Celtic Diary Tuesday July 17: Compliance Report ; Dodginess Abounds

Celtic Diary Tuesday July 17: Compliance Report ; Dodginess Abounds

Those of you with longer memories may recall an investigation into the granting of a UEFA licence to Rangers. It was announced last month.

Its taking a while to reach its conclusions, isn’t it ?

Perhaps they are just struggling with the final draft.

Perhaps they are looking for the correct response and the correct punishment.

Perhaps they are hoping we’d all forgotten about it, and we were prepared to move on.

The investigation has been given evidence to the effect that in March 2011 Rangers had a crystallised bill to the tax man which they had neither paid nor arranged to pay.

The investigation tried to discount this period as it would have meant they would have had to, er , investigate. It may be that the delay is due to them now having to consider it, although it could equally be because they are trying to find an excuse they can throw out as to why they are not.

This tax bill meant that they were not entitled to play in Europe the following season.

In order to get the licence, somebody at Rangers lied to the SFA, or somebody at the SFA lied about being told the truth by Rangers, or, more likely, a few glasses were raised around a ceremonial goat and everyone present decided to deny everything if they were ever asked.

Lets face it, no one in the mainstream media was ever going to ask.

For now, a simple examination of the facts should lead to the conclusion that there were wrongdoings.

That needs to be made public.

Ronald de Boer and Tore Andre Flo were paid with a fistful of fivers , and there was tax due on those payments. That was from  2000 onwards. Thats the bill that had crystallised and is the overdue payable in 2011.

I’d be inclined to believe that this part of the investigation, described by one proper journalist as a slam dunk, is not in question.

What could be causing the delay then ?

In July 2015, Res 12 lawyers wrote to the SFA.

This is the important bit…

 More seriously, our clients cannot understand how Rangers could have fully complied to the letter of the following applicable rules:

 

•           Article 13.3. General Responsibilities of Licensing Applicant To promptly notify the SFA of any event occurring after the submission of the licensing documentation to the SFA representing a significant change to the information previously submitted.

 

•           Article 56 (b)  Responsibilities of the licensee which required Rangers to provide the SFA and UEFA with all the necessary information including any documents requested to fully demonstrate that monitoring requirements were being fulfilled.

 

•           Article 56 (c) to have promptly informed the SFA of the arrival of the 20th May Determinations and that these determinations were a significant change to the previous submission under Article 50, which justified granting the licence in the first place.”  

Someone has, er, not fully complied with the rules, and the nature of the ongoing investigation should be to determine who.

first, it seems, we must establish that there were wrongdoings, and that does seem to be taking a while.

One would like to think that it is a serious investigation, trying to uncover exactly who is to blame, and what their motives were.

One is drawn to the thought that they are merely looking for someone to blame, however, and to protect those who really were up to no good.

We have heard tales of threats made to current and former SFA men, some involved and some not involved with this issue,which under normal circumstances we would dismiss as being the product of a fertile imagination, perhaps a result of watching too many Robert de Niro films, but they won’t go away.

Subverting the judicial process is quite serious, and one hopes that these tales are just that. Tales.

Here’s what one chap had to say on the possibility that it was “rangers ” who asked the compliance Officer to , well, adjust the dates being investigated, so as to exclude the dates that need investigating..

In fact it was his activity that led me to believe he was behind the reasoning that RFC gave Comp Off to exclude end March 2011 from investigation.

The statement saying accusations were groundless came too quick for it not to have been in the offing for a while. Our case wasn’t dependent on technicalities but quite happy  to try and frame it that way.

Our case was based on porkies first in June and Sept but since 2016 on March too. We told SFA in July 2015 when liability accepted but they ignored.

The CW trial made that impossible.

However the fix was in to dump it all on CW to save Johnston and Dickson but then something else came to light

The meeting where liability was accepted of 21 March 11 was minuted by HMRC and the week after the charges were placed on 15 May 

Game changer as it points to the proof that was provided to obtain the licence was false.

SFA were told a lie by RFC and if the story they gave Comp Off was not that truth then they are in deeper shit for subverting the Judicial Process.

Quite a few folk have the evidence including CSA and CST and Celtic.

They should have passed Res12 in 2013

 The waters get murkier and murkier.

Could this be why the report is being delayed ?

Or are there exterior forces at play, with their own interests too great for them to ignore this investigation. Perhapos they wish now to distance themselves from what is threatening to be the biggest sporting scandal in British -or indeed world -history finally being allowed into the public domain ?

If, in fact, it is being delayed.

The Compliance Officer, for now, at least, works for the SFA.

He’s investigating the SFA.

Could this be why the report is being delayed ?

It’s a bit of a mess, isn’t it ?

The investigation, as we have seen, cannot conclude other than there were one or two backs scratched and knobs fiddled with for Rangers to get that licence.

Apart from anything else, if it had concluded otherwise, , we’d have heard about it by now.

And doubtless told to move on..

thumb image

The juggling of the dates suggest that the CO has been advised which bits to investigate, but there has been further contact with him outlining why he shouldn’t juggle the dates.

A bit like when Nimmo Smith was instructed as to what he should investigate, and thus allowing him to come up with his own interpretation of events.

Only this time, the horse has been caught before it had a chance to bolt, and there can be no excuse of ignorance.

Could this be why the report is being delayed ?

They’re looking only at the bits that mean they can do a “Nimmosmith ” and pretend nothing happened ?

If the conclusion is that wrong doings took place, then it naturally follows that there must be another investigation to find out who did what, when and why.

Thats the bit where jobs are lost, possibly even prison time is served, and the SFA can be reformed.

Is that why the report is being delayed ?

Or is it because after that particular investigation, there must then follow a period of punishment for the club that benefited from all of their novel and refreshing financial arrangements, perhaps with the full knowledge and indeed collusion of the authorities.

Until this report is released, there can be no movement towards a full and proper investigation, and whilst one can either praise the CO for taking his time and getting it right, suspicion is that the delay is deliberate and a desire to find a scapegoat who can be thrown under a bus while everyone else continues on their journey.

And the next investigation has to come from outwith the SFA, not only because it needs to be independent, but because there is a feeling that this mess goes a lot deeper than just a few rigged football matches.

At the time of writing, there are no signs the report is about to be published.

At the time of writing, it appears that I’m the only one asking.

For now, anyway…