To Comply or not to Comply ?

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

  1. The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
  2. 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

http://tiny.cc/y6sxsy

 

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.

  1. 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.
  2. FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
  3. 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).
  4. To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
  5. 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:

 

  1.  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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

  1. Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
  2. At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
  3. 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.

This entry was posted in Blogs, Featured by Auldheid. Bookmark the permalink.
Auldheid

About Auldheid

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

7,185 thoughts on “To Comply or not to Comply ?


  1. Are Hamilton Accies due money from the transfer of Greg Docherty round about now or was the sum paid at the time ?


  2. Paddy Malarkey
    Second Docherty installment is due when the clubs get their SPFL money (£660k) in mid August


  3. Lawman
    So why did they not wear the Orange top given that it would be the first appearance of something which groups of supporters had been clamouring for years and which had been announced to great acclaim rather than one which had never been announced? You say that there was no difference between getting sets of strips of orange or red to the match on time.
    I expect that we shall be told that the red top was worn as a salute to their manager  who has got them further in Europe than anyone of his predecessors which is proof of his managerial genius.


  4. THELAWMAN2JULY 31, 2018 at 14:38
    It’s not an either / or situation , in my opinion . There are plenty of valid scenarios , all of which would have an element of truth in them . It could be that TRFC were aware of the shirt advertising restriction and asked their kit supplier for ad-free shirts , and they said  said “no” until the court case had been determined . TRFC used what they had , the training tops , and adorned them with the necessary names ,numbers and logos .
    Who are these ” guys who revealed on 2nd July that we had 4 kits but will only be selling 3 ” – club officials ? Authorised leakers ? Is there any way of checking their assertions ?


  5. PADDY MALARKEYJULY 31, 2018 at 15:40
    TRFC used what they had , the training tops , and adorned them with the necessary names ,numbers and logos .
    Who are these ” guys who revealed on 2nd July that we had 4 kits but will only be selling 3 ” – club officials ? Authorised leakers ? Is there any way of checking their assertions ?
    ________________________________________________________

    But thats the point.  The training tops had never been seen before with the white badges.  So they would have had to be made up from somewhere new.

    As for the leakers, theres 2 or 3 accounts online whom are known to get some new on signings and stuff thats happening before it does.  There was 3 of them who said it back then or re-tweeted the information.  Nobody thought anything of it mind you until this happened.


  6. Hi Lawman, not buying it,
    2)  We turned up with Orange tops with Red32 on them and were told we had to remove the sponsor so as an emergency, instead of taping over the sponsor like Celtic once previously attempted or instead of making 20 orange tops with no sponsor on them and flying them out to Croatia on time, we got them to make up 20 red tops with different colour badges, names, numbers and new socks and fly them out on time.
    So instead of making orange tops (without sponsor, 3rd top ) flying them out. They made red tops (without sponsor, 4th top) and flew them out instead?
    What your selling, I’m not buying! And so it seems the Rangers fans also, they can’t get these two tops either.


  7. MERCDOCJULY 31, 2018 at 15:50
    Hi Lawman, not buying it,2)  We turned up with Orange tops with Red32 on them and were told we had to remove the sponsor so as an emergency, instead of taping over the sponsor like Celtic once previously attempted or instead of making 20 orange tops with no sponsor on them and flying them out to Croatia on time, we got them to make up 20 red tops with different colour badges, names, numbers and new socks and fly them out on time.So instead of making orange tops (without sponsor, 3rd top ) flying them out. They made red tops (without sponsor, 4th top) and flew them out instead?What your selling, I’m not buying! And so it seems the Rangers fans also, they can’t get these two tops either.
    _________________________________________________________________________

    No.  As i stated the other day, the red strip was created with no sponsor on it to serve this purpose.  It was decided a week past on Saturday thats the strip they would take out and thats what happened.  There was no emergency scrambling.


  8. TheLawMan2
    July 31, 2018 at 14:38

    1)  The guys who revealed on 2nd July that we had 4 kits but will only be selling 3 and my contact at the club were right and there really is nothing to see.

    =======================================

    This story gets better and better, I don’t remember the SLO saying that it was a fourth kit but only three were being sold. Didn’t he just say it was the fourth kit.

