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.
Am I the only guy in the village that missed this one? I can recall floating moons and beams; however this came much later in the midst of the Whyte radarlution. I’m trying hard to get back to 2011. I can recall the Juan Manuel Ortiz signing but I’m sure GlasVegas in Govan was 2005…
http://www.keppiedesign.co.uk/index.php/23-projects/775-g51-ibrox-village
What’d I miss? Did they ‘follow follow’ through with this?
stifflersmomJuly 13, 2018 at 22:33
‘…What’d I miss? Did they ‘follow follow’ through with this?’
___________
Ha-ha, stifflersmom:good one
No, the good knight’s plans went somewhat agley!
Silly little things, it is said, like
the fall in value of steel,
and, in spite of that, being allowed by certain people in a certain Bank to borrow almost without limit,
and being (quite happily!) suckered by a porn star of a tax lawyer,
and happily telling little fibs both to the tax man and to the SFA and SPL about what he was paying his football players,
and being made to look foolish by such infinitely inferior types as CW and CG,
caused the good knight to abandon Govan and, as a good Edinburgh boy, channel his altruistic efforts into helping the citizens of the Capital.
Wonderful plans for Gogarburn! Happily agreed to by Edinburgh City Council.
Sir David is doing all right.
Except, of course, that we all know what he did to Scottish Football.
And we know that he will go to his grave ‘honoured’ only by those of the same cast of mind as he.
I don’t want to laugh out loud too much about David Murray’s plans back in the halcyon days in case Celtic’s plans for a hotel & museum go belly up! Even without a casino or floating pitch. (living within your means, harrumph!!!)
John C; but he had ‘highest highest level of respect’
stifflersmomJuly 14, 2018 at 00:12
‘..but he had ‘highest level of respect’
___________________
Almost equal to the level accorded to the other David who is still looking for his £20 million!
Honest to God!
That such men as they should between them have made Scottish football into such a dirty wee corrupt ‘business’, and should have been allowed to do so by the ‘Governance’ body-which, incidentally is receiving public monies!
There are very serious questions to be asked.
And none of our SMSM people are asking them, of course.
They would not be jailed, or murdered, for asking, as decent real journalists are in various countries are or have been.
jimboJuly 13, 2018 at 18:49
‘..Looking forward to Kilmarnock v St. Mirren tonight. Should be interesting.’
__________________
5 missed/saved penalties?
That certainly was interesting.
I enjoyed listening to the game, and I have missed the odd penalty kick myself ( but never by putting the ball in row F!)
Thanks upthehoops for putting me right on Mclennan’s position within SPFL and to you and Redlitchie for your excellent analysis. And to FAN OF FOOTBALL, JULY 13, 2018 at 19:32 for an outstanding post which covers all the worrying machinations of this subplot.
Phil’s latest is suggesting that Hummel is not too happy.
Shirley, any/every supplier to RIFC/TRFC is fully aware of the risks involved with doing business with the Ibrox club / company?
IMO, anyone or any business dealing with RIFC/TRFC should be doing so for subjective and non-business reasons.
So Hell mend them when TRFC hits the buffers.
Seems like the Evening Shark Jump [(c) The Clumpany 2016] is getting pelters from all angles for its p!sh poor ‘reporting’.
As a 14 year old, after school I daily carried 75 (heavy) ET papers to my paper pitch outside the Howdens factory on Scotland Street.
At that time it was regarded as a decent paper, with decent footy coverage.
A shame that it is now regarded as sh!t, and the sooner it dies the better for all.
That would indeed be progress.
Stevie BC,
I feel the same way about the Daily Record. A once proud, campaigning newspaper with political views which suited me. It tirelessly urged it’s readers to vote Labour, even although it was owned by Tories! I suppose there is no surprise there, a good Tory would sell his soul to make a buck!
Then came the Sun! Page 3 was it’s making. Nothing else. it had a reading age of about 5yo. In the early eighties I worked with a lovely, clever girl who bought the Sun every day. I once asked her why? She replied, I can read it from start to finish during my tea break!
Slowly but surely the Record followed suit. Just another silly tabloid.
With declining sales these papers can lo longer afford decent journalists. It’s mostly cut and paste from sources – like PR firms. A few opinion pieces. The rest is just celebrity gossip, the royal family, fashion etc.
