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.
TheLawMan2 9th August 2018 at 09:54
I get where you are coming from with regard to how much offenses on the football field tip over into wider society.
However, as discussed the other day my issue is what message are we sending out to the young players who simply mimic a lot of what they see in the pro game.
As far as I am aware there is no rule that says you are allowed to kick a player up the arse for no reason or in retaliation – excessively or not. If it is acceptable and only punished by a yellow card then you may as well do it when walking onto the pitch.
Just out of interest I looked back at the infamous Souness – McCluskey incident. Souness appears to have merely flicked his boot out at McCluskey. It was sly (some would say cowardly) and quick and doesn't look to be excessive in terms of violence or force, yet where McCluskey was struck resulted in a puncture wound.
Would the panel of today be facing an argument that any punishment for Souness should be down-graded because the kick wasn't 'excessive' and the drawing of an opponents blood was just a bit 'unlucky'.
Call me hard but the consistency I am looking for is not letting petulant players off with their nonsense. Similarly I'd be one for introducing a rugby type 10 yard rule for all the other childish rubbish employed by footballers these days.
The sin bin idea was discussed on here a we while back so there are plenty options for helping sort our game out as opposed to simply accepting poor behaviour from players and coaches.
Overturning what in my eyes was a perfectly good decision by the officials on the day is not doing anyone any favours. No doubt the Kipre incident was raised in defence so where does it all stop? And as I said I think where the officials got it wrong was not booking McKenna for his incitement.
Realshocks, don't ever be scunnered. Just come on here. I don't know who you support. But you are always welcome mate.
This is for Jean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3jKLyEkzkY&list=RDqit_HikDGxU&index=16
I agree with consistency. I watched last season tackles like the Scott Allan one on Rossiter, Kipre on Jack as well as numerous flying elbows going unpunished at all in some cases or escaping with yellows in others then i compare them to Morelos on Sunday or Kipre (v Brown) where even if contact was made, there was no risk of real damage to the players on the opposite side of it. I think thats why they have been rescinded.
If a tackle or off the ball incident puts another player in danger then for me thats where a red should be shown. Morelos in my opinion could have had 2 or 3 red cards last season for incidents like that and im happy to admit that when its justified. I just dont think last Sundays was in that space though.
I think the panel have called it correctly.
Another test.
TheLawMan2 8th August 2018 at 17:24 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 9th August 2018 at 11:06
"I think the panel have called it correctly."
Basically there has been set a precedent now that every red card from now on has to go through an appeals process, consistency has to be in place, whats good for the goose is good for the gander, agreed. Officials will have to tread carefully as soon people might accuse them of using incidents (conspiracies) to inflence games, like making the other side a bit light on the numbers, and rather than run the risk of turning fans away they will just go lienent on hammer throwers, if think we see were some would like the game to go.
How much would terry Hurlock be worth in a backward Scottish game?
mbo 9th August 2018 at 10:48
Ally, you got good news?
____________________
Not yet, Jimbo, but thanks for asking.
That daughter of mine hates to part with anything
I think the panel should adopt the same reasoning as is applied in VAR decisions. Did the referee / assistant referee make a clear and obvious error?
In the Morelos incident, I would say the officials did not make such an error, so the decision should not have been overturned on appeal
easyJambo 9th August 2018 at 11:47
I think the panel should adopt the same reasoning as is applied in VAR decisions. Did the referee / assistant referee make a clear and obvious error?
In the Morelos incident, I would say the officials did not make such an error, so the decision should not have been overturned on appeal
________________
A similar thought struck me, EJ. The referee made a decision based on what he saw, Morelos kicking out at an opponent. The only factor the review panel should have considered was, did Morelos kick out at his opponent, not, how hard did he kick out at his opponent? The video evidence clearly shows Morelos did kick out at his opponent.
Has there been a statement from the SFA giving the rationale behind the decision, or are the defenders of the decision just assuming this 'excessive force' get out clause is what's behind it?
