UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?
On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.
The cases of two clubs::
Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )
and
FC Irtysh (Kazakhstan)
are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because
- The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
- The cases tell us what might have happened to Rangers FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.
FC Sion (Olympique des Alpes SA)
Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.
Full details can be read at
but this is a summary.
In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.
In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme, carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.
The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.
Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:
“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as
“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”
What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.
Sion had declared
“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.
The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.
Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.
Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.
The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.
Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.
The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.
- FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
- To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
- To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
- FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.
This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.
“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”
The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:
Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.
Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.
This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement
“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “ where he also added
“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”
This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.
In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.
The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.
The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.
Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March
It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.
The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)
The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:
- FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
- To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “
The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC, FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then
- Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
- At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
- The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.
Karma eh!
Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors
“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;
Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?
This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.
I note that the online DR is reporting that today’s SFA/TRFC meeting is ‘procedural’ & will be concerned with how the Notice of Complaint will proceed.
Isn’t that outlined in the SFA’s Judicial Protocol? Haven’t they had several months to decide?
‘Who, what, where, why & when?’
Nick @ 10:49 said:
“With this in mind there appear to be two realistic outcomes:
1) All charges dropped (which would possibly explain the Compliance Officer’s sudden departure)
2) A fine, lets face it the SFA like money and aren’t great at bringing it in through commercial activity
Option one brings this saga to an end in practical terms …’
Although each of your suggested outcomes is plausible, I very much doubt either of them will bring this matter to anything like an end.
Despite the (apparent) enormous apathy among many (if not most) football fans in Scotland, together with our Big Lie MSM, it is inconceivable that those of us prepared to keep this matter going (and it’s a sizeable number, not without the resources and will power to keep the issue alive) will settle for such inconsequential judgements.
You can’t thwart justice with a fudge.
WOODSTEINJUNE 25, 2018 at 22:01
Metro Bank PLCCompanies House Number 06419578
From Metro Bank websiteMetro Bank PLC. Registered in England and Wales. Company number: 06419578. Registered office: One Southampton Row, London, WC1B 5HA. We are authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority. Metro Bank PLC is an independent UK Bank – it is not affiliated with any other bank or organisation (including the METRO newspaper or its publishers) anywhere in the world. “Metrobank” is the registered trademark of Metro Bank PLC
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Operating-Guidelines-between-the-FCA-and-the-Panel-8-July-2016.pdf The T.O.P do not operate on their own, as you can see from above, and, from my experience the FCA do not give any quarter or suffer fools gladly.
________
A bit too much research there, Woodstein, producing documentary evidence like that. Much better to rubbish the idea that there might be a connect between the TOP and the banks and so cast doubt over the accuracy of, say, PMGB’s blogs.
Personally I do not think that the financial fraternity will wait for an official announcement of the ‘cold shoulder’ before taking action against, or refusing to do business with, anyone falling foul of their industry’s regulators, as improper actions, such as King’s, must highlight the inappropriateness of doing business with them without the need for official announcements. If nothing else, banks and other lenders will surely take a closer look at any business relationship, current or proposed, than they might otherwise do, ignoring any aura that might surround the brand name, delving deeper into the company accounts and the backgrounds of those running the business, especially when the business’ ability to honour any financial dealing is based largely on the promises and assurances of people involved in non-compliance of a regulatory body’s orders.
If rumours of impropriety can kill a business, imagine what the full knowledge of impropriety can do!
DUNDERHEIDJUNE 26, 2018 at 11:16
it is inconceivable that those of us prepared to keep this matter going (and it’s a sizeable number, not without the resources and will power to keep the issue alive) will settle for such inconsequential judgements.
I think you’re right on this, for quite a few people this obviously won’t bring closure and they will look to continue “the good fight”.
What in practical terms can they do though? UEFA have said the matter is closed and this is the final SFA/SPFL matter to be resolved, the judicial review idea was a dead end.
What is the next practical step if the SFA decision is one people view on here as a “fudge”?
Worth sharing, IMO;
“Jim Spence
@JimSpenceSport·13h
VAR is the natural consequence of a society which can’t accept honest cheating by refs……honest mistakes I mean honest mistakes”
==============================
…And what did Ronaldo actually get his yellow card for?
It was either nothing – or a straight red.
Ref got it wrong, IMO, and bottled it.
Would VAR significantly improve the SPL?
Hmmm…
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 26, 2018 at 11:22
A bit too much research there, Woodstein, producing documentary evidence like that. Much better to rubbish the idea that there might be a connect between the TOP and the banks and so cast doubt over the accuracy of, say, PMGB’s blogs.
Just to clarify AJ nobody disputed that the FCA regulate the banks. The key point is that the “Cold Shoulder” means the FCA will ask their members not to have any dealings with a cold shouldered individual in any matters that concern the takeover panel.
This would mean for example that if Dave King wished to buy another UK company he would not be able to find a financial institution willing to help him facilitate the purchase. It would also probably mean no financial institution would help him participate in a share issue or rights issue as that could also have Takeover Panel implications. The latter consequence is potentially very relevant and contrary to King’s protests that this is purely a personal issue means the club could be affected and forced to change their plans.
In terms of the day to day banking with Metro they would be under no obligation to cut ties with Rangers at all. If the claim is they would choose to cut ties due to negative PR then I’d find that very unlikely, there are many much more high profile organisations in the UK with individuals involved in a lot worse than a petty scrap with the Takeover Panel, banks don’t tend to care unless it’s a money laundering issue.
Re: the SFA and it’s continued lack of communication with its paying customers, it reminds me of a TV advert;
“This is not just Transparency…
This is SFA Transparency…”
That highly regarded SFA President Alan McRae wouldn’t recognise Transparency – even if it came and shook him awake at his desk!
Nick @ 11:32 said:
‘What in practical terms can they do though? UEFA have said the matter is closed and this is the final SFA/SPFL matter to be resolved, the judicial review idea was a dead end.
What is the next practical step if the SFA decision is one people view on here as a “fudge”?’
When exactly did UEFA say ‘the matter is closed’?
Otherwise, the question highlighted above seems reasonable.
Personally speaking, there needs to be the following:
– An honest acknowledgement of the scale, import and lingering impact of the wrongdoing that was perpetrated.
