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.
SMUGASJUNE 29, 2018 at 09:56
The monitoring period, as confirmed by UEFA, would affect season 2012/13, not 2011/12.Season 2012/13? Or the next applicable season of European qualification?
___________________________________________________________
The monitoring period affects the following season only, if adhered to. So having an overdue payable on 30th June 2011 would still mean participation in 11/12 but will hinder 12/13 if not cleared down by 31st MArch 2012.
Seems to be a certain aroma around this morning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM8vOcxatsI
THELAWMAN2JUNE 29, 2018 at 08:53
Not sure if you are getting the boot or will be hanging around but if you are going, before you go can you use your forensic talents for the following:-
Apart from the sectarian signing policies, the disregard for stadium health & safety, riots at European cup finals when representing our country, the DOS/EBT years where documents were denied and hidden from Hector and the footballing authorities, players and managers turning their backs on the national team, the constant desire to move to England, the continual court battles and right up to date with many still rejoicing in wading in others blood and having a convicted tax dodger parade around as ‘club’ chairman – what it is exactly, in positive terms, you believe that the teams from Ibrox bring to the Scottish Game?
slimjimJune 29, 2018 at 09:24
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.
==========================================
Both you and Lawman repeatedly focus on this so called “bill”. It is of course a complete myth because a Regulation 80 Determination is not a bill in the normal sense of how that is understood.
It is a legal mechanism to collect tax that is ALREADY payable under PAYE. It does not matter that such a “bill” was payable after the date of the UEFA application deadline because the PAYE tax was due many years ago. It’s that simple and I wonder if the SFA took proper tax advice on this before excluding the charge relating to the application. I would be very interested to see it.
The Lawman
You will appreciate that it looks like the SFA want to hide or not investigate what took place at end of March?
So if nothing to hide why do it? So for the sake of the integrity of the JPDT and.the JP Protocol itself and any semblance of trust left in our game anything that differs from the basis of excluding end of March has to looked into.
If that produces confirmation of no dishonesty in obtaining the licence then grand – we can all move on which is what everyone wants.
On the monitoring period do you agree UEFA cannot monitor until they know who to monitor?
Thus anything that happens before then falls to the.SFA in the granting period?
That is logical so even if all is tickity boo at end March there is a very tricky hurdle to negotiate before UEFA informed and proper investigation of that will be interesting.
You only get the answers you get on what is known. When possible unknowns turn up the previous answer has to be revisited. Well in normal jurisprudence. In Scotland it’s EffOff. We have decided and there is no going back.
Worked on LNS so why not try it agai
Bogs DolloxJune 29, 2018 at 10:33
slimjimJune 29, 2018 at 09:24FAN 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.==========================================Both you and Lawman repeatedly focus on this so called “bill”. It is of course a complete myth because a Regulation 80 Determination is not a bill in the normal sense of how that is understood.It is a legal mechanism to collect tax that is ALREADY payable under PAYE. It does not matter that such a “bill” was payable after the date of the UEFA application deadline because the PAYE tax was due many years ago. It’s that simple and I wonder if the SFA took proper tax advice on this before excluding the charge relating to the application. I would be very interested to see it.
________________
I’d also like to know what, if any, advice the CO has taken from UEFA, and more importantly, whether or not UEFA have been made aware of the root of the ‘overdue’ tax. What many seem to ignore (deliberately, no doubt) is that the WTC was not about ‘unpaid tax’, though ultimately it remains unpaid, it was about an aggressive, and ultimately illegal, tax avoidance scam. Regardless of dates and arguments over when demands for payment were issued, there’s the whole issue of the ‘root’ cause of the unpaid tax that I am sure no one at Hampden wants to awaken UEFA to!
If UEFA were to take an active interest in Rangers’ unpaid tax (the WTC), they’d be looking at three cases of mis-registered players and ten years of lies and denials from a member club to it’s country’s tax authorities (not to mention that the tax remains, seven years later, unpaid. ‘Now how does that come about?’ a UEFA official might ask!). This is no ordinary case of a club falling behind in tax due to the tax authorities because of bad management, or even chancing the arm, this was/is so much more. And UEFA, so far, have had no cause to investigate it!*
*As has been seen with Resolution 12, a member club or association has to ‘advise’ UEFA of any irregularities before they will investigate. Making an official request to UEFA for help or guidance might just be enough to spark such an investigation, or, at least, give rise to questions that might be awkward for all concerned.
AuldheidJune 29, 2018 at 12:18
The Lawman You will appreciate that it looks like the SFA want to hide or not investigate what took place at end of March? So if nothing to hide why do it? So for the sake of the integrity of the JPDT and.the JP Protocol itself and any semblance of trust left in our game anything that differs from the basis of excluding end of March has to looked into.If that produces confirmation of no dishonesty in obtaining the licence then grand – we can all move on which is what everyone wants.On the monitoring period do you agree UEFA cannot monitor until they know who to monitor?Thus anything that happens before then falls to the.SFA in the granting period?That is logical so even if all is tickity boo at end March there is a very tricky hurdle to negotiate before UEFA informed and proper investigation of that will be interesting.You only get the answers you get on what is known. When possible unknowns turn up the previous answer has to be revisited. Well in normal jurisprudence. In Scotland it’s EffOff. We have decided and there is no going back.Worked on LNS so why not try it agai
_______________________
And as with LNS, a rather important period is scrubbed from the inquiry’s parameters. In the LNS case there wasn’t even an acknowledgement of the change(s), at least this time it was announced that this important period (leading up to 31st March) has been dropped, though, yet again, no reason or explanation has been given.
Do you know what bothers me about this whole debacle regarding the SFA and their apparent inability to regulate the Scottish Game pre and post Rangers /Tribute Act?
If UEFA came down hard on the Scottish Game (as I suspect they may well have had they been aware) then the other Clubs would have suffered Financially as a result of our Clubs being banned from Competing?
It is with this in mind I cannot help but feel the other major players in Scottish Football were made fully aware of this and decided to suck it up and agree to move on.
