UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?
On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.
The cases of two clubs::
Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )
and
FC Irtysh (Kazakhstan)
are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because
- The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
- The cases tell us what might have happened to Rangers FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.
FC Sion (Olympique des Alpes SA)
Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.
Full details can be read at
but this is a summary.
In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.
In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme, carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.
The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.
Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:
“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as
“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”
What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.
Sion had declared
“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.
The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.
Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.
Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.
The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.
Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.
The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.
- FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
- To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
- To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
- FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.
This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.
“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”
The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:
Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.
Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.
This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement
“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “ where he also added
“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”
This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.
In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.
The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.
The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.
Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March
It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.
The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)
The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:
- FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
- To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “
The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC, FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then
- Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
- At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
- The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.
Karma eh!
Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors
“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;
Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?
This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.
Sergio Biscuits 8th August 2018 at 12:57
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.
____________________
After the LNS determination there's little point in asking that question. No doubt the fly kick Morelos took was adjudged to be imperfect but conferred no sporting advantage.
TheLawMan2 8th August 2018 at 15:16
How can players being incorrectly sent off meaning a club drops points only for an independent panel to say it was the wrong decision be an indication that Rangers don't get punished ?
———————————————————————————————————-
As you well know in Sunday's game T'Rangers had no points when Morelos was sent of. Indeed they put themselves in a position of gaining three points when playing with ten men and did so until time added on. Therefore, in that particular circumstance, how did the sending off mean that any of the clubs playing dropped, or indeed gained, points.
Had Morelos stayed on the result could have been 2-1 to Aberdeen – who knows!!!
Your statement tends to come with a whiff on entitlement of leaving a game with 3pts in the bag if its 11 v 11.
The joy of sport and football in particular is that there should be no guarantee or assumption from the outset that points will be won or indeed lost.
Jimbo great to see you're back.
BigBoab 13.04
Not quite sure what you are trying to say here.
Are you saying that the raised elbow into the face of Morelos long before the ball arrives didn't merit a red card?
Did Celtic appeal? I genuinely don't know if they did or not, and if so what the outcome was. I do know they didn't appeal his recent red card in Europe.
The contract with SD says a third party offer must be disclosed and the third party offer says it must not be disclosed. The contract with SD says that any offer which is not to be disclosed must be rejected so TRFC might not have disclosed that to a third party offerer.
What could possibly go wrong apart from every other party suing TRFC or one of its manifestations?
I can only believe that all of this is being done to furnish case studies for students for the next hundred years- a law lecturer of my acquaintance used to use the dead club in all of his examples this was partly to annoy most of the students he came to a sticky end too.
wottpi – I wouldnt disagree with that to be fair. Of course there is no guarantee. It could have finished 2-1 to Aberdeen. Or even 6-0 to Rangers.
I would rather play all those matches with 11 men though. Rather than 10 only for someone to say "sorry, it was the wrong decision"
Do you agree with me on that?
TheLawMan2 8th August 2018 at 15:16
"How can players being incorrectly sent off meaning a club drops points only for an independent panel to say it was the wrong decision be an indication that Rangers don't get punished ?"
Dont recall Celtic dropping points when Joso was sent off at ibrox, not very logical that assumption, apart from a penalty for Sevco at pittodrie i would say it had to be one of dourest games in the SPFL if you like your football .
Also as SG claimed they were better than them with 11 and with 10, why then did he drop points when like i gave you Celtic humped sevco with 10.
I think you are clutching at straws as what happened was a failure to gain the momentum which would have been cheerleaded across every platform.
I believe Andy Walker and Micheal Stewart have called out the cheerleaders and deniers.
For those who think the more or less sending off cost sevco points a failure to see a simple offside gained sevco a point imho,
Coulibaly was offside so foul to the dons no penalty.
Could the problem with the withheld document maybe have something to do with protecting the identity of the signatories ? It may not have the names of the TRFC board on it .
