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.
Welcome back DBD. Glad you enjoyed the World Cup, I couldn’t really get into it much. I’m only interested when Scotland are playing at international level.
Yes it’s been so good to see the Scottish teams doing well in Europe. Let’s hope the good run keeps going.
Can’t wait till the transfer window closes and the league starts. All the pre season speculation does my head in.
NickJuly 27, 2018 at 11:10
ALLYJAMBOJULY 27, 2018 at 10:13Are you auditioning for Level5?I’m pretty sure the strange kit TRFC wore last night is something they will be keen to ensure is overlooked by the media and downplayed online.
Is this a wind up that’s went completely over my head? I thought Ex Ludo was having a laugh, is there genuinely some sort of conspiracy theory going round that the ban on gambling adverts reason given is untrue?By all means don’t let me downplay it if so and I’m sure someone will get to the bottom of it but I do think we sometimes damage the credibility of the website by getting caught up in inane conspiracy theory stuff about pennants etc (as fun as it is).I notice a couple of tweets have already went viral on twitter screenshotting posters from here’s tweets and are causing much hilarity amongst fans of all clubs on there.
_______________
My post was not about whether or not there was anything untoward about TRFC’s apparel during last night’s game, but your ever readiness to mock the blog and/or it’s posters in a rather Level5esq way. Only when you are called out do you come out with statements like ‘I thought Ex Ludo was having a laugh’. Well he probably was, at the apparent problem that a rather hubristic and troublesome club was having with their kit, but not, I suspect, at the very idea that the strip change was as a result of one of their ongoing and ever mounting court cases.
I find it strange that anyone, other than the most staunch of bears, would not see a perfect link between a problem with kit supplies and an unexpected, and unannounced, change in that club’s strip.
That it later transpires to be a problem with the sponsor’s gambling links in the country the game was played in doesn’t make the immediate assumptions any less comment worthy.
Also, AJ, the gambling ban (as evidenced by Everton’s similar problem a few years back) doesn’t itself answer the question why they couldn’t use one of their 3 existing authorised kits. It may be that they were unaware of the advert problem until they had arrived (presumably with a couple of authorised kits with them, but all with the advert on).
On being alerted to the issue, the big question is did they seek authorisation to wear an unregistered, unauthorised kit.
From my perspective it doesn’t really matter why Rangers were wearing a red training top last night, the important issue is that they were.
As I understand it they have three official registered kits. Going to play in Europe in a place where gambling advertising is banned they should have had a suitable kit with them. i.e. One of the three official kits, with no gambling advertising on it. Surely there is no legitimate alternative.
Its not as if this is an unusual thing. I remember Celtic playing in their Carling strip, with the word Carling removed, but with the diagonal stripe still there. It caused more discussion and drew more attention than if the word Carling had actually appeared. Carling were probably quite pleased about the whole scenario the way it played out.
The point is, either they didn’t realise that they would need an official kit without the sponsors name on it. Or they knew it but for some reason couldn’t get such a thing. Either one is pretty embarrassing.
It’s just amateurish behaviour.
From next week’s court listings.
ROLLS BUILDING
COURT 25
Before MR JUSTICE PHILLIPS
Monday 30 July 2018 At 10:30 AM (All Day)
Consequentials/Further Arguments
CL-2018-000442 SDI Retail Services Limited v. The Rangers Football Club Limited
This is the “matching rights” case.
Being serious for a minute. Here’s an extract from UEFA articles in relation to playing kit.
“.0250.03 50.04Article 50 Kit approvalThe relevant UEFA Kit/Equipment Regulations applicable from time to time apply to all matches in the competition, unless specified otherwise in these regulations.Exceptionally, the domestic equipment regulations of the relevant associations apply for all matches in the qualifying phase and play-offs, provided that the sponsor advertising on the kit complies with the UEFA Equipment Regulations and the playing attire has been approved for and worn in domestic competition matches.All clubs must submit the kit approval form together with the competition entry documents to the UEFA administration for approval.”
It’s worth noting that the kit should have been approved and worn in domestic competitions. Perhaps one of our intrepid football reporters could ask a question or two about this…. ?
Or not.
HOMUNCULUSJULY 27, 2018 at 14:51
From my perspective it doesn’t really matter why Rangers were wearing a red training top last night, the important issue is that they were.
———————————————————————————
Maybe they had exceeded their baggage allowance.
There’s been a lot of talk about the strength of the Scottish league of late following the Rooney to Salford deal and the bizarre 8 million pound transfer of Martyn Waghorn who flopped up here.
Here’s another “maybe we’re not as bad as some people think” stat. Philippe Senderos a man who was destroyed by every SPFL attack he faced is in the MLS now and has scored 4 goals in his first 5 games from centre half. A new record for a defender over there.
I look forward to Ian Black tearing up La Liga this season!
