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. I am advised that I have 2 unread direct messages. However I cannot acces them, if the senders see this then accept my apologies for not replying.

    Nick

    The test of wee club status would revolve around the diddy tag. Are Hibs a diddy club? I would argue that they are not. Clyde were not a diddy club in the 1950s but are certainly one now.

    I would agree with your argument that Mr Gerrard is adopting an Alex Ferguson seige mentality approach. However he is making claims without the benefit of first hand knowledge and probably relying on bad sources.

    Although it is perhaps a pedantic point, I cannot take seriously anyone who mangles the language as badly as he does particularly when he has probably had the benefit of Media training. If that makes me out of touch with current mores so be it. 


  2. I see Kevin Clancy the referee at the Rangers game at the weekend has been demoted to the Championship following his performance.

     

    I actually think this is slightly harsh, he got the Morelos red card correct for me and although Dominic Ball should probably have had a red card too he at least got the penalty call right in what would have been a split second decision.  


  3. A discussion on Talksport this morning.  Jordan also alluded to a mystery benefactor backing Gerrard's spending.

    SIMON JORDAN: “I mean I really want… of the two Old Firm, I’m more leaning towards Rangers.

    “I’ve always had a greater affinity with Rangers and I really want Rangers to come back.

    “I think over the years with Craig Whyte, even David Murray and certainly Charles Green, what was done to that football club was shocking.

    “And I think to some extent, what the SPL did and what the other owners of the SPL did by booting them down the divisions, actually worked against them and I can understand why there’s a conspiracy theory that everyone is against Rangers because they all wanted them out of the league – and for bonafide reasons.

    “So I do want to see Rangers being successful. I do want to see Rangers challenging Celtic because I think it makes the Scottish Premier League a far more interesting place and a far better opportunity for players to be developed and a better Scottish national side as well, doesn’t it?”

    ANDY WALKER: “I can’t let that pass Simon without just correcting you. The architects of Rangers downfall were themselves. They went into administration, and then they were liquidated.”

    SIMON JORDAN: “Yeah, I know that. But the glee and the commitment to ensuring there was no help available for Rangers from the other owners was pretty furciferous as well.”

    ANDY WALKER: “Yeah… well if they didn’t have many friends, I think the bigger truth is that they were spending money that they didn’t have and they left behind a trail of debt…”

    SIMON JORDAN: “In EBTs and so forth – I know, yeah, yeah…”

    ANDY WALKER: “Well the trail of debt is shameful and embarrassing and I don’t think we should forget the amount of people, the amount of businesses, the amount of industries that just weren’t paid. You can’t just put that to one side. But let’s get back to talking about the football…”


  4. Re Simon Jordan's comments , how many players has SG signed that will benefit the national team ? Have they all got Scottish grannies ?


  5. Site is looking good guys but still some glitches that the mute button might cure.

    Sadly it turns out that the mute function is not possible in WordPress. It is possible in BuddyPress Forums (like Jimbo’s Forum) but not currently possible in WP


  6. BP – To add your own Avatar, click on your name at the top of the page. You will be taken to your profile page. You can upload an Avatar from there.
    Thanks again, I'm sorted.
    It's great that you take users comments on board and act on them. So many sites make changes and then ignore the small discrepancies that creep in.

     


  7. Lots of feeds available online for Malmö v Videoton if the CFC guys wish to look at potential future opponents .


  8. Re my post at 1131hrs:

    I'm wrong (as usual!): Morelos’ hearing's on Wednesday.


  9. bfbpuzzled

    Why can’t you access the DMs? There is a link at the top of the page


  10. Got the Avatar sorted out. I have a pic of the most beautiful Atlantic beach.

    Hugh Dallas called the refs strike as a result of his exposure as a sectarian bigot and in his shameful on air lies and attempted cover up of the Dougie Dougie affair.

    The fact that he was shuffled off to UEFA further demonstrates the underlying culture of the SFA and the moral bankruptcy of UEFA.

    Dallas offered to call off the strike in an attempt to hold on to his position amongst the SFA inner sanctum.

    Rewriting history? Aye, right!


  11. Re the Simon Jordan/Andy Walker spat, I've just being reading a thread on a Rangers* minded site where the consensus is that the likes of Walker and Commons shouldn't be allowed to commentate on Rangers* games or offer opinion on anything related to Rangers*.

     

    In other words, they should only be fed good news and moonbeams by Derek Johnstone-like sycophants who'll tell them all is well in Govan.

     

    Remind me how that worked out in 2012. They really aren't the brightest, are they? 

     

    A few of them make reference to other clubs and their fans "trying to kill our club", which of course flies in the face of the 'immortal ethereal club' bollox they promote. Just one more thing they've not really thought through in their clamour to rewrite history.


  12. Hibernian facing  UEFA  disciplinary charges over the behaviour of their fans in Greece last week.

    Seems to have flown under the radar.

    Surely there were members of the media present who thought this was newsworthy. 


