Jump to content

CRO - The Uncomfortable Truth


billmcmurdo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The reference to these so called ‘side letters’ is pure conjecture at the moment but Bill appears to be insinuating that some of them may have been in place with other football clubs during the same period.

To be more specific I think that Section D1.13A of The Rules of the Scottish Premier League is the one being referred to with regards to the so called dual contract allegations.

At first glance it appears to be pretty straightforward until you consider the meaning of ‘all other agreements providing payment’.

What does that mean?

That’s a pretty ambiguous request which surely leaves it open to conjecture such as, payment for what? This is the part of the rule that they are trying to hang us out to dry for as we will obviously have returned the Contracts of Service which specifically relates to football matters.

D1.13 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, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.

Just a guess... but with Bill being many a player's agent then he'd know of maybe many different ways in which other teams' players were being paid 'extras' ? (assuming agents talk to one another and give details?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is whether EBT discretionary loans are deemed "undisclosed and breach SPL Rules" in relation to players playing football ? As I said before I have no idea.

Prior to the FTTT, Harper MacLeod "investigated" and passed their findings to the SPL Board (we all know who are on the board and who dictates) who then said there was a case and the kangaroo court was hand picked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we would all do better to remember that a blog is simply a very public internet forum where someone can post their viewpoint as if it should carry the merit of some great writer worthy of our homage. In many instances they can be the erroneous ramblings of egotists. This latest blog post by Bill carries no merit whatsoever as it clarifies nothing and merely fans the flames of our detractors. He asks some questions for which we already have the answers.

RFC didn't pay the players the money, the loans were paid out by the Trust which was entirely separate from the Club.

The "uncomfortable truth" is that Bill seems to be struggling with his own conscience on this subject. To quote Sam Goldwyn you can "Include me out" Bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we would all do better to remember that a blog is simply a very public internet forum where someone can post their viewpoint as if it should carry the merit of some great writer worthy of our homage. In many instances they can be the erroneous ramblings of egotists. This latest blog post by Bill carries no merit whatsoever as it clarifies nothing and merely fans the flames of our detractors. He asks some questions for which we already have the answers.

RFC didn't pay the players the money, the loans were paid out by the Trust which was entirely separate from the Club.

The uncomfortable truth is that Bill seems to be struggling with his own conscience on this subject. To quote Sam Goldwyn you can "Include me out" Bill.

Hope your right mate about loans from the trust because I am shitting myself !!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

The reference to these so called ‘side letters’ is pure conjecture at the moment but Bill appears to be insinuating that some of them may have been in place with other football clubs during the same period.

To be more specific I think that Section D1.13A of The Rules of the Scottish Premier League is the one being referred to with regards to the so called dual contract allegations.

At first glance it appears to be pretty straightforward until you consider the meaning of ‘all other agreements providing payment’.

What does that mean?

That’s a pretty ambiguous request which surely leaves it open to conjecture such as, payment for what? This is the part of the rule that they are trying to hang us out to dry for as we will obviously have returned the Contracts of Service which specifically relates to football matters.

D1.13 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, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.

Two points about this post mate:

1) Was that rule in place during the EBTs (with the part highlighted in red in included)?

2) It states "between Club and player" but the loans were paid out by the Trust to the players and not by RFC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the gist of your argument.

If they were non-contractual payments from a third party trust in the form of a loan under an EBT system, as ruled by the FTT, the SPL and SFA have NO JURISDICTION over the matter.

A foolish point, argued badly with all the timing of a last minute own goal.

I'm disappointed to he honest, Bill.

What exactly were you trying to achieve? It evades my grasp.

It is simple what Bill is trying to achieve, he wants us to believe that Hugh Adam was right in what he said in his interview to Alex Liar Thompson. That Rangers did indeed use Dual Contracts, anyone who has an opinion that differs from this is merely sweeping the issue under the carpet, according to Bill. Hugh Adam was long long long long gone by the time the SPL was formed. So what Bill is trying to say is, that everything we have won under Murray has been won unfairly, all because of a senile old man who bore a grudge against Murray says so.

Some bears do not agree with this, and Bill called them all .... Can't recall .. wasn't very polite anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is simple what Bill is trying to achieve, he wants us to believe that Hugh Adam was right in what he said in his interview to Alex Liar Thompson. That Rangers did indeed use Dual Contracts, anyone who has an opinion that differs from this is merely sweeping the issue under the carpet, according to Bill. Hugh Adam was long long long long gone by the time the SPL was formed. So what Bill is trying to say is, that everything we have won under Murray has been won unfairly, all because of a senile old man who bore a grudge against Murray says so.

Some bears do not agree with this, and Bill called them all .... Can't recall .. wasn't very polite anyway.

Ah well we will just have to see them in Court.

I mean a proper run Court, not the Kangaroo type who have already reached their verdict.

Ask Bill if he thinks if this Court is fairly, and partialy choosen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find bill's blog totally bewildering, he states this

"Arguing Rangers' innocence is not where the defence is to be made. If other clubs are proven to have paid players "off-book" then those clubs should also be punished for any wrongdoing"

Does Bill believe that if we somehow admit to something they will go after others?

That's not going to happen

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always maintained that the EBT scheme and the payments made through may have contravened rules within the SPL rule book.

However, I will NEVER accept it amounts to the gravitas of bribery nor match fixing. It may be found to be rule breaking but stripping titles is way over the top as a sanction.

And lets be honest, Murray's stewardship during the noughties was nothing to be proud of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find bill's blog totally bewildering, he states this

"Arguing Rangers' innocence is not where the defence is to be made. If other clubs are proven to have paid players "off-book" then those clubs should also be punished for any wrongdoing"

Does Bill believe that if we somehow admit to something they will go after others?

That's not going to happen

exactly as their 'investigation' of the brazilian bhoy wonder ebt showed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is simple what Bill is trying to achieve, he wants us to believe that Hugh Adam was right in what he said in his interview to Alex Liar Thompson. That Rangers did indeed use Dual Contracts, anyone who has an opinion that differs from this is merely sweeping the issue under the carpet, according to Bill. Hugh Adam was long long long long gone by the time the SPL was formed. So what Bill is trying to say is, that everything we have won under Murray has been won unfairly, all because of a senile old man who bore a grudge against Murray says so.

Some bears do not agree with this, and Bill called them all .... Can't recall .. wasn't very polite anyway.

"Vindictive". For having the temerity to ask a valid question with regards to Hugh Adams interview and his daughters opinion on it and its legitimacy: I asked, what did she get out of it? Is it a huge stretch of the imagination that she was tricked or at worst coerced into letting Thomson bamboozle what is clearly a very ill man and then further to that, could she herself have been tricked or coerced into backing her father up, maybe she didn't really understand the issue, I have no idea. Its clear Thomson was determined to guide Mr Adam down a certain avenue, given his condition, it wouldn't be hard for that "eye witness" account to be twisted for his own agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find bill's blog totally bewildering, he states this

"Arguing Rangers' innocence is not where the defence is to be made. If other clubs are proven to have paid players "off-book" then those clubs should also be punished for any wrongdoing"

Does Bill believe that if we somehow admit to something they will go after others?

That's not going to happen

Precisely.

That can be argued later, if relevant, but at a much more appropriate point, after all appeals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...