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 )

and

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

http://tiny.cc/y6sxsy

 

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 http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) 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 http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy  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.

Auldheid

Auldheid

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.

2,376 Comments
  1. wottpi


    JOCKYBHOYAPRIL 23, 2018 at 08:11

    A very nice summation in a few lines.

    To paraphrase a movie what T’Rangers fans deserve is the truth. 
    The trouble is they can’t handle the truth!

    Interestingly enough, calls for wanting something ‘better’ were coming from some Hearts fans over the weekend given the fairly meek performance at Ibrox.

    While many Hearts fans are more than aware of the calamity that nearly engulfed the club some are worried that an attitude of being grateful for just surviving, along with Levein’s tactics are holding the club back.

    Therefore there has to be an element of acknowledging where things have gone wrong in the past but that should not necessarily taint your future.

    However some T’Rangers fans seen to both deny or block out their past and expect things to be ‘back to normal’ ASAP.

    The answer is of course getting the balance right when rebuilding.

    Despite having wished for Levein to have really taken the game to T’rangers yesterday, as there was absolutely nothing to gain from playing it cautiously, I still think in terms of a long term strategy he is on the right track but do acknowledge patience is wearing thin.

    View Comment
  2. Billy Boyce


    StevieBC April 23, 2018 at 03:10
    Apparently, the new royal baby’s arrival is imminent.  This wonderful news will come as a big relief to the likes of Theresa May and Dave King who will be praying for a happy diversion this week.

    View Comment
  3. jimbo

    jimbo


    https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/ian-maxwell-appointed-as-chief-executive/?rid=13929&utm_source=Direct

    Ian Maxwell new Chief Exec. at SFA

    (Thanks to Auldheid)

    View Comment
  4. jimbo

    jimbo


    Surely Ian Maxwell can’t be any worse than Regan.  Coming from PT could be a good thing.  A club that is fiercely proud of it’s neutrality.

    Can’t see the CO report coming out before he takes office. He has nothing to fear in that respect. Name and shame!

    Rumours going around that Petrie & McRae were against him.  That can only be a good thing too.

    View Comment
  5. John Clark


    In fairness to the banner-bearers, I can happily make a distinction between an unjustified claim to deserve anything just because “we arra Peepul”, and a rightful claim to deserve to have truth spoken to them by those who have so exploited their cash-contributing loyalty while  right royally shafting  them by their deceitful incompetence  and business recklessness.
    The Boards at Ibrox must rank as among the least trustworthy and most self-destructively incompetent in European business, their incompetence being no more clearly exposed than by the shambolic shambles their PR people have made of their PR! 
    The Fat Controller got Thomas the Tank Engine and his fellows to stay on the lines and run smoothly. There’s another Fat Controller who is absolutely hopeless at his job.
    Never has the cry of ‘sack the board’ been more justified for so many reasons!

    View Comment
  6. Darkbeforedawn


    So I’m back on after being off on holiday the best part of the last week, and what a depressing time to be a Rangers fan! An absolute shambles of a club on and off the field. From King effectively throwing Murty under a bus days before the semi final, the horrendous performance in that game and the aftermath, and the turgid display yesterday against a Hearts team that looked as if they were already on their holiday. I can’t see where we will get 3 points in our last 4 games far less any more to ensure a 2nd or 3rd place finish. The only person in our board who came out and spoke any sense was Johnston, yet he was heavilly slated for it despite the fact realisitically we were never going to be ‘going for 55’ or Europa League group stages or any of the nonsense we were peddled at the start of the year.

    The ‘we demand better’ campaign I don’t believe is from a sense of entitlement, but more to the fact the fans are constantly being taken for mugs by a crooked board with no transparancy what so ever. Where is King’s offer for the shares? Where is the share issue that we have been promised since 2015? Where is the NOMAD? Where is the 5 or even 2 year plan for how we will become self sufficient? Having plunged our season ticket money into the club year on year and backed the board to the hilt, I genuinly do believe we deserve better. And it’s not world class managers, multi million pound players or a right to challenge Celtic. It’s a more transparant running of the club, and assurances we are not being taken for mugs.

    View Comment
  7. woodstein

    woodstein


    Attachment

    John Clark
    Your post, April 23, 2018 at 00:06 am.
    I agree with your point that 5 mins is not enough time to PROPERLY construct a post and check all the possible errors.
    I use Microsoft Office Word to create the post, and then when all is tickety-boo, copy and paste into the comment box.
    As jockybhoy April 23, 2018 at 08:11 says:-
     “writing it in notepad doesn’t work 100% as the paragraph spacing doesn’t translate as it looks”
     
    A free alternative to Microsoft Word is Apache Openoffice, see above.
    I have used this in the past and it was fine.
     
    https://www.openoffice.org/
     

    View Comment
  8. jimbo

    jimbo


    Where’s the Jambos today?   Come on, get on here and explain yourselves!

    View Comment
  9. AmFearLiathMòr

    AmFearLiathMòr


    Anyone catch Sportsound on sunday?
    There was a couple of interesting little bits:

    Robbie Nielsen going on about players not being mentally big enough to play for Rangers. If they give the ball away with their first touch, they are finished at the club because of the expectation etc. At no point did anyone go ‘Well, isn’t that the fault of the fans?’ – it was all about the aggrandisement of the ‘weight of the jersey’.

    Chic getting it in the neck for making his summation of the top six all about Rangers.  It took others in the commentary panel to point out that other clubs were taking part!

    However, perhaps the most enlightening one was about the Murty’s press conference.  The team were talking about the unrest at Ibrox, and how that would affect preparations for the Hearts game, and Chic said that Murty wasn’t actually asked about the unrest, and then just moved swiftly on to his team lineup and how they would prepare.  At no point did anyone even acknowledge that the biggest talking point in Scottish football that week was just glossed over by the press when sat in the same room as the person who it all revolved around. That’s where we are. 
    Although, not that surprising.  I seem to remember Chic interviewing Walter Smith in 2010, when Walter just happened to drop into the conversation that the bank were running Rangers.  What was Chic’s reaction to this being dropped in his lap? ‘Back to you in the studio, Richard.’
    Not, ‘What?!? How? Why? Where?!?’, but quite simply ‘Back to you in the studio.’  To be fair, it was the time when he was writing his cliché-ridden-’40 years at the coal face’ column for the BBC website, so maybe he had to rush off and put the finishing touches on that…

    View Comment
  10. bigboab1916


    success look at time line between post and reply to say success. It works.

    View Comment
  11. magicroundabout

    magicroundabout


    JIMBOAPRIL 23, 2018 at 13:08
    1
    1 Rate This
    Where’s the Jambos today?   Come on, get on here and explain yourselves!

    Just a typical Jambo away performance at the moment I am afraid.

    View Comment
  12. billyj1


    Excellent work yet again. Thank you.

    View Comment
  13. jimbo

    jimbo


    Very informative as usual from Auldheid.

    I take it that’s a wee typo at the start of the summary, the references to April and July 2018?  2017?

    View Comment
  14. wottpi


    MAGICROUNDABOUTAPRIL 23, 2018 at 13:51
    JIMBOAPRIL 23, 2018 at 13:08

    Had just composed what was the best critique ever of Hearts performance of weekend and the ins and outs of Levein’s management style and where the club are going.

