Jas Boyd · @Jas72Boyd

23rd May 2020 from TwitLonger

Dafty from Donegal's Resolution 12 questions.........an exclusive

Someone contacted me and asked me to look at the Resolution 12 questions that the unemployable man has asked of the SFA.

I contacted my source at The Grey House, lets call him The Trumpster and he got in touch with his guy on the ground at the SFA (Moleman) who downloaded the entire dossier before agreeing to a mind reading interview with my source. I cannot possibly comment on the accuracy of the mind readers system of course.

Here is the interview in full using Dafty's questions.

Q1. Did the then SFA Compliance Officer read the correspondence of 25th June 2018 from a firm of international solicitors representing a group of Celtic shareholders and reach a decision on the relevance of the information provided?

A1. Yes the letter was received at the time and a similar letter with counter points was received at a later date through a journalist. Both letters were considered and shared with relevant parties helping us look at the wider elements of the case.

Q2. Did he do so on his own or did he seek advice from UEFA, the authority on the matter, particularly in light of the information provided relating to the Giannina FC and Malaga FC cases both referred to CAS?

A2. UEFA were kind enough to give us clarification on their rules and whilst they were unable to comment on the above cases due to confidentiality, they indicated where to look to establish any similarities.

Q3. If not why not?

A3. Not applicable.

Q4 If he acted on his own did the information and evidence provided challenge the reasons, he was given previously by TRFC that led to the end of March period being dropped from the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal (JPDT)?

A4. The end of March period has been dropped for the following reason.

UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations Edition 2010 Article 50 (1) states:

“The licence applicant must prove that as at 31 March preceding the licence season it has no overdue payables (as defined in Annex VIII) towards its employees or social and tax authorities as a result of contractual and legal obligations towards its employees that arose prior to the previous 31 December.”

UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations Edition 2010 Annex VIII (1) states:

“Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms.”

Our legal team have confirmed in accordance with the above rules, a disclosure is required only in the situation where a bill with a final due date (agreed terms) prior to 31st December 2010 was not paid. In Rangers case, through a witness statement by an HM Inspector of Taxes, to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, we learned that nothing was fully verbally agreed with HMRC until 21st March 2011 and no final assessment was submitted to Rangers until May 20th 2011. The terms of the final assessment were 30 days and expired at end of day 19th June 2011.

Our legal team have stated there is no prospect at all that:

a) We could prove the amount became an “overdue payable” on 21st March as no terms of payment had been set.

b) Even if we could determine or class it as an “overdue payable”, it would still not meet the criteria of Article 50 (1) disclosure as it had to be overdue on 31st December 2010 which it was not.

We also considered Article 50 (8) which states:

“The licence applicant must submit to the auditor and/or the licensor the necessary documentary evidence showing the amount payable (if any), as at 31 December of the year preceding the licence season as well as any payable as at 31 March (rolled forward from 31 December), to the competent social/tax authorities as a result of contractual and legal obligations towards its employees.”

This section only applies payments that were overdue as at 31 December 2010 and it is a requirement to disclose the position of such payable rolled forward to 31 March 2011, if applicable. Again, as above, this does not meet the criteria in relation to Rangers FC.

Q5. If the evidence and information made no difference can the reasons be explained in terms of UEFA and CAS findings on Giannina FC and Malaga FC?

A5. In the case of Giannina FC, the payable debt to the tax authority crystalised, was accepted, was issued with agreed terms, was not paid and therefore became overdue in DECEMBER 2012. This means it qualified as a reportable “overdue payable” because it happened prior to 31st December 2012. In their Application, as per Article 50 (1), Giannina FC were required to disclose the overdue payable as at 31/12 and also confirm the rolled up position as at 31st March.

This is not comparable to the Rangers FC case as no amount was agreed, accepted, owed, crystalised, missed and therefore OVERDUE as at 31st December 2010.

