To Comply or not to Comply ?

7185
128464

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. Met the wife after work, in a Manhattan bar.  An Irish acquaintance thought it was great that Gerrard was going to Ibrox.  When I mentioned the finances was confused.
    Point being; if they can spin bollox to fans based in the USA, then the SMSM can spin all sorts of BS…until they die.
    IMO.

    View Comment

  2. What do I think is…for the good of Scottish football?

    Well, 6 years ago I didn’t realise how ignorant I was about Scottish football.

    Now…my opinion hasn’t changed:the sooner the Ibrox club dies, the better it will be for the remaining, honest clubs.
    And as an aside I have declined in the past any freebies, or gifts for my kids which have an SFA association.
    The SFA is a blight on Scottish football, IMO.
    .

    View Comment

  3. CORRUPT OFFICIAL

    MAY 14, 2018 at 20:53
    Gerrard has never bought or sold a player in his puff Paddy. I don’t expect that to have changed by the time he has left Sevconia.
    —————————————————

    I expect there’ll be a few signings however long SG’s reign at Ibrox is. The DoF should be critical (as he should be) in player recruitment & disposal. However excellent or not Mark Allan’s work proves to be, he will forever be in SG’s shadow & the signings (the good ones at least!) will all be down to the manager.

    A word of caution for TRFC fans: in spite of DCK’s statements that the football club operator needs to become a nurturing, developing & selling organisation, much like CFC, their first signing of the new era is a 29 year-old, on a four year contract costing upwards of (reportedly) £8m, who will have little or no potential sell-on value in one or two years, never mind in three or four. 

    (I’ve belatedly realised that £2m per annum is the equivalent of 4000 season books at £500: a twelfth of the capacity of Ibrox goes to pay Arfield! Crikey, indeed!)

    View Comment

  4. Not one to agree with much that THELAWMAN2 says but his reply above about his post regarding his mate is exactly how I took his original post that Celtic were 100% committed to winning.

    View Comment

  5. Just to point out even though Celtic will have been 100% committed to winning every game that doesn’t mean they were very good in fact I would go as far as saying they have been piss poor all season. The fact that they won the league playing so badly shows how poor the rest of our teams were still at least with the Hibees I expect them to be superb one week and absolute crap the next so they never disappoint me even when we were 3-0 up on Sunday I still expected we would lose goals.

    View Comment

  6.                        shugMay 15, 2018 at 10:13
    Not one to agree with much that THELAWMAN2 says but his reply above about his post regarding his mate is exactly how I took his original post that Celtic were 100% committed to winning.
    ————————————————————————
    Apart from their undying belief in the BIG LIE I tend to agree with much of what THELAWMAN2 and SLIMJIM say and think his Celtic supporting mate’s summary was fair. Watched the game on TV and any suggestion that CFC lay down is nonsense. Not saying we fully deserved to win but we did, and this happens in football. As an aside my Celtic supporting pal was hoping his team would lose on Sunday. NOTE: not saying they should let AFC win but hoping they would lose.

    View Comment

  7. Sevco had one focus on Sunday and that was to forget about what happens at Parkhead the game at Easter Road has to be won first. When you have a two goal lead with ten or so mins to go and you need the points when you blow it and you earn a draw it sort of makes any conspiracy theory, appear as sour grapes when you have failed your end of the conspiracy.
    Picture up in the louden, aye billy celtic mob lay down so we would not finish second, aye after the effort the palyers put in to get the draw as well, ah know we had to win and were two goals in front but whits the point when that mob have lay down.

    View Comment

  8. Playing the JJ bingo this morning and I was dissapointed I didnt get a single one of the following in his article:
    – Personal attack on PMG
    – Criticism or threats to folk on this site or this site in particular.
    – Recurring threat to close his site if donations don’t improve.
    – Reference to the continued threat to his life

    View Comment

  9. Daily Record  Today 15/05/2018
    Rangers, The Road To Manchester .   Free Pull Out.
     
    Daily Record 15/05/2008
    Police release video of Rangers fans in UEFA Cup riot

    Daily Record  04/09/2010
    Football thugs who rioted in Manchester during Rangers’ UEFA Cup final appearance are jailed for 16 years
     
    Pull Out (unlikely to sell in Manchester ?)
     

