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.
Auldheid
The framing of the SFA’s notice of complaint (just like the LNS ‘independent’ commission) is itself either hopelessly inept or deviously corrupt.
Unfortunately, either way, the proceedings appear, on the face of it, to be heading to a fairly predictable conclusion.
There may be a ‘slam dunk’ case against old Rangers – (The Rangers Football Club PLC).
But new Rangers/Sevco (The Rangers Football Club Ltd) have a ‘slam dunk’ defence.
“It wiznae me!”
Call out the SFA’s current actions as incompetent – publicly question why they have set out the notice of complaint against a member which did not exist when the misdeeds occurred.
Give them the opportunity to correct its mistake.
If it does not take the opportunity, call it out as corrupt on its actions at the present time.
HirsutePursuit July 21, 2018 at 10:53
=========================
I agree with your interpretation that the Compliance Officer and the SFA screwed up by serving the notice on Rangers FC.
We have repeatedly been advised by Auldheid and others that Article 12 states that the “Licence applicant” is the “Legal entity fully and solely responsible for the football team participating in national and international club competitions which applies for a licence.”
Given that the NoC relates to a Licence application, why did the CO not serve it on the legal entity that was the “Licence applicant” in 2011, i.e. Oldco?
As you say, the NoC should have been served on the Oldco, with the Newco as an interested party. The Newco could then be in a position to challenge any judgement made against the Oldco, that directly or indirectly impacted the club, on the basis of the undertakings in the 5WA.
Had that been the approach, then we might have got to the truth of what went on during the licensing process, then had the undertakings or even the validity of the 5WA itself subjected to scrutiny.
HIGHLANDERJULY 21, 2018 at 11:47
My first thought on seeing the piece was ,here we go the MSM lackeys have been asked to trivialise the offense and plant the seed that it will only result in a £5,000 fine if guilty .
IMO scottish football supporters are being softened up for another whitewash
FAN OF FOOTBALLJULY 21, 2018 at 11:35
3
0 Rate This
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
………………………………
Indeed!
If it is not incompetence, it is something much more sinister.
I think it would be fair to say that everyone on here (with one notable exception) is now hoping that the truth of it all will be uncovered whether the the charge against TRFC sticks or not.
Kudos to Douglas Fraser for sticking his head above the parapet. He’s probably calculated that the average bear doesn’t read the financial section (again with one notable exception).
EASYJAMBOJULY 21, 2018 at 11:58
1
0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit July 21, 2018 at 10:53=========================I agree with your interpretation that the Compliance Officer and the SFA screwed up by serving the notice on Rangers FC.
………………………
If they admit it as a mistake, there is no reason why a new NoC cannot be issued to the correct party – I.e. Oldco.
TBH
I believe that the truth is the LAST thing the whole corrupt cabal want the football supporters to see .
How else could such simple matters end up being so difficult to deal with
In what other football country could a governing body declare the existance of
a secret 5 way agreement and it never be questioned in any great depth .
Auldheid’s e-mail exchange post should leave no supporter in scotland in any doubt about the damaging relationship between any club from ibrokes ,our MSM and the peepil running our game .
Can you imagine what the reaction would be if that e-mail exchange was exposed in English football between the English fa and an EPL club .
FAN OF FOOTBALLJULY 21, 2018 at 11:18
I get the fact you want to go and watch your team but your Club, like all the others, by their silence are complicit in the corruption of the sport YOU ARE PAYING to watch.
Incidentally, if my post above is correct then BarcaBhoy’s comments that Rangers’ potential liability for any acts prior to 2012 are now exclusively under the jurisdiction of CAS go too far.
So far as past acts are concerned, the 5WA only exempts Rangers from responsibility for CW Exempt acts. Rangers are liable for any other omission or act (including CW enduring acts.)
CW exempt acts are (by definition) limited to acts/omissions which take place during CW’s tenure as chairman. Anything which took place prior to that cannot be a CW exempt act. Accordingly nothing prior to May 2011 should ever need to go to CAS.
The specific issue here is that the allegations relate to CW’s period as chairman, and so the question of whether these were an Exempt act or an enduring act is engaged.
CAS’s involvement is simply required to determine this as that’s the 5WA provides they (and only they) have jurisdiction if the issue is disputed.
AULDHEIDJULY 21, 2018 at 11:15
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.
======================================================
you were quite right in putting the above comment in bold ,If everything was above board why would this cause issues for the SFA and ragers . would it be this part they would rather no one ‘s attention was drawn to
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)
Now why would they be anxious about anyone looking into this information (they should have just e-mailed LM2 )
also this…………………………….
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.
Was the £2.8m liability being questioned or was it the penalties and interest only
And last but not least
============================================
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.
What BIGGER ISSUES could there possibly be than a potential £20m fraud
For what its worth Celtic’s policy has been not to interfere with the Judicial Process that all clubs signed up to a few years back.
It was Regan’s baby and he deserves credit for establishing it, for in terms of on the field misdemeanours and video reviews its far better than what went before where, lets say, others at Hampden might be in a position to influence what was scrutinised or left on the cutting room floor.
However when it comes to an issue where the SFA themselves come under scrutiny and my earlier post on Regan shows why they are, then that process is hopelessly inadequate.
It only reinforces the request the SPFL made for a total independent review of SFA handling of Rangers use of ebts covered in a series of letters last September.
http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/SFA_Correspondence.pdf
what is emerging since is that the SPFL were right to place that request and if Scottish football is ever to lose the stink of corruption such an investigation should go ahead by the SPFL with or without SFA co operation starting with taking up Regan’s suggestion that Lord Nimmo Smith is asked to look at his decision based on Sir David’s Murray’s testimony to the FTT but with all the other information not disclosed to him but known since.
On the basis why the current non compliance case was instigated, note what Regan said in his letter of 18 August 2017 page 2. The Craig Whyte Trial: The Wee Tax Case. (which apparently has been resolved although we will never know why because it was dropped for unknown reasons from JPDT scrutiny. )
It is quite clear from what Regan has consistently said that the SFA granted the licence because of an ongoing dispute and that is simply not the case, so why is it not part of whatever process is used to get the truth out there? Was the truth too hot to handle?
Scottish football is at a crossroads it should have crossed in 2012 only this time its not a crossroads its a crisis and some strong leadership is required – over to you Mr Maxwell – become Turnbull Hutton.
