To Comply or not to Comply ?

UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?

On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.

Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.

The cases of two clubs::

Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )

and

FC Irtysh  (Kazakhstan) 

are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because

  1. The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
  2. The cases  tell us what might have happened to Rangers  FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.

 

FC Sion  (Olympique des Alpes SA)

Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.

Full details can be read at

http://tiny.cc/y6sxsy

 

but this is a summary.

In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.

In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme,  carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.

The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.

Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:

“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as

“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”

What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.

Sion had declared

“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.

The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.

Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.

Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.

The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.

Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.

The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was  appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.

 

The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.

  1. FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  2. FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
  3. To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
  4. To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
  5. FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.

Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.

It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.

This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.

“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”

The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:

Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.

Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.

This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement

“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “  where he also added

“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”

This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.

In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.

The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.

 


 

The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy  and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.

Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March

It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.

The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber  who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)

The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:

 

  1.  FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  2. To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
  3. To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  4. FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “

 

The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC,  FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.

 

Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.

From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then

  1. Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
  2. At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
  3. The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.

Karma eh!

Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors

“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;

Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the  SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?

This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.

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

About Auldheid

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

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


  1. paddy malarkey 10th August 2018 at 19:23  

    '..

    From Rolls of Court

    Outer House RollA97/18

    RIFC v Charles Alexander Green

    Commenced Wed 8th August -will close on Wed October 3rd .'

    ______________________

    For the benefit of the lieges, paddymalarkey, this just refers to the periods of time within which parties have time to adjust their pleadings.

    I had to look it up, and a useful link is   

    http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/court-of-session/chap22.pdf?sfvrsn=8
     

     

     


  2. laughbigboab1916 10th August 2018 at 09:57 ————- Good tip

    now how do you post an image?


  3. Hello again – EJ: I am in complete accord with your "tiresome discussion" comment earlier today in respect of the whataboutery on Morelos's red card. I would add that it is a continuation of LW2 and SJ's efforts to derail the blog into meaningless arguments which deflect from the objectives of the blog.

    Thanks for your response (from 12:05 today)  on the Henderson & Jones / Wavetower case – in the context of these court cases, I remember reading recently that the lawyers – Collyer & Bristow, I think – had been reluctant to disclose a document, or the contents of a document which had allowed them to extract £20m (or a similar amount) from Ticketus??? which increased the funds available to the liquidators by this amount.

    My recollections are rather poor but I remember thinking of 2 specific issues related to this –
    (1) at a future hearing (next week if this is the same case) C&B will be obliged to produce this document, or else ….
    (2) these funds will not be available to the liquidator until this issue is resolved ?

    Apologies in advance if I am confusing this case with another one ??
     


  4. Jimmy Bones 10th August 2018 at 22:15

    My recollections are rather poor but I remember thinking of 2 specific issues related to this –
    (1) at a future hearing (next week if this is the same case) C&B will be obliged to produce this document, or else ….
    (2) these funds will not be available to the liquidator until this issue is resolved ?

    Apologies in advance if I am confusing this case with another one ??

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

    You've got the right case.

    The document your refer to is the £24m out of court settlement agreement between BDO (on behalf of the Oldco) and Collyer Bristow (probably their insurers). 

    BDO/Oldco were willing to disclose the document to Henderson & Jones, but Collyer Bristow's solicitors, Clyde & Co declined, citing client confidentiality/privilege.

    Lord Bannatyne directed that Clyde & Co. should attend the next hearing and explain why they wish to retain the confidentiality, in order that he could decide whether or not it should be disclosed. 

    H&J are keen to find out if the reasons for the settlement (if recorded) are based on the values of the Assignation agreement with Lloyds and the Ticketus deal. If that is the case then it would help H&J case, if not, then the effect is neutral.

    The reason that it would help H&J, is that BDO previously rejected Wavetower's floating charge claim on the basis that the takeover deal was fraudulent in some respects.  If BDO subsequently relied on the same "fraudulent" deal to justify obtaining £24m from Collyer Bristow, then it should be possible for H&J to claim that BDO was wrong to reject the validity of the floating charge.

    All the above came out in the last hearing.

    Personally, I would doubt if the settlement agreement itself would list the reasons as the fraudulent deals.

     


  5. easyJambo 10th August 2018 at 23:01  

    '..BDO/Oldco were willing to disclose the document to Henderson & Jones, but Collyer Bristow's solicitors, Clyde & Co declined, citing client confidentiality/privilege.'

    ____________________

    Yes. Mr Dunlop QC for BDO made it clear to the Court that he could not on his own authority breach confidentiality, but (hint hint) if the Court ordered him he would be in the clear.

    Lord Bannatyne , I think, did not commit himself to anything other than 'inviting' CB to come- as piggy-in-the-middle of a dispute between others, to speak for themselves.

