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.
Celtic did speak out after the LNS decision and were ignored. The football authorities were too busy celebrating a spectacular victory for ‘their’ club. It was quite a resounding victory – they threw out the most serious charges before it ever arrived at LNS, Bryson and Ogilvie lied through their teeth in their ‘evidence’, the tax case was still on going but Lord Nimmo Smith was more than willing to flush his own reputation down the toilet in order facilitate the cheats.
The media – as usual – complied. Hugh Keevins even gave his memorable “Campbell is a world class administrator and as honest as the day is long” speech after Alex Thompson at C4 had exposed him for the lying cheat he was.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/21633595
Oh dear
Can whoever said Celtic might be even slightly at fault just apologise now.
Otherwise it will be page after page of pro Celtic stuff and that just gets tiresome
Stewart Robertson:
– Actually defended Sevco’s sectarian singing at the Hibs Scottish Cup final.
– stated that the Sevco players were traumatised by the pitch invasion (not as traumatised as the young Hibs fans we all witnessed getting their heads kicked in.)
– claimed that them turning down an £8 million bid for Morelos showed how financially sound Sevco now were.
– tried to pass off the desperate £3 million loan from Close Bros as “banking facilities” when they had just hawked every asset the club owned in order to get the loan.
– downplayed the ‘going concern’ note in the accounts.
– went along with the ‘King put Ashley in his place’ rubbish when he knew that King had paid Ashley £3 million in order for Ashley to get an even tighter grip on their shirt monies.
Another liar who should have been nowhere near Scottish football governance. Glad to see him being shown the door at Hampden.
The 5 way agreement was not instigated or produced by all the club chairmen but by a few insiders, a mix of officials and club heads.
So not all clubs were equal in the creation or the preparation and there was never an occasion of a vote on whether it was a good or bad idea – just a perceived need to take fast action.
I know from discussions that most clubs were not in the inner circle or in on any part of the creation of the 5 way agreement as a strategic response to a crisis.
Indeed some Premier league clubs were more or less presented with it as a fait accompli and by that time it already had the support of a few clubs including St Mirren, Hibs, Celtic and Aberdeen.
Mostly these were the clubs with representations on the key committees and it was unanimously seen as about saving Scottish Football and its finances.
Keeping the blue club in the premier league was seen and agreed by the premier chairmen as the best solution.
They all as a group tried to bully the other teams with talk of a Premier League 2 – a tactic that Trump would applaud.
We all remember the crisis meeting when Turnbull Hutton spoke emotionally on the steps of Hampden and first mentioned the co -eruption word.
The fan threatened rebellion caused some changes but in essence the vote was about which league the Ibrox club would be playing in and not about the rights and wrongs of the 5 way agreement which from memory was kept hidden at the time to all but those in the inner sanctums.
Most Clubs were not party to the 5 way agreement and it is still probably officially top secret!
We do know Petrie was involved in the 5WA from day 1 and that people like Roy McGregor and Kenny Cameron had no clue about what was going on.
So we have chairmen on both sides – all complicit but not all to the same extent.
Do you think Peter Lawwell or one of his people was in the Petrie group of those in the know with input as it was created and developed?
Or do you think Celtic were like the northern boys who were just expected to be nodding dogs to the wonderful and seamless rescue plan done on their behalf by the key movers and shakers.
TTT & UTH – I’m sure there will be other occasions that you will be able to point to when clubs didn’t follow Celtic’s lead but my argument is not about individual votes, as I could also point to occasions when Celtic or indeed Rangers were able to either progress things that were to their advantage or block things that didn’t suit either or both.
If you believe that Hamilton Accies or Livingston exercise the same level of influence in the Scottish game as Celtic, purely because they have the voting rights, then you are watching a different game from me.
You may cite Celtic’s call for a review last year, but they missed that bus years ago. Their efforts to assist the Res 12 have been pedestrian at best, if not obstructive at times. Other clubs have “moved on”. The blue pound is important to them once again. Even the much lauded Ms Budge failed to live up to the expectations for change when she first came onto the scene, complaining that there was too much self interest in the game. She and Hearts are now part of the establishment, and its back to you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.
I’m sure that Celtic would argue that they did not want to interfere with either the criminal or tax proceedings, but I think that’s a smokescreen as they have been aware of the same CF material as the rest of us for more than five years and chose not to press the nuclear button, e.g. complain to UEFA themselves re the 2011/12 licence.
Celtic has generally taken a measured stance on what is in their best (financial) interests throughout and I believe they continue to do so, rather than help introduce better governance and transparency into the game.
BILL1903
Exactly the type of attitude that has allowed Rangers(IL) and Sevco to get away with it. Just like Stewart ‘let’s all move on’ Milne. Thankfully other Aberdeen fans don’t share your views (or his) and have protested loudly at matches and even outside Hampden itself, regardless of how “tiresome” they may have found it.
I guess Celtic should have said something when Sevco tapped up your manager and lost you valuable league points and a cup place in the process. Bad Celtic!
EASYJAMBOJULY 24, 2018 at 08:12
Their efforts to assist the Res 12 have been pedestrian at best, if not obstructive at times.
I would agree with this completely.
Celtic were genuinely agitating for change prior to Regan coming in at the SFA, his reforms in terms of introducing a judicial type approach to governance were based on an idea which Celtic pushed heavily. Celtic are now in a position where for the second time in a row their CEO is in a position of influence during the tv contract negotiations, they’ve just won a major battle in getting their preferred choice as CEO in Maxwell, they hoover up the tv money every year and that judicial system which was their baby underpins the governance system.
