To Comply or not to Comply ?

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

  1. The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
  2. 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

http://tiny.cc/y6sxsy

 

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.

  1. 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.
  2. FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
  3. 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).
  4. To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
  5. 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:

 

  1.  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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

  1. Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
  2. At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
  3. 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.

This entry was posted in Blogs, Featured by Auldheid. Bookmark the permalink.
Auldheid

About Auldheid

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

7,185 thoughts on “To Comply or not to Comply ?


  1. HOMUNCULUSJUNE 10, 2018 at 21:45
    Ticketus did not lend money to anyone in this transaction.
    They made advance payments for season tickets, which they got at a discount. The club would then sell them at face value to the supporters and pass the proceeds to Ticketus minus a commission.
    Why are people still saying Ticketus provided a loan, it isn’t true. 
    _______________________________________

    Im not really sure what difference it makes to the point being made though. It was not Craig Whytes money and the money went from Ticketus to Rangers to Whyte to Lloyds………days after the sale of the business and to the contradiction of the due diligence which claimed the money was coming from Whyte directly.


  2. THELAWMAN2JUNE 10, 2018 at 21:23(EDIT)
    0
    0 Rate This
    SMUGASJUNE 10, 2018 yes, but fundamentally that “figure” is declared as existing, it just depends whether HMRC accept it as allowable against income or not.  Whilst I accept your premise, and thank you using your own personal experience to demonstrate it, you will excuse me if I consider it slightly removed from declaring income as discretionary, blatantly ignoring and concealing its contractual nature and in the end blatantly lying as to their very existence.
    ____________________________
    I wasnt comparing the method of what happened in borh cases nor the morality of it. I was only using the example to note that upon an HMRC challenge of a tax return, once the correct amount of tax owed was established, it did not mean that the tax was “overdue.”  It just meant it was now due.
    ===%%%==
    Stop ripping the piss and insulting the intellect of your audience.
    The tax should have been paid in 2001 to 2003. That  was 15 frigging years ago.
    At what point does it become overdue as Article 50  expanded by the intent shown  in the Malaga case and events in the Giannina case?
    You’ll be arguing how many angels can stand on the head of a pin next.
    RFC admitted Tax was owed at 31 Dec 2010, by 31st March. It  wasn’t paid by then , it had no written agreement to postpone payment,  it wasn’t under appeal nor was claim frivolous . This makes it overdue based on both Malaga and Giannina cases which spell out UEFAs intent. If UEFA say different I think most would accept that but going to UEFA with the full narrative has been stubbornly resisted by SFA.
    This is the truth.
    RFC won titles and trophies from 2000 with tax payers money. Let’s call it what it was  – ‘ theft  – and no amount of sophistry on your part  is going to change that perception.
    Try and live with it because we don’t have to.


  3. Easyjambo

    Was the £18m payment to Lloyds a term of the sale agreement? Was it confirmed in court that the money shoild have been transferred on the date of the sale but was delayed in order to facilitate a transfer from Ticketus to Rangers to Whyte? 


  4. sale but was delayed
    ————-
    Was it not a weekend with a Bank holiday?
    happy to be corrected,and too late to look up.


  5. CLUSTER ONEJUNE 10, 2018 at 22:15
    Was it not a weekend with a Bank holiday?happy to be corrected,and too late to look up.
    ————

    No. But again dont understand why it would matter. If he had the money promised as part of due diligence, it would have been paid on the Friday to conclude the sale agreement. 


  6. Lawman

    I’m intrigued though.  On what basis did (I thought) Ticketus pursue Whyte and eventually bankrupt him if he didn’t personally guarantee their funding?


  7. Smugas, im sure you probably know what i mean. What use is a personal guarantee over 25m when you only have 25k. 

    It was the equivalent of a Ferrari dealer selling a car to wee Billy who works in McDonalds on the basis that Billy gives them a personal guarantee he will pay it back.


  8. TheLawMan2 June 10, 2018 at 22:04
    Easyjambo
    Was the £18m payment to Lloyds a term of the sale agreement? Was it confirmed in court that the money shoild have been transferred on the date of the sale but was delayed in order to facilitate a transfer from Ticketus to Rangers to Whyte? 
    ==========================
    I can’t be bothered looking up the SPA, but repayment of the Lloyds’ loan was just one of several commitments made, including payment of £2.8m for the WTC liability, £1.7m for H&S work and £5m for working capital (spending on the squad).

