11-11-2015, 14:13
o trus you lie so obviously
Rangers where caught cheating
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/range...n-rangers/
direct quotes from the judgment
"•Rangers should have disclosed details of the arrangements.
"Those side-letter arrangements were required to be disclosed under the Rules of the Scottish Premier League (“SPL&rdquo and the Scottish Football Association (“SFA&rdquo." (p1)
•Rangers Oldco did not seek any advice.
"Oldco through its senior management decided that such side-letter arrangements should not be disclosed to the football authorities, and the Board of Directors sanctioned the making of payments under the side-letter arrangements without taking any legal or accountancy advice to justify the non-disclosure." (p1)
"Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed." (p1)
"
and
"•EBT benefits were considered by the tribunal to be payments.
"Each side-letter issued to a Specified Player clearly constituted a contractual agreement: the unanimous view of the Tax Tribunal also was that it was an “obligation”.
"Accordingly, in the case of each of the Specified Players in lists 1A and 1B, the EBT arrangements were an essential element of “the Player’s full financial entitlement” within the meaning of Rule 10.2.3." (p23)
"If it had not been intended that the player would directly benefit from the EBT arrangements then there is no reason to believe that the player would have agreed to accept the overall financial package offered by Oldco." (p24)
*On the eligibility of players: The SPL alleges “such that Rangers FC was in breach of a condition of the registration of such players and such players were ineligible to play in official matches for Rangers FC” (p26)
The verdict
The decision
(1) We find the breaches in Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3 (except Issue 3© and the concluding passage of Issue 3(b)starting with “such that Rangers FC . . . .&rdquo and Issue 4 proved against RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation), formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc. (2) We fine RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation) £250,000 in respect of Issues 1 to 3, and admonish it in respect of Issue 4. "
So guilty of failure to disclose payment (issue 1), because of that the players WHERE incorrectly registered (issue 3) and withholding required information (issue 2)
so Rangers were caught cheating, not by an outside agency but by the SPL and SFA
LNS was also lied to and misled, by the same people to mitigate the punishment available for proven cheating
SO saying Rangers didn't cheat is simply a lie
Second only to match fixing
o dear poor turs lying again
and unlike your accusations of me lying I have supplied documentary evidence of yours
liar liar pants on fire
Rangers where caught cheating
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/range...n-rangers/
direct quotes from the judgment
"•Rangers should have disclosed details of the arrangements.
"Those side-letter arrangements were required to be disclosed under the Rules of the Scottish Premier League (“SPL&rdquo and the Scottish Football Association (“SFA&rdquo." (p1)
•Rangers Oldco did not seek any advice.
"Oldco through its senior management decided that such side-letter arrangements should not be disclosed to the football authorities, and the Board of Directors sanctioned the making of payments under the side-letter arrangements without taking any legal or accountancy advice to justify the non-disclosure." (p1)
"Although the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules, the scale and extent of the proven contraventions of the disclosure rules require a substantial penalty to be imposed." (p1)
"
and
"•EBT benefits were considered by the tribunal to be payments.
"Each side-letter issued to a Specified Player clearly constituted a contractual agreement: the unanimous view of the Tax Tribunal also was that it was an “obligation”.
"Accordingly, in the case of each of the Specified Players in lists 1A and 1B, the EBT arrangements were an essential element of “the Player’s full financial entitlement” within the meaning of Rule 10.2.3." (p23)
"If it had not been intended that the player would directly benefit from the EBT arrangements then there is no reason to believe that the player would have agreed to accept the overall financial package offered by Oldco." (p24)
*On the eligibility of players: The SPL alleges “such that Rangers FC was in breach of a condition of the registration of such players and such players were ineligible to play in official matches for Rangers FC” (p26)
The verdict
The decision
(1) We find the breaches in Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3 (except Issue 3© and the concluding passage of Issue 3(b)starting with “such that Rangers FC . . . .&rdquo and Issue 4 proved against RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation), formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc. (2) We fine RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation) £250,000 in respect of Issues 1 to 3, and admonish it in respect of Issue 4. "
So guilty of failure to disclose payment (issue 1), because of that the players WHERE incorrectly registered (issue 3) and withholding required information (issue 2)
so Rangers were caught cheating, not by an outside agency but by the SPL and SFA
LNS was also lied to and misled, by the same people to mitigate the punishment available for proven cheating
SO saying Rangers didn't cheat is simply a lie
Second only to match fixing
o dear poor turs lying again
and unlike your accusations of me lying I have supplied documentary evidence of yours
liar liar pants on fire