Might be unpopular, but...

[calscot 0]

Going to plenty of grey areas and I doubt, given what has gone before, that we have any chance of an 'innocent' verdict. But SFA/SPL corruption does not make us innocent by default. If we broke the rules it is incumbent upon us to 'face the music'. If we feel persecuted legal recourse must be the option, not striking deals which reek of guilt. I still hope we can prove innocence...the quotes from Murray over this are fairly unambiguous and while his word is more or less worthless I can't help but hope he's telling the truth for once.

 

Far from being naive, not running away from mistakes is part of the morality I was brought up with and I've no reason to find fault in it as yet. I#ll take it over SDM or SPL morality any day.

 

If we broke the rules, we gave all the evidence of it for ten years. Why didn't they do something before? I am of the view that you can't act like people are obeying your rules for years and let them think that, then suddenly decide to backdate any decision on a technicality - where is the sporting integrity? Did Rangers not have the right to know that they were not technically following rules BEFORE they competed for each of ten seasons?

 

To me THAT is cheating. It will have denied Rangers the chance to compete at all. It's generally called, "entrapment".

 

Rangers did not DELIBERATELY break any rules and the rules were so ambiguous that for twelve years neither Rangers nor the SPL nor the SFA knew that any rule breaking was being done - and they STILL don't know.

 

When something is that subtle is it not the FAIR thing to do, to draw a line under it and CHANGE the rules to be more specific and less ambiguous? Then punish for any future breaches? At worst you could give Rangers a suspended sentence that comes into effect if they break the rules in the next five years.

 

We're talking JUSTICE here, and it seems like most of Scotland, despite being the home of the Enlightenment, are clueless on this concept. It's all the more galling when our own people want to queue up to be dispensed this total corruption of basic values.

[Blue Moon 1,150]

Great reply, Calscot.

[calscot 0]

PS I can't see how you can have any court run by people with a total conflict of interest. It's like taking two feuding families, decide to convene a court on one of them and choose the judge and jury from the other. How does that work as justice?

[andy steel 0]

Oh get a grip. My opinion makes it even worse? Considering that in this thread alone I stand revealed as both naive and clueless, surely my feeble arguments can't have any effect whatsoever!

 

Calscot's post makes it clear that we gave evidence of all payments for 10 years, so we can't be guilty of secret payments. The one precludes the other. If you are certain of that, what have we got to fear? Any judgement which goes against us in an SFA 'court', despite your evidence, is clearly flawed and would be challenged by at least one Rangers supporter in the courts. So why try to stitch up an agreement?

 

The SPL is up the creek and I see no reason to strike a bargain with them which leaves us open to whispers. I'd rather take my chances even in a kangaroo court and, if necessary, a higher court. But things seem to be moving so quickly that the whole dual contracts farrago will probably fall by the wayside anyway. Looks like the SPL will collapse sooner than they can complete their 'investigation'.

[simplythebest 0]

Sorry but I can't believe honours would be stripped without valid reason, as painful as it is I simply put nothing beyond David Murray anymore.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Sorry but I can't believe honours would be stripped without valid reason, as painful as it is I simply put nothing beyond David Murray anymore.

 

did you ever think the sfa would punish us illegally over going into admin.

 

since that I have a whole new outlook on what's possible.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

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.

[calscot 0]

Oh get a grip. My opinion makes it even worse? Considering that in this thread alone I stand revealed as both naive and clueless, surely my feeble arguments can't have any effect whatsoever!

 

Calscot's post makes it clear that we gave evidence of all payments for 10 years, so we can't be guilty of secret payments. The one precludes the other. If you are certain of that, what have we got to fear? Any judgement which goes against us in an SFA 'court', despite your evidence, is clearly flawed and would be challenged by at least one Rangers supporter in the courts. So why try to stitch up an agreement?

 

The SPL is up the creek and I see no reason to strike a bargain with them which leaves us open to whispers. I'd rather take my chances even in a kangaroo court and, if necessary, a higher court. But things seem to be moving so quickly that the whole dual contracts farrago will probably fall by the wayside anyway. Looks like the SPL will collapse sooner than they can complete their 'investigation'.

 

There is always plenty to fear from letting your enemies decide whether you are guilty. Would you like Celtic fans to decide whether we are a "new club"? That's what's happening on Wikipedia. To me it's obvious that we're the same club but with a new parent company, other clubs around the world have been in our position and not been consigned to history on that site.

 

I think we've all been shafted in the past when we knew we were innocent. Last year I had my car hit by another car who overtook me while I was turning right - totally her fault but she completely lied to the insurance companies saying I pulled out on her when I was actually well established on the road. Without witnesses I ended up getting the blame - and that was agreed my insurance company who did not have an agenda against me.

 

The case in point is a strange one of perception - it's not about the payments themselves, it's about if you subjectively think they were contracts. The fact is that it's a minor technicality that should have been brought to light at the time and even if found guilty should result in a minor censure - the fact that they are talking about stripping our titles shows the extremity of agenda against us.

 

Would you say put yourself to a trial by your enemies where if you are found guilty of a technicality in their subjective view, that your hand will be cut off? I really doubt it. I think you would refuse and risk the whispering of possible guilt instead. We may even be guilty of that technicality but the punishment does not suit such a minor crime when tried 12 years later. It's incredibly extreme.

 

Sorry but I do think it is incredibly naive to think that if you are innocent then you have nothing to fear from a trial by your enemies.

 

I think that people really have to get it sorted about what exactly our crime is and whether an odd, badly worded email is enough evidence to prove us guilty.

 

What you also don't seem to get is that because people don't have a clue about what we've done but already see us as guilty of something heinous even though they can't explain it, is the reason we were kicked out of the SPL. Fans thought we were guilty of something that was obscured by phrases like "sporting inegrity", "financial doping" and "buying players they couldn't afford" and the clubs voted us out because they couldn't think for themselves.

[calscot 0]

Here's another example, Celtic fans don't think Larsson ever dived, Rangers fans do. Do you think Celtic fans would be happy for us to decide whether Larsson dived and retrospectively lose any title where he is found guilty?

 

If Larsson didn't ever dive then what do they have to fear? I very much doubt they'd go for it.

[Bluedell 5,376]

The "famine song" was sung about by Scottish people to Scotttish people so what did we have to fear? We even had that great property lawyer, Donald Findlay, to support the viewpoint. A court decided that Rangers fans were being racist and anti_Irish.

 

It wasn't a kangaroo court and it wasn't Mickey Mouse defending but our viewpoint was ignored and the court reached what seems to me as a ridiculous decision.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Bluedell
bloody spelling again.