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.
Cluster OneJuly 19, 2018 at 20:43
———-
Cheers.
I remember now. Once your players are registered you can break the rules, cheat, lie, whatever for a decade , or indeed forever, because even though you are breaking the terms of the registration it will not be revoked, or even questioned. There is in practice therefore no point whatsoever in rules such as having to declare all remunerations, unless you consider a £250,000 fine for a wilful breach involving whole squads for 10 years a deterrent.
The SFA need to be done away with.
Ian Maxwell has had enough time to make a move forward. He has done nothing, said nothing. Just another one of the gang. Get rid. The lot of them.
JIMBOJULY 19, 2018 at 21:45
Ian Maxwell has had enough time to make a move forward. He has done nothing, said nothing. Just another one of the gang. Get rid. The lot of them.
===========================
We will need to see how they move it forward, however as I have already said I think the SFA will use this moment to close the case.
Anyone know how vaporised got on today?
Where’s Paddy Malarkey?
And ‘Gaun the Killie’
And Dark Before Dawn ?
I miss them.
Lets see how this works
Justice delayed is justice denied.
The SFA is now officially pointless. So much for “slam dunk.”
A lot of references here to the 5WA re the proposed submission to the CAS.
Don’t forget it was also heavily rumoured via a Charlotte revelation that there were counter indemnities in play between the SFA and Greens TRFC. The basis of the indemnity was presumably that neither side would pursue the other for actions outwith those covered by LNS.
I’m in love with Jess Glynne
And George Ezra.
Seems to me that once again the guilty party are dictating terms and arrogantly getting thier way . Since when do guilty partys dictate thier punishment . Ive given up with Celtic doing the right thing here , seems we will never have a clean game . One club will always be looked after by the SFA . Mr. Maxwell new fresh start ? Nah more of the same me thinks
Roddy,
A lot of people agree with you. The best, worst, case scenario is that TRFC self destruct by their own volition. Celtic sit back and smile.
I hate it.
We should call them out, as should all other clubs.
The SFA are beyond repair. They know it. But are like the media, COWARDS, no life beyond or outwith their existing shit hole.
SmugasJuly 19, 2018 at 22:24
‘..A lot of references here to the 5WA re the proposed submission to the CAS. .’
_____________
Ever an optimist ( in the sense that I know that in the end Truth prevails) I am beginning to think that perhaps the readiness of the SFA to consider agreeing to a reference to the CAS is a sign of a readiness to allow the actions of previous members of the SFA board ( perhaps even of some present members) to be examined by folk who have no personal loyalties either to the SFA or to any club in in membership of the SFA.
In the expectation that maybe the whole house of cards that is TRFC Ltd will be brought down by the soft breath of European lawyers who are presented with the actual facts of the award of a UEFA competitions license to an unentitled club.
And maybe Maxwell has the support of sufficient numbers of honest men to call a halt to dishonest governance, and provide all and every bit of relevant evidence to the CAS, at no matter whose personal detriment.
Just to get the feckin stable clean for the first time in , how many years?-
Maybe King’s legal advisers have by their presumption caused him to shoot himself in the foot by seeking ‘arbitration’ by the CAS!
Maybe Maxwell and his supporters are ready now to repudiate any kind of ‘sword to the left breast’ oath of secrecy, and tell things as they are, or were.
And let King and RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd go hang.
Maybe.
There is one Scottish journalist I love. Even although I don’t always agree with him.
He is honest.
I will tell you tomorrow.
He is left wing, a Celtic supporter, surprise, surprise. And a lovely guy to know. Kind. He wasn’t fond of lamb.
You know?
Clever.
Bit of a show off!
Used to be handsome, not so much now!
Hates social media.
Well, its half past midnight. Im on my own.
So,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G4isv_Fylg
And,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOwihbur34E
Two PARADISE songs.
EJ, AJ, AH, JC, DBD, PM, RL, if you give me thumbs down I will be angry. And all the OCs
And Jean
And so to tomorrow, to see what is the latest in relation to the TOP’s case v yer man King.
I hope that whatever it is, it does not help the GASL or his concert party associates.
jimboJuly 20, 2018 at 00:31
‘..Well, its half past midnight. Im on my own.’
_________
No, you’re not, ffs!
But even I have to get to bed!
Get you to bed as well, and have pleasant dreams of the restoration of Truth and Sporting Integrity to the governance of Scottish Football.
Have to admit I was down in the pub this afternoon. I love my wee local.
I’ve lifted this over from CQN which is a response to the latest JPDT update
Chairbhoy on 19th July 2018 5:07 pm
Wow! Interesting development regarding the Rangers notice of complaint.
It sounds like the evidence the resolutioners presented on the 26 June made an impact…
Who conducts the prosecution at CAS?
===============
Auldheid
The real significance here is that in mid May TRFC said accusations around activity at end of March 2011 were groundless.
The SFA were presented with information that suggested otherwise, which would have been passed to TRFC for comment.
They have not disputed that evidence but have instead said SFA are not in a position to rule on the matter and have contended that the Notice of Complaint must be determined by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
That is more than welcome and is a point that was made to Celtic, when told the SFA Comp Off was going to investigate, that input would be needed from UEFA and HMRC for a correct decision to be made.
What is not clear, because what goes to CAS has still to be agreed, is whether
CAS will uphold a TRFC claim that the 5 Way is in effect a pardon for RFC’s misdeeds
or
that CAS will investigate if the licence was granted and monitored as UEFA intended their rules to be applied.
If the latter then CAS have already ruled on similar cases for Malaga in 2012 and Giannina in 2013 where they upheld UEFA’s decision that both clubs were in breach of UEFA FFP in similar circumstances and in Giannina case should not have been granted a licence in March.
It would be up to CAS to decide if there was a difference in the RFC application that made the grant legit. If not, and extracts of both Giannina and Malaga cases were provided to SFA two weeks ago, then an overdue payable did exist and how RFC got around that will become subject to CAS scrutiny and as a result UEFA scrutiny who don’t like being lied to.
