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.
JOHN CLARKJULY 22, 2018 at 22:25
———–
Thanks JC.
So to recap.
If king say’s i can’t get the money out of SA.
then king could be found in contempt of court, as early as next month, could bring a jail sentence of up to two years or an unlimited fine.
Then the TOP look to the others in the concert party to complete the deal.Could be squeaky bum time for some to come up with £11 million.And if they can’t?
EASYJAMBOJULY 22, 2018 at 22:25
His latest piece on the 5WA is well worth a read.
————–
Will do.
Let’s imagine the scenario where King doesn’t comply and goes to jail (or not). What next for the TOP? If King doesn’t pay, they fall short on their duty to small shareholders, and the concert party, with over 30% of the shares, still remains.
Now, the court might make an order for King to sell his shares, but who would buy them, even at 20p, and for a substantial parcel of shares to be sold at less than that would severely disadvantage every other shareholder. So maybe not the way to go.
Maybe they’d just take away King’s voting rights (while barring him from purchasing shares in any UK company), which I think might be the most likely option. But even that might be seen to disadvantage the shareholders, for King, it is, who has promised so much of the directors loans that keep RIFC/TRFC alive, and he’s hardly likely to fulfill that promise if he is no longer a director, and has no voting rights or ability to influence the direction of the company, – though he is hardly likely to honour his promise, regardless.
But they just might decide that the shareholders should/must be given the oportunity to sell their shares at 20p, with the rest of the concert party being told that, despite King being held responsible in the first instance, they had actually realised King’s ‘error’, and the position it put them in, but took no action (to sell some of their own shares) to rectify their position, at any time.
I think the TOP might very well instruct the rest of the concert party to make the offer, then chase King to pony up to them in the event sufficient holders take up the offer to pass the 50% mark. In fact, I think this scenario becomes ever more likely if it is viewed that the company holds little chance of surviving, or even maintaining a share price of 20p.
Now wouldn’t that give us much to speculate over, in a will they, won’t they kind of way?
JC, I’m taking your advice, I’m going to my kip. But I trust you will post a wee post about you know what. remind me about it all.
I never tire of your message.
jimboJuly 22, 2018 at 22:32
‘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.’
_____________________
Now, if you had gone for ‘He’ll have to go’ you would have had a double hit on the bog;
1. you would have reminded me of many sixpence-a-time plays of that song in a juke box in a café (of sorts) in the north of Ireland during the Glasgow Fair holidays , when I was young lad fantasising over one Audrey frae Belfast!
2. you would have been bang on topic if by ‘he’ we think of King, and what I’m sure many people with the best interests of TRFC Ltd at heart are saying in their own hearts!
JOHN CLARKJULY 22, 2018 at 22:25
B*gger, there’s me just spent ages putting a post together, and you’ve put actual facts up, rather than my waffling speculation, before I could click ‘Post Comment’
Still, it does show I was thinking along the right lines, and puts the likelihood of the rest of the concert party having any more readies for directors loans, pretty much out of the window.
easyJamboJuly 22, 2018 at 22:25 Cluster One July 22, 2018 at 21:59SHUGJULY 22, 2018 at 20:18Interesting read from James Forrest,right enough.=============================His latest piece on the 5WA is well worth a read
===================
In this part JF points to a possible way forward which is establish if UEFA were ever consulted on the 5 Way because there is no ambiguity in terms of how they view TRFC/RIFC. Apart from the fact UEFA explain that the 10 year coefficient table states on UEFA web site
https://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/news/newsid=2528752.html
” These rankings are used solely for the distribution of part of the club revenues.”
to clubs that played in a UEFA competition in last ten years, there is the Traverso letter which the SFA have in their possession and as yet unpublished confirmation of UEFA’s position which is in stark contrast to that of Scottish football.
From James Forrest.
It is almost inconceivable that UEFA would agree to that.
The Five Way Agreement itself is a violation of UEFA regulations, which clearly and concisely cut through the whole “club versus company” argument on which the Survival Lie depends.
Their definition of what “a club” is leaves no room for doubt; they make no distinction between the two which means that when Rangers died they were gone and Sevco is a different entity.
That they give the club the same coefficient points as the old one appears to be a flat contradiction of policy, but it flows from the SFA’s own position on the matter.
But that position is based on a document which does make clear distinctions between Sevco and Rangers, and sets them out clearly.
It is the basis of the Survival Lie, yes, but it also contradicts itself in the number of times it clearly separates the two entities … the Five Way Agreement is actually the enshrining of a lie which all involved freely admit is a lie.
It is a document that says “we know Rangers died but this document will commit to treating Sevco as if they were Rangers … except when that would be inconvenient for us.”
Which is to say that UEFA allows Sevco and the SFA to maintain this fiction on the clear understanding that the sins of Rangers will be paid for by the current Ibrox club. If the SFA has given Sevco immunity from those charges then, yes … I think UEFA would have a problem with that.
With such a weight hanging over all the directors, there must be little chance of them ever providing loans in the future, which makes the current spending spree even more ridiculous than it seemed before.
Imagine of RIFC/TRFC go burst in the meantime, and the directors still have to make that offer for the shares! Everybody would take the offer up, for there would be no reason not to.
“I think UEFA would have a problem with that.”
Yes as usual you are perfectly correct. But how do you get UEFA interested?
As shareholders you got pretty far. So far. But it takes a club or an association to get to the real deal. Is Celtic bothered?
