What follows is a record of an exchange in October with David Conn of The Guardian in respect of an article written by him in August 2016 reporting the arrival of The Rangers FC in the top tier of the SPFL.
In that article David Conn suggests that there was no tax overdue in respect of “The Wee Tax Case” of 2011 because he was told by the SFA that agreement had been reached with HMRC to postpone payment until after the Takeover by Craig Whyte and on those grounds the SFA granted a licence.
For such an agreement to pass UEFA FFP rules muster it had to be in writing, signed by HMRC and dated 31st March 2011 or earlier. There were behind the scenes discussions on this point and attempts were made separately at the time to obtain such written unpublished documentation that complied with UEFA FFP regulations from Darryl Broadfoot the Head of SFA Communications, but in spite of promises it never arrived.
Not surprising as, had it existed, Celtic would certainly have been informed when they first wrote to the SFA in December 2011 – thereby rendering Resolution 12, placed at the 2013 Celtic AGM requesting UEFA to investigate the UEFA licensing process throughout 2011 as truly unnecessary.
The first e mail (edited with cosmetic changes to aid reading by a wider audience but no change of sense) made the following points to Mr Conn on 9th Oct 2017…..
Dear Mr Conn.
On 5th August 2016 you wrote an article about the arrival of “Rangers” into the top tier of the SPFL.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/aug/05/rangers-scottish-premiership-tax-issue
(* A relevant extract from that article – in italics – can be read separately at the end of this blog)
Given that the Craig Whyte trial in July 2017, revealed discrepancies (already known to the Celtic shareholders pursuing Res12) between what was stated at the trial and what was reported to the SFA and UEFA during 2011 in terms of the status of the wee tax case liability, then it would appear that your article:
- Does not fully reflect what took place, giving the impression over two paragraphs that a written agreement signed by HMRC to postpone payment had been reached between HMRC and RFC by 31st March 2011. Had this been so it would mean that there was no overdue tax payable at 31st March 2011 as UEFA define an overdue payable to tax authorities.
- However what was revealed in court in July 2017 was that RFC had accepted the liability before 31st March 2011 and so it was not “potential” with “discussions continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised”, as reported in RFC Interim accounts on 1st April 2011. It was for this reason the SFA have asked their Compliance Officer to investigate what took place and had there been a written agreement to postpone prior to 31st March 2011, there would have been no need to describe the liability to the SFA in the way that it was.
- Further your article does not fully reflect the reason why “Rangers” had to wait three years before playing in European competition, which was that UEFA viewed “Rangers” as a NEW club/company. This was not mentioned although the SFA, who advised you they held an unpublished HMRC letter also held a copy of a letter dated 8th June 2016 from UEFA Head of Club Licensing Andrea Traverso (copy attached) to that effect.
Consequently will you be following the SFA Compliance Officer investigation, and indeed will you be telling him the basis on which you reported the SFA’s position in your article of August 2016 without revealing sources of course?
Importantly in terms of all your other investigatory work into skulduggery, are you also aware that despite what you may have been told by the SFA, Resolution 12 was and is ultimately about making the SFA more accountable and transparent to supporters, an aim which I think you would surely support and is there any chance of you helping with that aim by considering what has caused the SFA to finally capitulate and do what Res12 asked for in 2013, albeit domestically?
A national football association using the media to try to derail a genuine investigation into their behaviour is surely of national, never mind Scottish, interest?
In some ways it matters little now if Rangers gained and retained that licence by deception as the court statement indicates, with the result the SFA Compliance Officer is conducting an investigation.
What matters more is that the SFA have used the absence of accountability to cover up their part in the licensing process, not just from March through to September 2011 but to ignore genuine enquiries from supporter/shareholders of a member club from 2014 to July 2017. During which time their positions;
- that the bill had not crystallised, or
- was subject to dispute or
- was under appeal or
- that after 31st March, monitoring was not an SFA function, as stated by SFA CEO Stewart Regan,
were exposed (in court) as self-serving myths.
The SFA and how poorly they serve the game in Scotland because they are accountable to no one is THE story of Resolution 12 and you could help bring accountability about by reporting how you were duped by the SFA in August last year and report on what the Compliance Officer finds.
As it is your August article has undermined your reputation somewhat as someone whom I understand seeks better accountability and transparency from football authorities.
PS what Celtic shareholders lawyers reported to SFA, and when, is available if you decide to engage.
Yours etc
After a couple of reminders, one copied to The Guardian Sports Editor a reply was received dated 8th November 2017 in which Mr Conn said.
Hello
Thank you for your emails and apologies for not having replied sooner; I have been very busy recently. I have seen that some questions have been raised about the piece I wrote in relation to this. I understand that this issue has been of great interest to people; however, I do not currently have plans to revisit it.
Thank you for your interest and apologies again for not replying sooner.
D Conn
As the SFA Head of Communications, Darryl Broadfoot, who departed from his post in January 2017, would most probably be the person to whom David Conn spoke. He is the same person who failed to clarify this article at:
by STV reporter Grant Russell, who also recently departed from his job at STV.
