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.
RIFC new share issue. What’s the share price?
HELPUMOOTJUNE 8, 2018 at 13:16
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.
___________________________________________________
There is a hilarious and wonderful irony about this post proving my point. Its getting ridiculous now.
Can you find where i trashed the reputation of Hughes or McLennan. I think youve got me mixed up with someone and somewhere else. Ive not seen either of them trashed on here by anyone.
Bogs DolloxJune 8, 2018 at 14:02
TORREJOHNBHOYJUNE 8, 2018 at 13:32
TRFC just issues shares to RIFC in exchange for RIFC cancelling debt.
————————————————
Ceers.
I realise there are methods to cancel the debt.Just looking at the situation until that actually happens.Can all this happen in 3 weeks,considering we’ve not seen any actual detail wrt the RIFC issue.
Who are the investors,or is it only Club 1872?.
What price a share?.
Will the lenders take part in a debt for equity swap?.
Will any other shareholders try to stop the issue for any reason(especially those with rights withdrawn)?.
Would/Could TOP throw a spanner in the works?.
WOTTPIJUNE 8, 2018 at 13:37
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.
_________________________________________________________________
Ive been doing that for years. Both very openly on Social Media(against the grain of the majority of fellow fans) and privately (with a group of others) against Craig Whyte, which ended up with me being one of the Crowns witnesses om his trial.
TheLawMan2June 8, 2018 at 08:33 (Edit)
5
24 i
Rate This
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.
==================
And the only way to verify what the tax authorities and UEFA mean is for their expertise to be called upon .
If that happens and you are right then why did that not happen back in 2014/2015 when SFA were asked the questions or in 2016 when questions were put to UEFA?
Think of the time we could have been saved.
Enough already.
fan of footballJune 8, 2018 at 07:38 (Edit)
There is a reason it is being kept inside the game and that is so the SFA can control the terms of reference of the JPDT and so the outcome.
It has been done before on LNS as can be read on E Tims today.
http://etims.net/?p=13042#comment-923567
UEFA did not want to touch the 2011 UEFA Licence issue in 2016 and were happy to leave matters in SFA hands, but ultimately only they can say if there were breaches and there appear to be breaches of 3 UEFA FPP Articles at 4 points in the whole process.
Anything done without their and HMRC input is useless.
JustTheFactsJune 8, 2018 at 01:35 (Edit)
AULDHEIDJUNE 7, 2018 at 23:09
I think you forget that some parties considered addressing all those issue via a Judicial Review, but QC advice on examining the reasons for one concluded (and I’m not quoting verbatim) that as a closed trades association following their own rules the SFA can act as they please within their own rules and all the member clubs accepted the 5 Way Agreement , presumably in the belief it kept them in trade).
In the meantime where evidence suggested that rules had been broken to the detriment of the share value of one club and to the benefit of another, a long ardours campaign has been underway since 2013 to bring the SFA to account.
That is nearing an end and who knows what the JPDT will attempt to deliver, but it had better stand scrutiny against the evidence, and so its the best we’ve got.
I’m reminded of the Serenity Prayer
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
John Clark
I have a wee statue of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza to my right as I type.
Don is tall and slim with a long lance in his hand, looking up at what isn’t there.
Sancho is a wee fat guy looking ahead at what is.
I got my characters mixed up.
AULDHEIDJUNE 8, 2018 at 15:18
Think of the time we could have been saved.
_____________________________________________________________
No time would be saved at all. No matter how many people say its done, or its over, the same debates will rage on until we are all in our graves. If UEFA come out and say there will be nothing further done on this (they already have of course) then you will still say its nobbled by the SFA.
Nothing will satisfy anyone until Rangers are found guilty. Thats the only option. Isnt it ?
TheLawMan2June 8, 2018 at 16:07
Nothing will satisfy anyone until Rangers are found guilty. Thats the only option. Isnt it ?
__________________________________________________________________________
The only decent, proper and fair one, along with those in power, yes.
The SPL Commission found Rangers guilty.
BILLYDUGJUNE 8, 2018 at 16:38
The SPL Commission found Rangers guilty.
______________________________________
And it still wasnt good enough.
It still wasn’t good enough because the punishment didn’t fit the crimes, the regulatory body compromised itself throughout the whole stramash, and is still doing so in the view of many here.
BillydugJune 8, 2018 at 16:38 (Edit)
3
1 i
Rate This
The SPL Commission found Rangers guilty.
============
Not of dishonesty.
