Jaroslaw Fojut spoke to a Polish newspaper yesterday on his decision to join Celtic. Our man in Poland kindly transcribed:
When asked if he would like to move to Celtic this month, Jaroslaw said, “If I move to Celtic this winter a convenient outcome for all sides would need to happen. If I need to stay in Wroclaw until the end of the season it will not be a tragedy. My decision to sign for Celtic is not going to change my dedication to Slask.
“Whatever the outcome, I will not be aggrieved.
“The people at Slask offered me a good contract. Before I signed for Celtic I met Slask chairman, Piotr Wasniewski and explained my situation. I wanted to play fair with the club who were always fair with me.
“Money was not the main reason I decided to go to Scotland. I do not have to justify myself by telling you what kind of club Celtic is and the real reasons behind my decision.
“My agent told me about signals from other club but there were no concrete offers. Celtic were determined to sign me and when their offer came in I did not look for other options.
“I expect competition for a place in the Celtic team to be high but when I get a chance to play I will make good use of that privilege. I have not spoken to Neil Lennon yet but I am aware of what he has said about me and look forward to meeting him.
“I remember playing against him when he was with Nottingham. I think we played twice in the cup and once in the league but could not be sure.
“I planned to call Lukasz Zaluska and ask what it was like at Celtic but what if he told me things were bad there?” Which Jaroslaw laughed at.
“Lukasz and I will have lots to talk about, we are both Legia supporters.
“I’m not going to argue about whether the Scottish or Polish league is better, everyone is entitled to their opinion on this. I’m pretty sure we have no club in Poland who can compare to Celtic, whatever aspect you analyse, economic issues, organisation, supporters, stadium or anything.
“Let’s not forget Celtic play in Europe every year and battle for the biggest prizes.
“In a way going to Celtic is a dream come true but my dreams will have to change. I will not going the Bhoys and feel happy, my ambitions will have to move on. I am sure Lionel Messi still has something to win and achieve. He has never been the champion of the world and that is why he must improve. I’m pretty sure I will not be short of incentives.
“Celtic is a very big deal for me but you do not climb the mountain and say, OK, I’m done.
“My acclimatisation is going to me easier in many aspects. I know the British game, I know what the coaches expectations are. During my years in England I learned the language so I’ll not have problems with communication.”
Click here to view the new issue of CQN Magazine online for free. You can support the online edition by making a discretionary donation here.
1,057 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- ...
- 28
- »
up_over_goal says:
19 January, 2012 at 16:51
‘So – Hearts are hoping they can do a deal with Rangers to get £700k now.
Whilst stifling your laughter, consider that they accepted a deal in which a company facing imminent ruin were to pay less than half the money up front.’
Yes, but what happens to the player’s registration if the huns suffer an insolvency event and the fee hasn’t been paid?
Houl yer wheest at 16:51
It does seem to be thriving. There was a brilliant chapter in a book written about the troubles by Des Fahy about the troubles and GAA about St Endas.
Mort
I see the hordes are wetting themselves about their new “star”.
The guy has played 68 senior matches. Is in freedom of contract and not a single team in the Swedish league wanted him.
Chuck McCoists tremendous eye for a player into the mix and this has chuckle time written all over it.
read all about it UEFA player registration policies
ok lads til laters
according to rangers media friends stv Celik has not put pen to paper yet
small matter of £240k compensation to be dealt with :))))
HAIL HAIL
Mort/houl yer wheest
I played for St Enda’s in the 80’s. minor second division champions and Antrim minor championship runners up
The UDR amushed themselves regularly by knocking the goalposts down and it was regularly blown up in those days.
RIP all the murdered members
UC
Spanish word manyana has no equivalent in the Gaelic language:
there is no word that would conjure up such an unseemly sense of urgency
;-)
or so they ones that know about these thangs tell me
HH
M
leftclicktic says:
19 January, 2012 at 17:01
according to rangers media friends stv Celik has not put pen to paper yet
small matter of £240k compensation to be dealt with :))))
———————–
This claim will be rejected by Rangers imminently, in the dignified manner.
