Comment on JPP: Perverting Justice? by Auldheid.

    I came across this article today when trying to explain the genesis of the points deduction for going into administration.

    The author makes a case for removing the rule now because it is not the deterrent it was intended at the time and HMRC now keep a closer eye on clubs defaulting on PAYE.


    However it got me thinking.

    We all know by now that the wee tax case calculation of tax owed was based on PAYE terms on the basis that the ebts used were designed to underpay HMRC what they were owed in 2000/2001/2002. 

    So if non payment of PAYE is deemed to have offered clubs an unfair advantage to such an extent that it was recognised in 2003 a ten points deduction was merited to offset that sporting advantage, then  why was that principle not taken into account by Lord Nimmo Smith nor indeed the SFA/SPFL in his commissioning?

    Now I'm not sure when the SFA/SPFL introduced the points deduction for administration rule but when they did they must surely have recognised the underlying principle because they applied the rule in 2012 when RFC entered administration and deducted them 10 points for doing so and of course non payment of PAYE was one of the reasons administration became necessary.

    I appreciate that at the time LNS ruled that the early DOS ebts were wrongly treated as continuous with the BTC ebts and in any case preceded for the most part the date the points deduction rule was introduced, but after the Supreme Court ruled that RFC owed tax on the BTC ebts, as long as the tax owed was based on the same PAYE principles as a tax on wages  then why was a ten points deduction not applied to each of the seasons the rule was in place in Scotland? 

    It is the logical outcome of applying the principle that introduced the points deduction rule in the first place.

    Now if someone can be bothered to establish when the rule was introduced in Scotland and apply a ten points deduction to RFC we might get an idea of the cost to other clubs through those years in terms of prize money lost due to lower league placing.

    We might then get a greater appreciation of why the SFA/SPFL do not want to go there, who would pay compensation to whom?

    Ach its international week. Nothing else happening. Go on go on. 

    Auldheid Also Commented

    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    John Clark

    UpThe Hoops


    Res 12 has been mentioned every year from the top table at the AGM since 2014.

    Typically it was 'the matter was at some stage of investigation so wait" either with SFA in 2014/15, then when that failed to get satisfactory answers ,UEFA in 2016 which again raised more questions than answers, but provided enough information in terms of dates licence granted and UEFA informed of clubs granted to continue pursuit after a hiatus waiting for the Craig Whtye trial to come out with what the evidence already suggested and (for LNS) the Supreme Court decision.

    The testimony at the CW trial in summer of 2017 led to the Compliance Officer investigation that took seven months to lay charges in May for a Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal to scrutinise, but TRFC claimed in July the matter was one for CAS.

    That was after fresh evidence was presented to the previous Compliance Officer in June this year which in effect made investigation unnecessary as it basically provided a narrative covering the whole of 2011 from March to September, which was what Res12 was looking to achieve.

    As the podcast says, Res12 was prompted by the question " How come Sherriff Officers turned up on 10 August 2011 if there was no overdue payable at end March? 4 months seemed a short time to go from not owing HMRC anything to HMRC taking final measures to collect.

    Thus previous statements at the AGM were joint ones with shareholder's rrepresentatives because information was still being sought and at last year's AGM, although unhappy at further delay, it was difficult to argue with Celtic's stance of waiting for the Compliance Officer process to establish what took place. No one expected it to take 7 months.

    That stance in view of how the SFA Judicial Process has ran into the ground is going to be difficult to justify, particularly since no further formal investigation is needed.

    As long as no one has come up with a Bryson type interpretation of the rules that explains how the licence was granted in accordance with them, then difficult questions need to be answered by the SFA to satisfy Celtic shareholders to prevent the further action of taking the issue outside football law as it was never designed to deal with dishonesty at the level that occurred from 2000. 

    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    There is a podcast up on E Tims at 

    Talkin Bout a Resolution – Special Podcast

    that discusses where matters stand  on the JPDT investigation into the granting and retention of the UEFA licence to Rangers in 2011.

    I read some welcome comments regarding the culpability of SDM on this blog and the SFA having dumped all the blame on Craig Whyte are still at it in the JPDT. You do wonder what hold Murray has over Scottish football.

    The following is from the comments section on E Tims to help understand the discussion.

    The UEFA licence was only granted because of false proof offered to the UEFA Licensing Committee at end March 2011 by Grant Thornton, RFC auditors.

    By then the liability had become a payable as RFC asked the bank for permission to pay following accepting the liability on 21st March..

    The payable did not meet the 4 criteria that would prevented it being overdue so was an overdue payable.

    During May 2011 from 5th to the 20th, three3  HMRC letters that confirmed it was a payable and not a potential liability was not provided to SFA as required by the rules.

    That allowed SFA to inform UEFA of clubs granted a licence on 26th May.

    The false narrative that failed to describe  the liability as a payable at end of March continued in the June and September monitoring points.

    SDM regime started the falsehood. CW regime continued it.

    The behaviour meets the description of fraud. In particular the proof offered at end of March.

    This is the dilemma that Celtic, the SFA and UEFA now face and why the can has been kicked down the road from the day Sherriff Officers turned up at Ibrox.

    As events have shown football karma did what the SFA didn’t and took away the UEFA income Rangers had relied in since 2008 when they spent money owed to taxpayers on players that then won 3 titles. Had Karma not intervened in the shape of McCoist in 2011 no one would have been any the wiser.

    HMRC would have been paid the £2.8m. Rangers would have paid the PAYE and VAT they stopped paying in Sept 2011 that eventually caused insolvency, all from CL participation.

    The desperation to keep a version of Rangers in the game has manifested itself since 2012, so why would Rangers not risk fraud in 2011 and how desperate would the SFA be to deny them the chance of survival?

    Chancers one and all.

    The only questions are:

    Where does blame start?

    Where does it end?

    How many Scottish journalists wages depend on not investigating and reporting what took place?


    p style=”margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px”>How do we know it will not happen again with a club who hold the rules in contempt and an SFA who allow them to?

    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    wottpi 10th October 2018 at 09:58  Edit This






    Rate This



    StevieBC 10th October 2018 at 00:34  


    As I posted a few days back it is also the ideal time for Budge to join the party along with Milne and Lawwell.

    The leaders of three of our biggest clubs actually taking a lead in asking difficult questions would be a breath of fresh air.

    Strength in numbers and all that. 



    The CSA wading into Milne in their latest post.

    When they say fear of retribution is a factor impeding sporting justice then those intimidating should be named by the clubs.

    Its not just Milne who needs to grow a set, it is all other clubs. Enough lies


    Given that the CSA and Celtic have a respectful relationship perhaps Joe O Rourke's article  is a reflection of Celtic's frustration.

    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?