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.
TincksJuly 29, 2018 at 17:05
‘….an interesting article from Roy Greenslade on the MSM and new media. ‘
____________________
Interesting indeed, Tincks.
I have just emailed Greenslade to say that had he evinced any interest in my email to him of 26th June (in which I mentioned the suspicion in which the SFA is held by many, and the extreme reluctance of the SMSM to ‘dig or delve’) I might have read his piece with more interest!
My fading memory seems to recall a European tie involving Celtic and, I think, a French club.
Anyway, I recall a match where the Celtic players had a band of tape covering the sponsor’s name. I believe it was an alcohol company.
Can anyone confirm or put me right?
#confuseddonegal
THOMTHETHIMJULY 29, 2018 at 19:00
Don’t recall the precise details either Thom but I’m pretty sure you’re right.
THELAWMAN2JULY 29, 2018 at 11:39
1
5 Rate This
– Personal digs now about the way i quickly converse on Social Media. Deary me.
Thats the measure of what someone does in their business life. Cant “Trump” that one eh.
——————————————————-
It take less time to type “ did “ rather than “ done “ and to type “ you “ rather than “ youse”
I’m afraid you are full of “ bullsheeto “
although I could have saved time and just typed BS
JUSTBECAUSEYOUREPARANOIDJULY 29, 2018 at 19:13
****
Thanks. I hope I haven’t imagined it.
MERCDOC
JULY 29, 2018 at 15:53
———————————————
You have your documents mixed up & are referring to last year’s (2017/18) regulations.
This year’s regulations are at:
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/55/82/82/2558282_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Currently, all clubs playing in the Europa League qualifiers (like TRFC, AFC & HFC) do so in the colours advised to UEFA on the entry form. (I’ll happily admit I don’t know how many changes of strips are advised to UEFA on this form, but I doubt if it’s four.)
Teams qualifying to proceed to play-offs & hopefully group stages must then submit their first & second choice strips to UEFA for approval for use in group stages by 20.08.18, before the play-offs, which take place on 23.08.18 & 30.08.18. That’s all it says in the regs: first & second choice.
If there’s a clash in the group stages, UEFA adjudicates. For example, in the 2016 CL (I know, a different competition!), Arsenal had to wear their ‘away’ strip at home against Basel because their ‘home’ tops’ white sleeves were considered a colour clash with Basel’s two registered strips.
THOMTHETHIM
JULY 29, 2018 at 19:00
My fading memory seems to recall a European tie involving Celtic and, I think, a French club.Anyway, I recall a match where the Celtic players had a band of tape covering the sponsor’s name. I believe it was an alcohol company.Can anyone confirm or put me right?#confuseddonegal
———————————–
Using sport to advertise alcohol is indeed banned in France.
Rugby union’s Heineken Cup, which included French teams, was known simply as the ‘H’ Cup in France. It ran from 1995 to 2014, I think, & Heineken are again sponsoring the European Champions’ Cup from this year.
bfbpuzzledJuly 29, 2018 at 18:04
_______________________________________
OMG bfb.Alternative? pupil you had. I could amaze you with stories!!! I loved every minute of it and could write a book. I was in Secondary schools in North Lanarkshire. I am also glad that I have retired!!!!!!!!
I was glad that they retired the Belt…..
Donation on way this week
THOMTHETHIMJULY 29, 2018 at 19:00
1
0 Rate This
My fading memory seems to recall a European tie involving Celtic and, I think, a French club.Anyway, I recall a match where the Celtic players had a band of tape covering the sponsor’s name. I believe it was an alcohol company.Can anyone confirm or put me right?
—————
Recollection also of that but this from September 27, 2017
http://www.talkingbaws.com/2017/09/celtic-set-play-anderlecht-tonight-without-shirt-sponsor/
Jingso, totally agree on four different strips, Mental! Seen this and can’t understand it?
50.04
Playing attire used by clubs as of the group stage must be approved by the UEFA 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.
If the highlighted is Rangers, then they don’t have to register tops till 20 Aug!
So they used 1st and 2nd ( Domestic ). 3rd (Orange) or 4th( If that exists ) doesn’t come into it. I still don’t see why the rule of home team changing their top wasn’t used, if it clashed with the two Rangers tops? I’m so confused!