    I suppose you have realised that story, bunkum as it is, would fall apart even more when no fourth kit went on sale to the public. So have had to amend it ever so slightly to be the kit which isn’t being sold. Everyone knows the number of kits is just to sell more to supporters, what club has a fourth kit, plas in it in a big match but doesn’t sell a replica.

    FFS man, have some dignity, just accept the club played away in Europe in a training kit. Its a simple mistake, the only embarrasing thing is making nonsense up rather than admitting it.

    Wait a minute, is that you Greg. All this inside info, contacts within the club. Trying to fight fires, but not very well.


  9. Why are they bothering with the sponsor logo on the fake taps ? To make them look legit ?To fool the rest of the Peepil ?


  10. HOMUNCULUSJULY 31, 2018 at 16:25

    This story gets better and better, I don’t remember the SLO saying that it was a fourth kit but only three were being sold. Didn’t he just say it was the fourth kit.
    _________________________________________________

    It wasnt the SLO that said it on 2nd July.  It was 3 other people(though i suppose I cant evidence if any of them are the SLO).  The SLO as far as i can see just replied to a tweet from a Celtic fan.  Doesnt look like he said anything official.  He merely dismissed the suggestion it was not registered and was a training top.


  11. Just for the record and keeping with the recent subject, given the absolute mess King leads us through week after week and month after month, i wouldnt have been the slightest bit surprised if we had messed this up.  Nothing surprises me about Rangers anymore.

    So things like the Retail deal, when asked the question, i hold my hands up and say its a complete mess.  I dont have any qualms about being honest and forthright

    On the tops issue, i was curious so reached out to my contact and he put me straight.  I was then also pointed to the online accounts mentioning it 4 weeks ago.  I trust my contact to be truthful and the stories added up.  The badge, as small as it may seem, was the final piece of the jigsaw.  Well, that and the fact that UEFA fined Celtic for having a wrong sized logo……..and would be fining us as well if they werent registered.

    So 5 days on, i struggle to see why its still a topic of contention and what part it plays in anything trying to be achieved.


  12. Why not remove the sponsor from orange top ( The one that’s going to sell in the thousands ). It’s 2018 and I’m sure there are solutions:
    1) Phone Hummel,
    2) failing that phone the guy who puts it on at Ibrox. Ask how to take it off.
    3) Or my favourite, Google it.
    Necessity is the mother of Invention and all that.


  13. Here we go again, after one contrarian was mocking us for even mentioning the red tops as soon as we started to discuss them, we’ve got an apologist coming back again and again with fresh excuses for that very same red top. Either it’s no biggie and we are all shouting at the moon, or it’s really hurting some peepil and they feel the need to deny what we say because they suspect the truth might hurt. 

    And this is the whole point of the debate over these red tops, they are yet another indicator of the shambles surrounding RIFC/TRFC. Something that had it been another club, say Aberdeen, we’d not only have not viewed it as an indicator of trouble ahead, there would also have been a reasonable explanation quickly put out with an admission that they’d cocked up. Quite simply, if the red tops were genuine match kit, they would have had the sponsor’s name on them, just as the orange and the 21st Century coloured strips have. If it was possible to remove, or acquire red tops with no logo on, it would have been equally possible to get the orange ones, too. No if, no buts. There was a reason for the use of the red tops, and it wasn’t to give them a first airing to a customer base desperate to see their team in orange!

    By my reckoning, if it’s true that the training tops go for around £10 a pop, and match tops go for around £50, Lawman’s white badges must be worth around £40.


  14. BILLYDUGJULY 31, 2018 at 16:45
    ========================

    Interesting, so Avellino and other clubs need to provide a guarantee despite not having any kind of warning from their auditors in the annual accounts? Sounds like a sensible precaution in a league where teams have a history of going into administration or being liquidated.

    Probably even more prudent in cases where unexpected big bills can suddenly arrive or a club is financially profligate.

    Scottish Football needs Financial Fair Play.


  15. Maybe it was merely that someone, maybe even Mr. Gerrard himself, thought it wouldn’t be wise to wear the orange top in Europe, in case someone at UEFA would think of them as a club steeped in crowd pleasing bigotry.
    On second thought, L2’s explanation probably sounds nearer the truth.


