The Way it Works

Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

The Way it Works

 

Many years ago, I read an article in some legal magazine or other which, to my mind, pointed out something that I had always presumed was obvious.

Namely, that unlike his English Counterpart, the Scottish solicitor is not just a drafter and processor of legal documents, he ( or she ) is a man of business who furnishes advice, and as often as not, will recommend a course of action – possibly involving many different steps or procedures- in any given situation.

Without going into an academic analysis of what this means, may I suggest that a simple definition is that the Scottish solicitor does not always simply do what they are told but will furnish the client with advice for, or against, a certain course of action.

The same applies to accountants and other professionals in my experience. When discussing any business situation, the client should always be aware of the pros and the cons. From there he or she makes a decision based on the advice given – which advice may be taken or rejected.
That is how things work.

If you think about what I have said above, then it follows that one of the principal things an adviser should do for any client, is to suggest a course of action that keeps the client out of court.

Court is a place of last resort. Litigation of any kind is expensive, brings uncertainty, is time consuming and acts as a barrier to unfettered and uninterrupted business planning, strategy and progress because no one can ever be sure of the outcome or the consequences of a court case.
In olden days, court meant choosing your champion to fight against your adversary’s champion. If your guy knocked the other guy of the horse and killed him outright with the lance then you won. It didn’t matter if your guy was also hit with your opponents lance and died a week later as a result – you were still the winner because the other guy died first.

Eventually, society did away with such courts and replaced them with courts of law and the men and women with wigs and gowns as opposed to the lance.

However, you can still win a court battle and suffer a fatal defeat as a consequence.
That is why a court of law should always be regarded as a place of last resort. No one should ever set out on a course of action which runs a high risk of ending up being disputed in court.

Sometimes, of course, a court action is inevitable. On other occasions, people adopt a course of action where the risk of things ending up in court is seen an as an acceptable risk.

This morning’s Daily Record ( and indeed yesterday’s edition ) is spouting David Murray’s mantra that HMRC knifed Rangers but adds there are no winners here. How very MSM. How very lacking in business understanding or searching for the truth.

So, let me explain something.

When you sit down with a firm of accountants who specialise in aggressive tax avoidance schemes such as an EBT scheme or a DOS scheme, one of the things that are spelt out to you is that the scheme you are about to embark upon may well be, indeed is likely to be, challenged in a court of law. Especially if you do not administer it to the letter.

Often as not, the client will be asked to sign up to a contract which specifies that the client will pay hefty fees to lawyers and accountants for setting up the scheme and that fee will include a contribution towards legal fees arising in the event of a legal challenge to the scheme.

That is stipulated at the very outset. You pay £x in advance because you know you are likely to be sued. You also get the benefit of advice which is designed to ensure that your scheme is absolutely watertight in terms of the law, but crucially, there is a rider which states that in the event that the court rules against you then the accountants or lawyers will not be held accountable as you are entering into the whole process knowing that there is a big risk of litigation – and you are told in writing that while you shouldn’t lose, you might lose.

This too is the way it works.

The business advisers will not want litigation, but from the outset they will cover their backs and make it plain to the client that if you sign on the dotted line for an aggressive tax avoidance scheme then you can expect HMRC to take you to court.

Accordingly, the protestations screaming out from the Daily Record this morning about how HMRC killed Rangers are balderdash and bunkum of the highest order.

HMRC did not knife Rangers, they did exactly what was expected of them in the circumstances and the people at MIH knew that the day they started off on any one of their tax avoidance schemes.
Taking the risk in the first place killed Rangers or Rangers PLC if you prefer.

However, the events of yesterday and the day before throw up some other matters worth considering and remembering.

The first is the woeful state of the Rangers accounts by 2005 when there had been yet another share issue underwritten by David Murray. Those accounts showed Rangers PLC to be in a shocking financial state, despite all the rhetoric and dressing from the Directors and the Accountants.

More or less immediately Murray chose to put the club up for sale as it was obvious that the financial traincrash could simply not continue.

However, despite years of searching no buyer could be found.

Further, it should also be remembered that Rangers PLC knew all about the small tax case long before Craig Whyte came along. Those liabilities stemmed from around 2001 but at no time during the Murray era at Ibrox did Sir David put aside the money to pay a bill which no one at Rangers disputed as being due at any time.

Whyte stressed the need for this to be paid long before he ever got the keys to the Marble Staircase, but it wasn’t and there can be only one of two reasons for that.

Either Sir David just didn’t pay the bill concerned ….. or he couldn’t!

The fact is that long before Craig Whyte appeared David Murray could have paid that bill or reached an agreement to pay that bill. However he didn’t and for a period of several years he simply decided he wanted out …. Needed out ….. at any cost!

There is no doubt that he gambled hard and fast with Rangers Football Club, and their finances and their supporters loyalties. He knew , or ought to have known, well in advance that a prolonged and regularly used aggressive tax avoidance scheme, legal or not, was bound to attract the adverse interest and attention of HMRC.

Sir David Murray has been lauded up and down the country for his so called business acumen and business knowledge. He was knighted for the same and received all sorts of unprecedented backing from banks and other institutions.

Does anyone reading this really believe that such a man did not have the foresight, or the advisers around him who had the foresight, to see and know that a large and prolonged dispute with the revenue authorities may well have an adverse effect on the viability and sellability of his business?
Such a suggestion is simply not credible.

Further when the HMRC interest came, Murray’s men, if not Murray himself, did their very best to try and hide the existence of the scheme, the documents surrounding the scheme, the details of the scheme and the intention of the scheme.

They hid all this away from HMRC, The SFA, The SPL and anyone else in authority, with the result that those authorities and bodies had no option but to run to the courts, set up tribunals and convene formal hearings.

When someone does not tell you the truth, starts hiding documents and obfuscating that is the way it works.

However, that is not all that yesterday brought.

The news that Collier Bristow have apparently agreed ( through their insurers no doubt ) to pay the liquidator of Rangers some £20M shows that taking into account the litigation risk, someone somewhere thought it worth making a payment to make a bad situation go away.
Imagine that? What bad situation could that be?

Would it be that somehow or other, creditors, officials and all sorts of other people were misled by a leading firm of solicitors in relation to the affairs of Rangers PLC? Could it really be the case that things were so bad financially at Ibrox, that the only way for even Whyte to be able to get the sale to go through at the princely sum of £1 plus the official bank debt was to have his people mislead funders and eventual creditors?

