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.
TheLawMan2July 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’ve managed to open the document, but it won’t let me copy and paste it in it’s entirety, and so I can’t include the address section. It was addressed to Phil Betts from Liam Murray@Cairn Financial with a number of others copied in.
“Meeting commenced 10:15 16 Charlotte Square, Edinburgh 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 DM confirmed net debt position as at 31/12/10 as £17.5m being (1) £13m term loan / overdraft (including £5.5 of cash) (2) £4m finance loan and (3)£250k youth development loan Albion car park – MIH to waive its right to share in any uplift in this asset. Wavetower confused as to the financing arrangements – further clarification required Season Ticket sales have declined. From 41,000 last year 37,500 current year and forecast to be 33,000 next year. Proposal for Charlotte to work with Zebra to allow supporters to spread cost of season ticket over 10 monthly payments. Directors of Charlotte considering issues in relation to ring fencing the monies from season ticket sales if there was an insolvency situation SPL broadcasting revenues of £2.5m – £3m received p.a., plans are being discussed at SPL to change the payments in light of reduced number of clubs in the SPL – effect would be a reduction in annual revenues Squad size was discussed – there is a need to renegotiate 4 key player contracts and freshen up the team Concept of trading players to manage club’s debt burden discussed JJB contract discussed in light of the CVA proposal to be voted on 22 March 2011 CAPEX requirements of the club discussed. It was noted that CAPEX had been reduced over last number of years and now it was essential to undertake. Catering outlets on verge of shut down re Health and Safety issues (£1.2m spend required by club) also PA system requires an upgrade on H&S issues (£0.6m) 2012 Europa cup revenues likely to be Euro 6m being (1) ticketing £3.5m (2) hospitality £0.5m (3) Broadcasting £2m Martin Bain responsible for negotiating player contracts Youth team – Celtic spend circa £2m p.a. on youth team; Charlotte £0.2m. Major issues summarised as (1) Ticketing (2) Players (3) Tax and (4) Capex Meeting ended 13:00 Liam Murray, Partner Cairn Financial Advisers LLP”
You will see that it doesn’t mention the date you seek – the email, itself, wasn’t concerned with this date – but clearly indicates the liability had been accepted, and states it has to be paid before 31/3. So, not only was it due at the time of the email, the Rangers board were fully aware that it was due, and had to be paid by 31/3. That is, not appealed, not delayed, no terms to be discussed, straight forward ‘to be paid to HMRC prior to 31/3’! I wonder why that might be! Do you have evidence, or even reason to believe, that in the nine days between 22/3 and 31/3 Rangers negotiated time to pay after 31/3?
EASYJAMBOJULY 1, 2018 at 13:27
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.
_______________________________________________________
I was more referring to the wording of “became an accepted £2.8m (PAYE & NIC) following a meeting with HMRC (later that day?)” as that seems to suggest that is when the “bill was agreed” or thats the way i read it.
Not being able to see the document, im usure as to what that exact date was.
TJN i believe have taken all the stuff down (that might be wrong) so what date did they state the bill became accepted and therefore an overdue payable ? Just trying to understand the timeline on this opinion.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 1, 2018 at 13:33
Do you have evidence, or even reason to believe, that in the nine days between 22/3 and 31/3 Rangers negotiated time to pay after 31/3?
_______________________________________________________________________
No. The only evidence i have seen was the bill sent on 20th May advising that the payment terms were that the amount had to be paid by 19th June.
Im trying to establish though what date the £2.8m was accepted and i thought thats what the inference was here. I wasnt sure if what EJ wrote was opinion or in the document, if that makes sense. Im still unclear on dates and was hoping it could be clarified.
THELAWMAN2JULY 1, 2018 at 12:10
EASYJAMBOJULY 1, 2018 at 11:41
Anybody else having problems opening this “document”?. Which happens to be text on a website.
Do you have evidence, or even reason to believe, that in the nine days between 22/3 and 31/3 Rangers negotiated time to pay after 31/3?
================
There won’t be any. They broke that agreement hence HMRC lost patience and issued the Regulation 80 Determinations.
What there will be is correspondence or calls from HMRC asking why the tax hasn’t been paid per the agreement and threatening to issue the Determinations.
BOGS DOLLOXJULY 1, 2018 at 14:09
What there will be is correspondence or calls from HMRC asking why the tax hasn’t been paid per the agreement and threatening to issue the Determinations.
_____________________________________________________________________
Given the number of leaked documents that have made it into the public, have you seen any of these letters and when were they issued ?