Should be a great season for red card appeals . Why accept the referees decision if it's not to your liking ? Costs shouldn't matter – wee clubs shouldn't be disadvantaged just because they don't have a sugar daddy/discreet external funding . Next up appeals against yellows leading to reds ?
slimjim 8th August 2018 at 15:57
"Are you saying that the raised elbow into the face of Morelos long before the ball arrives didn't merit a red card? "
Same offence hit or lash out with elbows or legs. Have to be consistent based on what official saw there was no conspiracy.
Motherwell Cedric Kipre is sent off for kicking out at Celtic skipper Scott Brown.
And this one " Erik Sviatchenko"
Alex is expecting contact and he's on his way down when the defender pulls out. It's not a penalty and I can fully understand Celtic's anger and disappointment.
So why all the appeal nonsense, did celtic appeal when the officials denied Celtic the handball incident v ICT in the LC potentially maybe denying a treble, you notice i said potentially, not did, as the post from your buddy LM2 states, " meaning a club drops points " or in this instance a trophy.
That's Kiernan for a clear punch, Boyd for a headbutt and now Morelos for blatantly kicking out, that have had obvious red cards overturned by the SFA.
Ridiculous, but maybe a blessing for the other teams, seeing as Morelos is crap.
I think that TRFC would have had a better chance of getting the three points if the management team had sent on substitutes who were up to speed with Scottish Premiership mores ,rather than unfit looking Liverpool loanees . Wouldn't be contractual, would it ?
TheLawMan2 I would rather play all those matches with 11 men though. Rather than 10 only for someone to say "sorry, it was the wrong decision"
I think you have missed a point in your analysis, the linesmen did not think he made a wrong decision and he will not apologise for what in his eyes was the right decsison, would you agree, the linesman or ref call it as they see it and that is why they are called officials with the task of officiating the rules as they understand them. There will be no sorry in the incident regardless of the panel its was still a red and there is no entitlement.
https://youtu.be/_zTne4JzgBM
If only Becks and England had the staunch refereeing standards of the SPFLA….
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Moralesgate (isn't everything a "gate" nowadays), why are clubs able to appeal red cards but no other decisions it doesn't make sense? If we are not going to introduce VAR then the refs decision should be final.
IMO there is no chance of VAR in Scotland mainly I think due to cost but also backward thinking and a reluctance to embrace anything new. We haven't even got goal line technology in our Premier League which has been used for at least a couple of seasons in England.
BTW BP I have noticed that the spell checker detects misspells bu a red underline but does not offer a correction.
bfbpuzzled 8th August 2018 at 16:06
The contract with SD says a third party offer must be disclosed and the third party offer says it must not be disclosed. The contract with SD says that any offer which is not to be disclosed must be rejected so TRFC might not have disclosed that to a third party offerer.
===============================
TRFC didn't need to disclose the full third party offer to SDI as part of the 2017/18 contract with SDI.
All that was required was to advise that an acceptable offer had been received from a third party and the material terms of that offer.
"Material Terms" hasn't been specified in any public document as yet, but I would assume them to include, for example; annual payment, any specific volume of sales or revenue thresholds, duration of the contract.
Here's what was said in the previous judgement:
However, with Blair quoting from the TKMS (if that is indeed the 3rd Party offer) in his witness statement, then the TKMS would come under the court’s jurisdiction for possible disclosure, which Justice Phillips confirmed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORhI63InLos
If this works 58 seconds in.
Overturning Morelos red card is a nonsense.
He lashed out to kick the Aberdeen player off the ball.
I've just spoken with an ex premier league ref and he agrees that it was a straight red card and the fact that Morelos didn't maim or down his opponent is irrelevant.
He couldn't tell me any reason in the rule book for a reprieve.
A sending off offence on Sunday and any other day of the week too.
Lawman
I’m sure Sergio B can stick up for himself, but that is a fantasist’s line. You have no idea what SB would be on here saying – unless you are also SB. Please just pay attention to what you want to say yourself without deliberately misrepresenting someone else. Leave out the straw man.