  16. ALLYJAMBOJULY 31, 2018 at 17:24

    Here we go again, after one contrarian was mocking us for even mentioning the red tops as soon as we started to discuss them, we’ve got an apologist coming back again and again with fresh excuses for that very same red top. Either it’s no biggie and we are all shouting at the moon, or it’s really hurting some peepil and they feel the need to deny what we say because they suspect the truth might hurt. 
    ——————–04
    Re the Red tops.
    Ok let’s say the ibrox club turned up and were told no logos. ok what to do?
    Let’s say they have no replacement tops without logos,and for some contractual agreement  can’t get any at short notice.
    Ok, what to do?
    Can they wear the training tops? No they had them on today and they have not been washed.
    ok, what to do. Here run down to the SD shop and buy some off the peg genetic tops get the names on them and the badge.
    Phone call later… They don’t have the right colour of badge.
    Just put another colour on then that will help it not look like the training top. Great idea,we could call it the fourth kit if anyone asks.
    Who is going to ask anyway, we have the smsm in our pocket and they put out whatever we tell the clowns.


  17. BIG PINKJULY 31, 2018 at 15:11
    Paddy MalarkeySecond Docherty installment is due when the clubs get their SPFL money (£660k) in mid August
    ———–
    August has been playing on my mind of late.You know that lead up to December when you know something will happen at the end of that month.Well August has that feeling for me,and it is i believe ibrox related.It may not be anything big just something i remember jotting down somewhere. Look out for something down ibrox way come the end of  August.
    Will have to go find it now11


  18. Look, it’s quite simple.

    They didn’t wear the ‘satsuma strips’ (or the ‘jaffa jerseys’) because they didn’t want to promote the well-known Croatian orange drink ‘Cedevita’.


  19. Looks like the June share issue won’t be happening in July either.

    August it is then.

    It’s going to be busy for Dave, making an acceptable offer at 20p for 65% of the existing shares, then issuing and selling enough new ones to raise a few million pounds. 


  20. HOMUNCULUSJULY 31, 2018 at 19:14
    Looks like the June share issue won’t be happening in July either.
    August it is then.
    It’s going to be busy for Dave, making an acceptable offer at 20p for 65% of the existing shares, then issuing and selling enough new ones to raise a few million pounds.
       —————————————————————————————————
       See a these shares I was forced to buy to keep my scrawny arse out of jail….Anybody want to buy some off me?…..15p?…….10p?…….14


  21. CLUSTER ONEJULY 31, 2018 at 19:55
    =========================
    Very interesting that about the charity….thinking too about the (apparently successful) attempt to divert ‘project’ funds from the supporters organisation.

    It’s ironic that we have a Maxwell as Chief Executive of the SFA. All this is reminiscent of a namesake of his from some years back.

    IIRC he fell off the back of a boat to avoid facing the music. Perhaps DCK will follow suit in his travels round some of those tax-haven islands we hear about. I suppose a good name for the boat would be  the “Shady Glibslaine”.

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.


  22. REDLICHTIE
    JULY 31, 2018 at 20:17
    ==============================

    No, that’s too harsh, buying shares is a “project” so there is no reason not to spend that money on shares.

    Thank goodness for the donations drive, if it wasn’t for that they would have missed out on the sha … no wait, that’s not right. 


  23. REDLICHTIEJULY 31, 2018 at 20:17
    Genius ,mate ,genius .


  24. Red Lichtie,
    Scottish Football needs strong Italian administrators, sicuramente?


  25. EX LUDO
    JULY 31, 2018 at 21:50
    =======================================

    Good find from Phil, I could only find the long sleeved version online.

    This is what they actually played in.

    No wait, the Hummel is in white rather than black, clearly we are all mistaken again.

    It’s not a training top, or a generic Hummel t-shirt it’s the “fourth kit”


  26. I know I am a pain in the backside about the media.  I would understand if you think I need a life.  Wouldn’t disagree!

    But!
    Since the news broke around 4pm yesterday regarding the latest *Rangers* scandal, my trusty pals NEWS NOW rangers have linked in 70 news articles until lunch time today.  About *rangers*.

    How many my friends were related to the SDI big story?
    4
    Yes FOUR!

    News Now link every major newsprint bar the Sun.


  27. My point is, where are all the big boys who reported that *Rangers* had got shot of MA?  Glorying in it?  Remember?

    WE LOVE YOU DAVE!!!!!      WE BELIEVE IN YOU DAVE!!!!!

    BID BAD MIKE!!!!!!!

