{"id":10440,"date":"2016-12-01T09:34:31","date_gmt":"2016-12-01T09:34:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/etims.net\/?p=10440"},"modified":"2016-12-01T09:34:31","modified_gmt":"2016-12-01T09:34:31","slug":"celtic-diary-thursday-december-1-resolution-12-no-excuses-for-board","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/etims.net\/?p=10440","title":{"rendered":"Celtic Diary Thursday December 1: Resolution 12: No Excuses For Board"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Resolution 12 lads due to meet Celtic directors this month. A short meeting took place last week to mainly discuss process, but the big one is in December.<\/p>\n

They will discuss how to move forward \u00a0on the issue of the SFA granting a licence to a club which had not met the UEFA requirements for one.<\/p>\n

The Scottish media may well have entered the fray by beginning their own rival campaign, which if successful, would see the SFA grant a licence to a club which has not met the requirements for one.<\/p>\n

History repeating itself ? Possibly..<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It began yesterday when STV, the mainstream television company which is a partner of the club which may have difficulty in gaining a licence to play in European competition, sought to put to rest the minds of the clubs support.<\/p>\n

Explained: Will Rangers need UEFA approval to play in Europe?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The article was put together by Grant Russell, who in the past has claimed to receive a virtually verbatim response to his questions to UEFA re the accusations that \u00a0SFA malpractice \u00a0that led to a club being falsely granted a licence to play in the Champions League.<\/p>\n

Russell, incidentally, has never reproduced publicly either those questions or an answer addressed solely to him, which leads one to suspect he’s not being entirely truthful about where and how he claims to have got them.<\/p>\n

On this site, all questions from the Resolution 12 lads and all answers from UEFA were reproduced.<\/p>\n

Russells article begins…<\/p>\n

Reports suggest the governing body will need to give dispensation to the Ibrox club if they qualify. \u00a0<\/em><\/h2>\n

“Suggest”…”if.”…two key words.<\/p>\n

And they” need ” \u00a0to ? \u00a0who ?<\/p>\n

Who says governing body \u00a0“need ” to do anything ? Except uphold the rules ?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Interestingly, he says the governing body will need to give dispensation to the Ibrox club. Lets assume he meant this as a note on procedure, and not to avoid “social unrest “, though the implication is there.<\/p>\n

Technically, that is not correct. UEFA do not deal directly with clubs on this issue, only with associations.<\/p>\n

Which is where pressure will be placed to bend, twist and thoroughly misshape the rules.<\/p>\n

Rangers’ failure to secure a crucial AGM vote allowing them to issue new shares could have a knock-on effect should they qualify for Europe in the near future.\u00a0<\/b><\/em><\/p>\n

Was this the purpose of the vote ? To raise capital to convert into equity to sidestep the FFP rules ? Or was it to raise money simply to keep the club going until they can raise alternative investment. Of course, the report doesn’t ask, or clarify, or even mention it again.<\/p>\n

UEFA rules on financial fair play could apply to the club because of the scale of financial losses they have reported.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Could ?<\/p>\n

With directors and other related parties having provided upwards of \u00a313m in loans to keep Rangers afloat, being able to convert their cash into shares would have helped meet the criteria. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

So we can assume that was the plan, especially after other reports blamed former golden boy Ally McCoist, who didn’t vote at all and thus caused the vote to fail. Not that that should matter, as the Ibrox club and its owners have only a fleeting relationship with the rules the rest of us live by, and after a recount, one would not be surprised to see that they won their vote anyway, and Mrs. Urquhart, who did the counting, is very sorry but she mislaid some when her pal rang and asked her if she wanted to go to the bingo.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/div>\n

Those hopes were dashed in a vote lost by just 0.4%.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Which, if true, is a good reason to start that count.<\/p>\n

As a result, newspaper reports on Wednesday state\u00a0Rangers will need “special dispensation” from European football’s governing body to play in continental competition, should they qualify in the 2017\/18 season.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

To qualify for Europe, based on performances thus far, won’t only need special dispensation, but divine intervention. but even this early, they need to have something to hope for, otherwise they’ll stop going to games, and that would accelerate the end game.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

So how serious is this position for Rangers? We’ve gone through UEFA’s financial fair play regulations to establish the facts.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

What do UEFA’s rules say?<\/em><\/h2>\n

In a nutshell, regulations are in place to deter clubs from running up significant financial losses.<\/em><\/p>\n

This is done for two reasons. First, to try to\u00a0protect teams from themselves. Secondly, to ensure competition is not distorted by clubs being able to run up huge debt while continuing to use that debt to fund football success.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Distortion such as clubs running up huge debts to pay for players they cannot afford, for instance.<\/p>\n

