To Comply or not to Comply ? – The Scottish Football Monitor

To Comply or not to Comply ?

UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?

On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.

Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.

The cases of two clubs::

Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )


FC Irtysh  (Kazakhstan) 

are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because

  1. The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
  2. The cases  tell us what might have happened to Rangers  FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.


FC Sion  (Olympique des Alpes SA)

Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.

Full details can be read at


but this is a summary.

In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.

In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme,  carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.

The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.

Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:

“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as

“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”

What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.

Sion had declared

“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.

The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.

Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.

Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.

The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.

Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.

The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was  appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.


The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.

  1. FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  2. FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
  3. To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
  4. To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
  5. FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.

Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.

It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.

This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.

“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”

The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:

Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.

Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.

This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement

“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “  where he also added

“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”

This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.

In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.

The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.



The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at  and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.

Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March

It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.

The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber  who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)

The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:


  1.  FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  2. To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
  3. To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  4. FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “


The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC,  FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.


Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.

From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then

  1. Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
  2. At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
  3. The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.

Karma eh!

Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors

“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;

Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the  SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?

This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.



Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

  1. Corrupt official

    Corrupt official

     An interview with Peter Lawell. Slightly Celtic based, but he also discusses the future of Scottish fitba, Euope, and global wide.

    View Comment
  2. Jingso.Jimsie


    Re the TU/TDs: does anyone really care? I’d rather the option was removed entirely. 


    Re the ticket allocation stushie: I doubt if either CFC or TRFC will be able to present an amended safety case for reduced numbers that will satisfy Police Scotland/SFA/SPFL/GCC.

    That leaves two possibilities, I suppose. The status quo will be maintained or there will be no ‘away’ fans present at matches between the two.

    View Comment
  3. Allyjambo


    NICKMAY 25, 2018 at 10:42
    ALLYJAMBOMAY 25, 2018 at 10:30
    Not sure of the specific posts in question but as a general point I would suggest a mix of thumbs up and thumbs down would be a very positive sign that this website is flourishing.  I’ve lurked on this page for years and started to comment occasionally a few months ago purely because I felt there was a danger of “groupthink” taking hold at times.  Many posts were bland generic “Rangers bad” ones with 50 TU, then along came one of the few brave bears who venture on here with equally bland “Rangers good” or “Celtic bad” posts to an immediate onslaught of 50 TD.
    Perhaps more of a mix of responses to each post is a good sign that the site is reaching a wider cross section of people and the readers’ opinions are becoming more nuanced?
    It’s equally likely that it’s just daft trolls trying to annoy people with a thumbs down right enough. 

    No specific posts in mind, just thought there seemed to be an inordinate number of TDs for pretty uncontroversial posts, while none of the TDers responded to rubbish those posts. For example, John Clark made a post that had attracted 24 TDs yet no one has posted anything to challenge what he said. John is a poster well worth engaging with, regardless of the subject matter, yet, apparently, 24 people disagree with him but not to the extent they feel their thoughts on the matter stand up enough to respond. It’s an unusual pattern, and that is what intrigued me. 

    It’s in engaging with people, and arguing one’s point of view, that we will thrash out what’s wrong with Scottish football, and maybe, just maybe, get someone within a position of influence to act to make a meaningful change to the governance of the game. TDs alone won’t do that.

    View Comment
  4. wottpi

    HELPUMOOTMAY 25, 2018 at 10:39

    Not wanting to speak for Tayred but I think he is talking more about the current state of affairs.

    However even accepting the theory of ‘the establishment’ favouring Rangers, Celtic didn’t do too bad in year gone by in terms of titles, trophies etc when compared to the rest of the Scottish game.

    The two cheeks accusation may not be liked but the current moans and groans about pitches etc , while Celtic are still sweeping everything before them is, to fans of other clubs, suspiciously like the same superiority complex rhetoric that comes out Ibrox.

    I seem to recall plenty of dismissive posts on here when McCoist was complaining about pitches or Warburton was waxing lyrical about something that wasn’t really his concern.

    Celtic and their fans have done a great job in trying to break away from the Old Firm tag and have been vindicated, in terms of evidence coming forth, that some of their long held paranoia was well founded.