CLUSTER ONEJULY 29, 2018 at 20:31
****
Thanks, but I seem to recall a previous occasion.
No matter, the point being that a piece of tape would have avoided the need to conjure up a 4th kit.
Shameful that the Hearts points penalty conundrum has been given little attention, as they progressed at ICT’s expense today.
Is it a subject to be avoided by the MSM as Mr Bryson offers his knowledge on these matters?
Ultimately, the peculiar decision to award Hearts a point for breaking the rules may have cost ICT a windfall in future rounds, but they don’t really matter, do they? It certainly cost the Inverness club qualification to the next stage, and prize money.
The whole thing about the 4th kit issue is that, once again the club from Ibrox has failed to just be open and honest and tell folk what has been going on.
Looking at Wiki Osijek have the following kits
1st White/Blue hoops, white shorts, blue socks
2nd White, Blue White
3rd (Funnily enough) Red with Black sleeves, Black, Red.
Therefore all kits clash with everything but the Mandarin one.
It’s either a cock up or one easily explained due to the obvious clash in colours.
Just be open and transparent and keep your fans informed.
Simples!
BB, at half- and full-time the pundits discussed it, wondering how John Robertson would feel about it. Indeed, when Sutton commented on it, the wee commentator guy asked jokingly “Are you looking for transparency, Chris?”. Fairness, integrity and transparency is just another wee joke for the media. They’re pathetic. Is none of them actually going to push the SPFL into disclosing the reasons for it. Everyone knows it’s ‘different’, so I don’t know why they can do it without justification, without probing. I’m sick of it.
SFM I believe is populated by mature Scottish footy fans.
With maturity, comes experience and the ability to smell BS from afar.
The more nonsense/BS/threats/intimidation emanating from Ibrox, the more I am convinced this deviant club should have been buried for good in 2012.
I’m thinking that the term ‘wilful ignorance’ will soon become a frequent term related to the SFA’s past performance…
If nothing else, Buddies have always been informed as to the reasons behind several strip snafus….
…but when your team runs onto a pitch wearing the jerseys of your greatest rivals, that’s really the time for gnashing of teeth, tearing of hair and… er… rending of garments, especially St Mirren-based black and white garments.
Saints have played in Morton tops, with Original Rangers socks and several other weird wrong strips.
http://www.stmirren.info/wrongstrip.html
Shit happens. 🙂
Inverness boss John Robertson laughs off the complaints of the Celtic manager, on BT Sport before kick off at Tynecastle.
“You’ve got a choice of four cuts: very short, short, medium or Celtic!”
“I don’t know why Brendan has a problem with it?!”
Who’s laughing now John?
Just read this on the BBC Scotland Web page.
Its a piece about Thompsons Solicitors taking up a court action for some of the kids who were abused in the past and taking it directly to the door of the SFA.
Its been discussed on Radio Shortbread this morning as one of their sub headlines.
A group of people who were abused as children are taking legal action against the Scottish Football Association (SFA).
They said they were abused by coaches or referees in the Scottish game.
An interim report into child protection within football, published last week, found policies in Scotland were “not fit for purpose”.
SFA chief executive Ian Maxwell said, however, that Scottish football was “a safe place for children”.
Janine Rennie of the survivors charity Wellbeing Scotland said: “The beginning of civil legal proceedings against the Scottish Football Association by survivors is their absolute right and is an important part of them claiming some measure of justice they have long been denied.
“Restitution of this kind is a small part of the journey for these brave people.
“They were disbelieved and ignored by the authorities for years but they are taking back control and now the SFA have admitted their terrible failings I hope they will deal with this matter with decency and transparency.”
‘Seeking justice’The legal action is being pursued through Thompsons Solicitors.
Partner Patrick McGuire said: “The legal action for compensation that my firm is undertaking on behalf of our clients is part of the process of seeking justice and it’s one that I expect the SFA to take very seriously and settle promptly.”
One of those pursuing the action is John Cleland.
“The SFA is responsible for making sure that those coaching our children are people we can trust,” he said, “yet they completely failed me and my family.”
