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.
Weasel words from TRFC the March 31 submission is “no longer under any investigation” allows multiple inferences to be drawn. First that TRFC have been found to have had no case to answer. Second that they have been found guilty and await sentencing. Third that the evidence has been completed and the panel will decide what is done?
Have The Ibrox entities ever produced a clear unambiguous statement?
I suppose that they are so habituated to skirting at the edges of truth and equivocating that they can do nothing else.
SFA chiefs decided Rangers have a case to answer over their application in 2011 for a UEFAlicence to play in Europe that year.
A meeting, described as “procedural”
————
How in God’s name can a case to answer over rangers application in 2011 for a UEFA licence to play in Europe that year.Be described as “procedural”?
Do the SFA deal with this kind of issue all the time?
Have the SFA delt with other clubs that had a case to answer on the granting of UEFA licence to play in Europe that needed a compliance officer to look at it?
Extraordinary I would describe it not “procedural”
NICKJUNE 27, 2018 at 12:39
========================
You agree with me that nothing much will come of the investigation into the 2011 licence, but I suspect we have different reasons for coming to that conclusion. From your writings on here you seem to believe there is a general lack of poor governance in Scottish football, including but not exclusive to matters down Ibrox way. My view is the SFA have no problem whatsoever applying their rules of governance to any other club other than those who play at Ibrox. Had any one from Celtic, Aberdeen or Hearts to name but three been in the dock we would not be debating eight seasons down the line how paltry a punishment they will receive. It would have been dealt with many years ago in the hard and fast manner that the SFA throw clubs out the Scottish cup for registration non-compliance issues, while at the same time inventing rules to absolve Rangers of year upon year of multiple registration non-compliance issues. I believe had any other club been in the dock the only debate would surround how long a ban from European competition the SFA would give them.
I often liken the chances of Rangers receiving a fitting punishment as being as likely as a member of the Royal Family going to prison for a crime any ordinary member of the public would receive a sentence for. It would not happen because the establishment would not let it happen. Rangers are the Royal Family of Scottish football and they are clearly above the football rules every other club has to adhere to.
The SFA are just playing for time. Trying to make it look like they have looked at this issue backside forwards, top to bottom. Before they come out and say nothing here.
Can you imagine if it was proved that Rangers should not have been allowed to play in Europe that year? That it should have been Celtic?
Think of the implications. Celtic are due money. But from whom? Who is to blame?
No it’s too risky. This is an investigation going nowhere. In my opinion.
Unless of course it becomes a legal matter.
Perish the thought. Imagine the likes of Bryson in the dock, he would get destroyed. Laughed out of court.
Another one like Nimmo Smith who will never live it down. Shamed for eternity.
BFBPUZZLED
Maybe you’re referring to a different statement but if not where does it say the submission is “no longer under any investigation”?
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/notice-of-complaint/.
JIMBOJUNE 27, 2018 at 19:56
8
0 Rate This
Unless of course it becomes a legal matter.
Can you imagine some in the dock?
Just look at the things we learned from the CW court case.
Can you imagine just what may come out?
PMGB latest
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/06/27/cruel-comparisons-for-a-cut-price-operation/
JIMBO & CLUSTER ONE
Making this a legal matter is the last thing the SFA want, which is why we are led to believe that they are refusing to investigate the March 31st deadline. From what we heard in the witness box at the Whyte trial, Rangers(IL) were well aware that they were liable for the WTC two weeks before the deadline but chose not to disclose it. That is fraud and would indeed be a legal matter.
Can’t have that now, can we?
Not only would RFC(IL) be in the dock, but perhaps the SFA too.
Good Evening,
It ought to become a Legal Matter if there is any substance to the rumours.
I suspect that “The Rangers Football Club” formerly Sevco have played it was a different club card to the SFA but don’t tell the outside world.
There is ample evidence of fraud and deceit which has been led in the High Court and the paper trail also exits.
No amount of lies will ever cover up the truth and this has been proved throughout history.
Several years have gone and many more may have to come but truth will out.
In the meantime the brothers will look after each other the SFA is rotten from top to bottom
SHUG
Re- Facilities
Asked & Answered.
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/fitness-ahead-for-boss/
Hoopy 7June 27, 2018 at 21:24
‘….I suspect that “The Rangers Football Club” formerly Sevco have played it was a different club card to the SFA but don’t tell the outside world.’
______________________
Yes, Hoopy 7, one set of liars telling the truth (for once!)to another set of liars who in no way can risk telling the truth, which is, of course, that TRFC Ltd is NOT the Rangers Football Club which allegedly obtained money by lying to UEFA, with or without the knowledge of the SFA.
What a hellish mess the SFA has got itself into!
How can members of that Board live with themselves? How can they bear the hypocrisy of ‘disciplining’ any player, any club, any member of the Association which breaches ‘a rule’ when they consider what they themselves have done?
