To Comply or not to Comply ?

ByAuldheid

To Comply or not to Comply ?

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

  1. The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
  2. 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

http://tiny.cc/y6sxsy

 

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.

  1. 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.
  2. FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
  3. 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).
  4. To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
  5. 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:

 

  1.  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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

  1. Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
  2. At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
  3. 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.

About the author

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

7,185 Comments so far

TheLawMan2Posted on7:27 pm - Jul 20, 2018


MERCDOCJULY 20, 2018 at 18:24
Is it not the case, Rangers are saying that they are a different club and the charges should be against the old club.

___________________________________

No.  Thats not the case at all.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:36 pm - Jul 20, 2018


AuldheidJuly 20, 2018 at 17:53
‘…Here is a daft idea..’
AllyjamboJuly 20, 2018 at 18:08 ‘If it was possible that, say, the Resolution 12 guys could petition the CAS, then I’d be glad to donate
______________________
There is a third way, of course, that would be considerably less expensive!

Crowd fund the Res 12 guys ( as a body) in the matter of obtaining legal advice aimed at reporting direct to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service their concern that a serious crime of Fraud may have been committed against those of them who are, to whatever degree, shareholders of Celtic plc , producing all the information which they possess which they believe supports their view?

I’m no lawyer, of course, but it is clear that the SFA have found some irregularity from a certain date, and the Res  12 boys seem to have clear evidence that there was irregularity before that certain date about which the SFA need to be questioned.

(Anyone know  a top class criminal lawyer who specialises in Fraud law?)

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:42 pm - Jul 20, 2018


MERCDOCJULY 20, 2018 at 13:39
From the BBC, I got the impression Lord B is pretty miffed.https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44901139Spe Expecto
———————
The South Africa-based businessman has said he needs time to set up a UK bank account so he can move funds from a family trust.
———–
If king can’t set up a uk bank account since April he has no chance of doing so in a couple of weeks

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on7:45 pm - Jul 20, 2018


John ClarkJuly 20, 2018 at 19:36
__________________________________________________
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein!!

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on7:51 pm - Jul 20, 2018


Since having a wee think on the SFA  update ,I think ,I can now see the reason for the lawmans presence on the board .

IMO it now looks like sevco and their friends at the SFA have realised that their donald .
and have decided to do a LNS on CAS , well who could blame them it worked the last time .

For me the Lawman was tasked to plant the seed of why the brothers grim would not be sending any info to CAS regards the application for the lisense ,no siree .

All that will be sent is that the old club failed to inform their pals and they in turn could not inform uefa of a material event that would effect their qualification status and everything is right with the world again .

Will we THE PAYING FOOTBALL SUPPORTERS be appraised of exactly what the SFA will be sending to CAS ,I suspect we will and LAWMAN will be making sure he is front and centre to tell us all why the old LNS version is the righteous one 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:56 pm - Jul 20, 2018


ALLYJAMBOJULY 20, 2018 at 16:28
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.
—————–
Go to court over the breaking of the 5 Way Agreement.And the whole same club myth may be blown apart..Rock and a hard place.

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on8:00 pm - Jul 20, 2018


FAN OF FOOTBALLJULY 20, 2018 at 19:51
For me the Lawman was tasked to plant the seed of why the brothers grim would not be sending any info to CAS regards the application for the lisense ,no siree .
All that will be sent is that the old club failed to inform their pals and they in turn could not inform uefa of a material event that would effect their qualification status and everything is right with the world again .
Will we THE PAYING FOOTBALL SUPPORTERS be appraised of exactly what the SFA will be sending to CAS ,I suspect we will and LAWMAN will be making sure he is front and centre to tell us all why the old LNS version is the righteous one 

_______________________________________________________

My posting history is an open book on Rangers Media.  Ive battled with my fellow fans for years throughout the Craig Whyte saga and im an open book and hater of Sons of Struth, King, Murray, Requisitioners, Traynor, Level 5 as well as speaking out against Club 1872 and many others.

Ive not been tasked with anything as anyone with a modicum of sense could look back and agree with.  Im my own person and say so not matter how the dice fall.

I dont think, and its only an opinion, CAS will see any light of anything.  The SFA know the game is up.  The latest 2 charges were an attempt to appease people.  And they failed at that as well.

Ive been consistent from 2016 when i was first alerted to Resolution 12.  I asked for no money.  I took no money.  I read and read and read and read.  I engaged with 2 separate Football Associations and also discussed the case with the ECA legal department.   I pointed out immediately where people had went wrong and 2 years down the line, everything I said back then is still holding true.

There was clearly a misunderstanding of the regulations by certain lawyers.  I would be suing for wrongful advice.

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on8:16 pm - Jul 20, 2018


If this saga ever gets to CAS ,the SFA better be sending ALL the information from BEFORE the March 31st date also .
Let the CAS make their decision based on ALL the facts from ragers 1872s participation in  2011/12 

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on8:17 pm - Jul 20, 2018


FAN OF FOOTBALLJULY 20, 2018 at 20:16
If this saga ever gets to CAS ,the SFA better be sending ALL the information from BEFORE the March 31st date also .Let the CAS make their decision on ALL the facts from ragers 1872s participation in  2011/12 

________________________________________________________

They cant.  If this case goes to CAS, it can only be about the 2 charges relating to Monitoring period.

Thats why its a waste of time.

View Comment

misterlightbulbjokePosted on8:30 pm - Jul 20, 2018


Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a legal body to administer justice within a defined field of responsibility.
Sorry if it sounds like I’m repeating myself but how can a disciplinary tribunal set up by the Scottish FA to look into the application of said organisations own rules fall out with its remit?
Case you missed it here it is: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.

Oh how convenient, if only Rangers could get the SFA panel to agree, but wait, what’s this:
Having received submissions on 26 June the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal have issued a decision upholding the preliminary issue raised by the club.  Agreement!!! Yaayy!
So now we go to CAS. But why are both parties so keen to get there? Couldn’t be because of this could it?-The ordinary arbitration procedure is confidential. The parties, arbitrators and CAS staff are obliged not to disclose any information connected with the dispute. In principle, awards are not published.
Brilliant work chaps of Hampden. Behind close doors CAS will tell the SFA that they are pursuing Govan Utd for crimes committed by Rangers Football Club and Govan Utd have no case to answer. All that’s left now is for Jim Traynor to call round the Battalion of the Shite Brigade lead by Colonel Keith Jackson to sound the bugles of innocence throughout the land.

