Resolution 12: A Scottish Football Issue.

Part of the problem when drawing attention to the possibility either incompetence or malpractice at the SFA is that the issue sometimes gets sidetracked.

A number of the comments to yesterdays article illustrated this perfectly.

Those at the SFA will be delighted to note that a part of the discussion centred around the same club argument, which would have delighted them. After all, if we, as football supporters, who directly and indirectly finance the SFA, are fighting among ourselves, then we are not fighting them.

Resolution 12 primarily deals with an issue raised by Celtic shareholders.

But there is a bigger picture.

Going back to 2012, and even before, it was the SFA who failed to protect the Rangers support from those now acknowledged to have not really had the best interests of the club at heart. Such was the desire to save Scottish football from “Armageddon”, they were prepared to allow anyone in who said they had a few quid and and could convince them that even though there was no evidence their father wore a sash,there was definitely one in a cupboard somewhere in the house.

This led to an awful lot of Rangers supporters buying into-literally-the Craig Whyte and Charles Green dream, in which they only featured as bit part players.

Those two are now the subject of a police investigation.

Celtic supporters and shareholders are not the only ones to have been ignored by the SFA.

Hearts fans might also ask why Vladimir Romanov was allowed to milk their club, and Dundee fans will remember a dodgy Italian lawyer a few years ago….

So whilst this series of articles is primarily about about Celtic supporters, it is not claiming to be solely about them.

Indeed, I’d far rather have fans of other clubs asking questions as well, as it’s better to have them on board on not need them, than it is to not have them and need them.

The thing is, to find out exactly what goes on behind the walls at Hampden, and to ascertain exactly in whose interest they operate, we are going to have to work together.

Now, back to Resolution 12, and here’s a comment from Auldheid, who has done a lot of work on the subject, which outlines where we are up to.

First can we avoid the same club debate please? That was a wonderful realistic reply from Rebus but it is an argument like the Glasgow Underground. The Inner Circle goes round one way and the outer circle the other. Both end up at the same starting point and not one foot of territory is gained.

Now on Res12….

I see the full Res statement being posted but most of it is the supporting statement. The part on which Celtic had firm indisputable locus as a club who may have been denied income is this:

This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note 1 ), by referring /bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.

Basically it said something wasn’t right about the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011, can Celtic ask UEFA CFCB to look into it.

Celtic had done so in December 2011 and intended to vote Res12 down because SFA said, correctly, that at 31st March 2011 the tax bill had not arrived. This was true, the liability had been accepted in late March 2011 but the bill had still to be issued, and so the license was granted in the absence of the it. A great deal of play was made of this by SFA using Article 50 in support in answering questions including that put by Celtic.

You would imagine therefore that the arrival of the tax bill on 20th May 2011 was a significant event given that its absence allowed the license to be granted, especially as there was another reporting point at 30 June to UEFA under Article 66 that was never mentioned by the SFA in December 2011 when they wrote to Celtic justifying the granting under Art 50, but avoiding the retention aspect at June 2011 under Article 66.

By 30th June 2011 the bill was around 10 days overdue RFC having had 30 days from 20th May to appeal but did not (and never have although it was oft discussed after Sherriff Officers called to collect in August 2011.)

At this point the rules that appear to have been breached or not applied are: Art 13.3, Art 43h, Art 54c, Art 55e, Art 56b and c. Art 66 and Annex VIII. All could be expanded on in a narrative but in doing so there is a danger of unintentionally influencing the court cases now under way so best not risk that.

However questions about breaches by both the licensee (RFC) and the licensor (the SFA) are contained in the letter the SFA have had since July 2015 from Celtic shareholders, having been first shown the tax bill in August 2014 and it is answering the questions on these aspects that appear to be causing the SFA difficulty.

On a further point of clarification. Res12 was adjourned in 2013 because it was demonstrated that Celtic’s stance that Res12 was not necessary was unlikely to stand the test of time.

However the preference was to explore the issue domestically with the SFA but they have been particularly intransigent in answering the questions in the letter even when asked by Celtic, so the only option for shareholders was to go to UEFA to complete what Res12 asked, particularly when the time bar was recently realised, being introduced in 2015.

Only the matter being under the justice system prevents the full narrative, the letter to the SFA and supporting documentation being published, but that will not last forever and it is in everyone’s interest that the SFA answer the questions in the shareholders letter if they can demonstrate the process was honestly and properly dealt with under the Articles quoted.

If they cannot demonstrate probity and/or refuse to answer there is nothing more the Res12 requistitioners can do to make the SFA accountable and asking UEFA to investigate is the final step under their control.

If wrongdoing has occurred and the criminal investigation may well prove it has, then it will be very difficult for both UEFA and Celtic not to pursue regardless of football’s rules. 

The email address for Stewart Regan in yesterday’s piece was wrong. I missed out a dot.

Try stewart.regan@scottishfa.co.uk

Ask him why he hasn’t replied.

Ask him if he has supplied all the information requested.

If anyone does get a reply, try to copy it into the replies, failing that, send it to the contact address or tweet it to the Etims twitter account.

Or shout out and i’ll email you.  As I have to the chap who posted that he had received a reply….