    If I recall correctly from the court proceedings, the purchase of the shares (the club) for £1 was delayed until 10pm on the Friday evening, thus providing Whyte with a reason for delaying the loan repayment until the banks reopened.

    I’m sure that Lloyds had expected payment on the same day, but they still got their pound of flesh by charging additional interest for the intervening weekend period.

     


  9. EASYJAMBO
    JUNE 10, 2018 at 22:33
    I can’t be bothered looking up the SPA, but repayment of the Lloyds’ loan was just one of several commitments made, including payment of £2.8m for the WTC liability, £1.7m for H&S work and £5m for working capital (spending on the squad).

    ====================================

    From memory only.

    Wavetower didn’t actually “repay” Lloyds. They bought the debt from them, along with the floating charge.

    So Rangers went from owing c£18m to Lloyds to owing c£18m to Wavetower, it’s own holding company. As I recall they described the scenario as having no “external debt”. 

    Now there’s an interesting scenario. The trading company being massively in debt to its own holding company. 


  10. Once again we find ourselves incessantly debating inane inconsequences with a squirrel-featured individual who can debate the munitiae of irrelevances to the nth degree while somehow remaining totally oblivious to the utter carnage caused by the demise of his deceased cheating club and its toxic b@stard offspring.


  11. EASYJAMBOJUNE 10, 2018 at 21:48

    Whyte had to “own” the club in order to complete the Ticketus deal. 
    ——————
    from CW court case 


  12. Ah yes.  The personal guarantee that doesn’t count.  Like the side letters.  And the initial responses to HMRC. And the amended dates of LNS.  And the highly questionable player registrations overseen by the conflicted and apparently corruptible authorities.   And annex VIII point 2 onwards.  But we do have to take Annex VIII point 1 in pure and glorious isolation as utterly sacrosanct.

    not going to lie Lawman I’m disappointed.


  13. Smugas. 

    Im not really sure of the point on Craig whytes personal guarantee.  Can you clarify for me.

    Also on Annwx viii i genuinely think you misunderstand me because i think im actually in agreement with you. The reason points 2 onwards dont matter in the debate is because Rangers fail on every one of them.
    Points 2 onwards ONLY exist if point 1 fails. If point 1 does not fail then points 2 onwards are immaterial.


  14. THELAWMAN2JUNE 10, 2018 at 22:19
    0
    2 Rate This
    CLUSTER ONEJUNE 10, 2018 at 22:15Was it not a weekend with a Bank holiday?happy to be corrected,and too late to look up.————
    No. But again dont understand why it would matter. If he had the money promised as part of due diligence, it would have been paid on the Friday to conclude the sale agreement. 
    —————–
    Bank had closed on Friday


  15. CO. He didnt have the money on Friday. They waited to the banks were closed.  


  16. Homunculus June 10, 2018 at 22:39
    Wavetower didn’t actually “repay” Lloyds. They bought the debt from them, along with the floating charge.
    So Rangers went from owing c£18m to Lloyds to owing c£18m to Wavetower, it’s own holding company. As I recall they described the scenario as having no “external debt”.
    ===========================
    It depends on from whose viewpoint you are looking from.

    Wavetower did indeed buy the debt. 

    …. but Lloyds also had the outstanding balance of the RFC loan paid off.

    Both outcomes were achieved by Ticketus paying RFC for advance sales of STs, RFC loaning £16m to Wavetower.  RFC gifting c. £2m+ to Wavetower. Waveower then paid Lloyds £18m to buy the RFC debt.

    Net positions:  RFC owes Wavetower £18m.  Wavetower owes RFC £16M.  RFC is required to forward proceeds from a proportion of future sales of STs to Ticketus


  17. THELAWMAN2
    JUNE 10, 2018 at 23:02

    =====================================

    He never had the money, it was done through escrow.

    I believe that is common practice in deals like this. 


  18. THELAWMAN2 JUNE 10, 2018 at 22:58
    Highlander. Can you do me a small favour and list out all the topics im allowed to reply to then this will save me replying to anything outwith your comfort zone.Thanks.

    If you insist.

