To Comply or not to Comply ?

7185
311580

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.

7185 COMMENTS


  1. jimbo 12th August 2018 at 10:45  

    The complaint is that BBC Scotland is not Scottish enough. 

    ________________________________________________________

    I was at the demo on Saturday Jimbo.

    The actual complaint is that it is biased and promotes fake news.

     

    View Comment

  2. jean7brodie 12th August 2018 at 12:38  

    '…The actual complaint is that it is biased and promotes fake news.

    ______________________

    I certainly believe that its 'sports department' supports, and propagandises on behalf of, the biggest sports cheating event that has ever taken place in Scottish Football.

    The huge festering boil that is the lie that TRFC Ltd are Rangers 1872 is ignored when there are so many serious questions to ask of the SFA and RIFC plc.

    I assume, though, that the demo related to more obviously political matters relating to the perceived anti-independence stance of the BBC as a whole?

    View Comment

  3. Thanks for that additional information folks.  As you will see from the BBC website it is not clear exactly what the full story was.  I made a judgement based on this:

    "David McGuinness, one of the organisers, said: "BBC Scotland does not speak to the people, it speaks at the people.

    "It is London's voice in Scotland. It does not represent the voices of the people of Scotland. It is just a branch office of London."

     

    Politics apart, I thought that was very strong worded and unfair.

     

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-45156289

     

    View Comment

  4. I see the news today is that Celtic are a spent force and the Lawell has failed to meet the manager's expectations.  I am always fascinated by this story as it repeats up and down the world hierarchy every year.  I remember LMAO at a Walter Smith interview when he bemoaned the unfairness of the wealth of the big clubs in Europe that left (the original) Rangers in their wake.  Hello Walter, welcome to my world.

    If you flick over the news to England you'll see that Newcastle, Spurs and yes even Manyoo have also failed to spend enough this season.  My heart bleeds.  Here at Pittodrie we have (so far) failed to entice any quality to join us for 2.5 – 3k a week and have failed in a couple of 300-500k bids apparently.  We have also failed to attract anyone of quality merely by dint of our fame.  Same as Celtic really, and Manyoo for that matter, just a different scale.

    If our manager had 4 or 5 of Celtic's team from Saturday on our books (even better Christie and Allen) we would be very confident this season.  The aforementioned news from the SMSM is laughable, I hope Celtic fans don't buy into it.

     

    View Comment

  5. JC I couldn't agree more, otherwise I would not be on this site.

     

    Politics wise, ever since I can remember the BBC is accused of political bias. the Tories say it is left wing, Labour say it is right wing.  I know very little about their Independence stance, so I will defer to your better knowledge on that.

     

    I once did a media studies course at Glasgow University.  One thing came over very strongly.  They will always be biased towards The State.  Regardless of who is in government.  For instance they will never promote anarchy as a concept.  In times of National emergency – like a war – they will be the propagandist for the state, I would expect no less.

     

    It was a long time before the mess around Ibrox and Hampden.  I would love to have heard the prof's view on that. (Prof. Bill Miller?)

     

     

    View Comment

  6. So with this pressure on, last week, a referee failed to see an incident yet sent a player off. He could have went and spoken with his linesman and said, "look Rangers have to win today, can i get away with booking him" and the linesman would have said "of course" because he is under the same pressure. Fast forward 5-10 minutes and Josh Windass has an open goal and is pulled to the ground. An absolute clear Red Card and the ref, knowing the pressure he is under to ensure Rangers win, could have made it 10 v 10 and handed the game to Rangers and nothing would have been said because everybody knew it was a clear red. 2 clear chances to help Rangers and he went the opposite way in both of them. I suppose you are right about that being inexplicable all the same UTH.

     

    However lm2 it wasn't a penalty as coulibaly was offside before it got as far as the penalty claim get the offside correct and no pen no red card here the missed offside is the real issue.

     

     

     

    View Comment

  7. jimbo 12th August 2018 at 13:05  

    ___________________________________________________

    Couldn't disagree with you more Jimbo but this is politics and best left to another site.

    Yes John that was the reason for it.

    Enough from me on this.

    View Comment

  8. upthehoops 12th August 2018 at 10:11
    10 0 Rate This

    Cluster One 12th August 2018 at 09:15

    The headache this new club from ibrox must give Doncaster and co every day,

    ============================

    All they had to was apply their own rules in 2012 and we would be done with it. Instead they created a monster, put a charge of electricity through its neck, and now it is out of control and completely unmanageable. Any attempt to control the monster will see the gates stormed by angry hordes carrying torches and pitchforks.

