BBC Scotland report NO titles to be stripped but are fined £250K

[GovanAllan 0]

Can someone explain point 5 please?

 

You can't its a bloody contradiction, you did nothing wrong but you did it so often we will fine you anyway.

[Bluedell 5,382]

"This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player."

[BlueMazza 0]

You can't its a bloody contradiction, you did nothing wrong but you did it so often we will fine you anyway.

 

Well not really. They can't prove it was on purpose, so it's an admin error, hence a fine which is an available punishment.

 

I find the sporting sanctions thing interesting. Truly does confirm the transfer ban has no place in existence

[GovanAllan 0]

So point 5 is more or less saying you did nothing wrong, but it wasnt very sporting of you and for that we will fine you, but you still did nothing wrong.

 

That bloody word Sorting Integrity rears its head again.

[GovanAllan 0]

Well not really. They can't prove it was on purpose, so it's an admin error, hence a fine which is an available punishment.

 

I find the sporting sanctions thing interesting. Truly does confirm the transfer ban has no place in existence

 

Transfer ban was for not paying the taxman though I think.

 

Agreed BM we are being fined for not playing by somebody's idea of Sporting Integrity.

[Waltersgotstyle 297]

So my understanding is that -

 

1. All players were registered properly

2. We made a substantial amount of "side" payments that should have been declared (in order to protect the player and the club) however we did not.

 

If we were severely punished for point 2 they would leave themselves open for people questioning clubs giving company cars, buying houses etc.

 

Clerical error - which correctly was handled with a fine

[Thinker 887]

So point 5 is more or less saying you did nothing wrong, but it wasnt very sporting of you and for that we will fine you, but you still did nothing wrong.

 

That bloody word Sorting Integrity rears its head again.

 

Is it not saying that there was nothing wrong with what the transactions were payment for, but the paperwork for them should really have been submitted according to the rules?

[BlueMazza 0]

Is it not saying that there was nothing wrong with what the transactions were payment for, but the paperwork for them should really have been submitted according to the rules?

 

I think so, which yet again vindicates that EBT's wern't used illegally.

[Scott7 5,456]

Point 5 means the payments were legal but the failure to disclose was a contravention of the rules.

 

It was more than an admin error because a positive decision was taken not to disclose.

[GovanAllan 0]

Is it not saying that there was nothing wrong with what the transactions were payment for, but the paperwork for them should really have been submitted according to the rules?

 

I agree mate, but a fine because paper work went missing is wrong, sounds like a whitewash to me most it should've been was a harsh word.

 

Livingston got done for not disclosing an EBT totally and paid a lot less than us, Celtic got a no case to answer for the same breach. But we get fined for not dotting the T's and crossing the I's