They are a turgid, discredited ‘governance’ body with no moral authority whatsoever.
“The CEO is dead-Long live the CEO”- Regan has gone , and nothing has changed.
Sj sorry but ROFL deflector mode on full.
It will all come oot in the wash as my wee maw used tae say.
It’ll be fine folks as the SFA are doing a specialist hand wash with Orange Marigolds on for that deeper cleanse ? ?
THELAWMAN2JUNE 27, 2018 at 16:29
Just catching up.
That was very useful. Thank you.
Anyone expecting a negative outcome for sevco 2012 from the SFA has not been paying attention IMO
IIRC J Farry was cleared in two SFA internal investigations re the JC disgrace .
How did that go in the end .
Think we have quite a way to go yet to get an honest assessment of the goings on in this saga .
If I were celtic I would be making sure that the march date was above board and I would not be taking the sevco 2012 or the SFA s word for it ,that’s for sure
Why is the Secret 5 Way Agreement,
A Secret?
When the football authorities come to an accommodation with a new club regarding it’s responsibilities towards the sins of the old club, which it claims to be the successor of, why is this secretive? If ever there was a case for transparency then this is it.
If ever an agreement were better devised to come back and bite the signatories on the rear end I have yet to hear of it.
As has been mentioned a million times, they want the best of both worlds. Continuity, but with little responsibility for the sins of the past.
Oh what a tangled web we weave….
If it was all honest and above board, grounded in logic, why hide? Why didn’t Regan and Doncaster come out and explain it all.
Why did title stripping appear in the first draft – must have been the gut reaction initially – but by the final draft had disappeared entirely. What was the rational for that change of heart?
How did they come to decide which crimes the new club would be held to account for and which ones wouldn’t?
It’s time the SFA & SPFL came out into the open and gave us some explanations.
It would appear that the SFA think the new club are culpable in the two charges against them, but TRFC are minded to say ‘but we had an agreement!’
Could be messy. But I’m sure all the juicy stuff will be hidden away as usual.
*Rationale
FAN OF FOOTBALL 07.45
Whose word would you take if both Rangers & the SFA are unacceptable?.
The CO who is not Rangers minded conducted a eight and a half month investigation and found “the accusations to be groundless”.
jimboJune 28, 2018 at 08:40
Jimbo, there are a group of people who not only think secrets are alright, they think they are a basic/necessary part of life. They lay bricks
As has been mentioned before, the limiting of the scope of the enquiry was to protect the SFA. The SFA was the real target of the Resolution12 guys. Quite a slick move by the SFA. And given that most of the present lot have been in cahoots with King all along, I hope they can count on his continued ‘discretion’ if Sevco get handed a meaningful punishment.
Allyjambo @ 09:53
I secretly hope that several of those crafty stone workers are currently bricking it.
Is it correct that sky are snubbing the flag day so that they can show sevco play up at Aberdeen.
No offence to the good folk at Aberdeen but isn’t it normal to show the champions raising the flag, if this is correct then it will be subscription cancelled
Kentes1June 28, 2018 at 11:48
Is it correct that sky are snubbing the flag day so that they can show sevco play up at Aberdeen. No offence to the good folk at Aberdeen but isn’t it normal to show the champions raising the flag, if this is correct then it will be subscription cancelled
————————————————————————
It is the case. BT Sport might show the Celtic v Livi game though?
Confirmed yesterday that Celtic V Livi will go ahead at 3pm on the Saturday.
Rangers won the title in 2008/09 and raised the flag at Ibrox on Saturday 15th August 2009 in a 3pm kick off v Falkirk NOT shown live.
The live game that weekend was Aberdeen v Celtic.
Rangers won the title in 2009/10 and raised the flag at Ibrox on Saturday 14th August in a 3pm kick off v Kilmarnock NOT shown live.
The live game that weekend was Inverness v Celtic.
Showing Rangers or Celtic at home is normally an exception to the rule. Showing them away is usually par for the course.
BORDERSDON
I thought Celtic had already confirmed their opening game would take place at 3.00pm on a Saturday.
Sky are contracted to show no more than four games a season from Ibrox & Celtic Park. Two Old Firm games at each venue leaves just two per club. I presume Sky would rather wait until later in the season when the games may be more meaningful before making any decision.
Not a good start for a new partnership!,
So why the secrecy?
Could it be that the ‘agreement’ has the potential to be on the wrong side of the law?
The original Rangers were liquidated. They are dead. So in order to appease Charles Green they deliberately give the impression that there is some form of continuation.
But the problem is there are creditors who are still out of pocket. No problem! The original clumpany is dead. But what about the ‘footballing’ debts? No problem, they are alive. What about misdemeanors in 2011 re. a Euro licence, yes they are alive to that too.
If they are the same club they should be at least attempting to square up the debts. Even over time on an easy payments scheme. However HMRC, who have boundless funds and energy to chase up money owed, do not seem to be pursuing this line of action. Why? Because they are legally dead.