    View Comment

  10. When someone new and relatively unheard of ( i.e. not a household name like say Gazza was or Ronaldo is), joins a team on a much bigger salary than everyone else they don’t normally congratulate the said person and get on with the business of working together for the common good.
    It destabilises everyone and everything.

    Putting aside the fact that the numbers don’t add up (and never have) 

    Maybe the whole point was destabilisation.

    View Comment

  11. FinlochMay 15, 2018 at 11:33
    When someone new and relatively unheard of ( i.e. not a household name like say Gazza was or Ronaldo is), joins a team on a much bigger salary than everyone else they don’t normally congratulate the said person and get on with the business of working together for the common good. It destabilises everyone and everything.
    Putting aside the fact that the numbers don’t add up (and never have) 
    Maybe the whole point was destabilisation
    —————————————————————————
    Still don’t believe he is on £38k per week (for 48 or 52 weeks)!

    View Comment

  12. James Doleman
    @jamesdoleman
    At the Court of Session today, unstarred motion P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers & Mergers for orders sec95512:02 pm · 15 May 2018

    View Comment

  13. Shug
    May 15, 2018 at 10:23
    ===================================

    Celtic won the League Cup

    Celtic won the League by 9 points and had a superior goal difference of 29 goals

    Celtic are in the final of the Scottish Cup

    If Celtic win the Cup they will have won a treble, a rare achievement in football

    Celtic Player dominated the POYT competitions, wining POTY and Young POTY (Writers and Players)

    How does that equate to “I would go as far as saying they have been piss poor all season”. 

    In my opinion the three top performing teams this season have been

    1, Celtic, see above.

    2, Motherwell, reaching two Cup Finals with the resources they have compared to others. Still a potential Cup win.

    3, Aberdeen, second in the top division.

    View Comment

  14. HomunculusMay 15, 2018 at 12:07
    Shug May 15, 2018 at 10:23 ===================================
    I’ll agree with your top 3 IF Motherwell win the cup. I think a 2nd place in the league beats two cup finals and a seventh place 25 points behind second!

    View Comment

  15. Josh Windass getting some grief on social media for being friendly with Scott Allan in Dubai.

    Deary me.  The day when players of opposing clubs can’t be friends will be a sad one.  The friendships between many Celtic & Rangers players over the years are legendary.

    As a mere fan, my life would have been greatly impoverished without family, friends and work colleagues who support/ed clubs other than Celtic.

    Grow up.

    View Comment

  16. jimboMay 15, 2018 at 14:02
    Couldn’t agree more, Jimbo. It’s something that really annoys me and seems particular to Scotland. In the EPL and other leagues, you invariably see opponents standing talking at the end of a game or walking off together blethering. These people are effectively workmates in the same industry albeit different companies (let’s not start that one again!!) so why wouldn’t they be friendly? When I worked with RBS, I had great mates in other banks who I socialised with, played football with etc.
    It seems that only in Scotland do fans and the media build up the conflict aspect so much that players aren’t allowed to be themselves. 

    View Comment

  17. Homunculus
    There is something of the classic diddy team about Celtic this year where performances were never guaranteed to be good and results never guaranteed to be positive.
    Even during the financially doped years, when Clyde came close to the then Premier League and were the only second placed team in a lower league in Europe to get nothing for there efforts by way of promotion or play off, there was always an expectation that things might go wrong and often did.
    Which is the better life, that of those who travel in hope in the face of experience or of those who follow a team which almost invariably wins?
    There is of course a third way, one where the experience is that of the follower who believes his Club is a behemoth entitled always to win yet results and other aspects confirm the contrary.
    I see that you claim to be advanced in years, I know a fellow way over 70 who collects degrees as a hobby ranging from Theology to Geography and some others. He is fortunate to have the time and funds to do SD,even without going so far as him, there is always new stuff to learn, new interests to follow, that next book to read, that next place to see.  One day I intend to learn punctuation and clarity of expression.

    View Comment

  18. I managed along for the first 90 minutes or so of the first day’s proceedings at the Court of Session in the case of Whitehouse and Clark v the Lord Advocate and Police Scotland.  JC was already there so I’m sure he will provide a full report later.

