stewarty

I saw wee fraser tweeting something similar but not sure of where its come from.

Club to issue a statment tonight, per Andrew Dickson on twitter.

What steps does the club have to take this further. UEFA? Court of Arbitration for Sport? Would be RFFF money well spent IMO

And my first reaction to the SFA statement is that it seems to focus on the competence of the ability to make the initial decision and whether the punishment was proportionate to the decision, rather than whether the decision itself was a load of crap.

And I care not for the opinions of any hand wringing journalists who think its a bullying tactic.

Well, I think the 8k or so fans that marched to Hampden may well be a drop in the ocean. Sign me up for the next one.

Rejected completely?

How about: Integrity Shmegrity.

Great post. All that without mentioning Celtic's post season tour of Japan in 2008. Cap doffed... One to publish on the main site??

Naisy has all the makings of a club legend. Really enjoyed reading that.

The verdict will be based on the balance of probabilities. So in looking at it, the tribunal is going to have to decide if the payments are discretionary or not, is what I'm led to believe. And part of the reason it's taking so long is because the final judgement might determine whether we ate guilty on an EBT by EBT basis. Ergo, there may be evidence that some EBT payments were not discretionary, and no evidence to suggest this for others. Seems plausible but I tend I agree with calscot that the arguments appear flimsy.

Hmmm, it's maybe my link that's crap. I'm on my phone which would explain it

Just checked and it's still on YouTube.

From YouTube?

It'll need to be a ten-deck.

There's a video of it on YouTube. Someone on FF posted it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oamNJ4rwyNg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

John Yorkston said on Radio Scotland on Saturday that he was in favour of additional sanctions for newco to apply to Rangers but doubted there was enough support for it to be passed. This again just seems to be bluster. How he actually votes may be different and I'd wager this is one of a number who will do this to appease their fans.

RST tweet suggested it was paid in part by the RFFF. I'd imagine maybe haufers with the club?

Posturing, pure and simple.

No complaints. But if it's just investors and not office holders, what can they do?

Imagine you are an employee of the club. It has a huge financial cloud hanging over it and has recently been taken over by Whyte. First thing he does is sack those who opposed his takeover. He makes multiple quotes to media outlets to say that each and every expense is subject to scrutiny while he unpicks the debris of the Murray regime. The club is taken to court over various small claims which are largely upheld, the biggest clouds continue to get darker (Big Tax Case) and we start to publicly query the Wee Tax Case. Access to financial information is restricted to a need to know basis. And only Whyte needs to know. Various senior staff make acrimonious claims against Whyte and board members resign at the lack of participation in governance matters. It is obvious that your new boss is ruthless and cares not for reputations or track records. And if you oppose him, query his methods or merely disagree, there's plenty of evidence to show that he will sack you first and probably not even ask any question s afterwards. Imagine you are faced with this scenario. You are probably rewarded to a reasonable level for the job you do, but you have a mortgage/rent, a life to lead and a family to provide for. Do you go running to the papers to tell them what your big bad new boss is doing? How would you prove it when you don't have any information that can prove what you are saying. And how can you even be sure any accusations you have are actually true? Whyte was a master spinner. There were regular high profile interviews and statements put out which gave, seemingly plausible reasons for certain things that happened. Do you risk your livehihood on a hunch or an unverifiable theory? I think not. To suggest that people at ibrox could and should have done or said more that actually did happen, is ridiculous. And in any case, as highlighted in Chris Graham's excellent blog, fiduciary responsibility does not extend below the board. To draw this conclusion in particular I think was a spectacular own goal by the SFA

Will catch up with twitter later... Waiting on SSN to stop standing around talking to random talking heads about stuff that is gonna happen later, and focus on something that is happening now. Knew it was a bad idea to watch it

I'm not sure it matter's who he is/they are.

Yeah, said they'd bring the key points from the presser soon.

We don't have much choice but to back this. More info now please Mr Green. Who are you (your consortium), and what are your plans?