CaleyD

The SFA broke no laws....what the Court of Sessions performed was a Judicial Review, which is basically them taking the Associations Rules and applying them (using their own understanding) to the actions that were taken and giving a decision on whether that was right or wrong. That is exactly the same thing as would have been done by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The same scenario exists within the example you give. If an employer took disciplinary action against an employee which they did not agree with then you have to go through the appeal and tribunal process before taking it to the courts.

The problem with that is FIFA are unlikely to see that as sufficient punishment for taking the case to the ordinary courts, let alone punishment for bringing the game into disrepute in the manner which they have.

Article 65.5 of the SFA Articles of Association The fact of membership of the Scottish FA shall constitute an agreement by a member that it, or any body or person interested through such member, shall submit all disputes to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Panel and shall not be permitted to take such differences or questions to a court of law. FIFA Statute 64.2 Recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA regulations. There's also an article at - http://www.scotzine....urt-of-session/ - is where it claims the last association to find itself in this position (Chilean) were faced with taking action against a club or being thrown out of FIFA. Backed up by BBC article at - http://news.bbc.co.u...als/8382018.stm

With todays ruling by the Court of Session that the Trasfer Embargo was not an option open to the SFA and FIFA announcing that they will be asking the SFA to take action against Rangers for going outside both SFA and FIFA rules by taking action in the ordinary courts then you do wonder where things are going to go now. The judge hearing the case also commented that a fine, suspension and expulsion were really the only options open to the SFA for punishing Rangers and that just because he had thrown out the Transfer Embargo, that did not mean Rangers should escape further punishment. Looks to me like Rangers are calling the SFA bluff in that they will not suspend/expel them....but with FIFA now getting involved and the risk (based on past actions by FIFA) that the SFA could be thrown out of world football, then it would seem that things are far from over.

"Scottish Football needs Rangers FC"

Far too many people really do have an over-inflated opinion on the worth of SPL Football. For the vast (and I'm talking guesstimations in the upper 90's percentage wise) majority of Sky Subscribers SPL football is merely something they happen upon when flicking through the channels. Sky/ESPN will value the product on that basis. The assumption that if Rangers are not in the SPL that they will lose all Rangers Fans as subscribers is also ridiculous. Are these people really going to give up all other football they watch, F1, Golf etc etc and cancel? Highly unlikely. Of course, being the ruthless commercial organisation that they are then Sky/ESPN will use the situation as a means by which to knock a bit off the deal, but if the get rid of the SPL then they have to replace it with something else and they have all the expense and time that comes with having to do that....too much hassle for such a small product. In the grand scheme of things the SPL is worth no more or less to Sky/ESPN than stuff like speedway, husky dog racing, womens beach volleyball etc. It's curiosity TV for the bulk of their subscribers who would are no more likely to subscribe to packages because of it than they are to cancel if it was gone. IMO....Clubs, SPL, Media etc are all pedalling the "No Rangers, No Sky" line for no good reason other than it serves their own personal agenda and it's easier than growing a pair and making a proper decision for the right reasons.

The cost is far beyond the quoted figures being given. Those are only the direct costs being met from the Olympic "budget" (hahaha). There's (hidden) billions being spent from other budgets (transport etc) over and above that.

It just serves to highlight that Scotland is not the only country where teams and the National Association/s are happy to benefit (financially) from the hate filled rivalries that bring people to games in large numbers. Panorama were obviously showing the Polish and Ukraine problems at their worst....but sadly, I'm not so sure things are any better here, or indeed in many other countries.

We're not exactly in the market for taking in players who are in their prime and playing well from these clubs though....so what choice do we have but to take a look at youngsters? Surely it's better we do that in the hope of unearthing someone with a bit of talent, someone who is going to be out there trying to prove themselves than signing end of the road journeymen who are after little more than a final pay cheque who are due to bow out of the game and may see themselves as having nothing to prove or reason to give everything? What's more, everyone holds Tokely up as the poster boy for signing local talent and how that equates to someone out there "playing for the shirt" or whatever. He actually proves the opposite. Born in Aberdeen and a self-confessed, dyed-in-the-wool Hearts fan who's commitment and passion for his career club cannot be faulted would suggest that when it comes to "playing for the shirt" then being born within some kind of mythical magic circle emanating from the centre spot at TCS is not a pre-requisite. Even those kind of players clearly have their limits (and rightly so), otherwise ICT's most passionate and committed player of all time would not be running to the press with stories of how he wants more money and a better deal....so it can't all be about "playing for the shirt", regardless of how much we might like to believe such fairytales.