    MIKE WAS A BAD GUY!  (gave rankers millions of pounds interest free loans)


  28. The thing that still bugs me (Just a minor detail), is the release date for the orange top. If I was the Rangers King, I would have those bad boys out as fast as Speedy Gonzales. Cash is King! But no!! We wait till October. 1st and 2nd top are waiting for the go ahead from the lawyers, Rangers, SDI. The orange top gets a special October release date! I just don’t get it! Maybe I missed the reason.


  29. Jimbo, My time is Tull. Don’t threat, I’m passed relax, I’m in chill mode!


  30. Regards Red Top Gate.
    As discussed the other day Osijek’s 1st, 2nd and 3rd kits clash with T’Rangers 1st, 2nd and ‘4th’ kit.
    Home team says they are playing in their 1st kit an visitors must come up with something that doesnt clash.
    The all white T’Rangers 2nd kit is still a bit of a clash so that leaves the Mandarin 3rd kit ,as promoted earlier this month or a previously unknown colour combo.
    The red tops have SPFL numbers and player lettering/fonts. They also have the minor sponsor Utilita under the numbers on the back.
    T’Rangers flew out on the Wednesday morning for the Thursday night game.
    IMHO nothing ‘re the red tops (or indeed McGregors yellow kit – as opposed to the 1st choice goalies strip of all black) come across as a rush job.
    The real question is why no Orange Taps As promoted in this season kit launch earlier this month.
    Followed by were the correct permissions sought and agreed to wear an unknown colour combo??


  31. LAWMAN2
    You may well be right in your assessment of the Red Top fiasco.
    I couldn’t care less about what sevco were wearing. If the Referee OK’d it then it’s fine by me. Unless it’s “fine” by UEFA. Then we will all laugh our erses off.
    However, I did note your mention of William of Ockham, a man who took a vow of poverty!
    Seems entirely apt to me.  21


  32. You know what annoys me on here sometimes?

    Sometimes one of the three bears say nothing innocuous but get a million TDs just because of whom they are.

    That’s not RIGHT!

    They can say plenty of argumentative points and shoot them down, I say.  But over mere nothing give them a break!


  33. Imagine you were Lawman.

    He loves the bears, no doubt.

    Deeply understands why Rankers are so shit off the field.
    But spends his spare time to defend as best he can.

    What would you do?

    I don’t know if I would.
     If TRFC were celtic, I would have given up.


  34. JIMBOAUGUST 1, 2018 at 00:04
      “I don’t know if I would. If TRFC were celtic, I would have given up.”
     ——————————————————————————————————
       If Celtic told me they had bought out a contract for £3m amidst a frenzy of bombast, while giving the nod to an overpriced share purchase, and arranging a Black Friday sale of old stock, after a boycott order straight from HQ, I doubt I would be defending them. 
       Knowing now that it was the biggest crock of codswallop ever put to ink, and it will now take another £8.5m of fans money just to go backwards, in perpetuity….I definitely wouldn’t defend them….
       Disown them mebbe….But defend?…..Naw. 
       It’s the lies that would get to me Jimbo. The staring down the camera bare-faced lies…..One after another, day after day, month after month.     


  35. Like many Internet Bampots, as a kid I was obsessed with football.  Played in teams from Primary age, in all weathers, on frozen blaes pitches, with grazed knees…and with the obligatory Mitre Mouldmaster! All character building and gave an appreciation of team sports and fair play.

    Which makes the whole RIFC/TRFC such an obvious abomination to anyone who cares about Scottish football.

    But, it’s not really TRFC’s fault.

    It is the SFA who is at fault.
    They enabled Sevco.
    They enabled The Rangers FC.

    The SFA is a blight on Scottish football.


  36. CORRUPT OFFICIAL   If Celtic told me they had bought out a contract for £3m amidst a frenzy of bombast, while giving the nod to an overpriced share purchase, and arranging a Black Friday sale of old stock, after a boycott order straight from HQ, I doubt I would be defending them. 

    —————————–

    And neither would I..  in fact here is what I said on the matter.

    “Its an absolute joke and no we cant afford it.  Whoever authorised the court action, and i think we can guess who, should pay the bill for it.
    Yet more incompetence”


  37. JIMBOAUGUST 1, 2018 at 00:04

    If I were LM2 and the teams I support did what his did 
    I would have followed any team set up after the death of my old club ,

    I certainly would not insult, my or anyone else’s intelligence by arguing about a never before mentioned or known mythical company .

