pete

Och spoilsport! By the time it was my turn they would be cold anyway.

I just wonder if when doing a ballot Brahim has warm balls?

There is no smoke without fire. The guy's on FF saying there were problems today all have had good information in the past. One of the ITK guy's who said it was rubbish last week has now changed his story and says his contact is now also now also saying that there was a bust-up with Miller.All are agreeing about the affair today did take place.

It is okay guy's we have got the philosophy there is nothing to worry about. This is Pedro's "we will analyse it learn and then move on."

I see confetti and streamers different and they are not usually thrown at opposition players. Toilet rolls should also be on the banned side as the roll could contain something else heavy.

I don't see it that way I'm afraid. The borderline is nothing should be thrown at players otherwise it becomes murky on what you can throw. Light plastic? Does that then include lighters. Sorry this is not UEFA embarrassing themselves, it is the idiots that threw things that embarrassed our club.

IanDurrant10 later put these posts up on FF.

A no vote is a Celtic game, vote Craig.

Yes I even had it on my old i-phone 3.

Yes the poll date changed when I put it back up.

Put your phone onto full site and you have that option. It will use more download I would imagine.

144 views and only 4 people who pressed the thanks or agree sign. No wonder we are losing writers by the day. Thanks 26 keep them coming I love your stories and knowledge.

Was Sean Connery not considered a Ranger's supporter. Although I think there was some doubt about that.

It would be good to have an idea of how many people will consider coming so we can have a rough idea of who is interested.

I guess it will come out in the next few days. From what I have read is that AC has had to close down his twitter and I guess the Record get spill that it has been leaked to the wide world.

I guess I will put my hands up on that as I can only say I took it that way,

I got it today from FF but the sentiment remains the same. In the one they will always support their journo's and in the other they sack him. Don't get me wrong I think he was stupid to put that in print and he possibly deserved to be sacked but there should be an even playing field on these matters

It was on FF about the rumour roughly a week ago. Indeed what Union has posted today has not been mentioned. It is possible though that we are first to the news.

Yes I posted last week that there were rumours that all was not well with some senior players and Pedro. The rumour was the quality and fitness of the players he has brought in. It was just a rumour doing the rounds but there is normally never smoke without fire.

Remember the Journalist who wrote the piece about Liewell running Scottish football. Well the tims seemingly have tooth-combed his twitter account and found an old tweet using Paedo's and FTP He has been directly sacked by the Record. Remember Jane Hamilton and her sectarian Hun tweets and also the fake police story? This was their reaction then. Seemingly Jane said the things only in jest. The Celtic blogger still working for the Record also had tweets including Dirty orange bastard which is seemingly okay for the Record.

I thought that took it from 45 to 75 mill but the original amount was 45mill. If the 50mill is correct at 40% that would mean that the original bill was about 20mill. Was that that the original amount? Some amount of penalties if it is.

I also don't get the amount of tax to be paid. According to the Herald Rangers paid 50million into the funds. Rangers tax bill was originally estimated at 45 million. Surely there was not a 90% tax on the payments made to the players. I thought the highest rate in Britain was 40%. Is it that the club and the players should paid a part and they have thrown it on one heap?