For footballing authorities to have the audacity to contradict the law of the land and give the impression that Rangers lives on is, in my opinion, fraudulent. I think we need a legal ruling on this. For the creditor’s sake if nothing else. Any Masons involved in legal process to declare, just like judges have to do in England.
Why do they still attribute titles and trophies won by the old liquidated club to the new club? What’s in it for the SFA & the Leagues to promote this myth? Or is it real fear? Or heaven forbid, a secret brotherhood conspiracy? Protect and promote the Establishment club.
There are more questions than answers until the mob at Hampden come out and explain things, or do the right thing and resign en masse. Let us start again with a level playing field and a touch of integrity.
It may be Jimbo that there are too many t’rangers minded folks in the sfa protecting their establishment club no other club in this land would get away with any of this.
Cool ice baths
Shug, or as someone said earlier elsewhere, couple of Stevie Gee’s players binned!
Apologies in advance for the randomness of the following but I just noticed that one of my Facebook friends, indeed my bluenose brother-in-law, has a photo on his wall of the iconic wrought iron gates at Ibrox bearing the legend ‘Rangers Football Club Ltd’. You’ll know the gates I mean, as they’re much photographed.
I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that Rangers Football Club became Rangers Football Club Ltd following incorporation in 1899 when club and company became one legal entity, and then Rangers Football Club plc when David Murray floated the club on the stock exchange in 2000.
The image of the gates had me thinking, why on earth would a football club known the world over as Rangers Football Club, or more succinctly ‘Rangers’, adorn a prime corner of its stadium with the name of a meaningless, expendable company? It’s not as if the club was being paid to advertise the company, since the ethereal club has no legal personality, or so we were told.
Then you have to wonder why the ‘company’ name on the famous and iconic gates didn’t change in 2000 when the limited company became a PLC. Surely a company that could spend £12m on Tore Andre Flo could afford a couple of hundred quid or so to remove the ‘Ltd’ inscription on the gate and weld in a replacement ‘plc’?
You could be forgiven for thinking that Rangers Football Club Ltd and Rangers Football Club plc weren’t just meaningless companies at all, but were in fact a long-established football club which has told so many porkies in the past few years that it (and its offspring) doesn’t know its arse from its elbow.
SLIMJIM @ 09.23
I think we should take the word of a witness in a court of law who stated under oath that Rangers had admitted liability for the DOS bill long before the March 31st deadline.
And if the CO took eight and a half months to totally ignore this, then what has he been looking at after all that time? It should have been an open and shut case.
Forgot to add to my previous post that the Companies House number of the entity currently languishing in liquidation is identical to that of Rangers Football Club Ltd, a football club incorporated in 1899.
If the mods wish to move my previous post to the OldClub/NewClub thread, feel free to do so, although I would suggest it stays here in view of being primarily related to ironmongery.
Finally, this post and my previous one serve as a warning not to ‘overinvest’ in Stella (other lagers are available) when temperatures are close to 30C in the Scottish Highlands.
29 degrees where I am. I went out to paint the fence. I gave up after about 6 slats. Sweat pouring off me. When my hand touched the pavement it was like a hot plate.
not that I’m complaining mind you.
29 = 84 degrees in old money
LAWMAN 2
You are correct about the television schedules for the years in question.
It really doesn’t mean that much to me that the first game is 2nd V 3rd. I don’t have SKY and have no intention of purchasing it.
However, Rangers did not win the league in the years you mentioned. It has been proven that they used an illegal tax evasion scheme to secure the services of players that they otherwise could not have afforded. To make matters worse, they hid those payments from the SFA rendering the players ineligible to play.
Cheats then cheats now, cheats forever.
Raman Bhardwaj
@STVRaman
Rangers agree deal with Roma for striker SadiqSTV Sport
@STVSportA deal has been agreed for Umar Sadiq to move to Ibrox (link: https://stv.tv/sport/football/1421043-rangers-and-roma-reach-agreement-on-umar-sadiq-deal/) stv.tv/sport/football…
4:35 pm · 28 Jun 2018
Re all this talk about Celtic’s flag unfurling not being shown live. Personally I am delighted as a supporter who actually attends games, as am I sick of kick off times being moved to suit TV companies who pay Scottish football a relative pittance. 3PM on a Saturday – bring it on!
So who do you blame for the fracas of recent decades?
The rottenness of Scottish football?
David Murray?
Lets face it he started it. No question about that. He is a disgrace. Even huge amounts of bears think that nowadays. Title stripping in order I think. (Sur) (Sir) (Whatever).
But then we have Whyte, asset stripper extraordinaire.
Chuckles Green. A laugh a minute.
Now the Glib one.
You know what? I blame all of them less than the people at Hampden.
Murray was a typical businessman who takes his firm to the edge. He convinced himself that he was using a tax avoidance scheme which on some dodgy advice, was thought to be legal. (Although immoral). Do anything to gain a competitive advantage.
