be resolved etc. etc. and the SFA/SPFL doing little more than paying lip service instead of dragging King in to explain himself, explain how RIFC/TRFC are arranging finance (as they did with Lambias iirc) then I am becoming increasing concerned that not only are plans in place to infact allow this to happen again but that it is now actually happening – again!.
As others have said, unless something happens soon then the game’s a goner.
Apologies for the little rant; maybe you just have much more patience than me
Nice to see that Level42 tracks my invaluable input to SFM.
Following my query last night:
“Anybody seen McAllister…?”
TRFC has issued an incredibly short statement, [especially for TRFC], confirming his appointment, and another 4 new backroom staff members.
Which is nice.
But no photo’s of these new recruits standing on the Ibrox pitch, holding TRFC scarves aloft…or sitting down signing imaginary contracts for the cameras.
It just all seems a bit odd, IMO.
Come on Jabba, what’s the story…?
Would love somebody to justify why we spend so much time talking about previous issues when there is currently one major issue overriding the lot?
There is a Club being allowed to masquerade as another and no one absolutely no one is doing a single thing to question it?
Ask yourselves why it is no Club has challenged this?
I include the Celtic PLC apologists in this too.
Go on put all the other distractions to one side and justify why doing hee haw about this is benefiting anyone bar one Entity?
Genuinely interested in what you have to say on this as for me it is fairly straightforward.
Farce.
Court date for next week.
LORD DOHERTY – C Munn, Clerk
Wednesday 13th June By Order Between 9.30am and 10.00am
P115/17 RFC 2012 Plc for orders under paragraph75 – Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP – CMS
This is BDO’s action against the administrators
Share issue seems to be moving forward.
http://club1872.co.uk/news/club-1872-given-rifc-share-issue-deadline/.
AULDHEID JUNE 6, 2018 at 20:10…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.
Rangers don’t exist.
You of all people should know this.
This is exactly why this 5 Way bollox needs addressing people are becoming lazy with the facts and slowly but surely as time slips by a myth becomes the acceptable norm.
Club 1872 given deadline to confirm level of investment in Rangers share issue
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/16276574.Club_1872_given_deadline_to_confirm_level_of_investment_in_Rangers_share_issue/
———–
should it not read Club 1872 given deadline to confirm level of investment in the RIFC share issue?
Cluster One June 7, 2018 at 17:59
Club 1872 given deadline to confirm level of investment in Rangers share issue
==========================
Interesting development and timescales if true. Could be a “crash bang” share issue ignoring all normal governance protocols if there is a need to convert loans or raise cash by the end of June. (UEFA monitoring point?).
Looks like they are having a vote to reallocate “projects” funds to buying shares. If I contributed to Club1872’s “projects” I wouldn’t be happy if the rest of the membership (including those who opted for their contributions to be used for share purchases) decided that the “projects” cash was going to be used to buy shares.
There is also a nuance in the story that the vote is to decide that share buying is a “project”. That’s a bit at odds with the binary choice that members had on joining Club 1872 ….. either contribute to buy shares …… or contribute towards projects.
It could backfire on them if they lose some monthly DDs as a result.
Justthefacts,
Whereas I love your heartfelt search and exposing of the truth, Auldheid is not your target.
Its the sods at Hampden. Auldheid has given much of his time towards the goal of exposing the corruption.
We don’t know the outcome yet.
take heart.
JustTheFactsJune 7, 2018 at 17:55
“…….and slowly but surely as time slips by a myth becomes the acceptable norm.”
Here whit you all aboot noo my wee win wants a unicorn aff santa.
DUNDERHEIDJUNE 7, 2018 at 09:31
Upthehoops @ 07:09:
I’m intrigued as to why you think fraud charges are out of the question.
======================
Sorry for taking so long to reply – pesky work and all that.
My reason is fairly straightforward. it would be a step too far for the establishment given the people who may be charged with the offence. Craig Whyte was an easy target to face criminal charges and had they succeeded Rangers would officially be a victim – was that the aim? Fraud charges in the licence application would mean ‘real’ Rangers people facing charges (and we know who they all are). The media won’t bother as we know, and neither will politicians, many of whom would have been happy to see Rangers being allowed to get off scot free with non tax payment.
As I said I believe the SFA will see this as a chance for closure. It will mostly only be Celtic fans up in arms at a light punishment, and the media will line up beside the SFA and tell the fans ‘tough sh*t, it’s over’, just like they did with the LNS farce.
