A recent autumn storm caused the destruction of the metal goal fame in our garden. The small goal with the weather-beaten net had fallen into disuse. But I liked it seeing it there on the grass. I suppose I half-expected, half-hoped, it would be used again. Once, it was a father and son thing and had been constructed carefully from a nice set of plans. At the time, it impressed both son and daughter no end. But that was then, this was now.
One of our trees, blown over by the recent high winds, caused the goal frame’s final demise. As I unscrewed the twisted metal I thought of the hours of innocent fun it had given us. It had been the scene of many goals and not a few great saves. My son, who is soon off to uni, smiled thoughtfully as I mentioned that this was the end of the ‘goalposts of childhood’. Perhaps he knew what I meant.
My own childhood goalposts had been ‘doon the back’. Drawn with chalk on the red brick of the ‘sausage wall’ at one end, and on part of the ‘wash hoose’ at the other. Many a league, Cup and international match was played out between those goals on the Dennistoun dirt. We once put on a parallel version of a historic England v Scotland match while the real match was being played at Wembley. Jim Mone sitting on one of the dykes had a transister radio to his ear. As we played our match he chalked up live score updates on the wall — our Twitter and FaceBook anno 1967. What a day.
We did use a pile of jackets up on the old Dennistoun cricket pitch, but only rarely. Mostly, we played on the red gravel surface at the Finlay Drive entrance. That pitch was fitted with real goalposts — like the ones they had at Hampden. Or so we imagined.
These sentimental memories of receding years accompanied my removal of the ruined metal goal frame. But, as you can imagine, it seemed an almost symbolic act. For fans of Scottish football the ‘goalposts’ that once defined the game of our football childhoods — have not only been moved, they’ve been been twisted and mis-shapen out of all recognition.
The past decades have seen a fundamental change in the way our game is run and governed, at home and abroad. Money is now king and sporting consideration is a luxury we sometimes have to put to one side — or at least, so we’re told.
At the risk of stating the obvious, sport, if it is to mean anything at all, has to be based on clearly defined rules and principles. These rules must be applied equally to all the participants, they are certainly not optional extras. However, to misquote and paraphrase George Orwell, ‘all teams are equal, but some teams are more equal than others’ — at least, when it comes to Scottish football.
The efforts by the SFA to re-interpret rules to fit the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers FC in 2012 have left most of us scratching our heads. Much of the Scottish media has backed up the SFA’s efforts, something which has added to the general confusion and chaos. In fact, it’s become clear that the death of Rangers, as we knew them, has been such a traumatic event that it must be denied. The authorities and media seem to have been so besotted with one club that its loss is out of the question. And so, it’s been gifted a bizarre kind of immunity from liquidation and death that implies its on-going existence, long after it drew it’s final breath.
This situation has opened the door to a legion of businessmen on the make. They have been allowed to perpetuate the myth, with SFA blessing, that they ‘saved’ Rangers. And their unwavering message is, that they can only succeed if fans keep giving them their hard-earned cash. To those outside the blue bubble it looks like a huge con trick. If the only source of real money in football is the fans, then the Ibrox faithful have been royally fleeced.
How different it could have been if the former club had been allowed a dignified end. A year out of the game would probably have allowed fans to restart a newco of their own. They could have applied for entry into the professional leagues along with the other clubs waiting in line. Chances are they would have been given special dispensation, and walked straight into the bottom tier. Of course, they would have claimed to be the continuation of the spirit of the previous entity — but would anyone have argued against that? How different it could have been if the rules governing the game had been respected. The SFA may even have kept their dignity intact and the press not felt obliged to print half-truths, falsehoods and lies.
You’ve got to wonder why Dunfermline and Hearts fought so desperately to avoid liquidation. After all, the Scottish football authorities now seem intent on convincing us that liquidation has little or no effect on a football club. Even past sins, such as wrongly-registered players are as naught — if, at the time, they were thought to have been registered correctly. By this logic, we have to ask: if a ‘company’ running a ‘club’ bribes a referee, will retrospective action will be taken against the ‘club’. The players and the club, after all, will have done nothing wrong. And since the referee was not known to have been bribed, and not struck off, he was qualified to referee the match in question, at the time. Using the SFA thought process, the result would probably be allowed to stand. Personally, I’m not sure I follow SFA logic. They’ve ‘moved the goalposts’, and (you saw it coming) bent them into an unrecognisable shape.
Which brings me back to our garden. The old metal goal frame is waiting to be driven down to the local re-cycling centre. The twisted metal and worn-out net are useless. Ruined by forces beyond our control. There is no interest in a replacement at present. Perhaps, if we have grandchildren, they will show an interest in football. If they do, I’ll build a new set of goalposts. They’ll be straight and true, the way the goalposts of childhood should be. The way goalposts should always be.
Former Director Hugh Adam claimed that “off contract” payments had been the norm at ibrox before 1998.
(sorry if this post is a bit late, had to remember the directors name)
Exiled Celt says: (894)
January 3, 2014 at 9:40 pm
Ecobhoy – I have no desire at all to strip titles – I am more interested in the way it was able to be so easily done and remain undetected (allegedly!).
(1) We need to know what SFA failed to do in their self regulatory role as requested and demanded by UEFA.
(2) We need to know what SFA knew and turned a blind eye to.
(3) We need to have anyone found incompetent or even conflicted resign from their posts
(4) We need new regulations to ensure the rule bending and cheating can never happen again – and make sure that since obviously the clubs cannot be trusted to comply with rules that an audit is done on occasion to ensure regulations are being adhered to.
With the current state of affairs, it could all happen again. If you don’t understand what the problem was, how can you fix anything? Assuming of course that we want to ensure its a level playing field for ALL clubs.
—————————————————————————————-
No club should ever be regarded as too big for the rules to fully apply to it and I too still find it hard to understand how it never ever surfaced. I’ll say one thing in defence of the SMSM and that’s not something I do very often.
But I don’t think they knew or really understood the scale of the cheating as the period coincides with the time when sports journos stopped being mates with football stars as the latter moved into the super salary league and left the journos behind who used to earn the same kind of money. They lived near each other, partied and clubbed together and their wives and kids were pals. But that all changed quite quickly.
That was the beginning of the end of actually knowing what was happening with players/clubs and the time of all the agent candyfloss and transfer stories with no factual basis.
I’m not sure whether we actually need to know all the details but we need to know that the guilty have been identified and, in the main. told to go quietly. As befits a story reeking of succulent lamb there will need to be well-publicised sacrifical lambs or even old goats 😀
The SFA have got to understand that there is no getting off the hook unless they fess-up to past misdeeds and they have to be more transparent when things go seriously wrong. Instead of a cover-up they have to go public and get the fans on board. But the fans have to accept their role as being one based on the overall good of the game and try and get beyond a purely club interest. Hatred of another club just doesn’t cut it with me and the solution isn’t to return the hatred.