BillydugJuly 1, 2018 at 14:08
THELAWMAN2JULY 1, 2018 at 12:10EASYJAMBOJULY 1, 2018 at 11:41Anybody else having problems opening this “document”?. Which happens to be text on a website.
_______________
My post above gives the email content, but I couldn’t copy over the addresses on the email for some reason. A technical reason, no doubt, that a five year old would understand, but not me
It was addressed to Phil Betts from Liam Murray@Cairn Financial with a number of others copied in.
Bogs DolloxJuly 1, 2018 at 14:09
Do you have evidence, or even reason to believe, that in the nine days between 22/3 and 31/3 Rangers negotiated time to pay after 31/3?================There won’t be any. They broke that agreement hence HMRC lost patience and issued the Regulation 80 Determinations. What there will be is correspondence or calls from HMRC asking why the tax hasn’t been paid per the agreement and threatening to issue the Determinations.
_______________________
Thanks BD for the technical details, though my question to LM2 was pretty much rhetorical, as I am certain no agreement for a delay was ever even considered by HMRC, who’d been chasing payment for a number of years. Some people seem to ignore the fact that the outstanding tax was already overdue years before the case (WTC) was first opened!
I’ve attached the Cairn email, so hopefully everyone can read it.
Sorry….
ALLYJAMBOJULY 1, 2018 at 14:25
I was being sarcastic. Me bad.
Allyjambo
July 1, 2018 at 13:33
I’ve managed to open the document, but it won’t let me copy and paste it in it’s entirety, and so I can’t include the address section.
Here you go AJ
PS beat me to it
easyJamboJuly 1, 2018 at 14:41
Even better entire PDF
ALLYJAMBO
JULY 1, 2018 at 14:34
=================================
I think the argument goes along the lines of the tax is not due until you get caught … then you agree to pay it … then you get a threatening letter when you don’t.
Amazing is it not just a click and there it is.
There were approx. 28 “DOS” entries between March 2011 and November 2011.
Index attached.
Two observations:
1. How HMRC determine if a liability is overdue to be paid and how UEFA do it are different and all that matter is UEFA interpretation.
2. The proof on which basis the licence was granted is highly questionable unless a different proof exists.
To exclude the end of March from JPDT scrutiny avoids both issues being addressed.
If it isn’t included the JPDT and the whole JP Protocol loses the trust on which it is based.
If it is included and based on all the available evidence then regardless of the final decision the JP Protocol and the JPDT will have done what it says on the tin.
This is an opportunity to restore trust in the governance of Scottish football and signal a new approach under Ian Maxwell and the current SFA Board.
Supporters of all clubs should surely welcome this?
THELAWMAN2JULY 1, 2018 at 14:21
Indeed Lawman it’s almost as if those involved were deliberately trying to muddy the waters and sabotage any chance of those implicated in any wrong doing being found so in a Court of Law?
I mean they wouldn’t would they? (Rhetorical question)
?
Auldheid
JULY 1, 2018 at 17:57
Indeed you would think that would be the case?but we all know one set of fans certainly wont welcome any of this.
JustTheFactsJuly 1, 2018 at 18:13 (Edit)
Indeed you would think that would be the case? but we all know one set of fans certainly wont welcome any of this.
==============
Its a bit like telling a guy who wonders why he has a headache after being battered on his head by a guy behind him using a spoon to do it that “There’s a guy behind you battering your head with a spoon” but he wont look round because he doesn’t think you have his best interests at heart.
How folk like Lawman who clearly isn’t daft don’t appreciate that its the spirit of the law that counts and not the literal interpretation that matters, mystifies supporters of other clubs, especially when the guy with the spoon has a Rangers tap on.
TheLawMan2July 1, 2018 at 13:48
ALLYJAMBOJULY 1, 2018 at 13:33Do you have evidence, or even reason to believe, that in the nine days between 22/3 and 31/3 Rangers negotiated time to pay after 31/3?_______________________________________________________________________No. The only evidence i have seen was the bill sent on 20th May advising that the payment terms were that the amount had to be paid by 19th June.Im trying to establish though what date the £2.8m was accepted and i thought thats what the inference was here. I wasnt sure if what EJ wrote was opinion or in the document, if that makes sense. Im still unclear on dates and was hoping it could be clarified.
________________________
You have heard and seen so much, Lawman, but shown us nothing. Did I tell you I once met the Queen, she was very impressed by smile
but best I don’t say any more
JUSTTHEFACTSJULY 1, 2018 at 12:58
————-
TheLawMan2 July 1, 2018 at 13:42
I was more referring to the wording of “became an accepted £2.8m (PAYE & NIC) following a meeting with HMRC (later that day?)” as that seems to suggest that is when the “bill was agreed” or thats the way i read it.
