EBTs “Gave us the opportunity to get players we otherwise couldn’t afford.”
With those words in the Glasgow High Court witness box yesterday, Sir David Murray laid bare the sporting advantage question of Rangers EBTs. EBTs gave Rangers a sporting advantage. If the loans were illegally executed, the club gained an illegal sporting advantage.
At the time of the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission the payments were regarded as legal, the Commission therefore ruled that no illegal sporting advantage was gained, as any other club could have acted in the same manner. The Supreme Court will have the final say on the legality later this year.
You and I know better than to hazard a guess as to which way that decision will go, but it will be worth tuning in for.
That aside, former vice-chairman of Rangers, Donald Findlay, representing former chairman of Rangers, Craig Whyte, appeared to enjoy questioning Sir David, another former chairman of Rangers, more than old Zsa Zsa in the witness box enjoyed being questioned.
Win a chance to play on Celtic Park this Monday, 1 May 2017
I expect the number of us who have pulled on a Celtic shirt and played at Celtic Park will be very few, but………
There is a club sponsors’ game on the hallowed turf this Monday, 1 May 2017, and those incredible people at Intelligent Car Leasing have given me one of their places in the line-up.
We have an ebay auction here for the spot, benefiting your very own Celtic FC Foundation. It was launched a few moments ago and ends tomorrow around noon, so the number of bidders will be limited.
You will enjoy the whole playing at Celtic Park experience, just as Quinn, McGrory, Johnstone, McNeill, Dalglish and Larsson did before you. You will make fantastic memories, you’ll bore your friends with the photos for months. You will look back on this when you account for the great moments in your life.
Celtic kit will be provided, although you’ll need to bring your own boots and shin guards.
Opportunities like this come along when the pitch is about to be replaced, and that happen only twice in the previous 20 years.
This is a 24 hour listing and the clock is ticking. Bid for yourself, or for someone special.
JOCK STEIN T-SHIRT STOCK UPDATE – Small – 2 left, Medium 3 left, Large only 1 left, XL 11 left and XXL 7 left. Order yours at www.cqnbookstore.com (just click on image above).
375 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- »
BREAKING NEWS,
Juror from the Craig Whyte trial found in the Clyde this afternoon.As Police removed the “Concrete Wellies”they told newsmen,”No foul play here”
Rumour has it the juror in question fell ill after a champagne and lobster fueled evening last night.
CATHEDRAL VIEW on 27TH APRIL 2017 1:35 PM
‘Paul67,
If the EBT payments were considered legal at the time why didn’t Celtic use them?’
###
Because no player and no agent would accept payment by way of a properly operated EBT.
They would have demanded something in writing guaranteeing payment, thereby rendering the EBT ineffective.
Hence all the subterfuge and furtiveness* regarding their use down Govan way.
* This may or not be a euphemism for downright dishonesty.
THETIMREAPER on 27TH APRIL 2017 1:50 PM
Rumour has it the juror in question fell ill after a champagne and lobster fueled evening last night.
###
More likely jelly and ice cream.
https://twitter.com/clydessb/status/857575620171137024
Brendan says MD not ruled out of SC final..
SFSA on Scottish football and gambling.
http://scottishfsa.org/questions-to-be-asked-about-footballs-relationship-with-betting/
HH
ERNIE LYNCH on 27th April 2017 1:48 pm
Not Proven is the aberrations; it stems from a trial in 1893 where Albert John Monson was charged with the murder of Cecil Hambrough.
The evidence was strong but only circumstantial; the defence had sowed enough doubt in the minds of the Jury. They had 2 options: Guilty or Not Guilty, but they came back and said the charge hadn’t been proven so Monson walked free.
KTF
VFR800 IS NOW A MONSTER 821 on 27TH APRIL 2017 2:08 PM
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/4ef051ba-d65a-465f-9c49-3e1575a4ef3b
From News Now
Rodgers Refuses to Rule Dembele Out of Cup Final
Stoll hope then for the big fella .
VFR ….
For those of us following the Whyte trial, there are things that we should keep in mind.
This is a criminal case, between the Crown and Whyte. That means the Crown must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence, however, does not have to prove anything; defence counsel must only raise a reasonable doubt about the guilt.
Typically, raising a reasonable doubt is done by cross-examining Crown witnesses and eliciting inconsistencies in their testimony/making their evidence seem not credible. If he can do this on a cross-examination, then, often defence counsel will feel that they have raised a reasonable doubt, such that they do not need to call any witnesses, including the defendant.
Defence counsel are afraid that, if they put their client on the stand, the defendant may say something under cross-examination that implicates them in the crime (because, many – but not all – accused are, in fact, guilty). So, many defence counsel see letting the accused testify as a strategy of last resort.
So, depending on how the prosecution’s case goes, and how Findley is able to cross-examine them, Whyte may never even testify. I realize it is early, but given the credibilty issues for most of the Crown’s witnesses, I would be surprised if Whyte does testify. But, a lot can happen before that decision is made by his counsel.