With proper Governance we can find other ways and we have to get started otherwise the game will eventually go into terminal decline. I would love it if we could have rules that would prevent cheating but human nature being what it is we need to settle for draconian penalties if discovered so that it isn’t worth the candle and also ensure that effective ‘policing’ is financed,
If HMRC win at the UTT, could they decide that it may be worthwhile going after the individuals concerned for the Tax & NI owed
If they do, then I reckon this will be when the smelly stuff hits the fan
A lot of documents, whose existence has been denied or “lost” may suddenly re-appear, as the individuals concerned try to protect their positions
This may not be over, not by a long way
ecobhoy says: (2155)
January 3, 2014 at 8:22 pm
Auldheid says: (1127)
January 3, 2014 at 7:04 pm
I feel you may have misdirected yourself on this one Auldheid and I understand why and recognise it as in no way an attempt to intentionally prove me wrong.
But my correct statement was on the basis of what LNS decided and not on what you or I might have wanted him to decide
========================================
I am not disputing anything you say about LNS or wanting it interpreted in a way I would have liked,
I saw the futility in that and left the debate at the time (well apart from establishing that at least two of the ebts LNS deemed regular could not have been as an FTT had judged them irregular. They were judged so because HMRC had Rangers bang to rights on misusing the DOS scheme and concealing the side letters when HMRC specifically asked about them.. )
I have no desire to return to the LNS debate of back then, but I do want to make it clear that LNS was deprived, for whatever reason, of information that, had it been provided would almost certainly have led to a different conclusion, including selling to the world that although Rangers illegally had evaded tax to pay players more than their opponents the results of games won using the illegal payment methods could not be touched..
Luckily for LNS concealment of the documents did not present him with this difficulty but their existence raises questions about why no one was prepared to bring out or even hid that DOS payments were different from EBT loans in that the DOS ones were illegal.
In some ways the LNS Commission on loan ebts and side letters is a giant squirrel and had we waited for the appeal process to stop before acting on concealed side letters and improper registration, and if HMRC get the nod at the UTT, we would be talking about cheating Scottish football and taxpayers on a massive scale. As it is that cheating took place on a smaller scale but has been covered up via the LNS Commission because the evidence was not provided when requested.
I am not sure what rules would cover that scale of cheating since it was never conceived any club would act in such an unsporting manner when the rules were written.
If HMRC win at the UTT,
A lot of documents, whose existence has been denied or “lost” may suddenly re-appear
It will only take one snowflake to start an Avalanche.
Sorry for being a pedant but the VP is elected.
“A majority of electoral votes is still required for a person to be elected President or Vice President. When nobody has a majority, the House of Representatives, voting by states and with the same quorum requirements as under the original procedure, chooses a President. The Twelfth Amendment requires the House to choose from the three highest receivers of electoral votes, compared to five under the original procedure.
The Senate chooses the Vice President if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes. Its choice is limited to those with the “two highest numbers” of electoral votes. If multiple individuals are tied for second place, the Senate may consider all of them, in addition to the individual with the greatest number of votes. The Twelfth Amendment introduced a quorum requirement of two-thirds for the conduct of balloting. Furthermore, the Twelfth Amendment provides that the votes of “a majority of the whole number” of Senators are required to arrive at a choice”
.
I think HMRC have two main objectives.
To win the UTT confirming the debt and setting the precedent.
Through BDO to establish what happened properly and to consider further actions against those individuals involved.
And my last word (for tonight at least) on LNS. I have pointed this out before. The terms “Sporting sanction” and “Sporting advantage” appear nowhere in the rule books. These are concepts introduced by LNS- there is nothing in the rules which links the penalty to the offence in the way suggested in, and implemented by, the LNS decision.
What “sporting advantage” did Spartans get by failing to sign and date a form correctly? What penalty did they get? I think it was a sporting one, in the made-up lexicon of LNS. Why one rule for Spartans, and, has been pointed out earlier, every amateur team in the country, where “sporting” punishments are dished out regardless of sporting advantage for the most trivial registration errors, and another for the team from Ibrox? If the connection created by LNS between offence and punishment is valid, why aren’t hundreds of cases being urgently revisited, to correct these obvious injustices? Well, the answer is that the connection made by LNS is a one-off piece of legalistic subterfuge designed for one purpose, and for one team, only. The rest of Scottish football had better just learn that rules are not applied equally in the SFA’s jurisdiction.
Have the rules been changed or clarified following the LNS decision? Well, no, why should they be? LNS has done his work, and for all other teams, life just goes on as before. The word corrupt doesn’t even begin to describe it.
It looks like UEFA have removed the history of Rangers FC from the coefficient rankings table. History of solvent clubs remains. More on KDS
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/topic/8837773/926/
Truth is no one, SFA/SPL/SFL,and supporters were that worried when Admin hit
There was a perception, that as long as they got to the end of the season, and agreed a CVA, then it would be business as usual
Liquidation was never contemplated, and in fact D&D in their first interview said as much
When it happened, there was blind panic amongst all of the players
They acted without any coherent plan, and started inventing rules and breaking and bending those already in place, and the MSM were essential to the whole process of spreading the myth and giving it credibility
All of this to make sure that a team in blue, playing out of Ibrox and called Rangers would survive
Their actions during that period have brought us to where we are now
They can’t go back, as they are up to their necks in it
Short of a complete cleansing of the Temple, those responsible will stay in place, operating a version of the MAD policy
The only forlorn hope, is that some journalist worthy of the name, exposes the whole sordid corrupt mess
well, after the crass squirreling that went on yesterday what a pleasure to catch up on the highest quality of analysis today. Just been reading through today’s posts, there’s nowhere better than here for forensic disection and analysis. Well done and thanks to all on TSFM, the education you provide could never be overstated
Exiled Celt says: (894)
January 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm
9 0 Rate This
Scottc – Presidential candidates tend to pick a candidate that would draw votes in from a constituency that they themselves cannot access or depend on – in John McCain’s case, he wanted to tap into the stupid and hard of thinking base – hence Sarah Palin 🙂
____________________________________________________________________________________________
On that basis then McCoist must be the Spivs Sarah Palin?
wottpi says: (1368)
January 3, 2014 at 11:04 pm
0
0
Rate This
Exiled Celt says: (894)
January 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm
9 0 Rate This
Scottc – Presidential candidates tend to pick a candidate that would draw votes in from a constituency that they themselves cannot access or depend on – in John McCain’s case, he wanted to tap into the stupid and hard of thinking base – hence Sarah Palin
____________________________________________________________________________________________
On that basis then McCoist must be the Spivs Sarah Palin?
