Blue Moon 1,122 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 He really gets to the crux of the matter. Well done AJ. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Crikey that's a clearly defined legal defence there, when this goes to court. The corrupt SFA/SPL wont have a leg to stand on, any law practise worth their high fees would be telling that lot of criminals the games a bogey. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,459 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Crikey that's a clearly defined legal defence there, when this goes to court. The corrupt SFA/SPL wont have a leg to stand on, any law practise worth their high fees would be telling that lot of criminals the games a bogey. It won't stop the idiots continuing their agenda 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 AJ doesn't address the specific issue on which the SPL are going after us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) He really gets to the crux of the matter. Well done AJ. I agree, although he quotes the original Tribuneral's "nearly as bad as match fixing" finding which referred to withholding PAYE under Craig Whyte and his failure to disclose he'd been disqualified as a director, rather than any EBT related issues. It worries me when people get the details wrong - makes me think they haven't done their homework properly elsewhere too. Edited September 12, 2012 by Mountain Bear 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 AJ doesn't address the specific issue on which the SPL are going after us. isn't it that we didn't tell the sfa. aj says we did. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 isn't it that we didn't tell the sfa. aj says we did. I thought it was that we had not included them on our contracts that we submitted to the SPL. Is that incorrect? Does anyone have a link to what exactly we are being charged with? If you are correct, GS, then that throws even more questions on the whole investigation as what Rangers submit to the SFA should not be of relevence to SPL. However my understanding was that it was all in respect of what we submitted to the SPL, but I stand to be corrected. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I thought it was that we had not included them on our contracts that we submitted to the SPL. Is that incorrect? Does anyone have a link to what exactly we are being charged with? If you are correct, GS, then that throws even more questions on the whole investigation as what Rangers submit to the SFA should not be of relevence to SPL. However my understanding was that it was all in respect of what we submitted to the SPL, but I stand to be corrected. That was my reading of it as well but the big point is the SFA cannot take away titles and that is the whole mission, so they threw it to the SPL. I am still of the view that there are so many holes in this case a real judge will drop it like a ton of bricks. Even a biased one wouldn't stake his reputation on it. Unless your name is Nimmo of course. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I thought it was that we had not included them on our contracts that we submitted to the SPL. Is that incorrect? Does anyone have a link to what exactly we are being charged with? If you are correct, GS, then that throws even more questions on the whole investigation as what Rangers submit to the SFA should not be of relevence to SPL. However my understanding was that it was all in respect of what we submitted to the SPL, but I stand to be corrected. my belief is its bit submitting all info to the sfa that was required. ie details of all contractual payments. I don't think we are required to submit anything to the SPL simply to the sfa. aj seems to be saying we submitted everything asked for and got membership no problem. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 the sfa hold the players contracts etc. 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.