    Please restrict yourself to reporting the advantages of a cheating, deceased football club to the rest of Scottish football. Remember, contrary to the PR bullshit, only Rangers needs a strong Rangers. 


  19. THELAWMAN2JUNE 10, 2018 at 21:44
    * More often than not though, its actually opinions.
    Do you think so ? 


  20. https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2017/09/
     
    11-mur180411 – Copy *
     
    If anyone wants to escape current incoming fire, Rangers Tax Case posted the above* last September , so it is not new
    (It may be old news to some)  but as a PDF file it can be downloaded and read at any time.
    I found it fascinating.
    Warning it is LONG!


  21. LAWMAN
    Does this help clarify matters?

    Part IXInterest on Overdue Tax
    86 Interest on overdue tax(1)Any tax charged by any assessment to which this subsection applies shall carry interest at the prescribed rate from the date when the tax becomes due and payable until payment. This subsection applies to—
    (a)any assessment to income tax made under Schedule A or Schedule D,
    (b)any assessment to surtax,
    (c)any assessment to capital gains tax,
    (d)any assessment to corporation tax.
    (2)Where any tax is paid not later than two months from the date on which it becomes due and payable, the interest thereon under this section shall be remitted. As respects tax becoming due and payable before 1st July 1968 this subsection has effect with the substitution of
    “three months”for ” two months “.
    (3)Interest shall not be payable under this section on the tax charged by any assessment unless—
    (a)the total tax charged by that assessment exceeds £1,000, and
    (b)the total amount of the interest exceeds £5,
    so, however, that in the case of tax becoming due and payable before 19th April 1967, paragraph (b) above has effect with the substitution of
    “£1”for ” £5 “.
    (4)Interest shall not be deemed to have begun to run under this section from any date before 1st January 1948.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/9/part/IX/enacted

    Again, I may be missing something here, but the heading to this section seems to be a clue to whether an assessment treats the tax as ‘overdue’ or not.


  22. HIRSUTEPURSUITJUNE 11, 2018 at 00:30

    Thats interest on overdue tax.  So in the normal instance of non payment thats how it is calculated.

    Still doesnt mean an adjusted tax return is automatically classified as overdue.


  23. Lawman

    To clarify my point re the personal guarantee.  Without it Ticketus won’t forward the funds. Without the funds Whyte can’t make the offer.  Without the offer Murray cant sell. Without the sale Lloyd’s forecloses.  In the event of Lloyd’s foreclosing HMRC have no option but to also call in their debt and take their chance.

    Theres one constant though granted.  Regardless of the above Im confident, as you are, that in the true Armageddon described the SFA would still have granted the licence.


  24. “In 2000, Green struck a £30million “tax efficient investment” deal with finance giants Close Brothers through his own financial services company, Kingsbridge Holdings. Last year, Whyte sold £2million of future earnings from matchday catering at Ibrox to Close Brothers to pay for the lease of kitchen equipment.
    There is another link between Close Brothers and Whyte. One of the board members of Close Brothers is Ray Greenshields, who is also chairman of Octopus VCT3, who own Ticketus.
    Whyte funded his takeover of Rangers by selling off future season tickets to Ticketus

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chief-charles-green-quits-1842777


  25. Craig Whyte was found not guilty in a Court of Law . Dave King lies with impunity and without remorse , as was shown in a Court of Law .They’re both cut from the same cloth . Every penny out there is theirs’ if they can find a way to coral it . Grifters and chisellers . . Or entrepreneurial business men , in some people’s opinion 
    PS  LM2 , how do you know the intricacies of Whyte’s trial if you weren’t there ? Reading Tweets ?
    As a parting gift , I was down the beach today ( sorry , Jimbo ) and wandered up for a beer into a bar where a group of English guys were “discussing the Tommy Robinson thing are were generally of the opinion that there were too many coloured people in England/Britain . These guys had all been out in the sun for a while as they were all as black as two in the morning . And I’m thinking “What am I missing here ? ).


  26. SMUGASJUNE 11, 2018 at 00:40
    Without the sale Lloyd’s forecloses.  In the event of Lloyd’s foreclosing.
    ___________________________

    To be fair, you have that wrong. The lloyds money was an 18 year loan repayable at 1m per year.  They couldnt call in the debt as long as 1m per year was paid.