The STV article omitted certain references about UEFA treating The Rangers FC/The Rangers International FC as a NEW club/company, a piece of unsolicited information that was contained in a UEFA response to Celtic shareholders’ lawyer from Andrea Traverso, Head of UEFA Club Licensing) and which was copied to the SFA a week before STV published.
Some may also remember the strange episode where The Guardian accepted an advert from the Celtic AGM Resolution 12 requistitioners in 2016 attempting to draw the attention of Resolution 12 on a tax evasion aspect to the wider tax paying British pubic. Having accepted payment for a “Persistence Beats Res12tance” advert, The Guardian for some unexplained reason changed their mind and decided not to publish and refunded the payment.
They have been coy on answering who, what or why they changed their mind and as can be seen from the above reply from David Conn appear unwilling to pursue the UEFA 2011 Licencing issue further (at least for now). Hopefully those plans will change when the SFA investigation is complete, whatever the result.
Mr Broadfoot although no longer an SFA employee, appears to be continuing in some capacity as an SFA spokesman given his appearance on BBC Sportsound on 8th November along with Paul Goodwin of the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) to discuss the findings of an SFSA survey involving over 16,000 supporters that highly criticised the SFA for their governance of Scottish football. The programme segment can be heard here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sQRFX2vOWUvkaeRAEEYL3vzMqdXGFE8T/view?usp=sharing
The overriding point here though is not the credibility of main stream media outlets, which is at an all-time low, but the use of those outlets by the SFA officials using the media in an attempt to produce an outcome that suits them and a single SFA member club at the expense of the value of the shares held by shareholders in another SFA member club.
Awareness of the impact on shareholder value of member clubs by SFA decisions is yet another issue that an enquiry into SFA methods/processes should address, particularly since HMRC made the SFA aware in 2009 of their concerns about Rangers use of ebts in player contracts.
Until such an investigation takes place the SFA will be viewed as no longer fit to govern Scottish football in its present form.
Extract from Conn Article of 5th August.
Even now, an allegation persists the SFA was deficient in allowing Rangers a licence to compete in the Champions League during that season, 2011-12. The case, based on leaked documentation from the time and pressed by a group of Celtic supporters on their club to pursue as resolution 12 of the 2013 annual general meeting, was recently argued strongly in a report by the Tax Justice Network campaign.
The argument is that in breach of Uefa rules against clubs having overdue tax payable, Rangers owed £2.8m on a discounted options scheme following a successful HMRC challenge known as the “wee tax case”.
The SFA is adamant its committee which considered the licence dealt with the issue thoroughly and received the necessary evidence the tax was not overdue according to Uefa rules. One informed source involved with the issue at the time, who did not want to speak publicly owing to continuing criminal proceedings against Whyte arising out of his tenure at Rangers, said that at the initial deadline, 31 March 2011, HMRC had agreed that the £2.8m did not need to be paid until after his May 2011 takeover.
Before subsequent 30 June and 30 September deadlines, Rangers, by then owned by Whyte, are understood to have told the SFA they were in discussions with HMRC over the money owed. Uefa rules allow tax not to be treated as “overdue” where there is a written agreement with the tax authority for payment to be extended.
The SFA, although declining to disclose details of the documentation it received, citing confidentiality with its member clubs, told the Guardian via a spokesperson: “The Scottish FA has always been clear the licensing award issued to Rangers in 2011 by the licensing committee was correct. The process is audited on an annual basis by Uefa.”
Uefa, pressed on the issue again recently, said: “The licence for the 2011-12 season was granted by the SFA and there was no reason for Uefa to doubt this decision.”
Uefa has said it has no need to investigate further if the tax was in fact overdue according to its definition, because after that season, Rangers’ fate anyway equated to a sanction for breach of the rules: they could not play in European competition for the following three years. HMRC, taking a stern view of clubs defaulting on tax, declined to approve a company voluntary arrangement with creditors and Rangers went into liquidation.
Paddy Malarkey
======================
You’ll be up to your knees in something PM.
Once again .
EB do you believe that the EBTs used by ragers 1872 were loans or wages for players
A simple yes or no will suffice .
I was looking at No Mean City and find the titles of the last four chapters to be slightly amusing .
XV11 -THE VANITY OF THE KING
XV111 -DOWNHILL WITHOUT BRAKES
X1X -CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
XX -CHECKMATE
Just random .
One thing is sure tonight TGSL and his fellow loan givers will be crossing everything for the team to deliver 3 pts tonight .
I fear that an adverse result tonight would not bode well for tomorrow ,there seems to be more and more sevco supporters starting to ask questions about how their club is being run .
There were more than a few not very nice comments when news broke that he was flying in today .
As some have said, maybe he has something to pull from his bag.
Then again maybe he has checked in a full suitcase of moonbeams and look what happened to the old club when the guy running that came out with a load of them .
I wonder what the price of a hover pitch comes in at nowadays
FAN OF FOOTBALLNOVEMBER 29, 2017 at 18:00
As some have said, maybe he has something to pull from his bag.
————-
Administration
Aberdeen are a good price to win tonight at ibrox..The bookies have woken up to the fact it’s not rangers anymore……Darn
Fresh in from CAS
http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release__English__5311.pdf
Can I get some views from you good folks on Phil Mac and JJ.