I do need to clear up as a few people have raised it. I was wrong to say the sending off denied us points because as has been pointed out, who knows how the game would have turned out if the decision had been 2 yellows.
I think the principle of what i was saying of course is correct but i accept i didnt describe it correctly.
bigboab1916 – I agree the officials make what they think the right decision is at the time yeah. And its very rare they will say sorry.
TheLawMan2 8th August 2018 at 16:10
I think the point is that the officials make what they believe is the right decision in real time.
As we saw in the World Cup final even with VAR the review process can come up with a result that other people believe is still the wrong one.
As I said in an earlier post I would have booked McKenna for the needless shoulder barges and sent off Morelos for violent retaliation.
If players are aggrieved at each other then coming together with a bit of pushing and shoving in protest is understandable and isn't too bad in my book but lashing out with fists, arms and kicks should always be a no-no.
I'd rather see professional footballers keep their fists and sly kicks to themselves and that would improve the chances of games ending 11 v 11.
Mmmm…
New layout.
However, still pish being spouted by Spoutpish.
I recall some mention of giving him his own thread.
He's already got it.
The Ernie B Thread is his. Pity no-one, including Spoutpish, found it rivetting.
I also like his logic that he can't be expected to contribute if he finds his posts in moderation.
Good idea.
Be a twat and never pay a bill.
BigBoab 16.35
Except they are not the same offence.
Did Morelos use excessive force or endanger the safety of another player – No. Did Simunovic use excessive force or endanger the safety of another player – Yes. There is no comparison to be made.
The two cases you highlight i can't comment on as i haven't seen either one.
You can't appeal for retrospective penalties i'm afraid so it's a moot point re – Celtic not appealing this decision.
player, manager or victim,
will the real Steven Gerrard please stand up,
https://i.imgflip.com/2figlr.jpg
I see Greg Docherty has signed for Shrewsbury on loan.
I trust Hamilton have been recompensed in full as per the agreed terms of that Sevconomics 'deal'.
A transaction not plastered all over every BBC sports page on this occasion, unlike when his transfer to The Rangers was manufactured in January.
Is it just me or is the BBC now clearly trying to reach the level of Radio Clyde broadcasting and Evening Times journalism?
Spoke to an ibrox fan today,and asked is he concerned were the money is coming from to buy players when the club needed a loan and there are no shirt sales.
Response…No
So i said,"But you wanted to know the identities of Blue pitch and Margarita holdings"
Response… But they were not putting money into the club to buy players.
So it looks like some ibrox fans don't care who you are or were the money comes from as long as it is buying players
BigBoab 16.35
Except they are not the same offence.Did Morelos use – No. Did Simunovic use excessive force or endanger the safety of another player – Yes. There is no comparison to be made.
Behave yourself. its fine to have your opinion but when you ask me a question allow me the chance to answer it,.
Do you think Simunovic set out to do Morelos?
Which one did he display.
1.excessive force or
2. endanger the safety of another player
rougvielovesthejungle
First payment (of three) for Docherty is due this month (when SPFL dishes out TV cash).
slimjim 8th August 2018 at 17:47
BigBoab 16.35
Except they are not the same offence.
Did Morelos use excessive force or endanger the safety of another player – No. Did Simunovic use excessive force or endanger the safety of another player – Yes. There is no comparison to be made.
The two cases you highlight i can't comment on as i haven't seen either one.
You can't appeal for retrospective penalties i'm afraid so it's a moot point re – Celtic not appealing this decision.
_______________________
You've written some garbage on here, but that takes the biscuit. Where on earth do you get the idea that kicking out at a player requires excessive force or to endanger the safety of another player before it merits a red card? That description comes where a player makes a tackle and wins the ball, but because the referee deems the tackler to have used excessive force/endangered the opponents safety, it merits a red card. Kicking an opponent doesn't need that type of embellishment, even when missed, for it already contains more than enough 'excessive force' and clearly endangers the player's safety, to make further embellishment unnecessary. as does a kick that just happens to miss.