He added: “I now wait to see if their words admitting their failings are backed up by action.
“I sincerely hope that other survivors abused in Scottish football now feel able to come forward to have their voices heard.”
An SFA spokesman has said: “The review group said football was safe but said that it could be safer, and we completely accept that.
“We commissioned the review because we wanted to make football better, and we knew that there were things that had to be improved.
“We have increased training for more 12,000 people working (with children) in football and we are making sure that all our members have their processes in order.”
————————————-
The SFA will not be happy about this development and who knows it may be the first in a line of such actions against this particular governing body for historic incompetence and bias.
Actions that will hurt them increasingly financially until they realise the only way forward is honestly and openly for all.
To my mind, the least controversial explanation for the kit question would have been to say that the club turned up with only two strips, but on arrival discovered the colour clash and sought permission from UEFA to play in their red training kit. The whole saga being no more than an administrative error. They could have reassured the supporters that they did have the orange strip available, but didn’t realise both their first choice strips clashed with their opponent’s. But they haven’t said anything like that, they’ve just introduced a fourth strip identical to their training gear, leaving so much room for speculation.
FINLOCHJULY 30, 2018 at 08:48
I genuinely hope that having admitted they made mistakes the SFA don’t drag these guys through the courts. They should ascertain the validity of each claim as sensitively as possible and then make a quick offer of settlement.
I assume a large organisation like the SFA will have insurance to pay claims like these.
My da is bigger than your da is a famous term used by Hugh Keevins and is used to undermine callers with genuine points they wish to abstain from commenting on, he further states often this is the west of Scotland mentality.
Well when you buy a so called repected print newspaper you expect quality, you expect journalism, you expect a well balanced and staple supply of evidence.
What are you meant to consider when that expectaion turns out to be nothing more than opinion pieces that does nothing but reflect the comments made in the beginning chapter above.
Where does the balance lie in an opinion story and what is the reader expected to consider and what conclusions will he form when he reads it?
Check out the attachment in the Herald and the price been asked for these opinions and the name of the Editor in Chief and ask yourself is this the end of a national media?
BARCABHOYJULY 29, 2018 at 12:02
Jimbo
I think you’ll be fine unless you start claiming to have expertise in area’s where some form of linguistic competence is to be expected
Barca you old rascal, you can’t go after a chap’s sentence construction then produce a grammatical abomination like this. I note your assertion that I am an alias of the Lawman with some horror, please don’t drag me into this race to the literacy gutter!
I’m proud to say I disagree with both of you on most subjects, please don’t take this as an invitation to unite and come after me as I’m enjoying your skirmishes from afar.
BP, you got mail.
NickJuly 30, 2018 at 09:30
FINLOCHJULY 30, 2018 at 08:48
I assume a large organisation like the SFA will have insurance to pay claims like these.
Thats an interesting point Remember this case.
“An email sent to the solicitors of David – not his real name – explained:
“You will understand that there have been many changes affecting Rangers over the last several years.
“The company which owned Rangers Football Club…. which you refer to as owing duties of care to your client will have been the company then called The Rangers Football Club PLC and now called RFC 2012 Limited.
“That company is currently in liquidation but we do have the liquidators’ contact details and can provide that information if it will assist.”
Last year the BBC revealed a catalogue of alleged abuse by Neely at various clubs, but he died in 2014 before facing justice. ”
The incorporated company now been seperated to keep the myth going and the witholding of justice, this guy should also confront the SFA and expose the lies.
NICKJULY 30, 2018 at 09:30
FINLOCHJULY 30, 2018 at 08:48
I assume a large organisation like the SFA will have insurance to pay claims like these.
——————————
Don’t assume any kind of such like.
There will be no historic insurance from the 70s and 80s for future child abuse claims at the SFA.
There will be no accrued funds from the past to meet future possible payments.
Any such payments mandated by the courts or agreed in advance out of court (and the costs of defence and mediation or whatever is needed to defend themselves) will probably be severely under-budgeted and come as a hit on revenue meaning there is less in the pot for their current and future business plans.
If Thompsons are successful this will hurt the SFA and even if they are not it will also hurt – just a bit less.
