-
Posts
805 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Happy Buddie
-
No, as previously stated many times, it was Rangers who were responsible for paying the tax as the players are employees and tax is paid (or not) in a PAYE system which the employer is legally obliged to deduct from wages and pay straight to Hector. It would be interesting to see if Stewart Gilmour has Steven Thompson in his office over the close season for a "wee chat" about integrity.
-
Don't get me wrong in any way, I'm partial to succulent lamb myself, but only in a curry, so definitely no RFC agenda. Howver, there have been cases in the past where, e.g. golf club members have been expelled or otherwise disciplined and have ultimately taken their case to civil courts. It usually seems to give the appellant a bit of leverage, but 99% of the time it results in a foot-shooting, as it just gets everybody's back up, in the golf club case nobody wants to play with you, so you're back in but ostracised. In the case of RFC as I mentioned earlier, when you do face a legitimate penalty it's applied with very precise (extra?) vigour and to the full extent and letter of the law (we hope) .
-
Nobody knows the exact dialogue between the SFA and FIFA, and i think No. 8 is either being delibeartely obtuse or it's just normal for Orcs to see everything through blue-tinted specs. My daily dealings I have to eliminate the " read-between-the-lines" options in stuff, which kind of helps me to do just that. I suspect the dialogue between them might have gone along the lines of: FIFA: We notice RFC have taken you to court. We do not allow such things. SFA: We will await the judgement of the court. The punishment for the original offence may be greater than we would apply for the breach of your articles. FIFA: We'll be keeping an eye on things. SFA: We are aware of your interest. Leave it to us. We'll deal with it. FIFA: We'll, we're happy with that. Now where would that leave RFC in a psotion to lay on a party?
-
It looks to me like the reason they went to CoS, ignoring CAS, was time-related, CAS may have taken too long to overturn the decision. IMO the whole premise of Green's takeover is the "buy'em and sell'em" strategy, and if they can't do that the whole thing falls at the first fence, so they HAD to get rid of the transfer embargo. However, Beecher's Brook awaits, as does The Chair, and I suspect Green's horse thinks it's in a flat race.
-
The beauty of the statement is its simplicity. Basically, the club lives and dies by its own actions. If anyone else can remember the days of Ernie Walker or Jim Farry, this statement would have been full of codicils, the party of the third part, the party of the second part, finished off on page 135 with the Sanity Clause. What, you don't believe in a Sanity Clause?