The interesting thing is, the Bears think it is very pro Celtic and hates TRFC. Celtic fans believe the reverse! Maybe it should just publish results and keep it’s opinions to itself! Sorry Keith Jackson
Either that or just put the shutters up. You sold your soul in the 70s onwards. Hell mend you.
” a good Tory would sell his soul to make a buck!”
That should have read his or her soul. Can’t let eg. Thatcher be forgotten.
JOHN CLARKJULY 13, 2018 at 23:31
and, in spite of that, being allowed by certain people in a certain Bank to borrow almost without limit,and being (quite happily!) suckered by a porn star of a tax lawyer,
——————–
The porn star of a tax lawyer, has gone bust
Amazing what can be done with other people’s money. I’m sure I’ve seen this business model somewhere before.
https://twitter.com/thebeatcroft/status/1018013692301139968?s=20
https://twitter.com/pboro5times/status/1017507867719553024?s=21
From a Liverpool fan. “Morals first”
Everyone’s at it.
https://twitter.com/jimspencesport/status/1018047170241495040?s=21
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-scottish-island-where-trumps-mom-grew-up-became-a-haven-for-refugees?ref=home
(Long read)
As Mr Punch would say “that’s the way to do it”
Hat tip to, James Doleman @jamesdoleman.
New pitch at Celtic Park looking brilliant. Unlike that carpet at Kilmarnock last night!
Had a wee chuckle looking at the sprinklers in action at CP, was hoping they would remember to turn them off before the 2nd half kicked off. You wonder why?
Well on Thursday night at Ibrox the players were ready to go for 2nd half but the sprinklers kept going. Players and match officials hanging around looking puzzled! Eventually someone switched them off or sorted the problem out and they kicked off. What a riddy. Live on BT too! They just can’t catch the breaks these days. Mind you they got a soft penalty in injury time.
3-0 Celtic.
FAN OF FOOTBALLJULY 13, 2018 at 19:32
You could not be more spot on than had you walked up to a dartboard and stuck the dart in the bulls eye.
DK’s strategy of blaming problems of his and RFC makings on Tims would not be necessary if he did not fear the truth, a stranger in his strange land.
The problem the game has is that if the truth came out, there would be no sanction available under the rules to provide the justice that the truth would demand.
When the rule book is based on trust and a club chooses to break it to the degree RFC did, then that rule book is not up to the task.
A new one under a different governance process where the role of the SFA is significantly reduced in terms of governance of the SPFL is required.
Hopefully the truth will provide such an overwhelming argument, that Celtic will not need to be alone in demanding it.
Who knows maybe the smsm will wake up and realise that the slice of bread on which their butter is spread has hit the ground butter side down.
I see the SDI/TRFC dispute must have been resolved as orange, sorry mandarin, shirts are now on sale on ebay. I took a screenshot as well.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rangers-Orange-Replica-Shirt-XL/142867401705?hash=item21438f8be9:g:Y-YAAOSw24pbSfng
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
JIMBO
You are a sprinkler jinx
It was the words (no sanction) in AULDHEIDJULY 14, 2018 at 17:03 post.
That got me, hey i just read something about sanctions.
————-
John brown did want the club to pay all the money back,don’t know how they would have done that when they never had enough money to get out of Administration.
—-
john brown insists the ibrox club should reject any offer to join an SPL2- unless the clubs are willing to take them back without sanctions.
————-
It is what that they can insist on anything back then and that mentallity still runs through the new club until this day.
Anyway here is the article on this day in history july 14,2012
Latest from Phil…..
Finnmccool, I was wondering what you were talking about! I’ve just heard our sprinklers went off unexpectedly in the 2nd half! I missed it.
That’s what I get for mocking the Ibrox ones!
Resignations pending ? From the club* or the company?
From what P McG has previously hinted at it’s most likely to be Messrs Park and Johnston.
No share issue,no debt for equity,no top compliance and no tops.