    However it didn’t post due to the new blog ending comments on the old one. When I hit the back button my missive was gone from the posting box.

    You’ll just have to take my word for it as I can’t be arsed typing it all again.

    View Comment
  15. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    Good post – & timing – there Auldheid.  09

    And to follow follow on from above: it will be interesting to see the new CEO’s first, detailed interaction with the SMSM.  222222

    Will he mention ‘Transparency’ ?
    Will he talk about building ‘Trust’ ? 
    …will he even mention the fans…you know, the paying customers ? 

    I’d guess we will get an immediate indication of whether it’s more of the same b*llox from Hampden, or a proper acknowledgement that the SFA must improve.

    [And that’s also assuming that the new SFA CEO doesn’t adopt the SFA President’s hermitic tendencies with regard to the SMSM.]

    View Comment
  16. StevieBC

    StevieBC


    Headline from The Sun today;

    “Bookies slash odds on Steven Gerrard taking over at Rangers this summer”

    222222

    View Comment
  17. ThomTheThim

    ThomTheThim


    DARKBEFOREDAWNAPRIL 23, 2018 at 12:21
    Unfortunately, the transparency that is so badly needed at Ibrox will never happen under the present and past business model.
    From Murray D. to King D. it is the secrecy of their business methods that have allowed each charlatan to fleece their loyal fans.
    Lies and statements, unquestioned by the media, loaded with stuff the fans wanted to hear.

    However, the vital information, exposing these men, was out there, but a combination of SFA compliance and the sources of the information, led the “better deserving” fans to ignore all warnings and continue to line the pockets of the fleecers.
    Remember, everyone who climbed the marble staircase was lauded to the heavens, only to be damned to Hell on their way down, by both fans and media.
    How many times are your support going to be fleeced by RRM?
    Deserve better? 

    View Comment
  18. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    Thanks for that informative post, Aulheid, it would indeed appear that EUFA do take their FFP regulations seriously, at least in terms of outstanding payments. 

    Imagine if one of our football clubs had only been saved from the ignominy of UEFA sanctions by the ignominy of liquidation! 

    View Comment
  19. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    Sky Sports have announced that Scot Arfield is the latest name to be used to sell Ibrox season tickets.

    View Comment
  20. Auldheid


    jimboApril 23, 2018 at 15:14 (Edit)
    Very informative as usual from Auldheid.
    I take it that’s a wee typo at the start of the summary, the references to April and July 2018?  2017?
    ==================================
    Half way 19.

    The UEFA Report just came out this month but it should have read ” In April 2017 the Swiss FL etc

    View Comment
  21. jimbo

    jimbo


    You would think that the SFA officials who deal with licence granting, would read these reports and absorb them.  Learn to tread carefully and be thorough.

    What punishments are meted out to the local FAs who are either negligent or too lenient?  Is it only the errant clubs who take the rap?

    What if, heaven forbid, there is collusion?

    View Comment
  22. slimjim


    AJ
    Rangers fans buy season tickets because they support Rangers. Simple
    The potential signing of SA would hardly have non-season ticket supporters breaking down the door to the Ticket Office.
    Neither you nor i know whether he will join or not. Only time will tell.

    View Comment
  23. bfbpuzzled


    Jimbo
    Try and get a ticket for Bishop Barron in September one of the best speakers you shall ever hear
    I suspect the answer to why ‘We deserve better” is very much rooted in the WATP mentality. However if it a true call for reform and a prelude to positive action then it is to be applauded- I have my doubts though…

    View Comment
  24. John Clark


    jimboApril 23, 2018 at 17:22
    ‘….What if, heaven forbid, there is collusion?’
    ______
    Now there’s a thought when thinking thoughts about the wee 7 month long ,and as yet unreported on, so-called investigation into our own wee UEFA licence suspected jiggery-pokery! 

    Can it be stalling because of what might be found out and require to be exposed?

    Surely Mr Maxwell hasn’t got that kind of thing in his in-tray?13

    View Comment
  25. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    SLIMJIMAPRIL 23, 2018 at 17:24
    1
    1 Rate This
    AJRangers fans buy season tickets because they support Rangers. SimpleThe potential signing of SA would hardly have non-season ticket supporters breaking down the door to the Ticket Office.
    —————
    Unless Dave king stands outside the ticket office with cups of tea15

    View Comment
  26. jimbo

    jimbo


    JC,  If rumours are true, the CO report has been lying in the IN Tray for a wee while now.

    Why the delay?  It can only mean one thing I suspect.  Heads will need to roll.  If it’s as bad as it could be it may be beyond Brysonesque technology.

    Besides we are in the split.  Most games are important.  League placings to be achieved, Euro places, relegations & promotions.  A Scottish Cup Final.  Not a good time to explode a bomb.  Best wait until the end of the season and let the new guy deal with it.

    View Comment
  27. slimjim


    CO
    My opinion of DK is such that if he did as you say the price would be added on to the ST.

    View Comment
  28. Christyboy

    Christyboy


    STEVIEBCAPRIL 23, 2018 at 16:11

    I seem to remember him being a guest of The Rangers directors at the last game against Celtic. There were pictures I’m sure on internet. I suppose that doesn’t mean anything though.

    View Comment
  29. jimbo

    jimbo


    BFBPuzzled,   What I will say is the demonstration banners on display were not for our benefit.  They were quite clearly aimed at the Ibrox board.  Yes they were public, but that was to embarrass the board.  If its a communication between fans and their club they can use what ever language they like.  ‘Deserve’ or ‘Expect’ it matters little. 

    The only time it annoys me is when, as you say, it centers around WATP.  The superiority complex.  Back to where we belong.  That stuff is idiotic.  And it’s an insult to the rest of the wider Scottish Football arena.

    View Comment
  30. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    Attachment

    Great informative Blog by AULDHEID there.
    ————
    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 article by Alistair johnson dated Febuary 15, 2012 had him saying.
    “With the economic crashes of the last few years,David no longer had the ability to save rangers as he had done first time around.
    To some extent he must take some responsibility.But the economic crash compromised any ambitions he had.”
    In an incredible outburst,johnston also hinted that MORE TAX REVELATIONS are set to engulf whyte and rangers.
    He stressed HMRC are not going anywhere.The escalation in HMRC liabilities that he somewhat reported yesterday relates to other issues with HMRC which have yet to be reported.That’s with respect to non-payment or withholding taxes.There is a lot going to come out under investigation in the next few weeks.

    View Comment
  31. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    slimjimApril 23, 2018 at 17:24 
    AJRangers fans buy season tickets because they support Rangers. SimpleThe potential signing of SA would hardly have non-season ticket supporters breaking down the door to the Ticket Office.Neither you nor i know whether he will join or not. Only time will tell.
    _____________________

    And Morelos is really worth £14m. And TRFC isn’t up to the lying necks of it’s board in debt. And Jim Traynor is not involved in their efforts to sell season tickets. And there’s never before been unsubstantiated media rumours of high profile (in SPFL terms) players that TRFC were about to sign, at season ticket time. And Rangers supporters used to buy season tickets to watch Rangers, but now they buy them to watch TRFC.

    If you believe that TRFC don’t have their PR team put out these rumours to help encourage ST sales then you haven’t been paying attention. 

    Since it’s inception, even before it was renamed The Rangers Football Club, the club you now support has based it’s whole existence on lies. Lies then, lies now and lies for as long as it lasts.

