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.
From King’s statement : “The TP refused the necessary extension of time and instituted contempt of court proceedings against me for not complying with the original ruling to make a personal offer. That strange decision has now caused further unnecessary delay, with no end in sight.”
Does this mean that King is now in a position to make the share offer, funds having been transferred to the UK? The only hold-up is this pesky contempt case?
Fairly obvious questions for the SMSM? Look forward to them being posed tomorrow if they have not been already.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
I’m sure I read this somewhere today.
It is noteworthy that the SFA have still not approved AJ’s (Ally Jambo’s) fit and proper status despite his impeccable record as a businessman.
AllyjamboJuly 18, 2018 at 22:59
‘…King knew exactly what was required of him from day one, and just doesn’t give one fig for the law, rules or regulations that we all have to live by.’
______________________
And, at 11.30 p.m, I literally ( i.e. I do have a pub measure of whisky in my left hand as I slowly and one-fingeredly type with the other hand!) raise a glass to the memory of Mr Chipps of the South Africa Revenue Service who did give a fig, and nailed him!
If only our Football Governance people had been of such integrity and brave persistence the rotten cheating of SDM might very well have been acted upon and dealt with robustly.
Mind you, that’s a big ‘if’, as I think we now know.
Or it might have been Alistair Johnstone. (AJ)
jimboJuly 18, 2018 at 23:46
‘…Or it might have been Alistair Johnstone. (AJ)’
________
Ah, jimbo: many of us have found that our attempts at humour, or the use of irony, have misfired!
Most of us , I think, know you were joking.
But ‘our’ Allyjambo is entirely ‘fit and proper’ to a degree that your Alistair Johnstone might not even aspire to!
It sounds to me that the GASL has a part time gig with……
http://unicornrangers.org/about/
The tears are still running down my legs.
According to the Daily Record, “Martin has a problem with his abductor..”.
Does Celtic have to pay a ransom to get him back?
Has the FBI been called?
Have negotiations with these hitherto unknown criminal masterminds been initiated?
Or perhaps it’s just his adductor muscles? An easy mistake to make if you have the writing skills of a 10 year old.
At JIMBOJULY 18, 2018 at 23:17
I Believe
JOHN CLARKJULY 19, 2018 at 00:05
In his delicate way, has just told you to get your coat
I see in King’s latest statement he refers to members of the media giving his club a hard time. If the current situation is giving them a hard time you wonder what it would be like if they start to big them up!
With his contempt of court hearing imminent, we can only speculate as to whether the prodigiously litigious Dave King will turn up at what must feel like his second home. No, not Ibrox, but yet another courtroom, this time the Court of Session in Edinburgh, tomorrow.
I had planned to list the many court cases involving King during his tenure as de facto Chairman of the new Rangers club, but realised in doing so I would be subjecting both my typing fingers to repetitive strain injury due to the sheer numbers involved.
King’s obvious liking for the inside of a courtroom is at odds with his dislike for obeying the law and whilst it’s true that most of his appearances in court are the result of charges being brought against him, he’s never been shy in taking others to court too.
Which begs the question, if he and his fellow flat-earthers genuinely believe that Rangers Football Club was illegally ‘sent down’ to the fourth tier of Scottish football in 2012, why hasn’t the man who has attended more courts than Perry Mason and Kojak combined, sought legal justice?
It would be fair comment to say that FIFA and UEFA frown upon clubs taking their national associations to court, but when did King ever pay any respect to any level of football authority? The man thinks that he and his club are above the law and that rules and regulations are for others to abide by.
One could be forgiven for thinking that a court of law is the last place King wants a discussion to take place on the legality of treating the current club playing out of Ibrox as if it was the same as the Rangers Football Club founded in 1872 and which died the self-inflicted death of liquidation in 2012.
jimboJuly 18, 2018 at 23:17
I’m sure I read this somewhere today.It is noteworthy that the SFA have still not approved AJ’s (Ally Jambo’s) fit and proper status despite his impeccable record as a businessman.
__________________
Am fit tae drop and proper scunnert, Jimbo. Will that do for a pass?
Speculative, but imagine how different the current scene would be, if uncle Mick didn’t have a SFA imposed, 10% share-ownership cap, and be forced to devise another mechanism with Chuckles, through which to extract his due dividends.
Those involved with Rangers(I.L.), or Sevco for that matter, have never had such share restrictions enforced previously, or latterly, but we may have been looking at a stable share-price and a reasonable, but mutually profitable, retail arrangement by now.
I don’t think they wanted Uncle Mick in their wee gang…. The hokey-cokey F&P status court action, and contradictory official SFA, “Aye he is, Naw he isnae”, statements appears to support this.
The SFA deffo wanted Honest Dave at the helm…..IMO….The Question is why?
John ClarkJuly 19, 2018 at 00:05
jimboJuly 18, 2018 at 23:46‘…Or it might have been Alistair Johnstone. (AJ)’________Ah, jimbo: many of us have found that our attempts at humour, or the use of irony, have misfired! Most of us , I think, know you were joking. But ‘our’ Allyjambo is entirely ‘fit and proper’ to a degree that your Alistair Johnstone might not even aspire to!