Not being able to see the document, im usure as to what that exact date was.
TJN i believe have taken all the stuff down (that might be wrong) so what date did they state the bill became accepted and therefore an overdue payable ? Just trying to understand the timeline on this opinion.
—————————————————–TheLawMan2 July 1, 2018 at 13:48
No. The only evidence i have seen was the bill sent on 20th May advising that the payment terms were that the amount had to be paid by 19th June.
Im trying to establish though what date the £2.8m was accepted and i thought thats what the inference was here. I wasnt sure if what EJ wrote was opinion or in the document, if that makes sense. Im still unclear on dates and was hoping it could be clarified.
=======================================
I sense that you are now on a fishing expedition, looking for documents that might exist, or may be accessible to an SFM poster. Have you been in contact with “Rangers FC” in helping them defend the Notice of Complaint?
If you are looking for documents / information then I’d refer you to Dave King, who apparently “purchased” a copy of all the Charlotte Fakes material. That means the he has access to all the documents that us mere punters have gathered over the years and much more besides.
I guess that the challenge will be if “Rangers FC” hasn’t responded fully to any request from the CO to supply all relevant documents and communications regarding the WTC. The Oldco fell foul of that hurdle both with HMRC (side letters) and LNS (Issue 4).
I know that you have a habit of only responding to questions that you are comfortable with, but I will repeat what the document says.
“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”
Anything beyond that is my comment / opinion / questions.
The liability was stated as £3.2m at the Cairn meeting on 21 March 2011, but £2.8m in the interim accounts published 10 days later. What happened in the interim to change the number? If the liability was “to be paid” then I’d suggest that the liability was already accepted.
EJ you stated “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?)”
All I was asking was the date that this happened which I presume is in the document you are referring to.
And whatever that date is which is clearly pre 31st March, is that the date you feel this 2.8m became an overdue payable.
I think that’s fairly straight forward.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 1, 2018 at 18:44
This is why this site is vitally important to Scoddish Fitba…
It’s official:
Michael Fagan Is a Hearts fan.
AULDHEIDJULY 1, 2018 at 18:34
It’s called the Pol Pot effect.(The end result is always the same ?♂️)
While we continue to argue about the fine details of when tax bills are overdue payables is it not the case that the failure of Scottish football, as a whole for the last 20 years, is being played out before our eyes.
With Uruguay already through, the ongoing game between Croatia and Denmark will provide another last 8 team from a country whose population is smaller or equal to ours.
The wording of the regulations needs to be reflective of the mind of those who frame it. Appeals to the spirit of the law are all well and good but the deciding factor must be what the regulations say.
The problem with the spirit of the law is the possibility of differing interpretations of it sometimes in subtle ways and sometimes in large ways.
A major example of the reliance on the idea of the spirit of the documents is found around the interpretations of Vatican II which has often been used to abrogate rather than comply with documents.
There is always the possibility of novel interpretations of provisions which were thought to have settled in use. I wil not bore with an example I used to know lots about regarding compulsory acquisition of land but settled practice was upended by such a novel interpretation
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 30, 2018 at 21:06
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
Asked how much fresh cash will be made available as a result of the share issue which will take place in June,
————-
TORREJOHNBHOYJULY 1, 2018 at 13:31
As mentioned before,hopefully any statement will include an update on the status of £12.9m of loans due to be repaid by today.
———————-
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 30, 2018 at 21:43
To be fair the previous share issue, the June 2017 one, was going to be raising £16m. What happened with that one.
—————-
So no £16m from a share issue.
No £6m from another share issue.
£12.9M of loans due to be repaid.
They must by now have a bigger wage bill.
———————————
Where is the money coming from to keep the show on the road?
CLUSTER ONE.
New Oasis Asset Limited will provide loan facilities when necessary according to the last set of accounts.
Where does the £12.9 million figure come from?
CLUSTER ONE
JULY 1, 2018 at 21:34
=============================
My guess, currently income from season tickets being received.
The Law
Letter
OR
Spirit
?
wottpiJuly 1, 2018 at 20:30
‘….While we continue to argue about the fine details of when tax bills are overdue payables..’
___________________________
Ah, but,wottpi, as ever the devil is in the detail!
That little note of that little meeting might very well be the little detail that sees some people up on a criminal charge!
And personally, I think it would be greatly to the benefit of Scottish Football if indeed that proves to be the case.