    View Comment
  32. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    SLIMJIMAPRIL 23, 2018 at 18:18
    3
    0 Rate This
    COMy opinion of DK is such that if he did as you say the price would be added on to the ST.
    ———–
    No one is going to pull the wool over your eyes04

    View Comment
  33. scottc

    scottc


    AULDHEID
    APRIL 23, 2018 at 17:04

    jimboApril 23, 2018 at 15:14 (Edit)Very informative as usual from Auldheid.I take it that’s a wee typo at the start of the summary, the references to April and July 2018?  2017?==================================Half way  .
    The UEFA Report just came out this month but it should have read ” In April 2017 the Swiss FL etc

    I believe there is a ‘December 2017’ that should read ‘December 2016’ as well. 19

    Unless Sion were paying for players before they bought them, of course. 09

    View Comment
  34. Auldheid


    Date: 23rd April 2018
    NEWS RELEASE
    SFSA WELCOMES APPOINTMENT OF NEW SFA CEO
    Scotland’s national fans group welcomes the appointment of Ian Maxwell SFSA calls for a fresh start to fans affairs in Scotland
    23rd April 2018: The Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) has today congratulated the SFA on the appointment of its new CEO, Ian Maxwell, and has called for a change of direction for the organisation in its handling of fans affairs in the future.
    The SFSA – Scotland’s national fans body – is a not-for-profit, members’ organisation open to everyone, whether they are individuals, supporters groups or affiliates. The body, which currently has over 71,000 members, has had dealings with Ian Maxwell during his tenure as Managing Director at Partick Thistle FC.
    Simon Barrow, Chair of the Scottish Football Supporters Association, said: “It is extremely important that the Scottish Football Association uses this appointment to change direction from the way fans have previously been treated. We believe that supporters deserve more recognition in Scottish football – as do players and coaches/managers. Ian has proven to be an excellent advocate for fans having a significant voice at Partick Thistle and we do hope that he will be allowed to build on that experience when he takes over at Hampden Park.
    “At the end of last year our independent academic research showed that the reputation of the football authorities was exceptionally poor. We as supporters are more than happy to work with Ian Maxwell and others to improve that situation in the months and years ahead. We now need more fan engagement at every level to make this truly ‘the people’s game’ once more.”
    The SFSA can be found on Twitter @scottishfsa, through #reclaimthegame and on Facebook.
    Ends
    For further information on the SFSA and the Fans Awards, please contact Paul Goodwin on 07702-252519.

    View Comment
  35. Auldheid


    scottcApril 23, 2018 at 18:51

    Cheers. It is 2016.

    View Comment
  36. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    From the AJ article i posted above.
    Nine months after buying the club he (Craig whyte) has not fulfilled the promises and commitments he made to rangers fans.From that stand point he deserves a black mark for heinous failure.
    I wonder what colour he put’s next to dave king?

    View Comment
  37. slimjim


    AJ
    I don’t think we’re the only club that uses PR to put a positive spin on a story tbh. 
    Do you believe that it’s Rangers & Rangers alone who are the subject of transfer speculation from the media?.If you do then you are the one who must pay attention.
    As a Rangers supporter and having spoken to fellow supporters today none would be tempted into buying a ST on the back of SA signing. 
      
      

    View Comment
  38. bigboab1916


    DarkbeforedawnApril 23, 2018 at 12:21
    “I genuinly do believe we deserve better. And it’s not world class managers, multi million pound players or a right to challenge Celtic. It’s a more transparant running of the club, and assurances we are not being taken for mugs.”

    Do you not think this statement rings true for Celtic fans who have been dragged into a media frenzy since the so called establishment club (no laughing its were WATP developed from).
    1. Celtic worked their club perfectly which allowed them to appoint a class manager
    2. Allowed them to bring in multi million pound players and astute business to make multi million pound players
    3. Celtic fans and other fans deserve better, there are other clubs who have cut their cloth accordingly and they do deserve better for the effort and sacrifices made.
    4. The only people taking for mugs was fans of the opposition from a compliant and biased media with an agenda.
    Sevco fans were not blind or stupid as people make out as this would be an embarressment to fans intelligence, the WATP and it will blow over attitude was applied until a few weeks ago it has donned on them, nothing is coming to the rescue this time round, their board is in decline and everyone had warned of it, but the fans of the club and media preffered the finger in ears la la approach. Sevco fool no-one and no-one is fooled as to their fate. They deserve everytrhing for been ignorant of the facts that were available.

    View Comment
  39. ThomTheThim

    ThomTheThim


    Firstly, I don’t expect any comment from Mr.Maxwell until he assumes his appointment at the end of the season.
    Also, he is still employed by Partick Thistle, as I understand it.
    As to why the TRFC support have rejected the freely available information regarding their clubs affairs , I can only suggest two options.
    1) The source of much of this information….on cultural grounds.
    2) and probably more plausible, because they have to. To acknowledge reality would go to the very core of their beliefs and being and that is also a step too far.
    However, what excuse does our media, print and broadcast ,plus the SFA have for lying and in the latter’s case, corrupting their own rule book.

    That is where the problem lies. Clubs come and go,but the Rule Book should be sacrosanct.

    View Comment
  40. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    slimjimApril 23, 2018 at 19:35 
    AJI don’t think we’re the only club that uses PR to put a positive spin on a story tbh. Do you believe that it’s Rangers & Rangers alone who are the subject of transfer speculation from the media?.If you do then you are the one who must pay attention.As a Rangers supporter and having spoken to fellow supporters today none would be tempted into buying a ST on the back of SA signing.
    ___________________

    Other clubs may well use PR to sell season tickets, but TRFC have taken it to a whole new level, Level5, in fact. Every season there has been a whole raft of fanciful signings bandied about, and no other club has the unquestioning help that TRFC gets from the SMSM, who publish these stories as though they’ve discovered them by their own digging, rather than received them in an email from Jim Traynor.

    The true, big story at Ibrox surrounds money, or rather the lack of it, and the continued grandiose claims of Chinese suitors with £14m to spend on a striker more noted for his big match misses than his goals, a deal with a small-time kit manufacturer supposedly with a down payment to the club worth as much as the manufacturer’s net annual profit, and every season SMSM backed ‘rumours’ of ‘named’ signing targets that outweigh the number of such stories of the whole of the rest of Scottish football put together.

    You might think it doesn’t work with the Ibrox faithful, but the whole shooting match that is TRFC has been built on lies and unfulfilled promises that the faithful buy into, lock stock and barrel, until the media turn against the board and feed them the truth as though it has only just become apparent. As long as they use words like ‘We are the people’, ‘surrender, no!’, ‘orange tops’ and so on, allied to the rhetoric of a big club, the season tickets sell. The effect on TRFC of a reality that isn’t ‘biggest and best’ hasn’t been tested yet, but your old club was quite famous for it’s collapsing support whenever it’s superiority was proven to be non-existent.

    The truth is, TRFC are nowhere near as good as the amount of money spent, not yet paid, borrowed and promised should have them, and TRFC will move ever closer to the next Ibrox insolvency event if they don’t match, at least, the ST sales of last season – that were built on the back of yet more promises and dud, or unfulfilled, ‘big named signings’.

    View Comment
  41. jimbo

    jimbo


    I’m going to come to the defence of some football fans here.  Including bears!!!!

