12-09-2017, 15:45
(12-09-2017, 04:30)St Charles Owl Wrote: Can I ask what outcome would you want to see happen?? More punishment for Rangers? Governing bodies to be sanctioned? Titles stripped etc?
Charles
there are a few issues we need clarified
First and in chronological order
The award of the European licence in 2011, (resolution 12) we now know that the bill for the wee tax case was due in December and not as previously disclosed in dispute in the April.
Who lied to who and did the SFA know this or did deed co lie to the SFA.
Remember, Paul Murray, Dave King, Alastair Johnston where all directors of deed co at that time, and Andrew Dickson was an office bearer are all still involved in football in Scotland.
If it is found that Deed co lied to the SFA then they should all be sin-died from all football.
Second
The remit of the LNS enquiry initially included the discount options scheme (wee tax case), who decided that that was to be excluded and why?
Third
The SPL accepted that the EBTs them self's were legal, who made this decision and why?
Forth
The Bryson "imperfectly registered" statement, he was the SFAs "expert" on player registrations.
the rules at the time made it clear that all payments made to professional players HAD to be registered with both the SPL and the SFA.
It was proven at the enquiry that rangers had played every single game since 2001 with at least 1 player and up to every player who had received payments that were not registered with the SFA or SPL.
Previously any failure in registration accidental or not was deemed to have had a material effect on the game and individual games were give a 3-0 decision to the opposition.
In this occasion Bryson under questioning, he explained that a player, once registered with the ruling body, remained registered with them until such time as his contract ended or that player left their club’s employment.
Bryson advised LNS that the players in receipt of EBT were 'registered imperfectly' but 'eligible.' to play.
The rule involved says
SPL Rule D1.13, in effect from and including 23 May 2005 provides:
“A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary [of the SPL], within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.”
How can the head of Registrations invent a "'registered imperfectly' but 'eligible.' to play" statement when the rule is clear.
This would have meant that every rangers game would have to be rewritten as a 3-0 defeat.
Who was involved with this and why when he said this wasn't it challenged immediately by SPL council in the enquiry.
This has no impact on the LNS result and would simply be the SFA doing what it always has done and will likely continue to do.
Bryson is still working with the SFA and must be made to explain this clearly and fully.
Fifth
LNS said No sporting advantage, on the basis that they were legal and above board, something we now know was simply not true.
From the enquiry report.
"Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law – so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge.........It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players.
On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules.
We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature"
This is the crux of the issue with LNS, we now know the EBTs were tax evasion and the tax is due on them now. So this is just wrong and should be revisited.
Sixth
The Five was agreement and Armageddon of Scottish football, who authorised new co to be allowed back in to the SPL and then the attempt to force them in to division .
These people are still in situe at the SPFL and the SFA as Turnbell Hutton said "they were lying to everyone"
The five way agreement allowed new co to take the history of deed co and garnteed no further punishment, how can you give a get out of jail free card.
Let us see this document and make our own minds up
Finally
Campbell Ogilvie, signature on the discount option schemes, and some of the EBTs knew all along that deed co were lying to the SPL and the SFA, he was after all SFA President. And did nothing to insure transparency and fairness.
Why was this allowed to happen and why is he allowed to still have a function in football?
Sorry for such a long post and there are other issue we need answers to but this 7 are the most important.
As to punishment, just treat everyone and every entity fairly and with out fear or favour.
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com...angers.pdf
