The premier business paper where Uefa is headquartered in Nyon, Tribune de Geneve, today ran an advert, paid for by public subscription, questioning the governance of Scottish football.
The advert asked readers to reference The Offshore Game report: Doing SFA for Fair Play and explained some of the issues governance, accountability and oversight in Scottish football. It reads:
“A report by The Offshore Game (TOG), an arm of The Tax Justice Network (TJN), has highlighted examples of poor SFA governance in respect of:
• A Commission established in 2012 by the Scottish Premier League to investigate the use of employee benefit trusts to reduce the tax paid to HMRC by an SFA member club where the SFA provided key testimony which is now being questioned.
• The processing of a UEFA Licence in 2011 by The SFA when Court Officers called to collect overdue tax from a member club between Champions League and Europa League qualifying games. Proving there were no overdue and unpaid taxes was a condition of granting then retaining a licence to compete in both UEFA competitions. The tax concerned was never paid!
• The SFA have neither commented on the TJN report nor attempted to address the issues it raises. The TJN has called for an independent review of the SFA to make it more accountable.
• A group of shareholders of Celtic PLC acting in terms of Resolution 12 of the Celtic PLC AGM of 2013, have been pressing the SFA for over two years for a satisfactory explanation of their administration of the UEFA licensing process in 2011. In the absence of any meaningful reply they have now taken up the case with the UEFA Club Financial Control Body.
The TOG report highlights the financial cost over a decade to the British Taxpayer in Millions of pounds. The cost to Scottish football in terms of the loss of trust placed in the SFA to govern the Scottish game with integrity is incalculable.
Football fans everywhere are invited to read this important report into the game in Scotland.”
Our game suffers from a perceived lack of oversight, accountability and governance; fundamental requirements in modern sport which have been painfully lacking across world football for decades. Uefa now have an opportunity to measure where Scottish football, and their own processes, are on these metrics.
619 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- »
TONYDONNELLY67 on 2ND JUNE 2016 9:23 AM
Have a great break , mate.
We Tims are on the move.
Lots to celebrate.
Hail Hail
Masty will do.
MACJAY1 cheers mate
Hmmmmmmm?
http://videocelts.com/2016/06/blogs/latest-news/regans-4m-fear-as-government-step-in-over-strict-liability/
JAMESGANG on 2ND JUNE 2016 9:32 AM
I believe that one of Craig Whyte’s company’s – Liberty Capital Ltd – was based in Geneva. There was no language issue there!
‘ Throughout those years since, the Resolution 12 guys formed and did a lot of stuff the club, as a member of UEFA, could not and similarly, the club did a lot things, as a member of UEFA, the Resolution 12 guys could not.’
============================
I made this point a few weeks ago and it is clear there are people with an agenda against Celtic do not want to accept this point.
HH
Saw this on Twitter from the dark side, can anyone dissect?
According to Article 66(6) of the UEFA rules on Financial Fair play Regulations then:
“If the licensee is in breach of indicator 4 as defined in Article 62(3), then it must
also prove that, as at the following 30 September, it has no overdue payables
(as specified in Annex VIII) towards employees and/or social/tax authorities that
arose prior to 30 September. Paragraphs 2 to 5 above apply accordingly. ”
Paragraph 2 states:
“By the deadline and in the form communicated by the UEFA administration, the
licensee must prepare and submit a declaration confirming the absence or
EXISTENCE OF OVERDUE PAYABLES towards employees and social/tax authorities. ”
So this confirms “overdue payables” CAN EXIST without any written agreement.
Paragraph 3 refers to payments to players and is irrelevant.
Pargraph 4 states:
“The following information must be given, as a minimum, in respect of each
overdue payable towards social/tax authorities, together with explanatory
comment:
a) Name of the creditor;
b) Balance overdue as at 30 June, including the due date for each overdue
element. ”
Now I could be pedantic and point out that rule b) actually allows for a club to provide ONLY information to 30 June, but im sure it was written with the spirit of applying to 30 September. Not withstanding that, all it is actually saying here is that IF YOU STILL HAVE AN OVERDUE PAYABLE then you need to tell us how much was due(£2.8m), when it became an “overdue payable” (19th June 2011), who it was due to (HMRC) and an explanation as to the current position (money has been ringfenced pending a legal dispute. If we dont settle it, HMRC will be paid)
Paragraph 5 states:
“The declaration 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
licensee. ”
Self explanatory to me, but may be a problem for others.
