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.
Imagine you are a PR legend in your own lunchtime.
Imagine you (mis)represent a client, a sporting giant that is referred to as a Scottish institution, although that client also misrepresents itself as an entity which in reality died six years ago.
Imagine you see it as your prime function to suppress any bad news about your client.
Imagine you need to release a squirrel or ten if bad news about your client does escape.
Imagine how stupid a person would have to be to fall for the release of the squirrel immediately after the bad news.
Imagine how few, if any, non-Rangers* supporters, such as those who read SFM, would fall for the squirrel.
Imagine how many of the Rangers* support would require to fall for the squirrel, in order to make the squirrel release worthwhile.
Imagine how little respect and credit you give the Rangers* support and how low you must deem their intelligence, to expect them to ‘swallow’ your squirrel, even if their consummate ability to be duped has never been in question.
Imagine thinking of yourself as some kind of PR guru when in reality you are an utter buffoon who is a laughing stock to those with an IQ higher than plankton.
I’m sure I read somewhere that Jim Traynor regularly reads blogs such as SFM, John James, Phil Mac Giolla Bhainn, James Forrest etc.
I really do hope its true, because nothing would give me more pleasure than to point out that his exploits in the world of PR are every bit as pathetic as his former life in punditry and journalism. I mean, who could forget the unambiguous statements below trumpeting the death of Rangers Football Club, followed a short time later by a complete u-turn.
There is no getting away from the fact that Traynor is a serial liar, just like Dave King. Either Traynor lied when reporting the death of a football club, or he is lying now.
I know which one is the lie, and I’m sure you do too. It isn’t the following.
“Rangers FC as we know them are dead. It’s all over. They are about to shut down for ever. They’ll slip into liquidation within the next couple of weeks with a new company emerging but 140 years of history, triumph and tears, will have ended. No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out Rangers as we know them died.”
theredpill
July 8, 2018 at 17:07
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2018/07/07/coming-next-door-to-home/
HighlanderJuly 8, 2018 at 17:20
DCK. Dead man walking indeed as per Auldheid. Blame will be spread far and wide but there is also the potential for real damage to TV deals, fixtures, commercial deals with suppliers and of course shareholders. This could get very messy.
HOMUNCULUSJULY 8, 2018 at 16:52
7
0 Rate This
Just so you all have advance warning and can batten down the hatches.
Its boycott o’clock with the good people over at follow follow again.
———————-
Is this Boycott 618 or 619 i may have missed a few when on holiday
602 was boycott the Green boots or the Green grass or something.WILL THE GREAT BOYCOTT OF SPORTS DIRECT CONTINUE IF BIG MIKE WINS THE COURT CASE AND THE MANDARIN TOPS HAVE TO BE SOLD BY SPORTS DIRECT.
It looks to me like Sevco have passed up on the opportunity of sensible negotiation re the Hummel kit. Early disclosure to SD would have presented the opportunity of returning to Hummel, with the offered terms of SD to match/undercut them….Thus possibly negotiating better terms.
Didn’t the Big Liar say there were 10 kit manufacturers interested?…..A lot of paperwork for SD to examine on costly rates, and 10 new opportunities of re-negotiation…Whooppee-Doo !
Or maybe there was only one….A hasty put together piece at the last minute, on a take it or leave it basis
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
JULY 8, 2018 at 18:30
========================================
I don’t think it’s the same deal.
Surely Hummel would be the shirt sponsor / manufacturer. Equivalent to the previous position with Puma.
You would then have a retail partner, dealing with actual retailing of the goods, logistics etc, currently Sports Direct.
So the change would be something like Puma/SD to say Hummel/JD Sports or similar.
Sorry if that’s wrong.
CLUSTER ONEJULY 8, 2018 at 18:21
HOMUNCULUSJULY 8, 2018 at 16:5270 Rate ThisJust so you all have advance warning and can batten down the hatches. Its boycott o’clock with the good people over at follow follow again.———————-Is this Boycott 618 or 619 i may have missed a few when on holiday602 was boycott the Green boots or the Green grass or something.WILL THE GREAT BOYCOTT OF SPORTS DIRECT CONTINUE IF BIG MIKE WINS THE COURT CASE AND THE MANDARIN TOPS HAVE TO BE SOLD BY SPORTS DIRECT.
===========================================================
Here’s a thought…..Honour the contract that was signed up to !…..Is that too difficult to grasp in Sevconia?….Or possibly even take the matter up directly with those who signed…..Would that be too sensible?
Having said that. It is extremely funny when they are not too busy standing idly by, and have other things to be getting on with.
“Boycott the legally binding contract we signed”, day, has a nice ring to it..
The, “We signed it by accident”, campaign is bound to gain traction, and should be extended to include all Bic products, and papery derivatives….Except red cards.