Its a risk TRFC will be taking but if licence granted legitimately then that is all Res12 asked to establish.
If not that is up to God knows whom to decide on sanctions.
If TRFC are arguing that the 5 Way pardons them from sins of RFC, that puts 5 Way under CAS scrutiny and given that one part at least, the transfer of SFA Membership from RFC to TRFC/Newco conflicts with a UEFA Regulation designed to protect the integrity of UEFA competition (Article 12) then the integrity of the 5 Way comes under question.
Bottom line is this has to go to CAS and Celtic need to be more pro active in ensuring all factors are considered, because as matters stand TRFC are accusing Celtic shareholders of being trouble makers and Celtic and CSA and CST, who have been briefed, simply cannot let that go unchallenged .
Celtic should welcome CAS adjudication and not let SFA off the hook by not insisting SFA take the matter to CAS in order to satisfy their shareholders all was properly handled in 2011 in March and in May (before UEFA notified of clubs granted a licence) and in June and September as UEFA intended in their rules, which was the aim of Res12.
The question that should be asked now is why the issue was put to the SFA Compliance Officer at all if the JPDT process was not competent to judge.
Exactly why has there been such a huge reluctance to involve UEFA , whose advice CAS will have to seek.
AULDHEIDJULY 20,
This is correct. However it neglects to point out that it was the findings of the Compliance Officer after an 8 month investigation that found the accusations to be groundless. This was confirmed in writing to the club.
Whilst I believe the first part, no evidence relating to the previous investigation has been passed to the club. The hearing on the 26th June was solely about the 2 new charges which relate to the monitoring period
They havent disputed it because they were never given it and it had nothing to do with the notice of complaint. They have not been issued with a subsequent notice of complaint.
If we take a step back here, you are stating here that Rangers got a notice of complaint about 2 specific charges. They were told to prepare a response for 26th June. Then at some point between those two dates, you believe the SFA said to them, “oh by the way, there’s something else about our previous findings and we are not going to investigate them, but you need to explain them on the 26th June.”
I can 100% confirm this wouldn’t have ever happened and didn’t happen.
Rangers stance is simple and I set this out the other day before yesterday’s news. The Compliance Officer had a job. He took 8 months investigating the issuance of the licence. He consulted with all the authorities and legalese available to him and he found that the licence was issued correctly, in strict accordance of the wording of the rules.
During those findings, he should not have touched or looked at anything to do with the June or September submissions as they were not in scope. They had nothing to do with the licence granting. It is the club’s view, and mine, that the potential charges came about due to him stepping out of scope or that potentially, due to finding the first issue to be compliant, this was an attempt to appease people elsewhere.
The club’s submission on the 26th June confirmed this and also stated that due to the 5WA, this potential charge was toothless as well as being groundless. They stated it would need to go all the way to CAS if any charges were to be confirmed or brought.
The JPDT agreed with that and threw it over the fence.
To summarise. The presentations on the 26th June solely related to the charges made in May and no new evidence was introduced, given out, or asked to be commented on.
A main topic for debate these past few weeks has been the perceived arrogance of the English media during the World Cup. However, I do not believe a tendency to over praise the merits of their football team means that they are useless at everything else they do. For example, does anyone believe they would sit in compliant silence if the English FA signed a secret agreement with e.g Manchester United which granted them immunity from prosecution for rule breaking that other clubs would receive punishment for? Does anyone think they would tolerate people still being on the board at Old Trafford who were part of the rule breaking? In my view the answer is no to both and that the pressure on the FA would be so great that many heads would roll and the organisation would undergo complete reform. Yet in Scotland we have a media sitting in compliant silence as the Scottish FA signed a secret agreement with ‘Rangers’ which granted them immunity from prosecution for rule breaking that other clubs would receive punishment for. In addition there are people on the board at Ibrox who were part of the rule breaking. That really is quite incredible!
John ClarkJuly 19, 2018 at 23:58
SmugasJuly 19, 2018 at 22:24‘..A lot of references here to the 5WA re the proposed submission to the CAS. .’_____________Ever an optimist ( in the sense that I know that in the end Truth prevails) I am beginning to think that perhaps the readiness of the SFA to consider agreeing to a reference to the CAS is a sign of a readiness to allow the actions of previous members of the SFA board ( perhaps even of some present members) to be examined by folk who have no personal loyalties either to the SFA or to any club in in membership of the SFA.In the expectation that maybe the whole house of cards that is TRFC Ltd will be brought down by the soft breath of European lawyers who are presented with the actual facts of the award of a UEFA competitions license to an unentitled club.And maybe Maxwell has the support of sufficient numbers of honest men to call a halt to dishonest governance, and provide all and every bit of relevant evidence to the CAS, at no matter whose personal detriment.Just to get the feckin stable clean for the first time in , how many years?-Maybe King’s legal advisers have by their presumption caused him to shoot himself in the foot by seeking ‘arbitration’ by the CAS!Maybe Maxwell and his supporters are ready now to repudiate any kind of ‘sword to the left breast’ oath of secrecy, and tell things as they are, or were.And let King and RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd go hang.Maybe
______________________
Sadly, John, my own experience of life points to a more pessimistic view of lies and truth. I’m afraid too many people hold to the maxim, ‘truth will out’, a phrase written by a master of words, a playwriter of fiction.
Truth will only ‘out’ when those tasked with maintaining the truth will only accept the truth, and will be as determined as we are to ensure the lie tellers are exposed.
Like you, I see this possible shift to the CAS as potentially positive, but, as I understand it, the evidence presented to them would be supplied by the SFA, who it will be presumed have a profound interest in exposing the truth to the world. We know, and LNS proves this beyond doubt, they have another interest, and it isn’t tied to the truth. It is tied to their symbiotic relationship with accused…again!