NAWLITEJULY 27, 2018 at 14:36
Also, AJ, the gambling ban (as evidenced by Everton’s similar problem a few years back) doesn’t itself answer the question why they couldn’t use one of their 3 existing authorised kits. It may be that they were unaware of the advert problem until they had arrived (presumably with a couple of authorised kits with them, but all with the advert on). On being alerted to the issue, the big question is did they seek authorisation to wear an unregistered, unauthorised kit.
_____________
As a new club, Nawlite, I see it as, possibly, a lack of European experience that has led to this problem, and nothing more serious, if, as has been put out, it was solely down to Croatia’s ban on gambling sponsorship/advertising (I’m not suggesting it was for any other reason, but, when dealing with an organisation run by a known liar who would automatically accept their excuse without documentary evidence etc, etc). I am sure a more experienced club would have known to check on such things before traveling, or would always travel with a spare set of kit unadorned with a sponsor’s logo, just in case.
The thing is, if it had been any other club, no one would have seen anything untoward about it, unless that club was in the middle of a very awkward court case involving their kit retailer. In which case I am sure comment on here, suggesting a link between the use of training kit and, perhaps, a problem with the sponsors and/or the retailer would not have been met with a post mocking the very idea that it should be commented upon.
As usual, we still await an explanation as to why commenting on such a thing, particularly when it involves a club so mired in litigation, is either wrong or stupid and worthy of mocking.
What is it about teams with Rangers in the name not playing by the rules?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44980113
https://twitter.com/rangersfcslo/status/1022569026457886729?s=21
It’s official then although not previously advertised/promoted. I don’t believe the red top has been worn in domestic football but I may be wrong.
Rangers FC SLO “Sponsorship rules in Croatia – red top is our 4th strip”
Which is the red one?
EasyJambo
July 27, 2018 at 15:09
=================================
Cheers EJ.
So this is them actually arguing their case rather than a date on which the Judge will announce his decision.
He may of course do that on the day, but its not a given that he will. In fact unlikely that he will without taking some time to consider it.
So I went down to my local for a couple of hours this abbo (Australian for afternoon).
There was me, A Tim from Coatbridge, and a Bear from Carnwath. The bear is very excited about a doo they are having in Carnwath tomorrow which involves sheep and a beer tent. Each to their own.
We discussed the training strip and came to the conclusion that there’s something up. Why didn’t they just wear one of their strips without the sponsors logo?
But we didn’t fall out. Just to make matters worse another pal came in – a Steelman – with his wee lovely daughter. I was wanting to take issue with him about all the Motherwell players wanting to break Celtic players legs. But his wee daughter kept wanting my attention. What can you do? Just wait till the next time he comes into the pub on his own. I think he put the wee girl up to it.
He did admit however that Motherwell didn’t turn up in the cup final. So it wasn’t that Celtic were good, but Mudderwell were not. I despair.
According to the the rules that Ex L has provided there is no evidence that a 4th kit was approved and a red Hummel top has never been worn previously, red tops have been worn but they were missing those iconic chevrons ,unless they sought and were given permission on the day they are contravening the rules.
I imagine they were the only kit available without red32 but that’s the kit man’s fault .
A 3-0 reversal would be harsh on my ribs , I’m still recovering from Mr Custard.
Not sure how UEFA game rules work, but I assume the intended team strips are notified to the ref before the game. I assume like here he can order a change to be made. Would he know what strips are registered? Would there need to be any mention of change or unregistered strips in the ref’s report for any action to happen?
This does seem an odd situation & you would think a club that likes statements would make one explaining the situation if all was well.
More UEFA rules just in case these may be required going forward. The first specified date is interesting. Any reporter want to ask some questions….? Perhaps not.
“The relevant UEFA Kit/Equipment Regulations applicable from time to time apply to all matches in the competition, unless specified otherwise in these regulations.Exceptionally, the domestic equipment regulations of the relevant associations apply for all matches in the qualifying phase and play-offs, provided that the sponsor advertising on the kit complies with the UEFA Equipment Regulations and the playing attire has been approved for and worn in domestic competition matches.All clubs must submit the kit approval form together with the competition entry documents to the UEFA administration for approval.PlayingattireusedbyclubsasofthegroupstagemustbeapprovedbytheUEFA administration. The following deadlines apply for the submission to the UEFA administration of samples of the first-choice and second-choice playing attires for outfield players and goalkeepers as well as any additional playing attires and/or items of playing attire (shirt, shorts or socks):a. 2 July 2018 for clubs that qualify directly for the play-offs or the group stage;b. 20 August 2018 for clubs that qualify for the play-offs via the qualifying phase.”
I like this strip.
I recall from somewhere dim and distant that the TRFC Kit man earns, or should that be is paid, over £100,000 per annum plus a company car and that his assistant (his son) is paid more than half of that. Perhaps some resigning is order either in the normal sense or the Rangers sense.
NICKJULY 27, 2018 at 08:41
CLUSTER ONEJULY 27, 2018 at 07:17I read they never had a Pennant to exchange with the other team,may just be a simple oversight as this club from ibrox have not had many games in europe,so may not have been on a list of priorities
Good to see the big issues being tackled on here.