JIMBOJULY 8, 2018 at 12:35
Well, Well, Well, Red Lichtie has been on and didn’t announce Arbroath beat Huntly 4-1 yesterday. It was even mentioned in the stream I was watching of Shamrock Rovers v Celtic.
(Redlichtie is that eejit with the red top on).
————————————————–
Red, red???? Maroon I’ll have you know! 🙂
Scottish Football very much needs a strong Arbroath.
Angus1983July 8, 2018 at 13:38
Possibly, Ally, but only if such activity falls under the auspices of the Takeover Code. I don’t think it would be relevant to other members of the concert party – it’s King that the TOP are targetting.I suspect it’s entirely because of this lack of effect on the wider situation that King has chosen to thumb his nose at the TOP. I think the ‘red flag to others’ thing, which of course is entirely informal, may affect him more. But, to be honest, probably not that much.
_____________________
I don’t know any more than anyone else about how the cold shoulder will work out formally, but RIFC have already stated that the members of the concert party can’t buy any more shares in the club until the TOP issued is sorted, hence the reduction in the anticipated quantum from £16m to £6m, so they are already affected. The financial sector, who all come under the FCA, who back the TOP, will take note of the cold shoulder when considering dealing with both King and the club, and anyone who will be prepared to deal with either (King or the club), will take it into account when negotiating interest rates and charges. It’s how the lower end of the market operates.
Quite simply, when someone reneges on a financial imperative (like repaying loans, or complying with market regulations) their credit score is affected very badly, and it is the same for businesses. Mud sticks, and nowhere more noticeably than in the financial sector.
roddybhoyJuly 8, 2018 at 14:00
Think we will soon be hearing from Rangers on how they have been duped by that contract with SPDIRECT …..sounds familiar !!!! Surely though King and Murray aint that stupid to sign a contract like that and not realise the possible consequensus ??? Could it be a case of something so bad was about to happen with the old contract that maybe Big Mick let them pay him £3m to kick the can down the road a bit longer and change the terms and this is where we are at now……………..Probably talking mince BUT SURELY SURELY they knew the consequensus of that contract and they have done what they are best at , deflect , deny , lie and stick their heads in the sand hope it would all go away
____________________
As I said earlier, perhaps Paul Murray did realise the implications of the agreement, but he’s not around now to ensure that no cock up was made when a new supplier was found! He had to have some purpose on the board, and regardless of how useful he would have been in this instance, he’s not there to be considered responsible in any way.
When you negotiate a contract or have a contract wouldn’t it have a confidentiality clause?.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
JULY 8, 2018 at 19:17
“Boycott the legally binding contract we signed”, day, has a nice ring to it.. The, “We signed it by accident”, campaign is bound to gain traction, and should be extended to include all Bic products, and papery derivatives….Except red cards.
————————————————————————————
How about an “Everyday Is National Duped Day”?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
BILLYDUGJULY 8, 2018 at 07:12
Matthew Lindsay: Sorry Takeover Panel saga could have far-reaching implications for Dave King and Rangers | HeraldScotlandWHERE would Rangers be just now without David Cunningham King?
_________________________
Short answer…
⚰️???
Looking for something and came across this,
More than 8000 back fans campaign to boycott official Rangers merchandise over Mike Ashley Sports Direct deal.
21st August 2015
And a poll of over 200 registered members of the RangersMedia fans forum has showed that around two in three said they would stop boycotting and start buying if Rangers got a better deal with Sports Direct.
But just over one in four in the poll started in July have said they were not going to boycott official merchandise and will still continue to purchase regardless.
Concern about the deal Rangers has with Mr Ashley has been heightened amongst some fans by new revelations that Sports Direct has sold nearly £4 million of goods to club outlets in the last year.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13619814.More_than_800_back_fans_campaign_to_boycott_official_Rangers_merchandise_over_Mike_Ashley_Sports_Direct_deal/
BILLYDUGJULY 8, 2018 at 20:01
When you negotiate a contract or have a contract wouldn’t it have a confidentiality clause?.
—————————————————————-
The answer is normally ‘yes’ but is this with regard to SDI getting to see any third party offer? It was stated in court that the contract specifically requires TRFC to provide SDI with details of any offer (so that SDI can decide if they want to match it) and if the third party does not agree to that happening then the offer has to be rejected by TRFC.
Did TRFC actually tell the third party of this requirement prior to their offer being submitted? Is that a stumbling block? Will the third party walk away rather than have their offer revealed to SDI? Is that why TRFC didn’t provide the supposedly required information to SDI?
I think we should be told! 🙂
Scottish Football needs to have less cash going to lawyers….
HOMUNCULUSJULY 8, 2018 at 16:52
Do On To Them?
————–
‘Do unto others as you would have them do to you’
I hope they have not got it wrong,that would be silly of them.