The End(of Scottish Football)

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:34 pm - Jul 20, 2018


Cluster One July 20, 2018 at 19:42
If king can’t set up a uk bank account since April he has no chance of doing so in a couple of weeks
==============================
The whole thing is a charade anyway. Even if King was allowed to hold the funds in SA while an offer was made, he would still have to go through the same SA exchange controls to pay for the shares of those who accepted the offer (assuming the 50% threshold was reached).

If such a scenario occurred I could just see Dodgy Dave saying “I’m sorry Mr Blue Pitch, Mr Margarita, Mr Easdale etc. I’ve done my bit, but I’m afraid that the SA authorities won’t let me send the money out the country to pay for your shares”.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:35 pm - Jul 20, 2018


AULDHEIDJULY 20, 2018 at 17:53
20
2 Rate This
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?
————–
JOHN CLARKJULY 20, 2018 at 19:36
There is a third way, of course, that would be considerably less expensive!
Crowd fund the Res 12 guys ( as a body) in the matter of obtaining legal advice aimed at reporting direct to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service their concern that a serious crime of Fraud may have been committed against those of them who are, to whatever degree,shareholders of Celtic plc , producing all the information which they possess which they believe supports their view?
——————–
I’m in, and so will many others,over to you SFA deal with it or face another fan gathering like 2012.

the SFA fear a backlash from supporters and other clubs if they were to let the case drop.
and they know it.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:45 pm - Jul 20, 2018


EASYJAMBOJULY 20, 2018 at 20:34
0
0 Rate This
Cluster One July 20, 2018 at 19:42If king can’t set up a uk bank account since April he has no chance of doing so in a couple of weeks==============================The whole thing is a charade anyway
———–
Agreed.
But now he only has a few weeks to keep that charade going.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on8:46 pm - Jul 20, 2018


Lawman

You are missing the point 

Any potential breach of rules by Rangers  , whether they have been charged yet or not , which predates 2012, now appear to come under the jurisdiction of CAS . 

It is now clear that not every club in Scotland is subject to the same disciplinary process. No other club is able to say to the SFA “ sorry, you don’t have any jurisdiction over us on this disciplinary issue “. That in and of itself is a scandal . 

Which leads to my point . Without juridsiction of their own, the SFA MUST refer all such issues to the CAS . Failure to do so , whilst allowing Rangers to benefit from the co-efficient points earned in a period the SFA have no jurisdiction over , would lead to a regulatory crisis. 

View Comment

martin cPosted on8:55 pm - Jul 20, 2018


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotla
Beginning to get the business journos interest

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on9:07 pm - Jul 20, 2018


BARCABHOYJULY 20, 2018 at 20:46
Lawman
You are missing the point 
___________________________________________
Im not missing any point.  The SFA have looked at it due to Celtic.  UEFA have looked at it due to Resolution 12.  The Compliance Officer looked at it due to a misunderstanding of the Whyte case.

None of them have found a breach in the licence issue.

If there is an issue with “monitoring period” then your point about co-efficient points is 100% wrong.

There is no disputing that im afraid.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:08 pm - Jul 20, 2018


Mr Flanagan in trouble with the courts again.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/jon-flanagan-court-breach-order-14934922

View Comment

StanPosted on9:14 pm - Jul 20, 2018


The Lawman Squirrel is only dispatched to SFM when Rangers go nuts. The club was liquidated and the SFA colluded to create the current club.

During this whole debacle, the SFA have found it hard to enforce their own rules when it comes to the Rangers, however, they have always come down hard on the wee clubs.

This latest charade by the SFA is an attempt again to bypass their own rules for one club and hope they can kick this into the long grass. 
unfortunately only one club has stood up to the SFA, the rest do nothing and never will.

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on9:18 pm - Jul 20, 2018


EASYJAMBOJULY 20, 2018 at 21:08
Shouldnt be given a second chance anywhere.  Absolute scumbag in my opinion.

View Comment

BillydugPosted on9:23 pm - Jul 20, 2018


MARTIN CJULY 20, 2018 at 20:55
Not Founf

View Comment

BillydugPosted on9:23 pm - Jul 20, 2018


MARTIN CJULY 20, 2018 at 20:55
Not Found

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:29 pm - Jul 20, 2018


martin cJuly 20, 2018 at 20:55 ”   https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland
Beginning to get the business journos interest”
_______________________
That’s a fairly bold piece by Fraser! Has there been a change in editorial policy at BBC Scotland, such as allows some fairly accurate reporting AND comment?
Interesting that Fraser is reckoning as I do, that if the ‘proof’   hearing satisfies the judge that  King is  ‘guilty’ of  contempt, it will be  of criminal contempt, carrying a potential 2 year sentence!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:33 pm - Jul 20, 2018


I had a quick look at the Judicial Panel Protocol and noted the following in the introductory piece.

1.4.2 The fact of membership of the Scottish FA shall constitute an agreement by a member that it,and/or any Associated Person, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Panel and Tribunalsappointed therefrom arising from the Articles, the Protocol and in respect of the DisciplinaryRules. The agreement by an Associated Person, Congress member or any other body or personwho is involved in Association Football in Scotland to observe, submit to and comply with theArticles also constitutes submission to the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, the Judicial Panel andTribunals appointed therefrom arising from the Articles, the Protocol and the Disciplinary Rules.

 
Conversely, the protocol also allows a tribunal to decline jurisdiction. I’d suggest that such discretion should only be exercised if there was a more appropriate body to hear the complaint, e.g. a criminal court where the complaint refers to criminal activities.

8.2 Power of Tribunal to rule on its own powers and to deal with objections in respect of jurisdiction andpowers8.2.1 The Tribunal may rule on:8.2.1.2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to Determine the Case(s) referred to it;

 
It’s all a bit bizarre.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:37 pm - Jul 20, 2018


The Douglas Fraser article can be found here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-44908488

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:39 pm - Jul 20, 2018


TheLawMan2July 20, 2018 at 19:27
‘No. Thats not the case at all.’
_____________________
Will you please add some kind reason for that dogmatic pronouncement? 
If you have no reason, then kindly qualify that statement ( and other ‘dogmatic’ statements you may make) with something like ‘in my opinion’, or ‘I believe that’, or ‘I have heard that’, or, if you represent a PR company say so!
Then we can all have a laugh!08
Seriously, I doubt if there has been any other poster ( apart from the occasional gutter troll) who makes dogmatic statements without either adducing some evidence or saying simply that it is what he thinks, or that it’s his opinion.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:39 pm - Jul 20, 2018


