Our titles- Scaremongering

[scotjo 19]

After the appeal that was heard before the one at the Supreme Court, the one in 2015 the SPFL stated that no such mechanism for title stripping existed. All sensationalist rubbish from the press who surely would have known this even if it was at this point yet still peddled out the same strip the titles guff and also why did Celtic issue their moaning statement when surely they must also have been aware of this. It's the same as someone wanting a murderer to be executed in Britain, no such sanction exists.

.

Edited July 8, 2017 by scotjo

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Im worried celtc will be found to have harboured paedophiles to make sure they got a sporting advantage but will still somehow be allowed to keep trophies.

 

Hibs definitely did but they won nothing. They should just be banned for ever.

 

 

[Uilleam 5,521]

Im worried celtc will be found to have harboured paedophiles to make sure they got a sporting advantage but will still somehow be allowed to keep trophies.

 

Hibs definitely did but they won nothing. They should just be banned for ever.

 

To me. the cover ups come close to criminal conspiracy, and attempting to thwart the ends of justice.

[der Berliner 3,318]

The best chance of quitening the howling hordes - since they speak about players we might not have signed otherwise - is pointing at the ultra-soft loan brought in during the days of McCann at the Scumhut with the Co-op bank. Ultra soft and very long term, so they get the ship back on course after near admin and buy players they otherwise would not have been able to.

 

This has, AFAIK, never been called into question and the loan deal is up next year (methinks), with a whopping amount due. CL and transfer out money may see to that, but that is not the point. Likewise, the land deals for Lennoxtown et al, as can be reviewd at footballtaxhavens are as dubious as it gets, handing massive financial advantages to the club. What were the going rates for other Scottish clubs with banks?

 

If that does not constitute to something ... how about all SPL member clubs' directors acting against company law when they decided to vote us out (well, the fan mob voted us out) against the well being of their company ... which might well be proved on hidnsight with th relevant figure.

 

Some other stuff would be the tax evasion (well, perhaps) by the Yahoos when they had pay-at-the-gate affairs, nigh full stadiums but crowds of exactly e.g. 25k? That was in the 70s and 80s though, IIRC.

Edited July 8, 2017 by der Berliner

[scotjo 19]

To me. the cover ups come close to criminal conspiracy, and attempting to thwart the ends of justice.

 

It's perverting the course of justice.

[Uilleam 5,521]

The best chance of quitening the howling hordes - since they speak about players we might not have signed otherwise - is pointing at the ultra-soft loan brought in during the days of McCann at the Scumhut with the Co-op bank. Ultra soft and very long term, so they get the ship back on course after near admin and buy players they otherwise would not have been able to.

 

This has, AFAIK, never been called into question and the loan deal is up next year (methinks), with a whopping amount due. CL and transfer out money may see to that, but that is not the point. Likewise, the land deals for Lennoxtown et al, as can be reviewd at footballtaxhavens are as dubious as it gets, handing massive financial advantages to the club. What were the going rates for other Scottish clubs with banks?

 

If that does not constitute to something ... how about all SPL member clubs' directors acting against company law when they decided to vote us out (well, the fan mob voted us out) against the well being of their company ... which might well be proved on hidnsight with th relevant figure.

 

Some other stuff would be the tax evasion (well, perhaps) by the Yahoos when they had pay-at-the-gate affairs, nigh full stadiums but crowds of exactly e.g. 25k? That was in the 70s and 80s though, IIRC.

 

The defrauding of the (then) Inland Revenue was openly discussed in the 50s and 60s. The fhilth even had a turnstile nicknamed "The Willie Maley Gate", as the proceeds from this were paid to the Manager (Maley) cash in hand.

 

Another "open secret". The piggery has a press full of them.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Uilleam

[the gunslinger 3,366]

To me. the cover ups come close to criminal conspiracy, and attempting to thwart the ends of justice.

Yeah definitely people will be jailed but that wont strip trophies. There is clear sporting advantage in terms of signing youngsters. Who in turn won them trophies.

 

 

[StuGers 477]

To me. the cover ups come close to criminal conspiracy, and attempting to thwart the ends of justice.

 

There really isn't any doubt about that. It's just that the press and police force and government have selective vision.

[craig 5,199]

To me. the cover ups come close to criminal conspiracy, and attempting to thwart the ends of justice.

 

I don't think it comes close Uilleam, I think it is. They clearly covered up pedophilia at Parkhead and, as such, were a willing party to a criminal conspiracy

[Uilleam 5,521]

Here is the somewhat confused opinion of everybody's favourite creepy masturbator.

 

 

I want to see SFA reopen the case on what took place at Rangers

Graham Spiers

July 8 2017, 12:01am,

The Times

 

What are the Scottish Football Association to do about Rangers? Where can the leading governing body of Scottish football now hide when there is such a widespread public outcry to right a wrong? The past week has not just been shameful for Rangers FC, it is now sorely testing the mettle of those who are trusted with ensuring fairness, truth and integrity prevail in our game.