It would not be surprising if SFM members (and company board members!) were a shade confused as to who actually holds office at RIFC/TRFC. This is the current state of play according to Companies House this evening in a handy ‘cut out and keep’ format :
RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
Company number SC437060
Incorporated on 16 November 2012
6 current officers :
BLAIR, James
Secretary – Appointed on 10 March 2015
BENNETT, John
Director – Appointed on 10 March 2015
JOHNSTON, Alastair
Director – Appointed on 5 June 2017
KING, David Cunningham
Director – Appointed on 18 May 2015
PARK, Douglas Ireland
Director – Appointed on 16 November 2015
PARK, Graeme Thomas
Director – Appointed on 3 August 2015
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
Company number SC425159
Incorporated on 29 May 2012
3 current officers :
BLAIR, James
Secretary – Appointed on 10 March 2015
DICKSON, Andrew James
Director – Appointed on 9 March 2015
ROBERTSON, Stewart Martin
Director – Appointed on 16 June 2015
In the short life of these two companies we have had an avalanche of appointments and resignations :
RIFC : 31 officers / 25 resignations
TRFC : 22 officers / 19 resignations
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
“In the short life of these two companies we have had an avalanche of appointments and resignations :
RIFC : 31 officers / 25 resignations TRFC : 22 officers / 19 resignations”
(Redlichtie)
Those figures are astonishing. No wonder there is so much turmoil.
How can there be a viable vision, a plan, a goal, without any or next to no continuity?
jimboJuly 14, 2018 at 21:29
‘…..How can there be a viable vision, a plan, a goal, without any or next to no continuity?’
______________________
It is the lack of ‘continuity as Rangers Football Club of 1872 foundation’ that is at the very heart of the matter, jimbo.
That club died.
All the nonsense about it having been “those who owned the club who went bust but the club was sold to a new owner” is in terms both of actual commercial law and ‘football law’ is exactly that-pure nonsense.
That football club I is as dead as Gretna and Third Lanark and every other football club in Scotland that shut up shop, closed its doors and ceased to be entitled to a place in Scottish professional football.
The founder of Sevco 5088 and/or the founder of SevcoScotland ( is there a deed of novation anywhere ?
)
realised that the SFA was like saft sh.te in their hands-their big hands, and beautifully bullied and moulded them into puppets, and then pulled all the wee strings to make them dance to their tune.
And dance they did!
The SFA abandoned any notion of honest governance because big hands Charlie played a brilliant game.
They ( and in truth, they had the rightful power to do so) accepted SevcoScotland as a NEW member of the SFA, once Longmuir had persuaded the SFL to accept them into the 3rd division.
But they then went on to dream up the fiction, the pure fiction, that a brand new club, newly admitted for the first time, was an ancient club that had simply changed hands!
Why did they so abandon any sense of reality?
What was going to happen if they had just stuck to the rules? New club- welcome. Clean sheet, though, and the very good sporting record of RFC of 1872 has ended. That ‘Rangers’ is no more. Start creating your own sporting record.
The whole thing simply baffles me!
Like the wonderful Trigger and his brush!
Or like the shabby attempts by the Army to pretend that ancient and glorious regiments still have an independent existence in the Royal Regiment of Scotland!
My post at 23.54 above refers.(pressed ‘submit’ too soon!)
To continue:
the turnover of directors is not at all surprising, given the fact that TRFC is something of a pariah in both the world of football and in the world of finance.
Guys on the make find that there is no way they are going to make any kind of money.
Those of them who ( and credit to them, I suppose) thought that by lending the odd million they might get a football club into any kind of money-making and profitable state, have been lumbered by a chairman who is most definitely a financial pariah.
Some have baled out over the few years since 2012.
Those now left are left with an almighty mess, with a Chairman in deep doo-doo with the TOP and the Court of Session: and a football team that came pretty close to a Maribor experience at home, and may find a problem away in Macedonia.
It is an appalling situation.
But, of course, if by some chance, TRFC Ltd as a newish football club astound us all by triumphing in the Europa whatever, we all know that the triumph is theirs, and not of the RFC 2012 presently languishing in Liquidation!
And I will be the first to commend a newish club on its European success.
Guessing that the day of the World Cup Final would be ideal to release footy related news you want ignored…?
JOHN CLARKJULY 14, 2018 at 23:54
And dance they did!
The SFA abandoned any notion of honest governance because big hands Charlie played a brilliant game.
They ( and in truth, they had the rightful power to do so) accepted SevcoScotland as a NEW member of the SFA, once Longmuir had persuaded the SFL to accept them into the 3rd division.
——————–
Fairness won he would have us believe.
JOHN CLARKJULY 15, 2018 at 00:23
Always remember though that if there are more resignations from the Ibrox board, then the replacements will be celebrated by the media in the same way as each and every one over the past six years has been. Their business achievements, backgrounds and wealth will be exaggerated to make it look like Rangers are a global power in football who can attract the very top people of the business world. If they have any directorship bans or tax evasion convictions in their history that will be portrayed as something that doesn’t matter, and it certainly won’t matter to the SFA. They will talk about ‘this club’s great history as the most successful club in the world’ and if they choose to have sly digs at Celtic the media will lap it up.