    Or they will release a very strong worded statement that the world is against them or something.Call for a boycott of green plastic cups,get the details of someone onto facebook. If any authorities step in they will birate them on twitter that they can find a sand castle on a beach but not a person with a knife on a nearby street.
    Cheer a convicted criminal, who may have done more harm in the long run and lash out when the electricity is finally cut off and the monster lies dead.

    View Comment

  9. upthehoops 12th August 2018 at 13:39 0 1 Rate This Are we getting a mute facility on here? It would be really handy. ————— We already have one.I can't hear a thing on this blog

    View Comment

  10. ernie 12th August 2018 at 13:11  

    If our manager had 4 or 5 of Celtic's team from Saturday on our books (even better Christie and Allen) we would be very confident this season.  The aforementioned news from the SMSM is laughable, I hope Celtic fans don't buy into it.

    ==================================================

    I had an extensive debate yesterday with many fellow Celtic fans about recent events. The general view is that Rodgers may be frustrated at current transfer policy, but that he HAS been backed by the board. The wage bill has hugely increased, players such as Rogic and Tierney have been tied down long term, and the club has broken its transfer record. The club now has the best pitch type available to buy, and improvements have been made to the training ground. Rodgers himself calmed the waters with his post match interview yesterday, and hopefully he is now seeing the way the Scottish media operate. A Kilmarnock supporter of my aquaintance remarked the other day that to him it is obvious that the media are trying to create an issue which simply isn't there. On the specific issue of John McGinn no-one I spoke to was in favour of him being signed on a higher wage than people like McGregor and Forrest to name but two, who have already proven themselves at the club. To pay him the £23k a week he is reportably getting at Aston Villa would have been madness, and no-one could see a case for him earning more than Stuart Armstrong was, who left for England in a £7m transfer with the same length of time left on his contract as McGinn. I wish young McGinn well, but to answer your question not all Celtic fans are buying into the media's attempts to create a crisis where none exists. 

    View Comment

  11. TheLawMan2 @ 10.42

    The only 'inexplicable decision' last Sunday went in favour of 'Rangers'; instead of them being given a penalty, a free-kick should have been awarded to Aberdeen for an offside in the build-up to it.

    On both the sending off and the penalty, the referee depended on the linesman who had the better view. He saw one and missed the other.

    The one he missed resulted in a goal.

    For what it's worth, I don't buy into all this refereeing bias in favour of one team or another. Some make mistakes like we all do and others are just bad at their job and should go and do something else that they are good at!

    View Comment

  12. Re the offside, if the full back had not pulled Windass back, then Coulibally would not have got anywhere near the ball.  He is only offside when its deemed he is interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

     

    And Sergio Biscuits, your last paragraph is 100% spot on.

    View Comment

  13. TheLawMan2 

    12th August 2018 at 14:55  

     

    Re the offside, if the full back had not pulled Windass back, then Coulibally would not have got anywhere near the ball.  He is only offside when its deemed he is interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

     

    ===========================================

     

    Since when, I thought for a player to be ruled offside he had to be in an offside position when the other player played the ball, not when he touched it. Hence players being ruled offside when a through ball is played, not when he receives it. 

     

    From http://www.offside-ref.co.uk/laws/11-offside-rule/detailed/

    A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

    • interfering with play
    • interfering with an opponent
    • gaining an advantage by being in that position

     

    View Comment

  14. Another red to be rescinded today.

    SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

    A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

    • denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

    DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY

    Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

    The following must be considered:

    • distance between the offence and the goal
    • general direction of the play
    • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball

    1)  It was an attempt to play the ball.

    2)  The ball was going wide and away from the goal after the player touched it. 

    3)  distance between the offence and the goal

     

    View Comment

  15. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11—offside

     

    Offside position

    It is not an offence to be in an offside position.
     

    Offside offence

    A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

    • interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
    • interfering with an opponent by:
    • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
    • challenging an opponent for the ball or
    • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
    • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

    The Windass offence took place before Coulibally had the opportunity to do any of the above.

    View Comment

  16. the BBC being objective as ever…

    BBC Sportsound‏Verified account @BBCSportsound 51m51 minutes ago

    RED CARD : Rangers down to 10 men as Ross McCrorie gets sent off for a slide tackle. Full commentary on Sportsound 92-95FM/810MW/online/DAB.