Of course I may be totally wide of the mark in thinking this but my gut is they thought (ie the main protagonists involved)fans would simply move on and keep swallowing whatever sh*t we were being fed at the time.
________________________________________
All that aside I would ask all Celtic minded fans to consider the following proposal :
If this does not go the way most level headed folk think it should and Celtic don’t take this any further on a legal front,would any of you consider looking into a fan controlled Celtic Fc rather than a Board Controlled Plc?
We have the numbers in a world wide fanbase to do this.
Once again, we have a period of posts from Rangers(IL) defenders that do not try to convince us that Rangers (IL) did nothing wrong, are innocent of tax dodging, or that it’s really OK to do what Rangers (IL) did with the DOS scheme that included denials and lies to HMRC and the side letters hidden from them (and the SFA). All that matters to them is that, because the timing might be fortuitous, everything’s tickety boo because they will (according to them) get away with it. It’s quite shameful the way that, unable to defend their club’s actions, they choose to glory in the fact that (again, according to them) Rangers (IL) will get away with it!
Rangers Football Club, getting away with it then, getting away with it…right up to liquidation!
AULDHEIDJUNE 29, 2018 at 12:18
If they wanted to hide or not investigate it then why did they resurrect it. They could have let it die and not brought another person into it.
Lets be clear though. By not accepting the CO view that the licence was issued properly, you in essence are saying he is covering up for the SFA. I fail to see what is possibly in it for him when he is already working his notice and he is a qualified lawyer whose reputation in his new job means everything.
So the SFA looked into it ages ago and said no issue. The Compliance office spent the last 8 months looking into it and said no issue. You now want the JPDT to look into it and what happens when they say no issue. Whose next in line ? Because there is no way it will stop there.
Uberrima fides utmost good faith is necessary for EBT McLeish’s level playing field without it there is no integrity.
One club broke that requirement for years and years in numerous ways and died doing it. Its undead successor does the same things in more grotesque ways and is forever on the edge of implosion and yet the apologists for both cling onto any scrap of possibility that the rules can be twisted to their narrative.
l understand that Uberrima Fides is part of the requirements in the SFA rulebook it is high time for it to be broached.
Lawman2
Lets be clear though. By not accepting the CO view that the licence was issued properly, you in essence are saying he is covering up for the SFA.
====%=
Let’s be clear. I’m not saying that you are.
I have complete faith that the Comp Off will act on the basis of what he is presented with in the interests of clarity and transparency of the JP Protocol it is his interests to uphold.
Mind you his resignation suggests he is finding that a struggle.
You protest too much sir.
SLIMJIMJUNE 29, 2018 at 09:24
This Rangers?
You would think the PR department would be onto this case and in here to sweep it away.
Auldheid June 29, 2018 at 13:42
Lawman2
Lets be clear though. By not accepting the CO view that the licence was issued properly, you in essence are saying he is covering up for the SFA.
====%=
Let’s be clear. I’m not saying that you are. I have complete faith that the Comp Off will act on the basis of what he is presented with in the interests of clarity and transparency of the JP Protocol it is his interests to uphold. Mind you his resignation suggests he is finding that a struggle. You protest too much sir.
============================
It’s probably worth looking back at what LNS encountered with “Issue 4”
Also see the comments in paragraphs 92-102 of the commission’s report and their findings in paragraph 110.
You would imagine that the CO has again requested copies of all documents, letters, emails, notes or minutes of conversations or meetings concerning or relating to the WTC. Those documents, taken together with interviews or statements statement from officials at the club, the SFA, UEFA and HMRC would then form the basis of whether or not to proceed with a Notice of Complaint and set parameters for the JPDT.
What the experience of the LNS investigations tell us was that the club and its representatives, including the administrators, were reluctant to comply, if not deliberately obstructive, to the commission’s requests for information, to the extent that the ultimate decision was compromised.
Surely the newco wouldn’t be brazen enough to repeat the actions of the oldco and withhold relevant information from the CO (rhetorical question).
Afternoon all.
It’s the last business day before Sevco have to repay £12.9m of loans.When do you think we’ll find out if any have been called in or rolled over?.
EX LUDO 09.39
I think your question would be better served if aimed at non-Rangers fans rather than Rangers fans tbh.
Did they accept the decision of either the FTTT or the UTTT?
Did they accept the decision of Lord Nimmo Smith?
Did they accept the the opinion of external senior counsel employed by the SFA regarding the Supreme Court decision?
Did they accept the legal advice of the SPFL senior counsel, Gerry Moynihan regarding the Supreme Court decision?
Unless the decision is to their liking then we will be in for more of the same this time round in my opinion.
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 29, 2018 at 12:32
And as with LNS, a rather important period is scrubbed from the inquiry’s parameters. In the LNS case there wasn’t even an acknowledgement of the change(s), at least this time it was announced that this important period (leading up to 31st March) has been dropped, though, yet again, no reason or explanation has been given.
——————-
That got me thinking….I know,i know.
at least this time it was announced that this important period (leading up to 31st March) has been dropped,
——–
Has it been dropped or maybe it has been passed to someone else to look at as it is to serious an issue for the compliance officer to look at,hence no reason or explanation has been given. Only the parts that have been stated will be looked at by the compliance officer.
Sorry i can’t answer any replies as i’m off out.
Cluster OneJune 29, 2018 at 16:25
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 29, 2018 at 12:32And as with LNS, a rather important period is scrubbed from the inquiry’s parameters. In the LNS case there wasn’t even an acknowledgement of the change(s), at least this time it was announced that this important period (leading up to 31st March) has been dropped, though, yet again, no reason or explanation has been given. ——————-That got me thinking….I know,i know.at least this time it was announced that this important period (leading up to 31st March) has been dropped,——–Has it been dropped or maybe it has been passed to someone else to look at as it is to serious an issue for the compliance officer to look at,hence no reason or explanation has been given. Only the parts that have been stated will be looked at by the compliance officer.Sorry i can’t answer any replies as i’m off out.
