I notice it's all the ****s from the EBT-ridden 9iar team they keep digging up. Cheats talking about cheating
Alec Thomson's latest with more to follow OK. Just to get to some hard facts as the firestorm rages around the new SPL rule-change proposals. Obviously this is being seen as a parachute back into the SPL for RFC, but in terms of cold, hard facts, away from the emotion, that’s not the way to see it because the parachute already exists. SPL told me this morning (and I will get more from Mr Doncaster this afternoon) that the SPL board could simply vote a newco Rangers back into the SPL in theory, with no sanctions beyond the obvious ones arising from liquidation in terms of European competition etc. To be clear: Rangers FC could be back in the SPL having paid nowt to the taxman and without the currently proposed sanctions to be voted on. So in cold hard facts, the rule changes actually toughen things up for RFC – or anybody else – and not the other way around. The wider morality of allowing such a newco anywhere near the SPL, having not paid the £75m owed to you, me and every other taxpayer, is a wider argument. I can certainly tell you from conversations with the administrators and HMRC and Uefa that the very idea is not going to play well – and the SPL would do well to consider their wider constituency as their members approach the vote on this. If there is one story Uefa wants to tell you right now it is financial fair play. And then there’s the HMRC and their “eleventh commandment”, quoted to me some weeks ago: “Though shalt not get away with it.” Clearly any RFC parachuting back – and it is not a done deal, although the curious eight majority vote makes it a virtual cert (more on that from Mr Doncaster later I trust) – will involve a club that actually has to live in a more real world financially and actually think about paying back money it borrowed; not paying so much money it does not have; forgetting any notion of playing European football; losing matches with a depleted squad and very limited means to enhance it, and so forth. Some might consider that adequate punishment for the sins of yesteryear and a new beginning now underway etc. Others will say getting away with not paying the millions you owe is a terrible precedent to set, not just for the governance of our football but for that of our very culture. My hunch is the latter will have the majority. More from the SPL later in the day and – if Uefa can ever get back to me – the first of two blogs on political interference in Scottish football.
Hateley's carer needs a wage rise - can't be easy dealing with that sort of exhorbitant levels of buffoonery every day. Choking to read these "political interference" blogs.
You mean "Your preferred outcome"? I'd be exactly the same if the roles were reversed but as they are not, I can act all sanctimonious...........as usual.
I am warming to the "new" SPL rules, if it means that all the current clubs assets are sold in order to pay off as much of the debt as possible. I am sure everyone agrees all players,Ibrox Park, the Murray Park, even the training equipment, everything sold. Then the new owner can start off either division 3 without penalties or SML with penalties laid out by the proposals from SPL. This outcome, would depend on how the outcome of all other investigations into Rangers. Maybe the most important investigation would be the allegations of Rangers players holding two registrations. I think if these or other serious allegations stand up a more difficult punishment should be applied.
Yesterday on sky , they had that fat spokesman (think 90% of Huns are a bit overweight )Dingwall crying foul about the new spl rules , in one of today's paper they had a spokesman for the other ten teams in the spl , to a man they all think Rangers have got off lightly with the new rules and fear a lot of their fans will walk away from the game for ever . Yet guess whose fans are planning a boycott !!!
They are just blowing hot air at the minute. If they boycott, then what is the point in accommodating them? None at all. This is what the CST have to say.......what do you think? They are talking of bhoycotts too. I read that as looking for a uniform approach rather than anything else. The Trust statement Celts for Integrity - anyone up for this? Published on Thursday 12th April, 2012 by Celtic Trust The announcement by the SPL of the proposed rule changes to deal with Clubs who fall into administration and/or liquidation has angered many Celtic fans and fans of other Clubs. The fact that it has also angered the RST on the grounds of being too severe is, at one and the same time, bizarre and entirely predictable given the state of denial in which that particular organisation exists. More importantly, however, is what we are going to do about it. The Celtic Trust have asked for a meeting, as a matter of urgency, with Celtic to ascertain what their thinking is in relation to the vote on these resolutions. There have also been a number of calls from members and other supporters to look at boycotts of away games. In addition there has been a proposal from within the membership to let the sponsors of the SPL know that we will take action, in the form of boycotts and other actions, against them if they fail to bring pressure to bear on the SPL to maintain the sporting integrity of the league competition. Other members have already suggested that Celtic should tender their resignation from the league in protest if these resolutions are passed, Whatever happens, and whatever action we choose to take, it is absolutely vital that we stand together on this one. Not only should all the Celtic supporters' organisations and individual supporters unite to defend the integrity of the game but, if at all possible, we should be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Club in opposing the introduction of a 'get-out' clause for Clubs who have effectively cheated for years on end and who have defrauded the citizens of this country. If the SPL think they can be all things to all men on this one they need to be informed, and quickly, that nothing short of a robust and impartial defence of the integrity of the game will do. A competition without integrity is not one which many people will be willing to pay money to watch - not now and not ever.
Graham Spiers ‏ @GrahamSpiers My Sunday Herald column tomorrow: there is a strong argument for kicking Rangers out of the SPL – and chief-exec Neil Doncaster knows it.