Of course such media attitudes could actually mean Rangers will never get the right type of people in charge who could actually move the club forward on a sustainable basis!
“RIFC : 31 officers / 25 resignations
TRFC : 22 officers / 19 resignations”(Redlichtie)
Remarkable for a firm/club only 6 years old.
I don’t have the data to back up my feelings that this is unusual for a small to medium sized business. But I did have a look at the Celtic FC website to see the ‘lifespan’ of their directors.
Ian Bankier 7 years
Thomas Allison 17 years
Sharon Brown 1.5 years
Dermot Desmond 23 years
Peter Lawwell 15 years
Christopher McKay 2 years
Brian Wilson 13 years.
Quite a difference!
If I was a potential investor potential director, senior operational manager, partner etc etc I would be asking questions. Like were the people who left pushed/shoved?, did they run?, did they walk away in quiet resignation?
The directors are a bit important. Is the need for soft loans a determining factor or relevant experience for appointment?
Conceiving and determining short to long term strategy is crucial to a firm, get that wrong and your heading for doom.
What is the strategy of TRFC? We can forget the sound bites and anything that comes from Dave King, as has been proven on countless occasions.
It would appear to be:
‘Back where we belong’
‘Our rightful place’
‘We are the Peepul’
‘Stop Celtic getting 10 in a row’
The plan?
Soft loans & Close Brothers.
Timescales?
Now!
This season for instance, 2nd place, at least one cup, group stages of the Europa League. Next season? The sky’s the limit. We think in days not months. Months not years.
Operationally it is just as bad. Think of their PR department. Think of everything regarding their retail operation. Management appointments. Asset management. Budgetary control.
The only thing positive you might say about them is they have developed a great working relationship with the media and the governing bodies.
So all is not lost.
ps, wonder when the next change in directorships tales place. Going by past experience, can’t be long now!
Jimbo you are so right. I fear thoug that King’s strategy is not about football at all. It is about harvesting money from a captive, compliant fan-base. Which are kept compliant through level 5 PR. The siege like mentality means that they will always come and spend their blue pound. However, it also means that they cannot move on, modernise or adapt to changing situations so they are doomed ignominious failure! The flaw in my argument is that I have never quite worked out how King manages to get any money out of such a financial basket case!
Fifa are investigating World Cup hosts Rubin Kazan over an attempt to clear their debts and re-launch the Russian football club.
Sounds familiar to me.
Just wondering about the engine room subsidiary finances. Is it that the directors of RIFC have loaned money to RIFC who have then provided funding to their loss making football operation? Have Close bros loaned directly to TRFC and this is secured on Hummel Park and other bits and pieces owned by TRFC? What happens in the event of TRFC not being able to meet bills as they fall due and the parent company are in no position/unwilling to offer further financial support.If administration of TRFC is deemed necessary then are RIFC as a company able to control the narrative as they are the largest creditor? (Close Bros position protected by security). It has been mentioned elsewhere recently that there are resignations imminent from the board , is this from RIFC and if so what impact might this have?
gunnerbJuly 15, 2018 at 15:00
Just wondering about the engine room subsidiary finances. Is it that the directors of RIFC have loaned money to RIFC who have then provided funding to their loss making football operation? Have Close bros loaned directly to TRFC and this is secured on Hummel Park and other bits and pieces owned by TRFC? What happens in the event of TRFC not being able to meet bills as they fall due and the parent company are in no position/unwilling to offer further financial support.If administration of TRFC is deemed necessary then are RIFC as a company able to control the narrative as they are the largest creditor? (Close Bros position protected by security). It has been mentioned elsewhere recently that there are resignations imminent from the board , is this from RIFC and if so what impact might this have?
_________________
I don’t know the answer for certain, but in a symbiotic relationship like RIFC/TRFC, where each company relies on the other so completely – RIFC provides the funding for TRFC, TRFC provides the income (potential) for RIFC and it’s very reason for it’s existance, then if one falls into administration, the other must surely follow. While TRFC will owe money to RIFC, so RIFC will, most likely, be it’s main creditor, in turn, RIFC owes that money to it’s creditors, who, if they want as much of their money back as they can get, will have a similar effect as being owed by TRFC.
