Jump to content
Virtuoso

Bheast FC: Statement

Recommended Posts


3 minutes ago, Laudrup1984 said:

Can you imagine if we made a statement claiming to have the support of all 42 clubs. But didn't! There would be a media frenzy and every cunt would be frothing at the mouth lambasting our club, and rightly so.

However taigs do it and the general rhetoric is "aye but they have at least one club backing them" 

You really couldn't make it up! Taigs are untouchable to many. Hatred pouring out of them all

They wouldn't relent until every single club had been spoken to and publicly refuted our claim in their burning desire to prove us liars.

Integrity and all that, you know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chris182    652

Alloa  support it as isn't the chairman of that club on the SPFL board?

It's probably him and Liewell that have pressed thru the action calling for an investigation at the SPFL board meeting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kelvd1873    288

Was the 5 way agreement between Rangers and the SPl but not the SFA?? If so after the SPFL meeting with and bowing down to CSA we should demand an inquiry into the 5 way agreement!! I'd bet there would be holes all over it due to their  clamour to punish us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VladimirWeiss    127

This is the type of thing I would be throwing into the mix, obviously written a bit better haha.

 

Dear Stewart / Peter,

celtic FC Request for a Judicial Review – dated 25 July 2017

Reference:  celtic Statement dated 9 September 17 (Statement), Letter dated 25 July 2017 (Letter1), Letter dated 18 August 2017 (Response 1), Letter dated 21 August 2017 (Letter 2), Letter dated 4 September 2017 (Response 2), Letter dated 7 September 2017 (Letter 3.

I write to you in regards to the recent request from celtic FC for the SFA to commission an independent ‘Judicial Review’ events that led to the liquidation of Rangers Oldco and the governance issues arising from those events.

I feel it necessary to point out, that although celtic refer to a ‘Judicial Review’ in their Letter 1, they refer to a ‘Review’ in their Statement.

For clarity, a Judicial Review is a process whereby a court reviews decisions already made.  A Review is a formal assessment of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary.  As you can see, they are both totally different situations.  However, celtic FC refer to both in the same context. 

In letter 3, Peter writes “The board of celtic considers that a wide-ranging review offers the best prospect for drawing a line under this entire affair, allowing Scottish football to look to the future while learning from the past.”  Peter also mention ‘transparency’ on many occasions.

I am interested to know why celtic only want a review, judicial or otherwise, into recent events?  Surely, for the purpose of transparency in Scottish football, and to allow it to move forward, a wide-ranging review should cover all club members of the SPFL, their finances, possible criminal/civil issues that may have occurred. 

Surely only then, can the Scottish game move forward with integrity and transparency? 

Also worthy of note, celtic seem to have the backing of the SPFL regarding this request.  They claim the SPFL are requesting a Review on behalf of the member clubs.  However, a two minute search on Google brings us to Hibernian FC’s statement dated 11 September 2017, where they clearly show that they do not support further action/reviews.  Hibernian go on to say “In recent weeks, both the SPFL and SFA have taken extensive legal advice which does not support or encourage taking further action.”

Regardless of who is correct, and who is not, this one example shows that someone is not telling the trust, or, there are parties giving each other different information.  This could be accepted as more evidence that a wider-review of Scottish football as a whole, is required.

I have not obtained legal advice in writing this letter, it is purely based on common sense.

Vlad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie0202    1,409
6 minutes ago, kelvd1873 said:

Was the 5 way agreement between Rangers and the SPl but not the SFA?? If so after the SPFL meeting with and bowing down to CSA we should demand an inquiry into the 5 way agreement!! I'd bet there would be holes all over it due to their  clamour to punish us

I'm sure the 5 are:

1 Rangers oldco

2 Rangers newco

3 SFA

4 SPL (Top 12 league teams body)

5 SFL (lower league teams body now defunct after the SPL got rebranded and all teams came under that governing body)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B1872    4,903
2 minutes ago, eskbankloyal said:

Heard a rumour earlier that King flew into Glasgow yesterday and there will be a statement later on today. Trying to find out if it is the case though.

Aye must be panic stations now Alloa are involved! :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cushynumber    12,774
23 minutes ago, eskbankloyal said:

Heard a rumour earlier that King flew into Glasgow yesterday and there will be a statement later on today. Trying to find out if it is the case though.