If there was a genuine review of the way Scottish football was run then the big losers would not be Rangers who are a shambles anyway it would be Celtic who are enjoying their most successful off-field period in history (not too shabby on the field either). The idea they would genuinely risk rocking the boat for a theoretical one year’s CL money back in 2011 when the status quo will likely help them hoover up 150 million quid or so in Euro revenue over the next 5 years is fanciful.
This is one reason (we all know there are other reasons too) why Rangers in their own comically haphazard fashion are calling out the SFA/SPFL at every turn while Celtic tacitly support the current regimes with their silence.
They will of course continue to pat the Res 12 guys on the head & give them platitudes but to me it appears Celtic are the club least likely to help those who wish for genuine improvements in governance.
EasyJamboJuly 24, 2018 at 08:12
Celtic has generally taken a measured stance on what is in their best (financial) interests throughout and I believe they continue to do so …
========================================
As is the legal requirment on the board of a PLC, to look after the best interests of their shareholders.
So you are probably correct, its what they have done and what they continue to do.
Nick
July 24, 2018 at 08:58
Celtic are now in a position where for the second time in a row their CEO is in a position of influence during the tv contract negotiations, they’ve just won a major battle in getting their preferred choice as CEO in Maxwell.
================================
I wasn’t aware Celtic had a “preferred choice”.
Where are you getting this from, I don’t remember seeing it anywhere.
With regard Peter Lawwell, he was elected into that position. As were the other 5 people who were voted in.
NICK
My feelings entirely Nick.
Whilst Celtic have released statements and approved the release of the e-mails between themselves and the SFA i believe that in private there has been little, if any, appetite to rock the boat.
I would be interested in the opinion of any of the Res12 guys into how seriously they feel their club acted on their behalf. Did for instance they ever have meetings with the real power brokers at Celtic park, DD or PL?.In my opinion Celtic will be happy to see the back of both the licencing issue and the Res12 guys themselves.
HOMUNCULUSJULY 24, 2018 at 10:36
No issue at all with Lawwell being elected onto the SPFL board in time for tv deal negotiations in fact I think that’s great news for our game (certainly preferable to the simpering Robertson who’ll likely be back in situ next season). Just pointing out that Celtic won’t exactly be unhappy with the development or their status in the governance system currently either.
It was well documented within the mainstream media and by various Celtic bloggers (some of whom are believed to have good contacts at Celtic) that there was something of a power struggle at the SFA over future direction with guys like Petrie & McCrae particularly against the appointment of Maxwell and Celtic backing him.
HOMUNCULUSJULY 24, 2018 at 10:30
EasyJambo July 24, 2018 at 08:12
Celtic has generally taken a measured stance on what is in their best (financial) interests throughout and I believe they continue to do so …
========================================
As is the legal requirment on the board of a PLC, to look after the best interests of their shareholders.
So you are probably correct, its what they have done and what they continue to do.
———————————————————————————————-
And isn’t that the problem in that. when it suits various boards of directors. football is viewed as an entity different from any other business and should be managed accordingly and in a special manner. However at other times they are keen to play the more simple and straight forward ‘business is business’ card.
H – I know you didn’t post with the intention of opening a can of worms but I suppose the follow up to your comment re Celtic shareholders interests is, why is it that some people don’t want to bury the competition. That’s the way most businesses work. Ask Uncle Mike!!!
There must be something at Ibrox worth saving in the eyes of key players at Celtic. Or there is fear of the consequences of not pursuing a fair and honest game with full vigour.
What exactly is it?
Not much to report from court in the BDO v Henderson & Jones case.
The hearing was just a follow-up to the one last month in which Lord Bannatyne ordered that the settlement agreement (£24m) between BDO and Collyer Bristow be provide in a sealed envelope to H&J pending any claims of confidentiality through privilege.
BDO waived their rights to privilege, but Collyer Bristow sought to retain them in a letter from their solicitors Clyde & Co. so the envelope remains unopened. H&J were seeking that Lord Bannatyne should rule that the envelope could be opened.
Some debate on privilege followed as Roddy Dunlop QC for BDO was obliged to argue Collyer Bristow’s case despite BDO holding a different position.
Lord Bannatyne eventually ruled that Collyer Bristow’s solicitors should be directed to attend the next hearing, now scheduled for 16 August.
What is the importance of the terms of the settlement agreement? It remains somewhat unclear, but Douglas Fairlie QC argued on behalf of H&J that BDO held contradictory positions on the Assignation and Ticketus agreements. On the one hand it was suggested that those agreements were what prompted the £24m settlement, while BDO also held a contrary view in denying H&J’s floating charge claim because those same agreements were tainted and fraudulent.
It only becomes important when H&J seek to claim that they should have had first dibs on the £24m through Wavetower/Liberty Capital’s floating charge; i.e. if BDO argued that the assignation and Ticketus agreement were all above board in obtaining the £24m, then it follows that the floating charge should also be kosher. If however, the £24m was handed over for other reasons, then it would weaken H&J’s claim.
The next episode in the series will follow in three weeks time.
It appears that I might be wrong about the level of influence held be Celtic, after a move to regulate the length of grass failed to gain enough support at an SPFL Board meeting yesterday.
EASYJAMBOJULY 24, 2018 at 11:40
I’m almost saddened that we won’t be treated to the sight of Willie Collum out with a ruler measuring blades of grass while Craig Levein and Brendan Rodgers bicker behind his back.