I am sure there will be much effort to divorce club (TRFC Ltd) from company, but it won’t be easy, and will only work if enough of the lenders, of the directors kind, are prepared to wave their money goodbye.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 15, 2018 at 15:32
Edit
“..I am sure there will be much effort to divorce club (TRFC Ltd) from company, but it won’t be easy, and will only work if enough of the lenders, of the directors kind, are prepared to wave their money goodbye.”
————————————————————-
Thanks ALLYJAMBO, if any truth to the rumoured resignations then some directors may not be quite so accommodating as they were in the past.
It is worth bearing in mind that administration is normally used (at least by football clubs) as a form of self-defence.
A creditor doesn’t get paid, they move for winding up, the company places itself into administration. A company cannot be wound up if it is administration.
There is of course voluntary administration, but that is really just saying “we are fecked financially, can someone sort it out please”.
In either case, as I understand it, the directors hand over control to an insolvency practitioner.
Or as my old lawyer buddy used to say administration you send for a doctor, liquidation for an undertaker
RIP Davie McParland
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/16355699.davie-mcparland-the-legend-and-gentleman-of-partick-thistle/
Is it just me that thinks the English commentators and summarisers (?) were hoping for a Croatian victory so they could say they lost to the eventual winners ? It sounds like it to me .
Belguim would have made great opposition today.
PADDY MALARKEYJULY 15, 2018 at 17:38
Sad news indeed about Davie McParland. As a Celtic fan I remember him beating our team in a cup final, then a few years later helping us to win the double. From what I’ve ever read about the man he seemed an absolute gentleman, respected by all. May he rest in peace.
GUNNERBJULY 15, 2018 at 15:00
Just wondering about the engine room subsidiary finances. Is it that the directors of RIFC have loaned money to RIFC who have then provided funding to their loss making football operation? Have Close bros loaned directly to TRFC and this is secured on Hummel Park and other bits and pieces owned by TRFC? What happens in the event of TRFC not being able to meet bills as they fall due and the parent company are in no position/unwilling to offer further financial support.
—————
Was looking up the close brothers loan to see if it was secured against no longer murray park,now called Hummel training center or something.
I THINK IT IS ONLY
RANGERS have lodged details of a finance company’s security over a £3 million funding facility against a car park and a derelict building.
Security documents now lodged with Companies House confirm that both properties have been put up as collateral for the funds which come after the board said they were faced with a multi-million pound shortfall for this season and next season.
—–
But if i remember there was something about “other securities”
Someone with a better memory will keep us right
—————-
Anyway.
What happens in the event of TRFC not being able to meet bills as they fall due.
————-
Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson had insisted there was no risk of club chairman Dave King and his fellow investors withdrawing their backing.
The board said it had discussed the club’s forecast cash shortfall and reached agreement with Mr King’s New Oasis Asset Ltd company to provide additional loans as necessary.
Dave King and other investors had agreed to extend their exisiting loan facilities to July, next year.
The board said at the time that it was “satisfied that those parties will continue to provide financial support to the company and have satisfied themselves to the validity of the undertakings”.
And directors have acknowledged that without the assurances then “a material uncertainty would exist which may cast doubt over the company’s ability to continue as a going concern…”
The board said that financial support committed before the new credit facitlity was sought “more than covers the projected the shortfall for this season and beyond”.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16029298.Security_over_Rangers_property_is_lodged_to_secure___3_million_funding/
———————-
Sorry for long post.
JC – I believe the same club* scenario only came into play when it was clear the supporters weren’t going to back Green, the SFA and media were as desperate to see a successful continuation in any form as Green was to make money. 1million shares got Ally on board and they all aided and abetted the scam of selling a lie to the fans.
CLUSTER ONEJULY 15, 2018 at 19:25
—–But if i remember there was something about “other securities”
—————–
the stadium catering outlets the Ibrox public address systems the bowl TV and the WIFI system
TIMTIMJULY 15, 2018 at 19:29
1
0 Rate This
JC – I believe the same club* scenario only came into play when it was clear the supporters weren’t going to back Green,
—————
Only 250 season tickets sold july 6,2012
CLUSTER ONEJULY 15, 2018 at 19:25
____________________
Thanks for the correction CLUSTER ONE, Hummel Park is not part of the Close Bros security and I seem to remember Sport Scotland still have an interest in that facility so I think it would be difficult for TRFC to use it in such a fashion. Of course all of this is speculation and Homunculus has pointed out in earlier blogs an insolvency event is not in the interest of the directors who have extended funding with such largesse. Still with rumoured resignations it is fun to ruminate on a quiet day.
