Uilleam

Not my logic. I have seen it demonstrated.

Will we get Work permits for any/all of these guys? We are not rasellik, which, evidently, can get WPs for any jobbing superstar, at the drop of Padraig Nevin's beret.

Yes, but in most leagues the correlation will hold. Maybe all that SPL positions show is that Rangers is overpaying. The general assumption is that wages will relate to quality, although at Ibrox the odd (5,7,9) dumpling has presumably filtered through the net

I am told that the strongest correlation between money and success is that between salaries and success. The higher the wage bill, the higher the likelihood of success (trophies, high league position, European progress).

I don't know if they -the squad?- ever recouped their deferred salaries. However, a postponement is far from a voluntary renunciation, if we wish to discuss the altruistic aspects of their characters

Were the wages/part wages not deferred, rather than relinquished completely?

More than a club, indeed; it's a criminal enterprise, it seems. When will the football authorities shut this den of thieves? Or will bucketfuls of sanctimonious oxterguff see them into the clear. Neymar to stand trial for alleged fraud and corruption over move to Barcelona • Barcelona and Santos also face trial, as well as striker’s parents • Neymar could be banned from playing football during any judicial sentence Neymar’s move to Barcelona, which occurred in 2013, has been a success on the pitch but problematic off it. Thursday 4 May 2017 17.06 BST Last modified on Thursday 4 May 2017 19.47 BST Neymar and his parents are to stand trial over alleged fraud and corruption. In addition the Barcelona president, Josep Maria Bartomeu, and his predecessor Sandro Rosell will go on trial for alleged fraud and corruption over Neymar’s transfer from Santos in 2013. The two clubs were also ordered to stand trial. All have denied wrongdoing. Spanish prosecutors have recommended Neymar be handed a two-year jail sentence and fined €10m. Sentences of two years or less are usually suspended for first-time offenders in Spain. However, Neymar could be banned from playing during a judicial sentence. His arrival from Santos has been a huge success for the Spanish champions on the pitch but a judicial nightmare off it. The 25-year-old striker is being investigated in Brazil and Spain over his move to La Liga. The case began with a complaint from the Brazilian investment company DIS, which owned 40% of Neymar’s sporting rights at the time of his transfer. DIS received €6.8m – 40% of the €17m fee paid to Santos – with the company claiming it was denied its real share because part of the transfer fee was concealed by Barcelona, Santos and the Neymar family. Spain’s national court suspects Santos were paid €25m, which would mean DIS was cheated out of €3.5m. Barcelona originally published the transfer figure as €57.1m, with €40m of that given to the player’s family and the rest to Santos. DIS has called for five-year sentences for Neymar and his parents, who acted as the player’s representatives, eight years for Rosell and Bartomeu plus a €195m fine for Barça. In July 2016 a judge ruled that irregularities in the transfer were detected but said it was an issue for a civil court, not a criminal court, to settle. However, prosecutors successfully argued the player and his father were aware of potentially fraudulent dealings between Barcelona and Santos to the detriment of DIS to fully overturn that decision. The decision to order Neymar to stand trial is another blow to the image of the Spanish giants and the player himself. Barcelona hoped to bring an end to the murky affair when the club agreed to pay a €5.5m fine in a deal with prosecutors in June to settle a separate case and ensure the club avoided trial on tax-evasion charges over the transfer. Neymar is far from the only Barça star to find himself embroiled in problems with the Spanish authorities. Lionel Messi and his father were given 21-month suspended jail sentences in July 2016 for tax fraud relating to the player’s image rights. The defender Javier Mascherano agreed a one-year suspended sentence with authorities for tax fraud this year. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/04/neymar-trial-fraud-barcelona-santos

The man violated young boys over what we now surmise is a significantly long period of time. Violation of visa requirements pales to nothing in the circumstances.

Hard to tell from necessarily selective 'tweets', but I'd agree with that. McGill's examination also involved a lot of paper productions (letters, e mails, contract documentation, etc) which the bewhiskered one did not seem to dispute.

Reportedly Naismith was trousering a cool £50k/wk.

I am not, never have been, a fan of "bringing them back". It rarely works, the returnee never seeming to aspire to, never mind hit, the heights of previous campaigns. It has often seemed to me that such moves are made, because the manager, or, perhaps more likely, the commercial director, thinks that it will please, or appease, the support, and thus sell more tickets, scarves, sweaters, and club related novelty ephemera. Sometimes it is clear that Board member(s) liked him as a player first time round, and that this admiration solely drove a return. Frankly that kind of 'vanity signing' gets a "No, thanks", from me. Things have moved on, and the future is not in the past, so let's not rush to tie a yellow ribbon, nor to kill a fatted calf, nor to celebrate a 'homecoming', please.