HirsutePursuitJuly 22, 2018 at 03:10
‘JCMay I be so bold as to make a gentle correction to something you said earlier..
Sevco did not apply for membership of the SFA…….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.”________________
Apologies, HP, for coming so late to reply.
I stand properly corrected, of course. And enlightened.
I’ve always been thrown by the ‘conditional membership’ concept, when ‘Team 12’ had to get the permission of the Administrators to use players whose registrations were held by the club in Administration!
What an absolute farce that was.
And what a disgrace that Scottish football governance should have sunk to such a level of farcical and transparent falsehood.
Of course, its not a ‘past’ disgrace- because Scottish Football is even now living a lie.
We hear today that the very ‘Anti-corruption’ branch of the Met ,allegedly, has liars and corruptors in its ranks!
What price the 6th Floor at Hampden?
Imagine VAR in Scottish Football?
Oh help redundant Masons.
AllyjamboJuly 22, 2018 at 23:01
‘..and you’ve put actual facts up, rather than my waffling speculation’
__________________________
The great strength of this SFM blog is that most of us know that none of us is privy to the whole truth, but are determined that the whole truth will be finally established.
One person’s speculation can trigger off a bit of serious research, a bit of digging, which might unearth some little bit of truth that the liars do not want to be unearthed.
We know the truth.
It is the liars who are on the back foot.( and we are talking about ‘lies’, not ‘misunderstandings’ or ‘honest mistakes’.)
As a simple matter of fact, we will nail the liars, sooner or later.
VAR was terrific in the World Cup but it doesn’t solve everything. The penalty in the final has split opinion with most saying it shouldn’t have been a penalty as the rules state it has to be deliberate.
They grey area of course is which part needs to be deliberate? The deliberate movement of the hand only? Or how about the deliberate goalkeeperesque body shape to.make yourself bigger to stop the ball.
One thing for certain though is that if it happened in Scotland and was or was not given for Rangers or Celtic, the ref would still be called a cheat. That’s just the way it is here.
JC at 00.55
Yes – they will be exposed, and your comments remind me of Fergus McCann’s determination and staying power in ‘nailing’ the Jim Farry in ‘Cadetegate’ – all without the support of SFM!
Come on Celtic – ‘step up to the plate’.
It makes me absoloutely furious that the fight for justice looks like it will be left to guys like JC , Allyjambo , Auldhied , Barcabhoy and all the other bloggers I aint mentioned . Celtic NEED to stand up for Scottish football here , I know I will get pelters from fellow celtic fans asking why just Celtic when other clubs dont seem to be bothered . But Celtic are the biggest club by a mile in Scotland at the moment, they have the muscle to make things happen. If they act like the cowards they have been , nothing will change . This is not about Rangers , this is for a clean game , a new modern thinking SFA with no agenda other that what is best for all Scottish clubs . Surely that is in everybodys interest……………….OR Celtic are you part of the 5 way agreement ? Did you quietly agree to the agreement to give you the 4 “old firm ” games every season? Yes you made the statement about how Celtic dont rely on any other club when it comes to thier own finances, easy statement to make. Cmon Celtic please prove me and thousands of other fans wrong who have this gnawing doubt about why you wont act . Do you want a Petrie led SFA and all the crap that will follow . Are you hoping that 10 in a row will make fans forget about how rotten to the core Scottish football is ? As a Celtic fan I would love 10 in a row BUT I would rather have the SFA crooks gone , a new shiny Fair and balanced SFA in place every day of the week. Much more important that 10 in a row
Roddybhoy. What a fantastic post. Well said. Who could not agree with those words?
What’s that coming over the hill ? Is it a Lawman?
John ClarkJuly 23, 2018 at 00:55
AllyjamboJuly 22, 2018 at 23:01‘..and you’ve put actual facts up, rather than my waffling speculation’__________________________The great strength of this SFM blog is that most of us know that none of us is privy to the whole truth, but are determined that the whole truth will be finally established. One person’s speculation can trigger off a bit of serious research, a bit of digging, which might unearth some little bit of truth that the liars do not want to be unearthed.We know the truth.It is the liars who are on the back foot.( and we are talking about ‘lies’, not ‘misunderstandings’ or ‘honest mistakes’.)As a simple matter of fact, we will nail the liars, sooner or later.
_____________________
I think we nailed the liars a long time ago, John, evidenced by the fact no one, not even our resident cheats’ apologist, tries to convince us the lies were not lies but merely honest mistakes. Instead they are just problems to get around through technicalities. Our problem is getting anything done with our knowledge of those lies and liars, as there’s no avenue for ordinary people to go down when the those tasked with representing the truth – such as the game’s governors, the SMSM etc – are so enthralled to those very liars. All we can do is to provide somewhere for people to come and read an alternative to the one sided narrative, and to join in with their own thoughts, to keep the truth out there.
I think, though, that should there eventually be some sort of justice served, it will not come from a universal recognition of the truth, but through the WATP mantra, itself, whereby that unshakeable belief in their own invincibility will lead to their final reckoning. Their final reckoning will most likely come from a governing body that has no allegiance to ‘the establishment club’, but one they have mistakenly thought would bow to their will, just because they are ‘Rangers’, and that’s the way it has always been.