– A commitment from the SFA that the current means of administering the game is no longer ‘fit for purpose’ and needs to be made genuinely transparent and accountable to all stakeholders.
– A ban from football for those shown to have been complicit in the affair (without sight of all the evidence: I’m guessing this list will stretch to several people still involved in the sport, at Hampden and Ibrox, probably also at Easter Road).
That would do me as a starter for 10.
DUNDERHEIDJUNE 26, 2018 at 12:03
When exactly did UEFA say ‘the matter is closed’?
UEFA have a statute of limitations and it’s been confirmed we are now outside that so they will have no further involvement, I’m sure one of the other posters can provide you with a link.
The rest of your post is interesting but it’s more of a wish-list than a practical next step. How do you get there when all the governing bodies have drawn a line under the matter? I’m not saying you can’t get there but I genuinely don’t see a route to that sort of outcome, maybe I’ve missed something?
Nick
I am with you on the reach of any cold shoulder and there are bigger issues than those involving King
However, if I read reports correctly, this is the first time the TOP has been forced into the high court for enforcement of its decisions that might make this a more important case, after all Scots Law is known world wide for a snail in a ginger beer bottle ( geese a slug ae yer scoosh as it were)
It may be that institutions would think it wise not to deal with things tainted by King particularly when his actions with the TOP and the Court of Session conform to his long established MO. The idea being that if he’s messes with the TOP he would mess with the FCA also. I would like to see the bank reference he could provide.
Teflon Dave is typical of a breed of freelance chancer who are never happier than when they do things the convoluted way even when the easy way would serve just as well; it never seems to occur to them to do the correct thing.
Nick @ 12:12
(Although I don’t have the facts at my finger tips …) I’m fairly sure that if there’s fraud (or the distinct possibility of fraud) vis-à-vis the UEFA license application, then there’s no UEFA statute of limitations.
How one ‘gets there’ when all the governing bodies have drawn a line under the matter is that we (i.e. those of us convinced of the justice of our case) maintain pressure on our clubs (as well as SFA officers and office bearers), letting them know that we are not prepared to let the matter die.
It could take a long time.
Are you suggesting that, should what I have termed a ‘fudge’ be the outcome of this latest investigation, those of us convinced of the justice of our cause simply say: ‘Oh well, at least we tried. I suppose it’s time to draw a line under this and move on. I wonder who we will get in the next round of the cup ‘ … ?
I have a feeling that’s what you either think will happen, or want to happen.
John Clark
__________________________________________
This has already happened with the transfer embargo, fine and football debts. Why would this case be any different?
DunderheidJune 26, 2018 at 12:21
Are you suggesting that, should what I have termed a ‘fudge’ be the outcome of this latest investigation, those of us convinced of the justice of our cause simply say: ‘Oh well, at least we tried. I suppose it’s time to draw a line under this and move on. I wonder who we will get in the next round of the cup ‘ … ?
I have a feeling that’s what you either think will happen, or want to happen.
———————————————————————————–
It’s certainly what the BIG LIE camp want, and what they have been working at for years now. They probably think their end game is near. How other clubs (yes particularly CFC) react to the scenarios being mooted will be interesting. Acceptance/silence will mean it is only the “internet bampots” who are still on the case.
DUNDERHEIDJUNE 26, 2018 at 12:21
Are you suggesting that, should what I have termed a ‘fudge’ be the outcome of this latest investigation, that those of us convinced of the justice of our cause simply say: ‘Oh well, at least we tried. I suppose it’s time to draw a line under this and move on. I wonder who we will get in the next round of the cup …’?
Absolutely not at all and I don’t expect those who feel so passionately would look to do this. I’m just pointing out that there doesn’t appear to be any obvious mechanism through which to pursue the grievance.
Kentes1, not sure you will get rid of the icons but look up the ‘Brave’ browser. That automatically blocks a great deal of ‘froth’
They could also withdraw Sevco’s Euro licence for a year or two. The punishment would be seen as fitting (this particular) crime. It ticks all the boxes. Victim mentality goes through the roof, SFA and PL blamed. Meanwhile the European monkey is off Sevco’s back, at least for a couple of years anyway.
Tony McGlennan concluded there was no case to answer with the issuance of the licence on March 31st. If the belief is that the SFA forced him to reach this conclusion then we will soon know all about.
There isnt a cats chance in heck he would keep something like that quiet.
Its like the Scottish Cup draws. All these people that are in on all the fudges and nobody breaks rank. The SFA are not clever enough to organise decent football fixtures never mind mastermind huge cover ups which includes prominent Celtic fans and officials.
Nick @ 12:37
You disappoint me: in terms of your lack of imagination and want of perseverance.
Your attitude is exactly what the SFA hopes for and lets any number of devious and conniving sleeping dogs lie [sic].
Moreover, it allows for the status quo and encourages ‘the SFA blazerati’ merely to mop their brows and to carry on as before.
If you can’t be part of the solution, I’m afraid you become part of the problem.
NICKJUNE 26, 2018 at 11:44
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 26, 2018 at 11:22
A bit too much research there, Woodstein, producing documentary evidence like that. Much better to rubbish the idea that there might be a connect between the TOP and the banks and so cast doubt over the accuracy of, say, PMGB’s blogs.
Just to clarify AJ nobody disputed that the FCA regulate the banks. The key point is that the “Cold Shoulder” means the FCA will ask their members not to have any dealings with a cold shouldered individual in any matters that concern the takeover panel.
This would mean for example that if Dave King wished to buy another UK company he would not be able to find a financial institution willing to help him facilitate the purchase. It would also probably mean no financial institution would help him participate in a share issue or rights issue as that could also have Takeover Panel implications. The latter consequence is potentially very relevant and contrary to King’s protests that this is purely a personal issue means the club could be affected and forced to change their plans.
In terms of the day to day banking with Metro they would be under no obligation to cut ties with Rangers at all. If the claim is they would choose to cut ties due to negative PR then I’d find that very unlikely, there are many much more high profile organisations in the UK with individuals involved in a lot worse than a petty scrap with the Takeover Panel, banks don’t tend to care unless it’s a money laundering issue.
