Where now for the Judicial Panel Protocol?

By

Arabest says: September 7, 2012 at 15:56 A few posts about Mo …

Comment on Where now for the Judicial Panel Protocol? by tomtom.

Arabest says:
September 7, 2012 at 15:56

A few posts about Mo Johnston signing for Souness in 89, if anything illustrated the desperate need for change at Celtic Park it was this fiasco. The Celtic board lied to MoJo and tried to pull a flanker……….it was their own fault no one else’s, had they given the wages they promised he would have played for Celtic – they did not, the Beast did – simple!
——————————————-

At no time did the Celtic board pull a flanker or lie. They can certainly be accused of a lot of things but not that. They played it with a straight bat and simply refused to give in to Johnston’s greed. They certainly wouldn’t have thought that he would turn up at Ibrox and, I guess, assumed that Johnston would back down and sign. I cant remember for certain when the deal went sour but at the player’s dinner (the night after the cup final if I remember) Johnston was telling the Celtic players present that he was going to sign for Rangers. It would be fair to say that few people believed him at the time and many thought that other substances were at work.

tomtom Also Commented

Where now for the Judicial Panel Protocol?
Further thoughts on the Johnston transfer.

The deal was worth £1.8m in total made up of:

£600k to Nantes
£600k signing on fee to Johnston
3 year contract at £200k per annum

Johnston thought his £600k signing on fee was nett. McMurdo pointed out to him that it was subject to tax and when Celtic refused to pay it he then approached Rangers. Now in order for Johnson to get his £600k tax paid Rangers would need to pay £400k of tax (at the rates that applied at that time) It could well be that, although it was, and is, the norm for any signing on fees to be paid off over the life of the contract Rangers (desperate to get the non c@tholic monkey off their back) gave Johnston a £1m cheque. Maybe, at that time, they believed that Johnston would bank the cheque and then send the £400k of the the Inland Revenue. Johnston, being Johnston, then deposits said cheque in a Swiss bank accountant without telling the Revenue.

You don’t think Murray was duped do you?

:Edited for the use of a religious term


Where now for the Judicial Panel Protocol?
kells says:
September 7, 2012 at 13:49

Not sure if this was mentioned before. Last Saturday on Radio Scotland at about 1.30pm Derek Ferguson quipped that the reason Maurice Johnstone signed for Rangers was “a million pounds in a Swiss bank account”. It may be a metaphorical million pounds but it may be true and could mark the beginning of David Murray’s tax dodging schemes.
——————————————————————————————————————————————

This will probably be stuck in moderation AGAIN, {SFM – indeed!]

——————————————————-

Quite a sweeping statement. I assume that you can tell us who the three people were and how you know about this.


Where now for the Judicial Panel Protocol?
Partick dad says:
September 7, 2012 at 09:38

Not sure if this was mentioned before. Last Saturday on Radio Scotland at about 1.30pm Derek Ferguson quipped that the reason Maurice Johnstone signed for Rangers was “a million pounds in a Swiss bank account”. It may be a metaphorical million pounds but it may be true and could mark the beginning of David Murray’s tax dodging schemes
——————————————

Sorry but that story is so far off the mark. Some time ago I posted on RTC the true version of events. I managed to see copies of faxes from Nantes (they were in French and had to be translated) and essentially Johnston tried to do the deal himself without McMurdo’s input. The sticking point was who paid the tax on the deal, Celtic refused and McMurdo then offered him to Murray.


Recent Comments by tomtom

SFM – The Next Steps
Esteban says:
Member: (91 comments)
May 22, 2015 at 11:56 am
Finloch at 10:13 am

Very good, amigo.
A question arises, however. Who are the Easedales? Where did they fit in? Where are they now?
=========================================
Counting the profits from the tenders that they have been awarded since they went “high profile”. Their “investments” in RFC were a small price to pay.

Succulent lamb is not only served to journalists.


Spot the difference?
Paulmac2 says:
February 25, 2015 at 12:03 am
If the club cannot be punished then it stands to reason the SFA has the responsibility to prevent the identified group from attending similar events…either by playing behind closed doors or witholding away tickets…

Within 2 games it will stop…that is how easy it is…unless of course you support racism.
=============================
When the offence takes place at an away ground, in addition to a ban on the travelling support, the offending club should be fined an amount equal to or exceeding their ticket allocation for their next away game. This money should then be given to the opposition as they shouldn’t suffer from the drop in revenue due to a ban on the travelling support.


Spot the difference?
Bawsman says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm
2 2 Rate This

Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:26 pm
==============

The old Celtic Park did indeed have a Rangers end…………That was (like Hampden) the covered end 👿
—————————————–
The Rangers end at CP was covered in 1967. The Celtic end was first covered around 1958 – although it did not extend all the way to the front of the terracing.


Spot the difference?
If I was Kenny Macdowall and I wanted to get the hell out of Dodge with my full entitlement I’d leave the 5 loanee’s out of any future squads. 😈 😈


Spot the difference?
bad capt madman says:
February 3, 2015 at 9:41 am
2 0 Rate This

So no one in the SFA thinks the sectarian singing at the Sunday semi final needs investigating?? Really? It was heard in over 50 countries apparently. Do rules not apply to TRFC?
(Serious question actually, no laughing at the back)
============================================
The SFA will, as always, do nothing. Police Scotland have already stated that the VAST majority of fans were well behaved. However, if you break down the numbers, you have 50,000 fans attending. Split 50/50 gives you 25,000 per side. 20,000, or 40%, of one side behave appallingly. That means that 30,000, or 60%, behaved well. Seems like an overwhelming majority to me. Of course an old cynic like me would say that this was abusing the statistics but who cares about me when the truth can be so easily distorted to suit.


About the author