SFA Membership close

[Tumshie RFC 0]

Wish this would hurry up and be done and dusted so we can actually get back to playing football. McDiarmid Park in May seems like a lifetime ago.

[Blue Moon 1,291]

Bang to rights for what? What exactly have we done wrong to deserve titles being stripped?

 

This is all about dual contracts where at worst if we are "guilty", we have misinterpreted some paperwork and what constitutes a contract. You want to strip titles for an administrative error? An error that had absolutely no effect on what happened on the pitch - this is about dual contracts only, not about tax or affordability.

 

Where is the precedent for stripping titles for this? As far as I know, titles have only been stripped due to match fixing which is in another universe from an administrative error that gains you no advantage.

 

Does this mean that any club who ran an EBT should be stripped titles? Celtic ran one; however, their "argument" is that Celtic didn't win that year. Can you believe it? They base the morality of whether action should be taken on the possibility of Celtic being affected! That's integrity for you.

 

But this would also apply to Arsenal and others in England - where are the investigations for honours to be stripped?

 

There is many problems with the whole ethics of trying Rangers for this. Rangers did not knowingly break any rules and submitted the information to the SFA and SPL for years. Why didn't they point out the error after the first season? How can you allow an error to go past for ten years, allowing a club to think it's doing nothing wrong and then decide to retrospectively strip them of anything they've won?

 

Like HMRC, this in entrapment. If the SFA had complained in the first year Rangers would have stopped doing it and there would be no case to answer. It's a point of justice that everyone seems to be ignoring.

 

Anyway, if Rangers are ludicrously stripped of titles for a mere administrative error, just where do you stop in your investigations? What about image rights contracts, undeclared perks and bonuses etc? What about the covering up of child abuse that is similar to Penn State who were fined £39m, stripped of four seasons of honours and prevent from winning anything for another four seasons?

 

What about manipulating the league with lies about mourning the death of an ex bit part player and more lies about a Japanese tour?

 

But if we're going to strip previous titles on ambiguous paperwork points we're going to be investigating for a long time and the history of Scottish football, going by this, will be in tatters.

 

When you spot an anomaly, the usual thing is to highlight it and then change the rules so they are no longer ambiguous. THEN you can punish clubs when they break the rules. That's proper justice.

 

Remember also the years when they fiddled their attendance at Parkhead. If that is not cheating and tax avoidance, not evasion, what is?

[foggy dewhurst 0]

the sfa/spl and uncle tom cobbly say we bought players we coudant afford and gave some players an ebt which was not in any way illegal it helped the players avoid paying some tax but not illegal the big problem is our friends in the east who have all of a sudden became a bunch of tax paying doyens of society they want titles stripped iam begining to dislike our friends in the east .

[der Berliner 3,744]

the sfa/spl and uncle tom cobbly say we bought players we coudant afford and gave some players an ebt which was not in any way illegal it helped the players avoid paying some tax but not illegal the big problem is our friends in the east who have all of a sudden became a bunch of tax paying doyens of society they want titles stripped iam begining to dislike our friends in the east .

 

And we should tell that this is a ...

 

lie (v.1)

"speak falsely, tell an untruth," late 12c., from O.E. legan, ligan, earlier leogan "deceive, belie, betray" (class II strong verb; past tense leag, pp. logen), from P.Gmc. *leugan (cf. O.N. ljuga, Dan. lyve, O.Fris. liaga, O.S., O.H.G. liogan, Ger. lügen, Goth. liugan), from PIE root *leugh- "to tell a lie."

[simplythebest 0]

I don't think it's about not being able to afford them really, the basis is that those players weren't actually registered to play, therefor games they played in turns to a 3-0 defeat.

 

I'd like to think we can prove otherwise.

[calscot 0]

If eligibility rules were really broken then I at least think there's a case to answer sadly.

 

Why do I get the impression you didn't read my post?

 

Why do we have a case to answer? We followed the rules as we saw them and the ruling body did not complain. As I keep pointing, you need to be timely about justice or it becomes highly unfair.

 

Imagine the rules were tightened up on here and some of the things you write were slightly outside those rules even though you thought you were following them ok? It's just subjective whether those rules were broken and you did not gain from them in any way.

 

Would you think it right that because the admins back date this and find that you have broken the rules 10 times and so will be banned for life with no appeal?

