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.
THEREDPILLJULY 9, 2018 at 21:24
Could I ask if any fans who were at the Celtic v Aberdeen last season if they heard Shay Logan being racially abused ?
=========================
I was there and I didn’t hear that type of abuse from the Jock Stein Stand. When he was losing it a bit at the end of the game it was all happening within the confines of the pitch. The only area he is likely to have been within earshot of fans was when he was being led up the tunnel at the end after the Ref showed red. At the end of the day racial abuse is just plain wrong and if anyone did indeed do it then shame on them.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 9, 2018 at 20:57
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.
———————-
I look at it as thus. The more Squirrels and statements from ibrox the more something has gone against them behind the scenes,we may not know what it is just yet but later on we can put 2 and 2 together and you realise why all the squirrels and statements were released at that time.
There must be some right dark cloud’s hanging over ibrox just now
Cluster OneJuly 9, 2018 at 21:46
I think it’s only natural for us to wonder why King/TRFC releases so many squirrels, but then we just need to look at how King deals with his contretemps with the law, and realise that he likes to kick cans down roads. Now, squirrels aren’t going to stop justice catching up with him (clever lawyers and handshakes might do that
) but the longer he can keep the bad news from dominating the multitude of TRFC related stories in the media, the longer he can keep the lid on the problems he and the club face, and so keep the gullible, gullible.
Even the most gullible of the most gullible is going to be hard pressed not to realise that answering an appeal for money at this time might be more likely to go into the coffers of Mike Ashley than to finance the latest TRFC fantasy target. But if he has a hate figure to concentrate on, he is less likely to take notice for long enough to understand Big Mike is far smarter than Dodgy Dave, and that Dodgy Dave has more than one problem to cope with at the moment.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 9, 2018 at 20:57
_______________________________________________
Peter Lawwell stated Celtic were Debt Free at an AGM a few years ago (Neil Lennon was Manager at the time)whilst at the same time as he punted Fraser Forster to Southampton for £12.5m.
Turned out we had around £18.5m in Long Term Loans outstanding at the time which came under Non Current Liabilities.
So a wee bit of smoke and mirrors from Pistol Pete.
No a biggie but still a wee bit of deflection and an untruth to pacify the masses.
Terrible eh?
?
Just an early morning reminder.
BILLYDUGJULY 10, 2018 at 07:28
=======================
Obviously I have no idea how this will pan out but I’m willing to bet they’d far rather it was being heard in a Scottish court.
BILLYDUGJULY 10, 2018 at 07:28
=======================
We’re very lucky that the SMSM will be providing comprehensive coverage and prompt, incisive analysis….
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Redlichtie, If I didn’t know better I’d say you were being a wee bit cynical
, We have a better chance of JC & EJ being at the court!
Mods, Hello wake up! (Watching too much World Cup recently) We are now on page 70 ! Back to the rigmarole of scrolling like a mad man. Cheers.
Another day, another court case involving Scotland’s most successful (sic) team. Surely they must have surpassed 55 court cases by now?
It’s not clear however, if it’s the company or the club which is in the dock today.
In other news Bruno Alves is being pushed out the door by the Sun and DR. I’m pretty sure he will care not a jot as he walks away with 1.5 million GBP of the new managers budget.
I see that James Doleman has replied to a Tweet by The Clumpany and advised that he will not be attending Big Mike v GASH today as he is in hospital.
Mr Doleman is a good, factual and fair reporter.
However when you consider the amount of abusive bile he is subjected to by some People and the temperate manner he deals with it he is plainly also a good, if not better, human being.
I trust it is not too serious.
Get well soon.
I’m confused.
“Rangers rip up Bruno Alves contract as defender closes in on Parma move”
(The Herald, today)
This sounds a bit aggressive to me. I wondered what has he done?
It was nothing! In other circumstances it would be reported as a contract being ended ‘by mutual consent’.
Such terminology. “Rangers rip up” Why?
Here’s a clue.
Jim Traynor. The big tough guy.
JIMBOJULY 10, 2018 at 11:08
I’m confused.
“Rangers rip up Bruno Alves contract as defender closes in on Parma move”
(The Herald, today)
This sounds a bit aggressive to me. I wondered what has he done?
