BrahimHemdani

I got away with that (or got away with that one) (if he said that) is not an admission of guilt? I agree that 99 or well 95 times out of 100 most referees would have given a penalty and I think he bottled it because it was last minute. Earlier in the game it would have been given.

Senderos looked totally bemused by the earlier instructions, perhaps he was just asking for clarification.

Just to be clear, was Rogers not alleging what Hill said as he was leaving the pitch; but the comments you attribute to Hill were said later (perhaps because he knows that he shouldn't have made the admission and more to the point perhaps that Rogers was out of order to quote him, like giving away dressing room questions)? Please don't jump all over me, i'm just asking the question.

Thanks for the correction. Then to quote BH: we got away with one there.

I'll stand to be corrected particularly as I've only watched the last half an hour but it seems to me he's arguing the opposite, namely that the payments are not emoluments. If they're emoluments, surly they are taxable? Is that not the HMRC argument? The original ruling was: “The majority view reflects the argument that the controversial monies received by the employees were not paid to them as their absolute entitlement. “The legal effect of the trust/loan structure was sufficient to preclude this. Thus the payments are loans, not earnings, and so are recoverable from the employee or his estate.”

Emoluments v benefits in kind. The benefit has to be from and by reason of the employment as the source of the benefit. Benefit in kind apparently depends on costs incurred. So if I get this argument it is that the payments are indeed benefits in kind but not taxable because they are payments into a trust over which the employee has no control?

I think he's playing a dangerous game, close to scoring an own goal re benefits in kind.

Thornhill's hearing is so bad he doesn't get what Lord Neuberger is saying.

Not HMRC the last appeal judges.

Right on the nub of the issue now.

Got it now, whose that speaking?

Did he come on in the 60th minute? Do we have any other game changers?

Then we appear to be in agreement and I would further contend that if the terms of that new employment altered in the intervening period then that was a risk that they knew or ought to have taken into account; and hence it does not impose any liability on RFC.

I'm sure that if you watch it again you will see quite clearly that Holt trips Roberts with his leg and only wins the ball as a consequence of that foul. I agree that there is contact between Hill and Griffiths outside the box but not all contact is a foul. There was a coming together because Hill was behind Griffiths and trying to get into a position to win the ball. Football is a contact sport and most referees would not give a foul in these circumstances. I'm fairly sure that the referee allowed play to continue because Griffiths was not impeded by Hill outside the box. So an alternative construction would be that the referee played advantage. In any event Griffiths carried on into the box where it is clear from the camera behind the goal that Hill's right leg makes contact with Griffith's body waist high. So it's a foul inside the box, ergo a penalty. TBH looking at it from the first camera angle or from the referees position, it looks a blatant penalty, albeit the camera behind the goal shows it more clearly. To quote Hill, we got away with one there.

I agree it's a dive, there is no contact from Tavernier.

They couldn't have been pushed without full payment of their new contracts.

Even if they are on a lower wage, Rangers can show clear intent to move to NF while in the employment of RFC.

I fail to see how they could make such a claim, any damage to their reputations is self inflicted or inflicted by their agent on their behalf. Furthermore the fact that they have been able to obtain employment with another Club of high standing (former European Cup Winners) would tend to suggest that whatever their reputations it remains intact. Lastly, the bottom line is that in reality they left of their own accord to take other employment. I'll happily appear for the defendants.

I like that idea:roflmao2:

Can't get the link to open, must be a lot of folk watching.

Quite so: However, as submitted by Mr Sandison that is not what happened to Rangers. It was either unchallenged evidence or a matter of admission, that what happened to Rangers at the material time was this: the Rangers Football Club Plc sold inter alia the one share in the SPL to Sevco Scotland Limited. That sale required the approval of at least 8 of the members of the SPL. That application was refused. It was thus no longer eligible to play in the SPL. It thereafter applied to the SFL and was permitted to join the lowest league of the SFL (the five part agreement). The foregoing process cannot be described as being moved by anyone to a lower division, or being moved down or demoted. The dictionary definitions are not apt to cover what happened to Rangers. I am satisfied that what did not happen was that the SPL moved or demoted Rangers to a lower division. Rangers ended up in a lower division by the entry into a contract which allowed them to join the SFL in the third division.

The BH verdict: Brown deliberately elbows Holt off the ball, it's sneaky and it's violent conduct. He should have been sent off; if the referee didn't see it then the Compliance officer should act. Holt takes out Roberts with his left leg, it was a foul and possibly a booking. He only gets the ball because he has fouled Roberts and the ball runs under his leg. Hill's right leg makes contact with Griffith's body before the back of his heel makes contact with the ball; so it's a penalty and probably also a goal-scoring opportunity with the obvious consequences. The referee was badly positioned too centrally from the kick and slow to get into gear (note that the ball is over his head and bounces just outside the box before he starts to run) with the result that he was behind the play at the incident but he had a clear view and whereas he would normally have been left of the incident his slow start put him to the right, so he should have been able to make the call. Up to those incidents I thought he had a good game, kept the play flowing where possible and booked everyone who merited it. However, he will be marked down on the Holt and Hill incidents which both looked pretty obvious fouls to me. We deserved a draw but were very fortunate with those decisions IMO.

I'll be happy to pay the taxi for Kiernan for a start.

He has virtually no claim regardless of the circumstances because his "loss" is limited to the period he has not been out of work and not paid. I predict there will be a nominal settlement.

Maybe they'll make us an offer we can't refuse.