The TOP aren’t going to go away until the small shareholders are offered that 20p per share, and there’s nothing the friends of the Ibrox incumbents (the SFA, SMSM etc) can do to mitigate the damage that that will do. As the walls come tumbling down and the rogues start falling out, that’s when the lies will be exposed, even to those who don’t seek the truth, or prefer to ignore it.
As others have mentioned, James Forrest’s article on the Five Way Agreement is a must-read. So much so that I’m almost tempted to copy it here in full, but I’m reluctant to do so in case it infringes his and/or SFM’s rules.
Also, credit where credit is due, JJ has an interesting article today entitled ‘Does Persistence Beat Resistance?’
Re Maxwell/SFA
I’m wondering when this gentleman is going to say something of import (or anything) about the game in Scotland – surely he is due , at least , to have an interview with a member of the scottish media on his thoughts for the future now that he has got his feet under the desk – forget the past – no-one is going to ask him about it .
I’m afraid our fears re this guy are beginning to be realised .
HighlanderJuly 23, 2018 at 11:45
Certainly a good article from James Forrest, and one that, I’m certain, is right on the money. The thing is, though, regardless of the contents of the 5 Way Agreement, the biggest question has to be – why was it necessary?
Subsequent questions would be; Why was it kept secret? What purpose did it serve? Has it’s contents been made available to all the member clubs? And if not, why not, and if not, why have the other clubs accepted the situation, what was said to them to shut them up? As any football club that survives administration must pay all it’s football debts to be allowed to continue as a club, why could it possibly be necessary to contain settling football debts in a separate, unique, agreement, to be able to enforce this?
And, of course, the biggy would be; If TRFC is a continuation of Rangers, how on earth would any agreement even be considered, let alone be required? In fact, the very existence of the 5 Way Agreement, regardless of it’s why’s and wherefores, or what it contains, can only be proof that Green did not buy a football club, and it’s secrecy can only be because it contains words that would prove that – beyond doubt or argument – and/or that it’s contents are somewhat illegal, or, at least, improper!
The SFA sit today at 2pm to adjudge on Hearts fielding an ineligible player. May I suggest that Jambos urge their club to take the matter to CAS should the verdict not be to your liking, citing the leniency of previous precedents.
naegreetin
July 23, 2018 at 12:11
_______________
In May, Maxwell was quoted by the Evening Times as saying
“I have always made decisions at the right time and for the right reasons. That will never change. There will always be people who like the decisions and there will always be people who don’t like them. I have to accept that. But it’s about clubs and supporters understanding why those decisions have been made. “
Many of us know exactly why certain decisions were made that ought NOT, if there had been any regard for sporting truth and integrity of governance, to have been made, and which must as a matter of fundamental principle be unmade.
And Maxwell should be making it publicly clear that he understands that whether people like or dislike the Truth and its consequences, is not any criterion on which to base decisions based on Truth.
James Forrest misses one notable observation about the 5WA in his excellent blog. While he notes that the first draft required RFC to lose the trophies from the EBT years, he doesn’t make anything of why that requirement appeared in the draft, who asked for it to be included and the timing and implications for the LNS commission.
The fact that the stripping of titles appeared in the first draft demonstrates that one of more people in senior positions at the SFA and SPL had already decided on appropriate “EBT Sanctions”, without recourse to a disciplinary process or commission. They must have been supremely confident that the club’s failure to supply full contractual information was so serious and clearly in breach of SFA and SPL requirements that it merited such a draconian measure, without due process.
The 5WA was reported as having been signed on 27 July 2012. A few days later, on 1 August 2012, the SPL Board passed a resolution appointing the LNS Commission. It is clear that LNS’ independence and ability to consider all possible sanctions was compromised as a result of the undertakings in the 5WA and as a result the Commission’s proceedings and findings should therefore be viewed as a sham.
Corrupt officialJuly 23, 2018 at 12:57
The SFA sit today at 2pm to adjudge on Hearts fielding an ineligible player. May I suggest that Jambos urge their club to take the matter to CAS should the verdict not be to your liking, citing the leniency of previous precedents.
_______________–
Regardless of the result of the hearing, I very much doubt Hearts would cite the Rangers situation should they decide to appeal, for the far more pertinent precedents would undoubtedly be the two previous cases, one involving Cove Rangers, themselves, of fielding an ineligible player in the same competition. In each case a fine of £5,000 was the sole sanction. If citing those two examples in any appeal wasn’t good enough, I doubt citing Rangers would do much good, and could easily be viewed as vexatious.
Unless there is some material difference between the Hearts’ situation and the two previous cases, then I’d expect the penalty to be similar, with an upward adjustment to reflect the respective club incomes.
Apparently Andrew Irving’s registration documents had all been completed correctly, but Hearts hadn’t entered it onto the SFA’s online registration system. That might well be considered more serious than whatever the other two clubs had done/failed to do, and so lead to a loss of three points.
Anyway, not long to wait now
I note that Peter Lawwell has replaced Stewart Robertson on the SPFL board.
