WVB 2,560 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I hope this doesn't adversely affect ICT. That would be a shame. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 24,494 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 thats 2 chairmen now basically saying that we should have kept it within sportremind me again what Lord Calloway's history in football is, was he a player, or a manager Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyBlue 2,278 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 They all wanted our money and also to keep us pegged down...uncompetitive, a money machine for them off the park but a shadow of us on the park.They thought they could do it and emerge like the shallow, small-minded assassins they are.The court win has opened pandora's box...It wasn't expected...And now all of Scottish football has been dragged in.He's a worm simply trying to placate his masters.They've f*cked us around..now they can see how it feels.I'm 100% convinced winning that court case is better for us than losing it or not contesting it.Ignore the scaremongers...it's all they have left and other SPL sheep are leaping on a bandwagon that's going nowhere.More will appear to join in the coming days but if we hold firm...and get our CVA...we're laughing.And they....They'll have sold themselves down the river...and they know it.Their desire to see us suffer will result in one or two...or more of them, sabotaging their own clubs in the future.Hence all this scaremongering, drama crap - designed to keep making us think we're in the wrong....ALL THE TIME.Time to keep our faith, resolve and nerve.When sheep like them get angry, I know we're on the way back. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICHY1775 32 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I read that statement today but what caught my eye when he spoke of our win at the C.O.S. was when he stated; "The Court for Arbitration in Sport was the correct route for Rangers to take, just as we successfully did in the Marius Niculae dispute".......i thought the SFA didn't permit clubs to go to CAS hence we went C.O.S..?FIFA say that as long as there is an independent appeals panel, there dosent need to be a direct reference to CAS. SFA articles stated that the appeals panel was final and binding, which complied with the FIFA articles. The only issue I can see is that Fifa laws disallow clubs and individuals within football from taking a national association to ordinary court and recognise the Court of Arbitration for Sport as the highest authority on such disputes.This is where Article 65 of the SFA’s Articles of Association comes into play, as it states that a panel will “carry out and enforce disciplinary procedures” as well as appeals against these decisions. Article 65.3(b) specifically states that “the decision of the judicial panel in any appeal shall be final and binding on all parties concerned”.However, the SFA does not allow for this. Once the appeal has been heard and a verdict delivered that is expected to be the end of the matter, as per article 65.3(b).This is where Fifa leaves it up to individual national associations to decide who the ultimate appeal board should be. Article 64.3 of the Fifa statutes reads “disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the association or confederation or to CAS”.The SFA chose to make their Judicial Panel the body which hears such disputes and not CAS, which is entirely legitimate under Fifa rules.This is the reason Fifa are angry ad it's nothing to do do with the technicalities of the case. It is absolutely against Fifa’s statutes to take a dispute with a national association to the court of law. Fifa statute 64.2 states &“recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the Fifa regulations”.Fifa insist that associations insert a clause in their rules to specifically prohibit such legal actions. The SFA’s is contained in 65.5 and says “the fact of membership of the Scottish FA shall constitute an agreement by a member that it, or any body interested through such member, shall submit all disputes to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Panel and shall not be permitted to take such difference or questions to a court of law”.Duff bros broke this term of the clubs membership by going to the Court of Session and Fifa’s anger stems from the fact that the SFA appears not to have tried to stop it.However this route still breaches SFA law 65.5 and Fifa statute 64.2 and leaves any member who goes to court open to additional sanctions.That's my thinking anyway! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glennywatp 23 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 fock me, I'm going to save some dosh next season. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyBlue 2,278 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 FIFA say that as long as there is an independent appeals panel, there dosent need to be a direct reference to CAS. SFA articles stated that the appeals panel was final and binding, which complied with the FIFA articles. The only issue I can see is that Fifa laws disallow clubs and individuals within football from taking a national association to ordinary court and recognise the Court of Arbitration for Sport as the highest authority on such disputes.This is where Article 65 of the SFA’s Articles of Association comes into play, as it states that a panel will “carry out and enforce disciplinary procedures” as well as appeals against these decisions. Article 65.3(b) specifically states that “the decision of the judicial panel in any appeal shall be final and