    They don’t care or are interested in the politics of clubs in Scotland.  They care only in buying their STs and supporting their team.  I know some Celtic fans who know bits and pieces of what has gone on.  But nothing like we are aware of.  The problems actually lie elsewhere.

    We have to understand that people like us are in the minority.  People who take a great interest in the machinations of directors and the football authorities.  I could go on all day about the corruption at Hampden over the years.

    But why the SMSM?   That is a big question.   I mentioned on here a couple of years ago, if you aggregate all the football fans in Scotland who are not bears, we would be in the majority.  So why the slavish adherence to the continuity myth for example?  Why be Rangers minded when it is profoundly untrue?

    Are they all The Rangers supporting Masons?  I find that hard to believe, I hope that is not true in this day and age.  But it is inexplicable.

    View Comment
  42. slimjim


    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqgsr4
    Not sure if this is allowed but would be interested in Auldheids response.

    View Comment
  43. slimjim


    AJ 
    I personally don’t read the newspapers and therefore can’t refute or agree with what you say.
    The tone of your original post however inferred that the media were used by Rangers to boost ST sales by linking them with a pre-contract move for Scott Arfield. I simply pointed out that this news would not lead to a stampede of Non ST fans to the Ticket Office. If he signs will you have the good grace to post on here that you were wrong? 
    If i told you last season that Hearts would start a game at Ibrox with Kyle Lafferty & Steven Naismith leading your forward line (Not that they got forward much 19) would you have believed it?. Stranger things have happened in Scottish football.

    View Comment
  44. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    slimjimApril 23, 2018 at 21:02 
    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqgsr4Not sure if this is allowed but would be interested in Auldheids response.
    ____-____

    Absolute nonsense that I know Auldheid will debunk better than I, but I will just ask; do you think this response to Auldheid, or what it contains, is the reason why it’s taking so long for the Compliance Officer to clear both Rangers and the SFA of the fraudulent issuing of a Euro License? I mean, if it was that simple, and everything was above board, it would be easy to prove and publish quickly to clear the names of all involved, would it not?

    View Comment
  45. slimjim


    AJ
    I like you will look forward to Auldheids response to the points JB has raised.
    I honestly don’t know the time frame the Compliance Officer works to but surely the same works in reverse. If it was so clear cut that Rangers broke the rules then why haven’t the other club chairmen been screaming from the rooftops and demanding a immediate response?.
           

    View Comment
  46. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 23, 2018 at 20:25
    Other clubs may well use PR to sell season tickets, but TRFC have taken it to a whole new level, Level5, in fact. Every season there has been a whole raft of fanciful signings bandied about, and no other club has the unquestioning help that TRFC gets from the SMSM, who publish these stories as though they’ve discovered them by their own digging, rather than received them in an email from Jim Traynor.
    ————–
    Today is a prime example, a couple of players linked to ibrox,and yet they don’t have a manager. Do they expect a new manager to come in and his signings have already been made?
    Or is it just more PR spin?

    View Comment
  47. Allyjambo

    Allyjambo


    slimjimApril 23, 2018 at 21:21 
    AJ I personally don’t read the newspapers and therefore can’t refute or agree with what you say.The tone of your original post however inferred that the media were used by Rangers to boost ST sales by linking them with a pre-contract move for Scott Arfield. I simply pointed out that this news would not lead to a stampede of Non ST fans to the Ticket Office. If he signs will you have the good grace to post on here that you were wrong? If i told you last season that Hearts would start a game at Ibrox with Kyle Lafferty & Steven Naismith leading your forward line (Not that they got forward much ) would you have believed it?. Stranger things have happened in Scottish football.
    ___________________________

    I don’t read newspapers either, but pick up what they are saying online when I see references on here and elsewhere. My earlier post was merely a throw away line, mainly as an amusement rather than something to start a discussion over any club’s PR nonsense, however, I note you’ve not contradicted what I said about your lying board, nor the company they use to push their PR, a large part of which will be dedicated to sales of all sorts.

    I didn’t believe that Lafferty and/or Naismith would arrive at Tynecastle, and treated the rumours as exactly that until they were sighted at Tynecastle, at which time I believed Hearts were in talks with them. The stories in the press involved not just Hearts, and were clearly speculation over Scottish players looking for a club. That was how I viewed it in both cases. 

    I am not saying, and didn’t say, TRFC supporters would buy STs just because Arfield might be, or is, coming. I suggested, though, that it is part of the regular sales pitch pushed each year by TRFC. It may be that no one from the club contacted anyone to say it was happening, but, no doubt, it is the brainchild of Traynor and Level5.

    The real news – heavy defeat to Celtic, upcoming title party at Parkhead, King’s TOP compliance (or not), Alastair Johnston’s PR disaster – are all unlikely to help sales one bit, so feelgood deflection is urgently needed.

    View Comment
  48. Helpumoot


    BBC presenter gets told in his ear to stfu about Sevco fans protest and does a poor job at covering up. Pretty disgraceful. And embarrassing for the BBC.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/garydoc777/status/988109983660298240

    View Comment
  49. slimjim


    AJ
    Not a fan of some members of the board but others are decent people believe it or not and shouldn’t be lumped in together.
    I think you are unaware of how JT is despised by most of his former colleges , many of whom would never do his bidding for him including our Sportswriter of the year for the past few years.
    Apart from AJ pathetic interview which was universally condemned by the vast majority of Rangers fans i’m afraid the remainder is speculation or wishful thinking on your part.
     

    View Comment
  50. slimjim


    CO
    I am only aware of the SA signing talk so not sure who the other player linked is?
    During the January transfer window 3 permanent & 3 loan signings were made when we had a temporary manager who would have had to have achieved a near miracle to be awarded the job on a permanent basis.
    I believe the DOF has a massive input on who we will target as possible signings. 

    View Comment
  51. John Clark


    HelpumootApril 23, 2018 at 22:11
    ‘…BBC presenter gets told in his ear to stfu about Sevco fans protest and does a poor job at covering up. ‘
    _________________
    Let me refer to an article in today’s ‘Scotsman’ by Lesley Riddoch:

    ” This weekend, the BBC took the unusual step of admitting it had lied for decades about subjecting BBC job applicants to political vetting by MI5……….
    Last week…there was a row about an alleged e-mail circulating among BBC Scotland staff with a list of independence supporters who cannot be hired for work in news and current affairs. 

    It was reportedly leaked to broadcaster Hardeep Sing Kohli- the BBC has categorically denied his claims. The trouble for BBC Scotland is that the weekend revelations prove Aunty has extensive experience denying dodgy procedures it also secretly implements. So, does such a list exist today?-it’s not likely, but who knows?
    Trust in the fairness of the BBC was once high. Not now.”(my bold)

    And if it is not high in relation to macro-politics, that little clip of Jonathan looking shocked and worried as he listened to his ear-piece while desperately trying to get back to ‘football’ (what an embarrassment for him!) is pretty strong confirmation (along with Kenny’s ‘Sportsound Rangers Club’) that BBC Scotland is not worth trusting  even in the matter of Sport- pretty much like the SFA! 

    What was that about two cheeks…..?

    View Comment
  52. easyJambo


    slimjim April 23, 2018 at 21:02
    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqgsr4
    Not sure if this is allowed but would be interested in Auldheids response.
    ==========================
    Taking account of Jas Boyd’s repeated arguments, what do YOU think about the timeline as described many times over by Auldheid.