============================================
Now that’s what I call humour 😀 😀 😀
Auldheid says: (1129)
January 3, 2014 at 10:37 pm
I remember away back when my first intinct was that there should be no SPL/SFA inquiry untill the FTT verdict and I can only speculate that I would have then extended that to the UT especially in view of Heidi’s brutal critique on the majority decision.
But I was convinced by many of the arguments that LNS and the FTT were two totally different issues and not interdependant on each other. That might have been technically true but I totally failed to recognise the power for evil wielded by PR spinners on our gutless and useless SMSM.
In retrospect the SPL presented not a shred of evidence to LNS that any sporting advantage would be gained by the extra salaries paid through the EBT mechanism. If we had waited then I believe we would have got a favourable decision from the UT and still do especially with the AAM decision. Perversely if we hadn’t gone with LNS but still managed – thank to yourself – to have pieced-together the DOS affair then we would have won a favourable decision from a mini-LNS.
But I still believe there would have been the same inept, at best, handling of the case by the SPL and the active and devastating interferernce run via the Bryson Decision. But if we had had a verdict of ‘ineligible’ players then we might actually have been able to prize-open the SFA corruption.
We lost that opportunity because of the Rangers LNS ‘Victory’ and there was really little chance of getting back on a positive track. At least BDO have an interest in the Wee tax case so they will be looking at that and we must ensure that it isn’t allowed to be swept under the carpet when BDO eventually act. If they don’t I have doubts that anything can be achieved.
But I can never quite get my head round the fact that HMRC didn’t use its info from the Wee Tax Case at the FTTT on the EBTs. Any ideas?
HMRC were the respondent, and were responding to the Rangers’ appeal.
Tribunals are based on evidence, they were therefore required to produce evidence which supported their position against the appeal.
Long Time Lurker says: (678)
January 3, 2014 at 10:57 pm
2 0 Rate This
It looks like UEFA have removed the history of Rangers FC from the coefficient rankings table. History of solvent clubs remains. More on KDS
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/topic/8837773/926/
————————————————–
not this one again……..nothing to see here, move along…..
if you look further down, you will see Falkirk have also “had their history removed”
truth is, the website only has links to clubs who are in the top division in their country….Sevco urnae, so it disnae
Bryce Curdy
Taking this from your article on honesty
” The conclusions that there were no questions of dishonesty and no unfair advantage had been gained allowed the ‘Rangers’ manager on Friday to state that any suggestion of cheating had been put to bed. Like many, I do not believe that ‘Rangers’ players and coaching staff cheated, and would have had a degree of sympathy had their achievements been tarnished by the report’s conclusions. I do not accept the conclusions and will always be of the opinion that at the boardroom level ‘Rangers’ cheated. ”
to back my point about the impact of the documents that the SPL never received on the eventual LNS judgement : in one of them HMRC say that Rangers had either acted fraudulently or were negligent but as negligence was all that was required to pursue the case they would do so on that basis. My point is HMRC thought there was a case for proving fraud but did not pursue it because the charge of negligence was enough to demand payment. It seems HMRC in considering fraud had happened ruled out honesty.
The killer though on the dishonesty findings is the Rangers QC advice to cough up on the wee tax case bill because HMRC had caught Rangers out in an act of dishonesty i.e their QC’s judgement was it would be difficult to prove they had not acted dishonestly when all the evidence was to the contrary.
Not The Huddle Malcontent on January 3, 2014 at 11:25 pm
Thanks – did not spot that.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1089)
January 3, 2014 at 11:25 pm
Maybe Ol Bryce will re appear on the bonkers OCNC blog to argue the irrelevance of this table having used it before to argue his case.
Strictly speaking there should be two rows one for Oldco and one for Newco with the Oldco row ending with the final points total in 2012 total and a new row with the new figures for Newco..
Its a presentation thing.
neepheid says: (971)
January 3, 2014 at 10:49 pm
And my last word (for tonight at least) on LNS. I have pointed this out before. The terms “Sporting sanction” and “Sporting advantage” appear nowhere in the rule books.
=====================================================================
And neither does ‘Inquisitorial Hearings’.
As to Sporting Sanction and Sporting Advantage it find it quite shocking that the concepts aren’t included in the football rule books and it says much about how unfit for purpose the rules books and the governing bodies are. So more power to LNS for trying to drag the SFA et al into the modern age.
However it might assist your understanding if you read the evidence given to LNS by Iain Blair on Sporting Integrity which I would say Sporting Sanctions and Sporting Advantage are components of especially given Blair’s emphasis on the need to ensure that irregular and improper payments are not made to players.
LNS didn’t invent Sporting Sanctions and Sporting Advantage but he clearly explains the terms correctly IMO in his Decision. I know I have pointed this out to you previously so I won’t bother doing so again. I doubt if EBTs are mentioned in the rule books but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist and didn’t have a huge affect on football and tax collection.
At the end of the day I am a great believer in common sense and where there is cheating on the sporting field then I believe there must be at least an element of a sporting sanction involved to nullify any sporting advantage gained.
Of course it might also be necessary to add a financial penalty to ensure that Sporting Integrity is maintained although it all depends on the circumstances.
Auldheid says: (1131)
January 3, 2014 at 11:38 pm
0
0
Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1089)
January 3, 2014 at 11:25 pm
Maybe Ol Bryce will re appear on the bonkers OCNC blog to argue the irrelevance of this table having used it before to argue his case.
Strictly speaking there should be two rows one for Oldco and one for Newco with the Oldco row ending with the final points total in 2012 total and a new row with the new figures for Newco..
Its a presentation thing.
=======================================
My eyes tend to glaze over at Euro co-efficients but surely there would only be a need for a second row once Newco actually qualifies for Europe and where it, at a minimum, would earn the country co-efficient. I could be talking pash as this ain’t my strong suit but no doubt someone will set me right 😥
ecobhoy says: (2157)
January 3, 2014 at 11:09 pm
On BDO highlighting it lets hope so, but lets find ways to help them.
I too wondered about why HMRC did not use the wtc behaviour to support the big tax case claim.
DOS was like a trailer for the later behaviour regarding all ebts, concealed side letters from HMNRC and SFA PLUS the evidence that they had been concealed from HMRC when asked about i.e. Rangers lied to HMRC.
Perhaps HMRC were too confident of success in the BTC and thought the wtc would muddy the waters. Weak, I know, perhaps it was just a misjudgement, but the wtc was definitely the shape of things to come at Rangers.
ecobhoy says: (2159)
January 3, 2014 at 11:46 pm
Yes but it would save us waiting 20 years to say Look! two clubs. 😆
Bryce Curdy says: (23)
January 3, 2014 at 9:31 pm
********
Wonderful, concise summation of the LNS scandal.