  27. Paddy. I attended the closing summaries and the details were laid out in full.

    And i agree on the behaviour of King and Whyte though my hatred of Whyte is on a different level from my dislike of King.


  28. Lawman

    ah, so the distinction (on which narrow point I agree) is that the £1m annual repayment wasn’t “overdue.”

    that said, the WTC would require Sherriffs Officers just 6 months later, a 10 year old WTC Murray forgot to mention to the purchasers, the club could only be run by not remitting tax dues, no-one  including the fans would touch it for £1, One well funded prospective purchaser commented it needed £30m in its current ridiculously bloated format and in Smiths own words “the bank were now running the show.”

    But yes, putting that reality to one side, as long as they made that repayment from within existing and future prescribed operating facilities they were fine.


  29. THELAWMAN2JUNE 11, 2018 at 01:02
    Why would anyone pay it?


  30. From STV
    ========
    Jurors heard Mr Whyte purchased Rangers for £1 from Sir David Murray subject to several stipulations, including the clearing of an £18m debt with Lloyds Bank.


  31. JJ’s latest on the rumours around Club 1872 taking out a loan have made things a lot clearer in my head.

    i had previously been wondering just how stupid you would have to be to loan someone a significant amount of money when the only method that they have of repayment is Joe Public’s monthly subs (which could go up or down on any month depending on a multitude of factors).

    However, JJ’s suggestion (if I’m reading it correctly) is that due to the blurred lines between the Club (or is that Company) and the ‘independent’ supporter’s organisation, the Club are involved in some capacity in accessing this finance.

    I feel sorry for the fans because (if the rumours are true) they are being terribly.


  32. Can I respectfully request that Steerpike, Lawman or whatever he is called today is banned from the site asap as the blog is now unreadable and utterly useless !!


  33. Don’t the banks have everything covered in the terms and conditions?. Subject to change.


  34. JIMMY BONESJUNE 11, 2018 at 07:47
    Could this be deliberate?


  35. Morning everyone.

    I’m hoping against hope that some new story breaks today.  We could be doing with something different to discuss.


  36. Something like Tris & BP launch a takeover bid for ‘Ibrox Noise’.

    Or,

    Auldheid finally admits he is a Bear.

    Or,

    John Clark & EJ revealed to have claimed a fortune in travelling expenses and loss of earnings from the Court of Session.


  37. Jimbo, we could discuss the fact that black is black and white is white, but a certain poster would be along shortly to argue that black is in fact white.


  38. Club 1872 have not agreed nor got access to a loan.

    1) they couldnt do it without a vote and that hasnt happened.
    But also….
    2) i dont believe its even possible given the CIC status. 

    Either way, he stole it off someone else who also talks nonsense constantly.  Completetly made up.


  39. Lawman, you were doing well up to the last two sentences.

    Btw,  I get more TDs than you on here!


  40. I have noticed Jimbo. I think that might be John James mate. 10


  41. Hirsute Pursuit
    I think the point you are making is that if the liability only became overdue in May 2011 or even 30 days later then interest should only start being calculated from 20 May or 19th June 2011.
    In fact one of the estimates of what was due to HMRC as a result of paying tax under PAYE conditions began from 2001 and ENDED in May on basis payment would be received by then.
    It is clear from documentation that HMRC were treating the liability as tax owed from 2001 under PAYE terms as applied to each year from then.

    Separately in an earlier post to Lawman you said

    So, based on the things to which we agree (if I am understanding your position correctly), the nub of the matter is not that Rangers did not owe any back taxes. Nor is it that they did not know they owed back taxes. It is simply that the “bill” – the demand for payment – did not arrive until after the 31st March deadline for Club Licensing submissions.
    Whilst Lawman is arguing that the bill date is all that matters Alistair Johnson said in his interview with Jim Traynor the the bill dropped through the door three weeks ago.
    So what bill was AJ referring to? Three weeks before is around 12th March but let’s use the 21st (although according to Duff and Phelps liability if not amount was accepted 17th Feb) .
    Thus as you said by 20 April under the AJ statement about when the bill arrived  tax was overdue unless it was paid by then, was under fresh appeal by then or HMRC had agreed in writing by 31st March to postpone payment.
    The licence was actually granted on the 19th April but according to Regan the SFA’s responsibility for the granting period stopped on 31st March!
    In fact the list of clubs granted a licence was not sent to UEFA until 26th May and any change to the basis on which licence granted had to be notified by the licence applicant. If the arrival of letters of 5th May or 16th May or 20th May all signalling a change were not provided then the licence should not have been granted. If any of the HMRC letters were provided then the SFA were at best negligent.
    The only thing in question is where the mud will stick.