But this is the point where he becomes a no no.
The side letters. That was wrong, and he knew it. so did his compatriots on board at Ibrox and at Hampden. That is where the stink is. They denied the existence of them! Come in anytime now Lawman! They were breaking the rules of the game, they knew it and everyone at Hampden knew it.
Lawman, got anything to say?
They cheated. Even if they thought EBTs were above board, the side letters were quite clearly NOT! Results should have been reversed. And forget the utter nonsense of the idiot Bryson.
But worse than all of this, a business looking out for itself, breaking the rules of the game, there is the SFA.
Yes Rangers were selfish and cheats.
But the SFA? We are now on a different stratosphere.
The SFA are not a ‘business’ per se. They are meant to be a regulatory body. A body who is meant to reign in the worst excesses of selfish, cheating clubs like Rangers.
But what do they do? They collude, turn blind eyes, engage in fraudulence, and do every stinking thing to promote the worst club in Scottish Football History.
Name me one other club who have shamed our game ever?
But as I say, even worse is the SFA who defend them and promote them.
I would rather we were governed by the English, Welsh or Irish FAs than that lot at Hampden.
JIMBOJUNE 28, 2018 at 19:51
and do every stinking thing to promote the worst club in Scottish Football History.
———-
The world’s most successful worst club in Scottish Football History.
CO, The world’s most successful club is dead. But I get your point!
5 Stars! Don’t make me laugh! 5 asterisks more like.
1 star on a Celtic jersey is a trillion times more honourable.
SLIMJIMJUNE 28, 2018 at 09:23
3
26 Rate This
FAN OF FOOTBALL 07.45Whose word would you take if both Rangers & the SFA are unacceptable?.The CO who is not Rangers minded conducted a eight and a half month investigation and found “the accusations to be groundless”.
========
Can you tell me what the accusations were and who actually made them and on what grounds?
The charges of non compliance under the SFA Articles relate basically to honesty.
Have UEFA said no dishonesty took place at end of March and if so on what grounds and if presented by the Compliance Officer where did he get his proof and in what form was it presented to him and then UEFA?
It would be good to know on what basis UEFA believe no dishonesty occured and I think it’s the sort of information that should be made public to restore Rangers good name to suspicious supporters of other clubs so we could all move on.
Dont you agree?
Lawman2, Your men, real Rangers men, on the inside at Hampden knew of the existence of side letters at the time. Care to respond?
The whole thing stunk, did it not?
We are not in your comfort zone of fine detail about dates in 2011. We are now speaking about out and out deceipt , lying, cheating, corruption on a bold scale. Give me your response please. Give me evidence that I am wrong.
Jimbo and old Floyd man rolls into town this weekend and regards the SFA and Sevco if you asked him for his opinipon i’d say he gets it.
“Flash the readies
Wot’s… uh-the deal?
Got to make it to the next meal
Try to keep up with the turning of the wheel
Mile after mile
Stone after stone
Turn to speak but you’re alone
Million miles from home, you’re on your own”
it all about the readies and saving the teddies
SLIMJIMJUNE 28, 2018 at 09:23
I will tell you who’s word I would take ,I would take HMRC ‘s word and that of a totally impartial body .
As I said before ,the last peepil’s word I would take is ragers 1872 and the SFA’s and for very good reason .
Throughout this whole episode I am struggling to find a single time that we (the scottish FOOTBALL supporters ) ,you know the one’s that pay to watch what should be an honest game ,have been told anything ,let alone the truth of how the peepil running our game ,reach the bizarre decisions that they do time after time regards any club playing out of Ibrokes .
YOU state that the CO took 8 months ,YES 8 months to find out what went on back in 2011
YOU though use the timeframe as vindication of a thorough investigation .
REALLY ,think about that ,how on earth does it take 8 full months to find out when a tax bill was overdue .
I will say that again to really let it sink in .
It took 8 full months for the CO to find out when a tax bill was overdue in 2012
Can you give me an explanation as to WHY it would take 8 full months for such a simple task
JIMBO
Rangers men in 2011…….i believe there was Campbell Ogilivie and having met Jim Ballantyne on a few occasions then no doubt where his allegiances lie when it comes to the big 2.
On the other side, there was Rod Petrie, Ralph Topping and Eric Riley who were all either Board members or decision makers for rules etc. I dont think Rangers would expect any favours from any of them.
Also IIRC all reports at the time were stating that CW was disputing the penalties of the £2.8m bill
not the actual bill itself .
If true then the overdue payable was accepted prior to CW buying the club ,what is uefa’s take on dispute of tax penalties
That is another reason I am suspicious of the LM2 appearance on this blog .
This is one of the only blogs I know who are dedicated to cleansing hampden and trying to get a semblance of an honest game in Scottish football and low and behold LM2 pops up to drive home his message of the march deadline being cosha and above board .months later the SFA state that is the case .