Personally I have found Phil to be spot on most of the time and I enjoy his writing style with the cavalcade of characters ranging from a Magnificently Maned Factotum to the Serious Professional – it’s enjoyable and like I say, usually accurate or prescient. I couldn’t give a toss about his views on irish republicanism or wearing a poppy.
JJ comes across to me as if it is all about him, going on about his exclusives, his living in exile and he is keen to lay the boot into Phil and claim to be a much better informed source. Me, me , me is my impression of JJ and I’m still waiting for his ‘exclusive’ on the ownership of Dundee United to come to fruition. That said, some of his stuff is good although I care not a jot for his views on the McCanns.
I have donated to Phil but not to JJ – just not sure about it.
Any views from you good people greatly appreciated and advice on any other good blogs out there.
Aberdeen?
Well, that’s my beer tokens gone early .
New manager Interview tonight?
Looks like we’ve got ourselves another troll. Gives himself a name designed to wind up the Hearts supporters here, but not those who support TRFC, and, with his first post, trolls two other sites that are both seen by bears as anti-TRFC.
The night before TRFC’s AGM someone is attempting to set two blogs against each other, with us in the middle, by setting up a tit for tat style ‘debate’, in a way that no Celtic supporter would do. The fact that both these sites are likely to be giving the AGM some in depth analysis of a quality that won’t appear in the SMSM tomorrow, might explain this rather unusual first post. Hopefully those who follow those sites see it for what it is.
Ally Jambo – you need to get out more because you are looking far too deeply into something, adding two and two and coming up with 9.873 or something similar. It really was a serious question. I think you’ll find JJ’s comments today in particular to be very ungracious towards Phil and I have reservations about donating but am open to alternative views before
It has nothing to do with the Rangers AGm=M – get a grip. And as for my Username, yes I am a Hibs supporter and Albert Kidd is much admired down our way. So what? And why should I choose a name to wind up TRFC?
Finally, it was not my first post – I posted on Sunday.
Allyjambo November 29, 2017 at 20:18
5 1 Rate This
====================
Don’t worry Ally, your current thumbs up / down count will put him right.
ALBERT KIDDISGODNOVEMBER 29, 2017 at 19:38
Albert , don’t know if I count as one of the good folks, but you’re a big boy – make your own mind up . The posters on here are generally too polite to malign others, which is basically what you’re asking them to do .
Me from earlier….
One thing for sure is that Ibrox saga always has some expected twists and turns to keep us all amused.
——————————————————————————————-
And that seems to be played out on the park as well.
Murty back in with a shout of the Managers Job?
McInnes (as I recall arguing with Homunculus sometime back), despite being able to win against others fails, yet again fails to put T’Rangers to the sword.
His teams seem to have a mental block when it comes to the crunch.
Compo or not can’t see him being on many folks wish list down Ibrox, or anywhere else for that matter. Best stay where he is.
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 29, 2017 at 20:18
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
In no way vouching for young Bert, but he has posted before (going on the assumption that’s who you were referencing).
Edit, Damnit! Should’ve refreshed before posting!
Once again .EB do you believe that the EBTs used by ragers 1872 were loans or wages for players A simple yes or no will suffice .
The match from Ibrox this evening was on SKY TV. The Fir Park game was not on TV. Sky can also be watched in the pub, or on a one day purchase at home via the internet.
This afternoon I checked the schedules of Radio Scotland to confirm the Motherwell v Celtic game would be the match that they were covering. Instead it mentioned both games. I was puzzled. I thought Oh no, surely not one of those annoying ‘open all mikes’ broadcasts. But no. Ibrox first half, Fir Park second half.
Doesn’t seem right to me.
causaludendiNovember 29, 2017 at 21:29
Regardless of how many posts AKG has made previously, one from what he tells us, it was still a post more likely to be, at best, disruptive, leading to even more bad blood between the three blogs involved at what could be a pivotal moment at Ibrox, in fact, doing the SMSM’s job for them. At a time when we’ve had visiting trolls, a new poster with a name genuinely designed to wind people up (a Celtic supporter with such a name would be less of a wind up, fine on a Hibs site, or even a general football blog where wind ups are what it’s all about) and a second post (no idea what he said in his first) totally out of context with what we are about or have recently been discussing, looks very much like a troll to me, although he tells us he’s not, and, of course, no troll would ever say he’s not a troll.
Anyway, we can watch out for his next contribution, hopefully it will be more about what ails Scottish football than something that could create a bigger wedge between the two blogs he mentions and involve ourselves in any fallout.
jimboNovember 29, 2017 at 22:02
Totally agree with you on that, Jimbo. Obviously nearly all TRFC and Aberdeen supporters could, with a bit of effort (but I realise many couldn’t) get to a TV to watch the match, while only a limited number of Celtic and Motherwell fans could attend the match, itself. We know BBC don’t have to worry about their ratings, but as a public service broadcaster, you’d think they would cover a match that would be of interest to the largest number of the public and so maximise their listeners.
You’d think it would be a simple calculation for them, two matches being played at the same time, one match on the telly, the other on the radio – regardless of which teams are involved.
jimboNovember 29, 2017 at 22:02This afternoon I checked the schedules of Radio Scotland to confirm the Motherwell v Celtic game would be the match that they were covering. Instead it mentioned both games. I was puzzled. I thought Oh no, surely not one of those annoying ‘open all mikes’ broadcasts. But no. Ibrox first half, Fir Park second half.
