Sorry I just read that back and it looked like I was having a go, not my intention so apologies. I was agreeing with you but also taking a chance to blatantly plug one of my old threads.
I must admit, the penny only dropped with his parting shot. Nobody would destroy their own credibility like that..... Or so i thought.
STV site has arguments for and against rfc being guilty. Have to say that some of the innocent argument is good, but IMO overwhelmed by guilty argument, but it is interesting that no mention is made of mr Inverness and four others for whom the club have put their hand up to say the EBTs were actually payments. Only hope that justice prevails and not some wooly argument that loans are not payments as this would make NS and co look silly if HMRC win their case. Not a done deal for or against, but so long as we can look at the judgement and say it is fair and not tainted by threats of civil unrest etc.
SPL rule D9.3 states all payments made to players for playing football must be registered. It says: "No player may receive any payment of any description from or on behalf of a club in respect of that playerâs participation in Association Football or in an activity connected with Association Football, other than in reimbursement of expenses actually incurred or to be actually incurred in playing or training for that Club, unless such payment is made in accordance with a Contract of Service between that Club and the Player concerned." Ouch The second rule under scrutiny is D1.13 which states that all contracts must be lodged with the governing body. It says: "A club must, as a condition of registration and for a Player to be eligible to play in official matches, deliver the executed originals of all contracts of service and amendments and/or extensions to contracts of service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that club and player, to the secretary, within fourteen days of such contract of service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended."
What is the "innocent" argument? The rules are clear, it is clear payments were concealed. It looks pretty obvious from here. If I have got that wrong, then fair enough. I don't know if they'll award titles to the real winners or not, but it seems pretty clear cut to me. If there is an "innocent" argument I'd like to hear what it is. Bearing in mind that there is nobody to present that argument on behalf of Rangers.
Alex Thomson's View Visit Alex Thomson's page All Channel 4 News blogs Tuesday 29 Jan 2013 Why Rangers face a massive re-writing of football club history 11Rate this By the nature of these things, there will not be any kind of fanfare. It’s not the way of law lords. The Scottish Premier League (SPL) says merely that the room at Hampden is booked through till the end of the week, and that is about it. Low-key stuff for the stadium setting for a decision at last on what may – or may not – be the biggest cheating scandal in UK football history and, if a guilty decision is returned, beyond question one of the biggest cheating scandals in the history of British sport. At issue, did the old (pre-liquidation) Rangers FC fail to tell the football authorities all about the money it was paying players as part of an elaborate tax avoidance scheme – a scheme which may yet be found to be illegal if HMRC wins its appeal? If they did not tell all, then Lord Nimmo Smith and his deputies, Charles Flint QC and Nicholas Stewart QC, can pretty much pass any and every sanction under the sun upon the old club, from expelling them from the league to asking them politely if they wouldn’t mind stop cheating. Since the old club is liquidated, this is somewhat academic . But it is all laid out in section G6 of the SPL rulebook. What the trio can very much do – if they find that the authorities were not informed about full payments – is rule that every time any of the players concerned kicked a football in earnest for Rangers, that match is forfeit because that player’s papers were not in order. This would clearly involve a massive and unprecedented re-writing of club history, re-engraving of a lot of silverware, and Rangers would be saddled with the reputation of being the biggest cheats in football history – in sporting history. So rather a lot is at stake.
hahaha [video=youtube;eeXZMQ1dhNo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeXZMQ1dhNo&feature=youtu.be[/video]
One thing is certain. Rangers will not be found guilty. There are not enough people prepared to stand up to the threat of bully and intimidation that often arises when decision are given against a club or a section of the population. Other Government bodies and other sections of The SFA SPL ruling bodies tend to support the club, this means Scotland is a old house for anyone or any body finding Rangers guilty.
After the need for the 1991 Royal Commission On Criminal Justice and the rulings eventually over turned by after misjudgements such as the Birmingham six, Hillsborough, Bloody Sunday and the content and contradiction with the judgement on the BTC of Dr. Poon's dissenting report, and the legal significance of same as a disclaimer to flag up not just disagreement, I have to say that I have zero confidence in the UK justice system. The pattern emerging over decades and indeed centuries is reversal of judgement many, many years later, when the waters have calmed and the consequences cannot be faced. In this case, the restructuring of Scottish football, especially the unification of the ruling bodies and the cessation of the SPL will lead, eventually to a recognition of wrong doing, but the awarding body will no longer exist, so the trophies cannot be removed. I expect a judgement on a technicality and word of law which will favour rfc. Cannot understand, 1 SPL allow themselves to be represented only at solicitor level, while rfc and SEVCO represented by a QC. in footballing terms this is like putting out the reserves or a very much weakened team, compounded by Harper McLeod admitting that there was no conflict of interest for them, SINCE THEY WERE INVOLVED ONLY AT A LOW LEVEL SUB,ISSION OF EVIDENCE. 2. Why BBC evidence, as stated by Mark Daly was not requested by LNS. This strikes me as holding a murder trial with the prosecution not represented and not requesting DNA, fingerprint, CCTV evidence and only asking for witnesses for the defence. I may well be wrong, but given the serial misjudgements, later reversed when consequences are no longer applicable, at the highest levels of the UK justice system, I think I can be forgiven and know I am not alone.
Map of Scotland in the background seems rather inaccurate given that rfc were a Scottish club. Have they joined the LOI then?
Good to hear the Arabs give this old song an airing too: [video=youtube;Uv5wF-E9D8Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv5wF-E9D8Y[/video]