Rangers and Celtic seem to be following a pre-2012 tradition of rotating their seat annually, how very “Old Firm” of them…
easyJamboJuly 23, 2018 at 13:41
James Forrest misses one notable observation about the 5WA in his excellent blog. While he notes that the first draft required RFC to lose the trophies from the EBT years, he doesn’t make anything of why that requirement appeared in the draft, who asked for it to be included and the timing and implications for the LNS commission.The fact that the stripping of titles appeared in the first draft demonstrates that one of more people in senior positions at the SFA and SPL had already decided on appropriate “EBT Sanctions”, without recourse to a disciplinary process or commission. They must have been supremely confident that the club’s failure to supply full contractual information was so serious and clearly in breach of SFA and SPL requirements that it merited such a draconian measure, without due process.The 5WA was reported as having been signed on 27 July 2012. A few days later, on 1 August 2012, the SPL Board passed a resolution appointing the LNS Commission. It is clear that LNS’ independence and ability to consider all possible sanctions was compromised as a result of the undertakings in the 5WA and as a result the Commission’s proceedings and findings should therefore be viewed as a sham.
_____________________
I wonder if it was this that led to the decision to change the charge, itself, and it’s parameters, from one of players’ ineligibility to registration irregularities and to remove the period of the DOS scheme from consideration.
Surely the 5WA is primarily about the paying of football debts by ‘Rangers’.
As we know the old club could not pay them as they were dead. So the only ones that might pay them was any new club from Govan.
However any new club could turn round and say No, we have no legal right to be responsible for old club football debts.
So in order for the the football debts to be paid, an agreement had to be thrashed out, hence the 5WA agreement, which had to include a new football club to play in an established league.
It is not to difficult to imagine who had the upper hand in these negotiations if the football authorities wanted the football debts to be paid for the benefit of all the other clubs.
AllyjamboJuly 23, 2018 at 12:40
Good post.
I was thinking of asking for information of the SFA Supporters Liaison Officer , but the role seems to be run in partnership with Supporters Direct Scotland , so no direct access to the SFA for fans . Has anyone tried asking questions via SDS , or are they solely for the benefit of clubs participating in EUFA competitions and not for asking questions of the governing bodies ?
I notice that TRFC can potentially meet NK Maribor in the EL qualifiers , a name writ large in the demise of RFC .
part time peteJuly 23, 2018 at 13:57
Surely the 5WA is primarily about the paying of football debts by ‘Rangers’.As we know the old club could not pay them as they were dead. So the only ones that might pay them was any new club from Govan.However any new club could turn round and say No, we have no legal right to be responsible for old club football debts.So in order for the the football debts to be paid, an agreement had to be thrashed out, hence the 5WA agreement, which had to include a new football club to play in an established league.It is not to difficult to imagine who had the upper hand in these negotiations if the football authorities wanted the football debts to be paid for the benefit of all the other clubs.
______________________-
I’m sure it was, and I’m sure it was sold that way to the rest of the member clubs. I’m also sure that, as Rangers owed quite a lot of money to overseas clubs, the SFA didn’t want to get involved in arguments with UEFA over a club with outstanding debts to clubs outside the SFA’s jurisdiction. Of course, if they had been the same club, there would have been no need for any sort of agreement to pay those outstanding football debts, as that requirement was already covered in the rules.
Really, the ball should have been in the SFA/SPL’s court, with Green desperate for a league for his football club to use the facilities he’d purchased, but the reality probably was that Green couldn’t care less about having a league to play in, because he had those assets at a knock down price (though perhaps thought they were worth more than the reality, with TUPE and limited possible alternative uses for Ibrox and Murray Park) and was prepared to sell them to the highest buyer, regardless of who, or what, that might be.
HighlanderJuly 23, 2018 at 11:45
As others have mentioned, James Forrest’s article on the Five Way Agreement is a must-read. So much so that I’m almost tempted to copy it here in full, but I’m reluctant to do so in case it infringes his and/or SFM’s rules.
———————————————————————
Can someone post a link?
As soon as Green knew that the football authorities, the SFA and the SPL were desperate to have a Rangers in Scottish football, he had the upper (big)hand.
He could and did, call the shots.
BORDERSDON
JULY 23, 2018 at 15:09
https://thecelticblog.com/2018/07/blogs/the-five-way-agreement-is-the-rotting-black-heart-of-scottish-football-corruption/
How does King suddenly change tack from wont to can’t especially as he has already said he will?
Could he make his daughter the majority shareholder in Laird (and NOAL Inv) and claim his willingness to comply has been thwarted , possibly even claiming he was duped .This way he keeps control of his shares and avoids the demands of the TOP.
If King can transfer liability to other members of the concert party he will do so without hesitation.
BORDERSDONJULY 23, 2018 at 15:09
Can someone post a link?
———————————————————-
https://thecelticblog.com/2018/07/blogs/the-five-way-agreement-is-the-rotting-black-heart-of-scottish-football-corruption/
Nick July 23, 2018 at 13:47
———————-
All tHe SPFL Board changes
Motherwell chief executive Alan Burrows and Dundee managing director John Nelms have been elected to the Scottish Professional Football League board.
Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell returns to the the board for the 2018/19 season.
The trio replace Stewart Robertson of Rangers, Hearts owner Ann Budge and Hamilton chairman Les Gray.
Morton chief executive Warren Hawke and Falkirk’s Martin Ritchie are the board’s Championship representatives.
Stranraer’s Iain Dougan represents the interests of the clubs from Leagues One and Two.
They will serve on the board alongside SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster, chairman Murdoch MacLennan and independent non-executive director Karyn McCluskey.
