Crimson Dynamo

I'm looking at this on my phone so I may not be able to see this properly

Why does Celtic PLC accounts only go up to 1990?

Looks like a 4-4-1-1 or possibly a 4-3-2-1.

Playing either way should give us lots of possession and hopefully we can control the game and make Brechin do all the running.

Does anyone know what happened with Juventus?

I know they had two titles voided because of the match fixing scandal. Also that umpteen clubs were involved.

But was compensation paid to the other clubs that weren't involved? Or was the title being voided the end of it?

I agree with this. In the past one of the arguments for not focusing on youth development and playing good football has been that there's too much pressure for us to win the SPL.

I agree, I found it so disheartening when watching Rangers. At times we would go and play 1 up front against Gretna or struggle for a draw against Partick. All because of the fear we had of losing.

I hope one positive that can come of this is that youth finally gets a chance.

I agree, I hope we can all get back to talking about Rangers the Football Club.

I think Charles Green has a difficult job just now but he has performed admirably bar 1 or 2 things. He hasn't done anything that would suggest we can't trust him and I thank him for saving Rangers and getting us back on track slowly but surely heres to the future!!!!

I don't think that is wriiten by a Rangers fan!

hearings on the 12th Aug IIRC.

Thanks.

Does anyone know what format the hearing will take? Will Rangers be allowed to defend themselves for example? Most of these things seem to be kangaroo courts. Where the decision has already been made before the hearing/meeting takes place.

Have the SFA/SPL actually investigated the dual contracts yet?

About a month ago I recall them saying Rangers had to supply them with information which they got as I understand. I also recall them saying Rangers had a case to answer. Jump forward a couple of weeks and the talk was that Rangers had to be stripped of titles. (Mostly from current and ex Celtic players).

Then jump forward to this week and all the talk has been Rangers had to accept any decision made as a condition of SFA membership.

Last nights statement said "The SPL has reserved its position in relation to the on-going investigation into employee benefits trusts"

Is it possible the decision has been made?

@AlisonRobbie

So after speaking to the SFA all I know is there will be a statement at some point telling us if Rangers have membership or not #helpful

but the very point of ebts is they are non contractual. we couldn't use an ebt and tell the sfa.

 

the allegation is we made them contractual.

Even if we did make them contractual which as I understand is the crux of the BTC then I still don't think we would be telling the SFA that Flo for example is only on £10000 a week when it is widely reported he is 40. I can't believe we would be THAT stupid

I think it would come down to how we were paying it. Which I don't think is anybody's business but ours

the only side letter I've seen said. we run an ent scheme let us know if you want to join it.

 

be as well stripping titles for teams with pensions.

Indeed, I agree the side letters will say something like that or along those lines

It certainly won't say this is your second contract.

How would things like bonuses work? Over the years I can think of lots of examples where the headline will say: "players on 40 grand a man to qualify for the next phase" Are these sort of things factored into contracts? I wonder because the headlines seem random at the time like it is a glorious gesture by the owner etc...

Bang to rights for what? What exactly have we done wrong to deserve titles being stripped?

 

This is all about dual contracts where at worst if we are "guilty", we have misinterpreted some paperwork and what constitutes a contract. You want to strip titles for an administrative error? An error that had absolutely no effect on what happened on the pitch - this is about dual contracts only, not about tax or affordability.

 

Where is the precedent for stripping titles for this? As far as I know, titles have only been stripped due to match fixing which is in another universe from an administrative error that gains you no advantage.

 

Does this mean that any club who ran an EBT should be stripped titles? Celtic ran one; however, their "argument" is that Celtic didn't win that year. Can you believe it? They base the morality of whether action should be taken on the possibility of Celtic being affected! That's integrity for you.

 

But this would also apply to Arsenal and others in England - where are the investigations for honours to be stripped?

 

There is many problems with the whole ethics of trying Rangers for this. Rangers did not knowingly break any rules and submitted the information to the SFA and SPL for years. Why didn't they point out the error after the first season? How can you allow an error to go past for ten years, allowing a club to think it's doing nothing wrong and then decide to retrospectively strip them of anything they've won?

 

Like HMRC, this in entrapment. If the SFA had complained in the first year Rangers would have stopped doing it and there would be no case to answer. It's a point of justice that everyone seems to be ignoring.

 

Anyway, if Rangers are ludicrously stripped of titles for a mere administrative error, just where do you stop in your investigations? What about image rights contracts, undeclared perks and bonuses etc? What about the covering up of child abuse that is similar to Penn State who were fined £39m, stripped of four seasons of honours and prevent from winning anything for another four seasons?

