Ronnie Wutherspoon

Why would this be a disaster for Scottish football now, when only a couple of years ago, the gruesome twosome were hitching their skirts at the thought of leaving for the EPL and telling the rest of us, that it was the only way forwards?

TSAR - leave the CoS/Fifa punishment issue out for the moment. Concentrate purely on the original charges, of bringing the game into disrepute, for which Rangers were found guilty and the punishment was the transfer embargo. The CoS ruled that the transfer embargo was invalid because it wasn't specifically in the rules. Now consider the statement that was made by the SFA Panel, quoted above : 'The initial judicial panel admitted they had considered throwing Rangers out of the SFA before deciding a transfer embargo was appropriate under one of the organisation's articles which allowed for sanctions considered appropriate' The SFA are handing this one back to their appeal body; the decision of the CoS means the punishment this time must be one of those specified in the SFA Articles. They are, fine, suspension or expulsion. That's how clear-cut it is now. Rangers have already been fined but the SFA Panel didn't consider that a sufficient penalty.

Green dot from me. Reading between the lines of Regan's tweeting tonight I certainly think this is where it's headed. Please... please... please...

Yep, I thnk what he's saying is they've tried to be pragmatic and not dish out the full punishment but that got flung back in their face. So now, punishment will be without pragmatism. And the offences they're guilty of, they've already said, are considered second only to match fixing. Here's what the rules say specifically about punishment. "123. The Board shall have the power to fine, suspend or expel any recognised football body, club, official, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Association who in its opinion, in any way brings the game into disrepute" They've already imposed a fine...

Burkey_78 @StewartRegan in simple terms what reason did judge give 4 panel not being allowed to determine punishment as allowed in art. of ass. StewartRegan @Burkey_78 The tariff of sanctions for bringing the game into disrepute is specific and should be adhered to rigidly. I read that, along with his previous post about not being able to be pragmatic, as a large rule book about to be chucked forcefully at the big hoose. Personally I'd suspend their license for a year.

@StewartRegan the Appeal body will have to select a sanction from the identified list without being able to be pragmatic.

It's a technicality, but they've already been found guilty of tax avoidance by the HMRC. The "big tax case" is actually them appealing that decision.

Stewart Regan just stuck his head above the parapet on Twitter: "1. Decision to go back to appeal body who will consider remaining sanctions open to them. 2. No appeal will be made to a civil court for a football matter. 3. Two Supreme Court Judges had different opinions on the same point. 4. The Judicial Process was never questioned, simply which sanction was selected. Judges had different opinions on what was allowed. 5. A new hearing will take place at the earliest opportunity." most worringly for Rangers IMO... "We are in consultation with FIFA at present." ETA the quotation marks (cos they're his words, not mine)

My link

Right after the part on Waterreus. FD queried why Papac's salary had dropped; asked if it was being paid via the EBT. Payroll confirmed "Yes".

And how about the FD receiving confirmation that part of a player's salary was now being paid via the EBT?

Quote from the article on the BBC website. When Dutch goalkeeper Ronald Waterreus negotiated his contract to join Rangers, in 2005, his agent questioned the tax scheme. Mr Wattereus' agent was told by a club representative in correspondence seen by BBC Scotland that using the trust was "...in the interests of Ronald as it enables him to receive funds tax-free". The representative added: "I can confirm that we will not pay these amounts to [Ronald] unless they are made through the use of the remuneration trust." The use of the word "these" is crucial there if you ask me. Had the scheme been discretionary, it would have said any amounts. By saying "these", it indicates amounts which have already been mentioned/agreed. Also as pointed out, the FD emailed Payroll to query Papac's wage drop, and (paraphrasing) "so the difference is being paid by the EBT?" Reply - "Yes", As mentioned, using EBTs to reduce tax isn't illegal, but doing so via non-discretionary EBTs, is. It certainly looks like the balance of probability test will go in HMRC's favour.

Daly claims to have documentary evidence that the EBTs were contractual and thus dual contracts. Hopefully that's being passed to SFA as we speak

Breaking out the Ben & Jerry's ....

Nope, it's Pugh, Pugh,.... They were twins : My link

Cos it's not GTF day yet.

The (Black &) White Stripes, followed by "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right..." inspired stuff by whoever was choosing the music - never was that more appropriate!

OT, but - is that list in order? I was hoping we'd have been much further up.

alex thomson ‏ @alextomo @fitbafan who is Chick Young? Best tweet ever?

Neither of which will be much use once Livi get expelled for non-fulfilment, irrespective of any appeal.

Agreed. This could well render the appeal process redundant & get them kicked out. He'd have played a real blinder in that scenario.