  13. Corrupt official 7th August 2018 at 10:53

    Marches to the stadium are all well and good if the people marching are doing so for the football atmosphere and in a good spirit ,if not then things can quickly get out of hand .

     

    I must say personally I am not a fan of such things TBO especially when the people fronting them look more intimidating rather than welcoming .There maybe mitigating circumstances for that but that's another story 


  14. BP

    I saw the link and tried it but it said that there were no messages


  15. Hugh Dallas was a proven liar, cheat and bigot.

    He was no loss to Scottish football. 

    In fact losing him to or game did everyone a favour. 


  16. Tough, investigative reporting from the DR today;
    [or a spoof?]

    "Rangers fans' who 'kicked over tot's sandcastle' on Aberdeen trip branded 'unacceptable' by cops

    Police have branded an incident involving Rangers fans who allegedly kicked over a three-year-old's sandcastle as 'unacceptable'.

    Dad David Officer, from Stonehaven, claimed a group of Ibrox fans had disembarked a supporters bus while on route to Aberdeen on Sunday.

    He tweeted: "One of the Rangers supporters buses stopped in Stonehaven today and their fans went down to the beach at the harbour, shouted at my father-in-law who was there with my eldest son (who is 3), then kicked their sand castles over as they left…"

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

    Shirley, there will be an Ibrox statement forthwith…about how all beachgoers in Scotland are 'Rangers haters' who refuse to share their sandcastles with visiting bears ?

    Still making friends along the journey…  enlightened


  17. Ballyargus 7th August 2018 at 17:33

    1

    0

    Rate This

    Has this new site barred Jimbo?

     

     

    He was here broken heart

     

     

    jimbo 6th August 2018 at 10:24

    7

    0

    Rate This


  18. easyJambo 7th August 2018 at 12:49

     

    4

     

    0

     

    Rate This

     

     

    BP a couple of requests

    Can you copy the "Pages" links to the top of the comments as well as the bottom as it helps searching for earlier comments.

    Can you change the colour of "quoted" text to some thing more distinct than the pale blue.  A darker blue would probably be fine.

    ————-

    With ej on this one


  19. [Reposted: 'in Moderation']

    Tough, investigative reporting from the DR today;
    [or a spoof?]

    "Rangers fans' who 'kicked over tot's sandcastle' on Aberdeen trip branded 'unacceptable' by cops

    Police have branded an incident involving Rangers fans who allegedly kicked over a three-year-old's sandcastle as 'unacceptable'.

    Dad David Officer, from Stonehaven, claimed a group of Ibrox fans had disembarked a supporters bus while on route to Aberdeen on Sunday.

    He tweeted: "One of the Rangers supporters buses stopped in Stonehaven today and their fans went down to the beach at the harbour, shouted at my father-in-law who was there with my eldest son (who is 3), then kicked their sand castles over as they left…"

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

    Shirley, there will be an Ibrox statement forthwith…about how all beachgoers in Scotland are 'Rangers haters' who refuse to share their sandcastles with visiting bears ?

    Still making friends along the journey…  enlightened


  20. Jingso.Jimsie 7th August 2018 at 11:38

    5. Do I really need to sign up to something else (Gravatar) to enable me to put up an avatar?

    ———-

    No. scroll further down profile page for easy option.

    ————-

    One or two other things if i may. I have to press Ctrl+v to paste.Browser does not now allow to paste other way.And is it just me? but page seems rather stretched vertically.And still have to click twice on post comment

     

     

     


  21. Anent EJ at 13.52 there has to be a wee "tip of the hat" to Andy Walker?


  22. SIMON JORDAN: “I mean I really want… of the two Old Firm, I’m more leaning towards Rangers.

    “I’ve always had a greater affinity with Rangers and I really want Rangers to come back.

    “I think over the years with Craig Whyte, even David Murray and certainly Charles Green, what was done to that football club was shocking.

    “And I think to some extent, what the SPL did and what the other owners of the SPL did by booting them down the divisions, actually worked against them and I can understand why there’s a conspiracy theory that everyone is against Rangers because they all wanted them out of the league – and for bonafide reasons.

    —————

    SIMON JORDAN: “Yeah, I know that.

    ————–

    SIMON JORDAN: “In EBTs and so forth – I know, yeah, yeah…”

    ——————–

    So he knows the truth but just spouts pi** anyhow.

    Don't like Andy much now,but good on him for making SJ eat his words.

     


  23. Homunculus do you remember this wee exchange ,when you posted 

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

     

    Homunculus 27th July 2018 at 21:45
    —————————————————————-

    Jimmy Bell, the Rangers kitman at the applause to commemorate the death of the late Jimmy Johnstone.

    You will know who it is, and you can see the reaction of the person on his left.

    As I understand it, he is the kitman for the new club as well.

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

    and you got this MATTER OF FACT response 

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

    slimjim 27th July 2018 at 21:59

    HOMUNCULUS 21.45
    Jimmy Bell observes a minutes silence no matter the player or club involved. He has done this throughout his many years at Rangers, so no slight on JJ at all. 