     

    No mention that the Saint was through on goal with a goal scoring possibility…

    They probably appealed it at HT and McCrorie'll be back out soon.

    View Comment

  17. As usual you just change what you said

    "He is only offside when its deemed he is interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate."

    So now its any one of a variety of things, but he didn't have the opportunity to have done any of them.

    I'm done on this, you'll just change your position again. 

     

    View Comment

  18. Cluster One 12th August 2018 at 18:15  

     

    A big week for Mr king coming up,wonder if he has opened a UK bank account yet?

     

    ====================================

    I think he will try and pull another stunt to kick the can down the road again. 

    View Comment

  19. Why doesn't he use Close Brothers? I thought they were a bona fide financial institution with overdraft facilities like a bank.?

    They must be able to handle deposits and withdrawals.

    I would guess they come under the umbrella of the TOP.

    View Comment

  20. upthehoops 12th August 2018 at 18:20
    2 0 Rate This

    Cluster One 12th August 2018 at 18:15

    A big week for Mr king coming up,wonder if he has opened a UK bank account yet?

    ====================================

    I think he will try and pull another stunt to kick the can down the road again.

    He has been seen at ibrox

    View Comment

  21. This just came up from Twitter. The author is a Greek Lawyer specialising in sports law but you would think his general theme would be right at home on Celtic blog given its topicality but it is relevant to most if not all clubs:

    The Economics of Football and the Curious Case of Club Governance

    The present post diverts slightly from its usual reference to specific issues of sports law and refers its readers to more generalised concepts of football governance, by focusing on club policy and decision making, regarding player recruitment/evaluation. Inevitably, the analysis draws on the importance of the doctrine of commodification and considers how such doctrine affects the internal relationships in a club, as well as the club’s relationship with its fans and supporters.

    One would be hard pressed to deny the validity of the argument that football is a commodity. Consequently, those in charge of football clubs, see player recruitment and evaluation as a major part of the club’s decision making, simply because the players (assets) will determine the profitability of the business (football club) in the short term, as well as in the long one. Although economic trends in the earlier years and specifically during the 80s and 90s may suggest that football clubs in England would focus primarily on the win maximisation doctrine, similar trends in the current economic climate point towards an adaptation of the profit maximisation doctrine.

     

    In the premises, it is suggested that any comparison between win maximisation and profit maximisation, particularly in the long run, may not yield safe results, as the policies and decision making of a club may change from one season to another. It is arguable that the main revenue of the club comes from broadcasting rights, ticket sales, merchandise and general and specific sponsorship opportunities. As such, club owners would seek to maintain a profit maximisation principle, in a very similar fashion witnessed in American sport where decision makers would seek to apply profit maximisation through different commercial activities. We have been witnessing such trend, in the last few years in the Premier League in England, and this is a trend that is likely to continue in the coming years.

    The above analysis suggests that although club owners may be prepared to take some losses in the short term (this may not be the case where the business medium/vehicle is subject to demanding loans secured against the club’s assets), it is submitted that in the long term, club owners would seek to maximise profits, via a series of different commercial activities that relate to the performance of the football club. Inevitably, acquisition of assets (players) would demand higher expenditure (save where there is ample academy talent) and, in essence, club owners would want to see a considerable return in such investments. Although, profit maximisation may be dependent upon performance of assets on the pitch, nevertheless, any such asset acquisition would demand consideration of its future sale value. Consequently, the decision making of a club owner may be in direct conflict with that of the club manager/coach.

    This inevitably points towards an important consideration that relates to club governance. Old traditional club governance was indicative of the club owner/president’s influence in the player recruitment, whereas in more modern times the club manager/coach is free and solely responsible for football matters, including player recruitment. We have recently seen, however, that the old traditional style of governance may severely influence the relationship between a club manager and its owner. Although the club manager, by definition, is/should be the sole person with responsibility for player recruitment, the club owner may veto the manager’s plans and requests, by citing, club ‘traditions’, focus on youth development and future sale values. While all these principles cannot be dismissed at face value, success on the pitch cannot be determined by what the club owner considers to be appropriate off it. If that was the determinative factor, the role of the manager would move towards redundancy.