    It's entirely possible that CB might be able to show good legal cause why they should not be ordered to disclose details of the settlement.

    (Of course, if their barristers were  as poor as those who allowed TRFC Ltd to sign that  contract with SDIR………who knows?)

    I hope I can be there to hear at first hand.

     

     


  6. Jimmy Bones 22.15

    Are we not to discuss high profile incidents then?. The debate on here last season after the two Motherwell v Celtic games in November in which Celtic were awarded a penalty in each game, both in controversial circumstances iirc, were discussed at length without it being described as "tiresome". It seems to become "tiresome" when several incidents that show that Rangers can also be the victims of incompetent officiating are brought to light

    I am unaware of any new piece of information that could have replaced the "efforts to derail the blog" by either myself or TheLawMan2 in any case.  


  7. TheLawMan2 10th August 2018 at 13:15  

     

    The general consensus on here is that everyone in the whole world is Pro Rangers

     

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

     

    Where to start, but I'll have a go.

     

    1. Rangers stole tens of millions that should have gone to HMRC. Despite that the then Scottish First Minister decided they were 'part of the fabric of Scottish society' and that the tax that should have gone to schools, hospitals, and the Rangers fans beloved armed forces was immaterial.

     

    2. Then the SFA decided that tens of millions in unpaid tax should be rewarded with a bare minimum of a new club representing the old club entering the leagues at league 1.

     

    3. Then the media decided to ignore everything they had reported about liquidation being bad for Rangers, and instead deciding it was a really novel new concept in Scotland previously denied to any other club, which meant it was perfectly fine to steal money from HMRC,

     

    4. Then the same media ignored the fact a tax evading criminal had gained control of Rangers.

     

    5. Then the same media decided that a tax evading criminal who had gained control of Rangers was the go to guy for the truth.

     

    Everyone in the whole world is certainly not anti-Rangers!


  8. I’d like to make a suggestion 

    The main blog should be only for those who support the blog financially. 

     

    I’m getting fed up with the blog being hogged with attempted derails by those who clearly have a mission to undermine the core purpose of the blog 

     

     


  9. A couple of people have highlighted a behaviour where after posting, the page returns to the penultimate comments page.

    I have seen that happen occasionally in the past, but never though of it as being a real issue. Obviously it is.

    I think it is a session cookie issue, but I will investigate over the weekend and see if I can come up with a solution.

    Much of what frustrates folk are the design limitations of WordPress itself, but if you can give me stuff to add to a wishlist of changes you would like to see, we will do what we can.

    In fact I may create a thread for SFM Wishlist. Do that on Sat/Sun


  10. Barcabhoy

    The whole ethos of the blog has been to get the truth out to as many folk as possible. For that reason, we have always prioritised the free access to the main content. There is already a convenient myth that SFM can be an echo chamber. I don't believe that at all, but I think closing off content to people we could be otherwise be engaging in discussion would pose a serious threat to that.

    People who believe in the blog donate what they can if they can. Those who don't believe in our core principles probably won't, but our mission is to get them to either recognise the truth, or stop pretending they believe the nonsense. People who don't subscribe to our ideas are not all dishonest participants like some we have experienced recently and in the past. Those are the folk we need to keep a widow open for

    I understand the frustrations when sophists and pedants take over, but we all have the option to ignore. I don't think that ignoring a claim that the earth is flat will prove to many sane folk that the earth is in fact flat devil

    We are grateful to the likes of yourself and others who regularly contribute generously to keep the lights on, but the principal of paid-for content is I think at odds with our mission.


  11. SlimJim 23:57 on 10th August

    It's not for me to mandate what we should or should not discuss. The principal reason that I read and have contributed to the blog is that I wish to see those responsible for the major fraud in Scottish Football which culminated in the demise of Rangers in 2012 and the subsequent acceptance of Sevco Rangers brought to book.

    Until this happens, Scottish Football will continue to be seen as corrupt and everyone will be rightly suspicious of the authorities' reaction to these incidents.

    Your – and Steerpike's and Lawman's and so on – mission to derail the blog from what I consider to be the core purpose are tiresome and, I trust, futile and I hope that the moderators will soon see fit to remove posting privileges from the "accounts" which exhibit this behaviour.


  12. EJ 23:01 on 10th August

    Many thanks for your lucid explanation – where would we be without you?  


  13. A couple of people have highlighted a behaviour where after posting, the page returns to the penultimate comments page.

    I have seen that happen occasionally in the past, but never though of it as being a real issue. Obviously it is.

    I think it is a session cookie issue, but I will investigate over the weekend and see if I can come up with a solution.