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

    and my query as to the wee story I had heard 

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

    fan of football 27th July 2018 at 22:21

    SLIMJIMJULY 27, 2018 at 21:59
    So the story of the then boss alex mc reading him the riot act afterwards is untrue 

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

    To which I got a quite adamant response

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

    slimjim 27th July 2018 at 22:49

    FOF 22.21
    Yes.

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

    may I draw your attention to the guy in black kit nearest the subs on the bench clapping way .

    Looks like it’s none other than wee jimmy bell ,the guy who never observes a minutes applause ,but stands with his arms folded and his wee bigoted face tripping him as a show of respect for ex players recently passed 

     

    hope the link works 

     

    https://youtu.be/qYOYUsL2SbE

    first 5 secs of vid

     

     

     

     


  24. Carfins Finest 7th August 2018 at 11:25

    '…'Former Crystal Palace chairman claims Rangers boss Steven Gerrard will be allowed to splash the cash thanks to a mysterious benefactor''

    Now would this mysterious benefactor not want paid back?

    what if this mysterious benefactor has been promised their money back from shirt sales.

    Now we know king likes to kick a can,what after the mysterious benefactors money has been secured,king can now turn around and say," sorry can't pay you back just yet we are continuing the legal fight against Big bad mike but thanks for the money up front.

    king does not care he is all in, if they fail in europe and the house of cards comes down king will give no flying feck to the mysterious benefactor.King got his money upfront and had a go.

    Phil goes with the continued legal fight in his blog.So there must be a reason for it,why does king want this can kicked down the road?

    https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/08/07/sevco-roulette-2/


  25.  

    Cluster One 7th August 2018 at 21:25

    ' …" sorry can't pay you back just yet" …… king does not care he is all in, if they fail in europe and the house of cards comes down king will give no flying feck to the mysterious benefactor. King got his money upfront and had a go.'

    ___________________

    The wee fable  by Aesop about the scorpion and its nature quite suddenly sprang to mind!

    'Mutually assured destruction' as an acronym ?

     


  26. Apologies for a bit of an off-topic post, but I attended Tynecastle at the weekend. Not for a football match, (Hearts were at Hamilton), but attend a "War of Two Halves".

     

    This is a very well presented story relating to the Hearts players who volunteered to join McRaes Battalion. It not only gives a bit of a tour of the stadium and new stand, but delves into the history of the period. A talented cast, including some fledgling Scottish acting talent, lead you across a spectrum of emotions throughout the 90 minute piece.

     

    Particularly poignant toward the end of "trench" section, when these brave young lads realised they were about to go "over the top" to face a hail of machine gun fire. Care is taken to make the point that many other clubs made similar sacrifices for the greater cause, hence this should be looked at without the usual partisan bias.

     

    A must see for any Hearts fans, but any football fans or those interested in great war stories will also enjoy the experience. 

     

    I can strongly recommend and with 4 shows per day until mid August,there is plenty of opportunity for anyone in the Edinburgh area to experience this thought-provoking piece.

     

    Apologies again.


  27. A wee while ago, in a quiet time, I was trawling through some old 'saga' stuff ( as one does, for the entertainment it afforded and continues to afford).

    What fun to rediscover this:

    " Gary

    Income Tax

    Re Tore Andre Flo

    Unless we can come up with an ingenious argument to the effect that the payments referred to in the side letter dated 23 November 2000 as 'net' did not mean 'net of tax' and that the payments should not therefore be grossed up, I cannot see any basis for disputing the income tax determinations for Tore Andre Flo………

    re Ronald de Boer

    …….. All of the determinations have been raised outside the normal time limits but, given the previous non-disclosure of side letters  ( I assume it is accepted that there was a failure to disclose)….."

    I just love it: the sods of RFC  1872 knowingly lied to HMRC, and they lied to the SPL and the SFA, yet  the chancer Green was allowed, and the present chancers of TRFC Ltd are allowed ,to try to make money on the lie that  that football club , alone of football clubs that have been liquidated, is the club  that lost its entitlement Scottish professional football!

    The absurdity is patent. The rottenness that conceived it is unforgiveable.

    Dishonourable men dishonourably dishonouring themselves by shamefully abusing their office of trust to accommodate dishonourable 'fake Rangers'. 

     

     


  28. If The Rangers have a secret source of funding which is off the books and so not reflected in their accounts, they are taking a risk of failing a fair presentation of accounts requirement under UEFA FFP.

    When Giannina were investigated in 2013 about tax overdue, the investigators uncovered 5 "private agreements". The CFCB decided these failed the fair presentation requirement and were another reason to reject the licence application.

    You would imagine the SFA Licence Committee would be all over this claim by Jordan but it would be in your imagination as they don't ask questions.

    Here is the relevant rule:

    ANNEX VII: Basis for the preparation of financial statements
    Principles

    1. Financial statements as defined in Articles 47 and 48 must be based on the
    accounting standards required by local legislation for incorporated companies –
    either the applicable financial reporting framework of the relevant country, the
    International Financial Reporting Standards or the International Financial
    Reporting Standard for Small and Medium-sized Entities – regardless of the legal
    structure of the licence applicant.

