To Comply or not to Comply ?


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

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

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

The cases of two clubs::

Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )


FC Irtysh  (Kazakhstan) 

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

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


FC Sion  (Olympique des Alpes SA)

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

Full details can be read at


but this is a summary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sion had declared

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

Karma eh!

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

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

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

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


  1. SmugasMay 31, 2018 at 10:17

    Ha, fair point neither the SPFL or the SFA have exactly delivered gold standard corporate governance in the past so perhaps this latest faux pas is unsurprising. 

    Still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t challenge it…even if we believe the man who raised it isn’t whiter than white himself.

    View Comment


    MAY 30, 2018 at 22:30

    For the avoidance of doubt and avoiding any charges of plagiarism “the full leggoland” is not mine but was from another SFM person.

    Several years ago there was a pro-RFC/Sevco/TRFC blog, often subject to ridicule due to its far-fetched content, written by a former stalwart of the SMSM called David Leggat. The blog was called Leggoland.

    View Comment


    Dave King has demanded an independent review into allegations that, a little over a decade ago, SPFL chairman Murdoch MacLennan drank a pint of Guinness while wearing green underpants.

    King, a highly respected and trusted businessman, who is chairman of RIFC, but not de facto chairman of, or spokesperson for, TRFC, declined an offer of an independent review into any of the scores of  matters which have brought Scottish football into disrepute in recent times, courtesy of his six year old b*st*rd offspring of a club.

    Meanwhile, Scottish Natural Heritage has confirmed that the decline in red squirrel numbers in recent years has been reversed to the extent that they are becoming a common sight all over Scotland.

    It is not known at this stage whether the two matters are linked, but news on Rangers* UEFA licence is imminent, as is legal action by the Takeover Panel, and the stars and planets are aligned such that another omnif*ck of a clustershambles is inevitable, quite possibly involving Dave and Uranus. 

    View Comment

  4. I wonder what Stewart Robertson would have to say on the matter if anyone from the media had the guts to ask him. I’ve no doubt he would reply ‘no comment’, but he really should be asked. After all, he knows what’s going on at the SPFL so will know whether or not King’s rant has any foundation.

    Mind you, it’s almost as though King has forgotten he has eyes and ears, as well as a mouth, within the SPFL, or has chosen not to use them.

    Does anyone know if any hack has thought to point out that TRFC do have a presence on the SPFL board, through whom this matter could more respectfully be addressed, or are they sticking rigidly to whatever PR puffery they are given?

    Still, I am sure, that by the weekend, the rest of the directors of RIFC/TRFC will have joined in in solidarity with Mr King with their own statement on the matter to the press.

    View Comment

  5. I find it quite amusing-if not slightly concerning-that a Support (or maybe it’s just a few thousand internet bams) who sat back and enjoyed -no positively basked in- the full backing and  Support of the SFA,MEDIA and Financial Institutes in Scotland over many ,many decades whilst wining Trophies and plaudits alike are now accusing these very same Institutions as being corrupt or untrustworthy in what is now /
    has evidently been avery bad time for them on a Footballing front?
    I mean to say that despite the fact some of these Institutions have glossed over their Clubs Liquidation (see Companies House for clarification on that) and have proceeded to facilitate a notion that somehow “a Club” survived in order to reduce their pain on its passing they still believe these same institutions are somehow out to get them?
    I mean on a scale of 1-10 the levels of Paranoia are currently off the scale.

    It killed Rangers ye know.

    View Comment

  6. SLIMJIMMAY 31, 2018 at 10:24

    I’ll give you that as an outside chance.

    Too lightweight for the EPL and a squad player at best for a lower half team.

    Can’t see any potential for development into a big money player with sell on bonuses and the likes.

    At 24 he has to be thinking either money or game time.

    Probably get more game time at Ibrox but IIRC correctly the Bears on the terraces don’t have much time for him.

    If Gerrard is relying on him staying that seems to indicate the level at which things will be pitched at.
    i.e stand still with minor tweeks.

    Could be worth cashing in if someone does come calling.