    Moreover, there may be the case where the manager’s frustration, for missing out on specific recruitment targets, is aired in a public manner. A prudent advice here would be for the manager to refrain from channeling such frustration via the Media. Those interested in football and its governance know very well that it is hardly ever the case that a manager negotiates on a player’s transfer. It follows, therefore, that failure of the club to acquire a player does not rest with the manager, but with the person who is responsible for such negotiation, who is usually the CEO and/or its advisors/negotiators. Similarly, a club must never expose the manager publicly and veto his recruitment plans in a public manner, solely in an attempt to justify its decision not to meet with such plans. Such disagreement must remain private and must be clarified via the existing internal mechanisms.

    In addition to the above, one must be very careful with the ‘information’ they supply to the Media, particularly when such information produces several demonstrable flaws. For example, they may argue that there had been no discussions over a particular player, when in fact, a number of different people are aware of the argument to the contrary, as well as of the particulars of the potential agreement (especially when the selling club had reduced its demands considerably). In a similar light, one must be careful not to underestimate the intelligence of people by making reference to the playing capabilities of existing staff and the ones the manager demanded for acquisition, in an attempt to justify his/her failure to acquire the latter. It is one thing relaying to the manager, in private, that the players he has are good enough to win titles and he has to prove his worth by bringing the best out of such players and it is another thing showing to the world that you know better than the manager.

    Arguably, there is a dichotomy of responsibilities and expertise, where one is able to complete business deals, including player transfers, off the pitch, and where the other is able to produce success on the pitch. In a similar light, if you boast that you are able to attract the bigger names, you should be able to deliver them too. It is not good enough saying that you can do great things in the transfer market, where the facts and the evidence clearly demonstrate that you cannot. It follows, therefore, that internal disagreements must never see the light of the day and become the subject of public scrutiny, as such disagreements indicate a certain level of incompetence and have the potential of affecting relationships on and off the pitch.

    Finally, the present analysis also demonstrates the differences in football governance. Such deferences, consequently, determine the application of a particular economic model, which, in turn, demonstrates the real intention of those running a football club. It is arguable that private ownership of a football club takes away democratic values in the decision making and precludes social inclusion. The latter also supports the probity of the argument that football fans/supporters are powerless in facilitating changes in their beloved football club and are left outside any decision making mechanisms, despite the fact that they are the power that determines the history, the present and the future of such club. Although allowing fans/supporters to be part of the decision making (or even ownership), by creating supporters’ trusts, can never be part of a club’s private ownership, it is, nevertheless, valid to suggest that such supporters’ ownership may be a workable solution.

    The above may lead one to conclude that sometimes fairness and convenience are at odds; in this case, where decision making and club governance via the involvement of fans/supporters are concerned, they speak with a single voice…

     

    Dr Gregory Ioannidis*

     

    12 August 2018

    http://lawtop20.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-economics-of-football-and-curious.html

    View Comment

  22. theredpill 12th August 2018 at 20:44
    0 0 Rate This

    Thought this was hilariously funny.

    Just keeps going onto the princes street gardens story. Always had this problem with the scotsman links,just keeps going back to the hot topics page.

    View Comment

  23. theredpill 12th August 2018 at 21:05 ————— same problem.You see the page for a second then clicks back to hot topics,even then if you click on sport then onto the article,it just goes back to hot topics. One for the techy guy's if they can help me,once they have finished with BP wish list pagesmiley

    View Comment

  24. Prior to Rangers’ match with St Mirren in the Ladbrokes Premiership, the home support heralded the first league encounter of the season with a stunning tifo display.

    Stretching around Ibrox, the crowd held up cards which spelled out “our club” and “our city” in the stands behind each goal.

    However, it would seem plans for the display were leaked beforehand, as the travelling contingent of St Mirren fans answered back with a banner of their own.

    It read: “Your club is dead, your city is s***e.”

     

    View Comment

  25. Does nobody remember that RFC and TRFC hail from Govan ? Which they were once proud of , and which didn't become part of Glasgow until 1912 ? Reclaim our city ? One team in Glasgow .😁

    View Comment

  26. Ex Ludo 12th August 2018 at 22:28 

    Auldhouse = Auldheid (predictive text)

    ============================

    That reminds me of the spellchecker in one of the early versions of Microsoft Word.

    When "Duncan Ferguson" was typed in Word, it offered an alternative of "Drunken Freemason". mail

    It all seemed perfectly reasonable, but I hadn't appreciated that Microsoft's developers were so familiar with big Dunc at the time.    