_________________
Thanks for the kind words, JC, but I’ve given in my reply to Jimbo the only way that I could be described as ‘fit and proper’
, though I’d hate to think anyone might see me in the same light as any of the main participants in the Ibrox saga – grubby, self-centred, money grabbers, the lot of them.
The Herald continues to show that it is more than willing to prostitute itself to James Traynor. Apparently, King’s appearance in court for contempt won’t affect Rangers. (I guess that’s true, they’re liquidated.)
This ‘paper’ has copied and pasted practically every utterance from Dave King with absolutely no attempt to get at the truth, no attempt to expose the lies. But today they carry a piece by Cameron stating that Murdoch MacLennan must respond to King’s accusations. It’s only right that he does, Cameron argues.
King lied to SARS for over ten years, was found guilty of being a tax cheat by the SA court, was described by a judge as a glib and shameless liar and only avoided substantial jail time by paying millions to SARS. He has lied to a British court (I’ve no money), to Sevco fans (I’ve plenty of money), and to TOP and has already been found guilty of contempt of court for which he was handed a 3 month suspended jail term.
If papers like the Herald had done their job, King would be nowhere near Scottish football, but it’s MacLennan who deserves the scrutiny and he who must justify himself. Why?
finnmccoolJuly 19, 2018 at 00:19
It sounds to me that the GASL has a part time gig with……http://unicornrangers.org/about/The tears are still running down my legs.
_____________________-
I’m sure they are in the hunt for thon ‘Rangers Football Club that’s separate from the company’ thingy, as we speak
, for it is part of their stated mission and purpose, as psychic police, to:
‘Investigate reported paranormal events and determine whether they are legitimate or fraud, and to find the truth and cure the symptom.’
The similarity between the idea that Rangers FC was separate from Rangers FC Ltd and Unicorn Rangers Psychic Police is quite is quite profound. Both are present in the minds of people desperate to believe – and to be taken advantage of.
Did the latest statement mention the SFA compliance case, I lost the will to laugh half way through so cannot remember?
What is the SI unit for piffle for that statement certainly contained many farrago measures of it.
finnmccoolJuly 19, 2018 at 02:31
‘…..An easy mistake to make if you have the writing skills of a 10 year old.’
____________________________
‘Mistakes’ by partly literate newspaper hacks are one thing, finnmccool.We can all make mistakes.
What is unforgivable and what we have seen especially over the past six years, is the deliberate misreporting and selective reporting of matters to do with RIFC plc and TRFC Ltd.
An example of selective reporting is to be found in today’s ‘The Scotsman’, where the ”pre-season address'(as it is described) of the GASL is given almost a full column.
The FULL ‘address? (Don’t be daft! -this is the Edinburgh-based rag of which “The Controllers pledge themselves for impartiality, firmness and independence..” and consistently break their pledge)
No, only that bit of the ‘address’ which begins with “It was pleasing to see the new squad settling down.”
Not a dickie bird about the absolutely desperate legal and financial situation that the GASL, and the football club of whose business he seems to speak of as if acting as a de facto director, find themselves in.
Not a word about the TOP’s action, nor any mention of the rest of the rant.
‘Icebergs, Cap’n? Never fear, we are unsinkable!”
If those words were ever said to the Captain of the Titanic, they would,I think, have been said by someone like Andy Newport, of ‘The Scotsman!
HighlanderJuly 19, 2018 at 10:13
With his contempt of court hearing imminent, we can only speculate as to whether the prodigiously litigious Dave King will turn up at what must feel like his second home. No, not Ibrox, but yet another courtroom, this time the Court of Session in Edinburgh, tomorrow.I had planned to list the many court cases involving King during his tenure as de facto Chairman of the new Rangers club, but realised in doing so I would be subjecting both my typing fingers to repetitive strain injury due to the sheer numbers involved.King’s obvious liking for the inside of a courtroom is at odds with his dislike for obeying the law and whilst it’s true that most of his appearances in court are the result of charges being brought against him, he’s never been shy in taking others to court too.Which begs the question, if he and his fellow flat-earthers genuinely believe that Rangers Football Club was illegally ‘sent down’ to the fourth tier of Scottish football in 2012, why hasn’t the man who has attended more courts than Perry Mason and Kojak combined, sought legal justice? It would be fair comment to say that FIFA and UEFA frown upon clubs taking their national associations to court, but when did King ever pay any respect to any level of football authority? The man thinks that he and his club are above the law and that rules and regulations are for others to abide by.One could be forgiven for thinking that a court of law is the last place King wants a discussion to take place on the legality of treating the current club playing out of Ibrox as if it was the same as the Rangers Football Club founded in 1872 and which died the self-inflicted death of liquidation in 2012.
________________________
Was wondering about that myself last night, and it might depend on whether or not the CoS can, or are likely to, hand down a custodial sentence. Now it’s possible the Court of Session might not be able to, at this stage, jail him (as with JC, I’ve been unable to determine whether or not this is possible under Scots Law as my online searches have failed to find anything that addresses this one way or the other), but, if King has been summonsed to appear in court, but fails to do so, this, itself, might prove to be a criminal offence (I’m not sure but it does seem likely, for otherwise the court could barely function).