    2. Financial statements must be prepared on the assumption that the licence
    applicant is a going concern, meaning it will continue in operation for the
    foreseeable future. It is assumed that the licence applicant has neither the
    intention nor the necessity to go into liquidation, cease trading or seek protection
    from creditors pursuant to laws or regulations.

    3. The financial reporting framework, suitable as a basis for the preparation of
    financial statements, must contain certain underlying principles including:
     

    a) fair presentation;

     


  29. You know what though, JC? Basing your business model for a new business on the model used by an old failed business is doomed to failure. It’s just taking much longer than I thought it would. Let’s hope that when this one  finally goes down the pan, Scottish football takes stock, takes its time and does the right thing this time.

    I fear that my hope for an outbreak of sanity may be over optimistic!


  30. A plea from the heart. From CQN

    ***

    JIMTHETIM53 on 8TH AUGUST 2018 12:05 AM

    Hello, my heart is breaking. I cant get back on to SFM.

    Maybe Big P can contact the lad, for humane reasons.


  31. Auldheid, surely we cannot expect them to apply the principle of ‘Fair Representation’ – that would surely take away TRFC’s right to an unfair financial advantage over other teams and their ability to gamble everything on entry into the advanced stages of European competition whilst continuing to sign players they cannot possibly afford to pay for with clean (declared/transparent) money. Next you will be suggesting that we apply FFP guidelines!


  32. Auldheid 7th August 2018 at 23:43

    '…..You would imagine the SFA Licence Committee would be all over this claim by Jordan .'

    _______________________________

    No, Auldheid, with the deepest respect, I would not imagine such a thing!broken heart 

    The SFA Licence Committee are , in my opinion, a forsworn body.

    I believe that that body , as  body-not necessarily those now serving- lied in order to slide a few million quid to a club that desperately needed financial assistance. 

    The last thing such a body will do is to make any kind of waves, in case it itself is swamped by them.

     


  33. One for the Accountants. If Rangers actually are accepting cash from from a mystery benefactor which is being kept free from the accounts would that not be illegal? 


  34. Given Simon Jordan's track record I'd suggest it's much more likely he's attention seeking than has any genuine inside knowledge about Rangers' funding.

     

    To humour the idea momentarily though it is possible to take funding from a mystery benefactor, not disclose it until accounts are released and even then not publish who the benefactor is.  We know this because Hearts did the exact same thing last year.


  35. Auldheid 7th August 2018 at 23:43  

     

    If The Rangers have a secret source of funding which is off the books and so not reflected in their accounts, they are taking a risk of failing a fair presentation of accounts requirement under UEFA FFP.

    When Giannina were investigated in 2013 about tax overdue, the investigators uncovered 5 "private agreements". The CFCB decided these failed the fair presentation requirement and were another reason to reject the licence application.

    You would imagine the SFA Licence Committee would be all over this claim by Jordan but it would be in your imagination as they don't ask questions.

    Here is the relevant rule:

    ANNEX VII: Basis for the preparation of financial statements
    Principles

    1. Financial statements as defined in Articles 47 and 48 must be based on the
    accounting standards required by local legislation for incorporated companies –
    either the applicable financial reporting framework of the relevant country, the
    International Financial Reporting Standards or the International Financial
    Reporting Standard for Small and Medium-sized Entities – regardless of the legal
    structure of the licence applicant.

    2. Financial statements must be prepared on the assumption that the licence
    applicant is a going concern, meaning it will continue in operation for the
    foreseeable future. It is assumed that the licence applicant has neither the
    intention nor the necessity to go into liquidation, cease trading or seek protection
    from creditors pursuant to laws or regulations.

    3. The financial reporting framework, suitable as a basis for the preparation of
    financial statements, must contain certain underlying principles including:
     

    a) fair presentation;

    __________________–

     

    I think there's a bit more to money that doesn't go through the books than UEFA's FFP regulations to be considered, particularly if the source of the money is from an offshore account, especially more so if that money never appears in a UK bank at any time during the transaction.

     

    It would be more than bordering on criminality and so I am sure any such payment(s) will be reflected in the club's accounts, though we won't see them for a while yet.

     

    And, of course, our SFA are always on the ball and would be demanding answers from Ibrox the instant secret benefactors are mentioned on the radio (that's a wireless, JC) and in the printed media (that used to be newspapers).


  36. I think to be fair, we need to understand its one guy with no links to the club just saying any old thing on the radio.  Im not sure that would be grounds for a full scale enquiry into secret payments and a deep dive on the accounts.


  37. Nick 8th August 2018 at 08:45  

     

    Given Simon Jordan's track record I'd suggest it's much more likely he's attention seeking than has any genuine inside knowledge about Rangers' funding.

     

    To humour the idea momentarily though it is possible to take funding from a mystery benefactor, not disclose it until accounts are released and even then not publish who the benefactor is.  We know this because Hearts did the exact same thing last year.

