Jump to content

QC For spl case


Mick.mcg
 Share

Recommended Posts

Will the RFFF be employing the services of Richard Keen QC to fight the charges of illegal payments and EBT's from the spl? In my opinion he is a must! It will be open season there and we must be lead with some one with a bit of fight who won't allow themselves to be backed into a corner! And the Rottweiller fits the bill!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the RFFF be employing the services of Richard Keen QC to fight the charges of illegal payments and EBT's from the spl? In my opinion he is a must! It will be open season there and we must be lead with some one with a bit of fight who won't allow themselves to be backed into a corner! And the Rottweiller fits the bill!

Murray should be paying to defend this case

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Gersnet:

Prima Facie

Though this might be of interest to everyone in light of yesterday's announcement, The burden of proof is entirely on the SPL we don't have to do anything unless they have concrete evidence without any slip ups and as we know the SPL are not compentent enough to avoid any slip ups:[Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.

In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).

For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.

Assume that a plaintiff claims that an employer failed to promote her based on her sex. The plaintiff must produce affirmative evidence showing that the employer used illegitimate, discriminatory criteria in making employment decisions that concerned the plaintiff. The employer, as respondent, does not have a burden to produce evidence until the plaintiff has made a prima facie case of Sex Discrimination (Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 [1981]). The precise amount of evidence that constitutes a prima facie case varies from claim to claim. If the plaintiff does not present a prima facie case with sufficient evidence, the judge may dismiss the case. Or, if the case is being heard by a jury, the judge may direct the jury to return a verdict for the respondent.

Prima facie also refers to specific evidence that, if believed, supports a case or an element that needs to be proved in the case. The term prima facie evidence is used in both civil and Criminal Law. For example, if the prosecution in a murder case presents a videotape showing the defendant screaming death threats at the victim, such evidence may be prima facie evidence of intent to kill, an element that must be proved by the prosecution before the defendant may be convicted of murder. On its face, the evidence indicates that the defendant intended to kill the victim.

Statutes may specify that certain evidence is prima facie evidence of a certain fact. For example, a duly authenticated copy of a defendant's criminal record may be considered prima facie evidence of the defendant's prior convictions and may be used against the defendant in court (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-412 [West 1996]). A Civil Law example is a statute that makes a duly certified copy or duplicate of a certificate of authority for a fraternal benefit society to transact business prima facie evidence that the society is legal and legitimate (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10-14-603 [West 1996]).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the RFFF be employing the services of Richard Keen QC to fight the charges of illegal payments and EBT's from the spl? In my opinion he is a must! It will be open season there and we must be lead with some one with a bit of fight who won't allow themselves to be backed into a corner! And the Rottweiller fits the bill!

Its only defendable if we did not do it - and on that point I am starting to have my doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but in the event that the new owners go with their own lawyers I think the RFFF should insist.

Well it will be the new owners choice at the end of the day. The guy has successfully represented the club recently though, so hopefully he remains on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Gersnet:

Prima Facie

Though this might be of interest to everyone in light of yesterday's announcement, The burden of proof is entirely on the SPL we don't have to do anything unless they have concrete evidence without any slip ups and as we know the SPL are not compentent enough to avoid any slip ups:[Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.

In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).

For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.

Assume that a plaintiff claims that an employer failed to promote her based on her sex. The plaintiff must produce affirmative evidence showing that the employer used illegitimate, discriminatory criteria in making employment decisions that concerned the plaintiff. The employer, as respondent, does not have a burden to produce evidence until the plaintiff has made a prima facie case of Sex Discrimination (Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 [1981]). The precise amount of evidence that constitutes a prima facie case varies from claim to claim. If the plaintiff does not present a prima facie case with sufficient evidence, the judge may dismiss the case. Or, if the case is being heard by a jury, the judge may direct the jury to return a verdict for the respondent.

Prima facie also refers to specific evidence that, if believed, supports a case or an element that needs to be proved in the case. The term prima facie evidence is used in both civil and Criminal Law. For example, if the prosecution in a murder case presents a videotape showing the defendant screaming death threats at the victim, such evidence may be prima facie evidence of intent to kill, an element that must be proved by the prosecution before the defendant may be convicted of murder. On its face, the evidence indicates that the defendant intended to kill the victim.