TheLawMan2July 1, 2018 at 14:21
BOGS DOLLOXJULY 1, 2018 at 14:09 What there will be is correspondence or calls from HMRC asking why the tax hasn’t been paid per the agreement and threatening to issue the Determinations. _____________________________________________________________________
Given the number of leaked documents that have made it into the public, have you seen any of these letters and when were they issued ?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The info released by Charlotte Fakes was digital but you seem concerned about a letter that may or may not have been seen by the public. HMRC will have copies though even if Sevco doesn’t and when the fraud trial kicks off I expect the letter(s) will be amongst the prosecution documents.
Remember I also said it may have been a telephone call(s) and I’m pretty sure, given the gravity of the situation, HMRC will have made a file note of the conversation.
ustTheFactsJuly 1, 2018 at 20:18
ALLYJAMBOJULY 1, 2018 at 18:44You have heard and seen so much, Lawman, but shown us nothing. Did I tell you I once met the Queen, she was very impressed by smile but best I don’t say any more This is why this site is vitally important to Scoddish Fitba…It’s official:Michael Fagan Is a Hearts fan.
________
I had to check Wikipedia to find out who I am, but yes, I am Spart…Michael Fagan
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-550-5966?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1
EasyJambo JULY 1, 2018 at 19:57
“…If you are looking for documents / information then I’d refer you to Dave King, who apparently “purchased” a copy of all the Charlotte Fakes material. That means the he has access to all the documents that us mere punters have gathered over the years and much more besides.”
————————————————–
I was present when the Crown made the statement in court that DCK bought these documents/information for £25K.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Thanks to PDF version i now believe the date of “acceptance” was the 21st March.
My view hasnt changed in relation to the bill/terms, as pedantic as some may think it is, however even in the circumstance where this date is accepted as the date it became overdue, as Auldheid correctly pointed out the other day, it wouldnt matter.
There would be no disclosure required on the licence application and the licence would still be valid. This email and acceptance would not change a single thing, even if the money was due to be paid by 31st March.
Lawman you are at it.
What’s the odds on you working for Level 5?
Lawman2
Bollox. Try another bait.
The irony of course being they broke the Law man
Lawman,
You might just as well have declared that nothing matters because “we are the people”
Any tolerance for your arguments that you had on this site just evaporated.
TheLawMan2July 2, 2018 at 11:03
Thanks to PDF version i now believe the date of “acceptance” was the 21st March.My view hasnt changed in relation to the bill/terms, as pedantic as some may think it is, however even in the circumstance where this date is accepted as the date it became overdue, as Auldheid correctly pointed out the other day, it wouldnt matter. There would be no disclosure required on the licence application and the licence would still be valid. This email and acceptance would not change a single thing, even if the money was due to be paid by 31st March.
__________________
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, LM, but perhaps you could let us know what Rangers’ ‘acceptance’ of anything has to do with it? I think any ‘overdue’ date would be for HMRC to decide, not the club, and can’t imagine that any club would not have a duty to advise the UEFA, via the SFA, if, after submitting their application (if this is what you are alluding to) an overdue payable exists.
An honourable club would have submitted this information, voluntarily, and sought UEFA’s clearance of their license application. Perhaps they did, via the SFA, and their friends there were of a similar mind to yourself – it’s OK as long as they get away with it.
I’ll leave it to Auldheid to decide whether or not this falls in line with what he corrctly pointed out the other day.
JUSTTHEFACTSJULY 2, 2018 at 11:49
Given my often written hatred of Level 5 and in particular Traynor then i will go for 100,000,000/1
AULDHEID
Its not bait. Its in direct response to that particular date based on your correction the other day which was 100% spot on. If the insinuation is that the 21st March is the crucial date then it post dates the 31st December “due date”
Happy to be corrected where i am reading it wrong.
THELAWMAN2JULY 2, 2018 at 11:03
My view hasn’t changed either . They cheated and lied , and then they died .
Ally Jambo
My point from memory was not that the acceptance date didn’t matter. My point is that the reasons for judging so along with supporting evidence should be open to scrutiny.
According to Lawman2 that is on a ship that has sailed….
On your other point about notifying SFA of overdueness, you are getting warm..?
AuldheidJuly 2, 2018 at 12:23
Ally Jambo My point from memory was not that the acceptance date didn’t matter. My point is that the reasons for judging so along with supporting evidence should be open to scrutiny. According to Lawman2 that is on a ship that has sailed…. On your other point about notifying SFA of overdueness, you are getting warm..
Talking of fishing you would not be refering to a wee meeting in a famous lobster bar with CW and the crew from the good ship SFA.
I’m not sure where this notion that people get to decide when their tax is due is an optional thing.
It is due when it is due, when the rules say it is due.