HH
TLK
bournesouprecipe says:
19 January, 2012 at 16:53
googy
Sean Connery Shurley
As someone mentioned if Hooper is worth £6/7 million now what will he be worth in the summer once the league is won.Its whats going on in his head that be the concern.
Mort says:
19 January, 2012 at 16:55
I gave Des a lot of background for that. I brought him to meet Kevin Devlin brother of Gerry who was murdered. I know his father Pat, a solicitor in Omagh, very well – and I was chairman of Cumann Naomh Eanna for a few years.
ASonOfDan says:
19 January, 2012 at 16:41
Aye but with that burden lifted monies would begin to flow to support them again with the millstone removed.
Awe_Naw_No_Annoni_Oan_Anaw_Noo says:
19 January, 2012 at 11:43
Cups and titles are decided on the park. Not at tax tribunals.
Unless enough small shareholders can force an EGM on the matter and let their views be forcefully known, and enough fans make it plain that they will vote with their wallets, Celtic Plc, under the guise of representing its shareholders interests will, without hesitation, support the admittance of Rangers newco to the SPL. And that is precisely why their supposed woes are figments of overheated hopeful Celticminded fantasists. Five gets you ten that this time next year, regardless of HMRC, they will still be very much alive and kicking.
As I previously posted. When the time comes I won’t be backward at saying I told you so.
Rangers forward John Fleck has joined Blackpool on loan until the end of the season, a move that leaves Sheffield United disappointed for a second time.
The 20-year-old Scotland Under-21 international travelled south to meet managers of both English clubs earlier this week.
But he chose Ian Holloway’s Championship promotion hopefuls.
Fleck was quoted in the Blackpool Fanzone
“Blackpool has always had a big attraction to me, I love the theme park, theres hunner a chippys and kebab shoaps, the Wax Museum House of Horrors will remind me of the Copland Road stand and if I ever get lonely I can walk along the beach with the other donkeys”
End quote.
Has CW spent that front loaded war chest already .
Players will come in at ragers (the hordes need something to cling to)but I suspect the downsizing will continue rather than the 25m spend promised .
smokeandmirrorsSC
Hiv bin distracted..Noo.. where wiz Ah?
TonyG @17.07
Pal..
If Gary, wull be worth mair.. in the Summer.. which,You have proposed…
Efter we hiv Won the League.
Hmmmmmmmmm
As you have said..
Then, You Aver…. why should we not wait… and… sell him. Then?
Howevahhh… oan the ither haun…
If he stays, in the Summer,instead of Leaving….
.. and We Once More… Win the League, the Next Season..
then.. we should sell him then, as his Value would have Increased
.. Exponentially..
Howevahhhh.. If we decide not tae sell him.. during the Next Summer..
And
The Following season…
We win the League..
Then…
OH Ah Get Ye,pal..
Mebbe, we should dae that,then..
Furget Everything that Ah hiv writ oan this subject.
Kojo
yer pal…who likes ye aloater
quonno
“Celtic Plc, under the guise of representing its shareholders interests will, without hesitation, support the admittance of Rangers newco to the SPL. ”
Why? Please provide estimates / workings to justify your answer if the basis of your view is money.
HH
TLK
fergus slayed the blues says:
19 January, 2012 at 17:17
“Has CW spent that front loaded war chest already”
sorry to be he one to break this fergus, but just like the guy in the red suit and white beard who is spoken of around december end,
this war chest thingy never really existed
Ulster-Celt says:
19 January, 2012 at 17:03
Who played on that team with you? Who was manager?
quonno says:
19 January, 2012 at 17:13
Do you mean Rangers or Son of Rangers?
That all depends on what the FTT decide.
ernie
It won’t matter. If it wins them the league, it gives Whyte something to crown his legacy to ra Gers. Then he can take off while they bask in the aferstink.
The Lizard King says:
Wait and see.
quonno says:
19 January, 2012 at 17:27
Insightful
Houl yer wheest
managers were John Morgan and a fella called Dermot, he emigrated to australia I think.
a can name some of the players but not all, it was long ago now.