That would have truly been Peak Scottish Football. 🙂
Which prompts the obvious joke that the teams could take the field requiring the services of a regiment of Kukri armed gurkhas and Willie would still wave play on…
On a more serious note, I fully back the poster’s view that the final 5WA was in no way a fully collaborative effort. Why would Green, an established liquidation operator sign up to a blank cheque?
Further, I would be frankly shocked and stunned if they were aware at the time that Oldco went into the LNS with a friendly indemnity under their arm limiting their exposure to LNS’s findings only. My personal view is that this is why it was a side indemnity and not within the agreement itself.
They would subsequently be further stunned by LNS assessing that exposure as £200,000 (or a value equivalent to Flo’s toe nail clippings). Duncan Fraser CEO of Aberdeen raised this point when responding to Ralph Topping’s email post LNS. One could consider the timing convenient that this was circulated during the Celtic Director’s holiday (sorry forgot name, Eric something?). Albeit, to his shame and in my opinion the depth of subsequent club support, Duncan doesn’t appear to have followed up on his initial ‘reflective surprise.’
EASYJAMBO JULY 24, 2018 at 11:40
Periodically the wee jibes about Celtic reach a critical mass (no pun intended) and crystallize into the types of accusations being seen on here currently.
EJ’s recent post highlights how the whole “Celtic going solo” would have been painted – fans of Ibrox-based teams in the media would have smeared any Celtic efforts as being fuelled by hatred of them and self-interest, much like their pre-emptive efforts with McLennan and of course their bete-noir, the eminence grise himself, Peter Lawwell.It would be “this whole issue is really a matter of bad blood” and given the concern at the time about how the loss of the blue pound would have affected the majority teams I doubt they’d have reached the required 8 votes for any resolution to be passed and the press would have had a field day and Celtic’s expense.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Jockeybhoy,
A timely rebuttal of Easyjambo’s original position of Celtic’s power in Scottish football. A position that he appears to have modified.
You are correct to highlight that every move Celtic have made recently, for the improvement of the game, has been cited as Celtic v Whoever.
In the case of the standardising grass length, once again we put ourselves at odds with FIFA and UEFA.
I presume why the clubs voted against it was the need for Scottish football to have long grass in which to punt any form of improvement…or indeed anything that emanates from Celtic Park.
Thanks for that, Jockybhoy, I agree with you. The accusation, very deftly put by SFM’s troll in residence, is that when push comes to shove, Celtic will use their power in Scottish football in exactly the same way Rangers(IL) did, and Sevco does. Celtic’s stance on Sporting integrity is really a lie, is the actual accusation incase anyone wasn’t paying attention.
A hat tip to the chairman of Motherwell who, on national television last night, on the steps of Hampden said that he did not see his role at Hampden as representing the interests of Motherwell FC. He sees his role as representing the good of Scottish football. I hope his words were sincere.
EASYJAMBO JULY 24, 2018 at 11:40
“It appears that I might be wrong about the level of influence held be Celtic, after a move to regulate the length of grass failed to gain enough support at an SPFL Board meeting yesterday…
UEFA’s guidelines on pitches
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Stadium&Security/02/54/11/97/2541197_DOWNLOAD.pdf
This document provides an overview of the pitch quality guidelines for stadiums hosting UEFA matches –
“The acceptable grass height depends on the time of year and whether the grass is a warm-season or cool-season type. UEFA regulations state that grass height may not, in principle, exceed 30mm but 28mm is a better maximum. In any case, the entire playing surface must be cut to the same height.”
In UEFA’s introduction they state –
“Pitch presentation and playing conditions need to be of the highest quality for professional football matches. In practice, this means that pitches should:
be well-drained, smooth and level;
be safe for the players;
allow for optimal play;
have a good visual appearance.
Pitch conditions influence the quality of the football being played and are a reflection of the competition, the stadium, the host club/national association and the country. Every pitch should be comparable in appearance and performance to other pitches considered to be of a similar international standard.
It is very important that all parties work as a team to ensure the best possible playing conditions and visual appearance. Not only must players be able to perform to the best of their abilities on a smooth and stable playing surface; it is also important to ensure that matches are not compromised by a pitch’s inability tocope with adverse or challenging weather conditions.”
Scottish Football needs acceptable grass height (for UEFA games but not when playing Celtic!)
Celtiic’s silence throughout this whole debacle stinks. Any number of their apologists on here doesn’t change that.
The Ungrateful DeadJuly 24, 2018 at 14:32
Celtiic’s silence throughout this whole debacle stinks. Any number of their apologists on here doesn’t change that.
———————————————————————–
Would second that but also add that the silence of all our clubs Boards stinks!!
Auldheid,
At one point, the res12 guys were quite outspoken against the Celtic Board and PL. You guys then had a meeting with PL where I believe he explained Celtic’s ‘strategy.’
The criticism seemed to die down a bit. Are you satisfied with Celtic’s integrity?
PL getting quite a kick-in on here today. It’s probably a squirrel to draw attention away from the magnificently hilarious but hugely embarrassing piece in the Record today about Umar Sadiq. A “rollercoaster of crazy” is about to be “unleashed!” so “strap yourselves in.”
Cop yourselves on, more like.
Coming up at 6pm STV news/sport exclusive,Dave King interview
theredpill July 24, 2018 at 17:47
Coming up at 6pm STV news/sport exclusive,Dave King interview
https://stv.tv/sport/football/1424446-dave-king-on-transfers-takeover-panel-and-spfl-chairman/
EASYJAMBO
JULY 24, 2018 at 18:22
…
Coming up at 6pm STV news/sport exclusive,Dave King interview
https://stv.tv/sport/football/1424446-dave-king-on-transfers-takeover-panel-and-spfl-chairman/
==================================
“…The fact Celtic have still got an established squad and they still have access to the Champions League money, it gives them a clear player and financial advantage…”
==================================
Au contraire, Monsieur Tricheur !