    Unless they are building the pages hyperlinks I doubt it is session cookies.  It is probably exacerbated by the number of comments on the "To comply.." blog but the link below is the top link, at the time I started typing , on the 5 most rcent posts that appeatr on most pages.

    https://www.sfm.scot/to-comply-or-not-to-comply/comment-page-141/#comment-17963

    It won't work becaust the comment by Jimmy Bones is on Page 142.  The above is a stright copy and paste but if I edit it slightly

    https://www.sfm.scot/to-comply-or-not-to-comply/comment-page-142/#comment-17963

    that should work.  Another couple I copied before refreshing the browser

    https://www.sfm.scot/to-comply-or-not-to-comply/comment-page-140/#comment-17941
    https://www.sfm.scot/to-comply-or-not-to-comply/comment-page-141/#comment-17942

    which are both in the middle of 141 so only the 2nd will work and take you to a LM2 comment.

    And having attempted to post the URL I was redirected to was my comment but on Page 141 so it just took me to the top of 141 because it obviously couldn’t find the anchor


  14. slimjim 10th August 2018 at 23:57

    Jimmy Bones 22.15

    Are we not to discuss high profile incidents then?.

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

    SJ – it was me that used the term "tiresome"

    As I explained in my earlier post, it is the whataboutery that is the issue, not the discussion about individual incidents.  You appear not to have read or understood my post.

    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.

    Once a poster starts comparing incidents/outcomes, the whataboutery starts, and we get the "my team ends up on the wrong end of decisions more often than yours"

    What about the incident last season involving …..

    What about the incident three seasons ago involving …..

    What about the incident five seasons ago involving …..

    What about the incident ten seasons ago involving …..

    It's all "whataboutery" and "tiresome"


  15. people will all ways come on and try and distract us from the truth but the truth will hurt many of the people.but the better people will always know the truth  


  16. Yep been a whole lot of urine been spouted over the last few days by the usual few so much so that I have skipped over pages not just posts.


  17. Big Pink

    I’m not trying to shut down debate, rather I’m trying to ensure that those who do not want honest debate are subsidised by those of us who do .

     

    What’s clear is that there is at least one individual on here who posts under multiple usernames and has done so for some considerable time . I’d wager that there is no financial contribution made by any of these various usernames . Paid access would expose that and prevent it . 

     

    With regard to paid content , i’m not suggesting the article  is behind a paywall, only the ability to comment 


  18. The high profile incidents which have been discussed on here recently are really the bread and butter of phone in programmes who proceed to spread jam on them in an effort to illicit callers which in turn generates advertising revenue. Inevitably the “debate” splits along club lines and after 2 hours wherein the “experts “ in the studio also put in their twopence worth no one is any the wiser. This blog is different in that, generally speaking, the discussion is of stuff which broadcast and print media don’t go near for fear of opening unpleasant cans of worms. And there are plenty of cans to examine. Apologies for all the metaphors and that’s a word not often used on SuperScoreBoard unless it’s Laurie from Denistoun.


  19. I see Mark Dingwall is now calling for his cohorts to boycott House of Fraser stores. The bears are truly going up in the world! What a family photo album this will make; that's me picketing outside Sports Direct, then we went up in the world and this is me outside House of Fraser…

     

    Wouldn't it be Karma if Big Mike announced the orange tops would only be sold in House of Fraser storesmail

     

    Sorry, can't copy over link to Sun tweet.smiley

     

     


  20. Allyjambo 11th August 2018 at 10:36 4 0 Rate This I see Mark Dingwall is now calling for his cohorts to boycott House of Fraser stores. The bears are truly going up in the world! What a family photo album this will make; that's me picketing outside Sports Direct, then we went up in the world and this is me outside House of Fraser… ————— You forgot. That's me pickrting out side every club ground that put us down


  21. In fact I may create a thread for SFM Wishlist. Do that on Sat/Sun —————- If i can thank for all? thanks for feedback. One thing if i may? did try to donate last week, donation page just asked for username and how much to donate but no other details asked for. Don't know if it had my details stored,so that i did not have to go through it.I did send an email to see if it went through. Not checked my side of things to see if it did. so as of this morning don't know if i have donated or notheart


  22. I know some on the site don't like whataboutery. But..

    What about the threat to the British way of life and common decency by those who go about our streets dressed and covered all in black, slits like letter boxes and looking like bank robbers?  

    https://goo.gl/images/q73NSV


  23. Allyjambo 11th August 2018 at 10:36 4 0 Rate This I see Mark Dingwall is now calling for his cohorts to boycott House of Fraser stores. The bears are truly going up in the world! What a family photo album this will make; that's me picketing outside Sports Direct, then we went up in the world and this is me outside House of Fraser… 

    —————————–

    I think that MA also owns around 30% of Debenhams too.  Another one for the list?

     

    In fact he will probably look to merge the two companies to create a dominant high street presence.

     

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.


