MrSifter

If that's the quality of legal advice out there then it's no wonder solicitor's professional indemnity insurance collects circa £250m in premiums and pays out £400m in claims each policy year. That's just on the compulsory purchase layers too. You can put whatever you want in a contract, yes, but that doesn't make it enforceable. The more onerous and one sided a contract the more likely it'll be struck out. Likewise you simply cannot exclude liability arising out of your professional advice or service being negligent. For example, a surveyor values a property at £1m but excludes all liability in relation to his valuation. If a bank lends on the basis of this valuation, the purchaser defaults six months later and it subsequently turns out the property is only worth £100,000 then the surveyor will very likely be negligent and have caused the bank a £900,000 loss. It is not reasonable for the surveyor to have excluded his liability and I very much doubt a court would uphold such an exclusion in the contract. This isn't an extreme example either as such valuation claims do occur. As for your question? For me there are only two explanations. The advice was from within MIH therefore the Club couldn't bring a claim (insured v insured or associated companies exclusion) or they specifically went against the third party advisor's advice with regards to the administration of the EBTs.

You cannot put in disclaimers "absolving yourself of liability" if you provide professional advice to a client and that advice turns out to be negligent creating a loss. Legally the client retains a right of recourse against you. It is possible to cap liabilities, not include indemnities and exclude consequential losses but you simply cannot exclude liability. As far as I'm aware the EBTs are legal, it is the administration of them that may have created an unintended tax liability. The big question is whether that administration error was solely the fault of MIH or a third party that was paid to advise on the EBTs has contributed to the error in some way.

Neither of us is privy to what the advice was and whom it was from. Believe it or not, bad advice results in professional indemnity claims every day of the week. A law firm has just cost the insurance market £50m on one claim, with another greater than £50m due to settle soon. Solicitors, auditors, tax consultants, surveyors - take your pick of any of them. All have a horrendous loss record; incompetence and bad practice is rife throughout those professions - even within the biggest and most respected companies in the world. It beggars belief that an outside consultant was used for the EBTs and a claim wasn't brought against them. That would indicate to me the advice came from within the group.

This would explain why we did not launch a professional indemnity claim against the providers of this advice. If the likes of KPMG, EY or Grant Thornton had advised us on these and set them up for us we'd have been able to claim against them for our losses.

Couldn't this all be resolved if every player turned up at the commission and said they only signed one contract? Are the SPL really going to say every single player is a liar? The press surprise me in all of this as well. Surely they should be seeking interviews with every signle RFC player from that period and asking the question "Did you have a dual contract?"

If the SFA had anything to say they'd have said it by now. Don't forget Regan giving an interview a few weeks ago and referring to Green as making "undignified comments" to get fans "onside" and sell tickets. He and Doncaster were only too happy to give interviews and keep their foots on our throat at our lowest ebb. Isn't it remarkable now Green has called them out as liars and being corrupt they don't have anything to say for themselves let alone come out with a robust statement to defend themselves? Make no mistake, they're panicking.They just don't know what's going to come out next. In their heart of heart they know it's over for them.

Was just about to post the same. I've never seen such an immobile footballer.

It's particularly delicious as Nimmo Smith's explanation was intended as reasoning to justify them being able punishing us. Not only does it mean they owe us the money but it also destroys the basis for the five way agreement ergo the transfer ban and dismissal from the SPL.

I actually think they're quite frightened about what will come out next. If they put out a statement that is in any way inaccurate Chuck will tear them for arse paper. Their hands are so dirty in this whole affair they won't know what to do. I'd love to know how the SFA try and explain away the fact they blackmailed us for SFA membership and how, as the appeal body, they explain the fact they were happy for our titles to be stolen if we agreed to it. Something else just occurred to me. Isn't it odd, given all the leaks to date, we have no idea what the evidence is against us for the "dual contracts"? I suspect if they had real evidence this would've been leaked to the press in detail to bury us before any enquiry began. That this hasn't happened suggests they have nothing. What I do know is Neil McCann and Billy Dodds said they signed only one contract. Is anyone claiming they are liars?

The same BBC Scotland that didn't put our attendance on the online match report for our first home game of the season despite every other game in the UK having theirs listed?

Don't they realise they are a wee club with generally poor players? Wee clubs with poor players don't usually win at Ibrox. Their record is about right for a club of their - ahem - stature.

Rangers are a fallen giant but one that will become mightier than ever. Motherwell and the rest of the SPL remain nothing clubs and will always amount to nothing. Our great years lie behind us but our greatest years are ahead of us.

I actually thought the studio panel were fair post match. Big Stevie is always balanced but Nevin and McLean were surprisingly very positive about us and even a wee bit of praise for the fans.

I find it remarkable that the SPL would pursue title stealing if their lawyers advised them this would not stand up in court. What you are in effect saying is the SPL clubs all signed up to this course of action, against legal advice, well aware that a court would likely rule against them and they would also have to pay all costs associated with the court action. Each club each having to pay 8.333% of costs that could end up being substantial.

So you're saying Celtic's lawyers, Harper MacLeod (Rod McKenzie), advised Celtic title stripping would likely be struck out. The SPL's lawyer, the very same Harper MacLeod (Rod McKenzie), is now pursuing this very action on behalf of the SPL, contrary to the advice they have provided?

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.

I agree and congratulations on the good spot from Nimmo Smith's paper, the same point Green has made to great effect. If Regan and Doncaster are to go (both have no credibility and are toxic) then I think it'll be done quietly so all this is swept under the carpet. I really think Green and Rangers will be threatening legal action against both. The SPL can't afford to defend it and the SFA won't want another bloody nose from the courts. If we do bring an action I suspect it'll be the day or so before the SPL "independent" commission sits for maximum effect.

Given Green's statement I'd like to see the Club sending a lawyer's letter and notice of claim to both the SFA and SPL. If, as appears the case, both the SFA and SPL have mishandled Rangers FC's old holding company's administration and subsequent sale of the Football Club to a new holding company then that would make the five way agreement null and void. Rangers FC would never have signed up to a transfer embargo and other such punitive punishments had they not been forced to re-apply for SFA membership.

The way this is hurtling along it appears court is the only outcome. I'm surprised the SFA and SPL would risk washing their dirty linen in public. It must be a frightening thought for them that Regan, Doncaster, McKenzie, Longmuir, the SPL and SFL chairmen get called to the stand to give evidence. Given that we'd taken our medicine with Division 3, why would they risk the fight back they've seen from Green when their hands were so dirty? I think blind hatred, sheer arrogance and an historically compliant Rangers FC made them think they could get away with it.

Noticed "Ray" hasn't posted yet? How long is the trip from Porkheid to the Garngad?

I've been reliably informed Richard Keen is advising and providing suitable wording.

I actually think the last paragraph is very important. It's quite clear the SPL clubs would've voted us to remain in the SPL if we'd agreed to title theft. "Sporting integrity" appears to be absent in the SPL.

What makes it a farce is the fact the are asking the new holding company's management team to defend the actions of the old holding company's management team. If they were genuine about finding out the truth they'd be writing to Murray, Bain and whoever the FD was at the time asking for their evidence. I also find it astonishing that they appear not to be contacting the players involved to get their view on matters. Neil McCann has publically said he had his lawyer check into EBTs and he never had a dual or secondary contract. How hard would it be for them to contact him and ask him to explain his understanding of his contractual situation?

I agree and have said as much. His commission should be writing to our executive board and every player alleged to have a dual contract asking them to give evidence.

Is this absolute fact that the rule breach they are prosecuting us for wasn't even in the rules until this document was drawn up?