    However it would be a shame to have lose the good will that has been gained, by some supporters raising every apparent slight against the club as being a major disaster. 

    Maybe old habits die hard!

    It is not the job of any football club’s manager and players to bend over and take it just because someone thinks they are high an mighty.

    Indeed that is even more of an encouragement for them to do everything within the rules of the game to stop any other club, let alone just Celtic, from winning a game of football.

    It is not a slight on the opposing club, in fact it is a backhanded compliment and part and parcel of the game.

    I would expect it when Hearts go to a lower league team in the upcoming League Cup and Celtic should similarly expect it and (with their vast resources) be prepared for anything at any opposition ground.

    Otherwise for the foreseeable future, if it all too much for them to take,  we would be as well as just playing the league as one of those ‘tables without Celtic’ things you see from time to time. 


    View Comment
  5. Helpumoot

    BFBPUZZLED May 24th 14.58

    “Jimbo,….. As to preying on folks empathy – praying is not preying and I believe the other poster overstepped the mark in what he said.”
    Okay, I’ll explain fully why I said what I said, BFB. Late on Saturday night – after the cup final – a post appeared (for a short time) which was lavishing praise on Jimbo. The post was signed by another poster on here. However, the moniker for that post read ‘JIMBO.’
    I could have went to town on it but simply stated that I found it “strange.” On Monday, Jimbo posted a barely coherent piece about him having dual personalities. Then more recently, he posted claiming that he didn’t know how to work the edit facility when he seemed to have worked it perfectly well on Saturday night.
    Now I stand accused of being a hater, of overstepping the mark and being ordered (by Jimbo) to “Leave!”
    It seems a bit unfair to me. A simple explanation would have been helpful.

    View Comment
  6. tayred


    Spot on Wottpi.
    Celtic are playing on the same pitches as everyone else. Its up to the home club what surface to prepare, in exactly the same way that Celtic prepare their own, probably slightly shorter than everyone else(?) to suit their passing game. There is absolutely no difference!

    Especially when Celtic are so far ahead of everyone else, they should lose this strange victim like undertone cos it just sounds poor to the rest of us. Same with this sudden myth that Brown is a marked man! That every team you face is overly physical, or indeed that only they are doing anything about RFC/TRFC and its misdemeanours. The blue team are the ones with the historical (all 6 years of it) superiority complex, lets leave that to them please.

    View Comment
  7. oddjob


    Brendan Rodgers did not confine his criticisms to away pitches. He complained during the 2016/17 season about the pitch at Celtic Park, with the result that Celtic are spending a substantial sum at the moment to complete the laying of a new surface.
    i have sympathy with home teams who feel the set up of their own ground should favour themselves.
    what I would like explained, is the refusal to water the pitch at Hampden during the Scottish cup final.
    the game was supposedly being played at a neutral ground, favouring neither side.
    Did the SFA discuss Celtics request with Motherwell? Did Motherwell then object because watering didn’t suit them?

    View Comment
  8. tayred


    Oddjob, I’d guess both teams have to agree? Much the same as in Rugby Union at Cardiff where both teams have to agree to have the roof open or closed? If one team said yes and the other said no – toss of a coin?  Compromise and allow it to be mildly moist?

    View Comment
  9. oddjob


    i would agree there should be a compromise which is fair to both sides, thus preserving the neutrality of the ground. Unfortunately, no one seems to have given an explanation.

    View Comment
  10. ThomTheThim


    Sometimes it may be overlooked that football is a spectator sport.
    As such, it should be presented in the best possible way, for the enjoyment of said supporters. This should centre around players having the best conditions in which to produce and hone their skills.
    A major part of this would be to present the playing surface in the best possible condition to enable players to demonstrate their skills in the best possible manner, for the appreciation of the fans.
    Apparently UEFA and the EPL have certain criteria for pitch conditions.
    Anything that hinders the performance of skillful players is an offence against the game of football and if the acceptance of “nobbled” pitches is the norm in Scotland, then perhaps this contributes to the overall reputation of the game there.
    There are young, skillful players at almost every club in the country.
    These players deserve the opportunity to practice these skills against the best in the country, on the best possible pitch conditions.
    I would go further and legislate for a fixed pitch size for Premiership games and plastic pitches should be banned.
    The only criteria should be, what will make the game better for the paying customer?

