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.
THELAWMAN2
JUNE 9, 2018 at 08:34
Tax avoidance is either deemed “allowed” or “not allowed”.
============================================
Absolute nonsense, tax avoidance is never “allowed”.
Tax management like having an ISA is allowed, in fact it is encouraged. Tax avoidance is never “allowed”. Something which is “allowed” is not avoidance.
JOHN CLARKJUNE 9, 2018 at 01:06
My immediately previous post: what am I saying, get rid of Level5PR?!
————–Spiers on Traynor from back in the day
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 9, 2018 at 08:47
Absolute nonsense, tax avoidance is never “allowed”.
Tax management like having an ISA is allowed, in fact it is encouraged. Tax avoidance is never “allowed”. Something which is “allowed” is not avoidance.
_________________________________________________________________
You will notice the very deliberate use of “” in both statements.
Many people avoid tax using tax avoidance schemes and have either been successful in arguing they were “allowed” and within the guidelines or have not been challenged as HMRC know they have little or no chance of recovery.
If everything meets the criteria and rules then tax avoidance is a means of reducing your tax liability. You can call it tax management or tax efficiency or tax whataboutery but the general term used is avoidance.
THELAWMAN2
JUNE 9, 2018 at 09:14
You can call it tax management or tax efficiency or tax whataboutery but the general term used is avoidance.
==========================================
Again with the specious arguments. It’s got nothing to do with “general terms”, people (deliberately) getting it wrong are still getting it wrong.
Tax avoidance is using a scheme in a way it was never intended to artificially reduce your tax liability, normally if not always involving transactions which have no purpose other than the avoidance itself.
There is no such thing as “allowed” tax avoidance. It is oxymoronic.
That is all.
I see Graham Spiers is at it again with the Gordon Smith love-in, with a sycophantic column in today’s Times. The same Gordon Smith who was part of an Ibrox Board when millions were illegally withheld in PAYE and N.I payments. The same Gordon Smith who was SFA CEO when Rangers had their illegal DOS schemes which led to the ‘wee tax case’. The same Gordon Smith who received public money from the BBC to tell listeners Rangers illegal EBT scheme was okay because it meant there was a title race.
Spiers last week castigated a man he had never met. I’m beginning to think Murdoch MacLennan’s only crime is he is not a traditional Rangers man, who should be deferred to and treated with respect no matter what.
Utterly pathetic, and yet another reason why it has been so difficult to get real justice for what has gone on.
UPTHEHOOPS
JUNE 9, 2018 at 09:34
==========================================
The same Gordon Smith who declared himself bankrupt with debts of almost £650,000 in 2013.
It would appear that some circular arguments are more acceptable than others?
Is there a double standard in here or what?
Or is it just the case that you can only discuss what the Site wants you to discuss to suit their own agenda?
Might be time to move on I think.
TheLawMan2June 9, 2018 at 08:34
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 9, 2018 at 07:32Though 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.
_____________________
Regardless of whether or not tax avoidance is deemed illegal (you seem to have introduced the idea of ‘allowable or ‘not allowed’, ignoring the description ‘unlawful’ which a number of bears tried to imply wasn’t as bad as ‘illegal’), though it was illegal enough to attract fines, you, yet again, completely ignore the thrust of my post, which was that the Giannini and Rangers tax defaulting were not similar, because Rangers’ defaulting was driven by a tax avoidance scheme that resulted in over ten years of defaulting, disguised and hidden from both the tax authorities and the SFA (and consequently UEFA). It is one thing being late with a tax payment (perhaps through bad administration, a lost dispute, or even just chancing your arm), another, entirely, when that tax avoidance scheme has been hidden, lied about and then lied about again in the Euro License application.
I’ve lost count (it would be impossible to count) the amount of times you and your fellow ‘Rangers’ deflectors, choose to pick, not only on the minutiae, but also the inconsequential points, to argue from posts you are clearly unable to counter.
To help you understand, the whole point of my post was not that the WTC was illegal, but that it was a long running tax avoidance scheme, that had been hidden and lied over for a great many years, and, if fully examined by UEFA, most likely to have been dealt with much more harshly than was the case with Giannini! Then, of course, there was the deliberate mis-registering of players to consider, an aspect, I am sure, that the SFA would, in their own interest, be most desperate to remain unexamined by UEFA.
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 9, 2018 at 09:32
There is no such thing as “allowed” tax avoidance.
========================
There is in some cases. For example a higher rate tax payer could pay an extra £200 a month into their company pension as an Additional Voluntary contribution, and it would only cost them £120 (in England), and £118 in Scotland as there would be tax relief at rates of 40% and 41% respectively. When the pension is taken, as long as it is below the high rate tax band then there will be a tax saving.
Just for a laugh .
https://scontent-mad1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/34808155_1294605614006128_5887464491305664512_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=27ce1c74b15ba79a9d1aebb6b9a38767&oe=5BBD0450
UPTHEHOOPS
JUNE 9, 2018 at 09:40
========================
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 9, 2018 at 09:32
There is no such thing as “allowed” tax avoidance.
===========================
There is in some cases. For example a higher rate tax payer could pay an extra £200 a month into their company pension as an Additional Voluntary contribution, and it would only cost them £120 (in England), and £118 in Scotland as there would be tax relief at rates of 40% and 41% respectively. When the pension is taken, as long as it is below the high rate tax band then there will be a tax saving.