What does that say about David Murray’s stewardship and the absolute urgent need to get Lloyds TSB out of the picture? Was there really no one else or no other way to take on the debts of Rangers PLC? Apparently not — and that can only be because someone chose to gamble with the finances of the club and leave it in a precarious state.

I am told that when Lloyds took over that account they expressed amazement at how MIH and Rangers PLC were allowed to run up the debts they had with HBOS. Apparently there was incredulity at some of the figures and covenants.

So , when we read in the Record this morning that the HMRC Big Tax case inadvertently brought down Rangers it is very easy to overlook the debt due to the bank, how it arose, the sums due to the same bank through MIH, the extent of the sums due, the banks attitude and the possible attitude and course of action had Whyte not taken them away.

Remember that the same bank stepped straight into MIH and began selling off its assets, and that low and behold the same management team who engineered the EBT scheme have openly admitted that there is an unexplained shortfall in the employees’ pension scheme of over £20 Million.

Do you think the employees who have lost out on pension provision are the slightest concerned about whether the tax avoidance scheme funds and their use are legal or not ? – or do you think they might argue that the money used for these so called “discretionary payments” should have been used to fund a proper legally constituted pension scheme which the company and its directors undertook to pay into under contract?

There is still substantial debt due to Lloyds by MIH and part of that debt is the amount by which David Murray and MIH underwrote and guaranteed that last share issue of Rangers PLC in 2004/2005. The principal sum due under that guarantee ( excluding interest and charges ) was greater than the principal sum claimed by HMRC in the big tax case.

Go figure.

However, this saga is far from over especially with regard to “contractually due” severance payments which look as if they will come back to the FTT in the event of the parties concerned not reaching agreement on the tax allegedly due.

Now, this is interesting because apparently there are a number of documents in existence which show that certain players received a payment of £x at the end of their contract as part of a severance deal.

At the time these were made, my recollection is that under normal severance agreement legislation the first £30,000 would be tax free but after that any sums were taxable.

The FTT has never been asked to rule on these payments, and has never heard any evidence about the legality or otherwise of paying these sums gross of tax into an offshore trust. All of that may yet be to come.

However, the most interesting part of this for me is that further court action may be taken in relation to these matters failing agreement between HMRC… and whom?

Rangers PLC ( the employer ) is in Liquidation so perhaps HMRC might claim some of the money from the Liquidator who has just received the £20M from Collier Bristow – then again it could well be that Ticketus have something to say about that.

In his last statement about MIH, David Murray openly proclaimed that the company was all but finished and revealed the pension shortfall and so on – so I doubt if any agreement of any meaning will be reached there.

That then leaves those who supposedly benefited from the contractually due severance payments – namely the players.

Maybe, in the absence of a now defunct employer, they will be asked to cough up the tax.

No doubt they will all go and consult their lawyers and accountants – the men and woman of business – who will give them their best advice – but you can bet your bottom dollar that any such advice will include a paragraph or ten which starts something along the lines of “ However, here is the potential risk in the event of you deciding to …………. “

That is the way it works……. And always has done.

About the author

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

1,546 Comments so far

easyJamboPosted on11:41 am - Aug 8, 2014


The SFA have announced Tony McGlennan as a replacement for Vincent Lunney. I hope he proves to have a more consistent approach to investigations and sanctions than his predecessor.

http://scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsID=13575&newsCategoryID=1

Scottish FA appoint new Compliance Officer

Friday, 08 August 2014

The Scottish FA is pleased to confirm that Tony McGlennan has been appointed as our new Compliance Officer, replacing the outgoing Vincent Lunny.

Tony joins from the criminal law firm, Penmans, with whom he has been a Partner since 1998, having joined the company in 1996. He is a solicitor advocate who has conducted criminal litigation at all levels of the court structure, including the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.

Tony has a keen interest in football, having played at amateur level for a number of years. He is currently a volunteer coach to young footballers and holds coaching certificates in the Scottish FA’s youth coaching pathway.

Tony will begin his new role next month and engage in a handover period with the outgoing Compliance Officer.

Andrew McKinlay, Scottish FA Director of Football Governance and Regulation:

“I am delighted that we have been able to attract someone with Tony’s credentials and wealth of experience to this role. As everyone knows, this is a hugely important and challenging position in Scottish football, one which comes with a great deal of pressure, and I am absolutely certain that Tony will be an asset to the organisation and the game.

“I would also like to thank Vincent for his excellent work during his three years with the Scottish FA. On behalf of the staff and colleagues at the Scottish FA I would like to wish him the very best in his future plans.”

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:43 am - Aug 8, 2014


coineanachantaighe says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:50 am
“This from the Herald:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/fans-accuse-the-taxman-of-witch-hunt-against-rangers.24987451
—–
——————-
Yes, coineanachantaighe, I clocked that article. But I concentrated more on the line where Williams says “…the decision to put Rangers in the Third Division as punishment.”
And I cannot let that go. That master propagandist, Josef Goebbels, well understood that constant, loud insistent repetition of a really big Lie can pay dividends.We need to challenge the Lie always and everywhere where it appears. Even if it appears in west of Scotland broadsheets.
Hence another email:

“To martin.williams@heraldandtimes.co.uk
Today at 11:09 AM
Dear Mr Williams,
I see you are part of the propaganda machine which consistently distorts the truth in relation to all things to do with RFC(IL) and RIFC plc.

You know that RFC(IL) lost its entitlement to be in the SPL, as a direct consequence of the cheating of its majority shareholder. You know it therefore lost its entitlement to membership of the SFA. You know that it died as a sports entity, existing in the limbo of Liquidation while the liquidators try to clear up the dirty financial mess it left.
You know that a new club, initially called Sevco Scotland was set up.
You know that like any new club, it had to apply for membership of a league.
You know the SPL did not accept the new club.
And you know that only by dint of a dirty wee deal was it allowed into the 3rd division, and subsequently granted SFA membership.
Knowing these things, why not tell the plain, unvarnished truth, instead of acting as a cheap public relations person?
Better still, why continue to work as a ‘journalist’ at all if you have such a cavalier attitude to truth?
You are no Chapman Pincher, and your loss to journalism would be of great benefit to the football loving public of Scotland.
Yours sincerely,
John Clark

View Comment

Carl31Posted on11:47 am - Aug 8, 2014


Apols if this info is covered already.

Last night on Twitter I was linked to a KDS post … (Barcabhoy from memory??)
There is a difference in wording of the UEFA rules between a suspended player and an ineligible player. The rules on one allow UEFA leeway, but on the other there is none.

A club that fields a ‘suspended’ player forfeits the tie and 3-0 awarded to the opponents. End of.