Like others, I’m not sure the extent of the effects of a cold shouldering on Dave King. At Ibrox, and providers of goods and services. I’m just surprised it doesn’t widen to the full concert party.
One thing should be obvious. If Dave King is cold shouldered. The SFA must take action to get him out of Scottish Football.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath. And Hampden.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 8, 2018 at 19:59
Think we will soon be hearing from Rangers on how they have been duped by that contract with SPDIRECT …..sounds familiar !!!! Surely though King and Murray aint that stupid to sign a contract like that and not realise the possible consequensus ???
——————
PLEASE CORRECT IF WRONG.
did the guy’s who were selling the lion brand gear not also get told to stop,they never read the small print or something?
Is it just me but I spend ages having to change pages on here. It used to be the case that if you clicked on a recent post, it took you there. Now? – nothing! You have to scroll and scroll, change the page and scroll again. Is something up? It’s been going on for ages.
Even after I posted this, pre-edit, I was sent back to page 68. I scrolled down, changes to page 69, I updated, but sent me to the top of page 69 so I had to scroll down again! What a pain!
Naw Jimbo. I have to do it too? Every single time?
Jean
CLUSTER ONE
JULY 8, 2018 at 20:50
PLEASE CORRECT IF WRONG.did the guy’s who were selling the lion brand gear not also get told to stop,they never read the small print or something?
=========================================
I believe that was when they produced and sold a “Help For Heroes” shirt without actually asking the charity.
https://www.byline.com/column/52/article/1143
Armed forces charity Help for Heroes has said that a clothing company closely linked to a Rangers fan group is using its name and logo without their permission.
The Lionbrand,which sells a range of Rangers branded clothing and says on its website “All proceeds from sales will be invested directly into the club,” has a range of “Help for Heroes” t-shirts for sale retailing at £22.74. However a spokesperson for the charity said: “Help for Heroes has not authorised the use of its logo to The Lion Brand and as such we are looking to speak to them as a matter of urgency.”
jean7brodieJuly 8, 2018 at 21:12
‘..Naw Jimbo. I have to do it too? Every single time?’
__________________________
So do I! ( I just thought it was my general internet ineptitude, and I wasn’t brave enough to mention it!)
I think there might be a shortage of moderators who would move the pages onwards as required.
HOMUNCULUSJULY 8, 2018 at 21:34
————
That’s the one.
Someone just to quick to get the gear out for sale and not reading the small print maybe.
CLUSTER ONE
JULY 8, 2018 at 21:51
============================
I always just thought it was a theft of copyright from a charity. They did it because they knew the support which was their target market would buy that sort of product.
A wee memory jogger. Does anyone remember years ago, I’m sure it was The Scottish Sunday Mail, it might not have been, did a player profile every week?
It was quite interesting, asking the players their memories – funny or profound – likes & dislikes, teammate gossip, favourite players and managers etc. etc. etc.
Who they supported as boys. Week after week, regardless of who they played with, it was Rangers.
Many of these guys will be retired now. Some of them pundits on the BBC. Columns in the newspapers.
Getting a pattern?
Rangers Megastore website & App operated by
SportsDirect.com Retail ltd.
trolling trolling trolling #rawhide skelped bum.
Billydug !!!!!
That attachment is blurred or else my eyesight is going fast
JIMBOJULY 8, 2018 at 23:05
Don’t know if this will be any better. But here goes.
That’s it Im out. After I posted above I’m back to the home page and have to go through the whole rigmarole again. It’s intolerable.
Obviously no one is reading the posts (BP or Tris).
The 1872 match between Scotland and England was the first ever association football official international match to be played. It was contested by the national teams of Scotland and England. The match took place on 30 November 1872 at West of Scotland Cricket Club’s ground at Hamilton Crescent in Partick, Scotland. The match finished in a 0–0 draw and was watched by 4,000 spectators.
In order to celebrate the 150th anniversary of International Football, and to remind all football fans all over the world that the home of football – as we know it – is actually Scotland, the Scottish Football Association has announced today that a Scotland v England international will take place on Wednesday 30 November at the home ground of Partick Thistle FC, which is the nearest professional football stadium to the original ground. This date is also co-incidentally Saint Andrew’s Day – the patron Saint of Scotland.
jimboJuly 8, 2018 at 22:08
‘…..Many of these guys will be retired now. Some of them pundits on the BBC. Columns in the newspapers….’
_________________________
No one could reasonably deny anyone the right to ‘support’ the football team of his choice, as a football supporter.
A difficulty may arise , in the abstract, when those supporters of a football club who happen to be journalists, whether print or television journalists, allow their football club allegiances to take precedence over their ‘duty’ as journalists, in such way as to propagate untruths in order to ‘support’ their football club!
Or when the very governing body of Scottish Football may choose to lie to protect the interests of their club!
(As if!)