Statutes may specify that certain evidence is prima facie evidence of a certain fact. For example, a duly authenticated copy of a defendant's criminal record may be considered prima facie evidence of the defendant's prior convictions and may be used against the defendant in court (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-412 [West 1996]). A Civil Law example is a statute that makes a duly certified copy or duplicate of a certificate of authority for a fraternal benefit society to transact business prima facie evidence that the society is legal and legitimate (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10-14-603 [West 1996]).

All this would be very interesting if we were to appear before a truly independent panel but against a hand picked panel we have a problem on our hands

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we do not get back into the spl can they still punish us? As the sfa statement said that we will be charged once we are voted back in? (I think) so if we are not voted back in does that make the charges null and void.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we do not get back into the spl can they still punish us? As the sfa statement said that we will be charged once we are voted back in? (I think) so if we are not voted back in does that make the charges null and void.

Yes, the Record said even if we are voted back in we could still be expelled from the SPL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the spl must use an independant panel

Well they hand picked the last one and look how they fucked up with an illegal sanction

They also hand picked the Bheasts lawyers to look at dual contracts

Have a wee look at the Bheast QC they used for the appeal as well

So don't go holding your breath

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the sfa who picked the last "independant panel". Could see this leading to another fight in the court of session. How can they charge us if HMRC haven't had a verdict yet for the EBT's?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the sfa who picked the last "independant panel". Could see this leading to another fight in the court of session. How can they charge us if HMRC haven't had a verdict yet for the EBT's?

When I refer to "they" I don't differentiate between the SFA and the SPL

They both have the same agenda

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I refer to "they" I don't differentiate between the SFA and the SPL

They both have the same agenda

They do they also share a common member in Eric Riley of celtic that is why there is no need to differentiate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the sfa who picked the last "independant panel". Could see this leading to another fight in the court of session. How can they charge us if HMRC haven't had a verdict yet for the EBT's?

It's 2 completely separate issues. The HMRC case is about us using EBT's to avoid tax liabilities which we admit we did. The SFA/SPL case is whether it was a contractural payment or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its only defendable if we did not do it - and on that point I am starting to have my doubts.

Have to agree with you BP9, it's looking more and more likely SDM has put a number of skeletons in our cupboards.

I hope Hugh(the grass) Adam is enjoying what he has done to our club just to get back at SDM, it really is a case of "if I can't get what I want then I'll shaft you and all the Rangers fans out there"

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 2 completely separate issues. The HMRC case is about us using EBT's to avoid tax liabilities which we admit we did. The SFA/SPL case is whether it was a contractural payment or not.

I do agree they are separate cases, however if it was a contractual payment then wouldn't that suggest by definition it would also fall foul of EBT laws, which if administered correctly are supposed to be discretionary? Can't really be discretionary and contractual!

It is entirely possible that we could break tax laws without necessarily breaking SFA/SPL laws, but I don't see how we could break SFA/SPL laws, in this case, without also breaking tax laws. If this is the case, then in 2 months the SPL have uncovered evidence that proves we fell foul of EBT laws which HMRC/FTTT has been unable to prove in 2 years!

My take on it is that the "prima facie" evidence is that our former director has said it (dual contracts) was happening so "on the face of it" there is enough evidence to warrant a case. Not sure there is any more to it, at this stage...that said I tend to at least try and make logical assumptions based upon general rule of law which, as we know, is not always relevant to our footballing authorities!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nothing to do with HMRC, they are looking at the same issue (EBTs) from different angles.

HMRC contend that payments from the EBT were salary and should have been deducted PAYE/NIC, David Murray believed otherwise.

The SPL contend that the EBT formed a contract for payment to the player and therefore should have been registered with them. Of course, given the EBT system only worked for discretionary non-contractual payments, it would have been hard to do that and also lodge it with the SFA/SPL

Celtic were at least aware of this since 2006 when they did the same thing. Why it has taken 6 years for it to come before the SPL/SFA we can only speculate on. Would it be because we are wounded and vulnerable?

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...