    ______________-

     

    I agree with all you say here, Nick, but would add that not only are the bricks and mortar that the Hearts' benefactor paid for extremely visible, I'm sure there are bona fide invoices and receipts available for anyone in authority to view that will account for every penny of the donation. On the other hand, it has long been established that much naughtiness can surround international transfers, including money laundering, and so any hint of secret benefactors funding such transfers maybe creates a situation where more vigilance is required from the game's authorities than they are famed for.

     

    Something to consider might be that TRFC must surely have been on the cusp of failing UEFA's FFP test, and perhaps are currently stymied from increasing their borrowings, even from connected sources. Could a mysterious benefactor in fact be a short term lender to allow player purchases to then be repaid from anticipated European income prior to the next half year accounting date? Of course, this is just a rough sketch of what might happen, with many variations likely. However unlikely this might appear, though, I'd suggest that where King is involved, anything is possible when rumours of unusual funding are punted.


  38. upthehoops 8th August 2018 at 07:23   

    One for the Accountants. If Rangers actually are accepting cash from from a mystery benefactor which is being kept free from the accounts would that not be illegal? 

    ————————————————————————————————————————

    What makes you think that any funding would not be disclosed in the accounts? If funds have been advanced after 30th June, this should be disclosed as a post closing note in the accounts which we are unlikely to see until November. Until then, Rangers have no obligation to disclose their financial position and funding sources, the same as all other football clubs.


  39. FYI, since the changeover to the new site, EVERYBODY is regarded by the system as a new poster so each of you has to have one post approved by a mod before postig rights are restored as normal.
    Not much we can do about it other than opening the flood gates. It will settle down after a couple of days


  40. Looks like the £700k court costs exclusively made up were well wide of the mark.  Seems like the judge has also questioned the almost 100% uplift between the 2 court dates despite Rangers conceding the points.


  41. Oh thank God I'm back on.  Cheers Tris much appreciated.  Now that I'm back on I have nothing to say!


  42. Simon Jordan said he had "heard a rumour" about a mysterious funder. Sounds a very weak explanation to explain how they're funding the recent player purchases. I believe King knows his time is nearly up and is using future running costs to play to the gallery and possibly keep Gerrard onside. The result when he is forced out by cold shouldering will be a scorched earth future where the other board members will be left to fund his madness. Most of the payments will be due in the future when King isn't there and he will happily point the finger at TOP or Ashley for the inevitable downfall. Remember it is only King who is underpinning the funding even though he cannot get money out of SA . Meanwhile the share issue and TOP compliance remain in limbo . Only a fool would invest in this club* at this time and people of high net worth generally aren't fools. If Maribor beat them then the end will come sooner than most of us anticipate.


  43. Hello? Hello?

    Or should I say Hail? Hail?

    Whatever just testing.


  44. Morelos decision correctly overturned.  

    The rules are clear around violent conduct being “Excessive force” and thats not what happened. He got away with a lot worse last season (not that 2 wrongs make a right of course)


  45. slimjim 8th August 2018 at 09:22  

    "SDI V Rangers Court Transcript"

    __________________

    Thank you for posting that link.

    That transcript was an enjoyable read in itself, and instructive in showing that even skilled advocates can find it extremely difficult to make their points with clarity and precision.

    On the merits of the case, I'm sure Mr McCormick QC's advice to TRFC Ltd must have been NOT to go to law with such a weak case, but was unable to deter King. And, to be fair, I'm pretty sure (or at least I would hope) that Blair's advice would also have been NOT to go to law.

    But some people seem not to be able to listen to sound advice!


  46. Thanks for the link SlimJim.  I had a quick look at the court papers and have the following comments. Please note that I am not a lawyer and nothing here should be relied upon in a court of law! ?
     

    My interpretation of the document is that SDI won hands down but that the judge was unhappy with their approach. SDI were seeking to have every last detail nailed down. Almost as if they didn’t trust TRFC/DCK!

    BTW SDI don't actually appear to have seen the third party offer.