According to one, Lord Nimmo Smith, having access to additional money and players;
”…does [sic] not gain any unfair competitive advantage…”
Dave King has not “agreed” to make an offer to purchase the shares.
He has been ordered to do it.
So Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson and Hearts owner Ann Budge lasted a year on the SPFL board.
Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson will become the club’s first representative on the SPFL board.
24 July 2017
Speaking in 2015, Robertson said: “A club of Rangers stature should be at the top table – we should be in there and have a voice and should have an influence with what’s going on in the Scottish game.
“It’s about building relationships – it helps that we know them from days gone past, so that’s made it a bit easier to do that.
“They have got the confidence in us now that the board and the team here are looking to do the best for Rangers, but also for Scottish football.”
————-
The new-look board’s main priority was to discuss the controversy over Rangers’ use of Employee Benefit Trusts in the first decade of the century following a Supreme Court ruling that the club should have paid tax on the payments to players and staff.
The SPFL said earlier this month that it would “take time to examine the judgement in detail and to consider any implications for the SPFL”.
The league has been under pressure to reopen the case after Rangers were fined £250,000 in 2013 for failing to disclose documents associated with the payments to the Scottish Premier League, but a commission led by judge Lord Nimmo Smith ruled that they had gained no “unfair competitive advantage”.
The SPFL has sought legal advice and it is unlikely that new formal action will take place.
Budge said after the meeting: “There’s going to be a statement on Wednesday, other than that I’m afraid I can’t say any more. We have discussed it at some length.”
When asked if a decision had been made, Budge said: “A decision? No, there are recommendations. You will fully understand on Wednesday.
“A new board has had to look at all of the facts thoroughly. It’s a brand new board. I think for us to come out with something now would be quite a big ask.”
————–
What a year for Mr Robertson to be on the board.During issues with an ibrox club.
the controversy over Rangers’ use of Employee Benefit Trusts in the first decade of the century.
And the granting of a european licence for rangers in 2011
I see STV are the latest media outlet to help Dave King to put pressure on Murdoch MacLennan, who I still say will eventually have to step down for a peaceful life. It is is utterly shameful what is going on here.
I can’t understand why King is making such a fuss about Murdoch MacLennan.
Aren’t all the suits at Hampden (except N.E.D.s) conflicted in a way?
What type of misdemeanour could the Chairman of SPFL get up to that Peter Lawwell couldn’t? If that is his problem, an advantage to Celtic in some way.
Honest question. I just don’t get it.
I don’t know if he even gets a vote as Chairman. maybe just a casting vote.
Easy Jambo
Check around Jambo Kickbacks to see if ant Hearts fans were listening to BBC Sportsound around 19.15.
There was chap on who has sat on the Judicial Panel and knows the process although not on the Panel who heard the Hearts case.
He was pressed to answer the inconsistencies in the punishment, especially points stripping by Willie Miller.
Alloa got a mention and another lower tier club who came under JP scrutiny but it was interesting that no one asked the obvious question.
Why did RFC not get points deducted for ten years of incomplete player registration?
It would have been good to hear the difference in circumstances between the Hearts situation where points were deducted and RFC situation that allowed the Bryson advice to apply over 10 years of misregistration leading to none.
In the interests of clarity surely the SFA should be asked?
Was what Hearts did any more deliberate than RFC, yet Hearts got a points deduction?
LNS was always going to bite the SFA on the rear end.
“The fact Celtic have still got an established squad and they still have access to the Champions League money, it gives them a clear player and financial advantage.
————-
Did king just say that, or am i in the twilight zone.
JIMBOJULY 24, 2018 at 19:25
Honest question. I just don’t get it.
—————
You don’t have to,it’s just a deflection tactic.It really is a nothing conversation but it gives the ibrox fans down the pub something to talk about other than the problems with the basket case of an ibrox club
I suspect that DCK’s issues with the Exchange Control people in SA may be due to the ‘open-ended’ amount of funds he needs to transfer.
He needs to transfer £11m to cover a full take-up. I expect that the SA authorities will wish that money to be ring-fenced & only used to comply with the TOP. No cheeky loans to RIFC etc.
He probably won’t need that all of that £11m & may only need around half of it (give or take) to purchase shares offered to him. He then has to return any surplus to SA to avoid allegations of ‘financial capital flight’.
My feeling is that it’s the mechanism of the return of any surplus (and guarantees that it will be timeously returned) that may be the sticking point. I understand that he will also have to pay SA tax on the whole £11m he sends to the UK & therefore may be trying to negotiate an ‘export’ rebate on any returned funds, which themselves may be re-taxable on arrival back in SA…
…or he doesn’t fulfil the South African financial authorities requirement of ‘a person in good standing’…
…or I’m completely wrong in my assumptions!
EASYJAMBOJULY 24, 2018 at 11:09
Lord Bannatyne eventually ruled that Collyer Bristow’s solicitors should be directed to attend the next hearing, now scheduled for 16 August.
—–
JIMBOJULY 24, 2018 at 19:25
I can’t understand why King is making such a fuss about Murdoch MacLennan.
Aren’t all the suits at Hampden (except N.E.D.s) conflicted in a way?