=======================
What you described above is not “tax avoidance”. It is a perfectly legitimate way to lower the amount of tax your ultimately pay. It is efficient tax management.
I’m afraid you appear to have fallen for the propaganda that they are the same thing, by taking the normal English meaning of the word avoid. Then applying it to the concept of lowering your tax.
People who indulge in tax avoidance, or who sell tax avoidance schemes want you to do that.
Good morning
Losing the will to live reading this site over the past days.
Is it me or does anyone else think that these discussions around tax are becoming boring and self serving?
We all know what tax evasion and tax avoidance is.
We all know what was done and who did it.
We all know that the consequence was liquidation.
You cannot survive liquidation.
Football and governance should be the issue.
This may have been dealt with but can anyone with knowledge of the rules say whether the SFA had it within their power to concoct a 5 way agreement in the first place?
If they didn’t it was ultra vires and the agreement is null and void.
There is a simple solution to determine if any scheme that reduces your tax liability works or not. That is to ask HMRC to approve it. ISAs, pension contributions and various company share purchase and option schemes are all approved.
I would go further by legislating that any scheme that isn’t approved by HMRC should, by default, be deemed not to work and a tax liability is incurred.
That way, if HMRC’s decision is challenged then the burden of proof would fall on the purveyors of such schemes to prove that they complied with tax legislation, rather than the current situation where the onus is on HMRC to prove that they don’t comply.
The Lawman 8.37
Had a bit of trouble parking my water biscuit. Clyde was a bit choppy there.
If this were a civilised country then it might just be possible, but as bullying is something that folk have to consider then I’m sure the law firm would not be happy to be exposed to the possibility.
One day perhaps but not now.
Thanks for considering Auldheid. For the record though I was expecting a completely redacted version with the lawyers and any person name taken off.
It was purely the content.
Understand though.
THELAWMAN2JUNE 9, 2018 at 08:34
Should they be called EBT’s if not administered correctly and used for part payment towards wages?
THELAWMAN2JUNE 9, 2018 at 01:31
What you appear to be saying is that you have not read the official Government guidelines on incorporation, but even if you did so in the future and are presented with incontrovertible evidence that your current opinion is wrong, as it undoubtedly would, you will still not change your mind. That tells me all I need to know.
Football may be unique, but it still has to adhere to the laws of the land, which take primacy over rules and regulations of what is effectively a trade organisation with a financial imperative.
Its also worth pointing out that considerable circumstancial evidence exists to show that the law of the land and the rules and regulations of the football authorities are not applied to whichever club is playing out of Ibrox in the same way as they would be applied to any other club.
HIGHLANDERJUNE 9, 2018 at 11:11
He’s read it mate. He could give his thoughts on it on Twitter which he does quite often when it suits but for some reason he’s not mentioned it.
Gordon smith fact file.
Left Hampden in 2010 for personal reasons and returned to media work
EASYJAMBO
JUNE 9, 2018 at 10:08
========================================
As I said the other day, if any of the players or their agents were in any way dubious about EBT payments’ tax free status being correct then they could simply have called HMRC. If they had wanted a ruling in writing then they could have had that.
As you say, if anyone has any doubt about tax status, ask the UK tax authority. Don’t just take the word of a struck-off solicitor now producing and acting in porn films.
To return to the upcoming share issue, if I recall correctly, a disapplication of pre-emption rights was voted on and passed by shareholders.
This disapplication initiative of course flowed from the concert party securing their substantial equity position, something that prompted the TOP to take action.
The effect of this vote is now clear and I was wondering if the TOP were not now concerned that the concert party are in effect seeking to further strengthen their hold on the company by only making new shares available to supportive parties?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Hoopy7
I do not think the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance is widely enough known particularly in the latter case. The trouble is that too many folk believe it to be a phrase in English and not one with technical or jargon meanings.
There is a blurring of the meaning between tax avoidance as a device purely to avoid tax and other ways to minimise liability. The reference to AVC pension payments is a good example. These are intended to advance public policy and like other similar things are declared policy and Chancellors refer to such in budget speeches similarly with ISAs.
It is every person’s right to arrange their affairs to retain as much of their own money as the law allows. However to go beyond that wanders increasingly into the area of pauchle. The deceit and lying by RFC have been dealt with very leniently by the authorities.
two other points
Steve Gerrard says his lack of experience will not be an issue, how does he know, he has no experience to guide him?
The Renton safe house is mythical we all know that it is not Renton but The Renton…
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 9, 2018 at 12:07
As I said the other day, if any of the players or their agents were in any way dubious about EBT payments’ tax free status being correct then they could simply have called HMRC. If they had wanted a ruling in writing then they could have had that.
As you say, if anyone has any doubt about tax status, ask the UK tax authority. Don’t just take the word of a struck-off solicitor now producing and acting in porn films.
———————————————————————————————
I think the fact that a specific indemnity on tax payments was incorporated in the side letters clearly evidences that all parties were fully aware that there was an implicit risk of the scheme being challenged by UK and overseas tax authorities.
Otherwise there was no need for such an indemnity.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Well that’s another Birthday Honours list come and come. Still nothing. After all my dedication to football blogging. About 3k posts on this site alone.