TheLawMan2June 8, 2018 at 16:07 (Edit)
0
8 i
Rate This
AULDHEIDJUNE 8, 2018 at 15:18 Think of the time we could have been saved. _____________________________________________________________
No time would be saved at all. No matter how many people say its done, or its over, the same debates will rage on until we are all in our graves. If UEFA come out and say there will be nothing further done on this (they already have of course) then you will still say its nobbled by the SFA.
Nothing will satisfy anyone until Rangers are found guilty. Thats the only option. Isnt it ?
========
You just don’t get it.
How can a wrong denied be forgiven?
What is the worst that can happen that will not ultimately benefit your club?
TheLawMan2 June 8, 2018 at 16:07
Nothing will satisfy anyone until Rangers are found guilty. Thats the only option. Isnt it ?
================================
Not in my book it’s not.
All I’m interested in is for all of the truth to come out. That applies to all the legal / tribunal / commission cases that Rangers and other clubs have been involved with.
Let’s take the latest Notice of Complaint as an example.
My understanding is that it has a very narrow remit of looking at the conduct of Rangers officials during the licensing and monitoring period in 2011. That doesn’t extend to the full story behind the WTC liability, or how other parties conducted themselves either before during or after the licensing round. For that reason the NoC on its own itself is unlikely to make all issues surrounding the WTC go away.
If, as suggested by Rangers in their statement last month, the CO has decided that there is evidence that shows that Rangers application (as at 31/03/11) was completely above board, then fine. Publish the evidence and that should put the subject to bed. The Licence award would no longer be a live issue. e.g. if Rangers had a written agreement with HMRC to pay the liability on a date after 31/03/2011, that would satisfy me 100% on the Licence award question.
However, if the CO has decided that there is insufficient evidence available to prove that Ranges had acted improperly, and for that reason an NoC about the licence award itself was not progressed. That situation could lead to further questions and acrimony. I’d be looking to know what evidence that he based his decision on, but also whether or not all possible sources had been consulted (including HMRC and UEFA). There is also the consideration of the documents that are in the public domain. Were they, or all the relevant documents held by the court, available to the CO?
Repeat that cycle for the monitoring periods, but this time with the Judicial Panel as the decision makers.
There have been a few who have found the club from ibrox guilty.
But guilty does not fit in with the ibrox mantra of dignity.Dignity would have the guilty say sorry and accept the punishment.The ibrox club can shout Dignity all they want but until they accept what they did there will be no Forgiveness.
easyJamboJune 8, 2018 at 17:51 (Edit)
I think you mean at or before 31st March 2011.
£250 upfront 30% increase on top of season ticket. Last year it was paid on match day.
Close Brother’s “Overdraft”
In a nutshell Lawman2, if every single event that has befallen Rangers (either/both clubs) in the past decade or so had instead happened to Celtic, right down to the munitiae you are apparently so fond of, you and your fellow supporters would be incandescent with rage unless the football authorities publicly announced on national television that a brand new club had subsequently been formed following the self-inflicted death of the original club which owed many tens of millions of pounds, from whom titles and trophies would be stripped following years of premeditated systematic cheating, lying and obfuscation.
Furthermore, you would loudly claim in the undignified, arrogant, supremacist way that only you and your support can, that the new Celtic club and its criminal chairman and board members, including those partly responsible for the demise of the original club, had brought the game into disrepute virtually on a weekly basis since its birth just six years ago and each and every one of those matters would be punishable to the full extent of the rules and regulations (or otherwise at the discretion of the board), leading to the expulsion of the successor club from the SPFL.
You would no doubt further argue that Celtic were virtually immune to having charges raised against them and that on those rare occasions that they were brought before the beaks, utterly mind-boggling decisions would follow and no meaningful sanction would ever be applied following verbal gymnastics of Brysonesque proportions.
As someone rightly pointed out earlier, you come on here to waylay the blog by repeatedly going over relatively insignificant munitiae while conveniently ignoring the fact that the two Rangers clubs you support, along with a corrupt set of football administrators, are responsible for the biggest sporting scandal ever witnessed in this corrupt little country of ours.
I, for one, don’t need to look up the dictionary definition of troll.
Cluster OneJune 8, 2018 at 18:00 (Edit)
There have been a few who have found the club from ibrox guilty. But guilty does not fit in with the ibrox manta of dignity.Dignity would have the guilty say sorry and accept the punishment.The ibrox club can shout Dignity all they want but until they accept what they did there will be no Forgiveness.
==============
In some cases there can be no forgiveness until a wrongdoing is admitted otherwise one has to distance themselves from the wrongdoer out of self respect.