===========================
I obviously have no idea what Dave King really believes, but he needs the support to think the following whether or not he actually believes it
1. MacLennan would be willing to apply an advantage to Celtic over Rangers.
2. Desmond and O’Brien would be willing to apply pressure to MacLennan to apply an advantage to Celtic over Rangers.
If they think that way, they are far less likely to notice how poorly run Rangers are with King at the helm. So far he has had the Daily Record, Evening Times, the Times, the Herald, and now STV to promote his views. It is quite clear that Chairmen at Ibrox, even ones who are convicted tax cheating criminals, are viewed by the Scottish media as being high ranking members of a superior culture.
Auldheid July 24, 2018 at 19:36
Easy Jambo
Check around Jambo Kickbacks to see if ant Hearts fans were listening to BBC Sportsound around 19.15.
=============================
I was listening to it myself. Alastair Murning was the interviewee, a former journalist and football commentator. He was one of those on the panel when McCoist demanded to know “who are these people?”
One thing that Murning was right about was the lack of knowledge about the process among the pundits.
The consistency argument is a fair one to ask and perhaps there should be set guidelines / sanctions for such indiscretions (as there are for foul play). That would certainly help.
You didn’t really expect anyone to mention the LNS sanctions/registration issue. They struggled enough to come up with Albion Rovers rather than actually do some research into sanctions given to other teams in similar circumstances like Cove themselves and Dundee Untited.
From rangers media, …..
Posted 20 minutes ago,
Everybody’s fault but his.
https://stv.tv/sport/football/1424446-dave-king-on-transfers-takeover-panel-and-spfl-chairman/
PORTBHOY
as david byrne once sang,same as it ever was
I was led to believe that back in the Murray era King invested c£20m in Rangers.
He bought a load of shares about 3 years ago in TRFC.
Since then he has been putting millions into TRFC – soft loans.
How was he able to get that money out of SA?
JIMBOJULY 24, 2018 at 20:46
———-
It is all a bit Hong Kong Phooey
eJ in his post easyJamboJuly 24, 2018 at 11:09 gave a beautifully succinct summary of today’s proceedings.
Here is ( more or less) how things played out.As usual, we have to remember that Judge and Counsel are intimately familiar with the matter of the case, and with the salient points of law in the case precedents cited, and can speak in truncated sentences, unfinished questions, knowing exactly what each other is saying.eJ’s analysis should help make sense of what can seem a whole lot of unconnected things, ,with the background knowledge that regular readers of the blog have.
Before Lord BannatynePetition 997/17: Note:RFC2012 plc for orders under Para 4.16 Mr Fairlie QC for the Noter Mr Dunlop QC for the Respondent (BDO)
Mr Fairlie: This matter last called, m’Lord, in June, in the matter of seeking an order for production of an agreement subject to confidentiality, and a motion of caution.
I now move that the sealed envelope be opened.The motion is opposed by Collyer Bristow.Your Lordship might wish to hear Mr Dunlop.
Lord Bannatyne: My Clerk was approached by Collyer Bristow asking what was going on. They told me they didn’t think it necessary to attend, but they don’t agree to a waiver of confidentiality..
Mr Fairlie: That’s what I understand…. Let my learned friend ..
Mr Dunlop:The Respondents do waive any confidentiality they enjoy, m’Lord. Collyer Bristow have not. I received a letter on 20th June from Clyde and Company , solicitors for Collyer Bristow, telling me that they are NOT waiving confidentiality.
I’m in a difficult position my Lord. Because I cannot voluntarily disclose ,disregard, the confidentiality:if the document is privileged it should not be produced. If my Lord were to make an order, we would both be bullet-proof.”
Having made that observation, Mr Dunlop addressed the legal points that the Noter raised in his ‘adjustment note’ (submitted prior to the hearing, of course)
He referred first to the Rush and Tomkins case , and read extensively from it. Essentially, that case reinforced the view that when compromise settlements are being discussed between parties, any admissions made by the parties may not, if compromise fails, be used in evidence in any further litigation.
That , he submitted, is the basis on which the ‘ settlement agreement’ cannot be provided to the Noter.
He went on to remark that in the Rush and Tomkins case the settlement agreement was voluntarily given.
In the only other relevant case , he continued, it was a case of an injunction, not an order.. ..the document is category II , -1992 settlement agreement, and also injunction is sought to restrain the defendants from using, and protection is extended to subsequent litigation.When we look at that, my Lord, and we know there is a settlement, the Noter says that the negotiations with Collyer Bristow were settled and Mr Whyte has a claim.
But, he went on, I refer your Lordship to (?McSporran?) and Young ,and Miller and Small, where ‘discovery’ of a settlement agreement was allowed. What one takes from that case is that because it was collusive, confidentiality was not relevant, and that if there is another source for the information, then ‘discovery’ is not to be granted.
If we look at the Noter’s most recent qdjustment……
(Judge looks for his copy, and says ‘I’m not sure I have..?)
Mr Dunlop :I have a spare copy (and hands it to the macer)Lord Bannatyne: Yes..
Mr Dunlop then referred to “…statement of fact at roman numeral II .8.6 and quoted from the statement “company sought damages v Collyer Bristow……company received settlement of £24 million to the company”In the answers , at III .2… “regarding assignation….”
Lord Bannatyne ( intervening): Mr Fairlee, can you say what more….