__________________
For when you’re back in
I think they had no choice other than to announce it now as it was in the original charge, and if they didn’t announce it now, they might have to include it in their final determination, where it would, most likely, require the currently missing explanation!
I think it has most likely just ‘been dropped’ (either because it can be twisted around to be accepted as kosher, or the implications for protected bodies are so dire it just has to be dropped, hence the CO’s resignation), and I very much doubt it has been passed to anyone else (the police?) in isolation from the rest of the case, as, if it had been passed on, then surely everything else would have to be passed on too, and ‘dropped’ in the same way.
I don’t think there is any honour in the fact they announced the period to 31st March had been dropped, they’ve just taken advantage of a compliant/complicit SMSM to let it disappear without the need to explain why (in the determination).
I think something that might be quite telling, as the story unfolds, is whether or not any announcements come directly from the (resigning) CO, unnamed SFA sources, or are leaked via TRFC!
slimjimJune 29, 2018 at 09:24FAN 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.
Very clear thank you SJ
with what you have stated in mind then surely a fraud has been committed in last years and this years Euro application as the overdue payable you are so adamant about has still not been paid as we speak .
can you explain as to why no investigation has taken place this year or last .
As I have stated ,I have absolutely no faith in any inquiry undertaken by the peepil at the SFA
I hope the res 12 guys are just going through the process in giving the SFA the chance to have an honest inquiry and when the farce is over then they take it out of the SFAs hands .
if it goes to a truly independent body and they declare everything was as it should have been then that will be enough for me
Till then any findings from these charges mean nothing to me
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.
Again as I have pointed out on numerous occasions on here .
Ragers 1872 must be the luckiest football club in world football
Documentary on at 9pm BBC Alba. About Dundee Utd’s 1987 European adventure.
Comforting to learn that the match commander at Hillsborough is to be prosecuted for manslaughter- almost 30 years after the tragedy.
Justice can sort of drag its feet, but catches up eventually.
I feel fairly confident that unless the SFA come clean about the licence issue, and perhaps even if they do, disgruntled shareholders of Celtic plc will submit the known facts to the Procurator Fiscal as suggesting that a crime has been committed, and ask that a police investigation be undertaken.
Basically, there appears to be evidence that
-Rangers Football Club (now in Liquidation as Rangers 2012 plc) [ for convenience, referred to hereafter as RFC(IL)]
-were not in fact or in law entitled under the rules of UEFA to take part in UEFA competitions in season 2011/12
– gave the SFA’s licensing committee false information regarding their social taxes indebtedness by claiming that their tax liability had not ‘crystallised’ and that they did not in fact owe taxes to HMRC at the deadline date prescribed under the Club Licensing Rules of UEFA
-that the licensing committee may have known that that information was false
-that ,whether with deliberate intent or through gross negligence, the licensing committee wrongly granted a licence to RFC(IL)
-that in consequence of being granted that licence, RFC(IL) took part in a UEFA competition and received a very substantial amount of money, and had the opportunity to gain an even more substantial sum had they survived the first round of that competition.
In direct consequence of that allegedly wrongful grant of licence to RFC(IL) other properly entitled football clubs were denied access to the money that would rightfully, under the Rules, have been their entitlement, and denied the opportunity to garner more financial reward if they performed well in the competition.
There appears to be evidence that the SFA were prepared to obey an ‘order’ from RFC(IL) to confine any statement they (the SFA) were asked to make about the tax situation of RFC(IL) to a bland assertion that RFC(IL) had no problem with HMRC.
The mere suspicion that the SFA might , just might, have colluded with RFC(IL) in ensuring that a licence was granted in spite of there being no entitlement to that licence, is enough to render anything that the SFA say or has said about the matter of no value.
As a suspected part of the problem, their word cannot be accepted.
That is, where a crime may have been committed, it would be a nonsense to accept that one of the ‘suspects’ should be allowed to decide whether or no a crime had been committed.
The SFA may adjudicate in football matters, certainly. But where substantial sums of money have allegedly been wrongly channelled to an unentitled football club by deception, the SFA has no say in the matter, except perhaps as a witness, if not, perhaps, as a suspect!
The fact that the response of the SFA to a request that the whole issue be opened up to independent investigation was not only to keep the matter in-house, but to bar the investigation into the most salient points [ was RFC(IL) actually being dunned for tax debt before the deadline date? and did the SFA know that RFC(IL) were not in fact entitled to the grant of a licence?] suggests that they believe there is something to hide.
Millions of pounds went, it is alleged, to RFC(IL) because lies were told.
This is not a football matter, but potentially a gravely criminal matter.
And it is way out of the SFA’s powers to tell us to forget it, and ‘move on’
That it happened six years ago is neither here nor there.
Lawman2 at 7.57 (am?) on 29th June
(Auldheid said earlier)
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.
Lawman2 replied
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.
=======================
Not every club would have overdues payable at 31st March if PAYE tax collected in February is passed to HMRC by 22 March.
UEFA FFP does not ask if clubs have unpaid tax at the 31st March each year it asks if clubs have unpaid tax at the 31st March that has been unpaid since 31 December of the previous year.
On the basis that clubs operate PAYE then current rules on when PAYE tax deducted has to be paid are:
You must pay your PAYE bill* to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) by:
the 22nd of the next tax month if you pay monthlythe 22nd after the end of the quarter if you pay quarterly – for example, 22 July for the 6 April to 5 July quarterIf you pay by cheque through the post the deadline is the 19th of the month.
(* is a bill actually issued or is this just the understood agreed terms?)
Assuming PAYE is deducted monthly then the tax deducted at end of December in prior year has to be paid to HMRC on 22 January of current year, on the 23rd its overdue but that can happen for a number of reasons.
So UEFA in its wisdom are saying if a club has deducted tax at anytime up to 31 December in the previous year and has not passed that tax on to HMRC by 31st March, having had to do so at the latest on 22 Jan or 22 Feb or 22 March, then the possibility exists that the tax owed to HMRC is being used for other purposes that provide the club holding it back with an unfair financial advantage over clubs who are deducting tax and passing it on under PAYE terms. It is also an indicator to UEFA that if tax collected is not being passed on that club must have financial difficulties that might lead to insolvency (see CW from Sept 2011) and reducing the possibility of that as well as protecting UEFA from the consequences of a club going belly up during a competition is an overriding aim of UEFA FFP Article 50.