Doesn’t seem right to me.
Jimbo i was prepared to listen to the radio until this
Before the commentary they stated so and so will be at fir park whilst willie will comment from the big telly in the studio. The BBC who are barred from Ibrox entertain this mob by giving them air time from a sky subscription BBC are cowards I am sure if so many of them did not follow them and buy into the lie they would tell the tribute act to piss off,
WOTTPI
NOVEMBER 29, 2017 at 21:28
McInnes (as I recall arguing with Homunculus sometime back), despite being able to win against others fails, yet again fails to put T’Rangers to the sword.
=======================================
His team were second in all three domestic competitions last season, they are also currently sitting second in the SPFL. That’s pretty good going as far as I am concerned.
Why on Earth would he be judged by his results against one team.
He would be Rangers best option as a manager just now, if they can afford to pay Aberdeen the compensation they are entitled to, and if he wants to go there.
From what I can see neither is the case just now. Mayhap there will be an announcement in the near future to change that.
So the BBC Radio Scotland team were in a studio commentating from the SKY TV pictures! What a joke of an organisation they are.
A wee bit late, but ……
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/42176342
The statement on the ‘Rangers FC’s website investors page about the exemption from having to make an announcement on the Regulatory Information Service about any offer that Dave makes doesn’t really, as far as I can see, tell us whether he has complied or is about to comply with the TAB’s instruction , before the judgment of Lord Bannatyne (whatever it is) is known.
Has Dave seen some sense? Is he about to make the offer?
Well, I thought I would ask people who might know.
So I have emailed the Takeover Panel, as below:
“30 Nov at 01:02
Good evening.
May I ask whether Dave King has now complied with the requirement imposed upon him by the Takeover Appeal Board to make an offer to the shareholders of RIFCplc to buy all the shares that he and his fellow concert party associates do not already own?
Lord Bannatyne has not yet made public his decision on the petition by the Takeover Panel that the Court of Session should make an order to secure King’s compliance.
But the Rangers FC investors’ website seems to have made an announcement about the ‘dispensation’ from the requirement on an ‘offeror’ to use an approved Regulatory information service to announce that an offer is to be made.
That has made me think that King is about to comply,in advance of the Court’s decision.
Can you say?
Yours sincerely,
[me]
Why do I get the feeling that by tonight a casual observer could be mistaken for believing everything in the Ibrox garden is rosy! A group of hand picked journalists will make sure of that.
Homunculus November 30, 2017 at 08:36
Presumably you were at the game to have seen the incident, what actually happened.
==========================
I can’t answer for our latest troll, but I can say I wasn’t at the game, so can only go with the TV replays.
The blog is aptly named “Who Is Conning Who?”
How I saw it was that McGregor initiated contact by forcing his body between Rose and the ball, then immediately hit the deck, having made no attempt to play the ball and thus obstructed Rose in the process. Willie Collum gave the penalty before McGregor completed his forward somersault.
How did you see it?
Good Morning TSFM
St Andrews Day
WOOOOOOOOOF! (a la Archie McPherson!) I assume its five stars for Willie Collum from you then EJ?! ??
Happy St. Andrew’s Day aebody! (Think that’s how you spell it).
Daily Record live reporting from the AGM is very poor. Like watching paint dry. Bring back James Doleman.
causaludendi November 30, 2017 at 10:40
WOOOOOOOOOF! (a la Archie McPherson!) I assume its five stars for Willie Collum from you then EJ?!
===========================
Let’s say he’s not my favourite ref.
In fact I’m struggling to think of a favourite ref.
Following on from the minimal contact at the weekend, IMHO last night’s penalty decision was even more ludicrous.
Regardless of my views the test will be the consistency shown by refs through the rest of the season.
One the basis of these two recent decisions in favour of the Invincibles, be prepared to see players from all other teams falling like pack of cards at the slightest touch inside the box over the next few weeks.
I predict there will be at least one similar incident where a penalty won’t be awarded this coming weekend.
At least it will keep the Sportscene boys in a job.
WOTTPI
NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 11:05
Following on from the minimal contact at the weekend, IMHO last night’s penalty decision was even more ludicrous.
Regardless of my views the test will be the consistency shown by refs through the rest of the season.
—————————————————
That really is what is required – consistency. There isn’t any at the moment.
I watched last night’s game at Ibrox. The officials were (or appeared to be, and for want of a better word) inconsistent throughout.
AFC v. TRFC on Sunday will be a match where the referee (Mr. Collum) may well require shinguards!.
Last night’ s penalty, was celtic’s first award in the league this season.
Why all the fuss?
A prompt response from the Support group of the Takeover panel to my email of earlier this St Andrew’s Day.
“Support Group <supportgroup@thetakeoverpanel.org.uk>To:*******
30 Nov at 11:01
Dear Mr. *****
Thank you for your enquiry. As you say, we await Lord Bannatyne’s decision. To date Mr. King has not complied with the requirement imposed upon him by the Takeover Panel.