Yesterday we heard that Hearts had made a genuine error in the registration of a young player and the SPFL will have to examine their playing of an ineligible player. Regardless of the outcome, I cannot believe, that in my club’s long history, that this is the first time that such an error has occurred. Even more so, I cannot believe that it hasn’t occurred at every other club at some point in their history, either. And yet, until now, it has only been the littlest clubs who’ve fallen foul of it. This, to me, points to a relationship between the SFA, and the various league bodies, having built up a culture of ignoring minor infringements, or making a friendly call, to get to ‘Head Office’ and correct the error before anyone finds out, to ensure the big players of Scottish football don’t lose out.
Once such a culture is in place it becomes the norm to assume any uncovered ‘mistake’ is no worse than what’s gone before, and the cover up lies begin, and by the time the true level of ‘mistake’ has been discovered to be corruption, as in the EBT cases and the Euro License, too many lies have been told and accepted to go back and stick to the truth.
Here’s a wee thought, by the time the case gets to the CAS, the man who headed up the investigation will be gone. Coincidence?
In bygone days ragers 1872 would have been more than happy with the SFA dealing with their little indescretions , I think we all know why .
So now in 2018 sevco 2012 are saying the SFA do not have the jurisdiction to deal with their case .
IMO King and the SFA know they have been found out and king is looking to take down the SFA if the whole thing isn’t swept under the the now mountainous hampden carpet .
could this hypothetical conversation lead to this part of the mealy mouthed update .
sfa ……..the gig is up ,these res 12 guys will just not let it go and they have the proof
sevco …. and
sfa ……… we are going to have to charge and punish you ,if we are to keep the BIG LIE going
sevco ….. we both know you knew too but you signed the 5 way agreement , think we will see what CAS thinks
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.
WHERE’S MA BRUSH
AuldheidJuly 20, 2018 at 02:13
I’ve lifted this over from CQN which is a response to the latest JPDT updateChairbhoy on 19th July 2018 5:07 pmWow! Interesting development regarding the Rangers notice of complaint.It sounds like the evidence the resolutioners presented on the 26 June made an impact…Who conducts the prosecution at CAS?===============AuldheidThe real significance here is that in mid May TRFC said accusations around activity at end of March 2011 were groundless.The SFA were presented with information that suggested otherwise, which would have been passed to TRFC for comment.They have not disputed that evidence but have instead said SFA are not in a position to rule on the matter and have contended that the Notice of Complaint must be determined by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.That is more than welcome and is a point that was made to Celtic, when told the SFA Comp Off was going to investigate, that input would be needed from UEFA and HMRC for a correct decision to be made.What is not clear, because what goes to CAS has still to be agreed, is whetherCAS will uphold a TRFC claim that the 5 Way is in effect a pardon for RFC’s misdeedsorthat CAS will investigate if the licence was granted and monitored as UEFA intended their rules to be applied.If the latter then CAS have already ruled on similar cases for Malaga in 2012 and Giannina in 2013 where they upheld UEFA’s decision that both clubs were in breach of UEFA FFP in similar circumstances and in Giannina case should not have been granted a licence in March.It would be up to CAS to decide if there was a difference in the RFC application that made the grant legit. If not, and extracts of both Giannina and Malaga cases were provided to SFA two weeks ago, then an overdue payable did exist and how RFC got around that will become subject to CAS scrutiny and as a result UEFA scrutiny who don’t like being lied to.Its a risk TRFC will be taking but if licence granted legitimately then that is all Res12 asked to establish.If not that is up to God knows whom to decide on sanctions.If TRFC are arguing that the 5 Way pardons them from sins of RFC, that puts 5 Way under CAS scrutiny and given that one part at least, the transfer of SFA Membership from RFC to TRFC/Newco conflicts with a UEFA Regulation designed to protect the integrity of UEFA competition (Article 12) then the integrity of the 5 Way comes under question.Bottom line is this has to go to CAS and Celtic need to be more pro active in ensuring all factors are considered, because as matters stand TRFC are accusing Celtic shareholders of being trouble makers and Celtic and CSA and CST, who have been briefed, simply cannot let that go unchallenged .Celtic should welcome CAS adjudication and not let SFA off the hook by not insisting SFA take the matter to CAS in order to satisfy their shareholders all was properly handled in 2011 in March and in May (before UEFA notified of clubs granted a licence) and in June and September as UEFA intended in their rules, which was the aim of Res12.The question that should be asked now is why the issue was put to the SFA Compliance Officer at all if the JPDT process was not competent to judge.Exactly why has there been such a huge reluctance to involve UEFA , whose advice CAS will have to seek.
__________________________________
You have given me some cause to be a bit more optimistic, Auldheid, and hope that John’s belief that truth will prevail will, at least in this case, hold true.
In answer to the last line of your post, might I suggest any reluctance to involve UEFA was down to the fact that one of the SFA’s main aims was to not let UEFA get involved!
THELAWMAN2JULY 20, 2018 at 06:49(EDIT)
Thanks for that information.
Still sticking to the line the licence was properly granted after Comp Off and TRFC looked into it.
No problem with that as long as the basis for that decision is made clear.
I did wonder at TRFC keeness to go to CAS and I can see why now, but as long as all the documented information is put to them it is the right way to go.
In the absence of UEFA itself looking into matters which is all Res12 asked for, no accusations of anything ever made, just requests for information that satisfies everyone that SFA and RFC acted properly throughout 2011, then CAS is the next best thing.
If grant period left out then an explanation why , quoting the rules and if UEFA were asked their position and what they were told and what they said will put the matter to bed.
Of course the Comp Off might be off before he can explain. That wouldn’t be helpful.
As AllyJambo alluded to earlier, my concern is that the SFA can set the terms of reference for any CAS inquiry to suit themselves by limiting the timescale parameters and restricting the documentation provided, precisely as they did to great effect in the LNS sham.