  24. Jimmy Bones 10th August 2018 at 22:15  

    Hello again – EJ: I am in complete accord with your "tiresome discussion" comment earlier today in respect of the whataboutery on Morelos's red card. I would add that it is a continuation of LW2 and SJ's efforts to derail the blog into meaningless arguments which deflect from the objectives of the blog.

     

    ___________________________________________

     

    Everybody talks about Morelos for days – Nothing said.

     

    I respond – "tiresome" and "derailing the blog"

     

    Seriously ???


  25. TheLawMan2 11th August 2018 at 11:54  

     

     

    Jimmy Bones 10th August 2018 at 22:15  

    Hello again – EJ: I am in complete accord with your "tiresome discussion" comment earlier today in respect of the whataboutery on Morelos's red card. I would add that it is a continuation of LW2 and SJ's efforts to derail the blog into meaningless arguments which deflect from the objectives of the blog.

     

    ___________________________________________

     

    Everybody talks about Morelos for days – Nothing said.

     

    I respond – "tiresome" and "derailing the blog"

     

    Seriously ???

    ____________

     

    Seriously???

     

    We haven't been discussing 'Morelos', he's genuinely not that interesting. We've been discussing the overturning of the red card that was, surprisingly, given, then unsurprisingly, but without merit, overturned.

     

    It is the deflections away from the topic at hand that are so tiresome and designed to derail the blog that has people looking for ways to stop these apparently concerted efforts.


  26. I personally don’t see any problems with what TLM2 has posted about Morales/refereeing/red cards/appeals. He’s offered his opinion in a reasonable way and engaged with other posters who have also offered their take on things. 

    I don’t agree with much of what he posts but on this I think it’s been fair enough. Can’t see any deflections and if there are then he is not the only one ‘deflecting’. Looks like a pretty health debate to me. 


  27. Watching Hearts v Celtic and enjoying a game of robust challenges and also some decent passing. A little disappointed with Naismith. I get his enthusiasm and admirable determination but it was demeaning of him to stand over and berate a prone player after kicking him up the erchie… twice. Other than this incident it has been tough but in the main fair.  Berra looks serious.. Hope its not a season killer for him.


  28. gunnerb 11th August 2018 at 13:38
    10 4 Rate This

    Watching Hearts v Celtic and enjoying a game of robust challenges and also some decent passing. A little disappointed with Naismith.

    Think his two kick outs were a discrace,think he still thinks he play’s for oldco and can get away with it. In the end he did


  29. Will the compliance officer have a look, as it was on TV at Nasmith's lashing out, or is it not worth his time now, ?asking on behalf of scottish football's reputation


  30. I have to admit I thought Morelos deserved a red card at Pittodrie so it would be hypocritical of me not to accept that Naismith should also have had one today. As a Hearts fan, I'm probably the exception to the rule in that I'm not a fan of Naismith and I actively dislike Lafferty and always will after his actions against Aberdeen several years ago when he deliberately and blatantly cheated to get an opponent sent off.

     

    That said, there's a lot of moaning on the internet tonight (not here) by unsporting Celtic fans claiming they lost to a bunch of hammer throwers, when the reality is that the better team by some distance won a match whose result couldn't even be explained away by the length of the grass.  


  31. by some distance won a match
    By about half a yard clearance off the line.but well done your team


  32. Naismith should've been off but Hayes tackle beforehand was dangerous I though.

    Never mind all that how long was the grass?  broken heart


  33. We won , scored some goals , no crowd trouble or distasteful chanting/singing . Refreshing .


  34. woodstein 11th August 2018 at 16:20  

    Your comment is awaiting moderation

    oopssmiley

     

     

     

     


  35. Bill1903 11th August 2018 at 22:11 4 0 Rate This Naismith should've been off but Hayes tackle beforehand was dangerous I though. Never mind all that how long was the grass?

     

    I'm sure i saw a few heifers on it.


  36. shug 11th August 2018 at 23:57  

    '…I'm sure i saw a few heifers on it.'

    ________________________

    You know, it's these little gems of witty ,  good-natured humour that make this blog a comfortable place.

    Nearly everyday there's a wee clever/funny observation of the kind that I think most of us enjoy when in relaxed convivial company. 

    And is the 'h' in heifers sounded?broken heart


  37. Re whether Naismith should have seen red yesterday. Hearts would no doubt have appealed using the Morelos decision as 'case law'. The panel who rescinded the Morelos card have created a huge rod for the SFA's back. I spoke to a Grade 1 official who said Morelos was a red card every day of the week, and that they are told to issue reds for such incidents. 

     

    My personal view is the panel may have felt intimidated by Gerrard's absurd post match comments and the way they were seized upon by the knuckledragging element. After all, as we well know what are supposed to be anonymous panels can have their names leaked if it suits a certain agenda, with subsequent threats following on. 