Congratulations to both France and Croatia for providing great entertainment this afternoon.
CLUSTER ONEJULY 15, 2018 at 19:25GUNNERBJULY 15, 2018 at 15:00Just wondering about the engine room subsidiary finances. Is it that the directors of RIFC have loaned money to RIFC who have then provided funding to their loss making football operation? Have Close bros loaned directly to TRFC and this is secured on Hummel Park and other bits and pieces owned by TRFC? What happens in the event of TRFC not being able to meet bills as they fall due and the parent company are in no position/unwilling to offer further financial support.—————————-Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson had insisted there was no risk of club chairman Dave King and his fellow investors withdrawing their backing.The board said it had discussed the club’s forecast cash shortfall and reached agreement with Mr King’s New Oasis Asset Ltd company to provide additional loans as necessary.Dave King and other investors had agreed to extend their exisiting loan facilities to July, next year.The board said at the time that it was “satisfied that those parties will continue to provide financial support to the company and have satisfied themselves to the validity of the undertakings”.And directors have acknowledged that without the assurances then “a material uncertainty would exist which may cast doubt over the company’s ability to continue as a going concern…”The board said that financial support committed before the new credit facitlity was sought “more than covers the projected the shortfall for this season and beyond”.———————————————-
So…..
(a) DCK/NOAL have a problem getting money out of SA – this was stated in court
(b) Rumours of directors seeking to have their loans repaid
(c) Rumours of directors resigning
(d) A need to repay or extend the Close loan in the coming year
(e) Nearly everything is in hock to Close
(f) legal action against DCK/RIFC/TRFC is underway on various fronts with uncertain consequences if they go against these folk.
At what point does this translate into a formal recognition by the interested parties (RIFC/TRFC Boards, SFA/SPFL & Campbell Dallas PLUS Close) that “a material uncertainty would exist which may cast doubt over the company’s ability to continue as a going concern…”?
Scottish Football Needs a strong Arbroath.
REDLICHTIEJULY 15, 2018 at 20:06
So…..
(a) DCK/NOAL have a problem getting money out of SA – this was stated in court(b) Rumours of directors seeking to have their loans repaid(c) Rumours of directors resigning(d) A need to repay or extend the Close loan in the coming year(e) Nearly everything is in hock to Close(f) legal action against DCK/RIFC/TRFC is underway on various fronts with uncertain consequences if they go against these folk.
At what point does this translate into a formal recognition by the interested parties (RIFC/TRFC Boards, SFA/SPFL & Campbell Dallas PLUS Close) that “a material uncertainty would exist which may cast doubt over the company’s ability to continue as a going concern…”?
———————
By asking questions like that you have no hope of getting a job on the SMSM
GUNNERBJULY 15, 2018 at 20:04
3
0 Rate This
CLUSTER ONEJULY 15, 2018 at 19:25____________________
Thanks for the correction CLUSTER ONE, Hummel Park is not part of the Close Bros security and I seem to remember Sport Scotland still have an interest in that facility
—————-
Something i was pondering on when unsure about the security on the hummel training centre from earlier,and your post just reminded me.
Does sports scotland have any say on the naming of the training centre?
If hummel are giving the ibrox club money to rename the centre do sports scotland get a share?
Redlichtie.
on the subject of ‘going concern.’
In 2009, Livingston FC, who had suffered administration but not liquidation, were made to pay a £720k bond to the SFL in case there was another administration event and they failed to complete that seasons league fixtures.
No such bond has ever been required from Sevco (even with a going concern note being published in their accounts, huge levels of debt being accrued and a paltry fine imposed for behaviour which was “just short of match fixing”, money which they did not pay and eventually had to be taken from their prize money by the football authorities.)
HELPUMOOTJULY 16, 2018 at 08:43
Redlichtie.on the subject of ‘going concern.’In 2009, Livingston FC, who had suffered administration but not liquidation, were made to pay a £720k bond to the SFL in case there was another administration event and they failed to complete that seasons league fixtures.No such bond has ever been required from Sevco (even with a going concern note being published in their accounts, huge levels of debt being accrued and a paltry fine imposed for behaviour which was “just short of match fixing”, money which they did not pay and eventually had to be taken from their prize money by the football authorities.)