If this is not rectified, then Scottish football is truly finished.
The FIFA-UEFA ramifications are the potential Firewall, shielding the SFA.
ecobhoy says: (2151)
January 3, 2014 at 4:06 pm
I have probably analysed every line and phrase of LNS on here as many know 😆 If you think LNS had legal ‘flexibility’ given the evidence presented then I would love to hear your reasoning but a simple declaration really takes us nowhere in understanding each other’s position or the wider picture IMO.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
All of your arguments regarding LNS are calm and logical and almost a form/substance disagreement with regard to intent seems to arise. In the case of HMRC against the EBT arrangements of MHG et al even though HMRC did not attempt to argue the EBTs were a sham Dr Heidi Poon still found room to dissent from the majority opinion seeing through the obfuscation to the real intent of disguised remuneration.This was an adversarial hearing just as the LNS one and yet not one of the LNS tribunal demurred .Don’t get me wrong , I agree that the whole thing was a charade and that the conclusion on the evidence presented was the answer required by all in attendance, but if Heidi could see the wood in spite of the trees then I feel a genuine, self respecting legal forum would also have voiced some disquiet about the proceedings. which maybe goes some way to explaining the sense of frustration .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143094729/spl-commission-reasons-for-decision-of-12-september-2012
Page 10 – Direction 4
This is where LNS decides to place the burden back on the SPL to “prove” their case. Thus adopting the adversarial approach.
Try to reconcile that order with their remit – as described from page 1.
It was the commission’s job to investigate and determine. By making order 4, they pointedly declined the responsibility for investigation and chose only to make a determination on what was fed to them by the “competing” parties. They suspected or knew, of course, that the parties were not actually competing over very much.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143094725/SPL-Commission-Decision-28-02-2013
Page 7
“…from the outset the Commission was anxious that there be a proper contradictor, in order to assist us in our task of ensuring that the case for the SPL on both merits and sanction was appropriately tested and that all contrary arguments were advanced.”
Page 8
“In exercise of the power conferred by this provision, we decided, after hearing submissions about the procedure, to call on Mr McKenzie first to present the case for the SPL, including at the outset the calling of the witnesses he had listed, on both merits and sanction. We next called on Mr Mure to present his case in response for both Oldco and Newco on both merits and sanction.We finally gave each of them an opportunity to reply on any new matter raised by his opponent. This adversarial procedure resulted in an excellent discussion, and we are grateful to both Mr McKenzie and Mr Mure for their assistance. In this Decision we take full account of each of their submissions..”
So the SPL say to LNS: “We have found prima facie evidence that rules were breached. Please investigate by any means you wish and make an independent decision on what punishment should be applied if you find guilt.”
LNS by his order 4 says to the SPL: “You present your case. I will not make any independent investigations. You tell me what sanction should apply for the alleged offences. My commission will make the final decision based only on the case you present and the defence offered by the accused parties.”
Did the LNS commission fulfil its publicly stated remit?
…or did the LNS Commission (unwittingly or otherwise) fulfil some other purpose?
Since there is a massive spotlight shining on supporters conduct at matches recently (Well, from one clubs supporters !) Was this mentioned in any of the tabloids today. Funny how the live TV cameras did not catch it either, judging by the amateurish camera shots after Hearts equalised I knew something was afoot.
Hope the link works
http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6a1AfnyrZZA%26feature%3Dshare&a=xI4I-Tq08DKaMHKsjIfUug
Bryce Curdy says: (23)
January 3, 2014 at 9:31 pm
==================================
Wow, just wow (© acknowledged).
When other teams were deemed to have fielded an ineligible player, did they have an opportunity to present their case to an independent panel or was the decision taken without any form of due process?
The inquiry was just a pantomime designed to distract and to add a forensic veneer protecting those culpable in Europe’s biggest sporting scandal.
(IMHO)
Impressive discussion by lots of peole tonight!!
I agree I do not see anything happening in a football governance sense even if the UTT finds EBT as run by rangers to be tax evason.
I cannot answer at all on where BDO will get to.
But I utterly agree with the last sentiment, Scottish Football and Scottish society needs justice in order to progress to a better place. That justice must involve a decision on eligibility that is consistent between the RFC(NIL) EBTs and the Spartans missed signature with the appropriate consequent actions.
Buddy
(PS: If the SFA wish to decide they were wrong to expel Spartans and all these other clubs for playing ineligible players and apologise and pay appropriate renumeration then I would be dumbfounded, perplexed and the SFA would be insolvent!)
Auldheid says: (1133)
January 3, 201
10
0
Rate This
Bryce Curdy
Taking this from your article on honesty
” The conclusions that there were no questions of dishonesty and no unfair advantage had been gained allowed the ‘Rangers’ manager on Friday to state that any suggestion of cheating had been put to bed. Like many, I do not believe that ‘Rangers’ players and coaching staff cheated, and would have had a degree of sympathy had their achievements been tarnished by the report’s conclusions. I do not accept the conclusions and will always be of the opinion that at the boardroom level ‘Rangers’ cheated. ”
to back my point about the impact of the documents that the SPL never received on the eventual LNS judgement : in one of them HMRC say that Rangers had either acted fraudulently or were negligent but as negligence was all that was required to pursue the case they would do so on that basis. My point is HMRC thought there was a case for proving fraud but did not pursue it because the charge of negligence was enough to demand payment. It seems HMRC in considering fraud had happened ruled out honesty.
The killer though on the dishonesty findings is the Rangers QC advice to cough up on the wee tax case bill because HMRC had caught Rangers out in an act of dishonesty i.e their QC’s judgement was it would be difficult to prove they had not acted dishonestly when all the evidence was to the contrary.
Long Time Lurker says: “““““““““““““““““““““““““““`(679) first time poster on tsfm posted a couple of times on rtc mostly against adam (remember him the man of smoke and mirrors) You are all doing great work all the best in 2014 keep on digging the only way we are going to uncover all this corruption and lies. Only question is. Surely the agents of them players knew something was stinking and their duty to the players was to notify them this aint right what incentments did they get ? And not one of them has been brought to question.
From the daily record “And while McCoist is braced for orders to reduce his first-team wage bill of £6m he doesn’t believe it will make the club vulnerable to bids for players such as rising star Lewis Macleod.”
Is that
A. An attempt to raise money for a player he could let go of no problem, as he must have a couple of his ilk in reserve, pity he does not have an ex-manager friend to pay over the odds for him.
or
B. Trumpeted as victory when the boy stays, and the high profile players leave.
If they had done things properly, young prospects with value would be splattered throughout the team. Its great to see the superiority complex still holding them back, even after all that has unfolded.