Now that Dave King has been told to comply with a Takeover Panel order to make an offer to buy out the rest of the club’s shareholders.
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,
It must be all eyes on and ready to go for 
 Dave King to revisit the plans to launch a new share issue “immediately” with a target of raising £6million in new money.And Dave can press ahead with the share issue.
 King can once again meet with (company secretary) James Blair and get the go-ahead for the share issue to commence immediately.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:44 pm - Jul 20, 2018


MERCDOCJULY 20, 2018 at 13:39

From the BBC, I got the impression Lord B is pretty miffed.https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44901139Spe Expecto
—————Reading over that again.
Rangers chairman Dave King.
Even today the smsm can’t get a simple fact correct

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:46 pm - Jul 20, 2018


jean7brodieJuly 20, 2018 at 19:45
‘…John Clark July 20, 2018 at 19:36  Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein!!’
_______________________
eJ does look like Robert Redford. I’m more like the other wee guy!03

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:48 pm - Jul 20, 2018


From the Fraser piece;

“…If King [sic] is held in contempt, will there then be a case for the Scottish Football Association to challenge his status as a “fit and proper” person to be a director of a Scottish premiership club?…”
==============

Get the basics right Fraser!  222222

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on9:53 pm - Jul 20, 2018


TORREJOHNBHOYJULY 20, 2018 at 17:26
15
0 Rate This
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: 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.
=============================================
Where to start with that piece of level pash propaganda 
1.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.
I must have missed the rule in the SFA joke book that states cheating will be investigated as long as it doesn’t cost too much .

2.A £10,000 fine and suspension from the game for a year is another possible punishment, but that remains highly unlikely.
If this is a possible punishment ,WHY is it highly unlikely 

so on the same day the SFA disaplinary panel updates are published this appears 

Disciplinary Tribunal Update | Review of Player MisconductMonday 16 July 2018Alleged Parties in Breach: See list of Clubs below with Outcomes
Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 79 – For the purposes of the review of player misconduct within clubs, a club’s Club Average shall not exceed the relevant League Average by one point or more (but less than two points).Where a club is a Rule 79 Defaulting Club, in accordance with Annex E, that club shall be in breach of this Rule 79.Where a club has been found to be a Rule 79 Defaulting Club (previously Rule 73 and/or 88 Defaulting Club) in any of the preceding three Seasons, the following percentage uplifts shall apply to the sanction awarded:1st Season

repeat offender – 20%

2nd Season repeat offender – 40%

3rd Season repeat offender – 60%

Heart of Midlothian FC – £7,000

Hamilton Academical FC – £8,000

St Johnstone FC – £5,000

So if your players put a foot in a bit too heavy or talks back to a ref the club gets the same fine as one who possibly lied to gain a CL place and the chance of £20+ million 

WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF SCOTTISH FOOTBALL 
SFA STYLE 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:59 pm - Jul 20, 2018


EASYJAMBOJULY 20, 2018 at 21:37

The Douglas Fraser article can be found herehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-44908488
————————-
Being found in contempt of court, as early as next month, could bring a jail sentence of up to two years or an unlimited fine. Both the Court and the Takeover Panel have a common interest in seeing their authority respected, and that of the law.
So does he want to be a fugitive, unable to touch down in the UK and visit Ibrox without having his collar felt?
If he is held in contempt, will there then be a case for the Scottish Football Association to challenge his status as a “fit and proper” person to be a director of a Scottish premiership club?
—————–
Good article but yet again the media let themselves down with the simple stuff.
“fit and proper” person to be a director of a Scottish premiership club?

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on10:00 pm - Jul 20, 2018


JOHN CLARKJULY 20, 2018 at 21:39
TheLawMan2July 20, 2018 at 19:27‘No. Thats not the case at all.’_____________________Will you please add some kind reason for that dogmatic pronouncement? 

_______________________________________

Happy to.  The current custodians of Rangers dont believe we are a new club.  I understand thats your view John but i would I think we would all agree, rightly or wrongly, its not King or Rangers view.

So why would they possibly submit a view or defence that “we are a different club”

I have outlined the defence on 3 occasions now.  Its simple.  Rangers believe the new charges are groundless and came about due to the CO finding no wrongdoing in the previous investigation. 

Not withstanding that though, their view is that EVEN IF, there was anything in them, the charges are toothless because, and again i stress rightly or wrongly, the 5 way agreement kills it dead.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on10:05 pm - Jul 20, 2018


There’s a far cheaper solution for the SFA to deal with King.
Make a statement he is not fit and proper to have any involvement in Scottish football, he cannot act as a proxy director for TRFC and he is banned permanently from involvement in the game.
Warn fellow Directors that if they continue to deal with him the same fate applies.
They should apply their own cold shoulder.
They probably won’t but they really should

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:16 pm - Jul 20, 2018


FAN OF FOOTBALLJULY 20, 2018 at 21:53

TORREJOHNBHOYJULY 20, 2018 at 17:26150 Rate ThisFrom The Scotsman:SFA face six-figure legal bill 
——————-
I have lost more running for a Bus

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:25 pm - Jul 20, 2018


BarcabhoyJuly 20, 2018 at 20:46 (Edit)
Lawman
You are missing the point 
Any potential breach of rules by Rangers  , whether they have been charged yet or not , which predates 2012, now appear to come under the jurisdiction of CAS . 
It is now clear that not every club in Scotland is subject to the same disciplinary process. No other club is able to say to the SFA “ sorry, you don’t have any jurisdiction over us on this disciplinary issue “. That in and of itself is a scandal . 
Which leads to my point . Without juridsiction of their own, the SFA MUST refer all such issues to the CAS . Failure to do so , whilst allowing Rangers to benefit from the co-efficient points earned in a period the SFA have no jurisdiction over , would lead to a regulatory crisis. 
=-==============
So for example if a case could be put to CAS that like Giannina FC, where private agreements were not fairly presented in Giannina annual accounts, making their  application for a licence inadmissible, would RFC’s use of side letters kept private from SFA and not fairly presented in their accounts, mean that RFC should not have been granted a UEFA licence  during the time they had players on contract with side letters? Could all the clubs put that to CAS?
Separately should Celtic who put their faith in the SFA Judicial Protocol process, not be asking the SFA why they adopted the process in September 2017 when the issues under review fell outside the SFA Jurisdiction.
Personally I would welcome the full bhuna going to CAS or UEFA unless the SFA agreed to meet the SPFL request for a full independent enquiry into events relating to their handling of the use of ebts by RFC using all the evidence of non disclosure and deceit as a basis. That would be good use of the money if it led to SFA reform.
Our game is living a lie and it will kill it if wrongs are not recognised for the massive breaches of trust that they are and steps taken to address how trust can be restored.
Time the first step to solving a problem is taken, recognising that there is one.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:33 pm - Jul 20, 2018