Thanks, Highlander, …. great post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgkThdzX-8
Highlander, …. great post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgkThdzX-8
imboJuly 8, 2018 at 23:11
That’s it Im out. After I posted above I’m back to the home page and have to go through the whole rigmarole again. It’s intolerable. Obviously no one is reading the posts (BP or Tris).
_______________-
I’ve always been directed to the home page first and had to click on the link the current blog, which appears (the link), quite handily, in a very obvious place, and, hey presto, I’m here (though for a few occasions after we first move onto a new page it goes to the previous page, but, all in all, about 10 seconds, max, worth of ‘inconvenience’.
There are times, though, when I come on and wonder if my minds going, my laptop’s on the blink, or we’re under a cyber attack from the planet Zorgbrox, because everything refreshes so slowly!
jimboJuly 8, 2018 at 23:11
That’s it Im out. After I posted above I’m back to the home page and have to go through the whole rigmarole again. It’s intolerable. Obviously no one is reading the posts (BP or Tris).
__________________
Sorry, misunderstood the problem. I thought it was just when you first entered the blog you were talking about. My last post took a few seconds longer to update than when everything is running smoothly, but I stayed in the current blog and didn’t have to go through the rigmarole. I understand now how you must be so frustrated.
Problems seem to be fixed now thank goodness.
JC, the point I was alluding to is our astonishment at the handling and reportage of all the issues surrounding Rangers & TRFC. The lack of appetite to dig deep and ask questions. The facts of the liquidation of Rangers and it’s effect. The collusion between Ibrox and Hampden. Why the SMSM seem to just print or mention quotes from the PR machine at Ibrox. Why some topics are not even covered!
In the print media look at how much of an article is in “…”. About 80-90% ?
Opinion pieces are softly softly, don’t tread on any toes type stuff. 20% critical, 80% supportive.
For all Cyde’s faults, there is at least an attempt to have a balance in the punditry.
BBC Radio Scotland on the other hand is so biased towards Rangers/TRFC pundits that it is either hysterical or pathetic.
I wonder at the print media. Where lies the blame of bias? The stenographers have to report to an editor. the editors have to report to owners/ CEOs. Where in the chain lies the bias?
As I mentioned it’s not difficult to get Rangers minded pundits or ‘journos’, even if they never played for them. You can always try to claim you are being fair and even handed. Like Chic Young.
But since the days of David Murray (at least), the SMSM are hand in hand with Ibrox. I’m just trying to understand why. Maybe it just comes down to demographics.
I can’t help but think this Rangers attack on the integrity of Murdoch Maclennan (because that’s what it is) can only end up in the man having to resign. The subterfuge of this is Maclennan is a Celtic fan and therefore compromised. They offer no evidence whatsoever he has acted improperly towards Rangers or that Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien have tried to influence him in matters regarding Celtic, but that matters little. The man has a life to lead and this is Scotland. Rangers will get what they want and that is his head on a pike, even though it is most likely the man will simply want to spend his life in peace. I can rarely think of Celtic minded individuals getting to positions of power in Scottish football and it is easy to see why. What a country this is when a convicted tax evading criminal effectively calls the shots on who should and who shouldn’t hold a position of authority, and all to keep the neanderthals among his support onside.
jimboJuly 9, 2018 at 09:23
‘….. the SMSM are hand in hand with Ibrox. ‘
_____________________________
Interestingly enough, jimbo, just about half of Gavin McCafferty’s piece in the ‘Scotsman’ this morning consists of very nearly the full text of the RIFC plc statement about the SPFL’s refusal of their request for an independent investigation into the MacLennan situation! ( Do journalists get paid per column inch of typescript, even if they are just quoting someone else’s propaganda??)
However, the piece does end with noting the fact that the ‘statement’ comes in the wake of news of the wee problem raised by Sports Direct, and the fact that it comes not long after King was served with contempt of court papers.
Perhaps there are the beginnings of a readiness by the ‘Scotsman’ at least to report the sighting of squirrels?
Or am I being too generously minded?
John ClarkJuly 9, 2018 at 09:55
John, I think you have a generous mind
upthehoopsJuly 9, 2018 at 09:32
What a country this is when a convicted tax evading criminal effectively calls the shots on who should and who shouldn’t hold a position of authority, and all to keep the neanderthals among his support onside.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Which is exactly the reason why Maclennan has to stay put and tough it out. Hopefully supported by all the other clubs.
Until a Scottish ‘journalist’ makes a comparison between the MacLennan situation and one in which we found an EBT holder who was also an ex-club employee with shares held in his wife’s name of the same club he was attached by an umbilical cord to, at the head of the SFA, then nothing they write on the MacLennan issue can be taken seriously. I believe it was no accident that that EBT holder, along with one or two others with umbilical cords reaching all the way to Ibrox, were in office at the exact moment their club needed them most!