I saw a photo of the Morelos kick a short time ago on twitter, but have been unable to copy it across. If the SFA panel saw that photo and still decided to let the culprit off, then there is definitely a pro TRFC agenda at Hampden!
I do hope someone smarter than me can find the photo and show it on here, then I'd love to read the Morelos backers explain exactly how it didn't merit that red.
how do you post a picture?
I don't know how to get back to the previous page, but in response to redlichtie's query about TKMS, I've just it is simply the acronym of 'Team Kit Manufacture and Supply', and does not indicate a particular agreement. I therefore just concluded that in the transcript the use of the acronym was in reference to the hummel 'TKMS agreement', and did not reference any other potential contractor.
TRFC Ltd must have been absolutely terrified at the prospect of hummel suing them from here to liquidation and caved in , telling SDIR by letter that they had made a successful matching offer, to remove any danger of having the hummel contract exposed in full detail.
They are probably relieved that they only have to pay expenses, and very glad that the Judge wasn't too interested in pursuing the question of whether SDIR still had a legal right to see the Agreement after they had won the case without needing sight of it!
If I were king, I think I'd sack Blair!
easyJambo 8th August 2018 at 17:09
TRFC didn't need to disclose the full third party offer to SDI as part of the 2017/18 contract with SDI.
All that was required was to advise that an acceptable offer had been received from a third party and the material terms of that offer
=================================
I keep thinking that there must be something of concern to TRFC in the offer/agreement that holds them back from disclosing the full document to SDI.
Could it say, for example, that the offer is made strictly on the basis of being able to secure all aspects of the business. But that would be a ‘material term’ would it not?
Is there something in the offer that makes it non-compliant?
Scottish Football needs less lawyers and more honesty.
John Clark 8th August 2018 at 18:39
1
0
Rate This
I don't know how to get back to the previous page,
Click on page 137 just above LEAVE A REPLY
you don't know how to post a picture do you JC?
Cluster One 8th August 2018 at 18:16
Spoke to an ibrox fan today,and asked is he concerned were the money is coming from to buy players when the club needed a loan and there are no shirt sales.
Response…No
So i said,"But you wanted to know the identities of Blue pitch and Margarita holdings"
Response… But they were not putting money into the club to buy players.
So it looks like some ibrox fans don't care who you are or were the money comes from as long as it is buying players
_________
You have to remember that the only thing that bothers the Ibrox fans about the EBT years is what it eventually did to their club. They are not, in the least, bothered about the legality or morality of how those titles were won.
Nothing has changed with the new club in that respect, as is witnessed by the welcome they gave to their criminal, de facto, chairman.
Test message
@ Allyjambo:
Is it this one?
There is every prospect we are in the process of seeing another Ally McCoist scenario.
Early in the season he was allowed to spend money that the club clearly didn't have (other than season tickets etc) in the hope that the previous club would make it into the CL or EL group stages. It was a huge gamble and it didn't pay off.
Craig Whyte later admitted that he then couldn't afford to pay the bills and started using the tax and VAT money just to keep the club afloat. That ended up in administration and subsequently liquidation.
There is a distinct possibility that if this club fails to make it in Europe they will be in a similar position and will need to borrow even more money than they have so far.
Europe is really important to Celtic, in my view this year it is absolutely crucial to Rangers. How do they survive without it.
Just out of interest, was this excessive force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur-zy3v4HSo
How did you do that with the pic.
John Clark 8th August 2018 at 18:39
I don't know how to get back to the previous page, but in response to redlichtie's query about TKMS, I've just it is simply the acronym of 'Team Kit Manufacture and Supply', and does not indicate a particular agreement. I therefore just concluded that in the transcript the use of the acronym was in reference to the hummel 'TKMS agreement', and did not reference any other potential contractor.