An aid to understanding what forgiveness is not can be found here:
https://internationalforgiveness.com/files/ForgivingIsNot.pdf
Sometimes we have to forgive, even where the other is ignorant of or do not understand the degree of hurt they have caused, because the resentment eats us up. A favourite line of mine is a decision not to forgive is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
However in this situation where wrong is not admitted, in order to retain self respect we would have to distance ourselves from the wrongdoer and with that the game we love and the team we support.
So rather than do that we strive for the depth of the wrong to be admitted and the cause corrected and so forgiven.
That does not mean hating the wrongdoer, it means respecting and loving yourself and by extension the joy football could bring if the shroud of dishonesty were lifted.
Imagine the transformation if Scottish football had rivalry without the poison and became a family event in every match that would enrich everyone.
@Highlander.
Nail on the head.
Roles reversed?
Celtic would have been hung,drawn and quartered very regularly and very publicly.
No danger.
AULDHEIDJUNE 8, 2018 at 18:21
Put in a way i wanted to.And much better than i ever could.
JUSTTHEFACTSJUNE 8, 2018 at 18:44
With an eight page glossy pull out with all the detail
Ignorance is never an excuse.
I don’t blame one single Rangers fan for what happened to their Club.
Those who controlled it start to finish are to blame,it is they who used their fans undoubted loyalty to achieve whatever it was they set out to achieve.
All I ask of them is for them to open their eyes to the possibility that they are being fed yet more lies.
The continuity myth being the worst.
I totally get why it is they refuse to entertain the concept that Rangers persished through very poor governance.
Bit it is a legal fact that it did.
I also get why their heart is ruling the head on the Tribute Act?
It is this that allowed Greene and co to sell them the fantasy.
However when even he later in Court dismisses this as fantasy then surely they have to question why that is?
I get why the fear of the answer ie reality stops them from even contemplating addressing it.
But addressing it you must because the fact of the matter is Rangers no longer exist.
Only in spirit and only in you.
Sad though that is it’s the truth.
As a lifelong Celt I feel for you as once again Spivs have control of the Club you follow and are seriously extracting your urine.
CLUSTER ONEJUNE 8, 2018 at 18:59
JUSTTHEFACTSJUNE 8, 2018 at 18:44With an eight page glossy pull out with all the detail
================================
Cracked Crest
Hearse parked on the Celtic Way
Flute Band playing a Russian Death March
MSM Stenograhers absailing off the Coplan Stand wearing Union Jack Suits
Big Hoose doing Breakdancing on Cardboard outside the Barras to Simply The Best
HIGHLANDERJUNE 8, 2018 at 18:11
“I, for one, don’t need to look up the dictionary definition of troll.”
Totally agree, why do we allow this pest space on here?
I notice that JJ has already barred him
“When Auldheid posted a link to my piece on SFM, a debate on the minutiae of tax legislation ensued. Steerpike/Lawman who is banned from this site, tried on an argument that he made to The Tax Justice Network. He was no match for Auldheid or Barcabhoy.”
Time this site did the same.
Club 1872 Director Laura Fawkes said:
“We now have only seven days to confirm the level of our investment and we hope the Rangers support will respond over the coming days. This is a fantastic opportunity for supporters to invest directly into the club and see those funds help to build Steven Gerrard’s playing squad for next season.”
Could this statement be construed as giving financial advice or promoting a share issue? Are there any implications if that is the case?
Should there be any caveats e.g. shares in Rangers* are likely to go down in value?
And some financial or other supporting case for describing such an investment as a “fantastic opportunity”?
As noted earlier – what is the pricing of these shares?
Are there assurances being given that the funds are to “help to build Steven Gerrard’s playing squad for next season.”
If so, what are these assurances? Is the money to be ring-fenced?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Duplicate posting.
It has been mentioned on this site that what RFC (IL) committed was the biggest cheating atrocity in tbe UK.. I vehemently disagree, IMO this is possibly the biggest cheating event in European and possibly World sport. Think of all the players at the time who were registered basically illegally. These players played in European competitions and a lot of them represented their countries in European Championships and World Cups, including qualifiers. They were registered illegally , fact and every game they played in should be a 3 0 defeat. Think of the money teams across Europe and Countries have lost. This is so big it is off the f****** scale. They cannot get away with this and our SFA should answerable to their part in this scandal. Traditions and dignity to not apply in Ibrox.
BALLYARGUS
JUNE 8, 2018 at 19:06
==============================
His “previous piece sparked debate on two forums.”
This being one of them.
I’m not sure that is entirely accurate.