Tim view [ QUOTE]OPEN LETTER TO RALPH TOPPING FROM ANOTHER NON-ARBROATH LAWYER 0 By CQN Magazine on 15th July 2017 Football Matters It remains the case that Celtic FC are the only football club to have made any public utterance on the outcome of the big tax case or the impact of the sworn evidence which came out during the course of the Craig Whyte trial. In this morning’s Scotsman, the outgoing chap and the SPFL, Ralph Topping, reportedly makes a very defensive statement about the SPFL honchos sitting down with a very fine solicitor and taking advice about any proposed review of the LNS decision with the report stating that the SPFL will “stand firm” on LNS. The entire article reads as a very defensive piece, with Topping at pains to stress that people will always complain, that fans will always fund a counter point of view and will always discuss the position and if necessary disagree with the findings of the footballing authorities. The message is clear from an administrative point of view. 1. The intention at the outset is to defend the SPFL and its actions and 2. You can’t please all of the people all of the time. In the body of the article, Mr Topping says that the SPFL solicitor has been challenged on the position and adds that either the SPFL or the solicitor or both wanted to be ready to withstand any challenge that may come or was expected to come. With respect to Mr Topping, if the article is accurate, then Mr Toppin, the SPFL and indeed the solicitor are missing a number of points. 1. This is not about agreeing with or defending the SPFL and/or the LNS decision. It is about reviewing what happened between 1999 and 2013 in terms of the business conduct and footballing submissions made by Rangers FC during that period and how that conduct and those submissions fit within the rules of football and how the SPFL and the SFA dealt with both. 2. It is not so much about the legal decision reached by LNS and his panel based upon the evidence which was adduced at that hearing, it is about whether or not LNS was properly convened, was asked to determine the right question or even all the questions, was referred to the correct dates, and whether or not subsequent events show that he was either lied to, had evidence withheld from him or erred in fact or law. 3. The purpose of such a review is not so much to put the SFA/SPFL in the dock and throw blame around etc as to determine where, how, when and why the Scottish Football administration football system failed because fail it did and spectacularly so. For anyone involved in football to say otherwise is ludicrous. Immediately after the LNS decision, one football club did write to the SPFL and asked whether or not those at the SPFL seriously thought it was appropriate to have a situation where one club effectively cheated the tax system for the sole purpose of saving many millions of pounds so that they could buy better players only to be fined £250,000 as a consequence. Given that the wrongdoing has now been declared to be far more extensive and of a completely different legal nature than LNS was willing to consider, it is equally daft, unprofessional, arrogant and just plain poor to suggest that this should not be looked at again to see what lessons can be learned and what can be done to prevent any such repetition in the future. This last aspect is hugely important because nowhere in the article does Mr Topping address the fact that unless football fans are reassured that it is absolutely impossible for such cheating to happen again in future then tens of thousands of football fans will walk away from football altogether. Many will call for past titles to be stripped and based on the evidence that is wholly understandable. However, a proper, open and honest review is not only about reviewing what happened in the past. It is also about securing a future for football because if this is just left there is certainly no point in attending any football match organised under the auspices of the SPFL or the SFA because they have simply failed to reassure the customer or fan that what they are watching is not the product of a rigged system or one that is simply wholly uninterested in any kind of sporting integrity. I am glad Mr Topping has come out and said what he has said. He is to be congratulated on making it as plain as plain can be that the SPFL attitude is to defend the colossal mistakes they have already made and that there is little appetite for anyone to have the balls to stand up and say “Maybe we got this wrong and that we should look at it again!” He is also to be congratulated in making it plain that this is a matter where people will just disagree and move on in the same way that an offside decision can and will be discussed down the pub after the game and soon forgotten about thereafter. That is the footballing authority view. I am yet to hear anyone in Scottish Football actually contrast and compare their point of view to the clear arguments and decisions which came out of the FC Giannini case. For everyone’s benefit, I produce the whole decision here. https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/3233.pdf Please read it — and then read it again. Recognise the argument put forward by UEFA and how the argument about “conditionality” is dealt with at least in part. I know it is couched in legal terms, is a bit dry and wouldn’t make a good novel. But its implication is clear. If a football club does not submit a full, frank and honest application with full facts and figures with regard to its operation, wages, playing staff contracts or whatever then it simply should not be allowed to enter the competition. Be annoyed. Be very annoyed because if this position is allowed to stand then the next time you turn up to a football match at Celtic Park or anywhere else in Scotland you will be completely wasting your time. And that point should be made very clear to Mr Topping and anyone else who has any say in Scottish Football. Oh and by the way — anyone who thinks that the proper way to conduct a business can be answered by simply saying ” we consulted a solicitor” is a total idiot. Lawyers don’t have the answers to everything and are trained to think a certain way. They are often wrong and our adversarial legal system means that in any court case one of them at least has to be wrong. A “review” is an investigation and an examination – it is not a disciplinary hearing with a position that has to be prosecuted or defended and it should be conducted with an open mind and not only by legal minds. The SPFL and the SFA oversee a licensed entertainment that involves sporting competition which is regulated by a series of sporting rules and regulations. If they are already of a mindset to “defend” an existing position then any such review should be conducted by people (a) who have experience of adminisitering a similar licensing system in another sport (b) should be from outwith Scotland and come to this completely of new © should be wholly independent of any football club in Scotland and any footballing organisation currently in operation in Scotland (d) should not be made up solely of lawyers. Failing to grasp this nettle will see a huge downward spiral for football in Scotland and that is a simple fact. Written by BRTH This reminds me of a flapping fish before you take it off the hook.

i'd prefer Goldio he would be worth far more.

Sorry I didn't know that. Apologies!