  42. As regards the Club 1872 developing story I’m sure the Finance Editors from the MSM will be sending their correspondents into the field as I type. So don’t worry about it, they’ve got it covered (up)


  43. Lawman

    I refer you to my questions 2 pages back . I’m still waiting for answers


  44. A few quick checks and apparently a CIC can get a loan though it needs a business case and most likely security (of which 1872 have none) and again not withstanding that, it can only be done through the vote of members.

    A complete non starter.

    The Rangers fan who made it up has form for making nonsense up also.


  45. Lawman2
    My final point to you when you ask what diservice you are doing to your fellow supporters is this.
    You appear to accept that morally RFC have questions to answer but argue and have done for about 4 years on social media that as long as the rules don’t cover what took place or can be interpreted in such a way that they were properly followed (that always benefits your club) then nothing else matters.
    Here is the thing. Your arguments will influence fellow supporters and if a large number of them share your view, what is to stop that thinking being reflected in the way your club is run and any impact that might have on the honest spirit which makes football a sport and not an exercise in triumphalism?
    The other side of the coin is how your attitude impacts on those who do not support your club. 
    The perception for me is that your club as reflected in your arguments  are prepared to cheat and prepared to justify it and are a corrupting influence on our game.
    My hope is that your attitude is that of a very small minority.
    I’m done responding to you. I think others might want to consider doing that too.


  46. THELAWMAN2JUNE 11, 2018 at 09:35
    A few quick checks and apparently a CIC can get a loan though it needs a business case and most likely security (of which 1872 have none) and again not withstanding that, it can only be done through the vote of members.
    A complete non starter.
    The Rangers fan who made it up has form for making nonsense up also.
    ===========

    So just a straightforward raid on the 1872 cash then.

    ‘Re  your overdue payables argument. It’s not right because your argument mixes up the Schedules under which tax is charged in the UK and imports the rules of Schedule D into Scedule E . I’m not going to get involved in discussing it because I believe you have wasted enough of the blogs bandwidth already. The large interest bill proves that the tax was overdue long before 31 March and interestingly it is described as “interest on overdue tax”. Sometimes labels reflect the simple truth.


  47. I’m in agreement with Auldheid re Lawman. It would appear that he is no lone gunman in his inputs to this blog but rather a part of a team who are seeking to disrupt and deflect the impact of the blog and the widespread support it receives  from all over Scotland. I’m not in favour of banning anyone but I think his/their tea’s oot as far as I’m concerned.


  48. Homunculus

    “The Board have discussed the Club’s forecast cash shortfall and have reached an agreement with New Oasis Asset Limited whereby they will provide additional loan facilities as necessary to meet the above requirements.”
    Is ambiguous, which “they” is being referred to?


  49. THELAWMAN2JUNE 11, 2018 at 09:35

    A few quick checks and apparently a CIC can get a loan though it needs a business case and most likely security (of which 1872 have none) and again not withstanding that, it can only be done through the vote of members.
    A complete non starter.
    The Rangers fan who made it up has form for making nonsense up also.

    To be fair to the Rangers fan who has form for making nonsense up your entire support have made up and follow a Club that only exists in the fantasy realm or as (Charles Greenes QC)Alan Dewar said “only exists in the minds of die hard supporters” .
    They may well die hard but they do die none the less.
    Just like their Club did.

    Game set and match.

    This world class exclusive post was sent from a safe house in Renton 

    Please give gingerously.


  50. On the face of it, this Club1872 revelation is nothing particularly new, IMO.

    It would appear that King has exploited, (‘duped’ ?), the TRFC fans.
    Yet again.
    As he has been doing since he took control at Ibrox.

    King and the bears simply deserve each other.

    It’s yet another weird and wonderful side story of the never ending freak show.


  51. bfbpuzzled
    June 11, 2018 at 10:39
    ========================================

    Am I not right in saying that the normal convention is that the pronoun in such circumstances would automatically refer to the most recent proper noun. So “they” would refer to “New Oasis Asset Limited”.


