Blue Moon

I agree that the SPL has failed and indeed stopped going to Ibrox because I was bored with the product. I would agree with the idea of 2 bigger leagues and by default wealth would be spread to more clubs. It wouldn't cost our club any more but the money would be distributed more widely. The SPL has almost been the death of Scottish football and has had it's day. The SFL must establish a prominent place in any reconstruction talks. Scottish football will not recover until the name SPL and the institution itself are abolished. Only then would I agree that Rangers could return to the top league when the time came.

From the official website. FOLLOWING a number of inaccurate reports in today’s newspapers, the Club can confirm it has agreed a long-term contract with Barrie McKay. Reports in today’s press suggested the SFA would reject McKay’s five-year deal as rules prevent players under the age of 18 from signing a contract of that length. For the avoidance of doubt, the Club is well aware of the rule and at no time confirmed Barrie had signed a five-year contract. Barrie has pledged his future to Rangers for the next five years – as stated on the Rangers website on Tuesday evening.

Good piece here from Chris Graham. Interesting Conflicts – SPL EBT Hypocrisy September 12, 2012Leave a comment The news that Celtic have been cleared of any culpability for the EBT they used for Juninho in the 2004/2005 season comes as no surprise to those of us who have followed this case and the people prosecuting it. However, I do feel it is worth highlighting as it is yet another example of the hypocrisy and corruption at the SPL. It is worth noting some things regarding the operation of EBT schemes. The issue of whether tax was paid on the EBTs has nothing to do with the SPL investigation into Rangers. The issue is purely whether the loans from the EBT scheme for players were declared to the SPL and SFA and whether they required to be declared. It is clear that Rangers did not specifically declare them because they do not consider them to be payments. The whole point of the scheme is that they are loans. That leaves us only with the question of whether they required to be declared i.e were they payments. Now, those who demand Rangers be punished like to muddy the waters by talking about HMRC, unpaid tax, sporting advantage and higher moral considerations. The only consideration for the SPL, however, is were they payments and were they declared. The SPL have decided that Rangers have a case to answer. Today they have decided that Celtic do not. This is curious in relation to the above since, on the 23rd May, the BBC claim to have written to all SPL clubs asking about use of EBTs. The following is exactly what they were told. “BBC Scotland Investigates wrote to all of the Scottish Premier League’s member clubs and asked whether they had ever operated an EBT scheme. Celtic confirmed that it established one EBT scheme in April 2005, which BBC Scotland understands was for the benefit of the Brazilian midfielder Juninho Paulista. The scheme was worth £765,000 but the club did not declare the trust payment to the Scottish Football Association or the Scottish Premier League. The payments made to the trust were declared in Celtic’s annual report for 2004/2005, but in 2008 the club became aware of an event giving rise to a potential tax liability which was subsequently paid after agreement with HMRC. The remaining 10 SPL clubs replied and confirmed they had never set up an EBT scheme for any of their employees.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18169502 Now it is quite clear from this that Celtic did operate an EBT and they did not declare it to the SPL or SFA as part of Juninho’s registration. This makes the case absolutely identical to the Rangers case. So why is there no case to answer? That is a difficult question. Celtic like to claim it is because they paid the tax that HMRC felt was due for the use of the EBT. This appears to be true but does not in any way impact on the registration issue. Either the EBT was declared on the registration or it was not. The issue of tax paid is one for HMRC. When considering this, we need to know who actually investigated on behalf of the SPL. At the moment we don’t. It is well documented that Rod McKenzie of Harper MacLeod has conducted the investigation into Rangers. Harper Macleod are the SPL lawyers on this matter so it seems likely to be the case that they would have examined the Celtic case too. They can’t have though, because that would be as clear a case of conflict of interest as you could ever get. Harper Macleod are also Celtic lawyers and it would be unethical and utterly absurd for them to have been involved here. So who at the SPL decided there was no case to answer? Was another law firm employed to investigate Celtic? If so, then why was this firm not also used to investigate Rangers given the issues with Rod McKenzie and Celtic’s lawyers doing so? If the BBC information is correct then how did these nameless investigators come to the conclusion that the evidence did not need to be examined by an ‘independent’ tribunal? It is clearly an identical situation. Let me be absolutely clear. I think the SPL made the correct decision regarding Celtic. The idea that a sporting advantage was gained from EBTs is absurd. EBTs could never have been declared to the SPL because doing so would have rendered the whole point of them, a tax benefit, unavailable. In a competition where there is no salary cap on players, the rules on registration exist purely to protect players and ensure that in areas of dispute the players can show exactly what they are contractually due. To my knowledge, no Rangers or Celtic players are complaining that they did not receive payments they were due. The SPL investigation is a sham. It is an excuse to further attack Rangers. There is no sporting advantage, no ‘financial doping’, no match fixing. The fact that a player is being paid is important because that is why registration is needed – how much they are being paid is totally irrelevant. These claims are absurd and have been made specifically to inflame public opinion ahead of a pre-determined verdict. If the SPL got it absolutely correct on Celtic then question should be why are they pursuing Rangers? The answer to that lies with the people conducting the witch hunt and it is about time the media in this country started doing their job and asked the required questions.