 

Last Wednesday morning Rangers finally lost their long-running dispute with HMRC over their years of tax avoidance. The legal dispute was complex but, in a nutshell, the claim of HMRC remained quite simple: it believed that in the years between 2001 and 2010 Rangers owed it tens of millions in unpaid taxes. With five Supreme Court judges unanimously backing the previous judgment of three law lords in the Court of Session, we now appear to have an emphatic view that the pre-2012 Rangers FC’s use of employee benefit trusts (EBTs) was quite the tax dodge.

 

Some call it “aggressive tax avoidance”. Others call it “a tax wheeze”. Others have called it “blatant evasion”. HMRC, who have made a point from the start of not asserting any of these pursuits as criminal cases, have nonetheless proved that millions of pounds should have been paid by Rangers, but were not. We do have tax laws in this country, and they are there to be enforced, which is HMRC’s primary aim.

 

It won’t do here to rake back over all the trophies — 14 in total — that Rangers won during the EBT years. But it must have given the Ibrox club a considerable advantage to have all this extra money to spend, and invest in playing assets, when in fact the cash should have been the keep of Her Majesty’s collectors.

 

With the Rangers versus HMRC now concluded, it all looks grossly unfair on every other club that Rangers faced during those years. Add to this the guilty verdict handed down to Ibrox by the Lord Nimmo Smith inquiry in 2012 into undeclared side-letters involving Rangers and the SFA, and it is little wonder that the emotive word “cheating” is being used of Rangers during this time. Such conduct going on at Ibrox had dodginess and tawdriness and a lack of honesty written all over it.

Last Thursday, with the white heat of the Rangers case fanning out all across Scottish football, the SFA was forced to stick its head out of its bunker. The ruling body issued a stony-faced response to the Supreme Court ruling, which basically said that its own legal advice was such that the Rangers case was closed for them. There was nothing more, the SFA averred, to say or do on the matter.

 

This was a wrong response but it was no great surprise. This vexed Rangers case has been the scourge of the SFA, to the point of terrifying it. From the very top, where once Campbell Ogilvie was an SFA president, having also been a Rangers FC board member and an EBT recipient, the saga has proved excruciating for the governing body. And now it doesn’t have the stomach for the legal fight, as it would surely become, if any title-stripping of Rangers relating to those years was pursued.

 

Yet doing nothing does not seem to be an option for the SFA. There is a visceral anger towards Rangers across the Scottish game which, as things stand, is not going to be quenched. Saying “we intend to do nowt” only aggravates that sense of injustice. Until this week, it was perfectly feasible for the SFA and the SPFL to stall and obfuscate, because the EBTs saga had not been concluded. But it has now — and emphatically — and Scottish football fans are angry.

 

It could be that there is not a case, as deplorably as Rangers FC behaved, for title-stripping. I’m not fully convinced of the arguments for it myself. But the SFA should, at the very minimum, reopen the case and explore fresh legal advice. A review will cost money but, for the sake of justice and integrity, that money needs to be spent.

 

It cannot be beyond the wherewithal of the SFA to appoint a number of legal minds and substantial football figures to reconsider all the facts. And, that done, if there is deemed no need for title-stripping, then let that be the association’s final say on the matter.

 

Sir David Murray, a wounded man this week, has stated that using EBTs allowed Rangers to have players the club might otherwise not have been able to afford. Alex McLeish, the former Rangers manager, said something very similar when interviewed. Dave King, the current Rangers chairman, in a spurt of graciousness, even appeared to apologise for the EBTs racket going on at Ibrox.

 

Rangers themselves obviously have regret, bordering on remorse, for what went on. It was deeply wrong and gave Rangers an advantage.

 

The SFA needs to look again at the matter. It is no good saying “the case is closed”. Adopting such a stance makes the governing body look timid and weak and lacking in credibility.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/i-want-to-see-sfa-reopen-the-case-on-what-took-place-at-rangers-8c2qfs62h

 

I fail to see dishonesty when the trusts were declared in the accounts. 'Dodginess@ and 'tawdriness' are matters merely of opinion: do I suppose that Spiers would condemn each and every mechanism and instance of tax reduction similarly? Do I cocoa. An unmistakable miasma of stale hypocrisy emanates from him, as usual.

 

The Creep is 'unconvinced' of the argument pro title stripping, yet wants the SFA to spend time and resources on re-exploring this issue. Clearly he feels that titles should be expunged from the records, can't think of a proper argument, he is certainly not clever enough, and hopes that a brainy big boy will (be appointed and told to) come up with a rationale.

 

The SFA issued a statement under legal advisement,the import of which which seems to have escaped his notice. Of course that advice was not what Spiers wanted to hear, so he chooses to ignore it. I imagine that Spiers' solution would be constant re examination, until somebody, from somewhere, comes to a conclusion with which he would 'feel comfortable'.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Uilleam