    I’d ask you to consider this extract from a DR interview with Alastair Johnston published on 2 April 2011 (two days after the March 2011 licensing deadline) and tell us when YOU think the HMRC bill crystallised.   The “Agreed Terms” argument is a nonsense if a party has no intention of paying it.  My understanding is that all HMRC Assessments are payable immediately and will go into default within 30 days if not paid or appealed before then. 

    The club revealed their interim figures yesterday and although they didn’t show the bank debt, it is now running close to £24m because of a surprise £2.8m tax bill.
    That debt is tied to player deals which were struck 10 or 11 years ago and must be paid after a precedent was set recently when HMRC won a test case.
    The bill dropped through the Ibrox front door only three weeks ago and the interims had to be hastily readjusted.
    Johnston was barely able to control his rage when he announced the figures.
    But he insisted the new tax bill, unconnected with the looming court battle with HMRC over other alleged unpaid taxes, will not prove a deal breaker with Whyte.
    He said: “It’s a cashflow issue someone has to pay for and we don’t have it in our budget.
    “That will have to be worked out. I don’t think it’s a deal breaker.
    “I don’t like this, it wasn’t in any plan, it wasn’t in our budgets.”

    View Comment
  53. TheLawMan2


    Easyjambo, the “AGREED TERMS” is the rule as stated in Annex VIII.  The intention to pay it or not cannot be considered. 

    A bill only becomes an “overdue payable” according to the rules when it is not paid under the agreed terms.

    There was no bill received in March. 

    The part you used about Alastair Johnstone interview then quoting “The bill dropped through the Ibrox front door only three weeks ago” could give the impression it was AJ that said that when it wasnt.  Those are the comments of the writer of the article.

    Not withstanding that though, lets assume the bill did arrive 3 weeks prior to 2nd April, then Rangers would still have 30 days to pay it.  It would still not have been an “overdue payable” even in the circumstance you set out.

    However, and i think this is the key point.  Auldheid has previously confirmed no bill was received until 20th May.  His tax expert also confirmed this.  As did his legal advisor.  All 3 of them confirmed the bill became an overdue payable on the 19th June 2011, some 11 days before the 30th June deadline, but 80 days AFTER the crucial 31st March date.

    View Comment
  54. Auldheid


    slimjimApril 23, 2018 at 21:02
    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqgsr4 Not sure if this is allowed but would be interested in Auldheids response.
    ===================
    I’m well aware of JasBoyd’s arguments but he lost track of a change of direction in June/July 2016 when he prematurely pronounced Res12 dead. It clearly isn’t.
    On the “agreed terms” point and as the Tax Justice Network put it in support of their case (the guys  who ARE experts in tax matters) the DOS ebts were payments that should have been made under PAYE terms, so the ” overdueness” started after August 2000 for De Boer and Nov 2000 for Flo a few months after PAYE deducted should have been passed to HMRC. I’m not sure how long HMRC give companies to pass PAYE tax on but the agreed terms are measured in months, not years.
    Mr Boyd’s point about what went on in Feb/March 2011 was always seen as “dodgy justification” at the time and since. (see Easy Jambo’s comments) but is irrelevant sophistry in terms of when UEFA would judge a bill as having become due
    That was settled in the earlier Giannina FC case ( referenced in the Sion report)  that went to CAS after Giannina appealed against UEFA sanctions for having tax overdue payables in circumstances very identical to RFC’s.
    CAS supported the UEFA line that once the club accepted they owed the tax authorities for tax due before 31 December then it was overdue if the conditions for exemption by 31st March were not met.
    The  4 conditions for exemption from being an overdue payable
    a) bill paid, b) written agreement to postpone collection in place at 31st March c) liability is under appeal d) the claim made is a frivolous one  
    were not met unless the Compliance Officer comes up with something on the lines of an unpublished document under b) that was already covered in a previous SFM blog Who is Conning Whom?
    https://www.sfm.scot/who-is-conning-whom/
    If such a document exists and if Mr Boyd’s rationale applies then why did the SFA deem it necessary to investigate last September and why has it taken 7 months if the answers as he sets them out were already available to the SFA?.
    Its not just at the granting in April 2011 but also non disclosure in May 2011 that breaches another FFP rule that RFC are or should be under investigation for and the SFA also have questions to answer on what they told UEFA in September 2011 when discussing a misleading submission that was made in June 2011. Their part in advising RFC on a September submission,  the content of which is highly questionable, also needs looked at.  
    The misleading submission re the status of the wee tax bill continued to be made into the 2012 licensing cycle although by Feb 2012 the SFA dealt with the issue as they should have in 2011 and a licence was not granted because RFC failed to produce audited accounts for 2011/12 and HMRC made it clear there was no appeal against the wee tax liability, only the penalty, which was dismissed in Feb 2012.
    (As an aside it was RFC who were ineligible for a licence for 2012/13  only and it was TRFC the new club/company who had to wait 3 years to be eligible  because their SFA Membership as far as UEFA are concerned only began in August 2012 – Art12 of UEFA FFP.)
    Where Mr Boyd did have it right initially was that any sanctions that would have applied would not have been made until 2012 season, something that was understood, but it was felt that because of the evidence of the clear nature of the deception at June 2011 , had UEFA been made aware of it before the 2011/12 games began, ejection would have happened and Celtic taken RFC’s place, giving shareholders locus to present a Resolution to the AGM.
    The decision in the Sion and Irtysh cases show how seriously UEFA take a club obtaining a licence when it should not have, even when UEFA accept a one off misrepresentation by Sion and a lenient Kazakhstan FA in another.
    What might a sanction have been if UEFA decided the misleading was serial and deliberate, supported by the motive for being so? – dependency on UEFA money for survival.
    Mr Boyd is not arguing with me, the case has been run past different lawyers,  including the SFA’s own counsel, with info Mr Boyd is not privy to, and he can take matters up with the SFA Compliance Officer if he desires.
     

    View Comment
  55. easyJambo


    TheLawMan2 April 23, 2018 at 23:33
    There was no bill received in March.
    =========================
    Are you certain of that? 

    As I said my the earlier post, an HMRC assessment is payable immediately.  In Alastair Johnston’s report in the interim accounts published on 1 April 2011, he states:

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

    If I can also quote from the February letter from HMRC to Mike McGill “the effect of the side letters require me to make PAYE assessments for years not so far assessed for these payments and I’m putting the wheels in motion to have these issued to the club”

    My reading of the extract from the HMRC letter is that some assessments have already been issued, and that further ones will be issued in short order.

    If you then take the testimony of witnesses at the Whyte trial, AJ’s interview and Accounts statements, together, I think there is a strong case that one or more bills had been received in March or earlier, and was certainly accepted before the end of March.

    I think that Auldheid’s acceptance of the May date for the “bill” was more to do with the lack of any documentary evidence, than a genuine belief that HMRC had not sought payment before 31 March.

    The court case did add to the argument that bills had crystallised before 31 March, and is the basis of the, as yet, unresolved SFA investigations into whether or not Rangers representatives lied in their disclosures to the SFA in order to obtain a UEFA licence for 20111/12. 

    Do you honestly believe that Rangers didn’t lie or misrepresent the status of the wee tax bill at any of the monitoring points during 2011?