In the case of Malaga, we agree there is a question in relation to the submission made by Rangers for the monitoring period 30th June 2011. This does not in anyway effect the granting of the licence nor the participation in European football in the season 2011/12. We consulted with our legal team and whilst there may be a case to pursue on this, we have been advised that:

a) the chances of success are not great and

b) as Rangers did not participate in Europe during season 2012/13, which would have been the punishment for an incorrect submission, the maximum punishment, if we were successful, would be £10,000.

Q6. Did the Compliance Officer share or mention the contents of the lawyer’s letter with the JPDT?

A6. Yes.

Q7. If not, why not?

A7. Not applicable

Q8. If JPDT were informed did they question the basis on which The Compliance Officer had agreed to drop the end of March period from scrutiny and limitation of the JPDT to the monitoring period?

A8. Covered in answer number 4

Q9. Were the JPDT even aware that the end of March 2011 period had been dropped and the reasons given?

A9. Yes and Yes. They agreed with the legal advice also as per the written UEFA rules.

Q10. Did the new information have any influence on the JPDT decision to eventually refer the matter to CAS that was subsequently made public on 19 July 2018?

A10. No. Once broken down, the information received from the firm of International solicitors was actually nothing new from what had been previously discussed in relation to the granting of the licence. There remains a question mark over the information provided by Rangers for the 30th June monitoring aspect however as previously outlined, there is little prospect of getting a positive decision from CAS and the cost of doing so will be prohibitive.


At this point The Trumpster went a bigly bit rogue for me and contacted his source at the firm of legal counsel the SFA used. He has a man on the ground there also who very weirdly is called The Lawman.

Using his amazing mind reading technique, he managed to get the following from The Lawman.

"In our submission to the SFA we clarified the following in final summary points:

1) Any overdue payables outstanding at 31/12/2010 should be disclosed fully in the 31/3/2011 licence application as per Article 50 (1)

2) As part of that disclosure, you need to show the amount overdue as at 31/12/2010 and also the current position as at 31/3/2011 as per Article 50 (8)

3) Any overdue payables that arise between 1/1/2011 and 31/1/2011 do NOT need to be disclosed on the 31/3/2011 application as per Article 50 (1)

4) Any overdue payables that arise between 1/1/2011 and 30/6/2011 need to be disclosed on the 30/6/2011 monitoring update as per article 66 (1)

5) An overdue payable is only relevant in the circumstance where a payable has not been paid according to the agreed terms. For the avoidance of doubt, agreed terms is either;

a) The final due date noted on the request for payment.

b) An agreed date in the future as approved by the Social Authority in writing.

6) The small tax case final amount payable due from Rangers to HMRC was not agreed by both parties until 21st March 2011 which in terms of UEFA articles, would in the worst case scenario trigger Article 66 (1) though it is our opinion the agreement of an amount payable is still not agreed terms as no date for payment was fixed.

7) Our findings are that the payable became overdue as per Article 66 following the issuance of a request for payment by HMRC on the 20th May 2011. The agreed terms noted were 30 days. The bill was not paid and became overdue on the 20th June 2011 and subject to Article 66 (1) disclosure.

In relation to our final point 7, we believe Rangers would, and already have, argued a further round of discussions opened up with HMRC which consequently meant no disclosure was required.

We cannot comment on the veracity of that claim, but with the publicly available documents, we would certainly fight that claim unless provided with further evidence."

So there we have it. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to The Trumpster, Moleman and The Lawman for the above. It certainly answers Dafty from Donegals points and clarifies why Resolution 12 has been a dead duck from 2016 as i confirmed way back then and each time it raised its head and somebody bumped me or retweeted me. Never for one second doubted the outcome.

I have asked The Trumpster to use his super duper computer now to track down Rugger guy and the man from Shirebrook as well as the Mole in the Engine Subsidiary Room and will come back when i have anything further to report on.

There is no need to send me any donations whatsoever as i have a job, so please give the money to your kids and keep it in the family.

Stay safe everyone.

Reply · Report Post