CQN Question: Maybe I’m too negative, but why allow some ambiguity to remain with the ” club/company” reference?
They’ve never denied it was a new company. This wording leaves wriggle room in my opinion.
REQUISTIONER ANSWER: The ambiguity is from an misunderstanding (deliberate?) of UEFA Article 12.
Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence, Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may ONLY be a football CLUB, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company).
2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.
In Europe clubs can be a) or b) and at present the club operating from Ibrox looks like its b) if RIFC have a contractual relationship with TRFC.
RIFC do not have a contractual relationship with RFC 1872 so if they apply they are a new club/company under b)
If TRFC apply they are a new club under a).
UEFA had to cover the current construct in their reply to make the point neither a) nor b) would face sanctions because to UEFA they are “new”.
If they are not “new” UEFA would have sanctioned them in 2012 for breaches in 2011.
RFC 1872 were not sanctioned and TRFC/RIFC were not eligible for three years because they are new.
I’ll say no more on this use of the term “company” to mean anything other than what UEFA intend for its not what Res12 was about. An unforeseen consequence, a question that was never asked and what UEFA volunteered by way of explaining no sanction in 2011.
CQN QUESTION: What final result do you predict and what do you think the consequence for the SFA?
REQUISTIONER ANSWER: “I have no idea because I think differently from those who caused the problem.
One possibility is drop any possible domestic sanctions on the old club as UEFA have done. Everyone knows how they won those trophies regardless of BTC final outcome..
Drop any current sanctions on the new club like the fine and we all get on with it.
The new club trophy count starts at Petrofac and it goes from there. Oh and have the LNS Commission set aside.
That is the pragmatist in me talking.
CQN Question: “Am I reading this correctly following administration a new club/company was formed
, therefore UEFA recognise the incorporation of club and company and not the incubator holding company nonsense that the media and football authorities here would have you believe, copy Doncaster and Regan into this and amend the historical records of football in this country
REQUISTIONER ANSWER: To make it clear, Res12 was not about the same club issue which means it will be up to individuals to pursue.
CQN QUESTION: “Congratulations on getting UEFA to say unequivocally that Sevco are a new club…..but where’s the meat-on-the-bone RES12 SFA up-date?
REQUISTIONER ANSWER: This is the bit from the Update. The meat on the bone will be in the response which will have to wait a bit longer for reasons given.
However, in terms of accountability, the full UEFA response, when set against and contrasted with other information in the public domain, previous replies and public statements from the SFA, has raised further significant and as yet unanswered questions that shareholders feel should be drawn to the attention of UEFA Club Financial Control Body, the SFA (who said they would cooperate with any enquiry/investigation by UEFA) and Celtic, whom UEFA invited to take up directly.
NB: The contact details provided by the SFA to CFC Plc were for the Club Licensing & Financial Fair Play section of UEFA and not the CFCB.
These questions will be raised with relevant UEFA authorities (copied to Celtic and the SFA to consider) by the solicitors acting on behalf of shareholders by the end of July to allow for the intervening holiday period now upon us.
CQN QUESTION: “I think the whole process could have and should have been better managed from the outset with a clear objective in view.
REQUISTIONER ANSWER: “All the work done until now might just prepare the way for that to happen.
Having cleared away the idea Res12 was an attempt by Celtic and their supporters to have RFC or TRFC sanctioned, something the media and SFA would have been happy about, perhaps focus will now turn on the SFA, not just any failings in 2011 but their responses to Celtic and us since.
Fingers crossed.