__________
This is why Woodstein’s post is so good, it offers documentary evidence of the close working relationship between the TOP and the FCA, while you appear to be making assumptions, unless you have some evidence to offer – perhaps a report of the effect of a previous ‘cold shoulder’ – to support your assertion that it will have little effect.
How do you know that the FCA will limit their instructions/recommendations to matters concerning the TOP? How do you also know that, in forming their instructions/recommendations, they won’t take account of the fact that King is ignoring a CoS order, too? I’m not saying you do not know this, but just couching your posts in a knowledgeable manner doesn’t give us cause to accept them as of any more value than that of the most uneducated of ‘Rangers haters’ on any blog, anywhere.
My point, though, was that there is no compulsion on any financial institution to await an official notification of the ‘cold shoulder’ before deciding to review banking/lending/finance arrangements with a business that is, to all intents and purposes, run by such a deceitful individual as Dave King. Who would trust him, or any business that appears to rely so heavily on him, to honour any financial arrangements he/the business enter into?
I am not suggesting, for a moment, that the Metro Bank will close RIFC/TRFC’s bank accounts – banks don’t tend to do that unless there is no money, or overdraft, in them – though things could get difficult for them should they require to make urgent payments not fully covered by cash in the bank. But, of course, it’s not their banking facility that’s the main problem, it’s their ability to find their next lender of last resort, or perhaps someone to handle a share issue, that could be a killer.
While it may well be true that the TOP ruling will not have the direct effect many expected/hoped for, I’ve seen no evidence, produced by anybody, that it will not have quite dire consequences for the club either, just some posts from people who seem to think we should accept their assertions as fact, just because!
NICKJUNE 26, 2018 at 12:37
DUNDERHEIDJUNE 26, 2018 at 12:21
Oh but there is.
Boycott the Scottish Cup and away games.
Further to that don’t renew yer ST.
The money talks then the bllushit walks.
Ps.Thats not a typo btw.
Interestingly neither of the two media reports on today’s meeting at the SFA (The DR and The Scotsman) mention how the 5 way agreement complicates things.
It’s certainly a line of defence according to TRFC:
“This new Notice of Complaint neglects to properly capture the provisions of prior agreements made between the club and the SFA.”
Maybe the ‘secret’ agreement is not going to be a secret for much more!
I wonder what the reaction would be amongst all the other clubs. I’m sure Hibs will be raging, eh Mr. Petrie? I’m sure you are as pure as the driven snow in all of this. Surely you weren’t the runner between the parties?
JUSTTHEFACTS.
Not going to happen though is it?
Rangers, Celtic, Hearts, Hibernian, Aberdeen & St Mirren are all reporting very healthy ST numbers for the upcoming season and despite the clamour on here for justice the reality is most fans have already moved on.
DunderheidJune 26, 2018 at 12:21 (Edit)
Nick @ 12:12
(Although I don’t have the facts at my finger tips …) I’m fairly sure that if there’s fraud (or the distinct possibility of fraud) vis-à-vis the UEFA license application, then there’s no UEFA statute of limitations.
==========================
If it were to transpire that the 2011 licence was obtain via dishonesty and that were deemed to have corrupted the process then:
Article 10 UEFA’s Disciplinary Regulations* does contain such a statue of limitations. It reads: ‘There is a statute of limitations on prosecution, which is time-barred after:
a. one year for offences committed on the field of play or in its immediate vicinity; b. ten years for doping offences; c. five years for all other offences.
Match-fixing, bribery and corruption are not subject to a statute of limitations.’
* http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/UEFACompDisCases/02/37/00/86/2370086_DOWNLOAD.pdf
However UEFA need not be involved other than in an advisory basis, although any club, depending on what the final decision is , could go to UEFA with all the facts if there was evidence of dishonesty that had not been addressed…..
“Hibs chief Rod Petrie has been heavily involved in the SFA over the last decade and is likely to have his fingerprints all over the documentation that Stewart Regan is eager to keep secret.
Petrie was involved in The Five Way Agreement which paved the way for the Sevco club to be granted SFA and SFL membership despite fulfilling none of the criteria required of other membership applications.
That decision set the standard for recent events with similar interpretations of the rules applied right up to this season when Sevco were given a UEFA licence despite breaking virtually every Financial Fair Play rule imposed by UEFA.
Not a single Scottish club questioned that decision.”
(Joe McHugh 11/9/17)
AULDHEIDJUNE 26, 2018 at 14:07
If it were to transpire that the 2011 licence was obtain via dishonesty and that were deemed to have corrupted the process then:Article 10 UEFA’s Disciplinary Regulations* does contain such a statue of limitations. It reads: ‘There is a statute of limitations on prosecution, which is time-barred after:
_______________________________________________________________________
Audlheid, the case getting looked at today is concerning the submissions made on 30th June and/or 30th September, both of which were after the licence was “obtained”. The Compliance officer has confirmed to the club the 31st March process is no longer under any investigation.
Irrespective of anyones view on the rights or wrongs of it, purely on the licence issuance, the ship has sailed.
jimboJune 26, 2018 at 14:09
“Hibs chief Rod Petrie has been heavily involved in the SFA over the last decade and is likely to have his fingerprints all over the documentation that Stewart Regan is eager to keep secret. Petrie was involved in The Five Way Agreement which paved the way for the Sevco club to be granted SFA and SFL membership despite fulfilling none of the criteria required of other membership applications. That decision set the standard for recent events with similar interpretations of the rules applied right up to this season when Sevco were given a UEFA licence despite breaking virtually every Financial Fair Play rule imposed by UEFA. Not a single Scottish club questioned that decision.”
(Joe McHugh 11/9/17)
——————————————————————————————
And shame on every one of them!
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 26, 2018 at 12:56
“This is why Woodstein’s post is so good, it offers documentary evidence of the close working relationship between the TOP and the FCA, while you appear to be making assumptions, unless you have some evidence to offer – perhaps a report of the effect of a previous ‘cold shoulder’ – to support your assertion that it will have little effect.
How do you know that the FCA will limit their instructions/recommendations to matters concerning the TOP?”
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/statement-on-takeover-panel-cold-shouldering.pdf
“Given this, we would like to remind all regulated firms that they should not deal withthe two individuals mentioned above, or their principals, on any transactions to whichthe Takeover Code applies.”