Superscoreboard
@ClydeSSB
Lee Wallace and Kenny Miller LODGE appeals to the SPFL following fines given by Rangers.5:33 pm · 8 Jun 2018
redlichtieJune 8, 2018 at 19:28
‘…….If so, what are these assurances? Is the money to be ring-fenced? Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.’
_____________
And maybe Club 1872 will need a need a good lawyer when the FCA begins to ask questions about what Club 1872 Ltd mean by suggesting that a donation is ‘an investment’ in a share purchase offer?
“troll”
“Totally agree, why do we allow this pest space on here?”
“I notice that JJ has already barred him”
“Time this site did the same”
“From the man who trashed the reputation of Gary Hughes”
“Troll – How would we know if you have presented it before since you have multiple log-ins on here?”
So this is what it comes down to. Attack after attack. I have been nothing but courteous on here and simply offered my view and debated my opinion without resorting to any insults. At a request of admin, i have dropped some circular debates whilst watching the same circular debates “against” me continuing day in day out.
Its hard not to get into circular debates as 99% of this Board have their mind made up and pretty much all share the same opinion. My opinion differs and im not afraid to offer it, whilst remaining courteous to everyone on here, yet the above has been creeping more and more in.
What is it people are so afraid of when simply and calmly debating. Stifling debate or failing to listen to an opposing opinion is the type of stuff the old Russians and Germans would be proud of. There is nothing wrong with having a different opinion as long as you can be human whilst offering it.
JJ is lying. I think i have posted about 3 times on his site and i havent posted or attempted to post on it for well over a year, i think. Lets be honest, theres a few on here who cant get their opinion onto JJ site because he also has an objection to anyone questioning his outright lies and fantasies.
Again, the irony here is that this site appears to portray the view that they want honest and open dialogue instead of everything remaining secretive. Does banning me, stifling my opinion, constantly calling me a troll, a steerpike(whatever that is), making up stuff that i didnt say and placing wrong words in my mouth not go against the ethos of the site ?
All i ask is for a voice. A fair crack of the whip. For people to tackle the ball and not the man.
If the site cant abide by that and admin think its time to go, then please drop me an email confirming so and I will walk away.
ALLYJAMBO JUNE 7, 2018
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…
I believe you are correct AJ.
At a meeting with Stewart Robertson last year Club 1872 asked:
A number of members have contacted us to ask that in the absence of knowing when a share issue will happen, would the Club be open to the idea of us investing on the same basis as the Three Bears, Dave King, etc?
Kicking racism out of football , courtesy of James Doleman .
https://twitter.com/i/status/1004834857288110081
THELAWMAN2JUNE 8, 2018 at 20:25
Still talking to me ?
You’ve still to tell me why it was deemed “strange” in your eyes . And did you like the wee stars ?
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/strange
The problem, as we all know, is that the SFA, the very body responsible for the governance and integrity of the game, sold its soul to Charles Green’s devil by being party to the illicit Five Way Agreement, with all its built in exonerations.
The football authorities apparently signed legally binding documents which specify that there will be no retrospective action taken over the matter of EBTs, hence the body-swerving by the SFA of the Supreme Court decision.
All of this was clearly done in the best interests of Scottish football, as we all know, and we should stop raking over old embers and move along. <cough smiley>
On a separate matter, I notice that ClubOrangetops has advised “In addition it is an absolutely vital investment for Club 1872 to continue to maintain or grow our shareholding to secure the club for future generations.”
Maybe I’m being pedantic but they are forever insisting the club is immortal, so how could it ever conceivably be insecure or in peril?
That’s the problem when you tell so many lies – you have to remember every single one of them, as well as bearing in mind that every action has a consequence.
I have to say I mentioned this recently. Despite the fact that we might disagree with much that Lawman2 says, the bears on here are inevitably polite and courteous. Please, I urge you treat them in the same way.
Auldheid June 8, 2018 at 18:00
easyJamboJune 8, 2018 at 17:51 (Edit) I think you mean at or before 31st March 2011.
===============================
i knew what I meant but didn’t phrase it very well. If RFC had a written contract with HMRC, before 31 March, to pay HMRC by a specific date even after 31 March, then that would have been OK for licence purposes.
BTW you have an(other) email.
THELAWMAN2JUNE 8, 2018 at 20:25
Could I ask you courteously .
Do you believe that the EBTs paid to players were legitimate loans or money for kicking a ball around for ragers 1872 . yes or no will suffice
And
What do you think of David Murray’s overall contribution to ragers 1872
JIMBO 21.03
Thank you Jimbo.
Like TLM2 i too have been accused of being many things, all totally untrue, including one person who rather bizarrely claimed to know who i am (and so what?).