I see the king court case made Reporting scotland

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:35 pm - Jul 20, 2018


SFA face six-figure legal bill to fine Rangers £5k, according to reports
————
James Doleman @jamesdoleman Replying to @TheScotsman
Not sure how CAS works but in most courts the losing side pays both sides costs.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:39 pm - Jul 20, 2018


John ClarkJuly 20, 2018 at 19:36 (Edit)
AuldheidJuly 20, 2018 at 17:53‘…Here is a daft idea..’AllyjamboJuly 20, 2018 at 18:08 ‘If it was possible that, say, the Resolution 12 guys could petition the CAS, then I’d be glad to donate ______________________ There is a third way, of course, that would be considerably less expensive!
Crowd fund the Res 12 guys ( as a body) in the matter of obtaining legal advice aimed at reporting direct to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service their concern that a serious crime of Fraud may have been committed against those of them who are, to whatever degree, shareholders of Celtic plc , producing all the information which they possess which they believe supports their view?
I’m no lawyer, of course, but it is clear that the SFA have found some irregularity from a certain date, and the Res  12 boys seem to have clear evidence that there was irregularity before that certain date about which the SFA need to be questioned.
(Anyone know  a top class criminal lawyer who specialises in Fraud law?)
================
Whilst that is one option that has been toyed with in the past, but never thinking it might be needed.
You see for all Lawman’s defences of events in 2011, unless what actually took place at the time based on the evidence of documents at the time, is presented for independent JPDT and now apparently CAS scrutiny, the rules on what makes a liability an overdue payable mean nothing if dishonesty was the vehicle for circumventing them and the two SFA non compliance charges against RFC are of dishonesty at core.
Definition of dishonesty 1 : lack of honesty or integrity : disposition to defraud or deceive

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:32 pm - Jul 20, 2018


AllyjamboJuly 20, 2018 at 14:34
‘…. 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…’
_______________
Aj, I can say with an absolutely clear conscience that , having seen and heard a fair number of our judges in matters to do with the ‘saga’, I have to say that the capacity they have for mastering detail is bordering on the phenomenal.

Indeed, I’ve on occasion felt that they knew more of the detail -and the significance of particular factual details- than the QCs in front of them!

Every single one of them has at one point or another set a QC almost back on his/her  heels with a question related to detail that has had him/her toiling for a reply. 

I have seen and heard in action :the Lords Glennie,  Doherty,  Bannatyne, Tyre, Menzies, Carloway, Drummond-Young, Turnbull, Boyd of Duncansby, Malcolm: and, I think, Ladies Stacey and Rae.

All of them right up to the minute with the detail of the case.

Of course, the fact that a judge is intimately familiar with details of fact and legal argument is not of itself any indication of his/her personal integrity or that he/she is  immune from prejudice or partiality.

[I know that the late Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, was in his dotage when he opined that it was better that innocent men should go to jail rather than that questions should be asked about the English ‘justice’ system]

And , of course, in various countries that I have the sense not to specify in case I don’t get a visa if I want to go there on holiday, judges roll over to have their tummies tickled by bad bast.rd dictators.]

But that kind of thing has ,happily,not happened in recent Scottish legal history.

Has it?

No.I believe it has not.

What I do believe, though, is that our judges are acutely aware of the dreadfulness  of prison and the awesome power they have to send people to jail even for a week!

And really concentrate on ensuring that any accused has been convicted in strict accordance with the law.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on11:41 pm - Jul 20, 2018


CAS has previously declined a request from a Brazilian club to hear a complaint that another Brazilian club failed to register a player incorrectly .

CAS stated that the Brazilian FA were the appropriate authority to hear the case.
i’d be pretty sure they would react the same way should Celtic make an approach with a complaint . 

CAS are really an appeals court . I wouldn’t be 100% confident they would agree to hear a case referred by the SFA on which the SFA have not previously adjudicated. 

View Comment

martin cPosted on11:59 pm - Jul 20, 2018


From the Frazer piece what I found quite intriguing is that had TOP gone to an English court their  case would be over and done with by now! Why pick a Scottish Jurisdiction?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:04 am - Jul 21, 2018


Barcabhoy

I asked questions of them last year and the response was basically what you state . They normally adjudicate on previously determined outcomes where one or more parties have problems accepting the verdict . I will post their response when I can access all my emails , which is not now with the paucity of signal . 
P S  L M2 
Where has DCK ever said that you are not a new club ? If I recall correctly , he was going to buy the old club from the liquidators as the fans were upset by taunting. You couldn’t make it up ,could you ?

View Comment

martin cPosted on12:06 am - Jul 21, 2018


@John C, Frazer doesn’t hold back, no lamb for Dougie. 
Anything critical said of The Rangers is usually said by the business correspondent or an anon piece since this debacle begun.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on12:39 am - Jul 21, 2018


TheLawMan2July 20, 2018 at 21:07
“BARCABHOYJULY 20, 2018 at 20:46 Lawman You are missing the point  ___________________________________________ Im not missing any point.  The SFA have looked at it due to Celtic.  UEFA have looked at it due to Resolution 12.  The Compliance Officer looked at it due to a misunderstanding of the Whyte case.
None of them have found a breach in the licence issue.”

I believe you will find you very much have missed the point as the case does not evolve round a dispute but instead settles on a breach easily sorted as explained in the High Court trial which is the first time the use of the word crystalised began to be used without objection. This case is not been sent so that the use of an arbitrator can be sought to settle a dispute, there is no dispute, there is a clear breach and fine well all involved know it.

https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/

“……….
It is interesting to see Mr. Dickson try to duck questions around player registration and the requirement to declare of all payments related to playing football. In defiance of logic, Mr. Dickson just sticks doggedly to his (presumably coached) lines of “we didn’t think we had to”. Had he endlessly answered “because We Are The People?” for a whole day under oath it would have made as much sense.
It is quite a long read but worth the effort for anyone who wants to understand how the ailing mammoth that was Rangers ended up dying in a tar-pit of its own creation. It seems incredible to me that anyone aware of the facts would deem Mr. Dickson fit and proper for any current role in Scottish football let alone allow him to sit on SFA and SPFL committees. Mr. Dickson’s submission starts at the foot of the second page of the file.”

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:55 am - Jul 21, 2018


Who knows if The rangers (both)  and their partners, The SFA will ever see justice.

But as long as their names are blackened by all and sundry then I am relatively happy.

