I'm a Rangers fan and tbh I don't see what Celtic have done wrong here.
Their EBT was for a severence deal. The issue of side contracts doesn't come into it as surely a severance deal would have been negotiated when Juninho left. Therefore it couldn't really have been declared on his initial contract.
Either way, the 'but youz huv done it too' attitude helps no-one.
We are where we are, let's get on with it with a bit of dignity even if others are determined to keep beating with any stick they can find.
In other words, none of us know................having said that we probably know as much as the SPL (bleedin muppets).
comment by Irvine No 1 (U1006) posted 3 minutes ago
Irvine - what about Bbs point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What point? Celtic have been cleared of any wrong doing so that's it. Rangers case will be judged in the same way and if they have done nothing wrong the outcome will be the same.
*************************
Aye, so you;re telling me that if the SPL came out with a statement "clearing Rangers" without any sort of explanation whatsoever, "that would be it"...
Aye, right...you would be writing to MP's and going absolutely off the nut about it
We should at least know who cleared Celtic
Don't know what all the fuss is about anyway, according to our leader Mr. Green It's got sod all to do with us. Let them come out with their findings then tell them to stuff it .
I've managed to avoid the temptation to write to my MP despite the leniency shown to Rangers so far.
Mind you he's Brian Donahue so maybe not much point.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
If titles are stripped then celtuc shouldn't get the title from the juninho ebt year
Big bad Celtic eh?...................nah Ginger, more like Big bad useless, incompetent SPL.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
They will give them to somebody I reckon ginger. As I say, as long as celtuc don't get the one for the juninho ebt season then I'm not overly bothered
Maybe Rangers should find out who prepared Celtic's case and ask them to do the same for them.
Ginge, on the first part, fiar enough
Personally, I think it should ALL have been dropped by now, because there really is nothing to gain from all this...it will end in tears, I can guarantee it.
don't like the fact there's absolutely no consistency across the piece though
If there's scope to try and make some sort of special dispensation to bring Rangers to trial, despite the rulebooks and laws saying otherwise, then the very fact that Celtic, actually being under the SPL's jurisdiction and the fact they already admitted their guilt, should surely mean a consistent punishment in line with those being discussed for Rangers.
I don't care if Celtic get punished, but when Rangers are getting pilloried from all angles for the same crime, then it reeks of hypocrisy and you can surely understand that point of view?
comment by Irvine No 1 (U1006)
posted 18 minutes ago
Irvine, Celtic told the BBC they did not declare the payment to either the sfa or spl at the time. So how you can say they were seems strange.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see that on the bbc? Link?
===============================
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18169502
"Celtic confirmed that it established one EBT scheme in April 2005, which BBC Scotland understands was for the benefit of the Brazilian midfielder Juninho Paulista. The scheme was worth £765,000 but the club did not declare the trust payment to the Scottish Football Association or the Scottish Premier League."
Ginger, I think Green is treating the SPL with the contempt they deserve.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Ginger, agree Mr Green could turn it down a smidgeon but he still has a right to fight our corner (maybe no just quite so colourfully eh).
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Aye, I'm getting soft in my auld age Ginger.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
"There comes a point where we have to accept some form of authority and place a trust in them. That does not mean they should not be challenged or brought to task when found to fall short of the standards expected."
==============================
Place trust in the SPL/SFA?
You having a laugh, thats the one thing both sides of the old firm can agree against!
The authorities have been shown to be completely inept on several recent occasions.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
When they try to crucify us for something that their rules dont actually cover, then they deserve to be taken to court.
---------
I am really confused here mitre. I will be honest and state that i have not read the entire list of posts but if you are talking about the inquiry into Rangers taking place next month then it is very clearly in the rules.
This is not about an EBT.
This is about duel contracts and critically proving that they exist.
If the panel find evidence, beyond any doubt, that Rangers issued a secondary contract to any player or staff - and can prove it - Rangers will be punished and no amount of bluster can change that.
Its clear - only 1 contract per player must be lodged with the SFA detailing ALL the players income from the club.
Tafka,
The investigation is not actually based on 'duel contracts' per say. It is around article 12.3 of the SFA rules stating that :-
“…all payments, whether made by the club or otherwise, which are to be made to a player solely relating to his playing activities must be fully recorded within the relevant written agreement with the player prior to submission to the Scottish FA and/or the recognised football body of which his club is in membership.”
We have established that Juninho was paid through an undisclosed EBT, so this as clear a case against this rule as you can find.
However they have chosen to ignore this case but go after Rangers.
This leads me to think they are not actually bothered about the EBT/Registration/Contract issue, but are only using it as a way to get to Rangers over the tax.
Their rules dont specifically have rules against tax avoidance, so are trying to get us through a backdoor.
When they try to do us on a legal technicality, but then refuse to apply the same rules to others, then we have every right to take them to court.
Sign in if you want to comment
precedence now set!
Page 2 of 3
posted on 13/9/12
I'm a Rangers fan and tbh I don't see what Celtic have done wrong here.
Their EBT was for a severence deal. The issue of side contracts doesn't come into it as surely a severance deal would have been negotiated when Juninho left. Therefore it couldn't really have been declared on his initial contract.
