Comment on JPP: Perverting Justice? by Auldheid.

    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?

    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?
    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.

    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    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. 

    Recent Comments by Auldheid

    Dear Mr Bankier
    The Sun pick up Roger Mitchell's tweets yesterday and use them to discredit Res12 as being part of a hate driven agenda.

    Roger should do a bit more reading before uttering opinions as directed by responses.


    ITS ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY Roger and the SFA were told by Celtic that Celtic were accountable to shareholders.


    Dear Mr Bankier
    In December 2016, as part of discussions on processing Res12 ,Celtic were told that they were dealing with a criminal organisation at Ibrox and needed to up their game.

    If they have, it is not evident, having been given more than enough information to do so.

    Dear Mr Bankier
    Darkbeforedawn 23rd November 2018 at 19:44

    EJ, I often think the SFA aren’t actually corrupt but are just completely inept. I’m not convinced anyone there has the intelligence for a cover up! 

    UEFA are a different animal, it has always been known that them and FIFA are two of the most corrupt bodies in the world of any walk of life. The UEFA draws that always keep the teams they want apart until later stages in tournaments, and the recent revelations over Man City and Monaco are examples of the corruption conspiracies. However they blatantly rig the game (UEFA and FIFA) without even trying to hide it by ensuring the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful, the choice of venues or host countries are the best financially for them regardless of the fans or players (Qatar!) and the cream of the crop like PSG Barca and Real Madrid will always get the benefit of the doubt with regards to disciplinary processes. They truly are a corrupt bunch. Which is what I find ironic at the fact the Resolution 12 bunch hold their great hopes of perceived justice in those very bodies?


    UEFA involvement was always suspected based on events on 19 Sept 2011. The link is to an e mail that tells us that the SFA and UEFA must have been in discussion in order for UEFA to verbally accept the monitoring  submission made by RFC under Art 66 at 30 June 2011.

    How did the SFA explain the status of “postponed” given to the liability to UEFA in the Art 66 submission, given that any "postponement" we now know was a lie ?

    What explanation did the SFA give UEFA that UEFA were happy to verbally accept the submission of 30th June, with the result that future financial forecasts were not required just four and a half months before RFC entered administration prior to liquidation?

    The tone of the SFA advice to RFC to meet Article 67 requirement is remarkable in that it suggests UEFA would not be picking up the issue.  

    Who influenced UEFA and what factors cane into play?

    Was one that RFC were out of Europe

    Did the SFA know by September that the proof for granting was bullshit?

    What exactly were UEFA told by the SFA who by 30 June should have been supplied with letters from HMRC of 5th May and 20th May demonstrating that the liability was anything but postponed and the submission was in fact more or less a repeat of what the RFC told the SFA to get the licence in the first place? Its all at 


    This was known when the resolution was being drafted and one of the possibilities, given that the aim of Res12 was SFA reform, was that it was the SFA who lied to UEFA in that conversation.

    That is what an investigation would have established so now you know why every attempt is being made to bury it.

    Another reason for placing  Res12 was to confirm that Rangers lied/cheated in June 2011 and the September submission was a lie also .

    The SFA and TRFC are pulling out all the judicial stops to avoid not just getting confirmation of the above, but that the lie began just before the end of March.

    All Res12 asked was for UEFA CFCB to carry out their role and the expectation, with good reason at the time,  was that Celtic would be right behind it and take it to UEFA, but we can hardly be blamed for thinking Celtic weren't corrupt, but I can assure you the SFA are, as time will tell.

    Go back and read Who is Conning Whom SFM Blog to see how Darryl Broadfoot told David Conn of The Guardian that RFC held an HMRC letter that justified the licence being granted or JPP Perverting Justice or Is Regan a DIDDY?

    Mr Conn to this day, even although he has since been shown in October evidence that set out the true position has declined to investigate.

    I mean we knew corruption  was bad but f f s.




    Dear Mr Bankier
    brimacel 21st November 2018 at 20:27 

    All of that is under consideration. See my previous to easyjambo.

    The Res12 Lawyer is well acquainted with the details and could advise on next step.  Sum funding was pledged today, probably enough to take things forward but more might be needed. 

    Dear Mr Bankier
    easyJambo 21st November 2018 at 16:37 

    The next steps under consideration and the prime Res12 mover is for taking it to City of London Police after getting some legal advice in respect of what is held.

    That looks like the obvious move given the unwillingness of Scottish football to tackle although if there was more detail on what was going to CAS and some deadlines, whilst less desireable than going to UEFA, that might be acceptable so in the balance for now.

    Here is note of what took place at AGM

    After asking Celtic for an update on Res12, which they had entrusted to SFA to pursue at the last AGM, and having been told Celtic were leaving it with SFA but had emphasised that it would not go away and Celtic were answerable to shareholders, here was my  response.

    Lets see if I have this right.

    Fourteen months after instigating an investigation the SFA are assuring Celtic shareholders via the club that something, but we don’t know what, will be referred to CAS but we don’t know why nor do we know when.

    (A nod to Brendan for The League Cup final: The grass at Hampden will be longer than the grass at Tynecastle)

    The assurances that something unclear will happen comes four months after that CAS referral decision was made and there still has been no referral.

    It has been five months since June when the shareholders lawyer (at a cost of £2.5k on top of earlier bills amounting to £7.5k) put a series of questions along with supporting evidence to the SFA copied to Celtic to which no answers have as yet been given.

    So the questions I have for The Celtic Board are:

    1.    Are Celtic actually bound by the SFA JPDT Decision to refer something to CAS and if so on what basis given that Andrea Traverso Head of UEFA Club Licensing in his letter of 8th June 2016 to Celtic shareholders said and I quote.

    “It is not the general policy of UEFA to write directly to lawyers representing unidentified clients and if this is a matter a member club of the Scottish Football  Association ( IE CELTIC ) wishes to take up with UEFA then the club should do so directly.”  

    Further: can it be explained to shareholders here in the room and at large why Celtic are not asking UEFA CFCB to investigate given:

    1. Fundamentally it is a breach of UEFA rules that is under investigation, which is a job for UEFA – and what Res12 requested.

    2.    UEFA’s recent Statement of 12 November  (and again I quote)
    “Should new information suggest that previously concluded cases have been abused, those cases may be capable of being re-opened as determined on a case-by-case basis.”
    In summary:
    ·       Why have Celtic from the beginning chosen to eschew direct UEFA involvement?
    ·       Why are they not now taking the new information into account in respect of that choice and reviewing it?
    ·       Given the time it has taken the SFA to decide that CAS should be involved (for unclear reasons) are Celtic willing to wait an undetermined period until the SFA are able to progress the matter or will it be all over by ST Renewal time next April?
    ·       Would it be possible for shareholders representatives to meet the SFA Compliance Officer and CEO before Christmas to ascertain progress, to be able to provide assurances based on clarity to those they represent?
    ·       Can we have answers to those questions confirmed in writing please to send to signatories of Resolution 12?