When was the last time you heard good news about the SFA or The Rangers?  Remind me.  They are dirt.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:01 am - Jul 21, 2018


TheLawMan2July 20, 2018 at 22:00
‘…EVEN IF, there was anything in them, the charges are toothless because, and again i stress rightly or wrongly, the 5 way agreement kills it dead.’
____________________
Thank you. Now we have the basis of a proper discussion.

Which, naturally, will turn on the nature of the 5-Way Agreement, the secrecy surrounding it, and  the contradiction implied in the acceptance by the SFA that a football club ,which they had only just admitted to membership, was responsible for the football debts of a  liquidated club , but was simultaneously entitled to any goodies that belonged to the liquidated club.

The utter ,utter absurdity of it all!

Even yer man King recognised in a fit of sanity that it might be possible to bring SDM’s RFC out of liquidation, thereby acknowledging the obvious truth: that TRFC Ltd is not, and cannot possibly be, the Glasgow Rangers of the arch-cheat, the knighted, wicked SDM.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:24 am - Jul 21, 2018


BarcabhoyJuly 20, 2018 at 23:41
‘CAS are really an appeals court’
______________
I think that they also are an ‘arbitration’ forum, in which a non-judicial arbitrator mediates agreement between parties to try to avoid a costly legal process ( a sort of settlement out of court idea)

I stand to be corrected, of course, but there seems to be provision for that kind of resolution  of conflict.

View Comment

MercDocPosted on1:44 am - Jul 21, 2018


THELAWMAN2JULY 20, 2018 at 22:00
Sorry Lawman, I was just having a wee jest! I really didn’t think anyone would take it serious!!!!!. But you did?

Spe Expecto

View Comment

jimboPosted on2:09 am - Jul 21, 2018


Mercdoc,  Just for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9yNWbetJVU

View Comment

MercDocPosted on2:19 am - Jul 21, 2018


Jimbo, watching Jethro Tull. BBC4. Canna wak it, with a big stick!

Spe Expectamus

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:15 am - Jul 21, 2018


THELAWMAN2JULY 20, 2018 at 22:00
The current custodians of Rangers dont believe we are a new club.  I understand thats your view John but i would I think we would all agree, rightly or wrongly, its not King or Rangers view.
So why would they possibly submit a view or defence that “we are a different club”
——————
You may be wrong there.
Rangers abuse claim victim told to contact liquidators for compensation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-44126217
————
Director Dave King calls for Rangers CVA rejection.
“I would question Mr King’s motives in urging the rejection of the CVA proposal which is the best offer available to creditors.
“If the CVA is rejected then the club will be acquired on a newco basis which will not benefit creditors,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18360427
——————
Dave King vows to bring back Oldco: ‘They say we’re not Rangers anymore.. I want to put that behind us’IBROX chief King says he plans to take Rangers Oldco out of liquidation and put an end to the bating of the fans by their rivals.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-vows-bring-back-6420730
—————————
Now are you sure the  current custodians of Rangers don’t believe they are a new club.?
—————–
Someone is pissing down your back and telling you it’s raining.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:34 am - Jul 21, 2018


So why would they possibly submit a view or defence that “we are a different club”
————–
And how can we forget.
The FULL list of Rangers Oldco creditors.. from DJs to TV presenters, hospitals, Police Scotland, flower shops and Celtic FCThe definitive list of everyone Rangers oldco owed money to including multiple football clubs, a newsagent, a deli and a florist.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/read-full-list-rangers-oldco-11452483

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:40 am - Jul 21, 2018


rightly or wrongly, its not King or Rangers view.
That “view” is only projected for their own self interests

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on8:56 am - Jul 21, 2018


The more I think about this latest farce with the brothers grim the more it convinces  me that the whole of Scottish football governance needs a complete overhaul ,it is quite simply NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE .

IMO it has been so corrupted for so long it’s reputation is in the gutter .
It’s toothless 
It’s weak 
It’s so comprimised it cannot even impose it’s own rules (stop laughing at the back )

The route it went down with the death of ragers 1872 has been nothing short of disasterous for the credibility of our game .We all know deep down why they went along with the BIG LIE (even you LM2 )and they will point to crowds being up and sevco 2012 still in business so as to allow 50,000 customers to attend Ibrokes thus keeping money in the Scottish game and keeping it relevant to commercial partners and sponsors and it did .So they will feel justified in their actions .

The down side for them is ,if enough customers realise what was sacrificed and the level to which they corrupted our game for commercial reasons and just refuse to finance a rigged sport .How many will just walk away .That is the gamble .

So would it be in their interests to se the truth of this whole debacle become public knowledge ,of course not .
The lies have to continue the deceit has to continue and the MSM have to keep as much of the truth out of the mainstream .

So forgive me LM2 and other new club deniers if I do not believe a single word the peepil running our game say 
If they say nothing wrong with the march date ,I say get me an independant inquiry 
There has been wrondoing here we all know it as it stinks like last months fish and the two parties pretending to fight about it are two parties with the most to lose if the truth gets out .

All I want is an honest game played by the SAME rules for EVERY club in our game ,nothing more nothing less 

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on9:31 am - Jul 21, 2018


Good Morning,
It is an undoubted fact that the Rangers football club who lied and cheated for decades died in 2012 as a result of going into liquidation.
It is an undisputed fact that Sevco, now named “The Rangers Football club” started life as a new company and club thereafter.
Despite what the SMSM and fans of the club playing out of Ibrox think the two are separate entities, they are not one and the same;TRFC cannot be, have never been and never will be the same club as that which went into liquidation
It is therefore a matter of trite Law TRFC (formerly Sevco) cannot in any way be held accountable for the sins of the Rangers club which went into liquidation. This is a fact.
However the only way that TRFC could be held accountable for the sins of the previous club is that if they signed and agreed to accept the liabilities of the previous regime.
This will be firmly established by whatever contract they signed. Let us assume that it is the Five way Agreement. If that is the case it is easily established whether they accepted any such liability.
It is therefore essential that this agreement is published to end the speculation as to whether the new club is responsible for the old club’s transgressions.
It really is that simple, except that it is not.
Because if the parties to the contract were acting ultra vires outwith the scope of their authority and rules then the contract is voidable.
That is why it is essential that this agreement is published in full, in its final signed version, and I do not believe for a second that the other clubs in the SPFL, including Celtic, do not have a copy. Get it out there. Publish and be damned.
In my opinion TRFC/Sevco can walk away unscathed in all of this, unpalatable as that may be to some but the SFA cannot escape from what they have done.
They are damned either way, they were complicit in everything that the old club did before liquidation and what the new club has been allowed to get away with so far.
How can a governing body not have jurisdiction over its own game?
The only benefit in pursuing matter through CAS is to determine once and for all that the old club cheated and defrauded Scottish Football that other clubs suffered financially as a result and that the myth of continuity is shattered.
Other that that there is no point in flogging a dead horse.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:51 am - Jul 21, 2018


Not quite right but quite a good article about King’s recalcitrance from Douglas Frazer at the BBC (not their sports department obviously)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-44908488

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on9:54 am - Jul 21, 2018


HOOPY 7JULY 21, 2018 at 09:31
The only benefit in pursuing matter through CAS is to determine once and for all that the old club cheated and defrauded Scottish Football that other clubs suffered financially as a result and that the myth of continuity is shattered.Other that that there is no point in flogging a dead horse.