So, it’s possible that King might be found in contempt, and go to jail, though I suspect any such sentence would be suspended; might fail to turn up and so face criminal charges, more likely to carry a jail term; might turn up and make his apologies to the court with a cheque for £11m to be placed in an account that meets the specified criteria of the TOP. Or might come up with yet another delaying tactic and kick the can further on down the road.
One thing’s certain, he’s not going to be found ‘not guilty’ as he’s clearly failed to carry out a legitimate court order (assuming this is what the case is about).
If its bare faced naked lies you are wanting……….
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-fa-statement-mr-dave-king/
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1352320-scottish-fa-criticise-mike-ashley-over-disingenuous-dave-king-claims/
FINNMCCOOLJULY 19, 2018 at 02:31
According to the Daily Record, “Martin has a problem with his abductor..”.Does Celtic have to pay a ransom to get him back?Has the FBI been called?Have negotiations with these hitherto unknown criminal masterminds been initiated?Or perhaps it’s just his adductor muscles? An easy mistake to make if you have the writing skills of a 10 year old.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Very witty Finn, and apologies for the boring anatomy lesson, but alas there are abductor muscles as well as adductors. The abductor muscles contract to lift the leg away from the centre line of the body. Those of you old enough, picture Harry Worth at the glass fronted shop corner….
The adductors work in the opposite way returning the leg back, or kicking sideways. Having experienced a bad tear of an adductor muscle, I was out of football for 6 months. I can’t remember ever reading of a player injuring the abductor as the adductor is the far more common injury for a footballer, so you may be correct in that the press could have heard/reported it wrong
Worth noting that the Takeover Panel have not specifically requested committal to prison in the way Sports Direct did in their failed contempt case against King.
That’s not to say Lord Bannantyne doesn’t have the option of prison in an extreme case, the rare examples of this measure being used seem to be in cases with aggravated circumstances and after there have been several other punishments meted and attempts to make the person comply with the court order. Also as it’s a civil hearing there is no obligation for King to attend the hearing as long as he sends his representatives (he does like a courtroom so he may well show face)
The realistic outcomes of the hearing on Friday are:
– Lord Bannantyne accepts King’s reasons for delaying are genuine and that he will comply with a new court order
– Lord Bannantyne issues a fine and gives a new court order for King to comply with.
I think in either scenario King will have to pay the Takeover Panel’s costs which won’t be insignificant, obviously if repeat court orders are flouted then fines and sanctions are going to become more severe.
As for extradition that’s not possible for a civil contempt of court, I guess if it ever reached the stage where committal was being considered a UK arrest warrant could be released to nab King if he returned to the UK. Obviously we’re nowhere near that just now but it’s an interesting hypothetical.
To add to my previous post I do think on balance King will be sanctioned for contempt of court tomorrow. I think his highly paid legal team will no doubt be able to throw in plenty of mitigation explaining the delays but I don’t see how they can justify the fact that as soon as Contempt Proceedings were launched he decided he had to stop making preparations to send the money to the UK until this hearing was out of the way.
That seems to be King’s position and it just smacks of delay tactics.
Interestingly my last two fairly innocuous posts managed to rack up 14 thumbs down before even getting out of moderation somehow, delighted to be breaking Jimbo’s records here. 🙂
AllyjamboJuly 19, 2018 at 10:57
‘……(as with JC, I’ve been unable to determine whether or not this is possible under Scots Law as my online searches have failed to find anything that addresses this one way or the other..
…….So, it’s possible that King might be found in contempt, and go to jail, .
______________________________
I did come across something, Aj, which suggested that where someone is accused of criminal contempt (as opposed to civil contempt) then the ordinary criminal justice processes have to be followed: a charge has to be preferred, a trial date fixed, the accused has to be allowed adequate time to instruct ( a criminal) lawyer and prepare his defence and so on.
In the abstract, if those processes are under way, I somehow don’t think a wee half-hour on a Friday morning would be part of them.
Any such business ,I speculate , would simply be connected with an attempt by the party who has not complied with a court order trying to show the court that he has been trying to comply but is facing difficulties not of his making, perhaps, in the case of a non-UK resident for example, because his government is preventing him from accessing the only means ( the financial resources, perhaps) by which he can comply.
It would be interesting to find out.
NickJuly 19, 2018 at 11:40
‘…The realistic outcomes of the hearing on Friday are:..’
___________________
There is a third realistic outcome: it is open to the Judge to deem that (even though it’s a ‘civil law’ matter ( takeovers and commerce and so on) the act of defiance of the Court has already reached such proportions as to constitute a crime, and, having heard such further ‘excuses’ as might be made, dismiss those excuses and inform the party that the Court will refer the matter to the COPFS for possible proceedings.
As I have mentioned before, there is an Agreement with South Africa under which parties accused of any crime which in the UK carries a maximum prison sentence of two years or more, may either be extradited to the UK to face charges, or be dealt with in a South Africa court.
