Jim McLean's Ghost Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The only way to re-hear the Lord Nimmo Smith verdict would be for corruption to be found or an injured party (e.g. Celtic) taking the issue to the Court of Arbitration for Sport claiming that the SFA have failed to follow their own rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The only way to re-hear the Lord Nimmo Smith verdict would be for corruption to be found or an injured party (e.g. Celtic) taking the issue to the Court of Arbitration for Sport claiming that the SFA have failed to follow their own rules. I agree that this is one route, but not the only one. The SFA could revist this if it wanted. There are no rules that prevent this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The side letters are central to this. They are the evidence that the details of payments included in the registration process, differed from the reality of what Rangers were actually paying their players. LNS did say that the deliberate deceit didn't render the players ineligible. I'm not sure that he said the registration was "proper", but you can maybe prove me wrong on that. Either way, I think the ruling was unjust, so I'm keen for it to be re-visited. Any premise will do really. Well he never used the word proper if you're being pedantic but ".We are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches." (p27) "This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player. " And any premise will do? Aye that sums this all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Well he never used the word proper if you're being pedantic but ".We are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches." (p27) "This is an important finding, as it means that there was no instance shown of Rangers FC fielding an ineligible player. " And any premise will do? Aye that sums this all up. Yes, Bennett. We're not actually disagreeing here. We both know what LNS said. The difference is that I think his ruling was hopelessly unjust. I'm concerned with justice. You're pleased with an injustice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 What does one of Scotland's top judges know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 What does one of Scotland's top judges know... More than either you or I ever profess to. Doesn't make him infallible of course. I thought you realised that judges aren't infallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 What has changed? Rangers owed the tax authorities an 8 figure sum in the original ruling on (small tax case, multiple admission of improper EBTs in the big case). The number has increased but it still doesn't break any rules that governed football. Apart from the improperly registered contract rule that OldDeadRangers thought didn't apply to them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The only way to re-hear the Lord Nimmo Smith verdict would be for corruption to be found or an injured party (e.g. Celtic) taking the issue to the Court of Arbitration for Sport claiming that the SFA have failed to follow their own rules. Think about it. The SPL who ordered the LNS inquiry no longer exist. The SPFL now run the show and can do whatever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 More than either you or I ever profess to. Doesn't make him infallible of course. I thought you realised that judges aren't infallible. Lots of people saying the hearing should be held again but the only reason they have is that they didn't like the result. So much for abiding by the verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Lots of people saying the hearing should be held again but the only reason they have is that they didn't like the result. So much for abiding by the verdict. Well yes of course it's those who are unhappy with it who want to re-visit it. That's pretty bloody obvious. Similarly, people like you who are pleased with how LNS saw things, wish it to be left alone. Let's not pretend that either of us are being governed by an innate respect for the judgement, whatever it is. You keep referring to some vow to "abide by the verdict". Who made this vow? I'm fairly sure that I didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 You don't really matter tho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 You don't really matter tho... I'm well aware of that, but you keep using this argument to counter my own ones about revisiting LNS. Who are you on about and why's it relevant in our discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Which I've answered numerous times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Which I've answered numerous times. Indulge me then Bennett, because I've clearly managed to overlook these numerous answers. Who said they'd accept LNS's ruling as final, whichever way it went? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Lots of people saying the hearing should be held again but the only reason they have is that they didn't like the result. So much for abiding by the verdict. Have you paid the fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Lots of people saying the hearing should be held again but the only reason they have is that they didn't like the result. So much for abiding by the verdict. The only ones who had to abide by the verdict were Rangers. They still have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Have you paid the fine? yes. The only ones who had to abide by the verdict were Rangers. They still have not. Yes they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Yes they have. I asked about this last week because it confused me. The answer I got indicated that Rangers had agreed to pay any fine initially, but then chose not to, alleging that the authorities had not kept their part of the bargain. Have I got that wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 I asked about this last week because it confused me. The answer I got indicated that Rangers had agreed to pay any fine initially, but then chose not to, alleging that the authorities had not kept their part of the bargain. Have I got that wrong? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 No Thank you. Is Bennett just being daft then? Out of interest, what do Rangers claim to be "the subsequent actions of the SPFL" that have waived their right to the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.