TRFC Ltd must have been absolutely terrified at the prospect of hummel suing them from here to liquidation and caved in , telling SDIR by letter that they had made a successful matching offer, to remove any danger of having the hummel contract exposed in full detail.
They are probably relieved that they only have to pay expenses, and very glad that the Judge wasn't too interested in pursuing the question of whether SDIR still had a legal right to see the Agreement after they had won the case without needing sight of it!
If I were king, I think I'd sack Blair!
=================================================
JC this is getting highly confusing. The court case was to do with matching the retail offer was it not? The offer believed to have been submitted by JDS?
TRFC did disclose the 'material terms' of the offer (see EJ above) to SDI and they then matched them.
But SDI still want to see the relevant offer/agreement as they are reserving the right to seek further damages if it is non-compliant as they are now bound, I asume, to pay TRFC a higher, matching price. I can’t imagine why they would not trust the word of those Ibrox folks.
Apart from all that SDI & TRFC now go on to live happily ever after.
SFNASA
Jingso.Jimsie 8th August 2018 at 19:23
@ Allyjambo:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj1f6mJXcAAW_0d.jpg
Is it this one?
_____________________
That's the one, Jimbo, thanks
Looks very much like a kick to the back of the knee, whether or not it made contact is hard to decide, but with his record from a yard out, if he missed, he was still trying to score, but contact or no contact, as we know, makes no difference…in most cases!
I'd suggest that picture shows excessive force (Morelos is really trying there) and it shows the receiving player's safety is being endangered, or, at least, his cartilage and knee ligaments are.
redlichtie 8th August 2018 at 19:41
'….JC this is getting highly confusing.'
_________________
I have confused myself , I think, redlichtie.
I shall go and lie down, pleading the effects of breathing Nitromors fumes in a confined area for too long at a time!
Allyjambo 18.25
"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use EXCESSIVE force or brutality against an opponent when NOT challenging for the ball.
"In addition a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with a hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible”.
Why do you think the red card has been rescinded then.?
I trust it involves more than looking at a photo.
Cluster One 8th August 2018 at 18:55
'…Click on page 137 just above LEAVE A REPLY
you don't know how to post a picture do you JC? '
___________________
C1, I would swear on a stack of 'wee red books' that the page numbers weren't there! I had looked for them as usual, but saw them not, and assumed they were a casualty of the upgrade!
The worrying thing is, I did have my specs on!
Post a picture? Me? Now you're at the kidding!
I have supported everyone on here in my time. Now I need your support back. Celtic 1-1. Come on send your love & best wishes and prayers (especially) towards Celtic.
BTW , Megan, who works tirelessly for the Celtic Foundation is expecting a baby. So happy.
Testing
https://twitter.com/i/status/1027146531563098112
slimjim 8th August 2018 at 20:31
Allyjambo 18.25
"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use EXCESSIVE force or brutality against an opponent when NOT challenging for the ball.
"In addition a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with a hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible”.
Why do you think the red card has been rescinded then.?
I trust it involves more than looking at a photo.
________________
Explain to me then, how can it be that kicking, or attempting to kick, an opponent isn't using excessive force and brutality, in every sport other than kick boxing (or similar)? Kicking anyone, from behind, could only be considered brutal by any observer not inclined to violence, but maybe some class of people consider kicking someone, or attempting to kick someone, is not a brutal act. Are you going to tell us that you don't consider kicking someone, including the attempt to do so, a brutal act?
What do you imagine the review panel used when they decided to rescind Morelos' red if not photographic evidence, that included still photographs? Gerrard's words, perhaps? But if you think that photo doesn't show a man kicking out, forcefully, at an opponent, what on earth do you think he is doing? To me the photo shows a man, clearly in the act of kicking, and looking at his target, which just happens to be the back of an opponent's knee, though I am not suggesting he is deliberately targeting such a career threatening area of the body.