HirsutePursuitJuly 21, 2018 at 11:57 (Edit)
The situation now is that even the SFA’s Judicial Process is seen as not fit for purpose so what rules apply in Scottish football if that judicial process can be corrupted?
I’ve posted about Celtic and the SPFL’s position last September, I am hoping the latest farce gives reason to return to that position and have an enquiry.
Lest we forget, the agreements which King is now welching on were actually life savers for Sevco at the time. The 5-way kept them in football and the Mike Ashley loan kept them from administration.
I posted on here a while back that the CO decision would be D-Day for the SFA. It would tell us whether the SFA had genuinely been cleaned up, or not.
I think we have the answer. It’s still a cesspit.
Nothing to see here until the truth came out in a court of law. Appointment of CO. Absolutely butchered the terms of reference (as they did with LNS.) Delay for months as they carefully and methodically make incredible mistakes on the charge sheet. More delay til the hearing. Then an utter cop out, delivered sneakily the day before Dave King’s court (supposed) appearance.
Auldheid’s email exchange (above) should be posted on every football website in the country.
HELPUMOOTJULY 21, 2018 at 14:05
If the emails were posted on fans’ websites , do you think they would stop going to matches?
I think that we need to be careful in what we read into specific quotes from the email exchange such as “If they persist they will only cause issues for themselves as much as Rangers.”
Yes, it can be read as RFC being aware of what the SFA has done / covered up, or as a threat that their compliance with RFC would be made public.
However it could also be read that all it would generate would be further noise and questions to the SFA, which they would rather do without. Nothing sinister, nothing illegal, nothing to see.
I’m sure any semi competent lawyer could argue for the latter interpretation.
“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…”
I wonder what evidence Grant Thornton LLP saw that enabled them to make the assertion that there was ‘continuing discussion’ when we know now that that was not true? Did they just take someone’s word?
No punishment or real penalties for fielding 3 players under DOS scheme for 3 years (imagine how many games in that period) who were registered improperly. This was fact. They then played in the region of over 50 players who were improperly registered at SFA for approx 10 years. Every game in that period at least one player IMO played. The SC verdict confirmed that players were paid by EBT’s which were contractual payments. This means IMO cheating on a massive scale. Fact again as SC verdict final. No punishment or penalty at all. NOTHING. Why so? It is not even addressed by SFA or smsm, why so? No other club would be given this leniency, none. Scotland seems to master corruption at an incredible level to help any club playing at Ibrox. Why so, really why so ffs.
THE UNGRATEFUL DEADJULY 21, 2018 at 11:05
HIRSUTEPURSUITJULY 21, 2018 at 10:53The SFA are hopelessly conflicted. They cannot go to CAS without exposing their propagation of the BIG LIE. King is playing a blinder .
=================
King is clearly not daft. Unfortunately he channels all his energies towards avoiding punishment for rule breaking, while apparently quite happy to accept the rules actually were broken. Such an individual should be banned from football sine die.
fan of footballJuly 21, 2018 at 12:02
IMO scottish football supporters are being softened up for another whitewash
———————————————–
Scottish football fans are by now somewhere between a jelly and the contents of an egg in terms of how far we have been softened up.
EASYJAMBOJULY 21, 2018 at 14:57
Fair point and in support is the hassle Regan’s draft has caused since CF first leaked it in 2013. Saved Regan 2 years hassle.
However the consternation it caused at Ibrox suggests the grant of licence was anything but right and Lawman can say all he likes about the Comp Off clearing RFC of wrongdoing the evidence from Regan points to the proof provided by Grant Thornton to obtain the licence was false.
The liability was not potential and the ongoing discussion were not about disputing the liability but paying it.
John Clark
It follows that if Celtic shareholder think they have a case for compensation, there is little point pursuing the club who benefited as they no longer exist and any settlement would be pence in the pound.
Grant Thornton on the other hand, who appear to have been negligent as it was their statement that allowed SFA to grant the licence based on known evidence that looks like false grounds, are still a going concern.
Given Scottish football jurisprudence has failed dismally to do what it should have in 2014 when presented with evidence that the UEFA licence granting was based on lies, perhaps Grant Thornton can be pursued for negligence…..
AULDHEIDJULY 21, 2018 at 18:08
You wont be surprised to learn that i think EJ has hit the spot. It would have been crazy to release it. Whyte had to get one thing right.
Yes it was. The emails in February 2011 99.9999% confirm that.
This is a rock and hard place for some Celtic shareholders. There are thousands who dont agree with the stance on the club not existing anymore so perhaps it would be clever to let them pursue it.
Grant Thornton are not negligent in the slightest. Leaving aside any difference in opinion of the position, an auditor can only work with what they are given and can only do so many checks. Thats a dead end.
This goes back to my point that no amount of checking or panels, or judges, or Compliance Officers or anyone will solve this until someone says Rangers are guilty. Thats the only solution for some.
Never made it by the mods,early this morning,too many links maybe.? so here goes again without links.
————-
THELAWMAN 22.00 20,2018
The current custodians of rangers don’t believe we are a new club.I understand that’s your view john but i would i think we would all agree,rightly or wrongly.it’s 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.
———-
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.
—————-Dave king to bring back oldco.They say we’re not rangers anymore.I want to put that behind us ibrox chief says he plans to take rangers oldco out of liquidation and put an end to the bating of the fans by their rivals
———-
Now are you sure the current custodians of an ibrox club don’t believe they are a new club?
—-
someone is pi****g down your back and telling you it’s raining
CLUSTER ONEJULY 21, 2018 at 18:31
Yes im sure.
The war was lost in 2012 when fans went to games after the monstrous cheating that destroyed the fabric of the game by allowing a clearly ineligible organisation to enter the league against all precedent and rules. I chose thennever to return. Everything that has happened then has served to confirm my view. Football in Scotland ended in 2012 as it ceased to be a game with rules. Everything since has been a charade and an exercise in deceit and fraud.
The SFA itself is manifestly the guilty party here. It knew from 2003 onwards that Rangers were cheating and chose actively to facilitate and reward that cheating. The SFA itself should be taken to the CAS by member clubs for fraud and corruption in an unprecedented and systematic fashion.
ICEMAN63JULY 21, 2018 at 19:12
==========================
I’ve enjoyed watching football in Scotland since then. I suspect the St Johnstone. Inverness and Hibs fans have enjoyed winning the Scottish Cup. I suspect the St Mirren, Ross County and Aberdeen fans have enjoyed winning the League Cup.