JOHN CLARKJULY 19, 2018 at 12:19
I would dearly love that to be a realistic option John as it would be a terrifically entertaining twist in this soap opera but there is no precedent of the scenario you outline ever having happened anywhere in the UK so I think deeming it a “realistic” outcome of a first contempt hearing is a bit of a stretch.
I’m unclear as to what element of criminal law has been broken in this instance as well?
I do think if we end up 6-12 months down the line and onto a 3rd or 4th hearing here without any sign of King complying then there are precedents that suggest Lord Bannantyne would exercise his ultimate sanction and sentence King to prison for up to 3 months for civil contempt.
I assume in that scenario King would be unable to return to the UK without being arrested.
Nick,
To be fair, sometimes I deserve them.
Helpumoot said 10:27 –
‘The Herald continues to show that it is more than willing to prostitute itself to James Traynor. Apparently, King’s appearance in court for contempt won’t affect Rangers. (I guess that’s true, they’re liquidated.)
…
If papers like the Herald had done their job, King would be nowhere near Scottish football, but it’s MacLennan who deserves the scrutiny and he who must justify himself. Why?’
I just read the piece by Neil Cameron on the back page of today’s Herald’s sports section. Utterly embarrassing journalism.
I couldn’t help wonder how much lamb it must takes to elicit such nonsense.
Above the Reception desk at The Herald’s Glasgow office is a banner that reads:
‘Integrity Ambition Courage & Pride’
I think they must have acquired it from the old offices of the Beano and the Dandy.
Dave King is the new sheriff in Blazing Saddles pointing a gun at his own head and threatening to shoot the club*.
Won’t somebody help that poor man?
Nick wrote: “previous post I do think on balance King will be sanctioned for contempt of court tomorrow. I think his highly paid legal team will no doubt be able to throw in plenty of mitigation“
When Dave King accepted the majority of the charges in a plea bargain to escape the more serious charges didn’t he give it the big “mea culpa” for deliberately delaying and obstructing the SA DoJ investigation and that he accepted that was a very wrong path to take? If he pleads any mitigating circumstances I would hope the TOP would refer to that statement and come to the conclusion these are his tried and tested tactics and throw the book, no, the entire frickn’ library at him.
#exasperatedwiththesewholeshenanigans
On the contempt of court issue, I retired as a Scottish police officer a couple of years ago after 35+ years service. I am certainly not a lawyer but I have seen a few contempts of court dealt with: although always in criminal cases. Most were comments made by the accused to a Sheriff post-sentencing, indicating the accused’s dissatisfaction with the sentence imposed. These comments invariably attracted contempt of court proceedings which were swiftly dealt with. The Sheriff determined on the spot that the accused was guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him on the spot without the need for any investigation, intimation of defence or indeed plea in mitigation. There was no referral to the police of COPFS. In short, the judge made the finding of guilt on the spot and sentenced appropriately. Don’t know if this helps. I confess it is some years since I was involved in these cases and times may have changed.
Totally wild speculation time.
What if King tomorrow pleads that to comply with the TOP order will impact on his continuing ability to financially support Rangers? He has changed his story a few times already, and there would be no better way to make the Scottish establishment sit up and take an interest!
Just a few of the comments that have appeared on Sevco sites RE: that disgusting video from Skopje.
Class act Bears, class.
He’s up on the boys shoulders clapping and singing WATP.
The wee mans staunch as f*ck.
Good stuff, always good when these type of games have a good, relaxed atmosphere with fans.
Absolutely superb.
Thats what it should be all about when football fans go abroad. Well done lads.
hahaha quality.
Class act from our fellow bears. WATP!!!
Seen the video. He is with a good bunch of lads and I’m sure he will be having fun.
Jeezus!
Is there such a think as a moving emoji that shakes its head from side to side and raises its eyes to the heavens
HS
They’re probably waiting until they hear the sectarian abuse before they report that too .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/44888334
NICK
JULY 19, 2018 at 11:43
To add to my previous post I do think on balance King will be sanctioned…
======================
Mibbes aye, mibbes naw…
but the court should consider having King sectioned…for the good of Scottish football !
Bad joke aside: if the Bampots are constantly bamboozled with the confrontational, irrational behaviour of King, then what must it be like to work with the guy?!
From the DR;
“Adam Rooney leaves Aberdeen to sign three-year deal with Salford City
…
Rooney, who has netted more than 60 goals for the Reds, is believed to have signed a contract worth more than £4,000-a-week.
He will now ply his trade in English non-league with Salford – owned by Manchester United legends Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, Nicky Butt and the Neville brothers. The Manchester side play in the Vanarama National League after winning promotion from the North section last season…”
===========================
OK, he is 30 years old, and presumably that was the best financial offer he received?
But to go from Aberdeen to a non-league club?
With all the multi-million pound transfers across some European leagues, it’s a stark reality check, IMO.
I know this week’s CoS action still has a day to run, but here are next week’s hearings.
LORD BANNATYNE – C Stark, Clerk
Tuesday 24th July Starred Motion at 9.00am
P997/17 Note: RFC 2012 PLC for orders under 4.16 – Dentons UK – Brodies LLP
(This is BDO v Henderson & Jones / Sevco 5088 et al)
LORD DOHERTY – C Munn, Clerk
Friday 27th July By Order between 9.30am and 10.00am
P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under para 75 – Shepherd & Wedderburn – CMS
(This is BDO v Duff & Phelps)
Getting reports from Hibees at work that their mates, who are at the game in the Faroes tonight, are texting that there is a pitch inspection.