I can only imagine what the real big hitters on here are feeling like. Not forgetting Tris & BP. Oh well maybe next year.
REDLICHTIE
JUNE 9, 2018 at 12:16
===================================
Exactly, the existence of the side letter should have caused enough doubt for them to want to clear things with HMRC. Not enough comfort for them not to have to.
BFB
Agreed
Evasion is a criminal offence. Punishable by imprisonment, fines or both. Avoidance is a civil offence punishable by fines (penalties). Tax management is common sense, and we all do it, or should.
REDLICHTIEJUNE 9, 2018 at 12:16
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 9, 2018 at 12:07
Would a correctly administered EBT have to be declared on players tax returns?
Football is not unique.
It’s Rules of Association are unique but it is no different than say the Armed Forces.
The Armed Forces abide by their own set of Rules when operating within their own confines.
These are known as Queens Regulations.
If you break these rules you are tried accordingly in a Military Court.
However… should a member of the Armed Forces breach the Laws of the Land in or out of Uniform they will be tried in accordingly in a Civil Court of Law.
Regardless of Queens Regulations.
After sentencing the member of the Forces is then put up in front of the Military Court and tried under Queens Regs.
He or she may even be incarcerated in Military Prison for brining the uniform into disrepute depending on the severity of the case against them.
External of Queens Regs the Armed Forces also have to abide by Rules of Engagement and the Geneva Convention.
No Institute,Club,Player,Soldier,Organisation or otherwise is above the Law.
The Football is unique statement does not apply to Rangers Football Club who were Liquidated under the same Company Laws they signed up for when they Incorporated a Legal Entity.
Company Law supersedes any nonsense the SFA come up with hands down.
BILLYDUG
JUNE 9, 2018 at 13:11
=====================================
It makes absolutely hehaw difference nowadays.
The Supreme Court ruled much wider in the Rangers case than anyone thought they would. Perhaps except HMRC. Disguised remuneration is taxable. If you get paid for doing your job then there’s tax due. It doesn’t matter if you get paid by way of tea biscuits being sent to your Aunt Agatha.
Rangers have changed the face of taxation in the UK.
This is what they actually said. They really did talk about Aunt Agatha.
I posted a reply to Lawman earlier that was apparently deemed as spam by the site.
How amazed am I to find almost the same reply (give or take a few additions of personal point of view) in HIGHLANDERsJUNE 9, 2018 at 11:11 post to the same person?
I don’t get why this is could someone please enlighten me as to why this is?
Sportsound – “Thanks for giving up your Saturday afternoon on a lovely day”. (To Kenny Miller & Kris Boyd & Chick Young).
Really? are they doing it for free? £1,000 anyone?
Kenny Miller has just jetted in from sunny climes. Not bad for a bankrupt. Oh wait, his wife will have paid for it.
Notice the Celtic presence in the studio to balance things up. Typical BBC Scotland. Thank goodness for BT at 6pm this evening.
THELAWMAN2JUNE 9, 2018 at 01:31
EDIT
“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”
=========================================================================
That’ll be the ethereal argument then eh.
JIMBOJUNE 9, 2018 at 12:50
I had to knock QE2 back, Jimbo . King of the ‘Hill deemed too pretentious . The fact that I’m not a royalist may have played a part also . For noble service in support of the weak and feeble and relegated ,as well .
JIMBO
JUNE 9, 2018 at 14:11
Kenny Miller has just jetted in from sunny climes. Not bad for a bankrupt. Oh wait, his wife will have paid for it.
=====================================
Is Kenny Miller bankrupt?
Oh dear…
https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/flimflam-monkeyshines-and-boondoggle/
The definition of ‘tax avoidance’ seems variable although HMRC’s version appears to be that stated by Homunculus and perhaps that is the only one that matters in this context.
In the USA the definition is much wider and covers any form of legal tax management that reduces tax liability. The Collins English dictionary seems to define it similarly.
But I’m struggling even harder to get my head round the differences between tax avoidance, unlawful tax avoidance, illegal tax avoidance and tax evasion!
“Football is unique. It doesnt always follow normal processes and rules. 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” ”
Lawman,
I think you are getting confused between the rules governing football, and sport in general, and the ‘uniqueness’ so many seemed to attribute to ‘Rangers’. We might all see our game as something special, but it takes a special kind of arrogance to see it the way you describe.
Football is only unique in the way it gets to us all and can almost rule our daily lives. It’s excitement and, undoubtedly, it’s beauty that Pele so accurately described, that is it’s uniqueness, but in all other aspects it is just another game, and doesn’t hold any of the ‘uniqueness’ you describe, in terms of law, and just as importantly, morals, than any other sport or activity. In fact, what you say in the above paragraph is a truly pathetic attempt to justify your view of your old club’s continuance in the form of TRFC, previously Sevco (Scotland).
Naw, It was Barry Ferguson I was thinking of.
Sorry Kenny.
I think what confused me, speaking in the context of Sir Kenny Dalglish, Kinny misser said he reckons Bazza was the best Scottish player of the past 30 years. So in that case he is bankrupt of good opinions. Square baw barry.
THELAWMAN2JUNE 9, 2018 at 01:31
I had no idea that this is the position hat you find yourself in.
I am new to this Forum.