    View Comment
  11. wottpi

    THOMTHETHIMMAY 25, 2018 at 14:09
    As discussed the other day nobody gave two hoots about pitches when the Lisbon Lions were playing on ploughed fields.

    The reality is that these days, even a ‘poor pitch’ is like a bowling green compared to days gone by and games are called off at the drop of a hat if the ref thinks the surface is a danger.

    I totally get what you are saying and as a Hearts fan I am delighted that my club is investing in a quality playing surface for next season.
    However I believe the perfect pitch thing is overplayed by both players and managers. IMHO part of the problem today is that many players have a poor touch because they are unable to deal with a ball that doesn’t behave exactly how they expect it to.

    It isn’t by chance that the skills of the likes of Jimmy Johnstone and the Brazil team of the 70s were learnt on shitty Glasgow playgrounds and on Brazilian beaches and rough patches of land playing with balls that weren’t exactly round.

    Yes you can try and present them in the best condition possible but pitches will never ever be uniform due to a whole range of environmental factors.

    If you want a uniform pitch then the only way is to play in an indoor climate controlled stadium with everyone having the exact same type of  grass, astro or hybrid.

    That ain’t ever going to happen anytime soon, so stop the moaning and accept that we play in Scotland and within the space of seven days most players in the other 41 SPFL teams (and especially those in the lower divisions) could be playing on a nicely mowed pitch one week and then a semi frozen rutted sand filled mess the next, let alone having a club set up their pitch in a manner that suits the home team.

    PS whats more exciting for the paying customer a tippy tappy back pass that is always going to run nicely back to the keeper with time to spare or one that gets stuck in the mud and the whole stadium is on tenterhooks to see if the stranded keeper or the charging centre forward is going to get their first 10

    View Comment
  12. ThomTheThim


    WOTTPIMAY 25, 2018 at 14:59
    Thanks for the response.
    However, I don’t think the comparison with the ploughed fields of yesteryear to now is valid.
    That was then and this is now.
    Of course the Jinky’s and Brazilians learned their skills on coups and beaches respectively, but they went on to play at the top level on the best available surfaces, even though, in Europe, it was often muddy fields.
    They also played in Hotspur boots with leather studs, with protruding nails and a ball, when wet, was like a cannonball.
    None of these are relevant now.
    They play with the best available gear, all the better to show their skills.
    There are always the vagaries of weather to contend with, so, I suggest that part of your defense is a non sequitur.
    Even today, frozen pitches are rare at the top level and any games postponed are more usually due to spectator safety, than player safety.
    I understand that below top grade football, clubs cannot afford top class facilities, but I’m sure you remember when Falkirk were denied promotion due to not having an all seated stadium, much to Aberdeen’s delight.
    Anyway, I think the point has been lost along the way. 
    It is not about the state of some clubs’ grounds, it is about the deliberate acts, aimed at negating good football, to the detriment of the paying (customer) fan.
    On both recent occasions when Celtic complained about the playing surface, they had won.
    Therefore, all that Hearts achieved was to deprive the spectators of a better match.
    At least, they did it in an attempt to gain an advantage for their team.
    What was the motive of the SFA at Hampden last week?
    Answers on a postcard.

    View Comment
  13. realshocks

    MAY 25, 2018 at 14:59
    I agree with the point about teams doing everything within the rules to win, and especially that Celtic can’t moan about it, given the financial advantage that they have. The bad side of all this is that it hampers us (Scottish teams) in Europe because the majority of the teams have better pitches, and our own surfaces are better at the time of year the qualifiers are played. The same goes for our refereeing leniency towards physical challenges that are always given as fouls in Europe.
    The game has moved on since those old days, and we need to give ourselves every chance by having the highest standards of playing surface, and referees who implement rules the same way as the rest of Europe. 