The basis of the HMRC claim against RFC, is that RFC avoided paying tax that should have been collected under PAYE and passed on to HMRC for every month covered by payments by made by DOS ebts from 2000/01 to 2002/03.
If there was not an unfair financial advantage from such practice there would be nothing in FFP to stop it, but there is and as soon as RFC admitted they owed taxes not paid by 31st December 2010 relating to earlier periods, by 31st March those unpaid taxes became overdue.
The only way not to be an overdue payable was to pay the liability on or before 31st March or get written agreement from HMRC to postpone payment before 31st March or appeal before the 31st March. I discount the fourth exclusion as the claim was solid.
Payment wasn’t made, if there is a written agreement it would have surfaced by now (and a journo has asked for it) , RFC had appealed in 2007 but that fell when the FTT on Aberdeen Asset Management who used DOS ebts found for HMRC and of course RFC’s QC advised against a further appeal in February documented in early March because RFC had lied to RFC about the existence of side letters in 2005.
So the question has to be how was an actual liability passed off as not being an overdue payable at 31st March 2011?
What proof was offered? If it passes muster what is the harm to RFC/RIFC in sharing it?
AuldheidJune 29, 2018 at 23:57
‘..So the question has to be how was an actual liability passed off as not being an overdue payable at 31st March 2011?What proof was offered? ‘
__________________________
That’s it, Auldheid, in a nutshell.
The great wonder is that our club chairpersons/owners/ majority shareholders and the new CEO of the SFA cannot see the dire need for the truth to be established and asserted and for that assertion to be independently verified.
It’s so bleeding obviously the thing that needs to be done, from at the least a pragmatic PR point of view, never mind that it is the absolutely right thing to do!
It’s not outwith the bounds of possibility that if there were to be a genuinely independent investigation of the matter, some folk could end up in the pokey.
But any responsible and honest governance body has to tell the truth, and let any of its members or past members go to jail if need be, if they are found guilty of a crime.
There have been many organisations which have been found guilty of covering up crimes of their members.
It should be the prime objective of Maxwell to make sure that the SFA is not the next one to make headlines of the wrong kind.
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 29, 2018 at 17:31
Back in and thanks for reply.
A bit OT ….that is RW on the band list now after thanking the celtic fans
The rather rowdy bunch that sat behind us were soon shouted down when they booed,and imagine the comeback of, we are the people.It was laughed at and they left before the end,Much to the enjoyment of everyone around them.
If you are a fan of the ibrox club and you don’t want to hear RW thank the celtic fans,go for a drink at this point
fan of footballJune 29, 2018 at 19:26
‘..Ragers 1872 must be the luckiest football club in world football ‘
________________________
As in that Gary Larson cartoon? Body lying on a gurney in the morgue, attendant holding a piece of paper in his hand and exclaiming to his colleague “lucky stiff! he’s got the winning lottery ticket!”
Rangers 1872 share the same kind of luck!
JOHN CLARKJUNE 30, 2018 at 01:12
very true ,for the corpse though the windfall came too late ,for the old club the CL revenue for that season would have been their lotto win but A Mc put paid to that .
IMO the intention was always to liquidate ragers 1872 the sheer weight of the debt was too much and contrary to their statements of being confident of winning the BTC ,I believe they knew they had no chance .
Do sevco 2012 fans forget the very man in charge of their club now voted against a CVA ,which if achieved could have saved it.
Also your post regarding the SFA being one of the accused looking into at possibly their own crime is spot on ,any investigation should be taken out of their hands COMPLETELY.
CLUSTER ONECLUSTER ONE
Excuse my ignorance but what or who is “RW” ?
RW is Rodger Waters (formerly of Pink Floyd.) At his gig in Mexico last year he showed film footage of Celtic fans waving the Palestinian flags and he explained what the fans had done after the club was fined i.e. Raised a huge sum of money to give to charities in Palestine.
Apparently he thanked the fans again at his gig in Glasgow, at which Sevco fans walked out.
THEREDPILLJUNE 30, 2018 at 10:10
———
If you don’t know one of musics iconic figures,it’s time to reassess your LP collection
Or better still get yourself a ticket for tonight,there may be some folk not going after RW thanked the celtic fans.
I think it’s quite funny that theREDpill doesn’t know of someone from PINKfloyd!
They could be cousins!
Well I’ve got Wish, Wall and Moon on vinyl and still listen to same on my iPod but I had no idea who we were talking about re RW and thanking Celtic fans. This is very much hillbilly whataboutery stuff where one must align according to tribal customs. Not for this Dons fan and hopefully not where SFM is heading.
Back to serious matters.
I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination that the majority opinion in Scotland is that our refereeing standards are pretty poor.
FIFA have announced their delight at the use of VAR in the group stages of the World Cup. They reckon a 99.3% success rate.
I hope it’s not too long until it is introduced in Scotland, at least the Premiership initially. Let’s see ‘honest mistakes’ become a thing of the past.
If it adds 10 minutes to the match day experience, who cares?
Cluster OneJune 30, 2018 at 10:32
THEREDPILLJUNE 30, 2018 at 10:10———If you don’t know one of musics iconic figures,it’s time to reassess your LP collectionOr better still get yourself a ticket for tonight,there may be some folk not going after RW thanked the celtic fans.
___________________
I think if this had been a Pink Floyd blog, or even just a music one, not knowing who RW was might be deserving of some mild criticism, but despite my admiration for the band and the man, including his stand over Palestine, I was as bemused as TRP over who RW was in the original post.
So, TRP, you were not alone in not knowing who RW was and, I suspect, that like me, you were unaware that he’d ever mentioned Celtic FC during a performance or it’s supporters admirable stand over Palestine.
Allyjambo
June 30, 2018 at 11:22
“I think if this had been a Pink Floyd blog”
It is a Big Pink blog though ?