    I would see the BIG LIE peddled by peepil with commercial and vested interests for what it was and excepted that DM had killed the club I loved .

    I would have  looked at all the evidence re the EBTs and realized that  the peepil running our game were willing to corrupt our sport rather than face what had gone on and dealt with it without fear or favor.

    I would have realized long ago that to trust anything coming out of the clubs i followed could leave me looking naive ,gullible  or in a blog sense a troll .

    I would just have to accept that my readiness to try to defend the first three points would lead to fellow bloggers questioning me defending my new club on any given subject in the future .


  38. STEVIEBCAUGUST 1, 2018 at 04:09

    =====================

    For me the entire problem is the sense of supremacy and entitlement which exists in Scottish society regarding Rangers. Without that there would have been no need for the Bank of Scotland to hand David Murray the code to the safe to try and equal Celtic’s achievement as European Champions. When an English bank sealed off the well there would have been no need to believe that taxpayers money was there to fund success for Rangers. Post liquidation there would have been no need for the authorities to create the same club lie, and there would be no need for the media to treat every new Director and Manager at Ibrox as someone who is going to ride in on a white charger and put Celtic back where they belong. There would be no need for the fans to demand constant ‘investment’ like the right to it was written into an Act of Parliament. 

    It was a sense of supremacy and entitlement which killed the first Rangers. No lessons have been learned by the club which took their place. 


  39. MercDocJuly 31, 2018 at 22:59 The thing that still bugs me (Just a minor detail), is the release date for the orange top. If I was the Rangers King, I would have those bad boys out as fast as Speedy Gonzales. Cash is King! But no!! We wait till October. 1st and 2nd top are waiting for the go ahead from the lawyers, Rangers, SDI. The orange top gets a special October release date! I just don’t get it! Maybe I missed the reason.
    __________________________

    Released just in time for Halloween, with the official colour changing from Mandarin to Pumpkin06

    Smashing Pumpkins 1111


  40. StevieBCAugust 1, 2018 at 04:09
    It is the SFA who is at fault. They enabled Sevco. They enabled The Rangers FC.
    The SFA is a blight on Scottish football.
    ——————————————————
    BUT. We need to remember who the SFA are!! Our clubs are ultimately responsible.


  41. UPTHEHOOPSAUGUST 1, 2018 at 07:13STEVIEBCAUGUST 1, 2018 at 04:09
    =====================
    For me the entire problem is the sense of supremacy and entitlement which exists in Scottish society regarding Rangers.
    EDIT.

    ******
    That is exactly the problem.
    It is not about a football club. It is about the core of Scottish society, the “fabric” as one paid up member espoused.
    That is why they have hurdled every (of)fence committed by bankers and businessmen.
    That is why all media outlets have shielded them and why the sports governing body have suckled a new club into existence.
    That is why apparently intelligent people, like Lawman2 come on to blogs with  sieve like defenses of the indefensible.
    They are not defending and protecting, a football club.
    They are trying to bolster and protect a way of life and the position in which they see themselves.
    One of Supremacy and Entitlement.


  42. So many comments in the last 12 hours or so about me defending my club but I only defend them when i believe its justified.  A list of topics if i may.

    Dave King – dont think ive ever defended him

    Paul Murray – never have defended him

    Jim Traynor – Toss pot

    Using EBTs – Never defend that

    Craig Whyte – think my views on him are loud and clear

    Green – Chancer but he done a few pieces of excellent work, then blew it tremendously

    Retail deal – Horrendous

    All the court appearances – Horrendous

    Resolution 12 – Defend based on the definitive rules and my interactions with various bodies.

    New club/Old club – Defend based on all my knowledge post June 2012 though not on here.

    Loan after loan – horrendous

    I think most on here know me from my interactions on Resolution 12 but in the main, all the rest of the crap im happy to admit the huge flaws and disasters we go through.  

    Id be happy to debate any of the above to try and quash this view all i do is defend Rangers. 