Happy to oblige Ally, I may be an old fool with limited knowledge but I am wise enough only to state matters as fact when I know them to be accurate.
https://www.fca.org.uk/about/enhancing-market-integrity
“We aim to support and empower a healthy and successful financial system, where firms can thrive and consumers can place their trust in transparent and open markets.”
“firms’ business models, activities, controls and behaviour maintain trust in the integrity of markets and do not create or allow market abuse, systemic risk or financial crime”
https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/compliance-officer
This was my joab.
It’s better too begin with the clear-cut.
Rangers(I.L.) “apparently”, on the back of court sworn testimony and documentation, fraudulently obtained a European Licence at the expense of entitled member clubs……
Who carries the can for that, after years of obfuscation, is irrelevant at this stage. There is only one option available to the SFA, and that is to report the matter to the fraud squad. It is not a matter that should be, or can be, dealt with “internally”.
A real, Bona Fide, criminal law, crime is the allegation.
JIMBO
JUNE 26, 2018 at 13:32
Interestingly neither of the two media reports on today’s meeting at the SFA (The DR and The Scotsman) mention how the 5 way agreement complicates things.
It’s certainly a line of defence according to TRFC:“This new Notice of Complaint neglects to properly capture the provisions of prior agreements made between the club and the SFA.”
————————————————-
When the Notice of Complaint was issued, I wrote a comment (15.05.18, page 22) that the SFA should have targeted individuals & not the club.
I think that the SFA is trying to prove a conspiracy with the NoC. Had the several Ibrox employees who had oversight on RFC(2012)IL’s application been put on the spot, it would have been illuminating to see who would have maintained their RRM staunchness & who would have ‘rolled over’ & pointed fingers at the architect(s) of the scheme.
As it is, I fear that the 5WA will enable/facilitate a fudge.
Therefore, on the TV advert theme mentioned above, I’ve got the Cadbury ‘A finger of fudge is just enough to keep the ‘Gers complete.’ running through my head.
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/MAR/4/3.html
Go To
MAR 4.3 /instrument/2007/2007_11.pdf Support of the Takeover Panel’s Functions
4.3.2 (2)
“A firm should keep itself informed of Takeover Panel notices and take them into account in seeking to comply with MAR 4.3.1 R. If the Takeover Panel were to name such a person in such a notice, the FCA would expect a firm to comply with MAR 4.3.1 R by not acting or continuing to act for that person.”
Look at the word person at the end of the line in bue click on it and it is defined as:-
“
(in accordance with the Interpretation Act 1978) any person, including a body of persons corporate or unincorporate (that is, a natural person, a legal person and, for example, a partnership)
.”
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/contents
NickJune 26, 2018 at 16:08
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 26, 2018 at 12:56“This is why Woodstein’s post is so good, it offers documentary evidence of the close working relationship between the TOP and the FCA, while you appear to be making assumptions, unless you have some evidence to offer – perhaps a report of the effect of a previous ‘cold shoulder’ – to support your assertion that it will have little effect.How do you know that the FCA will limit their instructions/recommendations to matters concerning the TOP?”
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/statement-on-takeover-panel-cold-shouldering.pdf“Given this, we would like to remind all regulated firms that they should not deal withthe two individuals mentioned above, or their principals, on any transactions to whichthe Takeover Code applies.”Happy to oblige Ally, I may be an old fool with limited knowledge but I am wise enough only to state matters as fact when I know them to be accurate.
_______________
It certainly appears, from the statement you provided, that the ‘cold shoulder’, itself, is pretty toothless, unless the recipient of it is seeking to make further investments in a regulated company. My apologies for suggesting you’d made your post without knowledge of what you were saying.
I would imagine, then, that the only effect the cold shoulder might have on the club is to restrict, or prevent, further investment by King and the rest of the consortium, unless King (or perhaps another consortium member) makes the required offer.
However, it still leaves the club in the difficult position of having a de facto chairman, and driving force, who is not only the subject of a cold shoulder (however ineffective it might be), but is also not complying with the TOP order, despite promising to make the offer, and is the subject of a CoS order to do so. If nothing else, it must give cause for both King and RIFC/TRFC to be viewed as an even greater lending risk and, at the very least, lead to even higher interest rates on any borrowings – if they can find another lender like Close Brothers.
LM and SJ have been hard at work today?
Apologies for the tardy moderation.
TheLawMan2June 26, 2018 at 14:45 (Edit)
0
2 i
Rate This
AULDHEIDJUNE 26, 2018 at 14:07 If it were to transpire that the 2011 licence was obtain via dishonesty and that were deemed to have corrupted the process then:Article 10 UEFA’s Disciplinary Regulations* does contain such a statue of limitations. It reads: ‘There is a statute of limitations on prosecution, which is time-barred after: _______________________________________________________________________
Audlheid, the case getting looked at today is concerning the submissions made on 30th June and/or 30th September, both of which were after the licence was “obtained”. The Compliance officer has confirmed to the club the 31st March process is no longer under any investigation.
Irrespective of anyones view on the rights or wrongs of it, purely on the licence issuance, the ship has sailed
==================
The basis on which the end of March is excluded should be a decision for the JPDT and if they agree there is no case then that should be public as part of their findings.
That SFA and RIFC seem desperate not to look at the events at end of March based on testimony at the CW trial that triggered the investigation in the first place is remarkable, particularly that in doing so it would have settled the debate on when the “overdueness” began that would have settled the matter.
I doubt that exclusion, if it exists, will be tolerated without an explanation why an exclusion was provided. Hopefully this statement by Ramsey Smith in Dec 2011 wasn’t a real threat.
” We should put some pressure on the SFA from a high level, from Ali or Andrew to say we do not believe this is a good idea the SFA putting out such as statement. It stirs up the issue again. What they should do is if they get a legitimate media inquiry respond to it by saying there is no issue whatsoever with Rangers licensing arrangement with the SFA. If they persist they will only cause issues for themselves as much as Rangers. Ramsay
That explanation for exclusion will have to satisfy shareholders of Celtic, if it does then no problem. That was always an outcome of Res12.
If it doesn’t or isn’t forthcoming, the natural redress would have to be criminal court. Art 50 requires a club to prove they had no overdue payables at 31st March, so how has that been proven in 2011? Was the proof truthful at 31st March?