Which means the licence was issued correctly (absolving ragers 1872 and the SFA ) but there may have been a slight misunderstanding about declaring it later .
As I have stated before ragers 1872 must have been the luckiest football club in the world .as a near 10 yr old tax bill just crystalised 10 days after the deadline to give them a chance to gain £20m to keep the club alive ,really what are the chances
EH
Fan of Football. A very good point. Why did it take 8 months to find out when a tax bill was due?
Whereas us internet bampots are left wondering what on earth has gone on in the real murky world at Hampden, the CO had all the information at his fingertips within days.
Forget Lawman’s guesswork, we are talking about the real deal.
Just think, access to all the correspondence between Rangers and the SFA including Pro Forma. Correspondence between HMRC and Rangers and the SFA. The ability to have confirmatory phone calls between the main protagonists / antagonists.
Eight months?
Surely eight days?
What was the delay?
I think we are about to find out.
JIMBOJUNE 28, 2018 at 22:21
Therein lies the problem Jimbo
and during this investigation the CEO chucks it and as soon as the CO says there is a case to answer he chucks it too .
Don’t know about anyone else but there are far too many coincides in this saga for my liking and that makes me suspicious
Why did Regan resign?
Why did the CO resign?
We are either about to find out something big. Or the biggest fudge ever created. Nonetheless, if it is a fudge it will be obvious.
SFA Be WARNED!
Don’t go there, we are not fools.
Tell the truth.
jimbo June 28, 2018 at 22:21
Fan of Football. A very good point. Why did it take 8 months to find out when a tax bill was due?
===============================
Lawman2 answered a related question yesterday with a very assertive answer, as if he was party to the Compliance Officer’s investigations.
Compare those assertions to what he said just three weeks ago, where he seemed almost apologetic for Rangers actions.
I could almost accept Lawman’s stance in his earlier post, if indeed there was a technicality by which Rangers escaped sanction on the initial award.
However, in his more recent post, he comes across with a different stance and mindset of “I know” and “I’m right” therefore everybody else is wrong and there is no room for any other interpretation of the Compliance Officer’s actions.
Only a matter of time before the bullets run out, it never pays to keep shooting the messenger. tick tock
I’ll be surprised if anyone gets an answer from Lawman on what is an unarguable case of cheating by David Murray’s Rangers
In his various guises he previously argued that Rangers may have pushed the envelope to the edge , but what they did was within the rules
Then the Supreme Court blew a hole right through that defence and silence has been the standard on this subject . Bar one laughable attempt to state the Supreme Court merely said Tax was due and there was no bad behaviour on Rangers behalf .
As others have pointed out, lying to HMRC was a pretty good sign Murray was well aware he was running a scam. Signing over 50 player contracts and confirming that all remuneration and all forms of payment were disclosed , whilst sitting on dozens of side letters ( not disclosed to the SFA) is another red flag as to the dishonest intent
Lawman has argued black is white with regards to the date Ramgers tax was due on the DOS . His arguments were proven to be bunkum on here by one of our legal fraternity.
It’s clear to me he has zero interest in proper oversight , clear he will concede minor infractions whilst constructing spurious arguments against all major infractions
He claims that he was so close to what Whyte was up to , that he was an uncalled prosecution witness in the case against Whyte
I judge people on the strength of their contributions on here and whether they are genuine in their opinions
Lawman goes to extraordinary lenghts to mitigate the actions of David Murray and gets extremely animated in condemning Whyte
So forgive me if I find his persistent attempts to undermine the core purpose of this blog , which is to hold authorities to account , more than a tad suspicious
EASYJAMBOJUNE 28, 2018 at 22:40
1
0 Rate This
jimbo June 28, 2018 at 22:21Fan of Football. A very good point. Why did it take 8 months to find out when a tax bill was due?===============================Lawman2 answered a related question yesterday with a very assertive answer, as if he was party to the Compliance Officer’s investigations.
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.Compare those assertions to what he said just three weeks ago, where he seemed almost apologetic for Rangers actions.
i think Rangers have got off with a technicality. One which im actually honest enough to say they possibly or more than likely played the game on it. That doesnt make it clever, big or right, but in the strictest accordance of the rulesI could almost accept Lawman’s stance in his earlier post, if indeed there was a technicality by which Rangers escaped sanction on the initial award.
However, in his more recent post, he comes across with a different stance and mindset of “I know” and “I’m right” therefore everybody else is wrong and there is no room for any other interpretation of the Compliance Officer’s actions.
________________________________________________To me, my view has not changed one iota and im surprised you think the two quotes you posted are not comparative.
“in strict accordance to the regulation set out” and “technicality” are actually consistent with each other.
Im essentially saying that the wording in the laws has helped the case.