I don’t like the people running the game and the way they run it. However I still watch and enjoy Scottish football.
To each their own though, if you have chosen never to return to Scottish football I totally respect that.
There’s a Gordian knot needing to be cut here and the time has come for action.
My own view is that, as one of the few players with some clout and resource, the Celtic Board needs to step up and ensure that the SFA carry out their responsibility to clean up a mess that is in large part of their own making.
It’s going to be painful for most of those involved but Scottish Football needs this to be sorted out once and for all.
A first step would be the publication of the 5WA and a declaration that the club operating from Ibrox is a new football club founded after the demise of Rangers FC.
Well the level 5 guys just could not keep a lid on the action by the Takeover Panel,
some bears in a bit of a shock today to learn that their club shadow director chairman could be found in contempt of court, as early as next month, that could bring a jail sentence of up to two years or an unlimited fine.
Mandarin tops can only cover up so much,can cover even less when you can’t get your hands on one.
One bad result now on the playing field from a club from ibrox could see the house of cards shake to the ground.
CLUSTER ONEJULY 21, 2018 at 20:39
=====================================
Given that the Judge is going to be considering the position with regards SDI and their right to match any merchandising deal Rangers come up with late in July, and that the new season starts on the first weekend in August, there is every prospect the supporters won’t be able to buy the new strip prior to the league starting.
That really can’t be helping cash flow.
If Dave King is struggling to get money out of South Africa he won’t be able to provide loans to cover that shortfall.
HOMUNCULUSJULY 21, 2018 at 21:53
here is every prospect the supporters won’t be able to buy the new strip prior to the league starting.
—————-
Many may not bother,their cash has gone on fake tops that will not help cash flow for the club
Celtic FC should release a statement agreeing with TRFC. Force the SFA to pass the whole mess over to CAS with ALL the relevant evidence. I believe that this would create a total meltdown at the offices of the SFA and prevent it being painted as a fight between CFC and TRFC.
This is for BP. Apparently he doesn’t like my music. but we can agree on this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKNxeF4KMsY
iceman63July 21, 2018 at 19:12
)
‘….the monstrous cheating that destroyed the fabric of the game by allowing a clearly ineligible organisation to enter the league against all precedent and rules’
______________
I’ve had your post in my mind all evening, iceman, as I was doing some paint-scraping off some metal work ( a stupid grill kind of thing on one of the windows on the stair landing: Mrs C’s orders, as we redecorate!
We ourselves have to be careful in sticking to the ‘Rules’ in our determination to nail those who did not.
SevcoScotland Ltd ( renaming itself ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’) had, by the persuasive rhetoric [some might say ‘ bullying and/or nods and winks] of Longmuir , been admitted to the SFL.
And as a new member of the SFL, was entitled to apply for membership of the SFA.
And, I accept, it was up to the SFA to admit or not admit them to membership as a new club, even if there may have been other clubs seeking membership.
Legally, and rule-wise, and however distasteful, the SFA were free to do so.
What they were not free to do, in any respect whatsoever, legally, morally, or in plain common sense, was to create the lie that SevsoScotland/TRFC Ltd was not a new club, but were actually RFC of 1872!
This must go down in history as the most ridiculous con that has ever been attempted.
It would make a brilliant Monty Python sketch.
But in real life, it is not at all a joke: men lied, betrayed the trust reposed in them by you and me, and made themselves whores to a horse-loving chancer in just the same eager leg-opening way in which they had accommodated a knight of the realm some years before.
And were , accordingly, shafted by the horse-lover, and by the knight, and now are being shafted by a royal by name!
It is a dirty, dirty mess.
This is for the Jambos, Auldeid, JC, Red Lichtie, Paddy. Stevie, And a million others on here.
Moonlight ShadowMike OldfieldThe first time ever she saw him,Carried away by a moonlight shadow.He passed on worried and warning,Carried away by a moonlight shadow.Lost in a riddle that Saturday night,Far away on the other side.He was caught in the middle of a desperate fightAnd she couldn’t find how to push through.The trees that whisper in the evening,Carried away by a moonlight shadow.Sing a song of sorrow and grieving,Carried away by a moonlight shadow.All she saw was a silhouette of a gun,Far away on the other side.He was shot six times by a man on the runAnd she couldn’t find how to push through.I stay, I praySee you in heaven far away.I stay, I praySee you in heaven one day.Four a.m. in the morning,Carried away by a moonlight shadow.I watched your vision forming,Carried away by a moonlight shadow.Stars roll slowly in a silvery night,Far away on the other side.Will you come to terms with me this night,But she couldn’t find how to push through.I stay, I praySee you in heaven far away.I stay, I praySee you in heaven one day.Far away on the other side.Caught in the middle of a hundred and five.The night was heavy and the air was alive,But she couldn’t find how to push through.Carried away by a moonlight shadow.Carried away by a moonlight shadow.Far away on the other side.But she couldn’t find how to push through.
jimboJuly 21, 2018 at 23:59 easier on the eye
Moonlight ShadowMike Oldfield
The first time ever she saw him,
Carried away by a moonlight shadow.
He passed on worried and warning,
Carried away by a moonlight shadow.
Lost in a riddle that Saturday night,
Far away on the other side.
He was caught in the middle of a desperate fight
And she couldn’t find how to push through.
The trees that whisper in the evening,
Carried away by a moonlight shadow.
Sing a song of sorrow and grieving,
Carried away by a moonlight shadow.
All she saw was a silhouette of a gun,
Far away on the other side.
He was shot six times by a man on the run
And she couldn’t find how to push through.
I stay, I praySee you in heaven far away.I stay,
I praySee you in heaven one day.
Four a.m. in the morning,
Carried away by a moonlight shadow.
I watched your vision forming,
Carried away by a moonlight shadow.
Stars roll slowly in a silvery night,
Far away on the other side.
Will you come to terms with me this night,
But she couldn’t find how to push through.
I stay, I praySee you in heaven far away.
I stay, I praySee you in heaven one day.
Far away on the other side.
Caught in the middle of a hundred and five.
The night was heavy and the air was alive,
But she couldn’t find how to push through.
Carried away by a moonlight shadow.
Carried away by a moonlight shadow.
Far away on the other side.
But she couldn’t find how to push through.
JC
May I be so bold as to make a gentle correction to something you said earlier.