Either way, the 'but youz huv done it too' attitude helps no-one.
We are where we are, let's get on with it with a bit of dignity even if others are determined to keep beating with any stick they can find.
posted on 13/9/12
In other words, none of us know................having said that we probably know as much as the SPL (bleedin muppets).
posted on 13/9/12
comment by Irvine No 1 (U1006) posted 3 minutes ago
Irvine - what about Bbs point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What point? Celtic have been cleared of any wrong doing so that's it. Rangers case will be judged in the same way and if they have done nothing wrong the outcome will be the same.
*************************
Aye, so you;re telling me that if the SPL came out with a statement "clearing Rangers" without any sort of explanation whatsoever, "that would be it"...
Aye, right...you would be writing to MP's and going absolutely off the nut about it
posted on 13/9/12
We should at least know who cleared Celtic
posted on 13/9/12
Don't know what all the fuss is about anyway, according to our leader Mr. Green It's got sod all to do with us. Let them come out with their findings then tell them to stuff it .
posted on 13/9/12
I've managed to avoid the temptation to write to my MP despite the leniency shown to Rangers so far.
Mind you he's Brian Donahue so maybe not much point.
posted on 13/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/9/12
If titles are stripped then celtuc shouldn't get the title from the juninho ebt year
posted on 13/9/12
Big bad Celtic eh?...................nah Ginger, more like Big bad useless, incompetent SPL.
posted on 13/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/9/12
They will give them to somebody I reckon ginger. As I say, as long as celtuc don't get the one for the juninho ebt season then I'm not overly bothered
posted on 13/9/12
Maybe Rangers should find out who prepared Celtic's case and ask them to do the same for them.
posted on 13/9/12
Ginge, on the first part, fiar enough
Personally, I think it should ALL have been dropped by now, because there really is nothing to gain from all this...it will end in tears, I can guarantee it.
don't like the fact there's absolutely no consistency across the piece though
If there's scope to try and make some sort of special dispensation to bring Rangers to trial, despite the rulebooks and laws saying otherwise, then the very fact that Celtic, actually being under the SPL's jurisdiction and the fact they already admitted their guilt, should surely mean a consistent punishment in line with those being discussed for Rangers.
I don't care if Celtic get punished, but when Rangers are getting pilloried from all angles for the same crime, then it reeks of hypocrisy and you can surely understand that point of view?
posted on 13/9/12
comment by Irvine No 1 (U1006)
posted 18 minutes ago
Irvine, Celtic told the BBC they did not declare the payment to either the sfa or spl at the time. So how you can say they were seems strange.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see that on the bbc? Link?
===============================
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18169502
"Celtic confirmed that it established one EBT scheme in April 2005, which BBC Scotland understands was for the benefit of the Brazilian midfielder Juninho Paulista. The scheme was worth £765,000 but the club did not declare the trust payment to the Scottish Football Association or the Scottish Premier League."
posted on 13/9/12
Ginger, I think Green is treating the SPL with the contempt they deserve.
posted on 13/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/9/12
Ginger, agree Mr Green could turn it down a smidgeon but he still has a right to fight our corner (maybe no just quite so colourfully eh).
posted on 13/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/9/12
Aye, I'm getting soft in my auld age Ginger.
posted on 13/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/9/12
"There comes a point where we have to accept some form of authority and place a trust in them. That does not mean they should not be challenged or brought to task when found to fall short of the standards expected."
==============================
Place trust in the SPL/SFA?
You having a laugh, thats the one thing both sides of the old firm can agree against!
The authorities have been shown to be completely inept on several recent occasions.
posted on 13/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/9/12
When they try to crucify us for something that their rules dont actually cover, then they deserve to be taken to court.
---------
I am really confused here mitre. I will be honest and state that i have not read the entire list of posts but if you are talking about the inquiry into Rangers taking place next month then it is very clearly in the rules.
This is not about an EBT.
This is about duel contracts and critically proving that they exist.
If the panel find evidence, beyond any doubt, that Rangers issued a secondary contract to any player or staff - and can prove it - Rangers will be punished and no amount of bluster can change that.
Its clear - only 1 contract per player must be lodged with the SFA detailing ALL the players income from the club.
posted on 13/9/12
Tafka,
The investigation is not actually based on 'duel contracts' per say. It is around article 12.3 of the SFA rules stating that :-
“…all payments, whether made by the club or otherwise, which are to be made to a player solely relating to his playing activities must be fully recorded within the relevant written agreement with the player prior to submission to the Scottish FA and/or the recognised football body of which his club is in membership.”
We have established that Juninho was paid through an undisclosed EBT, so this as clear a case against this rule as you can find.
However they have chosen to ignore this case but go after Rangers.
This leads me to think they are not actually bothered about the EBT/Registration/Contract issue, but are only using it as a way to get to Rangers over the tax.
Their rules dont specifically have rules against tax avoidance, so are trying to get us through a backdoor.
When they try to do us on a legal technicality, but then refuse to apply the same rules to others, then we have every right to take them to court.
Page 2 of 3