Ok I’ll get ma coat.
RW could have been one of many folk particularly when there was no mention of context. RW is a well known Freemason which RW though.
Also PS was lucky to play with JC after the classic quartet imploded.
JOHN CLARKJUNE 29, 2018 at 23:45
“Comforting to learn that the match commander at Hillsborough is to be prosecuted for manslaughter- almost 30 years after the tragedy.
Justice can sort of drag its feet, but catches up eventually.
I feel fairly confident that unless the SFA come clean about the licence issue, and perhaps even if they do, disgruntled shareholders of Celtic plc will submit the known facts to the Procurator Fiscal as suggesting that a crime has been committed, and ask that a police investigation be undertaken”.
——————————————————————————————————–
Too true John….All too often it is forgotten that SFA and/or it’s officers, stand as co-accused in this alleged corruption. As in the Pinsent Mason whitewash, self-investigation is no investigation at all.
It is time for current SFA officers to drop the shovel, because to continue digging is to implicate themselves in the biggest sporting scandal to ever reach our shores, whether they were initially involved or not.
If a day at the office feels claustrophobic at the moment, it will prove to be nothing compared to a shared room in B block.
Maxwell needs to arrange a sit down with Res 12 lawyers over this matter. Not to, or to impede independent scrutiny, will be seen as a gross dereliction of duty and incompetence, at best. Most definitely it will be career ending, and possibly liable to obstruction charges.
If I am correct, the SFA have already stated in court, wrt appointing DCK as a F&PP, that they had no powers of intervention in the corporate structure…They had no say in it…. It was above their gravy-train grade.
To put it in simple language, these allegations are being made by a corporate structure. Fitba or association rules don’t come into it. It is above their gravy-grade.
JOHN CLARKJUNE 29, 2018 at 23:45
I feel fairly confident that unless the SFA come clean about the licence issue, and perhaps even if they do, disgruntled shareholders of Celtic plc will submit the known facts to the Procurator Fiscal as suggesting that a crime has been committed, and ask that a police investigation be undertaken.
================================
In a fair and just society I would like to think that would be the case. However I have no confidence whatsover that the Police would have any interest in making a case to present to the Procurator Fiscal. This is not Craig Whyte who would be in court, it would be people who the Scottish establishment and media see as socially and morally superior to others, because they are REAL Rangers men.
“By the way, which one’s Pink?”
The Wall is a perfect metaphor for the current state of football governance in Scotland. A wall which needs to come down and for the SFA and the Clubs to stop pretending it’s a case of us and them.
“The Wall is a perfect metaphor”
Here is another
Dark Side (of the moon).
An absolute scudder
Seen him and
bought all his albums and a massive Pink Floyd fan.
I thought it was a Sevco liquidation cast member.
This all so unfair. I don’t get to talk about music but it’s OK if it’s Pink Floyd!
George Ezra
My comment, very early this morning was a kind of a hat tip to someone who mentioned PF a few posts back.
And i did state “A bit OT” when i posted.
The post was more of a how stupid are these ibrox fans to take the huff ? and they do do walking away right out the door.
What did they want the guy to do? This was the first time he had played in scotland since the early 70’s.And it must have been the closest he was going to get to the home of celtic fans and send out a thankyou when he is in celtic fan’s home town.
———–
OK as you where
The Mods should put a Map Legend at the side of the page so we can all keep up with the abbreviations?Seriously it’s like reading the minutes from a *COBR meeting at times in here.
*Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms
JUST THE FACTS
COBRA surely
Cabinet Office Briefing Room A.
JUSTTHEFACTS
I said that years ago,nothing has changed,it’s just laziness in my opinion.
Jimbo your cheek is going to be pierced by your toungue ?
Being of an older generation I didn’t know who RW is but I think it’s great to occasionally go off topic and add a bit of lightness to the forum. Keep up the good work both on and off topic and keep the site enjoyable.
So, it seems a few folk were getting a bit aerated.
I’ll get ma co2at?
So how did the share issue go.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-announces-rangers-raise-12494716
13:18, 7 MAY 2018
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 30, 2018 at 21:06
So how did the share issue go.
——————
Bruce Taylor: That is quite important because there will be future share issues and this is not just about raising capital on one occasion. It is about, as Rangers improve and the value of Rangers increases, there will be a need to subscribe more and invest more.
——-
I don’t think he knows.
——-
Laura Fawkes:The emotional commitment and investment of the fans is beyond question. What we are saying is that you don’t need to be a millionaire to invest millions of pounds in Rangers, you just need to be one of many Club 1872 members that act together, act collectively, to create substantial additional revenue streams for the club that compliments the investment that is already coming from the board.
—-
I don’t think she knows.
—-
Euan Macfarlane:I am happy with where we are and happy in terms of where we are going with the share issue. We expect to be very successful in the share issue.
——-
I don’t think he knows.
—-
26th January
————
The SMSM will let us know by tomorrow just you wait and see
To be fair the previous share issue, the June 2017 one, was going to be raising £16m. What happened with that one.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/1191675/sports-direct-tycoon-mike-ashley-has-severed-all-ties-with-rangers-after-he-sold-his-stake-in-the-club/
Reading the last few posts on the SI that wasn’t a SI more of a statement to the ^SGR’s? I can’t help but think the real issue at the *CD is that the lunatics are on the grass.
legend
Share Issue
^Stenographers
*Crumble Dome/Ibrox
HomunculusJune 30, 2018 at 21:06
“So how did the share issue go?”
___________________________
Either King has a funny understanding of what ‘immediately’ means, or Blair is hard of hearing or singularly useless/insubordinate, because there has been no trading of RIFC plc shares on the JP Jenkins platform since long before May 2018.[ As far as I know, that is the only sort of trading platform that unlisted plcs are allowed to use, since they may not make a ‘public offer’]
The JP Jenkins website ( a few minutes ago) still claims RIFC plc as being on their books as one of their clients.