All they need is the correct Terms of Reference and a respected legal figure who is happy to work to them.
Cluster OneJune 7, 2018 at 17:59
Club 1872 given deadline to confirm level of investment in Rangers share issuehttp://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/16276574.Club_1872_given_deadline_to_confirm_level_of_investment_in_Rangers_share_issue/———–should it not read Club 1872 given deadline to confirm level of investment in the RIFC share issue?
_______________________
I find the following paragraph quite interesting. Apart from the emotional blackmail of saying 99.9% of small shareholders (she is referring to the supporters) won’t be able to buy more shares through the issue, so hurry along and sign up to Club 1872, surely this is something that would give cause to any shareholder, large or small, who wishes to avail themselves of the 20p offer King is obliged to make, to get in touch with the TOP and ask them why they are allowing this to happen as it will reduce their stake in the company, please take action now!
I would imagine it’s more than possible that, whatever the cause of the apparent delay in taking action against King, that this is exactly why the ruling is in place – to stop the board from taking self-serving action that might have a negative effect on those, or some of those, not connected to the concert party (in this case).
“99.9% of the six thousand or so small supporter shareholders will not be invited by RIFC to participate in this share issue. We would ask them and any other supporters who have not yet signed up to Club 1872 to do so before 14th June. Particularly via the annual donation option which will maximise our investment in this issue.
CLUSTER ONE
JUNE 7, 2018 at 17:59
Club 1872 given deadline to confirm level of investment in Rangers share issuehttp://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/16276574.Club_1872_given_deadline_to_confirm_level_of_investment_in_Rangers_share_issue/———–
should it not read Club 1872 given deadline to confirm level of investment in the RIFC share issue?
=====================================================
Yes, the money raised would then be provided as loans to the subsidiary.
It could also quite possibly be the only actual cash raised in the issue. Unless they have found someone else who wants to put money in, as opposed to converting existing loans to equity.
Just a wee thought. This vote to allow shares to be purchased using ‘project money’, could it be that part, or maybe all, of the money loaned to RIFC by Club 1872 was ‘project money’? If it was, then perhaps they need to get this motion passed so that the loan(s) can be converted to equity. Wasn’t there something mentioned (not sure where) that UEFA were raising questions over the C1872 loans, asking if they were loans or gifts? It might be that, to meet one of UEFA’s criteria, this loan(s) has to be converted, but can’t be, in part or in full, because it was made up of monies earmarked for a purpose other than buying shares?
Totally flying a kite, here. Regardless, it very much seems to be a rushed job, and smacks of a high level of urgency.
A question for EJ, or anyone else who might know. Do you know if 7 days notice is long enough for a limited company (Club 1872 is a limited company, is it not?) to give to shareholders when calling for a vote of this nature?
ALLYJAMBOMAY 20, 2018 at 12:03
If Sevco (Scotland) Limited, after having bought the assets of Rangers FC (IL), had not changed it’s name to The Rangers Football Club Limited, there would be no version of a ‘Rangers’ playing in the SPFL, or at Ibrox, now.
—————————
CLUSTER ONEJUNE 3, 2018 at 14:29
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16264939.There_are_so_many_Rangers_firms_they_could_form_their_own_Premiership/————————-There are so many Rangers firms they could form a league.—————seen this on twitter.A few asking why this article out now.
——————–
Sorry for the OT but was looking for this at the time (see picture) and just found it.
Limited options for new name june 13,2012
LF: It is affordable for every fan. It is £5 per month and, as Bruce said, it can become part of something that every Rangers fan does. You buy your season ticket, you buy a jersey and you put your £5 into Club 1872. That is two pints per month or a pie and a Bovril and you can help rebuild the club.
club 1872 supporters in future if they have to give up the pie and bovril.
—————–
Will be a lot of slim
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15898584.Rangers_Q_A__Club_1872_on___1million_share_issue_fundraising_drive__Ashley_share_purchase__board_representation_and_fan_ownership/?utm_content=buffer30052&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Alex Thomson wrote this in June 2012. Good read if you have five minutes. Walter Smith aside, he really nails ‘Rangersitis’. Not much has changed in six years.
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/alex-thomson/blogs/walter-smith-questions-rangers-legend
Just a wee thought. This vote to allow shares to be purchased using ‘project money’, could it be that part, or maybe all, of the money loaned to RIFC by Club 1872 was ‘project money’?