‘Ineligible’example… the Sion issue was that players transferred during the club’s a UEFA transfer ban were fielded. Nothing under the rules had them as ‘suspended’, but they werent eligible.
In the Sion instance and other instances not involving a suspended player, UEFA had/have leeway to decide what the punishment should be.
Since Legia Warsaw fielded a ‘suspended’ player, there is no leeway. The tie is forfeit and 3-0 is the awarded score.

Much as there may be opinion that a lesser punishment is more appropriate, UEFA would need to do an SFA and ‘make-it-up-as-they-go-along’ to do so. Given what this forum (and many other fora), and the greatest majority of its contributors, has been doing is to continually and rightly make it clear that the rules should be applied consistently for the good of the game, I would have thought that would also be the case here.

I am of the opinion that rules are rules. It is correct that the rules have been applied and Celtic are through, regardless of how obviously better LW played than them. Where there are set consequences, it is not proper for rules to be adapted as seen fit on some judgement call of the specific circumstances.

On the issue of whether the St Pats games should have counted as serving the suspension, I would presume that LW had to register their squad which would have a limited number of slots. A player serving a suspension for a red last season would need to take up one of these slots for the club to effectively suffer some kind of loss or sanction arising from the red card suspension. If this did not happen – and LW filled the allocated number of registered player slots on the squad sheet – then LW were yet to suffer consequences /loss/sanction for the player’s red card.
In terms of consistency throughout the game/competitions, it is important that these sanctions effectively act as some kind of disincentive to red cards. It is important that the rules are applied when such situations arise.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:55 am - Aug 8, 2014


Out of interest, what would happen if a player was named in (in this example) the squad for the St Pats game to clear suspension and sat on the bench injured in full leg plaster, clearly unplayable? Presumably that would count in so far as he is denying the team the chance to name another fit player instead.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on11:56 am - Aug 8, 2014


Interesting slant on the possibility of Legia winning their appeal
From KDS

Legia have literally no chance with appeal I would think. If successful they would take on our seeded status and thus have gained an advantage by breaking the rules. I highly doubt uefa will allow that loophole to open up.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on11:57 am - Aug 8, 2014


A couple of days ago, the headlines screamed “how much did HMRC know about Craig Whyte before he bought rangers”, with the blatant inference that the information held should have been dutifully passed to the seller and all in sundry. Today HMRC are being castigated for alleged “leaks” regarding Rangers tax affairs. A severe case of double standards to say the least.

I have also read that the decision by HMRC to pursue the case (Regina v MIH),is down to the necessity of achieving a high profile victory. Considering that HMRC have already won cases against celebrities like Gary Barlow and others, I find this argument nonsensical.
HMRC will continue to fight on the basis of right and fairness for all taxpayers large or small, whether we like it or not.

With regard to “leaks”, it is totally against the codes of practice in the Civil Service to breach confidentiality.That is not to say it never happens, but what obviously hurts some in this case, is the apparent accuracy of the of the “leaks”.

What price the truth?

View Comment

coineanachantaighePosted on12:10 pm - Aug 8, 2014


RyanGosling says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:02 am
==============================
First we can’t be sure where all the information was coming from. Some could have come from inside Ibrox, for instance, we don’t know.

Second the way the article is worded it pretty well suggests HMRC leaked material deliberately for which there is absolutely no evidence. Now it is just possible that an employee in HMRC leaked some evidence – as well as other folk elsewhere but that does not equate to an HMRC plot as is implied by those quoted in the article and is indeed implied by the article as it just lumps this accusation in with the general HMRC were persecuting Rangers accusation.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:20 pm - Aug 8, 2014


A new income stream for Rangers?

According to the Ticketmaster site, it seems that the Albion Car Park is about to be used for drive in movies, I kid you not.

http://m.ticketmaster.co.uk/ticket/search.do?articles=tmuk&query=albion+car&submit=

View Comment

nawlitePosted on12:24 pm - Aug 8, 2014


I’m conflicted by the Legia issue. Being on this forum because I am a great believer in fairness, I want to see rules that are clear and unambiguous with real consequences for those who break those rules. If UEFA’s rules are as clear cut as they appear, then they are right to exclude Legia and reinstate Celtic. I do not want UEFA to do an SFA and bend or disregard the rules and consequences. (As a side issue, I wondere how they would react if this were Real Madrid or Batern Munich).

However, when a team has won fairly and squarely without the input of that suspended player, I don’t think it’s fair that the rules mean they are not allowed to progress because of an error that really didn’t matter in terms of the result.

So I’m left in a quandary – follow the rules because everyone knew them before the start of the tournament, so that’s fair or bend/ignore the rules because the result was fair.

On balance, I feel I NEED to support the rules as they stand – otherwise it opens the door to gerrymandering and bias. I don’t want that, so am glad that UEFA have acted as they do.

That still leaves me feeling that Legia have been at least unfortunate, but I can’t support their reinstatement because that prejudices the rules.

I am still left feeling that Celtic don’t deserve to benefit from this error. They aren’t able to force UEFA to reinstate Legia and, as I said, I wouldn’t want them to, but I honestly think they should take the moral high ground and now work with UEFA to find a way to ‘resign’ from the competition in a way that doesn’t cause problems for UEFA/the other teams. I’m pretty sure they won’t (money talks), but I think it would send such a strong message throughout the football world that their reputation would be enhanced. It would be great if such an act could be a catalyst for change in the business world of football, but I can dream, can’t I?

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:31 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Just catching up on the Legia thing and if honest slightly embarrassed as a celtic fan.. A player on for 4 mins when we were hammered and they are kicked out seems unfair to me… Bryson needs a job at UEFA…

But seriously I feel gutted for legia..

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:34 pm - Aug 8, 2014


@Easyjambo
According to the Ticketmaster site, it seems that the Albion Car Park is about to be used for drive in movies, I kid you not.

Must be horror films starring CW and CG..

Maybe they will show games from the past 2 seasons, that would be a killer..

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:37 pm - Aug 8, 2014


@Smugas
Out of interest, what would happen if a player was named in (in this example) the squad for the St Pats game to clear suspension and sat on the bench injured in full leg plaster, clearly unplayable? Presumably that would count in so far as he is denying the team the chance to name another fit player instead.

The way celtic played against Legia the men in plaster would still have a good chance of winning agin celtic

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on12:38 pm - Aug 8, 2014


If, say, the two Celtic v Legia ties had finished with the Poles winning,due to a controversial penalty.

It was then discovered that they had fielded a suspended player.

Would there be the same outpouring of sympathy for the club in breach of the rules?

