Jump to content

Britneys tuppence worth in the Herald


robg58

Recommended Posts

Tuesday 25 September 2012

Text size

Send this article to a friend

Print this article

Spiers on Sport: Green and Murray should both testify at SPL probe

Spiers on Sport

Graham Spiers

I am still trying to get my head around the senselessness of Charles Green and Rangers FC refusing to have any truck with the SPL’s investigation conducted by Lord Nimmo Smith into the alleged EBTs misdemeanours at the club.

inShare

Nimmo Smith has been widely quoted in the past few days, but one plea he made that has virtually gone unnoticed was that anyone associated with Oldco or Newco Rangers, who believe they have a plea of mitigation to make about the club, should come forward and speak to the commission.

What are Rangers so scared of? Why did the club obfuscate in passing on relevant documentation? What is there to hide?

If Rangers are innocent of an alleged dual-contracts scam – and they may well be – then why does the club not step forward and argue its case?

At one stage, with a week to go before the commission’s preliminary hearing of September 11, Green and Newco Rangers were prepared to go and talk to Nimmo Smith. But, with a day to go, they swiftly changed their mind.

To quote Nimmo Smith verbatim from his preparatory notes on the Rangers hearings to be held in November: “Oldco and Rangers FC will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at the hearings and make submissions as they see fit.”

A few pages further on in his notes, and applying his desire to have all evidence and all voices considered in this saga, Nimmo Smith adds: “We [hope] that Oldco, Newco and any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear will give intimation to that effect. We wish to emphasise that the doors remain open to Oldco and Newco to appear and be represented…”

Never mind Charles Green’s antics, what about Sir David Murray? Given Nimmo Smith and his commission’s desire to establish clear blue water between itself and the SPL, what can possibly stop Murray from coming forward to give his side of the story?

Nimmo Smith chose his words carefully in terms of testimony about EBTs: “…any other person claiming an interest…”

In this Rangers saga, I can think of no viable person who suits those words more than Murray, the man who set the Ibrox club on the fateful course of EBTs in the first place.

Murray avows that Rangers are innocent. He claims this is a stitch-up by people – whoever the heck they might be – to damage Rangers. Murray says the EBTs, the famed “legal loophole” to paying taxes, were used properly and legitimately.

I severely doubt Murray’s interpretation on this but, more than that, I want him to be given his chance to come before the commission to protest his and Rangers’ innocence.

Can someone provide a single valid reason why Murray would not to come before – or present evidence to – Nimmo Smith?

The SPL and SFA have been flawed in their handling of the Rangers case – everyone can see it. But the SPL is trying to make up for that by ensuring that its claim that Rangers FC warrants an investigation will be a claim carried out with the utmost impartiality and clarity.

You have to be a conspiracy theorist of fantasist proportions to somehow believe that Nimmo Smith and his two QCs, Nicholas Stewart and Charles Flint, are “agenda-driven” or “biased” in any way. This commission will once and for all cut through the cant and farrago of this case and reach a judgement on all its available evidence.

Nimmo Smith, Stewart and Flint, apart from their renown in judicial matters, appear to have impeccable credentials. This is a costly exercise for the SPL, but it is worth it. Personally, I will very happily embrace this commission’s guilty or innocent verdict on Rangers, for those very reasons.

In the EBTs/dual contracts controversy, Rangers face two imminent announcements: the tribunal on the so-called “big tax case” and then the Nimmo Smith hearing. The two are subtly linked: one is about EBTs and alleged tax evasion, the other is about player contracts and disclosure.

This story, with its claim and counter-claim, is more complex than anyone could imagine. Rangers could win one case and lose the other, or win or lose both.

My own hunch, given what I’ve been told, is that Rangers have been in the wrong. But far more able scrutineers than me might find otherwise.

Why Rangers FC, Green or Murray would not want to go before Nimmo Smith and present their case, remains baffling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

I detest this cretin, what annoys me even more is that he gets wheeled out on country wide stations like 5live and spouts the same ill informed hatred to a large portion of the population that perhaps don't have an in-depth understanding of everything that has happened - and are likely to take what he says as fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's so many things in that article that Spiers just doesn't get... he's pro SPL hates Green and states CG is "senseless" and talks of his "antics", what a load of shite! :cgreen:

Spiers just can't handle the fact that Green is putting them to the sword and is saying all the right things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice our media continue to ignore Charles Green's most pertinent point, in that the commission has been formed, directed and provided with evidence by the SPL. In essence, despite the clear impartiality of the commission, they are being led by the nose to a predetermined position.