It was nothing! In other circumstances it would be reported as a contract being ended ‘by mutual consent’.
Such terminology. “Rangers rip up” Why?
_____________
Might I suggest, ‘dramatic effect’?
Or maybe that it’s the required terminology when a relationship with TRFC ends in a none too favourable manner for the club! You know, as with SDI and His Big Mikeness, where, gradually, it becomes apparent that the only ripping was the p*ss being taken out of TRFC?
If there’s any substance in that headline, it’s probably that Alves has negotiated an end to his contract, is walking away with a nice wedge (or the promise of one) and is now in talks, unconnected to his now ex-employers, where, if his wedge turns up, he can play out the rest of his career without losing out financially.
Remember when the arrival of Bruno Alves, and similar players, was held up in lights as a spectacular coup for TRFC and proof of great things to come? Now it’s his departure that’s pushed as a bit of a coup, and proof that greatness has arrived…as it leaves
ALLYJAMBOJULY 10, 2018 at 12:00
Remember when the arrival of Bruno Alves, and similar players, was held up in lights as a spectacular coup for TRFC and proof of great things to come? Now it’s his departure that’s pushed as a bit of a coup, and proof that greatness has arrived…as it leaves
=========================================
Everything connected with that lot is so Malice in Wonderland :
““When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” (Lewis Carroll)
Of course, we all know what happened to Humpty Dumpty.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
It seems that the language used in tabloids is at a reading age of 8. In that light to use rip up rather than terminate by mutual consent might reflect that level. Similarly, jet in and other one syllable word use might simply be symptomatic of the language level.
A long time ago one of my Latin teachers ranted at the Daily Record using language for a reading age of 12.
The above talk of reading age might not accord with modern educational theory or praxis but so it goes
….or should that be Malice in Blunderland?
Thank goodness, that’s all the boys and their coach out safely from the caves. FIFA invited them to the final, but it seems unlikely.
Unlikely in the extreme – they are in quarantine and then bele Be their families have only seen them through glass screens far… accorded by to a Times (of London) article I read earlier.
JIMBO
JULY 10, 2018 at 13:03
Thank goodness, that’s all the boys and their coach out safely from the caves…
=====================
That is indeed some good news in the media.
…and any truth in the rumour, [i just started], that the SFA numpties are considering sending a fact-finding team to check out the caves…just in case they have to vacate the Hampden bunker ?
And I want Belgium to win today as they are playing the best football, IMO.
I can never forgive France for cheating Ireland out of their 2010 WC place.
…but then I find out that ‘Thierry What Handball(s) ? Henry’ is part of the Belgium set-up!
Some posts on Rangers Media suggesting that the SD injunction has been confirmed and that the case will resume in December.
Edit: Later post – case will continue tomorrow.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 10, 2018 at 12:00
34
0 Rate This
Remember when the arrival of Bruno Alves, and similar players, was held up in lights as a spectacular coup for TRFC and proof of great things to come? Now it’s his departure that’s pushed as a bit of a coup, and proof that greatness has arrived…as it leaves
———————
Such a fanfair when he arrived,And they had to just give him a scarf,no new kit for him to hold up then
Rangers await judge’s ruling in Sports Direct rowSTV43 mins ago
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1422621-rangers-await-judge-s-ruling-in-sports-direct-row/
Decision expected on Wednesday.
“Barrister William McCormick QC, who led the Rangers’ legal team, told Judge Millett how fans had become angry after learning the club only got about 7p of every £1 spent and had staged a merchandise boycott.
Mr McCormick said fans thought Mr Ashley pocketed too much of their money. He said there was a widespread view that no “self-respecting” Rangers’ supporter wore a replica shirt.
Mr Justice Phillips was on Tuesday told that the boycott had ended.”
What on earth does that have to do with the disputed terms of a legal agreement between TRFC & SDI?
More ‘victim card’ nonsense.
Scottish Football needs a strong English High Court.
Mr McCormick said fans thought Mr Ashley pocketed too much of their money. He said there was a widespread view that no “self-respecting” Rangers’ supporter wore a replica shirt.