  52. Away from all the blurp on when tax is actually due, I saw the article below on the web the other day but thought it was via the Scotsman.

    A whole article on Alan Stubbs giving his opinion on T’Rangers and Celtic players / potential targets and only the merest of mentions that he is taking over at St Mirren today.

    It may be the quotes and the likes were pulled out of a larger conversation but knowing that many in the SMS appear to dismiss everything else in the game and steer the focus towards the Glasgow Two. can managers of other teams just shut the feck up and talk about their own club.

    (I suppose the Lawman2 will come on pointing out that Stubbs isn’t technically the Buddies manger at the time of the inteview  etc etc )

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ovie-ejaria-can-rangers-success-12678290


  53. Further to my post at 10.39
    It can be argued that if they was to refer to NOAL it should not have been they but it. Following that line of thinking the only possible they in that quote must be the Board since that refers to a group of directors.
    Pedantry perhaps (and as I have said before I have prizes for that) but such is the nature of this particular beast ambiguity might be expected. Having said that, the track record is not for lubricious ambiguity but patent untruth. 
    As the song goes “keep your eyes on the prize, hold on” no version shall be linked here by me I leave that to others


  54. Bfbpuzzled, 

    “As the song goes “keep your eyes on the prize, hold on” no version shall be linked here by me I leave that to others”
    ——————————————————-
    Come on now, you can’t just drop a statement like that without letting me know the name of the song, the artist, so I can go and have a listen!  I promise I won’t post it!


  55. Springsteen , Jimbo .
    Only about a month before our gallant lads take their first steps in Europe this season . Prospects ?


  56. I thought it was a pain having another qualifier.  But quite a few fans think it’s no bad thing.  Gives us another two matches to get up to speed.  Helps with settling in any new signings, giving a few fringe players a game, in the first two qualifiers at least.  After that, who knows?  It begins to get tougher.

    I’d be over the moon to get to the group stages.


  57. Could be doing without the embarrassing scores against the big teams.  I think Brendan needs to be more defensive at that stage.  Not exactly ‘anti-football’ but you know what I mean.


  58. I was only answering Paddy’s question on behalf of my own club.  I’ll leave it to the sheepies, the hibbies and the bears to give their own opinions.

    It’s only fair.


  59. bfbpuzzled
    June 11, 2018 at 11:29

    Further to my post at 10.39 It can be argued that if they was to refer to NOAL it should not have been they but it
    ============================================

    Its a fair point, given that NOAL is a single entity “it” would be the correct pronoun, so “they” could not possibly have referred to it.

    “They” could only have referred to The Board in that sentence, so whilst there is still no ambiguity it is The Board which would be providing the additional finance, rather than NOAL. Making me totally incorrect in my reading of it. The Board could provide it in a number of ways, whether that be more loans from themselves, borrowing they provided security for, gifts from well wishers etc.

    Every day is, as they say, a school day.


  60. HIGHLANDER JUNE 11, 2018 at 08:47
    There are some very dangerous results of your suggested black is white argument as detailed by the late Douglas Adams:

    “Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful (as the Babel-fish) could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.The argument goes something like this:

    “I refuse to prove that I exist,'” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.””But,” says Man, “The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”

    “Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

    “Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”

    10


  61. I was reading back the blog to post 5-way agreement, pre-LNS enquiry period. One poster predicts the result of LNS (based on the 5-way assertion that Sevco would meet RangersIL “footballing” debts.) He predicted that a paltry fine would be imposed which would never be paid but instead deducted from future prize money. He asked if this would be a fair punishment for the tens of millions of pounds they took from other clubs by cheating for over a decade.
    All along every process pretending to hold RangersIL/Sevco to account there is huge wiggle room for the SFA to delay and prevaricate, to appoint who it wants to investigate, to kick out the most serious allegations, minimalise the remaining ones, reduce the scope of any investigations, eventually find them guilty (or not) of the now reduced charges, impose a meaningless and ineffective punishment allowing them to walk away claiming victory and laughing their collective @rses off at the rest of Scottish football. And then of course, should they be found guilty of anything serious and a meaningful sanction be imposed, there’s always the option of an appeal.
    So far, the process for investigating the granting of a European licence to them, is following exactly the same, well practised, drawn out pattern, including the SFA exonerating itself en route. 
    Auldheid, you are right there in the mix of this blog all those years ago, presenting well researched facts, brilliant analysis and attempting to convince others (often thanklessly) that a fraud had taken place. I’m glad you have decided not to waste your time on the time-waster on here. Pearls in front of swine, and all that. 