I personally hope TLM2. DBD, Ryan & Nick all continue posting.
All I would ask is for The Lawman to have a good look at the Govt Link I have posted numerous times and give me his honest interpretation of it as an evidently intelligent and polite human bear.
?
You see I try to be objective Lawman but I keep coming up with the same conclusion no matter how many times I read it.
No circular argument just plain old common sense.
Link:
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/A_Guide_to_Starting_a_Sports_Club_tcm21-149209.pdf
HIGHLANDERJUNE 8, 2018 at 20:46
EXACTLY and very well put .
This really is the reason the sevco 2012 supporters should take a step back and forget that it’s all haters that are pointing out the uncomfortable truths every day .
I have lost count how many times I have read on the sevco official web site how the supporters helped save the club and always back the club when needed (don’t do walking away ).
The truth is they DID sit back and let their club die and I do not blame them one bit ,as the debts that club had built up and the potential debts coming down the pike was never in their scope to save the club from liquidation .In fact it is my belief that liquidation was the intended outcome of all involved.
As you say though ,every time they are looking for money from the supporters it’s for the CLUB
https://carljunglebhoy.wordpress.com/2017/09/12/transparency-of-purpose/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Imagine a country where………..
EASYJAMBO
JUNE 8, 2018 at 21:17
==================================
I have to say, under the circumstances I think it unlikely that HMRC would have entertained Rangers having “time to pay” arrangements.
My feeling, just a feeling, is that once the debt had been accepted then they would have wanted paid.
Incidentally the water and electric to my Renton Safehouse has been cut off so I have managed to rig up a Traveller style set up on an overhead power line with coat hanger and some coax though the water is an issue.
Please give ginerously folks if you wish to keep these world class exclusive posts coming.
10empty ginger bottles can purchase a pack of TUC biscuits
20 empties a tube of Primula Cheese and Chive spread
30 empties some marmite and swedgers
Thanks is in advance.
Homunculus June 8, 2018 at 22:09
EASYJAMBO JUNE 8, 2018 at 21:17
==================================
I have to say, under the circumstances I think it unlikely that HMRC would have entertained Rangers having “time to pay” arrangements.
My feeling, just a feeling, is that once the debt had been accepted then they would have wanted paid.
==================================
It might surprise you, but documents I’ve seen suggest that HMRC would have been happy with a payment date two or three months down the line, but were insistent on having a written contract before agreeing on such a deal.
As time went on HMRC became less accommodating though.
EASYJAMBOJUNE 8, 2018 at 22:26
———–
That time charles said he had done a deal with the tax man
fan of football June 8, 2018 at 22:06
‘….every time they are looking for money from the supporters it’s for the CLUB .’
_____________________
Yes, the new club which did not exist to kick a ball never mind win anything before 2012!
Not even the dumbest fan would pay a fiver a month to the Liquidators in support of Rangers Football Club of 1872, which was hastily and with intent to deceive, renamed ‘RFC 2012 plc’ just before it sank like stone into Liquidation.
EASYJAMBO
JUNE 8, 2018 at 22:26
====================================
That does surprise me, but fair enough if you have seen such documents then they must have. I suppose if it was more the former IR side than HMCE then they would be more inclined to accommodate, albeit several years had passed since they joined.
easyJamboJune 8, 2018 at 22:26
‘…. but documents I’ve seen suggest that HMRC would have been happy with a payment date two or three months down the line..’
______________________
Reading only what has become commonly available, eJ, I think most people would view HMRC as having been extraordinarily patient with a defaulting tax-payer.
In the innocent early days of RTC’s blog, I remember being pretty certain that whatever tax problem the Ibrox board had was nothing more than a wee embarrassment , some clerical error, some genuine misunderstanding, which gave the rest of us a wee laugh, but did not even suggest that any kind of pre-McCann-Celtic ‘near administration’ situation was in the offing!
As events unfolded, the readiness of HMRC to put up with procrastination was quite noticeable.
I assume that ‘public policy’ is to try to get the taxes in without needlessly bringing about the collapse of the taxpayer into liquidation.
But of course, with out-and-out rogues and cheats…….enforcement eventually has to be the best ‘public policy’.
I once fell foul of the taxman ( in another jurisdiction, and over the ‘double taxation’ arrangements, and there was not a lot of patience shown to me!)
CLUSTER ONEJUNE 8, 2018 at 22:55
I read the article , and wondered what had become of one of the names , wealthy fund manager Stephen Adams . So I Googled his name and got nothing , but this popped up . Lest we forget .
