union

Tuesday night will give incontrovertible answers as to our ability to learn or not.

Why would a work in progress be enlisting failures from cardiff on loan,there is no progress nothing.

All over the place no discipline or shape whatsoever,warburton mk2.

As title https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/sep/12/rangers-row-scottish-football-spl-spfl If the Scottish Football Association is anxious regarding the latest, stinging criticism of its governance then such fear is well hidden. By close of business on another of Scottish football’s manic Mondays, focus had firmly shifted towards another of the game’s legislators. The SFA’s chief executive, Stewart Regan, met the media in reply to an insistence from the Scottish Professional Football League that a “fully independent review” must be held to investigate football governance issues surrounding the 2012 liquidation of Rangers and the club’s use of Employee Benefit Trusts. The issue has gained significant public traction as letters from Celtic’s chief executive, Peter Lawwell, urging the SFA to agree to such a review, entered the public domain. The undertone is that Scottish football’s ruling body was at best negligent as the Rangers saga played out. Embarrassment and shame on and off the pitch for chaotic Rangers Ewan Murray Read more Regan is adamant no such project need be undertaken. He looks and sounds comfortable with his position. The EBT scenario flew back into public consciousness as a supreme court judgment assessed that tax was payable by those Rangers players and officials who earned via the scheme between 2001 and 2010. Regan believes any review would be pointless and that those with a grievance relating to the SFA’s handling of all things Rangers will never be placated. “Since 2011 the board have relied heavily on advice from four QCs and three law lords, supporting us on that journey,” said Regan of legislative steps and punishments implemented in relation to Rangers. “We also have two independent directors on our board. Independence has been at the heart of everything we have done. “I think it would be really difficult to convince those who believe in conspiracies that there isn’t a conspiracy at play. My pushback to them is do we really think that four QCs, three law lords, all the club execs, all the independent panel members are all part of some huge conspiracy? “We have to be able to move on. We won’t get closure in the eyes of some parts of Scottish football – some fans, some stakeholders – we won’t ever get closure. This will be one of those topics that will be talked about for years and years to come. There isn’t a right or a wrong answer; it’s a judgment call and a group of guys around the boardroom table with independent legal scrutiny have come to the conclusion that this is where we draw a line.” The SFA has, it must be noted, opted to take a closer look at the award of a European licence to Rangers in 2011 after information was revealed during the trial of the club’s former owner Craig Whyte. If it is proven that Rangers misled the SFA in an attempt to earn that Champions League qualifying place, the sanction should be serious. Should, though, is the operative term; the SFA did not even have it within its power to penalise clubs for a mass on-field riot at the conclusion of the 2016 Scottish Cup final. Lawwell finds himself in an invidious position. A noisy element of the Celtic support refuse to let the issue of Rangers and their demise go away. That group, naturally, would be seriously disappointed if the chief executive of their own club refused to fight on their behalf. If Lawwell believes an investigation is now his best hope of delivering something tangible, his attitude is understandable. He can at the very least say he tried. “I have a lot of respect for Peter Lawwell,” Regan said. “I was with him at the Champions League draw a couple of weeks ago and we have a very good relationship. I’d do exactly the same in his position – he is looking out for the best interests of Celtic Football Club.” The notion that fans across Scotland remain enraged by Rangers’ antics and by the approach of officialdom towards that issue is continually overplayed. The reality, one people refuse to accept, is that a silent majority of those who attend matches week on week no longer care about this affair. They grew tired of it long ago, after chuckling as Rangers played domestic fixtures at Albion Rovers and Cowdenbeath. But dare to suggest this topic has little relevance in 2017 and you are accused of being part of the problem. Rangers’ current fury is towards the SPFL’s chief executive, Neil Doncaster, who penned a letter to the SFA under the title: “Independent review of use of tax avoidance schemes at Rangers FC and actions of Scottish football authorities.” The Ibrox club are adamant the SPFL board, upon which their managing director Stewart Robertson sits, agreed to undertake no such thing. A process of how circumstances even remotely similar to 2012 would be handled in future, yes, but not essentially another investigation into the EBT years. Semantics, perhaps, but important ones. The SPFL’s 42 members were referenced in Lawwell’s correspondence; the 42 are also members of the SFA. Aberdeen’s chairman, Stewart Milne, has been consistently vocal with his belief that reviews would do more harm than good. Billy Bowie, Kilmarnock’s majority shareholder, has offered the same message. “We haven’t had a single email, phone call or letter – other than from Celtic – asking us to have a look at this,” added Regan. “I thought it would be worthwhile to go back out and ask our members: ‘Are you sure … is there anything you want looked at?’ I told them the rationale to our decision in a letter last week. I haven’t had a single response asking for clarification.” Hibernian’s chairman, Rod Petrie, is also a vice-president of the SFA, which is perhaps pertinent in respect of their statement distancing themselves from the SPFL’s stance by Monday evening. That said, the basic notion of “independence” in the context of an inquiry is arguably undermined by Regan and Petrie – such prominent SFA figures – being in position to veto. Suddenly, Doncaster’s letter looked a curious piece of work. Why on earth did the SPFL’s chief executive pen it when member clubs, and prominent ones at that, would be immediately willing to take an alternative stance? In a statement on Monday evening the SPFL pointed only to its board approving the call for an inquiry. For such an important issue, surely all 42 clubs should have been consulted to avoid what has regressed into a public relations disaster. The SPFL itself did not reply to a direct question as to how many clubs actually support a call for a fully independent review. And yet, it seems at best bizarre that Doncaster would approach the SFA without sufficient backing. Perhaps, given Celtic’s size and status, they have every right to push on their own. By very definition, they were the club most affected by Rangers’ EBT use. Maybe Doncaster was seeking to put the focus on the SFA when, in reality, the consequence has been altogether different. On Tuesday evening Celtic will host Paris Saint-Germain against the inevitable backdrop of an almighty din. It is a noise matched elsewhere.