Do we wish to introduce the SPFL clause of “discretion” to the specific rule covering suspended players?

Celtic have no reason to feel embarrassed by this decision.

All the embarrassment was felt over the two games!!

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:49 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Seems to me that the red tops have a new selling policy, look for a certain citizenry, aim for the largest, most gullible and write any Sh!te you want that massages their beliefs and views. Forget delving into real story lines and fact just print what is needed to sell the paper.. Fictitious nonsense claiming exclusives for stories that are week’s old.. The end is nigh and I am not sure there are enough jobs at rangers to house all the big Journos…

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on12:53 pm - Aug 8, 2014


So if Legia would have scored one of those pens in the first leg they would still have gotten through and with playing a suspended player?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:54 pm - Aug 8, 2014


easyJambo says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:20 pm

Could be a nice little earner in years to come, do your shopping in the brand new Tesco Superstore – then drive across the street to take in a movie. Ibrox, where families that shop together, watch movies together…

View Comment

scarecrow666Posted on12:59 pm - Aug 8, 2014


I have to say that while I agree that rules are rules and Celtic should be brought back into the competition, it’s a bit harsh to suspend the player for an extra game. It wasn’t his fault he wasn’t registered for the other games, surely it’s the club that should be punished.
Side note: put another donation in but I need another podcast fix! 😆

Thanks for that scarecrow666.
Not to be a tease, but there is one in the works – and it is pretty explosive.
TSFM

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:02 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Cruel and Unusal

The Legia decision is harsh to the point of cruelty – although technically correct by the book. Why are football administrators unable to create rules that lead to punishments that fit the crime? Why are they unable to sit down and work out simple scenarios to test their rules are fair and reasonable? Why are so many football administrators of such poor quality?

A hefty cash fine would have been appropriate for an offence that was purely technical and could not possibly have impacted the result to their advantage. Pure incompetence by the rule makers and those that applying them. UEFA is not fit for purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on1:07 pm - Aug 8, 2014


mcfc says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:21 am

Expelled for fielding one ineligible player for a few minutes of a tie they’d won by a mile – what kind of justice is that?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sans Bryson justice!

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on1:14 pm - Aug 8, 2014


mcfc says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:02 pm
0 1 Rate This

You are assuming that the breach was purely technical.
It was more probable that it was done to ensure that they could have a full complement of 25 players available for the St. Pat’s game.

How are UEFA to determine what is an Honest Mistake and what is a cynical breach of the rules.

The rules are clear. You must be registered to be suspended and if you are suspended, then you can’t play.

This is not a pub league and one must assume that club secretaries are fully aware of the rules.

We have enough trouble in this country with loose, ad hoc interpretation of the rules, without the well meaning Corinthian principles being adopted in this case.

Had Celtic fallen foul of this rule, the pitchfork bearers would be marching up The Celtic Way, as we speak (type).

Let’s hear it for the Rule Book.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:23 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Big Pink

There are two aspects to this tactical and strategic.

Both involve protecting sporting integrity.

At a tactical level it should be viewed as an honest mistake offence a misunderstanding of the rules and a fine would be appropriate.
Feelings are obviously playing a part because in sporting terms Celtic got deservedly humped.

However at a strategical level UEFA have a responsibility to protect the sporting integrity across the European football scene and the main device for doing so is the rules. Start to undermine your own clearly written rules and you have a problem for the next time.

It’s “the referee’s decision is final” line in the sand thinking that UEFA just do not want to cross to protect sporting integrity of UEFA competition.

Compare and contrast that with the SFA’S approach where there is no equivalent of Article 12 of FFP to stop clubs phoenixing or the steps the SFA and SPL went to to come up with a result on player registration that seriously undermines the deterrent value in the registration rules.

What the UEFA decision says is that upholding the strategic intent of protecting sporting integrity is more important than one club or one/ two matches.

Now had that approach been taken by the SFA there would be no need for this blog.

Putting my Celtic hat back on and knowing how UEFA FFP was circumvented in 2011 by lies to HMRC and possibly UEFA I am glad to see karma at work again.

Funny thing is it always seems to involve Maribor, so maybe more karma to come there.

I do feel sorry for Legia though.

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on1:28 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Much chatter on Twitter that one Mr Charles Green is commenting that Rangers are in a mess and that he is going to come back with a big investor to turn things around.

Some of the tweets noted that his had been reported on Radio (Clyde?) earlier this afternoon.

View Comment

spanishceltPosted on1:30 pm - Aug 8, 2014


nawlite says:

August 8, 2014 at 12:24 pm

I am still left feeling that Celtic don’t deserve to benefit from this error. They aren’t able to force UEFA to reinstate Legia and, as I said, I wouldn’t want them to, but I honestly think they should take the moral high ground and now work with UEFA to find a way to ‘resign’ from the competition in a way that doesn’t cause problems for UEFA/the other teams. I’m pretty sure they won’t (money talks), but I think it would send such a strong message throughout the football world that their reputation would be enhanced. It would be great if such an act could be a catalyst for change in the business world of football, but I can dream, can’t I
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Maybe be better if they continued in the c.l. and qualified for the group stages while donating a very large percentage of the extra income to charity

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:31 pm - Aug 8, 2014


ThomTheThim says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Let’s hear it for the Rule Book.
==============================
Totally disagree. Punishment needs to be proportionate and consistently applied. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. This is not proportionate and I expect it is not consistent with past and future decisions.

Proportionality does not imply “loose, ad hoc interpretation of the rules”. It means intelligently drawn up rules applied intelligently for the benefit of the game and its integrity.

What goes around comes around – you gained this time – so remember that when you get transported for stealing an apple for your hungry child.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:43 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Auldheid says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:23 pm
‘..What the UEFA decision says is that upholding the strategic intent of protecting sporting integrity is more important than one club or one/ two matches.

Now had that approach been taken by the SFA there would be no need for this blog.’
——–
100% correct.
And for as long as the SFA remains unrepentant, this blog has to keep hammering away.

40 years ago today, the lying President Nixon was eventually nailed by persistent searchers for truth.
The SFA are not ( except perhaps in their own minds) as mighty and powerful as the president of the USA.
They can be, and will be, found out.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:49 pm - Aug 8, 2014


mcfc says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:31 pm
‘..What goes around comes around – you gained this time – so remember that when you get transported for stealing an apple for your hungry child.’
—–
What kind of remark is that meant to be? Humourous? Rancorous? Either way, it’s a bit out of place, don’t you think?

