The new SPFL board yesterday agreed that some sort of review should take place into the debacle which saw Rangers collapse into liquidation. While this is welcome as far as it goes, its scope will necessarily be bound by what the SPFL previously agreed to bind itself to. This was clear from the off, which I alluded to at the time.
If you contractually agree to limit your future actions for all purposes, you tie your own hands. This is where the SPFL are now and it is the reason we must look beyond them. The actions of those who tied their own hands are just as important as matters pertaining to the integrity of Scottish football’s competitions (the Scottish Cup and SFL League Cup, as well as the SPL).
The SPFL are not the only ones who are looking into this matter. They know to expect challenges during the course of the next two months.
Episode 5 of The CQN Podcast: A Celtic State of Mind comes hot on the heels of one of the club’s most controversial European ties in recent memory.
* What now for the Green Brigade?
* Dedryck Boyata – Are reinforcements on route?
* Virgil van Dijk – The windfall cometh;
* Farewell to Emilio Izaguirre.
Listen to the latest episode here:
1,294 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- »
BRTH
Fantastic posts!
Some sense and hope in a sea of hysterical pish!
Thank you and please keep us as up to date as you can.
Oh, err, and enjoy your holiday!
Lots of talk about “judicial review”… but how precisely would this work?
Can you have a judicial review into the actions of a private company? (SPL/SPFL)?
Would Celtic (or another member club) need to ask for a review?
Can mere shareholders ask for a review even when the company/club they own shares in is against it (or not actively in favour of it..)?
BRTH many thanks for that post . Cheered me up a bit , and gave us a chance to get into them .
Really can’t for the life of me , understand why the celtic board have no stomach for a fight , which with all the proof ,and backing by the SC judgement ,seems to me they can’t lose . Also surprised the lack of support from hibs , Aberdeen . The Dundee teams ,who would survive the boycott from the hordes , after all they were absent for years there and are still going , I would have included hearts in that list , but they are cut from the same cloth as Sevco . I just wish the celtic support could crowd fund to take them on .
I stand over the body with a bloodstained knife in my hand.
Polis say I’m bang tae rights!.
I can hire a lawyer, and if I pay the stooge enough, he’ll argue till he’s blue in the face it I didnae dae it.
Legal ruling my erse!!, it’s legal opinion nothing more nothing less.
Over tae you celtic.
Folks,
Here is a scenario which is based on only a little knowledge, some supposition and perhaps instinct.
Celtic do not have a representative on the SPFL board which means that there is no one present from Celtic who “might” feel obliged to share with fellow board members certain information or legal opinion to which Celtic are privvy or might be in the course of preparing.
As I have said, other legal opinions will be sought and the SPFL have already stated that they have taken advice about any potential challenge.
Good.
But eh, challenge to what? What kind of challenge? Who does it involve and what does the challenge refer to?
Back in the good old days when the court procedures allowed, you could conduct something which was as often as not called “litigation by ambush” which meant that your opponent had no advance warning of what you were going to argue or produce in evidence.
Eventually, the rules were changed so that you couldn’t do this and so you had to inform your opponent in advance what you were really going to argue about.
There is just no fun in that type of thing.
There will be other legal opinions, but they won’t be based upon the same questions, facts, or principles.
If I were a betting man, my bet would be that the opinion released today will not stand the test of time.
Not promising but that is what I think.
Right I am off to do this sunshine thingy.
HH the celts for tonight.
Just read that article by JF there, it’s right up there, nice one.
Firstly I’ll ignore the ‘moon howling’ form the usual suspects – people who obviously do not understand the modus operandi of the PLC board of any company. Enough said.
3 weeks ago the Supreme Court set out a legally binding decision of the use of EBTs with full reasoned argument. Until that judgement was made public, no board would take any legal recourse as the goalposts could be moved on appeal.
Today, 3 weeks after the Supreme Court judgement, the SPFL have released their statement based on a QC’s legal opinion.
As BRTH has so eloquently stated, now all the decisions, opinions, judgements, transcripts and evidence is in play, we are under starters orders,
It’s tough suffering through the years waiting for some form of justice to be done, but the wagons have been well and truly circled so we know where the battle lines are drawn.
So far the PLC have played their hand pretty well – you don’t shout and bawl when you are part way through ongoing proceedings !
So if some people would stop foaming at the mouth nonsensically and instead poured their energies into supporting the club prior to and during any forthcoming litigation, we would present a strong and unified front to those looking for weakness and division.
Damn
I was counting on Kev j coming up wi the answers
BROGAN ROGAN TREVINO AND HOGAN on 26TH JULY 2017 2:51 PM
Meant to be out on a boat but am sitting here spouting this pish.
