Over the last 48 hours the subject of Resolution 12 has been very prominent among Celtic supporters- those in the know are aware of every detail while, for the bulk of supporters Res 12 is almost foreign.
To clear things up the matter boils down to one very simple question- did the SFA nominate Rangers (IL) to play in the Champions League qualifiers with the club having an overdue tax demand?
The answer to that question springs a couple of follow ups. Did Rangers (IL) declare their unpaid tax bill, did the SFA ask if there was an unpaid tax bill, when did the SFA discover that there was an unpaid tax bill and what actions did they take after discovering the error?
With Campbell Ogilvie as President of the SFA it’s hard to imagine that anyone in power at Hampden wasn’t on the ball, with Ogilvie’s former Ibrox colleague Andrew Dickson in control of football administration no one at Rangers would be unaware of licensing rules.
At the heart of the matter is the demand from HMRC for £5.8m due on the Discounted Options Scheme used to pay Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer.
After years of denial side letters were discovered when Strathclyde Police raided Ibrox on instruction from the Metropolitan Police in July 2007.
Once the evidence was uncovered Dave Murray was instructed to settle. As the interest and penalties grew the Ibrox chief refused to pay up ensuring that the initial sum almost doubled.Â
Rather than pay HMRC Murray’s priority was to put a winning team on the park, a team to win the SPL and the chance to pick up £10m plus from the Champions League to keep the lights on. It was an open secret that Rangers needed Champions League money to make end meet.
To achieve that goal £4m was spent on Nikica Jelavic, or to be accurate £4m was promised to Rapid Vienna for the striker. Helped by the goals of Jelavic the 2010/11 SPL title was won as HMRC increased the pressure to pay off the Wee Tax Case.
On May 20 Rangers (IL) received the tax demand with 30 days to find the funds. New owner Craig Whyte had never shown interest in paying bills, especially when he had two qualifying rounds to negotiate to get his hands on £10m of Champions League prize money.
Whether the tax bill was omitted from the license application is unknown. The only options appear to be that the SFA were misled or the SFA knew of the overdue tax bill and decided to proceed with the application regardless.
Celtic Quick News and the Scottish Football Monitor have debated the issue in depth, unraveling the issues involved, this morning on CQN one of the driving forces behind Resolution 12 answered the key questions.
QUESTION: We know the alleged date of the ‘crime’ and we think we know the UEFA statute of limitations – what don’t we know?
ANSWER:Â If there was in fact an overdue payable as defined in UEFA FFP Art 66 and Annex Viii at 30 June 2011. Our tax expert advice is that there was from 20 June and legal input was that none of the 4 conditions for exemption were met by 30 June.
That in a nutshell is what Resolution 12 asked UEFA to investigate because previous enquiries only got an answer relevant to Art50 that covered an overdue payable at 31st March. There wasn’t one under Art 50 as bill did not arrive until 20th May.
QUESTION: What do we want the final outcome to be?
ANSWER: Depends on answer to above. If SFA can explain how Article 66 requirements were met, particularly in light of how UEFA dealt with a similar situation with Malaga FC the following year, to shareholders satisfaction in a way that answers why Sheriff Officers called to collect six weeks after 30 June, then that is all that is required to bed the issue. It’s that simple.
If in fact there was an overdue payable as defined then first an apology to Celtic, it’s support and shareholders and a commitment to review their processes to ensure a repeat was not possible and compensation for denying Celtic the opportunity to play in a first round qualifying match.
Also an explanation why Stewart Regan had to discuss issue with Andrew Dickson of RFC and send him a draft for RFC to clear and why SFA asked RFC to make a statement in Sept 2011 to cover the position at that point in language that suggested UEFA would not examine fully because they were too busy. A statement that subsequently was a misrepresentation of the position.
QUESTION: Will there be any tangible benefit to Celtic if we get the desired outcome?
ANSWER: The tangible benefit to Scottish football will be that those governing will no more act with impunity and make secret agreements that impact on the integrity of the game they are charged with protecting. I think having a more careful SFA will be a tangible benefit to Celtic as will reforming a governance system that apparently worked to the benefit of one club to the exclusion of the rest.
QUESTION: Could Celtic be adversely affected if they contact UEFA direct?
ANSWER: Only Celtic know the answer to that but it would be a strange situation where the possible victims of a crime were punished for reporting it.
QUESTION: Must a club resolve this type of issue with their own association?
ANSWER: That is how the current system works. Closed shop governance with no accountability to paying customer and in Scotland that is match goers. Such a system encourages the very arrogance that Resolution12 has had to battle with.
QUESTION: Are things as clear-cut as are they are portrayed?
ANSWER: Right up to December 2015 matters where as reported. Shareholder reps and Celtic worked together to establish validity of our points and take them to SFA. The SFA refused to answer specific questions in a letter put to them on 23 July 2015 after two reminders.
Given the domestic solution route was going no where the decision was made late December to take case to UEFA not just to answer the prime question and investigate but SFA’S inaction since August 2014 when they were shown the tax bill which they said they had not seen. Celtic were aware of this change taking matters out the domestic forum to the UEFA one. There was a hope it might get an answer from SFA.
In the absence of any information thereafter, although I am now reading there might have been a reply in January but that was never passed on if true and a) I doubt it and b) I’d love to see how Article 66 was complied with using Brysonesquethink, the process of writing to UEFA re-engaged but our feelings on the matter, which for all the furore, will make it harder to avoid honest satisfactory answers being made public.
If SFA have in fact answered the points in our letter of 23 July 2015 that we were unaware of it will be enlightening to read what they say in regard of each point made.
QUESTION: Is there another side to this story?
ANSWER: “I don’t know about point but Scotland is some country when it takes the contortions that have happened since 2011 to minimise the impact of years of cheating from 2000 and then turn the world inside out to try and make those contortions appear normal.
“This whole farce is as much if not more of an ethical issue and the lack of ethics at play is a sad reflection on our game, those running it in particular and our society in general.”
Rather than put their hands up and admit an honest mistake the SFA have refused to answer the issue increasing suspicions that perhaps it wasn’t an honest mistake.