View Comment

Carl31Posted on1:54 pm - Aug 8, 2014


nawlite says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:24 pm

“I am still left feeling that Celtic don’t deserve to benefit from this error. They aren’t able to force UEFA to reinstate Legia and, as I said, I wouldn’t want them to, but I honestly think they should take the moral high ground and now work with UEFA to find a way to ‘resign’ from the competition in a way that doesn’t cause problems for UEFA/the other teams.”

They could effectively ‘resign’ by continuing with the same players and same coach playing the same system in the same manner with the same conviction.
🙂

View Comment

mcfcPosted on2:02 pm - Aug 8, 2014


John Clark says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:49 pm
What kind of remark is that meant to be? Humourous? Rancorous? Either way, it’s a bit out of place, don’t you think?
=============================
Not at all – random justice is random justice.

While Legia are punished (and Celtic rewarded) for stealing an apple, big clubs like Man City are laughing and running rings around UEFA’s finest. All they need to do is employ smarter administrators and lawyer than UEFA – not difficult.

Twas ever thus, the little guy makes a mistake or break a small rule and gets clobbered , the big guys might fight back so they get consulted and accommodated.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:05 pm - Aug 8, 2014


I suppose the decision made by UEFA re Legia show how much ‘sporting advantage’ should be taken into consideration when adjudicating over rule breaches. LNS somehow found that multiple, season long, breaches of the rules, re registration, didn’t provide a sporting advantage in order to justify no sporting sanctions, while UEFA don’t even consider the blatant lack of sporting advantage in 4 minutes of a 2 leg tie with a 6-1 aggregate score to be of any consequence whatsoever.

I think what we see with this UEFA ruling makes it clear that it doesn’t matter that no advantage was gained, or sought, but what actually matters is that the rules were broken.

What this case also seems to show is that UEFA view any errors in registration make a player ineligible, regardless of all other considerations.

View Comment

TorquemadaPosted on2:11 pm - Aug 8, 2014


If this situation had been exactly reversed, and a dominant Celtic team had demolished Legia 6-1 on aggregate only to go out because of bureaucratic incompetence, I can assure you that no Celtic fan I know would be whimpering and handwringing about the injustice of it all.

Rather, we would be enraged at our own officials and demanding heads, not bleating about perceived unfairness and calling for rules to be bent. There has been enough of that in Scottish football.

It’s called being accountable.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on2:13 pm - Aug 8, 2014


What do think the first movie at the Albion will be
The Sting
Jungle book
Apocalypse then apocalypse now apocalypse forever
Blues Brothers

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on2:14 pm - Aug 8, 2014


In the absence of a Bryson Interpretation of the UEFA rules Legia should point out that it was The Company that owns the club and not the club itself that broke the rules.

The Company decided to play the player. The club received no sporting advantage. Any punishment should be handed to The Company and not the club who, as we all know, have been punished enough.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on2:39 pm - Aug 8, 2014


August 8, 2014 at 2:13 pm
What do think the first movie at the Albion will be
===================================
All The President’s Men
Blue Ruin
The Expendables
True Lies
Bad News Bears
Unforgiven
I Know What You Did Last Summer (and the one before that)

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on2:49 pm - Aug 8, 2014


What if…

Celtic lose to Maribor and so drop into the Europa League, then somehow manage to make the final?

Against Legia.

In Warsaw!

😳

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on2:57 pm - Aug 8, 2014


August 8, 2014 at 2:13 pm
What do think the first movie at the Albion will be
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When does Craig Whyte’s film come out?

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/craig-whyte-sells-rangers-book-and-film-rights-1-2898764

View Comment

bluPosted on3:03 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Torquemada says:
August 8, 2014 at 2:11 pm

Torquemada, you and others (Big Pink etc.) have shown a commendable spirit of fair play and embarrassment at this outcome for Celtic. Were the situation to be exactly reversed though I’ve no doubt that the overwhelming very loud noise from the wider Celtic support would be that it wasn’t fair and the club should continue in the tournament. I’d guess that the club’s expert administrator would be given a P45 and that even the CEO’s job would be at risk. I’d speculate that people on here would conclude that sometimes the rules are really annoying but are there for a reason, and have to be observed.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on3:06 pm - Aug 8, 2014


paulsatim says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:07 pm
5 1 Rate This

mcfc says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:21 am

Expelled for fielding one ineligible player for a few minutes of a tie they’d won by a mile – what kind of justice is that?

…….

They were not Expelled
The player was not Ineligible
They Forfeited the game for Fielding a Suspended player
The only ppl to blame in this whole affair are LW they knew the rules

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on3:37 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Legia chairman suggesting Celtic should refuse to accept the ruling and follow ‘fair play’ rules.. I see where the guy is coming from and feel for his club but two wrongs do not make a right and why should Celtic put themselves in a position for Uefa to punish them through no fault of their own…

In my boy’s team I have had boys suspended mainly thru stupid refereeing decisions but dems the rules and when I have been in doubt of said rulings it usually only requires a phone call for clarity/confirmation.. Berg is the man to blame no one else.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:54 pm - Aug 8, 2014


As discussed earlier the Celtic board have a duty to their shareholders and the potential to reach the lucrative group stages is still there.

My guess is that despite all that has been said about sporting integrity etc Celtic will remain silent until after UEFA have heard the appeal and will just accept the end decision either way saying it had nothing to do with them.

If they go through a nicely worded statement along the lines of adhering to UEFA rules, acknowledging they got humped by the better team and wishing Legia Warsaw all the best will probably do the trick.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on4:01 pm - Aug 8, 2014


wottpi says:
August 8, 2014 at 3:54 pm
===================
Although nothing is certain,it’s hard to see Uefa overturning there decision.The rule left no leeway for anyone to challenge.
Legia have cocked it up big time and they know it.An appeal is just a face saving exercise.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on4:01 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Odjob
What was it
The invisible men
Thats an SFA movie

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on4:05 pm - Aug 8, 2014


@WOTTPI The manager has come out already and said it was harsh, he feels for Legia and it was all UEFA’s digging, there was no interaction with Celtic.. Regards sporting integrity I don’t see how celtic are at fault with that… Abiding by the rules, playing to the rules and complying in competition rules shirley covers sporting integrity for the most part. Just my opinion.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on4:13 pm - Aug 8, 2014


“Junot” = humour!!

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:35 pm - Aug 8, 2014


oddjob says:
August 8, 2014 at 4:08 pm

Folks it really has to be the wonderful Alex Guinness, in the Man in the White Suit. Renamed the Men in the Whyte Suits for the occasion. ‘Cos no matter how dirty the dealings the men who run (sic) Scottish Football get involved in, nothing sticks to them. :mrgreen:

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:42 pm - Aug 8, 2014


On how UEFA apply their rules the case of Malaga FC’s overdue payable to the Spanish Authorities in 2012 is interesting.