——————————————————–
I think the first ‘project money’ was used to buy MASH shares.And The money going directly to Mike Ashley.
————-
It got to about 9.30pm and we said it looked like it wasn’t going to happen so I was driving Joanne home and her mobile rang and it was the call. We pulled over and the person on the phone asked if we could confirm that we were alone in the car and that nobody else was there. They revealed it was MASH that we were purchasing the shares from and Joanne and I literally high-fived each other. We knew the significance of that.
It has not been easy at Club 1872 and because it is run by people who are passionate about it and believe in the project, that is why you can take it to heart. But that was such a significant moment for us and what it is all about. We want to be working towards that again and something that is so important for the club.
The money did go directly to Mike Ashley. But we believe it was an investment in the club in terms of removing his influence. It was a really good moment.
Anyway, met a lovely lady this afternoon. I thought it was Jean Brodie. She is a long term lurker. Twasnt Jean. But she loves this site.
TheLawMan2June 7, 2018 at 21:27
You may be right, I do seem to remember there was something about club 1872 wanting to lend RIFC money, but for some reason it was refused, but who knows what might have gone on since. Still doesn’t take away from the rushed job this seems to be, and whether or not it’s legal to give such short notice for a vote of this nature. It does seem very short.
And. of course, the share issue, itself, might cause the TOP to intervene if shareholders contact them to request/demand action over their delayed 20p per share.
Re the vital letter from HMRC that got ragers 1872 in by the skin of their teeth for a crack at the CL in 2012 and the perception that this was a bill for a paltry £2.8m
IIRC the black knight left the WTC liability out of the data room and CW found out just before the deal went through .
The question is why would the paying of £2.8m be omitted from the data or allegedly hidden from CW ,after all CW was using £18m from ticketus to take over the club so what would be the difference in borrowing £21m ,as again IIRC he increased the ticketus borrowing a few months after the deal so the option was obviously there .
IMO the WTC was not just a £2.8m bill it was in fact a possible £20m inflow of cash into the business
If the club had not dragged the paying of that bill out for as long as they did then it could have been a possible loss of £22m
So we seem to have someone appearing on the site that constantly bangs on about the 30 days to pay after the HMRC letter ,which conveniently takes ragers 1872 past the march 31st date .
I must admit ragers 1872 and sevco 2012 seem to carry some amount of luck when it comes to just scrapping by rules and decisions ,so much so I would would have to say they are without doubt two of the luckiest clubs in scotland
anybody watching tina and bobby? its brilliant so far. about bobby moore.
THELAWMAN2JUNE 7, 2018 at 21:27
I assumed a person of your staunchness would , at the very least , have a ST, shares in RIFC (like I have) and be an ardent contributor to and supporter of Club 1872 , and would be able to ask the great and good of your club(s) these questions . I think I will email TOP to find out when I can expect to see my £2 from Dave .
I don’t honestly know if the TOP situation affects a share issue, but I suspect that it won’t. TOP will have no desire to affect the day to day running or fundraising of any company they are looking at. They have a pretty narrow remit of ensuring that small shareholders are not disadvantaged in a takeover situation.
Even if a share issue does go ahead, I would expect that TOP will still insist on a 20p a share offer for the existing non concert party shares. If the percentages change following the share issue, then there is the possibility of TOP making another order on the basis of the new share capital and share distribution.
Notwithstanding the TOP position, I don’t believe that there are many other hurdles to be overcome to enable a share issue to go ahead. They already have the necessary authority to dis-apply pre-emption rights, so all that I believe is required is to make an offer to the targeted individuals or companies and wait for their acceptances and that’s about it.
There will be a few administrative tasks to follow, including advising Companies House, but nothing that is likely to cause any difficulties, as long as the targeted parties come up with the cash, or agree to the extent of the DFE swaps.
AllyjamboJune 7, 2018 at 20:25
‘.. Do you know if 7 days notice is long enough for a limited company (Club 1872 is a limited company, is it not?) to give to shareholders when calling for a vote of this nature?’
_______________
Aj, youwill know, of course, that Club 1872 was incorporated as private company,limited by shares.
There is only one class of shares, ‘Ordinary’, @£1.00.
The number of shares allotted is ONE, the £1.00 is fully paid up.
The holder of the share is ‘Andstrat Nominees’ Ltd. ( Anderson Strathearn, solicitors for RIFC plc I think)
Who is the beneficial ownerr???