And, for those who think that this will be like a public inquest into what happened, that is also not likely. for much the same reasons as above, Findley will only go as far as he needs to in order to raise a reasonable doubt. The more evidence the defendce calls (particularly, if Whyte is called as a witness), the more chances the Crown will have to implicate Whyte. So, as above, the Defence motto is ‘the less said the better.
Im sure some interesting stuff will come out (because likely every witness here was involved to some degree in some dodgy stuff).
And then there is the question of to what extent anything that is said, or found as fact by the judge, in this case, can bind, or be used in, other subequent proceedings. But, that is an issue for another day.
Oops shoulda read before posting :)
How come Sir minty thought all the Craig whyte finances were in place to take the club forward , but, when asked on TV about the impending Administration “i did’nt think it would be so soon” , was his reply.
Great wee piece about Liverpool fans visiting the North Curve to try and convince LFC to allow safe standing: https://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2017/04/liverpool-and-safe-standing-the-celtic-park-experience/
KTF
ERNIE LYNCH on 27TH APRIL 2017 2:24 PM
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/the-ardlamont-mystery-tragic-mistake-or-calculated-evil-1-466095
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/30th-december-1893/12/the-ardlamont-mystery-t-he-ardlamont-trial-is-a-sh
KTF
VFR – I’ve just shared that article amongst my Scouse colleagues. Overwhelming consensus is that safe standing is a good thing but it’s still too raw to mention in Liverpool.
FAO MIKE IN TORONTO ( and others).
“Im sure some interesting stuff will come out (because likely every witness here was involved to some degree in some dodgy stuff).
And then there is the question of to what extent anything that is said, or found as fact by the judge, in this case, can bind, or be used in, other subequent proceedings. But, that is an issue for another day.”
Mike, this is the last paragraph of your post, can I ask you about it, as i am rather confused ?
Like many others, the ” admissions” at the Whyte trial by firstly Donald McKenzie ( ex financial director ), and yesterday by Murray, both obviously in a Court of Law SURELY must be deemed as ” Documented Evidence/Testimony” in relation to any other possible Court Case and/or Inquiry ?
For Murray to admit in Court ” the EBT’s allowed us to buy players would couldn’t otherwise afford etc”… Picture this scenario which has occurred many times in Scotland/England ….
Prisoner A and Prisoner B in jail.
Prisoner A CONFESS’s to a murder to prisoner B.
Prisoner B alerts the authorities to say that he has possible “new evidence” in relation to an unsolved murder, and he wants a deal for giving this “new evidence” to the Police etc ?
If Police and/or Victims family have the case re opened, then Prisoner’s B is allowed to testify that “new evidence” in Court ?
Surely what is now “Documented Evidence” from Whytes trial, which has been stated by McIntyre and Murray, about EBT’s etc COULD be deemed as ” New Evidence” in the event of any other Court case ( Supreme Court Case), and/or New Inquiry by Nimmo Smith for example ?
Likewise some family members have came forward, AFTER their son or brother etc has confessed a murder to them, and their testimony is valid in a Court ?
I obviously don’t know the Law, but I am surprised and shocked if what has been stated so far by both Murray and McIntyre MAY NOT be “valid” in any future cases such as The Supreme Court case, and/or any other new Inquiry ?
signed,
Confused.com
HH
MIKE IN TORONTO on 27TH APRIL 2017 2:31 PM
MIT, I have had the dubious pleasure of being questioned by Donald Findlay QC as a prosecution witness in a serious (and dangerous) High Court trial.
I was “advised” by a friend of mine who is a lawyer to answer, as far as possible, yes or no to every question. I did so and it caused much hilarity. He started with “is your full name XXXXX XXXXXX?” to which I responded “No” because he’d had it slightly wrong. After much consternation he asked me to explain, so I gave him my proper full name. Sighing heavily he asked “and do you reside at XXX XXXXX?” Having moved shortly beforehand I again answered “no”. He was mightily pissed off by this as well, So again, after his clarification questions I gave him my full address (the defendants all knew it anyway so there was no real issue).
After another few questions as he realised I was unwilling to give any information I didn’t need to by elaborating so he changed track and started making statements and allusions. I sat in silence and he just looked at me – must’ve been 10 seconds but it felt like an hour and he then said “well?” I responded by saying “I didn’t realise there was a question in there.” Much sniggering in the gallery and much consternation from Mr Findlay as the Judge informed him I was correct and he had to ask me a question before I had to answer.
It was a very uncomfortable 30 minutes but I survived without saying anything incriminating or being held in contempt so I was very relieved to be out! It’s a real show and is very entertaining if you aren’t in one of the hotseats!
KTF
VFR….
I always thought guilty and not guilty verdicts were the bastard childs in Scots Law.
My recollection is ‘Proven’ and ‘Not Proven’ were the Scots verdicts and ‘Guilty’ an Anglicised introduction.
The stupidity of what we now have is the three verdict option.
So having either Proven or Not Proven would be fine, arguably better than assertions as to ‘Guilt’.
Of course i could be talking complete bollocks!!!!
HH
PHYLLIS DIETRICHSON on 27TH APRIL 2017 2:59 PM
Yeah it was very interesting. There is a real drive by some LFC fans to have safe standing but the Hillsborough Families are full against it, although they crux of their argument has always been centred on poor policing rather than fan behaviour.