This is NOT a court of law and has none of its protections.

The media only seem to want to point to the Commission and not the body nor scope that founded it.

Also, AJ appears to state that Rangers may well find itself outwith the legal scope of the rules, but with the full knowledge of our fellow clubs and the SFA which now appear to want to hang us with it. Common law provides that if a law is not upheld, then it is no law at all, that would appear to be the crux of this case.

Perhaps Rangers, the SPL, SFA and other clubs all knew the EBT system was in place, knew how it operated and knew it was probably in conflict with the old rules which were created before EBTs existed, however they chose to ignore it and therefore Rangers would be entitled to claim the rule in question is not enforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of leeway has to be shown to the son of the pastor .....................his father as many had alleged liked to flock his flock and just maybe as has been alleged this author of drivel may have witnessed the pastor give comfort from the rear to one of his flock as many have alleged.

One wonders if Bellahouston Liz was a member of the flock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you having a laugh that Nimmo Smith chose his words carefully in terms of testimony about EBTs ya maggot, Nimmo Smith states: “To take the hypothetical example of a Club which has been engaged in match-fixing in the last game of the season, but is then relegated and consequently ceases to be a member of the SPL, there is every reason why it should still be liable to disciplinary action at the instance of the SPL – whether or not the breach comes to light before or after that Club has relinquished its SPL membership. HYPOTHETICAL MY ARSE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuesday 25 September 2012

Text size

Send this article to a friend

Print this article

Spiers on Sport: Green and Murray should both testify at SPL probe

Spiers on Sport

Graham Spiers

I am still trying to get my head around the senselessness of Charles Green and Rangers FC refusing to have any truck with the SPL’s investigation conducted by Lord Nimmo Smith into the alleged EBTs misdemeanours at the club.

inShare

Nimmo Smith has been widely quoted in the past few days, but one plea he made that has virtually gone unnoticed was that anyone associated with Oldco or Newco Rangers, who believe they have a plea of mitigation to make about the club, should come forward and speak to the commission.

What are Rangers so scared of? Why did the club obfuscate in passing on relevant documentation? What is there to hide?

If Rangers are innocent of an alleged dual-contracts scam – and they may well be – then why does the club not step forward and argue its case?

At one stage, with a week to go before the commission’s preliminary hearing of September 11, Green and Newco Rangers were prepared to go and talk to Nimmo Smith. But, with a day to go, they swiftly changed their mind.

To quote Nimmo Smith verbatim from his preparatory notes on the Rangers hearings to be held in November: “Oldco and Rangers FC will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at the hearings and make submissions as they see fit.”

A few pages further on in his notes, and applying his desire to have all evidence and all voices considered in this saga, Nimmo Smith adds: “We [hope] that Oldco, Newco and any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear will give intimation to that effect. We wish to emphasise that the doors remain open to Oldco and Newco to appear and be represented…”

Never mind Charles Green’s antics, what about Sir David Murray? Given Nimmo Smith and his commission’s desire to establish clear blue water between itself and the SPL, what can possibly stop Murray from coming forward to give his side of the story?

Nimmo Smith chose his words carefully in terms of testimony about EBTs: “…any other person claiming an interest…”

In this Rangers saga, I can think of no viable person who suits those words more than Murray, the man who set the Ibrox club on the fateful course of EBTs in the first place.

Murray avows that Rangers are innocent. He claims this is a stitch-up by people – whoever the heck they might be – to damage Rangers. Murray says the EBTs, the famed “legal loophole” to paying taxes, were used properly and legitimately.

I severely doubt Murray’s interpretation on this but, more than that, I want him to be given his chance to come before the commission to protest his and Rangers’ innocence.

Can someone provide a single valid reason why Murray would not to come before – or present evidence to – Nimmo Smith?