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/adam-shakes-ibrox-pillars-with-warning-of-bankruptcy-1-595808
Bored ? Me ?
A new quote from SG courtesy of the Herald
“ My lack of experience isn’t an issue and I’m ready to lift Rangers”
⭐️⭐️
Test
My last comment marked as spam and removed as I tried to edit the paragraph spacings.
Was there a problem?
FAN OF FOOTBALLJUNE 8, 2018 at 21:43
Could I ask you courteously .Do you believe that the EBTs paid to players were legitimate loans or money for kicking a ball around for ragers 1872 . yes or no will sufficeAnd What do you think of David Murray’s overall contribution to ragers 1872
____________________________________________________________________________
You say courteously then call my team Ragers. LOL
If you genuinely ask courteously then i will be happy to answer both questions.
JUSTTHEFACTSJUNE 8, 2018 at 22:05
I appreciate your determination JTF. I am unable to answer your question. I feel it would be unfair to answer such a narrow question whilst refraining from discussing the wider issue, circular or not. I have been asked not to and im honouring that request.
HomunculusJune 8, 2018 at 22:09
EASYJAMBO JUNE 8, 2018 at 21:17 ==================================
I have to say, under the circumstances I think it unlikely that HMRC would have entertained Rangers having “time to pay” arrangements.
My feeling, just a feeling, is that once the debt had been accepted then they would have wanted paid.
==============
What HMRC wanted was the certainty that the bill would be paid and in the uncertainty at that time lies the tale.
JustTheFacts
June 8, 2018 at 22:05
No circular argument just plain old common sense.
——————————————————–
Born February 1872, Club (unincorporated)
May 26th 1899, Company (incorporated)
Change of legal status. One entity, See extract above.
PS I have a half tube of Primula cheese with ham, or full tube of Original
chives or marmite verboten.
THELAWMAN2JUNE 9, 2018 at 00:13
You have been specifically asked not to answer this question or all questions related to The Incorporation of Rangers?
I do d it hard to believe the SITE has blocked you from commenting on new and legally binding documentation when so much discussion on this site revolves around both?
Could the site reps please confirm if this is indeed the case?
Paddy,
Do you remember this article from the Daily Mail of all papers:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2109018/Rangers-accused-misleading-SFA-secret-deals.html?ITO=1490
Even more damming.
LAWMAN
I’m not sure that I fully understand your response to the point I made the other day regarding the meaning of ‘agreed terms’.
Just to help me understand your position more clearly…
Do you think the operation of the PAYE & NICs regimes normally requires a demand for payment from HMRC?
Knowing what you know now, would you agree that Rangers did not pay sufficient PAYE and NICs on the portion of player salaries that had been diverted through the DOS scheme (wee tax case)?
If you do agree, do you think that the failure to meet the standard legal obligation to collect and pay the relevant taxes was caused in any way by an error made by HMRC?
In the normal operation of PAYE & NICs, do you agree that they would be considered to be overdue if those taxes went unpaid beyond the routine deadlines for payment?
If the unpaid taxes were the result of the club’s deliberate act to bypass the normal operation of PAYE & NICs, is it your position that the amounts that should have been paid in say, 2001, were NOT overdue in 2002 and beyond?
To be clear, I am not asking what you think you or the club believed at the time. I am asking you on the basis of what you know now.
On the basis of court testimony from club officials, do you think the club believed there to be no outstanding social taxes on 31st March 2011?
Do you agree that no agreement to defer payment overdue taxes was in place as at 31st March 2011?
Do you agree that no application to appeal the outstanding amount was ever made?
If the taxes had only become overdue when HMRC began the formal collection process in May 2011, why would interest be applied?
Auldheid has mentioned on many occasions, the case of Giannini FC.
In that CAS decision, it was stated:
Do you think that there is any dispute that Rangers had/have an outstanding amount owing to social/tax authorities as a result from contractual and legal obligations towards employees that had arisen before 31December 2010, and that this amount had not been paid by 31 March 2011?
Do you dispute the CAS assertion that “The mere existence of overdue payables is sufficient to declare the Appellant ineligible…”?
I understand that the HMRC letter in May could be construed as an extension to the normal deadline for payment. But, like the Giannini case, this was not granted until after the 31st March deadline. If you think the cases are substantially different, on what basis?
There are no trick questions here.
Genuinely interested to see your response.
WOODSTEINJUNE 9, 2018 at 00:27
Lovely stuff I may even muster a full explosive tomorrow with those extra calories.
ps Vegemite will suffice ??
Ex LudoJune 8, 2018 at 23:50
‘..“ My lack of experience isn’t an issue..’