——————–
I never knew it was a big issue to be tackled.It was just an observation.As i said it may just be a simple oversight as this club from ibrox have not had many games in europe before. Their new manager has though but i would believe in his experience he would have performed this action many times.But as a manager it would not be one of his problems to seek on the day.
————
NICKJULY 27, 2018 at 11:10
I notice a couple of tweets have already went viral on twitter screenshotting posters from here’s tweets and are causing much hilarity amongst fans of all clubs on there.
——————-
Any screenshots of this doing the rounds?
HOMUNCULUSJULY 27, 2018 at 14:51
From my perspective it doesn’t really matter why Rangers were wearing a red training top last night, the important issue is that they were.
The point is, either they didn’t realise that they would need an official kit without the sponsors name on it. Or they knew it but for some reason couldn’t get such a thing. Either one is pretty embarrassing.
It’s just amateurish behaviour.
—
So amateurish that they could not even swap a pennant.In fact i will correct that,even an amateurish club can get the simple things right.
I expect hilarity amongst fans of all clubs to continue to laugh at such an amateurish display coming from an ibrox club.
—–
No issue with my club’s kit provider or strip, in fact I’d go as far to say it’s a cracker which if I were 30 years younger I’d have been wearing last night to watch that stunning second half performance.
———-
You would have the shirt pulled over your head.As i watched it also.
Now what is the word i’m looking for……….
Celtic have released a statement cutting allocation of tickets to Ibrox club to 800.. I am delighted with this as all TV broadcasters hype this game up and the fan spectacle is a major attraction in their thinking. Now that this is gone it makes it like just another league game. Hopefully viewing figures will fall and this game loses its impact. At the moment this game is so one sided it must be a struggle to hype it up. I think Celtic’s domination will continue for a while yet and this game will lose more appeal to view by any neutrals. Thank you Mr King for this line of cutting ticket allocation. In an ideal world Celtic fans should not go, Celtic should buy the tickets and take the loss but leave that corner of Ibrox empty.
Re the red strip and non pennant
The pennant is embarrassing as it is common courtesy but as for the wearing of the training kit that could be more problematic and could see the club sanctioned .
I do believe though these two oversights are a symptom of the downsizing in the whole business ,I think that every single thing possible has been cut to allow DK to put players on the park that the club simply cannot afford .To me he is ALL IN this season . If this latest throw of the dice turns sour the gig is up for sevco 2012 .
IMO the directors who have already jumped ship will be working on sevco 2 as we speak ,things are so bad DK has already played the orange strip card cutting Celtics allocation and the smear campaign on the governance of the game .Realistically what has he got left in keeping the support on board .
IMO it won’t take too many bad results for the support to turn on the club and all the PR propaganda in the world will amount to diddly squat .
At the moment DK is throwing the sevco 2012 support a wee squeaky toy to chase every time they get hungry and start to look at his shin bone to have a gnaw on ,the squeaky toy helps them forget they are hungry but one day they are going to gnaw the squeak out the toy and they will come looking to eat him alive .
IMO that day will come on the field of play not in a courtroom or from any football governance issue
BFBPUZZLED
JULY 27, 2018 at 19:19
—————————————————————-
Jimmy Bell, the Rangers kitman at the applause to commemorate the death of the late Jimmy Johnstone.
You will know who it is, and you can see the reaction of the person on his left.
As I understand it, he is the kitman for the new club as well.
HOMUNCULUS 21.45
Jimmy Bell observes a minutes silence no matter the player or club involved. He has done this throughout his many years at Rangers, so no slight on JJ at all.
Welcome back DBD!
2 gentlemen of the Press, eJ and I were present.
—————
Thanks again to the court guys.
Appeal update:
After a week or so we have raised around £750. Great progress right away. A wee bit to go, but we have a couple of weeks left.
Thanks to all who have contributed. Two folk who donated via the bank I can’t find an email address for; a Mr Rooney and KeepyUppy. Please let me know who you are guys.
SJ
Thanks for that info. I’m glad to hear it too, because I confess that I have for years believed the OP’s inference to be correct, which is too awful to contemplate.
Glad to be set straight.
FIFA’s efforts to tackle high-level corruption by previous high office-holders continues successfully. In my in-box today from the CAS:
“Lausanne, 27 July 2018 –
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed the appeal filed by Jérôme Valcke, former Secretary General of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), against the decision issued by the FIFA Appeal Committee (FIFA AC decision) dated 24 June 2016 (with reasons notified on 3 February 2017), in which he was banned from taking part in any football-related activity for a period of ten years and fined CHF 100,000.”
It would be wonderful if the SFA were to be arraigned before a UEFA tribunal, found guilty, appealed to CAS, and lost their appeal. Or, indeed, were found not to have been guilty of the kinds of ‘sporting’ crimes ( or other actual criminal crimes) allegedly alleged against them.
Even I would have to accept the verdict of the CAS. Wouldn’t make me love the SFA any more than I do, though ( and recourse to the civil courts would still be theoretically possible!)
Re the fourth kit training top.
What kit did they wear away in the last round?
And was this before the Ashley injunction?