Mr Justice Phillips was on Tuesday told that the boycott had ended.
——————-
When the fans were told to buy the season befores strip and they did,cleared the shelves and Mr king had agreed a new deal
…Fixed that end bit for them.
RedLitchie 19.56 Thats exactly what I thought when I read it too……Pathetic , is that the basis of their case !!!!
I’m sorry chums but if you don’t start posting about football. Then I will post about my hobby.
I am the chap with the tight red trousrers at 1:47.
That is St. Alphonsus near the Barras in the background.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMVcbKIvqJU&start_radio=1&list=RDRMVcbKIvqJU
Redlichtie
This new deal with SDI was signed by the entities after the boycott and publicity over the 7p in the pound and it was trumpeted that SDI were gone. It is almost as if someone had not been telling the complete truth.
Not just the irrelevant victim card is being played here but the “I’m only a daft laddie and did not know what I was signing” card.
Avoid the Guardian piece today on Mr McCoist it is a bit of a hagiography .
It is time to get rid of Orange Walks.
https://www.change.org/p/glasgow-call-time-on-the-orange-walk
Don’t be cowards. 99% of posters on here hate everything the OO stand for. Are we a non bigoted, non sectarian, non racist site or not?
https://www.change.org/p/glasgow-call-time-on-the-orange-walk
Jimbo – as much as it sticks in the craw , we have to respect free speech.
The Orange Order itself is not a proscribed organisation in Scotland, so the logical extension of that is that they should be able to march if they so wish. (With the proviso that anyone breaking the law should be dealt with).
I don’t even think you can say that they have to pay for the policing themselves, as then you’re saying that you can only march/ walk/ demonstrate if you can afford it.
It’s a rubbish state of affairs, and I don’t know what the answer is. Perhaps the way to deal with it is the same way as smoking? By that I mean make it socially unacceptable as opposed to trying to ban it…
THE_STEED
JULY 10, 2018 at 23:02
==========================================
The right to freedom of expression is not absolute, it must take into account the needs of the entire population.
If someone said they wanted to have a rally in Glasgow Green in which they would proclaim their hatred for {insert minority group here} and would want the Police to be there to ensure their right to express their hatred was respected, do you think it would be allowed.
Or would that depend on who the minority group was.
The right to freedom of expression is not absolute, certainly not in this country.
The Steed, I’m surprised at you.
JIMBOJULY 10, 2018 at 21:48
Brilliant, funny I didn’t recognise you as I’m there too, green trousers at 2.22.
This is from Mintys Lamb on Twitter. L5 in happier times. If you scroll down the page you will find comments from an interesting collection of businesses. It seems that they can tune up your old Ford car for you.
https://twitter.com/mintys_lamb/status/1016815661547474949?s=21
Ballyargus! I Knew it was you! What a great dancer you were.
Anyhow, I gave up the dancing and started the music playing.
The Tuba!
This is me playing in the audience hall, you know where.
Myself and the Holy Father loved Wagner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTM7E4-DN0o
Just to follow up on my last post, please don’t think that I am defending the OO – I honestly despair that these walks are taking place in Scotland in 2018.
I was just making the point that if we expect the Council/ Police/ Government to start banning legal activities when the majority of people don’t like the activities, it’s the start of a slippery slope…
Anyway, this is all a bit heavy for a fitba blog, so well done Celtic on a good away win, and good luck to Croatia!
Imagine this was Camelot!
With Arthur and Merlin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk4bcnBqls
The Steed, just tell me about the dug! I love dogs. What’s the story?
Re the Orange walk , the top brass have been on a mission to attempt to improve the image of the OO
Family days in George square and so forth .
But if you want to really see what these peepil are really about I suggest you go to you tube and watch a video entitled .
orange walk under the bridge 2017 ,this behaviour is what leads to the incident that took place last Sat IMO .
And how no senior member of that organisation has been held to account for scenes like that is beyond me and tells me all I need to know about politicians and mealy mouth soundbites.
For anyone who doesn’t recognize the party tunes that has the bigots (to a man and woman ) in a frenzy ,they are
Build my gallows (with the line ) kill a fenian before I die and the famine song (which words are not fit to be published ) and which has been ruled RACIST in a court of law .