PS – For the record, the regulations in 2011 were not written properly. There is an error in the rules when relating to the disclosures required on the 30th September. Despite the Sheriff Officers visiting Ibrox for the unpaid debt, the rules, as they are set out, would allow a club to simply submit the same findings and records they submitted on the 30th June.
Im not saying thats what Rangers done mind you, only that, technically, you could get away with it and there would be nothing anyone could do about it as you would be adhering to the rules as they are written.
FANOFFOOTBALL 22.00
An overdue payable only exists when the agreed terms have not been met. The terms were issued on May 20th and therefore became overdue on June 19th.
jimboJune 28, 2018 at 14:07
‘…For footballing authorities to have the audacity to contradict the law of the land and give the impression that Rangers lives on is, in my opinion, fraudulent. ‘
_______________________
jimbo, one wonders , doesn’t one, in an academic way of course, whether a business which did not exist 6 years ago may be committing fraud by misrepresenting itself as having a one-hunnert-and-forty-something-year history, and a record of success second to none in the same sector of business, when it advertises itself to the share-buying public, or to sponsors of events who might be looking for the participation of famous names in their events and competitions?
One wonders.
And one wonders even more what happened , what actually happened, when , ‘all things having been done properly and in order’ in terms of application of rules to RFC: -deduction of points on account of entering Administration, cessation of membership of the SPL on entering Liquidation, application of Sevcoscotland to join a league.., the SFA suddenly cobbled up the 5-Way Agreement and created the Big Lie?
Who had the power and influence to think that the rest of us would accept, could accept, that CG’s creation was somehow Scot Symon’s Rangers, or Harry Davis’ Rangers or even SDM’s ( may his name not be mentioned in polite society) Rangers?
And then, of course, we have the Res12 issue.
And we realise, perhaps, that the Big Lie is but a continuation of a habit of looking after ‘Rangers’ going back to UEFA licensing when the ignoble knight’s crassly hubristic cheating had caused the need for emergency funding via European money at , allegedly, the expense of Truth and Sporting Integrity.
And we must, however regretfully, conclude that the very concept of a Judicial Panel Protocol was/is vitiated right from the off by the power of the eminences gris in office in the SFA to decide the agenda, to decide which matters are to be investigated, and who is to be investigated and from which dates.
I know not the answer, when even our SMSM people appear to be thirled to untruth.
“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. ”
(Lawman2)
Auldheid had a big question mark over this. That’s good enough for me.
Aside from that, he can’t argue about the non disclosure of side letters. Let’s hear of him on that one! And the role of Rangers men at Hampden in it.
BARCABHOYJUNE 28, 2018 at 22:50
Another misrepresentation. My discussion on “within the rules” has been around the wording on “overdue payable”.
My views on EBTS have been consistent for a long time. I refused them numerous times in both exec, non exec and personal capacity. My feeling was always that Murray had not administered them properly and that HMRC would win. I was as shocked as any with the first 2 verdicts.
All i have argued is that in accordance with Annex Viii the bill became overdue payable on the 19th June 2011 and not before. The Compliance officer has now agreed with that stance. There has been no-one from any legal fraternity anywhere debunked that. People on here may hold the opinion I am wrong on it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
S
Im not mitigating anything in relation to Murray. He was the instigator of EBT and ultimately he sold to Whyte knowing that he wasnt Whyter than Whyte. I have no time for Murray but i dont hate him. I hate Whyte. I despise Whyte. I offer no apology for that.
If the purpose of the blog is to get to the truth then its vital and extremely important that everything is viewed from all sides and that people are not silenced because their opinions differ on certain subjects. Closing someones views down, because they dont agree with you is a horrible trait.
There are loads of issues in Scottish football over the years that bring the game into disrepute or can be connected to cheating or even tax evasion or tax avoidance. The only ones that get discussed are Rangers. Its now at the point that we are posting pictures of Rangers players in bins as a mockery to the club. Do you feel these posts undermine the core purpose of the blog, or is it only when a poster does not have the same agenda as your good self that happens ?
“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. ”
………………………………………………………………………
What exactly did Uefa report to the CO? Seeing as you know so much? Let’s hear it word for word.
I’m for the off now. I’m going to catch up on ‘Humans’ It’s about human synths (robots) who are very human like.
In another universe mine would be a Mikel Lustiq look alike. He would be sitting across from me in his Celtic top smiling, and saying “would you like a Pinot (white wine) Jimbo?”
Oh well!
Tomorrow morning I will get up and tell you about my questionaire (sp).
The Lawman
“All i have argued is that in accordance with Annex Viii the bill became overdue payable on the 19th June 2011 and not before. The Compliance officer has now agreed with that stance. There has been no-one from any legal fraternity anywhere debunked that. People on here may hold the opinion I am wrong on it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.”
========
You have indeed argued long and hard on the overdueness of the liability and have contributed to the understanding of the process at play, but the charges of non compliance are not based on whether there was an overdue payable at 31st March but on whether in obtaining the licence Rangers acted honestly (to sum up what SFA/SPFL Articles on which the charges are based are about.)
