boss 1,941 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Rangers were found guilty in respect of Rule 2.Rule 2: Each member shall procure that its officials, its Team Staff and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.But we were found Not Proven in respect of Rule 1. Whyte wasn't even charged under Rule 1. So who was found guilty under Rule 1 which formed the basis for our guilt under Rule 2?Haha, the SFA scum have completely ballsed this up.For reference, Rule 1:Rule 1 (b): All members shall:(b) be subject to and comply with the Articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport; Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wearethepeople1 3,897 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 If this is correct get it sent off to as many outlets as possible Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamFyfe 1,438 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 SFA Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikh Salim 215 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Rangers were found guilty in respect of Rule 2.Rule 2: Each member shall procure that its officials, its Team Staff and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.But we were found Not Proven in respect of Rule 1. Whyte wasn't even charged under Rule 1. So who was found guilty under Rule 1 which formed the basis for our guilt under Rule 2?Haha, the SFA scum have completely ballsed this up.For reference, Rule 1:Rule 1 (b): All members shall:(b) be subject to and comply with the Articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;Get this sent to as many influential people/persons/mhedia/organisations/Duff and Phelps asap.In fact I'm sure Jim Traynor or Keevins or someone would love to do an article in the rhags based on this, if it is indeed as flawed as it seems. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingKai 439 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 They were so fuckin desperate to get the boot in, they probably didn't even review their own rules! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeAndMyWeePalJoe 17 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 That is immense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 This was pointed out within ten minutes of the judgement being passed. Not sure if it was on here or elsewhere however. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senna 735 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Get this sent to D&P, surely with this under our belts, the appeal must wholly dismiss any punishment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2102 577 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 hahahhaha send it to the media, the SFA, sky sports. sned it to everybody. get other bears to send it as well. THIS IS EPIC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWTC 2,247 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 No way. No fuckin way! This cant be possible, surely??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky_ 893 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 this was on the real radio fitbaw phone in tonight. it's laughable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4MenHadADream 122 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 You wouldn't imagine that a governing body could be quite so amateur. But then blind hatred will do that Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart54 218 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 If this is 100% spot on, (and why wouldnt it be), then this is Pure Gold.Brilliant find. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Why do they even have Rule 2? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4MenHadADream 122 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Looking at it again though, is Rule 1 not a rule dealing with the club as a whole, whereas Rule 2 is dealing with individuals involved with the club? i.e. the in accordance with Rule 1 is only the fact that individuals representing the club broke those rules set down by the bodies mentioned, whilst the club didn't, hence the guilt on Rule 2 and not on Rule 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No.12 508 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I'm confused now Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwallowsHisOwnSpunk 7,798 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Come on people like that matters it's pretty obvious they just make the rules up as they go along it wouldn't supprise me if they brought in a rule where every team that plays in red, white and blue started with -10 points. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterC 12,272 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Lets not get our hopes up on this one. But if they have fucked up, it would be a fuck up of carlsberg proportions Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No.12 508 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Looking at it again though, is Rule 1 not a rule dealing with the club as a whole, whereas Rule 2 is dealing with individuals involved with the club? i.e. the in accordance with Rule 1 is only the fact that individuals representing the club broke those rules set down by the bodies mentioned, whilst the club didn't, hence the guilt on Rule 2 and not on Rule 1And that means? It's not in breach? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilko89 507 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Looking at it again though, is Rule 1 not a rule dealing with the club as a whole, whereas Rule 2 is dealing with individuals involved with the club? i.e. the in accordance with Rule 1 is only the fact that individuals representing the club broke those rules set down by the bodies mentioned, whilst the club didn't, hence the guilt on Rule 2 and not on Rule 1Unfortunately I see it the same way this is the shite Reagan was talking about when he said We (RFC) are at fault for Craig Whyte's actions as we told them he was fit and proper. A load of bull i know but the meaning behind rule 2. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 the signing ban is for breach of rule 66 according to tomorrow's record. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jelle1880 225 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 This sounds too good to be true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4MenHadADream 122 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 And that means? It's not in breach?My point is that Rule 1 appears to be a general rule stating that expressely a CLUB cannot break the rules set by SFA/FIFA/UEFA etc. However, Rule 2 says that any club representatives cannot breach the rules referenced in Rule 1 ("in accordance with Rule 1). So as far as I see it they are saying that the Club can be dealt with under Rule 1, which cannot be proven that we broke, but Rule 2 (which is exactly the same as Rule 1 except that it deals with individuals) was broken by a club official, for which the club is being held responsible, so therefore in the SFA's book we are in breach. It does amount to them admitting that our "wrongdoing" was due to the actions of Whyte, but it still maintains that as a club we can be held responsible for his actions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIJoe 98 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I'll feel happier when I hear this from somebody who officially knows what he's talking about.No disrespect meant obviously.A cautious meantime. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No.12 508 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 My point is that Rule 1 appears to be a general rule stating that expressely a CLUB cannot break the rules set by SFA/FIFA/UEFA etc. However, Rule 2 says that any club representatives cannot breach the rules referenced in Rule 1 ("in accordance with Rule 1). So as far as I see it they are saying that the Club can be dealt with under Rule 1, which cannot be proven that we broke, but Rule 2 (which is exactly the same as Rule 1 except that it deals with individuals) was broken by a club official, for which the club is being held responsible, so therefore in the SFA's book we are in breach. It does amount to them admitting that our "wrongdoing" was due to the actions of Whyte, but it still maintains that as a club we can be held responsible for his actions.Thanks for clearing that up 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.