    Gerry Moynihan QC outlined the case for the Lord Advocate where there three main arguments on behalf of the respondents .
    1. That the case should only be against the Lord Advocate and not Police Scotland
    2. That the Lord Advocate has immunity from prosecution based on precedent. (Hester v McDonald 1961?)
    3. Rejection of the pursuers Section 8 claim that their human rights had been violated

    The first argument is quite a clever one, if accepted, as it would mean that the Police’s acts and ommisions would fall to the Lord Advocate rather than on individuals. Subsequently if the second argument on immunity was also accepted then the police would be off the hook, regardless of what they had done or not done.

    He then went through a high level timeline of events, including the purchase, administration, arrests and hearings which JC and I were familiar with.

    Whitehouse’s legal team also sought to have the Charlotte Fakes material (100,000) documents available to them.  Lord Malcolm seemed happy about it but the respondents chose to reserve their position in order to be able to challenge the admission of any particular documents as they arose. “Cross that bridge when we come to it” was the phrase used.

    View Comment

  19. Ronnie’s last season   won 26 draw 8 lost 4 goals for 93 against 31 difference 62 points 86 

    Brendan this season  won 24 draw 10 lost 4 goals for 73 against 25 difference 48 points 82 

    League wise very similar.

    View Comment

  20. So, it seems the SFA did nothing wrong and charges are being brought against Rangers (essential to maintain the same club narrative). 

    Paging Auldheid

    View Comment

  21. I know that the devil will be in the detail of the compliance officer’s report but I forgot to say in my post above a massive congratulations to Auldheid and everybody connected to Res 12.

    Creating any crack in the SFA/Rangers dam is no small feat. 

    View Comment

  22. Resolution 12 was never about Rangers, it was about SFA Governance. The SFA are attempting to throw the dead club under a bus and ‘move on’.
    Ogivie, Bryson, Longmuir, Peat, Broadfoot, Smith(s) Murray et al need dragged to court for fraud.

    View Comment

  23. SHUG
    MAY 15, 2018 at 16:12
    Ibrox noise again are these guys for real?
    ===============================

    Hadn’t seen that site before.
    And yes, they must be smoking something over there;

    “…Steven Gerrard has tabled a £4M bid for Fenerbahce’s Martin Skrtel…”

    As far as I can tell, Gerrard is not as yet an employee of TRFC.
    So, how can he table a bid on behalf of TRFC?
    …unless…he must be using his own money, as a personal purchase for TRFC?
    And King has told Gerrard to get a receipt – to be reimbursed when he starts?

    Level42 is not even trying these days.  14

    View Comment

  24. An interesting step from the SFA today in bringing two charges against Rangers, my initial takes are:

    – The SFA are confirming that they view Rangers as the same club as the one founded in 1872 (they may well have confirmed this as their view before but I don’t remember them doing so).
    – The 2nd charge actually carries the potential of serious consequences including termination of licence or a large fine.
    – UEFA have a 5 year limit on sanctions so the outcome does not look likely to be a ban from European competition. 
    I would guess that sanctions against the club itself will be toward the less dramatic end of the scale as they will rightly or wrongly use the mitigation of “it was all Craig Whyte who you’ve already slated as a villain and he’s long gone now”.  I’d suggest there is a strong chance Alaistair Johnston will not receive F&P status now though and I’m not sure he can have many arguments, given King had fiduciary responsibility also he could well face sanctions too.

    View Comment

  25. BILLYDUG

    MAY 15, 2018 at 15:46

    The Scottish FA compliance officer has served the club with a notice of complaint.

    https://stv.tv/amp/1415110-rangers-charged-by-sfa-over-2011-12-uefa-licence-issue/?__twitter_impression=true
    —————————————

    https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/

    I’m sorry, but the charges put to TRFC don’t seem to be answerable by them.

    The charges should have been against named individuals who allegedly committed rule breaches in 2010/11 whilst acting for RFC2012(IL), some of whom are still employed in the Scottish/European game & sit on governance committees & boards. 

    Looks like a classic SFA fudge to me…

    View Comment

  26. The RIFC/TRFC response:

    ‘Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:45

    by Rangers Football Club

    THE Rangers Football Club (“the Club”) was informed today by the Scottish FA  (“SFA”) that, after an eight-and-a-half month investigation, the SFA will not be proceeding with a Notice of Complaint in respect of the submission made by the Club to the SFA at the end of March 2011 with regard to the issue of the Club’s UEFA licence for the following Season.

