0
    0

    Comment on To Comply or not to Comply ? by easyJambo.

    Cluster One 13th August 2018 at 18:43 

    Re the Naismith kick out at Hayes when he is on the ground.
    The linesman is about two yards away looking straight at it (would post an image, but new blog not up to speed on that yet)

    =============================

    The linesman would have been about 25 yards away, level with the Hearts defensive line. The first image shows the line of the Hearts defence in the lead up to the incident, i.e. the assistant ref's approximate position.  The second shows the incident itself, with no assistant referee in sight. I've no issue with you expressing a view on the incident, but what you describe is not backed up by the photographic evidence.  

    View post on imgur.com

    View post on imgur.com

    easyJambo Also Commented

    To Comply or not to Comply ?
    I'm pleased to see that another sex offender with previous links to youth football has been jailed, albeit for more recent offences against a teenage boy.  I wonder if his late guilty plea avoided any evidence being presented about his conduct when he was coaching in Scotland. 

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45170358

    In the last month we also heard the car crash interview with Ian Maxwell on the subject of sex abuse in youth football. Coincidentally, just last week, I was speaking to a former youth player who told me that he was coached by Gordon Neely when he was 13-14. He was quite open about what went on and explained that it was only because the youngsters didn't know any better, that it wasn't reported at the time.  The youngsters did talk among themselves about the abuse, but were more concerned about avoiding making mistakes in training or games that would leave themselves the subject of Neely's "punishments". His descriptions were both graphic and horrifying.


    To Comply or not to Comply ?
    Allyjambo 13th August 2018 at 13:21

    BBC reporting here that both Brown and Naismith have been cited to appear before the beaks.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45172031

    ====================================

    I don’t believe that they have been cited as such, only that the CO (do we still have one?) will look at the incidents before making a decision.

    Sky have also looked at the incidents with Dermot Gallagher

    Sky Sports Scotland‏Verified account @ScotlandSky

    REF WATCH Dermot Gallagher looks at incidents from Hearts v Celtic- Naismith- "It's not malicious, it's petulant. For me it's not worth a red card." Brown- "It's hardly an elbow" 'Careful we don't "start lashing red and yellow cards about"'


    To Comply or not to Comply ?
    John Clark 13th August 2018 at 09:52  

    So, what was the point of the statement? 

    ============================

    In simple terms the SFA were keen to head off any criticism that Livingston's decision to close their Academy was the result of the implementation of Project Brave. However, it is actually the third club after Clyde and Falkirk to stop their investment in youth football in the last three years. Whether or not those closures are directly related to Project Brave, funding is an issue for community based clubs.


    Recent Comments by easyJambo

    Dear Mr Bankier
    I see that the Herald has caught up with the story of BDO seeking an out of court settlement with Henderson & Jones (on behalf of Wavetower/TRFCG).

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17288996.liquidators-in-talks-to-settle-18m-rangers-oldco-claim-by-firm-founded-by-former-club-owner-craig-whyte/

    IIRC Whyte had a deal where he would get on third of any sums received.


    Dear Mr Bankier
    At the recent TOP v King hearing, I joked with Chris McLauglin, asking if he was allowed to ask Dave King a few questions outside the court room. He responded by saying "I'm not sure if he is allowed to speak to me".


    Dear Mr Bankier
    Homunculus 9th December 2018 at 11:41

    =============================

    I have a fairly simplistic view of HMRC's acquiescence on the "penalty" amount.  They are satisfied that they have the Supreme Court judgement in their back pocket. That will allow them to recoup much more of a return from companies and individuals, rather than concern themselves about a few pence in the pound dividend from a liquidated company.


    Dear Mr Bankier
    The dividends paid to date amount to £9,265.47 for preferential creditors and £4,620,599.40  to unsecured creditors.

    There is only £7,757,414.44 left in the pot.

    Needless to say, BDO (£4,414,671.13 plus outlays of £58,679.66) and their legal fees (circa £10.5m) have consumed the majority of the cash. (remember £24m was received from Collyer Bristow's insurers).

    The Oldco still has a claim of £28m against Duff & Phelps outstanding, although there is a claim of £18m against the Oldco, on behalf of Wavetower, still on the go too.


    Dear Mr Bankier
    Billydug 8th December 2018 at 23:16

    BDO creditors update https://t.co/NywPrll5Nu?amp=1

    ================================

    HMRC's Big Tax Case claim significantly reduced, and potentially could fall further.

    A significant proportion of the Big Tax Claim of c£74m related to interest and penalties (c£36m). The penalty element of the claim was c£23.9m and was levied at a particularly high rate. The Joint Liquidators, on behalf of the Company, disputed both the quantum, and the principle, of the penalties applied by HMRC.

    Following discussions and meetings with HMRC, we submitted an appeal to the HMRC Penalty Review Consistency Panel (“the Panel”). This set out the reasons why the Joint Liquidators considered the penalties to be incorrectly levied. We are pleased to advise that the Panel has recently agreed with our submission in its entirety, and the element of HMRC’s claim pertaining to penalties has now been withdrawn in full.

    HMRC also acknowledged that a further small element of their claim had been overstated and it has now submitted a revised claim of £68.3m (ie a reduction of c£26m in total).

    HMRC has calculated the principal element of its claim in respect of the Big Tax Case on a “grossing up” basis. This element remains under review with further representations to be made to HMRC following discussions with the Joint Liquidators’ tax advisors.