As a private company the owner , the only shareholder(?), opted to adopt the ‘Model’ Articles of Association.
There’s not a thing said in those articles that says anything much about notice of meetings , certainly nothing such as there is in the Articles of a plc!
Club 1872 seems to be a one man band, none of the 5 current Directors being shareholders.
James D Blair (secretary of RIFC plc) stood down as a Director last year, and the current 5 are :Euan MacFarlane, Bruce Taylor, Mrs Fawkes, Ms Percival and Rev Stuart MacQuarrie. [ nice to see a ‘Brucie’ in the same sentence as the name of a famous Governor of Australia!]
I’m not well-versed enough to be able to work out what TRFC Ltd supporters get for their monthly offerings, other than what anybody gets from donating money to their favourite charities.
Certainly they don’t seem to be members of anything in which they have any kind of control of their ‘board’ or any kind of participation in decision making.
Maybe Lawman2 or some such could give us some better idea of how Club 1872 is nothing other than a continuous, glorified begging bowl to help meet running costs?
And I’m not being a smart-ass in asking : Like many people I have a couple of direct debits for a couple of charities, including one for Erskine Hospital.
What I get for that is the intangible satisfaction of making some small contribution to the hospital in which my dad spent many months as a war wounded Scots Guardsman.
I certainly don’t get a say in the affairs of the place, or any kind of ‘shareholder’ reward.
The oddity is that Club 1872 was set up as a Limited Company- able to make profit, not as a Charity, which would put some kind of restriction on how it used its money ( a previous Rangers charity was mildly spanked on the hand for breaching Charity regulations!)
So all the donations legally go to the shareholder, the only shareholder, who or which is at perfect liberty to put the monies received to whatever purpose he, she or it chooses.
Fair enough, provided that the language used to describe ‘donations’ does not begin to imply that the donors are any kind of ‘investors’ (in the financial market use of that term) who might expect a cash return or shareholding stake in a commercial company.
I am no expert, and would be most grateful for the kind of straightforward, accurate guidance that I can’t readily get from ‘google’ or other search engine.
JustTheFactsJune 7, 2018 at 17:55 (Edit)
AULDHEID JUNE 6, 2018 at 20:10…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.
Rangers don’t exist. You of all people should know this. This is exactly why this 5 Way bollox needs addressing people are becoming lazy with the facts and slowly but surely as time slips by a myth becomes the acceptable norm.
============================
Normally I say TRFC but I slipped up. I say TRFC to stop posts like yours reminding me that Rangers don’t exist.
At my age reminders play an important path in negotiating the way to the bathroom. Thank you.
Regarding challenging the 5 Way or the Frankenstein Agreement any suggestions as to how?
fan of footballJune 7, 2018 at 21:51 (Edit)
I think it has pretty much been established that under Regulation 80 an overdue payable dating back to 2001 to 2003 existed as far as HMRC are concerned.
This from a letter of 6th June 2011 from RFC to HMRC describes what HMRC were writing to RFC about.
1 I write further to your letter of 20 May 2011 and our subsequent meeting at the Clubon 31 May 2011 in order to provide an interim update and proposal in respect of the Club’s PAYE liability for 2000/01 to 2002/03 (as detailed in your letter of 31 May2011) (“the Liability”).
You don’t get much more overdue in 2011 than tax owed from 2000/01 to 2002/03.
So the question is did RFC in their Interim accounts and the reason given by Regan in his unpublished draft in the 7th December e mail describe the liability as such or did it not?
Was what was said that described the liability as potential by the auditors, repeated by Alastair Johnson plus the addition of discussion happening, truthful statements of the position at 31st March or would they mislead the Licensing Committee?
Did those statements accurately reflect the discussions that went on between HMRC and MIH/RFC on 21st March 2011 and is there any evidence that the Compliance Officer has seen to tell him what was discussed or is he taking the word of TRFC with no proof?
That is one of the areas the JPDT have to make a decision on and if those statements in the Interim accounts and Regan’s draft have been excluded from the JPDT remit then we need to know, why because what was said is not, on the face of it, a truthful presentation of what the actual situation was.
upthehoopsJune 7, 2018 at 19:57 (Edit)
The terms of reference are key and significantly we do not know what they are.
Fixing the Terms of Reference to produce the desired result is something the SFA under Regan were really good at and when they weren’t setting the terms as in the LNS enquiry they or RFC kept information that would have changed them out of sight.