Sean Lawlor,Mickey Coogan,Charlie O’kane,Tommy Kelly,Maurice Walsh and mickey Curran are all I remember.
I left then, approx 89? went to play soccer for a few local teams.
have a couple of boys myself so hoping to get up again in the next few years
UC
Ulster-Celt says:
19 January, 2012 at 17:32
That was Dermot Allen. I had Mick Coogan at under 12 and Maurice Walsh, 9Iintroduced him to the game at primary school)both good players.St Enda’s now use St Malachy’s college sports hall for indoor games and coaching throughout the winter in both football and hurling catering for groups from under 6 to minor.
leftclicktic says:
19 January, 2012 at 17:01
“according to rangers media friends stv Celik has not put pen to paper yet
small matter of £240k compensation to be dealt with :))))”
Aluko’s latest text to family
“please send postal order.”
Five gets you ten that this time next year, regardless of HMRC, they will still be very much alive and kicking.
I remember another hun telling us something similar to the five and ten, what happened to that :oD
Houl yer wheest
that’s him.he had us from U14 I think? I was there from approx 83. maurice,mickey and Sean Lawlor were in my class at St Malachys also.
it was shambolic those days, but a right good laugh.
UC
iki
What is a Postal Order?
BunterCFC
Hi folks,
tried to post this a few mins ago but seems to have got lost.
Apologies if it now ends up on twice.
It’s with regard to the “wee” tax case and is from CelticUnderground.
Hope Phil MacG picks this up or some kind soul on here alerts him to it (although he may already know)
Did The SFA Deny Celtic A Place In The Champions League?
Written by Auldyin
Monday, 24 October 2011 20:58
One of the many mysteries shrouding the off the field business behaviour of Glasgow Rangers is just how have they managed to get away with it? They have been running the club on an unsustainable debt basis for years to Celtic’s detriment, not to mention their questionable methods of paying or avoiding tax.
Now the BIG tax case based on their misuse of Employee Benefit Trusts has still to be decided but an examination of how their smaller unpaid tax bill of £2.8M (plus add ons they might be disputing, but not the base amount) that required a visit by Sheriff Officers and subsequent ring fencing by HMRC to ensure payment, perhaps gives an indication of what has favoured them.
All clubs who wish to play in UEFA competition if they qualify on footballing merit have to have a license granted in the period leading up to the season of the competitions. The SFA act on UEFA’s behalf to see that UEFA licensing rules are observed. This year the new UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations 2010 apply.
The small tax bill was, perhaps significantly in obfuscation terms, first officially recognised in Rangers delayed accounts for 2010 published on 1st April 2011 as if that put the liability after a key 31st March date under UEFA licensing requirements. In fact the liability was uncovered as part of the new Ranger’s owner Craig Whyte’s due diligence that began long before 31st March, but presentation is all.
However whilst eyebrows were raised the media, as usual, rather than asking awkward questions took part in blowing smoke in people’s eyes. However Celtic supporters, being suspicious awkward characters by nature were not convinced by the presentation.
There was a lull until 10th August 2011 when Sheriff Officers turned up at Ibrox in pursuit of payment of the small (compared to the potential size of the EBT bill but not if you are skint) bill that had been reported on 1st April. This event and the subsequent ring fencing caused the awkward guys to send the letters reproduced at the end of this article, one to the SFA and one to UEFA with a reminder, to ask the awkward question. How did Rangers prove to the SFA (for proof is what is demanded) that the tax bill in question did not fall foul of UEFA rules on unpaid tax bills (or overdue payables to tax authorities as UEFA call it.) and how in light of the fact the bill is still unpaid and the steps HMRC have had to take to get it paid, was a UEFA licence granted?
The SFA replied as follows quoting Article 50 regulations as that was the article referred to in the letter to them. Comments on the reply follow it.
Dear xxxx
Thank you for your letter of 12 August.
I have to point out to begin with that the licensing system has stringent confidentiality requirements which prevent me from commenting on any individual club case,
I can however clarify the various rules.