You will note, I hope, from your own post that the ATTEMPTED use of excessive force etc. is deemed to be an equal offence, how anyone could find that that kick by Morelos was not, at the very least, an attempt to kick his opponent, beggars belief. And that goes for the review panel, too. I'd suggest that, like you, they saw what they wanted to see, or felt obliged to.
For the record, I wasn't just using that still shot, obviously taken from footage of the incident, in my assessment of Morelos' deed, but it does show that he was clearly aiming his kick at, or very close to, his opponent, and that there was sufficient force, as he's followed through with the kick, not just jabbed out, to do damage if full contact was made.
jimbo 8th August 2018 at 20:44
I have supported everyone on here in my time. Now I need your support back. Celtic 1-1. Come on send your love & best wishes and prayers (especially) towards Celtic.
BTW , Megan, who works tirelessly for the Celtic Foundation is expecting a baby. So happy.
___________________
As is my daughter, who has just become overdue today
.
I wish Megan well.
easyJambo 8th August 2018 at 20:45
Testing
https://twitter.com/i/status/1027146531563098112
____________
The more I watch that, the more dumbfounded by the decision to overturn it I become.
Allyjambo 21.12
Your daughter is overdue as of today and you're on here arguing with me over what one considers excessive force.
Wish both your daughter and new arrival good health..
slimjim 8th August 2018 at 21:32
Allyjambo 21.12
Your daughter is overdue as of today and you're on here arguing with me over what one considers excessive force.
Wish both your daughter and new arrival good health..
___________
Thanks for your good wishes, Jim. I'm afraid there are 250 miles between myself and my daughter, and there's little I can do for her, not that she needs much help, being a midwife it's all just part of her job. She is remarkably cool about the whole thing. As it's my seventh grandchild, I'm a bit more relaxed about it, too, so arguing about a red card is an easy distraction. Her previous two were both a fortnight late and she expects this one to be quite late as well.
If someone does something that they don't need to do, and it is a violent act, then any amount of force is by definition excessive. It is more than is required.
Allyjambo 21.47
I just have the two grandchildren myself so you are way ahead in this respect.
If she is more than two weeks late this time however i may have to include yourself in wishing all concerned the best of health..
Big Pink 7th August 2018 at 00:06
EJ
The new site still has the annoying “feature” of reverting back to the previous page after a post.
What do you mean exactly. When you post a comment you should be taken to the comment you just posted.
When I make a post, commonly soon after the page has moved on, I am taken back to the top of the blog, but also onto the previous page of comments.
We have just moved onto page 140. When I made this post I am taken to the top of the blog post, but when I scroll down I fine myself back at page 139.
It’s more of an inconvenience rather than anything else, particularly when I have to scroll to the bottom of the page so that I can get to the page links.
The same thing happens on both Firefox and Chrome.
It’s been that way for the last two or three months.
It tends to right itself once the latest page has maybe 20 or 30 comments, meaning I stay on the right page, although I do appear to be taken back a few posts on that page, rather than to the post I have just made.
Another couple of observations:
When I copy and past an earlier post, it seems to lose any "lines" inserted to separate individual posts by way of a series of hyphens "-" or equals "=" signs.
When using the blockquote function everything appears to be converted to "lower case". (thanks for changing the colour though).
Easyjambo.
On Google chrome and have exactly the same issues.
Ally, don't worry. I have started praying To Gabriel.
The kick wasnt excessive force. Petulant yes. A similar incident was Kipre on Brown who kicked out on Brown and was sent off. Went to the panel and got the same decision as today.
At least they have shown consistency.
TheLawMan2 9th August 2018 at 01:22
It was something he should not have done and was a violent act, as such any amount of force whatsoever was "excessive".
Excessive – more than is necessary, normal, or desirable.
There is no such thing as an acceptable amount of force in the circumstances. To interpret it the way they did makes the people who made that determination look stupid.