You are right to be sceptical but as long as there is no independent oversight of the SFA they will keep themselves unaccountably safe.
One of Maxwell’s tasks should be to change this but its going to need more than keyboard campaigners to do it.
Justthe facts 13.52
The genesis of the holding company myth etc was discussed a few months back on SFM.
If you read down the article at
https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/neil-doncaster-and-the-birth-of-monster-myths/
you will see that the concept was one hi jacked by Doncaster to use a change in SPL rules for a purpose it was never intended.
The problem with tackling the 5 Way is it is a secret and without a signed copy to go on attempts at challenging it have been scatter gun.
The hard truth is no club wanted RFC and their support to disappear from Scottish football, whose value was only seen (and still is) through blue and green tinted glasses. Not all supporters wanted to lose the hate fest either.
A bit of a Don Quixote task in those circumstances.
easyJamboJune 7, 2018 at 22:32 ‘I don’t honestly know if the TOP situation affects a share issue, but I suspect that it won’t. TOP will have no desire to affect the day to day running or fundraising of any company they are looking at. They have a pretty narrow remit of ensuring that small shareholders are not disadvantaged in a takeover situation.Even if a share issue does go ahead, I would expect that TOP will still insist on a 20p a share offer for the existing non concert party shares. If the percentages change following the share issue, then there is the possibility of TOP making another order on the basis of the new share capital and share distribution.’
______________________
There is, I think, no way round it for Laird Proprietary/King, if the TOP remain firm.
The legally enforceable obligation on King/Laird Proprietary is , for example, to buy from me (ha!), or you(ha ha!) , or any poster on this site( ?) the shares in RIFC plc that we might want to sell.
And to pay us 20p per share.
All the buggering about with a quite separate share ‘issue’ is not relevant.
As you say, any additional shares issued to a select few will increase the total number of shares in issue.
But the price that the Dave boy would have to pay me if I wanted to sell will still be 20p per share!
As long as the TOP make the necessary adjustment to their order.
Which, if they are in any real sense an independent regulatory body, they would have to do.
PADDY MALARKEYJUNE 7, 2018 at 22:25
THELAWMAN2JUNE 7, 2018 at 21:27
I assumed a person of your staunchness would , at the very least , have a ST, shares in RIFC (like I have) and be an ardent contributor to and supporter of Club 1872 , and would be able to ask the great and good of your club(s) these questions . I think I will email TOP to find out when I can expect to see my £2 from Dave .
——————
I have a few season tickets for my immediate family though unfortunately my working location means more often than not I can’t attend any longer. The tickets are used every game though.
I have shares in Rangers. I don’t have shares in Celtic. Why would I.?
I wouldn’t give 1872 a single penny of mine.
Not sure the relevance of any of the above is to my question to Allyjambo about his point on the money 1872 used to give RIFC a loan. Why would I ask 1872 about it when I don’t believe it happened so surely best to ask the person who claimed it did?
AuldheidJune 7, 2018 at 23:50
‘…A bit of a Don Quixote task in those circumstances.’
_________________________
Don Wheeotay!
Hey, man, this Spanish living bit has got to you, eh?
Don Quixote, as you know of course, challenged non-existent ‘enemies.’
The enemies of Sporting Integrity, journalistic truth, and sheer common sense and commercial and legal reality that we on this blog face are not imaginary, but very, very real.
They are a Governance body ( perhaps bodies) which actually created a monstrous lie and may have been party to a criminal conspiracy to defraud a plc of millions of pounds, and a parcel of broadcast journalists and print media journalists who consistently and insistently defend and propagate that lie: these are no imaginary enemies such as windmills were for the Don!
But real, and utterly pernicious, enemies of Truth.
And they must, by dogged persistence and insistence on our part ( allied, of course, with knowledge of fact) be made to see the truth.
Preferably while I am still alive, but I’ll settle for sometime in the rotten lifetime of the liars, however young they may be now.
Who would be a Fat Controller?or the son of a clergyman? or a past board member of the SFA? or associated with a football club trying to live on the back of a history that is not theirs?
AULDHEIDJUNE 7, 2018 at 23:09
Perhaps first all by asking our relevant Boards/Clubs what they are doing about this?Given it was the SFA and the SPFL who supposedly signed it on our Clubs behalf?
Or perhaps getting someone with a Legal background making serious enquiries of Companies House to see what the Legal standpoint is of having an Incorporated Business on their books who is apparently masquerading as one which they have on record as being in Liquidation?
