0
    0

    Comment on We’re Gonny Need Another Baw. by Auldheid.

    Folks

     

     

    This excellent article by Fanswithoutscraves  is well worth drawing attention to in terms of SFA Reform..

     

    https://fanswithoutscarves.org/2019/02/22/stigma-in-scottish-football-intro-and-part-1-too-big-to-fail/ 

    My general comment is that the system of regulation in place was a tick box one that depended on trusting clubs would act honestly and in good faith.

    That trust was broken in 1999 by Sir David Murray and there is a cost to replacing the system  with a more rigorous one  which arguably, if it is ever done, would  make Scottish football another  creditor of Rangers FC if a figure were put on it.

     

    Auldheid Also Commented

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    Homunculus 12 .46

    The vicious circle. How to increase attendance to watch lesser quality players as result of reducing the wage bill that impacts on going for anything?

    Perhaps acting like Killie or Aberdeen or Hearts etc might provide a clue.

    Stop acting Billy Big Baws  and join the same league on the same sustainable basis as everyone else.

    The risk of TRFC''s "business model", where a tap is more than a jersey, is the danger of collateral damage to the other clubs in the league.

    At what point do they agree to domestic version of financial fair play that protects all clubs?

    They are derelict in their duty to themselves and each other. Hell mend them.


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    Upthehoops. 

    I would have to check the latest rules but there is a points deduction for entering administration. 

    The principle behind points deduction is that a club cannot benefit in sporting terms from paying money to players it should have paid to creditors, especially if all other clubs were paying creditors what is owed at expense of footballer quality.

    Of course we can never rule out a Brysonesque interpretation that says as long as the administration is unnoticed then until it is, the club going into administration  is eligible to keep the points until an administration event takes place.

    That is as absurd as the ruling on player eligibility so it could happen again if rules aren't clear. 

     

     


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    John Clark 13.18

    Only two possibilities exist:

    Either the licence of March 2011 to RFC  was correctly granted under ALL of UEFA FFP articles or it wasn't.

    Why it has taken over 5 years to establish which applies is for the SFA to answer and consequently in the absence of a decision we cannot rule out that the licence was correctly granted.

    However the time taken to address the issue suggests the last thing the SFA (and possibly Celtic) want is a decision that it wasn't correctly granted because the consequences put the SFA in the dock much more than the new club/ company (to use Traverso's justification for not applying sanctions to RFC in 2012) who took the place of RFC in Scottish football. 

    Why TRFC are asking the matter go to CAS (as we understand it) is a mystery. It has nothing to do with TRFC as a new football club/company  that replaced RFC, although some of the same individuals employed in 2011 by RFC are still there. 

    The narrative will show that the whole Compliance Officer regime under the Judicial Panel Protocol is worthless when it comes to providing justice and there has to be independent oversight of the SFA and SPFL that forces accountability to restore any semblance of trust in the SFA as a governing body responsible for policing and enforcing  the rules. 

    Accountability  is the last thing ALLclubs want as it will take away their comfort zone, hence the resistance and so the need for persistence. 

     


    Recent Comments by Auldheid

    Bad Money?
    AllyJambo

    Although the SFA role in 2011 is the catalyst for Res12 what has happened since is what they really fear.

    1. The Judicial Panel Tribunal on Craig Whyte omitted to  include his failure to pay the wee tax bill which would have brought focus on how that happened in 2011, given he gave an undertaking to pay it. He was charged with non payment of PAYE and VAT so why not the wee tax bill? Significantly LNS was involved with Regan in drawing up the Terms of Reference for that tribunal in Feb 2012 a few days after administration was announced. Was he informed of that failure and why it should be excluded or was he duped?

    2. The Terms of Reference for the LNS Commission itself were skewed by the failure to provide SPL lawyers with HMRC documentation relating to the wee tax case charging RFC with negligent or fraudulent behaviour. Had that been provided evidence of specific dishonesty iro side letter concealment,  but the non disclosure allowed LNS to state no question of dishonesty in concealing them.

    Had all the evidence been provided the charges would not have been breach of registration rules but breach of the Articles relating to acting in good faith that are the basis of those made in relation to the UEFA licence 2011 in May 2018

    3 However even there if what was reported in a statement by TRFC the day after non compliance charges were made, the period at the end of March 2011 was  excluded from scrutiny that if true prevent any scrutiny of the basis on which the charges were made in the first place ie court testimony.