The only potential argument here would be when did Rangers know they had been caught avoiding the tax and therefore knew that they had no option but to tell the SFA about it. Followed quickly by … did they.
It would appear they knew they had been caught prior to the meeting discussed in the email EJ kindly supplied above. That seems to be fairly straightforward.
So in my simple way of looking at things. The tax was overdue, Rangers knew thay had been caught avoiding it, they knew that they were obliged to tell the SFA they had overdue tax, they didn’t.
Now whether the SFA actually were told, and decided to ignore it themselves and put the licence through anyway is another story. It has the same net effect though.
AuldheidJuly 2, 2018 at 12:23
Ally JamboMy point from memory was not that the acceptance date didn’t matter. My point is that the reasons for judging so along with supporting evidence should be open to scrutiny.According to Lawman2 that is on a ship that has sailed….On your other point about notifying SFA of overdueness, you are getting warm..?
________________
Thanks for the clarification, Auldheid, it comes as no surprise to learn Lawman’s interpretation of your words was not as you intended.
Who knows, though, how the SFA enquiry, and even UEFA, might ultimately view the importance of the actual date an unpaid payable became overdue, I’d imagine it would be viewed as overdue on the 31st March, when it was, in fact, overdue on the 31st March, as in the case we are discussing. But as I’ve said before, this particular unpaid tax hadn’t materialised during the tax year to April 2011, it had been overdue for some ten years, and only Rangers’ lies and obfuscation had dragged payment into 2011.
Can anybody be sure that if UEFA were to officially review Rangers’ application (if the SFA were to call on them for assistance, say), and so discover, officially, how that particular outstanding tax liability came about, that they wouldn’t take a more serious view of it, and the SFA’s part in it, than they normally would in normal overdue tax payable scenarios?
Allyjambo
Who knows, though, how the SFA enquiry, and even UEFA, might ultimately view the importance of the actual date an unpaid payable became overdue, I’d imagine it would be viewed as overdue on the 31st March, when it was, in fact, overdue on the 31st March, as in the case we are discussing.
___________________________________________________________________________
I know. Auldheid knows as well. Its in the rules. Its very important. If the actual date it becomes an overdue payable is after 1st January 2011, then there is no requirement for disclosure as at the 31st March period.
For the 31st March period, you only need to disclose anything that was an overdue payable prior to 31st December of the previous year. You have to confirm the amount that was overdue on the 31st December and then also a rolled forward amount for that same overdue payable to 31st March.
Anything that became overdue between 1st January and 31st March is not required at that point in time in relation to the issuance of a licence.
PADDY MALARKEYJULY 2, 2018 at 12:15
“They cheated and lied , and then they died”.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
There’s definitely a song there?????
As we eagerly await the latest appeasement attempt or fudge from the SFA, I sincerely hope the Res.12 guys are prepared to take legal action.
Is this the last chance saloon for the SFA to come clean before being dragged kicking and screaming into court to defend their reprehensible behaviour? Will they take it? The narrowing of their enquiry remit would suggest yet another fudge is on the cards.
While I doubt it will happen, let’s hope the main protagonists end up in the pokey, for they truly are the lowest of the low.
They cheated and lied , and then they died
Big house and the bams ootside just cried
The online fans they did piss take and deride
For they had the facts and truth on their side
The journos joined ranks and swam against the tide
They jetted in King he’s so glib,so snide
As he takes the gullibillies for another ride
But no Club, no valentines ? for the Lawmans side
For that was the day…the day Rangers had died
TheLawMan2July 2, 2018 at 13:47
AllyjamboWho knows, though, how the SFA enquiry, and even UEFA, might ultimately view the importance of the actual date an unpaid payable became overdue, I’d imagine it would be viewed as overdue on the 31st March, when it was, in fact, overdue on the 31st March, as in the case we are discussing.___________________________________________________________________________I know. Auldheid knows as well. Its in the rules. Its very important. If the actual date it becomes an overdue payable is after 1st January 2011, then there is no requirement for disclosure as at the 31st March period.For the 31st March period, you only need to disclose anything that was an overdue payable prior to 31st December of the previous year. You have to confirm the amount that was overdue on the 31st December and then also a rolled forward amount for that same overdue payable to 31st March.Anything that became overdue between 1st January and 31st March is not required at that point in time in relation to the issuance of a licence.
____________________________
I don’t know, myself, but I’d guess the dates you state are pertinent in the case of tax due in the normal course of business, that is, tax that doesn’t become an unpaid liability until the end of March, such as income tax deducted from salaries during the quarter to 31 December. I’d imagine the date 1st January is significant to UEFA as the date income tax is due (for the preceding quarter) to be settled by the club, and if it is still outstanding at 31 March it falls foul of the FFP regulations.