Mr Fairlee: My learned friend’s argument is inconsistent. On page 7 of the Adjusted version you will see that “esto there has been..’”Lord B: Page 7?Mr Fairlee: Yes, m’Lord. 3.2 ..Page 8 in your Lordship’s copy .. {Mr Fairlee reads: “ neither Murrah MHL ……rather the company had founded on …” a denial of the argument that was founded on assignation agreement}The position is rather confusing..”
Lord B: It simply admitted? There is a clear admission of what is averred.Mr Fairlee: in 3.2.6 “.. the Noter understands..”
Lord B: You say you want to know the sum that was paid over?And secondly , you want to know….. what more could you want? [puzzled]
Mr Fairlee: I want to know what reliance was placed upon the assignation agreement and Ticketus agreement in pursuance of the claim v CB. It may make very material difference in reliance on a document tainted by fraud. I need to see precisely what that settlement said in order to make specific averments about the settlement in detail. At the moment we simply don’t know.The only thing my learned friend admits is that there was an agreement.
Mr Dunlop: ..What’s averred against me….Lord B: ( intervening)…[it] turns on the issue of ‘necessity’
Mr Fairlee: If he cleans up his averment.. we know there is ….. What was the £24 million paid for?
Lord B: (possibly a little exasperated) I want to see what the final pleadings are…..Mr Fairlee: I’m only trying to see what reliance was placed on the settlement….Lord B: ( hesitantly)…Can I ask both of you this? The absence of Collyer Bristow?Can I suggest continuation for 1 week to allow Mr Dunlop to finalise his pleadings, and I’m going to order Collyer Bristow to attend.Mr Dunlop: :One week presents a difficulty, m’Lord , I go on holiday next week, for2 weeks.
Lord B: very well, Continue for 3 weeks, and I’ll extend the adjustment period accordingly.I direct that Collyer Bristow appear 3 weeks from now, on 16th August 2018., adjustments within 2 weeks, and any reply by Mr Fairlee.
Thank you.”
HelpumootJuly 24, 2018 at 17:05 (Edit)
Auldheid,At one point, the res12 guys were quite outspoken against the Celtic Board and PL. You guys then had a meeting with PL where I believe he explained Celtic’s ‘strategy.’ The criticism seemed to die down a bit. Are you satisfied with Celtic’s integrity?PL getting quite a kick-in on here today. It’s probably a squirrel to draw attention away from the magnificently hilarious but hugely embarrassing piece in the Record today about Umar Sadiq. A “rollercoaster of crazy” is about to be “unleashed!” so “strap yourselves in.”Cop yourselves on, more like.
===========================
No that explanation never happened, indeed Celtic’s line to Res12 guys has consistently been this will not go away.
The point about keeping your powder dry is having it to use when it is really needed.
I hope I can provide more evidence that this is still so by end of July, or alternatively why it isn’t, so ask again then.
Thanks Auldheid ?
easyJamboJuly 24, 2018 at 19:54 (Edit)
Auldheid July 24, 2018 at 19:36Easy JamboCheck around Jambo Kickbacks to see if ant Hearts fans were listening to BBC Sportsound around 19.15.=============================I was listening to it myself. Alastair Murning was the interviewee, a former journalist and football commentator. He was one of those on the panel when McCoist demanded to know “who are these people?”One thing that Murning was right about was the lack of knowledge about the process among the pundits.
The consistency argument is a fair one to ask and perhaps there should be set guidelines / sanctions for such indiscretions (as there are for foul play). That would certainly help.
You didn’t really expect anyone to mention the LNS sanctions/registration issue. They struggled enough to come up with Albion Rovers rather than actually do some research into sanctions given to other teams in similar circumstances like Cove themselves and Dundee United.
=================
So you were laughing out loud as I was at the pundits attempts to stay off thin LNS ice. I think Richard G must have got a cry in his earphones ” Cut this for God sake, there is an elephant in the room, don’t let him on the ice”.
CLUSTER ONEJULY 24, 2018 at 18:45
What a year for Mr Robertson to be on the board.During issues with an ibrox club.the controversy over Rangers’ use of Employee Benefit Trusts in the first decade of the century.And the granting of a european licence for rangers in 2011
========================================================
Great point
IIRC they were also fortunate to have had guys like GS and CO with free access to the 6th floor at a very opportune time
JOHN CLARKJULY 24, 2018 at 21:07
Thanks JC
That 16 Aug will be a busy day
easyJamboJuly 24, 2018 at 19:54 (Edit)
I was listening to it myself. Alastair Murning was the interviewee, a former journalist and football commentator. He was one of those on the panel when McCoist demanded to know “who are these people?”One thing that Murning was right about was the lack of knowledge about the process among the pundits.
============================
I simply can’t listen to BBC any longer, such is the naked pro-Rangers bias. However, I am interested in this guy Murning going on about people not understanding the process. Perhaps he could have explained what the process is for wheeling out Sandy Bryson to say an improper player registration only counts if the SFA know about it at the time, even if the club know fine well the registration is improper. Is the process simply if it’s Rangers they have to find any way to excuse blatant cheating, but if it’s any other club they will deduct points, even for genuine mistakes?
jimboJuly 24, 2018 at 20:46
!I was led to believe that back in the Murray era King invested c£20m in Rangers.He bought a load of shares about 3 years ago in TRFC.Since then he has been putting millions into TRFC – soft loans.How was he able to get that money out of SA?!
_____________________________
I was refreshing my memory of things the other night, jimbo.