Malaga admitted to having an unpaid tax bill at 30th June 2012 under Article 66 of UEFA FFP. They however claimed exemption on the basis that the Spanish Taxman operated in such a way that Malaga were subject to the peculiarities of the Spanish tax authority’s process and the bill was not overdue at 30th June and discussions were part of that process.

(This was similar to a reason given by S Regan in a draft he ran past Rangers in Dec 2011 in response to public demand to explain how Rangers has a UEFA licence when Sheriff Officers called to collect in August of that year.

That draft never got published for unknown reasons but Rangers clearly were not happy with it and invited Regan and Campbell Ogilvie to dinner to discuss that and various matters. Aye him again. Anyone see a common factor here?)

Any hoo Malaga did say they had an overdue payable which was a breach of FFP Indicator 4 and that triggered the enquiry by UEFA that led to a fine and a future ban in the following season.

Malaga appealed but the Court of Arbitration of Sport upheld that UEFA rules had to be capable of practice across the full European football spectrum and not subject to the vagaries of local tax rules and that as there was an overdue payable at 30th June 2012 and none of the conditions for exemption applied as defined by UEFA Malaga were in breach of UEFA FFP and would continue to be until the tax was paid ( as it later was).

Why UEFA did not act in similar fashion with Rangers in July of the previous year is what Resolution 12 to the Celtic 2013 aims to uncover but the point is this.

UEFA seriously guard the integrity of the game through the application of their rules and cannot risk weakening that protection by reducing the deterrent value of their rules.

Only Celtic voluntary withdrawing would relieve UEFA of their responsibility but not sure what provision exists to do this other than depend on a sense of honour.

Given that Celtic might have good case that they were denied a CL opportunity in 2011 for reasons that are still unclear, it could be understood if they treat this as one of those “these things balance themselves out ” cases.

Life does have a funny way of delivering it’s moral dilemmas.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on4:47 pm - Aug 8, 2014


tcup 2012 says:
August 8, 2014 at 3:06 pm
Expelled for fielding one ineligible player for a few minutes of a tie they’d won by a mile – what kind of justice is that?
============
Try the other end of the stick – I was paraphrasing an indignant bear – http://www.tsfm.net/the-way-it-works/comment-page-20/#comment-26773

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on5:04 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:32 am
24 2 Rate This

Barcabhoy – you mentioned secured loan notes and CVA control. Secured creditors do not get a vote in a CVA.

——————-

Thanks for clarifying. The Ticketus case caused me some confusion. They were claiming security over the tickets or they claimed to own the tickets. ?

I thought they were a creditor and had a vote. I guess the court must have said you own nothing and have no security , so vote away.

On Legia, of course you have to feel enormous sympathy for them. There was no intention to cheat, no intention to deceive. Much like Spartans

The punishment does seem harsh , but what if the guy had come on after 10 minutes , due to injury and scored a winning goal or made a goal line clearance to win the tie

It’s their own fault , it’s horrible for them , their play deserved better. But Uefa had no choice , none . The rules are explicit

Of course it’s galling that a club who went out of their way to deceive and cheat were offered sanctuary and no significant punishment by a compliant SFA & SPL.

Hopefully that scandalous wrong will be righted one day

View Comment

hectorPosted on5:07 pm - Aug 8, 2014


This is out there and not sure if it has been mentioned . http://www.clyde1.com/superscoreboard/green-eyeing-ibrox-return/#.U-Tt0UrIw-o.twitter. I hope it is true as I miss Charles. 😆

View Comment

ekt1mPosted on5:14 pm - Aug 8, 2014


I have been on this blog since RTC started up, and I can’t remember when so much ‘moral high ground’ taking has been the norm. As we see every day that £millions are spent to find ways to circumvent taxation rules,in all professional football clubs worldwide officials are trying to find ways around Fifa, Uefa and their own association rules. To gain an advantage is not against the rules, but to bend or break the rules to do so is illegal. Legia Warsaw kept their player’s name off the 25 man list to Uefa so they would have an extra player available if necessary. Their company secretary would know the rules, I do not believe that he would be so obtuse. Just my opinion.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on5:15 pm - Aug 8, 2014


hector says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:07 pm
2 0 Rate This

This is out there and not sure if it has been mentioned . http://www.clyde1.com/superscoreboard/green-eyeing-ibrox-return/#.U-Tt0UrIw-o.twitter. I hope it is true as I miss Charles.
———

I just posted the same (managed to delete it) when I saw yours.

Where did this one come from? Green and Soros? Help ma boab!!

Someone’s having a laugh, surely.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:19 pm - Aug 8, 2014


hector says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:07 pm

Keith Jackson will be along any minute with an exclusive about a genuine Billionaire with off the radar wealth.

George Soros and Charles Green, that’s a combination that makes Rangers and the Dallas Cowboys sound plausible.

You’ve got to love Old Chuckles, though Regan is probably reaching for the Remegels as we speak :mrgreen:

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on5:26 pm - Aug 8, 2014


mcfc says:
August 8, 2014 at 4:47 pm
1 0 Rate This

tcup 2012 says:
August 8, 2014 at 3:06 pm
Expelled for fielding one ineligible player for a few minutes of a tie they’d won by a mile – what kind of justice is that?
============
Try the other end of the stick – I was paraphrasing an indignant bear – http://www.tsfm.net/the-way-it-works/comment-page-20/#comment-26773
……

My apologies I never seen your earlier post 🙁
I feel like a LW official :'(

View Comment

hectorPosted on5:27 pm - Aug 8, 2014


@ Danish Pastry If i was a sceptic I would guess it was a PR smoke and mirrors stunt to take the bears minds and eyes off something else. It is so over the top and insane it may just be true but Charles has form for this sort of thing with The Dallas Cowboys and Central Coast Mariners just two examples.We also have Dave King back in the mix so it does smell a bit like a PR stunt and with the Celtic story it would be a good day to lose some bad news about Rangers. :mrgreen:

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on5:28 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Our new compliance officer has wasted little time before issuing a notice of complaint.

http://scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=13579

Interestingly it’s a case of a “good faith” and “fit and proper person” complaint against Livingston shareholder Neil Rankine, who apparently also has interests in East Fife and Dumbarton.

A “fit and proper person test”? I didn’t think that the SFA needed such a test. 🙂

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:29 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Budapest Born Billionaire

Charles: George I’ve got this great money making deal for you.