These are not hangers on that are indulging in this on the streets of Glasgow in 2017 ,these are the official OO bands
THE_STEEDJULY 11, 2018 at 01:04
Just to follow up on my last post, please don’t think that I am defending the OO – I honestly despair that these walks are taking place in Scotland in 2018.
I was just making the point that if we expect the Council/ Police/ Government to start banning legal activities when the majority of people don’t like the activities, it’s the start of a slippery slope…
===========================
All I ask is that the authorities enforce the law if they must allow these parades to happen. Currently they turn a blind eye to sectarianism, racism, drinking in public, and urinating in public. It is just a case of get it over with as quickly as possible. I have experienced my home town being taken over for one of the ‘main’ walks attended by thousands. It was utter carnage, and unless you choose to go away for the day you are effectively a prisoner in your own home.
However we do live in a democracy, and if they want to march then no matter how distasteful others find it they should be allowed to in my view. However the rights of those others need to be taken into account. Currently the authorities do nothing to protect those others, and rightly or wrongly that makes it look like the sheer vileness these parades attract to the pavement has their full blessing.
Tenuous links are us via the Evening Times.
https://twitter.com/celticrumours/status/1016952818413031425?s=21
Ha ha saw that Ex Ludo
I did expect a strapline of “This advertorial was brought to you by the foreign company that makes the waistcoats”
The best reason for not banning Orange Walks is that they are a stark reminder of what a section of society believes and how it acts. That includes the members of the Lodges and the hangers on. Their wee flutes and ruritanan uniforms are demonstrations of all kinds of inadequacies social, educational and cultural.
I admit that it is easy for me to say the above. Although I live in a town where there is an Orange Walk, Catholics have been ceremonially piped out of town since time immemorial and there have been acts of vandalism on our Church building, the truth is that these are not major issues for the comfortable classes who would not otherwise deal with these things directly.
As I often say, relations between practicing religious people in Scotland have improved greatly over my lifetime.
https://stv.tv/amp/1422722-rangers-told-not-to-sign-strip-deal-before-court-date/?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.scotsman.com/news/rangers-set-for-court-battle-over-sports-direct-merchandise-deal-1-4767164/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Could someone post details about>>>
‘The deal, which allows a company in the Sports Direct group to sell replica Rangers kit and other branded products, is expiring’.
Billydug,
That’s amazing, both reports from STV and the Scotsman are virtually, if not exactly, identical!
How incredible is that? Unless, of course, they both got an email from a higher Level…
Picking this back up at the court in London in late July? So neither the orange nor the sash tops will be available for “Marching Season” – a win for public decency at least.
The reports in the Press make it look as if Mike Ashley just woke up one morning and decided that he would like first dibs on any new sportswear deal Sevco might care to enter into. It doesn’t say that he actually has that contract in place already and that it is King who is attempting to worm his way out of it.
So Rangers have been told by a Judge not to sign any new contracts for merchandise distribution at the moment. What if a contract is already signed?
UPTHEHOOPS
JULY 11, 2018 at 14:32
So Rangers have been told by a Judge not to sign any new contracts for merchandise distribution at the moment. What if a contract is already signed?
======================
Yes, an absolute shambles from the RIFC/TRFC boards.
A footy club, [desperate for cash], unable to sell its new kit…
and social media ?
even after unveiling / promoting it in the SMSM
To plagiarise a poster from way back: King has the ‘SADIM touch’ at Ibrox.
Everything he touches turns to sh!t.
By the end of July TRFC could be out of Europe. Imagine what that would do for kit sales, no matter who has the retail contract!
If the plan was to maximise kit sales, then progress to the group stages by spending money on new players, phase one has already started to go wrong, and that might leave no leeway should phase two go wrong also.
And still no word of that share issue that was included in their business plan/survival model.
Unless they’ve found some unannounced sugar daddy, the season ticket money, that should have been earmarked as working capital, is going to run out rather quickly, then the traditional begging bowl will be out, honouring that other tradition of getting it out earlier each season.
