Ranger UEFA licence in 2011 still under consideration by SFA

Porto Loyal

Well-Known Member
Remind me, how many League runner-up spots did Hibs or DUtd get in our absence ?
I suspect in Petrie's case, it was partially fuelled by what he saw as us 'stealing' their best players with money we shouldn't have had (in his eyes). He ran/runs Hibs parimoniously and the fact we took players like Murray, Thompson, Whittaker whilst exploiting the tax system rankled. They also saw the chance to redistribute the funds in the SPL without the blocking votes from us and them. They were shafted in that by Aberdeen siding with the scum
 

BrooklynBlue

Well-Known Member
It's little wonder the game is in the doldrums. The national team lurches from one failure to the next. But hey, the SFA need to address the important things first...

At some point, the Club needs to address it publicly.
 

Govan Ger

Well-Known Member
The whole agenda is brought on by the parkpeed club and their tarrier fans, they mention it at every AGM they have,king and co have a few bullets to fire back about the child abuse cover up and why the SFA have had no inquiry about it.
 

The Ranger

Well-Known Member
Wait till the #CelticKnew bandwagon rolls up at petries door. They are all still in denile, because their friends in the media ain't challenging them. The UEFA licence story is just the media's way of deflecting thing's for their pals
 

Tim Hunter

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I may not be 100% on this but my recollection is at the time of application this tax liability was in dispute or under discussion with a resolution to be expected.
I understand there are other clubs who at that time were in the same position with their relevant tax authorities.
Our tax bill may have eventually gone unpaid due to some of Murray's companies including the Rangers holding company going into liquidation.
The crucial point being at the time of the UEFA application the tax bill was not unpaid but under discussion with the authorities so was perfectly ligit.
I’d imagine the crux of this is whether we stated on our application to UEFA that there was a tax matter but it was being disputed. Assuming we did that, I can’t see what case there is to answer
The only evidence against Rangers is evidence given and behaviour by Craig Whyte, a paragon of virtue, truth and integrity.
The SFA punished Craig Whyte £200,000, for not being a "fit and proper person" who laughed in their face, the club was also fined £160,000 whilst being in administration, for 5 offences including " bringing the game into disrepute."
The SFA then “expelled Craig Whyte for life from any participation in Association Football in Scotland.”
How the SFA intend to take further retrospective action against a club they have already punished, for alleged crimes committed by someone who they have imposed a life ban on is simply incredulous.
This prosecution of Rangers will rely solely on the evidence of Craig Whyte, it should be fun.
I think this farce may be designed to be equivalent to 4 decades of child abuse, and concealment of by every director(except the bunnet) of Celtic since. They are trying to use this as some sort of lifeline.

PS I believe that the SFA deducted the CW £200000 fine from Rangers prize money.
 
Last edited:

Klos the Boss

Well-Known Member
I get all the "well go to war" and "bring it on" posts and totally agree, I dont think for a minute SFA have a case here, however, with liewells puppets now in place they'll try every trick in the book. What is the absolute worst case scenario for us if they did pursue, and win this. As I say i dont imagine for a second they will, but I'm curious what could happen.
 

eeboh

Active Member
Ah yes, this again. Just as things are heating up in the calls for an enquiry into celtc and the paedos operating under the noses of their directors. When will they all realise it's not going away.
 
I get all the "well go to war" and "bring it on" posts and totally agree, I dont think for a minute SFA have a case here, however, with liewells puppets now in place they'll try every trick in the book. What is the absolute worst case scenario for us if they did pursue, and win this. As I say i dont imagine for a second they will, but I'm curious what could happen.
They can fine us £5000.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
The thing has been on hold for ages, and it looks like all that has been said is that a decision one way or the other as to whether to go to CAS will be made before the end of the year. I think it’s clear it was kicked into the long grass previously, and the decision could quite easily be not to take things further.

Someone looks to have raised a very specific query on this issue to get a statement from the guy so this can then be reported on again. One would wonder why…

There have been various versions of the 5WA posted online over the years, although I suspect the wording of the final version which was actually signed hasn’t been.

Anyway, the 5WA versions available define “CW Exempt acts” and “CW enduring Acts.” Under the 5WA the club can’t be pursued for CW Exempt acts.

The Club agreed under the 5WA that it could be pursued for CW Enduring Acts.

CW Enduring Acts are defined as

“all acts and omissions of or undertaken under instruction from or with the actual knowledge of Craig Whyte during the period of his tenure as Chairman of RFC, the sanctions for which are enforceable against RFC and not against CW as an individual where such acts or omissions relate to or are in any way connected with, directly or indirectly, corruption, fraud, bribery, match-fixing, unauthorised or undisclosed payments to players or Match Officials, or any matter similar in its reprehensible nature to any of the foregoing which acts or omissions are of at least equal gravity to those found to have been committed by or engaged in by RFC in the JP Determination;”

Under the 5WA if there is a dispute on any issue (including whether an act is a “CW Exempt” act or a “CW Enduring Act”), then CAS is the body with jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

So far no steps have been taken to have CAS determine whether the allegations relate to what would be CW Enduring Acts, and up until now there hasn’t seemed to be much enthusiasm to take it any further.

