Comment on Bonkers OCNC Thread by Auldheid.

    One point for the main blog really

    When exactly did Grant Thornton learn the small tax case was lost on implementation? 

    Now THAT could be crucial.

    Auldheid Also Commented

    Bonkers OCNC Thread
    TheLawMan2 23rd August 2018 at 09:48  






    Rate This



    Auldheid 23rd August 2018 at 01:27  

    Very interesting comment at Point 9.  I wonder if this was shown to the court in the Craig Whyte case ?


    As for selling as a Going concern ?  Selling as a going concern with no debt is different from the position at February 2012. 


    Nonsense. Sophistry again.

    Rangers were liquidated because they no longer were a going concern.

    What was sold was an opportunity for someone to make a going concern of a failed business using the assets of that failed business after the debt that prevented it being a going concern, was left with the business in liquidation, that business being that of a football club called Rangers FC, quickly renamed Rangers 2012 so as to appear different.

    More sophistry there too. I really should ignore you as the troll you are.

    Well if you ignore that the club with the going concern was going iNonsensento liquidation because it wasn't a going concern, leaving an opportunity to create a going concern in its place.


    Bonkers OCNC Thread
    Lawman2 13.04


    6)  UEFA a bit in the middle.  Unlike other fellow fans, I 100% believe the Traverso letter to Resolution 12 guys is real.  I am firmly in the same camp as Reiver on the issue though in that I do not see any reason for Traveso to introduce the “/company” to the letter.  If he had ended it at “club” then this would definitely be a stronger argument for their stance on it.  Many people bring up that the UEFA rules state “only a club…..” etc so why put the /company in.  I believe he did so because there is a context behind it and I believe Reiver is correct to say his view should be challenged or clarified.


    He introduced it because he was talking about a NEW club/company in Article 12 terms which are the underlying authority.

    That was entirely accurate to cover the current applicant as being first of all a CLUB that is a legal entity taking one of the two forms under a) and b) of that article.

    The context as I have explained ad infinitum was his using the fact that TRFC were new and so not the same as RFC, as the reason why UEFA could not sanction the new club/company.

    As I have repeated ad nauseum why use the word new if it was not central to his justification? I have explained the use of the term "club/company" I await as I have done for months for you to explain the use of the word new in the context of Article 12. 

    Are you saying TRFC come under a) which is a club with membership of the SFA with no written contract with a company or a football company with a written contract with a club with a membership of the SFA that began in 2012 under Article 12?

    To help here is what a company with contract with a club must have from the relevant UEFA FFP of 2010.

    Did one exist prior to 2012 between RFC and anyone?

    If RFC were a detachable saucer like the Star Ship Enterprise then should such a contract not exist?

    If it had no written contract RFC was a club and a registered member of the SFA as a club, a club that ceased to be one as far as UEFA are concerned in 2012 ,and was replaced by a new club or, if a written contract exists a new football company with a contract with a new football club. (If it were not a new club it would not have had to satisfy the Article 12 requirement to have 3 years membership of the SFA to be eligible to apply for a UEFA Licence.)

    Article 45 – Written contract with a football company

    1 If the licence applicant is a football company as defined in Article 12(1b), it must
    provide a written contract of assignment with a registered member.

    2 The contract must stipulate the following, as a minimum:

    a) The football company must comply with the applicable statutes, regulations,
    directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and
    its affiliated league.

    b) The football company must not further assign its right to participate in a
    competition at national or international level.

    c) The right of this football company to participate in such a competition ceases
    to apply if the assigning club’s membership of the association ceases. 

    d) If the football company is put into bankruptcy or enters liquidation, the right to
    apply for a licence to enter an international and/or national competition
    reverts to the registered member. For the sake of clarity, should the licence
    have already been granted to the football company, then it cannot be
    transferred from the football company to the registered member; only the
    right to apply for a licence the following season reverts to the registered

    e) The UEFA member association must be reserved the right to approve the
    name under which the football company participates in the national

    f) The football company must, at the request of the competent national
    arbitration tribunal or CAS, provide views, information, and documents on
    matters regarding the football company’s participation in the national and/or
    international competition.

    3 The contract of assignment and any amendment to it must be approved by the
    UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league.


    Bonkers OCNC Thread
    I came across this by chance and although I'm happy to leave the Glasgow Underground OC/NC train from St Enoch's to Copeland Road to carry on its circuitious journey I thought this letter from Grant Thornton of 15 Feb 2012   would at least question if the business and assets that Duff and Phelps sold to Sevco were a going concern, as auditors G & T didn't seem to think so.



    Fill yer boots folks. See you at Hyndland.

    Recent Comments by Auldheid

    In Whose Interests
    It's all so obvious now looking back  so why is a sham being allowed to continue to stigmatise Scottish football?

    Whose interests is it really in to sustain  a myth at the expense of whatever future Scottish has?




