UEFA won't investigate 'Resolution 12' Rangers Euro licence claims

[calscot 0]

I'm thinking the money might just "disappear"...

[the gunslinger 3,366]

They money was always mostly going in people's pockets.

[Uilleam 5,948]

They money was always mostly going in people's pockets.

 

The poor people of Glasgow's east end, surely?

[ian1964 10,724]

The Res 12 update and why @laytonbhoy is taking nonsense

 

Jas Boyd ‏@Jas72Boyd https://twitter.com/Jas72Boyd

 

Well, it was a bit of a damp squib. Essentially, @CQN posted what has been said over and over since @theoffshoregame report which is that Res 12 is dead. The licence was granted correctly on 31st March 2011. On the 19th June 2011, Rangers missed a payment to HMRC and like another 31 clubs involved in European competition had to disclose it to UEFA on 30th June.

 

Disclosure does not mean expulsion from the competition. James Forrest is completely making that up. Disclosure simply means meeting further criteria and giving a further update. Any overdue payable not sorted in time for the following season are then used to assess the clubs licence on the 31st March 2012. The SFA refused Rangers a licence at that date. Which was the correct decision.

 

So moving onto James Forrests blog. Now firstly i should state, im working on the principle that CQN have disclosed everything important that appeared on the letter as I dont understand why:

 

a) They wouldnt do so if they disclosed this much

b) They would allow James Forrest to disclose other material and not do it themselves.

 

So lets look at what James has said on his dyamite blog tonight:

 

JF "UEFA’s letter says that at an “undetermined time” during that season either the SFA or UEFA became aware that Rangers had not fulfilled their own responsibilities to declare these matters to them."

 

This must be new exclusive information taken from the letter that CQN didnt want to print. Strange.

 

JF "We would be speculating as to when that realisation occurred; it may well have been around the time sheriff officers were photographed at Ibrox serving the club with official paperwork and threatening legal action in relation to that tax bill.

 

 

1. UEFA’s letter clearly states that they accept that Rangers broke the rules as regards the licensing policy."

 

Again, unless there is more in the letter that CQN have refused to write about, then what was posted says nothing of the sort. “At an unspecified date during the course of season 2011/2012 it became apparent to the SFA/UEFA that Rangers Football Club ceased to meet the criteria for holding a UEFA Licence. “ This does not mean Rangers “broke the rules” at all. It means they fail to meet a criteria to be eligible for a future licence.

 

JF "Crucially, UEFA does not offer a conclusion – or seem to care – when this tax bill “crystallised”, which is one of the issues the Requisitioners spent a great deal of time on. This is also the area where criticis of the Offshore Game report found their key line of defence.

Im beginning to wonder why all these points have not been posted by CQN. Is this actually in the letter as its not in CQNS exclusive update.

 

In UEFA’s eyes the “crystalisation” aspect is of little importance next to the central fact, that the rules were breached by Rangers’ non disclosure.

 

You see, UEFA’s licensing regulations are constructed around specific “windows” during which the club must inform the governing bodies of any circumstances which would negate their right to a license, and if the club is found to have concealed such things during any of those windows UEFA regards that as being the same as if the club had been in violation from the start."

 

This is completely incorrect. If a club has an overdue payable on 31st March, then it can be refused a licence. If a club gets an overdue payable any time AFTER 1st April, they have an onus on providing updates and are required to “resolve” the situation prior to the following season. I mean it even says so in their letter which JF has completely ignored.

 

“Any sanction envisaged by UEFA arising from the licensing submission made by Rangers FC and channelled through the SFA in June 2011 would not have applied until the following season."

 

 

JF "The tax situation at Rangers became known to UEFA “at some point” during the licensing period for the season 2011/12.

In overall terms it does not really matter at which point it became known.

They would have acted anyway.

To put it another way, had they know Rangers had this liability before they played a European tie they would never have been allowed to."

 

100% wrong. Read it again James: Any sanction envisaged by UEFA arising from the licensing submission made by Rangers FC and channelled through the SFA in June 2011 would not have applied until the following season.

 

 

JF: "Had Rangers gone through in Europe that year, instead of crashing out in ignominy and shame, twice in a month, and then the existence of this bill become known, they would have been removed from whichever competition they were in at the time and a disciplinary case opened with further punishments to fall on the club in the following season."

 

Absolute pile of nonsense. 32 clubs had overdue payables on 30th June. NONE were removed from the competition. He is just making stuff up now.

 

Another reminder: Any sanction envisaged by UEFA arising from the licensing submission made by Rangers FC and channelled through the SFA in June 2011 would not have applied until the following season.

 

JF "The ultimate finding of ineligibility is all that is important here.

The timing matters only inasmuch as that Celtic would have qualified for the Champions League had the facts been known sooner, and Motherwell given a UEFA Cup spot."

 

Oh bhoy. Again, pile of nonsense. Again James

 

Any sanction envisaged by UEFA arising from the licensing submission made by Rangers FC and channelled through the SFA in June 2011 would not have applied until the following season.

 

 

JF "What matters is that UEFA accepts that the liability existed all along and that the license should either not have been awarded in the first place or revoked upon discovery. This is the central finding, and getting that was one of the key objectives of the Resolution 12 campaign. That part of their case has been proven."

 

Nope. Wrong. And again James:

 

 

Any sanction envisaged by UEFA arising from the licensing submission made by Rangers FC and channelled through the SFA in June 2011 would not have applied until the following season.

 

JF "The verdict from UEFA is guilty."

 

Guilty of what ? Failing to meet a criteria for a competition ? LOL

 

JF "From there, UEFA moves on to the consequences of Rangers’ actions.

