269miles Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 38s38 seconds ago Vaughan Williams asked what odds of 2500/1 mean in the gambling industry. He replies "Effectively it's not going to happen." So Coral are trying to say that the odds offered on the bet is in itself sufficient to say that relegation never happened - because in their eyes it COULD NOT happen ? Amazing stuff. And we are to ignore press reports saying RFC was relegated AND reports on Corals own website proclaiming the relegation myth. All for one poxy football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Liquidated? 2 days down and 1 day of the case left,place your bets on the L word not being mentioned in court. I'll collect your stakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo dans les Pyrenees Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 To be completely honest, if I had let my club die and allowed myself to be hoodwinked by a series of absolute charlatans, on no other basis that "we arra people" and continued to spend millions of pounds to beat SFL League 2 plumbers, then I probably would have reached a stage of mental meltdown/denial. But I didn't let my clue die. None of us did. They all did, and so they can GIRFUY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbee647 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 The straightforward answer risks them losing half of Glasgows custom. By not coming out with that straightforward answer, they also risk losing the other half... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 So if Corals argue that a relegation is on points, then if Rangers were relegated (notwithstanding Green had to apply for admission to both the SFA and the SPL/SFL and at one point 2 clubs were in existence), then the SPFL will need to change it rules that any club liquidated will need to face a disciplinary panel and deducted an equivalent number of points relevant to the league where the replacement club is to be placed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 It seems to me that one piece of evidence is missing so far. If the now dead and never to return team had lost their first 10 games that season, it is reasonable to assume that the odds on relegation would have shortened dramatically. Similarly, as the season went on and it was clear they would finish in the top 2,it is reasonable to assume that the odds would have lengthened. When they went into administration, they were docked 10 points. At that stage in the season, it is extremely unlikely that would have significantly affected their chances of being relegated. So the question is, what happen to Corals' odds throughout the season. As it became more likely that liquidation was on the cards, did the odds shorten? If they didn't, then either Corals' were sleeping, or more likely, relegation was not a possibility. Remember, liquidation only became a serious possibility on 12 June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Liquidated? 2 days down and 1 day of the case left,place your bets on the L word not being mentioned in court. Ahem... James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 1m1 minute ago Vaughan Williams says he wrote his report based based on documentation. Counsel notes report has wrong date for Rangers liquidation Pay up now like a guid, honest scottish laddie and not a welching American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Don't see why it should have any weight attached - it's their opinion. They guy had quoted a relegation article from The Herald but it was kicked out (no named source) and not the opinion of the Herald. But what have opinions got to do with it ? Just get Donkey & Regan in the dock and Corals can win this in 5 minutes flat. Although, as with others, I'd like to see him win. 1) Bookie accepts a bet on Rangers to be relegated. 2) Bookie refuses to pay out. 3) Bookie continues to quote Rangers as being "relegated". I think that's pretty important. It's opening a massive can of worms if bookies can squirm out of it. Think of it from any other betting perspective... It enables bookies a way out of paying on pretty much any bet. They can just claim it's "not what they define as XYZ", even when they say it themselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I take it sponsiones ludicrae (where a gambling debt is unenforceable has been abolished). Not that a major gambling company would take advantage anyway.as nobody would bet with them. No Believe still in place for mistakes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Green's company bought the assets and business of the soon-to-be liquidated oldco Rangers and secured the club's SFA membership but was denied entry to the SPL. "The club ceased to be subject to the SPL's rules when it was ejected from its league,'' he said. "Our lawyers have made that point repeatedly to the SPL in correspondence and yet our requests for an explanation from the SPL have been completely ignored. The SPL's silence on these issues is deafening. The outcome of the SPL's process will have no legal effect.'' http://en.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/169598.