Back on-topic please???

The (claimed) facts tend to change day by day and I have been careful to try and not state stuff that is widely believed/accepted as fact because until the full findings of the FTT are known then there is no facts on the case as we do not know what evidence/sources of information are being considered. I think it's more accurate to say that it's "widely accepted" that Rangers will have to pay the Tax relating to the EBT's. I'd have to do some digging to find it, but Murray as good as admitted this before selling to Whyte and Whyte has also made statement to the effect that payment of the Tax "would be handled". As we now know "would be handled" will be, at worst (for Rangers), something to the tune of pennies in the pound and at best (for Rangers) nothing at all if they are liquidated before the FTT gives final findings. Although I am not convinced that HMRC would not be able to put a freeze on the transfer of Assets to a NewCo until the FTT was decided. My thoughts on this are based on the fact (yes fact) that this is an appeal, the invoice for unpaid tax exists and has merely been set aside temporarily until the appeal is heard. It is also widely accepted that Rangers are merely delaying the FTT process. An FTT normally has a timescale of 2 or 3 weeks in which a decision is made and delivered. With us now around the 18 month mark without a decision then such a claim almost certainly holds water. The only people playing the "Nothing has been proven yet" card are Rangers fans who refuse to accept the case being presented against them on all fronts. This may be technically accurate, but it's only acceptable to those living in desperation and futile hope that it will all magically disappear.

And, of course, none of the chopping and changing had anything to do with injuries and suspensions which made it impossible for us to put out a settled team!!!!

Yeah, that's why I had the "not quite as straight forward as that" caveat in my post. As I understand it, Rangers are arguing a case that left and right hand never spoke to each other and that breakdown in communication resulted in the misuse of the EBT. Hence the "Silly us Mr HMRC, we'll pay what we owe, but surely you can understand our position and can you please reduce the interest/penalties" approach. Such a defence was always going to be fairly futile, IMO, and the appeal is/was nothing more than a stalling tactic. Only the extremely naive are still of the opinion that Rangers route to (impending) liquidation was not a foregone conclusions long before Whyte got involved and if they can get to that point before the tribunal is decided then the worries of the Big Tax Case disappear along with the OldCo. Let's face it, if Craig Whyte didn't drive the company to the wall by withholding PAYE etc for the best part of a year then the Big Tax Case was going to do it....even if HMRC wiped out all interest and penalties. Murray needed to delay the Big Tax Case long enough for him to get the fork out of Dodge and Craig Whyte was taken in as someone who was willing to take the flak and was morally bereft enough to rape the company for everything he could before the curtain finally fell as his payment for that.

I'm worried, but I'm not sure there's a better way for the club to be handling things with the way Scottish Football is at the moment. ICT are not the only team suffering an exodus of players heading south, and that is as much to do with the state of Scottish Football as it is to do with the state/running of any individual club. ICT (as with others) are fighting a battle on several fronts....most notably the lack of money, the lack of security (where the feck is Scottish Football headed?) and a growing unease amongst fans. Now more than ever the primary target needs to be stabilising the ship and preparing for the worst. Scottish football is heading for a massive slide and survival itself will be hard enough....trying to steer a course headlong into the storm by spending money you don't have and which you don't know you will have is sheer folly. Whether by default or design, ICT seem to be taking an approach of battening down the hatches and riding out the storm. It might not be pretty and it might not be exciting, but hopefully it will stop us from sinking.

I think it should be decided "Celebrity Death Match" style. The referee withdraws from the game and the only rule that stands is the team to put the ball in the back of the opponents net next wins.

Because the Third Party element of the insurance still covers the other driver, their car, the passengers etc. It should also be noted that passengers in the drunk drivers car who were aware/suspected that he had been drinking would have no claim as they knowingly placed themselves in that position. The Drunk Drivers themselves are not insured.

Yeah, the original tax will stand...not claiming it wouldn't. Penalties and Interest are a set formula, you can't just conjure up an appeal on the basis that you think they are too much, you need to have mitigating circumstances in order to ask for them to be reduced. Rangers (claimed) mitigating circumstance is that "we didn't know we were breaking the tax laws". Whilst it's not quite as straight forward as that (ignorance being no defence and all that), it's basically what their claim amounts to.