I am totally in agreement with the concept of a review panel for sendings off etc., but it should be limited to, as with VAR, determining whether or not the referee has missed something, or has made the wrong decision – a glaring mistake. If, in this case, the referee has decided that, on review, what the TV evidence shows is not what he thought he saw, then surely we should be made aware of what he thought he saw and how what he now sees changes his decision. The same goes if the referee hasn't changed his mind, we should be told what the referee thought he saw, and what the panel decided he didn't see.
Transparency, who needs it?
jimbo 9th August 2018 at 11:00
______________________________________________________
I think I want to say thanks Jimbo but I'm not sure
Once again we're down a logic wormhole of nonsense. The guy aimed a kick at McKenna off the ball, it's a no-brainer red card. Just picture it if McKenna had aimed a kick at Morelos off the ball. He'd have been sent off, quite rightly, and no-one would consider appealing because…. well, it's a no-brainer red card. What a fuss about a sleekit hacker who happens to play for who he plays for.
All this entitlement wears me down, can we not just ignore it?
Allyjambo 12.21
"The referee made a decision based on what he saw, Morelos kicking out at an opponent".
Check the video and it is clear that the referee had his back to the incident and therefore couldn't possibly have seen it in the way you describe . He then lets the game continue for a few seconds before being informed, by the main stand sign linesman or whatever you want to call him, of the incident, at which point he stops the game and shows a red card to Morelos.
I agree with SlimJim previous post – I saw a play back of the red card incident (for it was that) and the TV did a close up on the asst referee (it's the 21st century SJ!) who looked comfortable with the decision.
However in answer to slimjim 8th August 2018 at 20:31 " Why do you think the red card has been rescinded then?"
I'd go with a combo of the new compliance officer/panel favour Rangers and/or were intimidated by Gerrard. There's no other rationale.
What it does mean is everyone might as well appeal because you never know….
Quote of the week, BBC Radio Scotland,at about 13.22 pm during a discussion on press reporting and balance, with Cosgrove and one or two other journalists, Ken MacDonald in the chair:
says our Ken: " you have to be on the side of truth or you are not doing your job"
I would suggest that there are editors and journos on BBC Radio Scotland and the SMSM generally who would nod hypocritically at that, while penning their next load of propaganda for the Big Lie.
They all know that RFC (IA) was not sold out of Administration to new owner
They know that RFC(IA) went into Liquidation.
They know it was the football club (because there was no other entity tht owed the millions in debts!).
They know that RFC of 1872 lost its entitlement to membership of the SPL and lost its membership of the SFA.
They know that Charles Green bought some of the assets, and then applied for membership of league, was granted that membership as a new club, and claimed that new club to be Rangers 1872.
They know that that is a lie, completely and utterly indefensible, and such bodies which RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd provide in support of their lie simply reflect what they have been told by the very parties to the lie ,namely the SFA and/or RIFC.
For example, the ASA , the ECA, the Stock Exchange, the LNS enquiry, all based their opinions on what the 'football authority' told them, which in the case of the LNS enquiry was NOT the full truth.
The SMSM did not and do not 'investigate', but simply act as propagandists.
Test
It does seem that newco are flapping like mad trying to sell some of their best players to England today. Must be some financial concerns at the big hoose.
John Clark 9th August 2018 at 13:43
says our Ken: " you have to be on the side of truth or you are not doing your job"
John they are making things up on the spot as you will hear if you listen to the interview on sportssound postcast link below. I have transcribed Lee McCulloch discussing Morelos with Micheal Stewart and oor Ken.
LM I think Rangers will win the appeal, they have appealed it, have’nt they.
KM yeah
LM I think I can see,
MS on the basis of what
LM mmmphh on the basis of whatever way they want to pitch it. And laughs nervously or delusion ally
MS so he is sent off for violent conduct ……………………
and so on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06grl82
That’s some shift you’ve put in Lawman. Once again I salute your indefatigability.
realshocks 9th August 2018 at 15:07
It does seem that newco are flapping like mad trying to sell some of their best players to England today. Must be some financial concerns at the big hoose.
=====================
Yes and no. Obviously they are looking to recoup some cash from outgoing transfers, but their EL qualifiers will bring in welcome gross revenue of around £1m per home tie and €250k prize money per round. That's around £3.7m thus far including tonight's game.
So we've reached the position that it's OK to petulantly kick out at Morelos from behind and the sanction will be a yellow card . Glad that's settled .