The UEFA rules are detailed in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations 2010. The relevant Articles in this case are as follows
Article 50 – No overdue payables towards employees and social/tax
authorities
1 The licence applicant must prove that as at 31 March preceding the licence
season it has no overdue payables (as defined in Annex VIII) towards its
employees or social and tax authorities as a result of contractual and legal
obligations towards its employees that arose prior to the previous 31 December.
2 Payables are those amounts due to employees or social and tax authorities as a
result of contractual or legal obligations towards employees. Amounts payable to
people who, for various reasons, are no longer employed by the applicant fall
within the scope of this criterion and must be settled within the period stipulated
in the contract and/or defined by law, regardless of how such payables are
accounted for in the financial statements.
3 The term “employees” includes the following persons:
a) All professional players according to the applicable FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players; and
b) The administrative, technical, medical and security staff specified in Articles
28 to 33 and 35 to 39.
4 The licence applicant must prepare a schedule showing all employees who were
employed at any time during the year up to the 31 December preceding licence season; i.e. not just those who remain at year end. This schedule must be submitted to the licensor.
5 The following information must be given, as a minimum, in respect of each
employee:
a) Name of the employee;
b) Position/function of the employee;
c) Start date;
d) End date (if applicable);
e) The balance payable as at 31 December, including the due date for each
unpaid element; and
f) Any payable as at 31 March (rolled forward from 31 December), including the
due date for each unpaid element, together with explanatory comment.
6 The employees schedule must be approved by management and this must be
evidenced by way of a brief statement and signature on behalf of the executive
body of the licence applicant.
7 The licence applicant must reconcile the total liability as per the employee
schedule to the figure in the financial statements balance sheet for ‘Accounts
payable towards employees’ (if applicable) or to the underlying accounting
records.
8 The licence applicant must submit to the auditor and/or the licensor the
necessary documentary evidence showing the amount payable (if any), as at 31
December of the year preceding the licence season as well as any payable as at
31 March (rolled forward from 31 December), to the competent social/tax
authorities as a result of contractual and legal obligations towards its employees.
Whilst a liability may exist, it may not be considered as overdue under the Regulations. Annex VIII is quite specific on this point-
Annex VIII Notion of ‘overdue payables’
1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed
terms.
2. Payables are not considered as overdue, within the meaning of these
regulations, if the licence applicant/licensee (i.e. debtor club) is able to prove by
31 March (in respect of Articles 49 and 50) and by 30 June and 30 September
(in respect of Articles 65 and 66) respectively that:
a) it has paid the relevant amount in full; or
b) it has concluded an agreement which has been accepted in writing by the
creditor to extend the deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline
(note: the fact that a creditor may not have requested payment of an amount
does not constitute an extension of the deadline); or
c) it has brought a legal claim which has been deemed admissible by the
competent authority under national law or has opened proceedings with the
national or international football authorities or relevant arbitration tribunal
contesting liability in relation to the overdue payables; however, if the
decision-making bodies (licensor and/or Club Financial Control Panel)
consider that such claim has been brought or such proceedings have been
opened for the sole purpose of avoiding the applicable deadlines set out in
these regulations (i.e. in order to buy time), the relevant amount will still be
considered as an overdue payable; or
d) it has contested a claim which has been brought or proceedings which have
been opened against it by a creditor in respect of overdue payables and is
able to demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant decision making bodies (licensor and/or Club Financial Control Panel) that the claim
which has been brought or the proceedings which have been opened are
manifestly unfounded.
Whilst I cannot be any more specific regarding any individual case, I can point out that our licensing system does undergo rigorous quality control checks. The system is ISO9001 registered and was recently audited by UEFA directly. Whilst the UEFA audit referred to decisions for last season. I can highlight that no material variances have been identified in the processes or the decisions that have been taken for clubs.
Thank you for taking the time to write to me.
Yours Sincerely
STEWART M REGAN
CHIEF EXECUTIVE.
Now perhaps the fact that only Article 50 was referred to in the letter to the SFA is why the SFA response confined itself to responding on that basis, but the SFA must have known about Article 66, indeed it is mentioned in their reply, and it contains dates that might have been more awkward to explain against.