I hope it is the start of floodgates till there is significant change at Hampden.
BigBoab1916,
Despite his faults – as per Auldheid – Roy Greenslade made the point in his article yesterday that from the 1950s, increasingly, newspapers are more about opinions than factual, investigative journalism.
The owners recognised that the columnists were selling the papers rather than the news. Indeed in some occasions columnists are being paid more than their editor. It’s as much a sad reflection on our society as anything.
I have no problem with opinions, we all have them. But what I do have a problem with is that in Scotland, we do not have ANY investigative, fact based journalism with regards to football. Nothing to balance with the opinions.
The last I can remember was the excellent BBC documentary ‘The men who sold the jerseys’. That was 6 years ago!
Since then? nothing but hiding, distorting, bias and cowardice.
MERCDOC
JULY 29, 2018 at 20:47
Jingso, totally agree on four different strips, Mental! Seen this and can’t understand it?…
——————————————
First of all, apologies! I don’t quite understand what you’re asking, but I’ll try & answer it anyway.
When clubs make their application for the Europa League, they quote club colours (not necessarily design or manufacturer) on the pro-forma. I don’t know when these details are submitted, but presumably towards the end of the previous season.
When TRFC played away to FC Shkupi on 17.07.18, they wore their 2018-19 change strip, the white/blue/red ‘s(l)ash’ top, as Shkupi play in solid blue tops.
(I’m about to indulge in some ‘whatiffery’ here: look away now if it will upset you.)
TRFC’s second top last year was (some of you may have guessed this already!) two-tone red. What if the change of strip advised on the UEFA League application for this season was, in fact, red in colour & TRFC had worn the incorrect strip against Shkupi? Perhaps UEFA had a quiet word & TRFC were required to wear red against Osijek?
I suppose we’ll never know the proper story here…
FINLOCHJULY 30, 2018 at 10:04
That’s interesting re insurance if you’re correct. From memory the SFA tend to turnover around 30 million a year and at most make 500k a year in profit after making some payments to member clubs.
If say for example they ran up a legal bill of a couple of million and they don’t have financial reserves or appropriate insurance then things could get very messy in a short period of time.
Has a football governing body ever been liquidated? 🙂
The continuity myth
The secret 5 way agreement
The Lord Nimmo Smith affair
The issuing of Euro licences
The competency of governing bodies
Why are all of these issues still up for debate?
I blame the media. Where in Scotland are our adjudicators?
In other countries, journalists, aware of the fierce dialogue going on in the public, would be champing at the bit to get into this stuff. For six years, not one! Perhaps Alex Thomson excepted but of course, he’s English.
They sometimes argue that unlike social media they have to be careful with what they say in case they end up in court. Nonsense! Real journalists know how to work the system. Think of Watergate or The MPs expenses scandal. They took on the most powerful bodies in the land. But our lot are running scared of the SFA? And dodgy Ibrox directors? What a joke.
JIMBOJULY 30, 2018 at 10:25
BigBoab1916,
Despite his faults – as per Auldheid – Roy Greenslade made the point in his article yesterday that from the 1950s, increasingly, newspapers are more about opinions than factual, investigative journalism.
The owners recognised that the columnists were selling the papers rather than the news. Indeed in some occasions columnists are being paid more than their editor. It’s as much a sad reflection on our society as anything.
I have no problem with opinions, we all have them. But what I do have a problem with is that in Scotland, we do not have ANY investigative, fact based journalism with regards to football. Nothing to balance with the opinions.
The last I can remember was the excellent BBC documentary ‘The men who sold the jerseys’. That was 6 years ago!
Since then? nothing but hiding, distorting, bias and cowardice.
_________
I think the biggest problem is that these opinion pieces are often published as though they are fact, with absolutely no attempt to ensure that the reader is aware that it is only the opinion of the writer, that, in many cases, he is writing from a position of wishful thinking, and is aye ready to print the wishful thinking of a certain PR firm. What’s more, they are continually happy to publish statements and PR hand outs, verbatim, without producing any opinion as to their honesty and logic, making no reference to what’s being said now in comparison with what’s been said previously, or to known facts.