I think Level42 should have a look at this…as a potential signing target?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44792722
https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1017057147660750848
James Doleman
@jamesdoleman
Spoke to a journo who was at the Sports Direct v Rangers hearing today, this is what I took from what he said. 13:44 pm · 11 Jul 2018
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago
Spoke to a journo who was at the Sports Direct v Rangers hearing today, this is what I took from what he said.
The first hearing was to see if there was a case to answer at all. Judge ruled for SD
Today they argued the law, does the court have jurisdictio?, can SD’s argument just be thrown out if it wrong in law sort of thing.
As the injunction remains it’s clear that SD won that round too so we go to the next stage, evidence, can SD prove their case on the balance of probabilities? That’ll be the next hearing (in late July)
Rangers’ approach to this latest litigation with Sports Direct is baffling as the common sense approach would seem to me to say to Sports Direct “okay, forget messing around in court, here are the terms do you want to match them or not?”.
They can then move forward with their shirt sales either with or without Sports Direct and they aren’t any worse off either way.
The only 2 plausible reasons I can see as to why they don’t do this are:
1) King is simply feeding his litigation addiction again and fancies another pointless scrap.
2) They really have messed up and aren’t allowed to show the competitor’s bid to Sports Direct due to an NDA so legally can’t comply with the clause.
If it’s the latter then it could prove to be a costly mistake.
NICKJULY 11, 2018 at 15:57
Rangers’ approach to this latest litigation with Sports Direct is baffling as the common sense approach would seem to me to say to Sports Direct “okay, forget messing around in court, here are the terms do you want to match them or not?”.
They can then move forward with their shirt sales either with or without Sports Direct and they aren’t any worse off either way.
The only 2 plausible reasons I can see as to why they don’t do this are:
1) King is simply feeding his litigation addiction again and fancies another pointless scrap.
2) They really have messed up and aren’t allowed to show the competitor’s bid to Sports Direct due to an NDA so legally can’t comply with the clause.
If it’s the latter then it could prove to be a costly mistake.
___________
Might I suggest a third option, that they have already signed an irrevocable contract with another retailer, and if SDI win their case and grab whatever they want from the contract, then TRFC will face a hefty compensation claim from a rather angry retailer?
I’m not clear on what date they actually intended making the kit available to buy (my impression was it had been moved up to the end of last week), but it would appear, at least, to be very soon, so I’d be very surprised if, in the normal course of business, such contracts aren’t completed weeks, or even months, ahead, to ensure everything is in place for the big launch date.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 11, 2018 at 16:38
That’s possible and certainly would lead to a potentially devastating further lot of messy litigation but I think it’s unlikely having read the injunction document.
In the evidence provided there is correspondence showing the party Rangers are negotiating with (I think this is JD Sports but I’ve not seen this confirmed) are pushing them to get the deal signed and one of the reasons the judge granted the injunction was that their enthusiasm suggested they would still be around if Sports Direct’s claim was later proven to be unfounded.
The court order today also appears to state Rangers cannot sign that contract yet so the judge is under the impression no deal is signed yet.
The messiest part in this is the Sports Direct & JD Sports relationship is even more acrimonious than the Rangers/SD one so there will be no compromise struck there.
NICK
JULY 11, 2018 at 15:57
The only 2 plausible reasons I can see as to why they don’t do this are:
1) King is simply feeding his litigation addiction again and fancies another pointless scrap.
2) They really have messed up and aren’t allowed to show the competitor’s bid to Sports Direct due to an NDA so legally can’t comply with the clause.
If it’s the latter then it could prove to be a costly mistake.
=======================================
I share Nick’s views on this and lean towards the second option. From what has been revealed so far I’d be surprised if they have already signed a deal. If that was the case the fact should have been/will have to be reported to the judge as his instruction will thus be an impossibility unless DCK has a time machine.
Bearing in mind the world-class legal resources available to RIFC/TRFC I’d also be surprised if they omitted to advise the third party sports retailer that any offer would have to be revealed to an arch-competitor.
However, a big boy may not have done it and has now run away so hey ho, WATP, so let us off with that one. Whilst OK up here, that may not be a legal strategy that works down in the Englandshire High Court.
