Bluedell

I presume nobody reported it. It seems that the Suarez case wasn't picked up by any cameras so nobody from the public reported it, and Evra didn't either. The Terry/Ferdinand case did have members of the public report it.

The parachute payments are £48m over 4 years.

What IRA organisation that you could be hung for fighting against is proscibed under the Terrorism Act 2000? (using a Celtic-style argument)

BH has a face for the radio!

I'd argue that BMG doesn't fall foul of the new legislation.

Probably has to be someone who was about for the whole year. Davis and Jelavic played well in the first half but haven't been great since then. even McGregor has been a bit shaky at times this season. I'd have to go For Naisy.

Just seen your reply. It's not in GSTQ, having been dropped from it a few centuries ago.

I've never heard English fans, or anyone else for that matter, sing "Rebellious Scots to crush". I don't have an issue with it anyway. Rebellious Scots deserve to be crushed.

Chucked out because they had missed out the "ny" from the first word on their teeshirts?

There's nothing wrong with shouting fuck about a convicted terrorist. However the add-on is the potential issue with "a Father's Advice". I'm guessing it could be argued that there's a question mark over the timing of certain parts of the song and whether it refers to the modern-day "volunteers" rather than the ones from around 100 years ago.

I took number 2 earlier today through my wee cousin.

Agreed. However presumably Murray took advice when setting up the scheme for the big tax case. I fail to see how McIntyre could come in to the club, review the advice and know that it was wrong when the auditors had accepted it for many years as had the Inland Revenue when reviewing both the tax return and the statutory accounts. It doesn't stop some from throwing around wild accusations though.

It's not a non-exec's responsibility to know a company's tax computation in detail and to ensure it is 100% correct.

No, but I thought that you were suggesting that Advocaat had suggested the scheme, rather than who benefited from it?

Are you making up the fact that HMRC are refusing payment? Where did you get this information?

I don't know any of the details on it, Craig, as I haven't seen much written about it that explained what it was about. Have you got any details on it? Like Stewarty highlights, the tax comps would have been reviewed in detail by Grant Thornton and it's surprising that they also didn't pick it up.

Advocaat went to Murrray with a highly complex scheme that allowed players to avoid UK tax? Sounds very implausible to me.

How do you know that and how can they do that? Does interest not continue to run? Surely they cannot refuse payments and allow interest to keep clocking up?

I don't have a problem in giving an opinion when I know what I'm taking about, unlke you.

McIntyre may have given the board accurate budgets which showed the bad financial situation if they went ahead with the spending. They have gone ahead anyway. He may also have looked into the EBTs and reviewed the advice received from experts. he may have warned the board about them. I've got no idea as to his competence or otherwise, and i'd suggest that you don't either.

Who voted him as spokeman? Since when did Hamish Husband pick the Scotland team? I'll say it again.

if that's true then it's total bullshit. You shouldn't move from a yellow to a 2 game ban due to having a substandard referee. The punnishment for an offence has to be consistent. If it warrants a 2 game ban then let refs send players off for it. It can't be dictated by a referee's incompetence or the fact that the media jump on a particular incident.

Within 6 months of the year end. I don't think that the level of the fines are the issue, but more the fact that they would be directors of a company failing in its legal obligations. It would certainly make me consider my position if I was a director of the club.

The club can communicate by email and on their website.

There aren't exceptions, as far as I can see. You either obey the law or you don't. It's not up to shareholders to decide or not. Anyway, as a shareholder I feel I deserve to be updated now, and told things through articles in down market rags.