Imagine if we had a media that would go after the people at the head of an organisation, known to have club connections far greater than that of MacLennan, rather than be the lickspittles of those with most to hide from such investigative journalism!
I don’t know if Murdoch MacLennan is even a Celtic supporter!
Regardless of your views on the merits of Rangers grievance about MacLennan’s conflict of interest the circumstances do highlight how useful an independent “ombudsman” type body would be in Scottish football to act as final arbiter in disputes.
Essentially by going after MacLennan Rangers have raised a grievance against the SPFL but the SPFL assess that grievance and basically clear themselves as having no case to answer. Despite the predictable flurry of pretentious statements and foot stamping from Rangers the matter is now closed as they have nowhere to go.
Same scenario applies with the compliance officer case into Rangers Euro Licence, the SFA are being asked to investigate if the SFA got it wrong and their say seems to be final on the matter.
The Court of Arbitration exists and could be used in some disputes but to the best of my knowledge no Scottish club has ever used this option, cases seem to take several years and I assume costs are prohibitive.
John Clark July 9, 2018 at 09:55
just about half of Gavin McCafferty’s piece in the ‘Scotsman’ this morning consists of very nearly the full text of the RIFC plc statement about the SPFL’s refusal of their request for an independent investigation into the MacLennan situation! ( Do journalists get paid per column inch of typescript, even if they are just quoting someone else’s propaganda??)
———————————————————————
Today’s ‘Evening Times’ has absolutely no quams about reproducing Jabba’s squirrel in full. There is a lengthy piece entitled:
“Chris Jack: Questions over Murdoch MacLennan are key for all clubs and not just Rangers”
calling on all the other clubs to wake up and join Chairman King in his brave fight for justice on the 6th Floor at Hampden. I will not give a link to this rag or reproduce the article, but suffice to say there seems to be a coordinated blitz on MacLennan in this morning’s press – a mere coincidence?
Personally as a celtic fan I had never heard of Murdoch MacLennan until Big Stooopid Dave King opened his big stooopid Gub ! Again personally I hope King keeps it up because what I have read about Mr. MacLennan is along with his Irish mate Obrien they aint afraid to sue Clowns like King for slander. You just cant help yoursef Dave , can you …..Clint Eastwood head on…Go on Dave make my Day !
Nick
I don’t remember attempts at ousting Martin Bain “personal ebt letter shredder” from his position on the SPL Board , Gordon Smith ex CEO who rumour had it was a regular visitor, as was Ogilvie, to the Video Review offices on a Monday before the process changed, or A Dickson who managed the way RFC unlawfully used ebts and was a member of the Licensing Committee that granted the UEFA licence in March 2011, where apparently the SFA Compliance Officer has been persuaded all was in order at that point, so JPDT are not investigating, but no one on SMSM has asked on what basis?
So it is not surprising this attack on MacLennan’s probity from people who lie and cannot conceive of the possibility that others are not like them and in a position of power would act as they would.
You do raise the excellent point that what is being raised here unconsciously, is just how flawed the current system of governance is, and how much transparency and accountability are required and an Ombudsman is one solution.
Now had that point been made, who could have argued about the motivations behind the latest personal attack on an individual from a club under investigation for rampant dishonesty.
The silence of the succulent lambs has a lot to answer for, especially when the only time they bleat is from the same dishonest platform in favour of the dishonest.
There can be little doubt that the MacLennan issue is nothing more than a squirrel, that will pop up from time to time whenever King needs one. Unless the chairs of all other clubs are truly thick, they will know this, too, and will be happier to give MacLennan the benefit of the doubt over a noted criminal’s desperate rantings.
We’d all prefer our game to be governed completely bias-free, but that can never happen, and we’ve even had situations where board members, in their capacities at Hampden through their club positions, were actually staunch supporters of another club, and made major decisions that were clearly based on their support for that club with no consideration for truth and honesty, or the integrity of the game!
This tenuous idea that a man, MacLennan, might be coerced into acting against TRFC, or in favour of Celtic, by his employer(s) is far less likely to be a problem than one club’s supporters being in a position to make important decisions on Scottish football while in office in the guise of representing another.
AULDHEID
NickI don’t remember attempts at ousting Martin Bain “personal ebt letter shredder” from his position on the SPL Board , Gordon Smith ex CEO who rumour had it was a regular visitor, as was Ogilvie, to the Video Review offices on a Monday before the process changed, or A Dickson who managed
__________€__________
Also no attempts to oust McGinn, Lawwell, Reid, Riley, Petrie , Budge, Thompson etc etc from any of the boards.
Throwing up a list of Rangers men and saying ah but changes nothing. The complaint is not, and never has been that the guy is a Celtic man. The complaint is not, and never has been he could be a Celtic man.
The complaint is very simple. In his professional life, it has been discovered that the Chairman has an extremely important role in a business whose majority shareholders are also majority shareholders in an SPFL club.