Would have been on my keep sheet, but not someone that can't be readily replaced.

The appeal is on the basis of diminished responsibility....i.e. Rangers defence is one of "we didn't know we were breaking the tax laws". The job of the tribunal is to ascertain whether or not (on the balance of probability) that is true. HMRC do not have to prove that it was deliberate in every case, they just require enough to show that Rangers knowingly and purposefully broke the tax laws as part of the scheme. In other words, do the claims of ignorance hold water. It comes down to whether or not the payments were discretionary or non-discretionary (was it part of a salary package or not). If the existence of side letters can be proven (and the BBC claims would suggest it can) then it's case closed as that would be as damming as it gets. On top of that it throws open the player registration breaches with the SPL/SFA...and I have to say that I believe the SPL & SFA have been negligent in their handling of that to date. For a start, the SPL didn't begin looking in to it until March when they should have been investigating it in parallel with the Tax Tribunal. We then learn this week (although we kinds knew before) that Rangers have not released the required information to them...why have they waited this long before setting a deadline? Furthermore, as it involves player registrations then why have the SFA not been investigating? UEFA have to be looking at all this and wondering if these associations are fit for purpose, if they're not then it's more than just Scottish Football that's screwed up.

Think it must have been the game from the round before (maybe first leg match?) where I saw highlights with the wonder goal the denied Toronto the win. Can't recall the team off hand but it was the volley where the keeper didn't have any chance to react, let alone make an effort to save it.

Technically speaking, the moment he got behind the wheel of the car whilst over the limit then his insurance was null and void so he was uninsured.

Dual contract thing, if the BBC claims that the side letters exist, could spell the end for Rangers....regardless of all the financial stuff. Rangers were effectively playing non-eligible/improperly registered players for the best part of a decade (or more). If the SFA are prepared to throw a team out of a cup for playing such a player, then it follows that a team should be thrown out of football for doing the same on such a grand scale. Also, let's not forget that the SFA adjudged Rangers to have committed an offence which was one step away from match fixing for events over the past year and issued a punishment which was one step short of throwing them out of Scottish Football. It will now be extremely difficult for them to back down from that position and, IMO, they have no option but to follow up with a expulsion. There is a possible catch though....and that's the liquidation/NewCo route and Rangers (attempting) to use that as a means to escape punishment. If the SFA move to expel Rangers before Rangers are liquidated then there's no membership to transfer to the NewCo and an application for membership would have to be made afresh and there's little argument that the New Club would need to start in Div 3. If the SFA delay, then the NewCo (with transferred registration) will argue that the New Club cannot be punished for the indiscretions of the old club. The SFA have already said they aren't going to do an independent investigation on the dual contracts and are leaving that up to the SPL....so they've already bought themselves a good chunk of delay. I have a feeling the SPL will delay any decision on new rules etc at next weeks meeting because they have had insufficient time to look over the information not yet supplied by Rangers. Rangers need to be through the CVA by 6th June or they will be liquidated....my money is on liquidation. Transfer of SPL share and SFA registration will be complete before a final report on dual contracts is complete.....New Club escape any punishment and/or sanctions for dual contracts.

Really worries me that some see "Passion" as being the only pre-requisite for a good captain. Equally worrying that some view being the best player as the only pre-requisite. The truth is that neither of these things are what matters, what matters most is the ability to motivate/lead and get the best out of your team. Some players need a kick in the pants to achieve that, some need encouragement, some need encouragement and some just need to be left alone. Don't judge a captain on how he behaves, judge him on how his team respond....if the response is positive (in terms of performance) then the captain is getting it right.

As I understand it he's not actually been released yet and has only been training with the club once a week on day release and doesn't actually get fully released until next month...having served only half his sentence. I have an issue with that in itself, but the that's the system and you can't blame Luke McCormick for that. I'm all for people being released after serving their time (even if it is cut short) but have to agree with the op to a certain extent insofar as thinking he should choose a new career path. That's largely down to the nature of the offence and the fact that the parents will face a situation whereby they could pick up a newspaper, turn on the tv or be browsing the internet on any given day and end up being faced with news/photos of the person responsible for the death of their children. Just as Luke McCormick has rights, so do the victims and the family of victims and they should not be subjected to the risk of the above scenario. I wouldn't want him at ICT, because I wouldn't want ICT to be attached to the idea that every match report, story, interview or headline involving the club/player would be bringing potential pain and additional heartache to the family.

O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.