===============================
I think you raise a very valid point HELPUMOOT. It would seem to me that having a ‘going concern’ notice, inserted at the behest of an independent, fully qualified auditor should automatically trigger a requirement for the company in question to provide an appropriate bond to the SPFL/SFA. The organisations are there to protect the game and fellow members after all.
Was the £720K a specific percentage of Livingston’s turnover?
In any event, a company in good financial standing should have no problem effecting an appropriate bond for a relatively small sum. Their bankers or other financial institutions would undoubtedly happily furnish such a thing….
Scottish Football needs proper Financial Fair Play.
Since it’s so quiet , did we ever get a definitive answer to the overdue payable date conundrum ? I can find my own way to the naughty step , thank you .
Paddy Malarky
It’s been nearly 3 weeks since the JPDT met to consider the non compliance charges levelled at Rangers.
E Tims are suggesting why at
http://etims.net/?p=13151
It might explain the silence.
For all that I have several times read such part as appears on the Companies House website of the sportscotland ‘offer of contract and acceptance of contract’ between RFC(IL) in 2002 (which saw a charge over Auchehowie in favour of sportscotland),
and the ‘offer of contract and acceptance of contract’ between sportscotland and TRFC Ltd in 2015 ,[ when sportscotland realised that they could never enforce a contract against a liquidated entity and had to get the liabilities etc transferred to the new football club so that if TRFC Ltd defaulted the ‘charge’ would kick in,
it never really occurred to me to ask what was it exactly that SDM received from sportscotland.
If it was a pure grant of lottery money, why would there have been need of ‘security’
Was it a loan, and if so on what terms, and how much, and why was it never paid off?
I have tried , of course, to find out by searching the sportscotland/Scottish sports council accounts and annual reports ( can’t find one for 2001/02/03) but have failed.
Anyone know?
Auchenhowie
Murraypark
Hummell something or other.
Needs a coat of paint.
Imagine naming your training ground/academy with the word Murray in it! Shameful.
John Clark – does this help? A blog by Paul McConville back in 2012 :
“On 6 July 2012, the Standard Security for £500,000 formerly attached to the oldco was transferred to Sevco Scotland Ltd whose directors are Charlie Green, Brian Stockbridge, Imran Ahmad and Malcolm Murray. I believe the security held by the Scottish Sports Council triggers a financial penalty if football activities ceased at Auchenhowie to cover the money originally invested in building the facility by the Sports Scotland Lottery Fund (£500,000). The Scottish Executive also invested £150,000.”
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/the-sfa-and-its-role-in-any-future-sale-of-rangers-murray-park-by-ecojon/
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
It’s Fair Monday!
Today in 1190 Bishop Jocelin started ‘The Fair’ in Glasgow.
Bishop Jocelin was a big Celtic supporter.
(Celtic are more than 6 years old)
Right!
Who’s doing the thumbs down? 
It’s Fair Monday, cheer up ya miserable sods! 
JOHN CLARKJULY 16, 2018 at 15:22
Anyone know?
—————–
something i found
Rangers and SDI dispute
What appears clear is that SDI have a contract with Rangers that is loaded in their favour.
Why though is the intriguing question.
i’m told King pays virtually no attention to detail. He’s lazy in respect to the intricacies of contracts. Paul Murray has gone, but i doubt he was heavily involved in the detail .
That leaves the detail down to Blair. I doubt he’s that bad a Lawyer that he would have willingly agreed to these terms unless he had no choice.
Rangers paid £3M to SDI, we were told by King to rid themselves of a bad deal with a great new deal on the horizon . That’s clearly not the case now. Which takes me back to my original question . What was so urgent , so potentially debilitating that Rangers gave SDI £3M and kicked the can a year down the road.
It’s just about feasible that Rangers could agree to allow SDI to match contract terms ( although it’s a terrible look ) , however to allow them to cherry pick the elements of the contract that suited them and walk from the other parts , is madness
Even the worst lawyer on the planet wouldn’t agree to that, unless the alternative was unthinkable
This may help JC…AND IT MAY NOT.
Maybe the place to look D&P Creditors report
BB
Was that before or after SD sold their shareholding to club* 1872 for 27p?
Another kerching moment for Ashley.