Regards
Support Group”
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 10:13
Homunculus November 30, 2017 at 08:36Presumably you were at the game to have seen the incident, what actually happened.==========================I can’t answer for our latest troll, but I can say I wasn’t at the game, so can only go with the TV replays.
The blog is aptly named “Who Is Conning Who?”
How I saw it was that McGregor initiated contact by forcing his body between Rose and the ball, then immediately hit the deck, having made no attempt to play the ball and thus obstructed Rose in the process. Willie Collum gave the penalty before McGregor completed his forward somersault.
How did you see it?
========================
All of this diving to secure penalty kicks is undermining the integrity of Celtic and Scottish football in general. The standard of refs is also shocking. It’s about time we started using refs from overseas to ensure impartiality.
Well the RIFC AGM has come and gone for another year, with little challenge from the floor.
The main message coming out seemed to be that all their problems emanated from “Social Media”
easyJamboNovember 30, 2017 at 12:08
Well the RIFC AGM has come and gone for another year, with little challenge from the floor.
————————————————————————
I think we could make that statement about most, if not all, AGMs. And not only of football companies!
JINGSO.JIMSIENOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 11:26
BOGS DOLLOXNOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 11:39
Regardless of the teams involved it is consistency we should be looking for.
Just watched T’Rangers v Aberdeen highlights.
End of first half Tavernier pulls back Gary Mackay Steven in a similar manner as occurred with Kipre-Sinclair at the weekend.
Just at the edge of the box. GMS stays on his feet. No foul given. Travenier then follows on and places his hands on GMS’s back when he is in the box trying to get off a shot.
Intent to grab hold back, impede forward movement and contact all the same from the defender.
The difference and why no foul given? GMS as the attacker chooses to stay on his feet. (Good on him)
IMHO Refs are giving permission for players to become men of straw in the box.
G&SL
Statement to AGM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-updates-rangers-fans-11613745
For those who do not wish to click on link see upload.
Rangers AGM 2017 recap: All the major talking points from the Gers .
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/…/rangers-agm-2017-clyde-auditorium-glasgow-dave-…
King on finances of Rangers: “Club cannot take future [loan] funds for granted if it continues to make losses. “Board’s responsibility to make sure this doesn’t happen.”
Could someone please expalin to me:
I am confused why would a club which is not a company need loans and how can a club make losses if it is not a company.
As a Rangers fan, I watched the Aberdeen game last night and then saw the highlights from the Celtic game and I can say this ‘referee conspiracy’ nonsense from both sides is exactly that, nonsense.
The Celtic penalty was never a penalty and was a very bad decision by Colum. For what it’s worth I think the Rangers penalty was a penalty, but for the rest of the game we were lucky not to finish with 9 men after a shocking tackle from Holt and an elbow by McRorie. Aberdeen were also unlucky not to get a penalty when Tav pulled GMS down, which could have been a red card too. Aberdeen also seemed to get away with murder with some of their tackles. But on another night with a better referee Aberdeen could have won that game. But let’s remember the games against Hibs and Hearts earlier the season (Hibs in particular) where Rangers were robbed by poor refereeing decisions.
There is no Masonic conspiracy, no ‘fear of Lawell’, no ‘old firm preferential treagment’. Just very very poor referees and shocking refereeing decisions.
wottpiNovember 30, 2017 at 12:14
JINGSO.JIMSIENOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 11:26 BOGS DOLLOXNOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 11:39
Regardless of the teams involved it is consistency we should be looking for.
Just watched T’Rangers v Aberdeen highlights.
End of first half Tavernier pulls back Gary Mackay Steven in a similar manner as occurred with Kipre-Sinclair at the weekend.
Just at the edge of the box. GMS stays on his feet. No foul given. Travenier then follows on and places his hands on GMS’s back when he is in the box trying to get off a shot.
Intent to grab hold back, impede forward movement and contact all the same from the defender.
The difference and why no foul given? GMS as the attacker chooses to stay on his feet. (Good on him)
IMHO Refs are giving permission for players to become men of straw in the box.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whilst I can take your point regarding the need for consistency I genuinely believe the issue is with impartiality and I have done for years. At best it may sometimes be an unconscious swaying of a decision by the influence of a big crowd at worst it is quite open favouritism and I’ve seen so much of it over the years.
At least with overseas refs the mistakes would be truly “honest”.
easyJambo
November 30, 2017 at 10:13
Homunculus November
30, 2017 at 08:36
Presumably you were at the game to have seen the incident, what actually happened. ========================== I can’t answer for our latest troll, but I can say I wasn’t at the game, so can only go with the TV replays.
The blog is aptly named “Who Is Conning Who?”
How I saw it was that McGregor initiated contact by forcing his body between Rose and the ball, then immediately hit the deck, having made no attempt to play the ball and thus obstructed Rose in the process. Willie Collum gave the penalty before McGregor completed his forward somersault.
How did you see it?
==============================
I haven’t seen it at all, haven’t seen any of the highlights so I can’t really comment. Hopefully I will get a chance to see it later.
Which part of this answers the question.
The SFA has member clubs, if it was the same club why would there need to be a transfer of that membership.
