Courtesy of Jas Boyd
The Res 12 update and why @laytonbhoy is taking nonsense
Well, it was a bit of a damp squib. Essentially, @
CQN posted what has been said over and over since @
theoffshoregame report which is that Res 12 is dead. The licence was granted correctly on 31st March 2011. On the 19th June 2011, Rangers missed a payment to HMRC and like another 31 clubs involved in European competition had to disclose it to UEFA on 30th June.
Disclosure does not mean expulsion from the competition. James Forrest is completely making that up. Disclosure simply means meeting further criteria and giving a further update. Any overdue payable not sorted in time for the following season are then used to assess the clubs licence on the 31st March 2012. The SFA refused Rangers a licence at that date. Which was the correct decision.
So moving onto James Forrests blog. Now firstly i should state, im working on the principle that CQN have disclosed everything important that appeared on the letter as I dont understand why:
a) They wouldnt do so if they disclosed this much
b) They would allow James Forrest to disclose other material and not do it themselves.
So lets look at what James has said on his dyamite blog tonight:
JF "UEFA’s letter says that at an “undetermined time” during that season either the SFA or UEFA became aware that Rangers had not fulfilled their own responsibilities to declare these matters to them."
This must be new exclusive information taken from the letter that CQN didnt want to print. Strange.
JF "We would be speculating as to when that realisation occurred; it may well have been around the time sheriff officers were photographed at Ibrox serving the club with official paperwork and threatening legal action in relation to that tax bill.
1. UEFA’s letter clearly states that they accept that Rangers broke the rules as regards the licensing policy."
Again, unless there is more in the letter that CQN have refused to write about, then what was posted says nothing of the sort. “At an unspecified date during the course of season 2011/2012 it became apparent to the SFA/UEFA that Rangers Football Club ceased to meet the criteria for holding a UEFA Licence. “ This does not mean Rangers “broke the rules” at all. It means they fail to meet a criteria to be eligible for a future licence.
JF "Crucially, UEFA does not offer a conclusion – or seem to care – when this tax bill “crystallised”, which is one of the issues the Requisitioners spent a great deal of time on. This is also the area where criticis of the Offshore Game report found their key line of defence.
Im beginning to wonder why all these points have not been posted by CQN. Is this actually in the letter as its not in CQNS exclusive update.
In UEFA’s eyes the “crystalisation” aspect is of little importance next to the central fact, that the rules were breached by Rangers’ non disclosure.
You see, UEFA’s licensing regulations are constructed around specific “windows” during which the club must inform the governing bodies of any circumstances which would negate their right to a license, and if the club is found to have concealed such things during any of those windows UEFA regards that as being the same as if the club had been in violation from the start."
This is completely incorrect. If a club has an overdue payable on 31st March, then it can be refused a licence. If a club gets an overdue payable any time AFTER 1st April, they have an onus on providing updates and are required to “resolve” the situation prior to the following season. I mean it even says so in their letter which JF has completely ignored.
“Any sanction envisaged by UEFA arising from the licensing submission made by Rangers FC and channelled through the SFA in June 2011 would not have applied until the following season."
JF "The tax situation at Rangers became known to UEFA “at some point” during the licensing period for the season 2011/12.
In overall terms it does not really matter at which point it became known.
They would have acted anyway.
To put it another way, had they know Rangers had this liability before they played a European tie they would never have been allowed to."
100% wrong. Read it again James: Any sanction envisaged by UEFA arising from the licensing submission made by Rangers FC and channelled through the SFA in June 2011 would not have applied until the following season.
JF: "Had Rangers gone through in Europe that year, instead of crashing out in ignominy and shame, twice in a month, and then the existence of this bill become known, they would have been removed from whichever competition they were in at the time and a disciplinary case opened with further punishments to fall on the club in the following season."
Absolute pile of nonsense. 32 clubs had overdue payables on 30th June. NONE were removed from the competition. He is just making stuff up now.
Another reminder: Any sanction envisaged by UEFA arising from the licensing submission made by Rangers FC and channelled through the SFA in June 2011 would not have applied until the following season.
JF "The ultimate finding of ineligibility is all that is important here.
The timing matters only inasmuch as that Celtic would have qualified for the Champions League had the facts been known sooner, and Motherwell given a UEFA Cup spot."
Oh bhoy. Again, pile of nonsense. Again James
Any sanction envisaged by UEFA arising from the licensing submission made by Rangers FC and channelled through the SFA in June 2011 would not have applied until the following season.
JF "What matters is that UEFA accepts that the liability existed all along and that the license should either not have been awarded in the first place or revoked upon discovery. This is the central finding, and getting that was one of the key objectives of the Resolution 12 campaign. That part of their case has been proven."
Nope. Wrong. And again James:
Any sanction envisaged by UEFA arising from the licensing submission made by Rangers FC and channelled through the SFA in June 2011 would not have applied until the following season.
JF "The verdict from UEFA is guilty."
Guilty of what ? Failing to meet a criteria for a competition ? LOL
JF "From there, UEFA moves on to the consequences of Rangers’ actions.
Ultimately there were to be none, and there will be none.
The record shows that the club broke the rules, and that some form of sanction was warranted. UEFA is clear on that."
We are back to the contents of the letter. It certainly doesn’t state that on CQN update.
JF "Their reply also makes it plain that such a sanction would certainly have been imposed once an investigation had established the facts.
But UEFA were unable to open that investigation, and the reason is simple and straightforward enough that it, too, requires no hyperbole, overstatement or exaggeration.
It can be put as easily and plainly as it’s already been put over and over again in spoken word and on the blogs and on the forums and in tweets and emails and Facebook posts and text messages.
In February 2012 Craig Whyte put Rangers into administration.
The second he did that the club lost its European football eligibility for the 2012/13 season. No sanction could have been applied for that campaign. In the months that followed the club self-detonated and that removed any further need for UEFA to consider what actions were appropriate in respect of the 2011/12 license.
At that stage, no punishment was possible because Rangers no longer existed.
They had been consigned to oblivion and were beyond the reach of justice. As trials are not held for dead men, even if their crimes are discovered after the burial, neither can you impose sanctions on a legal entity or institution that is no longer there.
UEFA’s communique spells that out clearly.
It refers to the forming of “a new club/company which sought entry into the fourth tier of Scottish Football”.
It states that this new club/company “would not, and could not, in any event, qualify to play in European competition for the next three years.”
Take note of the precise way in which UEFA’s communique words this.
The reference to the “club/company” is deliberate.
This drives a wrecking ball through the assertions made by Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan that these are two separate entities. UEFA has never considered them as such as its own regulations state, and in choosing to put the word “new” before both they’ve clearly accentuated their wider point.
UEFA is putting it as plainly as it can; the club playing at Ibrox is five years old."
UEFA have confirmed Rangers are the same club. Its even on their website. Go and have a look at this years fixtures. Have a look at our history and our co-efficient points. Its all there for everyone to see. The change of legal entity is what triggered the 3 year rule. Its in UEFA regulations.
There is then another 1000+ words trying to convince himself we are a new club. Unfortunately though, UEFA, SFA, SPFL and the ECA all say we are the same club. You can excuse me for believing them over someone with a weird agenda.