_______________
Ah, but it is, though.
There isn’t a serious football commentator who hasn’t mentioned ‘lack of experience’ as at least suggesting that Gerrard will have to learn fast.
And of course, he (Gerrard) is ‘ready to lift [TRFC Ltd]’! What the hell else is he going to say, given the crap PR advisers he has to listen to!
Once again, Level 5PR Ltd has shown an appalling inability to read the runes, to gauge just exactly the most effective ‘statement’ to make, or for their ‘clients’ to make.
There isn’t one of us on this blog who could not have written a statement that would not have made Gerrard sound like feckin eejit of a Cnut [ steady! that is the standard way to refer to Canute] trying punily and hubristically to turn the tide back.
Time for James Sexton Traynor’s contract to be reviewed, I declare. Because from his banner ‘Rangers are dead’ stuff to his appallingly badly handled Caixhina presser, he has done more to damage the ‘image’ of TRFC Ltd/RIFC plc than anyone.
A sensible Board would get rid of him, as being the very opposite of a good PR man, who is meant to project a good image of his client!
Vegemite ?
Yeast gives me wind too
On that note
THELAWMAN2JUNE 9, 2018 at 00:13
I appreciate your determination JTF. I am unable to answer your question. I feel it would be unfair to answer such a narrow question whilst refraining from discussing the wider issue, circular or not. I have been asked not to and im honouring that request.
Just read this reply again Lawman.
The question isn’t narrow it is specific.
All I am asking for is your interpretation of this Documentation not any of the wider issues external of it.
I feel like you are deliberately avoiding talking about it,though I could well be totally wrong in that assumption and if so of course apologies in advance.
End of the day it is an open forum for discussion and debate bud and I feel this document warrants both given all these disagreements that have raged for so long.
I value your opinion regardless of what stance you take.
WOODSTEINJUNE 9, 2018 at 00:57
It can be windy in the Yeast but it helps the League flag fly..
??????????????
My immediately previous post: what am I saying, get rid of Level5PR?!
No! Keep Sexton for his damaging uselessness to the cause of RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd.
woodsteinJune 9, 2018 at 00:57
‘..Yeast gives me wind too.On that note..’
__________________
That’s a bum note, woodstein!
FINNMCCOOLJUNE 9, 2018 at 00:40
Probably no paperwork left for the earlier ones .
HIRSUTEPURSUITJUNE 9, 2018 at 00:42
It depends on the circumstances.
Yes
No.
In straightforward cases, yes. In cases where there is a challenge to a companies tax treatment or tax return then no.
Like tens of thousands of businesses, Rangers took tax advice and decided they could avoid tax. I was involved in many companies who looked at similar schemes as the EBT (DOS was another version) and each time, i voted them down and expressed my concern about operating any schemes. Fortunately, none of the companies i was involved with took them. Unfortunately, i have many associates, including top audit members who took the gamble.
The club officials knew money was due to the taxman on the 31st March
You changed the word from outstanding to overdue. I think thats where the key difference is in my interpretation to yours, when purely looking at Annex Viii (1). To clarify though, there was no agreement to defer payment, but in my opinion, from the evidence, there was no agreed payment date.
hmm – I think there was but i dont think its relevant in this situation because the only thing that counts is if the money was an “overdue payable” as at 31/3/11 under Annex Viii (1)
Interest was applied because this related to a tax return from many years ago. To give you an example, my ex wife got a random tax audit around 10 years ago relating to when she was a Financial Advisor and it was from 4/5 years previous. Her tax advisor at the time had claimed for home expenses and clothes amongst other things. HMRC were screwing down on these things at the time and they decided she owed them £150 ish plus interest from the previous 5 years. They gave her 90 days to pay and at no time was her bill overdue.
“overdue payable” Absolutely not. That is the absolute key phrase. In Giannini case, there was no dispute. They had an overdue payable from the Greek Tax authority in December. They failed to pay the bill by the agreed payment terms. No dispute at all on that one.
The differences are this in my view. Gianninni had a regular tax bill that was due to be paid by December. They failed to pay it in the agreed time therefore in the strict accordance of Annex Viii (1) that is without question an “overdue payable”
The reason the Rangers one is different, in my considered opinion, is like the example above on my Ex, the tax owed in Rangers case was down to a disputed tax return. This takes things down a different route. It is evidently clear that HMRC were trying to get Rangers to agree to an amount which may or may not have been a compromise on what the true figure was. When Rangers finally agreed the amount, HMRC asked for the acceptance of the amount in writing on 5th May 2011 before finally issuing a 30 day term on the 20th May 2011.If HMRC issue me a bill and tell them i owe them £5000 and that i need to pay it by 31st March, do you think they would then write to me 35 days later and ask me if i accept the bill they have already issued? For me, and i know its a technicality and im not judging the rights and wrongs of technicalities or what actually happened but the reason that the SFA originally shut Res 12 down, followed by UEFA wiping their hands of it, followed more recently by the Lawyer guy, is that they all believe or see it as i do, in that the HMRC letter on the 20th May is when the payment terms were set and that the amount then became an “overdue payable” on the 19th June 2011.