SLIMJIMJULY 27, 2018 at 21:59
So the story of the then boss alex mc reading him the riot act afterwards is untrue
BIG PINKJULY 27, 2018 at 22:03
0
0 Rate This
Appeal update:
After a week or so we have raised around £750. Great progress right away. A wee bit to go, but we have a couple of weeks left.
———————
Never knew there was one BP. will have to look at my emails more often
IMO the line the SLO at sevco 2012 has had to follow is embarrassing .
He would have been better saying nothing and telling the MSM to let it slide
The question is why didn’t he, as the MSM would have been more than happy to oblige .
I think the 4th strip nonsense is because they have built this picture of SG being so professional and demanding the highest of standards . So the two incidents in midweek will (while being really nothing that you leave at SG door) looks bad regards his coming in and demanding top professional standards .
I must admit I do think SG will be angered by what went on and will make sure there is no repeat
Perhaps Slimjim could enlighten us to the veracity in the oft told story of Jimmy Bell’s treatment of MoJo. Refusing to deliver his kit to said players hotel room.
There was much hilarity at the photo of Stevie Gee’s first visit to the changing room at Ibrox. There was Jimmy Bell, face like thunder. No smile and welcoming handshake.
His reputation is notorious.
FOF 22.21
Yes.
JIMBO
These kind of stories grow “arms and legs” with every telling Jimbo. The kit story was one of many childish pranks during the pre-season training camp in Italy,and were set up incidentally by a couple of players who were friendly with MJ.
The players were asked by the then manager Graeme Souness the evening Maurice was introduced that “if they had anything to say then this was their one and only opportunity” , one player replied “he shouldn’t be here”. The player was transferred within a few months.
No handshake?
https://rangers.co.uk/news/rangers-tv/gerrard-behind-the-scenes/
09.22 in.
fan of footballJuly 27, 2018 at 22:33
‘..I must admit I do think SG will be angered by what went on and will make sure there is no repeat ‘
_________________
He may be angered, but I suspect that SG does not have authority to discipline the legend that is Jimmy Bell!
Bell appeals to an important constituency, the same constituency that King , by repeatedly appealing to and depending upon that same constituency, has rendered himself powerless to sack an inefficient ( allegedly highly paid) kit-man who has so embarrassed TRFC Ltd, and may have cost them money.
But wasn’t that picture posted by Homunculus just wonderful?
Just as I was reading it, my son incidentally Skyped from Brisbane, and lo and behold, there was one of wee grand-daughters ( aged 5) in almost the same wee huffy, truculent, not-a-happy-bunny pose as Bell.
Mrs C and I actually laughed out loud at the similarity!
Slimjim, I like your version of the story better than the one I heard. But let’s call a halt to it. He’s the kit man, an important job, but not a director or manager.
The whole training kit / pendant thing I find more humorous than anything. If there is a story behind the strip issue relating to Mike Ashley, Hummell, shirt sponsor, then it will be worthy of discussion on here. Until then, it’s a non story. If Jimmy Bell has messed up, I’m sure words will be had inside Ibrox.
Jimbo,
I don’t think it’s the kit mans problem. He has his own issues but essentially he just does what he’s telt.
I find the world of Scottish football journalism a very strange place. I apologise in advance to those who can’t be a*rsed with Glasgow rivalry, but the reaction to Celtic’s statement yesterday regarding the Rangers ticket allocation is pathetic. Already we have two allegedly respected journalists (Ewan Murray and Graham Spiers) who write for allegedly quality broadsheets turning their guns on Celtic. There may well be more but I haven’t looked. The simple fact of this matter is that Rangers had been besieged with complaints from their own fans who wanted Celtic fans out the Broomloan Road stand, presumably because they are fed up with seeing them celebrating. Dave King gave them their wish and used the media in the usual way to portray it as a huge PR coup. There is no way in this world that Celtic could have sat back and simply handed Rangers fans 7,000 tickets for the forthcoming fixture, following which King would then use the same media to portray it as a victory. Yet Celtic are the bad guys and ‘should have risen above it’ say the media who do all King’s PR bidding for him. Celtic can never do anything right for always doing everything wrong it appears. Yet Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs can cut ticket allocations as they please without criticism, although it should be noted the media again did King’s PR bidding for him when Hibs cut Rangers allocation.
UPTHEHOOPSJULY 28, 2018 at 08:24
Mr Clumps was way ahead of them.
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2018/07/27/sevcos-reply-to-celtics-statement/
With all king’s statements about not looking into historical issues that the SFA, SPFL should be using the money to invest in youth football. I have to tip my hat at this reply from Govan councillor Stephen Dornan. (Rangers fan zone CANCELLED after objections from community council)
“My concern is that these matches are controlled by the likes of Sky Sports. If you look at the football schedules the pitch would never be available for kids football ever again.
“Rangers should be investing in youth football in the area. They shouldn’t be trying to replace it with burgers and booze.
“I can’t sit back and watch a kids’ football pitch being taken away like that.”