Barry Anderson
@BarryAnderson_
Hearts deducted two points and fined £10,000 (£8,000 suspended until the end of season 2019/20) by SPFL for fielding an ineligible player in the Betfred Cup. #HMFC4:00 pm · 23 Jul 2018
Hearts docked 2 group stage points and find £10000
Perhaps the perfect fudge. Hearts given football penalty, while not comparable with anything that could have been meted out to Rangers. At the same time qualification remains a possibility if they win their last two matches, so Hearts and we supporters are, no doubt, more than a little relieved (some thought disqualification was on the cards).
Hopefully the determination and reasoning behind the penalty will be published, and will include why a points deduction was deemed appropriate, but not a reversal of the result.
TimtimJuly 23, 2018 at 15:21
How does King suddenly change tack from wont to can’t especially as he has already said he will?Could he make his daughter the majority shareholder in Laird (and NOAL Inv) and claim his willingness to comply has been thwarted , possibly even claiming he was duped .This way he keeps control of his shares and avoids the demands of the TOP.If King can transfer liability to other members of the concert party he will do so without hesitation.
______________
There is a court ruling that King must comply, whatever happens to his ability to comply makes no difference, for he should have complied before now. As John Clark demonstrated yesterday, it is open to the TOP to force the rest of the concert party to make the offer, but that won’t stop the courts penalising King for not complying. Besides, he’s already seen his claims of impecuniosity given the bums rush!
The Hearts decision is a strange one. The cynic in me wonders if the decision to only deduct 2 points and keep them in a strong position to progress was influenced by the fact their last group game is televised?
PART TIME PETEJULY 23, 2018 at 13:57
I raised this issue the other month and believe you may be correct in that, outwith the consequences of developing the continuity myth, the main thrust of the 5WA may have been to stop anyone else thinking of going bust, starting a new club and shitting on the football creditors, – generally other fellow members and getting away with the sins of ‘the father’
A similar agreement may not have been required (or deemed necessary) in the previous liquidations of the likes of Airdrie, Gretna etc but the scale of the Rangers situation maybe required something new in terms of an agreement as the then existing rules were insufficient to deal with the total collapse of a ‘big team’.
The whole trouble is the degree of secrecy, which is of course laughable when there are versions of the different drafts out there.
If they could just tell us straight what it is all about and what it was meant to achieve then maybe we could start to ‘move on’.
Until then the conspiracy theories and a belief that the fans don’t matter will continue to exist.
Must admit I feel slightly uneasy about the outcome.
I think we should have been docked 3 points, after all that is what we “won” having won the game.
If the ineligible player had played on Saturday (won 2pts) then a 2 point docking would have been fair.
The fine should be the punishment.
The returning of points is the return of that to which we are not entitled.
HS
NICKJULY 23, 2018 at 16:23
I know there is always room for conspiracies but isn’t it sad that many of us think in that manner when these type of ‘out of left field’ decisions are made.
I appreciated that the new format of the League cup has a different points system but it must be some time since anyone got 2pts for a win deducted 🙂
If offenses can result in ‘odd’ points deductions then no reason for a club winning a game and originally getting 3 points but then having 1 taken off for some misconduct, be that players, officials or fans.
The W, D L, looks the same but the Pts total varies as a warning to get your house in order!!
Did King not declare a one off dividend at MicroMega to provide the funds for the TOP decision? If so he has the money albeit in Rand
How did he fund his first acquisition of shares was there some deal with the others in the concert party for them to put up the funds and him to repay them? If so, could he not do a similar thing now supposing the others still trust his word, which They might not do…
The obsessive brinkmanship and delay might have a purpose known only to King I cannot work it out.
Man Maths is one thing but Kings version really does take things too far
In my opinion, if the rules state that playing an ineligible player results in the reversal of the result, or the deduction of all points won, then that is what should have happened to Hearts. If, on the other hand, a range of penalties is given, to be meted out in accordance with the level of the offence, ranging from a fine for an ineligible un-used substitute, to a reversal of the result for deliberate abuse of the registration system, then it would appear that Hearts offence has been deemed as more serious than that perpetrated by Cove Rangers, but less serious than that in which someone, say, deliberately mis-registered players to hide a tax scam.
Nick July 23, 2018 at 16:23
The Hearts decision is a strange one. The cynic in me wonders if the decision to only deduct 2 points and keep them in a strong position to progress was influenced by the fact their last group game is televised?
===========================
I agree. It is a complete fudge designed to keep a “big team” in the competition.
Had Hearts lost the three points then an ICT win over Raith Rovers tomorrow evening would have assured ICT of topping the group.
Knowing Hearts though, they will screw up their opportunity to progress in their final two group games against Cowdenbeath and ICT (scheduled to be live on TV).
So Hearts field an ineligible player and basically Gain a point for doing so. Surely the proper course of action is to reverse the result. What if this had been a SPFL league match v Hibernian. Would Hibernian be happy that having been cheated they watch as the opponents actually gain 1 point from the cheating. Will the large fine be sent to the smaller club here to buy silence?…….conspiracies….they’re everywhere.
RODDYBHOYJULY 23, 2018 at 10:01
It makes me absolutely furious ……………………….Cmon Celtic please prove me and thousands of other fans wrong who have this gnawing doubt about why you wont act . Do you want a Petrie led SFA and all the crap that will follow . Are you hoping that 10 in a row will make fans forget about how rotten to the core Scottish football is ? As a Celtic fan I would love 10 in a row BUT I would rather have the SFA crooks gone , a new shiny Fair and balanced SFA in place every day of the week. Much more important that 10 in a row
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Great post RB.I’ve always thought that the business-led Celtic machine ably controlled by Lawwell and Desmond saw the bigger picture.