At the time of writing there’s nothing yet published on the High Court website so it will be interesting to see if any more info is available than what has been taken from the newswires by the SMSM.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
NickJuly 11, 2018 at 16:56
ALLYJAMBOJULY 11, 2018 at 16:38That’s possible and certainly would lead to a potentially devastating further lot of messy litigation but I think it’s unlikely having read the injunction document.In the evidence provided there is correspondence showing the party Rangers are negotiating with (I think this is JD Sports but I’ve not seen this confirmed) are pushing them to get the deal signed and one of the reasons the judge granted the injunction was that their enthusiasm suggested they would still be around if Sports Direct’s claim was later proven to be unfounded.The court order today also appears to state Rangers cannot sign that contract yet so the judge is under the impression no deal is signed yet. The messiest part in this is the Sports Direct & JD Sports relationship is even more acrimonious than the Rangers/SD one so there will be no compromise struck there.
_________________________
It would appear then from the evidence produced that no contract has been signed, which would leave your original question of, why go to court rather than just go with SDI?, a valid one. It seems strange and might become ever more costly when compared to the alternative of just going with SDI.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 11, 2018 at 17:22
It would appear then from the evidence produced that no contract has been signed, which would leave your original question of, why go to court rather than just go with SDI?, a valid one. It seems strange and might become ever more costly when compared to the alternative of just going with SDI.
==============================
AJ, is the need to rid themselves of MA the driver? Has enthusiasm/excitement about this possibility overridden going through the proper procedures? No-one can predict what the outcome of the court case may be but the fact that we have had two hearings and a continuation of the injunction suggests to me that there may well be a case to answer – it has certainly not been thrown out which was one option.
Scottish Football awaits another English result….
NICKJULY 11, 2018 at 15:57
======================
What I found most strange was the case put by Rangers QC which basically amounted to ‘the contract with Ashley isney fair and the bears don’t like him’.
As ever though we lack real insight because the media in Scotland are too beholden to Rangers to send knowledgeable people after the story.
NICKJULY 11, 2018 at 15:57 The only 2 plausible reasons I can see as to why they don’t do this are:1) King is simply feeding his litigation addiction again and fancies another pointless scrap.2) They really have messed up and aren’t allowed to show the competitor’s bid to Sports Direct due to an NDA so legally can’t comply with the clause.
_____________________________________________________
From my understanding, they have already shown the new deal to SD so i dont believe Point 2 applies.
Where i believe the issue is that for some mental reason (its Rangers) they agreed to split the new deal out to SD and to show them 3 distinct and separate parts. My further understanding is that SD then had the option of matching 1,2 or all 3 of those parts and if they did so then Rangers had to accept SD offer irrespective if it was only part of the deal.
So if SD look at the 3 parts and think, “we like the look of part 1, but not the other 2” then they can match part 1 and Rangers have NO OPTION but to accept. This then leaves us trying to find a taker for the other 2 parts and i think thats where they now realise just how much an almighty mess they have made.
I suspect SD are just playing with King because thats what Ashley does. I suspect in the end they will either:
a) Not match any of it but just mess us about.
b) Match 1 part and sit back and watch for what carnage follows after that.
It aint going to be pretty. King, Murray and Blair showing their uselessness once again.
NickJuly 11, 2018 at 16:56 ALLYJAMBOJULY 11, 2018 at 16:38That’s possible and certainly would lead to a potentially devastating further lot of messy litigation but I think it’s unlikely having read the injunction document.In the evidence provided there is correspondence showing the party Rangers are negotiating with (I think this is JD Sports but I’ve not seen this confirmed) are pushing them to get the deal signed and one of the reasons the judge granted the injunction was that their enthusiasm suggested they would still be around if Sports Direct’s claim was later proven to be unfounded.The court order today also appears to state Rangers cannot sign that contract yet so the judge is under the impression no deal is signed yet. The messiest part in this is the Sports Direct & JD Sports relationship is even more acrimonious than the Rangers/SD one so there will be no compromise struck there._________________________
It would appear then from the evidence produced that no contract has been signed, which would leave your original question of, why go to court rather than just go with SDI?, a valid one. It seems strange and might become ever more costly when compared to the alternative of just going with SDI.