—————–

If the case goes to CAS it will have nothing to do with defrauding Scottish Football. The 2 potential charges have no relation whatsoever to Rangers playing in Europe in season 2011/12.

The only thing CAS will look at is if the information supplied by the club for the 30th June/September monitoring period was correct or not. 

If it’s deemed it wasn’t correct then Rangers would still have played in Europe that season.  

The SFA can’t ask CAS to adjudicate on 2 potential charges then just throw something else in for good measure I’m afraid. 

View Comment

roddybhoyPosted on10:17 am - Jul 21, 2018


This whole farce just makes you want to walk away from the game. In my opinion we will never see a clean game in scotland at least not in my lifetime . I get a bit lost with all the legal jargon and pissed off at the blog for continually engaging with (articulate ) guys like lawman who appear every now and again to derail the blog and make everyone go round in circles arguing that the former Rangers cheated on such a huge scale , wasting your time there, you dont need to prove to guys like Lawman , WE KNOW THE TRUTH. As I said Im not clued up too well with all the legal jargon but my take on it is very simple
1 Rangers cheated to get a euro licence by telling lies to the SFA.
2 The SFA knew that were lying and ran with it helping them along the way ( and covered it up ) as Rangers needed the Money to survive , hence a multi million pound fraud was committed
3 Further down the line a crooked agreement came into place to once again protect Rangers , the so called 5 way agreement This now ties Rangers and the SFA crookedly together
4 Rangers were finally told they have a case to answer due to the overwhelming evidence Yay no shit Sherlock
5 Now the crooked and conflicted SFA are to rule on the team that they crookedly aided and abetted  ( what could possibly go wrong here 18
6 Mr King Im sure has said to the SFA you punish us , we punish you ……..Mr Maxwell aint got the balls
7 Can kicked down the road , probably another load of cash wasted by the SFA again instead of using it in a positive way ……..this is never ending
Im sure ive missed a few details among that but for me thats the general gist of it all
We the fans are mugs ( I include myself in this , Ive tried to stop spending money on football but hey everything else aint football )
I really feel sorry for all the bloggers who just want a clean open game. I feel for guys like Auldhied etc , the res 12 guys and totally pissed off at the club chairmen of all clubs especially mine
Celtic you are cowards in all this. Your fans and shareholders suffered more than most in this and still you say very little. I was for keeping the powder dry but that time has long passed . Sorry for a depressing post but well this is where we are at

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:27 am - Jul 21, 2018


fan of footballJuly 21, 2018 at 08:56 (Edit)
I think what is unfolding, in terms of SFA Judicial Powers and supporters starting  to realise its import, poses a serious question supporters of all clubs can put to their Boards now..
In simple terms “Can you assure me that I am paying to watch an honest product?”
If not does each sale come under “caveat emptor?”

View Comment

The King in YellowPosted on10:30 am - Jul 21, 2018


I would suggest that what’s happening with the possible referral to CAS is actually fairly straightforward. I propose it just turns on the 5WA (assuming that the versions of it which have been published on line are reasonably accurate.)
The SFA are seeking to prosecute something which happened during CW’s tenure at RFC. The 5WA confirms that there are 2 types of CW act over this period:
– “CW Exempt Acts,” for which RFC are not liable, and
– “CW Enduring Acts,” for which RFC are liable.
I suggest what has happened here is that the SFA and RFC can’t agree whether the allegations fall under “Exempt” or “Enduring.” The preliminary hearing was to determine that. If they are exempt, the case can’t proceed. If they are enduring, the case can proceed.
The complication is that the 5WA provides that the body with jurisdiction to interpret the meaning of the 5WA is CAS, and that all parties agree to CAS having exclusive jurisdiction on these matters (clause 16.2)
Accordingly the SFA have barred the JP from having the jurisdiction to make a decision on that point. There therefore has to be a referral to CAS for a determination.
It has nothing to do with an appeal, nor does it place all Scottish clubs directly under CAS’s jurisdiction, nor does it open up CAS looking at all and everything that has happened in the last 20 years (or whatever.)

It’s a simply question of the parties to the case having previously prorogated jurisdiction on interpretation of an agreement with relevance to the issue to another body.

View Comment

The Ungrateful DeadPosted on10:36 am - Jul 21, 2018


RODDYBHOYJULY 21, 2018 at 10:17     
why would Celtic do or say anything? their stadium is full every other week as their fans are quite happy paying for a corrupt product.

View Comment

roddybhoyPosted on10:52 am - Jul 21, 2018


The ungrateful dead

Sadly i think you are correct , money appears to be everything sadly

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:53 am - Jul 21, 2018


Excuse me if I’m missing something blindingly obvious here…

What if I hire a car and sign an undertaking that says that I will take responsibility for any traffic offences.

My wife is also insured and double parks next to a crossing and received a ticket.

Later, the police arrive at my door and say “we are charging you with parking in a dangerous manner and this could mean up to 6 penalty points on your licence.”

“But”, I protest, ” I wasn’t driving the car at the time.”

“Doesn’t matter”, they say together, ” you signed the form taking responsibility for any traffic offences.”

…of course, this would never happen.

However…

The SFA have inexplicably set out the party in breach as ‘Rangers FC’. A trading name of one of its current members and a trading name of one of its former members.

It’s worth pointing out that the SFA members are not all football clubs. So we can set aside, for the moment, whether the current entity, founded in 2012, is the same association football club as the one founded in 1872/73.

No, the point here is that the SFA has jurisdiction over its members.

The Rangers Football Club Ltd (previously Sevco Scotland Ltd) became a member of the SFA (from memory) on 14th June 2012 when it was admitted as a member of the Scottish Football League.