    View Comment
  14. ThomTheThim


    REALSHOCKSMAY 25, 2018 at 15:50
    0 Rate This
    I agree with most of the points you raise, re Scotland lagging behind the rest of Europe, my interpretation of what you wrote.
    However, there are the Rules of the game and also the spirit of the game.
    A football fan should acknowledge witnessing a better team winning on the day, as long as his team made an effort to compete, with football tactics designed towards winning the game, or at least, not losing.
    I have seen teams being applauded off the park after giving Celtic a footballing lesson at Celtic Park.
    A Rai inspired PSG, for one.

    Anyway, I will let it go now, as there are more important stuff for the blog to chew over.
    We must be due another Statement!

    View Comment
  15. iceman63

    FWIW I feel that managers complaining and girning is part and parcel of football. It can be a personality trait of the manager, Levein and McCann spring to mind here although Jim McLean in his heyday must surely be the king of greetin-faced managers, genius though he undoubtedly was, or can be calculated and effective,to provoke reaction,to deflect legitimate criticism, stir up opponents or to gain a psychological edge, Ferguson, Mourinho, although less so recently where he seems simply to complain ad nauseam, Jock Stein, Jock Wallace spring to mind.
    Rarely is a genuine grievance resolved by managers beating their gums. Some managers don’t seem to complain at all,

    Generally moaning from managers should largely be ignored on all sides, as invariably it produces vastly more heat than light.

    View Comment
  16. Corrupt official

    Corrupt official

      8,000 x £50 = £400,000. 
         Why Sevco need/want that money now, rather than waiting until Celtic divvy up after match-day is a question worth asking.  

    View Comment
  17. wottpi

    THOMTHETHIMMAY 25, 2018 at 15:47

    Once again and agree with much of what you say but that is fine when you support a team winning all before it.

    While the paying customer may well appreciate and enjoy watching the skills of Tierney and Dembele if you are on the other side of the fence then a hard won 1-0 nil slug fest against the Hoops provides far more customer satisfaction and viewed as ticket money well spent than feeling like leaving the ground  with ten minutes to go in a 0-4 defeat from a silky opponent.

    For all the talk of enjoying football the Celtic way, you would all take rough and tumble ground out results against the likes of Barca and PSG to get to a CL final everytime and would not give a toss if it were played on an ice ring.

    Sometimes Hearts will give Celtic a footballing lesson like earlier this season but at most other times due to a lack of resources, injuries etc etc the rest of us have to do what we can, within the rules to get a result.

    Despite Levein’s dour demeanor and cautious approach to the game I am sure he would rather be playing as entertaining football as possible on a bowling green. However at Hearts resources are limited and you don’t have the likes of Griffiths, Armstong and Sinclair warming the bench and are having to turn to untried youngsters and workhorses like Callachan to do you a turn. Therefore you sometimes have to do what you can to get some form of break.

    I think we are both on the same page but just have a different view on how much importance is placed on the condition of the pitch in terms of how entertaining a game can be.

    As you say bigger fish to fry so enough prattling on this subject and have a good weekend.

    View Comment
  18. slimjim

    CO 16.23
    The majority of season tickets are bought using either the 4 quarterly or 10 monthly payment plans.
    No immediate financial boost to the club then. 
    Like several other clubs Rangers are simply putting their own fans first and rightly so.

    View Comment
  19. CrownStBhoy


    8,000 x £50 = £400,000. Why Sevco need/want that money now, rather than waiting until Celtic divvy up after match-day is a question worth asking.

    Ah but…
    7000 x 600(season book cost?) = 4200000
    What was that Close Bros. deal again? 11

    View Comment
  20. ThomTheThim


    WOTTPIMAY 25, 2018 at 16:46
    In all honesty, I fully understand your p o v, re a manager wanting every edge he can.
    However, how does that explain the SFA’s decision not to water the Hampden pitch at half time?
    What was their motive?
    Definitely out of the topic now. : > )

    View Comment
  21. torrejohnbhoy

    Morning all(still on Vegas time!).
    slimjimMay 25, 2018 at 17:24
    Don’t know how it works at Ibrox but ST purchases over 4 or 10 months are usually processed by way of a finance company “overdraft”.The club will receive 100% of the cash up front & the fan will pay back the loan plus interest to the finance company(Zebra?)over the agreed timespan.
    Beggars the question,if/when Sevco go bust,who will pay the instalments due on STs bought on credit.It’ll be the fan as usual.They’ll just become creditors of the club/company.