Next week's court action.
LORD BANNATYNE – C Stark, Clerk
Thursday 16th August
Starred Motion at 9.00am
P997/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under 4.16 – Dentons UK – Brodies LLP
This is the Henderson & Jones / Wavetower claim
LADY WOLFFE – E Hunter, Clerk
Thursday 16th August
P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for orders sec 955 – Dentons UK – Lindsays
Dave King and the TOP
The latter case won't start before 10am due to Lady Wolffe hearing another case before then, so it should be possible to attend both hearings.
paddy malarkey 9th August 2018 at 15:52
So we've reached the position that it's OK to petulantly kick out at Morelos from behind and the sanction will be a yellow card . Glad that's settled .
_________________________________________________________
No, the sanction should be Red……then reduced to yellow at the appeal……if we are going to be consistent.
easyJambo 9th August 2018 at 16:03
'…This is the Henderson & Jones / Wavetower claim.'
_________________________
I had just come in from LIDL, and had sat down to have my daily look at the Rolls of Court!
I hope that no representations are made (if CB are represented) that the public should be excluded!
But if that happens, there is the other case to look forward to!
LM2
Straight yellow . We've moved on .
Still can’t upload image.
still have to click post comment twice
John Clark 9th August 2018 at 13:43
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/7812988/newco-will-be-the-rangers-fc
hat tip Mintys Lamb
I am glad that Alan Stubbs has spoken out about Morelos red card being rescinded, and the grey area it creates. For as long as I remember Referees, ex-Referees, and the media have taken the line that if you kick out in the way Morelos did, you will see likely see red. So is it just Morelos now who can do this, or can all players do it? As sure as night follows day players are going to be sent off for a similar offence this season, have their club appeal it, and lose the appeal.
AllyJ @ 08.57
Maybe just maybe they persuaded the panel that morelos was just kicking at some wee flying beasties that were attacking McKenna, so it wasn't excessive or violent action against the player because he was just protecting him the nice much misunderstood person that he is ??
easyJambo 9th August 2018 at 16:03
EJ, which court ? Edinburgh ?
Christyboy 9th August 2018 at 21:05
easyJambo 9th August 2018 at 16:03
EJ, which court ? Edinburgh ?
==========================
Yes, Court of Session, as normal for Scottish cases.
Most of the SDI stuff is heard in London though, as the contracts are based on English law.
Another observation for Big Pink.
I can't copy and paste on my phone (android) as I previously could, just by holding my finger on the screen then getting the paste option. I now get an error message saying that my browser doesn't support that option and that I have to use Ctrl + "V" instead, which is a bit difficult from a phone.
Lawman, I suspect you know the truth. Your directors were awful. Just admit it and get on with it. Your team won tonight. Be happy. But be truthful and stop nitpicking.
I'm a terrible poster, but I love reading, JC & Auldheid at this time of night.
You should read some of Auldheids thinkings. About uniquivable love.
Its powerful.
just noticed, my posts are now in EDIT for about ten minutes. So I suppose I’m straight to moderation. I deserve it.
easyJambo 9th August 2018 at 22:08
—————
Wit's the techy guy's doing BP? Wit's the techy guy's doing?
jimbo 9th August 2018 at 22:33
Lawman, I suspect you know the truth. Your directors were awful. Just admit it and get on with it. Your team won tonight. Be happy. But be truthful and stop nitpicking.
______________________________________________________________________
Our directors were awful and remain to be. Ive said that loads of times. I have admitted it. I continue to admit it. I am truthful. And I am more than happy about last night. 🙂
Mmmm,it just me or does anyone else miss the old format. I don't want to sound ungrateful and I do appreciate the work done but is it an improvement on the previous set up?
"I am truthful"
Said the East Fife fan.
Some of us have long memories Niall.
What's to stop all eleven players of an opposition team having a deliberate off-the-ball kick at Alfredo Morelos, thus sending all £12m worth
of talent off to the bench, or even the hospital? After all, the worst they're going to get is a yellow card, now that a precedent has been set for such a kick.
My suggestion is of course ludicrous and tongue-in-cheek, but no more absurd than the decision to downgrade Morelos' offence from a deserved red card.