To be clear.
There is NO requirement that it MUST be paid.
There is NO requirement that there must be a written agreement.
There is NO requirement other than to declare you still have money overdue, when it was due by, to whom you owe it and an explanation as to why its still overdue.
Dont get me wrong, if it ever went to court, then a lawyer would simply drive a bus through Aritcle 66(6) due to the wording in paragraph 4 but none of that matters because its completely immaterial.
Essentially what these rules said back then were. “Look we get there will be money owed. Just tell us about it and keep us updated”
There was absolutely no reason to lie. Where was the incentive to lie about it when the rules allowed you to declare it ? Can anyone tell me a single valid reason why you would want to lie if the £2.8m owed was completely immaterial to getting a licence.
Clearly all those Spanish clubs who owed £600m + to the Tax man didnt seem too phased by it. I mean the worst of them all, Athletico Madrid knocked Celtic out and won the Europa League with £140m of tax debt that season.
You would think if the requisitioners were going after anyone, it would be them.
If the SFA don’t have the balls to run our game then someone has to, I’m not for any government invilvement in football, but if the SFA keep protecting this one club? Then I’m afraid there’s no other option.
Enjoy Canada Tony
Last time is as there in 2001 I was in Donnellys with my cousin then went to club for game v. st Johnstone when fog stopped proceedings, well football wise not alcohol wise.
THECELT45
If you are about, thanks for getting back to me re. Happy Jack. Saw it this morning.
THETIMREAPER
what that crackpot thinks, and what the law says makes a difference, according to him, no one needs to pay taxes and just stroll through life and care not a jot? I’m afraid it just doesent work that way, but! Hun thinking is well to say the least, best left for them to understand.
The Tim Reaper
Two things.
It’s bollox. If that were the case the SFA had ample opportunity to put us right.
Athletic did have a written agreement. E Tims did the leg work on that one.
Apart from which we were in the CL by then not prevented from entering it.
BLANTYRETIM
cheers I will, you where in my pub in 2001, wow! Nice one :)
Morning Celts
A lot of worried people after yesterday.
Lets see them squirm.
And i see they have appointed a masonic judge to head up the sevco/hibs inquiry.
Its astonishing how they get away with this.
We should be asking questions.
TD67…Have a good one in Canada…dont get too blitzed:)
Kevj….Hail Hail Fellow Hunsmasher….Rebel flag still flying high.
HH
THE GREEN MAN
will do thanks.
Res 12
I wonder if UEFA would investigate this fully if the complainant was , for example, Real Madrid?
If you think it’s a definite yes, they would, then I’d like to think they treat our case by giving it the same level of importance as they would to one of the perceived big boys.
Hopefully, this is where Peter and our board will be able to add additional strength to the case, by reminding UEFA we are worthy of the same level of respect. ( as indeed would any lower profile member club)
Morning all, from the Autumnal Chilterns…
Interesting comments from Stewart Regan; of course as per… Mr Regan isn’t giving much away.
But his, we looked at this in March 2011, we granted the licence and that’s that, is curious.
Now lets forget about crystilising, tribunals, due dates and other water muddiers…
Let’s look at what everybody knows.
Rangers had a huge potential Tax debt in March 2011, this should have been stated at the time of licence renewal.
So did Rangers declare it, if not this is a serious omission by the Club.
If they did, why was it waved through in March and no further checks undertaken. Surely the whole point of flagging up “potential” outstanding tax is so the situation can be monitored at the later “checkpoints”.
If it’s the former, I guess there is an argument for issuing the licence in March. However it means Rangers duped the SFA, and the Association should sanction the Club – or was it the Company that got the licence to play in Europe:)
If it’s the later and Rangers did state potential liabilities, the SFA washing their hands of it after March 2011 is totally unexceptable.