Good piece here from Chris Graham. Interesting Conflicts – SPL EBT Hypocrisy September 12, 2012Leave a comment The news that Celtic have been cleared of any culpability for the EBT they used for Juninho in the 2004/2005 season comes as no surprise to those of us who have followed this case and the people prosecuting it. However, I do feel it is worth highlighting as it is yet another example of the hypocrisy and corruption at the SPL. It is worth noting some things regarding the operation of EBT schemes. The issue of whether tax was paid on the EBTs has nothing to do with the SPL investigation into Rangers. The issue is purely whether the loans from the EBT scheme for players were declared to the SPL and SFA and whether they required to be declared. It is clear that Rangers did not specifically declare them because they do not consider them to be payments. The whole point of the scheme is that they are loans. That leaves us only with the question of whether they required to be declared i.e were they payments. Now, those who demand Rangers be punished like to muddy the waters by talking about HMRC, unpaid tax, sporting advantage and higher moral considerations. The only consideration for the SPL, however, is were they payments and were they declared. The SPL have decided that Rangers have a case to answer. Today they have decided that Celtic do not. This is curious in relation to the above since, on the 23rd May, the BBC claim to have written to all SPL clubs asking about use of EBTs. The following is exactly what they were told. “BBC Scotland Investigates wrote to all of the Scottish Premier League’s member clubs and asked whether they had ever operated an EBT scheme. Celtic confirmed that it established one EBT scheme in April 2005, which BBC Scotland understands was for the benefit of the Brazilian midfielder Juninho Paulista. The scheme was worth £765,000 but the club did not declare the trust payment to the Scottish Football Association or the Scottish Premier League. The payments made to the trust were declared in Celtic’s annual report for 2004/2005, but in 2008 the club became aware of an event giving rise to a potential tax liability which was subsequently paid after agreement with HMRC. The remaining 10 SPL clubs replied and confirmed they had never set up an EBT scheme for any of their employees.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18169502 Now it is quite clear from this that Celtic did operate an EBT and they did not declare it to the SPL or SFA as part of Juninho’s registration. This makes the case absolutely identical to the Rangers case. So why is there no case to answer? That is a difficult question. Celtic like to claim it is because they paid the tax that HMRC felt was due for the use of the EBT. This appears to be true but does not in any way impact on the registration issue. Either the EBT was declared on the registration or it was not. The issue of tax paid is one for HMRC. When considering this, we need to know who actually investigated on behalf of the SPL. At the moment we don’t. It is well documented that Rod McKenzie of Harper MacLeod has conducted the investigation into Rangers. Harper Macleod are the SPL lawyers on this matter so it seems likely to be the case that they would have examined the Celtic case too. They can’t have though, because that would be as clear a case of conflict of interest as you could ever get. Harper Macleod are also Celtic lawyers and it would be unethical and utterly absurd for them to have been involved here. So who at the SPL decided there was no case to answer? Was another law firm employed to investigate Celtic? If so, then why was this firm not also used to investigate Rangers given the issues with Rod McKenzie and Celtic’s lawyers doing so? If the BBC information is correct then how did these nameless investigators come to the conclusion that the evidence did not need to be examined by an ‘independent’ tribunal? It is clearly an identical situation. Let me be absolutely clear. I think the SPL made the correct decision regarding Celtic. The idea that a sporting advantage was gained from EBTs is absurd. EBTs could never have been declared to the SPL because doing so would have rendered the whole point of them, a tax benefit, unavailable. In a competition where there is no salary cap on players, the rules on registration exist purely to protect players and ensure that in areas of dispute the players can show exactly what they are contractually due. To my knowledge, no Rangers or Celtic players are complaining that they did not receive payments they were due. The SPL investigation is a sham. It is an excuse to further attack Rangers. There is no sporting advantage, no ‘financial doping’, no match fixing. The fact that a player is being paid is important because that is why registration is needed – how much they are being paid is totally irrelevant. These claims are absurd and have been made specifically to inflame public opinion ahead of a pre-determined verdict. If the SPL got it absolutely correct on Celtic then question should be why are they pursuing Rangers? The answer to that lies with the people conducting the witch hunt and it is about time the media in this country started doing their job and asked the required questions.

