Guest billmcmurdo Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2013/01/why-rangers-fans-should-not-fear-title_3.html 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,369 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The bit I don't get is how these players could be unregistered ?? can someone explain? Don't forget SKY have walked away before when the 'music man' was SPL CEO and he thought he could start up SPL TV but couldn't and had to go cap in hand to the BBC for a much inferior deal. Quite frankly I don't know what to expect from this SPL Commission but what I would say is we're dealing with people who have nothing but hatred & jealousy towards us and have shown they are prepared to inflict serious damage upon themselves & Scottish football in general. These are unpredictable zealots whose aim is to destroy us at all costs by whatever means. We've seen that even defeat in a court of law does not deter these people. Our challenge ahead is the fightback where we build bridges and rise up against them whom we will never side with and remove them from positions of power in Scottish football for a very long time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,382 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 The bit I don't get is how these players could be unregistered ?? can someone explain? The players weren't unregistered and the investigation has nothing to do with the players' registrations. The issue is in relation to payments made to players that were not contractual. I haven't got time to go into it now but there is enough in the majority ruling in the BTC to suggest that the SPL would not win the legal argument on this due to the nature of the payments. On top of that, it boils down to an administrative issue. Can they really strip titles for that? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,210 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 It will be interesting to see who Celtic appoint as their new secretary. What price a 'low level paper gatherer' from a well-kent solicitors involved in this kangaroo court? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,548 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I find it incredible,yet not surprising,that this witch hunt is still going ahead,there is no case to answer. We all know this was going to benefit only one club,yet these clowns are just going to embarrass themselves yet again. All they will succeed in doing is causing even more of a rift and I worry about the trouble it will cause. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 The players weren't unregistered and the investigation has nothing to do with the players' registrations. The issue is in relation to payments made to players that were not contractual. I haven't got time to go into it now but there is enough in the majority ruling in the BTC to suggest that the SPL would not win the legal argument on this due to the nature of the payments. On top of that, it boils down to an administrative issue. Can they really strip titles for that? Clearly they shouldn't go anywhere near the titles, but as others have said - we're not dealing with logical people here. It ought to be cut-and-dried. EBTs are loans. They're not contractual. The anti-Rangers out there may try to claim they're "contractual payments masquerading as loans" but that doesn't hold water in in any meaningful legal way, Legally they're loans, and loans don't have to be declared under Scottish football's player registration rules. I have a feeling they'll come out with some crap about the spirit as opposed to the letter of their rules being broken. Then we'll have to take them to court where the letter of the law is everything - like we did with the transfer embargo - and see what the repurcussions are. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,382 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Then we'll have to take them to court where the letter of the law is everything - like we did with the transfer embargo - and see what the repurcussions are. Have we not signed away that right when we were blackmailed into accepting the SFA and SPL's conditions for "readmittance" to the SFL? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Have we not signed away that right when we were blackmailed into accepting the SFA and SPL's conditions for "readmittance" to the SFL? I hope not! I thought we just agreed not to re-challenge the embargo - but I might be wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,548 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I hope not! I thought we just agreed not to re-challenge the embargo - but I might be wrong. That's my take of it,fucking hope so! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,382 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I hope not! I thought we just agreed not to re-challenge the embargo - but I might be wrong. I think that you are correct, but it would be good if someone could confirm definitively. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.