  38. upthehoops 12th August 2018 at 07:09
    4 3 Rate This

    Re whether Naismith should have seen red yesterday. Hearts would no doubt have appealed using the Morelos decision as ‘case law’. The panel who rescinded the Morelos card have created a huge rod for the SFA’s back. I spoke to a Grade 1 official who said Morelos was a red card every day of the week, and that they are told to issue reds for such incidents.

    In future games.What if a player lashes out with a kick. The opposition player retaliates with a lash out. All hell could break out,any red cards, just use the Morelos decision as ‘case law’.
    The headache this new club from ibrox must give Doncaster and co every day, if the panel may have felt intimidated by Gerrard’s absurd post match comments and the way they were seized upon by the knuckledragging element. After all, as we well know what are supposed to be anonymous panels can have their names leaked if it suits a certain agenda, with subsequent threats following on. serves Doncaster and co the headache they get every day.


  39. Cluster One 12th August 2018 at 09:15  

    The headache this new club from ibrox must give Doncaster and co every day,

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

     

    All they had to was apply their own rules in 2012 and we would be done with it. Instead they created a monster, put a charge of electricity through its neck, and now it is out of control and completely unmanageable. Any attempt to control the monster will see the gates stormed by angry hordes carrying torches and pitchforks. 

     

    I think we could be in for quite a season with inexplicable decisions. Rangers have in my view improved from last season from what I have seen. If it's nip and tuck with Celtic, or indeed any team at the top the pressure for Rangers to ultimately succeed will be overbearing. The media especially will ramp it up. Look at the hysterical nonsense they spouted before Rangers played Celtic last February. 


  40. Yes!  I'm back on, had huge bother signing on since Friday. My new password is quite funny.


  41. upthehoops 12th August 2018 at 10:11  

     

    I think we could be in for quite a season with inexplicable decisions. Rangers have in my view improved from last season from what I have seen. If it's nip and tuck with Celtic, or indeed any team at the top the pressure for Rangers to ultimately succeed will be overbearing. 

     

    _________________________________________________________________

     

    So with this pressure on, last week, a referee failed to see an incident yet sent a player off.  He could have went and spoken with his linesman and said, "look Rangers have to win today, can i get away with booking him" and the linesman would have said "of course" because he is under the same pressure.
     

    Fast forward 5-10 minutes and Josh Windass has an open goal and is pulled to the ground.  An absolute clear Red Card and the ref, knowing the pressure he is under to ensure Rangers win, could have made it 10 v 10 and handed the game to Rangers and nothing would have been said because everybody knew it was a clear red.

     

    2 clear chances to help Rangers and he went the opposite way in both of them.  I suppose you are right about that being inexplicable all the same UTH.  🙂 


  42. Slightly off topic.

     

    I read a report on Friday about a demonstration outside BBC Scotland H/Q in Glasgow.  The complaint is that BBC Scotland is not Scottish enough.  As far as BBC Radio Scotland is concerned that is rubbish.  I listened all day on Saturday and it is Scotland all the way. From news and current affairs in the morning to Off The Ball, Sportsound, Off The Ball, Take the Floor, Pipeline.  Thereafter the music programmes heavily promote Scottish singers and bands.  I love it. It's not called Radio Shortbread for nothing.

     

    I might have my complaints about their football coverage especially the balance of their pundits which leads to bias.

     

    But on the whole it does not come across as a satellite of the BBC in London.  The television service on the other hand could be doing with some more home based programmes.  And not the cringey ones, full of stereotypes.


  43. Below is a reasonable attempt by Aidan Smith of the Scotsman to take Stevie G to task over his absurd 'world against us' rant after the Aberdeen game, although he could and should have gone much further. The comment in bold is my own.

     

    We’ll be remembering this fabulously long, hot summer for decades to come. And we’ll also be waxing nostalgic about Russia’s World Cup, the best-ever if you were too young for 1970, packed with great games, big shocks, thrilling climaxes – and, most surprising of all, England didn’t stink the place out. So spare a thought for Steven Gerrard who can’t have got much of a suntan, who can’t have seen many of the Three Lions’ games in their charge to the semi-finals, and who couldn’t be in a TV studio this time, punditising and to-be-fairing and jumping up and down behind the glass when ruthless baby’s candy thief Harry Kane stuck out a cynical heel to re-route a team-mate’s shot and claim his hat-trick against the mighty Panama.

     

    Why the sympathy? Because Stevie G must have been squirreled away watching footage of old Rangers games. Tall towers of tape recordings looming over his desk, blocking out what remained of the sun’s brilliant rays. Thick pads of A3 scattered around, each of them chock-full of furious scribbles logging all the times the club were done out of a decision. Half-drunk cups of coffee, chewed pencils, the crumpled bags from so many Steak Bakes, the Greggs signature dish. This must be the scene inside Gerrard’s man-cave, it simply has to be. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to utter with any kind of boldness the juddering words “FOR SEASONS”.