Perhaps if you were to steer clear of all the stuff external of these Guidlines (It is after all purely based on the Legislation all Conpanies adhere to in the UK)and stick to it’s content then I don’t see how it is possible for the two to conflict-It is the Law after all and is fairly straight forward in it’s definitions.
Read it for yourself and you will see.
I totally get that Lawman I can assure you I would not pass comment until a response were to appear.
My response would be specific to the content in your answer and would not deviate from the facts within.
I don’t do whataboutery or he said she said bud,I am purely about the facts.
Neither should you be bud,It isn’t or shouldn’t be one rule for one and one for another but perhaps there is a case for folk who deliberately avoid talking about some issues they may or may not be comfortable with and as a result they tend to take the conversation in another direction when it makes them uncomfortable to talk about it or as in the case with most Politicians when confronted with facts that undermine their point they deliberately avoid answering the question altogether?
Not saying that you are guilty of this because without trawling back through 100s of posts I couldn’t and wouldn’t apply this to you?
Not my place.
To me you seem a very amicable sort who has the bravery and tenacity to continue answering most if not all of the questions put to you.
I admire this in a person all Football allegiance to one side.
Without people like you/this then there is no debate and well what are we left with?
A one eyed view on everything.
Absolutely though Football is not unique in that regard.
I can assure you the Military behaves in a not too dissimilar manner to Football.
It has it’s own Doctrine and Rule Book “Queens Regulations” which it rigidly adheres to.
It also has it’s own Inner workings which it applies as regards to daily working practices Squadron/Regimental Orders.
Many of which are conflicted with the usual working practices which are Legally applied to normal Jobs.
It is after all not a normal job.
Neither is being a Sportsman.
However this does not mean that a soldier/Footballer who is outside his working remit and therefore outside the Army bubble is not subject to the rules,laws and regulations of the land.
No these laws and Regulations supersede anything the Military apply.
An example of this would be a Soldier off duty has a fight in a Pub,which he has instigated,he subsequently gets lifted by the Police and charged.
He gets a Court Date which he has to attend.
He subsequently gets fined ,bound over or whatever punishment the Court sees fit and it is applied.
On return to his Unit however he is then put before a Military Court for bringing the Army into disrepute and is charged accordingly often the sentenced received in the Civil Court is applied to the Military Courts decision resulting in yet another sentence within the Military Jurisdiction.
2,3 months Colchester is the normal result.
For serious offences he can then be booted out with dishounarable discharge,career gone do not pass go do not collect £200.
Football like the Forces may well apply it’s own justice to or Rules to a particular problem Lawman but the bottom line is if any Rules or Regulations are broken on a Legal basis outwith the parameter of Football then these laws must be applied.
Which takes me back rather conveniently to the Link in question.
The Governments position on Club Incorporation is based purely on the basis of Business Law.
The Law by which all Incorporated Companies must adhere tae.
All I ask is that you step away from the Football based argument and simply read what the Government state regarding Club Incorporation.
I am genuinely interested in what your take is on these Guidleines which are solely based on Legal fact not opinion.
Thanks in advance.
Good to hear Kris Boyd admit that all pitches in the top flight should be grass. Apparently plans are in place to replace their (Kilmarnock) carpet in about a years time with grass.
My campaign is paying off.
The new hybrid pitch at CP is 95% grass 5% fibre. Suspect the new pitch at Tynecastle will be the same. Now if they would just give it a wee trim now and again that would be nice.
Paddy Malarkey, You trying to get me crying?
” For noble service in support of the weak and feeble and relegated ,as well .”
Just wait till next season, you’ll be fine.
JIMBOJUNE 9, 2018 at 15:23
Cheers Jimbo , but we’re fine now . We might score some goals and win some games now . A season away to see if we miss it . ST prices down , so not all bad .
Tax avoidance: an introduction:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tax-avoidance-an-introduction
Take from it, what you will.
And for all you go getters:
https://www.gov.uk/report-an-unregistered-trader-or-business
Whilst I couldn’t give a monkey’s about the Royal gongs, it is nice to see a genuine footballing hero and charity supporter getting recognition.
…And it instantly raises the question if ‘Walter’ of Cardigan would have received a similar gong now…
If he hadn’t screwed Her Majesty out of taxes.
Oh well, never mind.
I paid my taxes
JUSTTHEFACTS – Are you on Twitter and able to follow me then I will discuss by DM ?
If so let me know your twitter name and i will follow.
The Herald went to town on Sir Kenny’s knighthood today,devoting 3 pages to what is a truly big story. They do let themselves down though when highlighting memorable moments from his career. According to the piece all of these moments happened after he left Scotland. I’m sure there were one or two highlights in the 320 games he played for Celtic and the 167 goals he scored in that time. And I think he had a few caps prior to his transfer. Off topic I know, so apologies in advance.
JUSTTHEFACTSJUNE 9, 2018 at 13:43
Was caught in spam. Published now at 14:50 on SatTris
======================================
Cheers Tris was it the content or a certain phrase that flagged it up or just the fact I had responded to the same member too often?
Just so I know what to avoid (if anything) in future ??
THELAWMAN2JUNE 9, 2018 at 18:00
No sorry bud Twitter isn’t my bag.
It’s full tae the scuds wae Narcs.