This being so, don’t be at all surprised if the CAS inquiry only looks at events contained within the half-hour window prior to midnight on the 31st of June 2011 concerning Doris the Ibrox tea-lady, and exempts everyone else from scrutiny.
After all this is Rangers* we are talking about and we all know that, even when they are caught red-handed, they miraculously avoid any form of repercussion. It’s literally written into a contract this time.
Meanwhile, in a move which proves without a shadow of doubt that they have transgressed yet again, our friend The Lawman reappears on SFM to argue the minutiae of black being white.
Allyjambo,
Ill take a look at Jambos Kickback this evening but, for the moment, is there any talk amongst you guys about challenging the ‘unregistered’ decision and citing LNS as precedent? Now that would be fun.
As someone else has pointed out, this is a relatively new thing for the Ibrox outfit to challenge the football authorities on everything. It goes back to them going to court claiming that a player signing ban was not within the punishments available to the SFA.
They put up bunting for LNS though. I wonder why.
CoS update. Two day proof hearing to be held n front of another commercial judge, possibly on 14th August unless the two parties can agree on how an offer will be progressed before then. Lord Bannatyne keen to see the matter concluded.
HIGHLANDERJULY 20, 2018 at 09:42
Meanwhile, in a move which proves without a shadow of doubt that they have transgressed yet again, our friend The Lawman reappears on SFM to argue the minutiae of black being white.
____________________________________________________________
I have never been away to reappear. Unfortunately my comments are all in moderation and by the time they are released, they are sometimes 20+ comments behind the current chat and therefore nobody sees them.
This also, of course, tempers the amount of times i post. I would love to just join in and be a bit of a devils advocate on things as irrespective of peoples strong opinions, its very healthy to have that balance and check, even if ultimately it wont change peoples minds on things.
The TOP QC made reference to King’s statement earlier this week. Lord Bannatyne confirmed that he had read it in the Times.
Lord Davidson again put forward King’s argument that TOP had delayed matters by insisting on the funds being in a UK account.
I don’t think Lord Bannatyne was overly impressed by that argument given what has been said and done previously.
HelpumootJuly 20, 2018 at 09:44
Allyjambo,Ill take a look at Jambos Kickback this evening but, for the moment, is there any talk amongst you guys about challenging the ‘unregistered’ decision and citing LNS as precedent? Now that would be fun.As someone else has pointed out, this is a relatively new thing for the Ibrox outfit to challenge the football authorities on everything. It goes back to them going to court claiming that a player signing ban was not within the punishments available to the SFA.They put up bunting for LNS though. I wonder why.
____________________
I’ve not looked at that particular thread on Jamboskickback, for, as I said previously, I just hope that the matter is dealt with according to the rules and I have no desire to debate the whys and wherefores of it. Hearts slipped up and they carry the responsibility for it and must face whatever the result of their carelessness is, even if that means the loss of three points.
I would never wish my club to use the abuse of the rules by another club as an excuse to be let off, though it would provide an interesting scenario. Furthermore, if the tweet EJ quoted yesterday is correct, then it is most likely that Hearts will get off with a fine, which is OK as long as that’s what it states in the rules of the competition/SPFL.
Besides, as Hearts clearly haven’t cheated, how on earth would Bryson’s rule apply?
Lawman.
As a Hearts fan, I will accept whatever punishment is meted out to the club.
Docked 3 points, fined or thrown out of the tournament. Those are the rules after all.
I won’t like it but our stupidity (honest stupidity) should warrant some form of punishment.
Can I ask you what YOU think should happen to Hearts?
HS
My guess is that Sevco are gambling on the SFA bottling it……Fearful of a UEFA imposed association sanction for their own part in it, and the obvious knock-on effects possibly felt at club level.
However the SFA is partially under new management, with staff who played no part in any of the goings on. I would suggest to them they continue to play no part in it, other than perform the honest duties they hold office to. Transparency and honesty will be their saviour.
To become involved in any cover-up will be career suicide and possibly criminal.
The association should embark on a path of dis-association from the individuals involved. It is on that they will be judged. …Don’t try to sleep with another man’s guilt on your conscience is my advice.
It will weigh heavy.
Be the man that cannot be bought, or forever live in the pockets of rancid and ruthless criminals.
Push those remit dates back, and I can think of no better starting date than September ’99, and Campbell Ogilvie’s introduction of the DOS scheme. That date is at the root of the license application. Lets see how Rangers(I.L.) like that.
Do that, and whatever may follow, you can count on our full support.
Fitba’ is nothing without fans.
easyJamboJuly 20, 2018 at 09:49
CoS update. Two day proof hearing to be held n front of another commercial judge, possibly on 14th August unless the two parties can agree on how an offer will be progressed before then. Lord Bannatyne keen to see the matter concluded.
__________________
can I ask?
Proof of what, EJ? Proof that King is in contempt, or proof that he must comply with the TOP and COS rulings?
HIGGY’S SHOESJULY 20, 2018 at 10:18
I think a very small fine and slap on the wrists would be the best way to deal with it in my honest opinion.
If the @ScottishFA refuse to take Rangers to CAS
then
they will be guilty of allowing Rangers to benefit from co-efficient points gained pre 2012,
whilst
allowing them to take no responsibility for the rule breaches that earned those points
That would be bias in full sight
Yesterday and today we see examples of the way King manages to squirm out of so many court cases and inquiries. He never proves he, or his club, are not guilty of the charges, he just somehow keeps pushing against authority by attacking that authorities very right to hold him to justice, and without winning, prevents, or delays, justice. It’s almost as though, in their determination to be seen to be fair and just, the authorities bend over backwards to assist a naughty child until they can’t move forward. We now have a judge ‘keen to see the matter concluded’, suggesting he, and so the law, is fed up with it. That, of course, could be either good or bad news for King.
