Jimbo On the other hand TRFC will be unseeded,  the DR …

Comment on Time to Make Things Happen by Auldheid.

Jimbo
On the other hand TRFC will be unseeded,  the DR says it’s because this is their first time in Europe in 6 years, but it could also be because it is their first time in Europe EVER!  Heaven knows how they will do, they are such an unknown quantity now.
===============
As far as UEFA are concerned The Rangers Football Club only became eligible to apply for a UEFA licence in Aug 2015 having satisfied the Article 12 requirement to be members of the SFA for three consecutive years from Aug 2012.
TRFC would never argue otherwise with UEFA as UEFA’s acceptance would mean paying tax in millions overdue since Sept 2011 and earlier.
The SFA also understand this as they were informed of same by UEFA (Traverso) in June 2016 and it would be so easy for the media to confirm what Traverso said.
Additionally had they not ceased to be the same club/company in UEFA’s eyes then UEFA would have pursued the dishonesty at play to be granted and retain the licence in 2011.

Auldheid Also Commented

Time to Make Things Happen
Cluster One

The Requisitioners drove it from securing an adjournment as opposed to Celtic sticking by their Res12 unecessary stance.
They drove it all the way to UEFA resulting in Traverso letter and went back again. At that point UEFA said they would only deal with a member club of the national association so it was handed over to Celtic in Dec 2016 where it lies waiting for court cases to end.
Celtic shareholders who signed the Res were updated in full just before the last AGM.
Another is in draft.
I think Chill Ultra does not understand Barcas question because he believes that Res12 was about much more than the UEFA licence and there was more as background in the Res document but focus was placed on the latter because it was the one area that directly affected Celtic and so had locus.
Without it the rest would have been dismissed as a matter for the SFA or SPFL.
Nothing conspiratorial or sinister just pragmatism.


Time to Make Things Happen
Chill Ultra
Let me know the next time you are in Scotland and I’ll try and arrange a meeting with him.
I know that I and the person whose motives you question are shareholders. I am not sure of status of other two at time Res was being formed.
Your  thinking  that there is a formally constituted body around Res12 is wrong, only a group who actually acted on  questions being asked on CQN that needed answers and used the  AGM process as shareholders to try and get them and had Res12 been passed by Celtic instead of opposed there would have been no need for funding or reporting back etc. 
With regard to your charge of lack of accountability etc can I ask that you make it on CQN to establish how many signatories share that view  as that is the more appropriate forum to pursue the matter?
You can always put the answers back here.


Time to Make Things Happen
Ally Jambo

I understand the point you are making, made it myself actually in conversations,  but these guys have been spending  a bit of time getting the necessary high level support for change on board and the politics at play may have influenced that approach
However by joining up you now have the opportunity to encourage them to be more bold, I’m sure you will rise to the challenge.