I hope, if he is making one, its a good one, well thought out and not some of his pish he is prone to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bristoe1872    530

Although it would be hilarious if the only club to back Savco so far was the mighty FC Sporting Alloa is that really the case? I can find no mention of it anywhere in the mhedia. And lets face it they are so desperate for ANYONE to back them (as spew heevins proved yesterday as well as English) if Auchtermuchty Sewing Society indoor five a sides backed them it would be front page news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperPapac05    1,747

Do Alloa still think Ally is in charge? Thinking they can still go toe-to-toe with us :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STEPPS BOY    9,871
33 minutes ago, eskbankloyal said:

Heard a rumour earlier that King flew into Glasgow yesterday and there will be a statement later on today. Trying to find out if it is the case though.

As soon as he heard Alloa were involved he jumped straight on first flight from SA.

worrying scenes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alloa chairman Mike Mullrainy is on the SPFL board representing clubs in lower divisions. He is a rancid Tim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cushynumber    12,774
13 minutes ago, Bristoe1872 said:

Although it would be hilarious if the only club to back Savco so far was the mighty FC Sporting Alloa is that really the case? I can find no mention of it anywhere in the mhedia. And lets face it they are so desperate for ANYONE to back them (as spew heevins proved yesterday as well as English) if Auchtermuchty Sewing Society indoor five a sides backed them it would be front page news.

I cant find any either. Tom English states it though in his twitter feed - but I have not seen any statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A.T.G    7,184
10 minutes ago, Gustav said:

 

They don't do well when deciding.

Women or young boys Is another one they have difficulty with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Courtyard Bear    12,489
2 hours ago, K.A.I said:

This is what we shouldn't let go 

how the fuck can the SPFL send a letter saying it has the support of all 42 clubs or on behalf of all 42 clubs when it's just celtic and maybe Alloa 

that alone should be enough to fold that corrupt organisation and have celtic barred from being anywhere near whatever replacement model emerges 

That simple fact alone shouldve been enough for our board to call for the resignation of the entire board of the SPFL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Courtyard Bear    12,489
1 hour ago, eskbankloyal said:

Heard a rumour earlier that King flew into Glasgow yesterday and there will be a statement later on today. Trying to find out if it is the case though.

Would feel more confident if King had nothing to do with any statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eskbankloyal    3,866
2 hours ago, K.A.I said:

This is what we shouldn't let go 

how the fuck can the SPFL send a letter saying it has the support of all 42 clubs or on behalf of all 42 clubs when it's just celtic and maybe Alloa 

that alone should be enough to fold that corrupt organisation and have celtic barred from being anywhere near whatever replacement model emerges 

From the Guardian today;

Rangers’ current fury is towards the SPFL’s chief executive, Neil Doncaster, who penned a letter to the SFA under the title: “Independent review of use of tax avoidance schemes at Rangers FC and actions of Scottish football authorities.”

The Ibrox club are adamant the SPFL board, upon which their managing director Stewart Robertson sits, agreed to undertake no such thing. A process of how circumstances even remotely similar to 2012 would be handled in future, yes, but not essentially another investigation into the EBT years. Semantics, perhaps, but important ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BridgeIsBlue    15,859
23 minutes ago, cushynumber said:

 have you seen the twitter feed where the celtic SLO asks fans not to park near or pish in residents gardens near the stadium at the match tonight , and the reply is "aye but sevco...."

:lol::lol:

Post it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sparkle    3,369
8 minutes ago, eskbankloyal said:

From the Guardian today;

Rangers’ current fury is towards the SPFL’s chief executive, Neil Doncaster, who penned a letter to the SFA under the title: “Independent review of use of tax avoidance schemes at Rangers FC and actions of Scottish football authorities.”

The Ibrox club are adamant the SPFL board, upon which their managing director Stewart Robertson sits, agreed to undertake no such thing. A process of how circumstances even remotely similar to 2012 would be handled in future, yes, but not essentially another investigation into the EBT years. Semantics, perhaps, but important ones.

Very important semantics. What they have called for is essentially going backwards to re-examine what happened with a view to retrospective punishments, - when (I'm assuming) what was agreed (if there was an agreement) was an independent review to ensure processes are in place if the same circumstances were to arise in the future. Very different 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×