The bad news for us is that the 24th of August is just before I go off on holiday (28th) to Egypt, where I’ve been on a number of bad news days for Rangers (IL) and TRFC.
BarcabhoyJuly 20, 2018 at 10:45
If the @ScottishFA refuse to take Rangers to CASthenthey will be guilty of allowing Rangers to benefit from co-efficient points gained pre 2012, whilst allowing them to take no responsibility for the rule breaches that earned those pointsThat would be bias in full sight
____________________
This, I think, is the reason why King/TRFC mentioned the 5 Way Agreement. Not because he has genuine grounds to believe it would, by it’s content, save Rangers/TRFC from any sanctions, but because it puts pressure on the SFA not to go to the CAS. For, in my opinion, they (the SFA) would have much more to worry about from an expose and examination of that document than from the exposure of the Big Lie.
I’d love to hear their argument as to how they think they have the right to offer any member club, regardless of the circumstances, immunity over sanctions for past wrongdoings. For such an agreement suggests they are aware of the likelihood, or even the certainty, that certain, yet to be exposed, wrongdoings have already been perpetrated by the club.
BARCABHOYJULY 20, 2018 at 10:45
If the @ScottishFA refuse to take Rangers to CAS then they will be guilty of allowing Rangers to benefit from co-efficient points gained pre 2012, whilst allowing them to take no responsibility for the rule breaches that earned those points
That would be bias in full sight
__________________________________________________________
No points were gained from anything to do with the current potential “rule breaches” being considered going to CAS. Any penalty related to the 2 current potential “rule breaches” would relate to season 2012/13 where no coefficient points were gained.
AllyjamboJuly 20, 2018 at 10:19
easyJamboJuly 20, 2018 at 09:49 CoS update. Two day proof hearing to be held n front of another commercial judge, possibly on 14th August unless the two parties can agree on how an offer will be progressed before then. Lord Bannatyne keen to see the matter concluded.__________________can I ask?Proof of what, EJ? Proof that King is in contempt, or proof that he must comply with the TOP and COS rulings?
______________________
Or could it be he wants to hear proof that, as King claims, the TOP have been somewhat obstructive by insisting his funds be held in a UK bank, which, if accepted, might get him off with the contempt charge?
Allyjambo July 20, 2018 at 10:19
Proof of what, EJ? Proof that King is in contempt, or proof that he must comply with the TOP and COS rulings?
==========================
A “proof” in Scots legal parlance is effectively a trial for civil matters, where both sides are able to put their cases to a judge, who will rule on the matter. That should be the end of it, barring another appeal to the Inner House.
I believe that “trials” are only for criminal or jury matters.
Lord Bannatyne said that he wasn’t going to be available until April next year, so the proof (as requested by TOP and agreed by Lord Davidson) would have to be heard by another judge, as he wanted the matter dealt with as soon as possible.
He basically told Lord Davidson to have a word with his client and get things sorted out. Lord Davidson nodded in agreement with the look of someone saying “I know, I know”. It might be a good thing for King that Lord Bannatyne will not rule on the matter as he seemed to be exasperated by the failure of King to submit a code compliant offer.
I don’t think that Rangers travel partner is providing much of a service to fans.
RangersFC SLO @RangersFCSLO
Unfortunately we are unable to offer supporters a dedicated trip to Croatia for our next Europa League match. We were forced to take this decision only after lengthy discussions with our travel partner, Thomas Cook Sport.
Wow. Where to start?
That THELAWMAN2( JULY 20, 2018 at 06:49) posted such a minutiae based defence gives me hope why else else would Rangers be paying him to obfuscate? Joking (or am I?)
AllyJambo – on registrations: many teams have incorrectly registered players. Not many have correctly registered players and STILL been busted (I give you J. Cadete).
Corrupt Official (10:19) – it’s the coverup that gets you. Ministers don’t get fired for being rubbish, they get fired for lying to show they aren’t rubbish. IIRC Nixon got busted for lying to Congress rather than the breakin itself… thing is, lying can be proven, misinterpreting stuff can’t. That’s why the coverup gets you…
Today in Court( further to eJ’s posts)
Before Lord Bannatyne, Court 7, Parliament House.
Mr X ( I didn’t catch his name ) for the Takeover Panel,and one lawyer
Lord Davidson for the Respondent (Mr King), and two lawyers.
3 gentlemen of the Press, and eJ and I in the public gallery. No one else other than the Clerk,and the macer.
QC for the TOP: You will have seen, my Lord, the most recent ‘adjustments’ since 22nd June?
Lord B: (nods)
QC: I have three observations to make. First,The Respondent has not made an offer-nothing has been done since last April.
Secondly,the Court has already rejected the contention that there are no funds. The arguments are the same old arguments under a new guise. The Court is not about how the offer is to be made, but that it is made.
Third, on the Rangers FC website there is Dave King’s ‘supporters update’. I have a copy of it here, m’Lord , [ copy handed up]. The first page is about football, the second page is about off-field matters and the Takeover Panel. The second paragraph refers to South Africa, and funds……
Lord B: Yes, I saw it reported in the Times.
QC: ……. The delay has been caused by the Respondent.. there is the phrase ‘no end in sight’. And ‘no end in sight’? -it would be if there was compliance!
Lord B: I agree. I can’t personally deal but it could be by another judge in very short order: in a two-day hearing on 14 August.
I suggest I allow adjustment until August 7 , I imagine that there is nothing much more by way of ‘adjustment’. A proof. Whether discussion between Counsel could lead to an offer? Rather than King writing back and forth to the Takeover Panel?
QC: A two-day proof sounds about right. There might be a difficulty about dates ?
Lord B: Another judge has availability……Lord Davidson, have you anything to add?
Lord Davidson (QC for King): No, m’Lord.
Lord B: Can you agree that discussion with counsel could cut across the toing and froing? The Takeover Panel is interested only in compliance, not the ‘how’.