UEFA however have been asked similar questions under Article 66 but more on that later. The avoidance of Article 66 does however cast some doubts on the final assurances in the letter that the SFA are as rigorous in their quality control of answering the thrust of the question.
That apart what the SFA say is that although the liability existed at 31st March it was not in fact an overdue payable under the UEFA rules, so let’s look at that in light of what is now known. Remember Rangers had to prove to the SFA sometime between 31st March and 30th June that the bill was not an overdue payable. How did they pass a proof test?
1.It is reasonable to assume that had the bill been paid under the agreed terms when it was first issued HMRC would have done nothing further but collect, so the agreed terms could not have been met so why it was not deemed overdue?
2. (a) The bill had clearly not been paid by 30 June and looks to be unpaid at time of writing by 30th September. Fail – Not Proven
2. (b) No agreement to extend the time to pay appears to have been concluded or if it had Rangers have either failed to keep to that agreement or misled the SFA– Fail – Not Proven
2. (c) Rangers appear not to be contesting liability in respect of the overdue payable core amount, only the penalty and appear not to have brought a legal claim deemed admissible under national law, or have opened liability contesting proceedings, had they done so there would have been no Sheriff Officers What were the SFA told? Fail – Not Proven.
2. (d) Rangers have not contested the main element of the claim that has been opened against them and on the evidence of events i.e. the ring fencing of the sum due by HMRC the claim is NOT manifestly unfounded. Fail – Not Proven
The original question asked is just how do Rangers get away with it? Somewhere in the process outlined above the answer lies.
Oh and UEFA? Still to hear from them.
See below…
UEFA
Route de Genève 46
Case postale
CH-1260 Nyon 2
Switzerland
Date: 7 September 2011
Dear Sir
I wrote to you on 23 August about a licensing issue and had my letter delivered by recorded mail. I trust you have received it. This letter is by way of a reminder that I have had no reply or acknowledgement, to bring a further piece of information to your attention and add a comment.
The following was taken from an article in the Glasgow Evening Times of 5th/6th Sept.
( http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/editor-s-picks/rangers-sued-by-law-firm-over-unpaid-bill-1.1122032 )
The latest financial woes to hit the Scottish champions emerged as former owner Sir David Murray made clear that Craig Whyte, the businessman to whom he sold Rangers, was “fully aware” of an outstanding tax liability of £2.8million before buying the club.
And
A spokesman for the Murray Group said: “Craig Whyte and his advisers were fully aware of the £2.8m tax liability before buying the club. The liability was included in our accounts for the six months ending on December 31, 2010.
The accounts referred to will have been Murray International Hoidings, Rangers parent company before the takeover. It is clear from this that the unpaid tax did not materialise out of thin air after the !st of April.
I await a response to my original letter which is repeated below but with one further comment.
This is not about exposing Glasgow Rangers or the SFA. It is about restoring the integrity of the game in Scotland before it dies (if it is not too late already). In that respect UEFA might wish to look at the part the distribution of UEFA money to title winners in Scotland has played in bringing our game to its sorry state and perhaps step in to help it out of its mess.
Yours sincerely
xxxx
——————————–
Dear Sir (Copy of letter of 23 August 2011)
I have a question about the club licensing process set out in UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play regulations 2010 and some supplementary questions depending on the answer to the main question.
Q1. I appreciate that the new “break even” regulations are being phased in over coming seasons but can you confirm that the regulations under Article 50 in respect of “No overdue payables towards employees and social/tax authorities” and Article 66 in respect of “No overdue payables towards employees and/or social/tax authorities – Enhanced” apply for the licensing period for this season’s UEFA competitions 2011/12 and should have been used by national licensing authorities when deciding if a license should be granted?
