Crunch time

[rogueleader]

I didn't say you did but most if not all your fellow taigs have said that because the SC ruled against RFC2012, titles should be stripped, hence why all the BHEASTS are talking about it again.

Again, the cowards within the CFC support think if they are not good enough on the pitch, find another way to win retrospectively.

"Oh, we would've won but they had a letter"

Materially there is no change.
The LNS findings inexplicably took into account the tax legality or otherwise of the EBT scheme. However, this has no bearing on the players incomplete registration (with relation to contracted payment) as lodged with the governing body, for which the sanctions are quite specific ( 0-3 awarded).
That is, whether the scheme was legal or not has nothing to do with how the governing body is mandated to enforce it's own regulations.
Somehow LNS managed to state that registration and the legality of the tax scheme were linked. Clearly they are not.

A perfectly legal tax avoidance scheme undeclared in a players registration is exactly the same as an illegal tax evasion scheme undeclared in a players registration, or should have been treated as such, within the scope of the governing bodies rules.

I assume that is why it is being raised again.

 

[EspaniaCelt]

Materially there is no change.
The LNS findings inexplicably took into account the tax legality or otherwise of the EBT scheme. However, this has no bearing on the players incomplete registration (with relation to contracted payment) as lodged with the governing body, for which the sanctions are quite specific ( 0-3 awarded).
That is, whether the scheme was legal or not has nothing to do with how the governing body is mandated to enforce it's own regulations.
Somehow LNS managed to state that registration and the legality of the tax scheme were linked. Clearly they are not.

A perfectly legal tax avoidance scheme undeclared in a players registration is exactly the same as an illegal tax evasion scheme undeclared in a players registration, or should have been treated as such, within the scope of the governing bodies rules.

I assume that is why it is being raised again.

One of a number of reasons why stripping of titles should happen but for which the SPFL, obviously, have no stomach in pursuing - perhaps the SFA, with their newfound member, will find the honesty, courage and means to do the right thing for the reputation of Scottish football which as yet has been sadly unforthcoming.

 

[rogueleader]

It will end up with Uefa.

They have this idea that it's associate members apply the articles of association to their clubs.

Even in times of Armageddon.

 

[EspaniaCelt]

It will end up with Uefa.

They have this idea that it's associate members apply the articles of association to their clubs.

Even in times of Armageddon.

Hmmm - sounds optimistic & hope you're right but I'm not so sure ... maybe the old £/€/$ sign may take precedence as usual.

 

[Big Audio Dynamite]

Hmmm - sounds optimistic & hope you're right but I'm not so sure ... maybe the old £/€/$ sign may take precedence as usual.

Meanwhile back at the PLC bunker, a meeting takes place.

"How much can we charge for an Old Firm game?"

"£49"

"They won't pay that, surely"

"Want to bet?"

"You're probably right, the ****ing idiots pay £4 for a slice of pizza haha"

"We'll also raise ST prices, bring out 3 new strips, then get the dafties to buy them for their kids at £60 a pop"

"I'll tell you what Peter, I ****ing love the Huns!"

The End.

Literally!

 

[Big Audio Dynamite]

Our "Stand alone" policy

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-chief-dermot-desmond-wants-1359461

"Rangers are needed for their history"

Time to dust down the top tier tarpaulin.

 

[Hoopster67]

The BBC understands

The BBC understands that their target audience isnt amused

Perhaps the BBC "understands" all too well.

 

[rogueleader]

Hold firm chaps, Uefa currently squeezing ky jelly onto its finger prior to insertion into sfa's prolapsed rectum...

 

[rogueleader]

One of a number of reasons why stripping of title should happen.

It's the only reason. The moral/legal argument is incidental to the application of the association rules regarding player registration.

Unfortunately the moral and legal arguments regarding debt, tax and administration /liquidation have been allowed to become a somewhat convenient distraction from the salient issue.

 

[DevAdvocate]

For me personally I'm not looking for Rangers to be stripped of titles, I do however know a whitewash when I see one, and the latest SPFL statement was an unabashed sham, a cover up of the incompetence of our governing bodies. A ham-fisted conglomeration of obfuscation, lies, half truths and supposition does not fill me with confidence I'm afraid, and repeated quoting of the 5 way agreement - which no one outside the SPL/SFA and Rangers has actually seen - seems a bit like shooting yourself in the foot, as some people will now demand (through I suspect, legal avenues) sight of it.

This will end up in the courts like the Jim Farry fiasco.

 

[EspaniaCelt]

It's the only reason. The moral/legal argument is incidental to the application of the association rules regarding player registration.

Unfortunately the moral and legal arguments regarding debt, tax and administration /liquidation have been allowed to become a somewhat convenient distraction from the salient issue.

You may be correct that the improper registration of players is the one substantive issue which needs to be addressed and has a logical conclusion to it in that their games should be forfeited and the titles lost/stripped but can you seriously see the SPL/SPFL doing that at this stage?

 

[rogueleader]

You may be correct that the improper registration of players is the one substantive issue which needs to be addressed and has a logical conclusion to it in that their games should be forfeited and the titles lost/stripped but can you seriously see the SPL/SPFL doing that at this stage?

the SPFL are ducking for cover behind the nonsensical
" it wasn't us it was the SPL" excuse.

As the SPL no longer exists they are unable to - officially - say why their own rule book wasn't applied. And the SPFL are declining to be answerable for the SPL.

I think the SPFL statement says this but avoids being direct about it.

The SFA got in early and said they would take no further action " at this time ". Attempting to leave the ball in the SPFLs court.

That hasn't worked due to the handy legal sidestep available of the SPL becoming the SPFL.

I think it all depends on whether or not the SFA have the balls - or possibly the humility - to involve UEFA.

UEFA do seem to have a hard-on for corruption issues at the moment.