Petrie himself has previously said he doesn't see any merit in raking over old issues like this, I'm sure.
 

Mexi

Well-Known Member
Regan signing a blank contract then pissing of home for the weekend
Keeping transfer fees then treating the old club as a separate entity
Fining the new club for old club's "crimes"
Punting us down the divisions, then promptly changing the rules to save Hearts
Not punishing celtc for non declaration of EBTs
Ignore a crime far, far worse committed by a rival team

Aye, take us to court. I f*cking dare you
 

Mexi

Well-Known Member
And this idea that celtc would take the CL spot is fantasy. If they finished second, they would be in the Europa league. The CL spot would go to the next country in the coefficient
 

Gramps1

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I’m not usually one for statements but surely to %^*& we come out with one blowing this shite out the water and nail the rangers haters that run the sfa now.
Bring it on ya paedo enabling bastards will do.
 
I get all the "well go to war" and "bring it on" posts and totally agree, I dont think for a minute SFA have a case here, however, with liewells puppets now in place they'll try every trick in the book. What is the absolute worst case scenario for us if they did pursue, and win this. As I say i dont imagine for a second they will, but I'm curious what could happen.
They can fine us 5 grand, but this is not the SFA’s battle here. It’s more to do with Celtic labelling us as blaggards again and damaging the brand.
They may even call for compensation for the potential ‘ millions ‘ they could have had from CL qualification. Yet more propaganda against us even though they know it’s going nowhere.
 

Marstonbear

Well-Known Member
As I understand it, the issue is whether we made UEFA aware of a tax liability in our application to take part in UEFA club competitions for season 2011/12.

Much as I'd love to blame CW for this, he didn't complete his takeover until 6/5/11. I believe applications for UEFA tournaments are submitted before this date and so would have been submitted by previous board. As long as we were in dispute with HMRC at the time of the application, this is simply no case to answer
 

Gramps1

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
As I understand it, the issue is whether we made UEFA aware of a tax liability in our application to take part in UEFA club competitions for season 2011/12.

Much as I'd love to blame CW for this, he didn't complete his takeover until 6/5/11. I believe applications for UEFA tournaments are submitted before this date and so would have been submitted by previous board. As long as we were in dispute with HMRC at the time of the application, this is simply no case to answer
As blues and royals said mate this is purely propaganda to damage the brand and it’s working we’re front and centre of all the rags again.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
As I understand it, the issue is whether we made UEFA aware of a tax liability in our application to take part in UEFA club competitions for season 2011/12.

Much as I'd love to blame CW for this, he didn't complete his takeover until 6/5/11. I believe applications for UEFA tournaments are submitted before this date and so would have been submitted by previous board. As long as we were in dispute with HMRC at the time of the application, this is simply no case to answer
This would be CW’s fault. I can’t remember the exact details without looking things up, but the rules had various dates by which certain things had to be certified, and one of them fell after CW’s time (30th June from memory.)

The compliance officer found that the declarations made before CW’s time were not misleading so that part wasn’t pursued.

The complaint then morphed into an allegation that a misrepresentation was made during CW’s time, which is how we got to where we are.
 
There's a few panty wetters in here.
Remember the facts: it would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to take this to CAS, risking UEFA intervention in the SFA, in order to fine us a few thousand pounds.
It is NOT going to happen.
The SFA fining us isn't the goal here though is it?

Ultimately it's about the mhanks wanting compensation for missing out on CL games, so the SFA wouldn't object to spending big for that objective.
 
7 years of lies and smears from these cretins aimed at us. King should now be kicking down the SFA’s door to demand they charge Celtic with bringing the game into disrepute . What other business or company would allow their own name to be constantly trashed like this without initiating action against the perpetrators.
And while he’s at it, he should also be asking the SFA what the potential sanctions and penalties are for football clubs who knowingly harbour paedophiles.
 
I thought Lawwell would keep this pocketed for the eventuality, for when we will be playing Champions League Qualifiers in the future. Suppose due to recent events he's got to mobalise the Moonhowlers to deflect. Utterly bewildering we are still having to battle this bollocks.
 

BSPECIAL

Well-Known Member
Now that liewell has his knobsucking servant,petrie, in a position he can manipulate him in any way he wants.This is just the start of endless persecution from an absolute bastard that petrie is. He'll be loving it with liewell giving him orders and him doing his duties for the Rangers hating scum.
 

temperance

Well-Known Member
The case was rejected on the basis that the club considered the matter in dispute with HMRC. It was re-opened two years ago because former directors at the Craig Whyte trial claimed the club knew the amount would be payable and that the dispute was essentially a stalling tactic. This was the basis in which the SFA reopened the investigation.

The SFA were told by their own panel that the matter would need to be dealt with by CAS under the Five-Way Agreement. They have yet to submit the matter to CAS. After two years, I think that says everything about the strength of their case.
Correct.
 