Cluster One July 16, 2018 at 17:54
JOHN CLARKJULY 16, 2018 at 15:22
Anyone know?
—————–
something i found
=====================
My guess is that Sportscotland holds a first ranking security over the “Hummel Training Centre”.
I know that TRFC cannot offer the subjects as security without the prior permission of SS. So SS will get their money first.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/charges/Cx1BDOpVbXMd0e-QL_eZt-E3HGA
Barcabhoy July 16, 2018 at 17:55
Rangers and SDI dispute
What appears clear is that SDI have a contract with Rangers that is loaded in their favour.
Why though is the intriguing question.
===========================
I suspect that SD made it clear that they were coming after King and Murray, personally, for their fiduciary failure as directors, to act in the interests of Rangers Retail Ltd.
King and Murray would have signed up to anything to take that legal threat away.
BARCABHOYJULY 16, 2018 at 17:55
6
0 Rate This
Rangers and SDI dispute
What appears clear is that SDI have a contract with Rangers that is loaded in their favour.
Why though is the intriguing question.
————————-
No one else would touch the ibrox club with a bargepole and SDI may have known this,everything is loaded in our favour take it or you have no shirt sales, try spinning that to the ibrox crowd.Maybe in the ibrox club’s desperation it was all they had or nothing.
EASYJAMBOJULY 16, 2018 at 18:20
————–
So much better detail than me….
BARCABHOYJULY 16, 2018 at 17:55Rangers and SDI dispute
What appears clear is that SDI have a contract with Rangers that is loaded in their favour.
Why though is the intriguing question.
=================================
Check this court document from April 2017
http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/images/uploads/judgments/SDI_Judgment.pdf
The Judge describes King and Murray’s conduct as “cynical and disingenuous” and also states “Mr King and Mr Murray’s positions as directors of the Company were hopelessly conflicted”, “The suggestion that Mr King and Mr Murray were genuinely taking a position ……….. is not credible” and “For the reasons given above I accede to SDI’s application and I grant permission to continue the action.”
JIMBOJULY 16, 2018 at 15:46
Is it not now known as The Hummel Training Centre , Murray Park , Auchenhowie Road , Milngavie ?
As a lot of public money was invested in it via Sportscotland and the Bank of Scotland , is there access to the public to the facility ?
A wee look into the past .
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/chairman-pitches-up-at-murray-park-1-572710
I wonder why the other clubs didn’t seek their offered £500k to build their own facilities .
The old SDI agreement with Rangers had a 7 year notice period, which they would have been desperate to get out of.
The £3m to Ashley plus this “first refusal” deal may have been their only way out of it. The logic being that if they are matching JD Sports, or someone else then we will be getting at least a decent arrangement.
It’s the splitting the deal up business which is very strange, and indeed the bit they seem to be arguing over. Without that, whilst not ideal its probably much better than what they had previously.
Homunculus
A new contract in perpetuity that allows SDI to match any offer is arguably as bad. The immediate effect if SDI win in court will be that nobody else will bid moving forward
why would anyone put the time and effort into a bid, if it’s then handed to SDI to make the decision on whether you get the deal or not
No serious business , in any industry , would commit resource into trying to win business, where your competition is the decision maker
It’s utter madness to agree to this . Factor in the cherrypicking element and it’s madness X 10
Barcabhoy July 16, 2018 at 20:15
Homunculus
A new contract in perpetuity that allows SDI to match any offer is arguably as bad. The immediate effect if SDI win in court will be that nobody else will bid moving forward
=================================
It’s not clear if the perpetuity argument in the recent court judgement relates to all elements, matched or otherwise, or only those for which there is no offer from a third party.
I think SD’s reference to “infinite number of renewals” was specific to elements for which there was no offer, in which case the existing arrangements with SD would roll over at two yearly intervals.
If SD was to decline to match the offer for any element, then I think that would be the end of their matching arrangement for that element, for all future deals.
If SD matched an offer for any/all elements, I’m not clear if they would retain the rights to match third party offers for those elements in the future, once SD’s initial term had expired.
As a neutral observer, I sometimes wonder if it wouldn’t be better if TRFC went into liquidation. Get rid of Mike Ashley. The huge overheads of Ibrox, the training centre, academy, wi-fi, Jim Traynor etc., etc., Oh, and Dave King.
Start again. Rent Hampden. A new third shirt (pink?).
And a new song book.