babybearinoz

By strict definition, all religious associations are sectarian, according to literal interpretation, sectarian is simply adherence (through religious belief, and or instruction) to a preferred denomination. Even bigotry in itself is not malicious, it is simply a narrow minded, (or intolerant) view of differing beliefs. It is a human rights entitlement to be 'sectarian', and even 'bigoted'. It is the' hate', or' incitement of', and 'harm', or 'threatened harm' elements, in direct association with the sectarianism, and or bigotry, that are the issue. That is why there is a 'protection of freedom of expression' clause in the originally enacted Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act (Scotland) 2012. Accordingly, ordinary, non denominational schools merely provide education on religions and beliefs, so, are not sectarian. However, catholic schools make provision for religious education, but, also provide religious instruction of a particular faith, therefore, are sectarian. Ultimately, catholic schools need to be open to parliamentary scrutiny in the same manner as all other sectarian organisations have been, to ensure they conform to, and work within the constraints of the 'hate laws'. All in the name of sporting (sorry moral) integrity of course, haha.

The laws were brought in to stop sectarianism According to the Interpretation Acts Catholic schools taken from the literal approach, could definitely be considered sectarian Oxford dictionary; adjective denoting or concerning a sect or sects: <a name="sectarian__4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; box-sizing: content-box; cursor: pointer; color: rgb(26, 99, 171);"> (of an action) carried out on the grounds of membership of a sect, denomination Thus why non catholic schools have historically been 'coined' as non denominational, they have no religious affiliations. Catholic schools exist so clearly somewhere they have an express or implied statutory right to do so, but, does that necessarily mean they have an express or implied right to not be considered sectarian?

Clarify - To fellow Rangers fans I realised this may not have come across proper, I meant strictly in securing their position of jurisdiction. Goes without saying I am glad they are incompetent idiots ..... as they are a kangaroo court

take as long as you like on google attempting to work it out, I'll check the thread later ...........

Best I can see without knowing all the facts is they had the opportunity to secure their position and fucked it being the incompetent agenda driven idiots they are, that is why the embargo was ruled illegal, unfortunately the common court could only refer it and it was wholly a sporting matter, not this time.

And that is irrespective of 'alleged' or proven tax avoidance

waiting ??? And FYI - those legal principles have superior common law jurisdiction so the SPL can take a flying fuck

Right Timothy what legal principle governs liability ???? Do you have the faintest what tortious interference is ???? Let me know what you think in relation to the contractual elements of an asset sale ???? Between rattling your beads

Ally needs to be seen in his position to be doing the best to 'promote scottish football' as a whole. He needs to fulfil this role impartially of what he feels for Rangers. IMO he has done the right thing, it may not even be his PERSONAL opinion but he is acting WITH 'integrity' toward the sport as a whole (more than can be said of others). On this basis, with regard to the national team Rangers fans do not need to act on the every whim of what is said by Ally, then it becomes a personal choice not a club issue. The national team has the square root of f all to do with Rangers and everyone knows how much scottish football cares about Rangers so the door has now been closed on blaming the club for anything to do with Rangers fans lack of attendance. Do you really think every teams manager says what they really think all of the time (nudge nudge, wink wink) sometimes the lines need to be read between. I don't really know what Ally personally thinks but I think it is clever card he played with respect to protecting the club from any backlash when he made his statement.