  43. StevieBCAugust 1, 2018 at 04:09’It is the SFA who is at fault. They enabled Sevco. They enabled The Rangers FC.The SFA is a blight on Scottish football.’
    bordersdonAugust 1, 2018 at 09:04 ‘BUT. We need to remember who the SFA are!! Our clubs are ultimately responsible.’
    __________________________
    Well, there  are 9 (at least) quite distinct, but intimately connected, areas of guilt and culpability:

    1.The arch-cheat himself, the knighted and benighted son of deception himself, prime mover in the biggest act of sports cheating this ‘Sport’ of ours has ever experienced : whose hubris and bitter envy led him to act like the meanest guttersnipe in the Bar-L

    2.The person(or persons) in the BoS who recklessly allowed millions to be loaned  to a debt-strapped cheat in circumstances which any  responsible banker would have regarded as bordering on almost criminal recklessness ( which a subsequent banker promptly put an end to!)

    3. The pieces of sh.t who ( when there was a possibility, albeit extremely remote, of paying the wee tax bill, thus buying some time I which capital might just conceivably have been  raised and a serious attempt  made to keep RFCplc alive ) who instead saw it fall into Administration

    4. HMRC- for buggering about for so long and allowing a degree of latitude to RFC plc that they certainly would not allow to me or you-and quite possibly have never allowed to any other equivalently tax-indebted small-to- medium business [ perhaps they weren’t asked to, by important people?]

    5.The Administrators, who, in my opinion, by the language they used in describing the ‘fire-sale’ of some only of the assets, tried to suggest that they had successfully sold the Club.

    6.The Board of the SPL FA, who, rightly having removed RFC plc’s share in their company, and very rightly and courageously refused to let a brand new club into their Company, nevertheless signed up to the Big Lie, and sold their souls to a preposterous untruth

    7. The Board of the SFA, who went into negotiations with Charles Green with a willing  readiness to yield to the blustering threats of that  despicable person and create and foster the Big Lie 

    8 The SMSM, from the moment the truth about the Rangers tax situation and the causes of that situation was first revealed

    9. The present authorities in both the SFA and SPFL for continuing to support and foster the Big Lie.

    Any and all of these would burn in hell, with the SMSM -because of its greater responsibility to society as a whole, in the deepest pit of all.


  44. THELAWMAN2AUGUST 1, 2018 at 11:11So many comments in the last 12 hours or so about me defending my club but I only defend them when i believe its justified.  A list of topics if i may.
      ———————————————————————————————————-
       Quite a list Lawman, and I well understand that RRM Campbell Ogilvie never made it into the catalogue through lack of space, as have others. Would you defend Campbell Ogilvie as one of the good guys, or would he have made it into the family sized catalogue, as ultimately harmful to Rangers(I.L.)?.  


  45. THELAWMAN2AUGUST 1, 2018 at 11:11
    “I’d be happy to debate any of the above to try and quash this view all I do is defend Rangers.”  
    I can only agree that so much that has occurred around Ibrox has been  indefensible , horrendous, hugely flawed and disastrous. I understand that as a club supporter you have to put up with all of this, but why should the rest of us? 

    One point  “Using EBTS – never defend that” – I think you have spoken eloquently in support of the use of EBTs through your views on monitoring periods 


  46. RMCGEDDAWN
    One point  “Using EBTS – never defend that” – I think you have spoken eloquently in support of the use of EBTs through your views on monitoring periods 

    _____________________________________________________________

    Nope.  I dont even tie the 2 of them together and never have.  My views on EBTs are that we shouldnt have done them.  I know they were very popular at the time and i was on a number of boards that considered them and on each occasion, despite the calibre of advice we were getting, i voted and spoke out against them all the time.
    Thankfully none of them were ever approved though i know individuals who used them and have never had any bother with them.  They were widely considered at the time as a justifiable means of tax avoidance and were in plain sight of all.My views on the licensing and monitoring period have always been on the strict adherence to the rules set out by UEFA.


  47. THELAWMAN2JULY 31, 2018 at 15:44
    No , the point is that there are a myriad of possibilities as to why they wore that particular top and that’s just one of them .
    So who are these guys , so I can have a look at their strike rate ?


  48. TheLawMan2August 1, 2018 at 13:00
    “Thankfully none of them were ever approved though i know individuals who used them and have never had any bother with them. They were widely considered at the time as a justifiable means of tax avoidance and were in plain sight of all.”

    I do not think the HMRC would have one rule for any individuals, as you have stated you know individuals who have never had any bother with them, are you claiming the taxman has waved their use aside in their instance. are you stating the HMRC have rules set aside for different EBT users.