Only with bad news. It is blatant.

No surprise there then. Better start fund raising for legal bills.

For the sake of accuracy, Craig, the Hitler Youth became compulsory in 1936 and prior to that enormous pressure was placed on children to attend from their teachers and their peers. Teachers who were not Nazis were sacked. Only evidence from the family or neighbours would be able to tell you what the political leanings of the Ratzingers were and that is unlikely to come out, is it?

We have all read about their interest in Barry McKay. It infuriated me. If there was no truth in it they should have denied it. In the old days this was known as tapping up but the big clubs all seem to be able to get away with it. I admired Ally's recent stance when asked about Templeton. He told the interviewer he didn't discuss other club's players. That's the dignified Rangers way

They worked together on the same committee.

He really gets to the crux of the matter. Well done AJ.

Great news for the club. THREE of Rangersâ?? most promising talents have pledged their long term futures to the club today. Lewis Macleod, Barrie McKay and Robbie Crawford have all agreed extended deals with the Light Blues following a promising start to the season. Macleod has started all eight games that Ally McCoistâ??s side has played this season while McKay has also featured at some stage in each of those outings. Crawford has been a regular on the subs bench, making four appearances in total, including his top team debut as a sub in the first match of the campaign against Brechin. 18-year-old Macleod and 19-year-old Crawford have both put pen to paper on contracts that will keep them with Scotlandâ??s most successful club until the summer of 2017. Both have been with the club for a number of years, developing their talents at Auchenhowie and now have the opportunity to blossom in the first team. McKay, 17, has also pledged his future to the club for another five years after arriving from Kilmarnock in the summer of 2011. Both McKay and Macleod have represented Scotland at various youth levels, with each taking part in this weekâ??s 2-1 defeat to the Netherlands at under-19 level. As you can see from our exclusive picture above, Ally McCoist is delighted to have secured the long term future of his trio of talented youngsters.

I see what you mean. I think it is more a matter of jurisdiction and the time to do something about it is past. They have played the same game, if it comes to that by saying we can't play in the SPL because we are a new company but that we will pay the debts of the oldco. I should have added by the same token we are not the only club to have had a change of company or ownership.

I thought what he said was much the same as his statement from yesterday and he handled himself well and didn't allow himself to be put down. His references to the Rangers Supporters I would take with a bit of a pinch of salt. I do believe him, however, when he says he may in the future have to do things the supporters don't agree with but that he thinks are in the best interests of the club. At this moment we are at one.

They have refused to answer communication from Rangers and the administrators. They can go ahead and remove titles and we will go to court on the grounds laid out in CG's statement ie no jurisdiction, impact on the value of the club, conflict of interest etc. They can ask the SFA or SFL to intervene. Both of these organisations have said there will be no removal of titles. I am sure there are a number of other options such as involving CAS or UEFA and no doubt there are many twists and turns in this saga to come and many of them unforseen by all.

I have been wondering since I read this what actual evidence CG has about the malign influence of certain SPL clubs. To make such a statement would need to be backed up by facts or hard copy evidence rather than supposition. If that is not the case then it is something that will be seized upon by our enemies to discredit him. I can only assume that he must have evidence or it wouldn't get past lawyers.

Possibly but clearly under duress.

A member of my family is Downs and I cannot bear to see or hear words like that.

Sorry, missed that when I read the article, comes of scanning things. There's so much to read!

Stella's deal has been completed and he played and scored in a behind closed doors game against Falkirk. 3-1 to the bears.

A fun article without negative attitude. Pretty much describes the mood of the moment (my mood at least).

I agree about the depths of division in Ulster. We went there a few years ago and were horrified by it, having believed the press that the troubles are over. However, the roots of the problem go back much further than the famine.

Yes, I understand that but is that not conspiring to get your pals in place or get "friendly" companies local authority contracts or mates elected to trade unions or to the council etc etc to a point where you have a highly disproportionate representation in many areas of life. It is a fine line between croneyism and conspiracy.

Is croneyism not conspiring to do something?

I am surprised that Alex Thomson got himself into this mess by endorsing this guy and does ask questions about the credibility of other aspects of his work.