In fact, written in a very similar vein to someone who posts on here with an ‘it’s true because I got it from the horse’s mouth’ style, and seems to expect us to accept his words in a similar way to the unquestioning minds of someone who really does believe they are one of ‘the people’, -whoever, or whatever, that might be!
Ally, on here most of us try to acknowledge our sources. I’m a big user of ‘News Now’ and I can’t begin to tell you how many times I have read the same story on various publications, word for word. They could just, as we do, acknowledge their source.
Like: Level5, Jim Traynor, Rangers FC
To be fair it’s not just with TRFC but mostly is.
The point is though it’s all copy and paste. Easy money.
At least we do it all for free!
Jimbo/AJ
Just one point re the dire state of press coverage of Scottish football.
To fully understand it you need to understand the business models of newspapers nowadays, they’ve essentially given up on the print game and thrown all their eggs into the digital basket. The reason this is problematic is that traffic = revenue for them and they’ve all long since discovered that the easiest way to generate traffic is by churning out lots of clickbait content.
A journalist can easily churn out 10 “look what Leigh Griffiths/Josh Windass said on social media” type stories a day safe in the knowledge that the mere mention of Rangers or Celtic will guarantee a barrage of the clicks they view as lifeblood such is the appetite amongst their fans for any news of their club.
There is also a phenomenon which in some circles is labelled as “hate clicks” where someone who’s content is pretty vile ie a Katie Hopkins type generates even more traffic and revenue as people who hate you are even more likely to read your stuff in order to argue against it or mock it. I’d suggest a guy like Chris Jack who has become something of a pantomime villain amongst the Celtic support is generating his employer a lot of revenue from people who really loathe his work.
That’s what these journalists are targeted on, their KPIs are on volume of work and volume of traffic it generates. I don’t think quality even comes into the equation when their employers assess how good a job they’re doing.
The only way this changes is if we en masse stop clicking on the articles, I know loads of people who claim to do just that but the facts are that digital readership figures at most publications is increasing just as fast as print figures decline.
Put simply we know the stuff they are producing is inane nonsense but for some reason we find it bloody difficult to ignore!
Nick
You may claim not to be Lawman, and you may claim to be a Hibbee.
You may claim to have some kind of grammatical competence.
Equally , I can choose not to believe a word of what you claim, on any of the above .
JIMBOJULY 30, 2018 at 11:34
Opinion pieces published in the mainstream media are no more than PR when not published without fear or favour, but in Scottish football ‘journalism’ they are more often than not actual PR, handed out by a low level PR firm on behalf of a club desperate for positive, or deflecting, PR.
NICKJULY 30, 2018 at 11:50
I don’t think anyone has suggested there is not a commercial reason for these opinion pieces, nor that anyone would doubt the reasons you give as being their driving force. The problem, though, in Scottish football, is that they are all extremely skewed to the benefit of one club, while the real stories, all worthy of an opinion piece, at the very least, are ignored or downplayed, often within those very opinion pieces, with an example of biased, deflecting, ‘opinion’ being the oft pushed ‘time to move on’ mantra.
NICKJULY 30, 2018 at 09:39
BFBPUZZLEDJULY 29, 2018 at 13:25
Paddy, what are you trying to say?
ALLYJAMBOJULY 30, 2018 at 12:18
I don’t think anyone has suggested there is not a commercial reason for these opinion pieces, nor that anyone would doubt the reasons you give as being their driving force. The problem, though, in Scottish football, is that they are all extremely skewed to the benefit of one club,
—————————————————————-
Very important to note though that the last sentence above is also an opinion piece. There are tens of thousands of Rangers fans (though im not one) who believe the exact opposite in relation to the club you believe benefits. That too, is their opinion.
There are 4 groups here.
Celtic fans and the odd other fan – Believe all press are against them and for Rangers.
Rangers fans and the odd other fan – Believe all press are against them and for Celtic
Most non Celtic or Rangers fans – Believe all press are against all teams and are for Celtic and Rangers.
Group 4 – Believe the other 3 groups are all wrong and the press are just plain rubbish.
Im in Group 4.