    View Comment
  22. Cluster One

    Cluster One

    Re. the two cheeks accusation
    When there was no ibrox club in the top flight a number of cups were won by other clubs.
    When a mediocer ibrox club reached the top flight celtic upped there game and became invinsibles. A stronger ibrox club saw celtic do an historical treble.And demolish the ibrox club in the prosess.
    And no other clubs had a look in for trophies.
    We often hear a need for a strong ibrox club.Would this not then see a much stronger celtic?
    How will the ibrox fans who may believe this season they will be stronger take it if celtic turn up at ibrox with the majority of ibrox fans and celtic horse then on the way to 8 in a row.
    Be careful what you wish for right enough.

    View Comment
  23. Homunculus


    MAY 25, 2018 at 16:23
      8,000 x £50 = £400,000.      Why Sevco need/want that money now, rather than waiting until Celtic divvy up after match-day is a question worth asking.  


    No shirt sales, no money, they need the cash now.

    Some people will pay in full, some will pay over four months.

    Even the four month payments would be May, June, July and August presumably.

    The earliest Celtic game would be what, August. So even those paying over four months brings the money in a lot earlier.

    It’s cash flow FoF is correct. 

    View Comment
  24. Homunculus


    MAY 25, 2018 at 17:46

    That makes even more sense, if all the money comes in now. 

    They need it to keep afloat.

    View Comment
  25. Corrupt official

    Corrupt official

    SLIMJIMMAY 25, 2018 at 17:24
    CO 16.23The majority of season tickets are bought using either the 4 quarterly or 10 monthly payment plans.No immediate financial boost to the club then. Like several other clubs Rangers are simply putting their own fans first and rightly so.
        TorreJohnBhoy has responded to how Zebra operate, but how can you say it is putting them first, when the reality would naturally be depriving them of a seat at Celtic Park. 
        What will the atmosphere be like at 1-0 down?, 2, or, 3?…..It will be empty before 4. It is wagon circling. A pathetic attempt to keep the Winchesters pointing outwards. 
       This board are on borrowed time in its present form and they know it.

    View Comment
  26. Cluster One

    Cluster One

    CORRUPT OFFICIALMAY 25, 2018 at 16:23
    0 Rate This
      8,000 x £50 = £400,000.      Why Sevco need/want that money now, rather than waiting until Celtic divvy up after match-day is a question worth asking.  
    SLIMJIMMAY 25, 2018 at 17:24
    2 Rate This
    CO 16.23The majority of season tickets are bought using either the 4 quarterly or 10 monthly payment plans.No immediate financial boost to the club then. Like several other clubs Rangers are simply putting their own fans first and rightly so.
    Why Sevco need/want that first 4 quarterly payment money now, rather than waiting until Celtic divvy up after match-day is a question worth asking. 

    View Comment
  27. Homunculus


    The word from one of the administrators on follow follow is that Rangers are definitely releasing an orange strip for next season.

    It would appear this is a big deal to the good people there and they are predicting record shirt sales when it is released. 

    View Comment
  28. torrejohnbhoy

    Years ago my better half worked with the finance company that handled Oldcos ST applications.In those days,under SDM,the agreement was for 20 months but you could pay more than the minimum if you wished to pay your loan off quicker.For those who paid the minimum though,the cost of the ticket doubled.Add your next loan for the following season when you’ve still got 8 monthly payments to make on your 1st,then some folk really got in a mess.RFC(IL) though,received 100% up front.They also registered themselves as a broker & got 5% commission on every ticket sold.I wouldn’t be surprised if every club did this.