 

What about manipulating the league with lies about mourning the death of an ex bit part player and more lies about a Japanese tour?

 

But if we're going to strip previous titles on ambiguous paperwork points we're going to be investigating for a long time and the history of Scottish football, going by this, will be in tatters.

 

When you spot an anomaly, the usual thing is to highlight it and then change the rules so they are no longer ambiguous. THEN you can punish clubs when they break the rules. That's proper justice.

Completely agree. It's the one thing I believe David Murray on when he said â??Iâ??ve looked through every year to check my facts and there were no double contracts. Categorically, there were no dual contracts.â?

I think the side letters everyone keeps talking about. (I haven't seen one) Probably say something along the lines of so much will be paid normally and the rest will be paid through the trust. Which I don't think constitutes a double contract.

I would think all clubs have to do is say how much someone will get paid not how they will pay it.

That would be sensible. We know who is pulling the strings here though, hence the outcome is as clear cut as the result of this so-called impartial investigation.

Indeed the Football Authorities aren't really down with following good examples in this country

If Rangers were stripped of titles the SFA/SPL could possibly just void the years in question. There is precedent for that Marseille & Juventus for example I'm sure that there will be more examples.

it was easy for green to outbid them though. he bid last and his bid was a loan not a purchase.

 

he also had the advantage of not caring about liquidation.

 

I am sure tbk could have offered 10 million on the basis the fans repay them and get nothing for it but they didn't want to.

 

that's my reasoning on that matter.

I think it just comes down to none of the blue knights really put there money where there mouth was. there was always some excuse. fair enough greens money was a loan but most of these things are loans at the end of the day in some shape or another

Then why didn't he go the newco route? Seems to me he is doing what he said he wouldn't/couldn't do

I don't get Kennedy I really don't.

At his press conference with Paul Murray towards the end of May. A Rangers newco wasn't financially viable for him or Paul Murray by the Saturday he said "it was too late" his words

What's changed?

We should hold everyone to the same standards we have been held to. No more no less.

Yes I do, he has said on numerous occasions he would welcome investment.

Perhaps on his terms but either way he would be his getting money. All the investors would need to do was make the bid public through a lawyer or press release.

If Green said no then he'd need to explain why he said no.

If Green really offered Smith 50% why didn't Smiths group take it? They'd have equal say in everything surely?

If Brian Kennedy "really" wants his 50% why can't he just say to 4 of his pals here £1milllion go buy 10% of Rangers for me, then buy the other 10% himself or is that too simple?

Itâ??s a strange oneâ?¦.

As the original post states, the fact we are willing to possibly negotiate titles away suggests or implies guilt. It could also just be we are desperate to the point where we will just say f**k it.

However I still donâ??t think David Murray would be that stupid. I get the tax avoidance thing everybody seems to be doing that in some form or another and not just in Football. Comedians, politicians, and pop stars. Everybody seems to be at it hardly a day goes by where you donâ??t read something

But apparently for us to play in the SPL each season we had to deliver audited accounts. These accounts as I understand contained the EBT scheme.

â?¢ What did the SFA/SPL do with them?

â?¢ Did they even read them?

â?¢ If they did why are they suddenly a problem?

â?¢ If they didnâ??t why didnâ??t they read them?

â?¢ Did they question the EBT scheme?

â?¢ When HMRC decided to say they were illegal. Did the SFA/SPL say by the way Rangers we need to talk?

The list could go onâ?¦..

I am not exonerating David Murray from his other stuff. I hope the authorities ask him some serious questions after this for the state he has allowed us to get into.

These things always matter as again this is all about Celtic and they are trying to steal Rangers' trophies. They are doing this by claiming some heinous crime committed by Rangers so it is incredibly important to highlight to the world that they are guilty of that same said crime.

I completely agree. I just don't think Rangers should base any defence on saying that sort of thing. I think we should sort our own problems out first then challenge the SFA to hold everybody else to the same standards. If they don't then we should sue them into oblivion as it would show blatant bias.

Does it really matter if Celtic did it for 1 season? To be honest I am more concerned about what is happening to Rangers at the moment. Rangers need to sort themselves out first and foremost. Once we have done that then we can hold all these people to the same standard that they have held us too. But only then...

He's an attention seeking fantasist.

According to the rubbish he's spouting the problems at Rangers were just a simple mix up of company names. Come on Really? Anybody that challenges his views on twitter or questions his theories. He either ignores them or tells them to fxxx off!

If it is as simple as he's saying then why did poor Craig not see this and fix it eg move the money from the wrong company to the right one.