On the same page we have Ally and cuts to his £6M wage bill, and Lenny with £6M to spend on one guy who probably carries the same wage bill. Queue chico and co, “Celtic are spending money on one guy, thats poor we Ally’s whole budget”. Yes, but in a league which was romped last year by QoS with nothing in comparison. Which will no doubt lead to talk of money troubles at Celtic in the long term, right, dont need to put the radio on today, just covered it.
Late to the discussion, but a formidable ex-colleague of mine spent most of 1970s teaching law at a major US university and (from dealings with Ford after he had left office) formed a high regard for his abilities – he certainly placed him above Tony Blair (with whom he also had professional contact) in the intelligence league table. Perhaps it was a matter of presentation and, post-Nixon, a need not to do anything questionable or controversial that led to Ford being perceived as an unthinking political lightweight.
I called this to mind mainly because said ex-colleague also once defined “intellectual Unionists” as “those that can march and chew gum at the same time”, which here provides – to me, at least – a neat symmetry.
Apologies if this is OT.
I’ll be looking for early retirement to keep up with the discussion on this blog!
And then again, where to focus? Just been going through the @RangersInter tweets. Seems like the original Fakes to me, but I know some folks don’t buy into any of it. Anyway, 3 tweets last night. JI apparently talking about it being time to have the ‘disingenious’ McColl ‘crushed’.
This one was a bit longer:
Really just thinking aloud on Derek Jonston’s proposed solution a la King. The problem he (king) now has is that the club being the recognisable footballing entity, the assets and the black hole re investment are now discernibly different entities. He can’t feed the beast (the black hole) and ensure the funds get to the footballing bit where he needs them to get the messiah like status he craves. Similarly he can’t attach them to the assets in a way a competent investor would. The only people who can are paid large salaries and own the shares. There wasn’t room for that overhead when RFCold were doing well. There certainly isn’t room for it now. No, they need a bona fide sucker with billions to spare who doesn’t believe in due diligence. Either that or the beast that pretends to be the beast that DJ loved so much consumes itself from within. I took a (sober) night to work this out. Suspect it’ll have taken GW less. So, 119 days left to fix it!
I see McCoist has his dog whistle out again and this time is the SPFL in the firing line for arranging too many away fixtures. (Nice try at trying to divert attention away from the austerity measures he will be informed about come Monday)
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/ally-mccoist-attacks-unfair-spfl-scheduling-1-3255336
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-boss-ally-mccoist-hits-2985685
Nice post in the Scotsman comments column. Whataboutery at its best but it gets the point across well.
====================================================================
“Carl Le Fong
3:32 AM on 04/01/2014
Why doesn’t this silly man just shut-up.
Over the period the Ibrox fans’ round-trip travel to Airdrie/Stenhousemuir/Dunfermline = 157 MILES
Over the same period the Celtic fans’ round-trip travel to Perth/Inverness/Paisley = 480 MILES
Exactly what point is McCoist trying to make? – Is it that they only have to travel one-third of the distance that Celtic fans have to travel – I’m perplexed”
Bryce Curdy Jan 3rd @ 9.31
Brilliant post.
I think the presence of agents in the negotiations are exactly why the side letters exist. They did not trust SDM and advised their clients accordingly.
scottc says: (412)
January 4, 2014 at 10:07 am
0 0 Rate This
learnt so much says: (1)
January 4, 2014 at 4:15 am
Only question is. Surely the agents of them players knew something was stinking and their duty to the players was to notify them this aint right what incentments did they get ? And not one of them has been brought to question.
I think the presence of agents in the negotiations are exactly why the side letters exist. They did not trust SDM and advised their clients accordingly.
===========================================
Genuinely don’t know the answer.
Did Gordon Smith have any clients who were beneficiaries of EBT’s at the old Rangers? Presumably, if he did, he would have been aware of the existence of the side letters.
Other than Kenny Miller (who I don’t think had an EBT) I don’t know of any others he represented at Ibrox. Given his connections, I would find it strange if there were no others – but, as I said, genuinely don’t know!
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-boss-ally-mccoist-im-2986163
McCOIST will meet with chief executive Graham Wallace on Monday to discuss cost-cutting at Ibrox and is braced for orders to reduce his FIRST TEAM WAGE BILL OF £6m.
http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/AnnualReport2013.pdf
Finance Director’s Report
“First Team players’ wages were reduced to £7.8m”
As the accounts were to end of June are we therefore led to believe that off loading Alexander, Goian and Boccenegra saved £2m or more but that the addition of nine new players Jon Daly, Nicky Law,Cammy Bell, Richard Foster, Bilel Mohsni, Steven Smith, Nicky Clark, Steve Simonsen and Arnold Peralta managed to keep the wage bill fro this season at £6m?
If it is £6m and it needs to be cut ‘by say another £2m’ then T’Rangers will be trying to win the Championship next season with a squad that costs half of that which one that won the old Division Three.
So much for onwards and upwards.
I’ve noticed that recently too. It’s all just part of the SMSM campaign to insinuate that Super Sarah Palin is not spending over the odds. His wage bill has been 7-8m for months but is now suddenly being described as 6m. Keeps the fans onside.
Re T’Rangers four away fixtures and the hard done to fans.
Some Bears in the Den get it.
“He did say that he did complain about it, but we, the fans who he is concerned for, never knew about it until now, just seems odd to me. Trying to get all the fans on his side for anything about to happen??? ”
“He gave no thought to the fans when he chose to postpone matches at short notice due to international call-ups. This appears to be a bit of a charm offensive because of the criticism aimed at some of the recent on-field displays.”
“Did ally moan about fixture pile ups or fans being fecked over when he postponed two games earlier this season. Naw he never.”
http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/index.html
Regarding the claim that uefa have “removed” rangers history
…that claim must be tosh, as it seems that uefa are indeed still “adding” co-efficient points to SevcoRangers, so is it the case that uefa [unfortunately] do regard Sevco and Rangers(1872) as one and the same?
Is gregory ionnediss on the uefa solicitors panel
wottpi says: (1369)
January 4, 2014 at 9:59 am
———————————————————————————
Not so sure what McCoist has to say on the matter is that important as his actual quotes are limited, the concerning thing for me what the rest of the Daily Record article which is quite clearly a propaganda message for The Ibrox Club.
Euan McLean uses his piece to tell us that:
– Different name, fancy new logo but same old story of arrogant ignorance from league bosses.
– The club’s pleas to the authorities fell on deaf ears, something Rangers have become all too familiar with over the last two years since plunging into liquidation.