Morelos decision correctly overturned.?
———–
If they played better without him,they may wish it was not overturned
Question. If Morelos was not trying to kick McKenna, who, or what, was he trying to kick? He was definitely trying to kick something. I wonder what he, or his representative, said to the review panel that convinced them he was not trying to kick McKenna! Anyone any ideas?
Homunculus 9th August 2018 at 06:58
It was something he should not have done and was a violent act, as such any amount of force whatsoever was "excessive".
Excessive – more than is necessary, normal, or desirable.
There is no such thing as an acceptable amount of force in the circumstances. To interpret it the way they did makes the people who made that determination look stupid.
So to extend that out then do you feel McKenna should have got sent off as his barge was something "he should not have done." Do you believe that was excessive force, given that he nearly knocked Morelos off his feet ?
Allyjambo 9th August 2018 at 08:57
Question. If Morelos was not trying to kick McKenna, who, or what, was he trying to kick? He was definitely trying to kick something. I wonder what he, or his representative, said to the review panel that convinced them he was not trying to kick McKenna! Anyone any ideas?
____________________________________________________________________
I wouldnt have thought anyone tried to convince the panel about swinging a kick. It was the same with Kipre. It would be the Violent conduct which specifies "excessive force or brutality against an opponent" which would be challenged.
The view that anything that you should not be doing, is "excessive force" is not a reasonable one in my opinion. That would mean 20 sending offs a game as any off the ball contact, push, nudge etc etc is something people shouldnt be doing and therefore "excessive"
TheLawMan2 9th August 2018 at 01:22
The kick wasnt excessive force. Petulant yes. A similar incident was Kipre on Brown who kicked out on Brown and was sent off. Went to the panel and got the same decision as today.
At least they have shown consistency.
________________________
What area of society do you live in that a kick at another human being is not considered a violent act?
I can accept that it was a petulant act, Morelos always looks like someone's stolen his sweets, but are you saying a kick is alright as long as it was done petulantly rather than in a more manly fashion?
I do not believe the words excessive force are used to describe a kick, they are used as an umbrella description of a violent act in the event that a challenge that might ordinarily be allowable (is carried out using excessive force, is brutal) merits the description of 'violent'. There is no need to define what constitutes a violent off the ball kick, for by it's own definition, it is a violent act, just as it would be anywhere else in society. Just as, in fact, a head butt or a punch would be.
Do you think a petulant kick at someone in the street is just petulant, and therefor, by your definition, not a violent act? Do you have, or are you aware of, a sliding scale of off the ball kicks ranging from 'petulant' to 'violent' that is used by the SFA panel, but kept secret from referees?
Allyjambo 9th August 2018 at 09:38
What area of society do you live in that a kick at another human being is not considered a violent act?
_______________________________________________________________
If someone slide tackled me in Argyle Street would that be a violent act ?
What about they just run up and full body barge into me. Is that a violent act ?
or what about they jump on my back, land on top of me and put me in hospital with concussion. Is that a violent act ?
Is this the stage of ridiculous we are at. Taking my views and asking what kind of society i live in ??
please stop talking about violence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qit_HikDGxU
The kind of things which might get one arrested in a town centre but not on a sports field are covered by what Scots law calls "volens". The participant accepts that which is accepted in the laws of the game-being kicked from the rear nowhere near the ball is not something which is allowable in the laws or safe.
The use of words like excessive force and brutality make grey areas which are never good. The practice adopted in Rugby is to bar things absolutely and this seems to have the effect of stopping them happening after a short period of high profile red cards- players learn quickly.
Allowing some wee sly kicks at opponents will not stop the practice.
2 things:
1. There is a difference between a kick and a barge: certainly until very recently Morelos kick was a definite red.
2. Allowing that somehow the panel is correct, the Ibrox team should have been heavily fined, and Gerrard sent to the stand for around 5 games for his comments.