Sevco did not apply for membership of the SFA. On admission to the SFL, the club had already, automatically, become a (registered) member of the SFA.
What the new club was compelled to do (by the SFL’s rules) was apply to the SFA for the status of ‘associate’ or ‘full’ membership within 14 days of its admittance to the league.
The normal route would be to apply to become an associate member, but without the required financial (or any other) history it would not qualify. Sevco chose instead to request a transfer of the of the full membership status held, at that time, by Rangers.
The key point is that if Sevco had not applied or if the SFA had refused to grant Sevco the status of associate or full membership, the new club’s SFL place would have become forfeit and its SFA (registered) membership would have consequently lapsed.
Sorry for being a pedant. I just think its important not to forget that for about three weeks each club held a different SFA registered membership – one as a member of the SPL, the other as a member of the SFL.
I maybe missing something, but, if NOAL has already supplied £6.7 million worth of “loans” to TRIFC and was stated by the auditors as ready, willing and able, to provide further financing, how come wee Davie can’t now get his dosh out of South Africa?
finnmccoolJuly 22, 2018 at 03:33
I maybe missing something, but, if NOAL has already supplied £6.7 million worth of “loans” to TRIFC and was stated by the auditors as ready, willing and able, to provide further financing, how come wee Davie can’t now get his dosh out of South Africa?
_____________
I’d imagine the money that King has channelled into TRFC hasn’t come directly from SA, and was probably already sitting in some offshore tax havens before he was eventually sent down by the SA High Court judge. I am sure that that money would have been moved through so many trusts of varying names that it’s origin will have been virtually impossible to tell. With the money moving from one point of King’s control to another, no one of any financial authority would have paid it much attention. The £11m, though, would be moving in a rather public way, and looked for by the authorities, here in the UK as well as SA, and it’s country of origin clear to, in particular, SARS (or the SA authority charged with keeping an eye on SA residents money exports).
In addition, King has rattled the cages of the UK financial authorities, and they don’t like it (and him), so, if the money arrived in the country from a source other than SA based, questions might well be asked, and, I’d imagine, King doesn’t dare risk that.
Alternatively, regardless of how much money he has left, or whatever difficulties he has in moving it about, he is simply maxed out in his Ibrox investment.
Finnmcool
Celtic have put more money into Sevco via Europe than Dave King has. The real question is why King is allowed anywhere near Scottish football. Apart from being a convicted tax cheat and gasl, he was on the Board which killed Rangers, he voted against a CVA, deliberately lowered the share price so he and his concert party could clean up, failed to follow TOP’s ruling, failed to follow the court’s orders, ousted one member of the football authorities, is gunning for another (McLennan), he has threatened the SFA on more than one occasion, brought the game into disrepute, completely undermined football governance in this country, lied to Sevco fans, increased the sectarian tension in Scotland, lied about a nomad, lied to Hummel, has not honoured contracts with players and managers he has employed, reduced away fans allocation, etc, etc..
During all of this the SFA have done SFA to protect other Scottish clubs and everything to facilitate him. Scottish football is finished as a sport the way things stand.
THELAWMAN2JULY 21, 2018 at 18:52
CLUSTER ONEJULY 21, 2018 at 18:31
Yes im sure.
——————-
Can i ask if i may,What makes you so sure?
ALLYJAMBOJULY 22, 2018 at 07:41
The £11m, though, would be moving in a rather public way, and looked for by the authorities, here in the UK as well as SA, and it’s country of origin clear to, in particular, SARS (or the SA authority charged with keeping an eye on SA residents money exports).
—————-
And that i believe is the reason king has not done so by now.For king to move so much money,even if it is not in his name but from some trust fund.When if it ever will arrive it will have to arrive into somekind of account with his name linked to it.
A convicted criminal can’t just have £11 million moved into a UK Account from a SA or other offshore account without someone asking questions.
————-
The other thing i would like to ask, if i may.
—
I maybe missing something, but, if NOAL has already supplied £6.7 million worth of “loans” to TRIFC and was stated by the auditors as ready, willing and able, to provide further financing,
————-
Does NOAL have shareholders, and are they happy that their money is being used to keep an ibrox club afloat.
And if it is Laird or some other trust fund that dave has to get the £11 mill from,do they have shareholders,and are they happy this money is being used to buy worthless shares.
IMO The real scandal here is the catalogue of cheating and lying that has gone on , aided a abetted by the peepil trusted to run our game , It truly is the most shameful period in the history of the governance of our game.
Every single person involved in the running of our game in the last 20 or so years will be tainted by their involvement until there is an honest and truly independant inquiry into everything that has gone on .
To still find ourselves 6 years later with such a distrust of the game we love is scandalous ,quite frankly it beggars belief .
What has gone on since the facts have been revealed has done little to restore any faith that the people running our game today are thinking any different to the peepil running it then
Ragers 1872
paid players and failed to declare it to the SFA (DOS)
paid players and failed to declare it to the SFA (EBT)
Failed to declare overdue tax liability to SFA
fielded players that would have have been declared ineligable (if side letters were given to SFA ) for over 10yrs
witheld PAYE/NIC from HMRC and used it to run the club
went into admin
failed to get a CVA
left over £100m debt
await liquidation
CG never bought THE CLUB
never bought the HISTORY
if they win a major trophy it will be their FIRST .
The authorities should have dealt honestly with the mess that landed at their door instead of compounding the dishonesty and creating the mess that has now landed at the Scottish football supporters door.
truly SCOTLANDS SHAME
I’ve been looking back through some recent posts by Lawman and noted marked changes in his posting style as events have unfolded over the last few weeks, whether it was from the Compliance Officer, TOP, Mike Ashley, Dave King or the JPDT.
On 6 June, he posted the following on SFM:
“i think Rangers have got off with a technicality. One which im actually honest enough to say they possibly or more than likely played the game on it. That doesnt make it clever, big or right, but in the strictest accordance of the rules, Im confident there will never be a change from any body in relation to the issuance of the licence.”
On 20 July he posted a reply to Auldheid on SFM which he repeated on Twitter, but omitted a few post scripts that he included in a “twitlonger” post to his followers
“PS – The “new evidence” wasnt new at all. It was already known to the Compliance Officer.
PPS – There is a growing view that when Rangers accepted the amount of the “bill” thats when it became overdue. I dont subscribe to that theory but even if it WAS the case, it still wouldnt have affected the licence as the key date for the licence is actually 31st December 2010(cut off date) and not 31st March 2011 which is only the submission date.