I know from experience that they are nearly as dilatory in keeping their website up-to-date as whoever is in charge of the ‘Rangers investors’ page!
Perhaps they have politely declined, to protect their own good name, to deal with a company of which the Chairman is in trouble with the TOP and possibly in trouble with the Courts, and have not yet formally recorded the end of the relationship?
Or perhaps they are finding it difficult to find enough interested buyers among those chosen to be offered the opportunity to buy?
Maybe some of those chosen have begun to realise that there is no prospect of making money from their existing holdings and that to ‘invest’ in more shares would be the height of folly. Maybe there are more who want to sell rather than buy!
I confess that this is pure, almost totally ‘finance-uneducated’ speculation on my part. [ And d’ye know, it irritates me beyond measure to think that guys like CW and CG and DK and so on can master the finance stuff well enough to take on the likes of the TOP, and the Courts, while I struggle to read a balance sheet!]
JOHN CLARK
JUNE 30, 2018 at 22:26
=============================
Forgive my ignorance but do JP Jenkins not just match existing shareholders who want to sell with people who want to buy shares in the PLC. Meaning that would be a private sale with the PLC not being involved and making no money from it.
As opposed to a share issue which would be totally new shares with the proceeds (minus any costs) going to the PLC.
My personal view, there is little or no point in a share issue as no-one will want to buy them. Other than Club 1872 obviously. On that basis, there may be a very limited issue, bringing in whatever the supporters have managed to raise.
JustTheFactsJune 30, 2018 at 21:58
‘…legendShare Issue^Stenographers*Crumble Dome/Ibrox’
___________________
Ha-ha, JTF: in the words of the song see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x65-nLCBouE
you must be one of the newer fellas!
As long ago as at least two years, the suggestion was made by a then ‘new fella’ that there should be an accessible explanatory list of all the built up jargon and references to people and events that are used on the blog!
Oh, the fun of reading posts full of MBMM, Sir Cardigan, ‘radar Jackson’, FTTT, LNS, Brysonian logic, 6th floor, Level 5, the ‘gardener’, etc etc!
As one of the older fellas, these are all part of my mental furniture.
But I cried foul when RW and some JC (that wasn’t me) appeared very recently.
I spent several minutes trying to relate those initials to people who had already perhaps been named in full in an earlier post!
Like one or two other ‘oldies’ on the blog who were already teenagers when Elvis was only just nicknamed the ‘pelvis’, and Lonnie ,frae Brigton, Donegan appeared ( according to Mrs C, who says she was there) in the Town hall, Coatbridge in 195o-something, I have only the most superficial knowledge of the pop music scene since about the early 1970s!
I have to admit the use of initials is a challenge sometimes. I’m alright with JC, AJ, EJ, BP and LNS. But then it get’s difficult.
JW had me flummoxed (FMXD) for a while but within the context I kind of figured it out. I used to have an IQ of 128, but I suspect it has dropped a wee bit lower.
Getting back to football matters.
George Ezra is brilliant. The best thing that has happened to British popular music in 40 odd years. And he loves Celtic. ( I made that bit up, but I so want it to be true). Paradise. Even Mrs. JC will love it.
Sorry, cant post a link or I will get barred.
HomunculusJune 30, 2018 at 22:35
‘.Forgive my ignorance but do JP Jenkins not just match existing shareholders who want to sell with people who want to buy shares in the PLC. Meaning that would be a private sale with the PLC not being involved and making no money from it.’
_________________
My ignorance is deeper than yours, Homunculus!
Platforms like JP Jenkins do indeed operate in the way you describe.
But, and I realise that I may have got myself utterly confused, I understood that unlisted plcs are not allowed to make a public offering of shares because they are regarded in the same way as private limited companies: shares can be bought and sold, of course, but only privately, through such seller/buyer matching arrangements as people like JP Jenkins provide.
I may have been making the assumption that the whole point and purpose of seeking the disapplication of pre-emption rights is to ensure that the opportunity to buy shares could be offered not to the general public, but to selected individuals only.
That is, there would be no need for a ‘Prospectus’ or the services of a NOMAD, and all that kind of stuff.
I have probably misdirected myself, on an amateurish reading of bits and pieces.
Whatever, there has been no share offer of any kind, a circumstance entirely consonant with the erratic, detached from reality, behaviour and speechifying of Mr King: may he be called to account for his failure to comply with the Court order.
Friday, 29 June 2018,
WOULD you like to be part of the Rangers team as a volunteer on matchdays?
We are looking for volunteer fans to assist the club around the stadium footprint and act as a matchday contact for supporters, pro-actively providing information and helping resolve any issues that our fans may face with accuracy and efficiency.
Successful candidates will be Rangers supporters themselves so will be able to think like those that they’ll be helping.
—————-
I remember the ibrox club rolled this idea out last year.Must have been beneficial to them if it’s getting rolled out this year also
Could this be the reason for volunteers.
https://theferret.scot/police-scotland-charged-scottish-football-clubs/
I see the media are reporting that Ollie McBurnie is set to sign a deal with Swansea, “despite a £4.5m offer from Rangers”.
Not a solitary journalist has thought to question where the funding for such an offer might have come from, given the new Ibrox club’s parlous financial state, choosing instead to print the patently obvious feel-good guff fed to them by a portly PR buffoon.
The fourth estate and the gullible fans who swallow such claptrap deserve each other and everything that’s coming to them.
HIGHLANDERJULY 1, 2018 at 10:14
Banging our head against a brick wall mate.
I understand that some of them may have to spout this pish to ensure they stay in employment with the rags they are associated with. Peddling lies and a vision disconnected with reality appears to be their M.O.
To be honest, these days its water of a ducks back to me, being that if you are willing to pay for the privelidge for reading such nonsense then more fool you.
What I object to more is when some of these same clowns get put up as an ‘expert pundit’ on TV and Radio shows and still spout the same rubbish without being challenged in a more ‘open’ forum.
Michael Stewart and ,occasionally, Tom English are about the only ones I hear taking on the rainbow- unicorn chasers when it comes to T’Rangers finances.