  62. HELPUMOOTJUNE 11, 2018 at 13:44
    It may not be singular , but multiple users of a single log in .


  63. Paddy Malarkey/Jimbo
    Springsteen covered it – it is an old protest song. However his live in Dublin Version is not bad. It’s a bit like “I shot the sheriff” the cover version is more famous than the original.
    Homunculus
    I do not not know about the they convention -but as you agree it can only refer to the board. Although I find this kind of exegesis endlessly fascinating, I shall say no more or the issue to avoid getting into excessively detailed discussions on the level ofhow many ethereal entities can fit in a blue jersey. 


  64. torrejohnbhoy
    June 9, 2018 at 21:14
    42
    1
    Rate This
    From Rangers Fans Website:
    Daviesleftpeg Posted 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.
     
     
    Looks like you have an exclusive.  Mr Peg has removed his post  (oops.)


  65. bfbpuzzled
    June 11, 2018 at 14:35
    =================================

    You could of course argue that “The Board” would require the singular pronoun, whilst “the members of the board” would require the plural pronoun. However that is getting into an area where even the pedants lose the will to annoy.

    I will follow your lead and leave it there. I do find it intriguing that 5-0 was your thumbs response for correcting me, however I got a miserable 2-2 for admitting the error. I think you are clearly winning the popularity contest.


  66. PADDY MALARKEYJUNE 11, 2018 at 14:01
    HELPUMOOTJUNE 11, 2018 at 13:44It may not be singular , but multiple users of a single log in
    ________________

    Or it could be occam’s razor and be a singular guy with a long track record on Social Media of not being a sheep.  
    Speaking out constantly about Craig white before during and after takeover whilst being hated by 99% of the people posting.

    Speaking out against Green when certain details got out in the accounts.

    Slating Ally McCourt pre and post appointelment.

    Doing large posts on the lies told by Paul Murray and the requisitioners.

    Constantly calling out King.

    Constantly calling out Level 5 and useless Traynor.

    All of which is searchable and unusual as I don’t believe I have witnessed any other person on Rangers Social Media who has been against all of the above.

    I do however think it’s time for admin to make up their mind as the attacks are more and more frequent now with people now calling for me to be banned when I haven’t said a single thing against anyone whilst posting on this site nor treated anyone with disrespect in any of my posts on here.

    If the site wants a polarised view then fair enough. If opinions and thinking are left free to be challenged then it should make for a better place.

    If that means moderation or banning then fair play, it’s more your site than mine.


  67. In case I missed it by the way has anyone done the “At what point does SG become overdue” joke yet?


  68. and be a singular guy with a long track record on Social Media of not being a sheep.  

    OK we get it.  You have a history of being right.  From that we can deduce that you’re definitely not Neil Patey.  So just 499,999,999 Bear IDs to go.


  69. Lawman, stop whining like a three year old child.

    I have never posted a comment on Follow Follow or Rangers Media, but I can just imagine the reaction caused if I did so. I appreciate SFM is a multi-club forum, but the treatment you recieve on here is for the most part polite and respectful considering the vast majority of posters and readers totally disagree with the self-serving opinions you are trying to foist upon them.

    They don’t take kindly to being told to believe in fairy stories involving fictional ethereal entities and other metaphysical matters dreamt up for the benefit of the Ibrox club and its deluded hordes.

    So, either grow up and deal with it or bugger off and leave us in peace – please.


  70. Wednesday’s court business
    LORD DOHERTY – C Munn, Clerk
    Wednesday 13th June
    By Order Between 9.30am and 10.00am
    P115/17 RFC 2012 Plc for orders under paragraph75 – Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP – CMS

    This is BDO’s action against the administrators


  71. THELAWMAN2JUNE 11, 2018 at 15:15
    Granted that what you say here is correct it is very commendable.  It begs the question why you are antagonising this site with your insistence on a very obscure point that correct or otherwise in no way justifies the behaviour of the SFA or the former Rangers.  
    Given the many points of agreement, you and this site should be natural allies.

Comments are closed.