    The Club is unsurprised that it has now finally been accepted by the SFA that the accusations made against the Club were groundless. The Club questions whether the time, cost and expense of this investigation was justified and was a good use of the SFA’s limited resources.

    Disappointingly, and presumably rather than accept that the investigation was a waste of all parties’ time and resources, the Club has been served with a new revised Notice of Complaint relating to the monitoring period subsequent to the grant of the UEFA licence. This new Notice of Complaint neglects to properly capture the provisions of prior agreements made between the Club and the SFA.

    The Club will fiercely resist this reconstructed Notice of Complaint. Unfortunately, monies that should be available to Scottish youth and grassroots football will be diverted into another rehearsal of seven-year-old debates on the rights and wrongs of events that the SFA should have prevented at a time when doing so would have served a useful purpose.

    It seems that Scottish Football is, once again, being directed by individuals intent on harming the Scottish game, Rangers Football Club and its supporters by pursuing a course that has no sensible purpose or reasonable prospect of success.’

    https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/notice-of-complaint/

    It’s interesting that the SFA has altered the parameters of the CO’s remit (did they advise anyone except the CO & RIFC/TRFC?) & issued a Notice of Complaint based on the revision.

    Was the original investigation too hot to handle? Did it throw up something unexpected? I don’t suppose we’ll ever know.

    View Comment

  27. One line sticks out in the Rangers statement.

    ” This new Notice of Complaint neglects to properly capture the provisions of prior agreements made between the Club and the SFA.

    That is a reference to the discredited 5-way agreement that gave assurances that no retrospective disciplinary action would be taken for certain matters.

    View Comment

  28. So in summary, the Compliance Officer has concluded from his investigation that Rangers did NOT have an overdue payable as at 31st March 2011 in strict accordance with UEFA regulations Annex Viii and therefore the licence was granted correctly by the SFA.

    The overdue payable became so on the 19th June 2011 and was then subject to the monitoring period rules and this is what will be investigated.

    The 30th June monitoring period does not affect participation in European Football that season so Rangers participation in Europe that season was fine.  If there was a breach at 30th June 2011, then any sanctions would apply to season 2012-13 by which time, Rangers licence had been refused in April 2012, not withstanding the change of legal structure at the Club.

    View Comment

  29. May I first say thank you to all the people responsible for making the so called governing body of our game realise that Scottish football supporters have a voice and that we will be as vigilant as we can be from today regards the running of our game .

    No more will the peepil in Hampden have a free hand to corrupt the game we love .

    That said I believe that it has not taken 8 months to come to where they are today ,I think they got there quite a while ago ,IMO it has taken them longer trying to figure out a way to appear to be doing the right thing whilst hoping it all goes away .

    IMO everything has been agreed with all parties as to the final outcome as they knew the res 12 guys were not going to let it lie .

    I predict sevco 2012 will take a fine for the dead club (as it bolsters the BIG LIE ) 
    AJ will be refused fit and proper status (the fact that his status is still pending should be investigated
    in itself) and will leave with a handshake .
    DK will be off before the fine is handed down .
    We will never see the receipt to prove a fine was ever paid .

    My scepticism aside ,the PEOPLE running our game from now on better get things sorted and get some sort of honest governance in place or there will be more resolutions coming down the pike .   

    View Comment

  30. TheLawMan2 May 15, 2018 at 17:49
    So in summary, the Compliance Officer has concluded from his investigation that Rangers did NOT have an overdue payable as at 31st March 2011 in strict accordance with UEFA regulations Annex Viii and therefore the licence was granted correctly by the SFA.
    ==================================
    I know that Rangers has effectively implied the above, but I see no reference to it in what the SFA has said, at least that I can find.

    https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/

    Edit: I had every confidence in the SFA, that they would not seek to charge themselves in connection with this matter. And so it has been demonstrated today.

    View Comment

  31. THELAWMAN2MAY 15, 2018 at 17:49…. ‘not withstanding the change of legal structure at the Club.’
    The club was sent for liquidation, Steerpike, you have really jumped the shark now.