    View Comment

  7. Dave King attacked SARS and publicly tried to discredit them, just before they ‘reached an amicable agreement over a few simple financial misunderstandings.’ We know too that he had some sort of ‘relationship’ with a senior SARS official who had to resign from his post when he was accused of providing fake documents to King.
    King clearly has a history of dragging out these matters for years if it suits his purposes and spreading as much muck in his wake as he can. We’ve all witnessed the ‘liar’ part of him, but the last week has certainly proved beyond doubt that he has no shame.
    I looked through some Sevco blogs last night and read the – how King ‘has them this time’ b/s. It’s all a bit like the excitement over the State Aid b/s. Not surprisingly I see the exact same arguments (Campbell Ogilvie is irrelevant etc..) set out here this morning, almost word for word, except spelled correctly and without the sectarian language.
    Campbell Ogilvie is irrelevant? It’s fabulous.

    View Comment

  8. Clubs are to receive money from FIFA in relation to their players playing in the World Cup.

    “Celtic stand to make the most through Tom Rogic (Australia), Mikael Lustig (Sweden) and Cristian Gamboa (Costa Rica).
    That puts the club in line for almost £600,000 and another payment will be winging its way to Parkhead if Dedryck Boyata makes Belgium’s final cut next week……..
    That should mean Rangers get paid around £130,000 for Bruno Alves (Portugal)”
    (Daily Record)

    Mind the gap!

    View Comment

  9. The CoI ‘debate’ seems to be of the ‘he said, she said’ variety. King says no disclosure; the SPFL say different. The simple act of referring to documents and/or polling of board members should see the matter ended.
    One would have thought that board members are entitled to contest the SPFL statement if they believe it to be false
    Never though I’d ever hear myself say it, but I am more inclined to believe the SPFL – given the available choices.
    I do agree that however spurious the charge, the authorities should respond comprehensively. Of course spurious behaviour should not go unpunished either.
    On that front I think it may be significant that King, and not the club, have made these statements. Arms length for TRFC then

    View Comment

  10. I’m sure there must be an item from the SPFL minutes which refers to the discussion on Murdoch Maclennan’s disclosure.  Although to be fair a lot of minutes I’ve read are kept very vague.

    View Comment

  11. BIG PINKMAY 31, 2018 at 12:25
    That’s not quite correct, the SPFL’s defence is that Maclennan’s appointment was disclosed to the SPFL board at the time but that they didn’t need to disclose Desmond/O’Brien’s involvement with INM because it didn’t constitute “a business relationship”

     Rangers agree they were told of his appointment but have pointed out, probably correctly in this instance, that the potential COI should have been disclosed as well.

    As I’ve said already this isn’t some sort of conspiracy against Rangers but the SPFL haven’t half made a meal of it.  They and the Chairman should just hold their hands up and take the appropriate steps to ensure the COI is managed sensibly.

    View Comment

  12. No matter what may be coming down the pike for TRFC, Dave King has at least established in the minds of the most extreme elements of the club’s support, that there are Celtic minded people of influence in Scottish football governance. Should that pike deliver something very bad, by the time the dust settles and the mob realises who’s really to blame, Dave will be somewhere out of reach. Or that will be the plan.

    He hasn’t done an Ally Dog Whistle, he’s told them who these people are.

    View Comment

  13. WOTTPI MAY 31, 2018 at 11:24/SLIMJIMMAY 31, 2018 at 10:24
    Josh Windass? Fair enough. He’s under contract until 2021 and is valued at £630k on Transfermarkt at age 24. He’s done well at The Rangers since his free move from Accrington Stanley – maybe they’d get £1m+ for him and he’d certainly an increase in wages but no EPL team would go for him, he’s Championship level and nowt wrong with that.

    As for all being well, as has been noted, the fans have been on his back – didn’t he cup an ear to them after a goal? – but also he did sign an extension recently so you’d think he was happy enough, unless he’s worried about player churn…

    View Comment

  14. Nick
    May 31, 2018 at 12:40

    They and the Chairman should just hold their hands up and take the appropriate steps to ensure the COI is managed sensibly.

    How do you propose they “manage” something which they don’t think exists.

    It appears to me from what they are saying that the SPFL are not saying they were made aware of a conflict of interest. They are saying that there is no conflict of interests.

    View Comment

  15. NICKMAY 31, 2018 at 12:40
    BIG PINKMAY 31, 2018 at 12:25That’s not quite correct, the SPFL’s defence is that Maclennan’s appointment was disclosed to the SPFL board at the time but that they didn’t need to disclose Desmond/O’Brien’s involvement with INM because it didn’t constitute “a business relationship”
     Rangers agree they were told of his appointment but have pointed out, probably correctly in this instance, that the potential COI should have been disclosed as well.
    As I’ve said already this isn’t some sort of conspiracy against Rangers but the SPFL haven’t half made a meal of it.  They and the Chairman should just hold their hands up and take the appropriate steps to ensure the COI is managed sensibly.