Recent Comments by Auldheid

Who Is Conning Whom?
If for reasons argued and to comply with UEFA regulations it was recognised that under football rules TRFC’s SFA Membership began in 2012 and with it any trophy count, but under same reasoning no sanctions including removal of titles could be applied to RFC, which is what Traverso said in effect , would you accept that as a reasonable price to pay to restore lost integrity?
AULDHEID,
We will have to disagree about any loss to sporting integrity.
Purely from a sporting integrity point of view there is no difference between a club shedding debt via a CVA and a liquidated club shedding debt,how a creditor loses money has nothing to do with sporting integrity and the unfair sporting advantage does not vanish just because creditors agree to losing money,it is called a non sequitur.
Another non sequitur in terms of sporting integrity is where in the accounts ledger overspending took place s long as no criminal fraud took place.
It matters not a jot if the overspending debt was directly on players because all overspending debt indirectly enables un-affordable players. So the make up of the creditor has nothing to do with sporting integrity.
What is important to sporting integrity is INSOLVENCY and the act of spending beyond ones means and in doing so gaining a sporting advantage,it is actually CHEATING.
The rules should punish all cheats equally to protect sporting integrity, so my position is simple, from a sporting integrity point of view RFC should have been punished no different to Hearts or Dunfermline because they all overspent.
It is illogical to suggest the 20 million or so owed to a bank by Hearts was not spent on un-affordable players going back years,and yet because it was written off Hearts suddenly could afford the players and are applauded for their sporting integrity lol !!
As they the old saying goes,you couldn’t make this shit up.
So to answer your question,UEFA’s interrupted membership obviously allows the new club/company to inherit the history of the old club/company and that is good enough fudge for me,nothing to with sporting integrity tbh.
=======================
Its UEFA rules not mine and what they are saying is that if there is no footballing deterrent to make clubs think twice about overspending on players at expense of creditors, then clubs will do it if, having restructured as a result of insolvency enabling them to immediately get a UEFA licence, they are allowed straight back into UEFA competitions at the expense of fellow  clubs ,who did not overspend and may lose out on an UEFA competition to the over spenders as a result.
That is where the integrity protection comes in, its not fair play to clubs not overspending not to have that principle in place to protect them.
Thus if Art 12 did not exist and Rangers had remained in the SPL with the same players paid from earlier UEFA success, gained by overspending but now free of the debt caused by their wages, and those wages helped win another CL /EL place, how could that possibly be acceptable in fair play terms to the other clubs?
This is why UEFA specifically say 
” Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stake holdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition”
So to deter not just that overspending behaviour with sanctions that hurt and uphold fair play principles as well as clubs indulging in insolvency as a means of facilitating its qualification or receipt of a licence, which is precisely what Rangers tried in Scotland, UEFA require a club to have three consecutive years membership of their national association in order to apply for a licence after any alteration done to facilitate the receipt of one which would include insolvency.
With regard to insolvencies at other clubs Hearts for example took their punishment of points deduction AND embarked on a program of austerity to honour a CVA, one result of which was their demotion. When RFC entered administration there was not much cutting back there as I recall and certainly no risk of demotion.
That Hearts CVA was agreed by creditors as a better means of getting paid more than liquidating Hearts and selling the assets, in the case of Rangers, creditors did not believe that they would get more back from Rangers administration than liquidation so they went for repayment of as much as they could get by that route, but as I have covered it is not the insolvency per se that governs UEFA  but the motivation behind it. 
Now I’m not sure if Hearts ever qualified for Europe since administration, but if they have then UEFA would not bar them for three years as their SFA membership is continuous and is recognised by UEFA as such. UEFA might  have concerns with any accounts submitted for the year in question and refuse a licence on those grounds for that year but not for three years under Article 12.
However Rangers fell under Article 12 and the notion that UEFA see the three years exile as merely an interruption of their SFA membership is not supported by Traverso calling TRFC/TRIFC “new.” which can only mean not the same.
Your argument for continuity is based on Article 14 of SFA Articles, paradoxically called Prohibition of Transfer of SFA Membership where it should maybe be called Circumstances Where an SFA Membership Can Be Transferred.
I have demonstrate how that Xfer came about and how and why UEFA do not recognise TRFC’s SFA membership as continuous on integrity grounds and why to UEFA TRFC are a new club who are now eligible to apply for a UEFA licence now having three years SFA membership. 
I appreciate none of this will change your mind but it might inform others of what did take place and why ignorance of the rules and events has allowed that SFA Membership Transfer to take on a meaning that no amount of reason will shake in TRFC supporters, but could be reasonably challenged as against fair play.

   


Who Is Conning Whom?
HirsutePursuitNovember 24, 2017 at 23:07 (Edit)
By applying an invented classification to TRFC (Sevco) that would certainly have got around the rule about a Registered SFA Member was using a name sounding like Rangers in a match apart from it signalling two different clubs.
My approach was always on what would have been the normal rules applied, so I had another look taking aboard your point on applying being sufficient and here is another reason a conditional SFA membership had to be invented. I’ll repeat a bit of background from earlier:
In 2012 there were 3 classes of SFA Membership
 
Registered SFA Membership
 
Associate SFA Membership
 
Full SFA Membership.
 
(That changed in August 2013 to two classes-  Registered and Full but it is the 2012 process that applies)
 
The process for a club obtaining SFA Membership in 2012 was:
 
A Registered SFA Membership was automatic on gaining an SFL Associate Membership. 

To obtain a full SFA Membership under Article 6.3 of SFA Articles :-
 
 A club or association desiring to qualify for full membership of the Scottish FA must first be admitted as an Associate Member.
 
Thus under normal rules Sevco were not eligible to apply for Full SFA Membership as they did not first have an Associate SFA Membership.
A club joining the SFL without an Associate or Full SFA Membership had to applied for one within 14 days  of joining the SFL. Sevco had neither. The SFL Rules said:
 
SFL Rule16.
 REGISTRATION WITH SFA A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP
 
A Member or Associate Member (of SFL) who is not already a full or associate
member of the Scottish Football Association (Sevco) must make application to
become a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association (as
the case may be) within fourteen (14) days of being admitted to membership
of the League failing which its membership of the League will lapse, and in
the event that the application is unsuccessful, its membership will lapse
upon that decision being intimated to the League.)
 
Under SFL 16 Sevco needed to apply for a Full or Associate SFA Membership but they didn’t apply for Associate SFA Membership which they needed in order to apply for a Full SFA Membership.
 
To get that they needed the Full SFA Membership of Rangers FC transferred to them under the 5 Way Agreement using the discretion allowed under Article 14 of SFA Rules.
 
So with no application for Associate SFA Membership made with 14 days and not being eligible to apply for Full Membership under normal rules, not having the Associate SFA Membership first, they exceptionally applied for the SFA Membership of Rangers to be transferred under SFA Discretion and on Completion of 5 Way Agreement.
 
