SPFL Season declaration challenged legally (ongoing discussion)

[ian1964 10,386]

 

[der Berliner 3,219]

Maybe it would be more diplomatic to speak of dishonesty rather than lies.

 

It makes you wonder what mindest these guys at the SPFL HQ have. You only hope that they don't get away with it (again) due to some minute "legal" detail et al.

[der Berliner 3,219]

12 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Is The Daily Record just a yahoo/SPFL fanzine now?  ?

 

As for Doncaster and MacLennan, what a pair of chancers.

They've been sponsoring a stand at the Scumhut for years and print the Celtic View, so no real inquisition needed for that question.

[Uilleam 5,396]

The Dhaily Rhabble article contains the following, which I don't actually understand

 

“The SPFL made those advance fee payments following the offer by another club to defer £300,000 of fee payments at that time. As a consequence, the SPFL suffered no negative cash flow impact, since the cash effect on it was nil.”
 

Record Sport understands Celtic were the club who deferred the £300,000 sum and were later repaid that money in full.

(https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-issue-furious-denial-murdoch-21960869)

 

Why was the fhilth fc due £300K "at that time"? 

Could somebody explain why it would be due advance payments, but other clubs had to proffer the begging bowl?

 

Also, why does the Rhabble state that the £300K was "repaid" to fhilthfc in full? 

One repays a loan, an advance, or, indeed, a favour.

So did rasellik lend the money to the other club(s) via the account of the SPFL?

Now that would be an indictable offence. 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Uilleam

[der Berliner 3,219]

12 hours ago, CammyF said:

Interesting bit buried at the very bottom of the Record article ;

 

It’s understood several clubs have contacted the Ibrox outfit in recent days to express their anger and disillusionment at the conduct of the SPFL in recent days, ahead of an EGM on May 12.

 

It is always interesting to read this, but you wonder where those club's were when the EGM request was cast and where they will be at the EGM?

 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

2 hours ago, Uilleam said:

The Dhaily Rhabble article contains the following, which I don't actually understand

 

“The SPFL made those advance fee payments following the offer by another club to defer £300,000 of fee payments at that time. As a consequence, the SPFL suffered no negative cash flow impact, since the cash effect on it was nil.”
 

Record Sport understands Celtic were the club who deferred the £300,000 sum and were later repaid that money in full.

(https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-issue-furious-denial-murdoch-21960869)

 

Why was the fhilth fc due £300K "at that time"? 

Could somebody explain why it would be due advance payments, but other clubs had to proffer the begging bowl?

 

Also, why does the Rhabble state that the £300K was "repaid" to fhilthfc in full? 

One repays a loan, an advance, or, indeed, a favour.

So did rasellik lend the money to the other club(s) via the account of the SPFL?

Now that would be an indictable offence. 

 

 

 

Bribe for something 

 

[der Berliner 3,219]

Seemingly, SPFL board member and Rangers CO Stewart Robertson only became aware of the SPFL's "independent" Deloitte investigation after it was done and dusted. Well ...

[CammyF 6,761]

16 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

Seemingly, SPFL board member and Rangers CO Stewart Robertson only became aware of the SPFL's "independent" Deloitte investigation after it was done and dusted. Well ...

And has yet to receive official confirmation/documentation of findings of said investigation 

[Scott7 5,108]

17 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

Seemingly, SPFL board member and Rangers CO Stewart Robertson only became aware of the SPFL's "independent" Deloitte investigation after it was done and dusted. Well ...

They didn’t want him to tell Deloitte where to look for the skeletons.

[Gaffer 1,665]

I just read the latest SPFL statement out today.  Apparently Ann Budge is wrong ... clubs were given "an advance" four years ago ... not a loan.

 

LAUGH OUT LOUD.  Who the hell is writing these statements and why did they think that would help?!?  They just keep digging themselves a bigger hole.  So it's not ok to give clubs a loan but they can get an advance.  Wait a minute, I though that they couldn't get an advance.

 

Has anyone else lost track of how many times these halfwits have changed their story.  Scottish football is a joke, and the clowns are in charge.  I'm so embarrassed and yet I'm just a fan.  Imagine actually being on the board.  Imagine being the chairman.  Imagine being the CEO.