EX LUDO, That wasn’t off topic. SMSM are well and truly in our sights.
I see that Feker is staying at Lyon. Liverpool were after him.
From Rangers Fans Website:
daviesleftpegPosted on June 9, 2018Flimflam, Monkeyshines and BoondoggleNews is reaching us today, via a number of sources, on the topic of Club 1872 and the Rangers share offer. Despite trying various avenues to have the story verified, we have so far been unsuccessful. Whilst we genuinely hope it is not the case, we can only share the story in order that the matter may be cleared up.
Over the past few months, we became increasingly worried about the manner in which Club 1872 were endlessly begging for contributions, one off financial gifts and attempting to raise funding by any means possible. We found it strange and something we might expect, not from an organisation associated with our club or it’s fans, but from our rivals. The obvious use of emotional blackmail was thoroughly distasteful and reeked of desperation.
Today, we are being told that Club 1872, unbeknownst to members, secured funding to participate in the Rangers share issue by way of a loan agreed several weeks ago. If there is any truth in this story, Club 1872 has to make its members fully aware of the loan, its terms and the financial implications therein.
If you are a C1872 member, you have a duty to ask the organisation why, if this is the case, you were not informed. Why were you constantly asked for more contributions when funding was already in place? Why you were duped into thinking funds to buy the shares had yet to be secured? Why you were now being asked to hand over cash from the C1872 projects account to the shares account?
We truly hope this story can be verified as false and that the Directors of Club 1872 have not deceived its members. Many individuals are now spreading this information over social media and it’s a matter that desperately needs cleared up. The fans certainly don’t need to be the victims of any further subterfuge after the goings on of 2012. It would be a thoroughly despicable act should any organisation embark on such a scheme of dishonesty, double dealing, duplicity and deception. Will Club 1872 respond to these latest accusations, or will they remain quiet as they did when questioned over Chris “The Muslim Baiter” Graham’s involvement a few weeks ago?
God Bless Our Team
https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/flimflam-monkeyshines-and-boondoggle/
Lawman
Do you believe that Rangers lied to the SFA , with regards to side letters attached to contracts with players who were EBT beneficiaries?
Do you believe that Rangers deliberately deceived the SFA and SPL with regards to the above
Do you believe that Rangers received a sporting advantage because of their use of EBT’s
TheLawMan2June 9, 2018 at 18:00
JUSTTHEFACTS – Are you on Twitter and able to follow me then I will discuss by DM ?
If so let me know your twitter name and i will follow.
It would be appreciated if you used another means to advertise your intentions to have private conversations. You have an option to PM in here and discuss your private affairs please respect the space afforded for debate and topics,kb space equals money.
Long Post warning. The relevant extracts from the Giannina FC appeal case of 2013 (plus wee eyebrow raiser at the end) Extracts are in italics, comments in plain text.
The Facts
9. As to the payables towards tax authorities, the report (from CFCB instigated investigation) states: “As at 31 March 2013, the licensee has an overdue payable due to the Greek tax authorities for the amount of €1,290,000 (the total amount less VAT) due to obligations that arose prior to 31 December 2012. It was identified that the licensee entered into an agreement on 28 May 2013 with the Greek tax authorities to defer the payment of this tax”.
Giannina Claimed
c) Misapplication of Article 50 of the CL&FFP Regulations
32. In the Appellant’s opinion, the Appealed Decision has to be set aside because no overdue payables existed towards social/tax authorities, justifying a denial of the licence under Article 50 of the CL&FFP Regulations. More exactly, “there was not a real debt on or before the 31/3/2013”; in the alternative the exception provided in Annex I of the CL&FFP Regulations should apply. (this claim in bold was highlighted in the original by italics)
33. In that context, contrary to the Appealed Decision statement that the amount of EUR 1,290,000 was due on 31 March 2013, the Appellant contends that:
“[it] started on time all necessary actions in order to settle and pay off the aforesaid amount”;
“the completion of the settlement process of [its] debts to the tax office was outside the “realm of [its] responsibility”;
“the process of approving a debt settlement to the public sector is not an easy case”, given the current situation in Greece.
UEFA Responded:
39. UEFA points out that it is not disputed that the Appellant owed EUR 1,290,000 to the social/tax authorities as a result from contractual and legal obligations towards employees that had arisen before 31 December 2012, and that this amount had not been paid by 31 March 2013. It is also not disputed that as of 31 March 2013, no written agreement existed with the Greek Tax Authorities in order to extend the deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline. UEFA also underlines that the application made by the Appellant has been accepted on 28 May 2013, i.e. almost two months after the expiry of the deadline, and that CAS jurisprudence has “consistently recognised that deadlines for this kind of procedure are fundamental for the smooth running of competitions and must be applied consistently”. The mere existence of overdue payables is sufficient to declare the Appellant ineligible to the UEFA 2013/2014 Europa League.
In short UEFA decided there was a real debt with no question of a demand letter entering the considerations and there was no basis on which to make an exception in the Giannina case.
What are the chances that UEFA, had they had the opportunity to establish the basis on which the wee tax liability arose, would have reached a different conclusion and made an exception where accusations of fraud and negligence had been made by HMRC and that the liability had been appealed but not upheld in a parallel case running from 2007 to 2010 and not been paid 5 months after HMRC started the collection ball rolling on October 2010?