binding on all parties concerned”.However, the SFA does not allow for this. Once the appeal has been heard and a verdict delivered that is expected to be the end of the matter, as per article 65.3(b).This is where Fifa leaves it up to individual national associations to decide who the ultimate appeal board should be. Article 64.3 of the Fifa statutes reads “disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the association or confederation or to CAS”.The SFA chose to make their Judicial Panel the body which hears such disputes and not CAS, which is entirely legitimate under Fifa rules.This is the reason Fifa are angry ad it's nothing to do do with the technicalities of the case. It is absolutely against Fifa’s statutes to take a dispute with a national association to the court of law. Fifa statute 64.2 states &“recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the Fifa regulations”.Fifa insist that associations insert a clause in their rules to specifically prohibit such legal actions. The SFA’s is contained in 65.5 and says “the fact of membership of the Scottish FA shall constitute an agreement by a member that it, or any body interested through such member, shall submit all disputes to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Panel and shall not be permitted to take such difference or questions to a court of law”.Duff bros broke this term of the clubs membership by going to the Court of Session and Fifa’s anger stems from the fact that the SFA appears not to have tried to stop it.However this route still breaches SFA law 65.5 and Fifa statute 64.2 and leaves any member who goes to court open to additional sanctions.That's my thinking anyway!Ya.And I'm thinking the SFA broke its own rules that Rangers were told to abide by.Rangers didn't take the SFA to court for a disgreement over a sanction the SFA ruled on governed by its rules.They took them to the law of the land as the SFA implemented a sanction that didn't exist in its own rules.Unlike Sion.The SFA broke their own legality...so point moot - SFA rules are out the window!And a court agreed! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Manticore* 1,893 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Ya.And I'm thinking the SFA broke its own rules that Rangers were told to abide by.Rangers didn't take the SFA to court for a disgreement over a sanction the SFA ruled on governed by its rules.They took them to the law of the land as the SFA implemented a sanction that didn't exist in its own rules.Unlike Sion.The SFA broke their own legality...so point moot - SFA rules are out the window!And a court agreed!Yes, where the law effectively delegates powers to a body, that body must remain within its own rules, otherwise it is not properly exercising the powers delegated to it. Similar decisions have been made for example about Government Departments and Local Authorities. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyBlue 2,278 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Yes, where the law effectively delegates powers to a body, that body must remain within its own rules, otherwise it is not properly exercising the powers delegated to it. Similar decisions have been made for example about Government Departments and Local Authorities. The whole Sion/Fifa thing is a smokescreen.Created by those either covering for their mistakes or simply wishing the worst for us...i.e scaremongering.The SFA made a flawed decision...flawed because they had no reason to come to it based on their own rules.It's no Sion....what the hell can FIFA do?Hammer the SFA perhaps...or...try to give vague threats hoping we'll all do exactly what some of us are doing?And as such...Rangers might not fight so much?As you said...FIFA govern the SFA...the SFA fucked up.With Sion, they broke a clear FIFA rule, were punished and then tried to civily reverse it.All this is bullshit, designed to keep us in a state of worry, panic & disarray. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck 3,702 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I honestly don't understand this ???Does the ruling by Lord Glennie not suggest we had every right to take them to court?!?!?!Boycott List:St. Mirren - Check.St. Johnstone - Check.Inverness - Check.8 more to go fellas, who will be next to officially cement their place on a list they really shouldn't want to be on ?Dundee UTD should be on the list? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
legalbeagle 3,734 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I thought we were boycotting all away games?Double boycott for ICT! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Double boycott for ICT!That double boycott list is getting bigger then! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
legalbeagle 3,734 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 FIFA say that as long as there is an independent appeals panel, there dosent need to be a direct reference to CAS. SFA articles stated that the appeals panel was final and binding, which complied with the FIFA articles. The only issue I can see is that Fifa laws disallow clubs and individuals within football from taking a national association to ordinary court and recognise the Court of Arbitration for Sport as the highest authority on such disputes.This is where Article 65 of the SFA’s Articles of Association comes into play, as it states that a panel will “carry out and enforce disciplinary procedures” as well as appeals against these decisions. Article 65.3(b) specifically states that “the decision of the judicial panel in any appeal shall be final and binding on all