– The powers that be can restructure and rebrand all they like but they are still the same aloof, obstinate organisation they always were under the old SPL banner.
– You can put a blonde wig and lipstick on a dog but underneath it’s still the same old hound.
– The relentless march towards the title has been hard earned (combative nights like Airdrie proved so)
– The Ibrox Club have unique challenges due to them having to adapt to all the different playing surfaces.
Need to run now or I would comment on the joke about blonde wigs etc… (Rory Bremner) and the “club” plunging into liquidation….
Really dreadful piece harking back to the worse examples of the lamb munching spin doctors!
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/barry-ferguson-ally-mccoists-been-2984745
Piece by Barry Ferguson quite interesting and it does look as though Murray Park could be surplus to requirements. Can’t see it as a straight sale though as the Bears might get restive. Maybe some kind of wonderful joint development opportunity as a private sports club with Rangers still having some access to facilities and all the 5-a-side pitches that will be installed.
A bit like the spare lane kept in swimming pools for the local swimming club to practice in before 7am in the morning and after midnight 😈
scottc says: (413)
January 4, 2014 at 10:27 am
£6m was also the figure often quoted in the press for 2012-13
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/leaguedivision3/4576955/Shame-of-the-6m-wage-bill.html
but the final accounts showed it was higher than that by £2m.
Don’t think anyone can trust the figures coming out of Ibrokes or in the MSM until official annual accounts are produced.
Palacio67 says: (241)
January 4, 2014 at 12:52 am
25 1 Rate This
Since there is a massive spotlight shining on supporters conduct at matches recently (Well, from one clubs supporters !) Was this mentioned in any of the tabloids today?
——————————————-
They may have missed the Hearts Hibs incident but the continuing smoke bomb problem is in all the papers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-25596907
re Palacio67 @12:52 am “Since there is a massive spotlight shining on supporters conduct at matches recently (Well, from one clubs supporters !) Was this mentioned in any of the tabloids today. Funny how the live TV cameras did not catch it either, judging by the amateurish camera shots after Hearts equalised I knew something was afoot.
Hope the link works
http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6a1AfnyrZZA%26feature%3Dshare&a=xI4I-Tq08DKaMHKsjIfUug”
If that incident had occurred in a game between Celtic and the club that plays out of Ibrox, Alex Salmond would have been all over it like a rash. Meetings would have been arranged involving both clubs, the police, ‘concerned’ politicians et al. The government may even have used it as an excuse to pass legislation pertaining to offensive behaviour at football matches 🙂
As a daily reader – and very infrequent poster – I’d just like to thank all those who take the time and effort to contribute on a regular basis to this site. Your postings and insights are greatly appreciated. Please keep up the good work.
A belated Happy New Year to you all.
Alba Bhoy
This was after all Mr Salmonds beloved Hearts.
A Happy New Year to everyone on TSFM 🙂
Just thinking about poor Salary and his obvious distress at the prospect of losing some of his best players. With his record of losing a healthy lead at the top of the table, wouldn’t we all be worried?`
Now, with a tremendous managerial record this season, against all odds, he is having to face the prospect of working with a squad that might only be worth (in wages) around £4-5m more than every other team in his division. That will undoubtedly bring him closer to having to work on a more level (though not all that level) playing field than he ever has had to do as a manager before. It’ll be like the manager of Tescos (Govan Branch) being told by head office that he has to cut the number of till operators from 25 to 20 and be expected to get the same results while having to compete with the local pound shop and sundry other diddy corner shops, all employing people on the minimum wage.
For the benefit of poor Salary: the Tesco manager would, unless he is a complete numpty, cope by improving the performance of his remaining staff because he has the ability to do so, leaving his customers basically unaware of the changes. Of course, if he is a complete numpty, he might just go greetin’ to his mates in the local rags about how hard his bosses are making it for him, hoping his loyal customers will march on his head office to demand he gets the money to employ even more staff.
So come on lads, cut Super Numpty, I mean Salary, a bit of slack here; he is, after all, doing his level best to provide Glasgow with a brand new Tescos, is he not?
I believe points will ocntinue to be added for five years regardless of a club existing or not.
Palacio67 says: (241) January 4, 2014 at 12:52 am
Alba Bhoy says: (18) January 4, 2014 at 11:01 am
It was certainly mentioned in the Edinburgh Evening News with an acknowledgement that there are off-field issues with Edinburgh derbies.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/anthony-brown-derby-didn-t-fail-to-live-up-to-its-billing-1-3254372
The joy of merely equalising was enough to have some jubilant Jambos scampering across the pitch, with things briefly threatening to turn nasty as a few Hibs fans tried to get on for an impromptu scrap. It wouldn’t be an Edinburgh derby without a bit of off-field chaos, though, would it?
TV companies are discouraged from showing anyone “invading the pitch” lest is should highlight either any protest or serve as an encouragement to others to do the same.
The TV coverage did however show one of the fans being led away behind the goal.
ecobhoy says: (2160)
January 3, 2014 at 11:09 pm
—
From the very interesting discussion last night, I just wanted to pick up on one thing from the above post, if I may.
I’m sure you are correct when you say the SPL presented Lord Nimmo Smith with no evidence that paying players via EBTs constituted gaining a sporting advantage, but we do know that Neil Doncaster held and (unless he has contradicted it; it’s hard to tell as we hardly ever hear from the wee lamb and none of our intrepid MSM have asked) holds the view that any club doing what Rangers did would “automatically” gain a sporting advantage.
In his famous blog entry, acknowledged in his discussion post-LNS on Radio Scotland with Stuart Cosgrove, but written before LNS, Neil Doncaster said: “Any club that is spending more on players than they can afford, is automatically gaining a sporting advantage over every other club it competes with.” Self-evidently, Rangers were spending more on players than they could afford, hence liquidation.
Interestingly, links to the original blog from the excellent Paul McConnell (requiescat in pace) and other sources no longer work as they were links to the SPL website. However, the blog entry is now up on the SPFL website and, unlike the original, carries a date: March 2, 2012, almost a year before LNS. Doncaster’s discussion about the blog with Stuart Cosgrove took place on March 30, 2013, a month after LNS. It was on this programme that Neil Doncaster said the SPL, as was, would hold a discussion about what to do in the wake of LNS. All I have heard since is that the SPL wanted £250,000 from Rangers. Good luck with that.
This is where the trail goes cold for me. This is where journalists need to tap the ball into the net, after the bampots have done all the running and all the setting up. Of course we know that the journalists would wheel away in self-congratulatory jubilation, claiming all the credit, but that doesn’t matter. Bampots just want goals.
jimlarkin says: (739)
January 4, 2014 at 10:34 am
Check position 108 Unirea
They went bust in 2011, and as they were still on UEFA’s list were awarded the country’s co-efficient points, as Scottc says
Are all the discussions on the down-sizing of Sally’s squad with a potential pre-pack admin missing out on the “football creditors” rule?