    View Comment
  56. Auldheid


    TheLawMan2April 23, 2018 at 23:33 (Edit)

    What was said in RFC Interim Accs is what the SFA would have acted on.
    Indeed in his e mail of 7th December 2011 Regan confirms this.

    Here is what was said from today’s blog

    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.”

    The question here that I would be asking if I were Celtic’s largest shareholder is
    Were Grant Thornton culpable in telling RFC that was the position because there is gold to be made there

    or

    Did RFC’s Finance Officer tell GT the position? Less gold in suing a club who are undergoing liquidation.

    Your other point about the clock ticking from the date of the bill arriving is irrelevant  in light of the Giannina case referenced in the Sion case.

    The reasons for that are given in the CAS judgement on Ginnina FC and repeated in the Sion case. I see little point you arguing UEFA, CAS and TJN got it wrong but carry on.

    Where the 20th May letter does have significant relevance is RFC’s failure to notify the SFA immediately of such days before the SFA submitted the list of clubs granted a licence attend of May.
    So too would be documentation showing RFC were prepared to argue it hadn’t been received (even when they knew it had)

    That letter made it abundantly clear HMRC had been pursuing payment from 2010 and why and  collection was only delayed until after CW took over as he had promised to pay it (but didn’t).

    The ripples of that non disclosure, repeated by Duff and Phelps in 2012 in response to SPL lawyers request for paperwork relating to ebts with side letters, is something that the SFA will be keen to stop becoming waves.

    View Comment
  57. paddy malarkey

    paddy malarkey


    I’ve had the privilege of meeting Mr Maxwell once (doubt he’ll remember ) and he is a very civil and controlled person . I am told by a mate who is in the craft that oor Ian is a fellow craft member , and that is one of the reasons he was appointed . Apparently there are a lot of historical secrets that the SFA would like to remain secret and don’t wish non-masons to see . If only they were more transparent, eh ?  Maybe a journalist will ask the question , maybe not .
    On the sublect of PR , lets see how many West of Scotland clubs have their ST’s advertised (free) in the Daily Record, Glasgow Herald and Evening Times to the same extent as TRFC’s . They could have a free pullout with all clubs shown so consumers can make up their mind as to which is the best deal for them . Firhill for thrills ! 😎

    View Comment
  58. Auldheid


    Easy Jambo
    I think that Auldheid’s acceptance of the May date for the “bill” was more to do with the lack of any documentary evidence, than a genuine belief that HMRC had not sought payment before 31 March.
    ================
     We always thought what was said in RFC accounts of 1st April 2011 was “dodgy” right from the off because the date the liability was accepted was known and indeed was put to SFA in July 2015,  but it was the findings of the Giannina FC case in the summer of 2016 that produced something solid to argue with.

    ” 39 UEFA points out that it is not disputed that the Appellant owed EUR 1,290,000 to the social/tax authorities as a result from contractual and legal obligations towards employees that had arisen before 31 December 2012, and that this amount had not been paid by 31 March 2013.
    It is also not disputed that as of 31 March 2013, no written agreement existed with the Greek Tax Authorities in order to extend the deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline.
    UEFA also underlines that the application made by the Appellant has been accepted on 28 May 2013, i.e. almost two months after the expiry of the deadline, and that CAS jurisprudence has “consistently recognised that deadlines for this kind of procedure are fundamental for the smooth running of competitions and must be applied consistently”.
    The mere existence of overdue payables is sufficient to declare the Appellant ineligible to the UEFA 2013/2014 Europa League.

    74. The Panel notes that it is not disputed that, as of 31 March 2013, the Appellant owed EUR 1,290,000 to the social/tax authorities as a result from contractual and legal obligations towards employees that had arisen before 31 December 2012.
    RFC ceased to dispute it owed HMRC on 21 March 2011 having accepted the liability on QC advice given on 3 March.
    That is not the impression given by their statements nor by SFA after Sherriff Officers called in August 2011 that started questions being asked.

      

    View Comment
  59. Auldheid


    paddy malarkeyApril 24, 2018 at 01:44 (Edit)
    I’ve had the privilege of meeting Mr Maxwell once (doubt he’ll remember ) and he is a very civil and controlled person . I am told by a mate who is in the craft that oor Ian is a fellow craft member , and that is one of the reasons he was appointed . Apparently there are a lot of historical secrets that the SFA would like to remain secret and don’t wish non-masons to see . If only they were more transparent, eh ?
    ===========
    Alternatively Petrie did not want Maxwell appointed because he was likely to open doors Petrie wanted to stay shut when it came to a vote at SFA Board level.
    The test will come in the handling of the SFA Compliance Officer report.

    View Comment
  60. TheLawMan2


    Auldheid, thank you for the reply.

    “That was settled in the earlier Giannina FC case ( referenced in the Sion report)  that went to CAS after Giannina appealed against UEFA sanctions for having tax overdue payables in circumstances very identical to RFC’s.”

    Im afraid that is simply untrue.  The reason it is untrue is that in the case of Giannina FC, the tax authority had issued the bill for 1.29m.  Giannina FC accepted the bill but concluded they couldnt pay it so set about trying to agree payment terms with their tax authority and they used that as “a grey area” to not disclose it as at 31st March.  This is confirmed in the CAS 2013/A/3233 PAE Giannina 1966 v. UEFA case in which Giannini FC confirm that they do not dispute that they had not paid the bill “beyond the applicable DEADLINE”  For “DEADLINE” read “AGREED TERMS”

    http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award20323320FINAL20_2013.12.05_20internet.pdf

    This is NOT identical to RFC’s circumstances because, as we know, RFC did not receive “the bill” until May 20th 2011, 50 days after the licence measurement date.  HMRC only issued a “DEADLINE” or “AGREED TERMS” on the 20th May.  30 days later, the amount owed became an “OVERDUE PAYABLE” as at 30th June in identical terms to Giannina FC “overdue payable” as at 31st March.

    If we are to accept that a bill becomes “overdue payable” as soon as payment is due then every club would have overdue payables every 31st March as tax owed to HMRC is always calculated and billed in arrears.  The clock on the very defined Article VIII starts clicking when the tax authority issues the bill and sets the terms as to when the bill should be paid.  It doesnt start ticking when a club instinctively knows that it owes tax to the relevant authority.  It is completely false to say so or give that impression to readers on here.

    You also assert that “had UEFA been made aware of it before the 2011/12 games began, ejection would have happened and Celtic taken RFC’s place”  This is 100% false.  There is absolutely no precedence for this whatsoever in European football history.  If UEFA had become aware of this, then as in every other case, they would have got the Club Financial Control Board to investigate the case and a decision would have been reached on it AFTER the European season had kicked off, not withstanding any appeals process it would have went through.

    So just to clarify, in the case of Giannini FC, a bill had been received.  The bill was overdue.  Giannini didnt dispute the bill.  They were simply asking for time to pay the bill.  They believed that as they were trying to reach an agreement, they could choose not to disclose it.  The mistake they made though, was that AGREED TERMS had already been issued and they failed to meet those AGREED TERMS.

    In the case of RFC, the bill had not been received.  For some time, there was a dispute over whether money was due or not.  Rangers then accepted money was due.  Rangers then accepted a provisional or potential amount in March 2011.  HMRC issued the final bill in May 2011.