      The defendant is given as “THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED” where previously it had been “DAVID KING, PAUL MURRAY, THE RANGERS FOOTBALL LIMITED and RANGERS RETAIL LIMITED”
      Issues to be addressed by the court :
    1. The “question of the preliminary issues, which is the primary question”
    2. whether the injunctive relief continues and in what form
    3. the application that SDI made for a disclosure of an agreement pursuant to 31.14
    4. further directions. 
    1. There have been “significant developments since the last hearing”. “Rangers made a further notification, of which (SDI) sought clarification” and which the judge understands that SDI “accept complies with the schedule 3 requirements.”
    2. SDI said that this was not “quite right” and that they have reserved their position.
    3.  SDI have matched the offer and the parties will now agree a contract. The parties will now carry on with their relationship.
    4. The judge then said "so WTF are we doing here?" (I paraphrase)
    5. SDI : the preliminary issue is now academic however we’d like to get it settled as problems could arise in the future e.g. at the next renewal in two years.
    6. There appears to be a list of at least six preliminary issues and TRFC have conceded 2,3,4 and 6.
    7. Items 2, 3 and 4 “are to do with what the third party offer and the notice of offer has to say. Those were the key issues. Those are all admitted by (TRFC).”
    8. Item 6 relates to “an issue to do with the continuation of the renewal, so that is a separate point. However TRFC “also admits that issue in (their) skeleton argument.”
    9. Issue 1 is not going to be dealt with by the court – it was added by TRFC after the last hearing.
    10. Issue 5 “relates to rights of renewal, and it is the question about whether the right to renew requires — whether, as it were, a non-compliant third party offer constitutes a third party offer for the purposes of depriving SDIR of its right to renew if no such offer has been received by 30 days before the end of the initial term.”
    11. SDI “reserves its position as to whether or not the later offers, the 12th July and 20th July, constitute genuine third party offers, or are otherwise compliant.  So it has reserved its position in relation to that, but it has matched.”  
    12. SDI appear to be considering a claim for damages if the third party offer is not complaint “It has said that had there been no third party offers within the meaning of 5.10, it would have exercised its right to renew, and it reserves its position as to whether or not it will claim damages on the basis of the difference in outcome between what it will obtain, which is a matching, a further agreement having exercised the matching rights in relation to all three offered rights, versus the renewal of the offered rights that it would have exercised had it had been the case that there was no third party”.
    13. The judge : “Rather than reserving these rights to claim damages based upon.  I mean, if you are matching the rights and want to carry on contracting, this is a desperately bad way to be conducting business, is it not?” and “
    14. The judge to SDI : “You have got your injunction.  The result        of that has been that you have got an offer that you have been able to match, you are now going to get your new contract with Rangers.”
    15. And…  “It seems to me you are going to get your costs, or most of them, of these proceedings.  I really would have thought the time has come in which to try and make peace, in  every way, and for the parties to try now to reach a sensible way forward, including what they are going to do about this matching process in two years' time.”
    16. SDI have not yet seen the draft new agreement from TRFC and seem to be wanting the judge to ensure that there is no dispute over the issues that SDI has raised i.e. no need to return to court to argue the toss.
    17. After an adjournment and discussion with TRFC, SDI opted to leave issues 1 & 5 undecided by the court meantime.
    18. A draft order was prepared by SDI that included coverage of the “non-solicitation provision that applies in 5.8 following matching. ”TRFC accept that “they are contractually bound.” The judge commented : “If they were to breach that, then consequences would no doubt follow.”
    19. SDI are “travelling hopefully” towards a new agreement but want to ensure that if things go wrong all that has been said and agreed should be formally noted.
    20. The judge to SDI : “You say you want to have a litigation vehicle so that as and when further disputes arise, you can then just sort of hop on the train and set off in a new direction?  I find that very, very strange and unattractive.”
    21. And…” I do not know what the underlying  motivations here are.  I have various suspicions, but at the end of the day, you commenced these proceedings because you likely took the view that the defendant was not operating the matching procedure in accordance with the contract, and you have succeeded in so establishing, or it has been accepted, and you further succeeded in procuring an offer which has enabled you to match.  The parties are now as far as I can         see, they are now back on track under the contract and you have achieved your purpose.  The dispute between the parties have been, as far as I can see, resolved, and I think keeping an action on foot when there is no, at the moment, no active dispute between the parties seems to me to be unfortunate, to say the least.”
    22. The judge to SDI : “It seems to me that now we are getting to the stage of messing around.  I do not like it. I do not like that we have gone from, it seemed to me, a serious commercial dispute, with legal issues that needed to be determined, now to some sort of messing around over how you somehow preserve claims, et cetera, in case there is a subsequent dispute.  These parties need to get on with their commercial relationship.  If they cannot do that, then it may be there will have to be further litigation, but I am not going to encourage that or make it easy for them.”
    23. The judge  to SDI : “As of today, the defendant, as I understand it, has effectively conceded all of your claim, no doubt in part because it is no longer relevant, given that you have now         succeeded in matching and you are now proceeding to negotiate a contract.  Let us bring these proceedings to an end.  You have won, be gracious about it.”
    24. And…” I have to say it gives me great concern as to what your clients thought processes are here, I have to say.”
    25. SDI were seeking “a declaration that……in relation to the purported notice of offer that it is not in accordance with paragraph 5.4, which ….follows necessarily from the determination of the preliminary issue.” This appears to have been given as the judge then said : “Basically preliminary issues 2, 3, 4 and 6 are determined in favour of the claimant, and as a result the court will grant the declarations A and B;…”
    26. TRFC then confirmed “ The draft order is not precisely to that effect, but it is to that substance.  Let us deal with the substance. There is no problem with any of that, my Lord.”
    27. SDI want to see a copy of the whole agreement (“the TKMS agreement”).
    28. SDI : “There had been an unfortunate situation in which Mr. Blair had referred extensively in summarising to the agreement, but had not exhibited which in our submission he should have done so.  Worse than that, he had got it wrong in his summary of what the terms contained, because as your Lordship will recall, there were pound signs put in front of figures which were incorrect because the          figures were for the volume of sales and not the revenues.”