CAS Decided.
b) Substantive issues
i) Misapplication of Article 50 of the CL&FFP Regulations
73. The question is the following: did the Appellant prove that as of 31 March 2013 it had no overdue payables towards its employees as well as social/tax authorities as a result of contractual and legal obligations towards its employees that had arisen prior to 31 December 2012?
74. The Panel notes that it is not disputed that, as of 31 March 2013, the Appellant owed EUR 1,290,000 to the social/tax authorities as a result from contractual and legal obligations towards employees that had arisen before 31 December 2012.
75. Against this background, the Panel further notes that, according to Annex VII(2)(b) of the CL&FFP Regulations, payables are not considered as overdue, within the meaning of these regulations, if the licence applicant/licensee (i.e. debtor club) is able to prove by 31 March that “it has concluded an agreement which has been accepted in writing by the creditor to extend the deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline”.
76. In the case at hand, the Panel finds that there was no written agreement as of 31 March 2013 confirming that the Greek Tax Authorities had accepted to extend the deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline.
77. In this regard, the Panel observes that, on 3 January 2013 and, again, on 26 March 2013, the Appellant submitted to the Greek Tax Authorities applications for the settlement. However, in the light of the applicable regulations, it is insufficient to take actions with a view of obtaining a deferral. According to the Annex VII(2)(b) of the CL&FFP Regulations an agreement with the competent tax authority must be made in writing within the applicable deadline.
78. In the case at hand, it is not disputed that the Appellant reached a written agreement with the Greek Tax Authorities to reschedule and pay its overdue payables in 48 instalments. However, such agreement was concluded on 29 May 2013, i.e. almost two months after the expiry of the applicable deadline.
79. It results from the foregoing that, as of 31 March 2013, the Appellant had overdue payables towards social/tax authorities as a result of contractual and legal obligations towards its employees that had arisen prior to 31 December 2012. The Panel therefore determines that the Appellant infringed Article 50 of the CL&FFP Regulations.
80. In this context, the Panel underlines that the clubs must not only fulfil the material requirements set in the regulations, but they also need to meet these conditions on a certain date. In this regard, the Panel stresses that for the good organization of any competition, strict deadlines are inevitable. As stated by another CAS Panel (CAS 2008/A/1579), “[t]he matter of deadlines has to be considered under the principles of equality of treatment; it is a must to treat all the clubs and the national football associations the same way”. In addition, the purpose of the deadline set forth in Article 50 of the CL&FFP Regulations is also to serve the interests of legal certainty and security, taking into consideration that UEFA Europa League first qualifying round usually takes place in early July.
CAS upheld the UEFA Decision and again there was no mention of a collection demand being delivered being the basis of the intent of UEFA FFP Article 50, whose rationale is set out in para 80 with the overriding need in bold which is to apply the intent to all clubs, those clubs existing throughout Europe where tax authorities might have different billing arrangements that might benefit one club in one country but not another in another country. (This rationale is set out in more detail in a prior UEFA case in 2012 against Malaga FC at para 4 .22(a) and (b) who had tax overdue payables.)
Extract from Malaga Case 4.22.
However, no recourse may be made to Spanish law, which is irrelevant to the resolution of this dispute. If one were to follow a different view according to which the application/interpretation of the CL&FFPR would depend on the respective national laws of each club participating in the UEFAcompetitions, the scope of the CL&FFPR would by seriously jeopardized. The purpose of the CL&FFPR consists in establishing a level-playing field between the clubs and ensuring equal treatment among all participants in the UEFA competitions. This reasoning is also consistent with the case-law of the CAS. In order to ascertain whether the debts of Málaga towards the Spanish tax authorities were to be considered as overdue or not, therefore, the Panel must rely solely on the CL&FFPR and, as the case may be, subsidiarily on Swiss law. Instead, Spanish law is not to be taken into consideration.
(b) The promotion of football and of financial fair-play by the UEFA represents a legitimate goal which must be taken into account when interpreting the provisions contained in the UEFA Statutes and by-laws. The club licensing system, which is based on the monitoring of the financial situation of the clubs, demands that (all of) the clubs must be treated equally. A club, therefore, should not be allowed to take (unfair) advantage, – i.e. to dodge its responsibilities/obligations deriving from the CL&FFPR –from the peculiarities of its national law or from the support of State authorities that wish to “protect” their clubs.
The intent of Article 50 to deter clubs national associations and tax authorities from helping clubs in difficulties is clear here.
If you read what led up to the CFCB investigating Giannina in the first place you can only conclude that had the SFA acted in 2011 as the Greek FA had in 2013, then the grant of the licence by the SFA would not have been upheld by UEFA.
Eyebrow Raiser and if you skipped the foregoing get back to the beginning 🙂
The following para from the Giannina case does not relate to tax but it does provide a basis for asking did the way RFC used ebts with concealed side letters and how they presented ebt information in their accounts since first usage, call into question all licences granted since ebts first used.
CAS said
10. With respect to the Appellant financial statements, the report states the following: “HFF has identified six “private agreements” between employees and the licensee which were not declared in the financial statements submitted by the licensee to HFF. […] As a result of the above, it appears that the licensee has provided inaccurate financial statements to HFF and has submitted inaccurate management representations regarding the completeness and accuracy of its financial statements submission”.