PPPS – It was deid 2 years ago. Its still deid.” (this is a reference to Res 12)
He has a habit of making what read as statements of fact, but are actually only his opinions, as in his PS PPS and PPPS above. If you have doubts about what he says then ask him for the evidence that backs it up. More often than not your request will be ignored.
When something comes out that could be perceived as negative to his views he goes on the defensive, but if it is perceived as a positive, he gets emboldened and goes on the attack with “I told you so” like comments.
I think he does recognise that Rangers play the system, but isn’t really interested in transparency and the truth coming out, or the spirit of the rules being upheld. He gets a buzz from the debate and anything that serves as a GIRUY to Celtic fans, even if it means that he has to look into the minutiae of rules or statements for alternative interpretations of the words or phrases used.
Contrary to what he might think about SFM I believe that he does see it as a more grown up and serious discussion forum than the likes of Rangers Media or Follow Follow and he would love to be able to join the debate on level terms. He has expressed his frustration at not being able to post out of moderation, join any discussions with contemporaneous posts and the opportunity to act as devil’s advocate. The latter can be a useful tool to challenge thinking, but if repeated again and again it becomes more akin to trolling. I believe that him being allowed to post out of moderation would very quickly end up with him being banned as a troll.
By all means engage with him as he is not stupid and there are some interesting debates to be had, but do recognise where he is coming from as one of “the people”, and that he gets his kicks out of seeing posters getting annoyed when efforts to get to the truth are seemingly frustrated by the actions/inaction of the authorities.
Maybe the South African authorities just said no.
He has hardly been a model resident and taxpayer and would be asking to move £11m to the UK to potentially buy shares in a business which has lost money in every year of its existence, will lose money again this year and is £20m in debt.
No intelligence or inside knowledge here, pure idle speculation.
I remember about a year ago seeing a photo of the Celtic Academy and their coaches. The squad was enormous, must have been about 100. Coaches? about 20. I was proud as punch.
Then EJ let me know that within Scotland, Celtic’s academy are cash rich and sweep up a lot of the best talent around. It burst my bubble a bit.
But if their is one thing in common, it is that most youngsters won’t go on to the big time. Whether with Celtic or not. We might have top class coaches and facilities but it all comes down to quality in the players in the end. But it creates an opportunity if nothing else.
If you think about music, there are countless musicians, amateur and professional, going around. Not all will reach the top of the charts or play with an orchestra. But they will, at least, have an enjoyable hobby for life.
So yesterday Celtic’s under 19s beat Manchester United’s under 19s 3-1.
That makes me very happy. Having watched the world cup recently when once again Scotland is not involved, it would be easy to think we are second rate as a footballing country.
I don’t know the budgets of Celtic’s academy nor Man U’s, but I don’t think the disparity of the senior teams budgets will be quite so disparite with the youth teams. So it’s a more even playing field. And we beat them 3-1. At that age level, most are home grown talent too. So maybe a good Scotland team in the making. The laddie Henderson was outstanding.
Brilliant.
HOMUNCULUSJULY 22, 2018 at 10:23
Maybe the South African authorities just said no.
——————————————————————————————————–
What isn’t idle speculation is that the Big Liar said, “No”…………And now he is in a bit of a pickle.
A genuine Tick-Tock moment which requires a hasty white flag hoisting….
Still be a victory but.
HOMUNCULUSJULY 22, 2018 at 10:23
Maybe the South African authorities just said no.
————-
I’m beginning to lean that way also
And the SA authorities will be the next on dave”s list to get the blame.
Easy Jambo
I hadn’t seen Lawman’s claim that the new evidence had been seen by the Compliance Officer.
Had it then I’m sure the Compliance Officer would have responded to that affect by now. It’s been nearly 4 weeks. If it’s all in order it should be easy to demonstrate.
And his reported verbal response on reading it suggests it was new to him but that can be confirmed.
That evidence shows not only did RFC agree the liability on 21st March they made an attempt to get the bank to pay it before 31st March, not a date set by HMRC who were happy to have it paid quickly or wait 30 or even 90 days if RFC could get the bank to commit to pay immediately or within that time. Had that commitment been given HMRC could have provided RFC with a written agreement to postpone payment.
Either payment by 31 March or a written agreement from HMRC would have stopped the accepted liability becoming an overdue payable, but neither happened. Had such an agreement that complies with FFP existed it would have been produced in 2011 and SOS would not have called to collect in August if payment had been made by bank by whatever the terms of any agreement were.
There was no dispute but Regan says SFA were told there was, making the liability potential and not actual and that there was no dispute is crystal clear from the evidence. You are hardly going to pay a bill quickly that you dispute are you?
The claim itself was not frivolous so faced with the actual liability being classed as an overdue payable under Annex VIII which was a reason to refuse the licence, RFC obtained the proof required by Art50 in the shape of the report from Grant Thornton that Regan himself revealed in the e mail of 7 December posted earlier that simply told SFA there was no actual liability because of discussions when there was a liability and no dispute in any discussions.
If Comp Off knew that and thought no dishonesty at play I can see why he has resigned but perhaps he will respond to Res12 lawyer setting all our minds at rest.
The above is supported by evidence already in the hands of many but on hold to give SFA opportunity to clarify.
To make the point. If you are disputing a liability making it potential, you don’t ask the bank to pay it in full.
Oh and Res12 isn’t dead but it does look as if it’s been buried alive with Scottish football holding the shovels.
HomunculusJuly 22, 2018 at 10:23
Maybe the South African authorities just said no.He has hardly been a model resident and taxpayer and would be asking to move £11m to the UK to potentially buy shares in a business which has lost money in every year of its existence, will lose money again this year and is £20m in debt.No intelligence or inside knowledge here, pure idle speculation.
____________________
That is a very likely scenario, Homunculus, but will only have come about if King actually applied to have the money transferred to the UK. I think he hasn’t yet applied, and only will of he goes down the route of making the offer – as further delaying tactics – confident that the authorities will deny him the right to export so much money, say £5m+, and he will then be able to hold up his hands and say, ‘I tried, but they’re all out to get me – and the club’!
A very large proportion of the support will continue to believe him, and in him, and most of the rest will convince themselves that, though he’s a bit dodgy, he’s the best/only option they have.