Michael Stewart is brilliant. I could listen to him all day.
He has the knowledge and is honest.
CLUSTER ONEJULY 1, 2018 at 08:55
Successful candidates will be Rangers supporters themselves so will be able to think like those that they’ll be helping.—————-I remember the ibrox club rolled this idea out last year.Must have been beneficial to them if it’s getting rolled out this year also
=====================================================
It comes as no surprise to learn that pretendygers have a unique way of thinking, incompatible to every other Joe Blogs fitba’ fan’s thinking. A thought process where “volunteering”, is the new Living Wage, Rust is character, and blood is not measured in pints, but in depths per body parts…….Maybe they intend to reinforce the heroic goal-post defenders?
I was at a family garden party yesterday and played football with a Jack Russell. I got beaten. The wee thing was too fast for me. Didn’t allow me to dribble.
When the white poodle and springer spaniel joined in I gave up.
Further to the Compliance Officer’s Notice of Complaint and discussions on the status of the WTC liability at the end of March 2011, I came across the following document on Scribd, which might be of interest to the CO and others.
https://www.scribd.com/document/192787967/179011295-147860088-DOS01-pdf-pdf
It’s not a new document, but was posted by someone under the name of “Suttonfakes” in December 2013. I suspect that it originated from Charlotte Fakes. Despite the questionable provenance of the CF material, I am unaware of any documents from that source that have been deemed not to be genuine, although various lawyers have asked for documents to be taken down from Scribd, citing confidentiality.
The document purports to be the notes from a meeting held on 21 March 2011 in Murray Group’s Charlotte Square offices. The attendees included Cairn Financial (Craig Whyte’s financial advisors), Phil Betts (later to become an RFC director under Whyte), and RFC represented by Paul Murray, Mike McGill and Donald McIntyre.
My best guess is that the meeting was part of Whyte’s due diligence, carried out prior to the takeover, as it goes on to record other financial information about the club.
There are several typos in the document, which might make you question its provenance but, given it was only circulated as an internal email to Cairn Financial staff and to Phil Betts, I don’t see that as an issue.
The key points for the CO’s investigation would appear to come in the opening paragraph.
Discounted Option Scheme – £3.2m PAYE liability to be paid to HMRC prior to 31/3. PB advised that Wavetower had not previously aware of this issue/liability
So what does it tell us?
* I think we are all familiar with the WTC originating from RFC’s operation of a “Discounted Option Scheme”
* The liability is stated as a “£3.2m PAYE liability” – We know from other sources that the quantum of the liability, became an accepted £2.8m (PAYE & NIC) following a meeting with HMRC (later that day?)
* The liability was “to be paid to HMRC prior to 31/3” – for those not concentrating I’ll repeat …….. “to be paid to HMRC prior to 31/3”
* PB (Phil Betts) said that Wavetower was not previously aware of the liability – this suggests that 21 March 2011 was the point at which Whyte’s people were first advised of the WTC liability, although tweets from the Whyte criminal trial confirm that Mike McGill said “I think we should front up about the small tax case” and that Gary Withey was made aware of the liability in an email. Both are recorded as happening four days earlier on 17 March.
The only possible source for the information on the liability and the payment date was from the Rangers attendees. That is important in itself, as the Rangers directors would be duty bound to provide accurate and truthful information to a prospective buyer of the club. Failure to do so would likely leave the directors open to damages claims, if not criminal charges, if the information provided was incorrect and caused Whyte and co. to take a particular course of action.
It is unlikely that the CO will have seen this document as it was not circulated to RFC, but it could potentially be important when assessing the accuracy of RFC statements.
@John Clark
Glad you got the joke John and it had the desired effect though it does highlight a wee side issue about the site?
I am as you correctly point out a new poster on here though I am also at the same time of an age to have been around Football for quite an extended period of time.
Having grown up through the 70’s,80’s and so on I am fairly up to speed with the normal goings on in an around particularly both Celtic and the now sadly deceased Rangers.
When I said sadly I don’t mean it’s sad that Club went bang but rather it’s sad for those who invested a lifetime of emotions into it and what it meant to them.
After all “The Club” reaped what it had sown.
I’ve lived through the good times in Scottish Fitba and the not so good times and have like many of you here and beyond been disgusted at the actions and inactions of the SFA.
All that aside though I like a great many are of a certain level of Schooling that perhaps restricts my knowledge of the Legal System and my ability to fully understand its complex structure and usage of the English language?
What I mean to say is I prefer my news to come by me in layman’s terms rather than he complex way these “Intellectuals” tend to word their b/s.
This forum and those who have come here to have a serious input do a very good job of translating this into simpler terminology for us and for that I thank you all.
Wee hat tip… ?
The problem with abbreviations are as the Roger Waters example has highlighted is when anything new crops up and is abbreviated by the writer (in order to take a shortcut)it only adds to any confusion that already may exist within the readers own limitations to comprehend it?
I am not saying we are thick but not understanding it can certainly make you feel this way when the mind goes blank?
In other words could the guys who put so much effort into processing and passing on the information please do so in a way that us the simple layman can fully understand what that information is?
The reason I say this is this.
The simpler you make the information the greater the likelihood is that more fans are likely to read it and take it on board and as a result the conversation goes beyond these pages and into the places you I think you would hope for it to reach and register.
Hopefully this all makes sense as my grammar isn’t the best as a Layman who’s working life has seen me use my hands more than a pen all my life what Schooling I had has sadly been battered and ravaged by time.
I’ve probably forgot more in my time than they taught me in that time.
Keep up the very good work regardless and MPTYE.
More power tae yer elbow.
EASYJAMBOJULY 1, 2018 at 11:41
* The liability is stated as a “£3.2m PAYE liability” – We know from other sources that the quantum of the liability, became an accepted £2.8m (PAYE & NIC) following a meeting with HMRC (later that day?)
