And so it begins...EBTs

[Blue Moon 1,118]

Will this commission be any more independent than the appelate tribunal?

[pete 2,499]

Will this commission be any more independent than the appelate tribunal?

 

With the Celtic solicitors being in breach of Interest it will probably be members of the Celtic notary office.

[foggy dewhurst 0]

fight them in the courts of law lets go for one final battle its time to stand up for justice if we dont they will shit on us led by the parkhead mafia .

[der Berliner 3,282]

Will Rangers actually have a chance to see the evidence and defend themselves here? (Ignoring the SFA's wish list for a moment.) That is, will they actually be involved in the process? Will they have a right to appeal and challenge?

[calscot 0]

They are actually considering taking titles away on the basis of what is at worst, a financial technicality? And that's IF we're found guilty. I see again no mention of Celtic's dual contract.

 

Are the SFA not responsible for not pointing out this error when they received our accounts where it was all laid bare? Can we sue them for negligence?

 

What a joke Scotland is becoming.

[stewarty 1,877]

They are actually considering taking titles away on the basis of what is at worst, a financial technicality? And that's IF we're found guilty. I see again no mention of Celtic's dual contract.

 

Are the SFA not responsible for not pointing out this error when they received our accounts where it was all laid bare? Can we sue them for negligence?

 

What a joke Scotland is becoming.

 

Agreed. Although I would say we are a joke, rather than becoming one.

[Zappa 0]

Will this commission be any more independent than the appelate tribunal?

 

It'll be exactly the same type of thing as the appellate tribunal. A supposedly independent panel of people selected from the SFA's wee list of people. No doubt comprised of a judge who advocates jailing someone for being a suspect, a Rangers hating prick from the board of a crappy wee team like Raith and a crooked businessman that barely knows his arse from his elbow, but knows how to take a backhander = SFA's stitch up commission.

[forlanssister 3,050]

It'll be exactly the same type of thing as the appellate tribunal. A supposedly independent panel of people selected from the SFA's wee list of people. No doubt comprised of a judge who advocates jailing someone for being a suspect, a Rangers hating prick from the board of a crappy wee team like Raith and a crooked businessman that barely knows his arse from his elbow, but knows how to take a backhander = SFA's stitch up commission.

 

Fret not we can appeal the SPL decision via the SFA !!!!!!!!!

[ian1964 10,444]

Lifted from FF:

 

Regan and the SFA's Corruption exposed?

The principal case by Regan and the SFA against Rangers bringing the game into disrepute centred on the evidence and questioning of Rangers Financial Controller, Ken Olverman. Indeed in a classic way selected parts of his evidence was leaked to the media in order to undermine his credibility and indeed his integrity. It was a shameful way for any governing body to act. The infamous independent Former High Court Judge who presided over the 'Independent Tribunal' (this the man who could find no evidence of Catholic favouritism in Monklands Council - John Reid's constituency) has been used to demonstrate the independence of the Tribunal.

 

Rangers defence which was disregarded was that the fault lay solely with Craig Whyte's governance which led to both John Greig and John McLelland resigning from the Board. Whyte demanded the Financial Controller report only to him. If the Rangers case was accepted it would show another failure by Regan in his responsibility as Chief Executive of the SFA. This would be on to of his incompetent handling of the fit and proper person test.

 

I am advised from within Ibrox that Ken Olverman had some misgivings about Whyte's instructions and form of governance. Of such concern were these to him that he consulted his professional body. He was advised that unless he had clear evidence of wrongdoing he should follow his employer's (Whyte) instructions. Whyte, of course, covered his tracks so well it would take a team of forensic accountants to unravel his dealings. Ken Olverman followed the advice he was given by his professional body. In so doing he acted correctly andwith integrity. Why this did not emerge in the Hearing or subsequent Appeal I do not know.

 

If this is shown independently to be the truth- and it would be fairly simple for a member of the intrepid Scottish media to check with Mr Olverman and his professional body - it would totally undermine the case against Rangers and expose the findings and Appeal result as a sham and miscarriage of justice in that evidence was used selectively. It would also expose the corruption at the heart of the SFA and demonstrate that body as being unfit to have any integrity or authority when it comes to determining any Appeal against the removal of titles and trophies. I cannot name the source but am personally willing to swear a legal affidavit confirming I was advised about Mr Olverman seeking the advice of his professional body.

 

This may explain Regan's desperation for Rangers to give up present and future rights to have recourse to the law to remedy injustice at the hands of the SFA. It may be the RFF or a Shareholder's Group would be willing to return to the Courts to protect the good name of our famous Club and initiate proceedings against the SFA and or Regan.

[der Berliner 3,282]

The silence from Ibrox, the RFFF, the supporters organizations et al on this beggars belief.