Comment on The Offline Game by TheLawMan.
As a layman rather than a lawman, it strikes me that much effort is being put into avoiding the blindingly obvious in the posts above. Rules, regulations and laws are there for a purpose, and often it doesn’t take a genius, or even a lawman, to figure out what they are.
There is a clear desire by UEFA to exclude from its competitions those clubs who have outstanding social taxes . This is not rocket science. Similarly, the law of the land regarding liquidation is designed to ensure that those who dump multi-million pounds of debt cannot simply do so and expect to carry on as before. Simples.
I’m sorry but I cannot understand this thinking. Rules are rules and if there is a desire to achieve a certain goal by making up rules then those rules should be explicit.
It is simply not good enough to say, “ok you stuck to our rules but we don’t like it so you are wrong and you are banned”
Taking your example further, there is a clear desire for UEFA to only have a certain group of elite teams competing in the latter stages of the Champions League so they set out rules to try and achieve that. When a European “diddy” team manage to get to the last 16 in despite of, but by following the rules set out, should we simply turn round and say ” but the rules were designed to exclude these wee clubs so let’s disqualify them and let Barca back in again?
We are really stepping into new territory by stretching this to “desired outcome” if we reach a point where the rules have actually been followed in my humble opinion.
TheLawMan Also Commented
The Offline Game
Just for the record, i took to Twitter 17 hours after you put me in moderation, not “immediately” as you claim TRISIDIUM. I therefore, not surprisingly, believe you are being economical with the truth in order to paint you in good light.
Never said what you imply LM. I said you knew you were in moderation, posted 11 hours later with a request for the post to be considered for publishing, and THEN went immediately to Twitter to mislead.
The abuses of the truth – again – are all yours.
Had my doubts about the honesty of your motives by being here in the first place. I should have listened to them.
Thanks for agreeing that Rangers were in in breach of the articles though.
The Offline Game
Take as much issue as you like Lawman. The question isn’t one of morality, it’s of illegality. If you are saying that we should ignore what happened at Ibrox because they were they only ones daft enough to get caught, then your moral compass is spinning in a rather random fashion – but let us see the evidence you speak of..
Im not asking anyone to ignore anything and I would happily stick to the facts around Article 50,66 and Annex VIII. However when emotive terms such as “innocent” are used, and to be fair, since a lot of the barriers have been coming down over the last 7 days, it often turns to a question of morality rather than strict regulations, then i have avoided getting dragged in.
As read in John 8-7 “Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone”
The Offline Game
OK folks, we’ve been round the block a few times here. Lawman is 99.999% sure that RFC were innocent. Most of the rest of us are 99.999% for the same reasons, that they aren’t.
I have to take issue with the inference above and attempt to, in my opinion, bring implied morality into it.
Im 99.99% sure that Rangers complied with the regulations of Article 66 and Annex VIII of the UEFA FFP Guidelines.
Im leaving the moral issue of “innocence” aside as to bring that into this debate then we would need to consider some circumstantial evidence of Tax avoidance and to a much greater extent Direct evidence of systemic Tax Evasion in Scottish football over the last 30+ years by more than Rangers.
Recent Comments by TheLawMan
It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
The resolution filing is available on Companies House for registered businesses. Its simply a confirmation document that Res 10 and Res 11 passed along with the wording of the resolutions.