The game might not go ahead.
HS
Fudge time
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/
UPDATE: Preliminary Tribunal Hearing Outcome | Rangers FCThursday 19 July 2018Alleged Party in Breach: Rangers FC
Articles of Association and Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached:Charge One Article 5(2) of Scottish FA Articles of Association 2010-115. All members shall:-(2) be subject to and shall comply with the Articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board or by a Standing Committee, committee or sub-committee thereof, or by FIFA or UEFA or by the Court of Arbitration for Sport;
Article 5.1 (a)(2) of Scottish FA Articles of Association 2010-11Each member shall procure that its officials and its players:-Observe, submit to and comply with the Articles and the statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by (a) the Board or by any Standing Committee, committee sub-committee thereof, or (b) by FIFA or (c) by UEFA or (d) by the Court of Arbitration for Sport;
Charge Two Disciplinary Rule 1 (Scottish FA Judicial Panel Protocol 2011-12)Disciplinary Rule 2 (Scottish FA Judicial Panel Protocol 2011-12)
Rule 1 All members shall:-(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play;(b) be subject to and comply with the articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel Protocol, a committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;(f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.
Rule 2 Each member shall procure that its officials, its team officials and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.
Preliminary Tribunal Hearing Outcome: The Judicial Panel convened a preliminary hearing relating to the above case on June 26 2018. This preliminary issue raised by Rangers FC challenged the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA’s Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal to hear the case, and contended that the Notice of Complaint must be determined by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Having received submissions on 26 June the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal have issued a decision upholding the preliminary issue raised by the club. The Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal proposes to continue consideration of the complaint until parties consider next steps and terms of reference for any remit to CAS.
So the case might go to CAS. I can see why the SFA might be glad about that but where does it leave the parties who believe the period up to 31/03/2011 was wrongly omitted from the investigation?
I wonder what the preliminary issue is/was?
Could it be that TRFC have said that it is nothing to do with us guv? It was the old club/company who applied for a licence.
MordecaiJuly 19, 2018 at 13:58
Likewise, I wouldn’t see why there would be any requirement for an investigation.
Did the Court order him to do something – Yes
Did he do it – No
Did he have a reasonable, acceptable reason for not doing it – No
Is he in contempt of Court – Yes
There’s not a lot to it, no investigation or report required. The Judge has everything he needs in front of him. The person may try to mitigate what happens, however that would only be to soften the sanction. I also don’t think any sanction changes the fact that the order is still in place and he still needs to comply.
I have never been either a Police Officer or a lawyer.
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/
EASYJAMBOJULY 19, 2018 at 16:12
———————————————
Is this the ultimate can kicking ? What can TRFC possibly hope to gain other than time. Will the resolutionists be concerned that the dates of the inquiry will still be gerrymandered as the issue is passed to the CAS.
I would be stunned if that case ever reaches CAS, I just genuinely don’t think the SFA or any of their member clubs (including Celtic) care enough about it to risk millions in legal fees & years of litigation.
I do think it would be great in one way if it did go to CAS purely so the issue would be settled definitively one way or another by an independent party and we never have to go through another tedious Jas versus the world argument on the subject. 🙂
gunnerb July 19, 2018 at 16:26
EASYJAMBOJULY 19, 2018 at 16:12
———————————————
Is this the ultimate can kicking ? What can TRFC possibly hope to gain other than time. Will the resolutionists be concerned that the dates of the inquiry will still be gerrymandered as the issue is passed to the CAS.
================================
I’m more concerned that it has been kicked permanently down the road with the uncertain statement at the end of the update.
“The Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal proposes to continue consideration of the complaint until parties consider next steps and terms of reference for any remit to CAS”.
That to me leaves it open for the JPDT just to say that it isn’t worth pursuing any further, perhaps because of the time that has elapsed since the 2011 licence application that CAS may not want to consider it.
MordecaiJuly 19, 2018 at 13:58
“…These comments invariably attracted contempt of court proceedings which were swiftly dealt with. The Sheriff determined on the spot that the accused was guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him on the spot without the need for any investigation, intimation of defence or indeed plea in mitigation. There was no referral to the police of COPFS. In short, the judge made the finding of guilt on the spot and sentenced appropriately…..’
__________________
That’s a useful reminder, Mordecai, of the power of a sheriff/judge to deal immediately in court, there and then, with that kind of contempt. (I heard of one amusing example some years ago when a cheeky young brat in the public gallery wouldn’t shut up talking after being warned a couple of times by the macer, and warned again by the Sheriff. When he ignored that final warning, the Sheriff had him put in the cells immediately for the rest of the day!)
But I think that in relation to ,say, attempts to bribe a juror (or a judge, or a witness) that take place outside of the actual proceedings and are maybe only learned about after the case being tried has concluded, I think the normal processes of investigation, evidence gathering, submission to the PF, arrest and trial have to be followed.