             (More amateur hour stuff from the TRFC legal side!)

    1. TRFC : “your Lordship should reflect the stance that has been adopted by Sports Direct up to and including all morning in court       where, without wishing to put it too graphically, your Lordship seems to have been having to drag them kicking and screaming to a sensible recognition of where they are and what is need indeed this action.  Your Lordship should do that in some way by dealing with the costs over the last, either from last Monday or last Wednesday, and your Lordship can do that in a number of ways.  Your Lordship may say there is no order for costs or a reduction on the costs.  That is the way I say you should do it on the issues of principle.”
    2. Judge to SDI re their costs to date (£350K) : “Your costs in the context of action as we see in this court are not particularly large or particularly surprising.”
    3. An interim payment of £150K is required from TRFC within 28 days. (SDI : “if your Lordship is minded to order 150,000, then I am not going to kick or scream in relation to that.” ?)

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.


  47. TheLawMan2 8th August 2018 at 11:43  

     

    Morelos decision correctly overturned.  

    ___________________

     

    But I thought everybody was out to get TRFC? Or was somebody just making it all up?

     

    TRFC must hold the world record in overturned cards, surely!


  48. Except I have this to say.

    A few weeks ago on a very quiet day on here, I overthought things.  No new major article, few comments from BP & Tris.  I thought people were getting tired of saying the same things over and over.  Little did I know they were working behind the scenes on an upgrade to the site.

     

    I'm so glad.

     

    For what it's worth, this site is essential.  JC on a daily basis reminds us.  The trio of the Ibrox boards, Hampden and the media needs exposure.  Everyday.

     

    I try my hardest to support the bears on here.  Because without them we would just be seen as a TRFC hating site.  It's much more than that.  I don't agree with a lot of what they say, they are in a desperate situation with their club, I think I would claw to anything if it were Celtic.  And don't forget, the Lawman is critical of the Ibrox boards.

     

    Anyways,  we need a new article.  What about it Barcabhoy?

     

    Although my first choice would be Michael Stewart.


  49. It is interesting to see reference to "the TKMS agreement". If this is an actual signed agreement with a third party retailer then TRFC may well be facing a serious claim for costs and loss of profit from that party. 

     

    Why would TRFC be reluctant to disclose the full document to SDI? 

     

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath. 


  50. Allyjambo 8th August 2018 at 11:56  

     

    TRFC must hold the world record in overturned cards, surely!

    ____________________________________________________________

     

    Its certainly becoming a habit.  Its like all those retractions in the press after the damage is done.

     

    I think we would rather not hold that record and have a fair game of football with 11 men rather than drop points then get an apology.


  51. redlichtie 8th August 2018 at 11:54  

    BTW SDI don't actually appear to have seen the third party offer.

     

    _____________________________________________

     

    I have read this elsewhere also but was not the impression i got.  What gives you that view redlichtie so i can have another look as clearly i have missed something.

     

    I dont understand how they could have matched it, if they havent seen it.


  52. Re Morelos appeal. The SFA are basically saying he is now free to lash out in that manner and can never get a red card. I guarantee many other players will see red for the same this season and their appeal will fail. If he had made contact he would have hurt his opponent, and deliberately so. Shocking decision, if hardly surprising.


  53. TLM2 11.43

    Although the red card has correctly been downgraded to a yellow the damage has already been done. By incorrectly reducing Rangers to 10 men we were at an unfair disadvantage for 84 minutes. Shades of Ryan Jack and last season,. red cards overturned but valuable points already dropped.


  54. TheLawMan2 8th August 2018 at 10:36  

     

    "I think to be fair, we need to understand its one guy with no links to the club just saying any old thing on the radio.  Im not sure that would be grounds for a full scale enquiry into secret payments and a deep dive on the accounts."

    When since did the radio become an exclusive tool for someone to spout or make random suggestions that they decide to pluck out of thin air. I am sure the licence and funding of the radio could be better spent covering factuals. The BBC and the media are also getting good at this, we know its true trust us but we wont show you any evidence.

     


  55. Lawman. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you on this. Pages 25-32 cover the matter.


  56. TheLawMan2 8th August 2018 at 12:06 

    redlichtie 8th August 2018 at 11:54  

    BTW SDI don't actually appear to have seen the third party offer.

    I have read this elsewhere also but was not the impression i got.  What gives you that view redlichtie so i can have another look as clearly i have missed something.

    I dont understand how they could have matched it, if they havent seen it.

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

    I thought the same as "redlichtie".  The discussion on the rights or otherwise to see it was the most interesting part of the discussion.

    My reading of the transcript was that the TKMS is the third party offer.

    While the proceedings were live, Blair had referred to it in his witness statement suggesting that some of the details were disclosed, but the full document wasn't.  The judge accepted that SDI was entitled to see it at that time.  However TRFC failed to disclose the document.