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16383183.rangers-fan-zone-cancelled-after-objections-from-community-council/?ref=mr&lp=1
UTH @ 08.24 28 July
Couldn’t agree more – Speirs signs off his bit in to-day’s Times on the ticket situ by stating “Now the Old Firm game will be ruined as a spectacle” – somebody should update the poor fellow & advise him the “Old Firm” doesn’t exist anymore .
naegreetinJuly 28, 2018 at 09:50
UTH @ 08.24 28 JulyCouldn’t agree more – Speirs signs off his bit in to-day’s Times on the ticket situ by stating “Now the Old Firm game will be ruined as a spectacle” – somebody should update the poor fellow & advise him the “Old Firm” doesn’t exist anymore .
________________
The ‘Old Firm’ was ruined as anything, let alone a ‘spectacle’, the day Rangers started cheating.
Scottish football was ruined as a sport, the day the suits put Bryson in front of LNS.
The ‘Old Firm’ died, the day Rangers CVA was refused.
NAEGREETINJULY 28, 2018 at 09:50
Peter Lawwell disagrees.
These restrictions of away fans are fast becoming the latest big squirrel to divert attention away from everything else. It’s almost like it’s been engineered that way.
AllyjamboJuly 28, 2018 at 10:53
‘…The ‘Old Firm’ was ruined as anything, let alone a ‘spectacle’, the day Rangers started cheating.’
______________________
And I can see the money-grubbing, cynical mind of the Celtic plc Board clearly expressing itself by the inclusion of this sentence in their statement:
“The previous arrangements worked well for both sets of supporters as well as contributing to the status of the fixture as a sporting occasion.”
I am disappointed that Celtic use the single word ‘Rangers’, instead of honouring the new club with its proper name, ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’, to make it clear that they do not buy into the Big sporting Lie, and do not define themselves by reference to a liquidated club.
The only explanation for The Rangers’ decision to restrict Celtic fans visiting Ibrox which rings true with me, is that it is in part a response to Ibrox fan’s requests.
Apparently they could not stand any more gloating and gleefulness from the Celtic support. Which was profound.
In a way it’s slightly understandable. It must be painful. but no more painful than what Celtic fans had to endure at Celtic Park from the 1990s to MON era. Plus we had £10 notes being waived at us!
My main point however is this. Have the bears and their board given up all hope of ever seeing glory days coming to Ibrox? It’s like a fatalistic realisation. What if they ever beat Celtic at Ibrox one day? Can’t imagine turning to a corner of the ground with a mere 800 tims would be quite the same fun.
But it’s just another Ibrox board act of desperation in the face of adversity, to keep the fans on side, and distracted.
Like the orange strips. Dear goodness, any enlightened, modern thinking organisation would be trying to distance themselves from that sort of thing.
The red training strips worn during the week were much better looking in my humble opinion.
Ticketgate is ridiculous. Im not sure why people are having a go at Spiers though as he is spot on, Celtic should have stuck their fingers up at Rangers and took the moral high ground. That is NOT in any manner of means a criticism of Celtic and no guns are aimed at Celtic in saying such.
This is all Rangers fault in my opinion and not afraid to say so….have said so elsewhere also.
As John C has pointed out, Celtic have made their position clear on the other issue mentioning the “status of the fixture” but im not sure where all the supposed outrage is mentioned above.
Moving to shirtgate. Would it surprise anyone if they found out its up to the home side tp notify any visting team of restrictions on advertising ???? Or should we just aim every post and unfounded accusation at The Rangers Football Club Ltd v2012 ?
JOHN CLARK 11.27
A couple of points regarding yesterdays statement John.
I disagree with Celtic’s opinion that ” The previous arrangements worked well for both sets of supporters as well as contributing to the status of the fixture as a sporting occasion”.
Whilst the Celtic support were given a whole stand at Ibrox behind the goal with a highly visible television presence, in contrast the Rangers support are placed in a corner of Celtic park with virtually no television exposure allied to having several restricted viewing seats in their allocation.
Celtic referring to us by name was the first time they have done so since our return to the top division, so a small amount of progress perhaps.
For anyone to claim a high level of professionalism and attention to detail, then see their team play away in Europe in training tops is ludicrous.
Like I said, ignoring the more fanciful reasons I can only think of two plausible explanations. Either they didn’t know they weren’t allowed to use tops with gambling sponsors on them (and didn’t have suitable kit with them when they found out) or they knew but couldn’t get anyone to supply them.
If anyone can come up with another more plausible reason I would love to hear it.
The “It’s or fourth strip” nonsense just makes it more embarrassing. Why wasn’t this design released with the other three.
Oh and why were they wearing the same kit training.
I knew that the Ibrox kit man had baggage 🙂 but did not want to open that particular set of issues- though part of his wage may be for his appeal to certain demographics.
One would have anticipated that in return for the huge wage he would be expected to furnish legal kit in accordance with legal and sporting requirements. He should be expected to know how regulations in his particular area apply -many of us have to deal with much more onerous requirements.