Those fans who moan on sites such as Rangers Media about how badly treated their club is should reflect on the fact that they're the only club in the country who have a choice between having a rulebook of their own and having no rulebook at all!
easyJambo 9th August 2018 at 22:08
Another observation for Big Pink. I can't copy and paste on my phone (android) as I previously could, just by holding my finger on the screen then getting the paste option. I now get an error message saying that my browser doesn't support that option and that I have to use Ctrl + "V" instead, which is a bit difficult from a phone.
Easy Jambo when you go to paste before you do click on the small box called source then do what you normally do. Finger pressed in space yo want to paste and bingo. The source bypasses ctr and v.
Worked for me.
bigboab1916 10th August 2018 at 09:57
easyJambo 9th August 2018 at 22:08
Another observation for Big Pink. I can’t copy and paste on my phone (android) as I previously could, just by holding my finger on the screen then getting the paste option. I now get an error message saying that my browser doesn’t support that option and that I have to use Ctrl + “V” instead, which is a bit difficult from a phone.
Easy Jambo when you go to paste before you do click on the small box called source then do what you normally do. Finger pressed in space yo want to paste and bingo. The source bypasses ctr and v.
Worked for me.
I was having a similar problem when copying and pasting on my Windows laptop but thanks to your tip, I can now bypass the fiddley CTR + V bit.
Thanks BigBoab
I see that Mike Ashley's Sports Direct has just bought House of Fraser, which had earlier gone into administration.
Since it didn't get as far as liquidation, there'll be no need for it to re-emerge as The Big Hoose Of Fraser.
Allyjambo 10th August 2018 at 10:04
Your Welcome
Highlander 10th August 2018 at 09:51
Those fans who moan on sites such as Rangers Media about how badly treated their club is should reflect on the fact that they're the only club in the country who have a choice between having a rulebook of their own and having no rulebook at all!
____________________________________________________________
Morelos wasnt the precedent though.
Kipre kicked out at Scott Brown last season and was sent off for Violent conduct. The card was then overturned by the panel and reduced to a yellow.
Scotland have the 3rd best co-efficient total in Europe so far this season (will change quickly once the big boys enter at the group stages).
Overall ranking up from 27th to 23rd as well, long way to go but moving in the right direction. Three clubs in the group stages of Euro competition would be a game-changer.
TheLawMan2 10th August 2018 at 10:29
Fair enough on the matter of precedent, but two wrongs don't make a right and it still leaves the door open for off-the-ball kicks from opposition players, as in the extreme example I gave, regardless of who is playing.
Can someone please remind me what the "Henderson & Jones / Wavetower claim" is about ?
Sorry, but I do find it difficult to keep up with all these cases !!
upthehoops 9th August 2018 at 20:05
"I am glad that Alan Stubbs has spoken out about Morelos red card being rescinded, and the grey area it creates. For as long as I remember Referees, ex-Referees, and the media have taken the line that if you kick out in the way Morelos did, you will see likely see red. So is it just Morelos now who can do this, or can all players do it? As sure as night follows day players are going to be sent off for a similar offence this season, have their club appeal it, and lose the appeal."
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Yes UTH, as you and Stubbs imply this is a dangerous precedent, with video footage widely available, for any future appeal to be substantiated.
As you say there will be red cards in future for similar offences, but unless the appellant is a Govan X1, the red card will stand. This will leave the club disadvantaged. However they will be able to take the relevant authority to court, citing unfair treatment. Remember the new Ibrox club have already set an unpunished precedent for this action as well.
Similarly, any club fielding a player who is "imperfectly registered" would be free to challenge any fines or penalties, citing the Bryson nonsense as a precedent.
If only we had clubs with the cojones to take on the scheming b'stards running our football authorities……….
ormanbatesmumfc 10th August 2018 at 11:17
As you say there will be red cards in future for similar offences, but unless the appellant is a Govan X1, the red card will stand.
______________________________________
Was Kipre playing for Govan X1 when his red card was rescinded last season for the same offence ?