    So, assuming what you say is accurate, do you think that this is something that required a belligerent statement from King (or anyone) rather than, initially at least, a request, perhaps through his own man, to have the matter investigated properly and for more vigorous checks to be put in place in future?

    Seems to me, from what you say, to be nothing more than a misunderstanding, or are you suggesting that those links, however tenuous, were deliberately withheld from the SPFL board members?

    View Comment

  16. NickMay 31, 2018 at 12:40

    BIG PINKMAY 31, 2018 at 12:25 That’s not quite correct, the SPFL’s defence is that Maclennan’s appointment was disclosed to the SPFL board at the time but that they didn’t need to disclose Desmond/O’Brien’s involvement with INM because it didn’t constitute “a business relationship”

    Sorry but I disagree, at least in the rationale.

    Their position is that as a non-exec of a PLC he does not have a business relationship with a minority shareholder of the same PLC.

    It’s not a “defence”, it’s a statement of their position.

    View Comment

  17. Nick 09:06
    So your worry is that Dermot Desmond, with a minority 15% shareholding would call an extraordinary general meeting on Independent Group Newspapers to have their chairman massively embarrassed or removed from the board because of a personal beef about something he may not like to do with football? 

    Is that the crux of it?

    Do you think the other 85% of the shareholders would approve of such actions? And I’d say that’d be hugely out of character and would open Desmond, not Maclennan to massive embarrassment and ridicule of the highest order – something we know he does not like, in the extreme.

    But that is the crux – the most important issue – right?

    Incidentally you stated Denis O’Brien has a controlling stake – I don’t believe that’s the case, not on what I read. Might be reading the wrong things. You got a source?

    View Comment

  18. Jockybhoy
    May 31, 2018 at 13:32

    JB, this isn’t aimed specifically at you, it’s just a convenient post to make the point.

    The important issue is the fact that he is a non-executive director.

    I take this from

    as it’s easy to copy and paste the relevant parts.

    “A non-executive director is a full member of the company’s board of directors and responsible as part of the board for the success of the company. In contrast to executive directors, however, they do not have executive responsibilities within the company and are not an employee of it.”

    “The distinction between the two lies in the role and purpose of non-executive directors. The NEDs won’t generally be ‘getting their hands dirty’ dealing with operational matters, but instead contribute by stepping back from the day-to-day activities of running the business and asking the right questions of the executive team. By doing so, they can lend an independent and objective perspective to the board’s decision making – sometimes the most obvious questions or most pertinent concerns are those that, absorbed as they are in the day to day running of the business, the executive team may lose sight of or misjudge”

    View Comment

  19. Jingojimsie
    I used to enjoy Leggoland until he went too far and had to close down under a cloud. It was the phrase going the full leggoland which came fro one of the SFM lads. With the continuing decay of civil restrained gentlemanly discourse perhaps we should now say going the full Johnjames albeit that would mean a penchant for crudity and puffery.

    View Comment

  20. bfbpuzzled
    May 31, 2018 at 13:50

    I have no thyme for either carrot sticks or aggrandisement particularly when the latters is via sock-puppets.

    View Comment

  21. Nick
    On Andrew Dickson
    I wasn’t meaning you said SPFL Chairman should step aside. I was working on basis DK said something on those lines whilst SPFL investigated.
    I agree with the thrust of what you suggested the SPFL might say if the circumstances warrant it. I think I made a similar point.
    However the way DK has gone about raising his concerns suggests he is casting doubt on integrity of SPFL Board and it’s Chairman.
    His motivation being malevolent or self serving to deflect from what may be heading his way from various directions. 

    Put it this way. If you had a neighbourly card school and DK was a neighbour,  knowing what is already known, would you invite him to play.

    THAT is the question Scottish football has to or will have to decide and it goes beyond DK to the current prevailing mindset at Ibrox  that has caused an un precedent ed level of mistrust amongst football supporters, not football club supporters in Scotland.

    I repeat, would you have DK sitting at the card table?

    View Comment

  22. JOCKYBHOYMAY 31, 2018 at 13:32

    Hi Jocky, hope you’re well, it’s been a while since I faced you’re ire! 