Its the JPDT that is on trial here and with it the credibility of the SFA as a governing body, a governing body btw who bear a lot of responsibility for the liquidation of Rangers.
Surely establishing what did take place is what matters here as far as the JPDT goes, not how the consequences are handled although one consequence should be a new system of governance to restore credibility in Scottish football.
SLIMJIMJUNE 26, 2018 at 13:39
JUSTTHEFACTS.Not going to happen though is it?Rangers, Celtic, Hearts, Hibernian, Aberdeen & St Mirren are all reporting very healthy ST numbers for the upcoming season and despite the clamour on here for justice the reality is most fans have already moved on.
You appear to have missed a very important fact SJ.
The ST sales have happened prior to the decision.
If the decision goes the wrong way then fans have a choice in what they do next.
First step could be to boycott all Scottish Cup ties.
Second step stop filling up the away allocations.
Third then tell you respective Club that they are next unless they take up where the Supporters of Res12 left off.
After all as one very bright chap in Football once correctly stated Football is nothing without fans.
That’s their reality.
Supporters hold the winning hand in Football we always have.
“Surely establishing what did take place is what matters here as far as the JPDT goes, not how the consequences are handled although one consequence should be a new system of governance to restore credibility in Scottish football.”
(Auldheid)
That’s exactly it. Just come out with the truth of what happened. The consequences are secondary. I know what I would like to happen but just to admit the crimes would almost be enough for me.
And to learn.
BIG PINK
Not really BP, have been enjoying the Wimbledon qualifiers at Roehampton.
JUSTTHEFACTS
I am well aware of that but nevertheless i am genuinely interested in what makes you think that there is a groundswell of support for this type of action. Indeed approximately one year ago we had the Supreme court decision followed by a immediate call for title stripping both on here and other platforms, with a legal challenge being accepted as a certainty by many if this course of action didn’t occur. We then had statements from the SFA & SPFL followed by several high profile clubs all with an alternate viewpoint. Despite the calls for supporters to unite as one it all came to nothing and the fans turned up in ever increasing numbers with several clubs reporting their highest average attendance in decades. Celtic fans sold out their allocation for both the semi-final & final of the Scottish cup as well as the League cup final which tends to support my opinion that there just isn’t an appetite for what you suggest among the ordinary supporter who is only concerned with matters on the field.
“UEFA regulations are alive to the — possibility — that national associations and even Tax Authorities might be tempted from time to time to help out a struggling club by being lax in their enforcement procedures.
In such circumstances UEFA are free to, and have threatened to, sanction the National association and ALL the teams under their jurisdiction, and so it is not in the interests of member clubs who qualify for European competition or the National Association of which they are a member and which represents them, to protect one rogue club should that be established.
Not only that, none of the clubs in Scotland can afford a Scottish wide European football sanction.
Further, some club officials are now alive to what was going on in 2011 and are not best enamoured with the conduct shown by the offending party then, or their successors now.
While there are no guarantees as to what will happen, there is only one thing that is certain and that is that no one in this long running farce can afford to produce a fix which is based on statements which can and will be shown to be completely false and ficticious.
That is how we arrived at where we are now, and why Mr McGlennan has some additional reading to do today when he goes into his office.
Further reading can be supplied to him or his successor if necessary – although the SFA have the ability to get all of that from the horse’s mouth as opposed to relying on hand delivered lawyers letters.”
(BroganRogan…….)
Well what say you now football clubs ?
Going to remain silent?
Or are you all part of the stink?
Hibs?
SLIMJIM JUNE 26, 2018 at 19:35
===========================
Can I just remind you how arrogant Lance Armstrong was while he got away with his industrial scale cheating for all those years before justice was finally done? He’s not so smug now, is he, despite thinking he’d never be caught?
Or the officials who wrongly blamed innocent Liverpool fans for the Hillsborough disaster? That took a good few years for justice to be served, but the wait only made the outcome so much sweeter.
The corrupt Scottish football authorities and the two Ibrox clubs they’ve permanently been in thrall to will get their comeuppance – the only question is when. That will wipe a lot of smiles from a lot of smug faces, and I for one cannot wait!
In the meantime, I take a lot of personal satisfaction from the knowledge that every single Rangers fan and club official, along with the football authorities, knows precisely what happened to their club in recent years and that the reality they have to hide and not admit to under any circumstances gnaws away at them incessantly, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. There can be no respite from the torture until the truth finally emerges and is publicly admitted, as it inevitably will.
I may have missed a few details today because I was out and about trying to source a reasonably priced car for my daughter but has it been stated anywhere, exactly which Rangers entity is being investigated?
HighlanderJune 26, 2018 at 22:57
‘…..every single Rangers fan and club official, along with the football authorities, knows precisely what happened to their club in recent years and that the reality they have to hide and not admit to under any circumstances gnaws away at them incessantly, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. There can be no respite from the torture until the truth finally emerges and is publicly admitted, as it inevitably will’
____________
Highlander, you speak of the worm of conscience, and of the self-knowledge of guilt of reprehensible behaviour!
I would imagine that only sociopaths and psychopaths are incapable of feelings of shame and guilt.
Every ordinary, sane Scottish Football supporter knows as a fact that liquidation of a club has been and is the death of the club as a participant in Scottish Football.
They also know that a brand new club was admitted to the SFL.
They know that Rangers Football Club of Glasgow Green 1872 origins is not, cannot possibly be, the new club.
And the new club cannot possibly be RFC of 1872!
They know that Charles Green did not, and legally could not, buy ‘Rangers FC of 1872’.
They know that all the crap about ‘buying the history’ and ‘being the same club’ is exactly that: pure crap.
Because if indeed they were the same club that owed HMRC millions, HMRC would still be chasing them for payment.
But what the fans of a club choose to believe is one thing.
Much more pernicious and destructive is when the governance body of a Sport indulges in falsehood and misrepresentation and downright lies in order to aid the cause of sports cheating and, perhaps, in so doing lays itself open to charges of conspiring to commit fraud.
There are people for whom, perhaps, ‘conscience’ and ‘personal integrity’ mean hee-haw: people such as Adolph Hitler and Herman Goering- who only feared the just retribution that would be coming to them, and topped themselves in disgraceful cowardice.