Lord Davidson: (smiling)My lord’s observations will be conveyed to Mr King. In his defence, the Takeover Panel contributed to delay by requiring him to move monies to the UK.
Lord B: I leave it to my Clerk to agree a date in August. I might have to impose a date, though.
Thank you.
Proceedings lasted no more than 20 minutes.
CAS has ruled in AC Milan’s favour re their suspension from UEFA competitions.
https://twitter.com/LombardiAssocs/status/1020262590767824896
Lombardi Associates @LombardiAssocs 8m8 minutes ago
Court of Arbitration for Sport annuls UEFA decision to exclude AC Milan from UEFA club competitions on basis that sanction not proportionate. In particular, the current financial situation of the club is now considered to be better following the recent change in club ownership.
JOCKYBHOYJULY 20, 2018 at 11:36
4
0 Rate This
Wow. Where to start?That THELAWMAN2( JULY 20, 2018 at 06:49) posted such a minutiae based defence gives me hope why else else would Rangers be paying him to obfuscate? Joking (or am I?)
___________________________________________________
By day, i slate King and Co.
By night, they pay me.
LOL
Great court reporting again, JC and EJ.
JC, can you clarify the final exchange between Lord B and King’s counsel, was it exactly as you wrote?
“Lord Davidson: (smiling)My lord’s observations will be conveyed to Mr King. In his defence, the Takeover Panel contributed to delay by requiring him to move monies to the UK.
Lord B: I leave it to my Clerk to agree a date in August. I might have to impose a date, though.Thank you.”
For it reads like Lord B blanked the introduction of Lord D’s belated defence of King, which would be a nice ending to the hearing
, in which case it might appear that King’s counsel only introduced it as something he was specifically instructed by King to say, and not as something he, himself, believed worth saying.
JC or EJ,
What was the actual purpose of today’s hearing? I don’t think I read, anywhere before today, what it was. Was it just to set a date for ‘proof’, and did it relate to ‘contempt’ or just the TOP’s continued efforts to force King to comply?
Allyjambo July 20, 2018 at 13:00
JC or EJ,
What was the actual purpose of today’s hearing? I don’t think I read, anywhere before today, what it was. Was it just to set a date for ‘proof’, and did it relate to ‘contempt’ or just the TOP’s continued efforts to force King to comply?
=========================
It certainly wasn’t a “contempt” hearing, more of Lord Bannatyne seeking information on where things had gone. He was clearly minded to secure an early resolution, in whatever form that might take, be it a offer being made, or by way of a proof. My interpretation is that the proof hearing will be the one at which contempt is raised.
Has King complied?
If not, why not, and when will he comply, if at all?
I don’t think he will get away with repeating the arguments that have previously been rejected by Lord Bannatyne, but given that it will be a new judge who won’t be as familiar with the case, then who knows how it will play out.
From the BBC, I got the impression Lord B is pretty miffed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44901139
Spe Expecto
EASYJAMBOJULY 20, 2018 at 12:13
CAS has ruled in AC Milan’s favour re their suspension from UEFA competitions.
————————————————————————————————————-
Depending on how things pan out in court of course, but the SFA couldn’t possibly let club membership stand, if the major shareholder of the owning company, was in the jail.
A short statement that they(SFA), will have no choice but to issue an immediate suspension of membership if he doesn’t do as he’s telt, would help clarify matters.
A warning would be appropriate at this juncture…. Just so everybody knows where they stand.
AllyjamboJuly 20, 2018 at 12:54
‘…JC, can you clarify the final exchange between Lord B and King’s counsel, was it exactly as you wrote?’
_____________________
Literally word for word, Aj.
The judge,of course, didn’t ignore Lord D!
He nodded smilingly in recognition of Lord D’s observation,before he said ‘I leave it to my clerk to……”
It’s not statement o’clock yet but I see that the Rangers webpage now has an appropriate section added…. 🙂
Scottish Football needs a strong legal system.
AllyjamboJuly 20, 2018 at 13:00
‘JC or EJ,What was the actual purpose of today’s hearing?
_____________________
I think eJ’s answer just about sums it up.
It’s pretty clear that neither the TOP nor the Court has any interest other than in getting King to comply: if he complies, end of the problem. The TOP’s authority as Regulator will have been upheld, and the shareholders of RIFC plc will have had fair treatment.
If he has not complied by whatever date in August the ‘proof’ is scheduled for, then the Court, having satisfied itself that everything the TOP has done is kosher, and that every opportunity has been given to King, and that the Court Order was valid and that every reasonable opportunity has since then been afforded to King to comply, will acknowledge the fact that there has been no compliance and will find King to be in contempt.
I rather think that King’s Counsel will strongly advise King to comply immediately.
This is a case of almost immeasurable importance to the City- for a company director to defy the Regulator and get away with it would discredit that body and render it impotent.
For a company director to defy the Court of Session and get away with it would be utterly unthinkable.
I think, incidentally, that Lord Bannatyne’s ‘unavailability might be related to the fact he would not wish to be as it were the one who decided that King was in contempt because it’s his own order that King might be found guilty disobeying!
asyJamboJuly 20, 2018 at 13:35
Allyjambo July 20, 2018 at 13:00JC or EJ,What was the actual purpose of today’s hearing? I don’t think I read, anywhere before today, what it was. Was it just to set a date for ‘proof’, and did it relate to ‘contempt’ or just the TOP’s continued efforts to force King to comply?=========================It certainly wasn’t a “contempt” hearing, more of Lord Bannatyne seeking information on where things had gone. He was clearly minded to secure an early resolution, in whatever form that might take, be it a offer being made, or by way of a proof. My interpretation is that the proof hearing will be the one at which contempt is raised.Has King complied?If not, why not, and when will he comply, if at all?I don’t think he will get away with repeating the arguments that have previously been rejected by Lord Bannatyne, but given that it will be a new judge who won’t be as familiar with the case, then who knows how it will play out.