AJ
Do you honestly believe that “all” opinion pieces are “skewed to the benefit of one club”?. Has there been no positive pieces written about Brendan Rodgers & the double treble winners?, or how Derek McInnes has led Aberdeen to a couple of top two finishes and to the final of both national cup competitions?, nothing about how Anne Budge, Leanne Dempster, Neil Lennon or Stevie Clarke have enriched Scottish football?. No it’s all for the benefit of Rangers and Rangers alone.
There has been a “real story” that could & should have been investigated many years ago but was treated like a “hot potato” by all sections of the media, due to the abhorrent nature of the topic itself. There were high profile court cases in the past twenty odd years that should have led to the individuals, clubs & the governing authorities concerned all been held accountable for their actions or lack of action in many cases.
JIMBOJULY 30, 2018 at 13:15
Paddy, what are you trying to say?
———-
I think he’s referring to this post, Jimbo, though not necessarily about the red top, more the finger and missing the point.
BFBPUZZLEDJULY 29, 2018 at 13:25
Barcabhoy
Very droll with that otiose apostrophe there.
Re the training top
In one sense that is trivial, however It reminded me of a saying I first heard from a Korean priest “when someone points a finger at the Moon the wise man sees the Moon the fool sees the finger”. The red top may be trivial but it is symptomatic of a chaotic approach to all things.
Ally, you would have got a job at Bletchley Park!
JIMBOJULY 30, 2018 at 13:57
Ally, you would have got a job at Bletchley Park!
____
Who plays there, Jimbo?
PS before you think I’m a complete thicko, it’s Dundee Coders United!
FINLOCHJULY 30, 2018 at 10:04(EDIT)
If it were me I’d seize this opportunity as evidence that the SFA is totally unprofessional and use it as an excuse for reform.
Better that than proven corruption being the cause.
JIMBOJULY 30, 2018 at 13:15
Feart to post , Jimbo , with the grammer and speling police on the rampige .
AJ
I have reread your post of 12.18 and may (ahem) have misunderstood your point regarding opinion pieces so ignore the first part of my reply 13.25. I take it you meant opinion pieces that featured Rangers were skewed in our favour and not what i had originally thought. Back to the decorating and less time attempting to speed read posts for me.
Second part of my reply is still relevant though.
Radio Clyde News
@RadioClydeNews
Rangers bosses and Mike Ashley should ‘make peace’, says judge
planetradio.co.uk2:32 pm · 30 Jul 2018
https://mobile.twitter.com/RadioClydeNews/status/1023924416785395713
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45008528
SDI get everything they want PLUS costs, James Doleman.
What happens now with the Hummel deal?
watcher July 30, 2018 at 15:26
What happens now with the Hummel deal?
===========================
I’d assume that Hummel kit will be sold in SD shops
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2999771/rangers-legal-bill-mike-ashley-sports-direct-replica-kits-deal/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
WATCHERJULY 30, 2018 at 15:26
3
0 Rate This
What happens now with the Hummel deal?
Hummel still produce the kit. SD get to sell it. Another GASL shot in the foot moment and another example of how much of an amateur hour it is in Govan
From the Sun
A little earlier this month I posted :
“Re Phil’s latest….
If JDS were unaware of the disclosure clause – presumably because TRFC didn’t tell them – then that might explain the apparent reticence of TRFC to exhibit all of the required information to SDI. I cannot believe that JDS would be happy to have their figures and T&Cs pored over by a direct competitor.
I can see the court case at month end being dropped with SDI continuing as sole contractor – JDS having beat a hasty retreat and Hummel knocking (RIFC/TRFC) heads together.
And they all lived happily ever after….until the next time, of course.”
The SMSM should pay more attention to SFM! 🙂
As Watcher rightly says, what now for the proposed retail deal (JDS were the rumoured party)?
From the Sun report : “The judge said Rangers had accepted claims made by SDI bosses. He said Rangers and SDI were negotiating another deal. He told lawyers representing SDI: “You are going to get your new contract with Rangers. I would really have thought the time has come to try to make peace.You have succeeded in matching and you are proceeding to a new contract.”