    View Comment
  29. paddy malarkey

    paddy malarkey

    JIMBOMAY 25, 2018 at 00:42
    Jimbo , buddy , sorry to disturb your firmament but that’s just how one supporter of a diddy club views it . Most of my siblings have CFC  ST’s . I still pay for the TRFC-supporting daughter’s ST but not the CFC one  – she has a bit more about her . It’s accepted – no whitabootery . I got lucky in that one of my grandfathers wanted company and took me , the oldest boy , to see Maryhill Juniors , Maryhill Harp (my uncle was manager/coach) and the Mighty Jags . At school , I went with mates to both Celtic Park and Ibrox Stadium without prejudice from anywhere – just a gang of boys . I go to every Scotland match I can manage , even when I’m scunnered with the whole corrupt organisation . I’ve been to a lot more foreign countries following them than I ever would following my club . Our views of our respective clubs are bound to differ , but at the end of the day it’s only a game to me . I’m up for next season and will renew again despite knowing that we’ll probably have to be lucky to get near promotion . Onwards and upwards !

    View Comment
  30. jimbo


    Cheers Paddy.

    The poster who has been having a go at me doesn’t understand things.  I explained it a few weeks ago after the latest snide comments against me by JJ.

    That was the context of my incoherent post.  I’m not going back into it.  I admit it hurts when JJ says things against me because I used to think highly of him.  Donated plenty.  I was defending myself.

    I don’t have a dual personality.  I was making the comparison between what JJ thinks of me and the actuality.  The post which ‘lavished praise’ on me – I never read.  If it was under my moniker I can’t explain that.  I only have one account.  One laptop.  Ask BP or Tris.

    I would do away with the TDs.  The amount of harmless posts getting TDs is horrible.   Just TUs would be good.  Award them or ignore them.

    View Comment
  31. Cluster One

    Cluster One

    HOMUNCULUSMAY 25, 2018 at 18:25
    0 Rate This
    The word from one of the administrators on follow follow is that Rangers are definitely releasing an orange strip for next season.
    ————–Will that be their european kit?
    If they are out of europe before it is released.I hope there are record sales.
    How humiliating will it be to be seen in one.The strip that never made it to europe.

    View Comment
  32. slimjim

    The majority of Rangers fans would rather put money into their own club than pay £49 a ticket for Celtic park.
    Your second point is irrelevant as it is based on a hypothetical situation.
    The board may indeed “know it”, you don’t. 

    View Comment
  33. Cluster One

    Cluster One

    SLIMJIMMAY 25, 2018 at 19:27
    It must be the minority then that sell out there allocation to see their team play at celtic park16

    View Comment
  34. slimjim

    They will still sell out their allocation at CP. 
    This however will enable them to sell 8,000 more tickets for Rangers fans at Ibrox.  
    These 8,000 fans will spend more money on merchandise, catering, programmes etc.
    More Rangers supporters at the game. More revenue being generated for the club.
    What’s not to like?. 

    View Comment
  35. bfbpuzzled

    your 7000 x 600 figure is not applicable since the same seat will have been sold as season tickets without the right to attend TRFC CFC games. The net effect might be slightly negative depending on how much a Celtic supporter pays for his two tickets compared to the difference between a with CFC season book compared to the without CFC season book, I see figures bandied about of £49 pounds per ticket for CFC fans so £98 for two games compared to the figures for two games on a season book. 
    Helpumoot-Apologies for any offence, as I tried to say I find Jimbo inoffensive if a bit off beam, cantankerousness is the martial art at which I have the best qualification , I have learned from an Uncle who is now 88 and shows no sign of mellowing.
    I see that the pope of the plagiarirsts has moved onto literary criticism by copying John Clark’s letter to Mr Maxwell and commenting how he would improve it. Perhaps he has been adding thumbs down here to posts which do not meet his self acclaimed literary standards of wide vocabulary and profound learning. In my experience those truly of such learning rarely claim it tending more to self deprecation or modesty. Although I feel sorry for the lad for a variety of reasons, at the same time I find his swings from one view of other sites to its opposite like a fast cycling bi-polar sufferer (that is only a simile no more no less) gruesomely fascinating.