It’s maybe just a wee bit raw for them just now!
KTF
Pick up my Jock Stein T-shirt and the books from the P.O. Thanks to those who forwarded them to me. Lisbon getting closer!
Another horse for today at Punchestown 6.05
Aptly named BILLYS HOPE
Pal of mine involved with it,says they are very sweet on its chances ( 14/1)
Correction …picked up.
No word on Broonies appeal yet?
THIRDS63 on 27TH APRIL 2017 3:13 PM
I came across the info on Ardmalont case last year when in an article in the Scotsman; looking back, I seem to have misread the piece and on further research (finding the original article) both you and Ernie Lynch are correct it seems.
KTF
Brendan Rodgers has claimed a challenge from Rangers’ Andy Halliday on Patrick Roberts last week could have broken the Celtic winger’s leg.
Halliday was shown a yellow card in the fourth minute of the Scottish Cup semi-final for the tackle and Roberts went on to play more than 80 minutes as Celtic ran out 2-0 winners.
In a discussion about video technology, Rodgers brought up the tackle and said it should have resulted in a sending off.
“[Video technology] will be interesting,” the Celtic manager said. “If you assess a lot of yellow cards I would be nearly positive that up to 50% of them would be reds.
“We’ve experienced that in this week. If there’s video technology in our game at the weekend then they would have lost a player after three minutes.
“That’s why I ask where the line’s drawn. I haven’t seen any of [the detail] yet but I think it’s great.”
Asked if Roberts was lucky to avoid injury, Rodgers said: “I think he was very, very lucky. I think thankfully for himself he saw it coming out of the corner of his eye.
“If he’s planted then it’s a broken leg. At that speed going in, that was reckless. Thankfully he came out of it unscathed. He was fine, went on and was brilliant in the game.”
Rodgers was keen not to take the bite out of the derby but said player safety was paramount.
He also dismissed the suggestion referees would be reluctant to send players off early in the game.
“It wasn’t a good challenge at all and I think everyone saw that,” he said.
“I think everyone recognised it and I don’t know whether Willie was unsighted but yeah, you’re hoping those types of incidents are seen in the game because you want a Celtic-Rangers game to be highly competitive but you don’t want your talented players being injured and that’s important.
“If there’s a bad tackle within ten seconds because someone can’t control their emotion then whether it’s ten seconds or 85 minutes doesn’t matter if it’s a reckless challenge, dangerous challenge or violent conduct.”
Speaking about the wider issue of video technology, which FIFA has suggested will be introduced in the next year, Rodgers welcomed the idea.
“Hopefully it can be used sensibly and that would be great for referees because there’s big pressure on referees and any help that they can get would be good,” he said.
“It gets somebody else’s perspective on it.”
Accepting that decisions still came down to opinion, Rodgers also supported the current use of additional assistant referees.
Having criticised match official Don Robertson for his performance in a previous game, he praised his contribution at Hampden.
Rodgers said: “I thought it worked well at the weekend there. We sat here last week and talked about the decisions from before in the game against Ross County.
“I thought Don did great between him and Willie [Collum] when they gave the penalty. It was a clear penalty but him being there probably rubber-stamped it for Willie. Don made a really good decision so that helped.
“If you’ve got video with that as well then that slows the decision down, which is important. Not too much but if it slows things down to assess the incident then you hopefully get the correct decision.”
Scottish FAVerified account @ScottishFA 3m3 minutes ago
NEWS | Scott Brown sending off reduced to a yellow card following claim of wrongful dismissal: http://scotfa.co/browndis
Bears greeting about Broony being available at Ayebrokes on Saturday.
How sad, what a shame, never mind …
Surprised, didn’t see that coming.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BROONIE BROONIE !!
Watch Hun Media and Swallow Swallow go into meltdown at the news that Broony will play on Saturday!
KTF
Pfffft, Hahahahehehe
VFR …ha! I wish I had been there to see that one! As a lawyer, we love or hate witnesses like you…. depending on whether we called the witness or not!
:)
didn’t see that decision for Broony coming
There may be trouble ahead
are the powers that be giving the bears something else to focus their anger on???
HH
surprised at the Brown verdict. I still thought it was a red, but, will take the decision as a sign that maybe the tide is turning (they are getting the sense that BR will fight his ground …)
I had thought I read on here that he was on the points limit even if was reduced to a yellow, so would be out anyways…. but, I may have been drunk or imagined that.
Scott Browns red reduced to a yellow.
Ain’t nout going the huns way ;-@)))
MWD
Ibrox is going to be a very dangerous place on Saturday, on and off the field.
MIKE IN TORONTO on 27TH APRIL 2017 3:46 PM
Yep, tell the truth …………….
I was also a witness in a commercial case in the High Court last year and used the “was there a question there?” routine again and it worked that time too!
That one was a wee bit more problematic as I was in Paris with Mrs VFR for her birthday and had to be flown back for 2 days to give evidence! Didnae go down too well!
KTF
thomthethim for Oscar OK @ 3:52
COULDNT AGREE MORE
HH