A desk jockey, out for the o/t. And the constabulary charges for this.....

Sorry, mate, that was a rather tasteless joke.

Yes, but the Yanquis are flinging him back from whence he came. i thought that he might have headed for Brazil, but he's been there before, apparently.

Clearly the US authorities don't want him on their soil, and it's quicker and cheaper if he leaves voluntarily. While he is a UK citizen, I have to say that I should want him in this country only if he turns Queen's Evidence, and spills the jelly and ice cream on the fetid, rotten carcass of sellikfootballclub.

Amorality and cynicism are not sufficient grounds for prosecution of Lloyds.

These things happen. It was only £18Mill, after all, and a Scottish Institution, hardly worth being punctilious about. From what I can see, LBG would have taken as proof a hand scrawled declaration in green crayon on the inside of an empty fag packet, and postmarked Carstairs.

It reads like "Financial Assistance" which used to be illegal, but the Law was changed in 2008, abolishing the restriction on FA. Apart from that, the transaction with Ticketus was undertaken back to back with the sale to Whyte, ie Whyte contracted with Ticketus, after acquisition, or simultaneously with it. What may be of interest is that under the Companies Act directors of a company have a statutory duty to act in a way that they consider to be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. This might apply, I imagine, to directors placed on the board by, or at the insistence of, oh, say, the company's bank.

Well I never! A Pandora's Box is opening before our eyes. No doubt, they will see the £1 Mill as money well spent, if it kept the creeps' traps firmly shut.

They will attempt to continue the cover up, of that there is no doubt. Many favours will be called in, much twisting of arms will take place, a lot of commercial deals will be put under review, the porkheid panjandrums will put out the call to the ummah eireann. The end will justify the means, it being more than a club, after all. It does seem, actually, that it is not so much a fitba' team, more a paedophile ring, or should that be a huddle? It will be interesting to see if anyone/any medium has the cojones to fully plough the sellik furrow. There is a rumour -internet based, so it must be true- that rasellik paid Torbett's Trophy Centre c£1Mill GBP, over 4 years, after his conviction(s). That represents a lot of POTY prizes, I imagine.

I think that you may be right. It will be interesting to see how their friends in the press, the radio, and television, try to run interference. Deny, deflect, diminish, and demean will be the editorial order of the day. Make no mistake, it will be shameless.

Post 58. Murray's cantraips were suspected years before the crash of 2008/9. The tax case rendered Rangers toxic, so Lloyd's, in the circumstances, would have leaned on Murray to sell to the devil himself. To me however, its overall exposure to Murray group problems was the principal issue. If Murray writ large was sound, Rangers' problems could have been subsumed within the overall group, at least for the medium term. It's hard to be sure, of course.

Bastardry ˈbɑːstədri,ˈbastədri/ noun AUSTRALIAN informal cruel, despicable, or otherwise unpleasant behaviour. And, no, I should not welcome the Knight of the Realm back, even if he is much chastened. His plate spinning antics depended, and would depend now, on nods, winks, and handshakes with the bank, and others, bullish market conditions, and an economy not in recession.

The strong suspicion was, has been for some time, still is, that Murray use BofS money, racking up substantial debts and overdrafts, over the whole group, secured against assets that were ultimately insufficient. Rangers' debt was manageable in the trading circumstances of the football Club, but Lloyd's, owner of BofS, took, possibly forced, the opportunity to recoup the £18mill. King's money is not, as far as I know/can see, bank or other debt, but investment from a Trust fund, established for the benefit of family and others.

There was always a lack of clarity over such matters. The spin was that Murray had personally invested, or paid off debt, but the suspicion was that the money came from Murray Group debt to the BofS. At one point, there was a joint co. called, if I recall correctly, MurrayBS (indeed!), the BS being Bank of Scotland, in fact. There was much talk of the property 'empire' being funded on BofS debt, based on 'friendly' valuations, and even 'friendlier' market prognostications. Murray, it seemed to many at the time, had almost carte blanche to borrow. The Murray Group was exposed to market vagaries and fluctuations in two principal sectors: metals and property. Both areas which would, and did, feel the cold draught of economic downturn very quickly. When Lloyds came in, and recognised the extent of exposure all hell broke loose, quite understandably. The Rangers part of the Murray empire became collateral damage. I am not exonerating Lloyds from acting shabbily in this regard, be assured.