    Lets use another example.  I lend Rangers £500k and define that they will owe me that money on demand.  Rangers know they owe me £500k.  They accept the £500k is an amount due.  I issue them with a 30 day notice on the 20th May 2018.  If they dont pay me by the 19th June they they have an “overdue payable” to me as at 19th June.  They did not have an “overdue payable” as at 31st March, DESPITE knowing the debt existed.

    View Comment
  61. TheLawMan2


    Easyjambo, in response to a few of your questions, i am still unsure as to what new evidence was presented at the Whyte trial that made a single jot of a difference.  Everything that was said about the existence of the Wee Tax Case was known previously through the TOG report.  I have never disputed that the club knew it was due to pay tax in March 2011.  

    There is an argument to be made that they stretched that process out for as long as they could to manipulate the 31st March deadline (thats just a hypothesis and not an accusation) but to date there is no evidence that HMRC issued that bill until May 20th.  I have to conclude that as all documentation has managed to get out into the public, then if a bill HAD existed prior to 31st March, we would have seen it.  

    Do you believe its just a coincedence that despite all the leaked memos and private documentation, that the very letter or bill that could put all of this to bed is nowhere to be found?  What would be the point in “the leaker” not giving the most important document of all.

    As to what Rangers represented or didnt represent then here is my view.  I believe that as of 31st March 2011, in strict accordance with the set out rule in UEFA Annex VIII, Rangers did NOT have an overdue payable and that the submission was correct.

    As at 30th June 2011, an “overdue payable” exists and this therefore means there should be a disclosure.  The disclosure in itself would make no difference to Rangers competing in Europe for that season but it would have knock on effects elsewhere.  At this date, there is no need to lie about it or hide it.  But it was Craig Whyte in charge by then.  So who knows what that weasel would have done or authorised.

    As for the 30th September disclosure well, there was a clear flaw in the process in 2011 which has now been rectified.  According to the strict wording of the regulations in 2011, the only thing you needed to do in September was confirm what you had previously confirmed in June.  The rule wording changed in 2012 and you now need to give a correct updated position which was always the intention.

    I think its important to note that the ONLY thing that matters here is the 31st March submission.  Contrary to what Auldheid tried to claim, any disclosure made or not made on 30th June would have made no relevance to the decision to allow Rangers to play in Europe that season.  The “Licensing Process” is the crucial one and once a club is past the “licence process” any faults found in the “monitoring process” will only be punished the following season, something which both the ECA and UEFA have confirmed in writing, contrary to Auldheids belief in 2016 where there was a clear misunderstanding of the rules.  Here is what he said at the time:

    “If there was in fact an overdue payable as defined in UEFA FFP Art 66 and Annex Viii at 30 June 2011. Our tax expert advice is that there was from 20 June and legal input was that none of the 4 conditions for exemption were met by 30 June.

    That in a nutshell is what Res12 asked UEFA to investigate because previous enquiries only got an answer relevant to Art50 that covered an overdue payable at 31st March. There wasn’t one under Art 50 as bill did not arrive until 20th May.

    If SFA can explain how Art66 requirements were met, particularly in light of how UEFA dealt with a similar situation with Malaga FC the following year, to shareholders satisfaction in a way that answers why SOs called to collect 6 weeks after 30 June, then that is all that is required to bed the issue. It’s that simple.

    If in fact there was an overdue payable as defined then first an apology to Celtic, it’s support and shareholders and a commitment to review their processes to ensure a repeat was not possible and COMPENSATION for DENYING Celtic the opportunity to play in a first round qualifying match. ”

    Back then, Auldheid believed that if Rangers had an overdue payable as at 30th June 2011, then Celtic would have got their place in the CL.  His legal counsel agreed with him on this.  They both clearly had misinterpreted the rules because it was simply not the case.

    Its my belief that since its now apparent that they got that whole piece wrong, and by the way, if i was Auldheid or whoever paid for the legal advice, i would be asking questions as to why a legal team could get such an important piece so wrong, that the focus has now shifted back to March 31st date.

    As for what the Compliance Office is doing, well who knows.  Perhaps he has already concluded there is nothing to see so we will see nothing.  Perhaps he is investigating the June 30th submission from Whyte or trying to unravel the 30th September submission.  The simplest route for him would be to go to ECA Head of Legal who will confirm the difference between the “licensing period” and “monitoring period” and also confirm that in order for a bill to be an “overdue payable” then it must first of all “exist” in issuance and second of all “be breached” in the non payment of it at the “DEADLINE DATE” noted on the bill.

    View Comment
  62. Auldheid


    Lawman
    I should have said “almost” identical. 
    They key difference is Giannina put the whole case  to the Greek FA who granted a licence with reservations they made to UEFA triggering the CFCB action.
    RFC did not present the full case to SFA and misrepresented the status of the liability throughout 2011 and into 2012.
    They also kept evidence of the true status from SFA in May that would have stopped UEFA being notified that a licence had been granted.
    Regan tried to get around this by stating SFA duties stopped at 31 March. He is on record as he is on saying the liability was disputed.
    The agreed terms argument is one the TJN do not share with you. An unlawful scheme was used to save paying tax that should have been paid under PAYE. They argue PAYE terms apply and the money was owed from 2000. 
    All that happened was result  of RFC keeping side letters from authority for years then arguing what was a clear cut case  from Oct 2011 delaying collection proceedings.
    That is what UEFA rules try to stop. Clubs using variances in national tax systems to excuse non payment. The liability was accepted before 31st March and should have been paid before 31st May for it not to be an overdue payable. 
    It wasn’t with a similar line used as in Interim Accs to explain why.
    The Giannina case shows how matters should have been handled by SFA had the proper facts been out to them in March 2011.
    My statement on ejection was made in the belief at the time  that had UEFA been aware of the true situation they would have ejected RFC for gaining a licence by deception. That is in their power.
    No club has been ejected because strong enough  reason to do so has never emerged before a competition started.
    Your case is based on rules applying if the trust on which they are founded is kept.
    When that trust was broken the rules don’t apply.
    That is the relevance to  the Giannina case and why SFA are investigating and so they should to avoid any repetition.
    To repeat Giannina did NOT misrepresent the true status of their liability and Greek FA did not grant without question. 
    That did not apply in 2011 to RFC.
    Why do you think Johnson has not yet been deemed fit and proper by SFA? To a layman it looks like fraud.

    View Comment
  63. HirsutePursuit


    An HMRC Regulation 80 determination becomes final 30 days after it is issued. 

    After that, the issue is simply about the collection of the debt.

    Another case you might want to look at, is that of Györi. Here the club claimed that it could not pay an outstanding portion of a transfer fee because the other club has not issued a legal “bill”. 

    It claimed that payment without such a bill would have left it open to criminal charges.

    CAS held in Györi that the fact that the club may have been liable to criminal sanction on on payment was not sufficient excuse for non-disclosure. It was sufficient for the purposes of the duty to disclose that the payables were certain and enforceable.

    In the case of Rangers, the big tax case was appealed – from FTT(T) all the way up to the Supreme Court – from the Regulation 80 determinations issued by HMRC.

    No appeal was made against the final Reg 80 determinations issued in relation to the DOS scheme.

    Remind me, at what point in the BTC appeals process was it argued that the debt was unenforceable because no ‘bill’ had ever been issued?