Now that sounds a bit like side letters and the ominous suspicion is that had the CFCB investigated the granting of the UEFA licence to RFC in 2011 they might have discovered a pile of private agreements going back to 2001 accounts.
Should a UEFA licence have been granted at all during the period of their use based on accounts which in the Giannina case were deemed not to meet the criteria for acceptance under Article 47 , Annex VII of the CL&FFP Regulations?
The full Giannina CAS report is at
http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award20323320FINAL20_2013.12.05_20internet.pdf
but lets not go there. 🙂
AULDHEID JUNE 9, 2018 at 23:35
==================
It’s a Saturday night and the pubs are still open.
Have you nothing better to do?
torrejohnbhoyJune 9, 2018 at 21:14
‘…..The fans certainly don’t need to be the victims of any further subterfuge after the goings on of 2012…’
__________________________
I sympathised enough with the ordinary TRFC Ltd supporter to agree with ‘daviesleftpeg Posted on June 9’ in his observation cited above ( as posted by you, torrejohnbhoy, to give appropriate attribution of sources), to feel moved to email the Financial Conduct Authority.
This is what I sent at 23.32 this evening (knackered as I am from working double tides on a very overdue redecoration , including affixing lining paper horizontally in the ‘master-bedroom’, and me an auld man, tae!
To:consumer.queries@fca.org.uk
9 Jun at 23:22
“Dear FCA,
Many of us are puzzled at the behaviour of the board of ‘Club 1872’ ( company number SC 525940) in urging its members to ‘invest’ in Rangers International Football Club plc so as to buy into a proposed share issue supposedly about to be made by that plc , as if the members were themselves somehow ‘investing in shares’ rather than merely making donations to a fans’ fund , which will be used by Club 1872 to help fund the operations of RIFC plc by buying shares.
Club 1872 issued a statement the other day , calling on members to ‘invest’, and that it was a great opportunity, but , as far as I can see, the call is merely a rallying call for voluntary donations to help RIFC plc raise some capital.
Club 1872 has only one shareholder: the share is held by a firm of solicitors as agent for the beneficial owner-who or which is likely to be a nominee of RIFC plc.
I am by no means knowledgeable in these matters, but, given the financial track record of RIFC plc, and in particular, that of its Chairman (who has been ordered by the Courts to make a personal offer to buy all the shares that he and his fellow ‘concert party’ members do not already own), I have enough savvy to feel that there may be something not quite kosher going on.
Club 1872 may, of course, be authorised to advise people on what is a ‘good investment’, and everything may be entirely in accord with every thing that is legal and decent in corporate business.
It would be useful to lots of individuals to be reassured in the matter.
( as a bit of background, I refer you to this link https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/flimflam-monkeyshines-and-boondoggle/
and this link Club 1872 given RIFC Share Issue Deadline | Club 1872
Have a wee look, please.
signed JC
easyJamboJune 9, 2018 at 23:49 (Edit)
AULDHEID JUNE 9, 2018 at 23:35 ================== It’s a Saturday night and the pubs are still open.
Have you nothing better to do?
==================
I did most of the work this morning before heading to my local for a few cold beers in the sun, which I enjoyed all the more for having got the Giannina case out of my head and onto paper
Justthefacts
Spam filter is a law unto itself. Possible it was the length. There were no links and no banned words. The only answer I have is that ‘it just did!’ ?
BIGBOAB1916JUNE 9, 2018 at 23:04
You have an option to PM in here and discuss your private affairs please respect the space afforded for debate and topics,kb space equals money.
____________________________________________________
Where is the PM mode. I certainly cant see it on here.
Ask Jimbo.
HELPUMOOTJUNE 10, 2018 at 00:29
Ask Jimbo.
_______________________________________
Did you ever find where i trashed Hughes or McLennon by the way.
Or you do you accept it was made up lies?
AuldheidJune 10, 2018 at 00:10
‘….I did most of the work this morning ..’
______________________
And a sterling ( or should that be ‘euro’) piece of work it is, too. Muchos gracias.
Was there, I wonder, any president of the HFF who had been an employee of any of the licensee clubs, who might himself have had personal knowledge….etc etc..?
Buenas noces.
StevieBCJune 9, 2018 at 17:43
‘…it is nice to see a genuine footballing hero and charity supporter getting recognition.’
___________________
As opposed to the kind of cheats and chancers like SDM and Fred what was his name? the shredder?
Bad ba…… who have caused us all a whole lot of trouble, one way or another.
Fred was done, of course, and lost his knighthood.
The other, protected species, has not.
Bad cess to him.
I read back even further than that last night, Lawman. Quite happy with my appraisal of you. Last night’s reading was where you led the blog a merry dance over statistics and claimed special knowledge of casinos/gambling patterns. The analysis of the Coral case and whether Rangers were relegated or not, completely came to a halt and instead we were treated to two pages on roulette wheels and black jack. If I could be @rsed I’d go back to the beginning and list here all the claims of expertise in particular areas you’ve made, that’s when you’re not on stand-by to be called as a witness for some court case or other, or running all the companies you’ve run.
And you spoiled Auldheid’s day. The guy should have been using his considerable talent and energies on the Share Offer, instead he’s spent all day explaining to you something you already knew, namely that the Giannina case is completely different from the Sevco one. Job done, eh?
