Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
curly,
In all honesty, the roller coaster won't stop for a while yet.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Nightmail - IF, and I repeat IF the SPL & SFA had actually convened the tribunal now sitting PRIOR to Green buying the club, then you might have a point.
But otherwise, caveat emptor cannot apply, as it was not reasonable, especially given the documents regarding the attempted horsetrading / blackmail by the SPL / SFA ref EBTs etc, to foresee that the SPL would actually set up such a tribunal.
What law would this fall under? Don't be daft man. Do you really think that it is legal to, without any legal standing whatsoever, unilaterally reduce the value of an asset.
And we are not talking about what Green PAID, but rather what he wants to get back in due course for selling.
daviecooper1,
The draft 5 way agreement is a red herring. It was known about months ago. I would question why is it only now that Chucky, the Cheeky Chappy and their friends in the MSM are introducing it into the debate. It seems like just another crude attempt to muddy the water.
The risk of Rangers facing dual contract charges was known well before both the takeover by Mr Charles. That is why caveat emptor applies.
If Rangers are found guilty of the full extent of the dual contracts charge, then the facts become:
- They will have cheated over a period of 11 years.
- They will have denied trophies and significant income to the clubs they cheated (think, for example, the CL income that Celtic lost from their last day SPL defeats over the last 10 season - it runs to £60m - £80m). Other clubs that would have been denied trophies and/or income include Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and Queen of the South.
That really is why most neutrals think there should be both redress and punishment.
You do realise that the fact that a payment was recorded or not with the SPL has absolutely no bearing on whether that player could have been afforded otherwise? So, basically, even if rangers did not list all payments made to players, and as they were loans they had no obligation to, but even if they did not, it has no bearing on the performance on the pitch.
So your comment about denying trophies is basically nonsense.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Missing the point. Apparently, the SPL are investigating not that payments took place -this is clearly outlined in every set of accounts, but that there was a contractual link between the payments and players wages (ie. they were loans in lieu of wages).
It is not the money per se but rather the fact that said payments were not detailed in the contract lodged with the SPL, again apparently.
That being the case, there is no benefit gained.
Sign in if you want to comment
If The Rangers (??)...
Page 2 of 2
posted on 25/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/9/12
curly,
In all honesty, the roller coaster won't stop for a while yet.
posted on 25/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/9/12
Nightmail - IF, and I repeat IF the SPL & SFA had actually convened the tribunal now sitting PRIOR to Green buying the club, then you might have a point.
But otherwise, caveat emptor cannot apply, as it was not reasonable, especially given the documents regarding the attempted horsetrading / blackmail by the SPL / SFA ref EBTs etc, to foresee that the SPL would actually set up such a tribunal.
What law would this fall under? Don't be daft man. Do you really think that it is legal to, without any legal standing whatsoever, unilaterally reduce the value of an asset.
And we are not talking about what Green PAID, but rather what he wants to get back in due course for selling.
posted on 25/9/12
daviecooper1,
The draft 5 way agreement is a red herring. It was known about months ago. I would question why is it only now that Chucky, the Cheeky Chappy and their friends in the MSM are introducing it into the debate. It seems like just another crude attempt to muddy the water.
The risk of Rangers facing dual contract charges was known well before both the takeover by Mr Charles. That is why caveat emptor applies.
If Rangers are found guilty of the full extent of the dual contracts charge, then the facts become:
- They will have cheated over a period of 11 years.
- They will have denied trophies and significant income to the clubs they cheated (think, for example, the CL income that Celtic lost from their last day SPL defeats over the last 10 season - it runs to £60m - £80m). Other clubs that would have been denied trophies and/or income include Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and Queen of the South.
That really is why most neutrals think there should be both redress and punishment.
posted on 26/9/12
You do realise that the fact that a payment was recorded or not with the SPL has absolutely no bearing on whether that player could have been afforded otherwise? So, basically, even if rangers did not list all payments made to players, and as they were loans they had no obligation to, but even if they did not, it has no bearing on the performance on the pitch.
So your comment about denying trophies is basically nonsense.
posted on 26/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/9/12
Missing the point. Apparently, the SPL are investigating not that payments took place -this is clearly outlined in every set of accounts, but that there was a contractual link between the payments and players wages (ie. they were loans in lieu of wages).
It is not the money per se but rather the fact that said payments were not detailed in the contract lodged with the SPL, again apparently.
That being the case, there is no benefit gained.
Page 2 of 2