Surely, if the “club” goes into administration, unless the players under contract agree to a renegotiated one, they must be paid in full for TRFC to retain its license to play football?*
* Assuming the “authorities” adhere to their rules…
The twinning of Sarah Palin was an inspired spot ,her twin over at Ibrox has came out with the kind of drivel that rocketed Sarah to the political wilderness that Salary is no doubt queuing to purchase his ticket to on Monday afternoon,his bleating about the away game against Stenhousemuir is nothing but selfishness ,no respect for any other team ,in any division,and fans having to travel to 3 away games on the trot ,question for you Salary,do all your fans come from within a 10 mile radius of Govan ,no, thought not, and surely with the new transparency model now in play at Ibrox you are up to speed on whats comming on Monday,no, thought not,and your plea’s about the fans being hard done to ,these same fans are on to you Salary ,dont you realise that they are getting fed up and can see through you now,no, thought not,are you about ready to walk,better get the excuse ready and it better be good.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143094729/spl-commission-reasons-for-decision-of-12-september-2012
Page 10 – Direction 4
This is where LNS decides to place the burden back on the SPL to “prove” their case. Thus adopting the adversarial approach.
======================================================
There was never ever going to be any other kind of approach than an adversarial one as there was no legal basis and no mechanism for conducting an inquisitorial one. The adversarial path dates to when when the SPL Board agreed a Tribunal consisting of a chairman and two members, They did not appoint an Inquisitor and no matter how many acres of old minutes and rule books are reproduced – including those for horse racing and rugby – that remains a fact.
Obviously if you look for things to suit a particular agenda then they can be found anywhere and the opposite is equally the case.
You state: ‘Page 10 – Direction 4 This is where LNS decides to place the burden back on the SPL to “prove” their case’ and that is obviously how you read Direction 4. Firstly I don’t know if Direction 4 was ever enacted or not but I see nothing sinister in what it contains and IMO it does not mean what you suggest.
You must remember the timing here and that this is before the actual main hearing when preliminary matters were being dealt with. Direction 4 simply asks the SPL provide LNS with:
a) A small sample of cases illustrating alleged breaches of Rules or SFA Articles.
b) Identify the people allegedly responsible for EBTs and payments from them and who didn’t disclose that info in the Contracts of Service submitted to the SPL.
c) A detailed legal argument addressing SPL Rules and general law is required explaining how the liability for sanction arises if any person or legal entity – other than RFC 2012 (IA) – is allegedly subject to sanction under Rule G6.1.
Now to my mind – and I always try to take the simple approach – this isn’t LNS asking the SPL to ‘prove’ its case but merely asking what the SPL case is in certain areas so that LNS can examine it and fulfill its remit to decide whether the relevant rules have been broken or not.
Whether LNS was operating under an adversarial system on the balance of probabilities or an inquisitorial system to establish the truth then I feel sure that the same questions would have been asked of the SPL by LNS.
I’m afraid that LNS and the decisions reached have become something of a Holy Grail for some people which IMO is forming a roadblock to progress for the good of Scottish Football.
The main issue we require to resolve from LNS IMO is the Bryson Definition which in itself may unlock other secrets but that would be a bonus. Other developments which may yet come are beyond our current ability to influence but shouldn’t be forgotten as the impact of other external events may yet provide a kick-start..
One thing that I am convinced of is that staring into giant squirrel entrails and chanting support for an inquisitorial hearing, as the true and only road to enlightenment, is a waste of time and energy.
Disagree slightly FIFA.
There is enough momentum and volume in the thought challenged bears that a continuation of winning will see them through. That the thinking bears are starting to see through the mirage is immaterial, they’ll be easily won back with more glory!
Two problems. It genuinely will be a challenge for Ally to continue the run if the cuts are as severe as is required. Bears having to let go of their winning streak will see a definite sea change in attitude (especially if THEY continue there’s). Should he even come close to losing the 14 point lead then things would get very very nasty.
The second problem is that the thinking bears do eventually need to be drawn back. They can’t be replaced forever especially if the orange tops don’t materialise. That’s been easy in the past 30 years. Just spend spend spend. That’s not a luxury that’s going to be there unless the mystical generous billionaire is found.
This ship is sinking. There’s possible solutions floating in the water. But some baggage, a lot of baggage (and that’s purely in financial terms btw) needs to be thrown off first.
What to do?
Esteban says: (2)
January 4, 2014 at 12:05 pm
ecobhoy says: (2160)
January 3, 2014 at 11:09 pm
–———————————–
From the very interesting discussion last night, I just wanted to pick up on one thing from the above post, if I may.
—————————————
I certainly have previously pondered the Doncaster comments and have wondered whether the timing/comment was actually more influenced by the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations (in terms of implementation rather than conception) than LNS.
Despite being a critic of the SMSM on many issues things do get ‘lost’ and ‘ignored’ and not necessarily because of corruption. But the comment remains another straw in the wind but only a straw when we have Giant Haystacks like the 5–Way Agreement 👿
Of course there is always the contradiction at the heart of football that wealthy football clubs obviously gain a Sporting Advantage over financially poorer clubs when it comes to being able to buy and pay for more expensive players. That disparity is accepted under the rules which therefore aren’t there to provide a level playing field.
In terms of measuring the actual level of Sporting Advantage achieved as opposed to the perception I think that becomes difficult and I believe that was part of the problem that the SPL ran into about providing evidence for LNS that spending more money (leaving aside the argument whether a club could afford it or not) guaranteed a Sporting Advantage.
Obviously we are in the early days of the Uefa FFPR and just how much of an effect they will have remains to be seen.
Smugas says: (664)
January 4, 2014 at 12:28 pm
&&&&&&&&
Constructing themselves as ‘persecuted’ and harshly treated by the authorities is classic Jack. Ally can feel the fiscal hand gripping his pay packet. How are those negotiations going?
Airdrie and Stranraer have been vilified in the press for being overly physical, yet, on fouls committed, as reported on BBC, there doesn’t appear to be a huge discrepancy.
The £6M wage bill, minus Ally’s managerial team(£1.5M) equals £4.5M. Reducing that bill will be a real challenge. Selling Lee Wallace appears to be imperative if sevco are to survive until March.
Was a letter read out at the AGM re: Jack’s company’s treatment of Greig?
ThomTheThim says: (5)
January 3, 2014 at 11:53 pm
31 1 Rate This
Bryce Curdy says: (23)
January 3, 2014 at 9:31 pm
********
Wonderful, concise summation of the LNS scandal.