    View Comment

  32. NickMay 15, 2018 at 16:37
    An interesting step from the SFA today in bringing two charges against Rangers, my initial takes are:– The SFA are confirming that they view Rangers as the same club as the one founded in 1872 (they may well have confirmed this as their view before but I don’t remember them doing so).– The 2nd charge actually carries the potential of serious consequences including termination of licence or a large fine.– UEFA have a 5 year limit on sanctions so the outcome does not look likely to be a ban from European competition. I would guess that sanctions against the club itself will be toward the less dramatic end of the scale as they will rightly or wrongly use the mitigation of “it was all Craig Whyte who you’ve already slated as a villain and he’s long gone now”. I’d suggest there is a strong chance Alaistair Johnston will not receive F&P status now though and I’m not sure he can have many arguments, given King had fiduciary responsibility also he could well face sanctions too.
    ___________________

    With acknowledgement to PMGB, Article 10 of UEFA’s Disciplinary Regulations is interesting and paragraph 2, might make the idea of a statute of limitations saving TRFC from UEFA action a bit redundant. It will, I suppose, depend on how UEFA view deliberately misrepresenting tax owed, and whether or not they consider it to fall under ‘corruption’. Considering they might feel the misrepresentation allowed them entry into competitions, and so matches, they should not have entered, match-fixing might also enter their thoughts. Paragraph 3 might also come into play if it is held that the SFA acted in a way that meant investigation was deliberately delayed (depending on what is meant by ‘procedural acts’)

    Article 10 Statute of limitations

    1 There is a statute of limitations on prosecution, which is time-barred after: a. one year for offences committed on the field of play or in its immediate vicinity; b. ten years for doping offences; c. five years for all other offences.

    2 Match-fixing, bribery and corruption are not subject to a statute of limitations.

    3 The statute of limitations set out above is interrupted by all procedural acts, starting afresh with each interruption.  

    View Comment

  33. AllyJambo

    I suppose, depend on how UEFA view deliberately misrepresenting tax owed, and whether or not they consider it to fall under ‘corruption’. Considering they might feel the misrepresentation allowed them entry into competitions, and so matches, they should not have entered, 

    _______________________________________________________________-

    Even IF the club is found guilty of misrepresentation at 30th June, no matches have been played as a result of it.  

    View Comment

  34. Sanctions for the second rule breach range from a £1,000 fine up to “£5,000,000 and/or ejection from the Scottish Cup and/or exclusion from the Scottish Cup and/or any player registration restrictions and/or suspension and/or termination of membership and/or any sanction or disposal not expressly provided above”.
    A response from Rangers is due by May 22, with a principal hearing date set for June 26.
    ————-
    Oh Dear.

    View Comment

  35. JINGSO.JIMSIE
    MAY 15, 2018 at 17:05


    by Rangers Football Club

    …The Club questions whether the time, cost and expense of this investigation was justified and was a good use of the SFA’s limited resources.

    The Club will fiercely resist…

    …monies that should be available to Scottish youth and grassroots football will be diverted…

    …Scottish Football is, once again…intent on harming the Scottish game, Rangers Football Club and its supporters…

    https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/notice-of-complaint/
    ======================================

    A truly classic TRFC statement;

    – ridiculing an investigation into their own behaviour
    [i.e. the dodgiest club EVER]

    – dramatic and inappropriate language

    – thinly veiled threat

    – the victim card!

    ‘Absolutely’ standard p!sh to rile the bears, and deflect from the truth.

    View Comment

  36. EASYJAMBOMAY 15, 2018 at 17:24
    One line sticks out in the Rangers statement.
        ” This new Notice of Complaint neglects to properly capture the provisions of prior agreements made between the Club and the SFA.”
        ——————————————————————————————————-
       Here is another line EJ.
          “another rehearsal of seven-year-old debates on the rights and wrongs of events that the SFA should have prevented at a time when doing so would have served a useful purpose.
    —————————————————————————————————
        The only way the SFA could have prevented anything……. was if they knew ! ….I wonder what Jabba is trying to say, in his usual fat sluggish way?
       

    View Comment

  37. If the charges brought by the SFA are confirmation by the ruling body that TRFC and Rangers2012(IL) are being recognised as the same entity then does this leave that entity open to a damages claim from,initially, Celtic shareholders for the deliberate and corrupt diversion of ECL revenues?

    View Comment

Comments are closed.