    View Comment

  27. theredpill 12th August 2018 at 21:24
    29 0 Rate This

    Prior to Rangers’ match with St Mirren in the Ladbrokes Premiership, the home support heralded the first league encounter of the season with a stunning tifo display.

    BEST REPLY I SEEN FOR TIFO
    Do you have to scan this with your iPhone to find out what it is?

    View Comment

  28. I regret that I have not made myself familiar with 'Project Brave', and therefore I am not really in a position to comment on it.

    However, I am baffled as to what to make of the statement yesterday by the SFA on Livingston's 'withdrawal of support of their youth teams'.

    The SFA acknowledges Livingston's right to re-direct monies according their own view of their priorities. 

    They then  say : "Our overriding concern at this time is for the young footballers who have been affected by this change in Livingston’s strategic direction."

    Not a word of what they propose to do to give practical effect to their 'concern'.

    So, what was the point of the statement? 

     

    View Comment

  29. I note that the Scotsman is saying the Naismith / Hayes incident may be reviewed by the SFA today.

    To remain consistent with my opinions on the McKenna / Morelos incident from last weekend, IMO Naismith should be punished for his kicking out. Hayes on the other hand should really be given a yellow for recklessly launching himself at Naismith from behind.  Being so out of control that he has injured himself seems to have distracted the ref from issuing what would have been a booking at any other time. (In the same way Naismith got a yellow for running into Simunovic later in the game).

    While retaliation should always be punished I am amazed how some people apparently and conveniently gloss over the poor behaviour or ability of those who actions often initiate these types of controversial incidents.

    View Comment

  30. Cluster One 12th August 2018 at 20:53  
     

    theredpill 12th August 2018 at 20:44
     

    Thought this was hilariously funny.

    Just keeps going onto the princes street gardens story. Always had this problem with the scotsman links,just keeps going back to the hot topics page.

     

    CO, Right click the link and open in an incognito window

    View Comment

  31. This Thursday, 'P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for orders sec 955'   is listed as a 'proof' hearing.

    I have had a wee look at what that might mean ( things that seem obvious are sometimes not what you think when it comes to legal stuff) 

    So I search-engined and came across

     www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/insights/publications/2016/02/the-scottish-civil-justice-system/
     

    where there is this:

    "Substantive hearings are different in Scotland. Civil trials are called “proofs”. A proof is a hearing of the evidence in a case. A proof is appropriate where there is a factual dispute between the parties……"

    So, on Thursday, one party  will presumably, be trying to show that he has  in fact complied with both the TOP's order and the Court Order.

    The argument  will no doubt be that the party  has done all that he can personally do to comply, that forces over which he has no control prevent him from making the 'offer' (without landing himself in trouble by not being able to pay for any shares people want to sell him) and that in the circumstances the TOP's insistence that he make the offer is unreasonable, and should be withdrawn.

    The TOP will no doubt argue that that party's  recklessness in leading a 'concert party' when he knew, or ought to have known, that that  would trigger a mandatory offer, and must have known that he did not have access to monies to fund such an offer, has to be firmly dealt with, 'pour encourager les autres'. 

    And, in any case, they know damn' fine that that party  does have the resources!

    Of course, as you would expect, in a neutral, balanced, calm , reflective and dispassionate frame of mind I hope that true justice will be done. 

    But there is ('Oor Wullie' style) a wee bad angel whispering in my lug " Naw ye don't, ya lyin' b.You're hoping they can prove that, and that the Court will find the party to be in contempt, and do him for that, to end the bloody nonsense of the man.broken heart

    [ And, of course, the proceedings on Thursday may be absolutely nothing like that!]

     

     

     

     

     

    View Comment

  32. helpmaboab

    Regarding "bias" at the BBC, I recall the James Traynor years in the BBC, now remembering his punditry in a somewhat different light. How did he get away with it? He had a cute way of discussing Rangers, covering his succulent lamb years with a pretence of supporting Airdrieonians, but never seriously castigating those who were responsible for Rangers failing business model and their ultimate liquidation.The bias continues with BBC using "Rangers" statements while having no access to the club for questioning.

    Editorial bias can come in different guises and can be found in all subject matter. My favourite was the presenter just prior to the 2014 referendum uttering the words prior: "A rally in Edinburgh in support of the union was joined by thousands of people from all over the United Kingdom". This was the BBC describing an orange order march!

