Comment on In Whose Interests by Auldheid.

    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?




    Auldheid Also Commented

    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.

    Recent Comments by Auldheid

    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    My thoughts on UEFA doing the SFA's job against the responsibilities of the SFA to UEFA.

    Who’s The Daddy ? SFA or UEFA

    In essence are the SFA following UEFA rules in the spirit and letter that UEFA intend with regard to protecting the integrity of professional football in Europe?

    Bad Money?

    Here are the relevant UEFA FFP Articles from UEFA FFP 2018. What intrigues me is the terminology as in no mention of any holding company anywhere in UEFA FFP, which raises the questions:

    Are RIFC  PLC a football company ?

    Do they have a written contract with The Rangers FC Ltd?

    Whose name is  now on the application from Ibrox for   a UEFA Licence, The Rangers Football Club Ltd or Rangers International Football Club Plc ? 

    (in 2012 pre administration when The Rangers Football Club PLC applied for  UEFA licence (that was refused) the applicant named on the application template was Rangers Football Club.


    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, this is deemed to be an interruption of membership or contractual relationship within the meaning of Article 12. For the sake of clarity, should the licence  already be granted to the football company, then it cannot be transferred from the football company to the registered member. 

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

    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.

    Article 12 and 1 b says.

    Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant

    1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
    for a football team participating in national and international competitions which


    a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
    league (hereinafter: registered member); or

    b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football


    Bad Money?
    tykebhoy 11.49.


    I'm not au fait with detail of break even requirements or the detail of TRFC Ltd accounts re their income streams, but this article sets out the principles when UEFA first introduced the break even  concept and how that has softened over the intervening years.

    The link is to  Part 1 which then links to Parts 2 and 3 and it's a very informative read in terms of  the underlying principles at play.


    In terms of a club operated by a separate company I know there has to be a written contract between the 2 parties and if memory serves me well if insolvency occurs the UEFA licence granted is not transferable but I'll copy the actual UEFA Article.

    Between the two readers should get an idea of the principles UEFA intend their rules to uphold and the distance between those principles and those of the Scottish Football authorities.

    Bad Money?
    Here is a link to CQN article.


    Bad Money?
    Today’s CQN blog is an informative one on DK and SDI/MA judgement and what it tells us.

    There is however a bigger picture in which all of this operates as I’ve set out in this response.


    Whilst I appreciate the sentiment of keeping a fool in charge of Rangers I cannot reconcile that with keeping fools and liars in positions to cause widespread damage to society.

    These are the people ok, People of the Lie (read M Scott Pecks book of that title).

    Plausible physcopaths who live in an unreal world that they think they can make real.

    At a Res12 meeting two Christmas’s back I said Celtic were dealing with a criminal organisation and if that reality hasn’t dawned on Celtic by now (and other clubs who have turned a blind eye) then the game, like the wider UK society under Boris and his gang, are heading for hell in the same hand cart as Trump.

    Where is domestic fair play? Where are the stiffer rules on independent licence policing? Res12 was intended to provide leverage to make that happen. A Dougie , Dougie moment writ large. Why wasnt the lever pulled?

    What if Rangers Ltd go bust again? Will it be rinse and repeat and will those responsible for protecting the name of Scottish football repeat the insanity of the 5 Way Agreement in the hope doing the same thing will produce a different result?