Technically therefore (and this is where the SFA might have had a concern) the Registered SFA Membership elapsed on 28th July because Sevco did not apply for Associate SFA Membership and under normal SFA Rules at the time could not apply for Full Membership until they had applied for and obtained Associate Membership.
 
The SFA might have argued that a Registered Membership of the SFA was sufficient to allow the Brechin game to go ahead on 29th July, but that would have clearly made Sevco a team/club holding an SFA Membership  at the same time as Rangers and using Rangers name or one damn like it.
 
Additionally of course had that Registered SFA Membership not elapsed, the rules to be followed at that time to grant a Full SFA membership meant  Sevco/Rangers becoming an Associate SFA Member first and it would have been impossible then to argue or justify an argument that TRFC had been Full SFA Members ever since they first joined the SFA.
 
They are not any way, the invented Conditional Membership breaking the Full SFA Membership continuity with RFC myth, but to agree to such a shambles does suggests that had the SFA and SPL not found a way to give SEVCO/TRFC Full SFA Membership and voting rights, Green would have walked away.
 
Perhaps with hindsight everyone wishes he had.
 
 


Who Is Conning Whom?
Ernest Becker
I’ve explained what HMRC did.
The money seized was iro the wtc liability.
That was August.
CW stopped paying PAYE/Vat in Sept.
The wtc money was assigned to the PAYE arguably covering Sept maybe Oct. 
It was December when HMRC got fed up with obvious delaying tactics and non PAYE/VAT payment and began administration proceedings.
It’s all on Celtic Underground blog. The Wee Tax Case Appeal.
One question you did not answer was:
If for reasons argued and to comply with UEFA regulations it was recognised that under football rules TRFC’s SFA Membership began in 2012 and with it any trophy count, but under same reasoning no sanctions including removal of titles could be applied to RFC, which is what Traverso said in effect , would you accept that as a reasonable price to pay to restore lost integrity?
(Or are bragging rights paramount?)


Who Is Conning Whom?
Easy Jambo
Ernest Becker 21.08.
The money in question was that seized as result of non payment of wee tax liability.
It was a matter of chagrin to CW and Olverman that HMRC allocated it against the unpaid PAYE and VAT.
It should be a matter of interest to the SFA Compliance Officer that CW claimed at end of September that  £500k of it was paid to HMRC towards the wtc liability.
There was a supposed appeal on the wtc liability ( I say supposed because it was only the interest that was being appealed ) so whilst that appeal  charade was going on HMRC did RFC a favour using it to offset the PAYE. 
Taxpayers have some reason to be annoyed at HMRC’ s strategy for collecting but certainly not supporters of Rangers at the time.


Who Is Conning Whom?
HP
We covered this before and this time I never said the application had to be granted because of your prior input and finding out a bit more about the process followed.
I stated or tried to state the normal process for a new club and PMd you for comment.
There were 3 categories of SFA Membership at the time.
Registered
Associate
Full
What happened is Sevco automatically became a Registered Member of the SFA on joining the SFL on 14th July as an Associate Member of the SFL.
This is in line with  the 5 Way Agreement   but no mention in it of any  Sevco application for Associate Membership of the SFA, which was the norm for a new club applying, although the application for Full SFA Membership is well covered.
That suggests Sevco never did apply for Associate Membership of SFA at all because they had applied for and were waiting for the SFA to xfer Full SFA Membership. That was within SFA powers but only at discretion under Article14.
That discretionary Full SFA Membership  xfer was dependent on Completion of 5 Way which was dependent on the SPL consenting to the transfer of Rangers SPL Share to Dundee.
That did not happen until 3 August so Sevco did not have a Full SFA Membership  until then because RFC held it until then.
That is where the conditional membership had to be invented because the Brechin game took place on 29th July before Completion on 3 Aug.
Had Sevco had a  SFA Membership either Registered or Associate,  then the conditional SFA Membership need not have been invented to allow the Brechin game to take place.
One can only assume therefore that neither a Registered SFA Membership nor Associate SFA Membership existed at time of Brechin game on 29th July and a logical reason is that the Registered SFA Membership had elapsed because an Application for Associate Membership had not been made with 14 days and the application for Full SFA Membership could only be completed after RFCs ‘SPL share was transferred to Dundee.
So the gap wasn’t because Sevco hadn’t applied for an Associate or  Full SFA Membership, it was because the Registered Membership had elapsed and Sevco had applied for a Full SFA Membership, to be xferred from RFC but it could not be granted until SPL agreed to xfer of RFC share in SPL to Dundee, because until then RFC held their  Full SFA Membership by dint of their SPL Membership.
The devil is in the detail and all the types of memberships of both SFA and then SPL doesnt help but hopefully this exchange will help Ernest’s understanding of the context and circumstance of the transfer of SFA Membership under Article 14 of SFA Articles.


SSL Certificates