The Rangers Football Club plc (now RFC 2012 PLC (IL)) was a member of the SFA until 3rd August 2012 when its full SFA membership was transferred to Sevco Scotland Ltd and its registered SFA membership lapsed as it transferred its SPL membership to Dundee FC.

Whether or not you accept the ‘big lie’ that the association football club is the same, no-one has yet suggested that Rangers Football Club PLC and Sevco Scotland Ltd are the same company.

To be absolutely accurate, the SFA should have named the member by its company title and not by its trading name. Especially important because two recent members have used that same trading name.

The SFA should have said that the party in breach was The Rangers Football Club plc (now RFC 2012 PLC (IL)). By using a trading name, they have introduced an unnecessary level of uncertainty as to which member is actually being charged.

Had the SFA set out the charges correctly, The Rangers Football Club Ltd (previously Sevco Scotland Ltd), I would imagine, would still be entitled to make representations as an interested party – with the possibility of a POTENTIAL liability arising under the 5WA.

However, and this is the key point, the 5WA only comes into play if The Rangers Football Club plc (now RFC 2012 PLC (IL)) are found guilty of a breach.

As it stands, the SFA has apparently charged a current member with an alleged breach carried out by a former member. It appears to have used the 5WA to contend that the two members (companies) can be treated as one and the same.

The current member – quite rightly in my opinion – appears to have disputed the SFA’s interpretation.

The current member appears to be saying that you (the SFA) cannot charge us for events that occurred before we existed.

The answer to the current position is patently obvious.

The SFA MUST drop the current flawed proceedings against ‘Rangers FC’ and set out a new notice of complaint against ‘The Rangers Football Club plc (now RFC 2012 PLC (IL))’

The current member would not be ‘charged’ with any offence committed by another party.

If, after due process, the former member is found guilty and the current member then disputes the liability the SFA says was agreed under the 5WA, it would then be appropriate to refer that dispute to the CAS.

The current charges cannot, in my opinion, go to the CAS, as the SFA would (from what I have seen) be 100% certain to lose.

“Rangers FC” is currently used as a trading name of The Rangers Football Club Ltd (previously Sevco Scotland Ltd).

The party in (alleged) breach was The Rangers Football Club plc (now RFC 2012 PLC (IL)).

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:58 am - Jul 21, 2018


…I should add that if I was a lawyer at the SFA and wanted to kill this process.

Right now I’d be thinking, so far so good!

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:01 am - Jul 21, 2018


…unless I had some professional pride.

In which case I’d probably resign.

View Comment

The Ungrateful DeadPosted on11:05 am - Jul 21, 2018


HIRSUTEPURSUITJULY 21, 2018 at 10:53
The SFA are hopelessly conflicted. They cannot go to CAS without exposing their propagation of the BIG LIE. King is playing a blinder .

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:09 am - Jul 21, 2018


HIRSUTEPURSUIT

JULY 21, 2018 at 10:53

Excuse me if I’m missing something blindingly obvious here…
————————————————–

I’m sure I wrote something along the same lines the day (or the day after) the Notice of Complaint was issued.

I also wrote that, instead of going after a corporate body, the Compliance Officer should have aimed his charges at named office-bearers of that body who were responsible for making the licence application. The SFA should also have started internal disciplinary proceedings against any members of staff still employed who were involved. (TBF, they may have done so internally; we’ll never know though!)

The Compliance Officer has over-reached here, looking for a conspiracy within the body ‘Rangers’, when really he should have been looking for one individual to ‘pressure’ (not the bright lights & rubber hose!) & facilitate the widening of the enquiry.

 

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:09 am - Jul 21, 2018


Don’t think King is even in play here. This is all down to the SFA.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:15 am - Jul 21, 2018


roddybhoyJuly 21, 2018 at 10:17 (Edit)
In terms of the SFA now lifting the lid on the granting of the UEFA Licence in 2011 and possible threats used to stop that lid being lifted now read this series of e mails from Stewart Regan starting with Ali Russell, then CEO of Rangers the day after Regan had discussed the granting of the licence with Andrew Dickson, who was on the SFA Licensing Committee,  so would know both the position when Licence granted in March/April 2011 and on what basis under UEFA FFP at the time when the granting actually happened.  
Note the response from Ramsay Smith a media man.
Note also the justification Regan gave for granting the licence, one he repeated in different forms in public, his the bill had not crystalised argument.
Finally look who got involved at the end – Campbell Ogilvie the man who gave testimony to the LNS commission in 2012 but did not know or make the distinction between DOS ebts (which he initiated in 1999 and the cause of the overdue payable issue that prompted the dinner meeting) and the loan type ebts under the MGMRT of which he was a recipient.
But everything was in order with the granting it seems.
======================
From: Andrew Dickson  Date: 7 December 2011 To: Ali Russell > Cc: Craig Whyte  
Ali I refer to attached email, I have asked Stephen and Carol to get Ramsay’s view on this. We have had no press calls on this and again I have concerns that if the SFA issue this as a general release it will raise the whole issue again and indeed add to speculation about a licence for next season. Please can I have your thoughts .
Regards Andrew
——————
From: Stephen Kerr Sent: 07 December 2011 To: Andrew Dickson; Carol Patton 
And the media follow up question today once statement is released will be – Will Rangers get a licence for next season?
———————–
From: Stewart Regan Sent: 07 December 2011 To: Ali Russell; Andrew Dickson 
Ali/Andrew Further to my discussion yesterday with Andrew on the matter of Rangers FC’s European licence I would like to release the following statement. I believe this will be in the interest of both the club and ourselves and I hope you agree. Please can you confirm that you are happy with the content. If so, I would propose to issue this later today at an agreed time with yourselves.
Thanks Stewart
(Regan’s proposed draft) 
In light of persistent speculation across all media, the Scottish FA would like to clarify the position in regard to Rangers FC’s licence to play in Europe as governed by Article 50 of the UEFA Regulations. It is noted from the report submitted to the Licensing Committee by Rangers FC’s advisors Grant Thornton UK LLP, dated 30th March 2011, that:
“All the recorded payroll taxes at 31 December 2010 have, according to the accounting records of the Club since that date been paid in full by 31 March 2011, with the exception of the continuing discussion between the Club and HM Revenue and Customs in relation to a potential liability of £2.8m associated with contributions between 1999 and 2003 into a discounted option scheme. Theseamounts have been provided for in full within the interim financial statements.”
Since the potential liability was under discussion by Rangers FC and HM Revenue & Customs as at 31st March 2011, it could not be considered an overdue payable as defined by Article 50. We are satisfied that the evidence from all parties complied with Article 50 and, on that basis, a licence was awarded for season 2011-12. Add editor’s notes. (Include Article 50 here from UEFA Regulations)
Stewart M. Regan Chief Executive The Scottish F.A.
—————————
From: Craig Whyte  Date: 7 December 2011  To: Andrew Dickson cc: Ali Russell , Craig Whyte  It would be crazy for them to put this out. Ali, please call me on this. Sent from my iPad
==================
From: Ramsay Smith  Date: 7 December 2011: To: Stephen Kerr , Carol Patton , Ali Russell , Craig Whyte , Craig Whyte 
All
We should put some pressure on the SFA from a high level, from Ali or Andrew to say we do not believe this is a good idea the SFA putting out such as statement. It stirs up the issue again. What they should do is if they get a legitimate media inquiry respond to it by saying there is no issue whatsoever with Rangers licensing arrangement with the SFA. If they persist they will only cause issues for themselves as much as Rangers.
Ramsay
From: Ali Russell Sent: 07 December 2011 To: Stewart Regan; Andrew Dickson Cc: Ramsay Smith  Stephen Kerr 
Stewart, Tried to phone you. Would prefer no comment or the following “We have looked at this matter and there is no issue with the licence granted to Rangers from the SFA. “
I look forward to speaking to you later, Ali
==================
From: Ali Russell  Date: 7 December 2011  To: Craig Whyte , Andrew Dickson , Fiona Goodall  Cc: Craig Whyte Ramsay, StephenKerr, Gary Withey 
All sorted – Held until further notice and I have agreed we will meet Stewart and Campbell for dinner in the next couple of weeks to discuss bigger issues. I also made it clear we were very unhappy with the approach the SFA took last week! Hopefully we can move forward now.
Kind Regards, Ali
==================
Subject:Dinner with Stewart Regan/Campbell Ogilvie/Craig WhyteDate:Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:31:30From:Ali Russell To: Craig Whyte
Craig, just to confirm that the dinner with Stewart Regan/Campbell Ogilvie, yourself and Ali will be on the 20th @ 7.00pm.
I have booked the Glengoyne private dining in Hotel du Vin, and also provisionally booked a hotel room for you (if you’d require?)
Fiona