None of those who signed the 5-Way agreement , or who told porkies to UEFA about licences, will worry about things like personal morality.
They will worry about possibly being charged with a criminal, not a football, offence.
They are not likely to top themselves, though.( Who said ” shame!”?)
And that is what Scottish Football, a sport, has been reduced to: a dirty wee ‘business’ governed by untruthful expediency.
Who can thole it?
@Slim Jim
You must be aware that Supporters have been encouraged to keep their powder dry until it’s been decided one way or the other and if any action is to be taken at all?
Nearly there now ?
Tic Toc.
JUSTTHEFACTS
Encouraged by whom?
Once again you overestimate (imo) the interest in any action being taken by ordinary supporters of the other clubs.
We shall have to wait and see who is correct.
SlimJim – betting on the inertia of the masses is a smart bet, and as well all know, for the 5WA and the airbrush I hung of history to succeed all that needs to happen is for good people to do nothing…
however there’s still enough good people, even on this site alone, willing to do something to keep this front and centre. More power to their elbows.
JOHN CLARKJUNE 27, 2018 at 00:21
They are not likely to top themselves, though.( Who said ” shame!”?)
This is pretty poor, particularly in the current climate. It’s daft stuff like this which leads your average supporter to dismiss those of us who want genuine change to football governance for positive reasons as all being hysterical moronic loons.
Nick at 08.53. Catch onto yourself.
I do find it interesting, and quite telling, when Rangers/TRFC supporters seem to look for some sort of victory by casting doubt on the willingness of other clubs’ supporters to fight for justice, rather than to attempt to defend the actions of both ‘Rangers’. Similarly, they seem to glory in the unwillingness/inability of the game’s governors, and indeed the law and business regulators, to take appropriate action against their club and it’s leaders, as if, they are in some state of collective sociopathy. They don’t care what their club is guilty of, as long as it (they) doesn’t suffer for it, even when caught.
They don’t even care that their current club is using the same failed business model that led to it’s predecessor’s liquidation, and don’t seem to realise that, this time, the club started this ‘overspend what you don’t have’ business model from a far weaker starting position than the last club did.
They also tend to take each ‘battle’ in isolation, when, just like Hitler’s Germany, they are fighting on several fronts, in that its not just the TOP issue they have to contend with, or the Euro License inquiry, or the share issue/loans for equity overly long saga, they have also put all their eggs into the one basket of Euro qualification, which, even if they do qualify, may well end up having cost more (in transfer fees, salaries etc) than they stand to gain from gate income and prize money.
There are also, of course, other expensive matters that we do not yet know whether or not they have been settled, like two sacked managers and coaching teams and the wifi case. Have they gone away?
But it’s OK as far as the bears are concerned, as long as their clubs don’t suffer, as long as a blind eye is turned, as long as apathy reigns, for they are the people!
SLIMJIMJUNE 26, 2018 at 19:35
Don’t underestimate Celtic fans.
===========================
Does it need to be thousands of individuals to take this the full road?.
JINGSO.JIMSIE
JUNE 19, 2018 at 10:11
I note that Raman Bhardwaj of STV & Gavin Berry of the DR are both in Espana with TRFC.
Cue feelgood reporting; Berry in today’s DR on-line is particularly toe-curling.
I’m sure we’d like to know who’s paying for Berry & Bhardwaj’s jolly; is it TRFC? If so, shouldn’t their content be qualified by that-there product placement logo?
—————————————
In the interests of fairness, I feel I must point out that STV has ‘Shouty Sheelagh’ in Austria to report on CFC’s training camp. The DR don’t seem to have sent a ‘named’ reporter. Perhaps they’re waiting for Gavin Berry to return from Spain & then utilise him?
SLIMJIMJUNE 26, 2018 at 19:35
I agree that many Scottish Football fans concentrate on what goes on on the pitch but while season tickets sales have risen that should not be taken as a sign that the goings on down Govan Way have been forgotten.
People have busy lives, getting involved in campaigns and protests takes time and effort.
People know that they can face an uphill battle, with the likes of the footballing authorities, to get a result but may decide it is not worth their effort. That doesn’t mean that they have changed their point of view.
Some people often feel it is sometimes best to leave it to others with the time, resources and experience to fight battles that they themselves may not be have the competencies to fight.
Others will still go to games because they point blank refuse to let the cheating of others deny them the joy of watching their chosen sport.
If you think folks have moved on then I don’t expect to hear chants of ‘You’re not Rangers anymore’ and ‘You let your club die’ this coming season. However as you well know they will ring out at ground after ground.
As Highlander says, everyone around Ibrox knows the truth and I would add to that by saying the reality is that the vast majority or fans from other Scottish Clubs also know the score.
Do not confuse the lack of mass protest and action as being blind acceptance of wrong doing by a club/clubs that I am still waiting on an answer of what it is they contribute, in a positive manner, to the Scottish Game.
Jingso.JimsieJune 27, 2018 at 09:54
JINGSO.JIMSIE
JUNE 19, 2018 at 10:11
I note that Raman Bhardwaj of STV & Gavin Berry of the DR are both in Espana with TRFC.
Cue feelgood reporting; Berry in today’s DR on-line is particularly toe-curling.
I’m sure we’d like to know who’s paying for Berry & Bhardwaj’s jolly; is it TRFC? If so, shouldn’t their content be qualified by that-there product placement logo?—————————————
In the interests of fairness, I feel I must point out that STV has ‘Shouty Sheelagh’ in Austria to report on CFC’s training camp. The DR don’t seem to have sent a ‘named’ reporter. Perhaps they’re waiting for Gavin Berry to return from Spain & then utilise him?
————————————————————————-
Can I just add that Chris (union) Jack has had days and days of “reporting” in the (not Glasgow) Herald from TRFC camp in Spain. A great wee jolly for the lad, mixing with his idols and sending p**h back to fill the sports pages.
Seriously though all rivalry and biases to one side…
What has the License issue of Rangers Fc in 2011 got to do with the current Club at Ibrox at the moment?
I would be raising this first and foremost if in charge of things at Ibrox.
“Wrong Club mate sorry mind close the door on yer way out…dum,dee,dum,dee,dum”
jimbo June 26, 2018 at 19:41
————————
Do you have a link to the site that BRTH made the post that you referred to?