———————-
Perhaps a contract has been signed but by Paul Murray.
REDLICHTIEJULY 11, 2018 at 17:37
ALLYJAMBOJULY 11, 2018 at 17:22It would appear then from the evidence produced that no contract has been signed, which would leave your original question of, why go to court rather than just go with SDI?, a valid one. It seems strange and might become ever more costly when compared to the alternative of just going with SDI.
————–
Maybe all the bluster from ibrox has led (And i’m sure it is SD that has taken this action not the other way around)
Has led SDI to go to court as they see their contract with the ibrox club is not being or seem to be being upheld by the ibrox club/company thingy.
The ibrox club has a contract with SDI and in all their haste the ibrox club jumped the gun trying to deflect the bad news about king
It would appear then from the evidence produced that no contract has been signed, which would leave your original question of, why go to court rather than just go with SDI?, a valid one. It seems strange and might become ever more costly when compared to the alternative of just going with SDI.
——————-
To late to edit.
—
SDI would not know it a contract was or was not signed,But by going with the ibrox statements they may believe that the ibrox club had signed something while still under contract to SDI.
WHY GO TO COURT?
Ashley has seen how the SMSM spin a defeat and they may want to make sure any headlines come from what a judge says in court and can’t be spun by the smsm.
Whatever the detail of the latest court case, it seems to me that such an agreement with Ashley would chase off his competitors. Why would JD Sports or anyone else want Ashley to see their offer?
On the face of it to my lay mind, an irresponsible and naive way to do business.
BIG PINK
maybe honest dave forgot to mention it
BIG PINKJULY 11, 2018 at 20:05
Whatever the detail of the latest court case, it seems to me that such an agreement with Ashley would chase off his competitors. Why would JD Sports or anyone else want Ashley to see their offer?
————–
Maybe some in ibrox never knew such an agreement is held by Ashley.Could explain the jumping of the gun.
—-
such an agreement with Ashley would chase off his competitors.
Maybe Ashley knows his stuff and knows he is in for the long haul no matter what king says,could explain why no contract has been signed,
all just speculation on my part.
—— is that a goal?
Perhaps the price for SD giving up their 7 year deal included this first refusal option
However not to have adhered to what was contracted to the extent that they have found the,selves in the high court betrays a real incompetence.
That it is seen as a live possibility that they have signed two incompatible contracts over something as critical as replica kit and other crap is telling also.
The self destruct gene is very strong with them
THELAWMAN2
JULY 11, 2018 at 18:11
From my understanding, they have already shown the new deal to SD so i dont believe Point 2 applies.
Where i believe the issue is that for some mental reason (its Rangers) they agreed to split the new deal out to SD and to show them 3 distinct and separate parts. My further understanding is that SD then had the option of matching 1,2 or all 3 of those parts and if they did so then Rangers had to accept SD offer irrespective if it was only part of the deal.
So if SD look at the 3 parts and think, “we like the look of part 1, but not the other 2” then they can match part 1 and Rangers have NO OPTION but to accept. This then leaves us trying to find a taker for the other 2 parts and i think thats where they now realise just how much an almighty mess they have made.
———————————————————————————————–
I won’t reproduce the various Clauses from the first Court decision but I think there is a general understanding that SDI believe they should see details of the offer broken down into three areas so that they can decide if they want to match any or all. TRFC apparently do not hold that view.
It should be noted that the wording of the Agreement certainly seems to envisage an ongoing situation where not all of the rights are retained by SDI.
For clarity, the “Offered Rights” are as follows :
(i) the right to operate and manage the Retail Operations;
(ii) the right to perform the Permitted Activities in relation to the Branded Products and/or the Additional Products; and/or
(iii) the right to perform the Permitted Activities in relation to the Official Kit and/or the Replica Kit.”
Retail Operations are defined as meaning: “The retail sales of branded products, replica kit and additional products at the ground, including at the Rangers megastore and on the Rangers web store.”
Branded Products are defined as meaning: “The Products bearing any Rangers-related brands (including the Ranger of Brands.”
I don’t think that ‘Permitted Activities’ are defined in the document we have seen – I suspect it includes things like marketing and selling the various items. Does it include supply too?