The contents of the link given below may be old hat to you and to many, but I found it a good read as far as making me hope King gets nailed and jailed!
http://www.sars.gov.za/AllDocs/LegalDoclib/Judgments/LAPD-DRJ-HC-2010-03%20-%20Metlika%20Trading%20Limited%20and%20Others%205%20August%202010.pdf
Posters on other sites who witnessed STV’s cringeworthy interview with Dave King this evening asking when STV became PR reps for Sevco. Eh, here:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/28/stv-group-rangers
UTH 19:53
Members of a superior culture
…………………………………………………
I always knew that the idea of RFC not existing even though they are in liquidation would be to much for this country to accept. Just look at how smsm and SFA will not speak or print at this time that Rangers got liquidated. Look at how they will never speak about LNS farce, will not mention SC verdict. Will never mention DOS. Will never mention 5 way agreement sham. They are fully aware of what we are and more but say nothing. They actually avoid any mention of any of the above, this is a skill of a corrupt or compliant media. They do not want a fair playing field, they just want a Govan club playing at any cost. It is sad to say but it is working for them, as the smsm and SFA bows to them and treats the rest of Scottish clubs with contempt. I would like to think up coming events will bring the Govan club to task, but if the Supreme Court verdict can get ignored how can things change. Scotland needs this superior culture no matter what the cost. They say time will tell, well 6 years now and Ibrox club’s have received no real punishment or penalties. Just think of all they have done to damage our game and they will continue to do more. When will they be stopped or are they just as superior as they think.
JOHN CLARKJULY 24, 2018 at 21:35
An interesting read JC,One of kings quotes stuck out. “a pointless exercise”I am sure i have heard mr king use this phrase lately.
Also liked this part.
[61] In my view, Metlika was based as a facade to hide the taxliability of Ben Nevis from SARS, see Cape Pacific Ltd caseon page 804 paragraphs C-E.
CLUSTER ONEJULY 23, 2018 at 21:15
——————–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
—————
Heard there is a bit of interest in this,so hope if it is ok to post again if anyone wants a read
John ClarkJuly 24, 2018 at 21:35
I have to admit John It was mostly Double Dutch to me. What I did take from it was how complex all those trusts and companies seemed to operate. Almost incestual like with Dave King in the middle of it all moving moving stocks & shares, funds and assets around to avoid paying tax. A lot of off shore dealings too.
I don’t understand how he seems to be able to get money out of SA, to say The British Virgin Isles, but terribly difficult to get money to Britain.
Having said that, those court documents are about 18 years old. Maybe controls have tightened up since then.
Idly idle before going to bed, can anyone think of a situation in which a football club cheated
-by false representation by words, or writing or conduct
-with the intention to deceive
and
-by wilful imposition ( cheating designed to prejudice the interests of another person, e.g. by claiming monies which rightly ought to have gone to that person?
I’ve been racking my brains all evening!
Thank goodness there has been no such situation in Scottish Football.
For such a situation would betoken that a crime, an actual crime of the kind that people go to jail for, had been committed.
Must explore further.
Anybody know that Crimestopper’s number?
jimboJuly 24, 2018 at 23:09
I acknowledge your post, jimbo. The normal way of doing so seems to have been removed.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/judge-demands-more-details-oldco-12975035.amp
Judge demands more details on ‘oldco’ Rangers FC deal
VALENTINESCLOWNJULY 24, 2018 at 22:23
========================
I have just watched Brendan Rodgers full press conference from yesterday. He coolly and calmly swatted aside a constant stream of negative questions and left those asking struggling to come back. The point is though he was asked them, as are other Managers. I’m not so sure Gerrard is though, where there is a softly softly approach with the questions then a mass entanglement of apron strings as they rush to gushingly tell us on Twitter how brilliant he was at handling them.
When we talk of superior cultures, then Rangers managers have to be portrayed as better and more impressive than others. They even did it with Pedro at the start, and Warburton was eulogised until word was put out for him to be trashed.
I used to love watching Gordon Strachan dealing with the media. He didn’t suffer fools gladly.
To begin with I thought he was a bit ‘moany’, then a friend pointed out it was exactly what we wanted. A Celtic manager who could swat them like flies. Sometimes even with just ‘a look’ ! He quite often answered a question with a question and made the interviewer look ridiculous.
“Take your business, the media. People think I’ve got a problem with the press. Actually I have no problem with the press, but just like in football there are a handful who cause problems because they’re disrespectful, they’re lazy, and above all – and this is what really gets to me – they haven’t worked hard to get there.
“I can sit in a press conference with 30 people and there’ll be two or three who one way or another just shouldn’t be in that room and I think that was particularly the case at Celtic.
Gordon Strachan, The Independent, Aug 2010.
——————————————-
I think he was being very kind in saying two or three. Or maybe the problem has got worse since 2010. I wonder why that would be the case.
Upthehoops
Last night on STV News Raman Bhardwaj allowed King to again cast aspersions over the integrity of McLennan adding that he would be keeping an eye on him. The response should have been, “Mr King, given that you cheated on your tax in SA for ten years – during the last three years before SARS took you to court, you paid no tax at all. During that time you were also part of a Board which cheated Scottish football and ended with your club being liquidated. You recently were sentenced to three months (suspended) for contempt of court and you are presently in contempt of court again – not “working things out with TOP”, as you claim. Given that you are a proven serial liar and have a criminal record, dont you think that your personal attacks on Mr McLennan, a man with an unblemished career, are utterly hypocritical?”
But of course, Bhardwaj said nothing and probably just went off for an ice cream instead.