If this is not rectified, then Scottish football is truly finished.
The FIFA-UEFA ramifications are the potential Firewall, shielding the SFA.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Basically as mentioned by Bryce Curdy the cheating could have been on such a scale that FIFA and UEFA would have struggled to deal with the full ramifications of it . FFS it is sport and rules get broke and the perpetrators GET dealt with. If HMRC win the appeal in the UTT then is that not THE prove once and for all that Rangers had a massive illegal financial sporting advantage. What will it take for them to finally be accountable for the cheating that they have inflicted on our game. A mockery is what Scottish Football has become. They and the SFA have caused this mockery to continue and the only body that have successfully stood against them was the fans of all other clubs who said no to them being fast tracked back in the day when the threatening terms of Armageddon and without fear or favour were used by our SFA.
We all know what they did and what the SFA are trying to hide. Makes me sick. Why is this lie tolerated? Because it is Scotland that is why. No other country would tolerate this level of cheating.
easyJambo says: (620)
January 4, 2014 at 11:53 am
————————————-
Thanks for the link easyJambo, unfortunately I still cannot see any pics with relevance to the fans on the pitch goading the home support. In My opinion this is on a par or even worse than the morons who ripped up seats and let off Smokebombs at Fir Park, yet it heralded barely a mention in the MSM.
Unbalanced reporting imo.
It really is very worrying. 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
Ecobhoy
This is the link to the blog in question at its new home on the SPFL website.
Obviously having more money to spend on your squad means having a sporting advantage. The question here is about gaining an unfair sporting advantage through financial legerdemain.
Doncaster goes on to make an explicit reference to “unfair” sporting advantage. He says: “To turn a blind eye, to allow clubs to continually fail to make prompt payments as they fall due, would be to allow those clubs to gain an unfair sporting advantage over all those other clubs that pay their players, the taxman and other clubs on time.”
You are correct that Doncaster’s blog frames itself in the context of UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations, but he wrote it three weeks after Rangers went into administration having failed to pay taxes and other clubs. Incidentally, Cosgrove definitely thought Doncaster had only written this blog after LNS (the SPL entry carried no date).
http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/ceo-blog–financial-fair-play-2012-03-02/
Cowan and Cosgrove giving it tight to McCoist on Off The Ball re his ridiculous complaints. They question whether he is simply rallying the Bears as a diversionary tactic for something else that is going on. He couldn’t possibly be, could he!
jimlarkin says: (739)
January 4, 2014 at 10:34 am
1
0
Rate This
http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/index.html
Regarding the claim that uefa have “removed” rangers history
…that claim must be tosh, as it seems that uefa are indeed still “adding” co-efficient points to SevcoRangers, so is it the case that uefa [unfortunately] do regard Sevco and Rangers(1872) as one and the same?
Is gregory ionnediss on the uefa solicitors panel
Unfortunately UEFA are in the “save the game” mode and will continue to ply that stance to support Scotlands stand out fixture, but we the fans can chant sevco and raise a noise at every oppportunity…forever, it will never be accepted, they have cheated for the entirety of their history for me, a complete Lance Armstrong of a club
Have you guys seen this?
http://i.imgur.com/1cjoo1e.jpg
Cosgrove in great form today. Spurred on by the absurd greetin faced claims by Billy Brown that Hearts ‘have been punished enough’, he pointed out it is ridiculous for clubs to think they should be able to walk away from colossal sums of debt, including unpaid tax, and not expect significant consequences. To be fair to Hearts I’m not sure Browns comments reflect a lack of remorse at the club in general, unlike the club from Ibrox. I’ve often wondered what those at Ibrox actually would have considered a fair punishment. My conclusion is a one off ten point penalty is all they think should have happened. More to the point, it appears the strategy was for that to be the only thing that happened. Again, I can only say thank God for all the fans of the other clubs for making it clear they simply would not accept that.
Cheers Esteban, you saved me posting. Sporting advantage through scale and financial muscle is a fact of life. It is as unfair as David being physically weaker than Goliath. Unfair sporting advantage gleaned through [insert all examples as appropriate] and then telling us that we are all missing it and should cast aside our rules and integrity to recreate it is a fact of life only in Scotland it would appear.
To be fair the 10 point was actually all that was supposed to happen!
EDIT: that Easdale Email has to be a wind up, and not even a good one.
In looking back through Paul McConvilles site where I posted many articles my sadness is lightened by memories of the Big Guy and his Humanity and wisdom.
I was following-up something raised by Esteban and came across a post I did on LNS and the 5-Way Agreement which I had forgotten about. Don’t know how I managed it but I think it is an important post and well worth a read – but then I would say that 😆
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/rangers-given-no-title-stripping-guarantee-in-secret-spl-deal-by-ecojon/
Smugas says: (666)
January 4, 2014 at 2:00 pm
—
I am no hermeneuticist, but it’s entirely in keeping with the whole series of Easdale emails Charlotte has put into the public domain in the last few hours.
Oh come on. Legerdemain and now hermeneuticist.
Geezabrekbyraway!
What legal basis do you think is required? The work of the commission was not a legal process – as was stated by the commission itself. It did not require a court to conduct its business and though it could make a determination, it could not legally enforce anything.
As for the mechanism:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143094728/SPL-Rules-Effective-3-December-2012
“,,,a Commission,shall have the power of inquiry into all financial, contractual and other arrangements within, between and/or amongst Clubs and Players and all matters concerning compliance with the Financial Disclosure Requirements and into all matters constituting or pertaining to any suspected or alleged breach of or failure to fulfill the Rules by any Club, Club Official and/or Player or any matter considered by the Board or, where appointed by the Board, a Commission, to be relevant to an Adjudication or an Appeal and every Club and Club Official and Player shall be liable to and shall afford every assistance to the Board or, as the case may be Commission, as may be requested or required of it or him.”
The SPL’s rulebook describes an inquisitorial process. It grants power of enquiry and an obligation on Clubs and officials to fully co-operate in their enquiry.
That LNS chose to operate an adversarial system (where the SPL is tasked to be the prosecutor) in substitution of making his/their own line of enquiry seems to me, at best, to be highly unusual.
You take a different view. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
This message reveals Jack Irvine to be a despicable, arrogant creep who refused to apologise to John Greig and even ordered the Spivco board to stop asking him to do so:
http://m.imgur.com/71iwOS0
All of which strongly suggests that the @RangersInter (CharlotteFakes) tweets are indeed genuine.
Smugas says: (667)
January 4, 2014 at 2:17 pm
—
It’s a fair cop. I’m off to Waterstone’s to buy the Sandy Easdale style guide.