And , as a matter of interest, in relation to penalties for contempt the Contempt of Court Act 1981 has this:
“section 15Penalties for contempt of court in Scottish proceedings.(1)In Scottish proceedings, when a person is committed to prison for contempt of court the committal shall (without prejudice to the power of the court to order his earlier discharge) be for a fixed term.
(2)The maximum penalty which may be imposed by way of imprisonment or fine for contempt of court in Scottish proceedings shall be two years’ imprisonment or a fine or both,[my emphasis] except that—(a)where the contempt is dealt with by the sheriff in the course of or in connection with proceedings other than criminal proceedings on indictment, such penalty shall not exceed three months’ imprisonment or a fine of [F36level 4 on the standard scale] or both; and(b)where the contempt is dealt with by the district court, such penalty shall not exceed sixty days’ imprisonment or a fine of [F36level 4 on the standard scale] or both…”
The 3 months mentioned by ‘Nick @ 12.29’ today is by no means the maximum sanction.
If I were in the shoes of a certain SA businessman with a history I think I’d be worried indeed, especially if I had no money to pay any substantial fine!!
easyJamboJuly 19, 2018 at 16:12
I find it hard to fathom out how anyone on the RFC side (TRFC are, I’d imagine, on the RFC side) would want to get the CAS involved, other than as a way to kick the can further on down the road. Other than that, could it be the case that the SFA have told everyone involved, ‘we’ve found xyz and there’s no way we can avoid finding RFC guilty on all counts’ and the hope is that the CAS will look on it differently, or take the onus off the SFA to say TRFC are not the same club as RFC? At the same time, it clears TRFC from any penalty while leaving King to blame others for a ruling that bursts the same club bubble.
On the other hand, the TRFC/King call to take it to the CAS could just be grandstanding in a, ‘we’ve got nothing to hide’ kind of way.
JOHN CLARK
JULY 19, 2018 at 16:38
The 3 months mentioned by ‘Nick @ 12.29’ today is by no means the maximum sanction.
———————————————–
My reading suggests that up to 3 months imprisonment & a fine of up to £2.5k is the maximum sanction available in a civil case.
The Lord (or Lady Senator) at the CoS may dispense these sanctions without resorting to a trial.
Ah’m no’ a lawyer, either!
TONY
JULY 19, 2018 at 16:24
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/
—————————————–
I suggest that someone within the RIFC/TRFC/RFC2012(IL) organisations has informed the SFA that they (the SFA) knew of wrongdoing at the time & are at least as ‘guilty’ as RIFC/TRFC/RFC2012(IL).
The SFA is now being held to ransom by a member club.
Only in Scotland…
Questions for Auldheid and the Res 12 guys.
Is it possible to get access to the JPDT’s decision, either through Celtic (possible?) or your lawyers (doubtful?) in order to establish the grounds on which TRFC argued that the JPDT did not have jurisdiction over the Notice of Complaint?
Do you know of any time limitation to CAS’ powers? I’d imagine that they could go back for many years as has happened in the case of drug cheats.
The case schedule for CAS over the next three months.
http://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/news-detail/article/les-audiences-du-tas-1.html
Seems the 5-Way agreement is coming into play
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/sport/football-news/sfa-will-have-to-go-to-court-of-arbitration-for-sport-over-rangers-uefa-licence/
JOHN CLARKJULY 19, 2018 at 16:38
John, You are right but in the circumstances you refer to above, I think this would be treated as the crime of Perverting the Course of Justice (or an attempt if the matter hasn’t yet been concluded) rather than contempt of court which appears to require rather less evidence to convict. It’s usually a case of the judge making an adjudication on the straightforward circumstances of the case. In this case, it appears an order of the court was made and the individual concerned failed to comply without reasonable excuse. It could be as straightforward as that. Again, I’m not a lawyer. This is my own interpretation and I stand to be corrected.
We will see how the SFA deals with registration issues on Monday.
A 3-0 defeat for Hearts coming up?
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/6808
Barry Anderson
@BarryAnderson_
4m4 minutes ago
Barry Anderson Retweeted
As a very rough guide, Cove Rangers and Stranraer were each fined £2000 in 2016 for fielding ineligible players in the Betfred Cup.
HIGGY’S SHOESJULY 19, 2018 at 14:11
I hope admin allow this as its very important to clarify something. The original video has been met with 99.999999999% complete contempt on Rangers social media and everyone has expressed their disgust at the vile and sick scumbag who did it.
The video the comments in your post relate to are not THAT video. There is a second video with the wee guy and he is having a ball with the fans and dancing up on one of the fans shoulders. This is completely separate to the racist sicko.
The comments above are saying this is how fans should act and not like the other guy. Its important there is context here.
Andy NewportVerified account @AndyNewportPA
Response from Rangers to today’s SFA statement on 2012 UEFA licence case: ‘Rangers has always been clear about the futility of this action and hopes the Scottish FA will now put the matter to bed and agree to move on and concentrate on the development of Scottish Football…
Just don’t get it.
There has to be evidence of some wrongdoing by Rangers, or the JDPT would have come out and said otherwise. It must be quite serious, too, for again, if it was a mere technicality over dates etc, and consequently no big deal, they’d just censure ‘the club’ and got on with it. Control would be maintained by the people with most to lose.