The judge was told that more than £500,000 had been spent on lawyers, with SDI running up legal costs of £350,000 and Rangers £185,000. Mr Justice Phillips said Rangers’ bosses should pick up the vast majority of SDI’s legal bills as well paying their own fees, adding SDI was “entitled to the costs”.”
TRFC now squealing about the scale of SDI costs. A world-class squandering of money by those who can ill-afford it.
With the court case outcome as it is, who will bother challenging SDI’s hold on this contract in the future? And with SDI and TRFC now “negotiating another deal” in the circumstances prevailing it is unlikely to be beneficial for TRFC.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
This latest Sports Direct debacle has turned into an expensive mistake for Rangers. I wonder if the decision not to provide the breakdown of the 3 key areas of the deal to SD was made by King against the suggestions of their legal advisor James Blair or if it was Blair’s misjudgement. I would imagine either scenario would lead to some internal tensions.
Other than the costs which we have transparency over it’s difficult to tell just how costly the mistake will be given the out of court settlement will likely remain confidential. A key question for me is did Rangers have the condition that SDI are allowed to match future offers removed as part of the settlement and if so did they have to pay again for this privilege.
If that wasn’t part of the deal it’s hard to imagine Sports Direct will face much competition around future renewals.
watcherJuly 30, 2018 at 15:26
What happens now with the Hummel deal?
______________-
I think the bigger question is what will happen with the existing, now dead, retail deal, and how much will it cost TRFC in compensation?
On the face of it, it will probably make no difference to Hummel, unless they have existing problems with SDI, or have to create a relationship with SDI that is in some way detrimental to themselves. I expect any additional costs in setting things up will have to be borne by TRFC, as will any set up costs already incurred by Hummel in arrangements with the now ex retailer.
Here’s hoping some truth comes out now regarding the surprise appearance of a 4th kit last week. Quite sure someone on the Ashley side will want the truth out there. Let the leaks commence!
And how much will JDS, if they are the party concerned, have racked up in costs putting their bid and the related contract together? They seemed to be well advanced with things according to the e-mail given in evidence in the court case.
Were they aware of the obligation on TRFC to disclose any third party bid to SDI to allow them to match all or part?
What are their potential losses from – I assume – now losing this contract? Have they an acceptance to their offer in place from TRFC?
Will they seek compensation for any of this?
Scottish Football clearly still has a lot of the amateur ethos about it.
Mr Ashley appears to be quite good at pesky things like contracts. Thanks for the answers already. I have another two questions though. What do our dreadful MSM now say on the great contract victory for the GASL? Also what will JD sports be thinking if the rumors were true and they were the chosen company?
redlichtie July 30, 2018 at 16:01
=======================
If TRFC failed to advise JD of the SD matching rights and attached conditions, then it is all TRFC’s own fault and I’d expect that JD would seek recompense for their costs to date, through the courts if necessary.
Big Mike gets a fourth strip handed on a plate, he can sell a training top for the price of a strip, you gotta hand it to him. What time is statement o clock for this one.
Looks like Mick will be getting a new “secret” deal, while Sevco have to pick up the diesel costs for his tanks.
Who knows how much the new deal will cost Sevco is anybody’s guess, but I do know one thing……..
It will be more than it would have cost them just a couple of weeks ago.
To the victor the spoils.
As the primary source of income, it is only right that as the fans will be paying for it, directly or indirectly, they are entitled to know the details.
It’s their money that is being surrendered, in their name.
Better rush oot a statement before they twig.
I did say when the accounts were released and Rangers had to pay £3m to SDI that the comments which accompanied that announcement did not convince me that Dave King had “seen off” Mike Ashley, that the Rangers relationship with SDI was necessarily over.
What happens next time, will companies like JD even bother submitting a bid in these sort of circumstances. Did they know about it this time, what will their reaction be to that.
In my opinion the Rangers support have been lied to again. How long will they be willing to just accept this. Their “wagon circling” mentality often lead to them being their own worst enemies. It has been happening for years. They do not take their leaders to task in the same way that the fans of other clubs do.
Like you say Ally I don’t think it will affect Hummell too much, they will just be transporting goods to a different retailer. I had a look on the SD site there, they do sell Hummell goods at the moment. Just 2 items of footwear. Not much but they are listed, maybe they were being phased out and that is redundant stock?. Still, not a problem for SD.