UEFQ fined Celtic recently for a breach of regulations – a substitute wearing the wrong tabard so it is not a no consequence action.
I haven’t been on the blog for a couple of days , so someone may have already asked this
Is Nick the new username for Lawman ?
I’m having a relaxing Saturday afternoon (temporary halt to redecoration ,and showery weather allowing me to feel no guilt for remaining indoors).
So I’m doing a little historical research trying to find the full written judgment of some of the Court cases I’ve attended over the last few years.
By pure chance I came across this case;
“ON WEDNESDAY 18 MARCH 2009
HOUSE OF LORDS
OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENTIN THE CAUSE
King (Respondent) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Appellant) (On appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
Mr King, the respondent to this appeal, is a British subject who has for 30 years been resident in South Africa. He has been charged by the Office of the National Prosecuting Authority of the Republic of South Africa (“the NPA”) with fraud on a very large scale. He was originally arrested in South Africa on 13 June 2002. He was served with an indictment on 29 April 2005, which was amended on 17 March 2006. He now faces 51 counts of fraud, 34 counts of contravening income tax legislation, 234 counts of contravening exchange control regulations, 2 counts of money laundering and 1 count of racketeering. His trial has been adjourned on a number of occasions. He has been granted bail and the return of his passport and has been permitted, on occasion, to travel outside South Africa. ”
Our Dave ( yes, it was the very man) lost that Appeal.
Difficulty in moving funds out of South Africa? With a history like that,you’d better believe it.
You can read the full judgment on this link
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/17.html&query=david+king
HomunculusJuly 28, 2018 at 12:51
Attachment
For anyone to claim a high level of professionalism and attention to detail, then see their team play away in Europe in training tops is ludicrous.Like I said, ignoring the more fanciful reasons I can only think of two plausible explanations. Either they didn’t know they weren’t allowed to use tops with gambling sponsors on them (and didn’t have suitable kit with them when they found out) or they knew but couldn’t get anyone to supply them.If anyone can come up with another more plausible reason I would love to hear it. The “It’s or fourth strip” nonsense just makes it more embarrassing. Why wasn’t this design released with the other three.Oh and why were they wearing the same kit training.
______________
I was thinking about this last night, Homunculus, having originally presumed that TRFC didn’t find out about the problem until they’d arrived in Croatia, but then I realised that UEFA must have known about this problem with gambling sponsorship as this is not the first time it’s happened. So, I’d suggest it is highly unlikely that UEFA would not advise all clubs, and, in particular, all clubs drawn to play against Croatian sides, to take logo free tops when their sponsors are gambling related. I’d also expect all Croatian clubs to contact their opponents with the necessary information soon after the draw was made, for if they didn’t, and my club was caught out like this, I’d be more than a little put out, to say the least. And if I was someone who loved using my friends in the media to attack opponents and to ramp up the anger within an already angry support…
As far as I am aware, TRFC have not said that they didn’t find out about it until after they arrived, in fact, I haven’t read or seen reference to what point in time the club found out about this restriction, and, surely, if they had found out when it was already too late to rectify, they’d have made that clear to the media and their supporters via their friends at Level5.
Now, I know some might question the legitimacy of this debate, and perhaps they are right, for it’s not as though there’s the potential for rule or regulation breaking in this most recent episode of football’s greatest saga of…well rule and regulation breaking..
Let’s not beat around the bush here; it’s TRFC’s responsibility to ensure that their strips meet local, Croatian requirements regarding sponsorship etc.. It’s in the UEFA League Regulations 2018-19 document.
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/55/82/82/2558282_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Page 46, Article 53 – Shirt Sponsor – Paragraph 53.07:
If the national legislation applicable at the match venue prevents a visiting club from using its approved shirt sponsor (see the UEFA Equipment Regulations), theclub may ask UEFA to replace its sponsor with a UEFA-endorsed programme orwith a charity in compliance with the UEFA requirements. Alternatively, a club maywear advertising for a product of its sponsor as long as it complies with theapplicable national legislation and is approved by UEFA. Such requests must besubmitted to the UEFA administration at least two days before the match inquestion. Clubs are solely responsible for complying with the applicable nationallegislation.
There’s also another document, the UEFA Equipment Regulations.
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/56/52/75/2565275_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Page 40, Article 27 – Advertising Restrictions:
27.01: All advertising of tobacco and strong alcohol, (i.e. any beverage with an alcoholcontent of more than 15% abv unless the applicable domestic legislation sets alower limit) is prohibited.
27.02: Any bans or restrictions imposed by the domestic legislation of the country inwhich a UEFA competition match is taking place also apply.
That seems to make it quite clear that it’s up to each team to ensure it complies with the regulations, not up to UEFA, who only proscribe tobacco & strong alcohol shirt sponsors.
Edit: apologies for some of the formatting – too much to correct in the time allowed!
The responsibility of informing away teams to potential national restrictions is on the home team via UEFA and both teams hold a meeting in advance of both ties to clear things up. Osijek informed UEFA and the club at the pre-ties meeting last weekend. It is then the responsibility of the away team to comply as per the regulations.