I may be wrong, and would welcome clarification from someone more knowledgeable about how income tax settlement works. I am sure, too, that, as you acknowledge Auldheid as a knowledgeable person on this matter, he will be able to give us his thoughts on what you say, and either support, or debunk, your assertion.
Again, without knowing the answer myself, does anyone know the dates that the overdue payables became overdue in the cases that UEFA have currently dealt with? Were they all overdue on 1st January (of the year in question), or did they become overdue in the final quarter?
THELAWMAN2JULY 2, 2018 at 13:47
==============================
Perhaps someone could please enlighten me as to when this UNPAID and AVOIDED TAX first became overdue?
Was it overdue and being demanded prior to 2010 and if so what relevance has the above got to do with it?
THELAWMAN2JULY 2, 2018 at 12:06
JUSTTHEFACTSJULY 2, 2018 at 11:49
Given my often written hatred of Level 5 and in particular Traynor then i will go for 100,000,000/1
============================
Ah the ole camouflage trick ?
Which leads me tae my next question:
What are the odds on you having a pair of Wham Gloves in yer glove box?
Peace be upon you ?
slimjimJuly 1, 2018 at 21:59
CLUSTER ONE. New Oasis Asset Limited will provide loan facilities when necessary according to the last set of accounts. Where does the £12.9 million figure come from?
=====================
RIFC/TRFC Accounts.
Lawman2
How do you know what I well know?
It is an interesting interpretation you pose on the significance of of the acceptance date.
Your interpretation does not appear to align with what RFC thought in 2011. If it did why mention there was an issue with HMRC at all?
As I’ve said before, I’m quite happy for the JPDT to scrutinise or see what justification the Compliance Officer was given that he accepted to exclude the end of March from non compliance charges.
That has been the consistent aim of Res12 since 2013 to get an explanation as to how Sherriff Officers called to collect an unpaid tax bill just 3 and a half months after a licence was granted.
From zero as in no overdue payable to SO’s calling to collect an overdue payable in just 3.5 months seems out of the norm.
Ally Jambo
For how UEFA dealt with similar cases of tax not paid by 31st March check the CAS rulings on appeals from Malaga FC in 2012 and Giannina FC in 2013.
Malaga FC
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/CASdecisions/02/47/24/28/2472428_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Giannina FC
http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award20323320FINAL20_2013.12.05_20internet.pdf
I think Lawman has already discounted the latter as relevant on basis an invoice was delivered and remained unpaid and overdue at 31st March. No sign in the report that is true though.
What is true is that Giannina claimed . “More exactly, “there was not a real debt on or before the 31/3/2013”; ”
Sound familiar? CAS didn’t buy it.
TORREJOHNBHOY
It also says in the accounts that “New Oasis Asset Limited and certain investors have agreed to extend their loan facilities to July 2019”. I wasn’t sure if the posters who had mentioned the £12.9 figure were aware of this or that there had been an announcement that i had missed.
Without knowing the identity of the investors who have extended their loans it is impossible to put a figure on the amount that was due for repayment.
AULDHEIDJULY 2, 2018 at 14:59
It is an interesting interpretation you pose on the significance of of the acceptance date.
_________________________________________________________________
Feel i need to clarify that this is not my interpretation in case anyone misunderstands. The point im making is that in the original post, there was an emphasis on that date and the email content which then referred to the amount being due to be paid by the 31st March. Indeed, Allyjambo then followed that up by suggesting if the email was genuine then it was damning.
My only point im making is that if there is a view from anyone on here that the “acceptance” of the debt on the 21st March was a crucial turning point as at that point it meant there was money due on the 31st March, im stating they are wrong.
In order for it to be deemed a barrier to the licence, then the debt would have to have been an overdue payable on 31st December 2010. Any unrelated debts that appeared post 1st January 2011 are not considered in any respect for the 31st March deadline. You correctly pointed this out the other day on this blog.
It appears everyone just throws mud about whenever anything is posted so if you dont mind, i would appreciate you confirming if this is also your belief.
1) If it is deemed the overdue payable occurred on 19th June, it would not affect the 31st March issuance.
2) If it is deemed the overdue payable occurred on 21st March, it would not affect the 31st March issuance
3) If it is deemed the overdue payable existed on the 31st March 2010, the licence should not have been issued.
The above 3 points are the ones im making in relation to this email and I would be genuinely interested in your confirmation or alteration.
HomunculusJuly 2, 2018 at 13:07 (Edit)
Insightful.