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:15 am - Jul 21, 2018


Is there no ‘edit’ function available when posting comments?

The last paragraph of my post at 1109 should read:

The Compliance Officer has over-reached here, looking for a conspiracy within the body ‘Rangers’ & possibly the SFA, when really he should have been looking for one individual from either organisation to ‘pressure’ (not the bright lights & rubber hose!) & facilitate the widening of the enquiry.

 

Edit: ‘edit’ function available on this post. Strange!

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:17 am - Jul 21, 2018


JINGSO.JIMSIEJULY 21, 2018 at 11:09
0
0 Rate This
HIRSUTEPURSUIT
JULY 21, 2018 at 10:53
Excuse me if I’m missing something blindingly obvious here…————————————————–
I’m sure I wrote something along the same lines the day (or the day after) the Notice of Complaint was issued.
…..
I’ve been so busy lately that I sometimes miss two or three pages of comments. 

I hadn’t seen the same point made – but I’m glad that someone else agrees with the logic.

Great minds and all that… 

04

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on11:18 am - Jul 21, 2018


AULDHEIDJULY 21, 2018 at 10:27
spot on 
—————————————————————————————————
THE UNGRATEFUL DEADJULY 21, 2018 at 10:36
I can’t speak for the rest of the fans at CP but I for one am far from happy with what has been going on . I was ready to walk away in 2012 if the SPL/SFA got their way in placing a new club in the top division thankfully they failed but here is the thing ,why should I and other supporters have to give up something they love  whilst the peepil running our game continue to corrupt it for their own ends.

It is about time the clubs realised the damage that is being done on a near weekly basis now .

I want justice for the cheating years and I want any entity that plays out of ibrokes to earn honours on football merit not claiming the titles of another club ( the scandal in that has never been looked into and for good reason ) It really has nothing at all to do with sevco 2012 ,the disgraceful 5 way agreement is an abomination and ALL who had a part in it should be thrown out of football .

Ragers 1872 cheated scottish football for years ,get an independant enquiry started ,deal with it and we can all move on .

Drop the BIG LIE BU*****T if the sevco 2012 fans can’t deal with it ,too bad ,then a club can be punished for rule breaking by the rules without fear or favour .

 

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on11:35 am - Jul 21, 2018


HIRSUTEPURSUITJULY 21, 2018 at 10:53

The current charges cannot, in my opinion, go to the CAS, as the SFA would (from what I have seen) be 100% certain to lose.
===========================================================
What if this was their plan all along 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:38 am - Jul 21, 2018


I’ve said the same previously, but will repeat it. Our resident apologist seems high on the latest Scottish football fudge, and writes joyously on his clubs’ latest narrow escape. What he doesn’t do, though, is attempt to convince us that Rangers (IL) were, in any way, innocent of wrongdoing in what’s become known as the Resolution 12 case!

He can’t, of course, because it is patently clear that the SFA hold evidence that RFC acted fraudulently in their 2011 European License application, for if the records proved Rangers (IL) innocent, then the case would be over and the evidence published.

We are the Guilty! But We Are The People!

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on11:47 am - Jul 21, 2018


FAN OF FOOTBALL JULY 20, 2018 at 21:53

A £10,000 fine and suspension from the game for a year is another possible punishment, but that remains highly unlikely.

If this is a possible punishment, WHY is it highly unlikely?

You make a very valid point, FanOfFootball.

Clearly, given the scale of the offence, a £5,000 fine, the only other sanction available, would be absurdly inconsequential, even to a loss-making club with no access to a line of credit or normal banking facilities.

But you have to ask who it was that said a £10,000 fine and suspension from the game for a year remains highly unlikely. Of course the answer is the good old reliable Scottish mainstream media, whose main job seems to be to convey the thoughts of Chairman King and his buffoon of a PR guru exactly as dictated, only deviating from their stenography tasks to tell us as fact that the only punishment commensurate with the offence should be discounted entirely, with no debate as to why.

To my mind, if our woefully inept football authorities only provided two possible sanctions (how remiss not to have included a ‘board discretion’ option!) and the first is embarrassingly lenient, then they must impose the other option, which is in any case entirely befitting of the crime, notwithstanding that the whole matter might be referred to CAS.

Only in a corrupt little nation such as this, where the media is totally in thrall to a deceased football club and its delinquent offspring, do we have to put up with such twisted reporting.

View Comment

Comments are closed.