This is why there may be a fine/penalty due to the “monitoring process” and not the “licensing process”.
All of course purely my opinion on this matter. And i have been forth right and honest as possible on it.
JUSTTHEFACTSJUNE 9, 2018 at 01:03
I feel like you are deliberately avoiding talking about it,though I could well be totally wrong in that assumption and if so of course apologies in advance.End of the day it is an open forum for discussion and debate bud and I feel this document warrants both given all these disagreements that have raged for so long.I value your opinion regardless of what stance you take.
__________________________________________________________________
JTF – I cant be any more specific. I have been advised my points on NC/OC are repetitive, cherry picked and derisory and I find myself in moderation any time i have discussed it. I therefore gave a guarantee not to discuss it at all in return for taking me out of moderation.
When im in moderation, my posts appear hours after a discussion has moved on and the are simply a waste of time. So in my mind, to answer your questions then im going to cover a lot of old ground and legalese that will be deemed similar to my previous warning on the topic.
By the same token, im not comfortable being told that i can answer some things and not others so if admin are happy that im allowed to continue to state my full position on OC/NC at my will, then i will look at your document. If not then im afraid it would be unfair.
What i can say though, is that your document will not change my mind one iota. And on the flip side, nothing i say about your document will change your mind on it. So on that basis, im comfortable that it would be a waste of time for everyone.
Football is unique. It doesnt always follow normal processes and rules. What other jobs in the world see you getting your contract paid up for being rubbish. Where else can you work and get away with being bad at your job week in week out. Football rules and regulations often go against normal work practices and rules and there are many nuances that you cant lift a manual or document up and say “see, there you go”
HirsutePursuitJune 9, 2018 at 00:42
Excellent post, HP, however, I feel compelled to reply to the following paragraph!
“I understand that the HMRC letter in May could be construed as an extension to the normal deadline for payment. But, like the Giannini case, this was not granted until after the 31st March deadline. If you think the cases are substantially different, on what basis?”
Though I do not know the details of Giannini’s tax default, I am pretty sure it won’t have come about through some illegal tax avoidance scheme. I also find it hard to believe that, had they been properly appraised of how RFC’s outstanding tax bill came about, UEFA would not have taken a much more serious view of Ranger’s situation to that of the Greek defaulters.
It is one thing to fall foul of your country’s tax regulations by failing to pay up timeously outstanding monies, it is something else, altogether, to have deliberately set up a dodgy tax avoidance scheme, have blatantly lied to the tax authorities to hide the use of the scheme, and to not have paid the tax due for over ten years. Then there is the need to decide whether or not a ‘sporting advantage’ was gained. Somehow I don’t think they would have been satisfied to use Lord Nimmo Smith to come up with some ludicrous, commissioned, decision on that one. I think the existence of FFP regulations paint a very clear picture of how UEFA views the advantage of having extra money available to sign players impacts on ‘sporting advantage’!
So, if you had asked me that question, I would have replied that on the basis I set out above, then I do think the cases are substantially different!
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 9, 2018 at 07:32
Though I do not know the details of Giannini’s tax default, I am pretty sure it won’t have come about through some illegal tax avoidance scheme. I also find it hard to believe that, had they been properly appraised of how RFC’s outstanding tax bill came about, UEFA would not have taken a much more serious view of Ranger’s situation to that of the Greek defaulters.
________________________________________________________________________
No matter how distasteful you or I feel towards tax avoidance such as EBT, DOS or Film making LLPs its important to note that to date, the DOS nor the EBT schemes have been deemed “illegal”
Tax avoidance is either deemed “allowed” or “not allowed”. In this case, it was deemed “not allowed”
In order for it to be illegal there needs to be further court process and to date, that hasnt happened and there is no indication it will happen.
Question for Auldheid. Would you have access to or be able to share the letter Resolution 12 lawyers sent to UEFA that sparked the Traverso reply. Would appreciate having a read through it if that would be ok. Understand if this is not possible but hopefully if the reply is public the letter should be ok also.
Thanks in advance.