PS – for my point above in 3) it should have been 31 December 2010 not 31 March 2010
AULDHEIDJULY 2, 2018 at 15:13
Ally JamboFor how UEFA dealt with similar cases of tax not paid by 31st March check the CAS rulings on appeals from Malaga FC in 2012 and Giannina FC in 2013.Malaga FChttps://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/CASdecisions/02/47/24/28/2472428_DOWNLOAD.pdfGiannina FChttp://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award20323320FINAL20_2013.12.05_20internet.pdf I think Lawman has already discounted the latter as relevant on basis an invoice was delivered and remained unpaid and overdue at 31st March. No sign in the report that is true though.What is true is that Giannina claimed . “More exactly, “there was not a real debt on or before the 31/3/2013”; ”Sound familiar? CAS didn’t buy it.
___________________________________________________
Just to be clear, in the Giannina case, the bill was received, accepted and overdue by 31 December 2012. Giannina thought as they were trying to agree terms on 31st March, they could ignore the fact it was overdue as at 31/12/12. Its not relevant in this situation as i fully accept that if Rangers DOS bill was an “overdue payable” on 31/12/10 then the licence should not have been granted.
As for the Malaga case, then i believe that was in the monitoring period from memory so again not relevant to licensing period though happy to have another look if my memory is incorrect.
1999: Rangers open a discounted option scheme (DOS) specifically for payments to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer.
2001: Rangers begin making payments through an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT), which was set up by Murray International Holdings (MIH).
2002: Sir David Murray quits as Rangers chairman but continues as owner.
2003: Rangers close the DOS scheme.
2004: Murray returns as chairman after MIH heavily underwrote a £57m share issue after the club’s debts hit £74m.
2006: The club’s annual report reveals a £9.2m “contribution to employee trusts”, the high point of the payments. The sum was included in staff costs of £28m.
2009: Murray announces he is to step down as Rangers chairman. Alastair Johnston is named as his successor.
2010: 27 April – Rangers confirm they are under investigation by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) over offshore payments to players from 2001. Rangers say they will “robustly” defend the case on the basis of expert tax advice.
2010: 16 May – Rangers refuse to comment on reports that the final bill could hit £50m.
December – EBTs are outlawed under new legislation.
2011: 1 April – Rangers announce a £2.8m tax liability over an issue relating to 1999-2003 (the DOS). Johnston admits the big tax case could leave Rangers with a bill they cannot afford to pay.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20417847
I think it’s fairly obvious that not only did they know what they were doing was wrong but they also went about it in such a way as to bury it until the European Cash was a distinct possibility in 2011.
Also David Murrays movements prior to and after the DOS Scheme being binned in 2003 is very peculiar indeed don’t you think?
“Crafty” barsteward.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/14482034
“Rangers face a bill of £2.8m which they are willing to pay**, but the club dispute a fine that comes with it of about £1.4m.
A Rangers spokesman said : “This is a historical issue which the new Rangers
FC majority shareholder inherited and has dealt with diligently.” **
RFC has been in detailed discussions with HMRC over a tax liability that was revealed during due diligence** prior to the takeover of the club by a new majority shareholder earlier this year. “
**Ooh you little purveyor of terminological inexactitudes
Charlotte – notes of meeting 21 March 2011
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.
*** Definition of diligently
Obfuscate: obscure, confuse, make obscure/unclear, blur, muddle, jumble, complicate, garble, muddy, cloud, befog; muddy the waters 🙂
WOODSTEINJULY 2, 2018 at 16:45
“Rangers face a bill of £2.8m which they are willing to pay**, but the club dispute a fine that comes with it of about £1.4m.
As I have said before how do uefa view this dispute if the £2.8m liability is accepted and the only dispute is regarding the penalties .
Also how could ragers 1872 dispute the penalties when the existence of denied side letters proved the scheme invalid ,surely the bill became payable after the AAM case .
TORREJOHNBHOYJULY 2, 2018 at 14:56
slimjimJuly 1, 2018 at 21:59CLUSTER ONE. New Oasis Asset Limited will provide loan facilities when necessary according to the last set of accounts. Where does the £12.9 million figure come from?=====================RIFC/TRFC Accounts.
————–
Tea all over screen…
JUSTTHEFACTSJULY 2, 2018 at 15:54
Great clear post
—————
Also David Murrays movements prior to and after the DOS Scheme being binned in 2003 is very peculiar indeed don’t you think?“Crafty” barsteward.
——————
I remembered it at the time and always thought there was something funny about DM (oh feck, David Murray)
something funny about David Murray’s in and out,as if he was trying to dodge something,that never came to fruition then he thought i could go back…just my thought’s
FoF. A timely reminder that as the discussion around dates has bounced back and forth over the weekend it’s worth remembering that while RFC were busy arguing with the tax man they were failing to lodge the players contracts with the SFA.