    The Guardian had a more balance view of the event.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/13/orange-order-march-edinburgh-scottish-independence-vote

     

     

    View Comment

  33. 'wottpi 

     

    13th August 2018 at 10:23  

     

    I note that the Scotsman is saying the Naismith / Hayes incident may be reviewed by the SFA today…'

     

    The most distasteful part of the incident (for me, at least) was not Hayes committing the foul, the subsequent kick-out from the Hearts player, but the fact that Naismith (and the referee!) thinks it's acceptable to stand over an injured player & bellow abuse at him. That's 'unsporting behaviour' & should be punished by a caution.

     

     

    View Comment

  34. Jingso.Jimsie 13th August 2018 at 11:14  

    Agreed it is unpleasant but its a heat of the moment issue. Naismith has been clattered from behind, (not just a tackle but a fully body slam) and his adrenaline is flowing. 

    Hayes is on the ground holding his head. 

    How many other times have you seen players fake an injury when they know they are at fault for a poor tackle etc? In that split second Naismith has no idea to the extent of the injury. He won't he the first or last player to immediately and vigorously tell a perceived cheat to get up and stop play acting.

    In this incident  and with hindsight Hayes does appear to have been genuinely injured but the real or fake the result was the same,  he got away with a bad tackle.

    In terms of player safety it looked like he may have been knocked out. Did anyone follow the concussion protocols? He seemed to manage fine until being subbed in the 2nd half.

     

    As a matter of interest, and independent from my thinking, on  BBC Shortbread in the radio commentary it was mentioned (I think in relation to an earlier tackle)  that Hayes, when injured,  has long standing tendency to  hobble around for a good few minutes as if there is no way he is going to continue then suddenly spring back to life. There was no inference that Hayes was a cheat but just that he seemed to have a certain MO when recovering from tackles and bruising physical encounters.

     

    View Comment

  35. The TOP hearing, if it goes against Mr King, will provide yet another ethical dilemma for the SFA. On Twitter it is fashionable to provide a straw poll on such matters. 

    Will the SFA:

    a) Turn a blind eye.

    b) Fine Mr King and the club/company.

    c) Ban Mr King sine die.

    View Comment

  36. 'wottpi 

     

    13th August 2018 at 11:37  

     

    Jingso.Jimsie 13th August 2018 at 11:14  

     

    Agreed it is unpleasant but its a heat of the moment issue. Naismith has been clattered from behind, (not just a tackle but a fully body slam) and his adrenaline is flowing. 

    Hayes is on the ground holding his head…' 

     

    You seem to be saying that Naismith's behaviour (firstly apparently kicking out & then verbally abusing him) toward Hayes is to be expected, given the circumstances.

     

     

    It's the exceptional nature of Naismith's response, and the acceptance of it by the referee, that caused me to comment.

     

     

     

    View Comment

  37. Jingso.Jimsie 13th August 2018 at 11:52  

    No, I am saying it is understandable, but not 'expected'. I'm not for players acting in that way as it lowers the tone of the whole game. 

     

    I am afraid this is one of those situations were like Jake Brigance's summing up in the trail at the end of  the film A Time to Kill – I ask people to close their eyes imagine the general scene then at the very end ask them to place Hayes back in a red Aberdeen top and imagine Naismith is Scott Brown in the hoops.

     

    The whole point is that the referee would have been more concerned over Hayes apparent injury. Thus he 'moved on' and forgot about booking Hayes and Naismith.

    Perhaps that is partially why he booked Naismith later in the second half for a fairly innocuous bump into Simunovic?

    Which then goes back to my point about McKenna / Morelos in that McKenna had two goes an bumping into Morelos well off the ball but received no punishment but Naismith gets carded for it when the ball is actually in the area.!

    View Comment

  38. wottpi  on 13th August 2018 at 11:37  

    Said: 'Agreed it is unpleasant but its a heat of the moment issue. …'
     
    The thing is, with Naismith, this sort of reaction (provocatively snarling in an opponent's face after a challenge, frequently (though not solely) when his opponent is on the ground) is not uncommon for him: I recall 2 other, similar instances during Saturday's match when he displayed exactly the same unpleasant/unsporting side of his game. He could (and arguably should) have been booked for any of these.
     
    I have long had 'Naisy' filed on my Rolodex under 'Talented Nyaff'.
     
    The sort of opponent I loved (and hated) to play against in my youth.

    View Comment

Comments are closed.