I’d like to post it on a Hearts message board.
JINGSO.JIMSIEJUNE 27, 2018 at 09:54
Generally the Evening Times, Radio Clyde, Daily Record and BBC send someone to both Rangers and Celtic’s training camps each year, looks like the same is happening this year other than the Beeb not following RFC because of their ongoing little domestic with each other.
These daft annual trips highlight how poorly newspapers are run, the content from them is completely inane and exactly the sort of fluff you get on the club websites anyway. If I ever had the misfortune to find myself managing a newspaper first thing I’d do would be hire an agency photographer to go out, keep the Sheelagh McLaren/Chris Jack types at home and tell them to set up interviews by telephone to supplement the photographs.
There would be no drop at all in the “quality” of the reportage but each media organisation would save several thousand pounds a year. Just seems like an excuse for a jolly.
Obviously complete speculation but my educated guess is that yesterday’s principle hearing did not go too well for Rangers, generally positive news is leaked by their “friendly” twitter accounts.
Over the last few weeks we have seen King put pressure on Hughes and MacLennan as “Celtic minded” officials who held position of authority in the game and might use their preconceived attitudes and positions to disadvantage Rangers.
I wonder if Celtic will be similarly motivated to call for the resignation of any “Rangers minded” officials if they are found to be implicated by the current Judicial Panel deliberations.
It could be a bit like the politics of tit for tat expulsions of diplomats from countries who have disagreements about foreign interference in domestic matters.
NICKJUNE 27, 2018 at 11:39
Obviously complete speculation but my educated guess is that yesterday’s principle hearing did not go too well for Rangers, generally positive news is leaked by their “friendly” twitter accounts.
================
Nothing major will come of this. At the most it will be a fine which King will refuse to.pay. This is simply a step by the SFA to shut up the complaining Celtic fans, backed by a willing media. After what was said in court they had to do something, but the dates of the periods under review have already been gerrymandered.
UPTHEHOOPSJUNE 27, 2018 at 12:34
Nothing major will come of this. At the most it will be a fine which King will refuse to.pay.
100% agree, I said yesterday I believed the only realistic outcomes were a fine that Rangers fought all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport or cleared of all charges.
Gut feeling now though is it’s the former as if it was the latter they’d be leaking news of it triumphantly to anyone who would listen.
Easyjambo,
It’s one of the posts on this page of CQN.
https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/sfa-judicial-panel-opens-on-res-12-issue/comment-page-2/#comments
jimbo June 27, 2018 at 13:38
——————————-
Cheers big ears ……… sorry, that was Jumbo
“I wonder if Celtic will be similarly motivated to call for the resignation of any “Rangers minded” officials if they are found to be implicated by the current Judicial Panel deliberations.”
(Easyjambo)
I don’t know what to expect Celtic’s reaction to be. They seem to prefer being under the radar. Although I was pleasantly surprised in reading the correspondence between Peter Lawwell and Stuart Regan recently.
I’m afraid it’s the Celtic shareholders, Auldheid and his merry band who lead the charge. Thank goodness for them.
Big ears?
I do have biggish ears!
jimboJune 27, 2018 at 13:49
‘…I don’t know what to expect Celtic’s reaction to be. They seem to prefer being under the radar..’
______________________
I speculate sometimes that if the Celtic plc Board had debated and adopted the Res12 motion and followed up with rigorous requests for police investigation, then evidence would have probably have been conveniently lost or contaminated in such way as to result in the dropping of charges.
Then I tell myself not to be ridiculous! Such a thing could not happen in this country.
But I do believe that Celtic plc, by treating the licence matter as a purely football matter,and even then not taking the prompt and vigorous action that the alleged wrongdoing by RFC(IL) and the Club licensing committee called for, have not covered themselves with glory in this whole sorry saga.
The SFA refused to allow an open, independent examination that actually dealt with the question of whether lies had been told by RFC and or by its own officers about the state of their social tax indebtedness at the material time.
That should have flagged up that there was something to hide.
Meekly accepting a CO investigation which by some accounts specifically excluded the very period of time in which the heart of the alleged rottenness is rooted was simply farcical.
Yes John they have shifted the dates to suit themselves. Like they did with Nimmo Smith. ETims has been talking about it today.
“the case getting looked at today is concerning the submissions made on 30th June and/or 30th September, both of which were after the licence was “obtained”. The Compliance officer has confirmed to the club the 31st March process is no longer under any investigation. ”
He then lists some questions,
1. On what basis was exclusion agreed given it was reference to events leading up to 31st March 2011 at CW trial that triggered the investigation?
2. Why are reasons not being made public?
3. Are Celtic shareholders and Celtic not entitled to know the reasons and inform shareholders if they stand up?
4. Why should that agreement to exclude not be a task for the JPDT to decide in interests of transparency?
5. Have RIFC. based on the statement by Ramsey Smith in the e mails of 7th December 2011, some sort of hold over the SFA that allowed exclusion of end March events to be “leveraged”
From TRFC statement:
THE Rangers Football Club (“the Club”) was informed today by the Scottish FA (“SFA”) that, after an eight-and-a-half month investigation, the SFA will not be proceeding with a Notice of Complaint in respect of the submission made by the Club to the SFA at the end of March 2011 with regard to the issue of the Club’s UEFA licence for the following Season.
Sky Sports News
@SkySportsNews
BREAKING: AC Milan excluded from European football for next two seasons after breaching club licencing and Financial Fair Play regulations. #SSN4:04 pm · 27 Jun 2018
JIMBOJUNE 27, 2018 at 15:12
It was on the basis that as the Compliance Officer, he investigated the complaint over a lengthy period and at the end of that investigation, he concluded that Rangers adhered to the rules and that after consultation with UEFA, he also concluded that in strict accordance to the regulation set out in Annex VIII, Rangers did NOT have an Overdue Payable as at 31st March. This was his findings.
There is absolutely no reason to. In accordance with rules of the SFA, any information members pass to the SFA is treated as strictly confidential and any authorised release of that information without the authority of the member would be a breach of their own rules. This is why they have stated the outcome without any details. The outcome on its own means there is no case to answer to.