Expediency trumps justice Graham Spiers Imagine if a football club wilfully decided to deduct tax from players' pay slips, but, instead, of handing the money over to Revenue and Customs, decided to keep it. You would think that was pretty bad. Imagine also if it transpired that, with regard to three players stretching as far back as 1999, a club used an off-shore Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) to "reward" those players due to a belief that this was a way of avoiding paying tax. Ordinarily, you would think that looked fairly dodgy, too. Or worse, how about a similar use of EBTs as a means of "rewarding" a whole tranche of players, season after season for nine years? That, we must assume, would be viewed by most people as seriously bad behaviour. It would also amount to a heck of a saving in taxes – tens of millions of pounds – that could be flushed back into the club's own coffers. All these and more comprise the toll of allegations currently being made against Rangers. When I say allegations, I'm using the term over-cautiously, because the club has admitted using such policies. Craig Whyte even offered to pay HMRC off in instalments, only to be knocked back. Campbell Ogilvie, meanwhile, a Rangers director during much of this period, and now president of the SFA, admits to having had an EBT provided by the club. Ogilvie was given loans by Rangers which, to date, have not been repaid. "Perhaps I should have asked more questions [of Sir David Murray] during this time," he now says lamely, the adverse publicity horse having loudly bolted. What does not seem in much doubt is that Rangers broke many of the rules, as applied by the SPL and SFA to Scottish football. The more pressing question now is, how severe should their punishment be? Indeed, should Rangers' reckless disregard for fair play over so many years be sufficient cause to evict them from the SPL, as many want to see? I find it hard to avoid concluding that there is strong case for Rangers being demoted – or suspended – from the SPL. There are two current spheres of contempt towards the Ibrox club. The first is to do with a flouting of the contractual rules – defined by many as plain cheating – which gave Rangers a significant financial advantage all these years over other SPL clubs. That seems bad enough. The second is a kind of moral distaste felt by many people. Strictly speaking, the SFA and SPL, both of whom are investigating Rangers' conduct, cannot embroil themselves in the tax avoidance issue. That area is not the remit of the football authorities. But the rest of us are still free to feel that, on the business of denuding the nation of tens of millions of pounds in unpaid taxes, something devious and pretty squalid has gone on inside Ibrox. In both football and in moral terms there is a convincing argument for kicking Rangers out of the SPL. The problem is, does the Scottish game possess the guts to do it? We can be brief here about why chief executive Neil Doncaster and his SPL board, with the host of "newco" rules they are keen to bring in by May 14, want to do everything they can to save Rangers' SPL skin. Everyone knows why it is politically expedient to contrive to keep the Ibrox club in Scotland's top division. Doncaster's position is thoroughly miserable. If Rangers are evicted, the SPL will be severely damaged. Potentially, Sky television would rip up its recently announced deal to cover Scottish football. A huge slice of SPL gate money would go down the drain with Rangers' disappearance. Everything – sponsorship, advertising, corporate hospitality – would be hit. Financially and politically, the scenario is enough to keep Doncaster awake at night. The fate of Juventus in Italy in 2006 has been quoted here as a precedent. When Juve were found guilty of match-fixing, it wasn't too insipid a pill for Serie A to swallow to strip them retrospectively of their 2005 and 2006 titles and then throw them out of Italy's top division. In Juve's case, the moral argument proved stronger than any political expediency. There was no knee-knocking over it. Across Scottish football, and not just among Celtic fans, Doncaster and the SPL are being mocked and derided. The imminent rules amendments will certainly punish Rangers if a "newco" is formed at Ibrox but, arguably, not to the degree that is warranted. Indeed, short of bribery or match-fixing, it is hard to see what else Rangers would have to do to get the SPL to kick them out. Perhaps it is true that the SPL cannot do without Rangers. But, if that is the case, let no-one ever again quote "honesty" or "integrity" in the context of the Scottish game.
I always liked spiersey, first journalist to admit the bigoted signing problem was more pronounced at ibrox than celtic park, but im starving here. Its's been 3 days since he promised to buy us all dinner. As for his article spot on. Even the rangers fans think any newco should not be allowed into the spl. The only people in favour are the boards of the 10 'wee' spl clubs and the bidders for the club.
On another forum they seem to be complaining about the tense in which this is written. As far as I can tell, he is talking about Rangers in their current incarnation. Yes he identifies the newco route, but he isn't second guessing a newco. He isn't saying anything that hasn't been said here or elsewhere. I have a bee in my bonnet about what is already evident and that is the non payment of PAYE and NI. Folk on here have tried to justify it (I can't remember who), I don't know if those voices still exist but they were there. That has always been the starting point for any punishment for Rangers in my eyes. Primarily because that is the first thing that is beyond any doubt. A fitting punishment for that is to be excluded from the league (SPL). Yet here we are, in a situation where that isn't even the worst of their sins and that minimum of punishments appears to be up for debate. I am glad Spiers has put this out there. I think he has caught the zeitgeist. Even amongst some Rangers fans.