    Now that the proceedings had ended, SDI no longer had the right to see it, but was still arguing that they should still be entitled to have sight of it, as it had been denied to them earlier.

    I thought the Judge summarised the situation well in his hypothetical example;

    MR. JUSTICE PHILLIPS:  Let us take an example, that a party is asked to produce a document they have referred to, and it is such ape(a?) terrible document for them commercially they think, "My goodness, we cannot really disclose this".  So they say, "Okay, other side, we are going to concede your claim, pay your costs, whatever, action is over", and they do all of that to avoid giving the document.  Then the party comes along and say, "Actually, we want the document anyway because you referred to it".

    I read the above as being that TRFC was willing to concede just about everything in order to preserve the confidentiality of the TKMS.  There may be good reasons for that in that full disclosure could have left them open to a claim from the third party.

    Had SDI requested sight of the document at an earlier hearing then I think the judge would have granted the request. Similarly, if TRFC had not conceded the substantive issues prior to the hearing on 30 July, he would again have granted the request.  However, in the circumstance of the issues being conceded prior to the hearing, the judge wasn't willing to grant the request after the event.


  57. Regarding Morelos' overturned red card, why don't Rangers* take the football authorities to a court of law and sort out once and for all the biased decisions that always go against them in such an obvious Rangers-hating, agenda-driven, conspiratorial sort of way.

     

    After all, Chuck Green took the football authorities to court, without repercussions from UEFA or FIFA, over a relatively minor matter regarding the fairness and legality or otherwise of sanctions.

     

    Indeed, why don't Rangers* take the football authorities to court over the way the club was 'sent down' to the fourth tier in 2012, considering the massive loss of money, prestige and European competition the 'same club' was illegally deprived of as a result? After all such a decision to force the club from the top league to the bottom was gargantuan compared to the relatively piffling matters that Rangers* have railed against since. Taking legal action now would put a definitive end to the divisive club liquidation survival argument for once and for all.

     

    What's that you say? A court of law is the last place in which Rangers* wish further discussion to take place on the same club myth? Ah, ok, I hear you.


  58. slimjim 8th August 2018 at 12:16  

     

    I would suggest the damage is the other way in terms of the lessons given to young footballers.

    A big laddie is entitled to continually barge a wee laddie off the ball, and I mean way off the ball, unlike jostling for position at a free kick or corner.

    The wee laddie who retaliates by kicking out gets let off.

    The punishment should have been yellow card for needless barging and ungentlemanly conduct and the red upheld for retaliation.

    The incident is a partial reflection of why we have a good deal more heefers than skillful players in this country.

     


  59. Is that 5 or 6 red cards rescinded now in the space of 12 months?

    Added to the lack of action over Steven Gerrard's post match comments at Pittodrie and the Ibrox board's various inflammatory statements, is it safe to assume that 'Rangers' are immune from any sort of punishment? Certainly appears that way.

    You sometimes wonder why the SFA have rules in the first place when they don't bother applying them in some cases.


  60.  

    "

    TLM2 11.43

    Although the red card has correctly been downgraded to a yellow the damage has already been done. By incorrectly reducing Rangers to 10 men we were at an unfair disadvantage for 84 minutes. Shades of Ryan Jack and last season,. red cards overturned but valuable points already dropped."

    I wonder what big Jozo Šimunović thinks of this, still in hindsight was worth it to have a whits the goalie daine Tom moment

     


  61. redlichtie

     

    at 14 and 15 it confirms they got the offer and they have matched it.

     

    My understanding from other documents i have had a quick view of is that the TKMS agreement may relate to Hummell arrangement but im not 100% on that until i can review the other docs fully.


  62. TheLawMan2 8th August 2018 at 12:03

     

    No retractions given or asked for Re. reporting Rangers liquidation june 2012


  63. What does 'TKMS' stand for? Is it something like 'Turn Key Management Scheme'? The third party retailer, if it refers to them, takes over doing everything that RRL did previously? That would make sense.

     

    I'm also wondering if this was a signed agreement and just what the consequences will now be for TRFC.

     

    Did the third party offer also forbid the very kind of disclosure that SDI had made a condition of their own agreement with TRFC? Buried in the third party offer small print?

     

    Once the dust settles will heads roll at TRFC/RIFC? This on the surface appears to be a disastrous and costly error of judgement.

     

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.


  64. Sergio Biscuits 8th August 2018 at 12:57  

    Is that 5 or 6 red cards rescinded now in the space of 12 months?

    You sometimes wonder why the SFA have rules in the first place when they don't bother applying them in some cases.

    _______________________________________________________

     

    I really dont get this line of thinking.   If this was on the other foot, you would be on here claiming that the refs send the players off so Celtic lose points in the full knowledge the cards will get overturned so no harm done.

     

    How can players being incorrectly sent off meaning a club drops points only for an indpendent panel to say it was the wrong decision be an indication that Rangers dont get punished ? 

     

    Its baffling.

Comments are closed.