Instead it may well be ‘sent upstairs’ to the CAS where it will be out of the control of ‘Friends of Rangers’. Unless there’s some ruse at play to create a situation where it is out of the SFA’s hands, but not of a nature to be dealt with by the CSA, meaning it just increases the lump in the Hampden carpet, I can’t see the benefit to either the SFA, Rangers, or TRFC to have it heard by what one might hope is a neutral, and very just, court.
As I said previously, the call to send it to the CAS by TRFC/King could well just be grandstanding, a sort of ‘well sue me’ moment, but could it be that the SFA are very much implicated (as we all suspect) and King is hoping to pressure them into dropping it like a hot potato as his last stand?
The only other scenario that makes sense to me is that TRFC have been presented with the evidence, and RFC are bang to rights leaving no option but to hand out a hefty fine, which, if the SFA say must be met by TRFC (to maintain the lie) will be too much for TRFC to bear. TRFC are not prepared/able to pay such a fine, but don’t want an end to the big lie (which would get them off the hook with the fine, but create another problem) so hope that they can avoid the ‘same club’ issue at the CAS, who might rule that the terms of the 5 Way Agreement lets TRFC off the hook.
Jingso.JimsieJuly 19, 2018 at 17:03
‘…My reading suggests that up to 3 months imprisonment & a fine of up to £2.5k is the maximum sanction available in a civil case. ‘
___________________
Yes.
But the point is that even when the Court order is in relation to a matter of civil law, a point can come when the act of defiance expressed in a refusal to comply becomes a crime, the maximum penalty for which (on conviction through the normal criminal trial processes) can be up to two years.
It is hard to establish at what point a judge would think that non-compliance of both a Regulatory Authority’s order AND a refusal to comply with the Court’s order to obey that order would be a serious interference in the system of Justice and that the public interest required the non-complier to be severely dealt with.If a Court can be ignored, what price the administration of justice?
As mentioned before, the TOP cannot be seen to lose in this matter. Losing would demonstrate that the final City regulatory body had no teeth, and could be ignored by anyone who fancied doing what the ‘concert party’ chose to do in order to enrich themselves ( or, rather, in the hope of enriching themselves).
The non-complier simply has to be put in his place in the wider interests of the financial world.
Celtic has refused to do anything for so long one might think they hold fans in contempt. All so they can get gate money from the unwashed, wonder whats going on there.Dirty Money.The fans paid good money to watch a fair game and Celtic had to be cajoled into action by res12 bhoys.Money seems more important than fairness.Just as long as we keep paying.I wish just once they would stand by the fans who stand by the club. Just once at least show some f*ckin passion.
From Maria on the Celtic blog,seems we are all gullible when it comes to our own club.
As I have said before it’s your own club that wants to move on and that’s the problem .
Listening to ex-SFA president talking about the points having to be awarded to Cove! Why? Hearts appear to have played an ineligible player!!You couldny make it up!What a shower of lying , cheating, get-it-right-up-ye b…rds are running our game?
EASYJAMBO
JULY 19, 2018 at 18:26
We will see how the SFA deals with registration issues on Monday. A 3-0 defeat for Hearts coming up?
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/6808…
=============================
Shirley, Hearts can simply call upon the expertise of one Sandy Bryson ?
He can pose as an ‘expert witness’
to explain how the player could be ‘imperfectly’ registered.
Hopefully, at some point a club will have the guts to specifically refer to the RFC industrial scale, registration cheating in mitigation ?
Post from Twitter
Amazing that none of the hacks has grasped what the SFA’s statement actually SAYS which is that Sevco wants CAS to decide if the charges themselves even stand. They want the Five Way Agreement upheld; Sevco’s appeal has nothing to do with CAS hearing the case itself.
StevieBCJuly 19, 2018 at 19:11
———
Precisely. Iirc, according to Bryson, if the misregistration is not known at the time the player plays, then he is imperfectly registered but eligible to play, because at the time no-one knew he wasn’t.
With one bound Hearts are free.
StevieBCJuly 19, 2018 at 19:11
‘..Shirley, Hearts can simply call upon the expertise of one Sandy Bryson ?’
___________________
In my rage at the likes of that ex-president of the SFA I forgot that ‘expert’s name and his doctrine: what was it again? -if you are imperfectly registered when you are registered, the fact that you have been imperfectly registereddoesn’t make you ineligible if that fact is discovered only after you have been imperfectly registered.
A.sehole of a human being: may he never prosper in this life and have some explaining to do in the hereafter!
ALLYJAMBOJULY 19, 2018 at 18:38
but create another problem) so hope that they can avoid the ‘same club’ issue at the CAS, who might rule that the terms of the 5 Way Agreement lets TRFC off the hook.
———————
Or they may say the governing body can’t have a secret 5 way agreement with only one member club.A kind of What do you mean you have a secret 5 way agreement that you made up,don’t give us it you bunch of crackpots,a secret 5 way agreement,listen to yourselves for feck sake,who do you think your are?
