calscot 0 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Calscot, you're saying that we definitely have nothing to answer for at all. I totally agree with what you say about being guilty before trial, but I believe the possibility of wrong doing is there, not because of Timmy propaganda, simply because I don't trust David Murray one bit. No, my point is that 1. Even if guilty it is due to subjective views and ambiguity. You cannot apply ultimate sanctions for that kind of discretion. That's the kind of thing you give a warning for, tighten up the rules to make them explicit and tell them they'll be punished if they break them again. Even a suspended sentence would be pushing the boundaries of natural justice. 2. How can you retrospectively punish someone for repeatedly doing something that is only subjectively outside the rules, without giving them fair warning and the opportunity to change their ways? 3. Why should Rangers be punished at all for something ambiguous when they did not gain an unfair advantage? So basically the punishment does not fit the alleged crime and the timeliness makes justice impossible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ascender 352 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Of everything we've been accused of, this is the one I find the hardest to believe. Given how many people are involved in the registration of players and how they're all looking after and protecting their own interests, would this not have been flagged-up as being dodgy by someone (friend or foe) in the last 10 years? Given the small country we live in and the intense media focus on the Glasgow clubs, I don't see how this hasn't developed in to a massive story over the years with lots of evidence and ex players waiting to stick the boot in as not all have left on good terms. BUt there's been absolutely nothing apart from the ramblings of Hugh Adam and a heavily redacted letter on a sheet of A4 paper. No wonder we don't want to give up our right to appeal this as it above all else, stinks of an absolute stitch-up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 No, my point is that 1. Even if guilty it is due to subjective views and ambiguity. You cannot apply ultimate sanctions for that kind of discretion. That's the kind of thing you give a warning for, tighten up the rules to make them explicit and tell them they'll be punished if they break them again. Even a suspended sentence would be pushing the boundaries of natural justice. 2. How can you retrospectively punish someone for repeatedly doing something that is only subjectively outside the rules, without giving them fair warning and the opportunity to change their ways? 3. Why should Rangers be punished at all for something ambiguous when they did not gain an unfair advantage? So basically the punishment does not fit the alleged crime and the timeliness makes justice impossible. Guess they simply believe there's no statute of limitations on it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 It's not a case of deciding we're guilty without a trial - it's more believing that we need a trial - a fair one - and to abide by its results so that the matter is laid to rest. There is no chance of a fair trial. That's the problem. Even the concepts behind the trial are unfair. The time to take Rangers to task was each year they registered the accounts. The fair thing to me would be to give Rangers a warning on future conduct, tighten up the rules and move on. That would happen in any other walk of life. I can't believe people think it's fair to retrospectively try people for repeatedly breaking an ambiguous rule for which you have turned a blind eye to at the time. People need to KNOW the rules before you can expect them to abide by them. This is making it up after the fact. If we're tried, it should be for last year only. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,288 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Heck, I'm off to work in no-time and wanting to check what the current state is ... and people are debating the contracts! :box: :admin: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 There is no chance of a fair trial. That's the problem. Even the concepts behind the trial are unfair. The time to take Rangers to task was each year they registered the accounts. The fair thing to me would be to give Rangers a warning on future conduct, tighten up the rules and move on. That would happen in any other walk of life. I can't believe people think it's fair to retrospectively try people for repeatedly breaking an ambiguous rule for which you have turned a blind eye to at the time. People need to KNOW the rules before you can expect them to abide by them. This is making it up after the fact. If we're tried, it should be for last year only. I think most people are in agreement with you on this, they're just looking at it from a different angle. There's very little chance of a fair trial in Scotland from the SFA, so we have to insist on the right to appeal to someone truly neutral. The other points you make are undeniably true, and should be taken into account by whoever the appeal goes to. I'd expect a neutral appeals board to rule that, yes, it is unfair to apply such vague rules retrospectively, and so clear us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 the sfa/spl and uncle tom cobbly Oih! That's Charles Green's patter! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest carter001 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Why do I get the impression you didn't read my post? Why do we have a case to answer? We followed the rules as we saw them and the ruling body did not complain. As I keep pointing, you need to be timely about justice or it becomes highly unfair. Imagine the rules were tightened up on here and some of the things you write were slightly outside those rules even though you thought you were following them ok? It's just subjective whether those rules were broken and you did not gain from them in any way. Would you think it right that because the admins back date this and find that you have broken the rules 10 times and so will be banned for life with no appeal? Or would it be more normal and fair for admins to say, "Right, fair warning, we're tightening up on this - these things are no longer acceptable, we've clarified the rules, and anyone who breaks them will be warned and then if they continue, be punished accordingly"? It's like being banned from playing for life for repeatedly doing something your weren't warned about or even given a yellow card. It's obviously wrong, but even our own don't get that. I don't think what is being suggested we have done is as trivial as an admin oversight. If the SFA see EBT payments on our accounts it won't raise any questions as they were legal to use and they were also used to pay staff, not just players. I don't think it was for them to investigate. I think it was more about us knowing the rules and informing them of all payments we make to players. The sfa only know about it because of HMRC so, I don't know far back they can go to punish us. I do believe however, that HMRC should only be allowed to go back so far. I think we have tried to have our cake and eat it. It just depends on the paper trail informing players that they could get access to the money from the scheme. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
no12 0 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 What has this got to do with Rangers? You are selling your club down the river by spinning the facts against it and have the temerity to call yourself no12? Disgraceful! I can't believe how many are falling for the Timmy lies and propaganda. Hah! That post says a lot more about your mentality than it does about mine! You seem to be blinkered to reality by bigotry. "Timmy lies and propaganda" indeed! Leave it behind and grow up! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I don't think what is being suggested we have done is as trivial as an admin oversight. If the SFA see EBT payments on our accounts it won't raise any questions as they were legal to use and they were also used to pay staff, not just players. I don't think it was for them to investigate. I think it was more about us knowing the rules and informing them of all payments we make to players. The sfa only know about it because of HMRC so, I don't know far back they can go to punish us. I do believe however, that HMRC should only be allowed to go back so far. I think we have tried to have our cake and eat it. It just depends on the paper trail informing players that they could get access to the money from the scheme. 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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.