parties concerned”.However, the SFA does not allow for this. Once the appeal has been heard and a verdict delivered that is expected to be the end of the matter, as per article 65.3(b).This is where Fifa leaves it up to individual national associations to decide who the ultimate appeal board should be. Article 64.3 of the Fifa statutes reads “disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the association or confederation or to CAS”.The SFA chose to make their Judicial Panel the body which hears such disputes and not CAS, which is entirely legitimate under Fifa rules.This is the reason Fifa are angry ad it's nothing to do do with the technicalities of the case. It is absolutely against Fifa’s statutes to take a dispute with a national association to the court of law. Fifa statute 64.2 states &“recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the Fifa regulations”.Fifa insist that associations insert a clause in their rules to specifically prohibit such legal actions. The SFA’s is contained in 65.5 and says “the fact of membership of the Scottish FA shall constitute an agreement by a member that it, or any body interested through such member, shall submit all disputes to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Panel and shall not be permitted to take such difference or questions to a court of law”.Duff bros broke this term of the clubs membership by going to the Court of Session and Fifa’s anger stems from the fact that the SFA appears not to have tried to stop it.However this route still breaches SFA law 65.5 and Fifa statute 64.2 and leaves any member who goes to court open to additional sanctions.That's my thinking anyway!News just in.... FIFA are not above the laws of the land. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginge224 3 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Why do these people keep biting the hand that feeds them are they really that thick? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bufforbero 128 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Why do these people keep biting the hand that feeds them are they really that thick?It's in their nature. Hateful, spiteful little kunts.Just look up the "parable of the scorpion and the frog", sometimes told as "the fox and the scorpion" and it'll tell you all you need to know about these gits. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM1872 3,705 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Dundee UTD should be on the list?Spot on that man! Don't know how I forgot about them, cunts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisleyroad 894 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 FFS we won in the courts, what don't these fuckwits get? we were right to challenge the cheating bastards, i'd hate tae be a fan of their respective clubs, knowing fine well their Chairman would just roll over and accept a boot in the baws by the SFA and that incompetent bellend Rhegan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son Of Kai 2 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh about this boycott. My wife might read this. Obviously i wont be going to the game but i am not missing out on my Inverness weekenders...I'll just have to watch the game in that wee Rangers boozer next to the jail Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh about this boycott. My wife might read this. Obviously i wont be going to the game but i am not missing out on my Inverness weekenders...I'll just have to watch the game in that wee Rangers boozer next to the jail Its been shut down. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangers Lady 2,380 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh about this boycott. My wife might read this. Obviously i wont be going to the game but i am not missing out on my Inverness weekenders...I'll just have to watch the game in that wee Rangers boozer next to the jail Portland is the place 2 b Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBluebells 6,898 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 We are criticized for overturning an unjust and unlawful punishment and because of this people want us further punished.You couldn't make this shite up.Fuck them all, i hope their clubs suffer like we have had to and when they do they can get to fuck if they think we will have even the slightest piece of sympathy for them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rankin1873 69 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Lets all remember in the next few years who f**ked us over, not just for this season but many several to come! but let's not forget the clubs who will be for us, they shall prosper. Only boycott games of the clubs who try to hinder us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I hope this doesn't adversely affect ICT. That would be a shame. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Portland is the place 2 bIt really isn't. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4MenHadADream 122 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I notice that the original BBC article never mentioned the fact that Lord Glennie himself stated that the CAS was not a route open to us Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son Of Kai 2 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It really isn't.We spent most of the last weekend in the Rileys Snooker club that looks onto the Court/Castle. The rugby was on and it was a good pint and the locals were friendly enough. Inverness is the 1 town/city where i feel welcomed as a Rangers supporter Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.