Either way, in light of the fact that come the summer of 2011, the world and his wife knew that Rangers had a huge outstanding Tax debt, Stewart Regan’s “nothing to do with me gov” defence, would make Pontus Pilot Blush.
Hail Hail
Now that the barricades have been forced open a crack.
It is only a matter of time that somebody, somewhere, no matter how far down the chain, with pertinent knowledge breaks cover – Shirley!
Tegan at the scaremongering again I see
Ffs regan
Anybody tell me how to turn off this feckin predictive texting on an I phone?
Tony
If you see John R tell him the first ones on me in Vegas ( as usual)
Tony
You will know my young cousin and his mother well.
I’ll give Masty their names
Not so long ago Mr Regan was firm……we dont need to respond to fans.
Yesterday, he seemed rather eager to be portrayed as someone open and upfront.
Didnae work.
As the old song says ‘There may be trouble ahead’
WC if you are about, give them a few boots on my behalf(again:)
HH
Masty…
Go to Settings >General>Keyboard
There’s options in there for predictive.
Oh, good.
Unity of purpose on C.Q.N.
Happy days are here again.
Masty
Go to Getting >Venereal>Kybosh
There’s onions in there for addictive.
I know I shouldn’t but just had a wee look on FF to see how the Stickies were viewing the advert.
Eh………..where to begin?
Two words for these “peepil”
Sick and delusional
TD67,
I see you are ‘jetting out’ tomorrow across the Atlantic. If you come across the Magic Hat over there can you let us know?
He was last seen fighting off agents and stars out there who are desperate to sign for Sevco.
Bye the way Kranjcar isnae signing. He’s desperate to sign for Sevco but his girlfiend won’t let him. She rules the roost apparently:))
Enjoy your break with the family.
Masty I will do, he’s coming in June so he’ll prob pop over to the pub.
BLANTYRETIM yes I know them very well, lovely family.
CLOUGHER CELT
lol, I will do mate cheers.
Anthony
Enjoy your time in Canada with family
:-)
HH
Cheers AH
The terms of the DOS £2.8 million debt were re-set by HMRC in their letter of May 5 2011 – as such all previous demands and deadlines are superceded by this proposed ‘new arrangement’ that HMRC oblige MIH/RFC to sign up to.
The date for agreement is May 16 2011, and providing that it was received, final date for payment is 30 days later, i.e. June 15 2011. If no agreement was signed, interest on the principle would ‘kick in’. If agreement was signed and principal not paid after 30 days i.e. June 15 2011, formal/legal collection would take place.
At this moment in time no one seems to know if the agreement was signed by RFC.
However what we do know is that “formal/legal” collection via a Charge on behalf of HMRC served by Sheriff’s Officers did not occur until Aug 10 2011, some 56 days after the June 15 2011 deadline – why was this?
It seems to me that MIH/RFC were ‘stringing things along’ with HMRC in the meantime, apparently with some success, in order that they could enter the CL qualifying round.
So the villians of the piece are in my opinion, MIH/RFC for prevarication and HMRC for not living up to the terms of their May 5 2011 ‘final demand’.
The SFA were conned by MIH/RFC – UEFA were not called into the debate and Celtic FC were merely bystanders and outsiders at the time.
The sychophancy expressed by many on here regarding the “application and work done” by those who ended up placing the Swiss advertisement is rather nauseating. I believe there has been more heat than light shed on the issue to date.
I don’t now believe that the Guardian article will materialise – it has been neutered.
Who wrote:
up cumzthi wee man beats three men slingzowra crackir
an Lennux aw yi wahntia seenim coolizza queue cumbir
bump rightnthi riggin poastij stamp a rockit
that wuzzit end finisht
Squirrel!
A muddying the waters squirrel.
AN TEARMANN
will do thanks, right am off up to see ma Wee Maw, that always hard work, watch this, don’t do this, don’t get drunk………Yi got to love them eh :))
TWISTS N TURNS on 2ND JUNE 2016 11:21 AM
Bertie ?
Sounds a tad reminiscent of his poetic ambience .
Mr Pastry…..you are at it.
Trying to absolve the SFA…..it wont wash.
Changing your name wont help.
You still post the same way.
You are trying to sow discord.
It wont work.