Then there are the Government Guidelines surely there could be an avenue there for Legal clarity on the matter?
Former Creditors might be interested,Current Shareholders at TRIFC?Who knows,my point is no one inside our game seems remotely rsed about this and I find that very strange given the nonsense that’s been emanating from Ibrox since it’s conception.
I don’t have a definitive answer to the problem Auldheid but what I do know is this ,doing nothing has changed nothing?in fact it’s only getting worse the longer this b/s is allowed to go on as we can now see the numpty at Ibrox gets more and more emboldened by the week with apparent impunity.
For the record I wasn’t having a pop when I brought up the wording “Rangers” I was merely pointing out how desensitised we are becoming as these terms become less prevalent over time as they get mixed up in the rest of the detritus floating round this ever deepening pool of muddied waters.
I am of the opinion there has been a concerted effort within the media and football to use this terminology wherever and whenever possible for exactly this purpose.
It serves to reinforce/validate the pretence you see.
The BBC correspondent can’t seem to make up his mind whether it’s a new club or not. One minute it’s the new club has no legal connection to the liquidated club, but it was the company which ran the club which got liquidated, but the club rose like a Phoenix from the ashes..
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43979815
AULDHEIDJUNE 7, 2018 at 23:37
The terms of reference are key and significantly we do not know what they are.Fixing the Terms of Reference to produce the desired result is something the SFA under Regan were really good at and when they weren’t setting the terms as in the LNS enquiry they or RFC kept information that would have changed them out of sight. You are right to be sceptical but as long as there is no independent oversight of the SFA they will keep themselves unaccountably safe.One of Maxwell’s tasks should be to change this but its going to need more than keyboard campaigners to do it.
==================================
Unfortunately we still live in an era where a scandal is only deemed a scandal if the mainstream media decide to run with it. That does not mean it is not a scandal of course, but if the MSM have a vested interest in playing it down then they will. To me it’s a scandal in itself that we have dishonesty charges in place over the 2011 licence and the MSM are not pressing the SFA in public to ensure the outcome means this can never happen again, and that the people involved are banned sine die from involvement in Scottish football.
It is notable how many in the present day MSM castigated the SFA of 1978 over the Scotland in Argentina debacle, after the BBC documentary the other night. Will we have to wait thirty years to get the media to speak the real truth about the entire Rangers debacle and how the modern day SFA have handled it? Don’t rule it out.
AULDHEIDJUNE 7, 2018 at 23:27
We now know how important that CL place was to the club back in 2011/12 ,it was literally the clubs very existence that was at stake .
Would a club in that situation attempt to gain access to the CL by any means fair or foul ,who knows?
It would be very tempting though ,would it not , to , as they say gild the lily
If they did , the question is did peepil outwith the club know or find out and if so what did they do about it .
I am not saying any wrongdoing was done ,I do believe though that an independent inquiry should be undertaken to find out the facts of the case and the SFA should be nowhere near the inquiry ,as it could be argued that ,it was in their interests that ragers 1872 stayed in business for the good of the Scottish game
I am sure TGASL would agree with me on that point
HIRSUTEPURSUITJUNE 7, 2018 at 00:00
108
0 Rate This
It is one thing to quote from the UEFA club Licencing Manual. In doing so, it’s probably best to quote ALL of the relevant provisions.
______________________________________________
Very well written Hirsute
Game Set and Match
BARCABHOYJUNE 8, 2018 at 07:55
5
1 Rate This
HIRSUTEPURSUITJUNE 7, 2018 at 00:001080 Rate ThisIt is one thing to quote from the UEFA club Licencing Manual. In doing so, it’s probably best to quote ALL of the relevant provisions.
______________________________________________Very well written Hirsute Game Set and Match
_______________
I did say I wouldn’t reply but this isn’t a circular argument as its not one I have presented before.
The rest of the provisions don’t matter a jot. If Rangers fail point 1 on the precise meaning of overdue payables then I 100% accept they fail the rest.
There is no disputing that whatsoever so they are all irrelevant to my point and there is no need to quote them. The only thing that mattered on 31st March was if the money owed met the exact meaning of overdue payable Annex Viii point 1.
Seems I was 100% wrong instead of right (again!).
