bigy

According to Mark Dingwall the guy is not the club secretary. Still interesting to see the swift response by Stirling compared to the BBC when it's Cosgrove.

But was that not in 2010 after they paid the tax? I don't think they disclosed that they used an EBT in 2005 after they paid him off.

That's part of the issue, they never disclosed payments in their accounts - even for Juninho!!

Is there a difference thought between taking he SPL to court as opposed the SFA?

I agree that if it's any payment for football it doesn't matter when it's paid, however I can't believe Celtic only used it once. What we're asked to believe is Celtic 'found' a way of paying a player by avoiding tax, didn't declare it and thought it 100% legitimate for 5 years before agreeing to repay. At the time, and in the 5 subsequent years, they didn't use this for any other member of staff? Aye, right!!

It would make sense if they had more. Just seems strange the BBC talk only of Juninho, and then another journalist claims the SPL have checked EBTs (plural) used by Celtic. Hopefully there's more to come out.

Re the above tweet, and others from the BBC today claiming Celtic 'sources' claim the use of an EBT for Juninho was above board, even though it wasn't decalred to the SFA or SPL, are Celtic hiding something? It may just be a typo by Scott Burns, but he certainly seems to imply that it was more than just Juninho?

Even putting aside how badly written and inaccurate their statement is, how they've gone about it is totally wrong. For a group who proclaim to want to 'unite' the support I would have expected more tolerance and understanding. The correct thing to do would have been to read their statement to the rest of the working group, advise them that they'd no longer be involved, then stay quiet for now and let the working group get on with putting the proposals together. Then, once the proposals are launched and put to the support, Rangers Unite could have made a statement as to why they think the proposals are wrong for Rangers, and a proper debate could ensue. The way they have went about this is childish, arrogant and in my opinion disgraceful. They are entitled to their view, but there is time and a place and a proper way of communicating that view. They failed on all 3 counts. I fail to see how any group can now work with Rangers Unite, as they clearly aren't a group who want to represent the fans views and unite the support. Rather, they are a group who want to dictate to fans what they should believe and think.

I'm in the same position to be honest, but I think what you've suggested in your 2nd para is what they're actually trying to do - only the membership would give you a vote. I don't know what all the issues are/were, but I do know there's an awareness that asking for a separate membership fee could cause problems and they're trying to overcome this. The basis of the proposal is that Supporters Direct will only work with a Supporters Trust (and will only recognise 1 per club), and that to invest in the scheme individuals must be members of the Supporters Trust. That's why the RST has to be the vehicle that Supporters Direct use, and why they're trying to make it as easy as possible for people to invest money once the scheme is launched.

I think the issue with RST membership is a red herring. Initially, it would have meant anyone investing in the proposal, whose money would be refundable and held with Supporters DIrect until enough money was raised to launch a bid, would also have to pay an annual membership to the RST otherwise their money would be automatically returned to them. Obviously if this really takes off that could have given the RST significant income which they'd have to deal with. So rather than ask for a membership fee, I understand those involved from the RST are proposing to change their rules and give anyone investing with Supporters Direct automatic membership. That would mean a much larger membership who could all vote on how the RST is run, and given it is a democratic organisation anyone who has concern can raise those and put it to a public vote. I think this proposal would need to be approved by the RST membership which may have contributed to some of the delays, but it does show that the RST are aware of the issues some supporters may have.

So a group that was working behind the scenes to develop a proposal has had their cover blown by a group who could have influenced it. There are a lot of inaccuracies in that statement which I'm sure will.be corrected and explained by the relevant parties soon.

Has anyone made a complaint to the Law Society for Scotland over this clear conflict of interest?

Great to see commitment like that, and hopefully he can rediscover his form from the early part of last season. If only the 'Rangers fans' in the squad last year showed similar commitment.

Maybe GDS has been successful and we're back in the SPL!!

If nothing else, Savage alone would generate more interest down south in the Scottish 3rd division than the entire SPL will get in the next 10 years.

For the arse they made of the North Korean flag tonight?? Would this be fair punishment?

But I think what Leeds argued was they should only pay for the costs at the ground, and that anything else such as street parking in the vicinity, or at nearby stations for example, were part of normal policing and shouldn't be charged to them. The judge agreed with Leeds. In recent years there's been arguments for us to contribute to policing costs in pubs after old firm games, and while I don't know what we pay for if the precedent down south is applied I imagine we will have overpaid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18965193 Basically West Yorkshire police have been ordered to repay Leeds for charging for policing costs in areas surrounding the ground. The only costs that can be charged are for direct policing at the game and around the stadium. Could Rangers be due any money back? Obviously there'd be a debate over who it went to, but there now appears to be precedent.

Any update on the SPL begging us to come back?

And who would you suggest the organ grinder is? I assume you mean Green is the monkey.

Looking at it objectively, Green has always been the one saying the right things. His statements are articulate and well worded, and show none of the hysteria that Brown, Kennedy, et al seem desperate to generate. The only concern is that Whyte had that same calmness until the shit hit the fan.

The logical 'bottle merchant' solution would be to invite Dundee, Dunfermline and Rangers into the SPL. They get the 14 team league, keep Rangers and the TV money, and leave the SFL with 28 teams and they'd be quickly forced into 2 leagues of 14. Could cause havoc mind due.

And what's being done to us isn't? Should we just pull our pants down, bend over and take it?

The best thing would be for us to get to the final, and then boycott the final hopefully against a diddy team that would take only a few thousand fans. The Scottish games showpiece event in front of an empty stadium would really send a strong message.

Why do we need SPL approval? The SPL have refused to transfer our share, so I assume that share is now null and void. The SFA are looking to impose sanctions before the license is transferred, but why do the SPL have any say now?