If anything it defeats the argument. If “RFC” was sold to Sevco (Scotland) Ltd and it was the same club then … why did the membership have to be transferred. It was the same club, just with a new owner it would already have been a member.
1. RFC according to SFA articles was a separate entity from its owner/operator RFC PLC.
2. RFC according to SFA articles could be sold by RFC PLC and bought by Sevco (Scotland) Ltd.
3. SFA Article 14 enables a membership transfer with discretion,and it was transferred from RFC PLC to Sevco(Scotland) Ltd.
4. SFA declare RFC owned and operated by Sevco(Scotland) Ltd as same club with continuous history in accordance with Articles.
5. UEFA accepts the legitimacy of SFA Articles.
6. Scottish football is governed in accordance with its Articles not Insolvency or Company laws.
What’s a penalty and what does it look like ?
Now there’s an ominous message from the chairman of a PLC.
“Of course, running a loss-making business requires funding and this requires the ongoing support of shareholders to ensure that the legal permissions are in place. We cannot do as we please when introducing funds. So far, the Board has been successful in securing the cash resources that have been required – often at short-notice – but we cannot take future funding for granted if there is no end in sight to the Company’s losses, or if we take on excessive risk during this intervening period. It is the responsibility of your Board to ensure that this does not happen.”
HomunculusNovember 30, 2017 at 13:56
—————————————————————
Have had a look and have to say it looks a shocking decision to me from the angle shown in the highlights. The ref is in a perfect spot and has no hesitation in awarding a penalty though. So is he incompetent or inconsistent (with other decisions he has made or with how other refs have decided in similar situations). The Celtic man was looking for a pen and got it. As long as players do that we will have these controversies on a regular basis.
DARKBEFOREDAWN
NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 13:42
As a Rangers fan, I watched the Aberdeen game last night and then saw the highlights from the Celtic game and I can say this ‘referee conspiracy’ nonsense from both sides is exactly that, nonsense.
—————————————————-
Last night, I saw at least three fouls (all given by a well-positioned referee) which should have been bookings, but which did not receive a yellow card. All three fouls were committed to stop the team in possession making a fast break. Two other players, committing similar fouls, were booked.
One player was sent off for a second yellow card offence. Another player, also on a caution, had committed a similar offence (in a similar area of the pitch) moments earlier, but did not receive a second yellow.
When referees are inconsistent in their decisions, it’s an obvious jump to make to select conspiracy or bias as the reason for their apparent ‘errors’. The simple fact is that Scottish referees, when working in SPFL/SFA competitions, aren’t very good. I suspect that there is a feeling of greater pressure upon them working in Scotland than in other countries because of the assessor in the stand.
I also suspect that if AFC had been more competitive, in football terms, at Ibrox last night & without the distraction of the RIFC AGM today, there would be a lot more about the officials in the SMSM today.
Darkbeforedawn November 30, 2017 at 13:42
. I agree with what you say about the referees by the way! At least I want to agree.
For what it’s worth I think the Rangers penalty was a penalty, but for the rest of the game we were lucky not to finish with 9 men after a shocking tackle from Holt and an elbow by McRorie. Aberdeen were also unlucky not to get a penalty when Tav pulled GMS down, which could have been a red card too. Aberdeen also seemed to get away with murder with some of their tackles. But on another night with a better referee Aberdeen could have won that game. But let’s remember the games against Hibs and Hearts earlier the season (Hibs in particular) where Rangers were robbed by poor refereeing decisions. There is no Masonic conspiracy, no ‘fear of Lawell’, no ‘old firm preferential treagment’. Just very very poor referees and shocking refereeing decisions.
——————————————————————-
I think you are too kind to a team who just did not turn up (again in Glasgow) in the first half but you might also have mentioned that the 3rd goal (I know it was over by then) was way offside
Talking to my Sheep mates after the game last night, they reckon they got what they expected on the field , but were incensed by their treatment when trying to enter the ground . Enhanced security checks and a limited amount of open turnstiles caused them to be delayed so that they missed the penalty award and goal . The TRFC supporters they travelled over with had no such problems .
For those of you who have never had the pleasure of refereeing a football match:
1. Once a player gets between the defender and the ball the player is deemed to be in control of the ball.
2. It is then up to the defender to react to prevent impeding his opponent
3. The defender impeded his opponent by using the outside of his right (wrong!) foot/knee (thigh?) to make contact with the outside of his opponents left foot, causing that foot to knock the ball forward and pushing him to the ground with both hands
4. The defender’s actions would be deemed a foul challenge on every part of the field of play and a direct free kick awarded to his opponent
5. The referee gave direct free kicks for the numerous other challenges of this nature perpetrated by both teams throughout the match.
6. The referee correctly adjudged it to be a penalty.
EB just answer the question a simple 3 or 2 letter answer is all that is required.Do YOU believe that the EBTs used by rangers 1872 were loans or wages for players a simple yes or no will suffice or do YOU believe like that old dead club that you once supported that cheating is the way to go. Cheats then cheats still cheats always.No amount of verbal diarrhoea will change the fact that you are hurting because you and yours stood by and let your club die.I am now bored with you and the p++h you spout.
Whether anyone is going to accept the offer or not is irrelevant.
The order was to make the offer.