The quirks in our legal system have not helped in this saga at all,on one hand we have specific tribunals/courts for civil tax matters,,criminal tax matters go to criminal courts. Although we won the specific tribunals in an enviroment staffed by tax experts,we are turned over by non expert courts staffed by people who speak of common sense,which as we know if applied to the law would curtail the legal professions licence to rip joe pubic off.

As title,we now are in no doubt as to who is running the show. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-skipper-scott-brown-escapes-11150645 Weather Image13°C NEWS POLITICS FOOTBALL SPORT TV & CELEBS LIFE & STYLE SCOTLAND NOW IN YOUR AREA BUSINESS TRAVEL SPORT Celtic skipper Scott Brown escapes ban over incident with Hamilton's Ioannis Skondras It is understood that the SFA's compliance officer Tony McGlennan has decided no complaint will be raised after Brown was involved in an incident with Skondras on Friday. BYRECORD SPORT ONLINE 17:27, 11 SEP 2017UPDATED17:31, 11 SEP 2017 Celtic's Scott Brown clashed with Hamilton's Ioannis Skondras Get Daily updates directly to your inbox + Subscribe Brendan Rodgers is "glad" but not surprised that the prospect of a ban for Celtic skipper Scott Brown has not materialised. There was some speculation that the Hoops midfielder, who has signed a new two-year deal with the Parkhead club which takes him up until at least 2019, could be in trouble after appearing to flick a boot at the face of Hamilton's defender Giannis Skondras during the Hoops' 4-1 Ladbrokes Premiership win on Friday night. Brown could have missed this month's clash with Rangers had a ban been handed down. However, it is understood that the SFA's compliance officer Tony McGlennan has decided no complaint will be raised. No ban: Scott Brown READ MORE Neil Lennon in the clear over Rangers gesture at Ibrox Rodgers said: "I haven't made too much of it to be honest. "I saw the two players cuddling during the game, I didn't think it was a big issue. "I obviously saw the player go to ground and Scott maybe clip him in some way or the other but very quickly I saw them cuddle each other at the edge of the box. ADVERTISEMENT "I don't think it was a big problem for the players and I think it was unintentional so I am glad that was the decision, if there was a decision to be made." Brendan Rodgers is glad but not surprised there will be no ban for Brown READ MORE Celtic star Moussa Dembele will not feature against PSG but Leigh Griffiths IS fit for Champions League crunch The midfielder’s challenge was raised by former Parkhead striker Chris Sutton and ex- Rangers boss Ally McCoist on BT Sport during Friday night’sclash at the Superseal Stadium. Both pundits believed Brown was lucky not to be shown a red card by ref Don Robertson after catching Skondras on the head.

Seems our chairman has arrived, hope it is to take care of this once and for all,although I suspect bridge building will be the order of the day.

Same attitude our board seems to have.

jackson pushing liewell’s agenda further. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/peter-lawwells-mission-expose-scottish-11146603 Peter Lawwell’s mission is to expose Scottish football’s bad apples then go ahead but if it’s about the Ibrox trophy cabinet we’re in for a rough ride – Keith Jackson Rangers By Keith Jackson Keith Jackson says if the Celtic chief’s aim is to expose wrongdoing then he could be trying to do the Scottish game a monumental turn. …read more Read the full article here: dailyrecord.co.uk

The silence from Ibrox is deafening.

His record would suggest he is a good manager,whatever his personal life.

I am not aware that we cheated anyone,the conclusion by the SC was that quite legal EBTs had been wrongly administered.

They weren’t the sfa’s they were seliks.

selik published it no one else.

No doubt about it. http://www.celticfc.net/news/13207

I don’t expect our board to do anything,how about you ?

followed by another statement from sellik,do we have a board are they afraid of liewell or something else ? https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/1538128/celtic-rangers-judicial-review-rangers-ebt-sfa-stance/amp/

This has appeared online,answers all questions as to our enemies. http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/SFA_Correspondence.pdf

There is absolutely no doubt there was a dispute over the STB,confirmed by HMRC’s McCurroch. “Mr McCurroch warned the company the tax authority had won a legal battle over the scheme and demanded payment. But, according to former Rangers finance chief Donald McIntyre, Murray advisers still didn’t want to pay up. He said it was only when the HMRC produced a side letter at a January or February 2011 meeting that payment was agreed. He said: “My understanding was that the advice of Murray International’s tax advisers was we had grounds to challenge the assessment. “At a meeting subsequent to (the HMRC letter) HMRC produced a side letter. “I can only think the grounds to challenge were compelling to someone until the additional information was produced by HMRC.”

A disputed bill with HMRC or anyone else is not due until the dispute is settled or has run its course,the WTB is an irrelevevance.

What does the law say as opposed to rules.

Don’t ww have a board to fight our corner,or is more quiet dignity and abject surrender.

You can’t beat building bridges as our board no doubt can confirm, there again maybe not, they really should wise up to our enemies, all of them.

It will never happen,even the twatterati have twigged it is politicking with no end goal.

Good result,Morelos reminds me of Cousins in his approach.