Alternatively, if he believes he can get the money out of SA, we have to wonder about those delaying tactics, and what it is he hopes to achieve by, seemingly, farting against the wind.
Well, what if the European gamble is the answer? What if he knows that, if it doesn’t pay off, the club is going down the plughole? But, if it pays off, there remains a chance that it will survive (and with an improved squad), and only then will he commit his money – if that bright new future awaits.
Basically, he sees no point in forking out more money, or facing the consequences of Resolution 12, if the gamble doesn’t pay off, but by playing for time, he hopes that the future fortunes of the club will, at least, hold some prospect of success – which it won’t do without the very necessary Euro fortunes.
And if it doesn’t? He hasn’t committed any more of his wealth, and he escapes his legal difficulties when there is no club to buy shares in, and no club to face whatever happens at the CAS.
It is always nice when lm2 and his m8s appear as I know the s++t has or is about to hit the fan. I just can’t stop chuckling at the verbal gymnastics of them as they try and divert the blog elsewhere they must have been magicians previously.Keep coming lads the posts you make are at least good for a laugh.
Auldheid July 22, 2018 at 11:48
———————————–
Looking again at Lawman’s dogged stance on “Agreed Terms”, it is instructive to note that the Annex VIII wording has been changed since 2011 from “according to the agreed terms” to “according to the contractual or legal terms”. I suspect that the lack of a definition of “agreed terms” in the licensing manual, and the possibility of alternative interpretations, led to UEFA clarifying what they actually intended.
So what are “agreed terms” or more accurately “contractual or legal terms”. Lawman has stuck to the need for a bill to establish the “agreed terms”, despite Annex VIII also stating that there need not be a demand for payment for a liability to be overdue. I’m sure that people who run their own small businesses are very familiar with the “contractual or legal terms” that relate to tax deadlines.
* For PAYE and NICs it is either 19th or 22nd of the month in which each of the 12 tax months end, e.g. 5th May is the end on month 1 and 5th April the end of month 12.
* For VAT you are allowed one calendar month and seven days following each VAT quarter, e.g. if your quarter ends on 31 July, then the payment deadline is 7 September.
* For Self Assessment there are various due dates for payments on account and a final date of 31 January for the previous tax year, e.g. 31 January 2018 for tax year 2016/17.
Why are these important. Simple, if you miss those dates payment is overdue unless you meet HMRC’s criteria for extending deadlines, e.g. you make an appeal or agree a time to pay arrangement etc.
When it comes to the WTC liability, as soon as the liability was accepted (21 March 2011 at the very latest) it was overdue because the tax years that the liability related to were 2000/01 through 2002/03. The deadline for payment of PAYE and NICs for each of those years was 19 or 22 April in 2001, 2002 and 2003 respectively. That is how the Tax Justice Network argued the point. It’s one I agree with.
Going back to Lawman’s precious Annex VIII and the 31 December cut off. Annex VIII doesn’t actually mention 31 December. It only deals with whether or not a liability is deemed as overdue at 31 March, 30 June or 30 September. As far as I and the TJN are concerned the WTC was overdue at all three dates in 2011.
It is Article 50 that deals with the cut off date of 31 December. That limits the disclosure of the “contractual and legal obligations towards its employees that arose prior to the previous 31 December”. The liabilities for Flo, De Boer and Moore (HMRC agreed to drop the Moore claim as out of time on 21 March when the amount of the liability was accepted) arose in 2001/02/03. Note that a liability had most likely been accepted before 21 March when only the quantum was agreed)
Apply that to the WTC and ask the questions from Article 50 and Annex VIII as required for your submission on 31 March 2011:
* Do you have a tax liability that arose prior to 31 December 2010 – Yes (for Flo and DeBoer)
* Is it overdue – Yes (by the “agreed terms” for payment of PAYE and NICs from 2001/02/03)
Easy Jambo 12.47.
UEFAS three aims behind Articles 50 are clear.
1.To make clubs socially responsible by paying their taxes. The outcome of pressure on UEFA by EU Parliament from days when clubs owed vast sums overall.
2. To stop clubs in financial straits as evidenced by unpaid tax getting access to UEFA competitons at expense of clubs meeting their social responsibilities.
3. To minimise the risk of a club running on fumes going belly up during a UEFA competition.
That is why the consequence is so Draconian. No wriggle room. Pay up or have a guarantee in place by 31st March that satisfies the tax authorities enough to agree in writing to postpone payment that you will pay after that date or no licence.
Any other argument that ignores purpose is a crock.
HOMUNCULUSJULY 22, 2018 at 10:23Maybe the South African authorities just said no.
__________________________________________________
That just made me think of “The Man fom Del Monte says yes!!!!”
SHUG
JULY 22, 2018 at 12:44
====================================
My favourite bit is when they come away with things like “I can say as an absolute fact that Rangers did not … or the Compliance Officer wont consider … or UEFA would never …” etc.
My normal reaction is to think how do you know that exactly, its not in the public domain, or its clearly an opinion as opposed to a fact.
ALLYJAMBO
JULY 22, 2018 at 12:18
================================
He promised to provide something like £3.5m this season via NOAL. Its part of the reason the auditors were able to get round the going concern issues.
Where does it hold its money and why can’t that be used. Clearly it isn’t in South Africa as he has already provided loans of about £7m, and claimed he was going to provide another £4m last season, its not clear if he did or if the Close Brothers money was used instead.
Why ask the Court of Session to allow Laird to make the offer when he knew there would be issues with that trust moving the money to the UK to make a compliant offer.