And in a business sense maybe its fair play to them.Yes they lost out over the loss of 1 years revenue from the Champions League.
But in having a key behind the scenes role in saving their rivals and shaping and agreeing the 5 way Lifebelt before any stuff happened they did what they could to keep their arch rivals alive.
That was business because to a significant part of their support it is only about 2 clubs and the socio-political divides that each one has historically drawn their supports from.
Nobody can dispute the fact that both remain over-supported far beyond their catchment areas and without some of the recruitment nuances both clubs might have smaller businesses.
It was business then and I’d say right now Mr Lawwell and the celtic business could see the pesky Resolution 12 guys far enough.
Lawwell will continue to play the same polite and respectful game with his well advised, resourceful and heroic Resolutioners while behind the scenes quietly avoiding anything that might in any way damage what they agreed to all those years ago and his current hand on the power till.
(Lawwell didn’t foresee the pantomime that happened at the blue club between 2012 and now but there and again nobody could ever have foreseen it. He made a business call, got on with running his club and influencing Scottish Football within the framework that is there – not in some new possibly nuclear landscape).
He and Petrie and their little group are all part of what was done and where we are and they don’t want interference or change.
Thats’ why we are all fighting and won’t go away.
The Resolution 12 guys are the very heart of their amazing institution even if what they want doesn’t align with Mr Lawell’s role and view.
I’d also say they are the very heart and soul of Scottish football even if most fans don’t really care and just want to watch football.
I really believe the Resolutioners biggest fight is with their club because the folks at the top at Celtic are Complict to all that has happened and don’t want to break ranks.
I totally agree with the posters that blame Celtic in all this. They should have stopped the 5WA and spoken out about the goings on at the time. They allowed the Nimmo change of dates and every thing else that went on. The Celtic management were well aware of everything that the Res 12 guys knew and did nothing.
The others clubs were also to blame but their excuse is that many of them are run by closet “Blue Noses” and they wanted the “Blue Pound” at some date in the future.
No matter what posters on here think and say there will always be a “Rangers” in Scottish Football, they will never be allowed to die even when liquidated.
FINLOCHJULY 23, 2018 at 17:39
*******
If you believe that Celtic were/are complicit in all that happened and who is to say they are not; what about all the other clubs, about forty of them?
One club, one vote.
ThomTheThim July 23, 2018 at 17:59
FINLOCHJULY 23, 2018 at 17:39
*******
If you believe that Celtic were/are complicit in all that happened and who is to say they are not; what about all the other clubs, about forty of them?
One club, one vote.
==========================
The voting rights don’t reflect the level of influence though.
Prior to Rangers demise, I always viewed Celtic and Rangers as each having one third of the power/money/influence, with the remaining third being shared by all other teams.
Simply put, Celtic and Rangers together exerted complete control (helped by the 11-1 voting veto over key decisions).
I believe that Celtic and Rangers new incarnation continue to exert the same level of control over the game, albeit with Celtic increasing their influence to over 50% and Rangers holding on to half the influence they had in their former guise. The rest of the clubs remain with a third. (the 11-1 veto continues though, probably as a result of P Lawwell’s influence over S Milne back in 2012, with Milne failing to support a change to the voting rules).
The SPFL have announced arrangements for a Reserve League and League Cup (replacing the Development League) starting this season.
https://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-reserve-league-201819/
I think it’s a positive change by the SPFL for once, albeit that a 17 game league season is a bit odd to say the least.
THOMTHETIM.
Whilst you are correct re – “One club, one vote” i’m sure you’ll agree that some clubs have more influence than others.
The apparent rotating of appointments to the SPFL board between Rangers & Celtic would seem to indicate a return to the pre-2012 days.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 23, 2018 at 12:40
And, of course, the biggy would be; If TRFC is a continuation of Rangers, how on earth would any agreement even be considered, let alone be required? In fact, the very existence of the 5 Way Agreement, regardless of it’s why’s and wherefores, or what it contains, can only be proof that Green did not buy a football club, and it’s secrecy can only be because it contains words that would prove that – beyond doubt or argument – and/or that it’s contents are somewhat illegal, or, at least, improper!
———————
That just about confirms in my eyes they are not a continuation. They are only a continuation in the eyes of the signatories,They expect everyone else to believe TRFC is a continuation of Rangers Well show the final signed draft of the 5 way and see if it can convince us,as nothing else has convinced us that TRFC is a continuation of Rangers
So Hearts are deducted points and fined for fielding a single ineligible player, while Rangers have never been deducted a single point for fielding many, many ineligible players. Yet the SFA and their media backers will sit with a straight face and tell anyone there is no bias in the way Scottish football is administered. Shocking.
I know there is always room for conspiracies.That part i borrowed from WOTTPIJULY 23, 2018 at 16:37
But has nothing to do with his post with what i’m about to say.
———–
Surely the 5WA is primarily about the paying of football debts by ‘Rangers’.As we know the old club could not pay them as they were dead. So the only ones that might pay them was any new club from Govan.However any new club could turn round and say No, we have no legal right to be responsible for old club football debts.So in order for the the football debts to be paid, an agreement had to be thrashed out, hence the 5WA agreement, which had to include a new football club to play in an established league.