___________________
Thanks for that EJ. Interesting that it will be a new judge, who, as you suggest, will not be as familiar with the case, and, therefor, perhaps, not as scunnered by King and maybe prepared to give him some benefit of the doubt that someone who has heard it all before would dismiss as the flannel of a liar. Hopefully, whoever it is that sits, will have been updated fully and be more than adept at spotting a chancer when he comes across one in his court. Still, it could be seen as another lucky break for King, and reward for his delaying tactics.
John ClarkJuly 20, 2018 at 13:54
AllyjamboJuly 20, 2018 at 12:54‘…JC, can you clarify the final exchange between Lord B and King’s counsel, was it exactly as you wrote?’_____________________Literally word for word, Aj.The judge,of course, didn’t ignore Lord D!He nodded smilingly in recognition of Lord D’s observation,before he said ‘I leave it to my clerk to……”
____________________–
Pretty much thought that would be the case, and your observational skills are to be commended
I’m sure that is how journalists of yesteryear would report things, not content to religiously repeat word for word a speech or statement, but try to get across the nuances and facial expressions that can often say much more then the actual bare words ever could.
Good to know that both King’s counsel, and the judge, saw cause for mirth in King’s ‘defence’.
redlichtieJuly 20, 2018 at 14:10
Attachment
It’s not statement o’clock yet but I see that the Rangers webpage now has an appropriate section added…. ?Scottish Football needs a strong legal system.
___________
Am I being a bit naïve when I ask, is that for real?
John ClarkJuly 20, 2018 at 14:27
I think, incidentally, that Lord Bannatyne’s ‘unavailability might be related to the fact he would not wish to be as it were the one who decided that King was in contempt because it’s his own order that King might be found guilty disobeying!
______________
That makes a lot of sense, John, for the last thing he’d want is to give King grounds for further delay by looking to appeal on grounds of a biased judge!
Big thanks John and EJ.
From all of us.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 20, 2018 at 14:45
redlichtieJuly 20, 2018 at 14:10 AttachmentIt’s not statement o’clock yet but I see that the Rangers webpage now has an appropriate section added…. Scottish Football needs a strong legal system.___________
Am I being a bit naïve when I ask, is that for real?
===============================
Sorry AJ, my sense of humour. 🙂
I understand your question though as with DCK absolutely nothing would surprise me.
Scottish Football needs good Photoshop skills.
JOHN CLARK
JULY 20, 2018 at 11:38
Today in Court( further to eJ’s posts)
Before Lord Bannatyne, Court 7, Parliament House.
Mr X ( I didn’t catch his name ) for the Takeover Panel,and one lawyerLord Davidson for the Respondent (Mr King), and two lawyers.
…
Proceedings lasted no more than 20 minutes.
===============================
So, that’s a judge, 2 QC’s and 3 lawyers at a Court of Session hearing;
– to take 20 minutes
– to set a later court date?
Does anyone have a rough idea of just how much this would have cost ?!
>25K
>50K
>???
[Because King is obviously taking the p!ss, are our learned friends taking the p!ss too? I presume they will all get paid, regardless of duration and outcome?]
REDLICHTIE
JULY 20, 2018 at 15:06
Am I being a bit naïve when I ask, is that for real?===============================
Sorry AJ, my sense of humour…
===============================
Nice one!
[I confess it did take me a wee while to spot it.]
I’ll get my glasses.
So unless I’m missing something the Scottish FA have accepted that they do not have jurisdiction over their own rules. How can that be? It’s their rules. It should be noted that no explanation is given(nor being asked for by the press) as to how jurisdiction is outside of Hampden.
In the real world the SFA’S panel would have brought sentencing onto Rangers , it would then be up to Rangers to take their case to CAS, a whole different ball game of course. Do it this way and it can never be taken to CAS. Why? Because it’s 2 different clubs. CAS will be puzzled by any SFA appearance in front of them.
misterlightbulbjokeJuly 20, 2018 at 15:55
So unless I’m missing something the Scottish FA have accepted that they do not have jurisdiction over their own rules. How can that be? It’s their rules. It should be noted that no explanation is given(nor being asked for by the press) as to how jurisdiction is outside of Hampden.In the real world the SFA’S panel would have brought sentencing onto Rangers , it would then be up to Rangers to take their case to CAS, a whole different ball game of course. Do it this way and it can never be taken to CAS. Why? Because it’s 2 different clubs. CAS will be puzzled by any SFA appearance in front of them.
___________________
I think the TRFC/King call to take it to the CAS is an effort by King to blackmail the SFA into dropping the charge, and that is why the 5 Way Agreement was mentioned. It is more than likely a bomb that could blow the SFA apart, and King knows/believes the SFA won’t want to set it ticking.
King is basically telling them, continue with the course your on, fine us or make any other sanctions, and we will go to court over the breaking of the 5 Way Agreement. Go to the CAS and we will use the agreement in our defence. Rock and a hard place.
Is there a set period of time that the SFA have got to make the decision of going or not going to the Court of Abritation concerning old club.
misterlightbulbjokeJuly 20, 2018 at 15:55
‘..So unless I’m missing something ..’
___________________
I think perhaps the SFA would be thinking of the other ( perhaps the principal) function of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: ‘arbitration’, rather than its ‘Appellate’ function.
Arbitration presumably keeps matters out of the sphere of ‘law’, and probably allows for face-saving and perhaps secret-keeping gentlemen’s agreements that a full-scale court battle might force to the surface.
There are probably still too few honest men in office in the SFA prepared to get all the dirt out in a legal framework.
If there were, then they would repudiate the 5-Way Agreement drop the charges against TRFC Ltd as being made against a body that didn’t even exist at the time of the offences, and officially acknowledge that TRFC Ltd is not, cannot possibly be, entitled to the honours and titles of RFC(IL) and forbid them to trade and advertise themselves as if they were the old Rangers.