You have still failed to see the point so I'm guessing you didn't understand my comment or chose not to take it on board ... Out of an entire page long article which generally is highlighting the bigoted moral response toward Rangers and the media bias in reporting toward Rangers. quote from my post 'the inequality within scottish football regarding the moral stance taken over tax schemes and the media electing to and pursuing of issues in a bias manner.' You have failed to comment on any of the positive points regarding the article and have elected to focus wholly on one minor questionable point - quote from the original article 'given that the moral argument that the Celtic support has been made redundant, will the moral judges of Scottish Football apply some balance and pursue Celtic for answers on EBTs, and possible dual contracts?' The point about the EBT use really is irrelevant in the grand central theme of the article, it looks to me that the article is designed to show the inequality and bias in scotland, as I said the central theme of the article was not to compare Rangers EBT use and dual contracts with tax schemes used by others. You have a way of trying to invalidate any justification of wrong doing toward Rangers that posters come up with by tying their comments up in semantics. For someone who is, as one poster so eloquently put it on previous occasion 'such a politician' you really cannot be that ignorant, surely. Your time would be best spent focusing more on the positives that can defend Rangers and the unfounded indignities the bigots in scotland are trying to inflict rather than trying to dismantle the good others that 'care' for the club are trying to do.

Like the blue blood

Again, you have taken the negitive, unless of course you have simply misunderstood ????? The point is that Rangers have been called cheats for using EBT as a tax perk and yet no-one is making issue of others taking tax breaks. The central theme of the article was not about the comparatives of Rangers EBT use and others use of tax schemes with respect to guilt, it was about the inequality within scottish football regarding the moral stance taken over tax schemes and the media electing to and pursuing of issues in a bias manner.

To clarify The point being missed is this The original figure to HMRC for the big tax case even added on to shytes non payment still left HMRC with UNDER the bargaining power to scupper a CVA (the amount total was under the % required to give them the final say) it was only once the fines from HMRC were added it gave them the % to scupper the CVA agreement, that is why the fines amount was listed as disputed by D&P during the CVA meeting. Remember, this is fines for non payment of an amount of money that was being disputed and heard in a court of law at the time. So, essentially, CG is 100% correct it was the fine from HMRC which ultimately lead to new company formation and the need to transfer the SFA & Sphell memberships. It was this necessary transfer of membership which was used as a loaded weapon by the zest pit of corruption that is the SFA and Sphell. They refused to transfer the sphell membership to the new company, even although it was originally granted based on sporting merits, (sphell membership has nothing to do with the finances of the company, it is granted based on promotion and relegation, Rangers were not relegated last season), on the say so of the fans of course, due to 'integrity', they then used it to try and force us into division 1, to keep the cash cow, then they further used it to force Rangers to accept illegal sanctions for transfer into division 3. Rangers have been scapegoated big time, by all and sundry, and CG knows it HMRC had a point to prove DM tried to save his own skin shyte opened the door wide All the mhanky bigoted and jealous arses saw their opportunity for easy pickings at what they could never have any other way BUT, cream always rises Rangers ARE flourishing and the SFL IS the place to be, if you take note of most Rangers fans views it finally feels like Rangers are amongst friends, football is being played the way it should be and everyone is enjoying it, except the diseased sphell which is on the decline and slowly withering away and so it should ................. that's what happens when you're consumed by bile and hate!

Hullo Hullo We are the Billy Boys Hullo Hullo you'll know us by our noise we're up to our knees in rebel filth no surrender's what we'll cry

Please kindly pass this information on to the association They say home is where the heart is I have lived in Australia for a number of years and to a large degree consider myself Australian but have always referred to Scotland as my home. My Scotland top is now put away for fear of what I actually felt like doing to it after the events of late When it is Scotland v Australia I have always opted to support Scotland and will continue to do so ....... in every other sporting event outside of football .... Until the governing bodies of Scottish football proactively work to rid this element I will not support them, and let me tell you talk is cheap, I mean do something, it's easy to make excuses and apologies in the form of statements but actions speak louder than words, these people should have been removed for inciting hate, toward their own at that !!!!!! I am certain many Scottish football supporters overseas, in fact I know, now consider themselves FORMER supporters of the national team !

Just woke up from the other side of the world not read the whole thread but getting the gist of it, this is appauling .... someone needs to do something ... authority not wanting Rangers players to play for the national team for ridiculous reasons and then they're being booed when they do .... OPEN YOUR EYES !!!!! THIS IS ALL TO PUT PLAYERS OFF SIGNING AND PLAYING FOR RANGERS !!!!!!!