    …that’s right. Never.

    View Comment
  64. Darkbeforedawn


    I’ll remain out of the whole Res12 debate as I have to admit I have nowhere near the level of knowledge that Auldheid or Lawman seem to, and to be honest it all goes a bit over my head. All I would say is I assume by how long it has taken by the CO to report his findings that it is not as cut or dry a case as folk on either side seem to think it is. If there was no wrong doing by Rangers or the SFA then it would have been reported as such many months ago. There has to be something there that Jas Boyd has not picked up on or we would not still be debating it!

    View Comment
  65. John Clark


    I’m not sure about others, but I get mildy irritated with posters ,who, replying to someone’s post ,assume that the rest of us are hanging on every word and that we will therefore immediately grasp what their post is in response to!
    There can be dozens or scores of posts about other matters in between, and without some kind of reference point (eg to the date and time of the post being responded to) it’s too tedious to scroll back trying to identify it.
    Please, would you abide by what has become the convention: as well as referencing the poster whose post you are replying to, give a sentence or two which shows what point or subject you are responding to. That would usually be enough to let readers make immediate connection with the ‘argument’, or at least help us to scroll quickly back to the post.
    In my opinion, that feature is a special feature of this blog.
    A post, such as this one, that is merely making a general observation or request obviously doesn’t need any such referencing: folk might easily recognise to whom it may apply.
    [Not my blog, of course, so people are entirely free to tell me to butt out. But if they do, will they please reference this post-name, date and time thereof?19]

    View Comment
  66. Auldheid


    Darkbefordawn. 
    The case does not hinge on technicalities but on purpose.
    A bit like the Supreme Court over ruling the initial findings of the FTT. Put another way – the spirit of the law rather than the wording of it holding sway.
    To be fair to Lawman he is not privy to what went on during all of 2011 which is a reason I never engaged with him (plus his unwillingness to let go of wording he interpreted regardless of counterpoints put 🙂 ).
    What I understand is that when it came out in court  RFC had admitted they owed HMRC for tax due long before Dec 2010 lawyers at Hampden, Celtic and SPFL were on the blower as in did you hear that.
    I also understand the matter was then ran past SFA counsel who said there was a case to answer given what was put before him. That is why Comp Off brought in.
    Lawman does not have that and it is possible that having taken all information and purpose into account a satisfactory explanation not based on technicality, will emerge, but based on the full picture as it was presented to SFA that is less probable unless something unknown emerges.
    As you say it is complex and the aim of Res12 was SFA accountability to shareholders in a member club and all that was sought was a satisfactory answer to the processing of the UEFA licence in 2011.
    It is taking a long while for that to emerge.

    View Comment
  67. jimbo

    jimbo


    Darkbeforedawn @9.37am

    I’m with you on that one.  All the arguments (in a philosophical sense) around Res.12 require a huge amount of knowledge in terms of Rules, previous judgements, dates, documentation, quotes etc.  Thankfully we have several posters who are up to the job in that sense.

    I rely on ‘common sense’ and gut feeling and a little knowledge. 

    However, the first thing sociology students are taught is – ‘Do not rely on or trust common sense’.

    View Comment
  68. slimjim


    JC April 24 09.42
    I hope i wasn’t one of the posters you refer to, as far from “assuming people are hanging on every word” i respect the right for others to respond or not.
    PS Butt out 14

    View Comment
  69. John Clark


    paddy malarkeyApril 24, 2018 at 01:44
    ‘…I’ve had the privilege of meeting Mr Maxwell ‘
    AuldheidApril 24, 2018 at 02:15
    ‘Alternatively Petrie did not want Maxwell appointed because he was likely to open doors Petrie wanted to stay shut when it came to a vote at SFA Board level.
    _________________________

    I know not the man.

    But being heavily endorsed ( as reported in the ‘Scotsman’ today) by both Mr Macrae of the SFA and Mr Doncaster of the SPFL/SFA is , to my mind, roughly on a par with  having a character reference from the editor of the old Pravda and BBC Radio Scotland’s sports department! 

    Maxwell’s  first act when he assumes office must be  to announce where the CO’s investigation is at .

    This is an investigation which may discover facts that  point to the possibility that the SFA may have been party to a criminal offence of conspiracy to defraud the shareholders of a public limited company.

    We simply have to know the truth, and if Maxwell tries to dodge the column either by trying to ignore it, or in complicity with those who up till now have tried to ignore it, he will justly deserve excoriation and contempt-as his predecessor did.

    View Comment
  70. jimbo

    jimbo


    Auldheid,  I have to say I was a wee bit surprised at your reply to DBD.  I thought your modus operandi was to be able to quote chapter and verse in support of your arguments and likewise to put down the counter arguments.

    I agree the ‘spirit of the law’ is hugely important and I love to see it used by judges.  But that is usually after all the legal arguments have been put forward.  Like in the Supreme Court.

    For instance, there was a period when EBTs were only questionable in legal terms.  But they were always immoral.  They were against the spirit of the tax laws.

    So it seems my ‘gut feelings’ about who the baddies are in Res. 12 are correct.  Regardless of the CO report.

    View Comment
  71. John Clark


    As I was writing my immediately preceding post at the kitchen table, Mrs C switched the radio on to ‘Woman’s Hour’, where, in the reading of an extract of a biography of one Mary McCarthy, I heard this:
    “..  McCarthy provoked Hellman in 1979 when she famously said on The Dick Cavett Show: “every word [Hellman] writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.”
    Mary McCarthy (no connection with Senator McCarthy) was never a sports journalist, club director, or involved in the governance of base ball or other sport.

    View Comment
  72. John Clark


    slimjimApril 24, 2018 at 10:15
    ‘..as far from “assuming people are hanging on every word” .’
    _________
    I’m sorry: that was a clumsy phrase I used.

    I might have expressed my meaning more clearly by:
    ‘ readers who haven’t just read an earlier post that someone refers to can find it difficult to follow the argument if there is no precise reference to that post that they can quickly find.’ ( or something to that effect)

    View Comment
  73. Auldheid


    jimboApril 24, 2018 at 10:38
    I was making the general point on approach to the issue as I considered DBF did not want chapter and verse of Articles 6,13, 43, 50, 56  66 and 67, breaches of which are or should be under investigation.

    View Comment
  74. Auldheid


    John ClarkApril 24, 2018 at 10:22 (Edit)
    On Maxwell.
    How the Comp Off report is handled will be the litmus test, not just of Maxwell but of whether the SFA can act with integrity (which should  be the SFA’s province) holding sway over the commercialism that is the playing field of the SPFL. 
    If the SFA cannot champion the integrity that makes football a sport over commercialism that makes it a business then what is the point of the SFA?

    View Comment
  75. jimbo

    jimbo


    I have to say I’m disappointed to learn that Ian Maxwell is a Mason.   without meaning to sound condescending I have known plenty of Masons (one a Catholic) who were brilliant people.  I have no problem on a personal level.

    But why does Scottish football on several levels have to have such a connection?   I know Jock Stein was one and loads of our players.

    It’s the perception of secrecy, scratching each others backs, protecting each other, that gives us referees a decision to make.

    I’m giving Ian Maxwell the benefit of the doubt.  But as soon as I sense any cover ups I will have more to say.

    View Comment

Leave a Reply

SSL Certificates