youngsy Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Youngsy, as one of the few "The Rangers" supporters here with a brain (one that works) I would like your opinion on the EBTs. If we agree that the old Rangers gained no advantage in attracting better players than they could have done otherwise, why did Murray bother with EBTs? They obviously came with an overhead in setting up, administering and reporting etc. There was also the risk of them being found unacceptable by the SFA, SPL or HMRC. This concern is shown in their non disclosure at the time. Why then go to all that bother if no advantage was to be gained? I could ask Tedi or No 8 but I know would only get a same old, same old garbled Rab C Nesbitt style answer. As far as the EBTs are concerned they have been deemed legal at the time of using them so in that respect Murray was using them to sign better quaility players,no argument on that. At the time when they were set up i can accept that the club was verging on a gamble as to the full legality of them but Murray, having taken legal counsel, was always convinced that the system was legal and that the club would win the FTT, subsequents results have proven him right on that. However with the non-disclosure of payments i can accept that there was a certain amount of doubt within the club over them with certain individuals, Bain for one. As to why did they bother if no sporting advantage was gained i take that to mean that the fact that not one player that benefitted from an EBT was not illegally registered through the use of EBTs therefore no sporting advantage was gained by illegal means. That,to me anyway,is the whole crux of the matter,whether players played while illegally registered through the use of side letters,side contracts,hidden contracts call them what you may. What many are overlooking here is that the use of EBTs was open to every club at anytime to use them to enhance their playing staff, the fact that no other club used the system is hardly the fault of Rangers,they were looking after their own interests to enhance their squad. Clubs have the right to bring in top quality players on whatever money they see fit to pay the players and as long as the payment method is legal then there is no argument there. That is what Rangers did, they put forward the best package they could to get top players just as every other club does, the method of payment may have been controversial but not illegal. And can i also say that if they were cheating on the field of play (which they weren't) then they couldn't have been very good at it as over the period in question Celtic won six of the titles competed for to Rangers four and don't forget,Celtic threw away two of those titles.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Work to do at 25 to 11. Sitting posting about Rangers at 20 past 1. AUFC90 - Dole muncher. It's called a smartphone bud. The further away from Ibrokes u go the more 21st century it feels. U should try it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I know fine what pedant means you, obviously don't Again I will ask you where did I suggest they pay anything to the newco? you struggle quite a bit with comprehension it seems. You obviously don't know. You, hod it and dod it are the biggest hairsplitters on PandB FFS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devlin Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 (edited) It's called a smartphone bud. The further away from Ibrokes u go the more 21st century it feels. U should try it Ayr has better technology than Glasgow? Not that i live either of the places but feel free to ramble on, it's not like you have work to do. How do you get any work done staring at your smartphone all day? What's your job? Oh yeah and why don't you take an interest in Ayr, or are you really a beadrattler? Edited March 6, 2013 by Devlin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Having a quick look through this thread from last night, a few things jump out pretty starkly. First, you can't credibly accuse me of "ignoring" the Commission's finding that Rangers players were legally registered, when I repeatedly acknowledge that and then recite the Commission's reasoning in reaching that decision. The Commission itself stated that players were legally registered because under the then-existing rules, a player is regarded as properly registered unless he was found to be improperly registered *at the time*. That's a giant, glaring loophole and it's the reason why your titles weren't stripped. It's not in doubt that you were deliberately breaking the rules on player registration, because you were found guilty of serious and intentional rule breaking. This isn't up for debate, by the way. It's an accurate summary of the Commission's findings. Secondly, isn't it interesting that a bunch of guys who have no trouble wrapping their heads around Italian business law and so on when it suits them, are suddenly overcome with confusion when it comes to such a comparatively simple issue? I mean, you seem to be fine with people noting the Commission's conclusions, but outraged when anyone explains the reasons why they say they came to those conclusions. You can say "no sporting advantage", but the second you look at *why* they said that, it's all calls to close the thread, and pretending not to understand and accusations of obsession and so on and on and on. Isn't that odd? It looks a bit like it's me who understands this report, and you lot who are desperately trying to avoid its conclusions. But I thought this report was correct in all ways, unimpeachable and unquestionable? Now, that is strange. Oh i understand and accept every aspect of the report, unlike yourself. The conclusion to this report is that the cluib was handed a £250,000 for non-disclosure,no case to answer on fielding illegally registered players to seek sporting advantage,therefore no removal of any honours won during the period in question. If there was the playing of ineligible players then there would have been the removal of honours,there wasn't though,that's the summary of Nimmo-Smiths report. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 (edited) Ayr has better technology than Glasgow? Not that i live either of the places but feel free to ramble on, it's not like you have work to do. How do you get any work done staring at your smartphone all day? What's your job? Oh yeah and why don't you take an interest in Ayr, or are you really a beadrattler? Yep Im a beadrattler.The problem with Scottish football summed up in a sentence Oh and I was at the ayr game last night. Is that enough for u ? Or do u want me to go on the ayr forum and mate a couple of posts to prove to u Im not a "beadrattler? Edited March 6, 2013 by AUFC90 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devlin Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Yep Im a beadrattler. The problem with Scottish football summed up in a sentence Scottish football is homophobic? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devlin Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Also could you please answer questions provided. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Scottish football is homophobic? No, the whole idea if your no with us your against attitude. Everyone in Scotland has no time for rangers or Celtic for that matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devlin Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 No, the whole idea if your no with us your against attitude. Everyone in Scotland has no time for rangers or Celtic for that matter. I don't hold that attitude. You clearly have PLENTY of time for Rangers, a whole day of work's time. It may help your cause if you put a capital on Rangers as well as celtc, or discussed your own football team, if that is who you support. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I don't hold that attitude. You clearly have PLENTY of time for Rangers, a whole day of work's time. It may help your cause if you put a capital on Rangers as well as celtc, or discussed your own football team, if that is who you support. Well bloody put a capital in front of Celtic if it bothers u so much 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Rage? Why would I be ? The whole point of it for me was to confirm yous are cheats. The verdict confirmed it. Just because yous didn't get maximum punishment because the rules aren't in line with uefas doesn't meant a think in the grand scheme of things. Pretty sure the spl could go to cas and win comfortably. They wouldn't have the stomach for it though. At the end of the day I don't give 2 shits about titles. Yous are confirmed cheats and they way the fans have reacted to being found guilty is even more startling. Because a rapist got off on a technicality doesn't make him any less a rapist. Also what will u guys say if upper tier rules yous were acting illegally ? Aye Lord Nimmo Smith and two QC's got it all wrong and some wee punter from outside Ayr knows better 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Scottish football is homophobic? Just the likes of Norman and young Dhensboy, really we're quite a tolerant wee country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Aye Lord Nimmo Smith and two QC's got it all wrong and some wee punter from outside Ayr knows better Aye he said yous got off with sporting punishments because the authorities rules are a joke. Therefor he gave rangers a hefty fine. We know this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Aye he said yous got off with sporting punishments because the authorities rules are a joke. Therefor he gave rangers a hefty fine. We know this The rules were perfectly fine before the hearing, not they're a joke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Where abouts in ayrshire are u from Bennet? And by definition does that make u a glory hunter ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 The rules were perfectly fine before the hearing, not they're a joke No one knew they weren't fit for purpose before the hearing. Basically no team has ever fielded an in eligible player. Well done yous 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Where abouts in ayrshire are u from Bennet? And by definition does that make u a glory hunter ? Currently living in Kilmarnock, do you like the cut of my jib? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I'm going to assume you already know that Murray was prepared to be fast and loose with spending on players. The idea that Murray would just not have bothered to sign these players without EBT's is risible. He has claimed that the EBT scheme's were to save money - I can't help it if you don't believe him. I personally think he would have had us in even more trouble if the EBT's were not available. Spike Milligan would be proud of this bizarre fiction. 'even more trouble' more trouble than going down the plug hole as a liquidated club? Wow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 No one knew they weren't fit for purpose before the hearing. Basically no team has ever fielded an in eligible player. Well done yous (Currently bent double laughing at this) Before the hearing most non bears on here believed that the hearing and the SPL rule book was perfectly adequate and no one could complain about it. So much for accepting the verdict 0 Quote Link to comment 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.