No. Is there reason to suspect that qualified lawyer, Tony McGlennan should be doubted ? Do you think he is covering something up. Whats in it for him as a non Rangers supporter who is working his notice before returning to a Private Law firm ? Why would he risk his personal business by being complicit in a cover up, knowing others could look at it ? His career would be destroyed.
Lets be honest. Even if they did say nothing to see, it wouldnt end anything. There would still be a clamour and accusations that they too were at it.
No.
This again makes an accusation against a guy who wont even be employed by the SFA in 2 months time. Why would he do that. He doesnt even like Rangers. In fact, you couldnt really get any further from a Rangers fan in this case. He had a job to do and he done it professionally and thoroughly……..then added a few things on at the end that he wasnt asked to review.
From TRFC statement:THE Rangers Football Club (“the Club”) was informed today by the Scottish FA (“SFA”) that, after an eight-and-a-half month investigation, the SFA will not be proceeding with a Notice of Complaint in respect of the submission made by the Club to the SFA at the end of March 2011 with regard to the issue of the Club’s UEFA licence for the following Season.
——————————————————————————————————-
But was it the club that stiffed the creditors or the club that paid the football debts that made the statement ? how embarrassing is this picture?
https://rangers.co.uk/teams/
TheLawMan2 June 27, 2018 at 16:29
It was on the basis that as the Compliance Officer, he investigated the complaint over a lengthy period and at the end of that investigation, he concluded that Rangers adhered to the rules and that after consultation with UEFA, he also concluded that in strict accordance to the regulation set out in Annex VIII, Rangers did NOT have an Overdue Payable as at 31st March. This was his findings.
==============================
Have you seen his findings, or are you relying only on what “the club” reported on the website?
If it is the latter then you are indulging in speculation. The website doesn’t mention “consultation with UEFA”, so in order to state that as a fact then you would have to have seen “his findings”.
Your speculation, if that’s what it is, may well turn out to be true, but for the moment please preface your speculation with “I think” or “I believe” or some similar phrase that doesn’t suggest 100% certainty.
If I could speculate for a moment, and suggest that Rangers may have been informed, based on the statements the CO had gathered, that there was insufficient evidence on which to proceed with a NoC.
Such a finding could prompt the club to issue the statement that it did, but it wouldn’t necessarily predicate that Rangers either “adhered to the rules” or were in “strict accordance …….. ”
“In accordance with rules of the SFA, any information members pass to the SFA is treated as strictly confidential and any authorised release of that information without the authority of the member would be a breach of their own rules. ”
This is no criticism of you Lawman2 But when does transparency kick in with the SFA?
Why should information passed by member clubs to the SFA be confidential? There may be occasions but should it be the norm?
Jimbo.
SFA rules and regulations.
• All Licensing Administration employees are subject to confidentiality provisions as detailed in 2.6.
2.6 Confidentiality and Transparency
The Scottish FA guarantees the clubs full confidentiality as regards the information disclosed during theLicensing Process.
The Scottish FA also reserves the right to disclose any award decision at any time. Subject to the disclosure to the club’s respective league body referred to above, the reasons for such decisions however will remain confidential.
Just watched the VAR decision in the Germany v South Korea game and couldnt help but think to games between Rangers and Celtic where every crucial decision is challenged by 1 half of the City.
If that had happened here, both the linesman and the referee would be labelled cheats and everyone would question how they missed the defender passing the ball to the striker.
The reality is that the linesman was 50 yards away with 6 bodies in the way. Its near on impossible for him to see the defender passing it. Even if it was a forward passing, Its humanly impossible for him to know at the precise point the ball leaves the defenders foot to gauge if the forward is offside from 50 yards away. The referee is at a different angle etc etc etc.
Put simply. Its an impossible task. They dont cheat. They make a call on what they think is right. Sometimes, like today, they will get it wrong.
VAR is superb. That goal being chopped off could have cost Mexico their place in the next round. Why not use technology if it results in the right decision.
Bravo VAR.
JIMBOJUNE 27, 2018 at 18:30
I know its whataboutery of the worse kind but it would be fine if the Lawman 2’s strict adherence to confidentiality within the corridors of the footballing authorities was observed by all parties.
However I seem to recall a certain Gardener asking ‘who are these people?’ and more recently a convicted tax dodger casting aspersions about the character and honesty of various office bearers.
Lord forbid the rest of us, being mere customers of the Scottish game, ask to be treated like adults and thrown a bit of transparency and explanation of decisions from time to time.
Well, we now know that there will be no clear-out of the dead, rotten wood, no new dawn of honesty, no restoration of truth and sporting integrity, no transparency , and no drive to squeeze the poison out of Scottish Football.
The ‘Big Lie’, a rotten blight on this disgusting Football Association,remains of course, as does the fact that there was no investigation into the possibility that there was a conspiracy to defraud one club out of millions of pounds.
Turnbull Hutton seems to have been uniquely honest and brave among those who ‘run’ football in Scotland.
If any of the rest are honest, they are also cowardly: if they are bravely brass-necked, they are dishonest.
I hawk and metaphorically spit on them: may none of their ventures succeed.
The SFA will decide on their next step tonight in their ongoing row with Rangers over the award of a UEFA licence.
A meeting, described as “procedural” will take place at Hampden in the aftermath of a notice of complaint issued by compliance officer Tony McGlennan last month.
SFA chiefs decided Rangers have a case to answer over their application in 2011 for a UEFAlicence to play in Europe that year.
Rangers subsequently hit out at the SFA over McGlennan’s notice of complaint and claimed football is being directed by “individuals intent on harming the Scottish game.”
Two charges were levelled against the club, who responded before the May 22 deadline to vigorously defend their position.
A meeting was scheduled for today in which the claims of both sides are expected to be considered in more detail.
Points of procedure and how any such case may be taken forward will also be up for discussion, although both sides declined to comment last night.
One source said: “No significant decisions are expected to be made at this stage.”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-discover-next-move-uefa-12790197
—————–
Not even a statement from the SFA or SPFL,just a source “No significant decisions are expected to be made at this stage.”
A bit of transparency from the coverning bodies would help reasure scottish football fans of what is happening and when they expect a decision to be made.All we get is a source and “No significant decisions are expected to be made at this stage.”