Based on what was known there is little doubt that at June and September Rangers under CW acted dishonestly in his submissions to UEFA when, using your argument an overdue payable did exist, although that is for the JPDT to decide.
However the same dishonesty question, which is totally separate from the technical argument on overdueness and based on evidence appears to have happened, is what will need to be looked at and that evidence, if it was not presented to UEFA when Comp Off asked whatever questions he did in the 8 month wait, will have to be put to them again under the auspices of the JPDT.
Part of that evidence will be that the arrival of a bill is not necessary to require immediate payment under HMRC Reg80 protocol on acceptance of the liability, so even on technical grounds your argument looks unsound.
If the events of end of March are excluded from the JPDT, then the process is worth nothing, but let’s see what emerges based on what is now evident to the Compliance Officer.
Barcabhoy
JUNE 28, 2018 at 22:50(EDIT)
I’ll be surprised if anyone gets an answer from Lawman on what is an unarguable case of cheating by David Murray’s Rangers
In his various guises he previously argued that Rangers may have pushed the envelope to the edge , but what they did was within the rules
Then the Supreme Court blew a hole right through that defence and silence has been the standard on this subject . Bar one laughable attempt to state the Supreme Court merely said Tax was due and there was no bad behaviour on Rangers behalf .
As others have pointed out, lying to HMRC was a pretty good sign Murray was well aware he was running a scam. Signing over 50 player contracts and confirming that all remuneration and all forms of payment were disclosed , whilst sitting on dozens of side letters ( not disclosed to the SFA) is another red flag as to the dishonest intent
Lawman has argued black is white with regards to the date Ramgers tax was due on the DOS . His arguments were proven to be bunkum on here by one of our legal fraternity.
It’s clear to me he has zero interest in proper oversight , clear he will concede minor infractions whilst constructing spurious arguments against all major infractions
He claims that he was so close to what Whyte was up to , that he was an uncalled prosecution witness in the case against Whyte
I judge people on the strength of their contributions on here and whether they are genuine in their opinions
Lawman goes to extraordinary lenghts to mitigate the actions of David Murray and gets extremely animated in condemning Whyte Barcabhoy
So forgive me if I find his persistent attempts to undermine the core purpose of this blog , which is to hold authorities to account , more than a tad suspiciious.
==%=%==
I’d go further than that. It is not just the blog he is trying to undermine but the case against Rangers and the SFA.
That his focus has consistently been on a technical point of “overdueness” that is then used to exclude events at end of March 2011 from JPDT scrutiny stinks.
The alacrity of Rangers response to the charges saying events at end of March would not be scrutinised had me thinking what or who is behind that attempt at limiting the JPDT?
Then The Lawman fills us in on the reason which lo and behold is the very idea he has been promoting ever since Res12 became a threat to RFC’s integrity and officials still there.
Between the technicalities of overdueness and arguing UEFA see RIFC/TRFC as the same club as RFC he has put in quite a shift.
Fraud is the allegation. Criminal fraud. Whether that be an allegation against Minty or Whyte has zero relevance. It was allegedly perped by Rangers(I.L.) and outwith the SFA realms of investigative authority. It is a polis matter. It is then for the courts to decide if Rangers(I.L.), or individuals, are guilty or innocent…. Not the SFA. It is a multi-million pound situation, not a foul-throw-in, dodgy penalty call, or heaven forbid…. Fielding ineligible players…..A multi-million pound fraud allegation.
I assume that any victims hoping for, or seeking financial redress, would probably have to submit their position to BDO. A factor that may impact considerably on their remit, delaying what has already been a lengthy and expensive process. In good faith, the SFA should have informed BDO of this possibility, as not to would be a dereliction of duty.
Doubtless BDO would be unable to comment on current investigations, but it would appear that at least one of the charges is not being pursued further, ……At the moment.
A lot hinges on how the second charge/allegation is defended. However the allegation under investigation remains the same……….Criminal fraud, perped by Rangers (I.L.). (possibly conspiratorial fraud). That goes way above quasi-judicial fitba rules. It is a legal matter.
A governing body with nothing to fear, would simply hand the evidence to plod for further investigation. That is what plod does for a living, and they are quite good at it. Then the fearless SFA can act upon the legal outcome.
It seems we are in endgame territory.
Not with regard to Ibrox/SFA fraud but in the inevitable awarding of the Order of the Boot to Spoutpish under his current nommes de trollery.
As usual he will move from this site back to one of the more staunch sites which will have the odd effect of simultaneously increasing the average Intelligence Quotient on both sites.
The bold Celtic must have some players almost all have been linked away this transfer window but then that’s just the sevco minded media trying to placate the £brox hordes.I’m sure Brendan will be for the offski as well at least the media will say so.They must think we are all dumb almost all stories come across as sevco good Celtic bad. There are a plethora of Celtic snubbed stories but when sevco lose out they weren’t on sevcos radar what sh++e.