Rangers have 4 registered strips with UEFA including the red one, it was decided this was the best strip to use. The tops were all marked up in Scotland with numbers and players names as per the regulations and thats the strip we flew to Croatia with.
Any suggestion that it was a last minute discovery and that we were able to get them all marked up etc in time for kick off is a non starter. Any letters or emails to UEFA or Osijek will be a futile attempt though im sure they have been inundated with mail on the subject.
And just also to clarify – The red training top that we have been using in “training” has a Black badge. The shorts have no numbers on them. And there are no “training socks”
The 4th registered strip, worn the other night, has a White badge (not black) the shorts are numbered and there are full matching black and red hummel socks.
That would have to be some operation to make all those last minute changes, if it was an unregistered mistake.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 28, 2018 at 14:23
HomunculusJuly 28, 2018 at 12:51AttachmentFor anyone to claim a high level of professionalism and attention to detail, then see their team play away in Europe in training tops is ludicrous.Like I said, ignoring the more fanciful reasons I can only think of two plausible explanations. Either they didn’t know they weren’t allowed to use tops with gambling sponsors on them (and didn’t have suitable kit with them when they found out) or they knew but couldn’t get anyone to supply them.If anyone can come up with another more plausible reason I would love to hear it. The “It’s or fourth strip” nonsense just makes it more embarrassing. Why wasn’t this design released with the other three.Oh and why were they wearing the same kit training.
———————————————————————————————————-
I was thinking about this last night, Homunculus, having originally presumed that TRFC didn’t find out about the problem until they’d arrived in Croatia, but then I realised that UEFA must have known about this problem with gambling sponsorship as this is not the first time it’s happened.
—————————————————————————————————-
Exactly Ally. It is too large an assumption to make that Sevco didn’t have access to un-labelled kit. It is a far more likely assumption, that due to recent court proceedings (still current) they do not have ANY kit, that they can legally adorn themselves in.
I would not consider that UEFA are being overly lenient, in granting some kind of waiver, allowing Sevco to participate in an unregistered kit for the time being, until the courts reach a decision. Thus Sevco are not being forced to infringe a court matter, but neither are they being “punished” by exclusion, for the same unsettled matter.
Not so much a case of, “Who sold the jerseys”, but more in the arena of, “Who owns the jerseys”, (or the rights to them).
4th kit my *rse !
CORRUPT OFFICIALJULY 28, 2018 at 15:43
Exactly Ally. It is too large an assumption to make that Sevco didn’t have access to un-labelled kit. It is a far more likely assumption, that due to recent court proceedings (still current) they do not have ANY kit, that they can legally adorn themselves in.
_____________________________________
The court proceedings are about the Retail deal, which has nothing to do with the Hummel kit. We wore the White and Blue strips in the previous round without any issue both of which were played AFTER the injunction was made.
As for not having ANY kit, surely having an additional strip, shorts and socks is the EXACT OPPOSITE of not having ANY.
Its incredible that an additional kit can be classed as a sign that we dont have any……. Strange.
Out of curiosity, what is an “un-labelled strip” ?
To reply to a couple of queries , the strip worn in the away leg in Macedonia was the white strip with the blue/red stripes and Nick aka Lawman/ Steerpike/ Niall Walker certainly do seem to have many similarities. If he declares he is an East Fife fan then …………
TIMTIMJULY 28, 2018 at 15:57
To reply to a couple of queries , the strip worn in the away leg in Macedonia was the white strip with the blue/red stripes and Nick aka Lawman/ Steerpike/ Niall Walker certainly do seem to have many similarities. If he declares he is an East Fife fan then …………
______________________________________
I guess if we take this view then we could also assume there is only 2 posters on this whole site. 1 Celtic fan and 1 Rangers fan. The Celtic fan has 50 aliases. The Rangers fan as 4 aliases.
And all they do is talk to themselves all day whilst trying to convince each other. Ive always found it funny that EasyJambo and John Clarke always end up at the same court cases. You have now explained that TIMTIM. Cheers for that.
THELAWMAN2
JULY 28, 2018 at 15:18
====================================
Why was this “fourth strip” not released in the big fanfare that was the announcement of the other three.
If it was registered with the rest why was it kept a secret.
Maybe it was and I missed it, the game the other night was certainly the first time I had seen it.
From Rangers Official Website
“RANGERS Football Club are today delighted to launch the new Hummel home, away, third and goalkeeper kits for season 2018/19.”
Perhaps THELAWMAN2, with his inside knowledge, could answer this?
If TRFC were fully aware of any restrictions before leaving Glasgow, why wasn’t the ‘Tango Tap’, sans logo, given its first competitive outing?
BARCABHOYJULY 28, 2018 at 13:06
12
4 Rate This
I haven’t been on the blog for a couple of days , so someone may have already asked this
Is Nick the new username for Lawman ?
Maybe but nick is a hibee don’t you know.
Out in force today are they not.