EASYJAMBOJULY 20, 2018 at 12:13
My reading of it is that Milan are still guilty but the penalty deemed too severe as the Adjudicatory Chamber didn’t have all the facts at its disposal at the time the decision was rendered .
http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_5808__ENGLISH_.pdf
John Clark
“If there were, then they would repudiate the 5-Way Agreement drop the charges against TRFC Ltd as being made against a body that didn’t even exist at the time of the offences, and officially acknowledge that TRFC Ltd is not, cannot possibly be, entitled to the honours and titles of RFC(IL) and forbid them to trade and advertise themselves as if they were the old Rangers.”
I agree there is a sense of pretence in this whole shenanigans that by taking a new club dressed as the old to the brink of a CAS, to me is nothing but a show and keeps up the pretence, till the day i die i will never accept a football club liquidated was able to resurrect as the same, not happening.
Clock is ticking on this and i believe they are hoping the football will have started to distract attention away from it.
What does Dodgy Dave King and Ronaldo have in common ?
…no really!
They both have criminal records for fiddling their taxes.
“Cristiano Ronaldo ‘accepts two-year suspended prison sentence and pays Spanish authorities £12.1m’ as part of deal to end tax dispute
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5973913/Cristiano-Ronaldo-accepts-two-year-suspended-prison-sentence-tax-claims.html ”
And could be a lot more problematic for Ronaldo: he is relatively well known over here, but this conviction could cost him some endorsements, and add complications to working in the States.
From The Scotsman:
SFA face six-figure legal bill to fine Rangers £5k – reports
New chief Ian Maxwell and the SFA board are considering whether to fight Rangers in the Court of Arbitration for Sport over the award of a Uefa licence in 2011, according to the Daily Record.
SFA chief executive Ian Maxwell. Picture: SNS
It would cost Scottish football’s governing body well into six figures in legal fees to be granted permission to hit the Ibrox side with a £5,000 fine.
A £10,000 fine and suspension from the game for a year is another possible punishment, but that remains highly unlikely.
Though the money may be better spent elsewhere, the SFA fear a backlash from supporters and other clubs if they were to let the case drop.
It was announced on Thursday that the Glasgow club’s legal team had successfully argued that the issues surrounding the licence for the 2011-12 season would need to be dealt with by the Swiss-based court under the terms of the five-way agreement, which allowed Rangers to continue playing in 2012.
Rangers refused to accept a notice of complaint issued in May by the SFA compliance officer which raised two charges relating to complying with UEFA rules, observing the principles of sportsmanship and “behaving towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith”.
torrejohnbhoyJuly 20, 2018 at 17:26 (Edit)
Here is a daft idea.
Why don’t we set up a crowd funding effort to offset some of SFA’s costs as long as all the information covering March, End May, End June and end September is put to CAS to decide?
Or do we just turn our back on the game because those governing are not up to the job nor willing to change how the game is currently governed with no oversight, no accountability and no transparency when it really counts?
I wouldn’t be too sure on sanctions either if it were to transpire that dishonesty to UEFA was involved but I’d take full SFA reform as the price of mercy.
AuldheidJuly 20, 2018 at 17:53
If it was possible that, say, the Resolution 12 guys could petition the CAS, then I’d be glad to donate.
torrejohnbhoyJuly 20, 2018 at 17:26
From The Scotsman:SFA face six-figure legal bill to fine Rangers £5k – reportsNew chief Ian Maxwell and the SFA board are considering whether to fight Rangers in the Court of Arbitration for Sport over the award of a Uefa licence in 2011, according to the Daily Record.SFA chief executive Ian Maxwell. Picture: SNSIt would cost Scottish football’s governing body well into six figures in legal fees to be granted permission to hit the Ibrox side with a £5,000 fine.A £10,000 fine and suspension from the game for a year is another possible punishment, but that remains highly unlikely.Though the money may be better spent elsewhere, the SFA fear a backlash from supporters and other clubs if they were to let the case drop.It was announced on Thursday that the Glasgow club’s legal team had successfully argued that the issues surrounding the licence for the 2011-12 season would need to be dealt with by the Swiss-based court under the terms of the five-way agreement, which allowed Rangers to continue playing in 2012.Rangers refused to accept a notice of complaint issued in May by the SFA compliance officer which raised two charges relating to complying with UEFA rules, observing the principles of sportsmanship and “behaving towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith”.
_______________________
I think they’d get rather a hefty backlash if they did fine any club £5,000 for the cheating RFC committed to obtain that Euro license. On the other hand, I think that £10,000 fine and one year ban would lead to TRFC going to the CAS to end the Big Lie!
And just why would any club be banned for a year from domestic football (not that I think there was ever the possibility of it happening) as opposed to the less draconian ban from Europe (which is quite possible as most clubs would survive with no Euro cash, even TRFC might manage that if they cut their cloth accordingly, in anticipation)?
Answer: To keep it out of the hands of UEFA, perhaps?
Is it not the case, Rangers are saying that they are a different club and the charges should be against the old club. The SFA are chasing the new club for the old clubs problems. Bullying poor Dave, shame on the SFA. Thats why their going to CAS to clear this up!
Spe Expecto
FinlochJuly 20, 2018 at 14:56
________________________________
Yes, from me too Finloch. Thanks a lot to our two intrepid reporters!!
EASYJAMBOJULY 20, 2018 at 11:31
23
0 Rate This
I don’t think that Rangers travel partner is providing much of a service to fans.
RangersFC SLO @RangersFCSLOUnfortunately we are unable to offer supporters a dedicated trip to Croatia for our next Europa League match. We were forced to take this decision only after lengthy discussions with our travel partner, Thomas Cook Sport.
————————
Thomas Cook Sport, Manchester, £129,216.56. Rangers Oldco creditor.