SLIMJIMJUNE 28, 2018 at 23:03
1
5 Rate This
FANOFFOOTBALL 22.00An overdue payable only exists when the agreed terms have not been met. The terms were issued on May 20th and therefore became overdue on June 19th.
=============================================================
Says who ? HMRC ,can you post a copy of the letter
again is this letter regarding the PENALTIES applied to the £2.8m tax liability we are talking about and how do uefa view that .
So let me get this right you agree that the club had a overdue tax liability on june 19th 2011
AULDHEIDJUNE 29, 2018 at 01:43
No they are not. The charges of non compliance are based on whether or not Rangers provided incorrect information during the “monitoring period” of that season. The charges have nothing at all to do with “obtaining the licence” as that charge has been dropped. Its very important the difference here is distinguished because if Rangers are found guilty of any of these charges, it will NOT relate to the issuance of the licence. The CO findings conclude that Rangers playing in Europe that season is not up for debate any longer. The monitoring period, as confirmed by UEFA, would affect season 2012/13, not 2011/12.
There may be little doubt but its important to note that at this stage, it remains unproven. I agree the JPDT will be deciding on this and it will relate to the 30th June and 30th September dates, both of which relate to the “monitoring period” and NOT the “licensing period”
The Compliance Officer has already went beyond original scope to bring 2 new charges. In effect, you are asking for the JPDT to go beyond the additional scope of the original scope. Its very evident that the only decision that will be accepted it guilty of everything known to man. Nothing will appease anyone otherwise.
As stated on numerous occasions, if this is the case then every single club has overdue payables on the 31st March every year, because every single club, well certainly in the UK, owes the tax man as at 31st March as tax is paid in arrears in the UK. The fact of the matter is that your assertion here is wrong. The term “overdue payable” relates to paying the bill on the terms agreed by the tax authority. Those terms were issued on the 20th May. Not before.
They are excluded. Though as has been evidenced in the previous investigation, the scope of the enquiry doesnt always mean they wont go out of that scope and extend it to something they have not been asked to look at.
Please note that the use of Block underline above is in the main an admin edit and not my own. Admin, i hope you are able to confirm this.
And again, i would appreciate the courtesy of being able to post out of moderation as im answering questions however the answers are not being taken out of moderation until much later by which time people are asking me again….and again, making it look like im not willing to answer.
The Lawmans response is as predictable as it is disingenuous and contains an incredible denial
Lets start with precictable
He ignores , yet again, the fact that Rangers cheated by lying to HMRC and by deliberately hiding the full terms of player contracts from the SFA .
That shows his intent . It is never to admit to serious wrongdoing , even when it is unarguable . This isn’t about honestly holding up your hands to cheating , this is about conceding nothing of significance and only admitting minor infractions which bring minor punishment
Then the incredible denial
He claims his only comment regarding within the rules , has been about “ overdue payables “
He must be getting confused by his multiple usernames on this site. He argued long and hard that Rangers use of EBT’s broke no rules , argued that not disclosing side letters was fine because they weren’t contractual .
As to his own personal use or otherwise of EBT’s , so what . That has zero relevance to Rangers use of them and in any event flies in the face of his previous defences of Rangers use of EBT’s .
Then the disingenuous
Casually throwing out the suggestion that there are loads of instances of other clubs cheating or engaging in tax avoidance , yet its only Rangers who get called out . That one really is jaw dropping . No proof, no evidence , just a wild unsubstantiated allegation, which once again is aimed at minimising Rangers actions
He’s accusing other clubs of cheating whilst never admitting Rangers cheated . That’s Trump levels of behaviour
Finally the claim that there is an attempt to silence him , to close his views down . That’s just not true, and is a well established PR tactic when arguing an unpopular position .
There’s a huge difference between questioning someone’s motives and credibility and wanting them silenced
FAN OF FOOTBALL
HMRC issued the bill on May 20th and gave Rangers 30 days to pay.It became a overdue payable on June 19th 2011.
Hope that is clear enough for you.
In the 1970’s the late Ian Archer wrote a very telling article about RFC at that time. He argued that the club was “a permanent embarrassment and an occasional disgrace”
That RFC were allowed to behave in such a manner required the SFA to look the other way and in effect condone the behaviour. Plus ca change.
40 years later the SFA still seem incapable of dealing with Rangers by applying their own rules. In fact the only thing that’s changed is that Rangers have become a permanent disgrace.
Without going over the arguments articulated overnight and this morning can I ask Lawman et al that if the inquiry finds against Rangers will they accept the verdict?
LM2 @ 07.57
Season 2012/13? Or the next applicable season of European qualification?
Just on the staunch defence of Article VIII by the way. I agree with your interpretation of one of the paragraphs. Just so long as you accept we need to ignore the other six or seven to achieve that interpretation.
As you were.