Now I don’t know whether or not TRFC have four strips registered with UEFA, but I have not seen anything prior to Thurday night’s game that suggests they have a red strip registered with anyone, or that they even had one, registered or not. As ever, there’s a post on here assuring us, in the usual authorative manner, that TRFC do have four strips registered (with UEFA) and, as usual, no supporting evidence is provided as though we are expected to accept the pronouncement – just because.
Further more, I do find it strange that the only kit no one has seen or heard of before is the only one free of the sponsor’s logo, and extremely surprising that the only kit not advertised for sale, as an official match kit, (sometime in the future in an as yet unknown store) should be chosen for a high(ish) profile match. It is also quite likely that a training top will have a choice of black, or white, lettering, while extremely unlikely that such adornments would be the only visible difference between it and an official club match strip.
Does anyone know if TRFC made it categorically clear that it was not a training top that the team wore and that it was, indeed, a registered kit?
Still, I am sure that the evidence of this fourth, registered with UEFA, kit will be posted soon.
ALLYJAMBOJULY 28, 2018 at 16:27
They do, but i appreciate you wont take my word on it. Lets see if there are any fines.
How am i supposed to prove to you exactly Ally ? What can i show you that will convince you of this ? Do you back every single one of your posts up with evidence or do you leave it out there for it to be proven or not ?
No kits are advertised for sale.
[Moderated]
No it wont. If it wasnt registered though, you will soon know all about it. UEFA dont mess about when teams dont comply.
JINGSO.JIMSIE
JULY 28, 2018 at 16:15
=============================
They decided not to use what a lot of the fans think of as the most popular strip in years, and are predicting will sell in their tens of thousands.
Instead going for one not seen or announced before which looks surprisingly like a generic Hummel training top with a Rangers badge ironed on.
I know I shouldn’t, but…
“THELAWMAN2
JULY 28, 2018 at 12:30
…
Celtic should have stuck their fingers up at Rangers and took the moral high ground…”
=======================
Not wishing to debate this: just stating a fact.
Celtic – along with each of the other 40 senior clubs – will ALWAYS be on the moral high ground WRT anything related to the deviant Ibrox club.
Always.
THELAWMAN2
JULY 28, 2018 at 16:34
How am i supposed to prove to you exactly Ally ? What can i show you that will convince you of this ? Do you back every single one of your posts up with evidence or do you leave it out there for it to be proven or not ?
==================================
What do you have that can support your claim.
You know it to be true, so must have gotten the information from somewhere, it certainly isn’t common knowledge.
Did you read it somewhere, were you told by someone who would know, do you have access to confidential information.
HOMUNCULUSJULY 28, 2018 at 16:48
What do you have that can support your claim.
You know it to be true, so must have gotten the information from somewhere, it certainly isn’t common knowledge.
Did you read it somewhere, were you told by someone who would know, do you have access to confidential information.
_________________________________________________________________
I got it directly from the club and someone who would know yeah.
50 goals scored in the league cup games today. Excluding the penalty shoot out. (15 matches)
Article 50 Kit approval“All clubs must submit the kit approval form together with the competition entry documents to the UEFA administration for approval.”
So there should be documented evidence on a kit approval form. Interesting thing to have sight of given the ongoing discourse.
Presumably the competition entry documents were submitted some weeks ago. I’m wondering if this was prior to the Hummel announcement. Anyone know?
THELAWMAN2JULY 28, 2018 at 15:52
You will note I clearly stated I was making assumptions. Assumptions are necessary due to the obvious openness and transparency of Sevco.
An “unlabelled” kit, is one free from a gamblers logo, which on the surface is rather obvious to what it refers considering Croatian rules.
“Any” kit, was the intention to relate to any “registered” kit. Sevco may have a kit room packed with Hummel gear for all we know, but if the registration is in limbo, (subject to the retail deal you deem irrelevant), it may as well be a kit room stocked with tubes of Smarties.
I also made the assumption that UEFA may have granted a waiver, permitting the use of an unregistered jersey, to side-step the difficulties placed upon Sevco by the irrelevant court action, giving them a fair bite at the cherry until the non-issue retail deal is decided.
But thank you for letting me know that you assume everything to be rosy in the garden. Well rotted compost always helps. Having the luxury of a 4th spade to dig it in is a welcome supplement.
EX LUDOJULY 28, 2018 at 17:49
Presumably the competition entry documents were submitted some weeks ago. I’m wondering if this was prior to the Hummel announcement. Anyone know?
______________________________________________________________
Im curious around this. Do you believe there is a regulation that means a team cannot change kit provider during the summer because they have to have all their kits submitted to UEFA by a certain date ?
Actually a wider question to everyone on here. I 100% get the EBT thing and the not paying creditors thing etc, i really do. I completely understand why its an issue and i have admitted my embarassment over it many a time.
But the last few days have been dominated by a football strip and what appears to be a hunger to have Rangers punished for perhaps breaking a rule on it. Surely the issue should be that there is a rule in the first place for goodness sake. Its a clothing garment. Are we at the point where wearing a wrong clothing garment is cheating and punishable ?
Is that what we want in the game ?