———
That part also borrowed
Anyway…Celtic were owed £40,337, Hearts £800,000, Dunfermline £88,370, Dundee United £65,981 and Caley Thistle £39,805.
Not a lot in cash terms for celtic for Mr Lawwell to get involved in any 5 way agreement, just so that a continuation of an ibrox club can pay it’s debt to celtic.
————
RODDYBHOYJULY 23, 2018 at 10:01
OR Celtic are you part of the 5 way agreement ? Did you quietly agree to the agreement to give you the 4 “old firm ” games every season? Yes you made the statement about how Celtic dont rely on any other club when it comes to thier own finances, easy statement to make. Cmon Celtic please prove me and thousands of other fans wrong.
—————-
Of the few drafts that i have seen of the 5 way i can’t remember Mr Lawwell name getting a mention in any of them.
But happy to be corrected.
Just my thoughts and observations
Is this in somebody’s diary ? In tonight’s rolls .
Tuesday 24th July
LORD BANNATYNE
STARRED MOTION
1hrP997/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under 4.16Dentons UK
Brodies LLP
EASYJAMBOJULY 22, 2018 at 22:25His latest piece on the 5WA is well worth a read.
https://thecelticblog.com/2018/07/blogs/the-five-way-agreement-is-the-rotting-black-heart-of-scottish-football-corruption/
—————–
Just got round to reading again,as my eyes were heavy last night.
A very good read.
——————–
Found this Guest Report : Rangers given no title-stripping guarantee in secret SPL deal by ecojon :
What is even more incredible is that this deal was struck and distributed with the 5-Way Agreement before Lord Nimmo Smith began his enquiry and before the FTTT announced its verdict on the Rangers tax allegations.
——
if anyone wants a read.
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-over-nimmo-smith-inquiry-as.html
PADDY MALARKEYJULY 23, 2018 at 20:57
Is this in somebody’s diary ? In tonight’s rolls .Tuesday 24th July LORD BANNATYNE STARRED MOTION 1hrP997/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under 4.16Dentons UKBrodies LLP
——————
If i remember correctly Tue 24,july BDO v Henderson and jones,don’t know if the above is the same? AJ ,EJ or JC will keep us right.
Something i read today reminded me of this,sorry if it is OT
Anyone remember The proposal to SFL clubs, titled “Your Game, Your Club, Your Future?
28 June 2012
No…
https://stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/108463-in-full-document-sent-to-sfl-clubs-to-put-rangers-into-the-first-division/
————-
I think it was •Fear of the unknown or something that reminded me.
Apologies if I am repeating a prior comment, but just realised that Hearts had been playing Cove Rangers.
Would there have been a different outcome if this ineligible player had been caught playing against The Rangers ?
Is this another little, nasty leftover from the whole RFC/TRFC shambles, which could come back to bite the blazers in their bums at some point in the future ?
==============
From DR;
“Hearts have been hit with a two-point deduction and a £10,000 fine after their administrative cock-up that saw the Tynecastle side field an ineligible player in the Betfred Cup.
After a disciplinary hearing at Hampden on Monday afternoon that lasted two hours, the SPFL delivered the sentence after Hearts played unregistered Andrew Irving as a substitute in the 2-1 victory over Cove Rangers last week…”
Cluster One July 23, 2018 at 21:21
PADDY MALARKEYJULY 23, 2018 at 20:57
Is this in somebody’s diary ? In tonight’s rolls .Tuesday 24th July LORD BANNATYNE STARRED MOTION 1hrP997/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under 4.16Dentons UKBrodies LLP
——————
If i remember correctly Tue 24,july BDO v Henderson and jones,don’t know if the above is the same? AJ ,EJ or JC will keep us right.
======================
You remember correctly. I plan to be there for the 9am start.
It might be just a procedural matter, but there is also the possibility of H&J seeking the have the interim interdict lifted on them that prevents them seeking to appoint a receiver in respect of the floating charge that they claimed was held by CW / Wavetower / Liberty Capital
EASYJAMBOJULY 23, 2018 at 22:12
———–
Thanks for clarification.
safe journey.
@ALLYJAMBOJULY 23, 2018 at 16:15
==========================
I believe it will be to do with the “mini-league” nature of this stage of the League cup. In league games usually a result is changed to a defeat (e.g. 3-0 defeat imposed); in the knock out stages of cups teams are knocked out of the cup – but this is exactly what would normally happen if a team is defeated in a cup, as opposed to losing 3 points in a league game, so punishment is the same. I believe Hearts won a penalty shoot out after a draw: in the LC this gives 2 points (the losing team gets 1 point, because they already drew). So 2 points are docked.
@HIGGY’S SHOES
===========
My last comment timed out on me just as I was editing it. Looks like I muddled the two games up and my comment’s off the beam. Wonder if the SPFL did the same as me and got confused between the two results
coineanachantaighe July 23, 2018 at 22:22
@ALLYJAMBOJULY 23, 2018 at 16:15
==========================
I believe it will be to do with the “mini-league” nature of this stage of the League cup. In league games usually a result is changed to a defeat (e.g. 3-0 defeat imposed); in the knock out stages of cups teams are knocked out of the cup – but this is exactly what would happen if a result is changed to a defeat, so punishment is the same. I believe Hearts won a penalty shoot out after a draw: in the LC this gives 2 points (the losing team gets 1 point, because they already drew). So 2 points are docked.