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4476401/Son-of-a-PITCH.html Quote from the above article NEIL LENNON insists HJK Helsinki’s plastic pitch should be BANNED And asked if synthetic pitches should be allowed in European football Lennon said: “No, they shouldn’t, I don’t agree with them. “Football should be played on grass, especially at this level. A direct statement has been made public disagreeing with a standard that FIFA, the superior and governing Football authority has approved, he is questioning the validity of a decision the governing bodies have made..... dis·re·pute/ˌdisrəˈpyo͞ot/ Noun: The state of being held in low esteem by the public. That IS bringing the game into disrepute, there is the potential in this statement to alter public opinion negatively with regard to FIFA decision on allowing synthetic turf. I think all clubs within the UK and internationally who have synthetic turf should be made aware of this statement and complain to FIFA that the governing bodies of Scottish Football have taken no action in disciplining a member who has called into question the integrity of their ground and the authority who approved it.

Indeed, we will be earning every piece of it whilst they are simply being handed it .........

I can tell you for a fact from the mouth of a very close family member I know (a bluenose and older bear) who was unfortunate enough to have to be part of a group to do work on their (the mhanks) stadium in the late 60's that through that era and into the early 70's old man kelly was offered automated gates and declined as he said "why would I want to record the numbers entering", it was a well known fact they diddled the figures and on purpose.

In short an EBT and dual contracts for that matter can work in numerous ways, most NOT to the financial advantage of the club but to the player only. If the club itself paid the money it doesn't matter how it was paid , the money was clearly there, available to the club to be paid out to players. There is no salary capping so financial advantage even in terms of incentive becomes void. IF tax was somehow avoided to the advantage of the club(which I will add is, of all the possible scenarios in which an EBT can be used, even with double contracts, the least likely)again, it is more likely players or staff who benefited. That tax has now become due and payable. Just like septic paid their EBT three years after use and Motherwell in 2004 paid pennies in the pound to their creditors, Rangers are being asked to pay back tax due(IF FOUND TO BE OWED). Had septic paid tax on their EBT in 2005/2006 or 2007 would they have been able to afford certain other players ???? maybe so, but still debatable, but let's look at Motherwell, the amount of debt written off through their CVA shows that, retrospectively they lived beyond their means, if they had paid all debt owing as and when it fell due they would have been able to afford very little in the years preceding 2004 so in that case all their games should be awarded to the competitor 3-0 !!!! This is the interesting point The hounds of 'sporting integrity' will say these scenario differ from Rangers because debts were consequently paid. Once HMRC has ruled on the Rangers situation, IF they find any monies owing they will negotiate a reduced figure before liquidation of the oldco to be paid from the 5.5m funds CG used to purchase the assets, Rangers tax debt will then be deemed to have been paid in full according to the agreed figure with HMRC. The debt will then have been paid in full albeit a reduced figure, no different to Motherwell in 2004, and at a later date, no different to septic EBT and motherwell in 2004. Scottish football has already set precedent that if debt is paid even at a later date and even at a reduced figure then there is no financial advantage. Apparently their issue is only avoidance pur se. Well, on liquidation and agreement with HMRC of a pay out figure from the oldco that case will be closed and Rangers will have paid their dues so you can keep your filthy paws away from the titles ............ Rangers will at that point (IF FOUND) have taken full responsibility for and made full payment owing as agreed to by the creditor for the years in question.

fuck off and stir it where someone gives a fuck

actually, just GTF that mob can

Clearly deluded, I'm certain SKY are in the habit of paying over the odds just for the love of it, they have no over heads or running costs, why would they they are charitable philanthropists and care not to pay more for something than it's worth, did we all think sky was a business ....

forgot to add that was without Rangers gate receipts and other contribution I'm certain the diddys will make up for that

BBC had to bail half the SPL clubs out in 2002 and half of them were still deemed technically insolvent, and loose change to sky, they are a fecking business