George: That’s great Chuck – how much down and how much back

Charles: Ten million down and millions back

George: When’s the return

Charles: Probably before your 100th birthday

George: What’s the surety

Charles: A world famous training ground – it’s been used by Barcelona and lots of others

George: Ten billion, you say, it’ll take a while to get that together.

Charles: No, ten million.

George: Chuck, I don’t get out of bed for less than a hundred million.

Charles: But George you’re a billionaire, can’t you gamble a few million

George: Look Chuck, you get to be a billionaire by investing, net gambling on half-arse deals with half arse chancers.

Charles: George, are you still there. George

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:32 pm - Aug 8, 2014


tcup 2012 says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:26 pm
My apologies I never seen your earlier post 🙁
I feel like a LW official :’(
===================
No worries mate 🙂

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on5:39 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Clyde Sport now claiming Soro is going to offer a Whopping 20p a share 😀
Or a loan with 5%intrest secured against MP

View Comment

BangordubPosted on5:51 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Phils take on Gorgeous George and cheeky Charlie:
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/soros-so-wrong-so-far/#more-4938

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on6:09 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Barcabhoy

I was always a bit confused about what Ticketus actually thought they had. What they had was a right that would have been recognised as a right in property in English law if the property in question was in England (or at least that is what the English “expert” who gave evidence in the Court action said). But the property in question was not in England, it was in Govan, and to create any right in property in Govan you have to do it by way of something that is recognised in Scotland as a property right.

What Ticketus had was not a right that was recognised by Scots law. From memory they claimed to have some form of licence for some of the seats (or some other nonsense).

This takes us back to previous conversations about the possible nature of these “onerous contracts” – you know the ones that we are told would survive an administration.

You see, if Ticketus had been successful, they would have been able to “survive” administration because (if their argument had been valid) they would have had what we call a “real” right in the property (well in certain seats in the property if I recall correctly). Real rights have to be distinguished from personal rights in the Scottish legal system. I have a real right in anything I own or have security over. If you agree to sell me your car, but default in doing so, I have only a personal right against you (a claim for breach of contract)- I do not have a real right in the car.

One way of looking at this is that a real right is a right that can be asserted against the whole world whereas a personal right can only be asserted against the contractual counterparty.

So Ticketus had a personal right against Oldco. Had they had a real right in the seats (as they argued) then no one (including an administrator) could take that away from them.

The question for me has always been – how did it come to pass that Ticketus failed to take Scots legal advice at the time of entering into the deal? Ignorance, stupidity or negligence?

Put it this way, if you were advancing £20m to a Japanese company in Japan, in what circumstances might you think you did not need a Japanese lawyer?

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on6:20 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Quote from today’s the Times :

What’s not so amusing for the Rangers manager though, are the latest reports about his club’s financial difficulties, after the board’s announcement this week that they will have to try and raise an additional £4-million share issue, partly caused by a season-ticket boycott.

McCoist should be a financial expert by now, given his experiences in the last few years and although he’d still like to add to his squad, he stressed he wasn’t too concerned at the latest predictions of gloom. “I just listen to the chief executive on these things,” he said. “In non footballing matters like that I take his advice. I take his views into account. He is telling me that, like any other club, we would like to be in a better financial position. But we are in no serious difficulty at all.”

Apart from possibly revealing market sensitive information (“But we are in no serious difficulty at all.”) apparently from the mouth of the chief executive (he really said that???) is McCoist on the same planet as the rest of us? Does he not have eyes and ears?

And where is the intrepid journalistic questioning of this nonsense? Mark Walker, hang your head in shame. Just another churnalist….

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:22 pm - Aug 8, 2014


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28713408

So, according to the BBC, one of the interested parties is Soros Fund Management, not the man himself, but I suppose the name has a certain cache to it. Still plenty of time Stateside for the Beeb, or the Record for that matter, to contact Soros Fund Managers to find out if they have anything to say about their new found investment opportunity. They all seemed to forget that part of a journalist’s remit (check the facts) with Dallas Cowboys, so now’s another opportunity to try it out. You’d actually be doing the bears a favour to prevent another unfounded belief that a saviour is on the way, unless, of course, one is…

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on6:35 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Credit where it’s due – Chris McLaughlin is getting his phraseology pointing in the right direction:

A Green-led consortium bought Rangers’ assets in 2012 – the same year the club was placed in the lowest tier of the Scottish league set-up following financial problems

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28713408

Anyway – George Soros via Charles Green? I have my doubts, but am nonetheless pleased that the gaiety of the nation has been augmented by Mr Green’s return.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on6:40 pm - Aug 8, 2014


scottc says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:12 am

“The soccer punter data holds data relating to times of cards, goals and penalties.”
—————————–
All well received. I’ve yet to sit down and study but I appreciate your input and look forward to your further assistance when the data has been frothed up a bit. I thinking the timings will be very important. Any impartiality will betray itself through timing I think. The ends of the games at the end of tight seasons will likely be the place that any such impartiality is incapable of holding fire. Alternatively it may be that there is nothing out of the usual to be discovered.

I noticed that EasyJambo and MelbourneDee also rose to this bait. I’ll bear this in mind and if I can come up with anything substantive widen the circle in that direction initially.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on6:44 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Chris McLaughlin, in his BBC report, finding new ways to avoid using the L word, but also finding a way not to say relegated or demoted so as not to annoy us all too much!

“A Green-led consortium bought Rangers’ assets in 2012 – the same year the club was placed in the lowest tier of the Scottish league set-up following financial problems”

A*se.

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on6:48 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:15 pm

Where did this one come from? Green and Soros? Help ma boab!!

Someone’s having a laugh, surely.
——————————–
is it possible that this is A George Soros, and not THE George Soros?

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on7:12 pm - Aug 8, 2014


JimBhoy says:
August 8, 2014 at 3:37 pm
6 1 Rate This

Legia chairman suggesting Celtic should refuse to accept the ruling and follow ‘fair play’ rules.. I see where the guy is coming from and feel for his club but two wrongs do not make a right and why should Celtic put themselves in a position for Uefa to punish them through no fault of their own…
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
That suggests the Legia chairman has little confidenc e in winning the appeal
Which would be the case if there are two UEFA rules regarding eligibility
i.e.
A rule which mandates expulsion from the competition for fielding a suspended player
And
A rule which may not result in expulsion if the player fielded is ineligible for a reason other than suspension

View Comment

wottpiPosted on7:31 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Now Green claims he has investors ready to stabilise the club financially.
One of the interested parties is Soros Fund Management and it is believed the US-based group have held talks with a senior Rangers official.