    The significance of this is to focus on the monitoring period under CW and not the grant when SDM was the major shareholder trying to sell RFC and Dave King was a Board member.

    The other significance was that under UEFA jurisprudence as explained by Traverso, breaches in the monitoring period did not attract sanctions until the following season. This removes the locus of Celtic shareholders as the argument Celtic were deprived of CL money in 2011 fell if only the monitoring submissions was being investigated . Clever stuff.

    Luckily, usable documentation surfaced then that challenged the exclusion of the end of March and this was provided to SFA the night before the JPDT sat in June 2018. Three weeks later the CAS card is played and you have to wonder had that documentation not surfaced would the CAS card have been played? (This is all on the Res12 Archive btw.)

    The pattern from the foregoing tells us that the Judicial Panel Protocol  introduced a few years before might work for on field offenses but is totally inadequate for achieving justice where the SFA are possible offenders.

    That is what Res12 is now up against but as long as supporters at large are ignorant of the issue, largely because sms do not focus on it or dont care, Scottish football is testimony to the adage " Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

    Celtic btw were presented with the same documentation relating to events at end of March 2011 in June 2018 and in August 2018 in presence of independent witnesses, with papers detailing the consequences in UEFA FFP terms of misrepresenting the status of the liability at end March 2011 as potential, when in fact it had become a payable and overdue under FFP, but for unfathomable reasons have decided to depend on the SFA continuing with a process that is clearly flawed.

    Celtic shareholders will want to know why, but as all clubs are covered by the JPP, hopefully their supporters will start asking questions of their Boards  of an organisation whose decisions in the past relating to a massive breach of trust by one club have been anything but just.


    Bad Money?
    John Clark

    We are. Relax.


    Bad Money?
    Cluster One 1956.

    I suspect UEFA will hide behind that excuse but what JJ's letter might do is annoy UEFA enough to realise the stance being adopted by the SFA conflicts with Article12 of UEFA FFP.

    All UEFA rules work on the basis that clubs who have failed to exit from insolvency cannot claim to be the same club , ie legal entity, which TRFC Ltd clearly are'nt on their application.

    The reference to Traverso is I suspect to alert him of the continuing anomaly that the SFA have created for UEFA given his response to Celtic shareholders lawyer in 2016 where he described TRFC Ltd as a new club/company based on the definition of a club and the forms it can take in Article 12.

    Given that  Res12 asked for UEFA involvement on the UEFA licence processing in 2011 in which SFA were fully involved, it is actually in UEFA's interest in terms of upholding the integrity of their competition to ensure that what happened in 2011 cannot happen again.

    What if there is actually a case re McGregor and it went unnoticed until the group stage and a club eliminated in qualifying put the cat among the pigeons?

    So UEFA really should be investigating the SFA and Celtic really should pass Res12 or a derivative at the next AGM.


    Bad Money?
    Angus1883

    When answers to Res12 are provided that say licence was granted and kept properly or the whole process was a breach of good faith is moving on possible.

    The responsibility for obtaining those answers lay with Celtic and they passed the opportunity.

    It fell to shareholders to pursue via the AGM and answers will have to be forthcoming long before then as Celtic are answerable to shareholders.


    Bad Money?
    Angus1983

    Rangers have already  been exposed for what they did and so have the part of the SFA and SPFL in minimizing the full extent of the betrayal towards member clubs by RFC from 2000.

    Had RFC been charged with bringing the game into disrepute by not acting in good faith towards member clubs before Craig Whyte became a useful deflection  patsie,  it would have resulted in a decision that what they had done was the same as or worse than match fixing.

    That would have made it impossible to allow them to continue to be part of Scottish football, a consequence that those in charge could not countenance, so they used the judicial process to produce the desired result of guilty on lesser charges.

    The problem is that not enough supporters or clubs care nor does the club whose shareholders do and whose club are part of the sham by relying on the same untrustworthy process to drag on for over 2 years in spite of being given evidence of being defrauded. 

    Such a judgement by the SFA or whoever would take us back to evidence of dishonesty by the same people still running TRFC and either they go or their club goes.

    The latter  puts football in their thrall because of same fear of the consequences, which makes rules useless as the glue that keeps  football from being no more than a rammy.

    It says  more about those protecting  a lie than those seeking footballing justice in order to restore some degree of integrity in the sport.

    If it's not written down it never happened and whilst the main stream media refuse to write it down those doing so via social media will leave a record for history to judge the first 20 years of Scottish football in the 21st century.

    The game that died of sham.

    (No typo)