He is taking liberties with the Scottish Courts as well as the South African ones. He is just about to see how the English Courts react to his roguish charm.
easyJamboJuly 22, 2018 at 12:47
Auldheid July 22, 2018 at 11:48———————————–Looking again at Lawman’s dogged stance on “Agreed Terms”, it is instructive to note that the Annex VIII wording has been changed since 2011 from “according to the agreed terms” to “according to the contractual or legal terms”. I suspect that the lack of a definition of “agreed terms” in the licensing manual, and the possibility of alternative interpretations, led to UEFA clarifying what they actually intended.So what are “agreed terms” or more accurately “contractual or legal terms”. Lawman has stuck to the need for a bill to establish the “agreed terms”, despite Annex VIII also stating that there need not be a demand for payment for a liability to be overdue. I’m sure that people who run their own small businesses are very familiar with the “contractual or legal terms” that relate to tax deadlines.* For PAYE and NICs it is either 19th or 22nd of the month in which each of the 12 tax months end, e.g. 5th May is the end on month 1 and 5th April the end of month 12.* For VAT you are allowed one calendar month and seven days following each VAT quarter, e.g. if your quarter ends on 31 July, then the payment deadline is 7 September.* For Self Assessment there are various due dates for payments on account and a final date of 31 January for the previous tax year, e.g. 31 January 2018 for tax year 2016/17.Why are these important. Simple, if you miss those dates payment is overdue unless you meet HMRC’s criteria for extending deadlines, e.g. you make an appeal or agree a time to pay arrangement etc.When it comes to the WTC liability, as soon as the liability was accepted (21 March 2011 at the very latest) it was overdue because the tax years that the liability related to were 2000/01 through 2002/03. The deadline for payment of PAYE and NICs for each of those years was 19 or 22 April in 2001, 2002 and 2003 respectively. That is how the Tax Justice Network argued the point. It’s one I agree with.Going back to Lawman’s precious Annex VIII and the 31 December cut off. Annex VIII doesn’t actually mention 31 December. It only deals with whether or not a liability is deemed as overdue at 31 March, 30 June or 30 September. As far as I and the TJN are concerned the WTC was overdue at all three dates in 2011.It is Article 50 that deals with the cut off date of 31 December. That limits the disclosure of the “contractual and legal obligations towards its employees that arose prior to the previous 31 December”. The liabilities for Flo, De Boer and Moore (HMRC agreed to drop the Moore claim as out of time on 21 March when the amount of the liability was accepted) arose in 2001/02/03. Note that a liability had most likely been accepted before 21 March when only the quantum was agreed)Apply that to the WTC and ask the questions from Article 50 and Annex VIII as required for your submission on 31 March 2011:* Do you have a tax liability that arose prior to 31 December 2010 – Yes (for Flo and DeBoer)* Is it overdue – Yes (by the “agreed terms” for payment of PAYE and NICs from 2001/02/03)
_________________
Excellent post, EJ, though I’m sure someone will be along in a bit to pick at it, while ignoring the most important point of all. The tax was more than ten years overdue, and only Rangers were to blame for that, with their lies and deliberate hiding of side letters. I do wonder if UEFA have a precedent on which we could judge how they would view a club owing income tax for over ten years, not to mention the fact that they’d lied to the tax authorities for so long, and to the club’s football association.
EASYJAMBOJULY 22, 2018 at 12:47
Going back to Lawman’s precious Annex VIII and the 31 December cut off. Annex VIII doesn’t actually mention 31 December. It only deals with whether or not a liability is deemed as overdue at 31 March, 30 June or 30 September. As far as I and the TJN are concerned the WTC was overdue at all three dates in 2011.
It is Article 50 that deals with the cut off date of 31 December. That limits the disclosure of the “contractual and legal obligations towards its employees that arose prior to the previous 31 December”. The liabilities for Flo, De Boer and Moore (HMRC agreed to drop the Moore claim as out of time on 21 March when the amount of the liability was accepted) arose in 2001/02/03. Note that a liability had most likely been accepted before 21 March when only the quantum was agreed)_
____________________________________________________________
Article 50 is what sets out the criteria. The Annex is to clarify the terms and detail of what is needed to comply with 50. UEFA have confirmed in writing the relevant date is 31 December 2010 and not 31 March 2011.
If the bill was accepted on 21st March 2011 and at that point became overdue, then there is no requirement to disclose it which, as above, has been confirmed in writing.
HomunculusJuly 22, 2018 at 14:02
ALLYJAMBOJULY 22, 2018 at 12:18================================He promised to provide something like £3.5m this season via NOAL. Its part of the reason the auditors were able to get round the going concern issues. Where does it hold its money and why can’t that be used. Clearly it isn’t in South Africa as he has already provided loans of about £7m, and claimed he was going to provide another £4m last season, its not clear if he did or if the Close Brothers money was used instead. Why ask the Court of Session to allow Laird to make the offer when he knew there would be issues with that trust moving the money to the UK to make a compliant offer. He is taking liberties with the Scottish Courts as well as the South African ones. He is just about to see how the English Courts react to his roguish charm.
_________________________
There can be no doubt about that, but in the case of the TOP ruling, he must ensure the money comes from a legitimate source that would stand up to any scrutiny by the UK authorities, and particularly those of South Africa. He doesn’t dare use money he shouldn’t have (outside SA) and so must face the strict exchange control of SA. He would, I’m sure, know it is very unlikely that they will allow him to move £11m to the UK, for any kind of investment, and has absolutely no intention of piquing their interest by ever applying to move it. The only reason King didn’t have this problem when lending TRFC money, can only be that it didn’t come from SA, and was probably from a source that the SA authorities didn’t know about, and can’t be linked back to SA. Although that money was most likely his, it would be impossible to prove it, and is probably disguised as loans to him from some convoluted trust, layered like a cake.
In SARS court case against King, King attempted to get the case discontinued/postponed because he had “insufficient funds to pay for legal representation.”
King claimed that the only money at his disposal was in trusts in Guernsey and London.
In a radio interview he accused the SARS commissioner of being “a bully.”
https://www.fin24.com/Business/Dave-King-richest-in-SA-State-20060803
This man is poison. How on earth did he get a judge to state that he was fit and proper to go on any board, never mind the board of a club claiming to be the same club he helped liquidate, even voting against a CVA to ensure the club was liquidated?
Q. What does DCK gain from all these stalling tactics?
A. Time obviously ?
Q. What does he need time for?
A. He’s highly motivated by financial reward through whatever means so it’s all about gathering in money ?
Q. Where’s the money coming from?
A. TRFC supporters in the main but really anyone who wants to invest quantum’s.
Q. How much does he want?
A. He wants the £20 million back that he invested in RFC.
Trying to apply Accams razor here, ie follow following the money.
Graham Spiers in The Times has just kicked King in the b@lls. Basically saying that Gerrard has been duped. There is no money. He claims that no player at Ibrox would get in the Celtic team.
Putting aside the succulent stuff about Gerrard – and it is pretty succulent – it’s an excellent article, if years overdue.
Two journos in a week having a pop at King. I guess it all adds to an increased social awareness of who and what King is.
EX LUDO
JULY 22, 2018 at 17:24
================================
If I remember correctly King didn’t actually invest anything in the former club. He put money into a Murray company, Murray Sports Ltd. When Murray sold to Whyte (MIH to Wavetower) it was about 83% of the club which was sold (for £1).