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 She doesn't seem like girlfriend material. She's also in the video to Prof. Green's cover of INSX - Need you Tonight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) It seems to me that one piece of evidence is missing so far. If the now dead and never to return team had lost their first 10 games that season, it is reasonable to assume that the odds on relegation would have shortened dramatically. Similarly, as the season went on and it was clear they would finish in the top 2,it is reasonable to assume that the odds would have lengthened. When they went into administration, they were docked 10 points. At that stage in the season, it is extremely unlikely that would have significantly affected their chances of being relegated. So the question is, what happen to Corals' odds throughout the season. As it became more likely that liquidation was on the cards, did the odds shorten? If they didn't, then either Corals' were sleeping, or more likely, relegation was not a possibility. Remember, liquidation only became a serious possibility on 12 June. Liquidation was likely the moment they went into administration. Notwithstanding, the Big Tax Case, HMRC had more than 25% of the debt then they were always going to knock back the CVA. They had previous with Whyte, Rangers hadn't paid any taxes from the moment Whyte turned up and following the police raid of Ibrox they knew that SDM/MG/RFC had lied to them about the EBTs - it was inevitable. For the CVA to have been approved HMRC would have been seeking absolute cast iron guarantees that the WTC, all unpaid IT/NI/VAT (and interest / penalties) would be met in the very short term and BTC plus interest / penalties paid immediately on the conclusion of legal proceedings, if found in their favour. HMRC voted against our CVA and when not in administration, afforded us a maximum repayment period of 2 years for our dues to them. So Rangers would have had to have paid c?20m (plus ongoing social taxes by the new business owners) by early summer of 2014, with a near ?100m cash reserves available by spring / summer this year if the SC finds in favour of HMRC. Indeed in hindsight liquidation was inevitable either a) the moment Whyte took over or t give him some grace b, when knocked out of the CL by Malmo or c) if HMRC win the BTC. Edited January 18, 2017 by DETTY29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 By not coming out with that straightforward answer, they also risk losing the other half...Great point. And merging with ladbrokes. Greats days ahead for wee bookies ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1) Bookie accepts a bet on Rangers to be relegated. 2) Bookie refuses to pay out. 3) Bookie continues to quote Rangers as being "relegated". I think that's pretty important. It's opening a massive can of worms if bookies can squirm out of it. Think of it from any other betting perspective... It enables bookies a way out of paying on pretty much any bet. They can just claim it's "not what they define as XYZ", even when they say it themselves! Absolute ill informed nonsense. The bloody season was over before Rangers were liquidated. All bets for the football for that season had been settled. It's obvious that a sports bet should be settled on what happens on the field of play not on what happens in a courtroom months later. What a waste of time and money this case is. The only real winners in this case will be the lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Liquidation was likely the moment they went into administration. Notwithstanding, the Big Tax Case, HMRC had more than 25% of the debt then they were always going to knock back the CVA. They had previous with Whyte, Rangers hadn't paid any taxes from the moment Whyte turned up and following the police raid of Ibrox they knew that SDM/MG/RFC had lied to them about the EBTs - it was inevitable. For the CVA to have been approved HMRC would have been seeking absolute cast iron guarantees that the WTC, all unpaid IT/NI/VAT (and interest / penalties) would be met in the very short term and BTC plus interest / penalties paid immediately on the conclusion of legal proceedings, if found in their favour. HMRC voted against our CVA and when not in administration, afforded us a maximum repayment period of 2 years for our dues to them. So Rangers would have had to have paid c?20m (plus ongoing social taxes by the new business owners) by early summer of 2014, with a near ?100m cash reserves available by spring / summer this year if the SC finds in favour of HMRC. Indeed in hindsight liquidation was inevitable either a) the moment Whyte took over or t give him some grace b, when knocked out of the CL by Malmo or c) if HMRC win the BTC. My point still stands. Did the odds change? If they didnt, that suggests that Corals believed that relegation was not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) Absolute ill informed nonsense. The bloody season was over before Rangers were liquidated. All bets for the football for that season had been settled. It's obvious that a sports bet should be settled on what happens on the field of play not on what happens in a courtroom months later. What a waste of time and money this case is. The only real winners in this case will be the lawyers. There's Corals strategy right there. If they're watching. But we all know they will not mention "liquidation". Or will they ? Edited January 18, 2017 by 269miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) She's also in the video to Prof. Green's cover of INSX - Need you Tonight Looks like her. She could make me sweat anytime she likes. Mon the Corals Edited January 18, 2017 by Toxteth O'Grady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Ahem... James Doleman ?@jamesdoleman 1m1 minute ago Vaughan Williams says he wrote his report based based on documentation. Counsel notes report has wrong date for Rangers liquidation Pay up now like a guid, honest scottish laddie and not a welching American. Er em,I'm English haw haw hawwwwwwww. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 There's Corals strategy right there. If they're watching. But we all know they will not mention "liquidation". Or will they ? Bet you they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Absolute ill informed nonsense. The bloody season was over before Rangers were liquidated. All bets for the football for that season had been settled. It's obvious that a sports bet should be settled on what happens on the field of play not on what happens in a courtroom months later. What a waste of time and money this case is. The only real winners in this case will be the lawyers. I seem to remember when studying law that the courts won't get involved in sporting matters as they see it as being below them. In particular I remember the quote that the courts wont decide the outcome of a horse race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Kinloch v Coral has certainly livened up this thread again. Although arguably maybe this should be in the existential thread. Talking of which, haven't heard from certain guest posters for a while ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 https://twitter.com/Coral/status/815173793954009092 Maybe Corals are frightened of escalating the fallout over their Kenny Miller piss take after the Hogmanay game. Some of the follow up Tweets are pretty funny. First time I've seen it but apologies if already posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Kinloch v Coral has certainly livened up this thread again. Although arguably maybe this should be in the existential thread. Talking of which, haven't heard from certain guest posters for a while ? Our old friend, Bryce1690a got a mention on Sportsound last night. Think he sent in a text in defence of his new favouritest football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Bet you they do. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 rethinkgambling ?@rethinkgambling 2h2 hours ago @jamesdoleman "betting research unit" at Nottingham Trent University funded by bookmakers and ex CEO of Coral is: https://www4.ntu.ac.uk/about_ntu/governance/governing_board/member_profiles/neil_goulden.html ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Linky no worky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Linky no worky https://www4.ntu.ac.uk/about_ntu/governance/governing_board/member_profiles/neil_goulden.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Based purely on the evidence brought forward in court I would have to side with saying that Rangers have been relegated. We all know that isn't true but based on the evidence that's what it looks like Coral are having a nightmare with this one. Just want them to come out and say 'look rangers never got relegated, they were liquidated, its a brand new club that started again in the bottom division' Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) Based purely on the evidence brought forward in court I would have to side with saying that Rangers have been relegated. We all know that isn't true but based on the evidence that's what it looks like Coral are having a nightmare with this one. Just want them to come out and say 'look rangers never got relegated, they were liquidated, its a brand new club that started again in the bottom division' Case closed. Would generally agree - if they can convince the judge that Coral were negligent by not explaining their conditions then I think they will win. Coral are more than capable of taking apart the timeline of the administration, liquidation and subsequent asset purchase/renaming of a football club if they so wished. Fingers crossed - the hearings are to last 3 days so tomorrow is their last chance to rip apart the "same club" mythology. Edited January 18, 2017 by Mysterion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Would generally agree - if they can convince the judge that Coral were negligent by not explaining their conditions then I think they will win. Coral are more than capable of taking apart the timeline of the administration, liquidation and subsequent asset purchase/renaming of a football club if they so wished. Fingers crossed - the hearings are to last 3 days so tomorrow is their last chance to rip apart the "same club" mythology. Perhaps they planned on seeing how it panned out, if they felt they had to 'wheel out the big guns' they would leave it till the last day. We'll just have to wait and see tomorrow. Either way I'm enjoying it and cheers for the person updating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) So Coral are trying to say that the odds offered on the bet is in itself sufficient to say that relegation never happened - because in their eyes it COULD NOT happen ? Amazing stuff. And we are to ignore press reports saying RFC was relegated AND reports on Corals own website proclaiming the relegation myth. All for one poxy football club. I think Kinloch's Counsel missed a trick there. I would have asked the Coral guy what odds they had offered against Leicester winning the EPL. Probably 2000/1 at least, which according to their logic, means the event could not happen. Did they pay out on those bets? Edited January 18, 2017 by RobNox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 rethinkgambling ?@rethinkgambling 2h2 hours ago @jamesdoleman "betting research unit" at Nottingham Trent University funded by bookmakers and ex CEO of Coral is: https://www4.ntu.ac.uk/about_ntu/governance/governing_board/member_profiles/neil_goulden.html ? https://www4.ntu.ac.uk/about_ntu/governance/governing_board/member_profiles/neil_goulden.