__________________________________________________________________________
I cant open the document for some reason. So what date is it your claiming the liability was accepted and is it your view thats when it became an overdue payable EJ?
easyJamboJuly 1, 2018 at 11:41
Further to the Compliance Officer’s Notice of Complaint and discussions on the status of the WTC liability at the end of March 2011, I came across the following document on Scribd, which might be of interest to the CO and others.https://www.scribd.com/document/192787967/179011295-147860088-DOS01-pdf-pdfIt’s not a new document, but was posted by someone under the name of “Suttonfakes” in December 2013. I suspect that it originated from Charlotte Fakes. Despite the questionable provenance of the CF material, I am unaware of any documents from that source that have been deemed not to be genuine, although various lawyers have asked for documents to be taken down from Scribd, citing confidentiality. The document purports to be the notes from a meeting held on 21 March 2011 in Murray Group’s Charlotte Square offices. The attendees included Cairn Financial (Craig Whyte’s financial advisors), Phil Betts (later to become an RFC director under Whyte), and RFC represented by Paul Murray, Mike McGill and Donald McIntyre.My best guess is that the meeting was part of Whyte’s due diligence, carried out prior to the takeover, as it goes on to record other financial information about the club.There are several typos in the document, which might make you question its provenance but, given it was only circulated as an internal email to Cairn Financial staff and to Phil Betts, I don’t see that as an issue.The key points for the CO’s investigation would appear to come in the opening paragraph.Discounted Option Scheme – £3.2m PAYE liability to be paid to HMRC prior to 31/3. PB advised that Wavetower had not previously aware of this issue/liability So what does it tell us?* I think we are all familiar with the WTC originating from RFC’s operation of a “Discounted Option Scheme”* The liability is stated as a “£3.2m PAYE liability” – We know from other sources that the quantum of the liability, became an accepted £2.8m (PAYE & NIC) following a meeting with HMRC (later that day?)* The liability was “to be paid to HMRC prior to 31/3” – for those not concentrating I’ll repeat …….. “to be paid to HMRC prior to 31/3”* PB (Phil Betts) said that Wavetower was not previously aware of the liability – this suggests that 21 March 2011 was the point at which Whyte’s people were first advised of the WTC liability, although tweets from the Whyte criminal trial confirm that Mike McGill said “I think we should front up about the small tax case” and that Gary Withey was made aware of the liability in an email. Both are recorded as happening four days earlier on 17 March.
The only possible source for the information on the liability and the payment date was from the Rangers attendees. That is important in itself, as the Rangers directors would be duty bound to provide accurate and truthful information to a prospective buyer of the club. Failure to do so would likely leave the directors open to damages claims, if not criminal charges, if the information provided was incorrect and caused Whyte and co. to take a particular course of action.It is unlikely that the CO will have seen this document as it was not circulated to RFC, but it could potentially be important when assessing the accuracy of RFC statements.
_______________________
Taking the email as genuine*, and the typos tend to make it more likely to be than a perfectly worded email would, it would appear that, ten days before the UEFA reporting date, Rangers believed the liability was due, and had to be paid by 31st March.
*The fact that this was put on line more than four years before the Whyte trial, and adds meat to evidence given under oath, rather than introducing something entirely new, lends even more credence to the document, I’d suggest.
JUSTTHEFACTSJULY 1, 2018 at 11:54
abbreviation.
The problem with abbreviations are as the Roger Waters example has highlighted is when anything new crops up and is abbreviated by the writer (in order to take a shortcut)it only adds to any confusion that already may exist within the readers own limitations to comprehend it?I am not saying we are thick but not understanding it can certainly make you feel this way when the mind goes blank?
——————–
Many have been here a long time, and when the site goes at break neck speed abbreviations are often used,it is a habit i and some others have maybe goten use to,but as you point out it can be confusing for new posters.
Note to myself no abbreviations when you have plenty of time.
But in my defence i had just got in and was replying to an earlier post and continued with my RW post trying to finish it and get to bed.
A feck see there i go again
CLUSTER ONEJULY 1, 2018 at 12:41
Many have been here a long time, and when the site goes at break neck speed abbreviations are often used,it is a habit i and some others have maybe goten use to,but as you point out it can be confusing for new posters.Note to myself no abbreviations when you have plenty of time.But in my defence i had just got in and was replying to an earlier post and continued with my RW post trying to finish it and get to bed.A feck see there i go again abbreviation.
————————————————————
Not a criticism levelled at anyone Cluster more a post to highlight that if you want the message to spread further ie having fresh input from new visitors to the site like myself then perhaps have a wee thought that they might not automatically get what it you are all attempting to put forward or say?
We are all guilty of taking shortcuts bud and for what it is worth I have found your input excellent and easy to digest.
The subject matter is complex enough (thanks to those who have wished it so) without adding to the confusion I guess was the point I was trying to say.
Maybe those who refer to long passages as evidence etc could try and use full wording and avoid over usage of Abbreviations now and again to keep those looking in up to speed?
Just a thought because I found on arrival it was like learning to swim again by jumping in off a cliff face with armbands on ?
It being the 1st of July are we to get a statement from Mr King explaining why he promised a share issue would take place in June and hasn’t? (Thanks to poster on kds for drawing our attention to this.) Another shameless lie.
TheLawMan2 July 1, 2018 at 12:10
EASYJAMBOJULY 1, 2018 at 11:41
* The liability is stated as a “£3.2m PAYE liability” – We know from other sources that the quantum of the liability, became an accepted £2.8m (PAYE & NIC) following a meeting with HMRC (later that day?)
__________________________________________________________________________
I cant open the document for some reason. So what date is it your claiming the liability was accepted and is it your view thats when it became an overdue payable EJ?
=======================================
I’m not claiming anything. The document is what it is.
I have my own personal views on when the liability occurred / was accepted / was overdue and it accords more with the TJN than with Alastair Johnston’s “potential” liability.
HelpumootJuly 1, 2018 at 13:22
It being the 1st of July are we to get a statement from Mr King explaining why he promised a share issue would take place in June and hasn’t? (Thanks to poster on kds for drawing our attention to this.) Another shameless lie.
===============================
As mentioned before,hopefully any statement will include an update on the status of £12.9m of loans due to be repaid by today.