    View Comment
  36. bfbpuzzled

    See my comment above for another view on the balance of revenue with/without Celtic supporters. 
    You might have a point about secondary spend but again that might not be as big a difference as it might first appear.  If these “extra supporters” are from adding two games to existing season books the additional secondary spend might be minimal since they already have 36 games to buy fans accoutrements. As to catering, the differences would only be substantial if Celtic supporters were boycotting the food outlets and/or TRFC supporters eat more junk food at games than their CFC counterparts. I used to do work connected to these kinds of projections in some cases for pretty mad projects it was not difficult to jalouis that the proposed British National Fishhook Museum was unlikely to be a great money spinner (boom boom for you anglers)

    View Comment
  37. Cluster One

    Cluster One

    SLIMJIMMAY 25, 2018 at 19:44
    These 8,000 fans will spend more money on merchandise, catering, programmes etc.More Rangers supporters at the game. More revenue being generated for the club.What’s not to like?. 
    You sound a bit like  David Murray there SJ.
    fans go to his ground and cause damage.
    ”They don’t buy our programmes or eat our fast food. But they do
    smash our seats,” he said.
    Rangers also say that they have to pay an added #12,000 on their
    police bill when Celtic visit. Mr Murray does not fear a backlash with
    Celtic refusing to give tickets to Rangers’ fans. He knows, of course,
    that Celtic, who are more than #5m in debt, cannot afford to go without
    the money generated by Rangers’ supporters.
    Mr Murray also knows he can sell out Ibrox when Celtic play even
    without their supporters.
    There is no law in the game which states that clubs must give their
    opponents tickets and Mr Peter Donald, secretary of the Scottish League,
    said: ”It is most unfortunate and there is no doubt that part of
    football’s attraction is the atmosphere which can be generated by
    supporters of opposing clubs.”
    He knows, of course,
    that Celtic, who are more than #5m in debt, cannot afford to go without
    the money generated by Rangers’ supporters……..Oh Dear.

    View Comment
  38. paddy malarkey

    paddy malarkey

    Depending on how devilish they feel , either one of the Cheeky boys could sell100 tickets of their allocation to their fans and hand back the residue at the last minute , leaving the other 700 unsold and leaving the host club with a deficit of £35k . Segregation would mean that the seats couldn’t be sold to home fans, wouldn’t it ?

    View Comment
  39. paddy malarkey

    paddy malarkey

    I have a bright orange Run365 top, which is envied by some TRFC supporting mates , but they decline to buy one for themselves for fear of upsetting folk for not putting money into the club ..  I don’t think that is a healthy state of affairs . 

    View Comment
  40. Homunculus


    MAY 25, 2018 at 19:46

    In all honesty I got fed up with the discussion re moving Celtic Supporters out of the Broomloan stand. It all gets too complicated to try to discuss.

    Some of the people in that stand have all games tickets, they are therefore entitled to go to the Celtic games. That means some of the seats elsewhere have to preclude the Celtic games, so that the people in the Broomloan can get their seat for Celtic games.

    As I see it this will mean that everyone in the Broomloan stand will now be allowed to “upgrade” to all games. The people elsewhere will also get to “upgrade” and won’t have to miss those games so the people from the Broomloan can take their seats. 

    Given that Rangers claim to sell out most games anyway, with either season tickets, Celtic supporters in the Broomloan or matchday tickets to Rangers supporters there is no extra income to be had. It’s a specious argument.

    If you already sell out then if anything selling more season tickets mean you generate less income. People expect to pay less for a season ticket than buying a matchday ticket for every game.

    Seriously, it isn’t an income issue in my opinion, it’s a cashflow one. They need the money now, not more later in the season.

    View Comment
  41. slimjim

    CLUSTER ONE 20.10
    “You sound a bit like David Murray there sj”
    I have had more than a few insults thrown at me on here but you have just moved into first place with that one. 

    View Comment
  42. valentinesclown


    Reference the ticket allocation I am more than happy not to give £100  a year to the Ibrox club. IMO this will have a negative effect on the atmosphere which suits me.  SKY will not be happy as seeing the very few away fans as this game is sold on its unique atmosphere. Hopefully viewing figures will drop as it will lose some of its appeal to neutral fans.
    Funny how they never brought this up during their winning years of the old Ibrox club.