Murray Sports was dissolved in 2013, King had been a director, being appointed in 2004.
His holding, over 3m shares, was through Metlika Ltd
Noted Homunculus. I was musing as to why he (King) was sticking around since he’s had nothing but legal difficulties recently. I see that G. Speirs is also daring to question Dave. Developing story? Douglas Fraser and Graham Speirs both getting in their “I told you so” stories ahead of the pack perhaps?
Ex LudoJuly 22, 2018 at 18:24
Could it be Atlantic or European league football ,maybe an invitation to the English Premier League now if that one came off then it would be moon beams and rainbows
TheRedPill.
Moonbeams indeed. The TRFC/RFC fans have a dodgy record when travelling abroad so a bit of a risk there. Presumably any club or indeed company would have to provide a business plan and demonstrate quantums of solvency going forward. Could also be challenging for some clubs without travel partners.
Interesting read from James Forrest to do with the show racism charity.
I will not post a link but amble over and have a wee swatch at it.
Maybe the South African authorities just said no.He has hardly been a model resident and taxpayer and would be asking to move £11m to the UK to potentially buy shares in a business which has lost money in every year of its existence, will lose money again this year and is £20m in debt.
————-
It’s quite so.
What happens if Mr king can’t get £11 into the UK to potentially buy shares in a business which has lost money in every year of its existence.
1. We know that 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.
———
My question is this,if i can word it right.
If king can’t do as the TOP ask? Where does that put king in his buying of shares to gain control of the ibrox club,will it have been illegal? and if it was where does that leave the concert party and the ibrox club,is it a case of all bets are off?
We know what will happen to king,But what will happen to the concert party and the takeover of the ibrox club?
SHUGJULY 22, 2018 at 20:18
Interesting read from James Forrest to do with the show racism charity.I will not post a link but amble over and have a wee swatch at it.
—————–
For anyone looking in from outside Glasgow ” a wee swatch” is have a little look
a wee swatch….Not heard that in ages,that made my night.
CLUSTER ONEJULY 22, 2018 at 20:20
———My question is this,if i can word it right.If king can’t do as the TOP ask? Where does that put king in his buying of shares to gain control of the ibrox club,will it have been illegal?
======================================
I don’t think the first part is an option COne (do you see what I did there).
TOP aren’t asking him to do it , they are telling him. More than that, he has been ordered to do it by the Court of Session, the highest civil Court in Scotland.
I don’t see how not making a compliant offer is an option open to him. They are only discussing when and how now.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this ended up with TOP agreeing for him to do it on pretty much his own terms, with the money still in South Africa. The CoS would probably just cancel their order if both parties agreed (though I don’t know how that stands legally). Pragmatism all round.
HOMUNCULUSJULY 22, 2018 at 20:52
and have been thinking about that with all the CO’s
6
1 Rate This
CLUSTER ONEJULY 22, 2018 at 20:20———My question is this,if i can word it right.If king can’t do as the TOP ask? Where does that put king in his buying of shares to gain control of the ibrox club,will it have been illegal?
======================================
I don’t think the first part is an option COne (do you see what I did there).
———
Yes i did
——
TOP aren’t asking him to do it , they are telling him.
———–
Reading over i realised that ask was the wrong word to use but too late to edit.
——-
It wouldn’t surprise me if this ended up with TOP agreeing for him to do it on pretty much his own terms, with the money still in South Africa.
——–
But at some stage the money has to come out of SA would it not,and that i believe is kings problem.
SHUGJULY 22, 2018 at 20:18
Interesting read from James Forrest,right enough.
Jim Reeves was a nice singer. But he never played for Celtic.
Cluster OneJuly 22, 2018 at 20:20
‘….If king can’t do as the TOP ask?…’
_______________________________
Perhaps one thing that could happen if King proves he is unable to comply with the Court Order is that the TOP will have recourse to Rule 9.2:
“9.2 OBLIGATIONS OF OTHER PERSONS In addition to the person specified in Rule 9.1, each of the principal members of a group of persons acting in concert with him may, according to the circumstances of the case, have the obligation to extend an offer.
(NOTE ON RULE 9.2 Prime responsibility:
The prime responsibility for making an offer under this Rule normally attaches to the person who makes the acquisition which imposes the obligation to make an offer. If such person is not a principal member of the group acting in concert, the obligation to make an offer may attach to the principal member or members and, in exceptional circumstances, to other members of the group acting in concert. This could include a member of the group who at the time when the obligation arises does not have any interest in shares. ….)”
There is nothing to say that ,having named King via Laird Proprietary Ltd, as the one who has to make the offer, the TOP cannot move on to someone else!
The TOP’s primary concern is that an offer be made so that the treatment of shareholders is ‘fair’ and their rights protected.
If the ‘principal member’ of the concert party cannot as opposed to ‘will not’ comply, then I fancy that the TOP will look to them to make the offer.
I imagine that each of them is looking askance at their ‘leader’ and wishing to hell he would just comply and stop the lunatic bugger.ng about.
Ultimately, of course, the Court’s authority ( assuming that it has been legitimately exercised, of course) simply has to be upheld, and the TOP’s with it.
Because there will not be a crooked shyster of a plc company director anywhere in the UK and beyond( and if, in my short experience of these things, I think I can count at least a dozen such, there will be many much more nationwide), who will not be following this challenge to the Regulatory authority and the Court of Session with great interest.
( What’s the odds that the TOP are already talking to relevant Ministers about the need for Section 955 of the Companies Act to be amended to remove any discretionary power from the Courts as to whether they should make an order, or in what terms an order should be made?)
Cluster One July 22, 2018 at 21:59
SHUGJULY 22, 2018 at 20:18
Interesting read from James Forrest,right enough.
=============================
His latest piece on the 5WA is well worth a read.
I tried earlier with this don’t know if it is in moderation or not but I wanted to know basically if we are calling the C/O by the correct title.
Is he the COMPLIANCE officer ie there to make sure all teams/players etc comply with the rules or is he the COMPLIANT officer who is the to make sure the sfa/spfl comply with sevcos rules with the way things are going I am getting a bit confused
This is for the Jambos, Auldeid, JC, Stevie, Paddy, Redlichtie, Gaun the Killie and a million other posters. Esp. Barcabhoy.
And RTC if he still lurks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qit_HikDGxU