    In Whose Interests
    Cluster One 4th November 2019 at 18:50 


    Auldheid 4th November 2019 at 16:56
    I hope when this is concluded the Res 12 guys get back every penny spent.



    It is a thought……

    In Whose Interests

    The Res12 Archive has been updated to cover Celtic’s response to the most recent Resolution to bring Res12 of 2013 AGM to a conclusion. If you are not a shareholder it explains what was proposed & why and what Celtic actually oppose. All at 25th October date.




    In Whose Interests

    More for Celtic shareholders but perhaps of wider interest to others  regarding the rear guard action to protect the status quo and in doing so keep moral hazard alive.

    One of the key points with regards to whether a UEFA Licence was awarded correctly in 2011 lost over time is that neither Celtic (nor the SFA ) have ever once voiced an opinion themselves in public in spite of opportunities to do so at every AGM since 2013 as to whether an overdue payable existed or not at 31 March 2011.

    It has always been about the process of uncovering, never any opinion aired on the strength of the case and the prima facie conclusion.

    The argument for silence before charges were made over 2 years ago in May 2018 was that of not wanting to prejudice proceedings and one that had to be accepted for fear of doing just that.

    However after 2 years of supposed investigation is it not time Celtic aired an opinion rather than hide behind a process that has been demonstrated carries no authority to investigate of itself hence the stall in proceedings?

    The Res12 Archive at https://www.res12.uk carries some interesting information, one such, possibly overlooked as it refers to the 2012 Licensing Cycle and the application for a UEFA Licence by RFC just weeks before entering administration is in a letter dated 1st February 2012 from the SFA to Rangers.

    It addresses the still unpaid wee tax bill from 2011 and it can be read at


    The relevant part comes under Article 50 about the overdue tax disclosed at 31 December 2011 (which was the £2.8M owed from March 21st in 2011) where it says such tax had now to be paid by 31st March 2012 or be viewed as an overdue payable if there was no agreement to postpone or was in dispute.

    Significantly it says the Licensing Committee would need sight of any relevant correspondence to be satisfied the amount is a genuine legal dispute.( presumably meaning subject to one)

    The significance is that in the 2011 process the Lic Committee were not told it was a payable at 31 Dec 2010 but a potential liability where there were ongoing discussions giving impression of dispute ( the actual words used to satisfy the Lic Comm in a letter from Grant Thornton RFC Auditors were repeated in more or less the same form in the Interim Accounts) .

    However did the 2011 Lic Comm ask for relevant correspondence that did exist to substantiate the proof RFC offered the SFA to obtain a licence? They did in 2012 so was the difference that RFC disclosed there was a payable in 2012 but not in 2011.(RFC could hardly do otherwise after Sherriff Officers turned up at Ibrox in August 2011)

    That is the detail but as this information is in SFA records where comparisons can be made and conclusions drawn then it cannot be that after 2 years there is no case to answer but it is the fear of facing the consequences that is the reason to stall and stall.

    Seven years have passed, there is still a club playing football at Ibrox and the events in question precedes the liquidation of the club who committed the offence.

    So why not admit what is now clear to the world and THEN explain why its not in Celtic’s interests to push the SFA as well as not going to UEFA and let the SFA then explain themselves?

    Stop treating Celtic shareholders/ supporters like idiots.

    In Whose Interests
    On moral hazard, TRFC's accounts and the risk to all clubs of it and why Celtic taking a lead on SFA reform reduces the risk to all clubs in our game. Posted on CQN but applies to all football supporters in Scotland.

    Rangers Accounts.

    Two words.

    Moral hazard.

    The conditions that led to season 2010/11 and the granting of a UEFA licence on what looks like immoral, and actual breach of regulation, grounds have reappeared.

    Going for 10iar? Is it about bragging rights for us but stopping it survival for them in financial terms? How far would the SFA go to rescue TRFC from their self destructive folly with collateral damage to all clubs? How far would Celtic?

    What lengths will TRFC, aided and abetted by a paralysed SFA, go to to stay alive?

    Look what they did in March 2011 to get access to CL money. What has been done to deter more of the same?

    How will other clubs with dependency on there being a TRFC, view matches against them and us? Even if Celtic are stand alone, they are at risk because of moral hazard (apart from natural leanings of those with influence on results.)

    Celtic cannot remain silent on the SFA’s apparent inability to act to save our game. We have every reason to demand reform so why isnt it being demanded?

    Why mess about for 6 years when all the leverage required to make Scottish football honest was there to be used to that effect?

    It is unbelievable that those in charge at SFA and clubs don't seem to realise the current “do nothing” course is steering Scottish football on to the moral hazard rocks.

    If it’s not in Celtic’s interests to take Res12 to UEFA does that apply to not getting the SFA to commit to an acceptable timetable to complete their stalled “investigation” and somehow restore some sense of integrity and honesty to Scottish football