TheLawMan2 10th August 2018 at 11:25 Was Kipre playing for Govan X1 when his red card was rescinded last season for the same offence ?
maybe its better to see what someone in the media who would have analysed more of the incident actually thinks of the Kipre claim since it seems to be the focus here.
Michael Stewart
@mstewart_23
Aug 8
Just stop this Kipre got his red card rescinded nonsense, so Morelos was the same. It’s all whataboutery and Kipre’s ‘kick’ was more like a tickle. Morelos is a forceful kick. They are not even close.
For the last few days its been said on here a kick is a kick. If there is no reason to kick out then its excessive and should be a red. NOW we want to introduce levels of kicks and grade them from Tickle to EvilcositsRangers.
There were lots of instances last season in games i watched. Chris Kane booted David Bates off the ball and was given a yellow. There was a punch in the ging gang goolies as well off the ball that was a yellow then a Hibs player doing exactly what Morelos done against Aberdeen and it was a yellow. Then we have Scott Browns CONSTANT sly kicks, stamps and elbows that he doesnt get away with in European games, but never seems to get punished in Scotland for them.
Then there was other ridiculous decisions like Jack being sent off for aggressive use of his throat around Anthony Stokes hands, the Allan tackle on Rossiter, the Kypre challenge that put Jack out for the rest of the season and lets not forget the best foul and booking of all time where somehow, Morelos got booked for standing on the spot whilst being dived at and Hibs got a free kick. See link below.
https://i2-prod.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article10979367.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/JS127753370.jpg
This idea that Rangers get everything is nonsense of the highest order. Its the same nonsense back the way from Gerrard and others on my side that we get nothing.
Some fans just cant see past the colour of the jersey. Its ridiculous that people cant just be honest.
bigboab1916 10th August 2018 at 09:57
Thanks BB
.
Timtim 10th August 2018 at 09:02
"I am truthful"
Said the East Fife fan.
Some of us have long memories Niall. 🙂
A tip of the hat to TT.
Jimmy Bones 10th August 2018 at 11:12
Can someone please remind me what the "Henderson & Jones / Wavetower claim" is about ?
Sorry, but I do find it difficult to keep up with all these cases !!
================================
This relates to Wavetower (aka TRFCG – Oldco's holding company) claiming that they still hold a floating charge over the assets of the Oldco. The claim could be anything from £2m to £18m.
If the court agrees that the floating charge is valid and that there is some debt due from the Oldco to Wavetower, then, as a secured creditor, they should have first claim on the Oldco's creditors pot ahead of the unsecured creditors, including HMRC.
Wavetower is effectively insolvent but Henderson and Jones specialise in buying and pursuing claims from companies in difficulties and who otherwise couldn't afford the costs involved.
It has been reported elsewhere that Craig Whyte would be entitled to one third of any sums gained as as result of this action. That arrangement, if it exists, hasn't been mentioned in court.
He is everywhere
High street tycoon Mike Ashley swooped on the stricken House of Fraser department store chain today after it collapsed into administration.
<
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/house-of-fraser-appoints-administrators-after-talks-to-save-firm-fall-flat-a3907161.html
Imagine if the owner of a restaurant had a sign in his window which read "English people will be seated immediately on arrival, people of Asian descent will only be seated after they have spent 4 hours in our waiting room". There would be uproar and rightly so. Clearly a racist act. So why are UEFA getting away with saying "English teams will go straight into the Champions League, Scottish teams only after they survive 4 qualifying rounds" .Is it not the same thing?
People wishing to defend UEFA might point to the co-efficient system and the criteria there in. Thing is , UEFA have decided on what outcome they want then set up the criteria to achieve that. As an example of unfairness in the criteria I would point out that if you introduced UEFA's idea of country co-efficients into the sport of tennis then Andy Murray would find it impossible to reach world no1 status, not because he wasn't the best player but due to the fact he was British ( I realize UEFA have went a little way to addressing this matter but it's not enough).
One other thing(among many) I find disgusting about UEFA is the paltry fines given to teams whose fans clearly take part in racist chanting. 40,000 Russians can monkey chant and UEFA will fine the club 40 grand. Why not just put a dollar on ticket prices and stamp them "racist chanting allowed in this section"
easyJambo 10th August 2018 at 11:55
You're welcome.