+++++++++

Lest we forget

RANGERS are on the brink of sealing a deal with strip manufacturing giants adidas to produce the Ibrox club’s kit from next season.

Chief executive Charles Green and director Imran Ahmad revealed to fans in Canada that the club hopes to announce the partnership with the German giants, who will take over from Umbro, next week.

Green and Ahmad are on a whistle-stop tour of four cities – Toronto, New York, Orlando and Houston – in four days to speak to North American supporters’ groups and discuss commercial and sporting partnerships – including a potential link-up with NFL giants Dallas Cowboys.

“We have been in talks with Dallas Cowboys about commercial partnership and we are looking to start an academy in North America.”

====================

IIRC Peter A Smith of STV is still waiting to see that copy of the Cowboys email Green assured him he had while on camera.

Oh Charlie you are a laugh.

View Comment

Kicker ConspiracyPosted on7:38 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Some of the reaction to the Celtic situation seems to be falling into the trap of believing Legia were thrown out of the competition and sent to the Europa League as a punishment, which seems to me to be similar to thinking Rangers were “relegated” to Division 3.

They weren’t.
Legia received the mandatory punishment – forfeiting the game in which the suspended player appeared by a score of 3-0.
This just so happened to produce an aggregate score which puts Celtic through.

The rules may or may not be fair but there was no decision for UEFA to make here. They couldn’t do anything else without resorting to rule-bending of SFA proportions.

View Comment

NorthbhoyPosted on8:38 pm - Aug 8, 2014


I would want UEFA in its pursuit of making the rules stick take some action in stating what actions they took.

I remain confused ,my apologies to fellow posters on CQN for my comments last night, I may have misunderstood that the issue at hand and thought it was about a LW player’s registration and did not appreciate that they had played a suspended player.

Its a sign of my concern for Celtic that I struggled to understand how this piece of irregularity came about. How could it be so easily and so speedily brought to a conclusion and lead to today’s decision by UEFA ? It also highlights that UEFA were fully cognisant of the rule breaking by Legia Warsaw at a very early stage.
It would be helpful of UEFA published their moves both prior to the game and post game so that we can be assured that both we and Legia Warsaw are crystal clear what rules were broken and explain to what lengths UEFA went to assist LW understand the situation so that the situation could have been avoided.

View Comment

ekt1mPosted on8:59 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Northbhoy at 8.38pm. From the DR this morning. Uefa’s Swiss delegate Paul Krahenbuhl found out the discrepancy on Thursday afternoon and reported to Uefa. edit…. I’m not sure if he was the match delegate. The Uefa spokesman was quite adamant, “If the player is found to be ineligible then Legia forfeit and Celtic go through.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:31 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Was puzzled for a bit as to why George Soros might be soiling himself by connecting with CG. I’ve found out: he sold out his $24.3 million stake in ‘Sodastream
the other day, and needs to find another home for his money! 😀
( Sodastream’ is an Israeli company with its main factory in the West Bank, and Georgie boy has joined a boycott arranged by Palestinians.)

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on10:27 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
August 8, 2014 at 6:09 pm

“The question for me has always been – how did it come to pass that Ticketus failed to take Scots legal advice at the time of entering into the deal? Ignorance, stupidity or negligence?”
————————–
Maybe there is more than three possibilities.

CharlotteFakes published dozens of pieces of correspondence via twitter, some of which illustrated that discussions with Ticketus/Octopus were under way well before the club/company purchase. The implications are that Ticketus knew that the funds they were to advance to Whyte/Rangers were to be used in the facilitation of the club/company changing ownership. I don’t think Ticketus could legitimise a deal whereby their funds were to be used to buy the club that they would then have an interest in the seasons tickets of. Whyte had to create a grey area in time whereby he could take ownership of the club using Ticketus money and at the same time offer Ticketus the season tickets required in order to access to purchasing funds.

Whyte needed Ticketus’ funds to purchase the club but only the club owner could sell the season tickets.

So Ticketus needed to play dumb on what the funds advanced to Rangers were being used for.

When Ticketus sued Whyte for their money following administration/liquidation, Whyte insisted on the existence of a collateral warranty between himself and Ticketus/Octopus. This warranty purportedly stated :

“… that in the event of any reorganisation or administration of Rangers the First and Second Defendants and Octopus would support and assist [Mr Whyte]…”
“to ensure that he retained or recovered control of ownership and/or management of Rangers…”

Although Ticketus (Ross Bryan) denied the existence of such a warranty this assertion may indicate that Whyte was led to believe that a path had been made through the fire. He may have been led along that path believing he was fireproof.

If, as Whyte asserts, the possibility of administration was clearly forseen in his negotiations with Ticketus, then this makes it doubly curious that the possible outcomes of such a scenario were not thoroughly considered. Mistakes do happen but if Ticketus were quite aware of how risky this deal was then they should have been so much more on their guard. Accidents tend not to happen when you are on your guard.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on10:47 pm - Aug 8, 2014


coineanachantaighe says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:10 pm

“Second the way the article is worded it pretty well suggests HMRC leaked material deliberately for which there is absolutely no evidence.”
—————————
I stumbled across a bit of Charlotte material that referred to a ‘Letter of consent’ that would have allowed Rangers tax files to be examined (I presume). It was in the context of discussions with HMRC in December 2011 and included Whyte, Rangers and Collyer Bristow in the correspondence. Those that know about these sort of things will understand the implications of a letter of consent (I don’t). I suppose it means that files can be placed on the table and discussed. If there were a number of different parties involved in these discussions then I suppose there is multiple routes whereby this information might have emerged.

I was a latecomer to RTC (January 2012) so may have missed the earlier action. However I never got the impression that RTC had bunches of documentation to share. The only file links tended to be newspaper articles and the suchlike. RTC seemed to have insight but there may have been a number of sources from whence this insight could have emerged. Simple logic and a keen mind might explain much of this insight.

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on10:56 pm - Aug 8, 2014


Just read Mr McMurdos latest and wont replicate on here but suffice to say he has the correct targets in his crosshairs, but for all the wrong reasons. Proves without doubt that if you repeat the same mantra often enough it then becomes fact. Not a stable platform for attack.

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on11:03 pm - Aug 8, 2014


All the TRFC fan groups seem to now be pinning their hopes for justice to information that is around 2 years old. Maybe better late to the party than not turning up at all. Ryan and others on here not included as they have been at the party since the doors opened.

View Comment

Comments are closed.