There is no suggestion he has helped Celtic. There is no suggestion he would help Celtic. But conflict of interest exists. Conflict of interest in no language means something has or will happen. It just means that there is the potential of something happening that could lead to accusations.
Nobody needed to tell anyone about ogilvie or Lawwell or Smith or budge or petries potential conflicts, it was obvious. I’m sure there is probably a tick box exercise though to declare them.
The only squirrel here is those who are using “aye but, Rangers men” as a justification in this.
NICKJULY 9, 2018 at 10:52
Regardless of your views on the merits of Rangers grievance about MacLennan’s conflict of interest the circumstances do highlight how useful an independent “ombudsman” type body would be in Scottish football to act as final arbiter in disputes.
========================
You mean another group of people for King to go raking for muck about their backgrounds and an association with Celtic, even though they have done nothing to harm Rangers? It would be better if Rangers were just issued with a disrepute charge under the rules that exist for these constant inferences about people without foundation. However, then the spiral of muck raking would continue about whatever panel was dealing with that, aided and abetted by his media friends. It really is pathetic, and I am 100% sure no other club would be getting away with it.
JIMBOJULY 9, 2018 at 10:50
I don’t know if Murdoch MacLennan is even a Celtic supporter!
=====================
If he is, it shouldn’t matter, because it has never mattered before.
UTH, if anything it’s the opposite with Celtic men at Hampden. I can remember Eric Riley coming in for some criticism from Celtic supporters because he sat on several positions with the SFA & SPL when a lot of the stuff was going on with Rangers/TRFC. Likewise Peter Lawwell.
But that is another can of worms isn’t it? ‘The Old Firm’.
If true, it seems Dave King isn’t keeping his side of the bargain. Not looking out for the Celtic men of ‘The Firm’ at Hampden!
Well if you get into bed with the devil – hell mend you!
Btw, I’m not saying I believe this sh.t but it is an active argument with some Celtic fans! On CQN for instance.
JIMBOJULY 9, 2018 at 15:07
======================
Jimbo, when I say it hasn’t mattered before I don’t recall people from clubs publicly stating they have issues with those in power by referring to what team they allegedly, or are known to support. As has often been referred to we had for example Gordon Smith as SFA Chief Executive, a man who has always very publicly worn his heart on his sleeve regarding Rangers. Likewise with Campbell Ogilvie, but no clubs issued statements on a Saturday night questioning their suitability for the role, with zero supporting evidence to show they had compromised themselves.
There is a set of connections between events reported here today over the last week.
The corruption of the golden rule by “project dott” (do on to them) demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of any religion never mind theological intricacies regarding the Reformation or the Counter Reformation. This is emblematic of the theological knowledge of a support which revels in the word Protestantism.
The Orange top is a manifestation of that cod religion, for that is what it is.
The disgusting events at St Alphonsus on Saturday are also directly related to the two issues above.
It is disturbing to think that this is the situation here and now.
I might be excoriated for bringing these things up but unfortunately they are not off topic.
Apologies if mentioned already: I’m several days behind comments.
Just read about the incident at the church at the Barras, and Phil’s related piece as well.
As sad as this incident is, the lingering questions for me are;
“If RFC/TRFC had been dealt with objectively and transparently – i.e. treated just like all the other senior clubs – would incidents like this have decreased, [or even increased for that matter] ?”
“If the SMSM had reported objectively and honestly about RFC and TFC throughout, then would TRFC and its supporters display improved behaviours today?”
“If the SFA had blocked Dave King – and others before him – from becoming involved with RFC/TRFC since 2010, would the Ibrox club and its supporters display improved behaviours today?”
“Does the introduction of an orange strip by TRFC not even register as potentially inappropriate at Hampden?”
These are hypotheticals of course, as change – for the better – in Scottish football seems forever out of reach.
Which is why I will be deliriously happy for Scottish football when we can all, finally move on: with the permanent demise of any Ibrox club, IMO.
For me the bigger question to be asked would be when the marching season comes around are we as citizens to tolerate and accept that priests cannot be seen to be on the streets during this time. What happened at the weekend was not merely an assualt on a man of the cloth but was an assualt on democracy, the irony is the man who was assualted is also a man of culture and should be free to express it as will be claimed by the marchers if they were to have their rights removed from marching.
The smsm are what they are as they are IMO in the pockets of Ibrox club. Regarding the attack on the priest this sadly is not a shock to me as these people are also what they are. I would be interested to know how many cities in Scotland did these walks take place in and also outwith the fans of any Ibrox club what is the percentage of people who follow this racial bigotted walk. Make no mistake the hatred of Irish Catholics is in the dna of this walk. I agree that the situation regarding this new club plays a massive part in the behaviour of certain individual’s in this walk. These people need this sash bash more than ever IMO. I would love to see the back of these walks as it would not be allowed in any country to openly intimidate a religion. Only in Scotland.
bfbpuzzledJuly 9, 2018 at 15:51
Speaking as an agnostic theist my biggest issue with Project DOTT is indeed how it seems to run totally contrary to the Golden Rule, found in many religions and not just Christianity. A message that many people of no religion at all try to adhere to.