    It is indeed possible Desmond could call an EGM at INM if he disagreed with a decision Maclennan made at the SPFL, he would obviously have to dress up his reasons as something else.  If you read my post I stated this is highly unlikely and I don’t believe the Chairman would realistically be undermined in either role by the existence of this COI.  

    I am merely stating what should be a fairly uncontroversial point in saying that the highest standards of corporate governance would have dictated Maclennan advised the SPFL board of the potential COI (or possible perception of one) and let them put in place any checks or balances they felt necessary.  This has only become an issue because the SPFL is so dysfunctional, they could have handled it in a much more sensible manner.  

    Re your O’ Brien point apologies, he is the largest shareholder and exerts significant control over the company but he isn’t a majority shareholder.

    View Comment

  23. If I could summarise the SFAs handling of Rangers (IL) the subsequent mishandling of The 2angers from that is from Charles Greens 5 Way Hoodwink to Dave GASL Kings Takeover to his handling of said The 2angers by King it would be this.
    Absolute Raphael Sheidt 💩
    Comedy at times but 💩 none the less.

    View Comment

  24. Is there any evidence that the full details of MacLennan’s link? to Desmond and O’Brien were withheld from the SPFL board members, or is it just being assumed because not even King would make that statement without checking first?

    View Comment

  25. In my humble opinion, I don’t agree with King’s latest demands.
    No, really.

    Personally, I do not want any ‘independent’ investigation, ever.
    We saw the SPFL/SFA’s pathetic attempt with the LNS Commission.

    The SFA & SPFL have proved consistently that they are inept / incompetent / corrupt.  So, why would any future investigation be conducted with probity / honesty / transparency ?

    IMO, the only way to start addressing and resolving the ills in Scottish football – and starting with the lack of governance – is to simply wait.

    Just wait.

    …until TRFC has run out of cash, finally.

    Then, any b@stard offspring TRFC v0.2 should be ignored, and denied access to the SPFL.  Give more deserving – and honest – clubs a chance. 

    I’ll just hang about with popcorn at the ready, until this dodgy club dies – permanently – and preferably with a stake through it’s heart.
    [Too strong?]


    View Comment

  26. From the Guardian The Knowledge  yesterday .
    “I’ve recently discovered that, in Nigeria, Dundee United is slang for ‘idiot’ or ‘fool’, apparently the result of a disastrous tour in 1972,” mails Nicholas Reid. “Are there any similar examples of football club names becoming slang terms around the world?”
    It’s true: Dundee United is slang for idiot in Nigeria. This peculiar fact came to British attention in 2010, during a BBC documentary about the Nigerian capital Lagos. A local man, Chubby, told the filmmakers how life in Lagos is not for the foolish. “Anybody who came to Lagos and he didn’t learn sense, he cannot get sense ever,” said Chubby. “Because here if you are a fool, they will learn you how to get sense. If you are a ‘Dundee United’, when they start to pour shit on you, you will get sense.”
    Matías Vecino: Uruguay star inspired by family tragedy who said no to Italy
     Read moreAs this article in the Scotsman explains, many believe this stems from a disastrous tour in 1972. There is also a suggestion that, when Nigeria were based at Dens Park during the Under-16 World Cup of 1989, some mischievous Dundee fans decided to enrich their vocabulary.

    View Comment

  27. DD – As a 15% shareholder I wish to call an EGM

    INM Board – For what purpose

    DD – I wish to put forward a resolution that the board get rid of a non-executive director

    INM Board – That’s not a decision for the shareholders, it’s a decision for us

    DD – I know but I want the vote to be that we ask you to get rid of him

    INM Board – We are going to say No, so it’s a waste of time and money, and frankly vexatious

    DD – Then I will vote against you all at the next AGM

    INM Board – That is entirely up to you.

    View Comment

  28. HOMUNCULUSMAY 31, 2018 at 16:24

    That’s not correct actually.  In Ireland the board can’t resist a request for an EGM from a shareholder with a holding of over 10% (the threshold is actually lower in the UK), it’s a safeguard for shareholders to allow them a mechanism to reign in or remove board members if necessary.

    I don’t really want to get too caught up debating that scenario as it’s highly unlikely to materialise, I merely used it as an example to show that there is undeniably a potential COI and that should have been declared.  It shouldn’t have precluded the Chairman from carrying on in both roles but it should have been subject to board scrutiny in both organisations.

    View Comment

  29. Superscoreboard
    The SPFL have released a statement dismissing Dave King’s allegations against their Chairman Murdoch MacLennan – claiming he has ‘behaved impeccably in this matter’. They say King has failed to provide any evidence to back up his claims.