I’m not aware of a new signed contract with, say, JD Sports. Could be ‘JD’ would be taking a hit in the cost of setting up a deal. Can’t see any recompense before a deal was struck.
watcherJuly 30, 2018 at 16:04
Mr Ashley appears to be quite good at pesky things like contracts. Thanks for the answers already. I have another two questions though. What do our dreadful MSM now say on the great contract victory for the GASL? Also what will JD sports be thinking if the rumors were true and they were the chosen company?
__________________
The MSM will say next to nothing, unless the word is out to attack King, and JD Sports or whoever will be thinking they’ve been taken for mugs…quite publicly, and, if they’ve any sense, will want to, quite publicly, redress the situation to show that they are not to be taken as mugs or patsies. I’d imagine, though, that any claim from JDS will depend on how far down the line things had gone, and if a final contract had been signed. If so, they might even have a claim for lost profits. Maybe in the end, 7p for every £1 spent will begin to look like a very good deal!
These guys move fast……here is the new TRFC fifth strip (the ‘sackcloth & ashes’ version).
AULDHEIDJULY 30, 2018 at 14:10
FINLOCH JULY 30, 2018 at 10:04If it were me I’d seize this opportunity as evidence that the SFA is totally unprofessional and use it as an excuse for reform.Better that than proven corruption being the cause.
———————————————————————
Agreed.
It all has the possibility in time to become a classic exploitable opportunity if there is a bold enough faction.
That might be a while away and I don’t know if Maxwell has the mandate, internal support or experience to be the catalyst.
It might take a real crisis like a multi million court award to tip the balance and force change.
The trouble is the SFA is riddled with self interest – people like Petrie, conflicted and tainted by their past actions, and efficiently obstructive at every turn to hold on to their power.
Scottish Football needs vision and a different type of leadership.
Corrupt officialJuly 30, 2018 at 16:10
Looks like Mick will be getting a new “secret” deal, while Sevco have to pick up the diesel costs for his tanks. Who knows how much the new deal will cost Sevco is anybody’s guess, but I do know one thing……..It will be more than it would have cost them just a couple of weeks ago. To the victor the spoils. As the primary source of income, it is only right that as the fans will be paying for it, directly or indirectly, they are entitled to know the details. It’s their money that is being surrendered, in their name. Better rush oot a statement before they twig.
_____________________’p
I really like that one, CO
and I wonder how all those who scoffed at PMGB’s ‘Ashley’s parked the tanks…’ are feeling now! One or two of his critics have come on here and ridiculed him from time to time over that very thing, and though his claims haven’t always proven to be correct (though not actually proven to be wrong), on this one, he’s been right on the money.
It might be another sports retailer’s turn to park the tanks now!
redlichtieJuly 30, 2018 at 16:21
Attachment
These guys move fast……here is the new TRFC fifth strip (the ‘sackcloth & ashes’ version).
_____________
Looks like he’s ‘down to his knees in sh*te ‘n’ muck!’
EJ, “If TRFC failed to advise JD of the SD matching rights and attached conditions, then it is all TRFC’s own fault and I’d expect that JD would seek recompense for their costs to date, through the courts if necessary.”
That’s the big if. It’s the only way JD would have an argument in court. If TRFC knowingly withheld that SD clause. I wonder if TRFC even knew it existed? They are hopeless at most things so nothing would surprise me.
What a bind. Admit withholding and pay a penalty, or, admit no knowledge of SD grip and face ridicule.
jimbo July 30, 2018 at 16:29
That’s the big if. It’s the only way JD would have an argument in court. If TRFC knowingly withheld that SD clause. I wonder if TRFC even knew it existed? They are hopeless at most things so nothing would surprise me.
=========================
That would have to be the “sanity clause”. I’m sure that everyone connected to the Ibrox club seems to believe one exists.
As a name on the contract, maybe now would be a good time to ask Paul Murray why he walked away?…..Before they do a job on him.
What?……..Well somebody will need to get the blame !
They will be way too feart to blame Mick.