==========================
Hearts actually beat Cove in the game. They were 2-0 up when Irving came on as a sub, with Hearts going on to win 2-1 having conceded a goal late on. Hearts therefore earned all three points.
That’s why a 2pt penalty makes no sense, other that the cynical view that the SPFL have limited the sanction in order that the televised gamed against ICT next Sunday still has something at stake.
The majority of Hearts fans were prepared for a reversal of the result with the award of a 3-0 win to Cove (I’m of that view), but most have welcomed the fact that while the club has been penalised, it still has it in their own hands to qualify for the next round.
As for Cove, they were the side that was wronged, but as the result has been allowed to stand, I believe that they have been disadvantaged by Hearts having fielded an ineligible player. A “big club” decision?
Yeah. I mis-spoke (as the POTUS says) before reading later comments. Tried to edit my original post but it timed out.
Regarding the Hearts point docking today, it’s an odd decision. As EasyJambo points out, it was unexpected, even by Hearts fans.
No consistency really, especially recalling the lack of action towards the old Rangers and their wrongly registered squads over many seasons, and this one from only two years ago, three points removed and a £30,000 fine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36265268
Again, ICT were not awarded the points, which was another ‘make it up as you go along’ decision by the authorities.
Cluster OneJuly 23, 2018 at 21:34
‘…..Anyone remember The proposal to SFL clubs, titled “Your Game, Your Club, Your Future?28 June 2012’
___________________________
Only too well!
That bunch of men were basically as rotten and corrupt as the bootlegging psychopathic hoods round Capone’s table: not a shred of respect for honour and truth-or for each other.
And that was my view before I became aware of the earlier dirty work in relation to the UEFA licence!
Colin Calderwood was involved in a two point deduction event in the early 80’s.
His first club in England was Mansfield Town and on his debut as a youth he played in a last match of the season game against Crewe in which his team Mansfield won the game and the three points.
As the three points for a win had only been in place a year or two the Football League rules still had a two point penalty deduction for playing a ‘ringer’.
They had forgot to change the rules when it went from two to three points for a win.
The English FA and Football Leagues played to the letter of the Law and deducted only the two points as the rules said. They however changed them at the earliest opportunity so a three point deduction was then the penalty.
i am just wondering as the League Cup only has been league based this last season and before that way back in the 60’s have the rules never been altered for points deduction in League Cup matches for playing ‘ringers’
BallyargusJuly 23, 2018 at 17:51
I totally agree with the posters that blame Celtic in all this. They should have stopped the 5WA and spoken out about the goings on at the time. They allowed the Nimmo change of dates and every thing else that went on. The Celtic management were well aware of everything that the Res 12 guys knew and did nothing.The others clubs were also to blame but their excuse is that many of them are run by closet “Blue Noses” and they wanted the “Blue Pound” at some date in the future.No matter what posters on here think and say there will always be a “Rangers” in Scottish Football, they will never be allowed to die even when liquidated.
=======================
How exactly could Celtic have stopped it? On what grounds?
“We are a rich club and can afford to lose the £40k owed and don’t give a toss for the effect on other clubs not getting paid what they are owed”?
That would just not be right, but even if they had been so minded it was the SPL as a whole who signed the 5 Way so if it went to a vote amongst the SPL clubs how many would Celtic have got?
Celtic knew SFA about the LNS date change, you can take that to the bank. Waiting for the appeals process to run its course had to be the right course of action but who would have predicted the covering up when the process ended and SFA refusal to open an investigation?
What if a decision had gone HMRC’s way earlier but RFC appealed, would that nean another round?
The LNS Commission should have been based on the final outcome of the BTC. The rush to judge meant no charges of dishonesty made and had patience won the day the charge would be similar to the one currently meandering through a not fit for purpose disciplinary process never meant for a case of this type.
There was never a chance that the game/industry was going to lose the good source of income that RFC represented, in 2012, too many clubs were still to close to financial danger for their comfort.
Had the 5 Way refused the transfer of RFC SFA Membership instead of caving in to Green, as James Forrest describes ,and Green had walked away, think of how different their history would have been since with more honest Rangers men taking the helm and challenge of building something new shed of toxicity, rather than the continuation of the spivs in suits that ran the club into the ground.
If they do go belly up again, then perhaps that will happen.
Cathkin Park is being renovated.
Third Rangers has a ring to it.
PS Where Celtic did miss a trick was not opposing the idea Green purchased the history.
It is absurd and UEFA recognise it as such. Pity SFA never published the Traverso letter of June 2016.
Easyjambo,
From earlier.
I don’t think you can make a case for Celtic having undue influence in the matter under discussion by quoting the 11-1 veto.
That veto only applied in certain situations and not relevant to the matter in hand.
In an all-clubs vote at the SFA, requesting proper process on the shenanigans, as Auldheid stated, how many clubs do you think would have voted with Celtic?
I think that the answer lies in the SFA’s response to an inquiry.
The Milne’s, Petrie’s of the game were all for moving on.
Why did the majority of clubs not campaign for the integrity of the game, instead of purely anticipated financial gain?
Bought and sold for Sky’s tainted gold, such a parcel of rogues in an Association!
EASYJAMBOJULY 23, 2018 at 18:19
=============================
What influence did Celtic have when they publicly asked the SFA to hold an independent investigation into Rangers EBT’s and how they were dealt with? Aberdeen, Hibs and Kilmarnock drove a dagger into any chance of justice over that one, while every other club sat and said nothing.