    View Comment

  30. Do we know that not all details of the possible conflict of interest posed by MacLennan’s employment were disclosed to the SPFL board, and if we don’t, then why is it being debated as if it is known they were kept secret?

    Anyone got a theory on why the only person kicking up a stink about this possible conflict of interest is a convicted criminal whose own club recently signed a player, on very favourable terms to his club, from a club that has a shareholder who just happens to be a director of said criminal’s club?

    If we are talking conflict of interest and transparency…where to begin?

    View Comment

  31. Well, it looks like the SPFL have answered one of my questions posed in my above post. Thanks for providing the statement EJ. 

    Hopefully now they will deal with King in an appropriate manner having made the point that a more suitable avenue for dealing with his complaint was open to him.

    View Comment

  32. NICKMAY 31, 2018 at 12:40
    BIG PINKMAY 31, 2018 at 12:25
    That’s not quite correct, the SPFL’s defence is that Maclennan’s appointment was disclosed to the SPFL board at the time but that they didn’t need to disclose Desmond/O’Brien’s involvement with INM because it didn’t constitute “a business relationship”
     Rangers agree they were told of his appointment but have pointed out, probably correctly in this instance, that the potential COI should have been disclosed as well.
    As I’ve said already this isn’t some sort of conspiracy against Rangers but the SPFL haven’t half made a meal of it.  They and the Chairman should just hold their hands up and take the appropriate steps to ensure the COI is managed sensibly.

    We have seen how this one pans out before.
    The matter ends up in some kind of inquiry, the SFA get dragged in and Bryson is wheeled out to state  that while MacLennan was imperfectly appointed he was still eligible to take up the post.

    Move along now.


    View Comment

  33. I can’t believe the the amount of debate regards TGASL calling for proper governance in Scottish football .
    After all if there was proper governance in Scottish football no one would have to listen to TGASLs inane rants as he would without doubt, never have come riding to the rescue to free sevco 2012 (the new club ) from the hands of those nasty non RRM ,no siree ,old glib would have been happy carrying someone’s golf bag for a pastime .

    You see it’s only because there was NO proper governance in the Scottish game that we have TGASL acting as a shadow director of a football club and 500,000 sevco 2012 fans constantly banging on about going for 55 when the club they now rally behind is only been playing football for 6 yrs.

    Then again when the tide of the fans were turning on old BIG HANDS one of the peepil had a wee word in his lughole as to which buttons to press and HEY PRESTO all was well and the rest is ,as they say history (albeit a fairly short history ) .

    So who can blame TGASL for taking the tried and tested route to the hearts and minds (stop laughing at the back ) of the sevco 2012 support .If you peruse the message boards you will see that it has worked it’s magic again .

    You see the average sevco 2012 fan seems to have a very short memory because the man they now laud actually voted against a CVA and helped KILL their club  .As CG asked at the time ,why would a RRM like DK vote to kill the club and wipe out it’s history .Well maybe it was because he KNEW even back then that there was NO PROPER GOVERNANCE IN THE SCOTTISH GAME .

    Looks like it was not just us internet bampots that realised how corrupt our game had become after the debacle of 2011/12 and decided enough was enough .Now Glib doesn’t fancy competing on a LEVEL playing field.

    Shouldn’t be long now till the REAL reason for all his bluster becomes apparent . 


    View Comment

  34. NICK
    MAY 31, 2018 at 16:42

    I don’t really want to get too caught up debating that scenario as it’s highly unlikely to materialise, I merely used it as an example to show that there is undeniably a potential COI and that should have been declared.


    You keeping saying it doesn’t make it true.

    The SPFL have stated their position that because he is a non-exec in the scenario then there is no conflict of interest.

    If he was employed by DD, or a company which DD controls, or a company which DD has a significant holding then there would be the potential for such a conflict of interest. 

    He isn’t though.

    View Comment

  35. SHUG
    MAY 31, 2018 at 18:42
    Seems Stevie g is gonna be a no show tomorrow.Going to be out of the country on transfer business lmao

    …and unfortunately he has a dentist appointment on Monday…  16

    View Comment

  36. JIMBOMAY 31, 2018 at 16:58
    3 Rate This
    Mikael Lustig is the new face of Coco Cola
    Just came across this while looking for something else.Hope it is ok with the mods to post. you can see the resemblance.

    View Comment

Comments are closed.