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/scotland-plunge-eight-places-fifa-12662407
THELAWMAN2JUNE 8, 2018 at 00:45
No , you stated that you’d heard nowt about any loan , and questioned Allyjambo on its provenance , and I suggested you ask your club(s) about this kind of thing , rather than him/her . The impression I got from your post was that you cast doubt on the suggestion solely because you knew nothing about the alleged loan ,and I would have thought that as a concerned fan(and as it turns out ,shareholder),you’d be better served asking them as may know .
PS Where do I mention shares in Celtic and how would I know why you would or wouldn’t have any ?
Can anyone tell us specifically what the Ibrox club are suspicious of in terms of their website/MSM (but imperfectly registered) complaints about the make up of SFA and SPFL administrations?
Borussiabeefburg at 10:17
It’s classic scapegoating by Dave ‘The Demagogue’ King: stirring up fear of the fabled ‘unseen fenian hand’.
Okay: I see some early thumbs down for that post.
Rather than a casual click of the thumbs down button, would any of those who did so care to posit a more plausible answer to Borussiabeefburg’s question?
Borussiabeefburg at 10:17
I think they believe there are not enough sevco minded puppets in place ie everyone in any of these positions should be ex sevco/deadco players.
PADDY MALARKEYJUNE 8, 2018 at 09:41
Why would I ask the club about something that doesn’t exist just because someone on the Internet claimed it did. So if I state that Celtic owe Rangers £3m and you don’t believe that to be true, would you:
A) go and ask the club about it
B) ask me where I got this information from?
That’s correct. I think the suggestion was incorrect.
If I asked the club about every rumour/wrongful allegation appearing on the Internet, I would have a full time job doing so.
Do you not think that it’s more logical to ask the guy who claimed it. I could have missed it so was happy to be pointed to it even although I was 99.999999% certain he was wrong.
You don’t mention it anywhere. For some strange reason you decided to tell me you were a shareholder in Rangers. It was very much out of the blue if you pardon the pun.
I thought I would therefore reciprocate and tell you that I’m not a shareholder in a club that I don’t support.
Is it possible that the TOP have just walked away from this?
It would be odd given that they went to court with it but odder still that they now appear to be sitting on their hands.
Many people assumed that a section of shareholders would jump at the offer of 20p. Are they asking questions of the TOP?
Several members of my local CSC are avid readers of this site. None are experts on anything really, just ordinary fans. General consensus is that nothing will happen that might adversely affect King or TRFC, nothing ever does.
Troll:
“This is not a circular argument and is not one I have presented before…” (Therefore I give myself permission to make it a circular argument and drone on endlessly about it.)
How would we know if you have presented it before since you have multiple log-ins on here?
HELPUMOOTJUNE 8, 2018 at 11:54
1
0 Rate This
Troll:“This is not a circular argument and is not one I have presented before…” (Therefore I give myself permission to make it a circular argument and drone on endlessly about it.)How would we know if you have presented it before since you have multiple log-ins on here?
___________–_______
If I had multiple logins I wouldn’t have spent so much time in moderation or being unable to post. Plus I’m sure admin are enough in control to notice multiple logins.
I’ve never seen it raised before and I thought, though it appears wrongly, that confirming that Rangers didn’t meet the standards set out in any of those clauses as at 31st March would attract agreement.
It appears that if I said they did, you wouldnt be happy and when I say they don’t you’re still no happy.
There’s a ball out there on the park to be played. It’s wrong to constantly play the man. 😉
AllyJambo’s recollection of Club 1872 loaning the club funds is not entirely without foundation.
Rangers First as it was then, did make an offer to loan the club £500K around January 2016, but the offer was turned down by the club.
Extracts from news articles dated 8 January 2016.
“Daviesleftpeg” isn’t overly impressed by Club 1872’s latest begging letter to facilitate their participation in whatever share offer comes to pass.
https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/2018/06/08/muslim-baiter-and-the-spivs-at-it-again/
Heard it all now. “It’s wrong to constantly play the man.” From the man who trashed the reputation of Gary Hughes on here for something he said 12 years ago, then did the same to Murdoch McLennan – while completely ignoring or excusing years of corrupt governance by the SFA on behalf of his team.
This poster came to mind last night when I was listening to American comedian, Norm MacDonald. He was talking about a court case where a man had gone into a nurses home and raped and killed a number of them. He was charged with the rapes, the murders and breaking and entering. His lawyer fought the breaking and entry charge (but admitted the rest.) It wasn’t really the point, was it?