All I can ask when Hearts’ case is heard, is that they are dealt with within the rules of the SPFL, and if the rules say they lose the points, then so be it. I would imagine, though, that the rules have been tinkered with in the past half dozen years or so, and that a fine, in line with the two examples given in EJ’s post, will be the outcome. To do otherwise releases worms that the SPFL, and the SFA, would rather stay in the can, even if Hearts accept that fate without complaint.
In all honesty, Hearts should lose the points, not as a punishment (for it’s clearly a genuine mistake), but as a deterrent to any club that might see value in playing an ineligible player to give a better chance of progress in the competition. I can see the possibility that a dishonourable club might very well deliberately play ineligible players, just because they know they can get away with it.
It all seems a bit too contrived to me. The JPDT should just consider the case and hand down a decision which if not in favour of RFC then RFC can appeal to CAS arguing that the ruling body were not competent due to the five way agreement.Together with which version of RFC has questioned the competency in the first place? Is it RFC(IL) or TRFC…and again TRFC agreeing to accept RFC footballing liabilities in the five way makes this very messy indeed.
Here is my forecast of what will happen next.
1) The SFA will say Senior Counsel has advised them there is little chance of the case progressing at CAS, therefore the matter will not be progressed any further.
2) The SFA will refuse to say what punishment (if any) they believed was appropriate before the CAS situation arose.
3) The SFA will refuse to make the 5-way agreement public.
4) Celtic will go public on their website with a lot of information previously unseen by the general public, which will show why the licence should never have been awarded, both pre/post 31/03/2011. No other club will say anything.
5) The SFA will say only one club is asking questions. The media will back the SFA.
6) The SFA will say the matter is closed, that valuable lessons have been learned, and that you will never please everyone, especially in Glasgow. The media will say it is an ‘O*d F*rm argument.
7) Rangers will know that after this, and after the SFA refusal to hold a Judicial Review, that they are completely free to do as they please, and nothing will ever happen to them.
Is all of the above really so far fetched?
macfurglyJuly 19, 2018 at 19:18
StevieBCJuly 19, 2018 at 19:11———Precisely. Iirc, according to Bryson, if the misregistration is not known at the time the player plays, then he is imperfectly registered but eligible to play, because at the time no-one knew he wasn’t.With one bound Hearts are free.
________________
Not quite, MacF. Bryson didn’t say ‘not known’; I think, from memory, it was ‘not discovered’, as some of the disqualification cases were, I believe, known by the SFA registration department, but hadn’t been communicated to the clubs prior to the match involved taking place. Bryson invented a distinction between an error being discovered (and therefor known to the SFA) before the game in question, and rule breaking not discovered for some considerable time after the games were over.
upthehoopsJuly 19, 2018 at 20:25
Is all of the above really so far fetched?
_____________________
Sadly, it’s all too likely.
GUNNERBJULY 19, 2018 at 20:24
0
0 Rate This
It all seems a bit too contrived to me. The JPDT should just consider the case and hand down a decision which if not in favour of RFC then RFC can appeal to CAS arguing that the ruling body were not competent due to the five way agreement.
—————–
After the transfer embargo feck up.
The club succeeded in their application for a judicial review at the Court of Session in Edinburgh as Lord Glennie backed their assertion that a Scottish Football Association judicial panel had exceeded its powers in administering the ban on registering players.
And the
The Scottish Football Association has begun the process of appointing an independent commission to look into the fan violence which followed Saturday’s Scottish Cup final.
————–
Maybe The JPDT would prefer the matter to be taken out of their hands anyway
The evidence of Sandy Bryson, the SFA’s Head of Registrations, held the key as to why stronger punitive action was not taken by the tribunal.Under questioning, he explained that a player, once registered with the ruling body, remained registered with them until such time as his contract ended or that player left their club’s employment.
Consequently, even though the complete details of his contract had been wilfully withheld or any other breach had occurred, that registration, once accepted, would stand.
As a result of that policy, it was not possible for Nimmo Smith and his learned friends to state that the players who had benefited from side letters detailing the amounts to be paid into Employee Benefit Trusts, should not have been fielded during the decade under dispute.
It therefore followed that the results of the matches played during that time were valid and that there could not be a case for stripping of titles. Hence the £250,000 fine on the oldco.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9901434/How-Rangers-lost-but-still-managed-to-gain-victory.html
From the link above i just noticed.
David Murray, under whose ownership the EBTs were introduced, on Thursday night described the SPL investigation as “a witch hunt”
—
sound familiar?
—-
The imposition of an irrecoverable fine on an entity which is now in liquidation is futile and only prejudices the ability of existing creditors to recover any money,” he said.
“It is saddening that so much time, effort and money has been expended in pursuing a retrospective witch hunt against an entity in crisis.”
—–
sound familiar?
Auldheid@Auldheid3hReplying to @TheClumpany @JP____1872 and 3 others Here is the sketch. TRFC did not complain when charges were based on June & Sept submissions and said accusations re end March groundless. TRFC no longer saying that when presented with evidence but are now saying SFA not competent to decide. SFA say ok let CAS decide.
————–
I think this mirrors my thoughts in post JULY 19, 2018 at 20:39