 

Or would it be more normal and fair for admins to say, "Right, fair warning, we're tightening up on this - these things are no longer acceptable, we've clarified the rules, and anyone who breaks them will be warned and then if they continue, be punished accordingly"?

 

It's like being banned from playing for life for repeatedly doing something your weren't warned about or even given a yellow card. It's obviously wrong, but even our own don't get that.

[andy steel 0]

This line that anyone who has an issue over the EBT saga is merely falling for timmy propaganda is out of order. People have different views based on different ideas - but I doubt a single one of us takes our party line from Parkhead.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

every player avoids tax. that's all ours did.

[simplythebest 0]

Why do I get the impression you didn't read my post?

 

Why do we have a case to answer? We followed the rules as we saw them and the ruling body did not complain. As I keep pointing, you need to be timely about justice or it becomes highly unfair.

 

Imagine the rules were tightened up on here and some of the things you write were slightly outside those rules even though you thought you were following them ok? It's just subjective whether those rules were broken and you did not gain from them in any way.

 

Would you think it right that because the admins back date this and find that you have broken the rules 10 times and so will be banned for life with no appeal?

 

Or would it be more normal and fair for admins to say, "Right, fair warning, we're tightening up on this - these things are no longer acceptable, we've clarified the rules, and anyone who breaks them will be warned and then if they continue, be punished accordingly"?

 

It's like being banned from playing for life for repeatedly doing something your weren't warned about or even given a yellow card. It's obviously wrong, but even our own don't get that.

As far as I know declaring all payments has always been a rule to register players. I agree it seems to have gone unnoticed a long time, I hope we can prove otherwise.

 

But while certain people are no doubt pushing for this, I think it's deluded to think there is no valid reason for the investigation at all. Hugh Adam started it off with his comments.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

Bang to rights for what? What exactly have we done wrong to deserve titles being stripped?

 

This is all about dual contracts where at worst if we are "guilty", we have misinterpreted some paperwork and what constitutes a contract. You want to strip titles for an administrative error? An error that had absolutely no effect on what happened on the pitch - this is about dual contracts only, not about tax or affordability.

 

Where is the precedent for stripping titles for this? As far as I know, titles have only been stripped due to match fixing which is in another universe from an administrative error that gains you no advantage.

 

Does this mean that any club who ran an EBT should be stripped titles? Celtic ran one; however, their "argument" is that Celtic didn't win that year. Can you believe it? They base the morality of whether action should be taken on the possibility of Celtic being affected! That's integrity for you.

 

But this would also apply to Arsenal and others in England - where are the investigations for honours to be stripped?

 

There is many problems with the whole ethics of trying Rangers for this. Rangers did not knowingly break any rules and submitted the information to the SFA and SPL for years. Why didn't they point out the error after the first season? How can you allow an error to go past for ten years, allowing a club to think it's doing nothing wrong and then decide to retrospectively strip them of anything they've won?

 

Like HMRC, this in entrapment. If the SFA had complained in the first year Rangers would have stopped doing it and there would be no case to answer. It's a point of justice that everyone seems to be ignoring.

 

Anyway, if Rangers are ludicrously stripped of titles for a mere administrative error, just where do you stop in your investigations? What about image rights contracts, undeclared perks and bonuses etc? What about the covering up of child abuse that is similar to Penn State who were fined £39m, stripped of four seasons of honours and prevent from winning anything for another four seasons?

 

What about manipulating the league with lies about mourning the death of an ex bit part player and more lies about a Japanese tour?

 

But if we're going to strip previous titles on ambiguous paperwork points we're going to be investigating for a long time and the history of Scottish football, going by this, will be in tatters.

 

When you spot an anomaly, the usual thing is to highlight it and then change the rules so they are no longer ambiguous. THEN you can punish clubs when they break the rules. That's proper justice.

 

Completely agree. It's the one thing I believe David Murray on when he said â??Iâ??ve looked through every year to check my facts and there were no double contracts. Categorically, there were no dual contracts.â?

 

I think the side letters everyone keeps talking about. (I haven't seen one) Probably say something along the lines of so much will be paid normally and the rest will be paid through the trust. Which I don't think constitutes a double contract.

 

I would think all clubs have to do is say how much someone will get paid not how they will pay it.