BrahimHemdani

You are correct, of course, that the term "strict liability" refers to the liability not the sentencing; but my point is that the authorities will want to be seen to be scrupulously fair, so that whilst they may well set the parameters of the sentences in their rules, the independent panel will make the judgements.

The Tribunals will be at an entirely different level, almost certainly headed by judges or former judges or leading counsel. I am equally confident, for just the reasons that you suggest, that the authorities will lean over backwards to ensure that there is no potential bias in the backgrounds of panel members.

Well, if that's the only problem with my view then I am happy with your judgement. Almost certainly the cases will be decided by an independent panel and as we have seen in the past they can find in favour of Rangers e.g. "no sporting advantage". At least I know you recognise that strict liability is coming, others have their heads firmly bedded in the sand.

If strict liability had been in place over the past 5/6 years there would have been no excuse for failing to deal with many of the situations rightly complained of in this thread. The Clubs tinkered with the Rules in 2012 and again late last year but it will make no difference; in fact as I pointed out at the time, clarifying what constitutes "reasonably practicable" just makes it easier to defend the indefensible. The very fact that that the Clubs have resisted strict liability so fiercely, because they do not perceive it to be in their best interests, should tell you that it is the necessary solution to the problem of unacceptable behaviour. Your use of innuendo does nothing to assert the opposite view.

You are missing both my points entirely: There will be no question of judgement on who should be charged and who should not; and The punishments that are handed down will be independently assessed and open to scrutiny. Strict liability is the only way to avoid the perception of bias alluded to in this thread.

Leaving aside the comments about NBM, the fact of the matter is that strict liability is long overdue and I am in no doubt that unless there is a quick about face by the SFA/SPFL the government will adopt the proposed legislation. I would remind everyone that the only Club that has ever been charged with the unacceptable conduct of their supporters by the SPFL is Motherwell and they managed to wriggle out with a slap on the wrist. Otherwise the "reasonably practicable" defence has always prevailed. If strict liability is imposed there will be no excuses for failure to take action on the types of situations that are rightly complained about in the posts in this thread.

Evening bump!

Would this not be in respect of the aforementioned £0.75m shortfall for this season?

Thanks to a kind Gersnetter who I'm sure would wish to remain anonymous, I am now in possession of a ticket for Sunday's match at Dundee. If anyone wishes to share the journey from Glasgow or East Dunbartonshire please drop me a PM.

The number of goals he's scored?

Judging by the screams of delight for some Morton fans that goal was better than sex......

No it isn't and I'm quite sure that Uilleam knows that full well. We are not discussing the acquisition of the company, it's value or its possible resale; we are discussing its ongoing operations. Furthermore, not many people (except perhaps Fergus McCann) have ever bought a football club in the hope of making a profit. For all I distrust Mr King, I don't think financial profit was his motive.

I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. The debate is not about the acquisition costs or about appraising the value of the company; it is a about the amount of money that was required to be invested in the said company once it was in the hands of the purchasers in order to make it "profitable" in a football sense i.e. return it to its former glories. As rbr pointed out, the figure of £30 million was not mentioned until after King &Co had purchased a controlling interest.

This is more a question for BD but my understanding would be that it will be a debt for equity swop i.e. the loans will be converted into some of the new shares. The shares they bought in the open market will still be the same shares and will still be owned by them unless they choose to sell.

Apologies for the delay, but: I thought you were doing quite well explaining it yourself I did it earlier and accidently hit the wrong button and lost it, so had to start again

This shows quite clearly that Hill misjudges the header, Halliday sends a nothing ball backwards and Foderingham should make the save; so I'd say the blame can be shared amongst all three, just terrible defending all round.

I would have said Waghorn , except he isn't in the EPL.

Mr King is not stupid person, he has run numerous companies; but he is also a person who has been proven to be a liar in a court of law. I am quite sure he knows the difference between a personal investment and the costs of running a company. Put simply, it is my belief that he is deliberately exaggerating the amount of money he and his fellow directors have invested in the Club and he is doing that because he also knows full well that most people do not understand the difference. As rbr has demonstrated the figure of £30 million was the amount he suggested would be needed to return the Club to its former glories i.e. the amount that would be needed to be spent on players and possibly infrastructure; I don't believe that anyone who was listening at that time thought he was referring to the cost of buying the Club. Let me try to explain this another way. If I buy a company that sells widgets for £5 million then that £5 million does not appear anywhere in the company's profit and loss and account. The issued shares are on the Balance Sheet but who owns them doesn't affect the profitability of the company. The income I get from selling widgets is the company income, the cost of producing the widgets i.e. the manufacturing cost is then deducted to produce the gross profit. The expenses of running the company e.g. wages, heat & light, repairs, renewals and maintenance etc etc are then deducted from the gross profit to produce the net profit. These expenses are all or mostly tax deductible. The cost to me of buying shares in the company is not a company expense nor is it tax deductible by the company or by me (except in certain specialised circumstances). The return I get for my investment is the dividends the company might pay out of its profits. If you don't believe me or BD then I suggest you watch the latest edition of Dragons' Den and you will hear Peter Jones explain it to the Irish couple with their range of baby products. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08fn624 Please believe I am not trying to be sarcastic and I'm sorry if it comes across like that but I hate the fact that Mr King is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes and is obviously succeeding in some cases. The plain facts are that he and his fellow Board members have lent the Club £12.9 million which they hope to convert into shares in due course. That is an investment in the Club. Prior to that he and his associates spent £5.1 million buying shares in the Club. That is not an investment in the Club, it is a personal investment which allowed them to take control of the Club.

Yes it does; but King did not buy Ibrox Stadium; leastways I don't think he did; it's owned by the Company.

Yes he did; but that still doesn't make it an investment in the Club.

Buying shares in a company is a personal investment; it is not an investment in the the company. There's a world of difference.

That's my point. Neither McKay nor O'Halloran are capable of tracking back to defend; so it was 4-2-4. AND it was exciting to watch as both teams went for it in the last 10/15 minutes.

I have to disagree again. O'Halloran came on for Holt thus decreasing the midfield from 3 to 2 and increasing the front 3 to 4. Waghorn went inside to join Miller and O'H was wide right. Ergo at that point with 30 minutes to go we were 4-2-4; the wide men slightly behind the line of the front 2 in the same way as the FB's are slightly ahead of the CB's but it's still 4 at the back and 4 up front even if they are not in a straight line. When Toral came on for Hyndman we still only had 2 in MF. When Hodson replaced Wallace we still had 4 at the back. We may have dropped back a bit into a pseudo 4-4-2 when Morton threw everything at it in the last few minutes but I don't see how you can say that we had a MF 4 with O'Halloran and McKay playing wide.

Is that not because Mr King is being disingenuous by including the purchase price of shares which as you rightly point out are not investment in the club.

Waghorn started the game that I watched. However, many fingers he held up, I'm sure you would agree that neither O'Halloran nor McKay are wide midfield players.