    Even if they were considered a “justifiable means of tax avoidance” you do accept as you advised that they were not and everyone who used them is still liable for tax or are you implying that there was a cut off before they closed the loop and anyone within a new time frame was liable?


  49. CORRUPT OFFICIAL
    Quite a list Lawman, and I well understand that RRM Campbell Ogilvie never made it into the catalogue through lack of space, as have others. Would you defend Campbell Ogilvie as one of the good guys, or would he have made it into the family sized catalogue, as ultimately harmful to Rangers(I.L.)?.  

    _____________________________________________________________

    Have no real positive or negative views towards him to be honest.  Ultimately, Murray made all the decisions but ive been in similar positions myself which normally ended with me removing myself. 

    Dont have much respect for sheep who protect their positions mind you.


  50. Lawman2, 
    You clearly acknowledge the damage done by an extensive cast of players and that is to your credit. The problem that the majority on here (if I may be so bold) have with the whole situation is that nothing has been done about it. Honours “won” in EBT years remain intact, the same club myth is perpetuated at every opportunity and the SFA (the clubs) don’t want to rock the boat. There are other ancillary issues but I’ve picked these. 
    It is not in anyone’s gift on here to fix it. We can only protest and keep the issues live.
    My question to you is this:
    ”How would you like to see this debacle resolved?”


  51. BIGBOAB1916
    I do not think the HMRC would have one rule for any individuals, as you have stated you know individuals who have never had any bother with them, are you claiming the taxman has waved their use aside in their instance. are you stating the HMRC have rules set aside for different EBT users.
    Even if they were considered a “justifiable means of tax avoidance” you do accept as you advised that they were not and everyone who used them is still liable for tax or are you implying that there was a cut off before they closed the loop and anyone within a new time frame was liable?

    _________________________________________________________________

    I believe it will be a long, long time for HMRC to catch people who used them an indeed they may even be time barred in a lot of circumstances however i also think its crucial to also point out that my belief has always been that the Murray schemes were administered incorrectly and thats where the issue in this case really stood.

    The way it was set up by Murray and the Porn Star was nothing like anything that was ever described to any of my groups though in fairness, every time someone new came in to speak to me/us about them, it was always a different flavour.

    I therefore believe, rightly or wrongly, there will be schemes that will never be touched either due to, volume, time or how it was administered.  I dont profess to be an expert on it mind you which is why i was always reticent.


  52.  THELAWMAN2AUGUST 1, 2018 at 13:13
       
    Have no real positive or negative views towards him to be honest.  Ultimately, Murray made all the decisions but ive been in similar positions myself which normally ended with me removing myself. 
    Dont have much respect for sheep who protect their positions mind you.
       ——————————————————————————————————–

        I would have expected some negativity, considering his signature was all over the DOS scheme, which still has outstanding tax on it, and remains unpaid to this day due to Rangers(I.L.) liquidation.
      He definitely defended himself during the LNS commission, but it was not from the lowly position as a sheep, so I can only half agree on that……It was from a more “Baw deep in the biggest sporting scandal to reach our shores”, kind of position.


  53. EX LUDO
    ”How would you like to see this debacle resolved?”

    ___________________________________________________

    It will never be resolved in my opinion Ludo.  Nothing short of banning any team in blue, playing out of Ibrox with any part of Rangers in their name whilst destroying all historic records will appease some.  

    I dont mean any of that above in a facetious way but thats my honest belief.  And of course that will only resolve it for that group as it will upset another group and so on and so on.

    There has been circular arguments now for 6 years and its my belief it contributes to an element of self destruction across our game, domestically and internationally. 


  54. CORRUPT OFFICIAL
        I would have expected some negativity, considering his signature was all over the DOS scheme, which still has outstanding tax on it, and remains unpaid to this day due to Rangers(I.L.) liquidation.  He definitely defended himself during the LNS commission, but it was not from the lowly position as a sheep, so I can only half agree on that……It was from a more “Baw deep in the biggest sporting scandal to reach our shores”, kind of position.
    _______________________________________________________________

    Ogilivies signature was only on the Craig Moore scheme which was not subject to any penalties from HMRC after review.

    It was Douglas Odam who signed the schemes that resulted in the DOS scheme penalties.  