     

    At Pittodrie last Sunday, Rangers had a man sent off and Aberdeen didn’t. The double whammy angered the manager who said: “It seems like the world is against us today … it looks like some more decisions will go against us as the season goes on. It’s not just today, it’s been happening for a while. That’s my opinion. I’ve watched footage, yeah. I believe it’s been happening FOR SEASONS.”

     

    The emphasis on the words is mine. I’m not suggesting that Gerrard bawled them into the dictaphones clustered about him, blowing the cheaper models. But they need capping up. The rest of Scottish football found them astonishing. How far back did he go? Did he sit though those seasons when Ibrox, resembling a building site, seemed to influence the team’s tactics with the likes of Bobby Williamson and Colin McAdam becoming human wrecking-balls as they hurled themselves at the doughty backlines of Airdrieonians and Dunfermline Athletic, the sparse crowds eventually deciding they must be watching It’s A Knockout! and urging boss John Greig to play his joker card pronto so they could all skedaddle?  If so, then respect to Stevie G.

     

    Michty me, there are so many questions I want to ask. (Then, as a so-called journalist, why not feckin' ask him, since that's your job?!!) Was Gerrard able to transfer the Betamax seasons on to something viewable? Surely he laughed, like I did and still do now, when Colin Stein boomed a shot out of Ibrox and right down the Copland Road, letting rip with an easily discernible expletive, which prompted a desperate attempt by Sportscene commentator George Davidson to protect the BBC’s Reithian probity: “And Stein says: ‘Oh, how near I was!” Did he stick with the Steak Bakes all the way through? I think we should be told.

     

    I love the idea of Gerrard rooting around the TV archives, scolding staff for wiping games, then searching charity shops for home-made recordings before calling in at the club superstore to request, again, a check of the final-reduction DVDs to be absolutely certain there aren’t rare clips of the mid-1960s Gers in those regulation thick shinpads seemingly cut from drainpipes lurking in a copy of Bert Konterman: My Rangers. I love the idea of the new boss undergoing deep immersion in Big Hoose heritage, emerging as someone who would breeze through Mastermind specialist-subject questions on the length of Lorenzo Amoruso’s love-god hair, the gradient of the Gullane dunes, how much higher the pegs are in the away-dressing room compared to the home one, a cunning act designed to intimidate the opposition.

     

    You wonder, though, what he makes of what he sees. Does he study footage of John MacDonald and go: “That’s a dive … that’s a dive … that’s a dive … and that’s his best starfish impersonation yet”? I mean, no matter that he’s begun looking at the world through light blue-tinted specs, how could he possibly reach any other conclusion?

     

    Gerrard may have scrutinised moving images of an old Rangers centre-forward and admitted: “That fellow’s close control is fairly erratic, I wouldn’t be surprised if he occasionally crumbled to the ground to gain some advantage – oh, it’s Alex Ferguson.” He might have thought the same of George McLean although knowing the latter was ridiculed relentlessly by the bunneted comedian Lex McLean he would have felt some sympathy. And Gerrard might have wondered about another McLean, Tommy on the wing: “By the sheer law of averages I don’t suppose this little guy with the feet stuck at ten to two can really have danced along the defensive line and stayed onside every time.” Gerrard must have done this because he’ll know, deep down, that Rangers aren’t on the wrong end of controversial calls any more than other clubs. Indeed, if he wasn’t intimately involved at Ibrox, he would probably concede that because of Rangers’ size and status, the pressure of the baying Govan mob on referees and goodness me the thickness of those flat-fronted Ibrox goalposts back in the day, they would likely have had more than their fair share going their way.

     

    This is the heartfelt view of the rest of Scottish football, established over many years of fruitless trips to the Big Hoose. Rarely if ever have these words been uttered on the journey home: “We got lucky there today.” I recall a match in the 1970s when it seemed that all the fates were conspiring against my team’s fightback. Every time the ball bounced over to the little three-wheeled cars of the disabled fans it took ages to be returned. There’s a suspicion those around Gerrard have been filling his head with conspiracy theories but I want to believe he’s gathered up all that film and watched the lot, I really do.

    Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/did-steven-gerrard-research-rangers-history-before-referee-complaint-1-4782494


  44. Jimbo 

    the demonstration outside the BBC was not about it not being Scottish enough. Rather it was to show how angry people are at the continuing bias shown by the Corporation in all things political. The BBC nationally is right leaning and this is being reflected here in Scotland.


  45. jimbo 12th August 2018 at 10:45  

    The complaint is that BBC Scotland is not Scottish enough. 

    ________________________________________________________

    I was at the demo on Saturday Jimbo.

    The actual complaint is that it is biased and promotes fake news.