TheLawMan2 9th August 2018 at 09:32
Allyjambo 9th August 2018 at 08:57
Question. If Morelos was not trying to kick McKenna, who, or what, was he trying to kick? He was definitely trying to kick something. I wonder what he, or his representative, said to the review panel that convinced them he was not trying to kick McKenna! Anyone any ideas?
____________________________________________________________________
I wouldnt have thought anyone tried to convince the panel about swinging a kick. It was the same with Kipre. It would be the Violent conduct which specifies "excessive force or brutality against an opponent" which would be challenged.
The view that anything that you should not be doing, is "excessive force" is not a reasonable one in my opinion. That would mean 20 sending offs a game as any off the ball contact, push, nudge etc etc is something people shouldnt be doing and therefore "excessive"
_____________________
Kicking an opponent 'off the ball' has always been a sending off offence, viewed the same as a punch or head butt. Pushing and shoving has always been viewed differently, perhaps because there is less chance of injury, or as a remnant of 'it's a man's game'.
If, during Sunday's game, the referee had decided the incident only merited a yellow, there would have been some dissent here and elsewhere (as a result of the TV evidence), but it would have generally been acknowledged that it was a difficult call without the use of TV replays. In the event the referee felt confident there had been a deliberate kick at an opponent by Morelos, and he sent him off. The TV replays show, beyond doubt, that Morelos did kick out at his opponent. There is nothing that provides evidence of the amount of force used, and there never could be; there is, therefor, no evidence the referee got it wrong! To overturn the referee's decision doesn't only undermine the referee, it makes a mockery of the rules and the game, itself.
Lets get back to football. Celtic are the greatest, magnificent, most beautiful club in the whole world. nay, the universe. Even our Blessed Lord supports us! It's in the bible, Acts of the Tims chapter 3. "Our Lord went to Paradise and wept merrily."
My interpretation of the the rules would be that excessive force applies for tackles while violent conduct applies for off the ball incidents.
I spoke to a friend who is a top level assistant referee on Monday and he thought on first viewing that it was a yellow card offence, but when looked at again he felt that a red card was correct.
bfbpuzzled 9th August 2018 at 10:19
The kind of things which might get one arrested in a town centre but not on a sports field are covered by what Scots law calls "volens". The participant accepts that which is accepted in the laws of the game-being kicked from the rear nowhere near the ball is not something which is allowable in the laws or safe.
The use of words like excessive force and brutality make grey areas which are never good. The practice adopted in Rugby is to bar things absolutely and this seems to have the effect of stopping them happening after a short period of high profile red cards- players learn quickly.
Allowing some wee sly kicks at opponents will not stop the practice.
____________________
Totally agree with you, Mr Puzzled, but take issue with the idea that Morelos took a wee fly kick. Fly, maybe, but his left foot was planted firmly on the ground, and his right was flying quite high, high enough, in fact, that had the ball been anywhere near, he might well have seen red for a high tackle and using 'excessive force'! When a player has his foot as high as Morelos' was, there has to be a high potential for inflicting injury to his opponent – especially from behind when his opponent is unaware that a boot might be heading his way.
Jimbo
Not too sure about that.
Psalm 95:7 "For he is our god and we are the people".
Interesting that Gerrard has come out publicly and clearly stated that two of their transfer fees have been inflated by £1 million. Who told him to say this, and why?
To reiterate:
Gerrard's comments about "referee's decisions going against Rangers for years" = lengthy touchline ban for any other manager.
Added to the barrage of statements from King/Rangers openly attacking members of the SFA/SPL, which were simply replied to courteously, I can only conclude that the ancien regime of bias and corruption in favour of the Oldco, is in place for the Newco.
Scunnered with Scottish football.
Ally, you got good news?
Of course we could go back to the incident where it actually began you know before the first shoulder to shoulder. It appeared that mor or less stepped across mckenna and slowed almost to a stop why did he do that what was his intent pick him up on that and the rest doesn't happen.