  55. One of the problems regarding the societal and sporting approaches to both of the Rangers is that we are expected to regard everything that they did and do as normative. What they do and how they do it is to be accepted as how things should be both in ends and means.
    I often heard normative used by academics and it always grated as a kind of get out of jail free card for views which did not meet the standards of a behaviour being normative.
    Ultimately we shall see that all that is normative about Rangerses is that they implode themselves and find a narrative to blame others.


  56. Burnley seeking dispensation from UEFA to sign an emergency goalkeeper for their game against Aberdeen.

    UEFA should tell them no chance here.  As an EPL team they will have at least 2 youth goalkeepers who will be on higher wages than Aberdeen have and they also have Anders Lindegaard an experienced Danish international.  Hardly seems like it fits the definition of an emergency.


  57.  So in other words, Lawman2, let’s all move on for the good of Scottish Football? 
    Bobby Ewing Syndrome.


  58. EX LUDO
    Thats not really what i said to be honest.  Im just saying i dont believe there will ever be an answer or a sufficient resolution for all.


  59. How Rangers administered the EBTs is irrelevant.

    The Supreme Court has ruled that all disguised remuneration is taxable, that is now a FACT.

    People who have been identified as using them have been given time to pay the tax, if they don’t HMRC will go about collecting it, with penalties.

    Whilst I am one, one more time, there is no such thing as a“justifiable means of tax avoidance”. If its justifiable its tax management. If HMRC can levy a penalty for someone doing it then its not acceptable, you cannot fine someone for doing something which isn’t wrong.


  60. Ban David Murray Sine Die

    Void the titles won due to cheating 

    Give 3 year bans to all other Directors who served on Murray’s board since 1999

    Set Aside LNS and revisit based on final outcome of EBT’s 

    Fully detailed public  report on Rangers award of Uefa licence in 2011

    Any 3 of those 5 and most people would settle for that being an end to the matter


  61. BarcabhoyAugust 1, 2018 at 14:16
    ‘..Fully detailed public report on Rangers award of Uefa licence in 2011’
    ________________
    Followed by an immediate reference to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, to see if they make a better fist of prosecution of such crime of fraud as there my have been than they did of the other half-arsed prosecution!13


  62. BarcabhoyAugust 1, 2018 at 14:16
    —————
    Publish and discard the 5WA.
    Remove RFC(IL)’s historical achievements from TRFC’s page on the the SPFL website and inform UEFA of this.
    Resolve any other issues arising from the Agreement, including returning funds to TRFC which have been paid to cover the debts of RFC(IL).


  63. HOMUNCULUSAUGUST 1, 2018 at 14:12How Rangers administered the EBTs is irrelevant.
    The Supreme Court has ruled that all disguised remuneration is taxable, that is now a FACT.
    People who have been identified as using them have been given time to pay the tax, if they don’t HMRC will go about collecting it, with penalties.
    Whilst I am one, one more time, there is no such thing as a“justifiable means of tax avoidance”. If its justifiable its tax management. If HMRC can levy a penalty for someone doing it then its not acceptable, you cannot fine someone for doing something which isn’t wrong.
    ______________________________________________________________

    Happy to correct my language between avoidance and management(its an old habit) though i believe it was clear what i was meaning.  There are many ways to “avoid” paying tax justifiably and within the rules.  Its when people shade the rules, it leads to issues.Your last sentence is spot on and I 100% agree.


  64. BARCABHOYAUGUST 1, 2018 at 14:16Ban David Murray Sine Die
    Void the titles won due to cheating 
    Give 3 year bans to all other Directors who served on Murray’s board since 1999
    Set Aside LNS and revisit based on final outcome of EBT’s 
    Fully detailed public  report on Rangers award of Uefa licence in 2011
    Any 3 of those 5 and most people would settle for that being an end to the matter
    ==================================
    With you 100% BARCABHOY except it should be all five.

    Scottish Football needs to grasp this nettle once and for all. No peace until that is done.


  65. Craig Moore’s scheme is just like all the rest.

    Side letter, etc. The CoS and SC threw them all out.

    Moore even had 13k for personal travel he had billed to Rangers deducted from his last trust payment (indicating that there was no distinction between trust payments and other earnings due to Moore. It was all seen as one pot in practice.)

    No idea why Lawman would incorrectly claim what he did , however he is totally wrong in claiming that the scheme that Ogilvie personally signed off was above board 

    It 100% was not 

Comments are closed.