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I have no sympathy for bookies, but surely and simply at the end of that season when the points were counted Rangers (1872-2012) were not relegated. The case is good sport mind. What are the odds on Kinloch winning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I have no sympathy for bookies, but surely and simply at the end of that season when the points were counted Rangers (1872-2012) were not relegated. The case is good sport mind. What are the odds on Kinloch winning? There's not many disputing that. However, it appears that Coral did not clearly stipulate what 'relegation' meant and Kinloch's case is that if the same team started the following season in a lower league, they must have been relegated. There's a lot of semantics involved, but it doesn't appear to me that Coral are putting up a particularly compelling case. I would tend to favour Coral's chances of winning though, however another day to go so probably a few twists and turns yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 I have no sympathy for bookies, but surely and simply at the end of that season when the points were counted Rangers (1872-2012) were not relegated. The case is good sport mind. What are the odds on Kinloch winning?This seems to be the crux of it. Rangers 1972 were not relegated at the end of the season, based on points or actually any other measure. The promotions and relegations relevant to each division were decided after the last kick of the ball the last games. So I'm with Coral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzas right boot Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) Coral have made a right mess of that reading through the script. Show league table, the little r is with Dunfermline. Liquidation, new club, admission to the bottom league. Done. The problem now, is if they do bring that up the judge will be asking, why not say that at the start, why wait? Not winning friends or making sense. Relegation- transfer of a team or sports person to a lower division.... Ooft, how you getting out of that one, backed up by thier own advertising? Think the guy might win. Christ, you could use us as an example, more points than the team above, but still relegated because of the points deduction, in rangers case there punishment was relegation to the lowest league. Our example blows away the argument of being relegated based on points gained alone and there can be other "non sporting " factors involved in relegation? Edited January 18, 2017 by Tosh'sleftfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambojay84 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Speaking as an employee of a betting company my understanding would be the bet is void stake returned as the team he has to be relegated is not the same as the team given re entry to the league system Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon tinted glasses 2 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Whittaker, Davis, Adam, just three names of players who were allowed to toss aside their contracts as they were legally not obliged to transfer from the liquidated club onto the books of sevco. Iirc did green not try to challenge this)(as well as the other players who effed off) but could do nothing about it as the players were no longer contractually bound because said contracts were held by the old (and now liquidated) club. This in itself should be enough to swing in favour of Coral as proof that sevco were in fact a new club because every one of the players who finished second for Glasgow rangers that season could have walked straight out of castle greyskull and into any team that would take them without having to involve fees or registration transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon tinted glasses 2 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) Double post Edited January 18, 2017 by Maroon tinted glasses 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Speaking as an employee of a betting company my understanding would be the bet is void stake returned as the team he has to be relegated is not the same as the team given re entry to the league system Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Why would it be void though? They finished the season in second, If they had failed to finish the season you could argue for a void bet. The argument about re-entry to the league system is to my mind, part of the crux of this case. The punter is arguing that if it is the same club, and they started the following season in a lower league, they must have been relegated. The counter argument, which Coral is currently avoiding, is that the club who finished 2nd in 2012 is not the same club as the one who started the following season in league 2. We all know that already, as when the SPL clubs voted on whether to accept the new club straight back into the SPL, the old club had a vote on the matter. Funnily enough, the only club to vote Yes. On paper, this case should be black and white in favour of Coral, but in avoiding the elephant in the room, they are relying on some tenuous arguments which may well backfire on them. Let's see what tomorrow brings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzas right boot Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) Whittaker, Davis, Adam, just three names of players who were allowed to toss aside their contracts as they were legally not obliged to transfer from the liquidated club onto the books of sevco. Iirc did green not try to