bennett Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Yes, I know, but that's surely flawed and ultimately unjust. In the real world, verdicts can be re-visited in the light of new evidence. Can you explain your second point? I don't mean that you're wrong; I don't think you are. I just don't really understand it. Can titles be removed in certain circumstances then, that just don't include these ones? Or can they not be taken away years later, in any circumstances at all? I think you're clutching at straws to be honest, in that the arguments aren't powerful or home to any moral dimension. Clutching at straws is probably the wrong phrase though, because I do actually expect the straws to hold firm enough to ultimately win the day. All pretty inglorious though. No? Read through this. One point is that the spl s and Celtics lawyer never understood the rules regarding player registrations. http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/215802-key-points-from-lord-nimmo-smiths-ruling-on-rangers/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Paquis, another sane post from another sane Bear. Based on today's outcome the whole idea of The SPL investigating title-stripping is beyond parody. Here's a decent example of Kincardine's willingness to connect the FTTT verdict to the title stripping investigation. At that time, he clearly saw the two as much the same. Now that the verdict has changed, not so much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 What a bunch of cheating b*****ds. Whether the titles are declared void, officially, which is doubtful, considering the c***s we have in charge of our game. The fans of Scottish football will never forget that Rangers cheated, then they died. Tick tock Sevco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Here's a decent example of Kincardine's willingness to connect the FTTT verdict to the title stripping investigation. At that time, he clearly saw the two as much the same. Now that the verdict has changed, not so much. If I remember correctly the spl enquiry was originally looking into ebt use, it a brick wall then changed tact and looked into side letters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) You also said, "Materially, it should make no difference to the 'title stripping' debate at all." I would disagree. The SPL could, of course, pursue us for the stripping of titles. This would show hubris in the extreme if they did so.A better one.It was addressed to me too. It's as if it's only in the last week or so, that the big tax case verdict has had nothing to do with title stripping for Kincardine. Back in the day, the link was apparently terribly strong and explicit. Edited November 13, 2015 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Surely the SPFL can take away the titles in the same way as they gave them. According to Tedi etc. it is down to the association to decide who won what, or so they tell us when questions are asked of New Rangers' right to Old Rangers' titles. Edited November 13, 2015 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 It is odd to ask for a commission which found us guilty to be reconvened or overruled by a new commission. On the basis that we should be exonerated or that we should be found more guilty than we actually were? It has to be one or the other. You also have to have a basis for the new commission. That a later appeal found in favour of HMRC re The EBT scheme? This possibility was both known, explicitly discussed and discounted by the SPL's representative who sought a decision irrespective of the appeal outcome. Note to a few diddies banging on about sporting advantage. The job of any club's management is to gain a sporting advantage. Our use of EBTs was designed to help that for sure. The issue is whether or not that advantage was gained unfairly. The LNS commission found that it wasn't. Not really it's called an appeal, happens all the time, especially when new evidence (that EBTs were illegal) has come out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghBlue Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 An agreement with the Scottish football authorities was that LNS verdict was final. SPL rules also did not allow tittles to be stripped due to side letters or EBT's. But they do allow clubs to be expelled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I don't actually think I disagree with you too much on this. The difference is that my position has been consistent throughout. Back in November 2012, you thought that the LNS enquiry should be stood down in the wake of the FTTT verdict. I argued that it shouldn't have much impact directly, but I expressed the concern that it might. The wording of the LNS ruling, and the brief given to him, seemed to confirm my fears. Since last week, I've been still saying that I can see this revised ruling having no real material impact, although this time I make no secret of the fact that I'd like it to. For me, LNS probably won't be re-visited. I can't see what's really changed. The fact that I think the original ruling was wrong though, means that I welcome the renewed scrutiny that judgment currently faces. As I've said elsewhere, I'm still intrigued by what prevented players being deemed ineligible. I'm also fascinated by the idea that retrospective title stripping was apparently not even able to happen. I've always argued that the big tax case and title stripping do not amount to the same thing, although they are related. You're the one who's changed his tune as the verdict for the former has changed. Cowardice, windae smashing and an EBT holder giving false evidence to LNS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 A small tin of bitter orange. It's all I could fit in the fridge which is chock-full of the humble pie I can never get round to eating. Brilliant!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 An agreement with the Scottish football authorities was that LNS verdict was final. SPL rules also did not allow tittles to be stripped due to side letters or EBT's. And agreement with the Scottish Football Authorities and who exactly? Yes they did and so so the the SPFL rules 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Read through this. One point is that the spl s and Celtics lawyer never understood the rules regarding player registrations.http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/215802-key-points-from-lord-nimmo-smiths-ruling-on-rangers/ Thanks. That was actually helpful. It seems that the players weren't considered ineligible, because their registration, though flawed, could not be revoked after the event, as no mechanism permitted it. An extraordinary stroke of luck for Rangers then. It also seems that no sporting penalties were imposed, largely on this dubious premise of no sporting advantage having been achieved. I agree that nothing will change here. It's not the most convincing arrangement though, is it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 If I remember correctly the spl enquiry was originally looking into ebt use, it a brick wall then changed tact and looked into side letters. Don't think so Bennett. From Mark Daly's programme onwards, it was about undisclosed side letters and player registration. Wasn't the whole idea thrown up way before Whyte even, by some disgruntled, older former employee, who has since died? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Surely the SPFL can take away the titles in the same way as they gave them. According to Tedi etc. it is down to the association to decide who won what, or so they tell us when questions are asked of New Rangers' right to Old Rangers' titles.Depends on the will to clean up.....took long time for Armstrong to be stripped of titles......lot of anger threats intimidation etc....He was the guy who caused other people to lose their jobs be publicly bullied so he could cling onto titles he used an unfair advantage to earn plus the prize money n endorsements related to those wins....which denied his opponents prize money.....still police Scotland hasn't arrest Lance so all tip top 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Depends on the will to clean up.....took long time for Armstrong to be stripped of titles......lot of anger threats intimidation etc....He was the guy who caused other people to lose their jobs be publicly bullied so he could cling onto titles he used an unfair advantage to earn plus the prize money n endorsements related to those wins....which denied his opponents prize money.....still police Scotland hasn't arrest Lance so all tip top My point was quite simply that if the football authorities take the titles away then the Rangers supporters will entirely agree that this is their perogative. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 But they do allow clubs to be expelled. LNS verdict was final, no going back. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 LNS verdict was final, no going back. No Ifs, no buts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Don't think so Bennett. From Mark Daly's programme onwards, it was about undisclosed side letters and player registration. Wasn't the whole idea thrown up way before Whyte even, by some disgruntled, older former employee, who has since died? I was sure that they changed tact, I'll have search tomorrow for it. I remember the former employees interview (not his name) the guy had dementia and that ch4 guy was correcting his answers and putting words in his mouth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 "Changed tack", a nautical term. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 In every sport all over world, cheating means the removal of honours won. There's no debate about the possible effect of the cheating, or whether the athlete/team would've won without the cheating. As soon as evidence of cheating is uncovered, the honours are removed, no ifs or buts. Cheating = the opposite of sport. That's except for viewers in Scotland. 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.