I do notice this posters style, though. Meticulous technical detail until he gets nailed on it. Then suddenly he retreats to the more philosophical approach, pining for clean football governance and grannies apple pie. A Sevco apologist delivering lectures to this site on football governance?! Incredible. He must have balls the size of the Bass Rock.
THELAWMAN2JUNE 8, 2018 at 11:19
* Why would I ask the club about something that doesn’t exist just because someone on the Internet claimed it did.
In your opinion doesn’t exist . Some proof perchance ? Plus , there are more options than the tewo you offer .
* If I asked the club about every rumour/wrongful allegation appearing on the Internet, I would have a full time job doing so.
Nobody is asking ,or even suggesting that you ask the club about every rumour/wrongful allegation appearing on the internet , just the ones you seek answers to . They would only be wrongful if some proof , not opinion , was proferred . * You don’t mention it anywhere. For some strange reason you decided to tell me you were a shareholder in Rangers.
I am assuming that you are basing that on me mentioning TOP ,Dave and £2 ? If you’d done your research , you’d find that I’d previously ‘fessed up to having one share in CFC, ten in RIFC and zero in PTFC,the team I support . Why do you think it strange ?
Like the wee stars ?
Paddymalarkey
Careful there you leave yourself open to the “Aye but whit team do you really support?” Question and then it’ll be “Whit school did you go to?”
Part of the result of coming from a de facto theocracy, as it was in those days, and being a wee bit other worldly was that I did not get the underlying meaning of those questions and hope never to have been involved in the weltanschaung they imply.
Afternoon all.
Just my mind adding 2+2 & getting 5 but hopefully someone can explain something to me.I’ll probably make a mess of explaining this but here goes:
Club 1872 are being asked to buy shares in RIFC(not TRFC as that’s impossible).When/if 1872 buy these shares they’ll put cash into RIFC which we assume will then be loaned to TRFC,a totally separate legal entity.while giving TRFC a temporary cash boost,this increases their debt to RIFC & surely adds to the outstanding debt figure required by UEFA wrt FFP regs.RIFC is not an SFA member.
Also,if Park.Scott etc have loaned money to RIFC,who have then in turn loaned that money to TRFC,how does the lenders agreeing to convert part/all of these loans to equity absolve TRFC from their debt to RIFC.
As I see it,maybe wrongly,with TRFC LTD being legally,a separate business from RIFC PLC,then from a business point of view,The 3 bears etc would now own a pile of extra shares in RIFC but TRFC would still be in hock for all the loans received from RIFC.Unless cash,actually invested,not loaned, goes directly to TRFC,bypassing RIFC then TRFCs position,financially & football wise,is actually worse than before.
Hope I made sense!.
THELAWMAN2JUNE 8, 2018 at 08:33
But isn’t that the whole problem with Rangers/T’Rangers and all the Spivs that have been in the Blue Room for the last few decades.
It has all been about finding that little loophole , that little chink of light that they think they can exploit to give them some kind of advantage instead of ‘playing the game’ with any integrity.
Like your narrow arguments, those little points can then be exploited to make it seem like the club is a bastion of honesty truth and justice, when the bigger picture is a nasty, selfish, exploitative entity that doesn’t give a hoot for anyone but itself and will argue to the Nth degree to try and justify its actions along with drawing out the process of allowing everyone else to ‘move on’. (See the actions of DCK with SARS, dispute with Gary Player, Ashley, TOP etc etc)
This Spiv type behaviour is now well ingrained in the bricks of Ibrox Park and there seems to be no signs of things changing any time soon.
As opposed to arguing very slim points of law and rules on here, as a shareholder and fan, why not look at the bigger picture of the shambles your club has become and start helping to get your club sorted out once and for all.
Maybe you are trying but clearly it is not enough.
BFBPUZZLEDJUNE 8, 2018 at 13:31
Unfortunately I don’t have relatives who would take a PTFC ST and use it . so have to go myself and watch what passes for football at Firhill .
First time I learned our position in life was when decanted from the slums of Maryhill to the modern housing of Drumchapel , and got the “aye, but whits yer big team ” . It was also then I learned the differences in some peoples’s minds over which foot you kicked with . It didn’t really bother me then and I think it’s childish now . Unfortunately for others, it can be the difference between prospering and struggling . Sectarianism is part of my problem with Christianity , but palls when confronting my distaste for all organised religions .
TORREJOHNBHOYJUNE 8, 2018 at 13:32
TRFC just issues shares to RIFC in exchange for RIFC cancelling debt.