If people are Christians then surely “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is an instruction to be nice to each other, which kind of goes against the Project DOTT ethos of, get stuck into them, no mercy, no surrender watp. In fact little of that call to arms appears to me to sit comfortably with the Christian message.
I once listened to a homily given by a Jesuit. Long story short he pointed out that whilst people may be sitting at a service in the middle of the day that did not mean they were any more entitled to salvation than someone who was out and about, doing their business, following the teachings of Christ (whether they were Christian or not). Living a good life. That God was more interested in people following those teachings and living their lives well. Doing unto others as they would have others do unto them.
I found it rather inspirational that such a man should point out that it was about how you lived your life, not just about how often you attended Church or prayed. It could not have been more different to the Project DOTT message.
Apologies to the blog, I know we should stay away from religion etc. It was more the message I was talking about rather than any particular religion or denomination.
On a happier note, that’s eight of the boys football team rescued from the caves in Thailand. I understand they were taking the strongest boys out first. So say a prayer, keep your fingers crossed, whatever your thing is, that the rest get out safely. The coach will probably be suffering most with feelings of guilt. He gave his portion of eatables to the boys rather than himself. I hope he will be alright. I would imagine he had the best of intentions.
Let’s hope they are all out and watching the World Cup Final on Sunday.
Jimbo. My understanding is that whereas the original intention was bring out the strongest first, on the advice of the British doctor at the location the decision was reversed and the weakest kids were evacuated first. Fingers crossed the final evacuation proceeds tomorrow without incident.
For God’s sake Lawman2….
So the complaint is that a guy employed by a plc – a public company with all the scrutiny that entails – may act in concert with two shareholders (not owners) to affect matters in a completely unrelated sporting endeavour, with all that entails?
And yet a secret loan for tens of thousands of pounds which was later to be found not just secret but illegal, the calling in if which would have had serious financial implications for the person in question, ooh let’s pick two names at random, olgilve campbell, that’s not a conflict of interest?!?!
“Ah but” not applicable? Listen to yourself man! Ah but that’s not a red herring, it’s a smoking haddock… I mean gun….
Homuncul
Bear with me for a minute here…
The golden rule has nothing to do with being nice to each other but truth and doing the right thing in a given set of circumstances, oftentimes what I need is a good telling off – and that, I assure you is, what I get.
Truth is what the SFA and others need, it is the only thing which endures.
GB Shaw said that the golden rule was flawed because individuals have different tastes, he was wrong.
Enough from me
Haudthebus, Thanks for that. I was fearing the biggest challenge was yet to come. Here’s hoping
(That might help explain why Monday’s rescues were 2 hours quicker than Sunday’s)
Roll on tomorrow and hopefully a good result in court for sports direct.
BFBPUZZLED
JULY 9, 2018 at 18:49
==================================
My understanding of the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” (or whatever similar translation you wish to use) is my understanding of it, and the message I take from it.
I have clearly simplified it for the purposes of posting on a football forum.
I am happy for you to take your own meaning from it.
I apologised to the board for my last and I do so again with an assurance I will not be discussing it further.
If I recall correctly a previous SPL chairman held that position while also being the CEO of a major bookmakers.
A business that makes some of its monies from the outcome of football matches.
One could easily say there was a ‘potential’ conflict of interest with someone holding power within the footballing authorities and the gambling industry at the same time.
Similarly the same period saw the rise in the involvement of the gambling industry within football as a whole. Was this purely coincidental or a ploy by the gambling industry as a whole to have key placement in positions of power within football to help open doors?
Indeed, a certain bookmaker sponsored the SFA’s Scottish Cup, so well done to them, but would they have had equal or lesser opportunity to provide sponsorship and gain from the marketing and publicity aspects had certain people not been in the same office building.
The above is of course conspiracy nonsense but if folks are arguing ‘conflict of interest’ means ‘conflict of interest’ then I am sure we could all rack our brains to come up with some guff that the Gullibillies and squirrel catchers will swallow.
H. For what it’s worth my opinion is that the message is welcome and certainly worth sharing. My thanks for doing so.
TheLawMan2July 9, 2018 at 12:51 (Edit)
I was making two points
1. The guys named by me are known to have known about both types of ebts used by RFC, in what is now recognised was an unlawful manner that was not open to other clubs to use, destroying the logic of LNS when he judged no sporting advantage because ebts were there for clubs to lawfully use. That was only made possible by the timing of his Commission, but the failure of Dickson and Ogilvie to disclose (allied to the failure of Duff and Phelps to provide the requested documentation) is about actual misuse of power not potential.