If yes, then having looked at the detailed and clear mandatory instructions in those regulations how was it possible for Glasgow Rangers F.C. of Scotland to be granted a UEFA licence when they had in their possession an HMRC assessment for payment that became an overdue payable on 31st March 2011 and for which no agreement for payment could have been in place as indicated by sheriff officers turning up at Rangers stadium in furtherance of payment on 10th August 2011? See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14482034.stm
Specifically how did Rangers prove to the licensor by the 30th June when they had made provision in their interim accounts (signed off later than normal on 1st April) that they had no payables overdue in respect of tax? Your rules state:
Article 66 – No overdue payables towards employees and/or social/tax
authorities – Enhanced
1 The licensee must prove that as at 30 June of the year in which the UEFA club
competitions commence it has no overdue payables (as specified in Annex VIII)
towards its employees and/or social/tax authorities (as defined in paragraphs 2
and 3 of Article 50) that arose prior to 30 June.
Rangers clearly accepted before 30th June that the tax was due, although they are disputing the penalty, and at the time of writing (23rd August) it is not clear if any payment has been made or any accommodation with HMRC has been reached. On the face of what is in the public arena a licence should not have been granted if the rules were followed.
I would be grateful therefore if you could answer my main question about the effective date that the regulations in Articles 50 and 66 apply from and confirm that no reason exists that prevents their application.
I appreciate that “confidentiality” might be given as a reason not to respond to the supplementary question, but I am not asking for any detail on Ranger’s accounts or business. What I am seeking is clarification that the UEFA regulations have been properly applied and that UEFA themselves are satisfied this has been the case in this instance of an apparent overdue payable to a tax authority.
It is important to be clear on the licensing rules as the matter might have to be revisited in respect of the outcome of the Employee Benefits Trust tax case concerning a much larger tax bill that is likely to have “going concern” implications for Rangers under Article 52 of the regulations for season 2012/2013 if HMRC are successful this year in pursuit of this different but considerably larger claim.
The integrity of football in Scotland as well as a signal of UEFA’s resolve to install good governance principles in European football as a whole requires as full an answer to my questions as is possible. My thanks in advance.
Yours sincerely
xxxx
——————–
It’s now the final week in October and UEFA have yet to respond…
Have we been denied a place in the Champions League for 2011-2012 due to incompetence or worse on the part of the SFA? We think we should be told…
Last Updated on Monday, 24 October 2011 21:30
Real Madrid player Pepe steps on Lionel Messis hand.
This guy could fit in well with Ipox all stars.
Unfortunately they don’t have enough to pay for his monthly boot laces expenses.
http://theoriginalwinger.com/2012-01-18-video-pepe-steps-on-lionel-messis-hand-copa-del-rey-el-clasico
HH
My dear,dear,dear,friend..canamalar
Hiya, Pal?
Ma Big Pal.. THE POOKAH.. says that…
the G.A. may..no dae a whole loat bettah than It is being mooted and bootred, oan here..at
the Up coming.. I.R.S. “Tribunal”.
He thinks that the G.A. were working within the Parameters of the TAX Law.. laid doon , at the Time of Their .. “INFRINGEMENT”.
There is a Whole lotta Stuff tae wrangle ower.. this is no an Open and Shut Case..fur the Prosecution…as wid seem tae be the overwhelming
and popular opinion… among Celtic Supporters.
Ah wid caution. that oor Subscribers should no be Too Sanguine aboot
the ootcome.
Ye never Know. .. Ye Know.
Kojo
yer pal..who likes ye aloater.
Jungle Jim says:
19 January, 2012 at 17:56
chainsandfurlongs
Should Be..
“The G.A. may DAE a whole lot bettah…etc.”
Sorry aboot that.
“Ready when You are,C.B.!”
Kojo
medtim says:
19 January, 2012 at 17:57
Phil got it a while ago.
Guys
I checked newsnow Celtic to see what your media say about new Bhoy Fojut.
I heard an idiot from STV pronouncing new Bhoy name.
Please keep it in mind and tell your friends: That name pronunciation is FOYOOT!
That idot from STV said word that brings wrong conotations.
Celtic and everyone else will of course be watching Hoopers application they will very quickly get an indication how he apply’s himself in training as to where they go with this. As ever with new agents on the scene their out to impress their client by playing hard ball and stirring things up. If Hooper can come through this transfer window relatively unscathed and still focused he will be there long term.My gut feeling is if he goes Commons will sadly leave in the summer.