     


  46. jean7brodie 12th August 2018 at 12:38  

    '…The actual complaint is that it is biased and promotes fake news.

    ______________________

    I certainly believe that its 'sports department' supports, and propagandises on behalf of, the biggest sports cheating event that has ever taken place in Scottish Football.

    The huge festering boil that is the lie that TRFC Ltd are Rangers 1872 is ignored when there are so many serious questions to ask of the SFA and RIFC plc.

    I assume, though, that the demo related to more obviously political matters relating to the perceived anti-independence stance of the BBC as a whole?


  47. Thanks for that additional information folks.  As you will see from the BBC website it is not clear exactly what the full story was.  I made a judgement based on this:

    "David McGuinness, one of the organisers, said: "BBC Scotland does not speak to the people, it speaks at the people.

    "It is London's voice in Scotland. It does not represent the voices of the people of Scotland. It is just a branch office of London."

     

    Politics apart, I thought that was very strong worded and unfair.

     

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-45156289

     


  48. I see the news today is that Celtic are a spent force and the Lawell has failed to meet the manager's expectations.  I am always fascinated by this story as it repeats up and down the world hierarchy every year.  I remember LMAO at a Walter Smith interview when he bemoaned the unfairness of the wealth of the big clubs in Europe that left (the original) Rangers in their wake.  Hello Walter, welcome to my world.

    If you flick over the news to England you'll see that Newcastle, Spurs and yes even Manyoo have also failed to spend enough this season.  My heart bleeds.  Here at Pittodrie we have (so far) failed to entice any quality to join us for 2.5 – 3k a week and have failed in a couple of 300-500k bids apparently.  We have also failed to attract anyone of quality merely by dint of our fame.  Same as Celtic really, and Manyoo for that matter, just a different scale.

    If our manager had 4 or 5 of Celtic's team from Saturday on our books (even better Christie and Allen) we would be very confident this season.  The aforementioned news from the SMSM is laughable, I hope Celtic fans don't buy into it.

     


  49. JC I couldn't agree more, otherwise I would not be on this site.

     

    Politics wise, ever since I can remember the BBC is accused of political bias. the Tories say it is left wing, Labour say it is right wing.  I know very little about their Independence stance, so I will defer to your better knowledge on that.

     

    I once did a media studies course at Glasgow University.  One thing came over very strongly.  They will always be biased towards The State.  Regardless of who is in government.  For instance they will never promote anarchy as a concept.  In times of National emergency – like a war – they will be the propagandist for the state, I would expect no less.

     

    It was a long time before the mess around Ibrox and Hampden.  I would love to have heard the prof's view on that. (Prof. Bill Miller?)

     

     


  50. So with this pressure on, last week, a referee failed to see an incident yet sent a player off. He could have went and spoken with his linesman and said, "look Rangers have to win today, can i get away with booking him" and the linesman would have said "of course" because he is under the same pressure. Fast forward 5-10 minutes and Josh Windass has an open goal and is pulled to the ground. An absolute clear Red Card and the ref, knowing the pressure he is under to ensure Rangers win, could have made it 10 v 10 and handed the game to Rangers and nothing would have been said because everybody knew it was a clear red. 2 clear chances to help Rangers and he went the opposite way in both of them. I suppose you are right about that being inexplicable all the same UTH.

     

    However lm2 it wasn't a penalty as coulibaly was offside before it got as far as the penalty claim get the offside correct and no pen no red card here the missed offside is the real issue.

     

     

     


  51. jimbo 12th August 2018 at 13:05  

    ___________________________________________________

    Couldn't disagree with you more Jimbo but this is politics and best left to another site.

    Yes John that was the reason for it.

    Enough from me on this.


  52. upthehoops 12th August 2018 at 10:11
    10 0 Rate This

    Cluster One 12th August 2018 at 09:15

    The headache this new club from ibrox must give Doncaster and co every day,

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

    All they had to was apply their own rules in 2012 and we would be done with it. Instead they created a monster, put a charge of electricity through its neck, and now it is out of control and completely unmanageable. Any attempt to control the monster will see the gates stormed by angry hordes carrying torches and pitchforks.

    Or they will release a very strong worded statement that the world is against them or something.Call for a boycott of green plastic cups,get the details of someone onto facebook. If any authorities step in they will birate them on twitter that they can find a sand castle on a beach but not a person with a knife on a nearby street.
    Cheer a convicted criminal, who may have done more harm in the long run and lash out when the electricity is finally cut off and the monster lies dead.


  53. Are we getting a mute facility on here? It would be really handy. 


  54. upthehoops 12th August 2018 at 13:39 0 1 Rate This Are we getting a mute facility on here? It would be really handy. ————— We already have one.I can't hear a thing on this blog


  55. ernie 12th August 2018 at 13:11  

    If our manager had 4 or 5 of Celtic's team from Saturday on our books (even better Christie and Allen) we would be very confident this season.  The aforementioned news from the SMSM is laughable, I hope Celtic fans don't buy into it.