2.If we are to take the line that any official in a position to influence decisions should not do so on the same basis as McLennan which at base is that he is a known Celtic supporter, then why not seek reform of the governance arrangement that puts SFA/SPFL decision makers in that invidious position?
Had The Rangers come out with a statement that recognised the inherent conflict of interest in the way Scottish football is governed and requested a feasibility study on how that might be changed, using events over the past 5 years and earlier as in how not to do it, then The Rangers and their point about potential as opposed to actual conflict of interest might have been taken seriously, but for some reason that is not the way they, or you , want to do it.
So forgive us if you are not taken seriously.
wottpiJuly 9, 2018 at 19:47
If I recall correctly a previous SPL chairman held that position while also being the CEO of a major bookmakers.A business that makes some of its monies from the outcome of football matches.One could easily say there was a ‘potential’ conflict of interest with someone holding power within the footballing authorities and the gambling industry at the same time.Similarly the same period saw the rise in the involvement of the gambling industry within football as a whole. Was this purely coincidental or a ploy by the gambling industry as a whole to have key placement in positions of power within football to help open doors?Indeed, a certain bookmaker sponsored the SFA’s Scottish Cup, so well done to them, but would they have had equal or lesser opportunity to provide sponsorship and gain from the marketing and publicity aspects had certain people not been in the same office building. The above is of course conspiracy nonsense but if folks are arguing ‘conflict of interest’ means ‘conflict of interest’ then I am sure we could all rack our brains to come up with some guff that the Gullibillies and squirrel catchers will swallow.
____________________
Very well put WOTTPI, and point well made, unlike the following, where within the same post he somehow made out that because MacLennan’s conflict of interest is not as a supporter, there is no squirrel in King’s call for his removal!
But, much more ridiculous was this paragraph:
“Nobody needed to tell anyone about ogilvie or Lawwell or Smith or budge or petries potential conflicts, it was obvious. I’m sure there is probably a tick box exercise though to declare them.”
While Ogilvie’s Rangersness was well known (despite his distancing from Rangers at Hearts) it took a real investigative journalist to unearth his participation in the illegal EBT scam, so that was not at all ‘obvious’, and he certainly didn’t tick any boxes there. Not only that, it was later discovered that he’d broken the SFA rules by transferring his Rangers FC shareholding into his wife’s name, where they remained throughout his employment at Hearts and at the SFA (until they became a worthless memento of a dead club). I’d argue that an EBT, whether illegal or not and however you look at it, remuneration or loan, is a far greater, and real conflict of interest than the extremely convoluted connection between MacLennan and the two shareholders of the company of his employ could ever be.
If there is a tick box that MacLennan should have ticked, it might well have taken an extraordinary piece of joining the dots for him to realise the connection, (and unless he says, himself, that he realised he should have signed it, but decided not to) then if the SPFL board members are satisfied, then what’s the problem? Other than it gives one of the biggest crooks ever to (dis)grace our game a squirrel to use during one of the many periods he needs lots of them.
Social media bampots!
In the past few days a couple of things emerged. Phil Mac. exposed the Sports Direct court shenanigans on 6 July. The Glasgow Orange walk incident was revealed on Saturday evening on CQN.
My point is this. It was at least a day later that the Scottish media caught up with both these stories. Why is that? Is it:
1. The Scottish media are reliant on social media for stories?
2. They then have to run it past lawyers.?
3. They then have to run it past Jim Traynor.?
4. They have to await Jim Traynor’s say on it and his accompanying squirrel. ?
5. All of the above?
Forgive my question, for I may have missed it, but has anything significant happened, with regards to MacLennan’s position, that might have caused King’s/TRFC’s latest statement on his employment? Or are the only events of any significance those that surround the TOP and SDI?
Squirrels don’t have to be lies or exaggerations, they can even be truths and hold some water, they are squirrels not for their content, but for their lack of relevance at the time they are released into the public gaze.
Can anyone remember the last time a club, other than TRFC, released anything that could be described as a squirrel at the same time that unrelated very bad news was being circulated about the club or it’s officials?
I wonder if any of the Scottish Media will be present at the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, London, tomorrow. Maybe they have used up their travel budget attending summer camps.
No worries, I’m sure they will be linked into Reuters.
Could I ask if any fans who were at the Celtic v Aberdeen last season if they heard Shay Logan being racially abused ?
I find it incredible that the powers that be continue to let this joke of a Tribute Act to dominate the headlines within our game given all we know about the Charlatans that have gone through their doors since it’s conception in 2012?
Seriously if this was any other Club they would be getting it big time from the spineless spivs at Hamdump.
Anyone coming on here defending King and co seriously needs to go get their heid examined.
Just an opinion based on observations.