Billydug July 25, 2018 at 04:48
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/judge-demands-more-details-oldco-12975035.amp
Judge demands more details on ‘oldco’ Rangers FC deal
=================================
It’s interesting that the Record article was attributed James Mulholland, who wasn’t actually in court during the hearing. However he probably has an agreement to share copy with other journalists. JC and I actually spoke to James as we left Parliament House, when he was just going into the building after the hearing ended.
The content of the article is generally ok but the headline is wrong. The judge didn’t demand more details of the deal. It was H&J who was seeking that information. Lord Bannatyne has only requested that Collyer Bristow’s solicitors, Clyde and Co. attend court to explain why they want to retain legal privilege over the document. Then he can decide whether or not the privilege should be maintained.
easyJamboJuly 25, 2018 at 09:37
‘…James Mulholland, who wasn’t actually in court during..’
_______________________
I confirm that, of course, having had a wee chuckle at the chutzpah of JM! (
Well that’s me learnt a new word today. Chutzpah! A cheeky scoundrel, but not in a bad way.
HELPUMOOT
JULY 25, 2018 at 09:05
Last night on STV News Raman Bhardwaj allowed King to again cast aspersions over the integrity of McLennan adding that he would be keeping an eye on him…
…But of course, Bhardwaj said nothing and probably just went off for an ice cream instead.
—————————————-
I’m no fan of Bhardwaj, but it was Tyrone Smith who conducted (ha!) the DCK interview.
My apologies, you are correct JJ. Bhardwaj is merely in the kitchen preparing the succulent lamb. It’s Smith who actually slithers it down.
Ssssss thi thi thi thi…
@ HELPUMOOT:
No worries.
Easy Jambo
Is The Scotsmen article at
https://www.scotsman.com/news/law-firm-ordered-to-reveal-details-of-oldco-rangers-settlement-1-4773481/amp?__twitter_impression=true
a reasonable attempt at setting out who is suing whom for what and how much.
The latter at £2.8m caught my eye for obvious reasons. Any idea the basis for it from attending court?
Auldheid, from the BDO RFC 2012 Ltd Liquidation Report of 5 December 2017 :
“As previously reported this was delayed by the submission of a claim by The Rangers FC GroupLimited (previously known as Wavetower Limited (“Wavetower”)), a company which is 100% owned by Worthington Group, and of which Craig Whyte was formerly a director. In this claim, in the initial sum of £18.3m, Wavetower asserted that it had a floating charge over the Company ’s assets. If valid, this claim would rank ahead of unsecured creditors. Following a lengthy exchange of correspondence, this claim was reduced, in June 2017, to £2.8m.”
https://www.bdo.co.uk/getmedia/a4db008f-11e2-49fc-b72b-af5ba1ce8d2b/RFC-2012-Plc-report-dated-5-December-2017.pdf.aspx
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Auldheid July 25, 2018 at 11:52
Easy Jambo Is The Scotsmen article at https://www.scotsman.com/news/law-firm-ordered-to-reveal-details-of-oldco-rangers-settlement-1-4773481/amp?__twitter_impression=true a reasonable attempt at setting out who is suing whom for what and how much. The latter at £2.8m caught my eye for obvious reasons. Any idea the basis for it from attending court?
==================================
The original claim was over £18m, the amount paid by Wavetower to Lloyds for the RFC debt; i.e. RFC owed Wavetower the £18m+ rather than Lloyds.
However £16m of that came in a loan from RFC to Wavetower (from the Ticketus money).
The offsetting figure of £18m+ minus the £16m is £2m+, or perhaps £2.8m with interest included.
What that offsetting figure doesn’t take account of is that I believe that RFC also “gifted” the £2m+ to Wavetower in addition to providing the loan.
I’m sure I read or heard somewhere that H&J was seeking to reinstate the £18m claim in some way.
With regards King’s previous investment in the former club.
He used Metlika to purchase shares in Murray Sports Ltd, which I believe in turn held shares in Rangers.
Metlika is also the company he used when trying to hide assets from the South African authorities. Those assets were actually held by Ben Nevis and he moved them to Metlika (via another trust called Glencoe?) but the South Africans found out.
I’m not absolutely sure about this but I believe the Metlika assets were held in Bermuda.
Effectively King used one of his money laundering vehicles to fund his purchase of shares in a company which in turn held shares in Rangers. Who knows if he done that again with regards loans being provided from various sources.
Murray Sports Limited was disolved in April 2013
Interestingly emails from the Bank of Bermuda are now in the public domain. Such snippets as
“Apparently DK wishes to ‘dismantle’ current structure and transfer the assets of Ben Nevis into a new company, as the ‘tax authorities are chasing him’.”
“DK has no tax adviser but is happy there is no problem from his point of view in closing the Ben Nevis company. His intention is just to present a blind alley to any revenue investigation.”
“[W]e are restructuring Ben Nevis to stop the South African taxman in his tracks. To kill two birds with one stone we are also liquidating all investments, as he wishes to take stock, consolidate his position and think through his strategy going forward.”
VALENTINESCLOWNJULY 24, 2018 at 22:23
UTH 19:53Members of a superior culture …………………………………………………
Valentinesclown i think you are spot on in terms of punishment being dished out, nothing meaningful will ever happen.
The ironic thing is they are continuing to damage themselves financially and that’s the most likely avenue for ‘punishment’ – the self-inflicted kind.
HOMUNCULUSJULY 25, 2018 at 12:50
==========================
Clearly the hallmarks of someone ‘fit and proper’.
Scottish Football needs an SFA Chief Executive how does his job properly on behalf of all stakeholders and not just the complicit.
I’ve located the reinstatement of the £18m claim in the last BDO Creditors report from June.