HELPUMOOTJUNE 10, 2018 at 01:32
So thats a NO then.
Do you have links to these other things you talk about for people to recap. Did you have to spend long going through every one of my posts to find your claim was lies ?
BIG PINKJUNE 10, 2018 at 00:
JustthefactsSpam filter is a law unto itself. Possible it was the length. There were no links and no banned words. The only answer I have is that ‘it just did!’
*************
A big boy did it and ran away?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
TORREJOHNBHOY
JUNE 9, 2018 at 21:14
https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/flimflam-monkeyshines-and-boondoggle/
=========================================
Has anyone been able to get anything further on this one. It intrigues me, particularly if it is from a blogger who would normally have a Rangers based agenda.
I think this is the most important part
“Today, we are being told that Club 1872, unbeknownst to members, secured funding to participate in the Rangers share issue by way of a loan agreed several weeks ago. If there is any truth in this story, Club 1872 has to make its members fully aware of the loan, its terms and the financial implications therein.”
This would raise a few issues I would have thought.
1, Would they do this without referring the matter to the members (people making donations) first.
2, Who would lend them money to buy shares in a heavily indebted loss making business and on what terms.
3, Are these actions really appropriate to a Community Interest Company.
4, Just how independent is this company from RIFC PLC with regards it’s decision making process.
My gut feeling is that it is an internet rumour and will prove to have no substance. However given the source I think it is worth bottoming out.
STEVIEBCJUNE 9, 2018 at 17:43
Whilst I couldn’t give a monkey’s about the Royal gongs, it is nice to see a genuine footballing hero and charity supporter getting recognition.
…And it instantly raises the question if ‘Walter’ of Cardigan would have received a similar gong now…
==========================
Personally I think the honours system should be scrapped. Think of some of the people who have benefited from it, and in the context of what we talk about on here I can’t think of a less deserving knight than David Murray. There was a push from some journalists a few years back for Walter Smith to be knighted, and in my view the only thing that probably stopped it was the fact Jock Stein never received that honour.
As for Dalglish the fact he was my boyhood hero will not take away my opinion the honours system should be scrapped. In my view the biggest honour he could ever have was the then European Champions broke the British transfer fee record for a player from the Scottish league. That is quite incredible when you think of it. Talent at that level does not need to be given a knighthood to recognise it.
Redlichtie:
A big boy did it and ran away?
??
Speaking of whom RL, we’ve not heard from abbdiara for a while.
Re : (S)DM/JC & UTH
Cheered me up no end this a.m. in the newsagents – SDM’s missus is raising divorce action citing an affair (she’s looking for a £10m settlement) – that makes , including Hector people chasing him for £20m+/- presently – what a shame .
(Story is in to-day’s Sunday Mail – can’t/won’t do linky thing) .
Taking matters to a different topic, this being the Scottish Football Monitor, I wondered what contributors thought of the SPFL introducing the 94th and 95th ranked teams in England being entered into the SPFL Challenge Cup, at a more advanced stage than Scottish sides?
Interestingly, although the 2018-19 arrangements for this tournament exist in written form, the links for the ‘rules’ and the ‘format’ have been removed from the SPFL website. I can only think that the 2018-19 rules contained a howler of an error, in that the SPFL Management Board forgot that the under 20/development league and ‘colt’ sides had been binned in favour of a Reserve League, yet the rules and format agreed by the SPFL Board still involved ‘Colt teams’.
UTH 8:59 Wasn’t Dalglish’s £440k a British record for a transfer fee full stop? I though it was. And I often quote Bob Paisley who said when Keegan departed and Kenny arrived “we’ve sold the best player in England – and bought the best player in Europe”.
Morning all.
Just wondering if Kings ultimatum to Club 1872 wrt guaranteeing funds before the end of the week has anything to do with the fact that £12.9m of loans are due to be repaid at the beginning of July.
If reports are true(and I don’t know),that Johnston has resigned & asked for his loan back,coupled with the rumour that both Parks have supposedly resigned but will make this official in July,then maybe it’s not just about a Warchest for Stevie G.You could add Barry Scott to the list also.
TORREJOHNBHOYJUNE 10, 2018 at 09:55
Morning all.Just wondering if Kings ultimatum to Club 1872 wrt guaranteeing funds before the end of the week has anything to do with the fact that £12.9m of loans are due to be repaid at the beginning of July.
————————-
Nothing at all. The reason they need to know by end of week is that they are holding the issue with select partners and need to know what those partners are putting in or converting from loans.
TheLawMan2June 10, 2018 at 10:36
TORREJOHNBHOYJUNE 10, 2018 at 09:55 Morning all.Just wondering if Kings ultimatum to Club 1872 wrt guaranteeing funds before the end of the week has anything to do with the fact that £12.9m of loans are due to be repaid at the beginning of July.
————————-
Nothing at all. The reason they need to know by end of week is that they are holding the issue with select partners and need to know what those partners are putting in or converting from loans.
===============================
I’m not disputing that.I’m asking what do they need the money for.
WRT the 3 Bears,I thought they were not allowed to take part in any issue due to TOP regulations.That,I assume,maybe wrongly,would stop them from converting any loans to equity at this time.