===
Had a wee lol at that. ;))
IMATIM @ 2:44 PM,
Your summation is good…
But points 1 – 5 are too logical.
Yes Rangers failed to disclose the side letters. Oldco and not the Club were found guilty of this. NewCo paid the Fine.
They decided that the SFA could not go back and suspend the registrations through a “different construct” of the rules so the Players weren’t ineligible.
So no points deductions I’m afraid.
You couldn’t make it up…
Cause they already did 4 1/2 year ago…
Hail Hail
BRTH
just get that restaurant booked
and thanks
My support of celtic fc, will die wi me!.
DD
I would hang fire on any correspondence with CFC until they make a statement, seems the logical thing to do, then you will know the frame of mind your in and if your on board with the club or not, that’s what I’m doing , up to yourself but :))
EmbraMike
The ‘Usual Suspects’ you refer to, who dont understand company law.
They understand when they hear nonsense though, and they also understand enough not to pay to watch their team be cheated.
Who is it that doesnt understand? Id say it was those who funded the cheating, knowing fine well that the huns were shafting Celtic.
Maybe its you that doesnt understand how things work.
And of course what about when the ‘usual rules’ have been subverted, does that count?
Some very naive posters about.
Next you will be telling me about Santa Claus ffs
Are diurnal posters sunhowlers?
BRTH,
Hope you enjoy that sunshine. You put a big bit of that rare commodity in my heart this afternoon.
BRTH 2:38
Donald Findlay?
Chairbhoy 2:32
Cheers. Couldn’t remember the exact specifics.
Just wondering if there could be a challenge to the 5WA. They seem to be hiding behind it in terms of assurances about no further sanctions.
By my thinking, if they didn’t pay the fine then the 5WA is no longer valid. In fact it isn’t anyway in terms of having to pay all football debts (Lee Wallace payments to Hearts).
For a couple of years prior to the financial meltdown of the Old Rangers the board ( and Dermot Desmond ) in particular were regularly lambasted on here for deliberately allowing Rangers to win the League ( and therefore gain the much need Champions League money to keep them afloat) and by so doing keeping alive ( at all costs) THE OLD FIRM.
People howled at the moon about forefathers being betrayed etc etc.
Then when it became obvious in early 2012 that even Mr Desmond’s “collusion” ( cough ahem etc) wasnt enough to keep Old Rangers afloat the moon howlers decided that Celtic would stand idly by allow Rangers to come out of admin and carry on.That Celtic would actually help stop Rangers going into liquidation, to of course keep The Old Firm money rolling in.
Well Rangers were liquidated …Yep it happened
So then we were told that the Celtic Board would stand idly by and allow New Rangers to take their place in the SPL
Again howls of betrayal etc etc
Didnt happen of course
Keep calm
TD67
Good advice thanks. Better to write with more knowledge and a cool heid. :)
MOONBEAMSWD on 26TH JULY 2017 2:40 PM
trying to catch up ……..
I’m in……..
HH
Remember BSR I think posted yesterday the 41 Scottish clubs voted for the huns to re apply for membership when they wen down the pan in 2102 and the 2 diddies in charge of the sfa/spl wanted them straight back into the top division.
I live in hope!
BRTH
Good job you are at a swimming pool or you might spontaneously combust.
One key point for me. Has anyone said Rangers are not guilty of dishonesty? Is the QC saying that from the beginning of their use of ebts with side letters Rangers acted in good faith throughout, because if he is, he is only parroting LNS.
Now we might not be able to review LNS but the QC defence put forward certainly can be questioned.
Did the QC know that in 2005 RFC were questioned about the existence of side letters for De Boer and Flo?
Did the QC know RFC denied their existence?
If he did does he believe that denial was made in good faith?
Is he aware HMRC accused RFC of fraudulent behaviour in respect of that deliberate non disclosure.
Does he know that at the same time RFC were specifically asked about side letters for De Boer and Flo, RFC by then in 2005 would have had a number of players with side letters on their books under the big tax case ebts?
Does the QC believe that in their answer to HMRC, RFC were acting in good faith by not admitting the existence of the other side letters?
Summing up in not revealing the existence of those side letters requested as well as those held, none of which were registered with the SFA does the QC go along with the LNS view that there was no question of dishonesty?
It may be the rules don’t allow sanctions for such dishonesty (and that has to be looked at by UEFA/CAS) but the SFA/SFA have to make it clear that dishonesty took place and the only reason the QC could not have looked at the implications of that dishonesty in 2005 and so follow the LNS line is that the evidence of dishonesty was deliberately kept from LNS by Duff & Phelps, such evidence which should also have been in the SFA’s hands had RFC complied with UEFA FFP rules in 2011.