CLUSTER ONE 18.41
Not quite sure why CO.
Unless i’m mistaken then i believe that NOAL have provided loans totaling £6.7 million to date.
An agreement was reached with the board for them to provide additional funding when required.
https://www.scribd.com/document/192787967/179011295-147860088-DOS01-pdf-pdf
EASYJAMBOJULY 1, 2018 at 11:41
ALLYJAMBOJULY 1, 2018 at 12:35
—————
Thanks to both for posting,i think i had it somewhere,but now i have put it somewhere where i can find it
—————
This caught my eye also.
Youth team – Celtic spend circa £2m p.a. on youth team; Charlotte £0.2m. It’s always all about the celtic.wonder what the youth spend is now?
David Murray really does have a lot to answer for. It all starts with him.
Sure before his era Celtic were never the darling child of Scottish Football Authorities. From demanding the removal of the ROI flag from flying at Celtic Park (failed) to Jorge Cadette’s registration (failed Farry) to the Masonic influence of Scottish referees, how they make a nice wee earner at after dinner speaking in retirement boasting of their ‘honest mistakes’. To the masonic/Rangersy leanings of most SFA & league officials who ‘govern’ the game. And that includes reps. from other clubs. If Celtic were not so huge, they would have been smothered. Thankfully because of the extreme cheating of DM & SFA there is some level of coming together now.
But David Murray raised it all to a new level. You can argue all you like about fine detail and dates until you are blue in the face but Rangers / TRFC stink. They cheat. They lie. They spend money they cannot afford, way too much. They try to gain unfair advantage. Since he took over Rangers, Scottish football has deteriorated to a shameful level. Mostly off the pitch but even on the pitch at international level. Anything the SFA touch, turns to lead.
Regan acknowledged they had lost the trust. So where is this transparency he advocated? Give us all the details around 31 March 2011. The CO decision rationale.
This is just the latest episode in the ongoing rubbish from Ibrox and Hampden. Brothers in arms indeed.
Jimbo
The kind of thing that seeds doubt about the honesty of the previous regime.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UQDHlWIoU7cIOrwh416t3Ig_AxMlcEId/view?usp=sharing
Forgot to add.
SLIMJIMJULY 1, 2018 at 21:59
—–
thanks for reply.
So no £16m from a share issue.No £6m from another share issue.£12.9M of loans due to be repaid.They must by now have a bigger wage bill.
———
Any thought’s on the other three issues?
CLUSTER ONE 19.20
Not sure of the current figures although i do know that 2 of the Rangers U17 team that beat Celtic 3-0 in the Glasgow cup final cost £32,000 & £38,000 respectively with another who was valued higher but due to him being bought from a English club (Charlton Athletic) only cost £8,000 or so.
Celtic have been known to spend on average £100,000 at youth level in the past.
On a happier note, so glad to see those boys and their coach found alive in the cave, Thailand. It’s still a very dangerous situation, they are weak and starving. Going to be difficult to get them to safety and home. But there is hope. DG.
My memory is fading the older I get but I seem to remember a vibrant Scottish game before David Murray’s Takeover at Ibrox?
it was highly competitive with 3 to 4 sides competing for the major Trophies on a regular basis with both Celtic and Rangers struggling to keep winning runs going with any great consistency.
He and his Chequebook Policy basically broke what was a good standard of League in the top flight.
If this wasn’t bad enough it then transpires a bit of cheating and bending of the financial rules was being implemented for good measure rendering any challenge more or less pointless.
To the point of course it nearly crippled Celtic.
The more I think of it the angrier I get when you consider not one of these rrsouls has ever been taken to task on any of it.
Particulary the Fiver/Tenner halfwit who caused much of it.
What an absolute Jeremy Hunt you are Minty.
Those that defend these actions are no better in my book.
Those same fandans that gloated about 9 in a row and royally shoved it up the Celtic Supports erchie on a weekly basis.
Well guess what?
He who laughs last laughs longest…
6 years of side splitting ,never ending joviality and all the while the Money and trophies keep rolling in.
Hope you enjoyed yer short lived “success “.
Deid.
End of story.
CLUSTER ONE 19.56
We will just have to wait and see with regard to the amount raised in any share issue. Have heard DK mention “£6 million new cash in the balance converted to loans” but no idea re- the £16 million figure although i will take your word for it.
The £12.9 million in loans due to be repaid was answered earlier today (15.17) in response to a post from TORREJOHNBHOY.