Celtc are about to realise they are the pariahs of world football.

This is a deflection tactic from their own heinous crimes.
Whilst I agree about what they are, what are you basing this on.

Not one word of condemnation from a journalist, not one word of condemnation from an MP (in Mason's case, quite the reverse), not one word of condemnation from the people running the game up here.

From my viewpoint, they don't actually need deflection tactics, as no one seems to care.
 

daven37

Well-Known Member
They t
The only evidence against Rangers is evidence given and behaviour by Craig Whyte, a paragon of virtue, truth and integrity.
The SFA punished Craig Whyte £200,000, for not being a "fit and proper person" who laughed in their face, the club was also fined £160,000 whilst being in administration, for 5 offences including " bringing the game into disrepute."
The SFA then “expelled Craig Whyte for life from any participation in Association Football in Scotland.”
How the SFA intend to take further retrospective action against a club they have already punished, for alleged crimes committed by someone who they have imposed a life ban on is simply incredulous.
This prosecution of Rangers will rely solely on the evidence of Craig Whyte, it should be fun.
I think this farce may be designed to be equivalent to 4 decades of child abuse, and concealment of by every director(except the bunnet) of Celtic since. They are trying to use this as some sort of lifeline.

PS I believe that the SFA deducted the CW £200000 fine from Rangers prize money.
Sounds about right to me - the SFA can fxxk off with this.
 

Marstonbear

Well-Known Member
This would be CW’s fault. I can’t remember the exact details without looking things up, but the rules had various dates by which certain things had to be certified, and one of them fell after CW’s time (30th June from memory.)

The compliance officer found that the declarations made before CW’s time were not misleading so that part wasn’t pursued.

The complaint then morphed into an allegation that a misrepresentation was made during CW’s time, which is how we got to where we are.
Part of the rules for Europa League 18/19 are below, obvs things may have changed since 2011. Reads to me that any licence would be granted by SFA
To be eligible to participate in the competition, clubs must: a. have qualified for the competition on sporting merit;
I – General Provisions 11
b. fill in the official entry documents (i.e. all documents containing the information deemed necessary by the UEFA administration for ascertaining compliance with the admission criteria), which must reach the UEFA administration by 1 June 2018 (for administrative purposes, the UEFA administration may request the entry documents at an earlier date to be communicated by circular letter; in such a case, the club’s association must confirm to the UEFA administration in writing by 1 June 2018 that the club fulfils all admission criteria set out in Paragraph 4.01); c. have obtained a licence issued by the competent national body in accordance with the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations and be included in the list of licensing decisions to be submitted by this body to the UEFA administration by the given deadline; d. comply with the rules aimed at ensuring the integrity of the competition as defined in Article 5; e. confirm in writing that they themselves, as well as their players and officials, comply with the IFAB Laws of the Game promulgated by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) and agree to respect the statutes (including the principles of fair play as defined therein), regulations, directives and decisions of UEFA; f. confirm in writing that they themselves, as well as their players and officials, agree to recognise the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, as defined in the relevant provisions of the UEFA Statutes and agree that any proceedings before the CAS concerning admission to, participation in or exclusion from the competition will be held in an expedited manner in accordance with the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration and with the directions issued by the CAS, including for provisional or super-provisional measures, to the explicit exclusion of any state court; g. not have been directly and/or indirectly involved, since the entry into force of Article 50(3) of the UEFA Statutes, i.e. 27 April 2007, in any activity aimed at arranging or influencing the outcome of a match at national or international level and confirm this to the UEFA administration in writing. h. inform UEFA about any and all proceedings before disciplinary bodies or state courts implicating the club or its officials in any activity aimed at arranging or influencing the outcome of a match at national or international level, whether or not the club or its officials have been acquitted. 4.02 If, on the basis of all the factual circumstances and information available to UEFA, UEFA concludes to its comfortable satisfaction that a club has been directly and/or indirectly involved, since the entry into force of Article 50(3) of the UEFA Statutes, i.e. 27 April 2007, in any activity aimed at arranging or influencing the outcome of a match at national or international level, UEFA will declare such club ineligible to participate in the competition. Such ineligibility is effective only for one football season. When taking its decision, UEFA can rely on, but is not bound by, a decision of a national or international sporting body, arbitral tribunal or state court. UEFA can refrain from declaring a club ineligible to participate in the competition if UEFA is comfortably satisfied that the impact of a decision taken in
12 I – General Provisions
connection with the same factual circumstances by a national or international sporting body, arbitral tribunal or state court has already had the effect of preventing that club from participating in a UEFA club competition. 4.03 In addition to the administrative measure of declaring a club ineligible as provided for in Paragraph 4.02, the UEFA Organs for the Administration of Justice
 
May be wrong but my understnading is that if governing body and member club in dispute that it has went all the way to CAS then no clubs under governing body may compete in European competitions....lets see if celic pete argues with sfa pete over this
 
Top