He missed out a third. To stop cheats. Clubs who have form for buying players they cannot afford , running up huge debts and then liquidating and starting again as though nothing had happened.<\/p>\n

Clubs are allowed to post a maximum aggregate loss over every three-year “monitoring period” of \u20ac5m (\u00a34.25m at today’s rates).\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Failure to contain losses to under this amount can result in sanctions, with some exceptions.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

As you are aware, this amount is considerably less than current aggregate losses at Ibrox. With no revenue stream available to even suggest this is merely a temporary state of affairs, we can safely say that this situation isn’t going to change. Unless, of course, owner operator Dave king pays the debt off. King has paid debts off before, but only when threatened with a jail sentence.<\/p>\n

But, of course, these facts are kind of left to one side for the purpose of this article.<\/p>\n

How big are Rangers’ losses?<\/em><\/h2>\n

For the period relevant to the 2017\/18 season, UEFA looks at the financial reporting years of 2017, 2016 and 2015.<\/em><\/p>\n

Rangers’ accounts for the financial year ending June 2017 will not be published until later next year so it is not possible to establish what profit or loss they will post.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

We will get some indication from interim results posted in early to mid-2017.<\/em><\/p>\n

The early signs are Rangers are going to run into difficulty. Their aggregate losses to date are \u00a311.9m, well above the threshold.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

“are going to run into difficulty ? ” They’ve just tried to raise money via an unregulated share issue without specifying a reason, and failed. Thats not just an “early sign “, thats a “fucking hell has anyone got any money we can borrow we’re really in the shit and everyone knows it.<\/p>\n

Thats important. Everyone knows that they have failed to raise emergency funds which would not be paid back, but converted into shares. The curious thing is that with King on board, who would cause even the most frivolous of investors to pause, it does seem unrealistic that they would have raised the money anyway.<\/p>\n

But they have to look like they would, and a dignified failure to get permission, with a handy scapegoat, looks an awful lot better than a failed share issue. Especially when the SFA have to plead the case of the Ibrox club to UEFA.<\/p>\n

Again, this conclusion, granted only my opinion, is ignored.<\/p>\n

What do Rangers need to do between now and 2017\/18?<\/em><\/h2>\n

If posting a profit to level out losses isn’t achievable, there are two simple ways to fall in line.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Simple ? In the same way that it would be simple for me to organise a night of rumbustious tomfoolery with a dozen cheerleaders and a couple of hollywood actresses, presumably.<\/p>\n

Having lost the vote on the share issue by such a fine margin, the club could look to call it again. If it passes, it would pave the way for a cash injection into the club which could balance out losses.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

This could be done by calling an extraordinary general meeting.<\/em><\/p>\n

UEFA allows a maximum of \u00a323.6m to be written off over a three-year period in this manner.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

So, to prove that the club is adhering to Financial Fair Play rules, those who are owed money will be asked to waive their right to be repaid. Well, fair enough, its an improvement. At least they are going to ask them this time, and not just shut the place down and run off with the few bits that are worth anything.<\/p>\n

Those who have provided loans could also simply turn benefactors and write off their loans as donations – a highly unlikely course of action but one that is allowed under the regulations.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

There’s a compound of that word again-simple. Note how the whole issue is being played down, yet at the same time firmly registered into the hearts and minds of the Ibrox support, awaiting the final nod as to who is to blame when it all goes tits up again.<\/p>\n

David Murrays five years up yet ? Could he ride into town and offer his not inconsiderable financial support ?<\/p>\n

If Rangers fail to meet the criteria, will they be banned from playing in Europe?<\/em><\/h2>\n

No. Not in season 2017\/18.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

UEFA begins to monitor under the “break-even requirement” at the point a licence is applied for but no club has ever been banned prior to competition for failing to meet the criteria.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Oops…<\/p>\n

\"Image<\/p>\n

In 2013, Giannina were not granted a licence by their association, who radically decided to abide by the rules. The club appealed directly to UEFA,<\/p>\n

The final decision…<\/p>\n

Decisions on PAS Giannina and Panathinaikos<\/h1>\n
Published: Thursday 27 June 2013, 12.17CET<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The UEFA Club Financial Control Body, following a meeting of its adjudicatory\u00a0chamber, decided not to admit PAS Giannina FC and Panathinaikos FC to the 2013\/14 UEFA Europa League.<\/em><\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n

The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), further to the investigation performed earlier this June and after the meeting of its adjudicatory chamber in Nyon, Switzerland, has taken decisions with regard to the two Greek clubs PAS Giannina FC and Panathinaikos FC.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
RELATED ITEMS<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n