The “No-one would take it anyway” argument is basically the one which Dave King’s QC used in the Court of Session, along with “My client doesn’t have any money so can’t afford it”.
We will see what happens once the Court of Session rules. That will be a completely different situation from refusing to comply with an order from the Takeover Panel.
I have asked this before. Do people think King will provide more loans, and take payment in shares if he is, for example banned from being a Director in the UK. If he cannot make his proclamations as if he owned the club (rather than under 15% of it’s Holding Company).
I have my doubts.
I read a few reports today that a shareholder made mention of whether Dave King went to a non denominational school or St. Margaret Mary’s. Don’t know if this was tongue in cheek to raise a giggle or not but Dave Kink blanked it apparently. Which is fair enough as far as it goes, however I wish he had taken the opportunity to put the questioner in his place and said something along the lines of that being an inappropriate thing to say. Might have sent out the correct vibes from the club.
‘People are being hit by coins and getting stuff thrown at them pretty much every week now just because we’re doing so well in the league and the away fans don’t like that.’ – Scott Brown
I don’t know if you are in full deflection mode, but the solution is in the hands of your own club, Scott. Just go and have a word with Peter Lawwell and ask him to propose that “strict liability” be put into operation in the Scottish game. That way clubs will be liable for the behaviour of their supporters, and I’m sure that it would trigger a significant reduction in coin throwing and other actions that put players’ safety at risk.
*King not Kink
EJ, very much in agreement with strict liability. It seems any time it is mentioned at Hampden it is the clubs themselves who are against it. It would help to reduce several problems quite quickly but at a cost in the short term.
HomunculusNovember 30, 2017 at 15:06
You quote from King ‘..”…..if there is no end in sight to the Company’s losses…” says Mr King.
__________
It is a strange form of words to come from the lips of a plc Chairman [doubling as a ‘not fit and proper’ football club director, it may be truthfully asserted. Not that the SFA has noticed!]
But my eye fell on this :
” ..Supporters, in turn, whether shareholders or not, don’t want pin-striped suits who have no passion for the club dictating how their club s run.As I stated during question time last year,this is exactly why I believe that football clubs should not be listed- but that remedy is now not available to us”
Rangers FC plc delisted from the AIM, without too much bother.
Is there something that legally prevents RIFC plc (as a company whose shares are traded only on the PJ Jenkins matched trade basis ) down-grading to private company status?
King evidently hates the idea of being accountable to ‘the public’ in public: much rather keep information inside, than have to go completely public with company accounts and fully detailed annual reports.
Homunculus November 30, 2017 at 15:06
John Clark November 30, 2017 at 18:35
————————————-
There was a further comment in King’s statement re losses that beggars belief.
“it will be a value creating strategy to incur losses for a number of years as, if this is not done, it will be impossible to revert to the Club being number one in Scotland.”
Basically, the strategy is to speculate to accumulate. I haven’t a clue if they have a Plan B if Plan A doesn’t work. Plan A didn’t work for the Oldco and is unlikely to work with the Newco.
New video has appeared of the motherwell penalty.Hoping mr a rose apologises for fibbing.See video celts.
Motherwell has raised the ante.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DP5w2DsWkAEqjoc.jpg:large
To non Celtic supporters.
Having read a bit of what emerged from today’s AGM I think one description that could be applied to TRFC/RIFC in terms of putting them at the top of the heap is “front loading”.
This front loading to pay for a team by loans that is capable of playing in Europe so that the UEFA money eventually pays the loans that made front loading possible, is that how FFP is supposed to work or does it stand for Financial Fair Punt?
Why don’t other Scottish clubs do it and does such financial dependence on a UEFA place not constitute an integrity risk to the game?
Assume Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen are playing TRFC in last 3 games of a season and all are nip and tuck on points, but failure to obtain eligibility to apply for a UEFA licence from a finishing league position does not put the future of the 3 at risk but it does TRFC’s,how do the supporters of the 3 clubs named know that this survival dependency will not play a part in the games that decide final position?
It happened in season 2010/11 when a CL place was so essential for RFC’s survival not only were referee decisions in RFC’s favour noticeable, RFC were prepared to deceive to get a licence to get their hands on UEFA money.
At the moment Celtic look too far ahead financially for this to concern them but what about the 3 clubs named? Do their Directors not have a duty to their supporters to get clarification onTRFC/ RIFC’s business model?
Then when enough UEFA money from EL is secured making a title challenge possible, do Celtic Directors not have a responsibility to question the risky TRFC/ RIFC business model and should they not be doing so now in conjunction with the 3 named clubs rather than wait until the risk of not winning a title comes knocking at Celtic’s door?
Are UEFA ok with the TRFC/RIFC business model? Perhaps they are but the question should be asked of them by Scottish clubs in the Premier division of the SPFL.
I don’t understand why the club’s are not demanding answers from SPFL/SFA/UEFA in order to assure their supporters that the ticket they are being asked to purchase to watch a sporting event will depend totally on sporting performance and not on financial chicanery.
I don’t understand either why supporters are not demanding such assurances before they buy a ticket.
SHUGNOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 19:01
New video has appeared of the motherwell penalty.Hoping mr a rose apologises for fibbing.See video celts.