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

    I had an extensive debate yesterday with many fellow Celtic fans about recent events. The general view is that Rodgers may be frustrated at current transfer policy, but that he HAS been backed by the board. The wage bill has hugely increased, players such as Rogic and Tierney have been tied down long term, and the club has broken its transfer record. The club now has the best pitch type available to buy, and improvements have been made to the training ground. Rodgers himself calmed the waters with his post match interview yesterday, and hopefully he is now seeing the way the Scottish media operate. A Kilmarnock supporter of my aquaintance remarked the other day that to him it is obvious that the media are trying to create an issue which simply isn't there. On the specific issue of John McGinn no-one I spoke to was in favour of him being signed on a higher wage than people like McGregor and Forrest to name but two, who have already proven themselves at the club. To pay him the £23k a week he is reportably getting at Aston Villa would have been madness, and no-one could see a case for him earning more than Stuart Armstrong was, who left for England in a £7m transfer with the same length of time left on his contract as McGinn. I wish young McGinn well, but to answer your question not all Celtic fans are buying into the media's attempts to create a crisis where none exists. 


  56. TheLawMan2 @ 10.42

    The only 'inexplicable decision' last Sunday went in favour of 'Rangers'; instead of them being given a penalty, a free-kick should have been awarded to Aberdeen for an offside in the build-up to it.

    On both the sending off and the penalty, the referee depended on the linesman who had the better view. He saw one and missed the other.

    The one he missed resulted in a goal.

    For what it's worth, I don't buy into all this refereeing bias in favour of one team or another. Some make mistakes like we all do and others are just bad at their job and should go and do something else that they are good at!


  57. Re the offside, if the full back had not pulled Windass back, then Coulibally would not have got anywhere near the ball.  He is only offside when its deemed he is interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

     

    And Sergio Biscuits, your last paragraph is 100% spot on.


  58. TheLawMan2 

    12th August 2018 at 14:55  

     

    Re the offside, if the full back had not pulled Windass back, then Coulibally would not have got anywhere near the ball.  He is only offside when its deemed he is interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

     

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

     

    Since when, I thought for a player to be ruled offside he had to be in an offside position when the other player played the ball, not when he touched it. Hence players being ruled offside when a through ball is played, not when he receives it. 

     

    From http://www.offside-ref.co.uk/laws/11-offside-rule/detailed/

    A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

    • interfering with play
    • interfering with an opponent
    • gaining an advantage by being in that position

     


  59. Another red to be rescinded today.

    SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

    A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

    • denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

    DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY

    Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

    The following must be considered:

    • distance between the offence and the goal
    • general direction of the play
    • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball

    1)  It was an attempt to play the ball.

    2)  The ball was going wide and away from the goal after the player touched it. 

    3)  distance between the offence and the goal

     


  60. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11—offside

     

    Offside position

    It is not an offence to be in an offside position.
     

    Offside offence

    A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

    • interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
    • interfering with an opponent by:
    • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
    • challenging an opponent for the ball or
    • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
    • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

    The Windass offence took place before Coulibally had the opportunity to do any of the above.


  61. the BBC being objective as ever…

    BBC Sportsound‏Verified account @BBCSportsound 51m51 minutes ago

    RED CARD : Rangers down to 10 men as Ross McCrorie gets sent off for a slide tackle. Full commentary on Sportsound 92-95FM/810MW/online/DAB.

     

    No mention that the Saint was through on goal with a goal scoring possibility…

    They probably appealed it at HT and McCrorie'll be back out soon.


  62. Lm2 urine he was offside well before that try and be honest for a wee change otherwise you are not worth engaging with.


  63. As usual you just change what you said

    "He is only offside when its deemed he is interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate."

    So now its any one of a variety of things, but he didn't have the opportunity to have done any of them.

    I'm done on this, you'll just change your position again. 

     


  64. I wonder how Ross McCrorie will get on with his red card appeal this week? A new chew toy for LM2 to play with if nothing else.


  65. No appeal im guessing as Gerrard has apparently said the ref got it right.

     

    Though he didnt.  mail


  66. A big week for Mr king coming up,wonder if he has opened a UK bank account yet?


  67. Cluster One 12th August 2018 at 18:15  

     

    A big week for Mr king coming up,wonder if he has opened a UK bank account yet?

     

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

    I think he will try and pull another stunt to kick the can down the road again. 


  68. Why doesn't he use Close Brothers? I thought they were a bona fide financial institution with overdraft facilities like a bank.?

    They must be able to handle deposits and withdrawals.

    I would guess they come under the umbrella of the TOP.

Comments are closed.