• 6 June 2017 Craig Whyte trial ends but during its course it was revealed that the £2.8m liability relating to the wee tax case had been accepted by Rangers and as the CAS ruling on Giannina shows this means an overdue payable existed at 31st March 2011 which conflicts with the main justification given by SFA for granting a licence.
• 25th July to 4th September 2017. Celtic and SFA exchange correspondence in respect of a review of events following the Supreme Court decision on the unlawful use of EBTs by Rangers. Celtic and SFA_Correspondence.pdf
• 7 Sept 2017. It is reported in the Times that Celtic first raised the same issues relating to EBTs and player registration in May 2012. (if you are not a Times subscriber the letter can be read from the Sun link that follows).
• This was copied to UEFA according to The Sun ( but for those who prefer not to visit that site a clear copy can be read here ) which begs the question what was UEFA’s response/position? Did it influence Celtic’s subsequent response to Resolution 12?
• 9 September 2017. BBC report that SFA are rejecting request for a wide ranging enquiry but said this on the UEFA licence issue:
“ “Upon considering the action taken in the past six years by all football bodies, and mindful of the ongoing nature of [the Compliance Officer looking at the granting of the UEFA licence in April 2011], the Board of the Scottish FA agreed at its meeting on 10 August 2017 that a further independent review will serve no meaningful purpose and, indeed, could negatively impact upon the ongoing investigations [by the Compliance Officer].” see this BBC Report
• 15 May 2018. After eight and a half months of investigation the BBC report that the SFA have charged Rangers on two counts of non compliance of their Articles in respect of the granting of a UEFA Licence in 2011. Rangers are reported as responding that the SFA accepted they complied with UEFA FFP in respect of the granting at end of March 2011, that accusations made against the club were groundless and consequently the charges relating to the granting period were dropped and Rangers would fiercely resist the reconstructed notice of complaint relating to the monitoring period.
In view of the timeline information provided earlier here relating to the end of March 2011, this response is surprising and extremely troubling. The reasons the SFA were given for so doing have to be explained by the SFA to Celtic and their shareholders in view of the assertions by The Rangers FC that accusations made against the club were groundless.
Who made those accusations? Certainly not Celtic nor their shareholders under Resolution 12 that only asked that the circumstances under which the licence was processed in 2011 be investigated by UEFA CFCB.*
• 25 June 2018 As consequence of the statement by TRFC that end of March activity by Rangers FC had been excluded from JPDT scrutiny in the Daily Record of 15th May 2018, the Res12 lawyer wrote to SFA Compliance Officer on 25th June 2018 stating reasons why this exclusion was questionable and possibly serious.. The seriousness depends on the discussions in March 2018 between TRFC and the Compliance Officer where the latter was persuaded by TRFC to exclude the period at end of March 2011 from JPDT scrutiny as the information provided in the Res12 lawyer letter shows a payable existed at 31st March 2011 which WAS overdue as UEFA define it. What were the reasons TRFC gave the SFA in March 2018 and did they align with the HMRC minutes of 21st March 2011 which were provided to SFA under the Res12 letter of 25th June 2018. ?
• 29 June 2018: Copies sent to Celtic after close of play having first drawn their attention to the exclusion issue on 22 May 2018.
• 10 August 2018. Celtic meet representatives from Res12, the Celtic Supporters Association and a representative of bloggers from social media to discuss content of letter of 25th June and lack of SFA response. Celtic left with a document suggesting UEFA Licence should not have been granted on grounds of breaches of two UEFA rules both of which involved dishonesty/fraud breach of good faith. Celtic left to consider the document (see here ) and contemplate next steps if the narrative contained was accurate. A further meeting to be arranged early September to hear response.
• 15 November 2018. New SFA Compliance officer was seen in mid October by Celtic : she had not had time to come to grips with issue and could not access previous Compliance Officers In Box. A Copy of 25th Letter was supplied but no word on SFA position at 15th November 2018. Signatories whose e mail address held sent an update by e mail prior to Celtic AGM on 21st November suggesting UEFA involvement was a way forward based on recent UEFA statements.
• 16 November 2018. A number of reservations and questions ( See ) were made from the floor about the SFA position as reported at the AGM where the only assurance was that something was going to CAS but why and when was not known by Celtic.
• 4 Jan 2019. Following a meeting with Celtic it was agreed shareholders lawyer should provide a note of assistance to the Compliance Officer, who in September 2018 replaced the previous Compliance Officer responsible for the non compliance charges of 15 May 2018 relating to June and September 2011 only and which excluded the licence granting period of end of March/mid April 2011 from Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal (JPDT) scrutiny, with no justifying reasoning for the exclusion that aligns with the information in the HMRC Minutes of 21st March 2011 drawn to her predecessor’s attention on 25th June by the Resolution 12 lawyer.
29 March 2019. Delivery of letter delayed whilst advice sought from an experienced criminal lawyer in relation to March 2011 that has required a change in approach in letter to SFA now under draft.
To be continued……
(* The CFCB was the body that Resolution 12 signatories asked Celtic to engage with on their behalf in 2013 because the CFCB has powers to request documentation that would either demonstrate Celtic shareholders’ fears of incorrect application of the rules by the SFA in 2011 were unfounded or inform UEFA that their rules were not robust enough to meet UEFA’s intent and needed strengthening. Any attempt by the SFA to ring fence the investigation and charges should be resisted and UEFA/CAS involved if that happens if not the police regarding possible fraud.)