=======================
The video certainly shows there is far more to the incident than how it is being portrayed, but it won’t make any difference to how the media report it. They have what they want, and they won’t change it.
First question from the floor relates to Takeover Panel. King says matter was heard at CoS and not yet had a ruling. Issue is a ‘simple one’ and says New Oasis will continue to provide funding. Shares won’t be held in his name
—————
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 16:44
Of course, King’s initial problem, if he was honourable enough to consider complying, is that it doesn’t matter how many actually accept the offer, he still has to have a rather large amount of cash (enough to personally underwrite the offer) in place before the offer is made.
————
Did DK not say in court he had no control over New Oasis that is why a large amount of cash from them was not going to appear to underwrite an offer?
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 19:11
Motherwell has raised the ante.
====================
I guess we can expect media outrage and a Referee’s strike now…
Question about when Rangers will be ‘self sustaining’. DK says it will only be when RFC are competing in Europe. Funders will continue to do what is necessary. Some loans will be outstanding after share issue but will continue to be interest free.
what share issue? cart before horse.
The final results of the Resolutions will be announced on the Rangers website ‘as soon as is practicable’.
————
It looks like we are back to Ally territory again europe or bust
EASYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 18:00
==============================
No, the solution is violent idiots stopping throwing missiles at players.
It is the same solution with regards vandalism. Violent idiots stopping wanton mindless destruction.
Find them, prosecute them and ban them from football grounds.
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 18:49
————————————-
There was a further comment in King’s statement re losses that beggars belief.
“it will be a value creating strategy to incur losses for a number of years as, if this is not done, it will be impossible to revert to the Club being number one in Scotland.”
Basically, the strategy is to speculate to accumulate. I haven’t a clue if they have a Plan B if Plan A doesn’t work. Plan A didn’t work for the Oldco and is unlikely to work with the Newco.
===================================================
What will the Scottish football authorities do about a club announcing that it plans to lose money for a number of years, and covering that with loans presumably. In order to become “number one in Scotland”.
Is that Financial Fair Play compliant.
This one had me on the floor.
DK says Rangers were legally prevented from disclosing the £3million payment to Sports Direct as part of the agreement reached earlier this year.
————-
Oh yes we will agree not to say anything about the £3 million.We will tell the fans we won like we said we would and they will buy last years tops.and the SMSM will lap it up.
King had the pen out to so fast to sign that agreement he nearly took someones eye out.
Then you have to ask why would SD want,need such an agreement. Who really wanted this agreement more DK or SD?
CLUSTER ONE
NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 19:21
Did DK not say in court he had no control over New Oasis that is why a large amount of cash from them was not going to appear to underwrite an offer?
—————————————————————–
From the 2016 accounts, see the very bottom of page 55.
https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2016/10/Rangers-Reports-and-Accounts-2016.pdf
‘New Oasis Asset LimitedShareholder
On 22 May 2015, the company entered into a loan agreement with New Oasis Asset Limited totalling £1.5m repayable in December 2015. Since this date, this loan has been available on demand and New Oasis Asset Limited has advised that they will extend the facilities available whilst the funds are required by the Club.
In December 2015, a further loan facility of £3m was agreed, of which £2.2m has been drawn down at the year-end. This amount remains outstanding at 30 June 2016 and is due for repayment in December 2017. New Oasis Asset Limited is a company controlled by the Group Chairman, Mr D King. No interest or fees are to be charged in respect of the facilities and the loan is being provided on an unsecured basis.’
That changes slightly in the 2017 report:
https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2017/11/Rangers-Reports-and-Accounts-2017.pdf
Page 57 this time:
New Oasis Asset LimitedShareholder
The loan facilities provided were formally extended during the year to a repayment date of July 2018 and December 2018. New Oasis Asset Limited has advised that they will extend the facilities available whilst the funds are required by the Club. New Oasis Asset Limited is a company in which the Group Chairman, Mr D King and his immediate family are interested. No interest or fees have been or are to be charged in respect of the facilities and the loan is beingprovided on an unsecured basis.
He seems to have ceded control somewhere along the line.
…Or has he???
Homunculus November 30, 2017 at 19:32
EASYJAMBO NOVEMBER 30, 2017 at 18:00
==============================
No, the solution is violent idiots stopping throwing missiles at players.
It is the same solution with regards vandalism. Violent idiots stopping wanton mindless destruction.
Find them, prosecute them and ban them from football grounds.
==============================
If it was possible to pick out the individual offenders on every occasion I would agree with you. However, I do think that clubs need to be more accountable for those who purport to support them when inside the ground. Start with fines, progress to closing sections of the ground, leading to points penalties or expulsion from a cup should a player be hurt. You still won’t eradicate the drunk nutter who is intent on doing damage, but I do believe that many, who might participate, would think twice.
You don’t need to restrict the sanctions only to objects thrown of the pitch. Fans running onto the pitch, or those endangering others by the use of flares / fireworks / smoke bombs should also result in some culpability by the clubs.
Clubs, the football authorities, the police have ignored such incidents for far too long. It’s a sad indictment that only UEFA appears to have the balls to tackle such issues, despite our clubs and the SFA barely giving lip-service to the problem.
Hopefully this will settle the argument.
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/936275297347031041