The SPL and SFA have been flawed in their handling of the Rangers case – everyone can see it. But the SPL is trying to make up for that by ensuring that its claim that Rangers FC warrants an investigation will be a claim carried out with the utmost impartiality and clarity.

You have to be a conspiracy theorist of fantasist proportions to somehow believe that Nimmo Smith and his two QCs, Nicholas Stewart and Charles Flint, are “agenda-driven” or “biased” in any way. This commission will once and for all cut through the cant and farrago of this case and reach a judgement on all its available evidence.

Nimmo Smith, Stewart and Flint, apart from their renown in judicial matters, appear to have impeccable credentials. This is a costly exercise for the SPL, but it is worth it. Personally, I will very happily embrace this commission’s guilty or innocent verdict on Rangers, for those very reasons.

In the EBTs/dual contracts controversy, Rangers face two imminent announcements: the tribunal on the so-called “big tax case” and then the Nimmo Smith hearing. The two are subtly linked: one is about EBTs and alleged tax evasion, the other is about player contracts and disclosure.

This story, with its claim and counter-claim, is more complex than anyone could imagine. Rangers could win one case and lose the other, or win or lose both.

My own hunch, given what I’ve been told, is that Rangers have been in the wrong. But far more able scrutineers than me might find otherwise.

Why Rangers FC, Green or Murray would not want to go before Nimmo Smith and present their case, remains baffling.

Tuppence? That's much, more than his words are ever worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that Murray should be at the hearing to defend his actions. We simply cant ignore this and must be represented on this or we will be railroaded! If the EBT's go against us it is an absolute certainty that we will be stripped of titles. We will then have to appeal and go through it all agian which will be costly. I cannot stress enough if we take the attitude that the decision has already been made, and i'm sure it has, these people will simply do this. If Murray is absolutely certain he didnt use dual contracts or it was a "technicality" by McKenzie, Murray MUST be prepared to attend and fight this. They will do this to us and we cannot simply stand aside and allow them to do so as to them it will be showing guilt. Where is Donald Finlay in all this as he was Murray's lawyer for Rangers at the time?????????????

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that Murray should be at the hearing to defend his actions. We simply cant ignore this and must be represented on this or we will be railroaded! If the EBT's go against us it is an absolute certainty that we will be stripped of titles. We will then have to appeal and go through it all agian which will be costly. I cannot stress enough if we take the attitude that the decision has already been made, and i'm sure it has, these people will simply do this. If Murray is absolutely certain he didnt use dual contracts or it was a "technicality" by McKenzie, Murray MUST be prepared to attend and fight this. They will do this to us and we cannot simply stand aside and allow them to do so as to them it will be showing guilt. Where is Donald Finlay in all this as he was Murray's lawyer for Rangers at the time?????????????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuesday 25 September 2012

Text size

Send this article to a friend

Print this article

Spiers on Sport: Green and Murray should both testify at SPL probe

Spiers on Sport

Graham Spiers

I am still trying to get my head around the senselessness of Charles Green and Rangers FC refusing to have any truck with the SPL’s investigation conducted by Lord Nimmo Smith into the alleged EBTs misdemeanours at the club.

inShare

Nimmo Smith has been widely quoted in the past few days, but one plea he made that has virtually gone unnoticed was that anyone associated with Oldco or Newco Rangers, who believe they have a plea of mitigation to make about the club, should come forward and speak to the commission.

What are Rangers so scared of? Why did the club obfuscate in passing on relevant documentation? What is there to hide?

If Rangers are innocent of an alleged dual-contracts scam – and they may well be – then why does the club not step forward and argue its case?

At one stage, with a week to go before the commission’s preliminary hearing of September 11, Green and Newco Rangers were prepared to go and talk to Nimmo Smith. But, with a day to go, they swiftly changed their mind.

To quote Nimmo Smith verbatim from his preparatory notes on the Rangers hearings to be held in November: “Oldco and Rangers FC will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at the hearings and make submissions as they see fit.”