Next up is gmail notification warning of new interface in next few weeks, must be to cater for latest technology Win 10 etc and all thsoe colerful Jelly bean and marshmallow IOS's for mobiles and pads.
TheLawMan2 10th August 2018 at 11:41
"Then we have Scott Browns CONSTANT sly kicks, stamps and elbows that he doesnt get away with in European games, but never seems to get punished in Scotland for them."
Noted the emphasis on Scott Brown and the change to capitals usually indicates swearing. Is this because you don't like the guy, you do know Scott Brown was sent of for a tackle on Liam Boyce and he did not appeal the decision, why would that be.
Also noted your Europe quote to bring in Browns further disciplines. Europe is not on the agenda here and is not the same as the SFA panel for incidents, as is wee sly digs not the agenda , i played football i watch football, what you see getting done and not getting doing is part and parcel, but the emphasis is on applying rules and when caught infringing the rules applying the punishment.
For example fans wanted a punishment for the barge before the kick, really I mean, cast your mind back to Ibrox and whits the goalie daen Tom game, ( i know its a sore memory) Candeass on Brown as the ball is released, did he go for the ball or play the man with excessive force, yet the offical played on. And Celtic score, yet, the linesman indicates for the sending of later for an elbow on moreleos.
Shay logan kicking the ball at Brown on the ground when he had been tackled. Sorry but i think you are barking up the tree there was nothing to defend, i have gave you instances were players get up accept the punishment and we move on.
There was a reason why Sevco wanted rid of certain individuals on the boards of the SFA etc and the reason is obvious, integrity has never been a strong point over by, in fact they ridcule the word, when it used. Integrity went out the window a long time ago when the good ship dignity left the shores and what remains in the SFA Ludge is a widows son mentality.
easyJambo 10th August 2018 at 12:05
'..It has been reported elsewhere that Craig Whyte would be entitled to one third of any sums gained as result of this action.'
________________________
I hadn't seen that ,eJ, but I was always surprised at the idea that Whyte had given up all title for a relatively small( compared to the potential) amount!
Boab, i think you missed my main point. I wasnt quoting all those incidents to show a bias against Rangers. My point is that I can name you hundreds of incidents that went against Rangers and im sure, just as you have done, you can name hundreds against Celtic and Paddy can come on and name hundreds against Thistle, then AllyJambo will tell us hundreds against Hearts.
The general consensus on here is that everyone in the whole world is Pro Rangers and the overturning of a red card is a new precedent that as long as you play in Govan you can get away with anything.
Its just not true.
misterlightbulbjoke 10th August 2018 at 12:15
Spot on miss the Ajaxes etc, its not the European Cup anymore, you cannot be Champions of Europe but have a CV that shows fourth in your domestic league, sort of makes a mokery, for an example Liecester city of England and champions of the EPL and Manchester United champions of the whole of Europe but 4th in England.(brexit)
TheLawMan2 10th August 2018 at 13:15
"The general consensus on here is that everyone in the whole world is Pro Rangers and the overturning of a red card is a new precedent that as long as you play in Govan you can get away with anything."
The SFA have hung themselves out to dry you know and I know it, Celtic will not lose out on these decisions they have a business model geared towards slight of hand they have been in the game ong enough and been at the top and dealt with silly bowling club blazers who jeopardise their integrity for a cause and new shiny pin badge, ie Farry v Bunnet case and the buying of registrations.
But Stubbs and the likes of the Lennons of this new age might not be prepared to sit back and let their clubs suffer at the hands of preferential treatment.
All the media called it out, no defense, SG called it out, should not have done it he said brought it on himself, basically if you get caught you run the risk.
Spare a thought for the linesman who has no game this week according to Stubbs who asks demoted or what, clarity anyone. Anyway enough, its over we KICK on.
NL in the stands for impersonating an aeroplane and Morelos on the park after impersonating a Bruce Lee kick, you decide.
woodstein 10th August 2018 at 12:11
"He is everywhere
High street tycoon Mike Ashley swooped on the stricken House of Fraser department store chain today after it collapsed into administration."
Yes. And we should all note the difference: H of F has been bought out of administration by a new owner!