    View Comment
  43. Cluster One

    Cluster One

    SLIMJIMMAY 25, 2018 at 20:58
    I have been trying to tone down the language for some time now.
    Oh well back to the Drawing board16

    View Comment
  44. slimjim

    More than happy not to receive your £100  and instead have a Rangers supporter sitting in your seat. I don’t think it will have a negative effect on the atmosphere at all. Barca-Madrid, Boca- River Plate, Galatasaray-Fenerbahce for example all have away supports numbered in the hundreds with no adverse effect on the atmosphere.
    The much talked about “special atmosphere” at Celtic park for Champions League games is somehow achieved without a large visiting support is it not?.
    Nothing to do with”cash flow problems” or a “immediate need” for the revenue imo. There have been meetings regarding this issue between the club and supporters for a number of months, and it seems that the club have actually taken the fans views on board and acted accordingly. 

    You failed in that case.

    View Comment
  45. Cluster One

    Cluster One

    SLIMJIMMAY 25, 2018 at 21:29
    What if they charge celtic fans £5 a head to get in to see the last 20 min as most of the home support will be gone by then06
    ok i’ll get my coat

    View Comment
  46. easyJambo

    slimjim May 25, 2018 at 19:44
    CLUSTER ONE. They will still sell out their allocation at CP.  This however will enable them to sell 8,000 more tickets for Rangers fans at Ibrox.   These 8,000 fans will spend more money on merchandise, catering, programmes etc. More Rangers supporters at the game. More revenue being generated for the club. What’s not to like?. 
    I would think that the financial gain will be marginal. Rangers average (paid) attendance in the league was around 49,000 last season.  With no increase in the physical capacity of Ibrox, the average attendance will remain much the same.

    There may be a modest saving in security costs, but that will be offset by the discount that the new ST holders receive against the standard ticket prices for walk ups that they took up last season.

    View Comment
  47. Bogs Dollox

    Cluster OneMay 25, 2018 at 17:58
    Re. the two cheeks accusation When there was no ibrox club in the top flight a number of cups were won by other clubs. When a mediocer ibrox club reached the top flight celtic upped there game and became invinsibles.
    This goes back to the PMG anti heated driveway campaign and the behaviour of TRFC Directors at the Semi.

    But it is so patronising. It makes it sound like Celtic up to then were only half trying, wining the League and not the Cups but grabbing the Euro riches.

    It was almost like a business was happy with its returns on capital but personal insults drove them to spend and dominate.

    Who now are the triumphalists and in what battle?

    View Comment
  48. Cluster One

    Cluster One

    CLUSTER ONEYou failed in that case.
    If you try to fail,and succeed.which have you done.
    i love that quote and SJ just reminded me of it.

    View Comment
  49. Bogs Dollox

    slimjimMay 25, 2018 at 19:27
    CORRUPT OFFICIAL 18.14 The majority of Rangers fans would rather put money into their own club than pay £49 a ticket for Celtic park. Your second point is irrelevant as it is based on a hypothetical situation. The board may indeed “know it”, you don’t. 
    To ask for £49 for a ticket for a football match is a disgrace to every football fan in Scotland. But hey ho – there are thems that pay it!

    View Comment
  50. slimjim

    BOGS DOLLOX 22.05
    Has been common practice for many years that the two clubs charge a identical amount for visiting supporters.  
    I agree that £49 for a game, any game, is far too much . As long as the fans continue to pay it however there will be no change.     

    View Comment
  51. jockybhoy

    Regarding the unilateral decision of The Rangers to break with decades of tradition in order to pander to their fan base – Good. It underlines again that there is no longer any “Old Firm”.

    Where it might be an issue – and one that may affect Scottish football as a whole (as another poster pointed out) is how this may affect TV rights. The reason that there is such a great atmosphere (sic) at Rangers Celtic is that there is such a significant number of Away fans- based on the past few games the TV rights aren’t valuable on competitiveness – so if the atmosphere is lessened, the spectacle is lessened and the value is lessened.

    Brendan Rodgers has MON’s myopia – if Celtic get humped 6-1 he will focus on the positives. As a Celtic fan I don’t give a rat’s @ss about the pitch – we expect to win every game (knowing we won’t before someone accuses me of arrogance). He said something that may or may not benefit Celtic in the future – much as Levein had a bash at Brown – big deal – but in truth he would do the same thing. Gamesmanship? Hypocrisy? Eye of the Beholder…

    View Comment

Leave a Reply

SSL Certificates