A few pages further on in his notes, and applying his desire to have all evidence and all voices considered in this saga, Nimmo Smith adds: “We [hope] that Oldco, Newco and any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear will give intimation to that effect. We wish to emphasise that the doors remain open to Oldco and Newco to appear and be represented…”

Never mind Charles Green’s antics, what about Sir David Murray? Given Nimmo Smith and his commission’s desire to establish clear blue water between itself and the SPL, what can possibly stop Murray from coming forward to give his side of the story?

Nimmo Smith chose his words carefully in terms of testimony about EBTs: “…any other person claiming an interest…”

In this Rangers saga, I can think of no viable person who suits those words more than Murray, the man who set the Ibrox club on the fateful course of EBTs in the first place.

Murray avows that Rangers are innocent. He claims this is a stitch-up by people – whoever the heck they might be – to damage Rangers. Murray says the EBTs, the famed “legal loophole” to paying taxes, were used properly and legitimately.

I severely doubt Murray’s interpretation on this but, more than that, I want him to be given his chance to come before the commission to protest his and Rangers’ innocence.

Can someone provide a single valid reason why Murray would not to come before – or present evidence to – Nimmo Smith?

The SPL and SFA have been flawed in their handling of the Rangers case – everyone can see it. But the SPL is trying to make up for that by ensuring that its claim that Rangers FC warrants an investigation will be a claim carried out with the utmost impartiality and clarity.

You have to be a conspiracy theorist of fantasist proportions to somehow believe that Nimmo Smith and his two QCs, Nicholas Stewart and Charles Flint, are “agenda-driven” or “biased” in any way. This commission will once and for all cut through the cant and farrago of this case and reach a judgement on all its available evidence.

Nimmo Smith, Stewart and Flint, apart from their renown in judicial matters, appear to have impeccable credentials. This is a costly exercise for the SPL, but it is worth it. Personally, I will very happily embrace this commission’s guilty or innocent verdict on Rangers, for those very reasons.

In the EBTs/dual contracts controversy, Rangers face two imminent announcements: the tribunal on the so-called “big tax case” and then the Nimmo Smith hearing. The two are subtly linked: one is about EBTs and alleged tax evasion, the other is about player contracts and disclosure.

This story, with its claim and counter-claim, is more complex than anyone could imagine. Rangers could win one case and lose the other, or win or lose both.

My own hunch, given what I’ve been told, is that Rangers have been in the wrong. But far more able scrutineers than me might find otherwise.

Why Rangers FC, Green or Murray would not want to go before Nimmo Smith and present their case, remains baffling.

It's got something to do with the whole process being "wholly misconceived". It was in the news, Graham. doh You would have seen it had you kept yourself up to speed. It's also been vindicated with the news that the company who have carried out the investigation were changing the rules as they went along. Rod McKenzie is the chap in question. Do keep up to date with events! Journalism 101, chappie!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone notice that Queersie, son of an adulterous cleric, doesn't put any onus on the commission?

David Murray, his management team and ex-players may not have read Nimmo Smith's paper. How would they know to contact him? Moreover the SPL have failed to respond to Rangers FC's letters asking for the evidence against it. This flies in the face of duty of disclosure and and credible measure of justice.

If Nimmo Smith was interested in the truth he would actively be contacting all parties involved. The onus is on him to investigate and find the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that Murray should be at the hearing to defend his actions. We simply cant ignore this and must be represented on this or we will be railroaded! If the EBT's go against us it is an absolute certainty that we will be stripped of titles. We will then have to appeal and go through it all agian which will be costly. I cannot stress enough if we take the attitude that the decision has already been made, and i'm sure it has, these people will simply do this. If Murray is absolutely certain he didnt use dual contracts or it was a "technicality" by McKenzie, Murray MUST be prepared to attend and fight this. They will do this to us and we cannot simply stand aside and allow them to do so as to them it will be showing guilt. Where is Donald Finlay in all this as he was Murray's lawyer for Rangers at the time?????????????

Obsession.

Can we not have a separate section called the Bawbag Bin for all these articles by celtic cretins then all the new filth posters can go in their with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obsession.

Can we not have a separate section called the Bawbag Bin for all these articles by celtic cretins then all the new filth posters can go in their with them.

That works for me.

I'll check with fellow Mods. (tu)

PS. Might I suggest 'The Odious Creep Section' as a working title?

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.


×
×
  • Create New...