It did not go into Liquidation, but was sold lock stock and barrel to a new owner, who would be perfectly entitled to keep the name and the history of the business.
RFC(IA) was NOT bought out of administration: only some (not all) of the assets were bought by another company. That company was NOT a football club but had to be turned into one, by applying to ,and being for, membership of a Scottish Football league…
That new football club is not, and could not at all be, entitled under law to call itself Rangers Football Club (of 1872 foundation) or to claim the sporting honours and titles of that defunct football club!
The very language used by the Administrators D&P was very carefully constructed to avoid saying that they had sold the football club.
Instead they spoke very carefully of the 'sale of the ‘business and assets;If they had been legally free to claim to have sold the Football Club, they would most certainly have done so and exulted in the praise that would in that case have come to them.
bigboab1916 10th August 2018 at 13:07
"Then we have Scott Browns CONSTANT sly kicks, stamps and elbows that he doesnt get away with in European games, but never seems to get punished in Scotland for them."
Noted the emphasis on Scott Brown and the change to capitals usually indicates swearing. Is this because you don't like the guy, you do know Scott Brown was sent of for a tackle on Liam Boyce and he did not appeal the decision, why would that be.
I know it's hard to believe that the Scott Brown red card for the Liam Boyce tackle would be appealed. But it was, and it was rescinded!
John Clark 10th August 2018 at 13:15
easyJambo 10th August 2018 at 12:05
'..It has been reported elsewhere that Craig Whyte would be entitled to one third of any sums gained as result of this action.'
________________________
I hadn't seen that ,eJ, but I was always surprised at the idea that Whyte had given up all title for a relatively small( compared to the potential) amount!
==================================
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15413651.Craig_Whyte_in_line_for___5m_liquidation_payout_as_HMRC_is_set_to_lose_out_on_Rangers_tax_case_payback/
John Clark 10th August 2018 at 14:00
"Yes. And we should all note the difference: H of F has been bought out of administration by a new owner!"
Good news indeed for the staff, contracts have to remain in place same terms and conditions apply and no TUPE, any future changes would need to be through Union negotiations if the staff are Union members or through representation or ACAS.
TheLawMan2 "Then we have Scott Browns CONSTANT sly kicks, stamps and elbows that he doesnt get away with in European games".
Please supply evidence of Scott Brown being penalised in Europe with red cards.
Or to put it another way, NL in the stands for impersonating an aeroplane, Kypre on the park for puting Jack out the game for 6 months after stamping on him, May on the park for puting Jack in hospital with concussion, Anthony Stokes on the park after choking Ryan Jack or Scott Allan on the park for getting Rossiter carried off.
Swings and roundabouts Boab.
Ballyargus
I'm sure Thelawman2 can reply for himself but here's one for you anyway, complete with "sly kick" as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOhHO7GSKho.
BP/Tris
Lovely fresh looking new site.
Unfortunately, some residual tedium seems to have carried over.
Any news on when the Block function will be available?
The whataboutery about red cards / yellow cards is why refereeing decisions are generally not discussed on the forum. By all means comment on an individual incident, decision, appeal or whatever, but once you start comparing incidents from prior seasons then you get into the circular arguments that we have seen over the last day or too.
I'm certain that every supporter of every club in the land will feel that their club gets the worst of any "honest mistakes" made by referees and that they don't "even themselves out over the season".
It's a tiresome discussion.
slimjim
I'm sure Thelawman2 can reply for himself but here's one for you anyway, complete with "sly kick" as well.
One example from 5 years ago hardly constitutes, " CONSTANT sly kicks, stamps and elbows that he doesnt get away with in European games".
Pity the SFA could not have represented King v Ashley.Oh, wait they did its was called a sniff test.
From Rolls of Court
Outer House RollA97/18
RIFC v Charles Alexander Green
Commenced Wed 8th August -will close on Wed October 3rd .
easyJambo 10th August 2018 at 15:14
'….a firm set up by Whyte also included obtaining the book, film and television rights to the two takeovers of The Rangers Football Club in 2011 and 2012. '
_________________
Ha, ha- now that I see the 'film and television rights' bit, I remember. Thanks for that, eJ.