Ultimately there were to be none, and there will be none.

The record shows that the club broke the rules, and that some form of sanction was warranted. UEFA is clear on that."

 

We are back to the contents of the letter. It certainly doesn’t state that on CQN update.

 

JF "Their reply also makes it plain that such a sanction would certainly have been imposed once an investigation had established the facts.

But UEFA were unable to open that investigation, and the reason is simple and straightforward enough that it, too, requires no hyperbole, overstatement or exaggeration.

 

It can be put as easily and plainly as it’s already been put over and over again in spoken word and on the blogs and on the forums and in tweets and emails and Facebook posts and text messages.

 

In February 2012 Craig Whyte put Rangers into administration.

The second he did that the club lost its European football eligibility for the 2012/13 season. No sanction could have been applied for that campaign. In the months that followed the club self-detonated and that removed any further need for UEFA to consider what actions were appropriate in respect of the 2011/12 license.

 

At that stage, no punishment was possible because Rangers no longer existed.

 

They had been consigned to oblivion and were beyond the reach of justice. As trials are not held for dead men, even if their crimes are discovered after the burial, neither can you impose sanctions on a legal entity or institution that is no longer there.

UEFA’s communique spells that out clearly.

It refers to the forming of “a new club/company which sought entry into the fourth tier of Scottish Football”.

It states that this new club/company “would not, and could not, in any event, qualify to play in European competition for the next three years.”

Take note of the precise way in which UEFA’s communique words this.

The reference to the “club/company” is deliberate.

This drives a wrecking ball through the assertions made by Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan that these are two separate entities. UEFA has never considered them as such as its own regulations state, and in choosing to put the word “new” before both they’ve clearly accentuated their wider point.

UEFA is putting it as plainly as it can; the club playing at Ibrox is five years old."

 

UEFA have confirmed Rangers are the same club. Its even on their website. Go and have a look at this years fixtures. Have a look at our history and our co-efficient points. Its all there for everyone to see. The change of legal entity is what triggered the 3 year rule. Its in UEFA regulations.

 

There is then another 1000+ words trying to convince himself we are a new club. Unfortunately though, UEFA, SFA, SPFL and the ECA all say we are the same club. You can excuse me for believing them over someone with a weird agenda.

 

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sosj4d

[Bearman 9]

My Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Granpa insisted the Earth was flat...he was a Catholic.

[JFK-1 1,693]

There is then another 1000+ words trying to convince himself we are a new club. Unfortunately though, UEFA, SFA, SPFL and the ECA all say we are the same club. You can excuse me for believing them over someone with a weird agenda.

 

This is the thing that for me transforms it from merely weird to totally bizarre. What's the point of all this? Who is this wacko trying to convince of his fantasies?

 

UEFA? That's clearly not going to happen and it's amusing to wonder what the UEFA administrators actually think of all these crackpots behind the typically politically correct public responses.

 

Is it us the obsessed crackpot is trying to draw into his insane fantasy? Ok let's say we all went insane and agreed that he was absolutely correct all along about absolutely everything. So we're all in it with him at that point.

 

Problem. It doesn;t matter how many crazies join the fantasy the reality of official records still remains and that reality is all that matters. I can maintain that Rangers won the European cup 10 years in a row back in the day then if I get a million crazies to agree with that it's real?

 

Or is it all pointless while official records maintain and always will maintain otherwise? You know, things like this which will always be there no matter how crazy we all become.

 

Rangers Football Club: Nickname, The Gers: Founded, 1872: Manager, Mark Warburton: http://spfl.co.uk/clubs/rangers/

 

And that, at the end of the day, is that. You couldn't make this kind of crazy up. Or maybe you could and turn it into a a TV show. Call it Game Of Clubs and litter it with fantasy dragons and resolutions.

 

But anyway, enough of the hilarity and back to the serious business. I have an idea for their next T shirt campaign if they can't shift the existing stocks.

 

[aweebluesoandso 290]

There is a new resolution being promoted by the moon howlwrs, it's going to be called Resolution13/forward slash

 

They have written to UEFA again for a final final and absolutely last clarification and definition, by their use of the \ back slash and the / forward slash.

 

This new final final and absolutely last ruling call from UEFA, has arisen after UEFA used a forward slash in the communication to the demented ones, donating Rangers as a ''new club/company''

 

Because UEFA has used the forward slash on the ''new club/company'' decision in their final ruling communication letter, the demented ones have interpreted this as UEFA agreeing that Rangers are indeed a new club?

 

They therefore are saying If UEFA had used a backslash \ instead ie ''new club\ company'' in their processor/file path/final decision/ruling, it would be donating Rangers are only a new company.

 

Has nobody the heart to put these demented ones out their misery, by pointing out to them the UEFA are simply uses the Windows operating system where the forward slash is used for paths/routes, or even simpler the Secretary typing the communication used the / forward slash merely to split the hypothesis.

 

#prayforthebackslash

Edited July 9, 2016 by aweebluesoandso

[RANGERRAB 3,677]

UEFA need to sort these people out once & for all. A statement rejecting their all of their claims ( including the new club nonsense) will do for starters.

Because Rhegan's SFA won't do anything you can be sure of that

[der Berliner 3,747]

Honestly, UEFA should just ignore such vitriolic, hatred-driven stuff.

[boabie 230]

The fanny J.James has managed to indulge in even more mental gymnastics and has twisted the latest "bomb" into another new/old club blog just posted this morning.

He is obviously sick of having his drivel analysed , disected and corrected, even if he was too scared to actually post my replies to him, and has now banned me from comment.

Yet another yahoo to hold up to further ridicule.