Clearly, as Lawman says, it could be a real mess should SDI exercise their claimed right(s) for only one or two elements.
Anyway, I revisited the Court document tonight with a fresh mind and started wondering if this passage had a greater importance than I had previously given it :
“On 4th June this year the defendant notified SDIR (the “Notice of Offer”), that they had received a third party offer to enter into an arrangement with Rangers for all of the Offered Rights. That included a provision within it, which I do not need to set out for the purpose of this hearing, in relation to the financial terms of such offer (which encompassed all of the Offered Rights). “
Could this withheld information be a caveat from the third party to the effect that their offer is only valid for acceptance “for all of the Offered Rights“ rather than just one or two? If SDI exercise any of their rights then the third party offer is withdrawn and/or replaced by a less financially attractive one? If SDI knew that to be the case….
Alternatively, has the third party simply inserted a stipulation that detailed financial terms are not to be disclosed to their direct competitor?
Whatever, this has all the ingredients to be messy for RIFC/TRFC with a potential delay in sales impacting negatively on cashflow at what could be a critical time.
And if there is any weakness in the TRFC case I suspect that SDI will be merciless if a ‘favourable settlement’ is proposed by TRFC.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Couple of other things :
1. Is there a deadline for acceptance of the third party offer?
2. Does the third party have a ‘material change’ in circumstances clause in their offer that would allow them to withdraw if they miss a prime sales period due to the case dragging on.
3. Do Hummel have such a clause in their agreement, allowing them to walk away too?
Scottish Football should note that Croatia’s population is just 4.171 million (2016).
PS Shouldn’t Pickford have been sent off for that foot-up challenge?
There are still too many questions to make sense of the conflicting SD/TRFC/JD(?) deals.
Assuming that JD is the “Third Party” what do they know? – All that we can be sure of was that on the date they emailed James Blair, they didn’t have a confirmed deal as they stated “if we are successful”.
Does that mean that they only knew that they were part of a tender process? Were they told that they had to break down their offer into at least three elements? Did they know that their offer would be disclosed to another party (SD)? Did they put in a non-disclosure clause in their own offer making it impossible for the club to comply with the 2017 SD agreement?
The solution to the current issue is within the club’s hands. Either abide by the terms of the SD agreement and ensure that any offers are in an acceptable form and capable of being disclosed, or deliberately break the SD agreement.
If the third parties are aware of what is involved then there then there should be nothing to stop disclosure. If the third parties are unaware then that is the club’s self inflicted problem.
It may be a calculated gamble on King’s part to deliberately break the agreement. The gamble is that the damages are manageable. The earlier injunction report suggested that damages would be limited to £1m (acceptable?), but there is the risk that SD may be able to persuade a judge that more damages would be applicable. That could be a gamble too far but, equally so, it could provide the club with the means of permanently breaking free from the grip of SD.
Without sight of the SD agreement and the JD offer, it is impossible to make a judgement on what would happen if SD only matched one or two elements of the three on offer. If that is the case, do they lose the right to bid for the other elements in future years? That would be my understanding or expectation.
I guess the biggest risk to the club is that if SD takes up one element, then the third party (JD?) walks away from the entire deal. That would leave SD matching the one element, but maintaining the others in alignment ith the current arrangements. What would that do for the attractiveness of the clubs retail arrangements to other parties in the future, particularly if it put off other parties from bidding? I think that would be the worst scenario for the club.
I’ve just checked. Despite all the negativity; Ally MacLeod was never known for his waistcoat nor his penalty taking. He was just a guy that dreamt the same dream we all dreamt. A big nod to him tonight. He’ll be soaking this stuff up tonight like ‘most’ north of the border. As a whole, we were on the brink of footballpolitic. As much as they all thought it seemed sensible and judicious, football rattled it right home.
Isn’t it time that Scottish football rattles it right home to ‘them’ and made them ditch their waistcoats, ties and brogues and accept that football is collectively home, and that their ‘home’ is mortgaged up to the belt on their cheap nylon stripey trousers.
EASYJAMBOJULY 11, 2018 at 23:01
SD own 6% of shares in JD?