We might not be able to challenge LNS but a challenge can be raised on the basis on which the QC gave his advice .
Having said that in relation to clarifying RFC’s dishonesty , the bigger issue for me is restoring some form of integrity to Scottish football.
In my view the 5 Way agreement has driven a horse and cart through at least one of UEFA’s 11 key values and the separation of operating company as a legal entity from a club as something with no legal identity violates UEFA FFP Article 12 and 45 that defines a club and an operating company construct that must exist in order to be eligible to apply for a UEFA Licence and that in any enquiry into the 5 Way a UEFA delegate must be there to advise on the SFA/SPFL compliance with UEFA rules and if sufficient heed was paid to UEFA values in the implementation of the Five Way agreement, where retaining sporting integrity took a poor second to commercial concerns.
Value One
• Football first
In everything that we do, football must always be the first and most important element that we take into consideration. Football is a game before being a product, a sport before being a market, a show before being a business.
WITS
Regime change, nothing more.
Today they have let us know, that nothing has changed on the cheating front. Whatever version of corruption it is, or whatever you want to call them, they have the whip-hand over Celtic. They say what goes.
Lets see if the PLC want to challenge that.
HH
sean thornton on 26th July 2017 3:14 pm
My support of celtic fc, will die wi me!.
Hope that’s not any time soon
HH
HOLD………………………HOLD…………………………….!
My auld Dad, being a supporter for the best part of 90 years now, is still de;ighted but also astonished when ever we win anything in Scotland. It’s a wonder, says he, that we have won what we have with all the heating over the years.
He’s only too right , of course. But personally, thanks in large part to BRTH’S words of wisdom (and, of course, the work of the likes of Auldheid), I see light at the end of a very dark tunnel.
The gemme is indeed afoot.
heating=cheating.
TGM
Calm doo big yin!
My blood pressure is up just imagining you bashing your posts out on some poor keyboard.
:-(
BRTH
Any chance that boat has wifi
HH
WITS
####
See if, Rangers, died, liquidated…etc
why then, do Celtic supporters pay, 49 quid for a ticket, to see a new team ?
And,…..furthermore,….why do, Celtic PLC go along with that pricing policy ?
HH
Any team news for tonight?
Is young Ajer to get a start?
Or will it be Mikel and Jozo in the middle at the back?
Auldheid on 26th July 2017 3:34 pm
I’m glad your on our team :-)
might be too early or already covered but any word on the team for tonight?
HH
Philbhoy
But i am calm:)
Im pointing out that not standing up for what you believe in, isnt an option.
Wait till i get started.
If i have to take to the streets myself with a megaphone/microphone to make my point, so be it.
I dont expect support from anyone on CQN, with the exception of a few, that wont stop me.
Im only warming up.
HH
BRTH
Yup I agree that in August before RFC ceased to exist and under the SPFL rules introduced on 16th July RFC did have overdues payable that had not been appealed to HMRC (i. e the wee tax case) or if an appeal had ever been launched HMRC had already stated it would be vexatious which would mean it was an overdue payable.
So QC inaccurate on para 19 A and I don’t see any reference to SFA Article 5 1 f about clubs acting in good faith towards fellow members (see my previous on good faith) and that where he raises the Judicial Panel it is curious that those gentlemen were never asked if RFC brought the game into disrepute by not paying the wee tax bill which would have required some investigation into the background to it.
Its as if the wee tax case Shennagins have been airbrushed from history
TGM
Lets see if the PLC want to challenge that.
Yes, please just let’s see that. :))
THE GREEN MAN SAYS SACK THE BOARD on 26TH JULY 2017 3:16 PM
EmbraMike
The ‘Usual Suspects’ you refer to, who dont understand company law.
They understand when they hear nonsense though, and they also understand enough not to pay to watch their team be cheated.
Who is it that doesnt understand? Id say it was those who funded the cheating, knowing fine well that the huns were shafting Celtic.
Maybe its you that doesnt understand how things work.
Not the expert on how PLC boards operate but am a shareholder in a number of companies including Celtic, so understand how corporate business is conducted.
Also have an understanding on how legal remedies can be sought. Takes time and planning not knee-jerk reactions and pointless rhetoric. And first and foremost you have to wait until all the facts are in public domain and appeals exhausted or else you can blow the whole case wide open.
I take it you will be at the AGM in November to make your opinion heard from the floor ?