challenge this)(as well as the other players who effed off) but could do nothing about it as the players were no longer contractually bound because said contracts were held by the old (and now liquidated) club. This in itself should be enough to swing in favour of Coral as proof that sevco were in fact a new club because every one of the players who finished second for Glasgow rangers that season could have walked straight out of castle greyskull and into any team that would take them without having to involve fees or registration transfers. Should be, but. Relegation is defined. Doesn't necessarily mean going down only one division. Demotion is not relevant by definition. Relegation on other issues outwith the sport has happened, to us. Ie due to finance. They, coral themselves, have used the term relegation and promotion in describing rangers. This not an admission that coral classed it as relegation? The club, by the SFA standards is the same, the business obviously isn't, but the club is? They haven't brought up liquidation yet. Reading the script, I'm no lawyer, but they've dug themselves a pretty deep hole it would seem. Edited January 18, 2017 by Tosh'sleftfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Whittaker, Davis, Adam, just three names of players who were allowed to toss aside their contracts as they were legally not obliged to transfer from the liquidated club onto the books of sevco. Iirc did green not try to challenge this)(as well as the other players who effed off) but could do nothing about it as the players were no longer contractually bound because said contracts were held by the old (and now liquidated) club. This in itself should be enough to swing in favour of Coral as proof that sevco were in fact a new club because every one of the players who finished second for Glasgow rangers that season could have walked straight out of castle greyskull and into any team that would take them without having to involve fees or registration transfers. But Coral have yet to play that card, and seem to be avoiding it at all costs. The old club / new club argument hasn't really been broached in this case yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Lincs Jambo Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Anyone know when this Kinloch character first brought the case? I was unaware of the Kenny Miller tweet until reading this thread but having read through it on Twitter it seems like Coral may have lost a hell of a lot of Hun business due to that tweet and are therefore unwilling to do any more damage by using the L word. I get the impression now that if they had known when the case was brought what they found out after Hogmanay they may well have just decided to cut their losses and pay the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazzas right boot Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 But Coral have yet to play that card, and seem to be avoiding it at all costs. The old club / new club argument hasn't really been broached in this case yet. And will the club and business be separated? The SFA have acknowledged they are the same "club". Business wise, this isn't the case. Both would seem to contridct each other and make this case even more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon tinted glasses 2 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Would be interesting (if possible to get the figures) to see how many bets were paid out across all betting organisations on rangers finishing second that season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 And will the club and business be separated? The SFA have acknowledged they are the same "club". Business wise, this isn't the case. Both would seem to contridct each other and make this case even more interesting. It's that very contradiction that has given rise to this case. If the footballing authorities had insisted that the phoenix club was not a continuation of the old club, the punter wouldn't have a leg to stand on. In that scenario the club he bet on to be relegated finished second in the league, then went out of existence. No relegation. A new club emerged from the ashes of the old club and was allowed to re-enter the SPFL in league 2. Not the same club, therefore no link to the punter's bet on the old club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 And will the club and business be separated? The SFA have acknowledged they are the same "club". Business wise, this isn't the case. Both would seem to contridct each other and make this case even more interesting. Could you tell me what was said when the SFA acknowledged they are the same club? I remember Regan washing his hands of the matter by saying he would leave it to the supporters to decide if TRFC were the same club as Rangers, but I must have missed this acknowledgement by the SFA at some later date. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Could you tell me what was said when the SFA acknowledged they are the same club? I remember Regan washing his hands of the matter by saying he would leave it to the supporters to decide if TRFC were the same club as Rangers, but I must have missed this acknowledgement by the SFA at some later date. Cheers. I can't recall the SFA acknowledging this either, but Doncaster at the SPFL certainly did. He referred to the LNS ruling to justify his same club position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzbomb1958 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Just come oot and say it NEW F----NG CLUB case won Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts